Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. Good evening, and welcome to the Monday, 10/27/2025 Historic Preservation Commission meeting. Time is now 06:00 and we'll go ahead and start with roll call, please. Commissioner Eddy.

Present.

Mr. Johnston. Present. Mr. LeBlanc. Present. Mr. Federico. Present. Mr. Kolajian. Vice Chair Hatwick. Here. And Chair Sponsler.

Here. All right, we'll move on to item two, which is 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 be taken, followed by testimony from those in opposition.

Staff may provide a summation if necessary. The applicant will have the right to a final rebuttal presentation prior to closing the public hearing followed by consideration of the item action if any by the commission. In accordance with section 13 of article two of historic preservation bylaws governing 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 must be presented to the commission at the podium. Any testimony that references race, religion, ethnicity, economic status, national origin, or any other classification protected under state or federal law in a derogatory manner shall be deemed irrelevant and will not be considered by the commission in making its determinations.

If you choose to challenge these matters in court, you may be limited to raising only those issued to you or someone else raising oral or written testimony or before the close of the hearing. With that, we'll move on to item three, which is approving the 08/25/2025 meeting minutes. Are there any changes to the minutes?

None for me. I motion to approve. Okay.

We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second?

I second.

All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. We'll go ahead and move on to item four, which is approving of the agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda this evening?

None at this time.

Thank you.

I'll entertain a motion to approve. Approve. And a second?

Okay. All

right. A motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Federico. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Agenda is approved. So we'll go ahead and move past our consent and continue items since there are no items available. And we will move on to item seven, which is commission items. Item seven a, which is file ID 25Dash1186, consideration of request by property owner to enter into the Mills Act property contract pursuant to FMC twelve dash seventeen o six for the Milo Rowell Junior home at 919 East Yale in the Porter Track Historic District. Staff.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Ashley Atkinson, Assistant Director for Planning and Development. I will be presenting all of your reports to you tonight as staff. We do have three items that are all similarly consideration of request by the property owners to enter into a Mills Act historical properties contract. So I'll go over the basics of the Mills Act in this first report.

And then in the following reports, I'll just stick to the specifics of the property. As you all know, but for the benefit of everyone here, the Mills Act legislation allows property owners in the state of California to enter into contracts with their local governments in providing that in exchange for maintenance or restoration of a historic property that's qualified, the owners would receive a revised calculation of their property taxes, which is generally anticipated to result in a reduction of those property taxes. The city of Fresno has a Mills Act program per Fresno Municipal Code section twelve-seventeen oh six. And since we adopted that program, 33 properties have been enrolled. This year, we received three applications.

And as I noted, all three of those applications have been reviewed by staff and are forwarded to you for your consideration in a public hearing tonight. Each of the homes does have to be a qualified historical property, meaning that the property is not exempt from taxation today and meets either of the following. Either it is listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic district. So that's option one to qualify the property. Option two is that the property is listed in any state, city, county, or city and county official register of historical sites.

So for us, that would be our local register of historic resources. I will note that that does not include heritage properties as the city of Fresno defines them, but we do not have any applications for heritage properties in front of us. The Mills Act program requires that the owner contract with the city. So you do have a draft copy of the contract in front of you for each of those items tonight as one of the exhibits. And the contract includes a work plan describing actions that they intend to take over the next ten years in order to maintain or restore the property.

We have reviewed those work plans and deemed that they qualify for the program. And of course, all work done under those work plans does have to be done with permits and under the rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Interior Standards as well as our local development standards. Staff in the Department of Planning and Development are responsible for ensuring performance under those contracts, including the administration of the contract and inspections that take place to ensure that the work is proceeding as planned and that the properties are, in fact, being maintained. You, the commission, do have, as one of your duties and powers, evaluating, reviewing, and making recommendations on those Mills Act contracts and to hold a public hearing on each application. So you can, this evening, for each of these, Mills Act contracts recommend that the application be denied, granted in whole or in part, or modified.

So for the first property under consideration, that is the My Little World home, which, as you noted, is located at 919 East Yale Avenue in the Quarter Track Historic District. It is not an individually designated historic resource, but it does qualify for the program by virtue of being located in the registered historic district. Home was built in 1917. And we do have a picture of it there in your presentation as it looks today. A modified example of That is not the right.

I believe that is the next item. That's the big home.

Yeah. So go back to okay. All right. Sorry. Our pictures got confused. So yes, there's the hump. Modified example of colonial revival style with the quote Richardsonian hump you can see in the middle there. So it is noteworthy both architecturally, but also in its association with a figure of note in Fresno history. Milo Roehl Jr. Was a nephew of Chester Roehl, who was a physician and mayor of Fresno, among other things.

Milo Ruehl bought the home in 1925 and retained ownership until 1946. He himself was also a figure of note as an attorney who served as secretary of the Los Angeles Federal Court as a lieutenant colonel in occupied Japan in World War II, where he was the chief author of the new Japanese constitution and received Legion of Merit Medal for that. Following the war, he did return to Fresno to become a leading citizen, founding several businesses and leading civic and cultural groups. And is most credited as being instrumental in the establishment of the Fresno branch of the University of California Medical School. I think that may have been his Uncle Chester role.

So there is significance to this home, both architecturally and in terms of its association with Fresno history figures. And again, it does qualify for the Mills Act as contributing structure to the Border Tract historic district. So with that, I will conclude my report and invite any questions for myself or for the applicant.

Okay. Is the applicant present today? Okay. Come on forward.

We're gonna come through here.

Go ahead in there. Just for the record, state your name.

My name is Melissa Allen. This is my best friend, Christopher Allen. So

with that, was there anything that you wanted to add to the the conversation that the staff had?

Pretty much just our plan to to reface the outside, add some fresh updates as far as painting and fascia boards that need to be replaced. A lot of the posts on the porch that you see need to be fixed and updated. Just wanna make sure it remains as beautiful as it is.

Okay. Alright. Any questions from the commission regarding this?

Yeah.

It looks like it hasn't changed much since the original EPR form was prepared for in 1990. It looks like it's retained most of its integrity. I can see no

objection. I can

see any objection to this. I would love for you to individually list it in the future too. By the way, that study kind kind of of an an ideal ideal situation. You're already in historic district court. Right? So but I don't have any

feel like I'm gonna channel one of our commissioners who's currently not here. But I know in the past, we've had kind of a conversation back and forth about what that we really wanna see kind of the majority of items that are really the the the street facing side because the the purpose of it being that it's, you know, part of the part of the registry or in this case, of the historic district is it's the benefit to the public as a result of being part of the Mills Act. When I looked at this item, I noted that there were it seemed to be that there were more interior renovations than there were exterior renovations. Is there anything that precludes that with regards to our Mills Act?

I don't think so. We did look into that, specifically also as it related to the request for pool equipment. There it is for the general maintenance of the property in good condition according to the historic standards. So all of the items that are listed were deemed to qualify. I think, as you noted, there is more public benefit if it's something that is apparent to the public. But that is not a requirement of the program. Okay.

All right. Thank you. Any other questions from the

commission? All right.

Thank you very much. At this point, we'll take it out to the public. Anybody that would like to speak on this item, please come forward. Alright. Alright. Seeing none, I'm gonna bring it back to, the commission. And, I'll entertain a motion.

I'd to motion to approve the consideration of the request of the property owner to introduce the new site.

I second that motion.

Alright. So we have a motion by Vice Chair Hackney, second by Commissioner LeBall. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, motion passes.

Thank you. Thank you. You.

Thank you

very much.

We'll we'll follow-up with that.

Congratulations. Thank you very much. Alright. So

we will move on now to item seven b, which is file ID 25Dash1391. Consideration of request by property owner to enter to Mills Act, historical property pursuant to FMC 12 Dash1706 for the Bean home located at 1705 L Street. And now just because you've not covered the Mills, you're just gonna kinda cover about the home now. Correct?

Yes. Okay. So as to avoid repeating all of the information, background information about the Mills Act, I'll just address the specifics of the Bean Home, which is a designated local historic resource, HP number 114, located at 1705 L Street. This property does qualify for the program because it is a locally designated resource. It is a structure that was constructed in 1899, a sort of classical colonial revival structure with a lot of wood siding and wood detailing, which is one of the distinguishing features of this building that made it eligible for historic designation.

It was surveyed in 1978 in the original historic survey. And even at that time, represented one of the earliest residences still remaining in the city. Again, with the extensive use of wood on the structure representing an unusual construction method from that period in history. It was also noteworthy in part because of the architects who designed the building, the McDougall brothers who had offices in San Francisco and Bakersfield, and then moved those offices to Fresno at the turn of century. The projects that they designed in the San Joaquin Valley included the Kings County Jail, the Hanford Carnegie Library, Merced Security Savings Bank, Isalia First National Bank, as well as a number of residences in Fresno, like the one that you see here.

You have, again, an image of it as it appears today. It is a well maintained property currently serving as the offices of a law firm. And again, staff has reviewed the draft work plan that is attached to the contract in exhibit c and found that the work plan does meet the standards conclude my staff report and invite any questions for me or the applicant.

All right. Any questions for staff?

From From staff. For staff. Thanks.

All right. We'll ask the applicant to come forward, please. Okay. Seeing none, any additional questions for, regarding staff? Okay.

With that, we'll open it up to the public. Anybody that would like to speak on this item, please come forward. Seeing none, we'll bring it back. Just as a reminder for because I don't think we necessarily touched on it with with the first one, but as a reminder for the next one, for this one and and the the next one, is due to due to some of this, they can use the state historic building codes. Correct? I just want to make that for the record.

Correct. If they yes. If they're doing work that that would rise to that level, I think most of the work is more maintenance in Correct. In these cases. But yes.

Yeah. Okay. Just wondering what do you

mean by state historic codes?

I can explain that later. But there's a state historic building code that can be followed through historic properties.

To allow some more flexibility in preserving the historic features that the current code would allow.

Interesting. Yep.

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

I join. I would make a motion to accept this application in accordance with the mill act based on staff recommendation.

Okay. I have

a motion.

Do I have a second? I'll second. Alright. Motion by commissioner Ball, second by commissioner Eddings. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? K. Motion passes. We'll now move on to item seven c, which is consideration of request by Harvey Young to enter the Mills Act, historical property contract pursuant to FMC 12 Dash17O6 for the Maria and JV Sella home located at 3504 East Huntington Boulevard. Alright?

Excuse me. Okay.

Similarly to the last item, I will not repeat the background information on the Mills Act, but just focus on the information specific to the Maria and JV Sellup home at 3504 Huntington Boulevard in the Huntington Boulevard Historic District. In this case, the property qualifies for the Mills Act program under both options. It is both a I'm sorry. I took that back. This one is not individually registered.

It is in the Huntington Boulevard Historic District. So it qualifies under option one. It is a 1939 Italian Renaissance home on a corner lot, originally designed by an architect from San Francisco named Louis Franceschi. It has some interesting architectural features in that it has an asymmetrical plan, faces diagonally onto the corner of Huntington And 5th. It is a stucco home with a clay tile roof.

Other unique features, an external brick chimney, noteworthy on the north elevation, a number of decorative elements, a large yard to the east that is enclosed with a high wall, and a garage with a hip roof that faces 5th Street and is connected to the home by an arched arcade. This home is also noteworthy for its former owners. It was originally built and owned by a noted vineyard and winery owner JB Sella and his wife Maria. It was later owned by a local farmer and builder, Larry Raven, and his wife, Penny, who lived in the home for more than five decades. Both Larry Raven and his wife were notable contributors to the Huntington Boulevard community.

And news reports suggest that the home was visited by a number of celebrity figures and political leaders in the decades that it was under the Ravens ownership. Again, staff have reviewed the draft work plan under Exhibit C and confirmed that it does meet the requirements of the program. And with that, I'll conclude my report and invite any questions.

Alright. Any questions for staff? Okay. I'll go ahead and invite the applicant to come up, please. Okay.

For the record, go ahead and state your name.

Let me make it Cajun.

Go ahead. Say that a little bit louder. Sorry. Sorry.

The name

is KG Wong. KG Wong. Okay.

I'm Tiffany. My car is transferred.

Okay. Very good. So I thank you for that information. You said you have a question, Commissioner Leval?

I was just curious about the impact of the comments received from the public related to the health

as posted in our packet. Ashley, do you want to

So the question is, what is the impact of the comments received from the public?

Did staff weigh that in still recommending this as a Mills Act property?

So we can speak to what is noted in the comment letter. The fact that it is listed on Airbnb doesn't, I think, have any bearing on this application, that it's not illegal in the city of Fresno. And it appears to be a partial listing of the home, not the entire home. But speaking to the roof work, there is an approved permit for an installation of solar at this home. The permit was conditioned so that after the panels were installed, that the tile be relayed under and around the panels so that only the minimal amount of asphalt is visible under the panels where they're connected.

If you're familiar with the Solar Rights Act, it does require us to approve solar installations even on historic homes of this nature. And we can go into more detail about that in maybe a future workshop. We did check on the status of this permit. It was approved at the July, and an inspection occurred last on August 21. So it does seem that the work is maybe stalled or moving slowly.

And I did ask our building team to reach out to the applicant. I'm not sure if they gave you a call maybe Friday or today because we would want to see that work moving forward if we weren't sure what the status was given that the last inspection was back in August. But it is an approved permit and would be when the work moves forward, we would have our team inspecting for compliance with the conditions that we put on it.

Do you have any information regarding that and what's going on currently with that project?

I don't think you need to hear the translation because it's she's translating it into his language.

Go ahead. Okay.

Okay. So this is the current owner of the house, but she's currently kind of, like, managing it and contacting the workers. So she can she also come?

I mean, yeah, we're we're trying to get an answer. So if you have a if your team together can provide that answer, then that would be wonderful.

Okay. So they did contact them about the solar panels, and they were supposed to come to today at 7AM. But they said that, you know, because of weather conditions, they couldn't come. So they rescheduled to tomorrow at 7AM.

When you say they, is that the contractor or the

inspectors? The

The

workers who are installing the solar panels. Okay.

Okay. So so I am just a little concerned having a person from the neighborhood is concerned about the integrity of the property with the panels partially done. Perhaps we should pause this application until we have a more solid answer because we're not seeing necessarily photos don't necessarily look like something that was approved the way that they're going in, but maybe a loss phase.

I think we're kind of in a bit of a quandary at at the moment, commissioner, because part of of reading the the actual agreement that they contract part of that contract is the installation of the panels this year as part of that agreement. So now we, as commission, can make a recommendation that we, you know, we can modify it. That's that's one of the things that we're allowed we can do too so we can modify the agreement in that sense. But it is something where where I think we have to kind of look at, you know, what whether or not we say, yeah, we're okay with going forward with that project or meet in and what I mean by that, because I know we can't stop solar installation. But whether or not we are okay with that being part of the mill's contract or if there needs to be a different item that's itemized as part of the improvements for that Mills Act program.

So I think that'll be part of our second part of this when we

come back to this because we're gonna go out

to public. Yeah. And and I had a question too. I think this came up before the architectural review subcommittee at one point. And I'm I'm pretty sure that we talked about the solar panels not being visible from the streets. Yeah.

A lot of times when we look at it to the subcommittee, we prefer them not to be on the facade from the public. But there are cases sometimes where in order to get the solar right and adequate for generation would be limited on where the sun sets and water rises. Certainly, don't recall if this was the case on this one. Sounds like if this would have been a

I I don't know if it

went through this afternoon. Yeah.

I think we we discussed it at and I have to look up the date. Yeah. But I yeah. I just noticed that the that the solar panels, at least where the tiles have been removed, is visible from the front from the main street. And I thought we addressed that in the ARS, one of our park. How was that addressed? How how did that get to be part of the contract?

How did the solar panels get to

be part of It looks like they're all they've already removed part of the tile for

the It looks like the the the work has already commenced even

before the contract is something. There there is not a restrict

if that was the reason why there seems to be an exception to the facade.

Well, my understanding is that we we can't we cannot actually restrict it from being on a street facing facade. It's just that we can ask for for it to be as little visible to the public as possible. And again, in this case, it's a quarter lot. So I think the other one that we reviewed that was similar was also a quarter lot, which makes it even more difficult because all

of

the faces are more visible to the public than they are otherwise. But there is no rule, in my understanding Jennifer, feel free to jump in that you cannot put panels on a front or public facing facade.

Yeah. That's that's as I understand it too is we can't prevent that. But we also suggest, you know, if you have a carriage house or something, you know, different to apply there. But certainly, all we could do is recommend where everybody's the state really houses that requires.

Yeah. Well, I just wanna make sure that our recommendations, if we're going be bothering to do that in the architectural review subcommittee, if those recommendations are pulled forward and considered in the future. That's my answer.

Okay. All right. At this point, I think I

have one question. Yeah, go ahead.

Who is the Yosemite cultural creative group?

Yeah. Here's the problem.

We should probably have the contract.

We do have the contract with the current person listed on or entity listed on the grant deed. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes.

Okay. He just said that the owners, the LLC,

and if I look at

the recorded documents, it looks like it's an LLC.

Right. So the the we have the current grantee, and that is who is listed on the contract. And that was updated just as of last week. Correct, Carrie? That is correct.

Can you clarify

for the record what is the entity listed as the property owner in the contract that the commission is considering at this time.

The applicant that is sitting there.

Yeah. Can can you

someone say a name out loud? Is it a person or an LLC?

In accordance to the document that's that is exhibit c, it does say the contract between the city of Fresno and Kejing Huang for historic property preservation at 3504 East Huntington Boulevard.

What I'm hearing, commissioner Edding say, he just looked it up on the online tool, which says that the owner is Yosemite Cultural Creative Group LLC. I think the commission is asking for us to clarify based on do we have a deed instead of using Fresno County

We do have a deed that was I would have to defer to Carrie about when we received it. But we have a deed that is current as of last week. Correct, Carrie? That is correct.

K. So sometimes the reporter is behind two, three, four, or more months.

I'm just making a record

because it was to me like

it was purchased by him. He then deeded it to an LLC. So you guys once we tell me that

it was done that way.

We need to clarify for the commission

to make sure that they're comfortable with that.

Sure. I don't think we have the grant deed here with us unless it's not part of the exhibits. So we can check the date on that and get back to you.

So commission, one of the things you could do tonight is to continue this item to the November meeting.

So I do have question for the applicant. Do you reside here locally?

Yeah.

Okay.

Because, yeah, according to what commissioner Eddie is seeing is that the LLC is based out of San Jose. So I wanted to confirm that, whether or not you guys reside in San Jose and and own the property here in Fresno, which, I mean, that that happens all the time. That's that's not that's not a question. It it's also looking at the use of the the property in the sense that, you know, where's where's that reinvestment gonna go? Because the idea is getting with the the Mills Act is that you're investing in the property, you know, typically, you see that as as global tax dollars, you see that as, you know, possibly local construction.

And so, you there becomes a concern. And this is not necessarily wading into what the commission does, but it could be something the council weighs in about. And that's the question of is the city going to see local dollars spent on the maintenance and maintenance of its property? Okay. With that, I will take it out to the public. So we're going to start with anybody that's in support of this at 3504 East 22 Boulevard. Yes.

Thank you.

Okay. So seeing none, for those that are in opposition, please you can formally come forward. We'll start here and then just kind of form a line.

I think a lot of folks here I recognize and Okay.

They're not happy. For the record, state your name.

Your name is Lorce Dean Westerfield. I live in Hunting Boulevard. I have the Wishon House there at 3555. I am the source of exhibit b. And I think my letter, which you've probably all written, expressed my consternation by what has happened to that house and the historic integrity of the house with those big chunks of roofing gone. They looked like they were gonna be solar, but, you know, they're on the North side. So and they're all around the whole house. So it wasn't clear to me what was happening. And then when no solar showed up,

I thought, well,

what the

heck is this? You know, they sort of destroyed the the historic integrity of the house, and I don't see anything happening. Even with solar panels, you know, it's it's not good for the architecture of the house. It's not good for the for the architectural integrity of the entire neighborhood.

And I'm

not sure this is something that, you know, we should be subsidizing via the Mills Act, which is, of course, intended to use public funds to maintain these historic neighborhoods. And I'll let it I'll let it go with that for me.

Okay. Thank you. Alright.

Come on up. And and for your record, stay

stay on me. I'll still get our appearance on the record. My name is Tom Armstrong and this is my wife, Kathy Armstrong. We've been residents on the boulevard for since 1980, okay? And we knew the Ravens pretty well and we are part of the Huntington Boulevard Historical Homeowners Association. We are opted in the group and I agree with are you a city attorney?

Staff.

Staff. Okay. We agree with the city attorney's office that the house does qualify by being in, at least it's eligible to qualify, by being included in historical association that's recognized by the city. We have some issues, my wife and I, and I think we can both speak. Cathy, come on over here.

Number one, Mr. Eddings raised the issue about Yosemite Cultural Creative Group LLC. I couldn't really hear what was going on, what what they testified to, and I I don't know if that's a man or a woman with the hat on, but I've never seen any of these people at the house. I walk three, four days a week on the boulevard. I'm there all the time.

I haven't seen them around the house. The house has been rented out. Some of the people I walk with are the next door neighbors and they have filed complaints with the police department over rooms being rented in the house. It is a single family residential neighborhood. And it is not the house is being operated as a boarding house.

And that's contrary to the purpose and the intent to maintain the integrity of this historical neighborhood. It is a single family residence neighborhood, and it's been that way since the track was drawn back in our house was built in 1920. Okay? And this house came along after that. I looked up Yosemite Cultural Creative on the Secretary of State website at 05:30 this afternoon. It's good. It's active. It says that the principal address of the limited liability company is 3504 East Huntington. The mailing address is there. And the agent, I couldn't hear the person's name, so who is speaking here?

I'll spell it. It's c u I q I n. That's the first name. And the next name is it's z h u. And I don't know if that's any of these three people back there.

Sir, you need to direct your comments to the chair.

Well, was pointing

to No.

I I understand. Understand. So that twenty seconds, by the way. Just Twenty seconds? Yes. Three you have a it's three minutes from the time you started.

You should have made that clear at the beginning. It's not a single family residence, which is they're not using it as that. They're renting and out. It's on Airbnb. I spoke with Louis Chavez. You know him as your former councilman. He's verified that it was on it was on Airbnb. They're renting single rooms. This fella is correct about the roof. They did take the tiles off the roof. They replaced it with comp. Yeah, composition. And there it sits. Drove by on the way tonight, asked the wife, you know, I would take a picture. Do you have a picture? That's not how it looks today. It's missing big chunks, and it's just comp there. Okay. Alright.

I'm gonna thank you. So you have your testimony for that. Thank you.

And do you think there's more opportunity later after other people finish?

It's three minutes per per person for that for the the the program. So it'll

She can do.

She can do. Can you can, however, speak because you do have that opportunity.

There are two

or three minutes.

Well They're contract kids' contract.

I'm I'm not sure I have anything more to add except this is my neighborhood. It's been my neighborhood longer than any other place I've lived. And I don't understand why we're we're not following the zoning law in our town. Do you have anything to offer on that?

We are not a zoning commission. We are a historic preservation commission.

But you would you would Bound.

That would help by any commission or city council.

Yeah.

You would help tax wise for somebody who should not be living there. They're not as They're single

outcomers. And just for your edification, the LLC that you asked about Mr. Eddings, it was created immediately prior to the close of escrow. They closed escrow December '23. That LLC was created September '23. It's a holding company for

a I would

just like the the problem in my mind to be clarified by the people here who might know more about it. But you would go ahead and and sign somebody up for the Mills Act even if they are not following the law?

Well, we can't necessarily speak to what our our our answer is going to be, but but we we can take your recommendations into account for that.

Well, I think you could say what your course gives

They're going to continue.

I don't mean an answer right now, but I was just wondering if falling on the wall was part of what we do here. Chair.

Okay. Chair, I'll just Please. What I would recommend, public comment is for the public to comment for three minutes. And then planning or

because the preservation commission can

call someone back up if you have additional questions. It's not

a It's

not a backup.

Correct.

Okay. And there were multiple police calls for noise and all sorts of things going on. So that should be on record. Not this year, but last year.

Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Next, I

ask one question before we leave the property? It's your exhibit. It's online. What are the improvements that they would like to make besides the solar? Are there interior improvements?

Part of the I'm going to defer to Director Tharpen.

What I would recommend is you take all public comment.

Yep.

Close public comment. Yep. Then have a discussion, answer questions, call people

up. Okay.

That would be the appropriate

Can you answer my question? What gentleman No, I'm not saying it's

on exhibit C. There's a schedule. Right.

Were there an interior, exterior? It's real. It's yes or no?

Well, that's what you have to learn, man. Document speaks for itself. That's it.

Thank you.

Next individual. Please come forward. For the record, state your name.

I'm Edward Medrano. Okay. Give a minute. I reside exactly across the street from the Africans. I am the director of the now new Huntington Boulevard Historical Society.

My home is a designated historical resource, and I am also under a Mills Act contract. I agree with everything my neighbors said today, and our biggest concern is the commercial use of this property, which is not consistent with the original purpose of this property, It was a private residence of a man who owned the biggest vineyard in the world. It has actual gold leaf on the walls of its dining room. I'm close friend of the Ravens, and Penny sent me here to make sure that things go right. I am concerned that the owner is a Corporation LLC, which means their intent is that it is going to be a business.

Having large homes divided up into rooms, whether they be apartments or temporary accommodations, is not good for any neighborhood. It's not just a zoning problem. I'm talking about the integrity of the history of the structure itself. I'm from Los Angeles, and in Central LA, we have many formerly great homes that were divided up into apartments, that were divided up into temporary accommodations. And those neighborhoods are now slums.

This is the exact opposite than historic preservation. This is the direct cause of urban decay and exploiting a wonderful historic resource should not be, aided by the city or the county or the state in providing funds so that they can further deteriorate the resource. I strongly, strongly oppose having a business across the street from my house. And as my neighbors have said, I've never seen these people in my life. I don't see them in the yard.

I don't see them walking the dog. I bought my house on Huntington Boulevard because of the community, because of my neighbors who have maintained a marvelous attitude towards historical preservation, and that's the sort of neighborhood I want, not being part of a business.

Thank you. Thank you. Next expert. Anybody else wanna speak on this, item? Okay. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the commission. Okay. Commission, any additional questions,

comments? Yes. I'm well aware of this house. Former residents and the Chella family who built that home when they were, as you say, part of a major winery in the country. I'm not certain that I feel comfortable today.

I think there are questions that need to be answered if the panels that have been taken off the roof are actually going to be for solar. I don't know that we have evidence to that yet or that they are just perhaps I would like to see whatever plan it is become complete before we recognize this. I think that there are questions related to if it's zoned, at least you can probably share that, Director Clark. But is it zoned for BNB or Airbnb or whatever it might be? Is that going to interfere with the integrity of the historic mission of that home on that and being in a historic district?

So I personally am feeling unsatisfied with the information that we have today to make a decision for or against at this point.

Yes.

So I I agree

with commissioner Laval. I I just I don't know that we have enough information as to who owns property. The ordinance requires that the contract be with the owner. I'm not confident that we have the owner on this contract. And like commissioner of law, I'm not comfortable that we know what's going on

in the

roof, so I can hold this and tell that both of those situations are clarified so that we can go. My question is, I mean, there's already a

a permit for solar, so we can't

really stop that part down. By the

time solar's done, there'll be a pretty quick turnaround. We'll have an idea of what the roof finished part looks like with the tucking of the of the additional original material under and around to kinda cover up the the plumbing stuff. But certainly, I I know the same kind of vein. There's a lot a lot of missing information I wanted to kinda get answered. And but it doesn't mean that it it's, you know, it's a no. It's just discovering a little bit more information. There's probably some higher little things that would get you explored. So I'm gonna

speak to a couple of things. So in the exhibit, it does note that out of the ten years that the agreement would go, only one of them is actually noted as an interior repair. So approximately nine out of the 10 are are exterior repairs to the to the property. I I have the the last one I do have an issue with is the adaptive reuse of the garage as being part of maintenance of the property. So, you know, that's that's a concern for me because the idea is that we're supposed to be maintaining, not necessarily adding to, not necessarily creating a a historicity when it comes to the the property itself.

The garage was always a garage. You know, it should, at least, if anything, maintain the look of a garage, you know, rather than be turned into a small underwall suite of some sort or adaptive, an ADU. Now ADUs are permitted on on historical properties, but they have to be they have to look apart. They have to look as as if they're still, you know, their original function or be kind of hidden away from from the the eyes of of the exterior part of the property. The other part that touched me is I understand the concerns of the residents.

And actually, the last speaker's point, you know, I live in a neighbourhood that could potentially be a historic district. But because it has suffered in that same sense where people have come in, they've bought properties, they took mansions and they turned them into five plexes, they split homes in half, you know, that you have a lot of broken pieces of it where it can't really be its own historic district in its own original sense. Only portions of it could really be still a historic could be potentially a historic district. And speaking to that as my own home that I purchased, I purchased it from somebody who wanted to literally turn it into a five or six unit apartment. And it's a three bedroom, two bath house.

So, you know, you can imagine that those are gonna be some very small units. So I and and to what commissioner Eddings pointed out exactly, we don't really have an understanding of who's who's the responsible party for the property. So at this point, you know, I would definitely say that this needs to be tabled and brought and taken back to staff to get further details on it. You know, I do not like the idea of the item being adaptive reuse as part of what they're they're gonna be, you know, saying that if they're gonna be doing it as a maintenance of the of the property going forward. So I do think that this Mills Act definitely needs some rework before we even entertain it again.

Do you need a motion

to that? So I guess yeah. If if I guess my motion is we're going to return this back to staff. Can we, or no? Well,

I would you

could do that, and it requires re noticing. We always recommend that you continue the hearing to a date certain. So if you would like to continue the hearing to the November

Yep. We can do that.

What is the date? Twenty

fourth. Thank you. November 24. Yep.

We'll we'll continue this to the November 24 and take this back to staff so that we can get clarification on the property. At 6PM. That would be at 6PM. Okay? So my motion is to table it and return it back to staff for further review I would second that to bring it back to the November 24 meeting. Second that motion. Okay. So is that a clear enough motion?

Yes. I I just had a couple of questions of clarification on the Okay. Information that you would like to be brought back. One is whether adaptive reuse of the garage as an ADU is is permitted under the Mills Act regulations. What is the status of the solar installation?

Confirm that we have the current ownership reflected on the contract, and also share information about whether the zoning or any other regulations prohibit rental use of the property.

And yes, thank you, Ashley, for that. I will say that, you know, we're all aware that ADUs allow them in historic districts. We just want to know how is that with Mills Act, because of Mills Act being, you know, specific in the sense that it's supposed to be maintaining and not necessarily adding them on. Understand. Okay?

Yeah. May I

ask a procedural question?

We have a motion on

the table. We have a motion and So a all in favor, signify it by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay.

My question is procedural, sir. And it has to do with the ownership in your notice. As your notice from the city said, it has to go back to the LLC. It's the LLC that has applied for the Nels Act relief. If the lady over here does her investigation and there's a different owner, it shouldn't have to be re noticed for a time probably other than November.

So, typically, this is a time that we would just be moving on, and I wouldn't necessarily be addressing the crowd. But if there is a different owner, then it would need to be renoticed.

That's when you're ready. I do. Mhmm. K. Thank you.

Alright. We'll move on to item seven d, which is hearing to consider and make findings on the building application B25 at 11291 for a reroof permit of the Weilb Home HB number 229, located at 567 East Clinton Avenue.

So again, Ashley Atkinson, Assistant Director for planning and development. Here to share a staff report on this item. As you noted, a building application, B25-eleven291 for a reroof permit for the Wild Home, which is a designated local historic resources, HP number 229, located at 567 East Clinton. Staff is recommending that you make one of two or that the commission take one of two actions. One is to both adopt a finding of a categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act and approve the application to replace the wood shingle roof at the Wylde Home with the condition that the replacement roof will use a compatible substitute material that conveys the same appearance of the existing wood shapes.

Or as an alternate action, the commission could deny the application to replace the wood shingle roof. So I'll start with some background on the home. It is, as I noted, a designated local historic resource. It's architecturally important as an outstanding example of the English Tudor style of architecture in Fresno. It was built in 1929 for Mount Kay and Doris Wilde.

Mister Wilde was an attorney, one of the few attorneys in the San Joaquin Valley with a doctor of law degree and was the founder of what's believed to be Fresno's oldest continually operating law firm, which is today known as Wilde, Carter, and Tipton. Both of the Wildes were actively involved in Fresno civic life. And Mr. Wilde was president of the Fresno County Bar Association at one time. The builder of the home is also of historic note.

Taylor Wheeler was founded by Orbital Taylor and Dennis Wheeler in 1927. Since this home was completed in 1929, that makes it one of their earliest completed works. The company was based in Fresno and was known for producing some of the finest homes in the San Joaquin Valley. Taylor was not trained as an architect, but designed most of the homes that the company built. Interestingly enough, Taylor Wheeler and Mrs.

Wild worked closely on the design of this home together. And Mrs. Wilde personally oversaw its construction, which is part of what we attribute the high level of quality and the craftsmanship of the home to that partnership. Mrs. Weld was also not a trained architect, but had designed several homes, which was, of course, unusual for a woman at that time.

And both the design and construction of this home was considered to be at a uniquely high level. You have a picture of the home as it's can be seen today. It's a little hard to see since it's spurred by that tree. But it is frame construction with brick veneer on most of the exterior surfaces in a couple of different patterns and grout finishes. The upper walls are half timbered and modeled plaster.

And then, of course, the roof is highly visible feature of this home because of the steeply sloped side table, the large cross table, and the dormers. The roofs are currently covered in shake shingles in a staggered pattern, meaning that the shingles are are offset as you can see more closely in the second image. And also, there are shingles covering various porches, bay windows, and also the independent three car garage. So we did receive a building permit application that proposes to remove the wood shingle roof on both the house and the garage and to replace it with a contemporary dimensional asphalt shingle. The product is is named in the the staff report, but it is CertainTeed's presidential shaped Solaris in a shadow gray color.

The existing wood shingles are reported by the applicant who have been installed on top of the original roof, which was also constructed of cedar shingles. We do not have any roofing records for this address. So it is unclear at what time the previous roof was put in place. But we do have a 1988 press photo, which is available in Exhibit G, that suggests a similar roof was in place in 1988. But there was a photo we found.

The oldest, and in fact, only photo we were able to identify was that photo from 1988 in which a similar roof to the one in place today can be seen clearly in the image. So staff conducted a review of this permit application and notified the applicant that we could not approve it at the staff level because it did not represent an in kind replacement of wood shake for wood shake. We suggested that they consider a composite material that mimics wood shake, but without being constructed completely of wood. The applicant prefers to continue with the products that they had initially proposed. And then because, again, this home is an individually listed historic resource, Because this would represent a substantial alteration to the property, it is then subject to your review as the commission.

We do not prohibit woodshake roofs in the city of Fresno outside of certain fire prone areas. But they are, of course, not Class A fire rated, generally considered to be a fire hazard. And in today's insurance market, many insurers are requiring Class A fire rated roofing systems in order to issue or reissue a policy. We did analyze this project under the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with specifically the rehabilitation section of those guidelines. And there are some salient recommendations that are included in the staff reports.

I'll just read those verbatim. If a missing feature is character defining or if it is critical to survival of the building, e. G. A roof, it should be replaced to match the historic feature based on physical or historic documentation of its form and detailing. As with repair, the preferred option is always replacement of the entire feature in kind, I. E. With the same material, such as wood for wood. However, when this is not feasible, a compatible substitute material that can reproduce the overall appearance of the historic material may be considered. And the guidelines also speak to compliance with life safety codes. Again, this is not a code required replacement, but in a similar vein.

That should be achieved in such a manner that the historic building's character defining exterior features are preserved or impacted as little as possible. I'm paraphrasing there. And that necessary alterations will be compatible with the historic character of the building. They also specify that if rehabilitation of wood shingles is not sorry. The guidelines for rehabilitation of wood shingles specify that if using wood is not feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered.

But then a material that does not convey the same appearance is not recommended. So that's why one of the options, the action that the commission would take tonight is that we approve the application with the condition that the replacement you approve will use a compatible substitute material that conveys the same appearance. Speaking to the proposed material, again, you have some pictures of it in Exhibit G. It's of greater thickness than standard asphalt shingles, does contain some slight color variations, and is laid out in a staggered pattern that is similar to the existing wood shaped roof. But of course, it is an asphalt shingle, and so it does not fully mimic the appearance of the wood shape.

You do have some additional photos in the product brochure, which is exhibit D. You can see what it

looks like

installed. The product is also available in brown. The applicant had chosen a gray color. So just wanted you to have the information that the same product is available in brown, which is, of course, more similar to the existing roof. This project is consistent with a class 31 CEQA exemption if it is to be approved.

But in order to approve it or approve it with modifications, we the commission needs to make one of the following four findings. The first finding so again, you have to make one of these. The first finding is that the proposed work is found to be consistent with the purposes of this article and the Secretary of the Interior Standards, not detrimental to the special historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the historic resource. That finding cannot be made as the proposed work is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards, which would recommend replacement with wood or with a material that has the appearance of wood. The second finding is that the action proposed, again, one of the four, the action proposed is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property.

This finding can be made. That's finding number two as the proposed work is necessary to address the increased fire risk posed by the existing wood shingles, and a new wood roof would not be permitted. Finding number three is denial of the application will result in unreasonable economic hardship to the owner. We cannot make that finding because there is no evidence that the denial application will result in unreasonable economic hardship. And finally, finding number four is essentially not applicable, but is that the site is required for a public use.

That finding cannot be made because the site is not required for public use. So we have a number of exhibits, again, with more photos and additional information about the property and the product selected. With that, I'll conclude my report and have the answer to any questions.

Questions for Steph? Did this

go through the architectural stuff, please?

It did not because this would represent a substantial alteration. And therefore, it's in the purview of recognition. So

I'm confused about finding two. So you noted that the finding can be made as the cloth works necessary to address increased fire risk. Understood that one. But that a new woodwork roof would not be permitted. But then previously, you've just said that there's no prohibition on a wood shaped roof in the city. So can you can you kind of clarify where those two meet?

That is correct. And it is my understanding that a wood roof would be permitted outside of certain fire prone areas.

So is the city considered a fire prone area? So,

Jennifer, did you have any additional discussions about that point with our No. Building

So I think what what the chair is asking, it it does while a new wood roof would could be permitted, it does reduce or correct an unsafe or potentially dangerous condition at the property. So you would just need to strike that and and

move Woodward for not making the property.

Okay. And I had a question. You're saying it's a class 31 exemption or a class 33?

Class 31.

Right. And that says, an important consideration is that a project cannot be exempted under class 31 if it would cause a substantial adverse change to the historic resource. And there's court cases to support that. Now, would say that based on our DPR form that the wood shingle character is a key defining characteristic of this architectural feature. So we would be how would we address that under class 31 if it's obviously a substantial change to the original property?

A substantial adverse change when you're changing the character from moving to asphalt or woodcut?

Well, the condition that we so again, it's those two things repaired. There's the two options of recommendations. One is that you adopt the finding of categorical exemption and approve the application with the condition that the replacement group will use a compatible substitute material that conveys the same appearance of the existing woodchase, in which case it would meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards.

Do we have a do you have a compatible Yeah.

There's synthetic compatible cedar like shingles that come in panels. They look all so

you can see little bit

deep and they look weathered if

you want them weathered or

they look brand new.

So they come in quite a large variety of styles and colors. They also have cool roof standards. They're lightweight. So they really from the eye at the street level, you can't even tell on some of these cedar kind of shape moving materials.

So Was that shown in the in the in the example?

I don't think that's that's not

what they

The example was what was being proposed, which was a probably there is a premium on that. Yes.

But if we want it to be consistent with the current character, you know, the historic character Yeah. That is the That would be so that so that would be part of the recommendation that we would agree with the exemption with a roofing material that would mimic or imitate a cedar roofing, not the example given in the proposal.

Right. And that is something that potentially approving the material that might be in architectural subcommittee. Yeah. To do it quicker.

Yes. I think that would I think that yeah, I would feel more comfortable if the architectural subcommittee had the chance to look at the options that the

landowners proposing to use.

So let's

do you have another question?

I was just going to clarify to Sarah's point that the material that's been proposed is not compatible with our mission at this point. And I'd like to have a go back and come up with another option that is more closely aligned with the character of the building as it is today before we approve this situation. Agree. If that's what you would say. Go ahead.

Before we do any of that, will I'd to have invite Gaffney up to discuss this. Just for the record, go ahead and state your name, please. Robert Hamilton. Robert Hamilton?

Yes. Robert Hamilton.

Alright.

And Khan Hamilton, k h a l.

Okay. So off I mean, we understand that roofs need replaced, you know, things like that. What's the has there been other options that are looked at besides the the shake or besides the the the the the

Well, we had contacted different roofers, and they gave us their recommendations. And we felt most comfortable with Trustall Roofing.

I'm interviewed for that. And he's here.

And some of the things that you were talking about, the replicas that look like wood, I haven't seen. Uh-huh. So, that part is puzzling.

Yeah. Synthetic cedar shaped roofing. There there are a lot of options out there.

Can you Yeah.

So that is that is a product. It is not a central product. It is a Bay Area product, LA area. So what it is, we have an issue with the weather. So what happens is it's not made for this area. So if you go coastal, you'll have more. So our low our main one that we go through is Gulf Eagle and we get a supply. They do average of 15,000,000 a year on products. They have sold zero ever in this area. So they sell a lot in LA.

They sell a lot in their area. So the presidential itself isn't is to mimic the shade. That's why it was designed. We have done multiple areas on here. We have done shingle so what this one is, it has two layers. They're different. So you have a wood shake which is a thicker material, and then you have a wood sheen, much thinner. So they put the shake over the shingle. So it is a totally different look than what the original one is. So once you go to that, they didn't pull a permit for that one.

They didn't pull a permit for it. So we're basically asking to to put a roof on that's not the original roof. I do I don't know if you guys would like to see it. I do have pictures of historical house that we did do that have just the the shape that we put a concrete roof on. We didn't put a presidential. We just put basic concrete. And now I got a roof. I do have pictures of that. Also, I have pictures of beautiful presidential houses that we put presidential on and you can see the shape, like, the lower level. So you can kinda see the difference on that as well. You're wanna see that. So here's the reason why

we take present in the short. So what was the prior roof on top of that

historic property that you put the the It was wood shingle. Mhmm. And then there was shake on top of that.

No. No. No. I'm talking to you. You mentioned you had one at Doctor. Froome.

Yeah. Yeah. So And and and what was it beforehand? No. We put cotton. It was originally a wood shingle. It was a wood shingle. It was wood shingle. Okay. And I have pictures, and I have all the the

And that is true. That was here? Yeah. My city? Yeah. Okay.

So I got all that information. I also have a historical path in that one, and that one was nothing like the original one. That one was just a regular thirty year comp. This is a presidential comp, which is mimicking. So once you put this on, it's done with you. Also, I have pictures of whole house and we've done with it on there. So I have all that if you guys would like to see that.

I'll give that up to the commission. Let's see those. See that. I'd like to see that. So I know there's also ways to potentially reach a class a rating with the woodshake. So how how do we instead? Or have you been told by another agency that you can't have it anymore?

When we bought the house, the roof was already on. We've owned the house for ten years. Yep. We we're with AAA Insurance. Uh-huh. And kind of a foreboding, kind of a forewarning was if you ever replace this roof, don't use wood. And I'm and I am nervous about having a wood wood roof on the house as we speak. And I'm telling you, if there if there was ever a firework that hit it, it would go up like a mash. That's how concerned I am about the house. I don't like the wood.

It's not safe. And from my understanding, most insurance companies now are not recommending. And whether we live in the city or Foothills or the mountains, I still worry about wood roofs. Fire is fire. Doesn't matter where you live. I can

say something about that as well. So if I can. Yeah. So the wood shape originally is amazing. So, basically, you put it down. You don't have to put sheathing down. It's grease. Very good for growth. Now if you do, you gotta put OSB down. The problem is is that the insurances are not covering them. They do have a fireproof SIP. They have fireproof panels. So we we do we have done in the last two years, we have done it. If you go drive off of Barstow, then there's there's two houses on the corner with wood roofs. We did two of them. One of them, they ripped it off and then put presidential because they couldn't get insurance.

Okay. Other questions? I'm just wondering on the process if this could be worked through the architectural, if we could refer it to the architectural review subcommittee so we could we could kind of work out for the different types of materials that might meet everybody's requirements, kind of workshop it.

So the issue with what you guys are asking with the synthetic shape is that I want to install it, and I don't know any contractors that will install it. It's not good for this area. They're gonna have a lot of issues. It's gonna curl. It's just it's not made for the balance. The other issue is when it comes to price, there's a huge difference. So we're looking at from 62,000 to a 160,000. So he's looking at a £100 worth more on a product that's gonna sell. And I'm not gonna sell it. So he would have to find someone and he I don't he might have to go to this area, the area of the I

don't know if it would come down. Did the staff approve the color that you

selected? We have not approved anything at this time.

And we've I would just say that, yeah, if Paul may have some ideas too on our subcommittee that we are not aware of in this larger group here. That would just be my suggestion, is if we try to work it out with the architectural review subcommittee and then bring it back to the whole commission. That would be my recommendation.

So I see which house you provided with us here. I remember this house coming to us. And I think the challenge that we have is the roof itself was not necessarily considered for this this house, considered character defining feature. Because of the fact that it was more in the feature of the ovarian look with the exposed wood slats on the side and the pop out of the house itself. That was more of the character defining features.

That's that's kind of where we have that the the hiccup here is because of how that house is was built or how how the wild home was built. It's more of a character defining feature than this was.

Well, what's interesting is is that the original roof is that one right there.

Yeah. No. No. I understand. I saw I saw the before and after.

No. Right. No. I mean, their house their house. That's what the roof looked like. It was not left on there now. That was not the same look. So we'll be going for a look that was done after the original look.

Commissioner LeBall Yes. Do you think in your archives you

have any older photos that the property? I could look. Because that's one of our challenges is that the oldest photo we

have is from 1988.

So it's very hard for us to determine what the original looks like. We're hearing that underneath this thicker Right. Shingle is a flat wood. Correct.

The wood

sheet is a so you have a wood shingle and wood shake.

Okay. So shake is on the top. Shingle is on the bottom. So it would be helpful if we could have a more historic photo than we have.

And we'll certainly look.

So I I I think we could probably tap into all those assessor photos. Yeah. So there's a set of assessor photos that the library has that are from 1958 to, like, 1963. That would probably give us a better look of what that may have looked at back then.

And then unlikely that they would have changed the roof between construction and that time period, or we don't know?

Probably not likely. If the home was built in the the late twenties, early thirties, that that roof would have already only been about 30 years old. So it would have been about that time they might have changed it at that time.

Just with the war, everything got delayed. Yeah.

So it would have definitely been held off till at least the late fifties. So we may get a photo where it's the the shingle the below and then and before the shake was put on top. So there's there's a distinct

possibility of it. And and if I may, if you are able to remove the shake and show the shingle underneath it in a, like, a corner or something and take a photo of that, that's possible. That would also be

helpful. Okay.

Yeah. Because with the shingles, they're allowed two layers of rubbing. And so they put comp on them as well. So it's so thin. Like, if they had that original roof on there now, you couldn't go over the top of it. But then it kinda Oh, yeah.

There's no

So, yeah, the the wood shimmer to the only roof that you can go over that.

In some areas, the wood is actually crumbling. Yeah. That's how that's how bad it is.

The look the look is funny because the look is actually it's so the roof is so bad. That's not even the real look. Like, when it's coming down on the curves, that's not even because it's coming down on the curves because the roof is falling down. So even if, like, even if you guys said, okay. Go ahead and do it now, because of the weather and the type of roof it is, I don't I can't even do it in the wintertime. I gotta wait till the springtime now. Okay.

If it's in the attic, are you able to visibly see from the rafters? So the

main house that's a good question. So the main house have, like, one by eights. Now if you're going through the garage, you can look up and you can actually see the original. You can see the smaller pattern. You can see the thinness of the shingle of the red shingle. Okay. So we would probably be on on the garage. Sure. So if you go to May, I'll show you when you're able to see that. But, yeah, that's an excellent

question. Okay.

That just helps us kinda narrow the That makes a lot of sense.

I didn't really think about that while I

was smart enough to take a picture.

So I guess the next question that we look at too is why the silver rather than sticking with like a presidential brown?

Well, we're okay with the color change. I mean, if you guys prefer the brown, that's fine.

I would prefer the brown too. You know? Okay. To a point of start, we actually went and picked no offense, but we picked the brown. So the presidential with that color is what will look the best in my opinion.

Because we are open for brand, definitely.

Okay. Is it it will look good. Look good. It will look good.

Think we all appreciate your problem.

You need a new roof.

Yeah. No. Think that all the commission is trying to say is let's find the closest reasonable kind of product that will get you insured, will protect your property, but will because that roof is such a key element of the historic. So we're just trying to work together. And fortunately well, unfortunately, but you can't do it this time of the year anyway. So I would like the architectural subcommittee or us to look at just options. But we understand your problem.

You need a roof. We get it.

Yes. Definitely.

Yes. Which is that original proposal is really far away from what it used to look like or what it should look like. So we're we're working on that.

My issue too is that, like, for whatever reason you guys decide, you want the synthetic. They won't be able to get installed. That's the issue. I don't know. I I talked to the manager of Golf Eagle, and that's why I gave you the number, but they sold zero.

They actually have a product in their building even though they have a phone just because they have a LA building and different stuff. And I do understand that you guys wanna look after closely. But so was the if you do the shake, the shake has is a 24 inch long and then your pattern from each step is 10 inches. The wood shingle the actual shingle is smaller. You're going 16 inches long and you got about five and a half inch.

So when you do the shake, like the fake shake, do you have the 10 inch pattern? When you do the presidential, you're about four inches. So you got two different looks. You got the look of the original and you got the look of what what you're after.

Well, Chair, I think one of the challenges is potentially this DPR form does not reflect the original roof. And we may have to revise the DPR form if we can find better evidence

in the record. And I think, as a commission, we're open to that revision if that's what we come to. What I

It may be easier to replace.

So we'll Yeah. It's a different process completely. Yeah. They're basically underneath the roof. They basically the roof itself is a roof. So, like, you don't have to put the top on for it to be roof. So it it makes me think, why do you need to have that much, stuff or they have issues with them? That's why.

So I I think and I'm gonna try to land this now and see where we are. So as you said

One quick clarification. Can you just state the name of the company again under the record?

Gulf Eagle. Gulf? Gulf, g u l m. Gulf. Gulf. Gulf? Yeah. Eagle. Eagle. Okay. Supply. Yeah.

I'm not trying to land this. So what I understood is that even if we were to say go tonight, you still because the weather, you couldn't really do till spring.

It's gonna be very difficult. It depend I would have to have a week and a half of good weather. I would have to do it in sections. If it brought yourself wouldn't be too difficult, but the way that the house is set up, it it would take some time too. Okay.

And it's an open attic. Yeah. So all the rain is just gonna flood the attic, then it's gonna come down into the second.

Have you had leaks in this this last rain season?

We had fortunately, no leaks. But you know how wood gets too wet? Absolutely. There's a damp smell to it? Well, we're starting to smell that in our attic. Okay. I wanna really strongly emphasize, I need a roof on that

house. Absolutely.

I want to protect the house to the to, in preservation of the historical aspects of it. It needs it needs a new roof.

So I I think what we want to do and and is we want to definitely meet that need. But what we want to do first is confirm, you know, if there was the original shingle on it,

you know There it is. Great.

You know, but what what we need is a photo. Okay. Yeah. Okay. You know, for for to to use a millennial term, it's picture didn't happen. You know? Okay? Is is what it is. So what what we wanna do is make sure we can find that photo. So we're gonna, in in the next, I'd say, in the next two weeks, if we can work to get that photo and get an ARS committee meeting put together, we'll have you guys readdress it at that time. So we're gonna we're just pushing off for two weeks right now, okay, to see what we can find. Okay? And then after that, we'll bring it back at the next meeting for for a decision.

I'm gonna Could I ask I I noticed you were referencing staff reports and stuff. Can we get a copy of the staff's recommendation report?

Sure.

So that we can see what are make sense of it all.

So the plan is is the next two weeks, we'll get that photo, and we'll have an architectural review committee meeting. And then at the next meeting in November, we'll come back, and we'll have we should have those better answers. I do

I do have one statement, though. So say for what I mean, I know what you guys are gonna see, but say for whatever reason you guys decide, okay. You have to put that other material on. Yeah. He won't be able to get it done. So I understand the process, but no one's gonna put that roof on in this area. It does not want to. If you drive around, you won't see one even in the rich areas. I mean, we do houses everywhere. So that's the other issue is that for whatever reason, if you guys do decide that, no. You have to put this material on. You don't want it.

You talking about the wood shake or the synthetic? The synthetic. Okay.

But asphalt might look just as good once we get that They they designed

it for that purpose. They I mean, it actually says shaking the product. It's a earthencial shake. Right. Design it for that reason.

I think I think where we are right now with it, though Mhmm. Is whether or not if we have that photo where it was a shingle Mhmm. Then you may not even have to do the shake. You may be able to just go to straight shingle replacement. Does that make sense?

Yeah. Well, for the

So right right now, what you're showing us is the presidential shake. Okay? What we're trying to do is figure out whether it was originally shaked or originally shingled. If it was originally shingled, we can find a photo of it, then what we're gonna be able to say is, okay, then really you can just go with a straight shingle replacement.

The only reason why I wouldn't recommend that is because it will change the look of it.

We understood. You wanna

go with the presidential. Because if you put that roof on that one Yeah. It's gonna change it. I would not recommend No.

We understand that. But at the same time, if it was if that's if it was a shingle in the thirties and not a and not a shake in

the thirties Well, it was yeah. It's a wood shingle. Right. Right. Wood. Yeah. I I

we get that. Okay. You know? We get that the wood can't go back on. Yeah. You know? But whether it was a wood shingle at the time, then you might be able to just put straight shingle composite on there rather than have to go with a presidential, which we know is already a premium material compared to the standard.

I was still a state of the presidential. Well, I'm not exactly Are

you talking about just the flag? Yeah. No reliefs?

Possibly. Possibly. Yeah.

Would do those that have

been presidential, but Brown And they didn't care about the war. It's financial hardship already. What we're trying

to replicate is slate, but nobody can afford slate. Right. And I'm not Musk. Yeah. So we're trying to get something that looks that has high and low K. Beliefs, definitions, and the pattern is just not a roll and a column.

There's a lot of

the joke. Maybe it didn't go

well. It was supposed to

be a joke.

There's a lot of

shingle Elon Musk. Yeah.

A lot of shingle auctions out there in the composite world too on on our asphalt world. You know, we don't

know if it's a scalloped edge or

a dog eared edge or just a straight edge. So looking at that, know, looking at what might have originally been on there would be ideal to help us kind of so we're we're doing a great product for you.

Do you have an estimate, if I may ask a question, of when the current roof was installed? You're saying that it appears to have been before 1988. Do you have a guess?

So whenever the house was built, I'm not sure what the house

think the shape I mean, the the shape. Sorry.

The shape the shape. It's crumbling. So So My estimate

is too. My estimate would be probably 40

to 45. Mean Okay. The oldest roof I could turn off was '36 and it would nothing like that. So I would it is above 40 for sure. K. And with the pitch of it, the pitch usually lasts a lot longer. It does have that second layer, so that's why it's not coming in. But I can guarantee once we turn that off, he's gonna have a rod and wood.

Yes. So I I think that's what we're we're just looking for for one month to for us to look at it and get those get the eyes on the photo, and then we'll be back with it here in November. And at that point, we'll have a decision. Okay?

So that's what we're looking

for is to give us a chance to to to do some of the background for you. And then if you guys if you still wanna go with that, that may be something that can be done at that time. You know? I can't necessarily say what our vote is gonna be till

next month. That's why I'm

not saying I'm not making any guarantees. But at the same time, it's something that we can then look at later. So I think our recommendation is we wanna have an architectural review, get the photo, come back next month.

Yes. Thank you. Yeah. I know.

But before we do that, before we make a motion, I do need to go to the public. Okay? So does anybody in the public like to speak on this item?

Okay.

Bring it back. K?

So

my motion is that we in the next two weeks, we get the photo from the library, have an architectural review subcommittee, and we bring it back at the November 24 meeting.

Second.

Okay. Got a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion passes. So we'll see you guys next month. Thank you. Okay.

Okay. Great.

I do it just

present Can I

hear you okay?

We can hear you.

Alright. Great. Name's Craig Spies with State Center. We met a a few months ago on the g sign. And last time we met, we had agreed to come back once we had a design completed to show you some of the details of that design and then give you an update on the project itself. I don't know if you can pull up the presentation real quick quickly.

Give me just one moment. I pulled it up and didn't share.

Great. And go to the next slide, please. So we've at this point, we've, completed the design. It's currently in a a third party review process, but wanted to give you a couple of details and and discuss any, concerns. So as you can see, we've with worked with the design team to, mimic the original design as closely as possible, pay homage to that historical sign, and, be able to install something that replicates that to us, to the fullest extent.

So as you can see here, we have design assigned to the exact same size, same, g sign size. The the the logo is the exact replica of the original design. The spire atop, the sign is exact, to the original as far as dimensions and look. And so you have a a sheet metal design that's corrugated like like the original, and then the the lining is installed on the outside of that on all three sides. Go to the next slide, please.

And this just gives you an idea of the elevation, look of that. So, again, it's it's three sided. It won't rotate as we've discussed prior, as the original sign did. It'll be stationary. And then on the left side is looking in the internals so that we built it and designed it so that we'll have access to the full sign for maintenance issues down the road.

And then you can see the internals of the spire and how that's designed on top. Next slide. This just gives you a a rendering of the colors. So, again, to pay homage to the original sign and how it operated, we'll be able to change the lighting, based on weather, as the prior sign indicated. And so we'll have different options.

And when we get to that part, we can kinda detail, you know, what we're gonna show during that. But the idea is to to fully mimic and and pay homage to the original sign of of of of weather indication as we have discussed in in prior meetings. And then the final slide just gives you a timeline of where we're at in the process. So we're in final design as I mentioned. Now it's going through a third party review. So we're looking to bid that out and, bring it to our, December, fourteenth board meeting to award the project,

which

would put construction fabrication start in in January, and we have an estimate of a construction duration of a five month period of fabrication and installation of the sign, on our on our roof. So that's kind of a a short overview of where we're at on the process, but we wanted to get back with you to, ask any questions or any concerns on on the design portion of of the process.

Okay. Question to the commission?

I just have a comment. I just appreciate very much that the state center has been trying to make the sign as close to the original as possible, including the color changes. Over a hundred years later. It's impossible to be identical, but it's pretty close.

Yeah. No. That was all the discussions we had during design was to make sure that we replicated that original design and and operation of it as closely as we can.

K. Cool.

I guess my my question for you, Craig, is, will you need, or would it be the desire of state center to have, somebody, representative representative of the commission there at your December meeting?

Yeah. Mean, yes. If that's an op an option, that would be great. I can also run that by the district to, to ask that question as well to see if that would be, necessary and welcome.

K. Anyone else? No. Great. Thank you. This is just a update, so I don't think we need to go out to the, public on this. So but, honestly, great job. Thank you. Thank you.

K. And I can come back when we start the fabrication and and give you guys some real pictures of of the development of that sign as we go along if that's if that's a good idea. I'm happy to do that. Great.

I I would ask if possible for you to take progress shots along the way so that we can now parkade them. We have progress shots of the original building. It'd be great to have progress shots for the future.

That way, in in sixty five years, when need to replace it again, we know how it was built.

Yeah. Yeah. We know more about this sign than than ever thought possible. So, yeah, it's it's been a it's been a fun process for sure.

Awesome. Alright.

Thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Thank you. Alright. So we will now move on to our monthly update on the Jose Garcia Brewer Adobe Building Number 227.

That is back to me, Ashley Atkinson, Assistant Director for Planning and Development, to share this month's report. I have a couple of pictures taken just earlier today. Obviously, as you can see, the the tarp is completely on what's the word I wanna use?

Non functioning.

Non functioning. Thank you.

Almost not recognizable as a tarp?

Yes. So that is the the current state of the building, but we did have a meeting in conjunction with the city attorney's office and mister Al Indy at the September. There is, you know, an open code enforcement case on the property in addition to the direction that the historic preservation commission gave him to preserve

the

property several years ago. Mr. Alhindi attended the meeting alone. He did not have an architect or engineer with him. And it was a it was a productive meeting in that we discussed that he needed to return to his architects and engineer and get some quotes for a demolition and preservation plan that reflected reality in terms of what it would actually cost to actually preserve the two gable ends that the commission directed him to preserve.

And, you know, what he had reported to us previously is that he was unable to get a quote that would that that reflected what the commission had asked him to do. So we asked him to work with his architect and engineer, the same ones that represented him at that time that that direction was given, and to try to get a a realistic approach and a realistic quote that we could then review with him and hopefully move forward. In the meantime, he was directed to tarp the building. I shouldn't say tarp because he was also directed not to use that particular type of tarp, the blue tarp that shreds easily in the wind. He did report that the materials he ordered had arrived or were going to be arriving this week and that the installation of the protection would be scheduled this week.

He reported that last week, and so we will follow-up and and make sure that that the protection is put in place and that it is done to our specifications and and not the way it was done last year. And so we'll be able to report back on that next month and hopefully with some progress on on an actual approach to permitting preservation and demolition that that could be that could be approved. So it was a productive meeting, and we have been in touch with him since then. So we're hopeful that at this point, it can move forward, but we will be happy to report back next month.

Ashley, you said you he's he's supposed to get that stuff this week?

The materials, yes. We're supposed to come well, he said the materials came last week, and he was going to schedule installation this week.

Even though we're gonna have a regular update next month, can you just shoot us a quick, you know, blind email if that's if that get gets done this week?

Just to share that it happened, I think Yeah.

That's acceptable. Okay.

Chair, I I would ask for perhaps maybe some thoughts from the commission on, is there an organization, a group, an individual who would be interested in coming in and taking materials and reconstructing off-site in another location. Because I I think regardless of what we do through our code enforcement case or other processes, I I don't know that we're going to make progress here on this site, and I think we're all gonna be disappointed in the results at the end of the day. And so if you have individuals or organizations or groups that would be interested in taking this building and reconstructing it on another site, I think that's probably our best hope for the preservation of this construction type here at Fresno.

So, I mean, We can reach out. Maybe one of the things that we could do is reach out to California Preservation Foundation and see who they may have that may be able to work with Adobe since Adobe is something that's not Adobe housing is not something that's found normally here. We know that we have lost one. We have this one. I think the next one that is near us is in Hanford.

So, you know, having this kind of raw Adobe that's unfired is is very rare in the valley, but it's definitely more common along the coast. So they may have some some ideas as to who we could reach to that might be able to at least assist us with potential mothballing to start with, whether that be dismantling brick by brick to bring it down and and something along those lines. As for relocation, I think our our trouble comes in as what how how quick how smoothly do we want this to occur? And the reason I say that is because I I know, you know, there's there's been concern before where we've had properties that could be potentially moved. And it's okay, yes, we have to do we have to do a CEQUA on on the fact that we have to pick up that that property.

But what's our process that we're gonna look at for CEQUA picking up, CEQUA putting it down, things along those lines. Because once we do that, we're now disturbing the actual, you know, in situ portion of it. So, I mean, I don't I think at this point, and I'm I'm just speaking for myself, but I think we we would most I mean, Christmas morning for us would be that, you know, we can preserve the whole thing and it gets relocated and reviewed and and adapt with reuse. You know? But at the same time, like, how are we gonna make that a little bit how how are we gonna make that process not only legal, but also simpler for us so that we can get get this thing out of the way.

But because we know that that it it does not seem that mister Al Hindi really has that in mind. We know what he agreed to, but we also know that his actions have never really matched what he agreed to. So that would be my my thought process on that. I don't know what else everybody is saying.

Yes. I would love to see, you know, if so we had a the Bob Willis home moved years ago. It moved. It's scheduled, and unfortunately, it it didn't survive. But the idea was there.

The idea was right, and everybody was motivated to do it. This is something that, because it's made in front of our soil, we were local media, it was it was there. It was making a great little exhibit whether it's like just a quarter of that house been rebuilt with the material, but something like the Forester Underground Gardens where it ties the third story narrative would be a wonderful kind of space for something like that to exist and say, hey, here's not only their resource, but this is also another emphasis on how we used to whether that ties together or not, this is I don't know if they can

figure any financial needs for

that either. But certainly, keeping it around and a product around, do some sort of an exhibit would I mean, that's what we've asked the owner to do already. But it doesn't seem like over several years we've been able to move that needle. And so we do have to come up with some ideas on what groups to reach out to and what possibilities we have.

Is there a city parcel that's that's over there that's owned, that's just vacant?

We can look.

We can look.

I mean, obviously, keeping it in the same place is the preference. Right? But I think that we all have concerns that the current property owner is not going to care for the building as much as others do. And we want to make sure that the building is cured for. I would submit Hank's Golf Course as with their building. Their original building is also an Adobe building. And they had a collapsed roof for many years, and they rebuilt it. And I'm not sure on the inside what they've done, but the exterior, they've been able to maintain. So perhaps they had a contractor that they

And he mentioned it's also Adobe. Yeah. Yes. And I will

just But it's Adobe with plaster on the house.

Now it's covered. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But we have a window into so you can see the actual Adobe double wall.

I'll just note for context that at this time, Mr. Alhamdea is not actively moving forward with any portion of the development. The site is not an active development site. So it's not just that he isn't moving forward with the piece that we directed him to, which is building. He's not moving forward with any portion of the project. And he has said that he's seeking to sell the property. But I'm not sure how active his attempts to sell it are. So it's essentially just sitting there.

Languishing.

Maybe he'd like to donate it to Well, I if

we have the opportunity to say, hey, we can put this here, and it can be restored, all you have to do is donate the building. I don't think that Mr. Alkindi would hesitate in signing that building over. Let's do that.

The Zoom can be a follow-up.

It's a question of the cost of the preservation slash demolition movements

will come into play. Absolutely. That's where the

California Preservation Commission might have some ideas. The California Preservation Foundation.

Foundation. We have some avenues to check out.

That give you some place Thank you. For

Yeah. I just wanted to hear if there

was even a

desired No, no. Thank you.

All right. So with that, we'll move on to the chairperson's report. I know that we didn't meet in September, but I know a number of us also took some some training towards the September that

Seven g. I did. Thank you. Where'd you go back? We'll go

back to item seven g, which is our regular monthly topics. I apologize, Ashley.

Ashley's like

So we'll start with the staff update. She's like, I wasn't missing.

Sure. Briefly summarize our monthly updates for everyone if we can We are continuing our our team effort of conducting historic preservation reviews with our staff architects. As I think you all know, Janice's last day with our department was two weeks ago already, gosh. And she was generously here tonight, despite that, to help guide Carrie through her first meeting. So very much thanks to Carrie and also Jenny, who you may not have met before, for stepping up and supporting historic preservation from the administrative side.

And, of course, thanks to Janice for her service over the last year as well. With that, we are continuing to review the entitlements that we receive, a little bit lower number in September than in August. Same with building permits. Section one zero six reviews are largely being done by our consultants, SWCA, to the housing side of our department. But, of course, we did not receive any Mills app applications in the last couple of months.

We have we will complete those reviews, it sounds like, next month. And we did receive and approve one mitigation program application. I will also note that our building permits are experiencing well, we are experiencing a big uptick in review of building permits because we recently implemented a couple weeks ago a flag on every property in the city that is 50 years old or older. That there was a flag in our system previously for anything in a historic district or anything designated, but we now have a flag in the system for anything that is 50 years old. So a lot of buildings are coming in for relatively minor permits, things like reroofs, moving electrical panels, or replacing electrical panels, that kind of thing.