Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

The Monday, 07/28/2025, Historic Preservation Commission meeting. We'll go ahead and call the meeting to order and request roll call, please.

Commissioner Eddings? Commissioner Johnston? Present. Commissioner Laval? Present. Commissioner Federico? Present. Commissioner Hillajian?

Present.

Vice Chair Hatwick? Present. And Chair Sponsler?

Here. All right. We have a full house tonight. So it sounds like everybody is here, and we'll go ahead and start with Item two for our procedures. For each matter considered by the commission, there will be 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 the applicant before opening to the public. Testimony from supporters of the project will then 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 in action, if any, by the commission. In accordance with Section 13 of Article two of the Historic Preservation Commission bylaws governing length of the public debate, all public testimony from those in support and in opposition of the project will be limited to three minutes per person.

All public testimony must be presented to the commission at the podium. Any testimony that references race, religion, ethnicity, economic status, national origin, or any other classification protected under state or federal law in a derogatory manner shall be deemed irrelevant and will not be considered by the commission in making its determinations. If you challenge these matters in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in oral written testimony or before the close of the hearing. With that, we'll go ahead and move on to Item three, that is approving of the meeting minutes from 06/23/2025. Do we have any changes to the minutes?

None at this time.

All right. I'll entertain a motion.

I motion to approve the minutes.

All right. We have a motion. Do we have a second? All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Minutes are approved. All right. We'll go ahead and move on to Item four, which is going to be approving of tonight's agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda?

None at this time.

All right. I'll entertain a motion to approve.

So move.

And a second? I second. All right. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Agenda passes. We will go ahead and move past consent and continued matters and on to commission items, which is Section seven. And I'll start with Item 7A, file ID 20Five-one9, is the workshop regarding the high speed rail updates.

Good afternoon or good evening, actually. Sorry about that. Can everyone hear me?

Yes. Yes.

Lovely. My name is Doctor. Amanda Harvey, and I'm here representing the High Speed Rail Authority and the Cultural Resources team to present to you some updates to two interpretive exhibits associated with the High Speed Rail and then one little find that we had this past June that we're seeking your guidance on. Alright. Next slide, please.

First up, after discussion with Public Works, we had some slight changes to the already approved Belmont Interpretive Exhibit, and it is just for the lighting. So next slide, please. Shown here in the bottom picture is the Belmont Interpretive Exhibit, which is going in the new Belmont Circle after the new bridge for Belmont, if you can see coming down this over the bridge here with the bottom picture. After discussions with the public work scene for the city of Fresno, the light circled down here in red at the bottom, these little floor lights are not in align with this public works ability to regulate them and put them into the system for the power sources. So they had suggested that they that we use a type five lumen style light, which is just another little bent light like this, that will provide enough light over onto the display with the removal of these floor lights.

There'll be no impact to funding source or point of service for PG and E if we do use this type five lumen here. And so there are no changes to the design prepared in consultation with you guys in 2019 and the design of 2020. So I just wanted to put forth to you all for discussion for these little removal of these floor lights with the inclusion of a type five lumen up here overhead. And I guess we'll can save our kinda all thoughts and questions till the end of this presentation. Next slide, please.

The next is a brand new interpretive exhibit that High Speed Rail would like to present for your comments and questions and edits. And then it's the high roading park interpretive exhibit. Next slide. So I have three slides here with some information on this interpretive exhibit. The first one is the location.

In 2022, we met with a few officials from the city and I think someone from the Historic Preservation Commission, and we walked to these four sites within the park and collectively selected number one shown here in the red circle as the preferred location of this exhibit. Next slide. This exhibit is look looks a little bit different than the Belmont exhibit in that we are seeing ADA measurements here in a very low profile orientation and a weathersteel base in either black, or if we can see the sound wall that's being built, it would be the color of the sound wall, which is like a spray chocolate that was determined a few years back as well. So, again, low profile here, the dimensions, 30 inches tall, 42 wide, 24 in the of the exhibit here with a low 45 degree angle profile. Next slide, please.

For the material on the interpretive exhibit, we have put forth the discussion of the history and the National Register's Tour of his significance. We would like to identify the extent contributing resources and then have an eight a coupon code on the exhibit here for ADA resource, and the QR code is supposed to be maintained by the city of Fresno, much like the Belmont QR code. Next slide, please. This is the proposal for the action interpretive exhibit. On the left hand side, you have just an explanation about recreation and in the past.

And then on the right hand side I'm sorry. That was the left hand side of it. On the right hand side, you have the historical significance of this particular resource. And then all throughout this photo in the middle, we have identified all the contributing resource to the actual district as a whole. Here in kind of next photo of the park would be the QR code that could be scanned.

We have a couple of historical along with some newspaper articles and stuff to supplement. Next slide, please. And then last and kind of excitingly, back in June, we uncovered some very large lanterns in the Belmonts Underpass there. Next slide, please. We have exhausted all of our resources digitally and have reached out to some of the local societies in Fresno State and handful of other old historians in Fresno, and no one really knows too much about these gigantic We, like, discovered them in June.

They're approximately two feet wide by about four feet tall. Person here standing on the chart next to them in the top of these kind of ornate metal structure is up to their head. Of them are painted red or green or faded red and green, and they do have a plug on. That's really kind of our only gotta go by. We found a milk carton associated with them, an old producer's milk carton that was specific to mid century.

So maybe nineteen forties to nineteen sixties max, somewhere there. And so we're ideas. Anyone know anything about these lanterns that elements look the city as their city property. A little bit about delivery of these lanterns, but really just need to see if the, you know, any residents or even you guys on the commission have any information about anything like these lanterns in the past. Alright.

Next slide. And that really ends my very quick presentation. So I wanted to offer any questions, comments on the or later.

All right. Thank you. So while we go through this, we're just going to start with questions and comments, but we're going to start in order of what was presented. So the first thing, is there any questions and comments on the change in the lighting for the interpretive for the Belmont Subway and traffic circle?

Was there a depiction of the Type five fixture? I didn't maybe I missed it.

There was not. But in doing some sleuthing ahead of time, a Type five Autobahn LED is your standard cobra head that you see over the highways and over the streets. So they're talking about putting an overhead.

Can they provide us with exactly what they're recommending so we don't have to do the research?

Yes.

That would be good.

I'm on the kind of same question. Because we worked hard on some of the bridges selecting lighting. And if it could match unassily through the work we've done, that'd be ideal.

So given that, if you want the exact, do we want that referred back to the architectural review committee to double check what that looks like? Yes. Okay. So on the first item, that would be that we want to see what that light is going to look like, what that lamp post is going to look like because I'm assuming that we probably want the lamp post to match what's on the Belmont Overpass currently, the new style as well as have that COBRA head. And then we'll refer it back to architectural review for you guys to review and provide comment or move it forward.

I'd also like to know the height of it. Absolutely.

They will match the lights on the Belmont Bridge, and these type five lumens are the standard ones across your city. It was the one that was put forth by the city of Fresno's public works. So this matches everything that we got going on, and the lamppost is gonna match the Belmont the Belmont Bridge and all of that. It's all gonna tie right in. It's basically just kind of the removal of those brown lights and making sure that this the lights around it do have that backlight so that it shines right down on the exhibit. So but I'm happy to get you some of this other information and send it forward to the architectural history committee.

All right. Any other comments or questions on the interpretive for Belmont? Okay. So we'll move on now to the Roating Park interpretive exhibit location.

I have a comment.

Yes. Amanda, I think you can probably hear me. Is Elizabeth. And if you are looking for high quality, good resolution images, either of newspaper headlines or of photos of early roading park, please contact me at the Historical Society. We have our collection and the Poplar Valve collection available to you. So we'd like to get the best quality images that we could, and we have some really interesting ones that you might want to include.

Thank you, Elizabeth.

Okay. Any other comments on this one?

They were looking for input on the location. Is that correct?

It looks like the location was selected was in November 2022. It's supposed to be near Lake Washington, which is that big lake on the southwest corner of the park. I think they were looking for any information with regards to also the type of information that's on the interpretive sign. And then my big question comes out of a couple of things that I note. The first one being, I don't think we have this approved as a historic district, correct?

That's correct. Roading Park is not a historic district. It was reviewed previously and not assigned a district. So that was going to be one of my comments. I would actually recommend for the content of the sign that the sign committee review that and come back with a recommendation at the next committee.

That was kind of going to be my thought is that we need to have the signed review committee in on this to kind of go through that documentation. So if we can set up that time and arrangement for that and meet with high speed rail folks so we can go over what this is going to look like. All right. Any other thoughts on the Roading Park Interpretive Exhibit? Okay. So let's move on to the one that's interesting for the hour. That's going to be the lanterns. So exactly how many lanterns do we have?

There are 81, 82, as one's kind of like in a couple of pieces. So really, 81 whole complete buns.

And how many Okay. So they're and whole complete means that they're mostly intact or completely intact?

Yeah. They're the what you see on the slide there, the ones where they're kind of you can see the red and green one really well. That is a whole intact lantern. Okay.

And you said they had a a plug, like, for an a light socket? Yes. K. So in in kind of doing some some initial thoughts and and looking at this, there's a couple of things that come to mind, and we're going to kind of open it up for discussion here shortly. But given the color and the configuration, there's a couple of styles that it lends itself to, the first one being kind of a Spanish revival look, just given the type of filigree and things like that you see in that design, as well as the red and green being a color that's indicative of that area, which would then also lend itself to a kind of a Moorish style.

We only have a handful of Moorish buildings, one of them being the City College Library, that have that type of look for them. I think the one that's got the most potential for it is, given the red and green and the ornamentation of it, is that this may have been related to Chinatown at one point. Just kind of looking at the way it was designed, the amount that you have sounds like it was a huge installation across probably multiple locations or districts of some sort. But that's kind of we've not been able to really dig much into it, but I'm going to open it up so if anybody has any other comments with regards to these. Yes, Commissioner Laval?

Thank you. We at the historical site were contacted by the city and we are doing a photographic search. It may take a minute, but we're going through a number of different locations and photos to see if we can see them with the light plug. That was something that I didn't know. So it will change my search from quite as early to a little more modern time, meaning the thirties forward. But we'll be happy to share if we find anything good.

And Elizabeth, I'll be sure to get you that light plug. If I didn't send that photo over already Thank you. That one over for you.

That will just be able to help us date it when it could have been installed.

Yep. So we Who actually owns them? So it would fall to the city. And here's the history of how that is. So when the subway and the trafficker were built, they were owned part and joint by Southern Pacific and Caltrans. Southern Pacific only owned the actual line that went over that holds the rail lines going over it. The rest was owned by Caltrans. When Caltrans built U. S. 99 then Freeway 99 in the late '50s, they relinquished control of the underpass and the traffic circle to the city.

So the city has owned the contents of the underpass and the underpass itself since 1957. So at any point, as long these were stored probably post that time, But pre obviously, prior to construction, I would definitely safely say. Where who did it? We have some thoughts possibly with regards to who may have been the original individuals that installed them or safely proceeded them. Whoever did it, we know that they safely they intended to preserve them because given that second photo in the upper right, you can see there was a frame built to house those lights.

So somebody intentionally saved these for that purpose.

Have a question. Are the lanterns made out of tin or iron? Or is there any clear material that they're made out of? Tin or iron?

I'm not entirely sure yet. We are sending down our architectural historian on Friday and a material specialist to really look and see what type of material they are. We have just taken them from one place and put them back into storage in another facility for now and have not been able to actually, like, understand what the material is yet.

Oh, okay. And I and that I assume then you haven't found any maker's marks at this

point. No, ma'am. Not yet. And this this is why the architectural historians have to go down on Friday this this Friday and really kind of look at them with a specialty eye.

Alright. Thanks.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Any other comments on the lanterns? Okay. This is an item that we don't need to take out, correct, because it's just a workshop? Correct? Okay. So we'll move on. So thank you, Doctor. Harvey. I appreciate that very much. And we'll continue to work on those changes and those exciting developments.

Yes. Thank you very much, commissioners. You all have a lovely evening.

Thank you. Okay. So we're going to move on to Item 7B. That's file ID 20Five-nine12. And that's review and comment on the draft environmental assessment for the air traffic control tower located at APN-four 90 Four-seven Thousand 178.

So I hope everybody did their homework on their novel. All right. Go ahead and for the record state your name.

All right. Let me grab this real fast. Thank you. All right. My name is Karen Bohler with RSNH.

We're the consultant who's working on the environmental assessment and environmental impact report for the Fresno Yosemite International Airport Air Airport Traffic Control Tower Replacement Project Relocation. And so, I'm going to just kind of bring you up to speed on where we are, and where your input comes in, and just give you a quick overview here. So, let's see. So, these are the items I'm going to go through. Like I said, very briefly, I'm sure most of you have already seen some of the project overview, so we're just going to touch on it just to refresh.

The proposed project is replacing the existing air traffic control tower at Fresno Yosemite International Airport. It needs to be replaced because it does not meet current standards. That's ADA compliance, fire standards, building standards, and also FAA air traffic control tower standards. The it has inadequate height, which results in obstructed line of sight, so the entirety of the airfield is not fully visible for air traffic controllers. The this also results in operational inefficiencies because we can't see the entirety of the airfield, communication lag and errors between pilot and air traffic control tower, escalating maintenance costs.

There's, for example, the elevator is so old that when it breaks down, which is pretty regularly, you have to custom order the parts because they don't make them anymore. It takes a while and it results in, you know, the controllers not being able to make it to the top in order to do their work. Then, security deficiencies, there's no full security around the property, which is a requirement under the FAA air traffic control tower order. And so where we are with our cultural resources report was was prepared last year, completed in September 2024. It looked at it developed the area of potential effects, and that was concurred by CHIPO also last year.

Within that APE, multiple buildings were looked at. The existing air traffic control tower, the ARF Building next to it, which is the firefighting facility, and then another airport maintenance building, and then just the general area in between for archaeological resources literature review was conducted as well as site visits. So it was determined that the only building eligible or only resource eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places was the existing air traffic control tower, and that was under Criterion C as a highly intact representative of the international style of architecture as it relates to air traffic control tower. And it was the work of master architect, Alan Liu, who has local significance as well. And so, because of that, it was determined that if the demolition of the building were to occur, there would be an adverse effect under section 106.

And so, in the environmental assessment, we looked at a we looked at a total of seven alternatives. Some of these alternatives also include options within there on how to deal with the existing air traffic control tower. There's three alternatives or options that were looked at as a way to determine if there was an option to keep the air traffic control tower standing in some sort of form. That was just looking at rehabilitating the existing air traffic control tower for continued use as an air traffic control tower at the airport. And then the next one was building the new air traffic control tower, but keeping the tower in place almost like a relic, just to limit the amount of improvements that would need to be conducted.

And then the third was to rehabilitate and retain the existing air traffic control tower, but for another use at Fresno. So maybe admin offices, something that wouldn't be held to the standard of the FAA air traffic control tower standards. So all of those alternatives were looked at. And the evaluation criteria, the first there was a two step criterion criteria that was looked at. The first one was to determine if the alternative would achieve the purpose and need of the project.

And then the second, if it met that step, then it went and looked at the feasibility to implement. And that looked at technicality and economics as well. So all those efforts and within the EA, it goes into further detail on what those established criteria are. So ultimately, it was determined that the proposed project with demolition was the preferred alternative, and this was related to several items, as you'll see in the EA, specifically related to safety and obstruction of sight due to the location of the building and the location of potential new air traffic control towers. And so because of that, because of the adverse effects, we started developing the memorandum of agreement in coordination with SHPO.

And the MOA is legally binding. It identifies the specific mitigation measures, and so that's where those were developed and identifies the responsible parties for each mitigation measure. And it's also our document of compliance with Section 106. And so the rules that were identified were the FAA's, the federal lead agency, the SHPO as the approval agency, and they were both the signatories for the MOA. And then, there's also invited signatories.

And that's where we'd sent out these the draft MOA back in December or January for approval or for review and comment to the Historic Preservation Commission, as well as the Fresno County Historical Society. And we invited both of those and the city airports division, of course, because that's their airport, to be invited signatories on the MOA and have at least the input and receive comments on. And so, this is just a brief summary of the comments that were received that were submitted by the Historic Preservation Commission back in January and how we responded to those comments. I won't go reading all of them, but there was information sent back on that as well, including broader historical context, mitigation measures and public awareness, stipulations, any of that information. And so we provided responses to that.

We adjusted the MOA as much as we could based on those comments as it was feasible. Here's some additional comments, engagement with the Native American tribes, demolition alternatives, more details, alternatives analysis. And of course, this was before the environmental assessment was released, so you hadn't seen the alternatives analysis yet. And the summary of the revisions that were made to the draft MOA because of those were that adding signage, salvage architecture architectural elements of the existing ATCT were included as a potential to include it in the signage and the interpretive exhibits if it was feasible. And that, of course, determines on there's asbestos and lead based paint in the building.

So, of course, that depart determines on what what the actual materials are and how safe it is. And then for the exhibit and educational materials with the Fresno County Historical Society, we also expanded that to include educational materials that would be collect that would be sent in in order for the historical society to use those materials how they see fit in addition to the exhibit that would be there. And then additional inadvertent discovery language was added specific for Native American. It was previously in there for architectural resources, but we added specifically for Native American. So the proposed mitigation, there's proposed four mitigation measures.

The first is your historic American building survey, your HABs and a level two. Number two is the interpretive sign and a plaque commemorative of the existing air traffic control tower within the terminal at the airport. And specifically, because this is the view of the air traffic control tower that is most seen by by the travelers. And so it would be where any of these travelers would be able to see that tower. We try to find a location, and so this is where it is.

And so it would be in the context with that as much as possible. That would be worked out, of course, as details get sorted. Now, the third one is an exhibit with the Fresno County Historical Society. There's the Chinese artifact exhibit that is underway or has been ongoing. And so we see it as a as an expansion of that, adding into that information specifically about the architect Alan Yu Liu.

Yes. The four would be the the materials on the city website, the airport website. So, the material collected would be posted and available to the public on the city website, and there would be QR codes at the interpretive signs and exhibits also to the website if they wanted more information. So just to catch you up to speed, our milestones completed. We've started on the CEQA side of things.

We had the notice of preparation that, was released and received your comments back in, March. And then we've also been doing, of course, the NEPA portion, which you see the draft environmental assessment and then conducting section 106 consultation during this time. And we have SHPO concurrence, and we're working on the we have the draft MOA, and we've had the consulting parties meeting, and we've released the draft EA with the Section 4F evaluation and the draft MOA for review, and that's where we are today. So the next steps would be the comment period for the draft EA is to end on August 6, the next week at five p. M.

Pacific. And then the next would be we're also looking at the release of the draft EIR in the next month, hopefully anticipated. And then the following the comments on the draft EA, any revisions would be made and the MOA would be rooted for signature approval for this invited and required signatories. And then September, the anticipated final EA and the finding of no significant impacts by the FAA is anticipated to be drafted and completed, and we're looking at certification for CEQA sometime in October as well as as soon as that's following, then the FAA would issue their decision document for DEBA. And that's the end of there, so I'll open it up.

But first, I'm going to have Jennifer jump in real fast, too.

Thank you, Karen, so much for coming out tonight. So, commissioners, you, see on your agenda that this is review and comment on the draft EA. So this is on the NEPA. The NEPA is the document that has been published to date. The CEQA has not been published.

That will be coming out. And just a refresher in terms of your duties, So this is not a listed resource. So environmental procedures under CEQA and NEPA on actions pertaining to designated resources would not apply. However, review on any proceedings under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act pertaining to properties within the city limits would be under your purview. So this is an opportunity to review and to make comments on the draft EA as it is in your role as commissioners.

I do understand several of you have double duty and multiple hats, so I would focus on the contents of the mitigation measures, and how, they have reflected the comments that were provided previously, in in your discussion tonight, but there is no action that the commission would be taking.

Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you. With that, I will open it up to our commissioners for comments. I know this is going to be kind of a topic that there's multiple conversations about. So I'm going to go ahead and start with Commissioner Federico and we will just come down the line.

I have no comment at this time.

Okay. Commissioner Hillaugu?

My only comment is this is a fantastic piece of mid century modern architecture. And I don't see that demolition is a really good thing for the city of Fresno. Maybe it works for the airport's function. But it seems to me that as a default option to demolish this part of our history is really ill founded. And I would just request that additional work be done to see if there is an alternative that could preserve that building, not necessarily as a air traffic control tower, but something that could maintain the rich history of our city and not lose this great artifact.

All right. Thank you. Commissioner Laval.

I am on the record agreeing with Commissioner Hlodjian about the undesirability of demolition as a commissioner. That has not changed. My opinion has not changed on that.

All right. I'm going to skip over Vice Chair and go to Commissioner Johnston.

I have a question and a comment. There were seven alternatives considered. Which one was selected?

The selected one was replacement of the existing tower. It's within about the parking lot, about two fifty feet south It of the was alternative oh gosh, I think it was the first one? Yes. There

were seven, and I was yes. We're

Like, I've had thirty days to put that down.

So alternative one is the selected alternative, and SHPO has already concurred?

They've they don't concur with the alternative, they're concurring with the APE, the finding of a fact and the mitigation measures.

So they've already agreed with the FOE? Correct. Okay. And so my comment is I am with Commissioners Hodgen and Laval in agreeing that this I think we need to do more effort in doing adaptive reuse of the building and to try to avoid demolition, if at all possible.

All right. Thank you. And we'll go to Vice Chair, Hatwick.

Yes, follow the same sentiment. It was a fascinating read, seeing all the alternatives, but the unfortunate side was the only alternative that we keep some of it wasn't even fully adaptive reuse because it would change so much of the footprint. And all the other alternatives in order to comply with all the FFA and rules visibility included demoing the existing tower. So there hasn't been an alternative yet really proposed that keeps both and checks all of the boxes of clearance and safety and approval. So I do, like you all, encourage what other thoughts can be out there on kind of keeping it adaptive reuse for restaurants or offices or something like many of the other airports have done to their old towers across the nation.

Well, what is the alternative that can kind of still meet visibility requirements clearance and everything else. So I don't know that I've seen anything stat that look good. It could be

a great Museum of Aviation to tell the whole story of what's going on in Fresno and to demolish it is just a mistake. Right.

Just

a quick question that Commissioner Hlodgy made me think of. People don't understand that the history of aviation in this valley really rose about the same time as the Wright brothers. The farmers were wonderful tinkers and they made planes fly as early as early teens. And if that I don't know how much the history we have not been asked to provide history to you. So, if that's an option to learn a little more about there were records set for multiple years as early as 1912, that we would be happy to provide additional supplementary materials that showcase not just the Fresno Air Terminal, but other port places, blurred lands and Scheller Field and the other contributing forces to the actual current state of aviation, a lot of it started here, along with the architecture.

It's got a twofer.

We'll definitely be reaching out though for information when the plaques start getting developed.

So I kind of am echoing along the same lines. The idea of and so I have a couple of questions that can go on. So number one, why was the alternative of not relocating the ARRF and putting the new control tower net where the ARRFF currently sits rather than just tear down the control tower? That's my first question.

My name is Francisco Partida, Interim Director of Aviation, City of Fresno Airport Department. Thank you for having us tonight to workshop this item. So the question is, the ARF station that sits next to it?

Correct.

Why was the alternative not to

Why was there not looked at as an option of relocating the ARF or reconfiguring where the ARF was located and putting the control tower there to preserve this one so it can be utilized rather than we're going to preserve the ARF and tear down the control tower.

Right. So two separate projects and actually both on the books. The air traffic control tower has been an effort that has been on the books for about twenty years prior to us coming in and taking it this far. Prior to this administration and our late Director, Henry Thompson, that passed away two weeks ago. The biggest effort was in 2008, 2009, where the city and the groups took it to the FAA through the process that takes about eighteen to thirty six months in Atlantic City, New Jersey, right?

Correct? The FAA lab for the VISTA study? Yes. So that's how far that went in 2008. And because of the economy and the conditions of the country, it just died. Meanwhile, the existing tower, as beautiful as it is, as significant as it is, continue to deteriorate and fall behind in modernization efforts and code and requirements. So the highest priority is the tower. We're starting that, obviously, started in 2023 going through 2024 with all of the studies that Karen mentioned. But our ARF station is also inadequate. It's also out of code.

It's also insufficient for the level of service that it should provide and needs to provide moving forward. We're actually having a new ARF vehicle coming in 2025, 2026. The height and the length of the vehicle, it's superior to what that arf station can house. So we have on the capital improvement program an ARF replacement ARF station replacement in 2029 or 2030 to be funded by the federal government. So it's just a priority. It's an aging facility wherever

you

look at it. The Fresno Terminal has been around for quite a bit. So as you know, America is hurting for infrastructure, and we're only starting to address some of these issues.

Right. And I understand that. And thank you for clarifying as to what's going to happen with ARF and things like that. I guess maybe the option that we're looking at as a commission is our idea our concept is it would be a great asset. Now we know it's antiquated for aircraft control.

We know it's antiquated for the use that you need it as today. However, we're looking at from the aspect option of not only signifying one of our own fellow architects that our fellow Institute of Architects gentlemen that created it. It's also a great example of the city when it's under its original urban renewal in the '50s and '60s. It's also a great way to tell the story like they were talking about aviation in the valley because not only do we have the airport, do we have our airport, we have its predecessor of Hammerfield, We have Eagle Field, which was also an Army airbase. We also have Lemoore, Maple Air Station that's been here.

We have multiple things and then the Chandler Airfield as well. It's a great place to be able to kind of house those kinds of things or look at those things because oftentimes, the things that we hear a lot of times and this is not picking on you guys, but when we get Section 106 or we get these demolitionary plans, the selection is, okay, well, we're just going to relocate the stuff to the fairgrounds or we're going to relocate it to the historic society. And that's great because we're preserving those pieces of items. The concern that we have is and I think you would agree that the airport is our door for the outside community coming into Fresno. It's our front door.

And just like at your front door, you have pictures of your family. You have that family history there. And to not be able to incorporate that into how the design is or how something looks, it kind of just pushes everything aside. And it's like, great, we have this brand new modern airport, but we're not recognizing everything of where we came from. And I know there's a small display or at least a couple of years ago, there was a small display at the base of the concourse and things like that.

But it's really kind of telling the whole story, not just little pieces of it from I time to think what we're looking at is if you already have to look at the idea of you're getting a new fire truck essentially that it has that is going to be part of that ARF that is not even going to be able to fit in that ARF, why can't we look at that as an alternative of it being that the tower goes next to the ARF or goes where the ARF currently is and kind of maybe flip flop what's being proposed as to be demolished first because I know eventually you're going have to demolish the ARF. So looking at demolishing the ARF, building a new ARF and then putting the air traffic control tower in, something along those lines.

Yes. And thank you. And I completely understand where the commission is coming from and the passion that each one of you have for historical significance. Overall, the history of aviation, the aviation bug bit me when I was probably before five years old, and that's why I'm in aviation and airports. I was actually a pilot before turning to the dark side into management.

But to address the comment is, if you look at the draft TA in its entirety, there's a whole section in purpose and needs and the objective of the project. Right? And like Director Clark had mentioned at one of our past meetings, the purpose is or one of the alternatives is no project, right? And we can't go down that path. Unfortunately, the process that dictates how the towers are sited, located, the new requirements of safety, security, operations dictate that this building, matter

this is

the best location, right? The existing tower exists there for a reason. It was the best location back in the '60s. The new tower will exist in the same area because it is the best location. So even if we try to preserve it in place and repurpose the building, it's just like was it the chairman or vice chairman?

Is an alternative. It doesn't check all the boxes, unfortunately, of maintaining the building and repurposing it because now we have both the siding requirement that the new tower will not be able to meet because of the previous building, And then the security requirements would then we would maintain the shell of a building and still have to keep it up and make it look nice and not allow it to go into decay, but we will not be able to allow public or another purpose, a restaurant, administrative offices because it will not meet the requirements of the FAA or the TSA security requirements.

Can I ask a question? If the design problem that you were presented was find a location for a new control tower and figure out how to repurpose this, is there a solution to that? Or are you saying there is no solution? There's one solution to this problem?

So additional alternatives were looked at. These seven alternatives that are in the EA came about I through

understand the other alternatives. My question is if the design problem was maintain that air maintain that, it doesn't have to function as an air control tower. If that was part of the assumed assignment to begin with, is there a solution? Are you saying there is no solution?

It was looked at. And because of the location, the location on the airfield and the location, even if the ARF were to be the location of the exit of a new air traffic control tower, because of FAA requirements, that whole area has to be secure and the public cannot have access to it. And that location is too close and it's on the like I said, it's on the And so the

control security tower go someplace else that is not in this proximate area? Or this is the

Oh, it was looked. It was looked across the airfield. The section four f document will have additional, even further back, alternatives that were looked at. And you'll see there are locations all across the airfield that were looked at. Looked at tearing down FBO buildings, everything like that. And because of the views, because of citing requirements, these seven were the alternatives that were further developed and ended up in the EA.

So if this was the Washington Monument, could you find another location for an air traffic control tower and still make the FAA happy?

I don't think I don't believe so.

FAA yes, said that there's security

security is all the air is focused on, is safety and security. The

whole Aftel Vista study looks at the whole airfield, the 1,700 acres that Fresno Air Terminal sits on. And it goes through a process, modeling requirements, infrastructure available, roads available, etcetera. And so from 40, they went down to 27 or 20 documented. Then we went to 13. There was a point where we had 13A, 13B, 13C because they were just a few feet difference between the center of the building.

But all of those all of that was considered. And seven alternatives rose to the occasion to be fully evaluated because the other ones, once you go down the checklist, meets the needs and purpose, the objective, requirements, then it's kind of like you start eliminating by sorry. English as a second language, my apologies. Sometimes I lose the right word. But yes, it's process of elimination, right?

Because Vice Chair Khatwissik, if we can't meet 50% of it, then it doesn't rise to the next round, right? If it meets 75%, maybe we can consider it to the third round. But at the end of the day, the final round was seven sites. And of the seven sites, the most clear and safe and secure viable site is the one, including the consideration of during construction, what happens, right? We can't vacate the tower.

We need to continue providing the services to air traffic control. And the vibration and the dust and the mobilization of the contractor was taken into consideration in the selection of the final site of the new tower. Anything closer would damage the building, potentially cause some unsafe condition that would create the necessity of vacating the tower and going ATC T zero, which would be horrible for air traffic.

And maintaining the tower in its place was looked at even aside from safety and just to check the boxes too. And it was a very, very high cost that the city doesn't have the cost for because there are there is asbestos, there's lead based paint. It would be a very big rehabilitation project to get that up to speed. But then the maintaining of that something of that facility would just not be in the ability of the airport in the city to handle.

So I think the lead and asbestos, I understand. But I also understand the concept that if this was to become some sort of airport museum, if you will, okay, we have Measure P dollars that can be used to utilize towards the actual work in that building, And I think the biggest part that makes us the most sensitive is literally the request is not just we're going to build a new tower there. It's actually we're going to build a new tower in a different location and plow this under for parking, which is what this city has done for the last seventy years with a lot of things. And so I guess the other question that we have also is why if the parking is currently not secure, why does it have to be secure now?

That will be updated regardless. That was included in all of them to be updated for security.

If you kept the tower and it did no project, you'd still put the fence?

Yes. They still have to have secure access, and that was included in the keeping the existing tower and rehabilitating it.

I had one more item that might not have been part of this, so you didn't catch it would be and I think Commissioner Hirajian brought it up the first time we'd met was more of the can the top and part of the tower be dismantled in a way where it can be reorganized and put back together in a location that is accessible to the public. And that was I didn't see an alternative to that study because that is something that I think plays well with both buckets. And if it can't be preserved and we can't grow our airport, we can't relocate the airport, know, there's a lot of things at play there. There might be a happy medium there in that, whether it's just a portion, a one side, you name it, there's probably some flexibility there that we can maybe include on the idea list.

Yes, mean, think as part of the design in the future, if there's something reusable material wise, I mean, that's even talking about using the salvage materials in the exhibit. So that is something in future design that can definitely be looked at and likely will be.

Great.

And I was just going to comment that I've seen this quite a

bit in

DC, where you have a smaller historic building that's been encompassed in the design of the new much bigger building. And so I know that's, you know, in terms of design, that's more of a challenge, but it has been seen quite a bit where you maintain the original building of the facade, and then you incorporate it into the new design itself. If, you know, I'm not certain if you're planning to build right on top of the existing location, but it would be over.

No, it's about two fifty two fifty. Feet south of it.

Okay, right. I wasn't sure on that. But anyway, I've seen that done before quite a bit in DC. I

will comment on one of the things I noted in this, and that's the idea of a memorandum of agreement with regards to what's going to occur. And I would strongly encourage that I think as a body for this commission that we look at that going forward for any of these projects come forward, so that we have an actual agreement to hold people to the mark as to what they're going to do. So regardless of what occurs with the project, whether it's a preserve and a display or something along those lines, the idea is that we need to hold people accountable to it. I know that we've had problems in the past where that's not occurred. And so I think going forward, when we have these, we're going to have to look at MOAs.

Do we have the jurisdiction to have us be a have the commission

be No. A So the commission is a body of the city council. So the city council, the city is the signatory. This commission is a body of the city council or of the city. I would encourage you now is a really great time to also make comments on the mitigation measures, which are found on page four-seventeen of the document.

This is also an opportunity to comment on whether or not you believe the mitigation measures are appropriate, if there are additional mitigation measures. I heard Commissioner Hatwig and the chair mention one in particular. I think this is an opportunity to comment on how you would like for this to be recommended. Again, these are alternatives that will be considered. The FAA could come back and say, we prefer alternative two.

Right? So again, these are all alternatives that have been considered, and are being submitted with all of these comments for discussion and for deliberation, for determination. So just because it's the preferred alternative doesn't necessarily mean that's the one that gets selected by the FAA. So, this is an opportunity to provide not just on the alternatives comments, but also on the mitigation measures as well.

Correct. And then all comments will be addressed in the final as well. So the FAA will provide responses.

Okay. So do we have any formal comments that we would submit like submitted for this?

Can request another study? Can we request another option? Or that ship has sailed?

You can put the request in the comments.

My request would be, could you analyze as if it is a immovable artifact, it cannot move, is there another location? It's the assumption, it seems, I want to speak about things I don't know about, but so excuse me if I do, but it seems to me the assumption is you had somewhat of a blank slate. If one of the mandates for the designers was this cannot move, is there a solution? And I don't know if that was vetted. I'd like to see if there is a solution assuming this cannot move.

Yes. I think just to kind of to add to that would be if the answer is no on That what can be done to dismantle a portion and then utilize that to give the artifact some new life.

And I think in I'm going to kind of tap on to Commissioner Hologic. Take that consideration as if it's the Lassault Caves, the prehistoric artwork in France. Okay? It's immovable. You can't bulldoze it down.

Okay? And then with Vice Chair Hatwigs, yes, looking at options that we can create it as some sort of interpretive exhibit or some sort of even if it's for example, you explained you got the aircraft Bug at five. How cool as a five year old would have been to be in, even if it's just a little portion of it, in the middle of an aircraft control tower? You would be on fire about that. So think about it as something like that, where we're going to have to be looking at, again, it being something that we can showcase and something that we can also use as a welcoming entrance to the city.

All right? Oh, no, you can't have your mic back on. You've already talked a lot. I did have one question about I noted that in and I don't know if this is covered in our part or not. But I know that the it noted that the Amam Asun tribe was the one that reached out that you reached out to with regards to this?

There was 11 total.

There was 11 total? They're the ones that responded to They're

the only ones who responded.

Okay. Thank you. I just wanted

to confirm Yeah. Did they just respond? It's outside of their jurisdiction? Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah. As a kid, I'm just kinda reminded of, you know, getting the bug of a lot of things as as I was growing up. And one of them was the, Los Angeles, Children's Museum. They had, like, a half of a fire truck, and they had a half of an ambulance, and they really let kids suit up and play on them and honk the horns, and and I thought that would was super fun, me growing up to kind of get into certain areas of my life. And that's just another alternative I think that would be a great to explore.

Alright.

Anything else?

No. There are certain standards with keeping those buildings separate per the FAA guidelines.

Again, this is the FAA air traffic control tower is for the air traffic controllers. They're federal employees. They have so many different requirements. The airport rescue and firefighting team, it can be in house public safety officers, operations officers, or it can be like it is right now, the services are provided by the Fresno Fire Department firefighters that are certified in ARF. So those two things don't rise to the same level of clearance and operational requirements.

No. You have the design standards for air traffic control towers is what kind of the parameters were on the footprints of the building.

And we can definitely incorporate that as a comment. But again, the FAA as the leading agency responds to our needs and purpose and the objective of the project with a requirement document that they say, okay, if you're going to move forward with designing and building a new tower, you have to stay within these lines. So, it's pretty hard to incorporate anything else outside that document.

And could you briefly describe HAB's level two? HAB's recordation level two?

Yeah. So, that one is I had to take notes on that one because I get the details between the different levels. But that one is the high res photos, a written report, as built drawings included, and it gets submitted to SHPO. We have it listed as being submitted to the Fresno County Historical Society, the public library, and then it ultimately ends up in the Library of Congress.

I just have one final comment.

Okay. One final comment.

Think that we talked about this the last time you were here and I just would like to hop on to Commissioner Halogen's comment. The people of Fresno, and this is something I mentioned, I think, before, have had a terrible habit of destroying their cultural heritage. It goes back long ways, but particular the original courthouse that faced this basically similar problem. They built a new courthouse across the street, new new and but instead of preserving the old courthouse, it was demolished because it just seemed like a lot of trouble and there were all kinds of reasons, whatever. It's sixty something years since sixty one years, sixty years since that happened.

It's still the topic of conversation. I'd say, as I said to you before, number two in the city is that air traffic control tower. So I think that Commissioner Hlodgen's point of view is a legitimate one, that we understand all the need for a new tower. We want to have a safe tower. We want more people to be able to come here.

But I don't think we've expressed the gravity of how significant this governing body, this this commission has taken upon itself to not let the same kinds of things continue to happen here in Fresno. And that's why that we understand every one of your ideas and why we're looking for another option. And it's it's a cultural heritage. It comes from traditionally ostracized community. Allen Liu was the first Chinese architect from Chinatown that's renowned.

There are so many tenants that whatever it needs to be in the future that we are looking for any alternative other than demolishing.

One last piece of minutiae. The exterior of the main concourse Allen Lou design. His there's a mosaic on the facade, Allen Lou. When they renovated the interior, the exterior remains intact. That's how important that building is to take the air traffic control tower away from that complex would be it would be like cutting off a limb. It's not right. It's just not right. Okay.

All right. This is review and comment, so this does not need to go out to public.

Thank you all for your time and having us here.

Thank you. All right. We're going to move on to our monthly update regarding the Garcia Brewer Adobe.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Ashley Atkinson, Assistant Director for Planning and Development. I'm here with your monthly update, and then we can just move back into the or move on into the regular monthly topics. We are working on scheduling a meeting with the property owner of the brewer Adobe to take place in the next couple of weeks. As of now, there is no change in the status, but we are hopeful that after having that meeting, we will have something to report next month.

As of now, the the TARP is still in the same condition that it was last month, which is, you know, largely deteriorated. And we are, of course, aware that the rainy season is not so many months away, although it may not seem like it right now, and we are working with the city attorney on on our options for, again, dealing with this on an ongoing basis, but no significant change to report this month. Unless there are any questions, we can move on to our other updates.

Any comments on that? Okay. All right. We'll move on to our regular monthly topic updates, so starting with staff updates. So

a few things I wanted to share with you this month. First is our regular monthly report on in and out of the different types of work that we are completing. As you all know, we are still without a specialist, so this work is being completed by our team of architects and others with a lot of support from Janice. So we did complete, as you'll see, a large number of or we did receive a large number of planning entitlements in June compared to May. We are working on completing those.

We are reviewing all of those for significance of people and events in addition to architectural significance. Same thing with building permits, especially when we get a request for demolition, those are largely things like garages or small single family homes, and from time to time something larger, but we are reviewing all of those against all three of those criteria. Completing our Section 106 reviews in a routine way, No new Mills Act applications received, but we do have several that were received in the spring that Janice is working on scheduling site visits for the next month or so. We have, I think, most of them scheduled and are just pending one, so looking forward to moving forward on those. And then no new mitigation program application activity, except that I believe we did complete one, which was kind of an older one that just needed to be closed out.

So that is it for our June 2025 report. On the topic of staff, as some of you know, we did conduct interviews last week for historic preservation specialists. We interviewed two candidates with thank you thanks to Commissioner Laval and Commissioner Hillajian for helping out with those interview panels. We are in the process of checking references and following up, and hope to have some news on that to share in the very near future. So that would be very exciting for all of us.

Briefly, also wanted to share an update on state legislation that commissioner Johnson had requested. You may have heard that there was legislation passed on an emergency basis earlier in July called AB 130 and SB 131. It is legislation streamlining CEQA in in a new way, And I'm just going to share a little information on how we expect it to impact historic resources, which not too significant. We're going to continue looking into the details. It's a very dense piece of legislation, and we haven't fully processed how we will implement it, but the kind of relevant piece for purposes of this meeting is the infill for or the exemption for infill residential and mixed use projects, which was in AB 130.

There are, you know, different kinds of exemptions from CEQA in place today. As you know, historic properties are not exempt, and this new exemption kind of expands the exemptions that are offered to a site that is up to 20 acres and generally located in an urban area. There are a number of specific criteria that site and that project has to meet in order to qualify for this exemption. I wasn't planning on going into them in detail, but I did want to point out that a project is not eligible for this new exemption if it requires the demolition of a historic structure that is on a local, state, or national register, and that has to have been placed on that register before the date the application for that project was received, which is kind of normal. So so there is no real impact to designated resources of this new legislation, but we will keep digging and making make sure that we haven't missed anything and that we are processing everything appropriately when when a project that qualifies for this exemption comes to us.

Would also consider make sure that if you have things like that that occur within our historic districts, because that's also part of what could potentially be an exemption that they could go ahead and build within that district. I know I've kind of advocated for before and I continue to is I think we need to go back to our historic districts and we need to have design guidelines because we're going to just continue to get policies from the state that are going to continue to create those types of exemptions. And if we don't have something that's objective in place, then you're going to have that brand new state of the art multistory building next to a lot of our historic properties.

And I appreciate that. I'll jump in. So the exceptions to the exemption still apply and the exceptions for historic resources, a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse of change in the significance of a historical resource. So that would include a district or adjacency. If you recall that we had to rule on the construction of a property adjacent to a historic resource owned by one of these commissioners within the last couple of years.

Right? So we had to look it was a brand new home being built in the dis or adjacent to a historic resource. So it has the same, similar exceptions to the exemptions. Does if that makes sense. It it it is not the panacea that everyone is making out this CEQA bill to be.

No. And I kind of I got that. It was just more of a I know that one thing that we've also talked about before is the fact that we're having to lean more and more towards design guidelines and more into that objective, yes, no, does it meet these criteria versus it being subjective. And a lot of the things that we come in contact with when it comes to looking at how a home is being designed or how things are being put together on a historic property that a lot of times it can be subjective. So I wanted to make sure that we you know, start heading in that direction. But I thank you very much.

Also, have a question about, I think I heard you say something about it has to have already been listed. You're talking about for CEQA purposes. Is that correct? You know, because under the National Historic Preservation Act, just its potential eligibility is enough to protect it. So, do we need to rush out and start making sure our districts, our proposed districts, and eligible CEQA historic properties are protected and listed, physically listed? Is that what I'm hearing?

So, I can read the clause verbatim. The project so, let me come back. You know what? I didn't print all of the pages. The a project is not eligible for

this

exemption if it requires the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register before the date a preliminary application was submitted for the project. So, yes, if it was nominated after the date that application was submitted or if it was designated after the date that application was submitted, then this exemption to CEQA could potentially apply.

Moving on, any other staff updates?

I do have one. Commissioners, as you know, September 30 is the end of our reporting year for our CLG status. All of you are required to attend informational and educational meetings, seminars, workshops, or conferences. And so we will be, probably at the September, August, September, asking for what you did in the last twelve months. And if you forgot, or you're really excited about doing some more, I have something for you.

So, there is, the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions. So organizations just like you all across the country. It's their virtual summer short course. And I'm actually registered, and I'm gonna take the training. It's worth nine AIA credits. Anyone who's interested, it's worth seven and a half of those health and safety welfare ones, for those of you who are architects. And then nine AICP credits. Anyway, so there are six total courses. They're each an hour and a half long over two days, so three each day. I am we do have a budget to allow for you to attend.

What I would say is that if you commit to attending four out of those six, I will pay for your registration. The registration is $130 not like it's a giant amount, but I would love for all of you to participate. I'm gonna take I'm gonna participate. The courses include understanding and updating local preservation ordinances. Sounds like you guys are interested in that.

We do can we do it together?

Can you do it all in the same room? We would need to register you each individually to get credit. But, yes, we could do it all in our training room. Absolutely. I'd be happy to do that.

Tough cases in the application of the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation, selecting your preservation priorities, what is essential and where can you be more flexible, best practices for meeting procedures, conditions of approval and staff reports, conservation districts, easements, zoning, other tools for historic preservation, and community outreach strategies. I felt like they were all fabulous topics. They're each only an hour and a half long. So essentially, each of those days, you would be kind of tied up from 08:45 in the morning till about 02:30 in the afternoon. And what dates are they?

August. So if you would let me know via email, cc'ing Ashley and Janice, By August 6, we will get you registered. They're online. It's a virtual it's a virtual course set of courses. I saw it, and I immediately signed up. It sounded fabulous. And that was my last staff report, unless you have another one.

Well, I think we have historic districts listed separately as item number two, so I was staying up for that. Well, similarly, no material update to share this month. That is something that we are hopeful to get working on with the new specialists as soon as they are onboarded. So we'll have more to share about that in the very near future.

All right. Thank you. We'll move on to architectural review subcommittee updates. Commissioner Johnson?

We met on June 30. It was the architectural review subcommittee, and we discussed the Aliyah House changes that was built 1915 to 1935, and we proposed, or we reviewed the proposed fencing and changes to the Moses McQueen LED sign. So that's what we worked on, the Aliyah House.

All right. Economic incentive, don't think met, correct? Economic incentive subcommittee, did they meet? Perfect. All right.

Sounds good. Okay. We're going to move on to Item eight, Chairperson's report. I don't think I've said this out loud to everybody, but I want to say thank you so much for your guys' dedication to this effort. And I think it's critical, the work that's done here, because we are the voice of our community.

And by advocating for them, it's critical that we continue to maintain that and hold and make sure that we hold ourselves to that mark. Otherwise, that's the end of my report. We'll move on to unscheduled items, starting with members of the commission. All right. Anything from staff? All right. Now we'll open to the general public. So if you have any items, come on forward.

You know you'd miss me if I didn't show up. First of all, thank you all for what you're doing. It's time out of your lives, I know. And I'm short, here I am. So just make a couple comments on things. Did everybody get thank you. Did everybody get a newsletter? I represent Heritage Fresno. And if you look on the back, it has a schedule of events that we're sponsoring. I'm sorry we can't give you credit, but it would be worth your credit.

Tuesday, tomorrow night, is the history of the Hacienda hotels in California with Bill Secrest, who's a local historian, very informed person, and it's at the Woodward Park Library. It starts at the program starts at seven the refreshments are at six And then in August, on the thirteenth, the topic will be the Chandler Airport history. Both of these have PowerPoint connected to them and are well done. I've seen both of them before. And then, in October 11, there is a Sierra Skypark fly in, and it's really interesting.

That skypark is an interesting place. The only or the first residential place with hangars for garages. They park their plane in the hangar at their house. And then they have ancient cars, and they have lots of activities for kids. So, it's a great event as well.

And if you don't already if you're not already a member, there's a membership thing in here. We'll keep you informed on what's happening in preservation in Fresno. Okay. The lanterns I think I told you years ago that the lanterns were in that built in that underpass, because my dad was a city employee, and he told me for years that I thought they were the old fashioned street lights with the kind of candle tops, but as it turns out, there's something totally different. But what an opportunity to take those and use them as historical markers.

And of course, our problem always is vandalism and destruction, but maybe you could make them when you find out what they're made out of, make them more or less indestructible, maybe make them solar powered. And the trouble with that was they'll be warm and people will want to use them for sleeping. But they would be great, and they would be great in that because people could say, Oh, there's a historical marker, let me go look at it. The problem is don't make them bronze, because when they're bronze, they think it's copper, and they seal them. So, that's an issue always.

And all these photos, the poplaval, to keep those somewhere, especially on the historic month, to have that open. And wouldn't it be wonderful if that Aviation tower was used, the Bottom Floor, as a museum? So, when your plane got canceled, which happens to us all the time, you could walk over there and take a look at the history of aviation in Fresno. And like the Macy's flying school, and there's all kinds of other stuff around here that nobody knows about, or who they are, or what they did would be great as well. And I hope I see you all tomorrow night. Thank you. I'll let you go home.

Thank you. All right. So our next meeting is going to be August 25. And with that, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment.

I so move.

All right. I have a motion and a second. Second. All right. We stand adjourned at 07:30.