Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening to the public who may be watching online. We will be starting momentarily when we have a quorum. Thank you for your patience. Okay, chair. We now have a quorum, and you may start the meeting.

Alright. Fantastic. So thank you. And we are gonna start this meeting off at 06:03PM. And we're starting with roll call, please.

Commissioner Eddings, commissioner Johnston, commissioner Laval, Commissioner Federico? Commissioner Halejian?

Present.

Vice chair Hatwick? Chair Sponsler.

Here. Alright. So we do have a quorum now, and we're gonna go ahead and move on to item two, our procedures. For each matter considered by the commission, there will first be a staff presentation followed by a presentation from the project applicant. The commissioners will now have the opportunity to ask questions of staff and applicant before opening to the public.

Testimony from supporters of the project will be taken followed by testimony for from those in opposition. Staff can provide a summation if necessary. The applicant will have the right to a final rebuttal presentation prior to closing the public hearing followed by consideration of the item and action, if any, by the commission. In accordance with section 13 of article two of the historic preservation bylaws governing length of public debate, all public testimony from those in support and in opposition of the project will be limited to three minutes per person. All public testimony must be presented to the commission at the podium.

Any testimony that references race, religion, ethnicity, economic status, national origin, or any other 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 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 before the close of the hearing. With that, we'll move on to item three, which is gonna be approving of the meeting minutes, which we do not have currently for November. So we're gonna move on now to approving of the agenda, item four. Are there any changes to the agenda?

Yes. Chair, a couple of items. So, there is an item listed under seven d, an update from high speed rail authority regarding the Chinatown fire. They're unable to present tonight, so we would ask that that item be removed from the agenda, and we'll put it on at a future date. Additionally, I would like to note that assistant director Ashley Atkinson and Brownfield's administrator, David Dundsley, are both online and will be making their presentations via Zoom. I'd have no further changes.

Alright. So noting that we will have some electronic as well as a removal of item seven b to a time to be determined. With that, I'll entertain a motion to, approve the agenda.

Motion to approve.

Alright. We have a motion approved by, commissioner Johnson. Do we have a second? Second by commissioner Eddings. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? We have an approved agenda. At this point, we're gonna move on to our consent calendar. Are there any questions regarding, any of the items on the consent calendar? K. I do believe this has to go to the public.

Consent calendar does not.

Okay. So with that case, we'll move on back, and I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent calendar. Move to approve. K. Motion by commissioner Halajian. Second. Second by commissioner Johnson. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Calendar passes. Moving past continued matters and onto commission items with item seven a, file ID 20Five-sixteen91. The review and comment on the section one zero six report for the 887 Fulton Street, formerly known as the Berkley's Building, and we'll start with our presentation.

Good evening, chair. Before I introduce David Densley, David is our administrator for our Brownfields program here at the city of Fresno where you receive federal funding. And as you know, in your role as commission, you one of your duties is to review and comment on section one zero eight reports for federally funded projects, which are not subject to, our agreement with the SHPO. So, the so the next two items will be presentations by David, and you will be able to ask questions. Again, this is review and comment, and so there is no, public hearing on these items. With that, David Densley, go ahead.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. David Densley, projects administrator. And, yeah, I'll be walking you through the next two, projects. What we're we're looking for you to do, like the director was mentioning, is review and comment on the section one zero six reports. I've got the lead author from Stantec Consulting Incorporated, Elena, as well.

So if you have any technical questions, she may be helpful in that regard. Next slide. What we hoped with, the one zero six report, it it's gonna be, kind of a complete file. I listed out, some appendices, which is the project map, the undertaking, and the area of potential effects. What I would note with this project, it is a federal undertaking.

So we're asking you to review view and comment. And the outcome of those for the reports is that we found that there's gonna be no negative effects as well as not, they're not recommended for, listing on both the national or state level. And I'll take any questions, that you may have.

Alright. David, before before we jump in, so the first one is the Berkeley Building. You have exhibit, a, which includes the the description of the project and what is happening. And then exhibit b so exhibit a is the inventory and evaluation report. Exhibit b is the DPR form, and exhibit c, sorry, is my computer is very slow.

So, David, can you walk through each of these documents? What's being proposed? What is the findings of the report? So outside of just no no negative impacts. That would be helpful for the public since there's just a single slide.

Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. I'll I'll I'll speak, a little bit more to the project location and undertakings and then as well as to the, recommendations or conclusions. So, the first one we're gonna be talking about today is 887 Fulton, and that's gonna be Parcel 46828221 T, historically known as the Berkeley Building.

That'll be referenced on appendix a for the the visual. It is contained to the building's footprint. What we did is for the purpose of the proposed project, it's to abate hazardous materials, and the funding federal funding that's gonna be used is the brownfield cleanup revolving loan fund. What we're looking to do with this building is necessary site preparation, removal of asbestos and lead based paint throughout the building found in the ceiling, the floors, as well as the basement, repair and replace the roof, and restore the building's envelope because there was pretty prevalent mold inside of the building. So we are going to remove any commingled mold as well as those named contaminants.

We'll do that by appropriately containing barrier grading air filtration systems inside of the building and properly removing and disposing of those contaminants. By the end of that, that should, that's the end of the federal action that prepares that building to move forward with, other planned, demolitions and construction.

K. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. Any clarifying questions before we go? Keep in mind that this is just if there's any questions regarding the actual not the actual project, but any clarifying questions with regards to what was necessarily mentioned, but before we go to public.

I I yes. I have a question about do we have a a visual of any changes that would be proposed to that would affect the exterior of the building?

That is a great question. Jennifer, would you like me to Yeah. Take that?

At this time so the the project for the purpose of the federal funding is to abate the brownfield contamination. Any other future action would need to come before the commission if they were making any modifications to the exterior of the property.

But, it was mentioned that, some work to the mold that impacts the envelope would be done. Is there any alterations to the envelope that would have a impact on its appearance?

That's a great question. David, is there in in terms of this particular project, will any of the modifications there's the roof, but other modifications that will impact the exterior?

Hi. Yes. Yeah. So there'll be no major impacts for this federal action that would affect the outside or exterior. We're mostly focusing completely interior and then just the portions of the roof that have the asbestos containing material.

Thank you. My question too is, is the the portion of the roof that's going to be replaced, is that visible from the, you know, main approaches from the street? That will that be visible to the public?

And Elena can jump in as well. We we both did the the site survey. It should not be visible from the street level. The way the building is two stories, it wasn't able to be seen from, the walk around when I was there.

Okay. Alright.

And, oh, and I had one one last other comment.

Well, so we'll wait for comments till after we've opened to the public.

It's this is for review and comment. It's it's not an action item of the commission, so it does not have a public hearing.

I apologize. I could gunshots if I'm go ahead. Go ahead.

Yeah. The question was, did I understand you to say that it had not been found eligible, which is contrary, of course, to the documentation provided? It it definitely, at least in 2011, was found eligible to the the register. So do we have updated information on that?

I'll pass to Elena. We did reference and review that DPR form.

Okay. Hopefully, everyone can hear me now. Thank you for having me. We did review previous documentation found during, document review, and we found that the building had been recommended eligible for the, local register, but not the national register. And upon review of the national register and California register criteria, we determined this building did not meet the threshold of a building individually eligible for listing.

Well and, of course, we can see the documentation supporting that finding, please.

David, is that documentation in what was submitted to the commission?

Alina, correct me if I'm wrong. Did we capture that in appendix e? That's the updated DPR, series form.

Yes. The evaluation is both in the, appendix e form as well as within the report body itself.

Oh, I must okay. Thank you.

Okay. Any other comments on this? Alright. Let me look at my my comments.

And commissioners, appendix e begins on page 88 of the report.

I am to understand that this section one zero six is only covering the actual remediation with the Brownfields. It's not covering the actual potential demolition. Correct?

This building is not scheduled for demolition. So the the goal at this point is to remediate any materials in the building that could be hazardous, and then the project could move forward with what they are with with deciding on what their final plan will be, which they have not finalized that yet, although they are seeking funding for renovations to the building. But at this point, the the project in front of us would be the one zero six and to determine whether or not this action would have an impact.

Okay.

Alright. And I I have no additional comments, other than what's been provided. Any of our other commissioners have anything with regards to this? Okay. Thank you on that item. So we'll go ahead and move forward to seven b, which is gonna be the review and comment on section one zero six for 716 West Kearny Boulevard, which is the Chandler Executive Airport Hangar.

Right. Yeah. I'll do the project location and undertaking description for this as well. So this one located near that address at 716 West Kearny Boulevard. We're looking at Parcel Number 46422043.

And then appendix a is gonna be your best project map. But what this is is a a hangar that is west of the main Administration Building. We're we're not talking about those or any of the restroom areas, but several hangers down at at the very end. Airports is looking to remove asbestos and lead based materials inside of a hanger. But this one also has some impacted lead soils where the lead based paint on the east and south side of the building has fallen into the soil.

And one of the alternatives to alternatives to remediation is to dig and haul those contaminants as well. So that has the only bit of ground disturbance for this project. The building was deemed end of usable life and has been vacant for several years. And this is an action where we're going to basically remove the contaminants, and then it's gonna set the stage for, the next action to occur. Similar to, any asbestos or lead impacted, sites, the same sets, we're going to do site preparations, the abatement.

We're gonna dispose both the asbestos containing material, lead based paint from inside of the structure with no demolition or removals of of any of the roofing. And then the cubic yards for lead impacted soils is a 140 cubic yards, and we've estimated that that to be, I believe, 16 dump trucks. We're gonna remove, I believe, six inches down on the east and west side. And happy to describe more of the location or take any questions you may have.

Alright. Any questions regarding this item?

I have none. K.

Anyone? Okay. I think, my only question was, given the fact it was determined to not be eligible, does it not, potentially contribute to the actual historic district of Chandler Airport?

Oh, wait a minute.

Yeah. I can speak to that. So the the historic district of the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport was developed during a specific period of time and has a specific style associated with it. This building is far removed from those buildings as mentioned previously, and, is not in keeping with that time period or style, and so, therefore, is not associated with that period of development at the airport.

Alright. Thank you very much. I have no further comments. K. No one else? Alright. We'll move on. Thank you very much for your time with regards to those. And we will now move on to item seven c, which is the establishment and appointment of the Municipal Code Review Subcommittee.

Ashley, did you wanna handle this one, or do you want me to do that?

Mhmm. Can handle it either way. So this was an item requested. Sorry. Let me first state that this is Ashley Atkinson, assistant director for planning and development.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. The, request to establish a municipal code review subcommittee for 2026 was made at a previous meeting. And so at this meeting, we would like to officially establish that, subcommittee and appoint members. I see that we have a quorum, but that we do not have a number of members present. So, I'm not sure if we will be able to solicit the input of everyone who may want to be on this subcommittee, but we can move forward to do that nonetheless.

And this is the subcommittee that would review the historic preservation ordinance as it exists today and recommend and advise staff on potential changes to the historic preservation ordinance to modernize and incorporate best practices for historic preservation ordinances, generally speaking. That would ultimately, of course, require council approval of any text amendments or code changes, and the subcommittee would advise on that effort. So today, we'd like to seek anyone who is interested, understanding that some of those interested may not be present.

Alright. Thank you for that. I know that there was some potential expressive interest when this was brought up as a as an item to add to this agenda from last month. I did have a conversation with vice chair Hatwig who is not here due to being ill, and he did express interest on being on that committee as well. If we wish to as a commission, we can we can move this to January and and table it until we have a a full commission, or we can move forward.

I'm happy to participate on that as well.

Okay.

And I I as well, in terms of the archaeology, I would like to see either Julie or myself participate in terms of representing the archaeological dimension.

Okay.

But I could see us waiting till next month to

Understood?

Yeah. I'm I'm happy to participate, but I'm also happy to wait till next month.

Yeah. And and I do know that that we can only have a maximum of three because once we have more than that, then it's considered a quorum. So I and I believe that there is significant interest in being part of this. So I am okay with us pushing this off to January if that is what is desired. So if that's the case, then we can motion to move that.

I motion to wait until January to bring this up to the full commission.

K. I'll second. Okay. Alright. Motion and a second. This does not also need to

go out.

Correct? Yep. Very good. Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? K. Item is tabled to January the to the January 2026, HPC meeting. Alright. Item seven d was removed, and so now we're gonna move on to item seven e, which is the workshop on the Solar Rights Act.

Alright. Given we've had a lot of applications recently for solar on properties that either are listed or have the potential of being listed on the local register, we thought it would be important to review, what authority we do and don't have as it relates to, solar installation. So Ashley is going to be, presenting a very brief workshop.

Yes. Thank you. Hello again. Ashley Atkinson, assistant director for planning and development. As Jennifer noted, this will be a brief workshop, but happy to discuss and answer as many questions as we are able.

Carrie, could you switch to the next slide, please? So what we have here is, the the official guidance from the, state office of historic preservation on this topic. It is very limited, as you can see, and notes that, the Solar Rights Act in California does not allow the denial of solar panel permits. So they must be approved when they are applied for. But the city and, if needed, the commission does have the ability to review the permits that are applied for for rooftop additions to confirm that they are consistent with standards nine and ten of the secretary of the interior standards and that the historic integrity of the property is retained.

Also, that if the panels, if they were removed in the future, would not impair the integrity of the property. So that is the official guidance from the state. It is not very extensive and, you know, relatively basic, but wanted to also review with you standards nine and ten so that we have a common understanding of what we can look for when we review these permits. Could you switch to the next slide, Carrie? Okay.

So secretary of the interior rehabilitation standard number nine is that new additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction, including, in this case, the installation of solar panels, shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. An example of that might be in terms of recent projects that we've reviewed, a tile roof or similar. And the new work shall be differentiated from the old. Don't I think that's a concern in the case of solar installations because it is obviously not attempting to mimic the historic work, but also shall be compatible with the massing size, scale, and architectural features to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. So that is an area where there is a little bit of discretion or judgment to be exercised, in terms of whether the solar installation is compatible with the massing size, scale, or features of that particular home.

Rehabilitation standard 10 is that new additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Essentially, that if the panels were someday removed, that the property would retain all of its historic significance and that the property, the roof specifically, could be either would retain its form and integrity or the form and integrity could be restored with replacement like for like materials. So as Jennifer noted, that is brief, but it is essentially the guidance that we have to work from when we are approving historic properties. And this does apply to certainly all listed properties for purposes of CEQUA. We are looking at these standards for any property that is over 50 years old in order to in order to evaluate whether the solar installation, complies with these standards.

And with that, I will conclude my presentation, and we can take discussion and questions.

Any questions from the commission regarding this?

So just so I understand it, we can't the historic preservation cannot deny a permit. We can weigh in on the aesthetic impact that a solar array may have on a structure. So that means we could ask for a reduction in the number of panels or relocation of them. We're not obliged to accept the most efficient layout. Is that correct?

I I was not able to find any guidance on that particular matter. There as as it says, that jurisdictions are encouraged to confirm that work follows standards nine and ten. And so as long as the permit is not denied, but can move forward in a way that, you know, certainly, you know, the the goal of the installation is to provide a certain amount of solar power. You know, I don't have the technical expertise to assess, you know, what level of solar installation is needed, you know, in a particular situation. But it is my understanding that for historic review purposes, we can, as a jurisdiction or as a commission, weigh in on the location of the installation, the method of the installation, and potentially the volume of the panels, but, again, cannot just deny the permit.

I I believe it was my understanding at reading the the civil code that there's a an item that notes that it's no we can't decrease it by more than of its effectiveness by more than 10%. So you could ask for you know, if it's a 24 panel system, you could ask for two to be removed if they're gonna be creating an issue, but not necessarily can we Yeah. You know, say, no. You gotta move eight or not.

Cut it in half.

Cut it in half. Yeah. Exactly. Okay. Any other questions?

What what civil code are you referring to?

I believe that's the the civil code subsection seven one four.

Can you

It's the part that Yeah. It's, so it's California, civil code division two property part one property in general, title two ownership, modifications of ownership, and conditions of ownership section seven one four. And that's inside of that is where the the Solar Rights Act, it lays with regards to how that, sits. So, in there, it does note that that you have a certain amount. Yeah?

Yeah. I can I can read that for you? It's, reasonable restrictions on a solar energy system are those restrictions that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance or that allow for an alternative system of comparable cost efficiency and energy conservation benefits and significantly is defined as 10% of the cost of the system or decreasing the efficiency of the system by an amount exceeding 10%. Yeah. So the cost or efficiency of the system.

So, Ashley, I think my question that I have is, is there is there a way that with you know, in in tying in with our, historic properties that there could be some sort of, design guideline where it says that they have to follow seams, that, you know, they they can't deface a a, you know, character defining features as a result of it, if there's, conduit that has to be laid between the the systems that it matches and and, you know, that it has to be on a a public facing side that it it's painted to match the the color of the building. Is it are those things that could be could be something that could be added? Those are not necessarily denying the project, but it's saying that it it's helping to maintain the overall, feature of the building.

I think, well, you know, are you asking if that's something that could be added to our Fresno municipal code or generally just as a guidance Possibly.

Or or as, you know, as guidance as as we see solar projects come through that it's you know, even if it's design guidelines or if it's part of our our municipal coding that says, you know, hey. If you come in, you have solar panels. You know, you have to you know, first the first option is to avoid it being on a a, you know, a street facing side or a right of way facing side. You know, if not, then it it should meet x y z where it's you know, you work to make sure the conduit blends into it. The panel box itself is not located in the right of way.

It's located at the rear of the building, you know, things like that.

I I was not able to find any guidance that says that the panels cannot be located on the street facing side. We can continue to look at that potentially as part of our code review subcommittee. But to my knowledge, there is no, guidance that states that that is a restriction that can be placed.

Right. I I know that's not a a restriction that can be placed. I do know that, you know, looking at at how that is written and and things like that, we could make and ask that there's an alternative configuration is provided in the, you know, in the event of seeing if there's an option where they don't have to put it on the front facing side, where if they can put it on, like, an an outbuilding or an auxiliary building that's on the property rather than it just being directly on the front of the front of the property. So I know we can we can make, you know, asks of alternative configurations so long as it does not, again, does not significantly increase the cost nor reduce the efficiency of the of the system itself.

Right. I think that's correct. That we for historic buildings, we can make the ask that if the alternative configuration is possible, that we demonstrate or that we ask the applicant to provide that alternative configuration and, unless they can demonstrate that it would result in in a significant decrease in the capacity or an increase in the cost.

Okay. Any other questions on the workshop? Alright.

Well, I I just hope that we can bring this up again in the ARC review subcommittee and maybe workshop shop some of the ideas that can help facilitate this in a capacity and cost friendly way.

Yeah. And and certainly, the the sorry to interrupt. The the next time we do have a solar application on a a landmark property or a property that's a contributor to a historic district, we will bring it to the subcommittee to explore the options.

Alright. Given this is a workshop, this is not an item that goes out to public. So we will close, seven e and move on to seven f, which is our update on our regular monthly topics.

K. Carrie, could you bring the presentation back up, please? Okay. For our monthly update on the brewer Adobe, we do have some good news this month. If you could move to the next slide, Carrie.

The tarping was completed, I believe, the, early last week, so not, quite in time for all of the rains this season. But as you can see, it is an improved method of installation and an improved material from the tarping that we saw last winter. And at this time, code enforcement has determined that the tarping is sufficient to meet the standards that we requested of them for this particular endeavor. We do still intend to meet with the applicants along with their architects and engineers early in the new year to talk about the next steps moving forward for potential, you know, demolition with preservation. But at this time, the protection element of our request to the applicant has been completed in a way that has satisfied the request that we made of them.

And so as I said, some some good news for this month, and we will report back on the outcomes of the discussion, next meeting. With that, I'll conclude, this part of the staff updates and take any questions on the Brewer Adobe.

K. Questions on that update? Okay. Are any other staff updates beyond the there? Thank you.

Yes. Just, quickly to go over our report on activity in the last couple of months. As you can see, we have been approving entitlements, received or or reviewing entitlements received as they come in. These October and November numbers are much bigger than what we have seen in the past. And as noted last month, that's because in early October, we implemented a flag on all properties 50 years old or older.

And every time a permit a building permit comes through for any property 50 years old or older, we are now reviewing that for historic preservation purposes. So as you can see, that volume is quite large. I'd like to give special thanks to Carrie who has been staffing us through this transition as Janice departed right as this was happening, and Carrie started supporting historic preservation at the same time. So, Carrie has done a fantastic job of processing all of these permits and reviews in a much greater volume than we had seen previously. But the good thing is we are looking at every single one of those building permits, confirming that they are not impacting the historic integrity of the building, or if they are a designated building or part of a historic district that they get the appropriate level of review.

So it's good news that that's happening, has just meant a lot more, volume of work and processing. And congratulations also to Carrie for recently being promoted to the position of management analyst. And in that position, she's going to continue to support historic preservation, so we're very grateful for that. We had a couple of section one zero six reviews received and completed in November. Nothing for Mills Act and, nothing for the mitigation program. So with that, I'll conclude the staff updates and take any questions that the commission may have.

Okay. Questions regarding the staff updates?

Yes. I have one. What is our update on getting a professional staff person, a a historic preservation officer? I think we're coming up on a year since we got a document.

So that's still in process. I can't comment on personnel items, but, yes, that is still in process.

Let's see. What can we do to facilitate that process to get it pushed forward? It seems like we, you know, we could we we are supposed to be having someone with that background reviewing the permits. So

So specifically for any funded activity, we do have outside consultants that do review every application that is that comes in. For those that are not, there are individuals within the organization who could qualify even though they don't act in this position.

Is that going to be the is that the the future of this endeavor to to not have

a Yeah. So, again, I can't comment on personal actions to the commission. I would be happy to take those individually.

Alright.

Alright? Thank you. Okay. We'll move on to subcommittee updates.

Nothing from ARS.

Okay. I don't think we had any other subcommittees meet, so we'll move on from there. So we'll move on to the chairperson's report. I was fortunate to be alongside commissioner Laval last Friday as we had a a beginning of a conclusion of, what occurred with regards to the lanterns that were found on the Belmont subway. For those that have, not heard yet, what was discovered was the Fresno City and County Historical Society started working to identify parts of the actual lanterns.

They were able to identify using a plug outlet and a and a light socket to narrow down the time frame. The the plug socket itself was only manufactured by the particular company that had the name on it between 1918 and 1940. So that narrowed down the the time frame, and then the light socket itself actually narrowed down the time frame even further. And so with that, they were able to start to look through their records. They did find in a 1930 copy of the the Fresno b a listing about a Yuletide lantern.

And searching continuing to search the archive, they found it was only referenced three years, 1929, 1930, and 1931. And then with that, our commissioner Laval went through the Pop Laval collection of photos and found one photo in thirty three thousand photos that have been scanned so far of these lanterns in operation. And the the picture itself is actually not the the subject was not the lantern. The subject was actually the building that it was on top of that had trees on top of the canopy. And just so happened that Poplaval caught one of these in the subject matter.

Finding out more from the newspaper articles, they lined Fulton Street along the main com business streetway from essentially, Inyo all the way to Vatsanislas, which is why that accounts for the 80 plus that we have. And they sat on top of the what were known as electroliters, but more commonly, we know them as the the pineapple street lamps of that we have around the city. And, the goal, that that, was hopeful, of the fact that, hopefully, we can get some of these through an electrician rewired and have them on display on during the next year's Christmas break. They were used during Christmas time and had multiple lights throughout them. I did not realize exactly how many lights it was until seeing it in person, but it essentially it had a light on every corner and then two in the main center and then two at the top on top of in addition to the light that was part of the regular street lamp.

So you had a ton of light at the time that was coming through those. The next part of the origins or question story that's gonna come forward is where were they? So we know that, you know, the the city got gained access after US 99 was moved to the freeway, to the Belmont Subway. So we don't necessarily know whether or not they had been stored there since 1932, 1933 all the way to present day or if they were in some location and then moved. So they're gonna continue to work on that.

And the the rarity of the photo that they found with the poplaval so one in thirty three thousand already sounds pretty rare. But on top of all of that, the particular photo was done on silver nitrate, which a lot of it was at the time, it was it's considered hazardous. It's actually considered flammable. So, and many times, a lot of photos were, simply negatives were simply destroyed because they were too they were too hazardous, too flammable to to hold on to. So, to be that this was a originally a negative that was on, silver nitrate, and somehow we still saved it from from the fires, made it even more rare that we were able to capture this photo.

It was very exciting to see, and and I hope that we can, you know, it's an example of what historic preservation does, and it is an example of why it's important for us to have this collection and have this the the information so that we can continue to move forward with it. With that, I conclude my, my presentation, my report, and we'll move on to unscheduled items starting with members of the commission. Anybody? Okay. Any unscheduled items from staff?

Just one. Chair, just wanted to, at the end of the year, thank each of you for all of your hard work on the commission, continuing to come and to serve. The work that you do is very important to the city of Fresno, and we appreciate your time and your expertise. Thank you. At

this time, we'll open up to members of the public. If anybody has any, items they'd like to, discuss, please come forward, and you'll have three minutes.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Edward Medrano. I reside on Huntington Boulevard in a historic research, resource and the Mills Act, contract as well. I came to speak about a certain topic that I'm gonna have to table until next month, but I really wanted to comment on the solar situation and not so much the legal ease and restrictions on them, but something that might be helpful is to create a publication that can guide the homeowners and their contractors into a proper, installation of those. It doesn't necessarily have to threaten them with any legal or or procedural problems, but we have a great deal of pride on the boulevard.

And despite some of the, let's say, not as prideful properties close by, our boulevard remains beautiful, remains to be the living room of Fresno, and my neighbors are the greatest people on earth. So if we could support them by creating some sort of publication that will guide in the installation of solar panels, as I heard, I think, from one of your commissioners, we can't stop those solar panels from coming in. It's it's the future. But if we can bend it and make it something acceptable to everyone, I think we'll we can get ahead of that. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hi, Linda Scambray. Always your faithful end of the meeting. And I want to congratulate Elizabeth and the archives and all of us who got to see that wonderful lantern on display. And I think that would make a marvelous cornerstone for the May preservation month festival and a great opportunity to put those lanterns someplace around the community so they're protected from vandalism and theft and glass cases that are I thought that was would be smaller, and we could get them in all the libraries, but I think they're almost too big for the libraries. And I looked at the windows in the lobby here, and I don't think they'll fit in there either.

We have to build a glass case for them in the lobby here. But it's a wonderful example, as you said, of preservation and of research to find out what things were here and why they were here. There are photographs of the lanterns on the mall, and there's a nice article that, companies then that should go with everyone that's on display somewhere so people can appreciate how that happened. And since May is coming up sooner than we always think, it would be great to have other activities. Maybe we're hoping to Heritage Residence hoping to have an event at Warner's Theatre.

It'd be a great thing to show there in the lobby and could be protected as well there. And so if you would like, I can think of some other places maybe we can think of putting them. Any museum in town that wants one that has a good glass case for for safety would be great. And, of course, as you know, in order to support our work, we have calendars. If you need a nice gift that tells people what you do for helping Fresno, this is a great great way to introduce yourself.

They're only $20, and they show the buildings that are still left, and they show the buildings that have been torn down. And each year, there's a new collection, and it's a great one to have. And then I understand that possibly the arch that the Caglia family saved is going to be moved. And wouldn't that be a wonderful thing to unveil and have a ceremony of in in May if that could possibly be moved and be moved into a place where it was very highly visible, maybe near the Warner's, which the Caglia family also saved. So that's it. We get to go home.

Alright.

The rest

of the stuff done. Thank you.

My name is Diane Smith, and I live near Chandler Airfield. And the reason why I'm here is because I got the notice, but what was explained today didn't help me understand anything that's going on. We're living in an area in Southwest Fresno, especially around Chandler Airfield, where there's a lot of old businesses that are being demolished, digging down in the soil that is more than likely contaminated. We're having more sick problems in that area. Now you're talking about doing this thing right in our neighborhood.

So my question is, I live just west of Chandler Airfield, and I don't know if the person that was talking for the city can tell me exactly how far when you start demolition are you gonna tint that thing so that we don't get the asbestos in the air like we get everything else? Because now in addition to all the other things that are going on, we're surrounded by big red parking lots. So the issue is is that we're constantly being named as one of the most polluted areas in the city or in the state of California, but yet and still the city continues to do things that continue to pollute our areas. So if anybody can tell me how close that's gonna be to my house and if it's gonna be tenant, I'd like to know because if it's not tenant, you will be hearing from me.

Alright. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. With that, we'll move on. Our next meeting, I believe, if I have the well, I can pull up the calendar directly. So our next meeting will be 01/26/2026. And with that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

I'll move to adjourn.

Alright. And a second? Alright. Thank you all. Meeting's adjourned. Have a very happy holiday. Merry Christmas, and we'll see everybody in '26. Thank you.