Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Good.

Together.

Alright. We will go ahead and bring this meeting to order. The time is 06:01. Shall they be irrelevant and will not be considered by the commission in any making misdegenerations. If you challenge this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in oral or written testimony or before the close of hearing.

With any that, we'll go ahead and approve the meeting minutes from our prior meeting. Do we not have those yet? Okay. Those will be in December. Then we'll go ahead and move on to approving tonight's agenda.

So item six a, which is our continued item of the file ID 25Dot1591, and that's our continued deliberation and consideration request by the property owner to enter to those act historical property contract So at this point, it's gonna be just us continuing to continue what we discussed at the meeting. Good. I do see, Ashley, you have you're voting here. Yes. Did you wanna add anything regarding that?

I would just like excuse me. Ashley Atkinson, assistant director for planning and development, serving as historic preservation staff for this meeting. I would just like to update you on the information that was requested after your last meeting.

And go ahead.

Yes. So on October 27 at your last meeting,

one just a chair. I need to get that information. So we do have a Chinese language interpreter in the audience tonight. So at this time, she's working directly with the residents who need that language translation. If and when you ask for testimony at the podium, she will come up to the podium, and you'll have to give time between translation. So speak a little bit, translate itself. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

And and just as a note, that's something that's not more not a regular thing here for our meetings, so that's why it was not notified immediately.

Yeah. Sorry. Normally, if we have a request for translation, we would give that announcement at the beginning for anyone who needed Chinese language translation. Perfect.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Sure. So at the last meeting of in your motion to continue this item to November 24, you asked staff to review and report back on four items, which were first better adaptive reuse of a garage to an EU is permitted as an activity under Mills Act regulations. That's one of the items in the proposed work plan.

Second, a report on the current permit status of the solar installation. Third, confirmation that the current ownership is accurately reflected in the NILS Act contract. And fourth, whether zoning regulations prevent short term rental use of the property since it was noted that the property is advertising over more rooms on Airbnb. So we do have a photo here of the home as it appears today just for reference as we go over those items. So first, just to clarify that the Mills Act and the city Of Fresno's Mills Act ordinance obligate the owner to, quote, preserve and, when necessary, to restore and rehabilitate the property to conform to the rules and regulations of the office of historic preservation of the department of parks and recreation, the United States secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation, and the state historical building code.

So, again, just so that the purpose of the Bills Act is clear, it is to preserve and, if necessary, restore or rehabilitate to those standards and is not intended to incentivize other types of work. That said, EDUs are allowed in a historic district by state law subject to certain standards that don't restrict their creations. State laws, you may know, is written to encourage the use, including in historic historic districts and historic properties. And so they they cannot be restricted in that way, but would be subject to, nonetheless, the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation if this if it was under a contract. Those standards provide that a property will quote, quote, property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

So conversion of a garage to an EU would be acceptable under the Mills Act as long as the work at the secretary of the interiors standards. On the second question, the status of the solar permit, you can see a closer picture of the installation on the front of the home, which is also in your exhibits. There were two applications submitted relative to the installation of the solar panels here. One was a regroup permit for purposes of installing the solar, and the second was the solar permit itself. The reroof permit underwent review by historic preservation staff, and it was approved with the condition that all maintenance or replacement shall be done in kind, like for like, size, shape, materials, appearance, etcetera.

The solar array shall be installed using the picture frame method. Clay tiles shall be reinstalled over the composite shingles so that the composite shingles are not visible or minimally visible where necessary, and no additional work shall be done at the wall through the appearance or character defining elements of the building. The solar installation was completed since the last meeting, and it's completed on November 13. It was completed with methods that, as you can see, are not in compliance with that condition that was applied to a reboot permit nor are they those methods in line with the secretary of the interior standards regarding roof rehabilitation. Those standards are provided for you as exhibit g, but there are a number of aspects of that are not recommended in terms of removing original materials or changing the way that the roof materials are presented.

Sorry. Yes. That is the last of the the images there. On the third question of whether the current ownership of the home is currently reflected in the Bills Act contract, The most recent grantee that was reported on 01/22/2025 does reflect the same person as the owner that is on the Mills Act contract. That permit is required before the groom can be rented or advertised, and the permit holder has to be the property owner.

To get that short term rental permits, the owners do need to get a zone clearance from on a short term basis. It would only decline in the in the event that the residential use was not permitted there, say, as a industrial property or a commercial property. So we have updated the conclusion and recommendation that staff is making on the contract given the new information that is available about the solar permit. Because the work around the solar installation does not meet the required contract provisions of the city of Fresno's Mills Act program because the work already completed does not conform to the secretary of the interior standards. We are recommending that you hold the hearing and deny the application for a Mills Act historical historical property contract for this property.

So happy to answer any questions, and we do have the applicants and the student the translator available.

And, chair, just to clarify, you've already held a public hearing and closed it. It's just this is just the information that you requested at your last

That's not

correct. Well, it's not the court. Just continue to hear. And this lady's information is also correct on her third point. The applicant is the LLC. So we're gonna be trying

to can call on anybody in in this instance would be considered interruption for me. So I I have given that now. So given the information that Ashley's given us, are there any questions, further questions from the commission?

Yes.

Yes, commissioner.

Question one four is do you have information questions whether the applicant has actually applied for that permit that would be required?

I do not have that information for you right now.

That would relevant. That would be relevant.

It it would be up to the chair if you would like to reopen the public hearing portion. So when you close a public hearing for deliberation, which you did at your last meeting, you can certainly continue the item to another meeting for additional information from staff. If you choose to reopen the public hearing, you would need to make a motion. It would need to be approved, and then you can reopen per your your procedures. K.

Thank you. At this time, I will ask commissioner, there any questions that we have of the applicant that that have have not not been been asked asked by by staff? Staff?

K.

Seeing none, I will entertain if you want to hear additional public testimony. Now if there is additional public testimony, it would need to be new evidence, not the same evidence.

Is that correct? Yeah. So so, chair, if you choose to reopen the public hearing, individuals who have spoken previously may again for the three minutes per your procedures. Based on the new information that was presented tonight, they can certainly speak again. So, essentially, you would be starting a new you would be start starting a new public hearing.

Okay. At this point, what I would do is I would entertain if anyone on the commission wants to that is is open to having that make a motion to that.

I'm willing to hear further testimony as long as it abides by the guidelines that you forementioned at the start of the meeting so that testimony does not need to be stricken here. Okay. Because I think commissioner was not at that last meeting, and it might be

beneficial for him to hear directly. Okay. So I will hear that motion. I will entertain I will I will second it. So if there's anybody that's in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? K. So we will open public testimony. What I will note about public testimony is we are looking for items that are new in information and not the same information that was presented at the prior meeting. So if you have new information regarding the stuff that was presented tonight or new information that's come come to life since that meeting, please come forward, state your name, and you will have a few minutes at the meeting.

Afternoon or good evening. My name is Tom Armstrong. I'm here with my wife, Kathy Armstrong. I filed a a response because there's a continued hearing, and there was an issue as to title. And I'm just up here as I understand staff. You know, I don't think she's city attorney and attorney zero. Right? You're with planning commission?

Planning and going.

Okay. At any at any rate, they have recommended that the application be denied. I understand that. Right? Just wanna make sure that we're clear with ebooks.

I didn't catch your name, ma'am, but, ma'am, I I respectfully suggest or I would like to point out that her her characterization of the applicant LLC, I've referenced in my paper that I filed with the clerk's office, that that's the applicant making the application for the Mills Act tax advantage incentive, if you will. That title was transferred in January on 01/27/2025, went from the LLC to an individual. Okay? And that individual, I I asked the lady in the clerk's office if she gave me copies of that. You folks got copies of my paperwork.

Okay. Then those that chain of title, that's from Fidelity title on the December many years ago representing trustees, but it shows the LLC on January 25 granted type fee interest in that property to the what is it? To teaching one. Okay? That's an individual person. A man. It says it says it on married man. That's just the one. I don't know if it's this person back there or not. But at any rate, I think the applicant needs to be that person.

So I don't think have any party that was standing before the commission to apply for bills accurately. The LLC doesn't own the property, so they're not entitled to the tax benefit, okay, on hand. But if we have to go on to the other issues I know there's some other folks here too that are our neighbors. We my wife and I have learned from speaking with planning commission that an application has been made to the city to operate a adult daycare. Is that correct, Kathy?

An adult daycare at the facility, and that's pending somewhere in in the Moran with the planning commission. And I don't have this paperwork, but we'd like you to understand that. And so it it and we've had issues on the street in the past. We've lived there for quite a number of years. We call it the Kennedy House.

People bought that, and they tried to rent just rooms. There was issues with parking. There were incredible issues with garbage out back because there were 10 tenants in both houses and 10 times one person's garbage is more than three or four in a regular house. You know, those concerns need to be addressed. Is there there anything else there? Pardon me? They're they're running without a permit. Alright. So those are our points.

Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Thank

you. Good evening. I'll inter reintroduce myself from last month. My name is Edward Medrano. I live directly across the street from the property under conservation. My house is a designated historic resource,

and I

am under a men's contract myself. I will try and not testify anything that's redundant from last last month, but I'm sorry. I'm not an attorney, and I'm not experienced with these sort of things. I am a historian, and I am restoring a 100 year old past. I re I restored my old past in West LA, and I'm restoring this.

I put in over $300,000 in restoration costs alone into my house, and I'm doing it the right way. The wrong way is to destroy features that are character from the street, and you can see by the evident pictures that they have destroyed the red tile roof on this house. It's not subtle. There is more solar panel visible than there are than there are red tiles. And this is the opposite of preservation.

It sets a then a dangerous precedent for future Mills act applicants to cite this example and demand other exceptions to be accepted in the future. The mill's contract specifies under exhibit b, property maintenance prohibitions number five, any device, decoration, design, structure, or vegetation, which is unsightly by reason of its height, condition, or inappropriate location. These old panels are not subtle. Again, they're inappropriate located, and they destroy the character defining feature of this house, the red tile roof. The second is something that we discussed

I'm sorry.

Oh, okay. The building is a business, and and it's owned by a company, supposedly. You know, it's been a facade here, b and b, and we are introduced to the facility's manager. Single family dwellings don't have managers. Okay?

So to cite the most act act contract, again, exhibit d, rehabilitation standards, and we've already heard from the nice lady who spoke before, a property shall be used for its historic purpose. And then it goes on to say that if it's in the new purpose purpose, that'll have minimal changes. The historic purpose is a single family home, and any changes in that have implications in both the zoning regulations as well as the historic preservation standards for the house and the way it protects. Guess that's my time. So thank you. Alright.

K? Yeah. At this time, the if the applicant has anything they'd like to say with regards to this, they're free that they they can come forward. Okay. I'm gonna ask our server to sign if if there's something that that needs that they'd like to say, they need to come forward.

Just.

And we also submit the permission to the commission. I think that's what he tried to say because they show me the it's like a pink receipt on the

So, Jared, you weren't used to having translation services in your meetings. No. So the applicant, if you'll state your name and your address for the record, and then if you will make your statement pausing every sentence or two for the translation, and that goes into the record. And you'll have six minutes.

My name is KG Park. The address is 3504

Huntington Park,

about the solar panel, we already applied first beforehand from the government. And after the permission, we install the solar panel, and we have the permission for that. About the roof restoration, because we know it's recently, it's raining so hard. So the workers told us they will come back week or next two weeks. They will make the they will fix the roof.

About the exterior, the we we repaint the the wall according to the the old color and about the gate and the the fence. They have already fixed those vents and the They he said he already provide the photos about the broken walls and the defense. They were they they already provide to commission. Yeah. That's what he told me.

Yeah. That's all.

Change the structure that much, so I'm confused about that.

So so, commission, there's there's the action in front of you is whether or not to approve the Mills Act. So as was stated at the last hearing, the Solar Rights Act of California really gives broad rights to property owners to place solar panels regardless of whether or not they're on a disturbed property along with some other rights that we talked

about at at at

the last hearing. The question in front of you today is they they're asking it's not whether or not the roof is okay or the solar panels are okay. It's whether or not to grant the mills act based on the required provisions, which the assistant director talked about in her hearing in terms of preserve and, when necessary, restore and rehabilitate the property to conform to the rules. And it includes office of historic preservation at DPR, State of California, Secretary of Interior Standards for the treatment of historic properties, as well as

the state historic building code.

So based upon the additional information that was to you tonight, it does would not conform to those instances. So, commissioner, to your question, you know, the the roof question is and the solar panels that have been installed, they were installed with appropriate permits. There is additional work they're gonna need to complete to comply with those permits, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it now qualifies for. So the that that's the question in front of you tonight is not whether or not the work was done in conformance with a building permit or first state law. It's whether or not the MILLS Act can be granted based on the information that you have.

Afford additional protections for that would preclude further degradation? Does that question make sense?

Yes. It does. So the mills that requires that the property be maintained to not only the state historic building department of public park parks and recreation. It additionally says that it must be maintained to the secretary of interior standards. So it obligates the owner to preserve and to restore rehabilitate to those standards.

So the question is, would would you would it give more authority in prohibiting any kind of exterior modifications?

The answer to that would

be yes. More so than the the historic preservation ordinance has some control and guidance, but allows a lot more flexibility. This this does not provide for flexibility to a property owner, whereas now you can determine, okay. That modification is okay. It's not great, but it's it's generally, in conformance, this would require conformance to the standards.

So just so I'm clear, if if the property is accepted in the Mills Act, there is no leeway in terms of making modifications that would not be acceptable to the Secretary of Interior.

Program of restoration or with with other reasons.

Right? So you have canceled contracts.

K.

I think the question that the vice chair had had the director was, are there in that historic district, are there restrictions that are even higher than it was if it was just an individual resource? No.

If you determine that the resource is eligible to be a historic resource, you may recommend approval of the most active contract

despite you being out of compliance at this time.

So if it's out of compliance at this time, one of the requirements would be to bring it into compliance.

You what? I heard. K? Me. So thank you. What I will say is if you can have answer his question is

Okay. He he mentioned about some workers who have come back to fix the roof because in order to install the solar panel, they will have to take off some some the the parts of the roof so they can settle the the solar panel on the roof. But till now, they haven't fixed everything since it's raining.

I I don't understand is why

because they in order to install this solar panel on the roof, they will have to destroy some some parts to to install the solar panel. So That's

not necessarily how solar panels are going.

That's what he said.

I understand what he's saying, but I I don't understand why

He said, I have no idea since I'm not a professional. After permission from the government, we we, like, hired the professional come here. We don't know how they install the solar panel, but as we know, they they have to get rid of some roof and then to install. And then since it's raining, so they haven't restore everything now. But the solar panel is is permitted by the government by the I mean, with the condition.

The allowance of the solar panel is understood that you can't have solar panels on the building. The way in which it's done installed. That's the problem we have. It it appears as though the historical value of the of of entire structure has been destroyed because of how the panels were installed.

He said We are not professional. We are not professional working for the solar panel He said we we submit the application. We get a pro approval, and we we we how to say? We install the solar panel according to the, you know, to the permission. So he still insist he's not a professional solar panel company, they install everything.

They they know how to do that. And and

I think that's that's been we know we we know that.

Yeah. I already I explained. I said solar Solar panel panel solar panel division is not a problem. The problem is the process. Why, you know, why they have to destroy the roof and the install the solar panel. That's what you know. Right. But he said that he he is not a professional. No. He has no yeah. He so we get a permission. We we submit the application. We get the permission, and then we hire the solar panel company, and they install the solar panel for us since we are not professionals for solar panel.

Right. Yeah. We're we're we're we're having an issue is is not about the permit. It's not about the solar company professional. It's about the fact that because it's a historic property, there should be special considerations taken from those professionals and from the property owner to make sure that the historic portion of the property is not damaged.

And that's where the concern lies right now with the the application. Is that the application itself is asking for us to to grant the reprieve of the of the tax some of the tax burden on the property in accordance for maintaining the property to a higher standard of of the historic level of it. And the trouble that we're seeing is with this project, okay, is we we saw the project done, but we didn't see the project done in a way that was respectful to the historic nature of the building. And and to to add to that, I I I I have my doubts about the fact that they can bring solar the the tiles right up to the solar panels after they've done that. And I'll tell and I'll say this right just for the record.

We do have a other historic properties that did a very similar project with red tile roof, and they still haven't maintained a fire access around those solar panels. So I'm pretty sure the way that you see that that roof right now is the way that roof is gonna look. They might add a few more tiles back, but they're gonna have to maintain a gap all the way around the edge of that. It's not gonna come right up to it. Okay?

So the issue is not about the permit through solar. It's not about the solar being installed. It's about the fact that it was not a historic level of care taken taken to the actual nature of the historic property. And because of that, we're having a concern about awarding this Mills Act agreement because of the fact that with it being already kind of previous knowledge and experience, if you will. We've seen what the what the what has occurred already with a project.

We don't know what the next ten years of projects are gonna look like, whether we're just gonna be awarded tax incentive to watch both be essentially, you know, stripped here, torn there, you know, added on to to create whether it be a a residence, whether it's multifamily, whether it becomes an adult day health care, whether it becomes, you know, a short term rental, whatever whatever the purpose of building is, that's that's, again, not in in question.

He said we understand the historical protection of this part, but after the installation, the solar panel installation, I know there's little gaps here and there but we we've tried to install back the tires, like, the the same corner. We will install back. We haven't because the workers, they are not they haven't came back yet. So that's why but they said they will fix it. They will install back those reptile roof too. We try to make it, like, how it is how it was before.

Okay.

Yeah. That's he he he said he know gaps here and there. He said but the workers, they will come back because, recently, the weather is not good for them to, you know, to to do that.

So what I wanted to comment on was when you're working with historic properties, great care and sensitivity has to be applied to any work you do. You have to understand the nuances of the items that are considered character defining, and the roof in your is one of the most significant character defining features. So without great sensitivity to the nuances of what makes that property special, you lose its value, and the value has been lost. What I and it's number one on your list of things to do. So right from the beginning, what we're saying is a lack of sensitivity and awareness of what makes your your property unique.

There are other items on this list that you're gonna have to use great care and sensitivity to make the remedies that you're saying you're gonna do. From the beginning, we're seeing that there is a lack of sensitivity and understanding of the nuances of what makes your project special. So it gives us great concern that the number one thing has not been done with care. So how can we approve the rest of this if the number one thing was not done well at all? That's our concern.

Thank you for clarifying that. We ask clarifying this information with regards to that for the commission.

Chair, before you make your determinations, just a reminder that if you are required to consider the project, the Mills Act application based on the current condition of the property, The the question of the the roof permit is not the question at hand. So the question is based on the current condition of the property and the proposed list of projects in the contract, can we make the findings that this that this contract would preserve and when necessary, restore and rehabilitate the property to conform. I'm going to abbreviate to the secretary of interior standards for the treatment of historic properties. And on page one zero one of your exhibit g, it specifically talks about this is the leaks and groomer guide, installing mechanical and service equipment, including solar panels on character defining elevations. So it specifically says installing rooftop mechanical or service equipment so that it damages or obscures character defining roof features or is so or is conspicuous on the site or from the public right away is not recommended under the secretary interior standards.

So that is the question at hand. It's about the Mills Act, not whether or not the permit or the solar permit should have been granted. It does not preclude the applicant for coming back in a future year and reapplying after they have restored or repaired any damage that has been done.

So and I'm gonna try to that was last meeting. We had a question. Yes. We had a question regarding last meeting about the the question of the the entity and and that was That is what Ashley was addressing earlier was that through their additional research from a prior month of this month, they were able to match up those Google entities. Ashley, please correct me if I'm wrong on that. So I'm sorry about that. Ashley. Ashley's got a thing. Got me a comment. So

the legal entity named in the Mills Act contract is the legal entity on the latest grant deed.

My understanding from what what we've seen tonight and and where we are is I think I think this first step is was a bad step. And I do think that there is opportunity in the future, but I do not feel I feel that we need to go with staff recommendation and and currently deny with the idea that in the in the future year, if the outcome comes back and has a better understanding of what's necessary, what's the repairs necessary, that we're then, you know, more open and that the next the the the example there, 2026, how do we know that that's gonna be followed correctly? And then at the same time, how are we gonna actually come back and really enforce it? Because even when we did the mills when we've done those out before, you know, we have that already reviewed. We had already reviewed last year, but hasn't been always done consistently as a as a commission.

And and, honestly, with our with our specialists where we haven't had it on every single year, somebody's you know, they're they're. So until we actually have that that type of policing action, I I don't know how we're able to say that, yeah, we wanna put more restrictions, but we're still not gonna necessarily be able to watch it for you. Because at the same time, it's like, yeah, we put more restrictions, but we have no good way of saying

of things that are intended. If we are meant to judge the condition as it stands now as advised by council, then we cannot possibly approve a Mills Act contract for this property in the condition that it stands now regardless of whether the rain came or. If we are meant to judge the property on its current condition, that we can't take potential future actions such as contractors coming back and fixing the roof further because we have no evidence that that's going to happen and what that might look like. And it still mean have damaged the roof work that's being done and even the remediation that is proposed by the owner may not be sufficient to keep this as a historic property based on some of the things that were done without care on its defining feature being the roof.

You held a notice of public hearing.

I'm sorry. I should have introduced myself again. Ashley Atkinson, assistant director for planning and development. Again, you held a notice of public hearing on October 27 to consider this application. We had extensive discussion during which the applicant provided new information that had not been previously available to staff was which was that the existing wood shaped roof had been installed on top of the original wood shingle roof, which had a lower profile, especially given the aging of the current group today.

So again, this is the the roof as it appears today. And then a second set of photos shows the original roof that's seen from inside the garage. And, also, the photo on the right shows how the existing shape roof is installed on top of the original shingle roof, which you can see it's a very faint sort of red circle there at the bottom, but that is the original layer of shingles. The commission discussed the lack of photographic evidence Monday, November 17, the architectural review subcommittee met to review these additional photos. And then based on review of these photos and further discussion with the applicant, The subcommittee approved a recommendation to the commission that certainty of presidential shape Solaris is a compatible substitute material for the original wood shingle roof with the condition that the product shall be in the autumn blend color, which is a brown as opposed to the original selected color, which was a shadow gray.

So our recommendation, again, forwarding the recommendation of the architectural review subcommittee is that the commission review the new information and either adopt a finding of categorical exemption and approve the application with the condition that the replacement group will use a compatible substitute substitute material that conveys the same appearance of the original wood shingles as opposed to the existing wood shakes or deny the application. As I think you recall, you have seen this application before. You did hold a hearing on June 23 and approved this application with conditions. You also, on that same day, recommended the property for designation as a local historic resource, which which it was designated on October 16. So those two actions were completed at that time.

The application as it was presented to you in June reflected that it consisted of interior upgrades for HVAC access and circulation and exterior improvements, new glazing, replacement doors, replacement window covers, and replacement canopies and also paint. So that is the application that you reviewed and approved with the condition that three items to go back to the architectural review subcommittee. And those items were the glazing, the new glazing, the profile of the new metal panels, and the profile of the replacement canopy. So that was the approval that you issued in June. On November 7, it was observed that demolition of the brick scandals between the windows was taking place, and that that was not part of the the permit that had been issued or the approval that this commission had given.

A stop work order was issued on that day and is still in place for the exterior, But quite a bit of the brick had already been removed at that time. There are some photos in your exhibits, and I'll show a few as well. The big brick scandals are named as a character defining feature in the department of arts and recreation form. We first went to the architectural review subcommittee to ask how they would like to handle the issue, and they unanimously agreed that But on the long north and south facades, it has been mostly removed. And this only in place, as I said, in in certain locations.

The applicant has represented that they it was always their intent to remove the brick and that it was a discrepancy in the drawings so that, you know, this is not this something that they thought that they have permission to do. You do have just as reference, you have a print copy of the originally submitted demolition elevations. We did not include those in exhibits because of the copyright restrictions on plans. So you'll see I think you have two things in front of me. There's one that shows the thermal fixed and projected windows and a colored elevation.

It is not that. It is the completely black and white set of demolition elevations. So that is for your reference in terms of that is what staff reviewed when presenting this project to you in June, and that is what led our building and safety staff and our historic preservation staff to believe that demolition is not part of the scope of work. The applicant has reckon represented that the third page that you have in front of you, the page a six point one point one, does indicate their intent to demolish the brick in order to attach the the new metal panels to the concrete underneath. The elevations that you reviewed did show the concrete panels or sorry.

The the corrugated metal panels going from the top of the 3rd Floor to the

top of

the 1st Floor as how the panels look today, and that is how the panels would look in the future. But the brick underneath them, it was the applicant's intent to remove that brick to attach those new panels. So, again, because removal of that brick represents the permanent alteration to one of the character defining features, we have brought this back to review by the full commission. The applicants are online. I will note that they are eager to get input on those three items that were conditionally approved, the glazing, the profile of the panels, and the metal cavity.

And so if you're willing to entertain those items here today in this commission meeting instead of

Hi. Good evening. You've got

Well,

Stan, look with the ownership side here. Thank you for having us tonight. I know in the materials that we shared, we showed the elevations, which we're showing, in our conversations with the historic subcommission, last week that we would leave the existing brick that is still there. And then on that south on the South Cherry side, we would replace that brick in kind, and you can see that now on the screen right here of what we're proposing.

So

that's one item. And then the other two items, and I'm looking at our notes from our meeting last week, were the metal coverings for the existing window openings. You all had asked for the specs of that, and then you also wanted to understand our plan for the existing can concrete canopy, which when we met back in June, we were proposing to demolish that. We are no longer demolishing that. We are leaving that existing canopy, and we'll install new storage units below. So I've got my design team here with me, and we are here to answer any questions you may have.

K. Before we do that, we will go out to the public. Is there anybody that'd like to speak on this item? Please come forward.

This is what we was presented to the commission when this person came before us. Is that correct?

These these elevations. So this was not presented to the commission. This is what was reviewed by staff, and we we presented the construction elevation to the commission. So this is intended to illustrate what staff believed was permitted in terms of what was to be demolished because if you

information on the windows, but we don't have the coordinated note information. Is that right?

We submitted everything over a few hours before this meeting in a link to Ashley and team.

So Carrie does have some of the information available online that she can pull up for us to see here.

Yes.

And I have my design team on the call as well. So if you can mute Garrett Wellman or Michael Erseg, they might be able to talk to the the specs a little bit more detail.

How is it? It's a you fastening a a fastener to the face of it, with a washer? Is that what you're doing?

Yes. There would be an integral color fastener to match the same color as the metal panel.

The window product, the WinCo thirty two fifty series, the details we have looks like an applied muntin. The s r dash eight, is applied to the exterior only. Look at their website. The they do make the s r eight with the with the muntin between the between the panes of glass and one on the inside so that it looks like a true divided light. Can you provide that?

Yes. We can. And that's where we were looking for a little direction. So if if you can tell us that's the one you'd want, that's the one we'll go with.

Website. There is another s r eight that is what I just described. It has the months in between the pains and and the the months implied on the interior space. They're both s r eights, but that's the one I I think think we we would would prefer. The one that appears like a true divided light.

S r eight. Okay. We will update that and submit that back to you.

Thank you.

And, again, I do wanna go back to the point of when we initially submitted our plans, we did not have plans of going historic, and that's where it was always our intent to demolish that brick because we were never in that process of the character defining, characteristics. So when our plans were submitted and when we went to you all back in June, we showed those elevations. That was always our intent. What brought us back here, as Ashley mentioned, was when there was the the misunderstanding. And as we have mentioned, I think you just mentioned as well, you know, that that demolition sheet, we do call for the removal of the brick on there with that note.

But I just wanna make it very clear. We had no intent of trying to go around anything. This was just always our intent with our plans and and what we were bringing to the city. So just wanted to share that.

So with the removal of that spandrel, are is it just gonna be that that corrugated sheet metal and replacement of that spandrel?

Yes. Replacement of the spandrel on the South Cherry side, the front side. And then on the other elevations, we would have the corrugated metal all the way down as we had planned.

So only the south side would have a stand to remain. The other three sides would just have from 1st To 3rd Floor.

Correct.

Okay. K. Do you have a color in mind for the 48 Gmail?

Yes. It's on our elevation, I believe. We designed the building to meet current codes. Is that maybe I'm not answering that correctly. Is that your question?

Did we take into account historic building codes versus updated building codes?

I I assume the new building's gonna come through. It's gonna it's gonna be for for current codes. But but now that now that it is under that that historic review, you you do have the option to focus historic buildings codes, which may allow for certain leeway where you may right now, you have to meet the certain you know, those specific standards in in the 2022 requirements. But because it's a historical code, there may be exemptions or options and things that you don't have to do as a result of that.

We haven't looked into it too much. We've just been trying to continue on the path we're on. We've spoken about it briefly, but with where we are of trying to continue moving out here and deliver this product, we've just decided as of right now to continue as designed, which was to the current code.

And I guess I guess what I'm understanding too, and and I'll let the review committee correct me or or actually but we're really only gonna focus on the Cherry Avenue side of this building even though it's really not visual from a 360 degree angle.

That was our proposal based off our meeting last week.

Staff has not provided that recommendation, but it was discussed approved in June. It's just that we were unaware that the first panel would no longer exist under that app.

K. From a visual perspective, our elevations besides that east elevation has not changed at all. The metal panel was always going to be shown the way it looks on there. The assumption from staff from what we've learned over the last couple weeks was that they thought we were going to cover the brick with the metal panel, so the brick would never have actually been seen. It was always gonna be metal panel.

You would like to see them again. But the panels that exist that existed up until recently that have been in place for many decades did cover the entire scan from the 3rd Floor to the 1st Floor, and that is also what the animations showed that were reviewed in June. Would you like to see if we can pull up the elevations that were reviewed in June? I didn't have these. Yeah.

Oh, actually, yeah. They if you have the whole file, Carrie, yes, then I don't know what page they're on, but they're gonna be towards the end of that file. I think you could safely just scroll down to 50 or so.

K.

And they will have color. There they are.

So

they are indicating the panel covering from, again, the top of the 3rd Floor to the bottom of The intent of the applicant was that that represents the concrete underneath the corrugated panel. If it was perceived differently,

I I would like to point out the metal panel won't cover it won't go from 3rd Floor all the way down to the bottom. That that concrete horizontal aspect, that that will be the concrete that you see in those photos. Just wanna clarify that and also just one last item. I mean, this elevation is what we presented. We it's what we came to you all with.

And, again, we we were not trying to go around any way or anything like that. It was our assumption that everyone understood our intent. We received three comments from the commission for the items we discussed a little earlier about the windows, the canopy, and the metal panel. If the brick had been brought up, obviously, that would have been brought into account, but we we moved forward with what we thought we were being told to do.

And if it's if it's any and this is Michael with Arco Murray. If there's any if it's any help to kinda illustrate the intent that we're working with here, that cross sectional view on a 6.1, I think, is kinda really helpful and basically shows the complete intent that we walked in with back in June. I don't know if that can be pulled up.

So in

in the original submittal or the one you submitted today?

No. This this submittal right here that's on on the board. The original. Yeah. The original.

The original, so you would

like to see which page? A six.

Yeah. Just for for those who may not have seen it from the from the last meeting, a 6.1.

One page out here.

Maybe

I'm am I in the wrong Sorry. I might have that page number wrong. It was the cross sectional view. Oh,

yep. Yep.

There you go.

And the commission does have a paper copy of this page as well.

Yep. So if you if you just see the notes there, in order to create the thermal envelope inside the building, which is now gonna be climate controlled, of course. It was pretty difficult to do with the solid brick spandrel there. So you can see the notes here where the intention was to demolish the existing brick wall and cap in addition to the window and metal panel cover in order to replace that section with the new stud wall and metal panel infill. So just to clarify what was the intention when we submitted this in June for those that might not have seen this.

Typically, each year, the commission can confirm your resolution if you want to. But, typically, each year, you've gone through the list to then say whether or not you're willing to serve on that competing at a long year, and then it would just continue. We wouldn't need to do any kind of new resolution. Okay. Very good.

Alright. So we'll start off with the architect review subcommittee. So now we can speak to two of our members here if they're gonna be willing to serve going forward on that committee. So forming the city?

So if the commission is interested in nominating or appointing a couple of members to serve on a municipal code review subcommittee, we can bring that back in the future to create a new committee, but you can let us know who might be interested in serving on that. I think it could be helpful to review the new code and bring it up to up to date. It's been a couple years since it was last updated. Updated.

So what we'll do is we'll enter we'll we'll bring out a future date a resolution to create that subcommittee and staff members, and and we're good. Alright.

We will go back and confirm whether that takes place. The next step that we have discussed with the owner was to convene a meeting with his engineer and architect and discuss further whether a a meaningful plan for demolition and preservation can be put together by that team. And if that is not forthcoming, then, of course, there is still an open court enforcement case on the property, and we are still working with the city attorney on options going forward. But we can, again, monitor to make sure that our does go on this week as they have represented that in will. Okay.

Thank you, Carrie. And, of course, just our regular reports on activities. We have been receiving and completing a small number of planning entitlements related to historic properties. You will notice lots of re roofs. And so we are working on implementing processes that deal with that volume.

You know, the system that we had in place was more geared towards a lower volume, and those customers on those things that could reduce some small electrical jobs were not used to waiting, you know, for a store for years to be completed. So we're making some tweaks to the process and the way we staff it. But it is, generally speaking, intended to, you know, make sure we're not missing anything in terms of construction that affects historic properties or potentially eligible resources. I've also noted that the data that that fifty year mark is based on is is not fully So that's good news, although lots of work for Carrie and I. We did not receive or complete any one of six reviews in October.

You're familiar with

the status of the Mills Act applications, and we completed one mitigation program application that had been received in.

Great. Again, my name is Edward O'Drano. I reside at 385370 East Huntington Boulevard, and I've come today to comment on mitigation funding and approval for the projects that may be applicable. Since my time is limited, the questions I ask will be rhetorical, and please take them as as comments from me. And so the first one would be is who exactly approves the mitigation funding request?

Are there any engineers, architects, building contractors, or experienced house restorers that consider the merits of the efforts in preserving these houses? I wonder, is the commission dedicated to preserving these store buildings or merely the facades. Few months ago, I had a very, very important feature of my house that needs to be repaired immediately, And it it points to the most important issues for preserving any building is coal infrastructure, good roofs, foundations, electrical systems, and plumbing systems. My 100 year old water main failed. It broke, and there was a lake in my backyard.

I was told that some since it is not in the front of the house, it isn't a character defining feature and will not be supported by mitigation funding. This is absurd. Does this mean that a foundation failure in the back of my house will not be covered? Does this mean that a a roof in the back of the house will not be covered? Does this mean that my house may be subject to burning down because I have knob and two electrical system in in the house.

I did replace that myself at a considerable cost. But these features that define the character of the house are not only visible from the street. The interior of the house features one of the three residential elevators on the in the historic district. Are they gonna support me in repairing that? I have art tiles from the famous Ernest Batchelder, artisan in in Pasadena, that are valued at about $1,000 per tile.

I have three tile fireplaces of those which need restoration. Does anyone help me with that? It's not visible from the street, but, again, their definition is it has to be visible from the street. The mitigation funds, I believe, should be reviewed for the historic preservation of the building, not just this facade. And I went through a completely horrible and unprofessional experience with the historic preservation department and having my funding denied. K? Thank you.

This is hard to be heard from unless the person holds it about here. And I many things I missed tonight. It might be because I'm old and hard hearing, but it's also the microphone needs to be in the right position. Okay. I came up with the scammer. Right? Heritage Press. I'm always pushing hard things. We have a wonderful calendar this year. This helps us fundraise and helps us do the job of helping you further things, and this wonderful collection of things you can be proud of because you might have had something to do with keeping them or maybe suck seeing them off, but it is a great gift.

It's a nice hostess gift for Thanksgiving, and it's a nice Christmas gift as well. And we will be at the farmer's market, Black Swan And Shaw, on the Saturday morning after Thanksgiving with calendars, with the books made by Janice Stevens and Pat Hunter, and other things that you could use for wonderful gifts or your own collection, which are great. And they'll we'll be there from nine until noon on Saturday, November 29. We hope every Saturday after that. It's not so cold.

And then I'm, again, urging you on the lantern research and preservation of those lanterns with plaques and identification so they don't get lost, putting them in every window that's locked up and safe from mammals and theft, like libraries, Fresno State, City College, any place we can show people that if you save the artifacts, you're doing the culture good. And then I hope we can go to the mute zone and have this. The front page of this calendar has a wonderful new painting by Pat Hunter. All the paintings in there are frameable. They're terrific.

And not even have to be quite framed. She has a wonderful of the silos that are now knocked down. And the front page is a new view of the Warner's Theater with the two statues by Renzi in the foreground, which is a new view of that theater. And that's another project we're working on this year to help bring it back to the public's attention. And happy Thanksgiving. Thanks for all you do in giving up your Monday nights. If you get a calendar, can show people what you've helped you. Thank you.

Alright. With that, we will move our next meeting will be December 22 at 06:00. And with that, we'll entertain a motion for

Motion to adjourn.

Oh, I second. Okay. Motion to second. All in favor, sir. Susan, fly by saying aye. Aye. Okay. The meeting's adjourned. Thank you very much.