Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening, and we will go ahead and get this meeting started at 6.02. Thank you, everyone. We'll go ahead and start with roll call, please.

Commissioner Eddings.

Present.

Commissioner Johnston. Present. Commissioner LaValle. Commissioner Federico.

Present.

Commissioner Halagian. Vice Chair Hatwick.

Here.

Chair Sponsor.

Here. All right, we'll go ahead and move on to procedures. For each matter considered by the commission, there will first be a staff presentation followed by a presentation from the project applicant. The commissioners will then have the opportunity to ask questions of staff and applicant before opening to the public. Testimony from supporters of the project will be taken, followed by testimony of those in opposition. Staff may provide a summation if necessary. The applicant will have the right to a final rebuttal presentation prior to closing the public hearing, followed by consideration of the item in action, if any, by the commission. In accordance with section 13 and article two of the Historic Preservation Commission bylaws governing length of public debate, all 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, either in person or electronically. Any testimony that references race, religion, ethnicity, economic status, national origin, or any other classification protected under state or federal law in a derogatory manner shall be deemed irrelevant and will not be considered by the Commission in making its determinations. If you challenge these matters in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in oral or written testimony or before the close of the hearing. With that, we'll go ahead and move on to item three, which is approving the meeting minutes. It looks like of the meeting minutes, both of the January 26th, 2026 meeting, as well as the June 22nd, 2026 meeting. Are there any changes to the minutes?

There are no changes to the minutes.

All right. At that point, I'll go ahead and entertain a motion. I'll motion to approve. All right, we have a motion by Vice Chair Hatwig, second by Commissioner Johnston. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Minutes are approved. Now we'll move on to item four, which is approval of tonight's agenda. Are there any changes to tonight's agenda?

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. There are no changes to the agenda.

All right, I'll entertain a motion for approval. All right. I have a motion by Commissioner Johnson, a second by Vice Chair Hatwig. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Minutes are approved. Okay. We'll go ahead and just give me one moment here while I get the last stuff addressed here. All right. So we don't have any items on consent calendar or continued matters. So we will go ahead and go on to commission items, starting with item, I believe that's going to be 7A, if I got that item correct, which will be file ID 26-1065. hearing to consider eligibility for listing on the local register of historic resources, the property located at 5045 East Butler, assessor parcel number 472-021-30.

Good evening again, chair and commissioners, Ashley Atkinson, assistant director for planning and development. I will be presenting a summary of the background on this project and the related analysis for your consideration. There is, of course, more detail available in the staff report and the historic resource assessment that were provided as attachments or that was provided as an attachment along with the mid-century modernism context statement and the required findings. And I am trying to click.

Nothing is happening.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you. Okay, so as noted, this is a hearing to consider eligibility for listing on the Local Register of Historic Resources, the property located at 5045 East Butler. We have received an entitlement application for the redevelopment of that property. As a reminder, tonight's hearing is not to consider that proposed project, it is to consider the eligibility of the existing building for listing on the Local Register of Historic Resources. The site was previously developed starting in 1970 and reaching completion in 1971 to house the West Coast Processing Center of the United States Internal Revenue Service. So that building has colloquially been known as the IRS Center. Based on its date of construction, it is of course more than 50 years old. Also based upon its association with historic events of importance in local history and based on its architectural characteristics, it may be eligible for listing on the local register of historic resources under our Fresno Municipal Code section 12-1607. The center was designed by a noted local architect, Walter Wagner of Wagner Temple Incorporated. He was a member of the FAIA, the Fellows of the American Institute of Architects. He completed a number of local projects across his career in Fresno, which started with his firm, Walter Wagner and Partners. one of the first firms in Fresno to integrate both design and engineering, and moving on to Walter Temple Incorporated across both of those firms. In addition to this project, notable projects included the Trinity Lutheran Church, Rhodes Department Store, Fresno City College, Fresno Police Headquarters, the Manchester Shopping Center, and the Fresno County Courthouse, as well as the Inyo Van Ness parking structure, also known as the Spiral Garage. The property is developed with five interconnected buildings, which contain interior courtyards and also surrounded by parking lots. I'll show some images in a moment. The building is entirely one story, resting on a raised concrete foundation or foundations with flat roofs, no eaves and metal fascia, leading to a kind of, you know, a series of rectangular shapes that are emphasized throughout the building of note are that the exterior walls are concrete. with a repetitive pattern of rubble style cast stone panels. Rubble style meaning that these stones are irregular and uncut rather than being cut and formed masonry shapes. These site photos are also in the historic resource assessment that is attached to the staff report. This one illustrates sort of more close up the style of the design. with those repeating rectangular features, that rubble style stone paneling, and interspersed with vertical and horizontal concrete stripes or strips. The top photo here shows the main entrance to the complex. The bottom photo shows, I believe it's building number four, but it illustrates the other buildings two through four or two through five that are attached to the main building where the entrance is. And this final photo illustrates what some of the courtyards look like and what the interconnections between the buildings look like. Again, this is gone over in greater detail and with more images in the historic resource assessment. As background on the when and why the site was developed, in the late 60s, the IRS, selected the fresno area as the site for a major west coast processing center for irs related data historical documentation suggests that the primary reason for the selection of the fresno area was due to the availability of an educated workforce both a declining agricultural workforce and a large number of college educated local adult workforce age citizens. The specific location of the site was not originally selected or it was not selected at the same time. It was the general Fresno area that was selected. So there was some debate over the specific location of the site. between the cities of Fresno and Sanger and between different representatives of the area in the United States government. After that period of debate, it was announced that this site was the chosen site. It was at that time in unincorporated and largely undeveloped Fresno County, of course, southeast of the city of Fresno. And as soon as that site was selected, that began to catalyze a lot of economic development around the announcements. Local citizens were encouraged to obtain training that would prepare them for the jobs at the center. There was a lot of interest in real estate development and development of businesses related to the announcements. Pretty much right away after the location was announced, the city of Fresno did move to annex 564 acres on the southeast boundary, which included this site. This land around the site proceeded to develop with both single and multifamily housing, as well as some commercial development. over the years since 1970. And during its peak employment time, the center employed 5,700 people and was a major non-agricultural employer in the area. As I think most of us know, the center is now not operating and has not operated since 2021. This tax return processing here in Fresno was phased out starting in 2016, at which time they announced the closure of the center, and that did take place in 2021. Just as a reminder of the duties of the commission, per the Fresno Municipal Code, one of your primary duties is to identify, designate, and preserve historic resources within the city limits. and that any building structure object or site can be designated if it's found to meet the criteria outlined in the code, which we will go over on the next slide. The first criteria is that the structure has been in existence more than 50 years, which this structure does meet that criteria. And then one of the following criteria, either association with events that have made a significant contribution in local history, association with the lives of significant people, embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, representing the work of a master or possessing high artistic values, or something that has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. There is no evidence that this site is eligible under criteria two or four, no significant association with persons significant in the past, nor as a modern development is it likely to yield any information important in history or prehistory. So I won't go over those in any more detail, but there is more information in the historic resource assessment. Speaking more directly to criteria one and three, the historic resource assessment did conclude that the property first retains its integrity as largely intact since it was built. Not a lot of modifications have been made to the building. And also that it is significant under criteria one and criteria three. So criteria one is association with events in history. Um, again, as we just discussed, um, this was a selection of this particular location, uh, led, uh, to significant growth of the city into the. Southeastern area, um, and was a primary employer, um, with a peak labor force of 5,700 during its years in operation. as well as a catalyst for housing and commercial development in that vicinity. So based on that, it is concluded in the historic resource assessment that this property is significant on criteria one. Regarding criteria three, the assessment also concludes that the building is significant as embodying the distinctive characteristics of the brutalist style of architecture and also representing the work of local master Walter Wagner. It also notes that the building's architectural significance does not extend beyond the local level. It should be noted that the city's own mid-century modernism context statement does not cite this building as an example of the brutalist style in Fresno. It does include a reference to the building as one of Walter Wagner's 13 most significant works. But it could be argued that this is not a primary or defining example of brutalist architecture. It is right on that cusp of the era between brutalism and late modernism. One of the defining characteristics is its use of concrete panels where they would form work that contain the concrete is revealed. This one has a bit of a departure from that in its use of those rubble style stone panels. And also it's sort of low slung massing is not quite at that monumental scale that defines brutalist works more generally. Our recommendation is simply that staff or sorry, that the commission review the available evidence, hold the hearing and determine whether to initiate designation of the property as a historic resource. I would just like to note also that both the historic resource assessment and our staff report were reviewed by our qualified architectural historians that the city has on contract with Rincon. And with that, I can answer any questions.

I have one question. I have a few questions, but the first one that's just most administrative for me is that to address the period of significance indicated on our documentation prepared by LSA, I think it's good documentation, but I think that All right, my understanding of a period of significance would be from the date of preparation for construction on through the date when it was abandoned. So it would be more, I think it would be more appropriately, period of significance be like 1970 to 2021. And I just think that that might, I think we need to look at that in terms of the period of significance because it really contributed to the cultural and socioeconomic development of Fresno during that whole time period.

As opposed to 1971 to 76? Yeah. Okay.

So your clarification is just it needs to be a broader period of significance. Okay.

To reflect the impact of the building facility.

Okay. And just to clarify, the report cites 71 to 76 as the period of significance.

Okay. Now, besides having the report here, do we actually have a project, an applicant for this or no? Is it just coming through the city?

Yes. Sorry. The applicant is present to answer any questions and I believe they would like to make some remarks, but again, what we, we do not have the project itself in front of us tonight, just the existing building.

They're just the property owner at this point. So if, if there's anything they'd like to state now as according to our guidelines, let's have them come up. Sure.

Oh, excuse me. Can I, can I still ask questions afterwards?

Yes. Okay. We have applicant come up, please.

Good evening. My name is Daniel Cho and I'm one of the managers of the property owner, AFI Fresno Residential Investors. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. I certainly acknowledge that defining an architectural style and beyond that determining historical significance can be a subjective task. Architecture, like all forms of art, is not generally necessarily defined by rules. I'd like to speak to the content of the report though. You know, in the case of brutalist architecture, there is a rule that is universally really accepted as its defining characteristic of that unique style. It comes from the French word, , which I did not know until two weeks ago. And it really, it incorporates the use of raw concrete, unexposed and unfinished as its visual focus. Beyond that, the use of raw concrete is accentuated by shaping that concrete into interesting forms through the use of wood framing. And typically the shape is formed in such a way as to convey a sense of gravity or mass, and typically in large geometric patterns. now that's where the subjectivity comes into account but for this property neither really apply the walls are tilt up concrete but as ashley had noted they're completely inlaid with river rock to create this texture and variation this sort of decorative feature beyond that the walls use river rock of various I guess natural colors to further accentuate the decorative aspect of the building. And the shape of the walls are just simple vertical slabs of tilt up concrete with really no form whatsoever. They're just straight up walls and boxes. I've done a little research and Mr. Temple certainly is considered a master architect and really a pillar of Fresno architectural history. I think there's perhaps some conflating of the idea that because Mr. Temple had designed other buildings that might be considered examples of brutalist architecture, or beyond that, examples of brutalist masterpieces, the Van Ness parking structure certainly is considered one. Fresno County Courthouse may be considered another one, although as I've done a little research, a lot of dispute over the historical significance of that particular building. But either way, I think there is a sort of a conflating of the idea that just because it was designed by an architect who has some significance, that all of the buildings that they design would automatically be judged to be historically significant, especially as it pertains to brutalist architecture. I wasn't able to find even one reference in the 50 years of existence in articles, journals, newspapers that refers to this building as a prime example of such architecture, even on the website of TAM Architects, who is the successor firm to the Wagner Temple firm, they referenced the IRS Center as being significant in the development of the business of the architecture firm that Mr. Temple had founded, but it didn't reference any architectural significance to the building. And I would think that if it were historically significant, if it were considered a true masterpiece, its own, the company's own website would certainly proudly state that, in my opinion. The IRS building is just a, it's a very nice looking office industrial building that Mr. Temple tried to make, you know, nicer looking than just a normal building. And I'm not disputing that some people might sort of like the look of it, but as far as you know, being an example of a particular architectural style and then being beyond that, an historically significant example of a architectural style, I think is a conclusion, which I certainly don't agree with. At this point, it really is just a nice looking but functionally obsolete building located on, you know, a large site in the city of Fresno. I appreciate your time and I'm happy to take any questions. I wasn't necessarily prepared to answer any questions, but I'm happy to answer anything that you might.

Any clarifying questions, just to keep that in mind. Okay.

Well, yeah. Clarification was, did you review the LSA Department of Parks and Recreation form and evaluation of the buildings? of the property and and see that it's not just for the architectural value there are other values historic values associated did you i think the clarification we're going to ask is did you actually did you read the report

Yeah, I did read the report. And of course, I'm not a local Fresno resident. And so speaking to the historical significance of the building, I'm not really in a great position to address that. And I certainly understand that being one of the criteria of consideration from this committee. So yes, I understand that the report is perhaps broader than what I had referenced today. But I do understand that. Yes.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. all right uh now um we will uh start by um taking any testimony for those in support of the project of this item okay you mean in support of in support of the the the current um with regards to the potential uh listing of this so in support of the listing Yes, correct.

Correct.

And I do want to emphasize that this is regarding the listing of it. So whether the applicant has a separate project that results in this property, that's not necessarily what we're here for tonight. It's whether to look at deeming this eligible for historic listing or to not deem it eligible for historic listing. So anybody in support of the listing? Okay, please step forward. All right. For the record, go ahead and state your name at the podium there, and you'll have three minutes.

Bob Bethel. What else? Just the name?

Yeah.

Is this what you're proposing now for me speaking to... be in favor of adding this to the historic listing? Is that what we're doing right now? I'd very much like that. I've lived in the neighborhood for 40 years. The IRS building, amongst the other things that were brought up, has been a part of our community for a very, very long time. Like I said, I've been there 40 years. And there's a lot of good uses that building could be used for and still keep the integrity of the building forever. what was brought up earlier. And I would urge you to please consider keeping this a part of our neighborhood so that we can go on to the next phase with this part of our neighborhood that's been there for many, many years. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? All right, for those in opposition to the listing, please come forward. What's that? Yes.

My name is Beth Stevens and I admit my ignorance. I'm only been in Fresno four years, but I'm 100% sold out for the community of Southeast Fresno because my husband is the president of Fresno Pacific University. and we've just given our all to that community of Southeast Fresno. So I live right down the street from the IRS property. I have a vision for having a children's museum in Fresno. I know there's a one small one, but I'm a former educator and have a master's degree in curriculum and instruction, and I'm super artistic, and I would love to be part of... bringing something beautiful to a very dilapidated space in our community. And if I need to shut up and sit down because this is not an appropriate place to say it, I'm very well aware. I know Paul Halajian, and he said, Beth, that's an amazing idea, but that might not be the property for it because he's seen the inside. And so but if there could be anything in that community, in that property that is aesthetically beautiful, that is providing for our community, for the children to be in an air conditioned space. I grew up in San Francisco. My adult life has been in Los Angeles and it's freaking hot here. And so to be able to have bring grandkids that and community members to a beautiful to make a beautiful place. I'm someone that has The way I'm wired is to repurpose things and make things that are not beautiful become beautiful. And so I would love to be a part of making something beautiful there that was good for the community. But I also admit my ignorance that I've only been here less than five years. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Anyone else? Anybody on Zoom? We're not set up yet? Okay. All right. With that, I'll bring it back up to the dais here with additional questions. I know that Commissioner Johnson is itching for several of them.

Not itching. But well, no, I do have a lot of questions because I think that the LSA consultant made a lot of very good arguments for the importance, not just architecturally, but historically and culturally for Southeast Fresno of the IRS building. And I remember when I first moved to Fresno 30 years ago, all I ever heard was on TV, let's get a job. get a job at the IRS. And it's where so many people got their start in their career by going to the IRS. And I know that I've read and heard things on the news that said a lot of local people found that to be their second home and their big career opportunity. Now, my understanding, too, is that adaptive reuse or cabs hair documentation are options even if we put it on the local register. But if we do not, there's still the issue that it has been found. It's considered eligible to the national register and the state register, even if it's not eligible for, at least if we don't find it eligible for the local register. So it still has been found by a professional register. consultant to have historic value. And so it seems to me that even though, okay, and then it becomes a management issue, even if a property is found eligible to the national register or to the state register, or even the local register, I've researched it. It doesn't mean that it can't be demolished, adapted, any kinds of, I personally, as a former forest archeologist, have overseen the demolition of National Register properties. I wasn't happy about it, but in some cases they had asbestos that couldn't be renovated, or in some cases there was mercury contamination. So I know that even though we find something eligible, it just, that just opens the door. It doesn't close any doors. It just opens the door for the potential for adaptive reuse consideration. If that's, if that's feasible and possible, it also just opens the door for mitigation through documentation, for instance, has hair documentation, which is secretary of interior standards for engineering and architectural projects. And that's just a series of engineering drawings and a little more elaborate uh documentation it um of the of the property itself and actually to that thought I had a couple of other relevant questions, which is, I have not seen the inside of that building and I wouldn't mind seeing, getting a tour of the building and the facility. I went there today and I could only see it from behind a cyclone fence from several hundred yards away. And it would be really helpful as far as I'm concerned for a building of such importance for us For me, I would like to be able to look at the interior and exterior. And another thing, it's too bad the LSA people aren't here. I wasn't sure if there was a mural or any kind of painting that had been associated with that property. And that would be another thing that we might want to consider for preservation or recordation. before we start turning or demolishing the building. And like I said, I'm not saying demolition is impossible or the project is impossible. It's just a building of this importance probably needs one more step and one more step of consideration. And I think that local register recognition would be a helpful step. So that's my...

Okay.

Thanks. Thank you.

If I may just offer additional information, we did investigate the mural that is located in the lobby. And there is some discussion of it in the historic resource assessments. We did find documentation from the Fresno Bee that it was painted by an employee of the center in about 2003. So it's not historic by age. It is sort of an appealing mural, but not really associated with the history of the property.

If our period of significance is 1970 to 2021, even though that mural is not 50 years old, it's still within the period of significance. And there are provisions within the CEQA and NEVA to recognize the importance of objects that may not be 50 years old, but had a meaning. We are given a really unique opportunity now, not to get on my grandstand, but 50 years ago, the federal government and the whole nation were very rich and we were expanding and we were building beautiful facilities all over the country. And that was kind of a golden age of federal employment and federal optimism. Well, we're kind of now 50 years later in this contraction period. And we're responsible for keeping the record, keeping the archive of the buildings that represent that golden age. And we may not be able to protect all the buildings, but we at least need to document. And that's where Hab's hair comes in. And it's just documentation. So I just would like to, I would like to see the building before I could really make a decision.

Sure. I just wanted to offer some more information about the mural since it is noted in the report, but we didn't speak about it in the presentation.

Okay.

Anyone else on the commission? Okay. Okay. So I think with that, we'll go ahead and close the hearing and move on to our recommended action. Staff does recommend to hold the hearing and determine whether to initiate a designation. So I guess we're at that point.

I think I'm prepared to help this be listed. Okay.

All right. Okay.

Second.

All right. So are we motioning to accept the potential to go ahead and initiate designation of the property located at 5045 East Butler?

Yes, with the evidence in the report, I think that it's qualified and therefore our job as Historic Reservation Commission is to see this on the listing.

Okay. So with a motion to initiate designation, do we have a second?

I second.

All right. So we have a motion by Vice Chair Hatwig, a second by Commissioner Federico, seconded All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, passes 5-0.

Any sort of future, just to note, steps in the project need to go through its own process with planning commissions to council. Yes.

Yep, they'll have to move forward from there.

Great. And I'm willing to wait for that for the tour.

Yes, the tour. So we'll move on to item seven B, which will be the workshop on amendments to the implementing regulations for section one Oh six of the national historic preservation act.

Hi everyone. Can, uh, can everyone hear me? Well, you guys are muted, so. Yes, we can hear you. Apologies. Hello. Yes, I'm Ashley Losko. I work for Rincon Consultants as an architectural historian and assistant project manager. We've been working with the City of Fresno Planning Department with the City Historic Preservation Program and acting as the Historic Preservation Specialist per your historic preservation ordinance. So we're very excited to work with you all and get to know you all and get to know your historic resources in Fresno. And we were also brought in to discuss the proposed amendments to the implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. It is a big change in our world right now. So we wanted to kind of walk through it you know, discuss what those changes, what those proposed changes are. So currently the advisory council on historic preservation or the ACHP, as you'll see, as we move through this, uh, is proposing changes to the section 106 implementing regulations, which could affect the preservation of local resources and community's ability to advocate for those resources. Since the Historic Preservation Commission of Fresno is one of the largest local interested parties in Fresno, I'm here to walk you through those proposed changes so you can best advocate for your historic resources. So taking a step back, what is Section 106? Why are we all here today? Section 106 is a section of the National Historic Preservation Act passed by the federal government in 1966. So after World War II, the US was experiencing astronomical development, the baby boom, so new housing, new everything to house, to teach, to help, you know, just new spaces for this growing population. And so several resources and historic buildings were torn down in the process. People also wanted to move towards modernity and have buildings that reflected that. So the mid-century modern style was created to reflect that movement. By the 1960s, though, people realized that they were losing their historic resources. And so the National Historic Preservation Act was passed in response to that. So one of the biggest catalysts for it was the demolition of Penn Station in New York City in 1963. which brought out a lot of very famous architects and their wives to protest its demolition. So Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of an undertaking, which means the proposed project, on historic properties, which is any property over 50 years old. It is triggered by any involvement by the federal government, such as use of federal funding, permitting, location within a federal property, and a myriad of other reasons. So within Fresno HUD funding is triggers section 106 we've been working with the city already with that process and then also permitting for through the Federal Transportation Administration for the high speed road project currently under construction for us now, as you are all aware, through traffic and other things. So it additionally requires agencies to consult with local interested parties and Native American tribes. which is really the teeth of Section 106 and is really one of the most important standards within the rule. So we're going to get into the changes of those. So moving on to the next slide, please. All right, so the ACHP has proposed several changes to Section 106, implementing regulations language, which is currently under review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA, as you'll see in the presentation. We're going to focus on three of the key changes to the language. There are several other changes that they're proposing, but these three key changes are the ones that our organization and others are the most concerned about. So this first one, again, taking that step back to look at the larger process as it stands now before the changes. Currently, Section 106 requires federal agencies to follow a set review process. to avoid or minimize effects to historic properties. They have to first determine the scope of work and the location of the undertaking. The lead agency has to then identify any historic properties within or adjacent to the project footprint to show good faith effort to avoid and minimize damage. However, with the proposed changes to Section 106, it increases agency discretion for evaluating and documenting effects to historic properties. So the proposed rule shifts authority away from the collaborative consultation framework, excuse me, Congress established in favor of a unilateral federal agency control over nearly every stage of the process. federal agencies will be able to shorten, lengthen, or waive procedural deadlines, and federal agencies will no longer be required to try to avoid or minimize damage to historic properties. Next slide, please. Currently, under Section 106, federal agencies must consult with local interested parties, which includes local and state governments, Native American tribes, and local historical societies. However, with the proposed changes to the Section 106 language, consultation with SHBOs, THBOs, tribes, and the public will now be optional. So state and local governments will no longer be notified nor have the opportunity to comment when federal agencies propose to damage historic places within their jurisdiction. The public's opportunity to comment would now be entirely optional. And federal agencies will no longer be required to consult with Native American tribes or seek their expertise regarding their own significant cultural resources. This prevents the public from being notified of the demolition or alteration of historic properties and advocating for their preservation and will prevent local tribes and even the Fresno City and County Historical Society and the city of Fresno itself from advocating for their historic resources as local interested parties. Next slide, please. So lastly, as we stated before, an undertaking is the project or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency. And additionally, a historic property means any prehistoric or historic district site, building, structure, or object included on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register, including artifacts, records, and material remains relating to the district, site, building, structure, or object. So with the proposed changes, what's considered an undertaking and a historic property will change. The list of types of projects or undertakings that would trigger 106 would be limited. So less projects would be reviewed under Section 106, increasing the chances of causing effects to historic properties. Historic properties would now only include those properties with physical elements such as buildings, structures, or objects. Archaeological sites, tribal cultural resources, and geographic areas are no longer considered historic properties. So tribal cultural resources and sites such as Table Mountain Rancheria and Mono Village in Fresno County and cultural landscapes such as Bears Ears, which is in the news right now, and Grand Canyon will no longer be considered historic properties. Next slide, please. So where are we in the rulemaking process? This is a lot. There's a lot going on. So where are we in this? So back in July, the ACHP released their proposed changes to Section 106. Then they voted on those changes and submitted them to OIRA. And currently, local interested parties can request a meeting with OIRA to discuss proposed changes. So this includes nonprofit organizations, business and trade associations, and state, local, and tribal governments. So as a local government, the city of Fresno or the HPC can schedule a call with OIRA and voice your concerns if you are interested. So I did include two contact information for ACHP members who can schedule that meeting for you with OIRA because unfortunately that is the only form of public comment that is available right now. If we move on to the next slide, we can also You also can reach out to your local representatives. That is always a good option. So I included Governor Newsom's information and also your local congressional representative Jim Costa's information. That is one of the strongest forms of advocacy that you can do to voice your concerns right now. because they can always send it up the chain if they get enough concerned citizens. But eventually, you will be able to participate in a public comment. Once the changes have been published in the Federal Register, they will open up that 30-day public comment period, and it should be available online through some kind of form and you can go on there and submit your public comment. So hopefully that should be any day now. So yeah, we'll see when that gets released. Once the public comment period is closed, the ACHP will review all public comments along with additional stakeholder and ACHP member input. They will then vote on the final rule. And if it passes, HVAC will resubmit the final rule to OIRA again. And if it passes them, the final rule will be published in the Federal Register and go into effect 30 days later. None of these changes have occurred, but you can voice your concerns now through your local representatives or eventually through a public comment. This will not change anything at the local level of review nor the CEQA process. Within the state of California, you'll still have CEQA to protect historic resources, And then you'll also have the Fresno historic preservation ordinance to protect resources at the local level, which is really the form of regulations that have the strongest teeth are actually local regulations. And even if these changes are passed, they will still be delayed due to legal challenges likely. So we have a long road ahead of us. Nothing has changed so far. And so we're, you know, following the same protocols as usual, but obviously you're, you know, voice your concerns when you can and where you can. And yeah, I'm available for any questions if anyone has any. If you think of any later, Ashley can always share my information with you. But yeah, no, thank you so much for having me. That was a lot of information I just threw at everyone.

Thank you. Um, just because this is a workshop, we don't go out to the public for it, but do the commissioners have any questions?

Actually we do.

We do for workshop.

We do now. Okay. That is new.

That is new. Okay. So at that point we will now go out to the public and then commissioners can have any questions they have for, uh, for our presenter. Anybody in the public that would like to speak on this item? Okay, seeing none, we'll come back. Commissioners?

I have a question. Yeah. Is the city planning to make a response to this in general? Since... It seems like the federal government's almost trying to become like a new railroad or something where they just have absolute right to do whatever they want and not worry about the public comment.

At this point, the city has not made a determination if it intends to respond.

Okay. Okay.

So I do have a couple of questions with regards to the listening to the item and the workshop. And thank you for presenting these items because I think it's critical for our commission to be prepared for them and be ready for them. With regards to the questions on the section 106, It sounded to me that most of this was kind of if it's going to be more government initiated, that a lot of this would be bypassed. Or is this going to be something where if somebody's, say, building a housing project in a historic building, they could request for those items to be bypassed as well?

I believe it's more at the federal level, but I do believe in the information that's been released by various organizations, the state, how do I phrase this? The project that you had, the example you gave, where if it's a state organization or city, like through HUD funding, those would not be included within the projects that would be reviewed.

They would not be reviewed because of the new, the, the, the potential changes.

Correct.

Okay. So essentially if anything is touching any federal dollars, they, they would essentially bypass and that's not something that has to be requested. It would be something that could, that would just essentially happen not quite automatically, but pretty close to automatically.

Correct. Yeah. I, I anticipate, so it's going to be agency by agency, which it technically, Is kind of now each agency kind of handles things differently, but they still have that strict process that they do have to follow so now. It will be even more you know, based on the agent, it will be agency by agency even more now, so if they want to skip the entire process, they can. They can fast forward the timeline if they would like to. But we anticipate if when this if this goes like whenever this goes through after legal challenges, we don't anticipate things to change right away, you know, like. My experience with different federal agencies, these processes are ingrained in everything that we do right now. So I don't believe they'll change things right away. But eventually, it just takes that one lead agency to say, well, I don't want to consult anymore with these tribes. So I'm done. And then it could snowball to where then it gives other agencies confidence to then start cutting down the process.

Right. And I see what you're saying. And I would say that in that example, it would probably be the, you know, Department of Interior would be probably one of the first ones that would say, I'm done consulting on that.

Yeah. As we've seen in the news, you know, a lot of public lands have been opened up for various purposes, oil drilling, one of the main ones. So yeah, I could see more of the public lands being the biggest change when it comes to agencies.

And then you did say that local and state preservation ordinances do have more impact in that sense. Even with these changes, they would still have that impact. There's no There's nothing in the language where they're trying to say that you could bypass overall a local state historic preservation ordinances in the event of a 106?

As far as we've seen so far, no. It is just that federal level. You will still have CEQA and then your local regulations to protect historic resources. So you'll still have to go through the various EIRs, ISMNDs for the CEQA process, and then, you know, your local regulations. So, you know, that hopefully that won't change. Hopefully they won't allow, but I don't see that happening, hopefully. But because that would also allow open up more lawsuits. But yeah, as of right now, state and local regulations are still intact.

Okay. Any other questions from the commission? All right. Thank you so much for that information.

Yeah, thank you, everyone.

All right, we will now move on to item seven C, which is our regular monthly topic updates, starting with staff updates.

Good evening again, chair and commissioners, Ashley Atkinson, assistant director for planning and development. Uh, first up is our monthly update on the, uh, brewer Adobe. We do not have any further information regarding the plans of the applicant or property owner, but we have asked our consultants with Rincon to do an assessment of the building based on the historic documentation that is available, which is extensive, and to look at the kind of technical feasibility or limitations of the site in its current condition. So Rincon is working on that research. And as of now, we do not have an estimate of when it would be done. There's potentially will be a site visit as well, but hope to have some more information on that for you at our next meeting.

Okay.

And of course the rainy season will be here before we know it. We will also make sure that the TARP that was put in place earlier this year is still functional as well. Just another brief update on our Chinatown Historic District Survey. We do have our consultants from Stantec actively working on that. They have finished reviewing the documentation that was provided to them by the city. They also spent most of last week here in Fresno, or sorry, that's most of this week they are here in Fresno conducting on-the-ground surveys and doing additional research, including research with the Historical Society, the libraries, and other sources. So that work is proceeding along well, and we are expecting to get an update from them on the outcome of their site visit and their time spent here So we'll be able to share that next month. If you have any questions, just pause me before I move on. And just as another brief update, as you can tell, we have brought Rincon fully on board at this time. They are assisting us with various tasks that require the expertise of architectural historians and the other folks that they have on their team. such as the one I just mentioned with the assessment of the Brewer Adobe, the presentation that you just heard on section 106. And we are also transitioning most of our project review activities to Rincon. Originally, I think we had contemplated that all project review activities would be conducted by Rincon staff, but we are finding that some of the lower level projects don't need to go to them. So we are still doing some work at the staff city staff level in-house, and the more complex reviews will be conducted by their qualified team. And if there are no questions on that, so we'll move on to, I think, our June and July reports. Again, with the support of Rincon at this time, we're continuing to review planning entitlements and complete those essentially on pace. The same with building permits. I'm still seeing large volumes of those and completing those reviews generally within 10 days. Completing Section 106 reviews as well. Just a few of those came in in the last couple of months. We have no activity in this table for the Mills Act, excuse me, but I will note that we are processing three Mills Act applications and do expect to conduct those site visits as soon as possible within the next month and to bring those contracts to you for approval this fall. No activity in the mitigation program to report at this time. And I think that is it for staff updates.

All right. We'll move on to our subcommittee updates. We'll start with architectural review.

Can you speak into the microphone, please? Thank you. Sorry.

For the record. I was projecting enough. Okay. Yeah, no, at this point, it's been a very quiet summer for us in the architectural review subcommittee. So we have no updates.

All right. Code updates. Yes. We had our second working session. The first couple sessions were informative and getting prepared. But yeah, we had our second working session. We're making modifications to portions of the code. Okay. And it's going swimmingly. Swimmingly? Yes. All right.

That's all right. I don't think financial met. I know HPC month did not meet. I did get an email from Carrie regarding the plaques, because we have a few people that are interested in the plaques, and I did turn those over to you so we have that template for them to work with. So we're good to go on that. I think that's what we have. Okay. All right. Moving on, we'll go ahead and move on to the chairperson's report. I did want to thank the staff and Rincon for putting together that 106 review. I thought it was important information for us to have, especially as a commission. And the fact that we've had several 106 reviews come through in the last, just in the last year with regards to several projects, I felt that it was important for us to know what is potential changes that we're looking at. And so that maybe as a commission, if we need to, we can form an opinion on it or something along those lines. So I do appreciate that and we're back at it, we're ready to go. So that's all I have for my report. So we'll move on to any unscheduled items from the members of the commission. Seeing none, we'll go any unscheduled items from staff. And then we'll finally go out to the general public. If there's any unscheduled communications that the public has for us, please come forward. All right. With that, our next meeting will be, I believe it is September 28th at 6 p.m. and it will be located here. Other than that, I will entertain a motion for adjournment. I have a motion to adjourn. Okay, we have a motion to adjourn. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we have a second. Meeting is ended at 7.06. Thank you.