Park and Recreation Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, and welcome to the May meeting of the Cultural Heritage Board. We call this meeting to order at 03:30, and we will start with the pledge of allegiance. Thank you, Board Member Kron. That leads us to our first category of general public comment on matters pertaining to historic preservation. I would Oh, I'm sorry.

We have announcements too. So first we need to hear the recording for the civility announcement.

Pursuant to the City Council rules of procedure and order of business resolution, the members of the City Council and the public are reminded that they must preserve order and decorum throughout the meeting. In that regard, members of the City Council and the public are advised that any delay or disruption in the proceedings or a refusal to obey the orders of the City Council or the presiding officer constitutes a violation of these rules. The City of Riverside is committed to fostering a workplace that provides dignity, respect, and civility to our employees, customers, and the public they serve.

Thank you for that. And that moves us into general public comments. So if we could first have the recorded announcement, then we'll go to comments in chamber.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call (951) 826-8688, and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press 9. When called to speak, press 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Okay. And while we wait for online callers to join us, if there are any, we'll have, comments in public. I do have one card from Dave Stolte with the Old Riverside Foundation. Can't hear me. We're now in public comment, and Mr. Stolte, you are first up.

Thank you. I'm not sure if there's something going on with your mic or your speakers, but we can't hear you all back in the peanut gallery. Thank you. Chair, members of the Cultural Heritage Board, city staff. My name is Dave Stolte and I'm speaking today on behalf of Old Riverside Foundation where I serve as president.

The Mission Inn is not simply a private hotel property. It is one of Riverside's defining cultural landmarks and for over a hundred and twenty years, it has functioned as a publicly accessible gallery of art, architecture, history, and civic identity. Frank Miller did not build the mission in merely as a commercial enterprise. He assembled it as a cultural institution. Like Henry Huntington and Andrew Carnegie, Miller believed that private wealth and collecting should serve a broader public purpose.

He personally curated paintings, sculpture, furniture, architectural fragments, antiquities, and historic objects so that visitors, not only elites, but ordinary people could encounter world culture here in Riverside. That public legacy now requires immediate attention. Several notable objects associated with the Mission Inn's historic collection are no longer visible in their customary location, ownership status and stewardship obligations should be formally clarified. Some of these items may have left public view before the current escrow period that we're in. Others have become a matter of concern today.

In either case, the public deserves a clear accounting. The objects of concern include Verichoggen's painting, Charge Up San Juan Hill William Keith's California Alps, William Wentz Arch Beach, the Pomona statue, Ilya Rapon's Madame Correva, the Steinway Centennial Piano, and the Taft Chair. I also understand that the Roberts family's 1990s purchase agreement may have been vague regarding the disposition of the hotel's collection. I'm not asking this board to determine legal title or assigned responsibility. I am asking the board to recognize that these are not ordinary furnishings.

They are priceless cultural resources closely tied with the Mission Inn's historic meaning. Their absence diminishes the integrity of the landmark and the public's ability to understand Frank Miller's vision. This is especially urgent because the property is now in escrow. Once significant items are separated from the site, sold, transferred, or otherwise placed beyond public accountability, recovery becomes far more difficult. On behalf of Old Riverside Foundation, I ask the Cultural Heritage Board to take whatever action is within its authority and to request a formal inventory. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Stolte. Do we have any other public comments, general public comments in chamber? Okay. Do we have any callers online?

No callers.

No callers online. Okay. So, we'll close general public comment at this time. That moves us to the consent calendar. We have two items on the consent calendar, which are the minutes from the April meeting and to excuse the absence of board mayors or remiras from the April meeting. Do I have a motion to approve or does anybody have any questions and want to pull these? You know what? Since I've already opened this, let's finish this, and then I will let you respond. Any motion to approve the consent calendar?

I'll make a motion to approve.

Okay. Mr. Eid Nelson moves moves to approve. Any second?

I'll second.

Vice Chair Castellano's second. So let's vote on approving the consent calendar. Okay. So let's vote now. Ms.

Ramirez, did you abstain? Okay. So the motion passes with four yes votes and one abstention. That did not appear on screen by Board Member Ramirez. So consent calendar motions are passed. Before we move into public hearings, Vice Chair Castellanos wanted to respond to our public comment.

Yes. Regarding the issue about the Mission Inn, those items belong to the Mission Inn itself. Correct? Or is or is that passed down to the owners of the Mission Inn? We don't know. And what kind of influence? I'm not sure if there is any influence that this board has over those items, but maybe you can inform us.

Just to be clear, you can ask public comment you can ask public clarifying questions. You cannot entertain to debate or question opinion. So ahead and say your question again.

Yes. Would you happen to know whether or not we have any sort of influence over those items at the Mission Inn? Formerly. Yes.

Please speak into the microphone.

That's out of my scope. I would invite the Cultural Heritage Board to explore what it is that can be done from this standpoint and to urge city council and the city attorney to do whatever can be done from their standpoint.

Staff can look at Title 20 and see what's under the purview of the board and then work with the chair to, if necessary, agendize an item.

Yeah, it seems like an important item worth looking at. So thank you for that.

Thank you, Mr. Stolte. Mr. Castellanos, you for bringing that to our attention. And thank you, Mr. Watson, for the answer. Okay. So now that moves us into public hearings. We have one public hearing today, which is item number four and on our agenda which concerns amendments to Title XX. So I'm going to yield to staff for a presentation.

All right. Good afternoon, honorable chair and members of the Cultural Heritage Board. I am Clarissa Mengus, assistant planner with the Planning Division's Advanced Planning Team. The purpose of the amendments before you today is to implement non substantive changes to Title 20 recommended in a twenty twenty four to twenty twenty five legal review of the entire Riverside Municipal Code, or RMC, as well as to make other minor adjustments, clarifications, and corrections. The legal review was conducted by Civic Plus, the third party vendor that maintains the RMC, and the focus today is on updating references to titles and removing Title I duplicate language.

The first component of the proposed amendment changes how RMC titles are referenced. Currently, many titles of the RMC are referred to as code. And while Title XX doesn't follow this practice, other titles referenced in Title XX do. For instance, Title XIX, which is called Zoning, is known as the zoning code. Referring to individual titles as codes can create confusion since only the RMC is a code and the rest are titles of the code.

Therefore, the proposed change is to remove the word code from references to titles and to revise other references to be clearer and more concise. The slide provides some examples of changes to how titles are referenced. The first two examples show how the word code is removed from references to Title XIX, and the third shows how a reference to Title XX was shortened to be more concise. The next component is the removal of duplicate text found in Title I, which defines how the RMC and city government function. Repeating portions of Title I outside that title is redundant and risks internal inconsistency within the RMC.

Title 20 currently contains Section 20.45.030, which duplicates Title I severability language stating that if any part of a title is found to be invalid, the rest of the title still considered valid. The proposed change is to remove that section. This slide shows the severability text of Section 20.45.030 that will be removed. Lastly, this slide shows some examples of other minor changes to Title XX, such as correcting the casing of words, removing reserved chapters, and adding the names of approval types, such as the Mills Act, to the body of certain sections in Chapter 20.15 for greater clarity and context. Staff recommends that the Cultural Heritage Board recommend that the City Council, one, determine that planning case PC twenty twenty six-four zero eight is exempt from further California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA review pursuant to Section 15061B.

Three, general rule of the CEQA guidelines two, approve Planning Case PC twenty twenty six-four zero eight Title XX Zoning Tax Amendment as outlined in the staff report and summarized in the findings section of this report and three, introduce and subsequently adopt an ordinance amending Title 20 Cultural Resources of the Riverside Municipal Code. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you for that presentation. We're going to go into public comment. So if we could please have the recording for the public comment for this item four.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call (951) 826-8688, and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press 9. When called to speak, press 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Okay. Do we have any public comments in chamber for item four? Seeing none, anyone online for item four?

No one online.

No one online. So that's going to close public comment and that actually closes the public hearing. So board members, do you have any questions for staff on this item? Again, just to reiterate, these are all non substantive, correct? Thank you for cleaning things up. As a grammarian, I appreciate it. Okay. With no questions, do I hear a motion to approve as presented?

I'll motion to approve as presented.

I'll second.

Okay. Ramirez moved to approve. Crohn seconded. So there's no more discussion. Let's vote.

Alright.

Motion passes with all yes votes. Thank you. That removes item four. And so, now we are onto our discussion calendar, which is item number five. I was going to warn us all to make sure we didn't talk too much because we're, you know, in the interest of time, but we're doing good. So, Mr. Watson, your turn.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Chair McDonough, members of the Culture Heritage Board. Scott Watson, historic preservation officer. The next item before you hopefully, the presentation comes up soon. The next item before you is a certificate of appropriateness request for the Iron Lofts project.

As a matter of information, other planning entitlements for this project include a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, zoning code map amendment, tentative track map and a site plan review, which will be presented to the Planning Commission tomorrow on May 21. All entitlement recommendations, including a recommendation on the certificate of appropriateness request, will be presented to City Council for final action at a later date. The project site consists of 12 parcels located on the East Side Of Commerce Street between Mission Inn Avenue and 5th Street in Ward 1. The project site is also within the Citrus Industrial Thematic Potential Historic District, and the parcels fronting onto Michigan Avenue are within the 7th Street East Historic District. The project site is mostly vacant land that was the site of the former Riverside recycle.

Additionally, the project site includes a nonhistoric structure to be demolished, the former Barley Mills building, which is designated as a structure of merit, and the location of the former SodaWorks building, which was a structure of merit but unfortunately collapsed in 2023 due to a severe wind event. The proposed project includes the construction of a four story building on the west edge of the project site containing two ninety five multifamily residential units and a two story building along Mission Inn Avenue comprised of five townhome units. The Barley Mills Building, highlighted here, is proposed to be rehabilitated and adaptively reused as the fitness center and clubhouse for the project. The location of the former SodaWorks building will be developed with a dog park, which will create an open space between the new construction and the historic residences to the east. A commemorative wall is proposed along Michigan Avenue at the location of the former SodaWorks building and will incorporate salvaged concrete blocks from the original structure and include an interpretive plaque describing the history of the building and the site.

The architectural palette of the new construction references the historically industrial character of the site through the use of light gray stucco cladding, burnished concrete masonry unit blocks, weathered steel panels in rust red and brown tones, perforated steel panels in similar finishes, dark gray corrugated metal, steel grate railings, and dark gray framed windows. The rendering shown here demonstrate the views of the new construction along Mission Inn Avenue. The new construction will be similar in layout to the Mission Lofts directly to the south, which was found compatible with the Citrus Industrial Thematic Potential Historic District and the 7th Street East Historic District previously by CHB and was issued a certificate of appropriateness. The step down in heights from four stories to two stories along Mission Avenue will allow for a softer transition from the more industrial portions of the street nearest the railroad track to the single family residences and allow the project to be compatible with the residences in terms of height, scale and massing. As part of the rehabilitation of the Barley Mills Building, the nonoriginal additions will be removed.

The original structure outlined here will receive structural upgrades to address unreinforced masonry conditions, including roof diaphragm replacement, wall anchorage and internal bracing. The proposed rehabilitation also includes installation of a new corrugated metal roof to match the historic material. Construction of the original corrugated metal topped pent roof canopy with brackets along the east, south and west elevations rehabilitation and restoration of the original wood double hung windows on the south east, south and west elevations and installation of new wood windows within previously infilled arched freight door openings designed to match the style and function of the original windows. As a matter of record, a cultural resources assessment dated 03/07/2025, was prepared by historic preservation architect Taylor Loudon for the project and concluded that the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Staff concurs with the findings of this assessment and also finds the project is consistent with the principles and standards of site development and design outlined in Title 20.

With that, staff recommends that the Cultural Heritage Board review and provide comment on the cultural resources analysis included in the mitigated negative declaration and recommend that City Council determine that planning case PR twenty twenty three-one 149 will not have significant effect on cultural resources, adopt the mitigated negative declaration and approve the certificate of appropriateness component of the project. This concludes staff's presentation. The applicant is available if you have any questions.

Does the applicant have any planned presentation?

If we can pull up the applicant exhibits, please.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Cultural Heritage Board. My name is Darren Olson of Iron Lofts LLC. We are the project applicant, property owner and developer of the proposed Iron Lofts project. Thank you, Scott, for the great presentation. And we're here to obviously share the project.

And we have our whole team here if there's any detailed questions on whether it's the historic Bartley Mills Building or the overall I know we're here for the cultural aspect of the Bartley Mills Building, but we have the project architect here as well. But yeah, we had a rendering put together just so we could share with you what the Barley Mills Building will look like upon rehabilitation. And that's the building in the middle, which goes up almost to the 3rd Floor of the proposed new four story building. And this is the image on Commerce Street. And on the other side, so this is the same Barley Mills Building post rehabilitation, looking at you know, the building really is going to serve at the end of the day.

It's going to be a club room facility for the new housing community to utilize. So it will a club room, will be a fitness center. And this is a shot of the outdoor pool area with the Barley Mills Building as a backdrop. Yep. Yeah, if there's questions, I'm here. Our team's here. Hopefully we can help answer any questions you might have.

Okay. Thank you. We're going go into our public comment time and then if anybody has questions, we'll get back to you.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

So Board, we're going do public comments and then questions. So if we could play the announcement for our online callers, listeners.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call (951) 826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press 9. When called to speak, press 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Okay. While we wait for anybody who might want to call in to give them a minute, do we have any comments in chamber for this item? I don't see any. Do we have anybody

who's No, had I'm time sorry I didn't call find it. Okay.

Okay, we're going to close public comment both online and in chamber at this time. So that means we're going to go to board questions. I would like to remind the board about our purview in this project. Remember, we're not the planning board. We only get to look at the cultural resource assessment, the mitigation of mitigated negative declaration, and impact on historic district and its nearby historic resources. So, knowing that, does anybody have questions? Board Member Ramirez.

This question is more for Scott. Can you explain the difference between a building of significance and a designated historical building?

So a building significance may not be formally designated. So a designated resource goes through a formal process going to the Cultural Heritage Board and then ultimately city council for final adoption. A building may still be of significance and may be eligible for designation but hasn't gone through that process. And also to just kind of also clarify, structures of merit, because I think that was part of may have been part of your question, is a type of designation we have. It's just a little bit lower of a designation than a city landmark, let's say.

Think it's on.

Am I

on? Excellent. Okay. Even in the back? Great. I have I have a few questions. First, a comment. It's unfortunate that we don't have a member from Ward 2 with us. I looked, Ward 2 is missing representatives on five different committees, and this really does affect Ward 2 as much as any or probably more than any. And it's unfortunate we don't have a voice representing Ward 2, and I would urge the council member from Ward 2 to take action to correct that.

Let's see. I have have I don't first of all, housing is super important. I love that we're getting more housing, and I think it's a very interesting take, the industrial take on this area from an old metals recycling facility from years ago. You know, it resonates with me. I remember that facility and kind of looking at it in awe and, you know, I respected what they were doing.

I didn't really care for the appearance. But the fact that that soil is being remediated in a sound way, that's not a small deal. Yeah. So thank you for that. Outside of my purview, but, you know. Also, as a former board member of the Riverside Public Utilities, I saw there are a lot of EV spaces. I hope that there will be that many. That's really exciting. That's a new thing. And that will bring a lot of value to the city and to the residents there and to our region because of the air quality concerns.

But more on our purview. These don't come in any particular order. There was mention of railroad tracks, historic railroad tracks that were running in front. I was wondering, are you referring to the railroad tracks that are actually in the road on Commerce Street?

I believe that that is what's being referred to,

yes. Okay.

Riverside Wheelman were founded in 1892. It's the oldest Riverside bike club this side of Mississippi, so hence our interest. Those railroad tracks are extremely dangerous for bicyclists now. You ride in them because they're they're going down, you can't cross them safely and if your bike goes into the to the edge along the rail, you go down because I've been down. And and you learn, you know, once, but it's it's really treacherous. So you're gonna have a lot of people there. They're probably gonna be riding bikes. You might wanna look at making that safe. I don't know what their historic interest is. I think you guys in your report said it's not necessarily of critical historic interest.

I think it is of interest, but they're not safe. So just pointing that out. In the design for the building that we're considering, and again, I'm what I've seen is really limited to what you guys put in. So, you know, if my understanding isn't complete, I'm working with what I have. But it looks like there were less arches in the current plan than there were in the original plan than in original structure. And in my opinion, the arches are really add a lot to the aesthetic. So am I misunderstanding that or

Are you referring to on the Barley Mills building?

Yes. Is all Barley Mills building stuff now. If you look at the original historic photo, it was kind of fuzzy, but

All of the original arches are being retained. What's happening a lot of them were infilled previously because they were bay doors, a character defining feature that needs to be retained or preserved. So this particular certificate of appropriateness is only focused on the exterior. That's why all the conversation is on the exterior. But if you do still have the questions on the dimensional lumber, I could defer to Taylor Loudon

on that. Yeah, would. I also would have a question as to what's grounds for not including the original, the interior in the analysis? Because that's really the most important part.

Unfortunately, we don't have that record based off of the original designation. So we go back to the original designation, and the original designation was only for the exterior of the structure.

In other words, if the interior wasn't recognized when the building was assessed as important, significant to the designation, if that wasn't done, then it is now not part of our purview to assess what happens to the interior. That would have had to be recognized at the time it was designated as a structural merit.

Okay. Well, I'm just learning. That's a big problem. That's a huge problem.

But what we can do is encourage.

Yeah. I mean nothing should be no processing plant like that should be considered without looking at the inside. It just that doesn't it's just a box otherwise. I mean, it's what happened in there happened inside the building.

I think the other aspect of things is to understand is the structure can be historically significant, not necessarily for architecture. While the architecture may be impressive, the historic significance is often tied, especially in these type of structures, to what occurred there. So for example, the Food Machinery Corporation building, it's a very basic industrial building, but what occurred on that site is historically significant, similar to this. So it's understanding the distinction between the architectural significance versus the cultural significance of the business that was related and so on.

Okay, I don't understand your answer.

So when we designate a historic structure, there's list of criteria. In those list of criteria, some of those are related to architecture, some of them are not. So this particular structure, it's not necessarily the architecture that makes it historically significant. It is what occurred there, the business, etcetera, that is. So when we're looking at modifications to the structure, we need to look at the impact to not necessarily the architecture itself, but the impact to what it represents to that historic significance, whether it be a person, a business, so on and so forth.

It's difficult distinction, but ultimately, will the modifications to the structure still represent the significance of the Barley Mills company?

Okay. Yeah. I'm an agricultural engineer. I learned how to design those things. So I appreciate, you know, the activities that went on there.

Well, so but I defer to you about our authority. I'm not trying to exceed our authority, but I just I'm new to the board and I've got questions. How much in the original trusses will be preserved? Can anybody or will they be removed, or is there going to be a are we going be able to see the roof and that kind of thing? I know it's a big change in the use.

Hello, Todd Cadwell. Pleasure to be before you. The intent is to save as much as possible. The building has been damaged heavily by fire and vagrant activity. And so a lot of this the wood in there has water damage or fire damage. And so our structural engineer will determine what can be saved, and we'll save it. And if not, it will be replaced in kind.

With the dimensional lumber?

It's a similar look, yes.

Oh, similar look. Okay. So is it going to when you're inside of it, is it going to look like you're in an old

I think if you were to walk in, you'd be impressed. You'll see what you think you would see.

Okay. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you very much. It's really good to hear.

And we agree with you. The framing is very interesting, and we intend to preserve it.

Thank you so much. I really appreciate what you're doing. Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions.

Vice Chair.

Well, thank you for putting a great presentation here. I really learned a lot and really looking forward to the project. Indeed, that neighborhood was all about orange packing fruits, and it was of some significance, especially the Riverside and its economic growth during that era. And so just trying to tie this into what you were asking, I think the structure should be given a little bit more significance, a little more importance in trying to carry that over to this new building. From what I see from some of the photos in the in the in the files, a lot of that building is made of brickwork, and I don't see any brickwork in the new buildings.

So I'd like to maybe ask mister Watson if it's should the structural style be carried over into the new structure? And as I understand it, it's our right to to maybe try to preserve not just the structures but the style, also the history of it. And it seems to me that the new building, while it tries to create an industrial look, I don't think it carries over enough from the past.

So the site actually with the former SodaWorks building had a combination of concrete block, which is being incorporated into this particular project, as well as the Barley Mills Building, which does have a combination of brick and concrete block. So they're kind of trying to balance between the two different ones. So there's no unifying architectural feature as far as material on the site itself existing.

To respond to that, do you think that the new buildings are carrying over the same style? I don't see it.

Remember that compatibility is not necessarily about style. It's about does it fit within the industrial concept of the area, height, scale, massing, etcetera. So you don't have to mimic the style in order to attain compatibility.

Seems very vague. Maybe that's part of the problem.

That is the difficulty with the Secretary's standards of compatible yet differentiated. Mr.

Loudon, you had an answer to that?

My name is Taylor Loudon. I'm the historical architect and who put together this lovely document that everybody's been studying. And in fact, that cover picture that shows the Barley Mills Building and it shows what we are going to be returning to the style, namely the projecting canopies and so on and so forth. I'd like to go back to mister Krones Krones? Krones? Krone. Krone. Because

they're

all nicely organized and presented, I figured I could answer them in the same way that they were written. And we haven't gotten to you yet, Kevin, don't worry. But yes, the significance and integrity and so on and so forth, there are a lot of buzzwords in the historic preservation circles. So they're not exactly, you know, consistent. And so we'll we'll get to that.

The first of all, the safety concerns of the railroad tracks. The the sightings of the mainline railroad did exist for the for how the the goods that you see the horse drawn wagons on on that image. That's where all the farmers would come and contribute to the, where the scales would be inside of the building, and then ultimately rolled out underneath those canopies that would be on the siding, which all the way on the left that shows that, yep, that's the fox car. So it tells a story about what's there. And and and also, one of these things that you were just bringing up, Kevin, we have the the problem of that is, well, what was the what was the facing of the of the structure?

It was brick. But but then it's also been plastered over. So what do you do then? You know, you want to maintain the character of the original building. And when we get into ultimately the construction part of this project and the design of the structural elements, they, you know, we could just as easily have a structural engineer who would say, well, it's an unreinforced masonry building.

We would like to have that all done as a concrete, you know, a spray applied concrete, shotcrete. And what that then does, it's very efficient at being structurally and and completely available for, you know, whatever is the issue. What we do have is, as opposed to that, we don't want to be looking at concrete. We want it to be on the inside. Why wouldn't you do that as a steel every six or eight foot?

Depends on steel, high strength steel tube that effectively allows you to see the brick that's there and not yet obliterate it by having it be concrete. When you look at it on the outside, it again, it it does it's hard to tell in in the in the nineteen o five era photograph, but you can see what's there. It has plaster, been plastered at some point in history, but we don't necessarily know when. So defining the period of significance, which should normally tell you this, would say, well, we just don't know. But it also is a way of plastering that, you know, allows you to see what is what what we expect to see.

It's more of a formal building in the sense that it has a it could look like the concrete structures from the 1930s that we are removing because they are not within the period of significance. So to go back to the railroad tracks themselves, that is significant to the understanding of the building and how it was the siding was used for boxcars to load up with a fruit and to ship anywhere in The United States. So we're not necessarily wanting to restore that because it has no function anymore. There have been some places at Downtown Los Angeles. There'd be one where there was a a trolley car line that had a a in had had in the within the the the within the blocks of the of the it was right in the in the where we would have the La Plaza De Cultura.

They used a brick that was I think it was cast concrete brick to mimic the lines of the of the showing you that that was where the tracks used to be. It's a little cartoonish to put it to so why would you want to put this back? Because are you expecting any boxcars anytime soon? The answer is probably not. And as a as a other part to that is the 3rd Street Underpass that's was one of the developments issues that came up, not in our project, but in terms of having that redone.

That would have meant that you're really creating a false sense of historical development, which is secretary standard number nine, which means, yeah, don't mess it up And don't pretend that this is what was there because it's you know, all of a sudden, the the grade goes down and your car goes underneath the tracks. So there's no point to keeping it, to answer that question. The the windows all being in wood, you know, again, you it's it's one way of distinguishing what's different. And what we're what we're doing now is we're replicating the the wood, you know, mostly because we have examples of it. And one of the pages further in the report, you'll have to look for it.

It you can see quite vividly that it it does not have a, it it doesn't have a a wood frame, where we have all of these. And some of these are they're they're, they're sliding panels. Those aren't necessarily needed for, you know, for that purposes as a the the functionality of the clubhouse and all that. But it it's nice to have this being matched. Could it also be having the windows be of metal?

You know, steel industrial sash windows would have been more typical of the late twenties and thirties, not so much for 1891, where it was pretty straightforward as to what it would be. The north wall, and I think you pointed out in in the north wall and what you see there is the top right. That's the original exterior of the building, but it was effectively covered over and modified by the 1930 concrete construction. So we're we're not keeping the the that part of that of that opening or rather that expansion that was made in 1930. The last little bit, just to go over into it, is

that you look at the interior space. Can I hold you there? Sorry? Can I hold you there before you move on from the wall? Sure. Staff said that the arches are being retained. But when I look at the photograph that we have, the one historic photograph, it looks like it's was it showing the south wall and what the west wall I think would be. Yeah. The west wall. And when I look at the photo, I see arches on the wind on the door and the window on the west on the I'm sorry.

Yeah. On the west wall, the front of the west wall. And I don't see them in slide eight. They're they're square. And then also on the front, it's very hard to make out in the picture but it looks like the narrow windows also have arches at the top. And then again, on the presentation on the south side on slide eight, they're they're rectangular. And the door might or might not have an arch. It's hard to tell. So just could you clarify, will the arches be retained? Am I am I misreading the photo? No. It looks very clear to me.

On the south facade, which is the second one up from the bottom. Mhmm. Those are the it's it's a segmented arch. It's it's brick masonry that's formed that way, and then you see that from the interior as well, how that how that is look how that looks in the west. That's true for the same of the door opening in that same south facade.

Okay. So they are arched. It's just

It's a segmented arch. Yeah. Yeah. And some of them, they're much broader as an arch.

I'm not an architect so I'm not yeah, a segmented arch, thank you.

Yeah, that's a new term.

If I can clarify, I think it's just that the image, it's very small, you don't see the small arch.

Sure, that's why I was asking. And then the but then on the west side, it really you don't see an arch at all in the in the photo in the picture, in the drawing. But you do at the back, but not at the front too. But in the photograph, they're clearly arched, segmented arches. So will those be retained?

Where it has a a segmented arch that you see, yeah, that will be retained because we're we're I mean, in a sense, we're obliged to keep it.

It Okay. But you see what I'm talking about in the in the drawings that they're not included in the drawings.

Well, some of them, and this would be on page 60

Gentlemen, as much as I am enjoying this discussion, we need to be expeditious with our time. And so if you have a direction and a conclusion that you could reach quickly about windows, because we do need to get through this item and one more, I'm also made aware that one of our members may have to leave early and so we may lose quorum. So keeping that in mind, we could wrap up your window discussion.

So the window discussion, just to interrupt you so that we can really do this quickly, some of those are not the original openings, and they're in the six page sixty, sixty three. This is the exterior wall of the building, but this is an opening that was then made bigger or was added when there was not an opening there before. And, again, we're we're not really as much involved in the interior and how things would work, and it's like a sliding door. Would be different. Is

it going to look like the historic photo or not? I promise. Okay. Thank you.

That's why I'm hired on the project, to make sure that what you see in that picture, and it's on page one, that's what it

is. Thank you.

That's all that I have, especially in interest of clarity. I could talk for hours, but sorry.

Me too, but I appreciate that. Both of us will restrain ourselves.

Well, thank you very much.

Mr. Kroner, anyone else, did you have any other questions? Vice Chair Castellanos.

Yes. So today's decision, it only applies to the Bailey Mills Building and not to the apartments?

No, it is all the project. The apartments, the Barley Mills, everything. Right.

So that's what I was trying to get at with my original question was, does the style of this building, the Barley Mills Building, it doesn't seem to carry over to the new apartment buildings.

And it's not required because compatibility does not hinge on style. Compatibility hinges on anything from compatibility to differentiation. So you can go complete differentiation, and we are actually proposing a secretary of the interior workshop in the next few months to go over a lot of this. But you can go complete differentiation and still meet the secretary of the interior standards, not matching the style because you're making a distinction of this is the new construction, this is the historic construction.

REPRESENTATIVE:]

The question in the standards is, is it compatible from a height scale massing generally?

Got it. Thank you.

Okay. I have a quick question, which probably Mr. Watson can answer actually, too. So there is currently a building on the corner of Mission Inn And Commerce, which is an appliance outlet building that is going to be demolished, correct?

Correct, yes.

And also there are a lot of palm trees, old, old palm trees along Converse 6 and Mission Inn. They, I believe, are on the streetscape. Will those be preserved? You might be able to see them in the site photos.

So if you look at the landscape plan, some of them are being retained along Commerce as well as Mission Inn.

Okay. Because many of those, if they're that high, they're well over 150 years old. Okay. Let's see. Okay. So as far as questions were done, does anybody else have any comments or encouragement for our applicants of what you would like to see in this project? Conditions, possible conditions of approval. Okay. I know the words where feasible always scare me. So that's always like we are retaining this, we are redoing this, are feasible.

But Mr. Watson, the condition of approval is that all in order to satisfy the COA, all changes in the project plan must come to either CHP or the HBO for approval. Is that correct?

That's correct, yeah.

Okay. So in the codifying where feasible, you are then made aware of that before That is changes

are correct. Made in the Staff will review all plan check. Any modifications to the design will have to come to staff for final review and approval. If staff determines that it is outside of what we call substantial conformance, we would bring it back to the board as necessary.

Okay. Anybody else have comments for our applicant? Okay. I would like to summarize by saying that, you know, I'm an ardent preservationist and I absolutely want to save everything, but even I believe that building should be used in order to be preserved. So I want to thank you for incorporating the Barley Mills Building into your project and making it usable and making it a part of the project because I think that's the best way to keep it here.

Would be remiss in my duties as representative of the community if I didn't mention that the SodaWorks building that we lost, there was an effort to preserve that before it was lost. I'm not here to beat people up for losing that, either current owners or previous, but my understanding is that that building was vacant for quite a while, decades perhaps before it fell. So, then my words of caution are actually for my fellow advocates that what we need to pay attention to is buildings that go vacant and start paying attention to them early and not later. Yeah, but back to this one. If you want to see something, yeah, there's a speaker button.

I was just raising my hand because I had one more comment.

Okay, I'll call on you in a moment. That's right. Yeah. Thank you. But it helps me too if you hit the speaker button on your vote. There's one that says speaker request. Hit that one. That way I won't forget about you. Oh, also, just concerning the project in general, considering what has been in this location since 1891 and before, I think housing is phenomenal use. I never would have thought to put housing here.

It is adjacent to housing, so to me that is appropriate. And I appreciate the step down from the four storeys by the freeway and the railroad to closer to by the existing housing. I think that's going to be a better neighbor than an industrial use. So I appreciate that. I hope the neighbors appreciate that effort as well and that it becomes an asset. And having residential neighbors is a win over having an industrial use. So I appreciate that use. I think that's the end of my comments. Board Member Cronin, would you like to speak?

Yeah. The Riverside Canal runs right on the other side of the street, and I don't know if there's a way to get access to irrigation water from that. But just pointing that out. Probably not, but there's no need to treat it so because it's in good condition. And then the the the SodaWORKS, it would be a really, I think, a great gesture for bicyclists and others to put in a bottle filler there because that's what it was. It was it was it was soda water that they were making. So there I know there's plaque, but if there was, a bottle water filler there, we don't have nearly enough of those downtown. So I'm just laying that out there as a suggestion. Thank you.

I like it. People Give water as well as the dogs.

Just put a

hose out there.

If you look in front of the museum, there's a historic water fountain there that has dogs and people. Yeah. It just doesn't work.

Any other comments? Okay. So assessments have been done, and project is proposed, and mitigations have been outlined. I'll entertain a motion to approve the project unless anybody has anything else to say.

I will motion to approve the project.

Okay. Board Member Ramirez approves as presented.

I'll second.

Board Member Cron seconds. And so if there's no other discussion, we will vote. Okay. The project gains approval. The motion passes with all in favor. Thank you for coming and spending your time with us today. Mr. Watson, we are now on to item number six.

In the interest of time, I'll make this as quick as possible. The next item before you is a request for the Hirata House stabilization and rehabilitation project. The project site is located on the East Side Of Lemon Street between 4th And 5th Street at 3356 Lemon Street in Ward 1. The photos shown here demonstrate the current state of the Herrata House with previous stabilization efforts. The project is to be completed in two phases.

First phase will focus on the structural stabilization. As part of this, historic materials such as window sashes, hardware historic doors, hardware, the historic brick chimney, wood porch, wood skirting and the exterior shed will all be dismantled and salvaged. Then plywood panels will be temporarily installed over windows to provide lateral stability in order for the structure to be lifted with vertical supports that will also provide While the structure is listed, the existing brick foundation will be dismantled and new concrete footings will be installed with the original brick reinstalled as a veneer where appropriate. Phase two of the project is the rehabilitation of the structure and site improvements with new walkways and landscaping. Additionally, the previously demolished nonoriginal garage will be reconstructed in the approximately same location.

The rehabilitation of the structure includes the reinstallation of all salvaged materials and repair of the materials to be completed as needed in a like for like manner. Additionally, new installation will be installed after the temporary siding is removed and before the installation of the historic siding. And finally, all structures will be repainted. As a matter of record, a Secretary of the Interior Standards Analysis completed by Jen Ramelliott of JMRC found the project to be consistent with the standards. Staff concurs with the findings of the assessment and also finds the project to be consistent with the principles and standards of site development and design outlined in Title 20.

With that, staff recommends that the Culture Heritage Board determine that planning case PC twenty twenty four fifty eight is exempt from CEQA and approve the project, thereby issuing a certificate of appropriateness. The applicant is present if you have any questions.

Does the applicant have a presentation or you just want to respond to questions if they have them? Okay. In that case, we will open public comment. So let's do our announcement for our online public callers.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call (951) 826-8688, and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press 9. When called to speak, press 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

K. While we wait for possible people to call in, I do wanna just disclose to my fellow board members that as it concerns Hirata, I am on an advisory board for the Museum of Riverside on matters concerning Hirata. However, it is purely advisory. We have no authority whatsoever. The museum director is nice enough to give us periodic updates, And it's all public information, just like what is given to the Museum of Riverside Ward. So I just wanted to share that. Do we have any public commenters in chamber? Okay. And any public callers online?

No callers.

Okay. Sweet. That closes public comment for this item. And so then, board members, do we have any questions for either Director Peterson or Mr. Watson?

Okay. Anything else to say? Mr. Cohen, I'm really hoping you say something because I shut you down earlier. Yeah.

Okay. I'll push the

button. Please.

It's an incredible amount of reinforcement that's going into this structure and I think it's entirely appropriate given the incredible efforts that the Haradas put forth to retain just their home against real adversity. And then the irony of the, what's it, the Robinsons next door being scolded for eternity over their participation. But anyway, to me, just this incredible effort, the structural engineering that's going into this, the piles, they're just entirely appropriate until they represent what the Herratas did to preserve their home. So thank you.

Just a comment, no questions. I know I've been part of Riverside for a very long time. Don't want to age myself, but a very long time. So I feel like I was at the beginning stages listening to fight to even make it a historical landmark. Landmark. And so the fight that it took to get to that point to now see the end result is just very exciting. So I just wanted to share that.

Thank you. I echo that. It's been a long road, I appreciate the museum and various staff sticking with this and getting us to this point. It is interesting that the Robinson family were part of the group that protested the Hiratas move to the neighborhood. But then Mrs. Robinson later actually became friends with the Herratas, and they helped to take care of her at her old age. So I guess she made up for the earlier hesitancy. And now her house is now part of the project as well.

Okay. Maybe she won't be scolded then. We

all are going to remember both ways, though, aren't we? Okay. Any other questions or comments? In that case, I'll entertain a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness.

I'll move And to

I'll second.

Board Member Amir seconds. So if we're all ready, we can vote. Okay. The motion passes, all affirmative. Thank you, Director Peterson, for being here and answering all those tough questions.

I do need to advise of the appeal process. I didn't do that on the earlier thing. So, all actions by the CHB, including any environmental findings, may be appealed to city council within ten calendar days after the decision. Appeal filing and processing information can be obtained from the planning division. So that concludes item number six. Oh, and number seven is an update, which is also, Mrs. Peterson.

You, Cultural Heritage Board members, for the opportunity to provide this update on the Hirata House project. I'm Robin Peterson, Director of the Museum of Riverside. To refresh your memories, Hirata House is one of two national historic landmarks in Riverside with the Mission Inn and has held that status for thirty six years. The last Hirata family resident to live in the house was Sumi Hirata, pictured here in front of the house in 1983. The property earned its designation due to a seminal legal case that protected the American born children of Japanese immigrants, Chukichi and Ken Hirata, including Sumi, who was just a child at the time, and prevented them from losing their home.

After Sumi's death, family heirs donated the house, its contents, a substantial archive to the city. This tremendous gift did not, however, come with funding to address the house's strict significant structural problems. A historic structures report was prepared with grant funding by Historic Resources Group in 2007. Grant funding trickled in to study the situation and attempt to arrest further deterioration, but a real plan to both address the main challenges and raise the funds to do so was still years off. The opportunity to acquire what was then called Robinson House arose in 2014.

This structure next door was acquired after an initiative to raise funds privately. Robinson House, which we now refer to as the Herrata House Interpretive Center, which structurally is an equally challenging condition. In fact, it's been red tagged. Neither structure was or is safe to currently permit public entry. The real work was able to begin after Herrata House was added to the National Trust for Historic Preservation's 11 most endangered historic places list in 2020 followed immediate by by a federal Save America's Treasures grant.

But the stars really aligned in 2021 when we received a large state grant with much thanks to Jose Medina. After a challenging period attempting to settle on an approach that inspired confidence, the museum began work with a new architectural design team in early twenty twenty five. K plus R design is working well, and working on the work on the ground is, as noted in the slide, still anticipated to begin before the end of the calendar year. This slide recaps the chronology that has been slowly moving us in the right direction to be able to open the house and its interpretive center to the public. The photo shows the big day when the state grant was publicly bestowed.

This was truly the turning point for this important landmark. This slide completes the recap, bringing us close to the present. The image shows the house with a roof tarp over a scaffolding to keep it away from direct contact with the house. This step was necessary because the roof had become porous, and the wait was not over before the main work could begin. And if you've driven by the house recently, the house is still more inaccessible as we've had to add a plywood wall around the scaffolding to prevent break ins.

Our approach to both Rathaus and the interpretive center is rehabilitation as defined by the secretary of the interior standards. Our own goal is to preserve or otherwise retain as much as possible that is original to the Horatta House because the story itself centers on the family's effort to keep their house. Even with the interpretive center, we will be retaining even with that, you know, what formerly known as Robinson House, we'll be retaining the original front three rooms, which date to the 1880s, in building the majority of the interpretive center behind them. Since I last addressed the Cultural Heritage Board, we have combined what was once a phased project into one project. The way that funding came in dictated phasing originally, but as we are now confident that we have most of the funding we need and can find the rest, the entire project is now won for the architectural design team and for the eventual general contractor.

A few changes have been made by the new architectural design team that improve accessibility, and in small but meaningful ways, improve the way the elevations will reflect the historic neighborhood. The most significant improvement from the museum's perspective is the carefully engineered approach to the risky task of lifting the Harada house to facilitate rebuilding the foundations and ultimately leveling the house when it's lowered back down on the new foundations. You see in this diagram that the plan includes lifting both floors simultaneously. Because the house is so significantly compromised by termites, water damage, and differential subsidence, we believe that the studied and detailed approach to the lifting process was necessary, and we have achieved that with the new team. While interiors are outside the purview of the Cultural Heritage Board, we're pleased to share with you our intent with regard to the interpretive center.

This rendering gives a general idea of how we use the interior spaces. It will serve essentially as an exhibition gallery, and there will be an active program with exhibitions that rotate periodically on the many topics that relate to the Horatas story. And behind house itself, the main interpreter itself, there'll be a separate building with a classroom. I thank you for receiving and filing this report. And I'm available for questions.

And I'd like to note in connection with illustration I've put on this slide is that the family's historic photos have been immensely helpful to us and the architectural design team in understanding how the house looked during the period of significance in many tiny details. Again, I'll be pleased to answer your questions.

Thank you. Do we have any questions? Go ahead, Vice Chair.

Yes. Thank you, Ms. Peterson. I just wanted to say congratulations on obtaining the significant amount of money to rebuild this structure. And hopefully, you know, we can carry this building into the future, especially because of its significance, its importance. And it seems that even today, you know, we're still trying to deal with some of the prejudices of before into that's being carried into today. So I think that now that you have the money, can carry its history for a couple more years at least. Thank you, though.

Thank you.

Board Member Cron.

I just also want to say thank you. What a lot of work. I can't imagine. Thank you so much.

It's a lot of people too.

A lot of people involved.

What's our expected timeline from here on out?

So as I say, I'm very hopeful that we'll begin work on the ground before the end of twenty twenty six. The architects have an ambitious timeline of completing it within two years. I'm less hopeful that we'll get it done within two years because of bitter experience with historic properties. But that's currently what we're working with.

Okay. I know it's hard to we've had so many deadlines be I hate

to be a a liar liar again.

Appreciate you pursuing that. All right. So this is a receiving file, so thank you for your presentation, if there's no other questions. With that, that brings us to our final item, which is communications, which is items for further consideration. Before we go into any staff comments, I would like to, one, thank Scott Watson for his work on the California Preservation Foundation conference that was here in Riverside last week. And a lot of planning staff were there attending, so I appreciate seeing all of you there. I got to participate some despite busy life, right? Did anyone else get to participate? Do you have anything to share about the board? Board Member Kron.

It was a great conference. Thank you so much. And it was very clear that the people there knew you well and really respected you. It was it was it was very evident. It was great to see our city being shown off in in so many different ways. So I appreciate it. And I thank you for making it possible for me to attend.

Thank you for that.

And FYI as a follow-up. So last June, July, we asked the CHB board if they had any input on what should be presented at the conference. And the board said, yes, we should present about the Cultural Heritage Board. And I said, we does not mean Carol. However, Mr. Watson and Jennifer Mermillion and Philip Falcone and I presented on kind of the lessons learned from Riverside's Cultural Heritage Board. We are one of the oldest cultural heritage boards in the state. So, we talked about it from different perspectives of applicants and consultants and me as a board member and Scott as a staff member. So, and we fielded some questions from other commissions, which hopefully was helpful.

I received a lot of good feedback after that. Good. David?

I was interested that it is over. That's all I have. Anybody else? For future?

Thank you, Chair. Before we jump into your next meeting in June 17, I do wanna take a moment to introduce our new city planner, Laurel Reimer. She comes to us with an extensive background in planning, most recently with Sage Crest. And I'll turn it over to Laurel to say some words here. Next meeting, she will probably be in this seat.

Yeah. That's correct. Good afternoon. Good evening. My name is Laurel Reimer. I do come from the private sector. I came from a planning firm, and we did a multitude of practice and planning areas. I've been with the city for almost two weeks now, so I have a lot to learn. And as Brian mentioned, I'll be sitting with you for the next meeting. I look forward to working with you all. And please don't hesitate to reach out if you've got any questions, if you want any, feedback on various things or just, you know, planning information in general. So that's it. Thanks for having me.

Thank you. Welcome to Riverside. Anything else?

Would like to say, and it goes without saying that Matt Edgardo and myself would like to thank the Board for making us feel welcome up here during the transition period. Thank you from us. Jumping into the June 17 meeting, you'll have a couple items a number of landmark designations 2134 Archdale Street 2881 Rumsey Drive and 5958 Edith Avenue. You'll also have a discussion regarding chain link prohibition for historic districts. Those should all be on the June 17 meeting. Thank you.

Now it's on. Yeah. Sorry, Dan. I I did push the button. I think now is the time to really address Mr.

Stolte's comments. And I note that in section Title XX, Powers and Duties of the Board, 20 ten-twenty, Item 14, encourage public participation in cultural resources program to identify and inventory significant cultural resources in the city. There are other duties that we have. Let's see. Unfortunately, I can't make marks on my computer and it's a PDF.

Recommend to the city council, no. Have discretionary authority to review and approve applications and actions to alter, relocate or demolish cultural resources pursuant to the provisions of this title. It's interesting because we're talking about things that are they're not nailed down. Right? But if you're if you go to Liberty Hall, there's a bell in it that's pretty important.

But I imagine I think of it as part of the building, the Liberty Bell. I think TAP's chair, everybody thinks of that as part of the Mission Inn. The community is genuinely concerned about the fate of things. That doesn't mean they're right. That doesn't mean that there actually is a problem, but there's a lot of concern in the community.

And I heard that we were gonna get somebody was gonna get back to us but I don't know what that means. One of the things we can do is by consensus of the board request a workshop to discuss topics under the preview of the title. Don't should we this is a big deal for some for people. What do you think? I haven't discussed it with anybody because, you know, Brown Act, but I would just what is your opinion? Should we formalize this request? In my experience, sometimes these things can really drift unless there's like a motion.

I agree that I think one other thing is public awareness is important. So I think that was part of Mr. Stolte's reason for showing up. It's a public forum about historic things, and so that was important for him to share that publicly and to make us aware if there is something we could do. I think we would have you know, I defer to staff about or staff attorney about what we could do on this. I could share what I think I know, but I don't know anything concrete. So, I'm going to not get myself in trouble by speaking out loud. Do you have any input?

Yeah, I would turn to Scott for that and maybe look into bringing it back to the board in an agendized item to even discuss what is available. Again, like Scott had said earlier, he can look into what's under the purview of this board under Title 20 and I'm happy to work with him on that. That way there can be a discussion.

So we can't agendize it, which means it's coming back.

Can we do it next meeting? Would that give you enough time? Because people are

concerned We can about the try. The only thing I'd caution is we have another packed agenda next month already with four items. So it's honestly going to be a situation where if the board's willing to stay as late as necessary, we can consider it. The one thing that I would clarify when Title 20 is referring to cultural resources, they're specifically referring to the built environment cultural resources. So the artifacts within are not necessarily under the purview of the Cultural Heritage Board.

The questions I would have would be they're not necessarily under, when are they under, when are they not under, are there ways to bring them under? You know, those are the kinds of questions. And that's why I mentioned a workshop. We could have a small meeting if a couple of people wanted to get together under the without violating the Brown Act. We could do that. But I do think it, you know, merits attention.

How about if we all compile questions and send them to Mr. Watson individually? And that way he can know hopefully what questions he might receive at a meeting where it's agendized and he can we're also going to need research time, I imagine. So I'll work with him to see if it can be for next month and if not, kind of inform the board if it's going to take a little while longer.

Do people care about the length of the meeting? I came from the utility board, so it's four out

Well, yes and no. If not all of our board members are available for the entire length and then somebody leaves, and like today, if somebody left, we would lose quorum and we would have to stop, which is why I was, you know, encouraging us to keep going. That is

It's a genuine question. I'm asking

So we care because we don't want to lose quorum. That's why I care, because we want to be able to, you know,

conduct So our put it well, what happens if we lose quorum?

We stop the meeting for

this quorum.

So that means if we have items on the agenda

Even there if don't have genuine to vote, we stop the meeting? Yep.

That's correct.

Vice Chairs, restate that and use your mic, microphone, please.

Perhaps we can vote on it and see if we can set a motion for next month because from what I see is that the original owners, the husband actually passed away, but then the wife was gonna maintain it. But then somehow another, it was sold.

Sorry. I'm gonna stop you right there. We don't have an item agendized for today.

Right.

So I think the best thing to do is if you do have questions either about items specifically at the Mission Inn or just more general of when, the subject matter jurisdiction of, this board, I think, the chair had a great idea to send them over to Scott, and we can agendize the discussion or workshop depending on what would work best for Scott. I do I will note there was one thing next agenda item that we left off that I think I am presenting on Code of Ethics. So there's another item on there. It is a pretty full meeting and I don't know, depending on the questions, how much time Scott would responding.

Could the code of ethics be kicked to the next meeting?

No, it has to be done before July 1.

Okay.

I just have a comment, if I may. Not a question. But I know, I believe the gentleman said that the concern was that the property had been sold. And so that the artifacts within the property were kind of unknown where they're going to go. So maybe just not a question, just a comment. Maybe contact whoever it is you can contact to preserve the artifacts before a decision is made as to what to do with those artifacts.

If I can add, I have had some conversations with Councilmember Falcone, and he has been in conversations in order to try and make sure those artifacts are returned, etcetera. So it's not that there's nothing going on. There is things that are happening regarding those artifacts. The question, you know, as we're saying is, what becomes the purview of this board, and what ability do you have?

Yeah. How can we assist in those efforts?

I think those are all good questions, and this may be even more expedient than our meeting. So I would encourage each of us, if your interest is in this area, to do your own research. What Board Member Ramirez said, reach out in your own circles and to see how you can help individually outside of action as a board. And we'll look into board actions as soon as we can. Sound good? Okay. Anything else? Thank you all, and thank you all for sticking in there until we adjourn this meeting at 04:57. See you in one month. Adjourn.