Good evening. Welcome to the May 21st, 2025 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission.

The meeting is now called to order. Will the clerk please call the roll to establish a quorum?

Thank you, Chair. Commissioners, please unmute your microphones.

Vice Chair Merker?

Here.

Commissioner Ombacher?

Here.

Commissioner Burns is absent.

Commissioner Rica?

Here.

Commissioner Cross?

Here.

Commissioner McSlovkin?

Here.

And Chair Nyer?

Here.

Thank you. We have a quorum.

I would like to remind members of the public and chambers that if you would like to speak on an agenda item, please turn in a speaker slip when the item begins.

You will have two minutes to speak once you are called on.

After the speaker, we will no longer accept speaker slips.

We will now proceed with the land acknowledgement and pledge of allegiance.

To the original people of this land, the Nisenan people, the Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains Miwok, Patuan Wintun's people, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe, may we acknowledge and honor the Native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today in the active,

practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples' histories, contributions, and lives.

Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our first business today is approval of the consent calendar.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

I have no speaker slips for this item.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak?

Is there a motion and a second for the consent calendar?

Is there a motion and a second on the consent calendar?

Motion to approve the consent calendar.

I'll second.

Clerk, will you please call the roll for vote?

Yes.

Please unmute your microphones.

Vice Chair Merker?

Yes.

Commissioner Ambarar?

Yes.

Commissioner Burns is absent.

Commissioner Reker?

Reka, excuse me.

Commissioner Cross?

Yes.

Commissioner McSlopkin?

Yes.

And Chair Nyer?

Yes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

We will now proceed to the public hearings calendar.

Item number two.

The ordinance for listing 5850 Freeport Boulevard on the Sacramento Register of Historic and

Cultural Resources.

Is there a staff presentation?

Thank you.

Okay.

There we are.

Testing.

Hello.

Okay.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Whitney Johnson, Okay.

There we are.

Testing.

Hello.

Okay.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

So, hello.

My name is Whitney Johnson, and I'm the assistant planner with the city of Sacramento, and I

will be presenting the landmark nomination for 5850 Freeport Boulevard, known as Land Park

Bowl, under file M24-041.

Upon completion of this presentation, I'll be inviting a representative from the Sacramento

Historical Society to also speak.

In May of 2024, staff received a planning application requesting the demolition of a structure due

to interior fire damage.

Consistent with Sacramento City Code, Section 17-604-600, within 45 days of a request to demolish

a building 50 years or older, the preservation director is required to make a preliminary

determination of the property's historic eligibility.

To aid in this determination, staff requested the applicant submit a historical evaluation

of this property.

The owner retained the services of SWCA, who prepared and submitted a historic resource

evaluation.

Concurrently, the Sacramento County Historical Society retained Brunzel Historical to prepare

a second historic resource evaluation for the nominated property.

The Brunzel Historical Report recommended the building as an eligible historic resource.

The two reports and the request to demolish the building were routed to property owners, preservation

advocacy groups, and neighborhood groups.

Fifty-eight letters were received in favor of this nomination and only one in opposition.

The nominated resource meets the following criterion, Criteria 1, as it is associated with events

that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of this city,

region, state, or the nation.

The building at 5850 Freeport Boulevard is in its original location.

The design elements at the time of construction are still largely intact with minimal alterations.

The surrounding setting of Freeport Boulevard has remained intact.

The workmanship present on the building is nearly identical to when it was built.

And finally, the building retains the ability to convey its association with Japanese and LGBTQ plus communities as not only a bowling alley but a community gathering place.

The property is of particular significance to local Japanese American community.

Land Park Bowl was developed by Gonzo Sakai, a Japanese American immigrant and served as a popular venue for the Nassai Bowling League here in Sacramento.

The site reflects an important chapter in Sacramento's Japanese American community history, including its contributions to recreational and social integration during and after World War II.

Additionally, the property has been identified in the LGBTQ plus historic experience project and the contextual statement as a venue for the River City bowlers and other prominent LBGTQ bowling leagues.

Up until the fire, the building had been well maintained and retained a high level of communal integrity.

5850 Freeport Boulevard is a significant property being that it is the last purpose built intact bowling alley from this era in the city of Sacramento.

And it has exceptional importance, particularly to the Japanese American and LGBTQ plus communities as evidenced by the substantial number of public comments received in the support of this listing.

Furthermore, the building at 5850 Freeport Boulevard has significant historical work and in its designation as a landmark, it is responsible, appropriate and necessary to promote, protect and further the goals and purposes of the city of Sacramento.

This concludes my presentation. Staff is available to answer any questions that you may have. And at this time, I will turn the floor over to the Sacramento Historic Society.

I am Greg Lukenbill of the Sacramento Historic Society. I want to thank you for your life's work here as preservationist of Sacramento history and Sacramento history buildings. And I mean that sincerely. I am more than anything else in my life a historian. I've done a lot of things in Sacramento that relates to development and, and, and, and the

and trying to advance the interests of the city. But most importantly, I've done a lot of historical buildings in Sacramento. And, um, of those, uh, the old mills bank building over here with my partner, Tina Thomas, sitting back here from, from, uh, 35 years ago, we turned that into a public facility that I bought from security Pacific bank.

I did the CR to school for Joe Cerna on 24th street years ago and turned that into a public school into a private facility that became the Curtis park, uh, community association facility to great benefits to Curtis park ever since probably the landmark of that type of thing done in the history of Sacramento.

So my home is historic and I, you know, comically enough, as it relates to this particular subject, uh, my most recent adventure has been the trap bar in South Sacramento, which is, uh, right off of, uh, uh, 43rd Avenue offering up on Riverside Boulevard, which oddly enough, uh, right here in, uh, this building was.

Turned into by Mr.

Turned into by Mr.

Turned into by Mr. De Corsi over there and company, uh, a historical building based on its cultural heritage of being the oldest Portuguese facility.

South of the river, I believe.

And, uh, uh, I'm sorry, South, well, Southeast American river, but, uh, in, in the pop, in the pocket area for certain. And the building was actually constructed, believe it or not, in the 1860s and moved to the current location in 1924.

So, uh, that building is, uh, very old and, uh, but it was, it was, it doesn't quite meet the qualifications of the Freeport building, but, uh, the cultural heritage was that carried the day in terms of the significance of that culture.

So, I just want to say, as it relates to the letter that was written on by the, by the Bolero attorney, that, uh, they've been at this 15 months.

They're bobbing and weaving and installing and doing everything they can to not have this thing nominated.

Uh, they filed, it's been a year since they, uh, filed for the demolition permit.

Think about that.

It's been 12 months.

They had all these opportunities to do all these things they talked about in the letter.

And they, but they did use the phrase permanently closed.

And I can assure you that on, from their perspective, it's permanently closed, but not from ours.

Not from the historical society's perspective.

Number one.

Number two, if you notice, if you read their letter, and I'm sure you did, okay, the word cultural was never used in the letter.

They made a reference to the Japanese Nisei, which I brought up here just to give you an idea.

What 30 letters from Japanese people in Sacramento that were involved with that bullying, like it looks like, because, uh, that is exactly what this is about is that the cultural preservation for, you know, and I, I will just say this and I'm going to make it simple.

Okay, the law firm uses the phrase, the fundamental problem is that the city should not determine the, uh, outcome of this facility.

And, uh, and, and, uh, and more time is needed is phrased in that letter four times.

And so I'm just going to close by saying that with all due respect, okay, we have a San Francisco law firm representing an Arlington, Texas, um, bowling company that is a tenant in the building.

There's a tenant in the building for a fortune 500 mechanics full Virginia.

For, uh, gigantic organization called the Carlisle group that, uh, whose, uh, purpose is to at the moment with this particular property, demolish the building and get rid of it and get out of Dodge.

This is the last bowling alley in Sacramento of its kind.

And I, I am begging you to move this onto the city council tonight so that we can move this forward in terms of some level of preservation sooner than later.

And at this point, as they so noticeably, uh, uh, stated in their letter, both directly and indirectly when they referenced the fact that, um, they're worried about the homeless people still on the generators down there.

That, that the whole way that that letter was approached was honestly a complete degradation of the concept of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

They completely ignore that about Sacramento.

And that is our roots.

Thank you for your time.

If you have any questions, I'm, I'm right here.

Now's the time.

Great.

Thank you.

Um, next we will be inviting the property owner, uh, representative of the property owner up to speak on, uh, behalf of Lucky Strike Entertainment.

Thank you, commissioners and members of staff.

Um, and those who are here in the public.

Um, my name is Cecily Barclay and I am with the law firm of Perkins Coie.

And, uh, my office is in San Francisco.

And so that, thank you very much.

That's all accurate.

I did want to, uh, clarify that I don't, uh, represent the Carlisle Group or the property owner.

As I mentioned in the cover letter, we represent the tenant.

And so the tenant is AMF Bowling Centers.

Uh, they acquired, uh, this property as a tenant some years ago.

And, uh, we do hear Bolero, but Bolero has been rebranded as Lucky Strike Entertainment.

But Lucky Strike Entertainment is the largest operator of bowling alleys in the country.

So I'm not saying it's a small company.

I just want to say we don't actually represent the property owner or the landlord or the person who, the entities who will make the ultimate decision, uh, with us as tenant.

But really the, the landlord is the one who owns the building.

But we have been tasked with trying to figure out what's going on.

Um, this, everything in this letter is true.

Uh, I never once represented anything about homeless.

Um, I'm not sitting here saying that homeless folks are those that actually stole the wiring.

We just know there have been trespassers and all different types of people in the country will break in and steal wiring for money.

So I, I don't, I'm not saying that's, those are just, just equal, uh, fat points.

But most important we're here today.

And let me tell you a little bit about the history since I only got involved, um, less than two months, or just about two months ago.

Um, the decision to demolish the building was made with input from the landlord.

And that's why the demo permit was applied for in March.

Some months subsequent to that, uh, there was a request by members of the public to designate the building.

Uh, reports were generated in November and, in maybe October and November.

There was a hearing in January, but, uh, Lucky Strike Entertainment and our folks did not get notice of it.

It went to some address in Carlisle down in Virginia.

And so I'm not saying that they're, and I will tell you about the efforts they've made to try to do something with this project.

Do something with this property and get it secure and safe.

But I, it's not like we've been sitting here, uh, dealing with this historic issue directly, uh, until we got notice of the hearing in March.

And we requested the continuance.

And since then, um, I personally have had some interaction with the building department as well as Mr. DeCourcy.

Uh, and, uh, we've brought on, uh, a member who could not be here today, uh, but he will be, uh, at the, if we do continue this to July, he'll be there.

But, uh, his name is, um, Clark Davis.

And we also have now the general counsel and the associate general counsel.

People are paying attention to this property.

And so there's two different issues.

One, is it historic?

We have retained Page and Durnbull, who we think are the top, uh, experts in historic resources.

Because we look at the reports and we see, uh, conflicting information that one prepared, uh, by the Historic Preservation Committee.

Uh, one prepared by, uh, Bolero's, uh, group.

And then, and then the city's recommendations.

And they don't all line up.

There are different, the, the city is making some recommendations that are not actually in the two reports, particularly with respect to the LGBTQ.

There's one sentence, but there's a lot of other factors that we've talked to Page and Durnbull about and they want the time to investigate it.

We'll have those answers in June.

So that's one factor, is if we're going to go to the council, we'd like at least with this, uh, commission's input, to be able to focus with the council.

We'd be able to focus what are the architectural or cultural resources.

And it, I think staff has agreed with the report that was prepared by the Bolero team that it does not appear that there are architectural characteristics, but there, so it remains to figure out what the cultural is.

Um, if it's not continued, we can just get these things in front of the council, but it seems that this is a good body and we're not looking for a long continuance.

Um, I'm just not going to be available in June at that particular meeting and I'm not sure if you have one.

I haven't discussed any dates with anybody, but we know that Clark and I can both be here in July.

And we're hopeful that time that we may have some resolution about, uh, the historic, um, designation and, and what it means for this property.

The second thing is just the security of the building.

So we do have, uh, plans underway to completely, uh, restore power to the building, not just temporary generators, not a slapstick, uh, get it in and then somebody pulls it back out again.

But really have electricity that will be available 24 seven so that if we put in a security system that can be then monitored by, uh, police and even a private alarm company, but you need electricity to do that and that can't be done on a generator.

Then we can be in a position to have the, the building interior with electricity.

Then there can be a safe evaluation as to what the next steps are.

And I, I don't want to mislead anybody.

We don't know how damaged the building is because of the amount of not just the stripping, but some of the interior water damage to the lanes and, and the rest.

So I, we are not in a position to say we will or won't propose to either rebuilding or redeveloping with, if it is designated landmark, the knowledge and whatever that will mean.

Or if it's not designated a historic landmark, there still might be a decision to restore the bowling alley.

So what we are proposing is we will have the permit into the city to restore the electricity next month in June.

And we will as soon as possible get going on that work, but that needs to continue no matter what.

In the meantime, we're just asking for the time to make sure that that scope of that permit is broad enough.

The building department has suggested that we need to restore and replace, I shouldn't say restore and replace, remove all the HVAC systems,

which would require essentially redoing the entire roof system as part of getting that electricity permit.

I don't think we're going to need to do that. We're trying to work that out right now.

So I appreciate all of your time and effort on this. And I would just point out that the ordinance itself talks about the popularity of bowling as a sport.

And that's the first finding. And it's the last bowling alley of this era. But the popularity of the sport may or may not be a basis for determining historic.

And, you know, I've asked Paige and Turnbull to look at this initially. And it's not ‑‑ we need more information about whether or not that or the architect or the fact that the Nisei bowling league which bowled here but also bowled at other ‑‑ there were thousands of bowling alleys around the

country and there still are. Just because there used to be thousands of theaters. Some are historic. Some aren't. And we would like if this does go forward to the Council to have an opportunity to see where we might be able to reach agreement on what the basis for the historic finding is. And we will rely on our consultants for that. We will take their recommendations. And I think Paige and Turnbull is about the best that you can get. So thank you very much for your time. And if you have any questions, I'm here now. Or I'm going to

be available. And I apologize for being a few minutes late. I took the wrong turn. The freeway got cut off. So I had to get back on. And then I made it back down. All right. Thank you.

Thank you very much, everyone, for your information. Would the Historical Society like to respond?

Sorry about that. Let me say another fact since you agree with my other comments. That the property is owned by the Carlisle Group in Mechanicsville, Virginia. And that's where the notice went to for the property.

The tenant is owned by the Carlisle Group. It is a Fortune 500 company. They've got 60 gigantic companies under that umbrella. And they're doing about $70 or $80 billion a year. Okay. So I'll just leave it at that. That's my only correction. Obviously, as I pointed out, the cultural heritage alone is enough to make this building historic based on the use of that facility by Japanese people who actually built it from Clarksburg.

I want it from Clarksburg by black people when it was basically Jim Crow Sacramento in 1960 through 64. And by LGBTQ people long before gay rights. So that is a very celebrated family integration of Sacramento on a diversity, equity, inclusion basis. And that's all I have to say. And that's all we need. And I'd love to see this

I'm done. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, please.

I've been working with Bolero for many years. It's a publicly traded company. It's

on the New York Stock Exchange. And when I became involved with this particular matter

as they were changing over to Lucky Strike branding, I was given the name of the tenant. I run conflicts.

I was told by the general counsel of Lucky Strike that Carlisle is an adverse party, that

they are the landlord, that we're negotiating with them. I've been on many calls. I've never

heard a suggestion that Carlisle, they may own some stock, but I really don't believe

they own the company. And I'm only saying that just for full transparency. And I can assure

you that nobody at the Bowling Lanes entity who ultimately still has possession of this

building under the lease received notice of the January meeting. I'm not saying it was

on purpose. I just want to be clear that we learned about it in March. And so that was

all. Thank you.

Thank you. Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak?

Yes, I have four speaker slips on this item. First speaker is John.

Thank you for your time. I have actually done surveys of the structure. A little of my background,

I have been in the last four years, I have worked for an engineering firm rehabbing that region

of Sacramento, Florin Road, Fruit Ridge, that whole area in civil engineering projects.

My background is not only in civil engineering, I was licensed contractor and worked in the

vertical building world for many years prior to that. And I took interest in it after it

had been in this smoke damage mostly from this fire that was started in the back of the alley

and crawled up into the eaves of the building. I want to talk, what I'm here to talk about

is the integrity of the building. That building is a free span steel structure with concrete

reinforced walls, none of which sustained any damage. The only roof damage is about a 20 by

20 panel in the back where the smoke and heat got up into the metal roofing. And other than

that, the fire department cut ventilation holes and dropped a bunch of water in it. But the

structure of the integrity of that building is solid. And I do know that world. Most of the

electrical interior is fine. It's all in conduit. It's suffered no damage. It's the suspended roof ceiling tiles.

We're all smoke damage and water damage. But the coarse bones of that structure are solid as a rock. And towards that, a lot of my training in the previous projects, I took a lot of leads training, which is

green building. And this is a perfect example of a brownfield...

Wrap up your comments.

Wrap up your comments.

What's that?

You have two minutes to speak and the time is up. So I said please wrap up your comments.

Okay. Well, I'll wrap it up. Anyway, it's a candidate to preserve and not demo and truck off all the materials to just truck back in new materials. It's worth salvaging.

Thank you for your comment. Next speaker is Joe Pick.

Hi. My name is Joe Pick. I'm the executive director of the Firefighters Burn Institute, retired firefighter, and a member of Local 522. I want to take this from a different perspective in regards to its cultural significance. September 23, 1972, an airplane crashed in the Ferrell's Ice Cream Parlor. 23 people died that day.

Over 25 had burn injuries. One firefighter said we could do better. And within a year, our organization, the Firefighters Burn Institute was formed. Within a year after that, we had a burn unit at UC Davis, the Firefighters Burn Institute Regional Burn Center at UC Davis.

That significance of that location, we still have a memorial that just two years ago, we honored the 50th anniversary of the 23 people that passed there. The building at the bowling alley was one of the closest buildings to that location. Many of the civilians that were in that bowling alley were some of the first responders to help pull people out of Ferrell's.

It has a significant historical significance to us as firefighters. And I will say on one other aspect, we're tasked with giving, when there's a fire in the structure, to putting ourselves at risk to put the fire out, rescue people that are in there. That's exactly what Sac City Fire did that day. And they saved that building. And the thought of having it torn down just because it has smoke

damage is hard for me as a fire in the damage. It's hard for me as a firefighter to put ourselves at risk to have a building just torn down because of smoke damage. So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you for your comment. Next speaker is Greg Lukanville.

Greg Lukanville.

Okay. Next speaker is William Berg.

Good evening. William Berg, President of the Board of Preservation Sacramento. We provided a letter of support for this and also a letter of comment for the buildings we've made as well as the

report was being evaluated, which included the references to the two context statements that were then added to the staff's report. Both of those reports, by the way, were done by Page and Turnbull. So they're perfectly aware of the, these historic contexts. And we hope that the commission will vote to approve and move this nomination forward.

It's nominated under criteria one for association with events, which means there is a lower threshold of historic integrity for a property like this.

Because it's not based on high architectural design, but the events that took place there. With all due respect to Director DeCourcy and to my friend Greg Lukanville, I'm the one who wrote the Sacramento Register nomination for the trap. So that cultural value can withstand a lot of damage to the building.

And speaking of damage to the building, I have some excellent news for the property owner's representative. And that's that, of course, a historic building can make use of California's historic building code and get exemptions to regular building codes, which means they don't have to bring the building up to modern electrical standards when they're replacing that electrical. So it could save them a lot of money to restore electricity to the building if it is a historic building. So thank you and please vote in support of moving this forward to City Council.

Thank you for your comment. I have no more speaker slips.

Thank you. Are there any commissioners who wish to speak?

Yeah, I have a question. Oh, sorry. We're requesting this.

Sorry. Technical difficulties. Go ahead, Commissioner Unbacher.

Yeah, I just wanted to disclose that I did receive an email on the 19th from to my personal email that's on file with the city from Mr. Lukanville encouraging me to support the nomination.

I also think some of the issues that were raised in the attorney's letter doesn't it falls off outside of our purview of what we're tasked to do here as a commissioner.

We're here to look at is it eligible? Does it meet the criteria and does it retain integrity?

So for me, a lot of what was in here is just kind of outside of our responsibility to consider.

I did have some questions as to why the nomination, the Brinzel report doesn't include any of the information about the LGBTQ information.

She's the report is saying that it's eligible for commercial development and its influence on development of that area of Sacramento, as well as within the context of recreation, which I think personally, I think she made a case for that.

So I'm curious to know. One of my questions is why the why that isn't in the documentation in the DPR form.

And also what the there's no definition on this, what the period of significance is, because if the city saying that it's also eligible for its association with these other groups, there's no explanation as to why the period of significance ends in 1974.

And to me, that's important that that should be looked at or explained.

And then I also just wanted to know, is it possible, like, I know the city has had, you know, dueling nominations before where something's a consultant has said it's eligible, another consultant said it's not, and then the city's had somebody else rewrite the nomination to go before the commission.

So I'm just curious if, you know, again, what is the reason that some of that stuff is not in the DPR form? Is it just because it wasn't the context weren't approved yet? Or do we have an answer for that?

So I can speak to, so the DPR form you're referring to is the one that's in the Brunzel report?

Yes.

So the references to LGBTQ and the Nisei community were actually raised by Preservation Sacramento in their letter. And we reviewed the historic context statements that we prepared. Unfortunately, we don't have one for the Nisei community, the Japanese community.

But it is correct that it's referenced in the LGBTQ plus and African American context statements and discussed there in terms of significance. As for the Nisei community, we had to rely on the 58 comment letters that we received, many of which were from Japanese Americans.

And so, as you know, with cultural histories, sometimes this doesn't get written down. And when we received, we received those letters prior to the director hearing when this was reviewed. And with that evidence in the record, we felt comfortable in citing that as a significant association.

So it's not required to actually be in the form set when, if we were to approve this and it goes to council, it's just as part of the record because there was the letters of support and.

The DPR form itself wasn't modified. We don't typically go back. I think what you're referring to is not necessarily when there are two reports that disagree.

And then we produce a third report. It's when we have a report that we disagree with and then we'll write in house our own DPR form and then we have some control over that. That DPR form was produced by Cara Brunzel and we did not edit it at all.

Okay. The DPR form does not go with the ordinance for listing or for consideration. The ordinance stands alone. So if you would like to add or modify any information in that ordinance, that's something you can do with your motion.

So for instance, if you'd like to add a period of significance or if you'd like to direct staff to go back and establish a period of significance and come back, all that's up to your discretion.

Okay. But it would be added to the ordinance, not the DPR form.

Okay. That's I just wanted clarification. Thank you.

And if I may just add some more context, the Brunzel report was received on November 13th, 2024 and our LGBTQ plus historic context was adopted on December 10th.

So that's that that's explained some of that discrepancy. Thank you.

Commissioner Vice Chair Merker.

Thank you. I'd also like to disclose that I received an email from Mr. Luke and Bill supporting this ordinance.

I'm not sure where to start. I guess I'm also confused on who is responsible for this building.

And I'm wondering if we can either get an answer from the city or Ms. Barkley as to who would be responsible for damage assessment, the building repairs,

who's the carrier of the insurance policy that would that would file a claim.

I just wanted to get some more clarity if we could on the timeline of events of why we are here now in concern of the demolition permit or or delaying the demolition permit in in looking at investigating the soundness of the building. So maybe we could just start there and then I can go into other comments.

That's something the owner representative can address.

So in full disclosure, I have not read the lease, but I'm going to tell you what I've been told.

When there is a circumstance like this where we can all disagree about what the extent of the damage is, maybe we don't know the extent, but we know the building has been damaged and can't be operated as a bowling alley. The landlord has some say over when the tenant should make repairs and when not. And part of that depends on what the repairs are. And that's where we cannot get the information. So we're just in this pickle.

I have heard that the lanes would need to be rebuilt. There's a lot of work to be done. It's not just a matter of smoke on the historical integrity, but also if you're going to reopen a building, even if there's some compromise from the code, there's still a lot of work to be done.

And here we all are. It's going to be out of pocket no matter what.

And you mentioned that you engaged Paige and Turnbull for a historic assessment of the building. Did they mention that they would not be able to enter the building until certain repairs were made?

They can go in and look. And I think they've done some initial looking. So I don't know if they've gone all the way in, but they've been out to the site at least. But to go in there and physically do work, there needs to be electricity. Like to really go in and I'm told for any contractor to go in and really assess the scope of what it would take. You know how I was just explaining how much work has to be done to go in there and figure that out?

So I'm being told that the general contractor will not go in there and scope the work until the electricity is up and running. And I've been told that like six times because I keep asking the question.

And then the question is, why don't you put generators in? Well, the problem is you can't just put generators in for a day. You need to put them in for a long period of time, put them, you know, on the roof.

And then the generators themselves operate outside and then they would be subject to being taken. You'd have to take them off every day and bring them back.

And it's not a practical solution. I've really been testing this.

Okay. Thank you. I think that answers my questions as far as who owns the building and how it's been assessed to this point. Thank you.

Can I address the board for just a minute in regards to the access to the building? Yes.

Well, can I? Can I?

Well, well, well.

A political representative has been in that building multiple times. And that's how we got access to the building when we first declared it. So they have access, they've been in the building, and they've been doing stuff in the building.

Can I clarify the insurance? Unfortunately, we cannot have a back and forth during this commissioner comment period.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Merker, did you have any other questions?

That finishes my questions on the state of the building. And then I just wanted to make some comments about the criterion in the nomination. Just from criterion one, my personal experience, I actually learned to bowl in that building. I'm not as old as 1974, but when I was there, it was one of our teen hangouts. And

you know, there wouldn't be a day that goes by that you wouldn't see the Sasakis or the Yamamoto's or the Fong's for that matter in another lane and, you know, making sure that you say hi to the moms of your friends before you finish up your round. And then having those saved moms making sure that you didn't go over your time on your lane and make sure the leagues had the space after you were done.

Vice Chair Merker, I am familiar with the criteria one and its significance. As far as criterion three, the historic worth of the building, I did ask some of those questions before because I am unclear as to whether structural or architectural assessment could not be made prior to the repairs that are being asserted to be made.

Vice Chair Merker, So also in the report, the historic worth is focused on the exterior appearance of the building, the shape of the roof, the appearance of the concrete. And as a licensed professional architect, I do not see any reason why that assessment could of the exterior could not be made from the exterior, let alone being able to poke your head inside.

Vice Chair Merker, And then just another comment I would caution the community, that there is no guaranteed continued use of this building as a bowling alley no matter what we do tonight. So just a general note.

Thank you. Commissioner McSlaw.

Yeah, a question maybe for City staff. I know that we had this on our agenda last meeting, I think two months ago and we continued it. Was that the first thing we had to do?

Was that about the same electrical issue that they just asked for a continuance of or was that a different issue?

The owner's representative can correct me, or I am sorry, the tenant's representative can correct me if I am wrong. But that is my understanding is that it is the access issue and repairing this damage that has been done through vandalism.

Okay. And I guess one other question maybe for the representative. I am sorry, I forget your name. I am still a little confused trying to reconcile on the one hand that there is an application to demolish and the feeling that this shouldn't be a historic nomination. And then at the same time there is a like, we haven't even been in the building, we don't even know. And I am trying to make sense of those two feelings.

So I do not disagree with Mr. DeCourcy's characterization except that it was like days before the hearing and we said we have not been able to get into the building to figure out the cost and feasibility of doing a repair. And I am just saying it again today, you can poke your head in, you can look around, but a contractor who is

who is going to go in and come up and say it's going to cost this many millions of dollars and here's the scope of work and go to the landlord and go to the tenant and say this is all the work we need to do.

I have been told over and over again, they will not do a comprehensive cost estimate without being able to get in and really get in behind the building, which they will not do without electricity. So I'm just saying what I've been told.

And so it's not that we're saying we can't look inside. And to the point about what could a historical consultant find, we had hoped to be able to make more progress on getting the permit going. I've talked to the building department numerous times as has other representatives of Bolero. We're still not quite there yet. So there's just like this stumbling block. So I said to the clients, I think you need to hire Paige and Turnbull.

And get them in there to look at all of this different information and particularly the fact that staff mentioned the LGBTQ but the Brunsville report and the historic preservation report have different facts in them. And it just, we'd like to just come to agreement on what is or isn't historic.

And so that decision to go ahead and hire Paige and Turnbull only happened a few weeks ago. And so we're expecting their report this month. And that's just what we've done since March. I wish we had more done, but it's where we're at. And I do think by the end of June we'll be a lot further along.

So appreciate if you continue it. I think we'll have a more informed discussion. I will have representatives of Lucky Strike Entertainment, formerly known as Bolero, and could have some more information about the landlord's role than I've been able to give tonight.

And if you decide to move it on, we'll have this discussion in front of the council. But I think we're going to really want to clean up the ordinance because I don't, with all due respect, I just, I think the findings in it aren't necessarily supported by what's in the record and end up with a cleaner ordinance.

But we could take that up between now and council. But I, you know, I'll leave it up to the commission what their role is here. So thank you, of course.

Thank you.

Commissioner McSlovkin, did you have any other?

I'll just add one, well, two comments. One, I moved here from San Francisco. It's a lovely place with lots of lovely people.

Two, at least in my mind, there isn't any real discrepancy on the facts of the historical context.

However, how our body has been treating it with the other historic context surveys and whatnot we've done, we haven't sent general contractors into any of these buildings to, like, get estimates on anything.

It's about the culture and the meaning to the community and the people, which I think is clear.

And the argument that it's not after a request to demolish feels, it makes me wonder where it's coming from.

I have a question, Mr. DeCourcy. Is there a criteria for granting continuance?

Yeah.

So our city attorney can chime in if I get any of this wrong.

But the threshold for granting continuance in this instance is good cause.

So it's a fairly low legal threshold as opposed to unusual circumstances or exceptional circumstances that if this was a development project for an action like this, which is, you know, designating a property as historic, the commission has wide discretion to continue the item.

So right now it kind of feels like it would be good to get an idea of where all the commissioners are at with their thoughts on whether or not to continue this or to move forward with the recommendation that the city staff has presented.

Could we go through each person and see where we're at and see where we need to talk more about?

And I'll start with you, Vice Chair Merker.

I'm not in favor of granting a continuance because, just as Ms. Barkley mentioned, any further assessments or reports that can be done within the next few months can be done in front of City Council as well.

I would agree with Commissioner Merker that I think there's enough information that we have that we don't need to do a continuance and we could make a decision on its eligibility.

Thank you.

How about you, Commissioner Rika?

I kind of agree with what they're saying.

I don't know if this is available or not yet because it sounded like it wasn't really clear from the tenants representative.

But was there any kind of plan that had been put forward if the building had been demolished of what was going to happen with the site?

Or was it just kind of open-ended that there was just a demolition permit wanted and no real story on what would happen afterwards?

I think that kind of plays into how I'd feel about continuing or not.

I think at the time the folks not anticipating that would be designated historic and looking at the damage and what needed to be done going forward had made the decision that there would be a better use of the land with the building demolished.

That's the reason that they would have sought that.

Since the historic designation has come into play and there has been a combination of both more damage to the building but also this question about whether or not it's historic has led them to want to better understand what it would cost to restore it.

And I would just say I think one of the benefits of the continuance is just that part of the job of the historical preservation commission is to make findings very specific and then you've got to review the ordinance and the sentences in the ordinance as part of your job and the city's job.

And I'm just recommending that we'd like the time to engage Page and Turnbull because I think we could at a minimum narrow or even better support if that's going to be the outcome what the basis for the historic is.

There's a lot of loose statements that are made just because a lot of people are somewhere.

If they are also participating elsewhere that may not make that site unique or maybe because of the LGBTQ statements that came out in December that that would be enough.

But that's only one sentence in the ordinance.

There's a lot of other information in the ordinance.

So I was just saying that with Page and Turnbull's input I think we can have a clearer record as to what should go to the council and whether or not we would continue to oppose the designation or narrow it.

And I don't have enough information to know sitting here to say that we could support it in front of the council.

So that's really the purpose is to come back with a clearer request and if we want to just take it up in front of the council we can do that.

Yeah, I just I'm the general contractor on the panel.

There's different people that do different jobs.

So I've been kind of listening to the damage on what people kind of are saying about damage and access to the building and needing electricity.

I've done historic preservation work.

That's why I'm on the panel.

I've worked on old buildings that didn't have power for months and we made it work.

We would put generators or something outside.

We'd bring heavy cables in, you know, really thick extension cords and you can set up a bunch of lights and you can kind of get a pretty decent idea of kind of what what looks to be wrong.

Having electricity, of course, makes it easier.

But I don't know some of these contractors that you're it's not you.

I'm not saying this about you.

Just when they say we can't really look, we don't know what to do because we need electricity.

Of course, it makes it easier.

I agree with them 100 percent.

But I've done so many projects where I didn't have power for literally months at a time.

I've kind of doesn't fly with me.

I know you can set up a bunch of stands and lights and you can figure it out.

So I don't know.

I it just kind of feels like they're they're trying to come up with reasonings for why they don't have more information.

I don't know.

But but anyway, I think.

Oh, what were you going to say?

I'm sorry.

The continuance request is really related to Page and Turnbull and and when it comes to the integrity of the building, you know, we have not finished that assessment.

I hear what everybody is saying.

So but all I can tell you is that they are adamant that they would not be in a position to have the building secure without having electricity, vertical doors, an alarm system and to you know, because once this is done, you know, it's not going to whether it's redeveloped in some fashion that's consistent with the historic ordinance or put in place as a bowling alley restored.

And there's it's going to be a long period of time.

And so I just don't.

My sense is it's not practical to bring the generators in, take them home at night, take, you know, the cable.

I'm just saying what I've been told given the location that because I do I do want to say it's going to cost.

I mean, just the plans alone to do the electricity is tens of thousands of dollars.

It could well over tens.

I know that.

And the work to do the electrical and do the doors is going to be a couple hundred thousand.

They could just put the temporary generators in and then get a number and give it back.

I think they would would do it.

And I'll continue to raise that with them when I.

Yeah, because it just it just kind of seems a little bit like there's a dichotomy there where they.

It seems like your clients want the building demolished.

They're not saying they want it preserved necessarily.

We're not it's kind of up in the air, of course, but.

Um, why would you want to spend a bunch of money on a building for the electrical system that maybe you're going to bulldoze and who knows how long.

So it seems like.

It's kind of like the left hand's not talking to the right hand or something.

I don't know.

Anyway, I think that's I think I use a multimillion dollar project and I, I think they just feel like they have been told that in order to get a real cost estimate of what's going to cost to reopen this as a.

Uh, historic, you know, not, you know, building codes might be allowed to be compromised under the historic code, but there's a lot of things that can't be compromised from a safety perspective.

So I just think it's.

But they're telling because I said the same thing and they're just saying it's it's complicated enough to come up with the right numbers that they feel like this is the right step, even if they end up not being able to keep the electricity.

I gotcha. Okay, that's it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Rica.

Are you in favor of granting or denying the continuance?

Do I have to say or can I have a couple minutes to think and then chime back in?

Yeah.

Time to think.

Okay.

Um, I guess I'll just add my last few thoughts.

Um, one, it seems to be a pretty interesting resource.

You know, it's one of the last bowling alleys in Sacramento.

I think that's important in itself.

And then the community has smoke spoken the Japanese community and the LGBTQ community.

Um, the research within the evaluations tend to support the evaluations.

And while we've been focused on two reports, the city has essentially developed a third with their, um, with this staff report.

Um, and so there's three different experts that have weighed in on it.

Um, and I do think that moving forward with the, uh, recommendation from city staff would help the tenant, um, understand if it's a historical resource and could help with the planning of the project with either understanding if the project needs to comply with the historical building codes or it needs to be designed according to the Secretary of Interior Standards.

Um, so those are my thoughts on it.

Um, so in addition to my thoughts, um, Commissioner Cross or Ms. McSloffkin, do you have any other ideas?

I, I am not in support of continuing this item.

Um, I feel like the, the arguments, um, by the experts state very clearly why the exterior of the building is considered historic.

You know, the building, that's what really what we're talking about.

We can't, we can't, as, as Commissioner Merker said, we can't guarantee its use in the future as a bowling alley.

But what we are talking about is the building's continuance as a building as it looks today.

Um, so I, I'm, I'm not in favor and I'm, I'm a little bit, as I, as I'm sure you all are concerned about demolition by neglect at this point.

Um, um, there, there, there should be a way to secure the building.

Um, given that, you know, it's been a year and it's still not secured.

That's just doesn't, doesn't seem right.

So I'm, I'm not, um, in favor of continuing the item.

Um, I also do not support continuing.

Well, with that, uh, is there a motion?

I'll make a motion that we, um, forward the ordinance to list, uh, 5850 Freeport Boulevard as a, uh, landmark.

We'll do a friendly amendment to, uh, move forward with, uh, staff recommended.

Is there a second on that?

She has to accept.

Do you accept the motion?

Yes.

And is there a second?

Yes.

Clerk, can you call roll?

Yes, Chair.

Commissioners, please unmute your microphones.

Vice Chair Merker?

Yes.

Commissioner Ambacher?

Yes.

Commissioner Burns?

Is absent.

Uh, Commissioner Rika?

Yes.

Commissioner Cross?

Yes.

Commissioner McSlovkin?

Yes.

And Chair Nyer?

Yes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Uh, the next item is the director's report.

All right.

Thank you, Chair.

I do have some items to report, um, this evening.

So, first of all, the, uh, city of Sacramento recently hosted, uh, the 2025 California Preservation Foundation Conference, which some of you attended from May 6th to May 10th.

Uh, the, uh, conference hasn't been held in Sacramento since 2007, so it was very exciting to, uh, to finally, uh, act as host again.

It was held at the Safe Convention Center and other sites around the city.

Uh, I wanted to note that preservation staff organized five tours and participated in four different sessions focused on, uh, Sacramento's preservation initiatives.

Uh, we had a, uh, uh, meeting to, uh, discuss with the preservation foundation to turn out of the conference and, um, it was, uh, it was, uh, positive, uh, turnout.

There were about 500 people who attended and, um, they did not receive any, uh, negative comments about those attendees and their experience.

Um, so it was a very busy week for staff and, uh, we are, uh, we were excited to have it turned out, but, uh, somewhat relieved that it is, uh, now concluded.

Next, uh, the, uh, we, last night city council approved two historic landmark listings at the recommendation of the commission, one for 1112 40th street, uh, and another for the San Francisco Boulevard, uh, historic landscape.

And that, um, the, um, the San Francisco Boulevard landscape I'd like to add is, uh, a landmark, uh, uh, resource.

And it is the first street, uh, that has been nominated in the city of Sacramento.

So it's a fairly unusual, um, designation and, uh, we're excited to have that added to our Sacramento register.

And then the, uh, I'd like to give you an update on two of the special projects that we are working on.

The first is the Hackett house network to freedom site nomination.

Um, if you recall, we obtained a grant from the national park service network to freedom program to nominate the Hackett house site,

which was a site where Archie Lee, uh, was, um, was, um, was hidden.

And, um, and then eventually, um, the, uh, Archie Lee case, um, that, that established, um, the, uh, freedom for, uh, escape slaves in California.

And that site, uh, located near the I five freeway, um, is being nominated, uh, as a network to freedom site as part of this grant.

And we had a, uh, request for proposal process and selected, uh, groundwork consulting and had our first kickoff meeting to, to begin that project.

So that is underway.

They're conducting research and hopefully we should have a nomination, a draft nomination in a few months followed by the final nomination.

Um, and, um, and I just add that the, uh, national park service staff did attend that kickoff meeting and provided helpful input into how to get this process started.

And then lastly, the, uh, we, um, have released a request for proposal for the update, the old Sacramento national register historic places, uh, amendment that we are processing in partnership with our office of economic development.

And that project, uh, we closed, uh, we closed our request for proposal and, um, evaluated them and then interviewed the finalist for that.

And there are in the process of selecting the, uh, winning consultant to begin that national register nomination update.

That, uh, the, uh, the nomination national register nomination for old Sacramento, um, dates actually predates the national register program.

It was a national historic landmark district first, and then was incorporated into the national register when the national register was created.

And so the documentation, as you can imagine, is, uh, very outdated.

So we're excited to, to get that project started.

And we've put an emphasis on identifying underrepresented histories, um, as part of the update.

Um, that concludes my presentation and I can answer any questions that the commission may have.

Commissioners have any questions.

Uh, last item is public comments.

Nope.

Sorry.

Member comments, ideas, and questions.

Any commissioners wish to speak?

All right.

Last item is public comments.

Matters not on the agenda.

Clerk, are there any members?

Yes.

I have one speaker slip.

William Berg.

Evening once again, William Berg.

Um, wanted to bring up, uh, that the Dunlap's dining room building, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, is currently up for sale.

Uh, it, uh, it, uh, it has previously been an Airbnb.

Uh, and, uh, the building is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and was included in the recommendations of the surveys for the, uh, African American Experience Project.

But I don't believe it is yet a Sacramento Register landmark.

Now, this is a building that has had its interior substantially altered, uh, because of previous remodels.

But that's partially because the city of Sacramento doesn't review interior remodels of historic buildings.

Um, but also, as you just talked about, this is a building that's principally significant for its cultural associations with George Dunlap and Dunlap's dining room, rather than one for its architecture.

So I would encourage the city, I know that hopefully there's some movement towards listing some of those properties.

But there was a, a little bit of hubbub on social media today.

Um, Sona McDaniel of the Sojourner Truth Museum brought the topic up, so I wanted to address it.

And just very briefly, regarding San Francisco Boulevard, this Sunday at 1030, Preservation Sacramento and the Colonial Heights Neighborhood Association are holding a bike ride to celebrate the listing of, of the, uh, the San Francisco Boulevard tree rows.

We're going to bike around the neighborhood, and we've been promised both free donuts and, at the end, free, we're going to have a pizza party at Luigi's.

So, 1030 a.m. at Colonial Park.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

I have no more speaker slips.

Um, if I may, Chair, I do actually have an update on the African American Experience Historic Context Statement, uh, and Survey Nominations.

So, actually, next week, on May 29th, we'll have the first hearing on the 13, uh, landmarks.

We've identified, including Dunlap's dining room, as well as the New Helvetia Historic District, uh, by the Preservation Director.

And then I will make a recommendation to the Commission so that, uh, group of nominations should be headed your way in, uh, in the coming weeks or months.

Well, months.

Since you only meet monthly.

Thank you.

So, this concludes today's agenda.

Thanks, everybody, for your participation.

This meeting is adjourned at 639.

Thank you.