Thank you, Vice Chair.

We are ready to start when you are.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Welcome to the Wednesday, January 21st, 2026 meeting at 5.30 p.m.

The meeting is now called to order.

Will the clerk please call the roll to establish a quorum?

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Commissioners, please unmute your mics.

Commissioner Ambacher?

Here.

Commissioner Burns?

Absent.

Commissioner Rica?

Absent.

Commissioner Cross?

Here.

Commissioner McClavkin?

Here.

Vice Chair Merker?

Here.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

I would like to remind members of the public in chambers,

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 first speaker, we will no longer accept speaker slips.

We will now proceed with today's agenda and the land acknowledgement.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people

and tribal lands.

To the original people of this land, the Nisenan people, the Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains

Miwok, Patwin-Wintun peoples, 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' history, contribution, and lives. Thank you. And please remain standing for

the Pledge of Allegiance. 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.

First business is approval of the consent calendar.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I do not have any speaker slips for this item.

Thank you.

Any commissioners that wish to speak on this item?

Seeing none, is there a motion for the consent calendar?

Yes, I make a motion to accept the consent calendar.

Thank you.

And is there a second?

I'll second.

So that's a first by Commissioner Cross and a second by Commissioner McSlavkin.

Yes.

Please call the roll for the vote.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Commissioners, please unmute your mics.

Commissioner Ambacher.

Yes.

Commissioner Burns, absent.

Commissioner Rika, absent.

Commissioner Cross.

Yes.

Commissioner McSlavkin.

Yes.

And Vice Chair Merker.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you, Ann.

We'll proceed to the public hearings calendar.

If I can look over your shoulder for the items.

We'll proceed with item two.

Is there a staff presentation?

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Hazel Bess, preservation intern for the city of Sacramento, and I will be

presenting the landmark nomination for 2240 Northgate Boulevard under file M25025.

In 2016 to 2017, the city of Sacramento received a certified local government grant.

Sorry to interrupt.

Is your mic turned on?

I believe so.

In 2016 through 2017, the City of Sacramento received a certified local government grant from the U.S. Department of the Interior to prepare an historic context statement and conduct a citywide reconnaissance level survey of mid-century historic resources.

The former orbit station at 2240 Northgate Boulevard was among the structures identified by the survey.

City staff prepared background research and an historic evaluation.

The historic evaluation attached to your staff report concludes that the property at 2240 Northgate Boulevard

appears eligible for listing on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources under Criterion 3,

pursuance of Sacramento City Code section 17.604.210

as a good example of the Googie architectural style.

Googie is a style that enjoyed brief popularity in the mid-20th century.

The building typifies the style, primarily in the shape and structure of its roof,

composed of four upward-sloping cantilevered canopies

with a hyperbolic paraboloid shape and a central triangular dome.

The canopies are constructed of poured cement.

The fixed bases of the cantilevers are triangular cement slabs.

Beneath the canopy, two rectangular office bases with tongue and groove siding stand detached from the canopy structure.

Few alterations have been made to the exterior since initial construction,

beyond the removal of gas pumps, repainting, and the replacement of the original sign.

The preservation director held a hearing on January 15th approving the statement of nomination.

Staff recommends the preservation commission make a recommendation to the city council to pass a motion

determining the listing of 2240 Northgate Boulevard as a landmark on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources

exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308

and adopts an ordinance listing 2240 Northgate Boulevard as a landmark on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources.

Thank you.

A notice of the public hearing describing the proposed landmark listing was sent to the property owner at 2240 Northgate Boulevard.

Preservation Sacramento, South Natomas United, Natomas Community Association, South Natomas Improvement Association,

Rancho Del Paso Neighborhood Association, Benito Juarez Neighborhood Association, Natomas Chamber of Commerce,

and the Garden Land slash Northgate Neighborhood Association have all been notified of the landmark proceeding.

One of the property owners has objected to the listing.

The staff has also received letters in support of the nomination from Sacramento Modern, Preservation Sacramento, and several community members.

Representatives of the Garden Land Northgate Neighborhood Association spoke in favor of the nomination at the director's hearing.

This concludes my presentation, and I will now accept any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bez.

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

Yes, thank you, Vice Chair. I have three speakers signed up for this item.

The first is William Berg.

Good evening. My name is William Berg.

I'm president of Preservation Sacramento, who has provided a letter of support for this nomination.

It is refreshing to see another nomination for a property north of the American River,

where I think half the city lives.

It's encouraging to see a nomination in District 3,

and it's exciting to see a nomination for a mid-century resource,

specifically a Googie resource.

This was an architectural style that is designed to get your attention.

So a landmark of a Googie resource is very important in just its recognizability.

There are a lot of mid-century resources which are kind of rectangular, kind of plain,

simplistic, minimalistic.

Googie does the opposite of that.

It says, look, here I am.

If you need gas, here's where you get it.

But of course, a gas station doesn't need to remain a gas station.

We've got some terrific examples throughout the city of landmark buildings that are located in gas stations.

We hope that this building can find another life and another use on the boulevard.

And finally, one correction to our letter is I thought we only had two of these gas stations in Sacramento County.

It turns out we have a third on the Greenback Lane.

It's been a while since then.

I've been on that end of the county.

So we will be providing a correct version of our letter for what hopefully will be the final hearing at City Council.

Thank you for your time and good evening.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Maddie Parfit.

Hello.

My name is Maddie Parfit, and I'm with Preservation Sacramento.

I strongly support listing the orbit station at 2240 Northgate Boulevard as a landmark on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources.

The early 1960s, when this hyperbolic paraboloid was constructed, was a period of optimism and forward thinking.

The architectural style known as Googie epitomized this feeling, and the orbit station just screams Googie.

Its roofline swoops and flies, catching the eyes of drivers and pedestrians as they pass it.

Despite its decades of use as a used car dealership, the building is still a joy to behold.

As Northgate Boulevard was developed through the 1950s and 60s, distinctive and memorable architecture wasn't at the forefront of most developers' minds.

Simple, functional, commercial buildings and ranch houses line both sides of the boulevard.

The orbit station stands out as a bright spot in a community that needs and deserves such a feature.

Sacramento has very few surviving Googie structures.

That sense of optimism and faith in the future seem to fall out of favor quickly,

and most Googie buildings here and elsewhere have been remodeled or demolished over the ensuing decades.

This rare survivor, a humble gas station, deserves recognition as a landmark

because they just don't build them like they used to.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker on this item is Maybella Sook.

I apologize if I mispronounce your name.

That's okay.

Good evening.

I'm Marbella Sala, and I'm here as president of Gardenland Northgate Neighborhood Association.

And I'm here, my focus is going to be on the impact that this Orbit gas station has had on our community.

As you can see, it's been around for many years.

I've lived in Northgate Garden Land for over about 40 years, and it's a visible, important landmark in our community.

When I go out there and I talk to our community and happen to mention the Orbit, many remember it with fondness, joy, because they were little.

They thought it came from the Jetson movie because it was futuristic, and everyone recognized it as an important part of our community.

and as was mentioned, when they developed Gardenland Northgate,

it's an old community and never thought of the architecture

or making anything that would stand out.

And that gas station, that orbit gas station, stands out in our community.

It's integral to our community.

It has an impact for those that are still around and those that are young,

that having that in our community is important.

and I would like to see it stay.

And I understand the importance that the owner wants to have flexibility,

but for our community, the impact is greater than just wanting flexibility.

So please support the city staff.

And then I don't want our community to be like Alhambra

when they tore down that theater and still lament over that.

I don't want that in our community that we're continuing to lament

because it was torn down.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I have no more speakers on this item.

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

Commissioner McSlofkin.

Yes. Hello, and thank you all for coming and sharing your comments tonight.

Just a small copy thing that stood out to me.

On page four of the report, the phrase,

the building at 2240 North Cape Boulevard

has significant historic or architectural worth

is repeated twice in the same paragraph.

It felt just a little robotic.

I don't know if it was on purpose or if that could be corrected,

but otherwise, it seems like a great nomination.

Thank you. Commissioner Cross?

I'm really happy to see community support

for saving the orbit or at least trying to list the orbit station.

These are the kind of buildings that, like one of our public speakers said,

really create a sense of neighborhood, a sense of place.

People think of it fondly.

It's inherently a landmark, oh, turn right at the orbit station.

No one's going to miss it.

I am really happy to see this coming forward,

and I hope that this orbit station continues to have many more years of usefulness ahead of it,

and it could be so many different things.

Commissioner Anbacher.

Just like to second what everybody has said here.

I think it's a very important landmark in that area and in Sacramento.

I know my only comment on the nomination piece of it is that I would suggest the DPR form be cleaned up a little bit.

It was very difficult to read.

And before it goes, if it's going to city council, I would just recommend that the formatting kind of follow the actual DPR form set because it was a little difficult to get through.

But I think it was a great nomination, and I'm really excited to see it before us today.

Thank you.

And I'll wrap up the comments.

with a little bit of my own.

I am excited to see a unique piece of structure

being nominated here.

The hyperbolic paraboloids are,

as one speaker mentioned,

they don't make them like they used to.

From a structural standpoint,

there would be so much computational analysis required

and back and forth with a plan review

that it just wouldn't pencil for something

like a service station.

So it's a piece of structure and architecture from its time that just really couldn't be fabricated or replicated today in its same form.

And that piece of history, that time in our history when we reached for the stars,

or in this case just a little bit north of downtown to Northgate,

is enough in my mind to say that it's a significant structure.

So with that, is there a motion and second for this item?

I'll move to advance staff's recommendation and forward this to City Council.

Thank you. A motion from Commissioner Maslopkin. Is there a second for that motion?

I'll second the motion.

All right, thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll for the vote?

Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioners, please unmute your mics.

Commissioner Ambasher? Yes.

Commissioner Rica? Absent.

Commissioner Cross? Yes.

Commissioner McSlavkin? Yes.

And Vice Chair Merker? Yes.

Thank you. The motion passes.

Thank you.

Next item is on the discussion calendar, item three, Briggs Mansion National Register of

Historic Places nomination.

Do you have a presentation for this item?

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Hannah Tauby, preservation intern for the City of Sacramento.

Thank you.

I will be presenting the Briggs Mansion National Register of Historic Places nomination, which

is being presented to the Commission this evening with a request for review and comment.

As a certified local government, the City of Sacramento has committed to participating in the process of nominating historic resources to the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places.

When possible, draft National Register nominations are brought before the Preservation Commission to allow for review and comment prior to consideration by the State Historical Resources Commission.

The Briggs Mansion, located at 2015 21st Street, was designated as a local landmark in 1977

and is a prominent contributing resource within the Poverty Ridge Historic District.

The current National Register nomination was prepared by Karen Benoit,

with research undertaken by Allison Esham in anticipation of a federal rehabilitation tax credit application.

As the commission may be aware, the property was severely damaged by a fire in the interior

and has been vacant for many years.

This nomination is part of a broader effort to support its rehabilitation.

The property owners are supportive of the nomination.

Staff has reviewed the draft nomination

and finds that it meets the applicable National Register criteria.

The nomination adequately documents the property's architectural significance

and its association with individuals important to Sacramento's history.

In particular, the Briggs Mansion is one of the most distinctive

and well-crafted residences within Poverty Ridge

and plays a defining role in the character of the historic district as a whole.

Its history also reflects broader progressive era themes tied to public health, civic reform,

and early 20th century residential development in Sacramento.

Staff recommends that the commission provide comments on the draft nomination

and adopt a motion directing staff to attend the February 6th State Historical Resources Commission meeting

to make a statement in support of the nomination.

Doing so will reinforce the city's CLG commitment,

elevate the importance of the property within local and state contexts,

and strengthen the case for national register listing by demonstrating unified community and institutional support.

Thank you. Any questions?

Thank you. Clerk, do we ask for public comment on this item?

Are there any members of the public that wish to speak?

Thank you, Vice Chair. I do have one speaker on this item. It's William Burke.

Good evening.

William Berg.

I am the reviewer for this nomination for California Office of Historic Preservation.

I'm here unofficially, but I wanted to let staff and the commission know that we did

receive comments from a city intern mentioning that the City Beautiful reference in the original

draft of the nomination was inappropriate because the building was built before the

City Beautiful period, and that has been removed from the documentation and reposted on our

website.

So to your intern, good catch, and thank you for those comments.

That's part of the importance of reaching out to a certified local government

because the CLG in the community often knows more than someone

at some far-off bureaucratic office in Sacramento.

But we appreciate the City of Sacramento's commitment

to providing comments on these nominations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have no more speaker slips on this item.

Any commissioners that wish to speak?

Commissioner Cruss.

Hi.

I, of course, agree with what Bill just said about the Better Homes Movement.

The Better Homes Movement was a movement that, of course, happened after this house was built,

but that also focused on working-class people and small homes.

So it was way out of left field.

The next criticism that I have with the research that was done here, I have a lot of criticism about this DPR form.

The architectural description was very well done.

So that part I have no problem with whatsoever.

But even the most basic research about the Briggs family was not done in any way, shape, or form.

And one can tell that right away.

Simply, if you know anything at all about Sacramento history, the Briggs family are exceedingly well-known.

A pioneer medical family, two brothers that came from Ohio in the late 19th century.

One, an absolute pioneer of ophthalmology.

The other, a tuberculosis specialist.

There's no mention of his family.

There's no mention of his import.

here in Sacramento, and this is a national register listing,

so we should be going above and beyond just Sacramento-level small significance.

We need to establish national significance.

I understand that this is a criterion C argument.

However, it keeps mentioning how the mansion is associated with the elites of Sacramento, and yet it had done no research on that.

Furthermore, the Briggs both died before the house was sold.

That's not mentioned. It's actually kind of, it actually says, well, the Briggs family sold it in 1927 or 28.

That's because the mother died in like 24, the father died in 27.

As far as their community involvement, that's really the most embarrassing part about this DPR form.

Um, the DPR says they held cribbage fundraisers and donated money to the home of the merciful

savior at Sacramento orphanage.

Their community involvement reflects broader progressive ideas, blah, blah, blah.

Um, had they even bothered to get even one of the Briggs's obituaries, they would have

learned that the Briggs established a gigantic endowment fund for Stanford University, um,

In memory of their daughter, Evelyn, who had a heart attack and died while they lived in the house,

a very young woman died very much before her time.

Here is something from Mrs. Briggs' obituary about the establishment of this scholarship fund in the name of her daughter, Evelyn.

The establishment of free scholarships in the Leland Stanford Junior University at Palo Alto should be for the education of orphan children and the promotion of friendship and goodwill between the United States and the people of this country and the Latin republics of South America and the residents of those countries.

The selection of the individual or individuals for the scholarship or the scholarships shall be in the sole judgment of and discretion of the trustees, but it is Mrs. Briggs' wish that those who will benefit from the scholarships shall be students of the Sacramento High School, should any prove worthy.

There's ample paperwork about this scholarship that ran from 1927 until 1941 in the archives at Stanford.

Really, this is an incomplete nomination, and I would think that, I would really think that, you know, it's clear that we all agree, I'm sure, that this house should get a tax credit and should be saved.

It's a beautiful mansion, and it should be saved.

But the work has not been done to preserve our history here in Sacramento.

There are multiple houses associated with the Briggs already as landmarks.

They're not mentioned.

There's just no context.

I think it's incredibly poorly researched, and I would not be surprised if it weakens the chance of the house to become a national landmark.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Anbacher.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with including a lot of that stuff in a nomination for the

National Register.

Most of the properties that get listed on the National Register are listed at the local

level of significance because the program acknowledges local, state, and national level.

To list something at a national, you have to have a national context.

nomination, in my opinion, addressed the criterion C for which it's being nominated, and it provided

the appropriate context, because they weren't trying to go for a criterion B argument. And while

that history is important to Sacramento, you only have to meet one criterion. And in my opinion,

the nomination meets criterion C. And I think, in my opinion, I think the State Historical Resources

Commission will probably agree with staff if they're supporting it, if SHPO's supporting it.

So, like I said, I think that information is very interesting and important in Sacramento history, but in my opinion, this nomination was complete for what its purpose is for getting something listed under criterion C.

so part of the reason this is being presented to us today is that

staff is asking if we would like to draft a letter recommending this for the listing

commissioner cross would you be interested in making a motion with a caveat in that letter

I mean, I hear and understand what Commissioner Anbacher is saying, and I completely understand what you're saying.

However, I think that even the argument for its architectural significance is not very well stated in this form.

So it's kind of just, oh, it's been, there's been several floors added, there's been this, there's been that.

the only addition during the Briggs tenancy was an enclosed steel balcony.

There's no context provided for that.

He was a tuberculosis specialist until the late 1930s.

There's no cure for tuberculosis except for sleeping outside.

Aren't these things a part of its architectural history?

It was built for a tuberculosis specialist?

I don't know.

I mean, I understand what you're saying, but it just felt very phoned in.

The architectural description was wonderful, but I didn't really hear any argument as to why it was significant,

except for the elites, the Briggs, and then misinformation about the Briggs.

So I guess, yes, I would, exactly what you said.

I would, with a caveat, suggest that yes, we should suggest it be listed on the National Register.

I'll just chime in with one only slightly relevant comment, because I know much less about the history.

But to the point about leaving out potentially some of this history, I was also just struck, as someone new to this, the talk of the neighborhood, in the context of the significance, the talk of the neighborhood and the elites and the affluent moving to more orderly and park-like environments struck me as a little tone deaf in the context of the racial covenants and what else was going on at that time and who these wealthy and affluent people were and what they were moving to.

And it made me think, though, that it's so, I felt so sold on the architecture that, like, it's just not necessary.

And rather than, like, adding in more about how this was in the context of the racial strife of the day and whatnot,

that that's just maybe not what we talk about with this.

Not, sorry, not that we don't talk about it, but that if we are going to talk about it, we talk about it in a more comprehensive way,

which I think goes to the, like, left me wanting a lot more.

Or we just talk about the building.

is kind of what I was left with.

If I could, Chair, you're under no obligation to participate in the,

or to direct staff, consistent with our recommendation,

to participate in the State Historical Resources Commission meeting.

So if the commission doesn't feel that it can support the nomination that's currently written for the reasons that are stated, you can decline to participate.

And just to clarify, our participation in these items are you would recommend to staff participate in the hearing.

I would go and speak on behalf of the commission at the hearing, not drafting a letter per se.

but you're under no obligation to do that.

We can stay mute on the item

or if the commission would like me to go

and make critical comments, I can do that as well.

But there's no requirement under OCLG status

to participate.

Just wanted to make that clear.

All right, thank you.

so would it be prudent to ask if there's a motion

to either draft a letter of recommendation from staff

or to remain mute?

If I may, again, not draft a letter.

Drafting a letter is much more complicated

and takes level of review and time

that we don't have before the hearing,

so we would participate in oral testimony

at the commission meeting.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

I guess I'm just, you know, it was stated by Bill earlier that the Better Homes Movement has been taken out of it,

but that was the argument.

So what is the argument for the significance of the architecture, if I may ask?

Are you asking out of staff or your fellow commissioners?

I'm not sure that staff would know the answer to that,

but if any of the other commissioners who had read the DPR,

their opinion of what the argument, perhaps Commissioner Ambecker,

what is your opinion of the argument for the significance of the architecture?

I think they made the argument that it's an important example of its style.

And I don't have it in front of me.

And I can't remember if they said Italian Renaissance or if it was eclectic.

I can't remember.

Okay, it says, the Briggs Mansion's use of period revival architectural styles,

French eclectic with Italian Renaissance influences,

is emblematic of the architecture that resulted from the Better Homes Movement.

And, of course, that's not at all true.

The Better Homes Movement has been taken out.

I still think that it is an important example here in Sacramento.

um and i guess i i would support staff going to you know speak before the commission um

but i also think that it doesn't necessarily need to have all the other staff for a nomination it

just it doesn't it only has to meet one and i think it does so yeah i'm perfectly willing to

agree with you on that. I guess

the better homes movement part being taken out is

really very important in this because that is what their argument

kind of hinged on and is just wildly

a working class home movement, not a

mansion with servants movement. So if that

is the case, then I guess you could

support it. A criterion C argument and yes I would support staff going to speak

in support of of this at the National Register listing in February.

Sorry our screens just went blank so confused for a moment but thank you

Commissioner Cross. So Commissioner Cross, are you just to clarify

I'm making a movement? Yes, I am.

Is there a second on the motion?

I'll second the motion.

Thank you. Clerk, will you call the roll?

Yes, of course. Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioners, please unmute your mics.

Commissioner Ambacher? Yes.

Commissioner Rika, absent.

Commissioner Cross?

Yes.

Commissioner McSlavkin?

Yes.

And Vice Chair Merker?

Yes.

All right.

The motion passes with those present.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda, number three, James Dodd and Associates Office National Register of Historic Places nomination.

Is there a presentation on this item?

I'm sorry, Chair.

The James Dodd was the item that we heard in November.

Your item number four is selection of the chair and vice chair.

Thank you.

All right.

Let's move to item four, selection of chair and vice chair for calendar year, 2026.

So good evening.

My name is Melanie.

I'm from the city clerk's office, and the detailed information is in your staff report.

I have a few important reminders regarding the election of officers.

We will hear nominations and vote for chair first, then followed by vice chair.

Newly elected chair and vice chair will begin their terms in the next regular meeting.

Commissioners may nominate another commissioner or themselves.

Please remember that a commissioner may serve no more than two calendar years in either position.

So as such, Commissioner McSlavkin is ineligible to serve as chair.

All members are eligible to serve as vice chair.

So if you wish to make a nomination, please raise your hand and make a motion.

So this would be for Clerk.

We would be making a motion for Clerk first.

I'm sorry, for Chair, not for Clerk, for Chair.

Is there a nomination for Chair?

Can I nominate Patricia Ambacher for Chair?

Thank you.

Any other nominations?

We have a second for that nomination.

Can I ask Commissioner Anbacher how she feels about it?

I feel like she made a face and I'm curious what that means.

It's more of a surprise.

Okay.

Do we have?

I will go ahead and second the nomination for Commissioner Anbacher for chair.

Thank you.

All right.

So let's...

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Of course.

Commissioner Ambacher.

Yes.

Commissioner Rika.

Absent.

Commissioner Cross.

Yes.

Commissioner McSlavkin.

Yes.

And Vice Chair Merker.

Yes.

Okay.

Motion passes.

So now for Vice Chair.

Do we have a motion?

Is there a motion or nomination for Vice Chair?

I'll re-nominate Vice Chair Merker for Vice Chair if you'd like to continue.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Yes.

Second from Commissioner Cross.

Okay.

Can you please call the roll?

Of course.

Commissioner Ambacher?

Yes.

Commissioner Rika absent?

Commissioner Cross?

Yes.

Commissioner McSlavkin?

Yes.

And Vice Chair Merker?

Yes.

Continuing as Vice Chair, thank you.

The motion passes.

All right.

Thank you very much.

So now we have a director's report.

Next item is the director's report.

I have no items for the director's report this evening,

only to note that we will be having a meeting next month,

and I will have items for the director's report next month.

Thank you.

Next item is member comments, ideas, questions.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak?

Hearing none, the last item is public comments,

matters not on the agenda.

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

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I have no speaker slips on this item.

All right.

Thank you.

Hearing none, this concludes today's agenda.

Thank you, everyone, for your participation.

The meeting is adjourned at 614.

All right.

Thank you.