Seconds on the timer to start our live stream, and the 2020, sir.

Good evening, and welcome to the Wednesday, June 17th, 2026 meeting of the Preservation Commission.

The meeting is now called to order.

Will the Kirk clerk please call the roll and establish a quorum?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioners, please unmute your microphones.

Commissioner Rika?

Here.

Commissioner Nicholas?

Here.

Commissioner Cross.

Here.

Commissioner Luxlavkin.

Here.

And Chair Ombacher.

Here.

Thank you, Chair.

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 before the item begins.

After the item is called, we will no longer accept speaker slips, and you will have two minutes to speak once you are called on.

We will now proceed with today's agenda beginning with the land acknowledgement and the pledge of allegiance.

Please rise if you are able for the opening acknowledgments in honor of the Sacramento's Indigenous People and Tribal Lands.

To the original people of this land, the Nissanon people of the Southern Maidu Valley and Plains Miwok, Hatwin Winton peoples, and the peoples 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 contributions and lives.

Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

So next is the approval of the consent item.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips on this item.

Thank you.

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

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

Do I have a second?

Thank you.

Commissioners, please unmute your microphones.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Abstain.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

We will now proceed to the items under public hearings.

Are there any commissioners who have any disclosures or recusals they wish to make?

I would like to recuse myself from the first item.

From item two.

From item two.

Yes.

Thank you.

Item two is the ordinance listing thirty-one thirty-seven thirty-third street as a historic landmark on the Sacramento Register.

Is there a staff presentation?

Yes.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Uh hello, my name is Hazel Bess, Preservation Intern for the City of Sacramento, and I'll be presenting the landmark nomination for three one three seven thirty-third street under file M25-11.

In 2025, the property owner of 3137 33rd Street retained the services of Ella Cross, a qualified architectural historian to prepare the historic evaluation for this property.

The historic evaluation attached to your staff report concludes that the property at 3137 33rd Street appears eligible for listing on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources under Criteria 1 and 3, pursuant to Sacramento City Code Section 17.604.210 for its association with patterns of settlement and development in Oak Park and its working class Queen Anne architecture.

The property appears eligible under Criterion 1 for its association with early Oak Park development patterns, including streetcar suburb growth, immigrant and working class settlement, and impacts of urban renewal.

Constructed in 1901 as part of the Oak Terrace Tract, the property reflects an early phase of residential development in Oak Park, Sacramento's first streetcar suburb.

The property's long-term association with working-class immigrant families, including the Carroll and Williams families, illustrates broader patterns of neighborhood formation, city civic engagement, and labor activity that shaped the Oak Park community.

The property is also associated with the impacts of urban renewal and freeway construction in the mid-20th century, which significantly altered the surrounding neighborhood and represents an important pattern in the area's historical development.

The property also appears eligible for listing under criterion three as a representative example of a working class Queen Anne residence.

The building retains key character-defining features of the Queen Anne style, including its deeply its steeply pitched front-facing gable, decorative truss, asymmetrical composition, and cutaway bay window.

While modest in scale and deck detailing compared to high style examples, the property embodies the distinctive characteristics of Queen Anne architecture as adapted for working class housing at the turn of the 20th century.

The building is a relatively rare surviving example of this architectural type within Oak Park, where most extant residential development dates to later periods.

A notice of the public hearing describing the proposed landmark listing was sent to the property owners at 3137 33rd Street.

No objections to listing have been received by staff.

The preservation director held a hearing on May 14th, 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 3137 33rd Street as a landmark on the Sacramento Register of Historical and Cultural Resources, exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 and adopts an ordinance listing 3137 33rd Street as a landmark on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources.

This concludes my presentation and I will not accept any questions.

Thank you.

Yes, Chair, we have one speaker slip from William Berg.

Okay.

We do not have any speaker slips on this site.

Are there any commissioners?

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

Okay.

Is there a motion and a second to adopt the ordinance listing 3137 33rd Street as a historic landmark on the Sacramento Register?

So moved.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Nicholas and Assembly Finding Classman.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Please unmute your microphones.

All in where's Ella Cross?

She's had to recognize.

Oh, she recused your side.

I'm sorry.

Um all in favor, please say aye.

Opposed.

Abstain.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So next is item three, the ordinance listing 5241 J Street, the El Dorado School, as a landmark on the Sacramento Register.

Is there a staff presentation?

Good evening, Commissioners.

I'll be presenting the landmark nomination for 5241 J Street under file M2613.

In 2025, Preservation Sacramento and East Sacramento Preservation retained the services of Brunsell Historical, qualified architectural historians who prepared the historic evaluation for this property, currently known as the A.

Warren McClaskey Adult Center, and historically known as the El Dorado Elementary School.

The historic evaluation attached to your staff report concludes that the property at 5241 J Street appears eligible for listing on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources for its embodiment of Sacramento School District Architectural and Engineering Commission's 1920s architecture program and of Spanish Revival Architecture and does the work of James and Charles Dean of Dean and Dean, both master architects.

The property at 5241 J Street embodies the characteristics of the Spanish Revival style of architecture.

There should be a photo there, but the building typifies the style, primarily in its clay tile roof, textured stucco cladding, arched door openings, and a main facade arcade.

The highly ornamented bell tower, decorative metal window grills and balconette, and main entrance French doors with decorative pilasters, side lights, and transom also reference the Spanish revival style.

The property also embodies the Sacramento School District Architectural and Engineering Commission's distinctive architecture program of the 1920s.

Updated school design during this era was a product of the Progressive Education Movement, which began at the turn of the 20th century and advocated for improved ventilation and fire safety in schools, as well as a more child-centered teaching.

Sacramento became a program of school building in the 1920s both to update the school buildings and to accommodate the school's growing population the city's growing population.

The elements of the school that reflect this building program include its long wings, corridors on the west with widely spaced windows, use of fire-resistant materials such as brick and stucco, and east or north facing classrooms with large window openings designed to maximize students' exposure to the outdoors and to bring daylight and ventilation into classrooms.

The school was designed by James and Charles Dean of Dean and Dean.

The Dean brothers, after working in the office of the state architect in the 1910s, formed their private practice to take over the city's school building program.

The firm was one of the most productive in Sacramento during the 1920s, designing many high profile Sacramento buildings, both public and residential.

The El Dorado School's main building was designed by James Dean and constructed in phases between 1921 and 1930.

Charles Dean designed the attached auditorium constructed in 1939.

Few alterations have been made to the exterior since initial construction, primarily consisting of the construction of non-contributing additions and the replacement of original window materials.

It continues to convey its significance through historic features, including its clay tile roof, ornamental grills, heavily textured stucco cladding, decorative campanile, main facade arcade, arched doorways, and fenestration pattern.

The preservation director held a hearing on June 4th, 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 5241 J Street as a landmark on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources, was exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 and adopts an ordinance listing 5241 J Street as a landmark on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources.

A notice of the public hearing describing the proposed landmark listing was sent to the property owner at 5241 J Street.

The property owner has neither voice neither objection or support for listing.

The city has received letters in support of listing from Preservation Sacramento, East Sacramento Preservation Neighborhood Association, and 41 individual members of the public, including many East Sacramento residents.

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

Thank you.

If I may, Commissioners, my name is Henry Fuse, Preservation Planner.

We, in response to public comments on the uh the proposal to list this building, we are going to be amending the ordinance to remove the language that uh notes the expansive property as a character-defining feature.

Um, so we will be amending that language to remove that so that uh there's no uh misinterpretation that could occur in the future on what standard or what uh feature that might be applying to to limit uh the redevelopment of the site in the future.

Thank you.

Um is the property owner in attendance who would like to address the commission?

Are there members of the public who wish to address this item?

Thank you, Chair.

I have three speaker slips for this item.

The first is William Burke.

Ah, the light is on.

Uh William Berg with Preservation Sacramento, and we've been working with East Sacramento Preservation for the past two years to move forward this nomination uh to the National Register of Historic Places.

It is going to be on the National Register agenda for the State Historical Resources Commission in August, but we're very happy that it's also moving at the city level.

So the two are happening in parallel, and hopefully uh maybe they could both be listed about the same time.

And uh, I understand there's no July commission meeting, so the board, your commission may not have the opportunity to provide comment, but so you're aware that it's happening.

Uh there's been a lot of positive response and a lot of love for the school at the 7-Eleven meetings that have happened at the site.

So thank you for your time and hope that you will move this forward with the recommendation to the city council to list the property in the Sacramento Register.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Bruce Marwick.

Uh good evening, commissioners.

Uh, my name is Bruce Marwick.

I'm preservation chair and president of the Sacramento Art Deco Society, and this building, Eldoral School, has been a longtime favorite of our organization.

Uh some might say, well, from the exterior, it isn't our deco, but it is a classic building that that we also appreciate other genres like Spanish revival.

But what's most important to us is actually some of the additions, specifically the 1939 auditorium, which was also done by Charles Dean, and it is particularly the interior in the classic streamline moderne style.

It has wonderful curved walls, original stage, uh, other details, and most specifically, it has a terrific, terrific uh WPA New Deal inspired mural by Earl Barnett.

And uh I don't actually know the measurements, but it has to be over 30 feet wide, and it's a terrific piece.

So uh we advocated for the building and uh hopefully it will be preserved.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next and final speaker on this item is Will Green.

I mean, uh Will Green, East Sacramento Preservation.

How I first became exposed to the structure of the school is actually volunteering for the past two years with the garden class of the McClatchy Adult Education Center.

And uh it quickly grows on you to the point of I explored with Preservation Sacramento whether this would be uh appropriate for a nomination to the National Register, and that's when things began over two years ago.

Uh I'm curious today for future reference.

Um, many of us directed letters of support to um preservation director Sean DeCourcy, and I don't know if those come directly to you or not, or if that was in your mention of the number that was received by Sean.

But if not, know that I personally am aware of at least probably that many, if not more, that uh but probably didn't come to you directly by e-comment just because of Renika's system and all of that.

So uh we strongly support this uh nomination and your approval uh to go to City Council and to try to work with this is a four-point acre site of land, which is prime real estate.

Uh, I think there are many developers that are interested in preserving the historic nature of the property of that building uh in their development of proposals.

So we hope you go forward with that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I have no more speaker slips.

Thank you.

Um, are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item?

Chair, if I may, um I'd like to clarify something that our staff uh Henry Fuse mentioned.

Again, Preservation Director Sean DeCourcy.

So he mentioned the description of the property is as expansive property character defining feature.

That specifically is in the proposed ordinance, section one, sub-bullet I, where the uh it lists the character-defining features of the property.

And the public comment that he referenced specifically cited the uh expansive property being described as a character defining feature.

Um, and when we looked into this, we agree that the description of the entire property being a character defining feature is uh overreaching and in its uh description and could um affect future proposals to readaptively reuse or redevelop the property and so um we'd like to propose staff's recommending that the in the commission's motion they specifically amend again section one of the proposed ordinance, sub bullet I that describes uh the expansive property as a character in the fighting feature.

So if you if the commission does uh elect to amend that motion, you'll want to or amend that criteria, you'll have to uh make that part of your motion today.

Thank you.

So there are any other commissioners that wish to speak on this item.

Okay, yeah, I had another potential.

This is just on the narrative description, so less tangible but potential copy edits.

There were two sections that that kind of struck me as not necessary, and I think we could cut one at the beginning.

It goes all the way back to the Nissanon and the Maidu people, and then the Spanish showed up, and then we found gold in a very like yada yada yada sort of way.

It's not really relevant to the nomination, and I don't think we need that in like every building we nominate.

So I think we've got that.

And then uh a few pages later, it goes on about in the history of East Sacramento.

There's again some kind of extra flowery language about how fashionable and desirable the neighborhood was, but there's nothing about the segregation and all of that that was going on at the time again.

I don't think it's necessarily relevant to the nomination.

I just don't think we need to talk so glowingly about what was going on there.

So for both that that first section that goes all the way back to the Native American people in kind of a glossy way and that section about East Sacramento being so fashionable in an overly glossy way.

I think we could cut those.

If I can just clarify, you are referring to the uh the national register nomination form that's attached to the staff report, right?

Not the ordinance itself, correct.

If we're if we're able to make changes to that.

It's on page 22 and 24 of the document we got.

Yeah.

I can discuss the national register um process during the director's report, um, but this form's submitted to us as is.

So we can't really make it any amendments to it at the current time.

But I can sort of discuss the process and why this national register nomination is not coming to you separately to make comments to the state historic resources commission.

My only other comment was that I'm just I'm excited to also see that it's being nominated at the National Register as well.

So, um, do I have a motion and a second to adopt the ordinance with the revisions to the section one and sub bullet I?

Yes, I would like to make a motion that we amend the bullet point I to reflect that the expansive grounds are not a character defining feature, and that we would like to forward this uh to city council.

I'll second that motion, just uh to clarify, um, and you'll be moving item two uh or item uh the item one in the um in staff recommendation regarding the CEQA findings as well.

Yes, okay.

Okay, thank you.

So we have a motion by Commissioner Cross and a second by Vice Chair Merker.

Commissioners, please unmute your microphones.

All in favor of the motion and second, please say aye.

Aye, opposed, none and none abstained.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item fours the LGPTQ plus historic experience project potentially eligible landmarks in historic district.

Is there a staff presentation?

Good evening, Commissioners.

Henry Fuse, Preservation Planner, with the City of Sacramento.

Sorry, I gotta get really close to this.

I'll be presenting the LGBTQ plus historic experience project, potentially eligible landmarks and historic district under file M2305.

So this project is a direct follow-up to our LGBTQ plus historic experience project that we completed in 2024 that developed a historic context statement and historic survey, just uh surveying Lavender Heights Historic District and five potential historic landmarks.

We conducted a significant amount of public outreach during this process and uh conducted a significant amount of historical resource uh research and oral history interviews to help develop this historic context statement that we brought to this commission back in 2024.

So this uh excuse me.

Um so as I just mentioned, we completed the project in 2024.

Uh and in 2025, we developed a draft historic district plan for the Lavender Heights Historic District with which we brought to you earlier this year, which we are bringing again this evening just as a bundle with the potential landmark nominations and historic district nominations, and um just uh in this year we are planning uh following this hearing to begin the nomination process uh after we uh refine the nominations based on your comments and public comments.

So within the Lavender Heights uh historic district, we have 12 contributing resources and 29 non-contributing resources.

Uh this is notable for its cultural significance to the LGBTQ plus community.

And you can see on the right side there, there uh the darker uh purple is the contributing resources, and lighter purple is the non-contributing resources, and the boundaries are pretty tightly snapped around uh the oddly shaped historic district.

Uh and all of the documentation for the information of the public is available on our website uh on our property or project webpage.

So the 12 properties that are included as contributing resources in the historic district are those on your screen.

So we have the uh former Lambda community center on L Street, the Mercantile Saloon also on L Street, uh faces and formerly K Street Station at 2000 K Street, the Western uh now known as the Depot at 2001 K Street, uh the former Sacramento Women's Center and the get the home of the gifted gardener at 2220 J Street, uh the first Sacramento Women's Building as well as Lioness Books at 2224 J Street, the offices of Dr.

Harvey Thompson and Sandy Pomerance and the home of the Open Book at 912 21st Street, the first United Methodist Church at 2000 uh 2100 J Street, uh the Sacramento AIDS Foundation had two locations, one at 2115 J Street and one at 1900 K Street, and the new Helvetia Roaster at 1215 19th Street within the Sacramento uh excuse me, the Lavender Heights Historic District plan as we brought to you several months ago.

We identified each building uh and developed character defining features for each of those buildings to assist with drafting objective design guidelines for those buildings, and it clarifies uh what is subject to review and what exactly we're going to be looking for to assist with uh the future development in the district and development on the contributing properties.

We are not uh going to be significantly uh regulating non-contributing properties.

This is a departure from our architectural historic districts where we are going to be having height standards and sizing standards.

Um, in uh the Lavender Heights Historic District plan, we are going to be relying on our base zoning code and citywide design review for the development of non-contributing resources.

So for property owners of non-contributing resources, your your the status will not necessarily change for how we review them, but for properties that are identified as contributing resources, we have a clear set of guidelines that will be uh in that are outlined in the historic district plan.

Um and as usual, uh, with our standard uh process, most uh of the items on the screen are going to be considered exempt from planning review, so roofing replacements, um, any interior removements, uh interior improvements on uh non-publically accessible interiors, uh mechanical equipment upgrades, utilities, um, what have you.

So now uh moving on to our potential uh historic landmarks.

So we have eight proposed landmarks.

As uh as I mentioned before, we developed five uh uh evaluations as part of the LGBTQ plus historic experience project.

Uh but in the past two years we have been able to uh conduct research on three additional properties, which I'll go into in just a moment.

But the the five on your screen at the moment are the five that were initially uh conducted as part of the project.

So we have the alternative coffee shop at 2215 Pea Street, which was uh location outside of the bars that uh members of the LGBTQ uh plus community could attend.

Sure.

I lean over, sorry.

Um, that members of the LGBTQ plus community could uh attend that were outside of the bar scene that was not focused on alcohol and could provide a level of community uh to people that could not get into bars, and uh this this building was actually significant for its association with the development of the Society for Homosexual Freedom, which was a pivotal uh student organization at SAC State in the early 70s.

Um on the top right, we have the incredible edible, uh, which was a restaurant in the late 70s.

Uh we have the offices of mom guess what uh in the center, which uh was one of Sacramento's longest running queer uh newspaper organizations.

It was pivotal in uh connecting people to services and each other and and getting news out there to the local community when uh the modern newspaper was not uh or the the broader uh newspaper like the Sacramento B was not catering to LGBTQ uh news stories.

Uh on the lower right side, we have the Blue Moon, which was a lesbian bar, um, one of several in Sacramento, and this was a prominent location where uh members of the lesbian community would meet to um after sports games and host community organizations, and and this was a prominent location that was identified.

And then we also have on the bottom right uh Bojangles on Folsom Boulevard, which was uh one of Sacramento's earliest gay bars, and we actually have the owner uh behind me here, so I'm sure he'll talk a little bit about it in a couple minutes.

Um, so those were the first five that we identified as part of the project, and then we also have three additional project uh properties that we identified on the top uh top center, we have the Mirage, which was a uh short-lived uh black-owned lesbian bar, um, which the only one that we are aware of in Sacramento.

Uh on the bottom left, we have Joseph's town and country, uh, which operated in the 80s and 90s on Del Paso Boulevard, and then uh we have the Windsor Bar on the bottom right, which uh was operating in the 1950s, which is one of the earliest that we have uh any documentation for.

Um, by merit of it being from the 1950s, we don't really have a lot of documentation, but we have a uh we do have uh solid data that it was a queer establishment, and and uh we are actively searching for more information about that property.

Um so with that uh can accept any questions and comments, and I appreciate uh any feedback from the public and the commission.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

I do have one speaker slip from William Berg.

Good evening once again, William Berg with Preservation Sacramento.

We have been as an organization involved with this effort and partnering with the city to move forward uh this research and these recommendations.

Um it's been about a decade or so since um I was on the board of Sacramento Heritage Inc.

and uh was uh doing uh walking tours in conjunction with the Lavender Library.

Just then it's interesting how what starts out as a walking tour and seeing groups of people looking at a building and talking about the history, and all of a sudden people go, maybe there's something worth looking more closely.

And so it's kind of amazing.

A decade doesn't seem that long at my age, but uh to to go from starting walking tours and hey, isn't this interesting to actually seeing it come to fruition uh as city landmarks, which is uh amazing.

It is forward thinking on behalf of the city of Sacramento, its staff, its commissions, and its city council, and I would be very happy to see this go before city council, so I hope you'll give it your full support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I have no more speaker slips on this item.

Thank you.

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

Go ahead.

Um I have a quick question.

First of all, thank you for the the exhaustive uh research on this is like kind of mind blowing.

516 pages was uh I didn't read all of them, but I read a lot of them.

But I have a question, um, as a lifelong sacrament, when did the name Lavender Heights come?

I didn't see that anywhere in your research, and it doesn't think it doesn't seem like it was always called that, but when did that name emerge?

Um as far as our research could tell, it seemed to pop up in the late 80s, but there wasn't really a lot of uh nobody really knows who coined it.

There were some people that called it fruit flats, apparently, and some people called it Lavender Heights, and I guess Lavender Heights stuck over time, but there's a lot of uh there's a lot of lore around it, and that's why we didn't necessarily have any um concrete documentation on where the name came from.

Go ahead, Commissioner Krauss.

Um I just want to comment a little bit about the DPR form for Bowjangles as a person who um was there from its very uh like 1985 transfer from being strictly a gay bar to being a absolutely crucial part of Sacramento underground punk rock history, which of course includes people of all different sexual orientations.

Um I just want to mention that the DPR says that it was Bojangles, and then it was Club Me, and then it was a cattle club.

And I would like to point out that since I was there, and I confirmed this with Mr.

Sidey just to make sure I wasn't completely insane, that uh it was both.

Um that's how I remember it.

It was a gay bar and a punk club, and it was chosen uh to be leased as a punk club by first uh Greg Dean and Greg Duset, and then Jerry Perry, who ran it successfully for almost 20 years.

Um, it was chosen because it was a gay club, because the clientele that you know that they were seeking to reach the music-loving punk rock people of Sacramento, uh, a lot of them are not straight people, and all of them for the most part are um uh you know, the whole punk rock ethos is anti-racist, anti-uh homophobia, um inclusive, um, anti-establishment kind of ethos.

And so I would just like it so much if we could capture that very important part of its history in this DPR, if that's at all possible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other commissioners who wish to comment?

Yes.

It is a tricky mic today.

Uh I've mentioned this before, and I I I think I just want to have it reiterated to me.

So the these structures, many of them on their own do not have uh significant architectural features.

Uh and the story that we are uh trying to tell here uh comes from a certain period of significance.

So, how does that translate to uh what uh what the city would be looking at uh for any uh development permits uh of for example uh looking at a specific period of significance uh that that contributes to this uh this particular narrative and and how do we uh or how do the building owners uh kind of uh do their own research to uh to state that their uh development uh applications are in line with that uh uh period of significance?

So our historic district plan uh we we did utilize historic photographs to to uh view what the buildings looked like historically, but our historic district plan is essentially just to maintain the form of the building so they're recognizable to uh members of the community that utilize those spaces in the period of significance out of um since they're not architecturally significant, or for uh eight of them are not architectually significant in their own right.

Um we are going by if as long as they're recognizable essentially by by somebody who exists in those spaces, but there actually are four uh properties that are already uh landmarked on the register that are going to be included in the historic district.

I would just add, commissioners, that this the same methodology goes for the um individual landmarks that are outside the historic district.

So the idea is we have um historic evaluations and we'll eventually have draft ordinance that will describe the features that uh existed at the time that are important to be able to convey that period to again to a person who who would have uh frequented the building, or in the future uh be able to tell that story to people who who were not able to frequent the building because the use has changed and it's a different different um era and time.

Any other commissioners have any comments?

Um I just wouldn't say that I'm also excited to see this one on Del Paso Boulevard.

It's got quite a layered history, so I'm glad to see that that one's being recognized for all of that history.

And I'm kind of dating myself because I often went to the cattle when it was the cattle club.

So I'm kind of excited about that one too.

A lot of my college friends are quite shocked that they didn't know that it what its history was, and I was telling them, I'm like, guess what's potentially gonna be nominated?

Um, so yeah, I think I I think this is really exciting that you guys are moving this forward and and with so many nominations.

Um, well, this one is just for us to review and comment, so we don't have a vote.

Um, so this concludes the discussion calendar.

So we can move on to the director's report.

All right, thank you, Commissioners.

Again, Sean DeCourcy Preservation Director.

Um I don't have very many items for the director's report tonight, but I do have um I do have one item I'd like to uh report out.

So staff recently received notice that four Sacramento properties have been scheduled for consideration by the State Historical Resources Commission at their August 7th, 2026 meeting.

Three nominations to the National Register of Historic Places and one D listing from the National Register of Historic Places.

Because the preservation commission does not meet in July, the commission would not have the opportunity to review and provide comments on these nominations, as is required by our certified local government status.

But I did want to summarize the each nomination for you tonight, and then um and then give you some updated information about um about our progress reviewing these.

So uh the first is Grant Union High School.

Um, if you're familiar with Grant, it's a Spanish colonial revival campus constructed between 1934 and 1940, designed by architects Harry Devine and Charles Dean, aforementioned.

Um the nomination highlights the school's architectural significance as well as its association with the early uh field act school construction standards, which were earthquake earthquake um standards.

The next is a Thompson Diggs Company building.

This is a warehouse building associated with the Thompson Diggs Company.

Uh and state Senator Marshall Diggs, designed by architect Clarence Cuff.

The property is nominated for its association with Sacramento's Industrial and commercial development.

The property is also applying for federal rehabilitation tax credits as part of Sacramento's first major office to residential conversion project at Third and R Streets.

Um the next is the El Dorado School property, which you've just taken action on tonight, and as I mentioned, uh I would discuss in the director's report, so the El Dorado School is being heard at that commission meeting as well.

Then finally, the Alkali Flat Central Historic District, a contributing resource at 1111.

Sorry, did I do that too many ones, four ones, one one, one one, F Street, is proposed for delisting.

This would be an amendment to the existing historic district that would revise the status of the property from contributing to non-contributing.

The reason that the building was constructed outside the district's period of significance.

So regarding we're considering what to do in terms of all of these nominations, but staff has requested that the Office of Historic Preservation continue considering the delisting item to a subsequent hearing date that would allow for local review and comment.

These other nominations are somewhat standard and fairly non-controversial, but this delisting item is somewhat unusual, and staff feels that the commission should have the opportunity to consider the request and weigh in on it since it is also a locally listed contributing resource to one of our historic districts that was uh updated in 2018.

So staff will continue to coordinate with the Office of Historic Preservation regarding uh scheduling, and we'll keep you the commission informed of any updates.

That concludes my director's report, and I'm available to answer any questions you have.

Thank you, Sean.

Does do any commissioners have any questions for Sean?

And the next item is the commissioners' comments and ideas and questions.

Um are there any commissioners who wish to speak?

Okay.

The last item is public comments matters not on the agenda.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I do not have any speaker slips for this item.

Thank you, Clerk.

This concludes today's agenda.

Thank you everyone for your participation, and the meeting is adjourned.