REPORT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
November 24, 2025
FROM: JENNIFER CLARK, Director
Planning and Development Department
BY: ASHLEY ATKINSON, Assistant Director
Planning and Development Department
SUBJECT
Title
Hearing to consider application B25-03423 for façade renovations to the Rosenberg Brothers Packing Warehouse located at 1844 S Cherry Ave. (Assessor Parcel Number: 467-020-14).
1. APPROVE - Application B25-03423 for façade renovations at 1844 S Cherry Ave.
Body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 21, 2025, Garrett Wellman of ARCO/Murray submitted application B25-03423 on behalf of Broad Reach Retail Partners. Staff review of B25-03423 reflected that the application consisted of interior upgrades for HVAC, access and circulation; and improvements to the exterior of the building, including new glazing; replacement doors, window coverings, and metal canopies; and paint. The Historic Preservation Commission held a hearing on June 23, 2025 and approved B25-03423 with conditions. The Commission also recommended the property for designation as a local historic resource, which was approved by City Council on October 16, 2025.
On November 7, 2025, it was observed that unpermitted demolition of the brick spandrels was taking place. Because the brick spandrels are a character-defining feature, building permit application B25-03423 has been returned to the Commission for further review.
BACKGROUND
The building at 1844 S. Cherry is a three-story, 217,833 SF warehouse constructed in approximately 1918 by the Rosenburg Brothers and Company of San Francisco. Its original use was as a fruit packing facility that employed thousands of Fresno residents for several decades. Per the 2025 resource inventory form (Exhibit A), the building is reinforced concrete of a post and beam construction. The multi-light iron sash windows are covered with painted corrugated metal sheets, but original windows are evident where the coverings are not secure. Original character-defining features include brick spandrels that separate the windows, projecting molding at the cornice, and parapets at the four corners, which are decorated with a circular motif and foliate pattern. The north entrance to the building is accented with vertical piers and an ornamental cornice that projects above the parapet. Additional original features include flat concrete canopies between the first and second floors on the north elevation. Metal canopies are located on all other elevations with storage units infilled under.
The record indicates that the structure has been used for storage since the 1960s and operated as a self-storage facility since sometime prior to 1978. The use proposed under the current application continues to be self-storage, as the “CubeSmart” brand.
On June 23, 2025, the Historic Preservation Commission held a hearing to consider this building permit application. The Commission reviewed the following exterior changes:
• Removal and replacement of first floor exterior storage units and metal canopy in the same location.
• Removal of the large vertical bearing exterior wall panels composed of metal sheets over window frames and brick short walls, and replacement with insulated metal stud walls finished and on the exterior with horizontal metal paneling.
• At the front entrance of the building, some existing wall panels are to be replaced with a storefront glazing system.
• Repainting of all exterior surfaces to white and gray, with a red accent.
• Removal of existing fire escapes from the second floor to roof.
• Replacements of exterior roll-up storage doors.
The Commission approved these changes with the condition that the proposed design and materials for the following elements be reviewed by the Architectural Review Subcommittee: new windows; metal coverings for existing window openings; and the replacement for the existing concrete canopy. The Commission also requested that where feasible, historic materials be salvaged and repurposed or sold. The building permit was issued “at-risk” on July 29, 2025.
On November 7, 2025, it was observed that unpermitted demolition of the brick spandrels was taking place. An inspection was conducted, and a stop work order on exterior demolition was issued the same day that remains in place. At the time the stop work order was issued, the bulk of the brick had already been removed from between the first and second floors. A portion of the brick remains in place between the second and third floor on each elevation (Exhibit F).
ANALYSIS
Staff review of the submitted plans found that the demolition elevation did not identify demolition of the brick spandrels between the windows. For this reason, removal of the brick was not presented to the Commission as part of the scope of work, nor was it an approved element of the demolition plans (see Exhibit G, which was provided to members of the Commission only due to copyright restrictions). The applicant has stated that their intent to remove the brick was reflected in the construction elevations, and that they believed this scope of work was included in their at-risk permit.
Because permit was issued “at-risk,” the project “shall proceed at the holder's own risk, including all risk of liability, and without assurance that a notice of acceptance of infrastructure improvements will be recorded, or that a certificate of occupancy for a building or structure will be granted […] Corrections or modifications in work performed may be required to meet the requirements of the technical codes and final approved plans. Occupancy will not be permitted until all plans are approved, all conditions of approval required for occupancy are met, and the final map, if required for the property, is recorded” (FMC Sec. 12-2204).
The original windows and short brick walls have been covered with painted corrugated paneling for decades. The photo in the 1978 DPR Inventory Form (Exhibit A) shows that paneling existed then. The applicant’s proposal to remove the brick and attach new panels to the underlying concrete would retain a similar visual profile to the existing paneling. However, removal of the brick represents a permanent alteration to one of the building’s character-defining features, as noted in the DPR form.
The Architectural Review Subcommittee was consulted for further direction at a meeting held on November 17, 2025. Because the brick spandrels are a character-defining feature, the Subcommittee unanimously recommended review by the full Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
If the Commission finds that the proposed plans are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, then the project is eligible for a Class 31 Categorical Exemption. Per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, Class 31 is applicable to projects “limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.” If the Commission does not make this finding, review under CEQA will be required.
FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE FINDINGS
In order to approve the application or approve it with modifications, the Commission must make one of the following findings:
(1) The proposed work is found to be consistent with the purposes of this article and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, not detrimental to the special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the Historic Resource; or
Staff recommends that this finding cannot be made as the proposed work is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and is detrimental to the special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the Historic Resource.
(2) The action proposed is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property; or
Staff recommends that this finding cannot be made, as the action proposed is not necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property.
(3) Denial of the application will result in unreasonable economic hardship to the owner. In order to approve the application, the Commission must find facts and circumstances, not of the applicant's own making, which establish that there are no feasible measures that can be taken that will enable the property owner to make a reasonable economic beneficial use of the property or derive a reasonable economic return from the property in its current form; or
Staff recommends that this finding cannot be made because the denial of the application would not result in unreasonable economic hardship to the owner.
(4) The site is required for a public use which will directly benefit the public health, safety and welfare and will be of more benefit to the public than the Historic Resource.
This finding cannot be made because the site is not required for a public use.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Commission reconsider building permit application B25-03423.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - DPR Inventory Forms (1978 and 2025)
Exhibit B - Proposed Elevations
Exhibit C - Secretary of the Interior Standards
Exhibit D - Fresno Municipal Code Findings
Exhibit E - Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit F - Demolition Photos
Exhibit G - Submitted Plan Set