Interior of Fresno’s oldest theater was gutted under the very noses of city staff
City officials remain tight-lipped over why the owners of Fresno’s oldest surviving theater were permitted to undertake extensive interior renovations — without anyone notifying the Historic Preservation Commission.
But we do have their emails. They were forwarded to me by Miguel Arias, the Fresno City Council member for District 3 whose social media posts revealed that 104-year-old Hardy’s Theater at 944 Van Ness Ave. had essentially been gutted.
Specifically, an upper-level internal staff memo sent to Arias on Monday afternoon by Assistant Planning and Development Director Mike Sanchez. Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer, City Manager Thomas Esqueda and Planning and Development Director Jennifer Clark are among those cc’ed.
Sanchez opened the 340-word email by stating that a demolition permit for the theater’s interior was issued Jan. 11 to the property owner, the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, pending a final building inspection.
“But that never occurred, so the permit expired on 7/10/21,” Sanchez added.
“The applicants also concurrently submitted their Tenant Improvement Plan, which is a requirement of a demolition permit. (The tenant improvement permit) was issued at risk on 7/13/21 and paid fees in excess of $25K.”
Let me break in to add comment and context. First of all, the city’s assistant planning director is admitting his department green-lit renovations inside a building listed in the Local Register of Historic Resources — and didn’t bother to follow-up with an inspection.
Furthermore, Alicia Gonzales, the city’s historic preservation officer, waited until March 22 to inform members of the Historic Preservation Commission that a demo permit for Hardy’s Theater was issued without their “consultation and approval.” Recall the Jan. 11 permit issue date (more on the “at risk” part later). Why not speak up during HPC meetings on Jan. 25 or Feb. 22?
All the while Hardy’s Theater was getting its balcony ripped out and original decorative features deleted from the walls and ceilings, city officials sat on their hands and collected $25,000 in fees. Now the owners want permission to tear down the familiar 1950s marquee and replace it with a sign featuring the church’s name.
And you wonder why historic buildings in Fresno get so little respect and care.
Sanchez concluded his memo by mentioning the city’s structural engineer visited the site Friday and determined all the renovations done so far fell “within the scope of work mentioned in the (permits).”
Arias responded by asking Sanchez if that meant all the renovations performed to date had been “appropriately approved by City staff?”
“With respect to the interior demolition permits … that is correct,” Sanchez responded.
There you have it. The gutting of Fresno’s oldest theater took place right under the very noses of city staff that neglected, or simply couldn’t be bothered, to inspect the work until it was too late.
City planners violate Fresno municipal code
Their actions also run counter to the city’s own Historic Resource Permit Review Process. Section 12-1619 (a) of the Municipal Code states it is “unlawful” for “any person, corporation, association, partnership or other legal entity to directly or indirectly alter, remodel, demolish, grade, remove, construct, reconstruct or restore any Heritage Property without first obtaining a city permit and the written approval of the Historic Preservation Commission.”
But what happens when city planners violate their own ordinances?
I requested interviews with Sanchez and Gonzales, the Historic Preservation specialist, and didn’t hear back. Nor did Esqueda, the city manager, feel the need to drop me a line. Guess it’s easier to hide behind a bureaucratic curtain than admit a screw-up.
.jpeg "image1 (1).jpeg")
Fortunately, members of the HPC were more talkative.
Don Simmons, the commission’s longest tenured member, told me this was the first time in 15 years the HPC wasn’t given advance notice that a property owner had requested city authorization to renovate a historically listed structure. He also stated the commission has “very little communication” with Gonzales, a recent appointee.
“The fault here lies clearly with the Historic Preservation officer and her supervisor from the planning department. Who either didn’t know enough about the process or ignored the process,” Simmons said.
Fellow HPC member Chris Rocha, who toured the building site last week with Arias, Gonzales and code enforcement staff, said he was “baffled” by the city’s process.
“Walking in and seeing what had been done, my jaw dropped,” Rocha said. “I never expected the place would be gutted. Especially because we were told there was supposed to be oversight. I’m at a loss over what happened.”
Commissioner: Historic preservation ‘on autopilot’
To prevent a similar future occurrence, Simmons and Rocha suggested the City Council broaden and strengthen the commission’s oversight powers. (It would also help if the planning department actually adhered to its own permit review process for historic properties.)
“This is really about the whole planning department that kind of lets historic preservation go on autopilot,” Simmons said. “Do what you need to do with your little historic buildings, and nothing goes very far up the chain. I’m of the opinion the director and assistant director learned about this when they read your articles in the paper.”
What happens next is unclear. Earlier, I mentioned the “at risk” verbiage in the building permit. Which may turn out to be critical.
“At risk” permits were approved by the Fresno City Council in 2018 as a means to speed up residential, commercial and industrial projects. The ordinance states that any work done before final approval is done at the owner’s risk, including all financial liability. It adds that inspections must be allowed during construction and changes to already completed work may be required.
According to Arias, who questioned why a historic building got the rush treatment, this designation may give the city the legal muscle to compel Universal Church to restore historical elements of the theater — at their expense.
The matter could result in litigation, Arias said, and will be discussed by council members in closed session during a future meeting.
“This is going to be a test case for us as a city,” Arias added. “Are we going to protect our historical assets even when there’s a mistake by the contractor or the city?”
Guess we’ll find out soon enough.
This story was originally published August 11, 2021 at 10:05 AM.
