Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Soledad 3438 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Salinas board says front wall preservation at 3438 Soledad Street not structurally feasible; materials to be salvaged
Summary
Staff told the Historic Resources Board that preserving the building’s front wall at 3438 Soledad Street is not feasible; contractors will document and salvage historically significant material and environmental testing contracts are being prepared.
At its June meeting, the Salinas Historic Resources Board heard an update from Grant Leonard, planning manager, on the status of 3438 Soledad Street, a property under consideration for partial preservation and redevelopment. Leonard said city engineering and building staff concluded that preserving the historic front wall in place is not structurally feasible and that the project is instead moving toward material recovery and incorporation of salvaged elements in new construction.
"It's a matter of recovering the materials from the front, documenting it as much as possible, and then incorporating that into the new design," Leonard said. He told the board the city is preparing scopes of work for environmental testing and for demolition and preservation services, and staff is drafting contracts to carry out that work.
Board members asked whether a second engineering opinion would be sought and whether the recommendation essentially amounted to demolition with facade salvage. Leonard said staff can report back next month and encouraged board members to send specific requests by email so public works and building staff can respond in detail.
Board discussion clarified the project footprint: the block from 34 to 38 Soledad Street includes the PI Market, a pool hall and a Shell station, and the proposed redevelopment envisions a new three- or four‑story building that would incorporate salvaged facade elements on the east side if preservation in place is not feasible. Staff summarized the approach as recovery and reuse of historically relevant material rather than in‑situ retention.
No formal action was taken at the meeting; staff said contracts and scope documents are being developed and that the project will return for further updates once testing and contractor scopes are established.
The board asked staff to provide additional engineering detail and alternatives at the next meeting, including whether alternative preservation approaches had been fully evaluated.
