Historic structures report finds Ara’s Pool Hall at 38 Soledad eligible but in poor condition; further testing recommended

A draft historic structures report prepared for the city of Salinas concludes that the building at 38 Soledad Street — known locally as Ara’s Pool Hall in Salinas’ Chinatown — remains eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources, but is in poor physical condition and will require additional investigation and significant stabilization work before reuse.

Grant Leonard, the city’s planning manager, introduced the presentation and said the report was prepared by TEF Design as part of the design work for an affordable housing project at 3438 Soledad Street. “As part of the design process, our architect and design firm, TEF Design, has completed a historic structures report for '38 as it had been identified as a potentially historic resource,” Leonard said.

Consultants from TEF Design and partnering specialists told the Historic Resources Board that their archival and field work supports eligibility under the National/California register criteria for events (association with community business and gathering space) and design (Chinese-inspired architectural references). “We reevaluated the building, for both the national and California registers and determined that it is still significant despite its condition,” said Gretchen Boyce, architectural historian and founder of Groundwork Preservation.

The report identifies character-defining features concentrated on the building’s east (street-facing) facade — including a balcony, storefront system, steel-sash windows, a tile roof and cornice detailing — and recommends a dual approach to treatment: restoration of the east facade where historic features remain intact, and rehabilitation at the rear and other altered areas to accommodate code upgrades and adaptive reuse.

Structural concerns and recommended tests

Jennifer Frank, a structural engineer with Howard Carter Associates, summarized onsite limitations and damage observed during a visual inspection. She said floor joist ends and portions of the sheathing were damaged or missing, interior framing and roof sheathing showed exposure to moisture, and some areas were unsafe for entry. “We would rate the condition of the structural components to be poor,” Frank said.

Frank and the team noted specific seismic concerns that commonly arise during retrofits: inadequate foundations for modern lateral loads, poor connections between exterior walls and floor/roof framing, and mixed-material conditions (concrete walls abutting wood-framed walls) that could necessitate added structural steel frames. The consultants said further testing — including close-up investigation of foundations, material sampling, and a structural analysis for seismic retrofit options — is required to scope a realistic stabilization and retrofit plan.

Architectural conditions and next steps

TEF Design’s Lindsay Moder said the building has been vacant since the 1980s and has suffered roof failure, fire damage at the west end and vandalism, all of which have accelerated deterioration. Moder emphasized the need to make the building watertight and to determine which architectural elements can be rehabilitated in place and which must be replaced or salvaged. She said optional paint analysis by a materials conservator could help determine original colors because available photos are black-and-white.

Moder explained the treatment recommendation in practical terms: “At the east facade where the majority of the historic features are intact … we believe that restoration is appropriate. At the rear facade … we would recommend rehabilitation. This is a more flexible approach that accommodates for future changes.”

Board questions and context for a larger project

Board members asked about architect attribution, the building’s construction date and how the historic structure would be integrated with a larger adjacent housing project. Moder and Boyce said available building permits and aerial photos limited the team’s ability to identify the original architect; archival evidence suggests nearby buildings were designed by Charles Butner, but the team found no definitive documentation linking him to 38 Soledad. The consultants reported the building first appears in photographs between 1948 and 1949 and set the period of significance beginning in 1948.

Board members also discussed how a new, larger housing massing could be set back from the historic facade so that the original storefront remains legible from the sidewalk while new construction rises behind it. Grant Leonard said the project team is continuing design work with TEF Design and will return to the board in the coming months with updated designs.

Why this matters

If the city finalizes the historic structures report and the building is designated or treated as a qualified historic resource, future work will be reviewed under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and could be eligible for provisions under the California Historic Building Code that offer limited code leniency for historic structures. The consultants recommended immediate priority work to stabilize the roof and prevent further interior water intrusion, followed by the investigations and analyses needed to scope a feasible retrofit.

The board did not take a formal vote on the report at this meeting; consultants said the draft remains open to board comments before finalization.