Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic-resources board reviews draft report finding 38 Soledad eligible for state and national registers
Summary
City planning staff and preservation consultants presented a draft historic structures report for 38 Soledad Street (known locally as Ara’s Pool Hall), concluding the building is eligible for the National and California registers and recommending restoration of the front facade with rehabilitation of the rear; consultants and commissioners noted it
The Salinas Historic Resources Board on Tuesday heard a presentation of a draft historic structures report for 38 Soledad Street — a building known locally as Ara’s Pool Hall — and heard consultant recommendations for restoration, rehabilitation and additional structural and materials testing.
The consultants told the board the property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register under the events criterion and the design criterion, and recommended follow-up work to define which historic features can be retained.
Grant Leonard, planning manager, introduced the item and said the report was prepared as part of design work for an affordable housing project. Lindsay Moder, preservation architect and associate at TEF Design, led the presentation and identified the property as historically significant despite its poor condition. Moder said the design team completed the draft report to identify the character-defining features before any adaptive-reuse work proceeds.
Gretchen Boyce, architectural historian and founder of Groundwork Preservation, summarized the eligibility findings: “We determined through the research that the building is eligible for listing in the National and California registers under the events criteria A1 and the design criteria C3,” and she said the period of significance runs from 1948, when the building was constructed, to 1980, when the pool hall closed.
Consultants described the character-defining features they recommend protecting, including the building’s massing and height, the front storefront system, a balcony and exterior cornice detailing, tile roof elements and steel-sash windows. Moder said the east (street) facade retains the most historic fabric and is a candidate for restoration, while the rear and areas that have been altered are better suited to rehabilitation to accommodate code upgrades and adaptive reuse.
Structural engineer Jessica Frank (Howard Carter Associates) told the board the building’s structural components and lateral-resistance elements performed poorly on visual inspection and recommended a seismic retrofit analysis and further testing. Frank said visible damage included deteriorated floor joist connections, missing sheathing and a long crack in a corner wall that could indicate separation risk. “We would rate the condition of the structural components to be poor,” she said, adding that further invasive investigation will be needed to determine foundation condition and required retrofit measures.
Board members asked detailed follow-up questions about the building’s architect, the date of construction, preservation of a neon sign, feasibility of retaining the facade as a freestanding element and how the roof drained. Moder and Boyce said they found photographic and permit evidence that the building was constructed between 1948 and 1949 and that they were unable to document a named architect from the records they searched; they recommended additional research and a larger reproduction of the 1948 aerial photo in the final report.
The consultants recommended several next steps: in-place and invasive structural testing and analysis to scope seismic retrofit work; an on-roof inspection and drainage-scoping to stop water intrusion; close-up examination of the east facade to determine what features can be rehabilitated or must be replaced in kind; and optional paint analysis by a materials conservator to determine original colors.
Grant Leonard told the board the TEF Design team will return with updated designs in the coming months to show how the historic building could be incorporated into a larger housing project. No formal board action was taken on the draft report during the meeting; consultants asked for the board’s feedback and indicated they will accept comments before finalizing the report.
Board members and staff also discussed related planning items including coordination with a larger site concept and the need to balance retaining historic features with economic feasibility for the housing project.
