The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4/27/2020 Item 6, Cooper Wilbanks, Megan From:Allan Cooper < To:Oetzell, Walter; Advisory Bodies Subject:782, 786 & 790 Higuera Street Attachments:604_26_20...lettertochc.pdf Dear Walter - Would you see to it that the letter attached below gets to the CHC? This letter pertains to Public Hearing Item #6 on the CHC's Monday, April 27, 2020 meeting agenda. I would also like this letter to be placed in the City's correspondence file. Thanks! - Allan 1 Save Our Downtown ______________________________________________________________________________ Seeking to protect and promote the historical character, design, livability and economic success of downtown San Luis Obispo. To: San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee & Walter Oetzell Re: April 27, 2020 Meeting; Review of a historic signiﬁcance determination request to remove the property at 782, 786, and 790 Higuera from the City’s Contributing historic properties list From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown Date: April 26, 2020 Honorable Chair and Committee Members - According to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties “Restoration is deﬁned as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period”. Staff and the City’s consultant Robert Pavlik are arguing that the primary façade along Higuera is the result of a contemporary remodeling project dating from 2009 which incorporated features resembling those of the original Commercial Vernacular Style, but which does not constitute “Restoration”. Though staff states that the remodeling successfully simulates the original appearance, it is not an entirely accurate restoration substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. For example, it utilizes a “thinbrick veneer” to “match the Johnson Building” (as described in 2009 plans) rather than to match the original ﬁnish of the buildings, spans only about three-ﬁfths of the original façade, and places a parapet projection in a position in which it was not originally situated. We heartily disagree! We ask you to not delist this building. Historic Resource Evaluation for 778 & 782-790 Higuera Street Page 22 Photo 2007 Remodel Plans - 2009 ATTACHMENT 2Item 6 Packet Page 146 3.1 Building Modifications A late 1940s photograph of the buildings (see Figure 4 below) shows alteration of the parapet: removal of the crennelations and placement of stucco material in place of the original brick across two of the original five “bays” of the façade (along the Woolworth Co. store façade). The continuous transom window pattern has also been truncated and interrupted by signage. By 1960 (see Figure 5, below) the stucco parapet treatment and transom-level signage had been extended across the façade of all of the subject buildings. By the early 1970s the western portion of these buildings (778 Higuera, formerly Woolworth Co.) had been extensively modified to create “The Network Mall.” And by the early 1990s the Network had been further modified, now presenting an arcaded building entry (see Figure 6 below) adjacent to the truncated and stuccoed façade of the adjoining buildings at 782-790 Higuera. Figure 3: 1934 Photograph (from Pavlik, Evaluation, pg. 21) Figure 4: 1940s Photograph (from Pavlik, Supplemental, pg. 2) Item 6 Packet Page 114 Permit us to address these arguments on a point-by-point basis: 1)It utilizes a “thinbrick veneer” to “match the Johnson Building” (as described in 2009 plans) rather than to match the original ﬁnish of the buildings. As can be seen in a late 1940’s postcard view of this building there is evidence of corbeling. The dimensional quality of this corbeling recalls that seen on many brick buildings erected around the turn of the century. Even though the facade may indeed have been faced with plaster (the photo is too fuzzy to determine one way or the other) the corbeling recalls brickwork. 2)The remaining building “spans only about three-ﬁfths of the original façade”. Yet again referring back to the late 1940’s postcard view, this is what remained after the Woolworth Co. moved in. Given that this remnant of the building is 70-80 years old, it still qualiﬁes as an “historical building”. 3)The 2009 remodel “places a parapet projection in a position in which it was not originally situated.” Studying the historical photos, it is clear that the so-called vertical projection was moved during the 2009 remodel to the center of the three bays when formerly it was in the center of the original ﬁve bays. But this was intended to capture the Beaux-Arts symmetry of the original building. To do otherwise would be compromising the essential integrity of this building. 4)Finally, staff states that the brick walls in the building’s interior and the rear elevation have themselves been subject to repointing (interior walls), introduction of new and incompatible openings, and intrusion of plumbing and mechanical equipment. When did it become unacceptable to repoint brick work on historical buildings? This was obviously done to extend the life of the building. And necessary penetrations for mechanical equipment, etc. are expected when historical buildings go through adaptive reuse. 2 2. Modifications to Higuera Façade: Effects on Architectural and Historical Character and Significance. Response: A postcard view of the buildings from the late 1940s shows changes to the original parapet. The crenellated top portion of the parapet was removed, and a simple facade placed over 778 Higuera Street. The parapet wall over 782-790 Higuera Street without the crenellated top portion remained in place. Photographs from the 1950s and 1960s show the block of buildings with a monolithic stucco wall erected in the parapets’ place. These changes took place well before the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and the development of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. In other words, the buildings were irrevocably changed at that time with the loss of original fabric and changes to the remaining materials. Postcard >ate 1940s ATTACHMENT 3Item 6 Packet Page 152