The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5/18/2020 Item 3, Cooper Wilbanks, Megan From:Allan Cooper < To:Oetzell, Walter; Advisory Bodies Subject:Letter To The Cultural Heritage Committee Attachments:405_14_20...chcletter.pdf Dear Walter - Would you see to it that the letter attached below gets to the CHC? This letter pertains to Public Hearing Item #3 on the CHC's Monday, May 18, 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: May 18, 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: May 14, 2020 Honorable Chair and Committee Members - Staff and Mr. Pavlik state that “The building remodel done in 2009 was not a preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.” More speciﬁcally, staff states that “the changes did not rise to the level of an authentic, historically accurate reconstruction…” However this project does indeed meet the SOI Standards of Reconstruction because the modiﬁcations create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property and the modiﬁcations are clearly identiﬁed as a contemporary re-creation. The Secretary of Interior Standards for Reconstruction (see: https://www.nps.gov/tps/ standards/four-treatments/treatment-reconstruction.htm) state the following:     “Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property.” “Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements 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 Historic Resource Evaluation for 778 & 782-790 Higuera Street Page 22 Photo 2007 Remodel Plans - 2009 ATTACHMENT 2Item 6 Packet Page 146 substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re- create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color and texture.” “A reconstruction will be clearly identiﬁed as a contemporary re-creation.” Staff states that the modiﬁcations made diminish the integrity of the building because there were “Changes in materials (windows, doors, bulkheads, interiors, parapet)…” and because of the “Elements of seismic strengthening (e.g. concrete beam across Rear Elevations)” With regards to the change in materials, this statement contradicts the SOI Standards for Restoration: “In Restoration, replacing an entire feature from the restoration period, such as a porch, that is too deteriorated to repair may be appropriate. Together with documentary evidence, the form and detailing of the historic feature should be used as a model for the replacement. Using the same kind of material is preferred; however, compatible substitute material may be considered. New work may be unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.” Again, the SOI Standards for Restoration state the following: “Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials.” And with regards to seismic strengthening, are we supposed to delist every historical building that has undergone a seismic retroﬁt? We hope not! Staff states that: “Their (i.e., this project’s) ongoing inclusion only serves to dilute the signiﬁcance of the other buildings on the list…” This cannot be a serious consideration given the fact that the following master listed buildings have been even more signiﬁcantly modiﬁed: the 1891 Commercial Bank Building at 799 Higuera and the 1877 Bank of America or Maino Building at 767 Higuera. The Commercial Bank Building (also designed by Laird) was originally Richardsonian Romanesque and the Bank of America Building was originally Italianate. Both were later remodeled in the Spanish Colonial style. Are we proposing to delist these buildings as well? Per Mr. Pavliks’ historical analysis he has ascertained the following: "Speciﬁcally, they (i.e., these buildings) do not possess important associations within the historic and architectural contexts utilizing § 14.01.070 of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Ordinance Criteria for both architectural and historic integrity.” However, Mr. Pavlik concedes in his “Responses to CHC Discussion on April 27, 2020”, dated May 4, 2020, that though the architect H.S. Laird and the builder C.H. Johnson are associated with the project (and are clearly important associations) there are “other, more important resources extant that are associated” with both Mr. Laird and Mr. Johnson. This is a purely subjective assessment. And we disagree with this because two of the notable architect’s commercial buildings were demolished and of the remaining four commercial buildings in existence two have been extensively altered in appearance. In conclusion, the last thing the CHC should be doing during this pandemic is to start delisting historical properties. Why? Because when and if we resume our lives and return to the “new normal”, we should be doing everything we can to bring our precious Downtown back to life. With this in mind, the “new normal” will depend, even more than before, on generating business and Downtown business is greatly inﬂuenced by tourism. What brings tourists to our Downtown? Our historic charm!  