REPORT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
April 25, 2022
FROM: JENNIFER CLARK, Director
Planning and Development Department
BY: ALICIA GONZALES, Historic Preservation Specialist
Planning and Development Department
SUBJECT
Title
HEARING TO CONSIDER Application P22-01285 for revisions to the Casa Di Fortuna residential complex which include the preservation of original historic wall features of the Jose Garcia Brewer Adobe building located at 5860 W Santa Ana Avenue (HP # 227) (APN 51054020).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) take the following actions:
1. RECOMMEND APPROVAL of revised exhibit Application P22-01285 for the revisions to the Casa Di Fortuna residential complex which include the preservation of original historic wall features of HP# 227 the Jose Garcia Brewer Adobe, subject to the following conditions of approval:
a. Any proposed thematic interpretive material, memorabilia, artifacts, plaques, or historical displays associated with the historical walls will be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Specialist prior to its installation.
b. Staff will be allowed to photograph before, during and upon completion of the project; and
c. Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Preservation Specialist prior to the commencement of any related work.
.
Body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owner Casa Di Fortuna LLC and IT Architecture Inc. filed application P22-01285 on April 5, 2022, for a Revised Exhibit Major- Conditional Use Permit. This project is associated with various Building Permits and CUP Amendments for various phased scopes of work which have been submitted to the City since 2018 through 2022. Staff was notified by mail from Brooks Ransom Associates in June 2021 requesting modifications to the conditions of approval for Phase I and Phase II construction due to the deteriorated condition of the Historic Resource. Staff brought this application to the attention of the HPC Chair, and the item was placed on the September 27, 2021 agenda. Since this initial presentation Historic Preservation Staff, Building & Safety Division Supervising Professional Engineer, Code Enforcement and the HPC’s Architecture Review Subcommittee have been in dialog with the applicants. This project has been presented in preliminary workshop presentations with revisions to the Commission on four additional HPC meetings. The project proposes preservation of the Western and Southern gabled portions of the original historic structure, to be restored and protected within regulated enclosed structures as artifacts, which will be highlighted features incorporated into the new construction of an approximately 5014 square foot Clubhouse/ Coffee House Building. The applicant also proposes creating thematic interpretive materials which include plaques which highlight and memorialize the overall history of the Historic Resource and its significance alteration to the exterior of a Historic Resources and should be considered for Historic Review. Primary concerns for Staff include the current condition of the building and the ability to protect and preserve the two salvageable walls during the removal of the Eastern and Northern walls. Pursuant to FMC 12-1617 staff requests that the Commission consider and make findings on application.
BACKGROUND
Jose Garcia Brewer Adobe Building [c. 1923/1937] located at 5860 W Santa Ana Avenue, Fresno CA 93722 (APN 510054020) / 5901 W Shaw (APN 51004014) in the Highway City Neighborhood. The Jose Garcia Brewer Adobe Building is a nominally rectangular plan complex which is accessible by a dirt road heading south of W. Shaw Avenue and the primary elevation faces west. The building is a single-story building and is the last example of a vernacular building which employs traditional adobe brick, board and batten over frame and hardpan with brick masonry construction. The building is approximately 1, 575 square foot building and on an 8.7 acres lot of the current Casa Di Fortunas Apartment Project. The period of significance identified for this property is 1924-1937. The building was formally evaluated in 1996 and 1997 as a part of the Highway City Neighborhood Specific Plan. The property was placed on the Local Register of Historic Resources in August 1997 when City Council approved Resolution 97-186. The building was also found eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C (Design/ Construction) and with the Office of Historic Preservation in 1997. Due to its importance as a rare example of vernacular architecture, a Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Fresno, and the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was prepared and executed (unknown date. In 2006-7 the adobe was included within the project footprint of a proposed subdivision (Vesting Tentative Map of tract No. 5608) and was approved for use as a storage facility with the understanding that the building would be protected (reference conditions of approval memo), and a wayside exhibit prepared with information about the building and the history of this working-class community. The project was not built, and the land was repossessed and was owned by the bank until its transfer of ownership/purchase to the Casa Di Fortuna LLC. An inspection of the property in June 2011 indicated that although the adobe was in poorer condition than when it was first landmarked, the integrity of the building to its period of significance remained high.
To date Historic Preservation Staff, Building Staff and the HPC Architectural review subcommittee have had multiple meetings and site visits to consult on the site condition and project proposal. Currently the Jose Garcia Brewer Adobe by comparison to the assessment in 2011 has suffered greatly from neglect, trespassing, vandalism, inclement weather, and damage from construction equipment. Currently, the buildings structural integrity has been compromised and the building materials have significant signs of erosion. The primary elevation (west) no longer has the wood portico/ porch, remains of the wood construction lie scattered in the surrounding area. The lime was which once covered this surface is only existent in small patches which are primarily concentrated in the right corner above the window frame. Without the lime wash the adobe bricks have been exposed to the elements and they have signs of erosion and graffiti. It is thought that the portico/porch leant some stability to this elevation and without it, the primary elevation (west) has begun to slump and destabilize the entire building. There is no longer a front door and any boards that once attempted to keep trespassers out are on the interior of the building or have been taken. The roof maintains its gabled style and the entire structure is collapsing into the interior of the building. The north facing elevation (toward Shaw Ave.) can be divided into the west side adobe construction, the middle wood storage framing, and the eastern hardpan addition. The western adobe construction has signs of weather erosion and between the two window frames there are clear signs of damage from construction equipment. Scrapes and a puncture into the building created a large cap at the top where the wall meets the roof line, knocking the adobe bricks into the interior of the building. The middle wood storage wall is intact; however, trespassers have dug a significant sized hole in this area which leads to access into the root cellar. This is an extremely hazardous and unstable area as the ground has been greatly disturbed. In the cellar there are signs of illegal habitation by trespassers which includes, garbage, matters, scattered clothing, and signs of vandalism. The eastern portion of hardpan shows signs of weather erosion and a crack from the window frame to the roof has formed. The rear elevation (facing west); hardpan addition, has signs of weathering and is missing the horizontal wood supports which formed the gabled roof and large portions of the wood from the south addition are piled on the ground. The southern gabled adobe elevation (on the western side, facing W. Santa Ana Ave.) retains its white wood door, gabled roof style, but the adobe shows signs of weather erosion. The eastern facing wall of this building which would’ve connected to the primary building is collapsed and the roof is sagging into the interior of the building. Brick, plaster, roofing material are scattered all around this area and there is painted graffiti on the interior of this room. The southern elevation (on the eastern side, facing W. Santa Ana Ave.) has the most significant signs of weather erosion. The wood carport which once stood here is now scattered on the ground in pieces. This structure once provided support to this wall and protected the bricks from prevailing winds and water. The wall is off balance, the brick has eroded smooth in some areas and is crumbling. The interior of the building has significant signs of water intrusions to the adobe brick work. The celling support beams are bowing, some have fallen to the ground and there are some old pieces of insulation hanging. The floor has been pulled up on the southern side and garbage, debris, adobe bricks are scattered about, and graffiti covers the walls. This building is structurally unstable, and the integrity of the building has greatly declined as a direct result of neglect. By request in attempts to mitigate the building from facing any further damage, this Commission requested that a locked chain-link fence be put back into place (it had been taken down sometime in 2021 without approval). The Architectural Review Subcommittee, Historic Preservation Staff, Building Staff, with the support of the Director of the Planning Department, the required the applicant to mitigate further weather damage. In December 2021, the entire building was covered in heavy grade plastic with cut slits to attempt to decrease the water intrusion and protect from the wind.
Project Proposal
Historic Preservation Staff contacted the Owner, Brooks Ransom Associates, and IT Architecture to review initial demolition plans of the Jose Garcia Adobe Brewer Building associated with the Casa Di Fortunas Apartment project. This Project was first heard by the Commission at the regular scheduled meeting on September 27, 2021. The Commission then insisted that the applicants comply with mitigation measures established within the original plans to ensure that the Historic Resource was protected, and further damage was prevented. The HPC then heard updates on the project on October 25, 2021, November 22, 2021, February 28, 2022, and March 28, 2022 from Historic Preservation Staff and the Architectural Review Subcommittee. The Architectural Review Subcommittee was charged by the Commission to consult with the applicant and give guidance on how to move this project. On December 15, 2021, a Stop-Work-Order Red Tag was signed and issued by the Director of Planning & Development which provided that all work on projects associated with the Casa Di Fortunas Project would be stopped until the applicant complied with mitigation measures for the protection of the Jose Garcia Brewer Adobe Building, draft plans were submitted to staff for the proposed project and a timeline was established for potential deadlines. The initial benchmarks were met, and the Stop-Work-Order Red Tag was lifted on January 20, 2022, contingent that it would be put back in place if benchmarks weren’t continuously met.
The scope of work includes preservation of defining historic features and materials and the incorporation of these preserved features into new construction. The project proposes to preserve the east gabled elevation (primary) and the south facing gabled elevation (facing Santa Ana Avenue). The east facing gabled elevation and south facing gabled elevation will be preserved and restored in place. The project proposes that these portions of the original building function as artifacts or objects which represent this very important Historic Resources. The project proposes that these two elevation walls be preserved within regulated enclosed structures and will be highlighted features tied into the new construction. The project proposes new construction of an approximately 5,014 square foot Clubhouse/ Coffee House Building which includes a gym, multipurpose room, offices, Café, Kitchen, storage, bathrooms, and a pool. The applicant also proposes creating thematic interpretive materials which include plaques which highlight and memorialize the overall history of the Historic Resource and its significance. This project from demolition to new construction will be documented as record of the activities which took place and impacted the Historic Jose Garcia Adobe Building.
The Commission should consider the size, scale, location, design, and the overall style of the proposed project. FMC Section 12-1617 provides guidance in relation to Historic Resource Permit Review and the Commission should also consider the project in relation to historical and architectural values of Historic Resource and any applicable design standards.
Duties and Powers of the Commission
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance is located at Chapter 12, Article 16 of the Fresno Municipal Code.
Section 1606 outlines the duties and powers of the Commission. Section 1606 (a) (2) specifically refers to the duties entailing review of alterations to historic resources:
The regulation of exterior alterations visible from a public right-of-way including demolition, relocation and new construction, and interior alterations which would affect the significance of Historic Resources or Historic Districts
Section 1617 outlines the Historic Permit review process.
(a)It shall be unlawful for any person, corporation, association, partnership, or other legal entity to directly or indirectly alter, remodel, demolish, grade, remove, construct, reconstruct or restore any Historic Resource without first obtaining a city permit and the written approval of the Historic Preservation Commission.
Section 12-1617 (c) provides that:
Any application or proposal which proposes the substantial alteration of an Historic Resource shall also be referred to the Director of the Development Department for environmental review. No hearing shall be held by the Commission for applications or proposals to demolish, grade, remove or substantially alter the Historic Resource until such application or proposal has undergone environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 12-1617 (g) provides that:
After consideration of the final environmental document, all evidence and testimony, the Commission shall have the authority to approve, deny or approve with modifications, any application or proposal.
Section 12-1617 (h) provides that:
No application or proposal shall be approved or approved with modifications unless the Commission makes the following findings:
(1)The proposed work is found to be consistent with the purposes of this article and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, not detrimental to the special historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the Historic Resource; or
(2)The action proposed is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property; or
(3)Denial of the application will result in unreasonable economic hardship to the owner. In order to approve the application, the Commission must find facts and circumstances, not of the applicant's own making, which establish that there are no feasible measures that can be taken that will enable the property owner to make a reasonable economic beneficial use of the property or derive a reasonable economic return from the property in its current form; or
(4)The site is required for a public use which will directly benefit the public health, safety and welfare and will be of more benefit to the public than the Historic Resource.
(5)For applications for relocation of an Historic Resource, the Commission shall find that one or more of the above conditions exist, that relocation will not destroy the historical, architectural, or aesthetic value of the Resource and that the relocation is part of a definitive series of actions which will assure the preservation of the Resource.
Fresno Municipal Code Findings
Based upon analysis of the application, staff concludes that the required findings can be made by the Historic Preservation Commission to refer the application to the Director of Development for environmental review and recommend approval of revised exhibit application #P22-01285, as presented, under FMC Section 12-1617 (h) because:
No application or proposal shall be approved or approved with modifications unless the Commission makes the following findings:
(1)The proposed work is found to be consistent with the purposes of this article and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, not detrimental to the special historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the Historic Resource; or
Finding 1. Can be made because the application for the proposed project which seeks to protect and restore two of the main façade walls for residents of the development and the public to view and learn about the history of the construction techniques through informational signage. Without this protection the entire resource will be lost. Secretary of the Interior Standards for Preservation are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.
Standard 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. - this project will preserve this distinct type of construction in the Central Valley of California and will protect two walls within a glass enclosure viewable by the public.
Standard 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
• This project will preserve two of the exterior walls which have the most integrity and will demonstrate to the greatest extent the distinctive features of the unique construction type. The walls which cannot be preserved will be documented and the entire structure visual history will be displayed in an outdoor courtyard viewing the protected walls.
Standard 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
• This project proposes a new building surrounding the preserved building walls to be entirely differentiated through use of modern materials but in a scale which complements the protected walls in situ.
(2) The action proposed is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property; or
Finding 2. Can be made as the structure is currently unsafe and does not meet current compliance standards for occupation.
(3) Denial of the application will result in unreasonable economic hardship to the owner. In order to approve the applicant, the Commission must find facts and circumstances, not the applicant’s own making, which establish that there are no feasible measures that can be taken that will enable the property owner to make a reasonable economic beneficial use of the property or derive a reasonable economic return from the property in its current form; or
Finding 3. Cannot be made as there has been no evidence brought by the owner or applicant of economic hardship.
(4) The site is required for a public use which will directly benefit the public health, safety and welfare and will be of more benefit than the Historic Resource.
Finding 4. Cannot be made because this property is a privately owned building and is not directly used to benefit the public health, safety or welfare of the public.
(5) For applications for relocation of an Historic Resource, the Commission shall find that one or more of the above conditions exist, that relocation will not destroy the historical, architectural, or aesthetic value of the Resource and that the relocation is part of a definitive series of actions which will assure the preservation of the Resource.
Finding 5. While not a relocation, can be made as the protection and preservation of two of the remaining walls of this distinct and unique construction technique which maintains the aesthetic value of the resource and will assure its preservation.
FMC Section 11-1736 Historical Building Provisions
Qualified Historical Buildings may use the State Historical Building Code.
California Historical Building Code (CHBC) (Title 24, Part 8)
8-2 Definitions
Character Defining Feature. Those visual aspects and physical elements that comprise the appearance of a historical building or property, and that are significant to its historical, architectural, and cultural values, including the overall shape of the historical building or property, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details, interior spaces and features, as well as the various aspects of its site and environment.
Historical Fabric or Materials. Original and later-added historically significant construction materials, architectural finishes or elements in a particular pattern or configuration which form a qualified historical property, as determined by the authority having jurisdiction
Preservation. The act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity and materials of a qualified historical building or property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials, and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-related work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project.
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Preservation:
Standard 5:
Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
Standard 6.
Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
Standard 9.
New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
The Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties:
The guidance for the treatment Preservation begins with recommendations to identify the form and detailing of those architectural materials and features that are important in defining the building’s historic character and which must be retained to preserve that character. Therefore, guidance on identifying, retaining, and preserving character-defining features is always given first
After identifying those materials and features that are important and must be retained in the process of Preservation work, then protecting and maintaining them are addressed. Protection generally involves the least degree of intervention and is preparatory to other work. Protection includes the maintenance of historic materials and features as well as ensuring that the property is protected before and during preservation work
Public Notice
FMC Section 12-1617 (b) provides that:
Upon receipt of an application or proposal for a demolition, grading, removal or building permit for any Historic Resource, the City department or agency receiving same shall, within five calendar days, notify the Secretary and forward said permit application or proposal and accompanying documentation to the Secretary and shall not process the application or proposal without the authorization of the Specialist. Also, written notice shall be provided to all property owners within a 2,000-foot radius of the subject property, measured from property line to property line, and to the Councilmember for the applicable District, of the application at least fourteen days prior to any scheduled hearing before the Commission. The Director of the Development Department may approve, in the name of the Commission, non-substantial alterations to the Historic Resource based on the application presented.
In accordance with Section 12-1617 of the FMC, the Planning and Development Department mailed notices of this Commission hearing to surrounding property owners within 2,000 feet.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
Environmental review is required by Fresno Municipal Code Section 12-1617(c):
…No hearing shall be held by the Commission for applications or proposals to demolish, grade, remove or substantially alter a property within any Historic District until such application or proposal has undergone environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
P22-01285 will be analyzed as a part of the Major Revised Exhibit to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) prior to the approval of an environmental document. All recommendations of the Historic Preservation Commission will be included as conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures to the final CEQA document.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) recommend approval of application P22-01285 for the revisions to the Casa Di Fortuna residential complex which include the preservation of original historic wall features of HP# 227 the Jose Garcia Brewer Adobe which will be incorporated into the design of a new clubhouse located at 5860 W. Santa Ana Ave. (APN 51054020) pursuant of FMC Section 12-1617.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A - Site Location [2018]
Exhibit B - Location Map [1942]
Exhibit C - Approved Site Plans for Permit No. B18_01272 [2018]
Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval Memo [2007]
Exhibit E - DPR Forms -5901 W Shaw Ave [2011]
Exhibit F - Project Schedule [01-11-21]
Exhibit G - Historic Resource Permit Review Checklist
Exhibit H - Operational Statement [04.06.2022]
Exhibit I - Operational Statement Continued [04.06.2022]
Exhibit J - Revised Exterior Elevations [03-14-2022]
Exhibit K - Revised Site Plans [03-14-2022]
Exhibit L - Site Visit [01.04.2022]
Exhibit M - C-06-252 Conditions of Approval [08.06-2008]
Exhibit N - Resolution - 1997-186