Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. ' ' . <br /> <br />STATE Of CALIfORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY <br /> <br />GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Govern", <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />>.0, BOX 2390 <br />SACRAMENTO 95B11 <br />. (916) 322-8597 <br /> <br />March 9, 1983 <br /> <br />Mr. John Loomi s <br />Thirtieth Street Architect, Inc. <br />2821 Newport Boulevard <br />Newport Beach, CA 92663 <br /> <br />Dear John: <br /> <br />In reference to our numerous conversations over 116 West Fourth Street, <br />Santa Ana, it remains my belief that your latest solution deals. in a <br />sensitive and appropriate way, with the problem of the amputated columns. <br />Under the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, restoration of this strong <br />original facade, while clearly most preferred, is not a mandate. Dealing <br />sensitively with the remaining historic fabric is a mandate. The deep and <br />simple fascia you proposed provides enough visual weight to carry the column <br />stubs. The remainder of the new composition maintains a subordinate role. <br />We have a critically wounded building here--the best we can do for it is to <br />treat it with respect until it can be restored. To tinker with it or attempt <br />to upstage the historic elements in favor of some ground-level diversions <br />is not in the best interest of the resource. There is, however, another <br />appropriate alternative that would be to totally screen the composition from <br />the top of the parapet to the top of the shop windows. That, too, is historic <br />preservation! Retention--not necessarily display--of historic fabric is of <br />for-most concern. Neither your proposal nor my alternative can be faulted on <br />these grounds. Perhaps, it might be better to have the building's awkwardness <br />hidden until the day of restoration; I leave that to you and your client. <br /> <br />~:~7,; <br />. the very severe demands of seismic upgrading and security, and based <br />on our on-site discussions and recorrmendations of January 7, we continue to <br />believe the project to be certifiable. However, until the District becomes <br />a reality, the National Park Service refuses, understandably, to process <br />applications. It is sad that the City and the potential District are in <br />such an awkward and tenuous position: there is no good reason for it. We <br />will cont i nue to provi de whatever support is asked and urge you to encourage <br />the City to use both the lines of corrmunication and the services directly <br />available to them. We are here for one reason--to make preservation work in <br />California. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />~'c-Q <br /> <br />Robert E. Mackensen <br />Preservation Architect <br />Office of Historic Preservation <br /> <br />K-1388H <br />