Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-10 City CouncilCity of Polo Alto Manager’s Repor TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ATTENTION: POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE DATE:SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 CMR:375:02 SUBJECT:REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING ISSUING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO RELOCATE, REPAIR AND LEASE THE FORMER SEA SCOUT FACILITY AT 2560 EMBARCADERO ROAD REPORT IN BRIEF The 1979 Baylands Master Plan and 1986 Yacht Harbor Building Assessment Report call for the demolition of the Sea Scout building as part of the harbor reclamation project. Since 1984, the City has been working with the Sea Scout organization and with Lucie Stern Maritime Center (LSMC) to find a new location. Although the LSMC has not yet provided all the information requested of it by staff to determine the feasibility of preserving and/or relocating the facility, it has continued to move forward with its plans to move and renovate the facility and put a considerable amount of time and effort into preserving the Sea Scout Building. Other non-profits also have indicated an interest in using the facility; however, the size and configuration of the building would restrict use by both the Sea Scouts and other non-profits. The question of location of the Sea Scout building should be addressed prior to a final decision on the site. Keeping it at its current location requires a new foundation, which would be costly and require a temporary move that might structurally endanger the building. It would also require significant changes to the conditions of the Baylands Master Plan. Locating. the building at the former Yacht Club site would expedite the preservation process and lower the chances the building would be destroyed during the moving process, but it too, would require significant Master Plan changes. Locating the building between the Harbor Master Cottage and the Interpretive Center may have benefit in terms of expediting the permit process and meeting the conditions of the current Baylands Master Plan. CMR:375:02 Page 1 of 9 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Committee either direct staff to: 1) negotiate an option to lease with LSMC for Site 3; or 2) remove the direction that the building also be used for Sea Scouts and other youth activities and prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for an option to lease the facility on Site 3 from other non-profit agencies. Under either recommendation, the option would include a two-year term and would require the tenant to pay for all costs associated with the renovation and relocation and obtain all necessary permit approvals prior to entering into a lease. BACKGROUND The Baylands Master Plan (Plan), adopted by the Council in 1979, established a plan for the harbor. The Plan called for the removal of the berths and buildings, and the return of the harbor to its natural state. Voters reaffirmed the Plan on November 4, 1980, when a ballot measure to continue operation of the harbor was defeated. On February 10, 1986, (CMR:142:86), staff presented Council with a Yacht Harbor Building Assessment Report that recommended the demolition of the Sea Scout building as part of the harbor reclamation project. In 1986, Council approved Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No: 86-06, which was established to implement the go~ils of the Baylands Master Plan. In order to implement the elements of the Baylands Master Plan dealing with the harbor, a Conceptual Study and Plan for the Yacht Harbor Restoration (dated December 18,1987) was prepared by Santina &Thompson, Inc. The plan assigned priorities to specific areas to be restored to their natural state. Priority 8 of the .Plan dealt with the Southern Harbor including the Sea Scout base. (See Exhibit 1). On October 24, 1988, (CMR:495:88) and again on June 8, 1998, Council delayed the demolition of the Sea Scout building in order to give the Sea Scouts time to find a new meeting place, given the damaged condition of the Sea Scout facility floor and foundation and the infeasibility of repair. To assure the Sea Scouts would follow through, the extension required that the Sea Scouts make quarterly reports to the City Manager on its progress in finding a new location. On April 17, 2000, Council granted the Lucie Stern Maritime Center’s request to give LSMC until .January 30, 2001 to secure funding and find a location for the Sea Scout base. (The LSMC is a non-profit organization. Its members are sea-scouts, former sea- scouts and those interested in preserving the facility at the Palo Alto Baylands for Sea Scout usage and museum purposes). To facilitate the building evaluation process, the City Manager, requested the LSMC provide the following: 1)a professional written evaluation of the condition of the facility, especially the floor and foundation; CMR:375:02 Page 2 of 9 2) an estimate of all costs associated with the move and the rehabilitation of the facility including code and ADA accessibility requirements; and 3) a detailed report regarding how the building will be moved from its current location. On May 18, 2000, the City Manager and several staff members met with the LSMC steering committee. At that meeting, the City Manager urged the LSMC to create a formal plan regarding how its members would achieve Council’s direction of securing funding and finding a new location. On May 6, 2002, Council adopted the Historic Resources Board’s recommendation to designate the building at 2560 Embarcadero Road, known as the Sea Scout Base, to the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory in Category 1, as provided in Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. Council also requested that staffobtain a structural engineering report funded by a community organization or organizations; and, if necessary, actively assist the LSMC to secure funding through grant applications. Council referred to the Policy and Services Committee: 1) the question of "how this unique building could become a viable element in the Baylands to be used by the Sea Scouts and other organizations committed to preserving the building for youth and other community organizations" and 2) gave P&S the direction to review, as expeditiously as possible, issuance of an RFP so that other nonprofit organizations would be encouraged to participate. on August 7, 2002, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) was asked to recommend one of three specific sites for relocation of the Sea Scout building. In an effort to save the building, the HRB chose to prioritize the sites rather than selecta specific site. The HRB also recommended that the Baylands Master Plan be amended to protect and save all historic improvements, and that the City take steps to protect the Sea Scout building from further deterioration prior to turning it over to a third party for renovation. DISCUSSION LSMC has continued to move forward with its plans to move, renovate and remodel the facility despite the fact that Council has yet to determine that it will be the lessee. The LSMC has established a non-profit status, accomplished the historic designation of the building and contacted various individuals and organizations for donations of money, services or materials. In the last three months, the~LSMC has corisulted with a general contractor, a structural engineer, a hazardous materials investigator and a building moving company to analyze the feasibility of moving the building. It has also selected a project manager who is collecting data from various contractors to determine the magnitude of LSMC’s costs to preserve the building. LSMC’s project manager has met with key City staff in an attempt to understand the Baylands issues and the .lengthy permit processes. CMR:375:02 Page 3 of 9 Condition of the Building On January 29, 2001, portions of the decking surrounding the building were determined to be unsafe by the City. The City Building Official had the building posted as unsafe, and LSMC was notified that it could no longer occupy the building. Listed below are items that Council asked LSMC to provide information on at its May 2000 meeting and the LSMC’s response as of August 12, 2002: LSMC has provided staff with a structural engineer’s report, based on an exterior examination of the facility, that indicates the building could be occupied in temperate weather and when the level of the tide is below the top of the pile caps. At a meeting with staff on January 17, 2002, the engineer also indicated that the facility had a 50/50 chance of surviving a move intact. In a follow-up discussion with the engineer, staff inquired about the condition of the floor and the foundation since they had been subject to tidal action since 1971. The engineer stated that he knew the sub-floor would be in poor condition, but that it did not matter because the facility would be moved to a new location on a new sub-floor and foundation. In later correspondence, the engineer indicated that the building would be braced during the move to reduce the odds that the building would not survive the move. (See Attachment A for both reports from the structural engineer.) : Costs At the January 17, 2002, meeting with staff, LSMC provided a letter from a general contractor who estimated the cost of relocating the facility to a newly engineered foundation at $250,000-$300,000. The contractor also estimated that it would cost another $200,000 ($90 per square foot) to allow for upgrades, both optional and as required by regulations and building conditions. (See Attachment B.) Staff believes that the estimate is low given.that the cost to renovate the Harbor Master house eleven years ago was approximately $211 per. square foot. LSMC countered staff’s concern by stating that the work on the LSMC will be done by volunteers and donated labor and materials. To support this. statement, in a letter to the Mayor dated May 7, 2001, LSMC indicated that as of that date, LSMC had already received 2,900 hours at an estimated cost of $744,250 in professional in-kind service contributions. Securing Funding LSMC has consistently taken the position that once the building has been designated a historic structure, funding will come from grants, LSMC members, local foundations, corporations, and fundraising events. LSMC also proposes to reduce costs by using volunteers and donated labor. The LSMC project manager has indicated that the LSMC has approached the Bechtal Corporation requesting a donation of the pilings for the new foundation and the C.E.O. of the Levi Strauss Corporation (Lucie. Stern’s nephew) as possible source of funding. According to LSMC, both corporations have indicated an interest in the project° CMR:375:02 Page 4 of 9 Formal Preservation Plan LSMC has agreed to abide by the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. For that reason, the LSMC believes the cost of rehabilitation will be reduced, since certain allowances will be given to current building codes in order to preserve the facility’s historic designation. Included in the application for historic designation is a detailed listing of the historic features of the facility. However, staff has not yet received information regarding how these historic features are to bepreserved and maintained. Detailed Report on How the Building Will Be Moved Staff has identified one of the major problems in trying tO preserve the facility is the move itself. LSMC’s own engineer gives the building a 50/50 chance of surviving a move. LSMChas indicated that it has received three bids on the move. The mover that LSMC has selected proposes to either move the building in one piece or cut the building into three sections and move each section to a new foundation. The facility would be moved by placing beams under’ the existing joists, raising the building enough to place dollies at three points and then moving the structure. (See Attachment C.) In a conversation with staff, the mover indicated that his company has successfully completed thousands of similar moves. He also added that the process would require the seawall be. temporarily sealed to prevent further flooding and to allow the earth’s surface below the facility to harden. Wooden tracks would be placed under the facility and the facility would be pulled to the moving dollies. The mover also felt that the building was light enough that the dollies would not sink into the earth when they became the support of the building during the move. When the mover was asked if the floor and sub-floor were strong enough to support the beams during the move, the mover said the structural engineer would have to make that decision. Request for Proposals for Other Non-Profits to Lease Sea Scout Building Two non-profits, Wildlife Rescue and the San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory, have expressed interest in preserving and using the former Sea Scout facility. The Wildlife Rescue organization is currently a tenant of the City at the Cubbberley Community Center (V-Wing 1,709 sq. ft.). Wildlife Rescue has been in existence for over 25 years and is mainly a volunteer organization. Wildlife Rescue would propose to use the building to house various wildlife that are injured, sick or orphaned until they are able to fend on their own. Use by Wildlife Rescue is viewed by the Open Space & Sciences Division as a compatible use in the Baylands Nature Preserve. The San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory (SFBBO) is a non-profit research organization dedicated to the conservation of birds and their habitat. SFBBO studies birds that live in -the salt ponds, marshes and creeks of the South Bay. Its biologists use nearly 75 trained volunteers .in the fieldwork and have generated a contribution list of over 100 reports and publications that are used to protect the wild life and make critical land management decisions. SFBBO is currently located in Alviso in a large wide construction trailer. CMR:375:02 Page 5 of 9 The space it occupies will be traded or sold and SFBBO has been asked to find a new location (See Attachment D). This activity is viewed by the Open Space & Sciences Division as a compatible use for the building. When Council referred the question of an RFP to the Policy and Services Committee, it stipulated that any use by a non-profit organization include space for Sea Scouts and other youth-serving organizations. The building is only 2,209 square feet and divided in such a way that the dictated usage would severely limit use by other non-profit organizations. In other words, it would be extremely difficult to physically accommodate two different uses at the building. Policy and Procedures 1-11 (Leased Use of City Land/Facility’s) requires that, prior to leasing City property, the City provide reasonable and appropriate opportunity to groups or entities to respond regarding possible use of the City facilities. The City may either issue a Request for Proposals or, in the case of a non-profit organization proposing a specific use, providing a significant public benefit, and when it appears that there are no other competing users, the Council can enter into a direct option to lease after holding a public hearing. In this case, the Council could enter into a direct option to lease with LSMC due to the limited size of the building (2,209 square feet) and the direction that the facility includes use for "Sea Scouts and other youth and community organizations". If Council should choose to solicit other interested non-profits, then staff suggests that Council not limit potential, interested parties by specifying that they provide space for use by Sea Scouts and other organizations committed to preserving the building for youth. Preservation and Location Now that Council has taken action to preserve the building, where to locate the facility becomes an important decision. Staff feels that, while the Sea Scout usage of the facility meets the Comprehensive Plan goals established for children and youth, the location is counter to the Baylands Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan goals to protect the habitat and encourage low impact recreation needs. The plan in general calls for "redesign of public access to provide wide buffers from sensitive habitats such as high tide refugia while designing specific areas for overlooks with interpretive facilities". The Plan states that area 8 "was given a low priority due to its relative isolation and high human use and traffic areas. Its elongated shape, which runs along Embarcadero Road (Harbor Rd.), means it would have maximum exposure to potential impacts. Restoration of the area requires maximum use of peripheral buffers, including high shrub cover and fencing. Removal of the rip rap wall (sea wall) along the water’s edge will be required." Discussions about a possible site location have centered around three locations (See Exhibit 2). CMR:375:02 Page 6 of 9 The applicants for historic preservation believe that the facility should remain in its current location in order to retain the facility’s historic integrity. In order to accomplish this, the building would have to be moved while new piers were driven, then moved back onto the new foundation. From a purely historic standpoint, this would preserve the building in its historic surroundings. From LSMC’s point of view, it would increase the cost to move the building and increase the chances that the building would not survive the move. The foundation Would be elevated to 8 feet above sea level to meet currdnt flood control requirements and ADA ramps would have to be elevated in ,order to meet the new height of the facility. Leaving the facility in its present location would also mean that the sea wall that failed in 1971 would have to be shored up or replaced. Both the new foundation and work on the sea wall would take place in a sensitive location that was to be returned to its natural condition in the last phase of the Marsh Restoration Master Plan. Site 2 Locating the building at Site 2 (the former yacht club location) would expedite the preservation process and lower the chances that the building would be destroyed during the moving process. Piles could be driven and a foundation prepared prior to moving the building to the new site. The short move, of approximately 100 feet, would also .reduce the cost of moving. This move would require work on the sea wall and working in a sensitive area, which would be counter to the Marsh Restoration Master Plan. Site 3 Relocating the facility to a location Interpretive Center has several benefits: between the harbor master cottage and the the facility would be located on higher ground, eliminating the need for repair on the sea wall and reducing the length of ramps to meet current ADA requirements; buildings at the harbor would be clustered, allowing for shared parking and making it somewhat easier to obtain permit approval as it is not in opposition to the current Master Plan; and, the harbor marsh project could be completed as master planned. The applicants for historic preservation are concerned that moving the building to Site 3 will lower the chances of obtaining State Historic Resources funding. Staff consulted with the State Historic Resource Board, and it will fund the building if it is moved, rather than demolished. The Board also suggested that the State Parks and Recreation Commission (SPRC) has a larger source of funds and the City might have a better chance of obtaining funds from that agency. Also, the SPRC is not concerned about which location is chosen for the building. (The City received funds this year from the SPRC for its Baylands mural project,) Moving the building to Site 3, the farthest location, will increase the cost of the move and the chances the building will not survive and require the removal or relocation of some vegetation. CMR:375:02 Page 7 of 9 Prior to entering into any long-term lease, all three locations will require an amendment to the Bayland Master Plan and a park improvement ordinance. They will also require approval from various agencies claiming jurisdiction of the Baylands. Those agencies include the San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission, Regional Water Quality Control, the Army Corp of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Fish and Game. The LSMC or any i-nterested non-profit would like the location to be determined, since location will affect the overall cost of rehabilitating the facility. Staff recommends. Site 3 as the preferred location. Site 3 preserves the building and would require less significant amendments to the Master Plan than the other sites. Selection of this site should also expedite the review by the various agencies that have Baylands jurisdiction.al responsibility. A separate report recommending Site 1, which was prepared for the Historic Resources Board, is attached (Attachment E). RESOURCE IMPACT Previous Council action has recommended that private funding be used to renovate the facility. In previous submittals, the LSMC has requested the City waive all permit or City fees and that monies designated for demolition ($30,000) be dedicated to the rehabilitation of the facility. LSMC presented a proposai to apply for state, federal and county historic grants and funds from individual donors and local foundations. During the past two years, the LSMC has raised $3;300. Staff is concerned about the time that may be required for the LSMC to reach its goal of $500,000 and whether that figure is ¯ sufficient to preserve the building. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Policy and Procedures 11-1 (Leased Use of City Land/Facility’s) requires that the City 1) provide a reasonable and appropriate opportunity to other groups or entities to respond to possible use of the City facility (Request for Proposals); or 2) in the case of non-profit organizations proposing a specific public benefit and when it appears that there are no other competing users, the Council can enter into a direct lease after holding a public hearing. Staff also believes that, while the Sea Scout usage of the facility meets the Comprehensive Plan goals established for children and youth, the location is counter to the Baylands Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan goals to protect the habitat and encourage low impact recreational needs. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An environmental impact assessment (EIA), as may be required by the California Environmental Quality Act, will be performed in connection with the proposal that-staff ultimately recommends to Council as the one that should be awarded the option to lease the property. The EIA would address potential impact including historic rehabilitation, CMR:375:02 Page 8 of 9 parking and compatibility. In addition, conditions of an option to lease would require optionees to comply with all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: McVicker Associates, Inc. (Structural Engineer) Letters, Dated 12/4/01 & 1/18/02 Attachment B: Adolph Schmidt General Contractor, Inc., 1/15/02 Construction Estimate Attachment C: Anderson-Janovich (Movers) Estimate, Dated 5/3/02 Attachment D: San Francisco.Bay Bird Observatory Letter, Dated 8/9/02 Attachment E: Historic Resources Board Staff Report, Dated 8/7/02 Attachment F: Historic Resources Board Minutes, Excerpt of Sea Scout Base, Dated 8/7/02 Exhibit 1: Palo Alto Harbor Improvements Summary of Recommendations Exhibit 2: Three Possible Locations Map PREPARED BY: WILLIAM FELLMAN Manager, Real Property DEPARTMENATAL HEAD APPROVAL: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: HARRISON Assistant City Manager Kevin Murray and Rocky Trujillo-LSMC Valarie Baldwin-Wildlife Rescue Janet Tashjian Hanson- SFBBO Pria Graves Beth Bunnenberg Emily Renzel CMR:375:02 Page 9 of 9 McVicker Associates, Inc.Attachment AStructural Engineers 507 Purissima Street, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Phone (650) 726-9494 FAX (650) 726-9498 Internet: Mcvickerco@aol.com scott@mcvicker.com -ncvicker@ix.netcom.com WWW Site: http://www, mcvicker.com December 4, 2001 Mr. Bill ,~;e4q, ~’r0perty Manager City of Pale Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Pale Alto, CA 94301 RE: Sea Scouts Base, Old Yacht Harbor, Embarcadero Road, Pale Alto, CA Dear Mr. Selmen, On Saturday, October 27, 2001 I visited the site to view the condition of the existing, building. I noted the deteriorated condition of the main support beams at the pile caps and the high-tide water damage to the interior walls. I noted that Mi’. Fred Herman of the building department posted the building for limited access as of January 2001. Mr. Kevin Murray has a~ked that ! write’ to you regarding the safety of the building. The following are rny comments: The limited access restriction is.valid given the state and age of the building. This use could reasonably include 15 to 20, 14-20 year olds (a Sea Scout troup meeting) for purposes of gathering to maintain or repair the building. A vertical load failure of the floor-members, if it were to occur, would be preceeded by sufficient no~se and floor deflection that this number of occupants Could move to safety before injury could occur. Use should only be allowed in temperate weather. This building cannot be expected to resist current Code wind forces. It should not be occupied when the tide rises above the level of the pile caps. It should also be understood that this structure does not meet current Code seismic requirements. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me. Scott McVicker, S.E. #3412 Fc: Kevin Murray (650) 328-7518 SeaScoulsl McVicker Associates, Inc. Structural Engineers 507 Purissima Street, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Phone (650) 726-9494 FAX (650) 726-9498 Intemet: Mcvickerco@aol.com scott@mcvicker.com WWW Site: http://www, mcvicker, corn mcvicker@ix.netcom.com Janua~ 18,2002 Mr. Bill Fellman et. al. City of Palo A to 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Sea Scouts Base, Old Yacht Harbor, Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA Dear Mr. Fellman, At our meeting on Thursday, you and others asked me to expand on the comments made in my December 4, 2001 letter. I understand that the City attorney is uncomfortable in allowing anyone in the building who is not a licensed contractor or engineer. I have revised my flow chad hand-out to reflect this .(see attached). Previous Letter Point By Point > The limited access restriction is valid given the state and age of the building. In this sentence I concur with the building official that.the general deterioration of the building (peeling paint, weathered boards, some rusting of bolts, broken/cracked windows) warrants the restriction. There is really only one reason for setting foot in this structure - that is for repair and much-needed maintenance: Per our meeting, we will limit access to licensed contractors and myself until the rehab work is complete at the new location. > This use could reasonably include 15 to 20, 14-20 yea~olds (a Sea Scout troup meeting) for purposes of gathering to maintain or repair the building. Starting with the old books and manuals in my office, I was able to determine reasonable and conservative values for the stresses in the wood floor members. The calculations are attachedl Note that bending strength controlled the design loading. I have added two pages from "Wood Structural Design Data"; Volume 1, 3rd Edition, as background which refers to safety factors in wood and duration of load. Please note that the allowable stresses based on a one day repair/maintenance task could be increased given the duration of cad. During my site visit on October 27, 2001, I used a long steel prod to poke at the exposed timbers. I was able to remove some of the end grain on one main timber (as noted) but beyond that I encountered .extremely dense material. My prodding elsewhere on the exterior of the structure found only weathered decking/siding. The build[ng’s appearance gives one pause until you actually get close enough to examine it. Also of importance here is the scope of repair work to be performed. Once full access is restored, painting and caulking in advance of the proposed move can proceed in the absence of my supervision. Repairs to the structure, whether for safety or in advance Of the move, would only. be undertaken after I had assessed the condition and developed drawings and calculations that would be submitted to/confirmed by the building department. Given that we are now restricting building access to contractors and myself, this part of my previous letter is moot. > A Vertical load failure of the floormembers, if it were to occur, would bepreceeded by sufficient noise and floor deflection that this number of occupants could move t5 safety before injury could OCCUr. Referring to my calculations, you note I have checked for a concentration of occupants over the 6 x 14 floor girder with the longest span and largest tributary area. The allowable live load was compared with the maximum number of people proposed to be included in the repair party. Each 14 to 20 year old would have to weigh 288 pounds to reach the allowable stress limits I’ve imposed. Further, this will be a short-term condition while repair projects are assigned - then the group will disburse to the various project areas. Again, this argument is moot given the restrictions imposed by others. Having checked the worst-case concentration of loads in the absence of available stress increases and disregarding the inherent factor 0..f safety, what can be said of this floor system is that it has redundancy. As you note from the floor" joist calculations, one broken floor joist will not lead to the collapse ’of the building.. Should two adjacent joists fail, the two layers of floor sheathing will attempt to span to the next members. Examples of this behavior can be seen in the field on panelized roofs at isolated "bird baths", at 20’-0" purlins (supporting 8’-0".tributary area) where the member shatters at knot locations and even on 70’ wood trusses with 20’ tributary areas where both the bottom chord and web members have broken. I have been involved in each type of failure and am well-versed in the mechanism. A floor such as this would squeak (sufficient noise) and iocally deflect as a result of member failure. This redundancy is what will allow th~ small number Of infrequent occupants to move to safety. A similar explanation also works for the main girders. Note that where walls are present, they occur directly over pile lines: This leaves the non-wall-line girders free to support floor live loads. A wet; deteriorating member would deflect.over a period of time b~fore .actually failing (rotting from the bottom, wetted face). Given the spans and direction of framing, this deterioration would be obvious and its consequences with regard to occupants avoidable. > Use should only be allowed in temperate weather. As I stated in our meeting if I was going to allow a repair party to occupy the building - even on an occasional basis - then it would be under my strict conditions. This offered protection over and above what the City would permit. Given that we are now restricting building access to contractors and myself, this part of my previous letter canbe relaxed. There is still no reason for a contractor or myself to be in the building during high winds. For now, I will agree to access when the wind speed is limited to 10 mph maximum. The contractor will be briefed on the reasons for this restriction prior to his work. > This building cannot be expectedto resist current Code wind forces. If you have a..c.p.ess to the original plans, please review the original elevations. Note that the wing buildings have a continuous row of windows/doors along two sides and large openings in the third. The lateral force-resistance arises from the siding/sheathing nails above and below the post mullions. This system has ~vorked for the loads the structure has seen over its lifetime, but current practice would require continuity above and below the window levels in addition to hold-downs, hurricane ties, etc. A significant part of the analysis of an existing structure is understanding that the standards/methods of construction used 60 years ago are not the same as.those used today. It may be considered axiomatic that a building of this era does not meet current Code requirements. A good part of the design work required to make the building safe in .its new location will be adding the missing elements. * " > It should not be occupied when the tide rises above the level of the pile caps. This is another restriction I am imposing. I am eliminating the occupancy condition where the main girders are in contact with water...and therefore when they are submerged or even when a high tide floods the building. This can be monitored and obeyed by the occasional occupants and is still applicable. > It should also be understood that this structure does not meet current Code seismic requirements. Back t6 the plans. Look this time at the’taller section of the building as viewed fromthe road. Again, note the band of windows all along the curved portion of the building. If the tall roof area of this building is to transfer its load down into the wings, it will need to do so via a post element in line with the wing wall. Assuming this element was installed (even though there is no bump in the wall), there are no walls to resist the force - only a String of windows and/or doors. This is but one of the areas we will be addressing as part of making the building safe in its new location. Would we construct a similar structure today? No, the planchecker would laugh in our face. There n~ust be a path for all lateral forces through the building and into the foundation, Based on my review of the existing documentation and my field observations to date, the paths are lacking and thus I have stated that this structure does not meet current Code seismic requirements. Review the Birge M. Clark text regarding the steel piles if you would like additional evidence. That said, I have not condemned the building. The sum total of the framing system has worked for. the loads the structure has been exposed to over its lifetime. Accepting that some deterioration has occurred, prudently reducing allowable stresses and strictly controlling the conditions under which it may be occupied, this building can potentially be accessed on an occasional basis. Again, the building department will be reviewing and approving my analysis prior to any change in posting. Additional Comments At our meeting, the agenda and Mr. Murray proffered my letter as a "Structural Engineer’s Report". This was incorrect. As stated yesterday, access to the interior of the building is not available given the building department’s restriction on use of the decks (the path to the entry door). To provide a Structural Engineering Report, I must have access to the whole structure. I must also be able to into the building to see how it is constructed. Th s second point was.also discussed at the meeting. Exploratory demolition at this time will only create weak areas that will act as focal points for damage during the building’s relocation - we do not want to decrease our chances of a successful move. My report on the existing building will follow relocation to the new foundation when I can safely remove the interior finishes to access the structural elements. ’ Previous correspondence and subsequent input at the meeting expressed a concern that collapse of the building is a possibility. This was not stated in my letter and cannot be justified based o.n the current information / observations. Remember, I am available should you or others require clarification or further explanation of my comments. I have expanded on my comments and included supporting information as appropriate for ¯ distribution to a wider audience at the City. If you or others have any other questions regarding this matter, please call. Sincerely, Scott McVicker, S.E. #3412 Fc: Kevin Murray (650) 328-7518 Sea Scouls 2 EXISTING BUILDING ON STEEL PILE FOUNDATION NO ACCESS BY ORDER OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. LICENSED CONTRACTOR TO ADDRESS THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT’S POSTING REGARDING THE DECKS, EXTENT OF WORK IS LIMITED TO PROVIDE AN ACCESS PATH TO THE STRUCTURE. LIMITED ACCESS RESTORED (ENGINEER & CONTRACTOR ONLY) ENGINEER TO DETERMINE EXTENT OF PRE-MOVE REPAIRS AND PROVIDE DETAILS FOR CONTRACTOR’S USE. REHABILITATED BUILDING ON NEW FOUNDATION ST.RUCTURAL REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION (RESTRICTED ACCESS) STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT FOLLOWING BUILDING RELOCATION TO DETERM NE DAMAGE DONE BY MOVE AND GENERAL CONSTRUCTION IN ADVANCE OF CREATING KEW DESIGN DRAWINGS. (RESTRICTED ACCESS) BU LDING MovERs TAKE POSESSION OF BUILDING AND RELOCATE IT. BUILDING IS WAITING FOR NEW FOUNDATION TO BE COMPLETED. BUILDING MOVERS MAY BE MAKING MODIFICATIONS AT THIS TIME. NEW FOUNDATION SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO ACCEPT THE EXISTING BUILDING AND PROVIDE FOR UPGRADING AS REQUIRED. PROJECT LOCATION Sea Scout Base Rahab Old Yacht Harbor Palo Alto, CA TITLE Milestone Map McVicker Associates, Inc. Structural Engineers 507 Purissimo S[ree~_ Half Moon Boy, CA 94019 Phone (650) 726-9494 FAX (650) 726-9498 scott:@mcvicker.com ht.tp://www.mcvicker.com PAGE NO. ! I Member Strength Check Width (in) ?>1 625 Sf (in3) Depth (in) ?>9.5 If (in4) Fb (psi) ?>1020 Af (in2) Fv (psi) ?>95 Max. M Hold L/? ?>360 Max. R Mod. of E (psi) ?>1201000 StartLength (ft) ?>12.08 Increment (ft) ?>0.125 24.4 Cf = 116.1 15.4 2077.6 (ft-lbs) 977.7 (Ibs) Span~ I2.205 12.33 12.455 12.58 12.705 12.83 12.955 13.08 13.205 13.33 "3.455 13.58 13.705 13.83 13.955 14.08 14.205 14.33 14.455 14.58 I4.705 14.83 14.955 15.08 15.205 Maximum Uniform Load based on,.. Section Area I ne rtia Li~w 113.9 161.9 117.2 111.6 160.2 113.6 109.3 158.6 110.2 109.3 107.1 157.0 106.9 106.9 105.0 155.4 103.8 103.8 103.0 153.9 100.7 100.7 101.0 152.4 97.8 97.8 99.0 150.9 95.0 95.0 97.1 149.5 92.3 92.3 95.3 148.1 .89.7 89.7 93.5 146.7 87.2 87.2 91.8 145.3 84.8 84.8 90.1 144.0 82.5 82.5 88.5 142.7 80.3 80.3 86.9 141.4 78.1 78.1 85.3 140.1 76.0 76.0 83.8 138.9 74.0 74.0 82.4 137.7 72.1 72.1 80.9 136.5 70.2 70.2 79.5 135.3 68.4 68.4 78.2 134.I 66.7 66.7 76.9 133.0 65.0 65.0 75.6 131.9 63.3 63.3 74.3 130.8 61.8 61.8 73.1 129.7 60.2 60.2 71.9 128.6 58.8 58.8 1.026297 Allowable Load (psf) if members spaced at... 12"16"24" 113.9 8~ 57.0 111.6 55.8 109.3 82.0 54.7 106.9 80.2 53.5 103.8 77.8 51.9 100.7 75.5 50.4 97.8 73.4 48.9 95.0 71.3 47.5 92.3 69.2 46.2 89.7 67.3 44.9 87.2 65.4 43.6 84.8 63.6 42.4 82.5 61.9 41.2 80.3.60.2 40.1 78.1 58.6 39.0 76.0 57.0 38.0 74.0 55.5 37.0 72.1 54.1 36.0 70.2 52.7 35.1 68.4 51.3 34.2 66.7 50.0 33.3 65.0 48.7 32.5 63.3 47.5 31.7 61.8 46.3 30.9 60.2 45.2 30.1 58.8 44.~29.4 48"96’ 28.5 14.2 27.9 13.9 27.3 13.7 26.7 13.4 25.9 13.0 25.2 12.6 24.5 12.2 23.8 11.9 23.1 11.5 22.4 11.2 21.8 10.9 21.2 10.6 20.6 10.3 20.1 10.0 19.5 9.8 19.0 9.5 18.5 9.3 18.0 9.0 -" 17.6 8.8 17.1 8.5 16.7 8.3 16.2 8.1 15.8 7.9 15.4 7.7 15.1 7.5 .,, 14.7 7.3.~ Member Strength Check - Width (in) ?>1.625 Sf (in3) Depth (in) ?>7.5 If (in4) Fb [psi) ?>1020 Af (in2) Fv (psi) ?>95 Max, M Hold W? ?>360 Max. R Mod. of E [psi) ?>1201000 Start Length (ft) ?>9.75 Increment (ft) ?>0.125 Maximum Section Area 109.0 158.3 106.2 156.3 103.6 154.4 101.1 152.5 98.6 150.6 96.2 148:8 94.0 147.O .91.8 145.3 89.6 143.6 87.6 142~0 85.6 140.3 83.7 138.8 81.9 137.2 80.1 135.7 78.3 134.2 76.7 132.8 75.0 131.4 73.5 130.0 71.9 128.6 70.5 127.3 69.0 126.0 67.6 124.7 66.3 123.5 65.0 122.3 63:7 12:1.1 62.5 119.9 Span (~ 9.875 10 10.125 10.25 10.375 10.5 10.625 10.75 10.875 11 11.125 11.25 11.375 11.5 11.625 11.75 11.875 12 12.125 12.25 12.375 12.5 12.625 12.75 12.875 15.2 Cf = 57.1 12.2 1294.9 (ft-lbs) 771’.9 (Ibs) Uniform Load based on... Inertia L ~_.~w 109.7 105.6 101.6 101.6 97.9 97.9 94,4 94.4 91.0 91.0 87,8 87.8 84.7 84.7 81.8 81.8 79.0 79.0 76.4 76.4 73.8 73.8 71.4 71.4 69.1 69.1 66.8 66.8 64.7 64.7 62.7 62.7 60.7 60.7 58.8 58.8 57.0 57.0 55.3 55.3 53.6 53.6 52.0 52.0 50.5 50.5 49.0 49.0 47.6 47.6 t.05361 Allowable Load (psf) if members spaced at... 12" 16" 109.0 ~ 105.6 101.6 76.2 97.9 73.4 94.4 70.8 91.0 68.3 87.8 65.9 84.7 63.6 81.8 61.4 79.0 59,3 76.4 57.3 73.8 55.4 71.4 53.5 69.7 51.8 66.8 50.1 64.7 48.5 62.7 47.0 60.7 45.5 58.8 44.1 57.0 42.8 55.3 41.5 53.6 40.2 52.0 39.0 50.5 37.9 49.0 36.8 47.6 35.7 24"48"96" 54.5".27.2 13.6 52.8 26.4 13.2 50.8 25.4 12.7 49.0 24.5 12.2 47.2 23.6 11.8 45.5 22.8 11.4 43.9 22.0 11.0 42.4 21.2 10.6 40.9 20,5 "0.2 39.5 19.8 9.9 38.2 19.1 9.5 36.9 18.5 9.2 35.7 17.8 8.9 34.5 17.3 8.6 33.4 16.7 8.4 32.4 16.2 8.1 31.3 15.7 7.8 30.4 15.2 7.6 29.4 14.7 7.4 28.5 14.3 7.1 27.6 13.8 6.9 26.8 13.4 6.7 26.0 13.0 6.5 25.3 12.6 6.3 24.5 12.3 ..~6.1 .,~ 23.8 11.9 6.0 Member Strength Check Width (in) ?>5.5 Sf (in3) Depth (in) ?>13.5 If (in4) Fb (psi) ?>1020 Af (in2) Fv (psi) ?>95 Max. M Hold L/? ?>360 Max. R Mod. of E (psi) ?>1201000 Start Length (ft) ?>15 Increment (ft) ?>0.125 Span (f~ 15,125 15.25 15,375 I5.5 15.625 .15.75 15,875 16 16.125 16,25 16,375 16.5 16.625 16.75 16,875 17. 17,125 17.25 17,375 17,5 17,625 17.75 17,875 18 18.125 Maximum Section Area 498.3 627.0 490.1 621,8 482;1 616.7 474.3 611.7 466.7 606.8 459,3 601.9 452.0 597.1 444:9 -592.4 438.0 587.8 431.2 583.3 424,6 578.8 418.2 574.4 411.8 570.0 . 405.7 565.7 399.6 561.5 393.7 557.3 388.0 553.2 382.3 549.2 376.8 545.2 371,4 541.3 366.1 537.4 360,9 533.6 . 355.9 529.9 350.9 526.2 346.1 522.5 341.3 518.9 164,9 Cf = 1127,7 74,3 14015.7 (ft-lbs) 4702.5 (lbs) 0.986998 Uniform Load based on.,. Inertia Limit~j_qg w 594,5 ~ 579,9 490,1 565,7 482.:1 552.0 474.3 538.8 466,7 526,0 459.3 513.5 .452.0 501,5 444.9 489.8 438.0 478.5 431.2 467.6 424.6 457,0 418.2 446,7 411,8 436.7 405.7 427.0 399.6 417,5 393.7 408.4 388.0 399.5 382.3 390.9 376.8 382.5 ¯371.4 374.4 366,1 366.5 360.9 358.8 355.9 351.3 ..350.9 344.0 344.0 337.0 337.0 Allowable Load (psf)if members spaced at... 12II 498.3 490,1 482.1 474,3 466.7 459.3 452.0 444.9 438.0 431.2 424.6 418.2 411.8 405.7 399.6 393.7 388,0 382,3 376.8 371.4 366.1 360.9 355,9 350.9 344.0 337.0 16" 373.8 367,6 361.6 355.7 350.0 344.4 339.0 333.7 328.5 323.4 318.5 313.6 308.9 304.3 ,299.7 295.3 291.0 286.8 282,6 278,6 274~6 270.7 266.9 263.2 258.0 252.7 24" 249.2 245,1 241,1 237,2 233.4 229,6 226.0 222.5 219.0 215.6 212.3 209,1 205.9 202.8 199,8 196,8 194.O 191.2 188,4 185.7 183.1 180.5 177.9 175,5 172,0 168.5 48" 124.6 122.5 120,5 118,6 116.7 1~14.8 113.0 111.2 109.5 .107,8 106.2 104.5 103.0 101,4 99,9 98.4 97.0 95.6 94.2 92.9 91.5 90.2 89.0 87.7 86.0 84.2 96" 62.3 61,3 60,3 59,3 58.3 57:4 56.5 55,6 54,7 53.9 53.1 52.3 51.5 50.7 50.0 49.2 48,5 47,8 47.1 46,4 45.8 45,1 44.5 2~3,9 43.04, 42;4 WOOD STRUCTURAL ’~’!DESIGN DATA - ~V’O~-, .~ ~/2,0 .~Ol7-kO/q STRESS-GRADES AND ALLOWABLE STRESSES ,~- Stress-grades of .lumber provide material of des-Of the structural materials whose properties’ are ) ignaied and assured strength to meet 9ngineerlng require- ,. Detailed requirements to which lumber must conform" to qualify as a stress-grkde are provided in the grading rules published by the agencies which formulat~ and maintain such rules, and operate inspection facilities covering the various species of lumber. The allowable unit stresse’s fo~ the stress-grades as provided in the grading rules and comprehensive information on their engineering applicatlon are given in the National - Design Specification for Stress-Grade Lumber and Its Fas- tenings. Reference should be made to that Specification for design criteria. That stress-grades are obtained is assured when the lumber is properly grade-marked, grade-stamped or certi- fied as to its quality by a grading and insp, ectlon agency recognized as being competent. The development of stress-grades and the determina- tion of sale working ~tresses for them conform to .well- established scientific bases resulting from exte.nsive research at the Forest Products Laboratory. The research involved tests of small clear specimens and of full-size structural members with detailed studies of the strength and variability of clear wood and accurate evaluation of the effect on strength of. such’faeto~:s as the duration of l~aad, the size, number and location of strength affecting characteristics such as knots, cross-graln, checks and splits, density and moisture content. The allowable unit stresses assigned to various stress- grades recognize the extent to which those strength influenc- ing characteristics are permitted in each grade. Considera- ";:’."i~!~tion is given the lowest range- of strength value within the grade. They include a reasonable factor of safety. technically determinate, lumber is in the forifront as the one of which the strength can be most accurately determined by visual inspection, Stress-grading is accomplished by a visual examlndtion of the piece in which the Ideation, as well as the size and nature of the knots and othe’r ch~acteristics appearing on the surfaces, are evaluated in respect to qualifying for a specific grade as specified in the grading :ales. Stress-grade lumber is an ehgineerlng material, it’. may be used with confidence "in engineered construction where in each member, such as a column, girder, And the elements intimber" trusses and arches.must be expected to carry its Mll estimated load as the stresses assigned to the stress- grades are premised on the ~.ssumption of that condition. This is less important in many light constructions in which there is a repetition of the load-carrying members with a distribution of loading to more than one member so that minor deflcien- cies in one member is compensated by probable over-adequacy of its neighboring members. The multiplicity of members of a stud wall panel qr in a jois[ed floor are examples of that condition. The allowable unit stresses assigned to the various stress-grades assume the conditions of (1) each structural member carrying its own full load, (Z) competent design and (3) reliable grading and inspection, (4) avoidance of gross overloading, and (5) adequate maintehance. Wood possesses the ability of absorbing overloads of consLlarable magnitude for short periods or smaller over- loads for much longer periods. The allowable unit stresses recommended for stress-grade lumber are applicable to nor- mal duration of loading, Suitable adjustments for other duratio.ns are provided in this volume. Those adjustments rmit advantage to.be taken of this favorable characteristic of wood in many .structural designs. )~.- STRUCTURAL Structural glued laminated lumber is anime~nber comprising an ~i~sembly of wood laminations in which the grain of all laminations is approximately parallel longitudi- nally and in which the laminations are bonded with adhes.~ve. Structural glued laminated lumber should conform in design arid fabrication to the provisions of the National Design Speci- fication for Stress-Grade Lumber and Its Fastenings and to the standards to which reference is made therein. The stan- dards for its design, fabrication, the quality of materials utilized and the allowable s~resses assigned ther’eto are based on’fundamental scientific principles. Allowable stresses for glued laminated lumber are given in the National Design Specification, GLUED LAMINATED LUMBER The laminations may vary’as [o species, number, size. shape and thickness, provided they meet the require- ments for density, allowable unit stresses and grade. A con- venlent table giving certain properties of sections of glued ! arninated lumber based on i-5/8" thick laminations is "given in this volume. Structural glued laminated lumber is an importazi~de~4 velopment’in the use of wood in engineered structures for truss members, beams, stringers, columns and arches. It has the advantage of providing for higher working stresses, is available in larger sizes and longer lengths than sawn th-nber, and reduces problems of shrinkage and the resultant secondary stresses in j.oints to a minimum. The adaptability and versatility of this form of timber construction.has’been demonstrated by its steadily increasing and satisfactory use in both large and small structures throughout the United States. JOINT FASTENINGS FOR TIMBER CONSTRUCTION Improved fastenings have Contributed substantially to more efficient use of lumber for roof trusses, bridges, arches and similar clear span structures. Typical span~ range from simple trussed roof rafters of 20’ to 30’ spans for housing, to more than Zb0~ span heavy trusses and arches’for hangars, commercial, industrial and recre.ational buildings. Timber connectors ,make such spans possible b’y providing a more efficient joint which develops more fully the strength of the timber, and in being readily adaptable to assembly line fabrication. Modern timber connectors are metal devices installed usually in the wide face of a timber, either by means of l~.res~ure or in precut grooves, to distribute the load over a large area of the timber. Bolts are used to keep the mem- bers together and hold the connectors in place.. The most commonly used types, such as those manufac:tured by the Timber E~ngineerlng Company, Washington, D.. C. , are split- rings for wood-t.o-w’ood conn’ections, and shear plaids for steel-to-wood connections; other types include toothed-rings, spike grids and clamping plates.. Information on timber connectors and other joint fastenings is available:i.n the National D~sign Specification, in publications of the Timber Engine.erlng Company, and from other sources. WOOD ’ STRUCTUR:AL DESIBN UAIA :It ADJUSTMENT of ALLOWABLE STRESSES for DURATION OF LOADING 4__.ORMAL DURATION OF LOADING The allowable unit stresses listed in Nationa! DesiBn ~pecification for Stress-Grade Lumber and Its Fastel%ings and various commercial grading rules for stress grades o£ lure! !bet are for normal duration of loading. Normal load duration icontemplates stressing a member to the allowa;ble stress 5y the application of the maximum design load for a duration of lapprox[rnately te~% years (either cont[nuously or curnulativelZ) land/or the applicat[ol of 90 per~en(Of this maximum normal load continuously throughout the remainder of the life of the structure, without encroaching on the factor of safety ADJUSTMENTS FOR OTHER DURATIONS OF LOADING "Wood has the property of carrying substantially greater maximum loads for short durations than for long dur- ations of loading (see Load-Duratlon Stress Relationship Chart below), hence,, the allowable unit stresses for normal loading are adjusted as follows for other durations of loads: (a) V~hen the member is ~tressed to ~he full allowable stress by application of the full maximum load permanently or for many years either continuously or cumuiat.ively, use 90 )er cent of the allowable stress (these ~djustments apply to modulus of elasticity only when determin[ng~all0wable trait loads for columns) given for normal loadiqg conditions. (b) Likewise, when duration of the maximum loaddoes not exceed the fbllowi~g dhrations, adjust the allowable unit stresses (these adjustments apply to modulus of elasticity only when determining allowable .unit loads for columns) for normal loading durations~to a new stress level by increasing them as follow s : <:-_%- 15 per cent for two months’ duration, as for snow. Z5 per cent for seven days’ dura’tion, 33-1/3 per cent for wind or earthquake. 100 per cent for impact -- Allowable unit stresses for nofmal loading conditions may be used without regard for im- ~pact if the stress induced by impadt does not exceed the allow- fable unit stress for normal loading. (c) When adjustments for 6ther durations of loading are applied to the allowable unit stresses for fullloadpe’rmanently applied (90 per cent of the tabulated allowable stresses), the preceding percentage increases for shorter durations of max[- mum loading become l0 per cent fq9 ten years duration as.for normal loading, 30 per cent for two months duration as snow, 40 per cent for seven days duration, and 50 per cent for wind and earthqua’ke. COMBINATIONS OF LOADS OF DIFFERENT DURATIONS The preceding adjustment~ are not cumulative in ’the sense that the required size of a member can be determined for a lead o[ particular duration without consideration of the total load resulting ~rom that load together with’ the other loads of longer durations when applied simultaneously. In cases of loads o[ different durations being applied simultane- ously, the size of member is determined for the total of all ’ loads applied and the adjusted stress for that load which has !.the shortest duration in the combination of loads. In like man-. her, totally neglecting this load of Shortest duration, the siz~ o[ re.ember required to support the total o[ the remaining loads at the adjusted stress for the load having the next shortest duration should be checked to insure that loads o[ longer dura- tion do not control the size of member required. This should be repe~ted [or remaining combinations of’ loads or single load of. longer duration. However, when the permanently applied load equils or is les~ than 90 per~cent o[ the total normal load (including permanently applied load), the normal loading condition will control the size o[ member required. Actually, the controlling calculation is generally detelted by inspection o[ the relative size of applied loads and the percent’age stress adjustments ~or the various durations o[ loading.. ~RATDN OE ~AXI~JU~J MECHANICAL FASTENINGS These percenLage adjustments for duraL[on q.[~load apply to allowable loads [or mechanical fastenings when the wood (i.e., not the strength of the metal fastening) determines the load capaci’ty~ LOAD Attachment B January 15, 2002. Rocky Tmjillo, Project Manager Ruth Stern Maritim~ Center Palo Alto, CA Building Renovation/Restoration Following our site visit today and after extensive review of the plato you provided w~ ¯ consider your proposal to relocate and r~xovate existing building a feasible and cost effevtive way to preserve and continue the buildings use as a "base" and public use facility. As such we would very much like to be included in the bidding process i~ the role of general contractor. We offer the following for your consideration: The existing ground floor structure including bath rooms can readily be made.to comply with current ADA codes. The roof structure and design of building would allow for easy separation to facilitate moving. Interior finishes offer reasonable access for. the electrical services and utility upgrades. Our estimated costs to relocate to the new engineered foundation is in the 250,000 to 300,000 dollar range, however we recommend a budget size of 500#00 be used in order to allow for upgrades, both optional and as required by regulations and building condition. In our opinion relocation offers a quicker return to use of the facility while retaining a landmark S~xucturv in its nearly origimd location. Very truly yours, Mark MeKenna Attachment C Nag. 07 2802 18:58~M P3 TOTAL .., San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory Attachment D August 9, 2002 William W. Fellman, Manager Real Property, Real Estate Division City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mr. Fellman, I am writing on behalf of our Board of Directors and Membership to express our interest in the historic Sea Scout building and our desire to receive notification if a request for proposal is issued by the City of Palo Alto. The San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory (SFBBO) is actively seeking a new home. We have been housed on the Bayside Canning Co. site in Alviso since our.inception in 1981. The property is owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which plans to transfer ownership as soon as possible. We are currently housed in a modular building on the site. SFBBO’s mission is to conserve the birds of the San Francisco Bay region. We do this through education, research and monitoring activities. We currently have five biologists on our staff and we train approximately 60 volunteers every year to assist in our fieldwork. For example, we cooperate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’ s annual Clapper Rail surveys; our Avian Disease Prevention Program coordinates all south bay efforts to halt epidemics in our waterfowl populations; and our Landbird Program is entering its lath year of monitoring bird use on selected creek-side habitats in Santa Clara County. Our education program includes interns and public tours of our landbird banding station. To help you learn more about SFBBO, I have included a recent newsletter. Much more information about our programs can be found on our web site at www.sfbbo.org. A new location at the Palo Alto Baylands ideally suits our organizational tradition and would enable SFBBO to expand our public information and education programs, to enhance the public’s enjoyment and appreciation for the birds of the south bay area. We believe that our presence at the Baylands is compatible with the City’s Baylands Master Plan and that SFBBO could provide additional support for the City’s staff working in the area. Such an endeavor would serve to conserve both birds and an historic building. We greatly appreciate the time you have taken to help us learn more about the building, we would be happy to answer any questions you or others may have regarding SFBBO and our proposed use of the facility, or to meet with you and others at your convenience. We will continue to investigate the feasibility of the project and we look forward to working with you more in the future. Sincerely, Ja_,het T. Hanson Executive Director J. Hintermeister, SFBBO Board President P.O.Box 247 1290 Hope Street Alviso, CA 95002 phone 408 946-6548 fax 408 946-9279 www.sfbbo.org T T SOUTH Terns and SFBBO are old friends. We have been following their trials and lribulotions in the south bay since our eurly days of waterbird monitoring. In 1981,our first season of water- bird monitoring, we found 2,500 pairs of Forster’s terns at six nesting sites. Historical records tell us though, thQt neither Forster’s nor Caspian Terns nested here in appreciable numbers ur~til the appearance of salt ponds in the bay. The earliest records of Forster’s terns breeding in the south bay go back to 1948, with ]]0 . nests at the east end of the San Melee Bridge. In 1971 there were 1200 breeding pai~s at south bay colony sites. Lost sea~on we found 1,117 nesls at 8 siles. The numbers und nesting site locations fluctuate from year to year, a~ our 20-year dote set demonstrotes ell 10o well, but one consistent patlern does prevail. Bolh Forster’s and Caspian Terns nesling in the south bay have o fondness for salt pond sites. All’but two of the Forster’s Tern Colonies in 2001 were in salt ponds. The excep- tions were lhe colony in the Charleston tidnl basin, and the Belmont colony situaled in a diked, seasonal pond. A recently hatched Forster’s tern, still with wet down, awaits the arrival of its two siblings from their eggs. Forster’s Terns that nest here arrive in mid April and stort laying eggs in late May to early June. By mid June, colonies are teeming with noisy, hungry chicks. Caspian Terns follow o similar calendar, but nest at only two sites inthe south bay, both in salt ponds. On south bay _salt pond sites, both Forster’s and Caspian Terns show a decided pref- erence for small spoil islands and degraded insular levees as prime nesting real estate. Robin Dakin’s nest site preference studies in 1997 at three of our regularly monitored Forster’s Tern sites in salt ponds sorted out their specific neighborhood preferences as welll They are social nesters, preferring 5 to 12 neighbors nesting nearby. They ore partial to vegetated sites over unvegetated sites, and alkali heath over piclcleweed when given a choice oi vegetation. On unvegetated sites, hummocky terrain is preferable to even terrain. So the lypicol lern nesling site, as many of you who annually help .with the tern census already. know, can be described in general as a damp, smelly, lumpy p!le of clay in the middle of o salt pond. There has been no shortage of such sites in the soulh bay salt ponds in recent years as there is.nO shortage of south bay salt ponds.. Two hundred years ago; when the Ohlone Indians were sole custodians of the bey, there were 200,000 acres of pristine tidal marshes. By 1988, less than 10% of those historical sell marshes remain. In 1860 salt production begun in the bay and lhe 1930s gave over nearly half of the soulh boy’s tidal marshes over to salt produclion. The terns moved in, and have nice- ly adapted to what has become lhe most abun- dant wetland habilat in lhe south bay. Then came also the opportunity to purchase 16,000 acres of s~ulh bay salt ponds, and with it the sweeping dreams of restoration of these ponds towetlands once again. What does this have to do with terns? A quick look at a map of the.recently active nesting sites in the south bay answers the question and at the same time poses a dilemma for restoration planners. All but two of the sites on the map are on sites in pond~ that are slated to remain in salt production. Restoration Of salt ponds to salt marsh will obviously potentially impact the present breeding populations of both tern species in the bay. How we proceed with restora- tion plans will depend in part, on where terns nest now in the south bay, Where they have nested in the past, end how n~uch of that habitat must be preserved to main- tain adequate breeding populations in the boy. Salt ponds hove beena pnrt of the boy’s landscape now for over 140 years. In that time many bird species hate success- . fully adapted to salt ponds as breeding, foraging and roosting habitat. Hopefully some of the dole that we have Mlected in the Inst 20 years will be put to good use when it comes time to decide what to do with 16,000 acres of salt evnporalion ponds. -Sue Macias Biologist, Birds of the Baylands Progiam San Francis~’~ Bay’Bh’d 0bservatol)~ P,O, Box 247 1290 Hope Street Alviso, CA 95002 phone 408 946-6548 fax 408 946-9279 SFBBO@aol.com Non Profit Organiz.ation U.S. POSTAGE PAID ALVISO, CA PERMIT #9 Our thanks MEMBERSHIPS to these supporters of the We thank the folIowing fo?" their memberghip sup- port during January, F&ruary and March 2002: Peter H. Allen, John Arnold, Charles Bacon and Cynthia Dusel-Bacon, Robert G. Ball, Liz and Bob Bathgate, Louis Beaudet, Laurie Bechtler, Douglas and Maren Bell, Ann Bender, Peg Bernucci, Laura Black, Robert and Marion Blau, Tom and Marian Vanden Bosch, William Bousman, Geoff and Shelley Brosseau, Bob and Irene Brown, David Burnham, Michael Burns, Patricia Busk, William P. Byrnes, Eugenia and Peter Caldwell, Roy Cameron, Art C. Carey, Floyd Carley, Richard and Pat. Carlson, Roy B. Carlson, Mary Elizabeth Casanova, Richard Casserley, Donald and Catherine Cassidy, Doug and Gaff Cheeseman, Bill and Jean Clark, Luke W. Cole, Rita Colwell, Robin and Steve Dakin, Jay Davis, Carol Dienger, Christine Doyle, Alan Eisner, Gerry Ellis, Lorrie and Ron Emery, Arthur Feinstein and Ruth S Vose, Arleen Feng, Leslie Flint, Edward M. Fryer, Don Ganton, Harriet Gerson, Ira Greenberg, Hugh gi~d Rosita Harvey, Grace Hattori, Walter and Katharflne Hays, Judy and Bill Hein, Jan Z. Hintermeister, Von Hintermeister, Delia Hitz, Louise Hudson, Chris I. Illes, Deborah Jamison, David Johnston, Ted and Christy Koundakjian, Edwin F. Laak, Carl and Shirley Larson, Peter and Sue LaTourrette, Rosalie Lefkowitz, Robin Leong, Donald W. Lewis, Lillian Fujii, William BOARD OF DIRECTORS Jan Hintermeister, President Santa Clara Lowell. Saumweber, Vice President San Jose Vicki Silvas-Young, Secretary San Jose Richard Carlson, Treasurer Palo Alto David Ainley, Ph.D. San Jose Gerry Ellis San Jose Vincent Hwang San Jose Mary Kuchlenz Foster City Mary Ann Mancuso Nasa Scott Terrill, Ph,D. Los Gatos Lou Young San .lose STAFF Janet Tashjian Hanson Executive Director Bryan DiasOutreach & Education Coordinator Sherry Hudson Cheryl Strong Lead Biologist Lead Biologist Gina Barton Sue Macias Biologist Biologist Alvaro Jaramillo Biologist Ltmdgren, Bob and Sharon Lutman, Karen Lynch, Joan Mancini, Bonnie Marks, Laurie McEwen, Dayton Misfeldt MD, Sandy and Stephen Moore, Dolores Morrison, Dena Mossar, .Thomas Moutoux, Mary K. Murphy, Caroline Nabeta, Bess Nericcio, Ellen Noble, Brian and Cynthia O’Neill, Julie Oliver, Mr, & Mrs. Philip C. Pendleton, Patricia Polentz, Sara Polgar, Edy and Bill Pounders, Charles F. and Barbara Prenss, Peter Radcliff, C.J. and Carol Ralph, Armin H. Ramel, Bob Richmond, Jean Richmond, Robert Roadcap, Cindy Roessler, -Michael Rogers, Paul D. Roose, Milly Rose, John Rothermel, Ann Ruffer, Steve R~ftledge and Juiie Beer, Susan Sandstrom, Lowell Saumweber, Mary Schaefer, Maggie and Contee Seely, Emily Serkin, Kristin and Mark Shields, Martin and Barbara Sidor, Vicki Silvas- Young, Kendric and Marion Smith, Robin W. Smith, Jana Sokale, Gayle and Scott Spencer, Don Starks and Carol Woodward, Debbie Stephenson, Paul and Robin Stevens, Madeleine Stovel, Richard Stovel, Emilie ADVISORY BOARD Sharmon E. Bros, Ph.D. San Jose State University Howard L. Cogswell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus California State University, Hayward Charles Co]Rns, Ph.D. California State University, Long Beach Adrian del Nevo, Ph.D. Palos Verdes Leora FeeneyBiological Field Servfces Paul Jones U.S. Environmental Protection Agency John Kelly, Ph.D. . Audubon Canyon Ranch, Cypress Grove Preserve, Marin Peter MetropulosSubreg[onaI Editor, American Birds Bob RichmondHayward Regional Shoreline Steven Rottenbon~, Ph.D.Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. W. David Shuford Point Reyes Bird Observatory Ntis Warnock, Ph.D. Point Reyes Bird Observatory RESEARCH ASSOCIATES Janis Buchanan Daniel KIuza Chris Otahal Tom R~van Emilie Strauss Peg Woodin Page 7 Observatory,,, Strauss, Karl and Helen Tashjian, Scott TerrilI, Bracey and Richard Tiede, Hazel I. Tilden. Sara Timb)~ Katherine Ulrich, Ann Verdi, Ed Vermeylen, Bill Walker and Mary Wisnewski, Nancy E. Warner M.D., Grant and Kathleen Webb, Anna Wilcox, Virgirfia and Riley Willcox, Bobbe Williams, Adam Winer, Claire Wolfe, Ardyth Woodbur~ Lou and Jean Young, CONTRIBUTIONS We thank the following individuals for their contri- butions to SFBBO for the months of January through March2002. Ronald Barklow and Viola Saima-Barklow, Irene A. Beardsley, George Bing, Andrew Chiu, Luke W. Cole, Linda Elkindo Gerry Ellis, Harriet Gerson, Dolores Hansen, Jay and Janet Hanson, Jan Z. Hintermeister, Robert B. Hole, Barry and Virginia Langdon-Lassagne, Randy and Janet Little, Jean Myers, George and Marti OetzeL Mmjorie Ottenberg, Ed and Kathieen Pandolfino, David Rice, Mike RigneT~ Cindy Roessler, Michael Rogers, Robin W. Smitli, Frances Toldi, Wallace and Sylvia Tsang, Benush Venugopal, Bill Walker and Mary Wisnewski, Bob and Carol Yutzy DONATIONS Our gratitude for the generosity and thoughtfulness of these donors: Chris Illes - computer. The Bird Observatory is .located at 1290 Hope Street in Alviso, behind the historic Bayside Canning Co. building. If you would like to visit the office or our Coyote Creek Field Station, please call in advance. Board meetings are held monthly and are open to the Membership. Call the Observatory for dates and times. The San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. All mem- berships, contributions and gifts are tax deductible to the extent allowed by law. SFBBO Telephone:. 408/946-6548 Fax:408/946-9279 Email:sfbbo@sfbbo.org Web site www.sfbbo.org The Stilt is a quarterly publication of fl~e San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory. Graptfic design by Proteus Graphics, Palo Alto. Printed on recycled paper by The Robots .Printing Company, Mountain View. For permission ro reprint any portion of it, call the Observatory at 408/946-6548. CopyrighL 2002 San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory. Attachment E Historic Resources Board Date: Staff Report August 7, 2002 To:Historic Resources Board From: Subject: Dennis Bacldund, Historic Preservation Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 2560 Embarcadero Road: Board Comments under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation regarding Location Options for the Sea Scout Base, a Category 1 Building on the ~City’s Historic Inventory. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board recommend to the City Council that the following two location options for the Sea Scout Base would preserve the historic integrity of the building under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and would eliminate the current periodic flooding of the building: (A) the existing site on which the building would be raised on .a new foundation, and (B) the adjacent former site of the Palo Alto Yacht Club which is on higher ground than the existing site. Staff also recommends that the Board identify Option A as the preferred option historical!y, and that the Board recommend to the City Council that ifOption A is determined infeasible, then Option B would sufficiently preserve the relationship between the Sea Scout Base and its surroundings, as well as the building’s associations withhistoric events and persons, to maintain the building’s status as a Category 1 property on the City’s Historic Inventory and its eligibility for the National Register. BACKGROUND The Historic Building In May 2000 the City’s Historic Survey consultant, Dames & Moore, determined that the Sea Scout Base appears eligible for the National Register of Historic Places at the State s:\plan\plandiv~hrb\staffreportkHRB staffrep, template Page 1 level of significance as a.n outstanding example of the Streamline Moderne style, and as an important Sea Scout meeting facility, and as a significant example of the philanthropy of the Palo.Alto benefactor Lucie Stern (see Attachments A and B), In November 2000 the Historic Resources Board voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council designate the building to the Historic Inventory in Category 1. The City Council designated the building as recommended by the Board on May 6, 2002. Existing Site Conditions and Location Options for the Sea Scout Base Since the 1970s the integrity, of the Sea Scout Base has been threatened by flooding during biannual flood tides that briefly occur in July and in late December or early ¯ January. These flood tides overflow the remainsof the adjacent sea wall and invade the Sea Scout Base covering the front deck and the floors of the two wings of the building (that are at a lower elevation than the fldor of the central meeting room). The flooding results from a combination of factors that include the shifting of the bfiy mud below the piles which has caused the building to settle, the deteriorated condition of the sea wall, the general erosion of the site, and the. changes in’ the topography of the site and surrounding area that have been introduced by the City (the raising 0fthe adjacent section of Embarcadero Road and the related construction of an earthen mound behind the Sea Scout Base) which force the flood tides back into the building (see Attachment C)., To eliminatethe threat from flooding, the Advance Planning staffhas identified two lo~ation options (A and B) for the building that appear to conform to the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The Real Estate Division staff has proposed a third option (C) thatlhas technical benefitS, but raises concerns regarding conformance to the Secretary’s Standardi (see Attachments D and E): Option A: Raising the building on a new foundation at the existing site; Option B: Relocating the building to higher ground on the adjacent site of the demolished Palo Alto Yacht Club; Option C:Relocating the building to higher ground on the existing parking lot several hundred feet northeast between the Harbormaster’s House and the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center. HRB STANDARD OF REVIEW The Board’s standard of review regarding the permanent location of the Sea Scout Base is the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, adopted by the City .Council in 1986, Standard # 1 requires that "A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment." The Introduction to the Secretary’s Rehabilitation Guidelines for Building s:\plan\plandivkhrb\staffreportkHRB staffrep, template Page 2 Site states: "The landscape surrounding a historic building and contained within an individual parcel of land is considered the building site. The site, including its associated features, contributes to the overall character of the historic property, As a result, the relationship between the buildings and landscape features within the site’s boundaries should be considered in the overall planning for rehabilitation project work." MOVING HISTORIC BUILDINGS: GENERAL HISTORIC STANDARDS_. The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s guidelines for moving historic buildings advise that "even in the most carefully planned and executed relocations, some of the building’s historic integrity is compromised." Therefore, moving, a significant building "should be considered only as a last resort" (see Attachment F). The guidelines for the relocation of historic buildings adopted by the City of Salisbury, North Carolina recommend that "a historic building should be moved only if all other prese .rvation options have been exhausted" because "relocation often resu!ts in a loss of integrity of setting and environment that compromises the significance 0fthe relocated building" (see Attachment G). The most comprehensive presentation of relocation issues for historic buildings that appear eligible for, or are listed, on, the National Register is found in ~ "National Register Bulletin # 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation" (see Attachment H). The Bulletinstates that "the National Register criteria limit the consideration of moved properties because significance is embodied in location and settings as well as in the properties themselves. Moving a property destroys the relationships between the property and its surroundings and destroys associations with historic events and persons.." Among the reasons that the Sea Scout Base was determined by the City’s Historic Survey consultant to appear eligible for the National Register are: the role the property has played since its construction as an important Sea Scout facility, and the building’s architectural style which closely resembles the upper portion of a ship. Both the architecture of the building and its sole use to date are closely tied to the surrounding setting of the former Palo Alto Yacht Harbor. Although the harbor was closed and dredging was discontinued in the 1980s and the harbor area has gradually reverted to marshland, the Sea Scout Base retains its sense of a building that is near the water’s -edge especially during periodic high tides. Any proposal to move the building must carefully Consider the potential loss of three of the four aspects of historic integrity that are most essential to the significance of the Sea Scout Base: location, setting, and association. The fourth aspect, design, would be materially retained if the building substantially survived a move, but the close relationship between the building’s style and the former harbor setting might not be retained, and that could reduce the cultural significance of the building’s physical appearance. s:\plan\plandiv~arb\staffreportkHRB staffrep, template Page 3 Bulletin #15 of the National Register has defined location, setting, and association in language that clearly indicates the importance of these aspects .of historic integrity to the overall significance the Sea Scout Base: Location: "Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred, The relationship between the property and its location is often important.to understanding why the property was created or why something happened," Setting: "Setting is the physical environment of a historic property, Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. It. involves how~ not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space." Association: "Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and.a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer." Staff has provided the Board with an Australian online publication that presents several detailed case studies of moved properties that lost their integrity of location, setting, and association and thereby substantially lost their historic value even though they were "saved" (see Attachment I). CEQA In California, actions that cause a significant historic property to loseits historic value are considered adverse impacts on the environment by the California Environmental Quality Act (see Attachment J). CULTURAL LANDSCAPES Not only is the historic importance of the Sea Scout Base defined and supported by its natural setting, but the natural setting.itself is a historic resource--a historic and cultural landscape within the Baylands Nature Preserve due to the presence of the Sea Scout Base and the Harbormaster’s House (which is listed on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 2 building). Unlike the Spanish-style Harbormaster’s House, however, the nautical-style Sea Scout Base appears to be an architectural reference to the bayside natural setting as well as an expression of the original use, so that there is an unusual degree of fusion of building and landscape that can be observed from Embarcadero Road (see Attachment K). The Sea Scout Base, the Harbormaster’s House, and their setting. appear to illustrate the definition of a cultural landscape set forth in the Secretary of the s:\plan\plandivRtrb\staffrep0rtkHRB staffrep, template Page 4 Interior’s Standards for the Treatment 0fHistoric Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes: ."a geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values" (see Attachment L). When a cultural landscape is present, removal of its historic resources.results in a reduction of the significance of the natural setting as may be verified by covering the image of the Sea Scout Base in the cultural landscape photos of Attachment K. OPTION A: EXISTING SITE The significance of the Sea Scout Base in relation ~o the criteriaof the National Register.- its architecture in the form of a ship and its sole use as a Sea Scout facility--ties the building closely to its setting so that the building’s immediate surroundings determine much of its historic value. Therefore, Option A, the existing site, (see Attachment M) is recommended by Advance Planning staff as the preferred option in relation to three. National Register aspects of historic integrity--location, setting, and association--that are essential to the significance of the Sea Scout Base: Locat~oni Option A would preserve the building at its original location. National Register criteria do not consider a property that has been raised or lowered on its foundations to have been moved. Setting: Option A would .preserve the building in the setting that contributes to its historic significance. Option A would also preserve what over time has become a cultural -landscape within the Baylands Nature Preserve. . Association: Option A would preserve the building at the place where the significant historic events and activities have occurred. OPTION B: ADJACENT FORMER YACHT CLUB SITE The Palo Alto Yacht Club building was located approximately 80 feet northeast of the Sea Scout Base (see Attachment N) on land about 2 feet higher than the Sea Scout Base site, making the Option B site less likely to be subject to flooding (see Attachments O and P). The Sea Scout Base and the Yacht Club together formed a small maritime complex at the.Baylands, and therefore the Yacht Club site shares a historic nautical significance with the Sea Scout Base site. Advance Planning staff believes that if the Sea Scout Base is required to be moved to the former Yacht Club site due to proven infeasibility of retaining the building on its existing site, that the Sea Scout Base would retain sufficient historic integrity to meet the definition of a Historic Inventory Category 1 building, and would continue to be eligible for the National Register: s:\plan\plandiv~rb\staffreport\HRB staffrep, template Page 5 Location: The location would not be original, but would be closely similar in character. The distance from the original site would be approximately a hundred feet. The orientation of the building would be the same. Setting: The overall setting would be essentially the same in character. Association: The integrity of association would’ be reduced, and the impact of a move on this aspect of integrity should be further considered. Bulletin 15 of the National Register states: "For a property whose design values or historical associations are directly dependent on itslocation, any move will cause the property to lose its integrity and ¯ prevent it from conveying its significance." OPTION.C: PARKING LOT SITE NEAR THE INTERPRETIVE CENTER " The Option C site is located on the overflow parking lot between the Lucy Evans Nature Interpretive Center and the Harborrnaster’s House. The site is several hundred feet northeast of the Sea Scout Base and is separated from the water’s edge by a two-lane section of Embarcadero Road (see Attachment Q). Option C was proposed by Real Estate Division staffto provide the Sea Scout Base with a site that does not flood even during the highest annual tides (see Attachment R); and to allow the original Sea Scout Base location to return to a natural state as set forth in the 1978 Baylands Master Plan. The Real Estate Division staffhas suggested other advantages of the Option C location: (a) the sea Scout Base would need to be moved only once to new foundations prepared in advance, not twice as would be the case with Option A (each move is likely to result in some loss of historic fabric); (b) repairs--requiring permits difficult to obtain--would not need to be made to the deteriorated sea wall (located in the sensitive marsh restoration area) as would be the case with Options A and B; (c) with Option C the buildings in the former harbor area (the Sea Scout Base,the Harbormaster’s House, and the Interpretive Center) would be clustered together allowing for shared parking; (d)the highe~ elevation of the Option C site would make it.easier to meet current flood requirements, and Would allow shorter ADA ramps than would be the case with Options A and B, and (e) locating the Sea Scout Base away from immediate contact with the marsh restoration area would make it easier to obtain permit approval from multiple agencies in charge of the Baylands area. Advance Planning staff concurs with Real Estate Division staff on the technical advantages of Location Option C. The Sea Scout Base, however, is a historic resource that appears eligible for the Nation’s official list of historic properties. As a National Register-eligible building the Sea Scout Base would be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for any discretionary project proposed. Moving the Sea Scout Base to the Option C site would result in a loss of those aspects of s:\plan\plandivkhrb\staffreport\HRB staffrep, template Page 6 integrity that are essential to the building’s historic character--location; setting, and association: Location: The integrity of location, the actual place where the Sea Scout Base played its historic role, would be lost. The original location of the building would not be visible from the Option C site. Settin__g: The character of the original setting facing the former harbor area would be lost at the Option C site which is. separated from the former harbor setting by Embarcadero Road. Association: The significantly different character of the Option C site would cause a loss of the sense of historic events and persons associated with the Sea Scout Base. Cultural Landscape Considerations: The area around the original site of the Sea Scout Base is more than a natural setting. Over time it has become a cultural landscape containing both natural resources, and important historic buildings and features that recall the former harbor. Moving the Sea Scout Base to the Option C location would significantly reduce the integrity of a cultural landscape. ’ CONCLUSION The Option A existing location would preserve the integrity of the Sea Scout Base at a high leve! under the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The Option B location (the former Yacht Club site), being adjacent to the historic site, would preserve a sufficient sense of the building’s original location, setting, and, probably, historic associations to maintain the building’s overall integrity. Options A and B would also preserve the integrityof a cultural landscape. Moving the Sea Scout Base to the Option C location (the parking lot between the Harbormaster’s House and the Interpretive Center) would adversely impact the historic integrity of the building with respect to location, setting, and association, and would result in the loss of integrity of a cultural landscape. GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY In March 2002 a report, "Geotechnical Investigation: Sea Scout Base Renovation," was prepared by Romig Engineers for the Lucie Stem Maritime Center, a private, organization. Staff is forwarding excerpts from the report to the Historic Resources Board as an attachment to this staff report at the request of Beth Bulmenberg, Vice-Chair of the Board. The report evaluates subsurface conditions at the existing site of the Sea Scout Base, and at the former Yacht Club site, and provides geotectmical design recommendations that would apply to any historic rehabilitation of the building. The report concludes that rehabilitation at both sites is geotechnically feasible (see Attachment S). s:\plan\plandivhhrb\staffreportkHRB staffrep, template P~e7 TIMELINE On September 10, 2002 the City Council’s Policy and Services Committee will consider the .future development of the Sea Scout Base. The recommendations of the Historic Resources Board regarding the historic impacts of the three identified location options will be forwarded to the Committee for consideration. ATTACIt]VIENTS Attachment A: DPR Form 523 for the Sea Scout Base prepared by Dames & Moore, May 12, 2000. Attachment B: Photo of Lucie Stem at the Dedication of the Sea Scout Base, May 30, 1941 (HRB Members Only). Attachment C: Photo Survey of the Impact of the Biannual Flood Tides on the Sea Scout Base (HRB Members Only). Attachment D: Map Illustrating the "Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve" with LocationOptions A, B, and C Indicated (HRB Members Only). Attachment E: Circa 1940s Aerial Photo of the Sea Scout Base Area with Location Options A, B, and C Indicated (HRB Members Only). Attachment F: "Help from the National Trust: Moving Historic Buildings," an online document on the National Trust for Historic Preservation Web Site. Attachment G: "Demolition or Relocation of Buildings," an online document on the City of Salisbury, North Carolina Web Site. Attachment H: Excerpts from National Register Bulletin # 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation." Attachment I: "Moving Buildings," an online, document on the Museums Australia Queensland Web Site. Attachment J: Excerpts from "CEQA and Historic Resources," an online document on CERES, the California Environmental Resources Evaluation System Web Site. Attachment K: Two photos of the Baylands Cultural Landscape as seen from Embarcadero Road (HRB Members Only). Attachment L: Excerpt from "Protecting Cultural Landscapes," an online document on the National Park Service Web Site. . Attachment M: Two Photos of the Option A (Original Site) Location (HRB Members Only). Attachment N: Circa 1950s Photo of the Yacht Club Building and the Sea Scout Base (HRB Members. Only). Attachment O: Two Photos of the Option B (Former Yacht Club Site) Location as seen from the Sea Scout Base (HRB Members Only). Attachment P: Photo Comparison of the Effects ofthe Highest Tide of the Year, January 11, 2001, on the Option B (Former Yacht Club Site) and Option A (Original Site) Locations (HRB Members Only).. s:\plan\plandiv~hrb\staffreportWfl~d3 staffrep, template Page 8 Attachment Q: Two photos of the Option C (Parking Lot Site) Location near the Lucy Evans Nature Interpretive Center (HRB Members Only). ’ Attachment R: Photo Comparison of the Effects of the Highest Tide of the Year, January 11, 2.001, on the Option C (Parking Lot Site) and Option A. (Original Site) Locations (HRB Members Only). Attachment S: Geotechnical Investigation: Sea Scout Base Renovation, a report by Romig Engineers, Redwood City, California. COURTESY COPIES Bill Fellman Real Property Manager Real Estate Division Administrative Services Department, City of Palo Alt0 Greg Betts Superintendent, Open Space & Sciences Recreation, Open .Space & Sciences Division Community Services Department, City of Palo Alto David Bubenik 420 Homer Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Kevin Murray 2069 Harvard Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 .Pria Graves 2130 Yale Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 Dennis Back un , ~~er REVIEWED BY: ~E~~O(~,/A~dvance p lannl.rffg.Nanager s:\plan\plandivkhrb\staffreportkHRB staffrep, template Page 9 Page 1~ of 5 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 2560 Embarcadero Rd P1. P2. Other Identifier: 2560 Embarcadero Rd Location: [] Not for Publication [] Unrestricted *a: County Santa Clara and (P2c,P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Mountain View, CA Date 1991.T__; R__;__¼ of__¼ of Sec’ c. Address 2560 Embarcadero Rd City.Palo Alto Zip 94303 d.UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone __; mE/__ mN *e.Other Locational Data: (e.g.,- parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APN 008 05 001 *P3a. Description: (~3escribe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The Sea Scout Base at 2560 Embarcadero Road is a wood-frame structure clad in t~orizontal siding and covered by flat roofs at three levels. It is built on pile foundations with exposed concrete pile caps. The building is designed to look like the upper part of a ship. Like a ship, it has rounded corners, a mix of porthole windows and bands of windows for continuous views, flat roof areas that are designed as decks with railings, and a mast. In plan and massing, it consists of four symmetrically arranged parts: a high central block that is rectangular at one end and rounded at the other. This high central block is flanked by lower rectangular wings and On its roof is a small observation room like a pilot house. Across the front is a system of decks, railings and stairs. The design can be compared to other distinguished examples of the Streamlined Moderne style in California like the National Maritime Museum in Aquatic Park, San Francisco, designed by William Mooser, Sr. and William Mooser, Jr. in. 1939 and the coca Cola Bottling C~ompany plant in Los Angeles designed by Robert V. Derrah in 1936-1937. *P3b Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP39 Other *P4. Resources Present: ~ Building [] Structure [] Object [] Site [] District [] Element of District [] Other (isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) 2560 Embarcadero Rd; view west; 09/20/99; by B. Vahey; roll BRV-85, neq #16 *P6. Date C0nstructed/Age and Source:[] Historic [] Prehistoric [] Both 1941 ; Pa/o Alto Times *P7. Owner and Address: City of Palo Alto 2510 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto CA 94303 *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Michael Corbett, Dames & Moore 221 Main Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94105 *P9. Date Recorded: May 12, 2000 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive Pll. Report Citation*: (Cite survey [eport and other sources, or enter "none".) Palo Alto Historic Survey Update (Corbett and Bradley for Dames & Moore, 2000) *Attachments: [] NONE [] Location Map [] Sketch Map [] Continuation Sheet ~ Building, Structure and Object Record [] Archaeological Record [] District Record [] Linear Feature Record [] Milling Station Record [] Rock Art Record [] Artifact Record [] Photograph Record [] Other (List) DPR 523A (1/95)/ EIV]BA2560.F1 *Required informatian. Page 2 of 5 ~NRHP Status Code 3S ~Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 2560 Embarcadero Rd BI.Historic Name: B2.Common Name: B3.Original Use:B4. Present Use: Other ~B5.Architectural Style: Streamlined Moderne "B6.Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) 1941 : Built (Palo Alto Times) ca. 1999: New roof, replacement of wood panels and floors, waterproofing measures, and "facelifts" on interior/exterior *B7.Moved? [] No [] Yes r~ Unknown Date:.Original Location: *BS.Related Features:i, Bga. *BIO. Architect: Bir.qe and David Clark b. Builder: Significance: Theme A: Sea scouting; c: Streamlined Moderne and work of Bir.qe and David Clark Area Palo Alto Period of Significance 1940-1980s Property Type institutional Applicable Criteria A and C (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) History Site: The Palo Alto Yacht Harbor was created in 1928 under the direction of the city engineer, J.F. Byxbee, at the confluence of San Francisquito Creek and Mayfield Slough. -The Sea Scout House occupies a site leased from the city and fronting on Mayfield Slough, which served as docks for training vessels. According to a Palo Alto Times article, of 2 August 1988, the Baylands Master Plan adopted by the Palo Alto City Council in 1978 had ended the dredging of the harbor and the resulting marshlands had already ended docking at.this site except for the smallest boats. Structure: The Palo Alto Times printed, on 31 October 1940, an article, "Sea Scouts to Get Base," with an architect’s rendering of the project. That article named the brothers Birge and David B. Clark as architects and said that the project was made possible by a gift from Mrs. Louis Stern. Another Palo Alto Times article "Sea Scouts ’Board’ New Base" (18 April 19;$1) said that the building had been completed by 16 April 1941 and would be formally dedicated 30 May 1941. B)rge M. Clark mentioned the project in An Architect Grows Up in Palo Alto in which he claimed that it was.not entirely paid for by Mrs. Stern, that a city owned dredger and small pile driver had been used at no charge, and that an.anonymous gift of six inch steel pipe had also been made. There is no documentary evidence of alteration to the structure, but in a Palo Alto Times article of 19 April See continuation sheet B11.Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes a~d codes) *B12.References: B13. See continuation sheet. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Michael Corbett Date of Evaluation: May 12, 2000 (This space reserved for official comments) (Sketch m.ap with north arrow required) DPR 523B (1/95) EMBA2560.F1 ~Required Information Page. 3 of 5_~__ Resource Identifier: 2560 Embarcadero Rd Recorded by Michael Corbett/Steve Hardy (history) *Date May 12, 2000 [] Continuation [] Update History (continued) 1968, "Sea Scout Base Problem," a sPokesman admitted that the building was in something of a state of disrepair. A Palo Alto Times article, of 17 January 1974, reported that the building was subject to flood!ng at more and more regular intervals. Kevin L. Murray, an official of the Boy Scouts, said (in his "Briefing on the History of the Palo Alto Sea Scouts and Palo Alto Scout Base" delivered at the Palo Alto City Council Meeting of 8 June 1999) "~hat the base had recently undergone the most extensive refit in its history which included a new roof, the replacement of wood panels and floors, waterproofing measures, and "facelifts~’ inside and out. Use: According to the Palo Alto Times article, of 31 October 1940, the Sea Scout House was designed to serve the ’requirements of a shore station as well as to provide for small boat work, ship and crew meetings, and social activities of sea scouting for the Stanford Area Council. The waterside frontage was always used for docking Sea Scout vessels until the 1980s when dredging of the yacht harbor was discontinued, and the waterways quickly reverted to marshland. Evaluation The Sea Scout Base at 2560 Embarcadero appears eligible for the NRHP under criteria A and C at the State level of significance. The period of significance is 1940-1980s. Under criterion A, the building "provided one of the most comprehensive Sea Scout meeting facilities in the nation" according to Kevin Murray. It also represented a major example of the philanthropy of Lucie Stern of Palo Alto. A reflection of its significance was its dedication at which the President of Stanford University spoke, a message was read from Herbert Hoover, "the Stanford band played, and a commander of the United States Navy delivered the invocation and benediction" (Backlund). Under criterion C, the Sea Scout base is an outstanding example of the Streamlined Moderne style in California. It is also an important work of the important local architects Birge and David Clark. References Backlund, Dennis. Memorandum to the Historic Resources Board. ,Sea Scout Base, Palo Alto Harbor." 19 June 1996. Baird, Mike, City of Pa!o Alto Building Inspection Supervisor. Memorandum to Emily Harrison, Director of Administrative Services Department. "Sea Scout Building Inspection Report." 4 September 1996. California Office of Historic Preservation. Instructions for Nominating Historical Resources to the California Register of Historic Resources. Sacramento, CA. August 1997. Clark, Birge. An Architect Grows up in Palo Alto. Crowe, Michael (Art Deco Society of California). Telephone conversation with Michael Corbett. 12 May 2000. Gebhard, David, Eric Sandweiss, and Robert Winter. Architecture in San Francisco and Northern California. Revised edition. Salt Lake City: Gibbs M. Smith, Inc., 1985. Gebhard, David and Robert Winter. Los Angeles: An Architectural Guide. Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 1994. Hui, Danielle. Letter to Mildred Mario. 29 April 1996. Murray, Kevin L. "History of the Palo Alto Sea Scout Base." 1998. Palo Alto Historic Survey Update. Property File. DPR 523L(1/95)EMBA2560.F1 ~Required Information Page. 4 of 5 Resource Identifier: 2560 Embarcadero Rd Recorded by Michael Corbett *Date May 12, 2000. [] Continuation [] Update References (continued) Palo Alto Historic Resources Board. "Sea Scout Base (Sea Scouts of the Stanford Area Council)." Historic Resources Inventory, FormDPR573. 1996. PaloAIto Times. 31 October 1940, 9 April 1941, 18 April 1941, 29 May 1941, 19 March 1968, 12 August 1968, 17 January 1974, 2 August 1988. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Winslow, Ward and the Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto: A Centennial History. Palo Alto: Palo Alto Historical Association, 1993. p. 58, 111. DPR 523L (1/95) EMBA2560.F1 *Required Information Page 5 of 5 +Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)2560 Embarcadero Rd +Map Name: Palo Alto Planninq Dept. GIS +Scale: 1":1314’+Date of Map:, 1999 Palo Alto 2560 Embarcadero 008-05o001 City of PaSo Aff~ GIS *R~ulr~ Inf~on Attachment B Lucie Stern at the dedication May 30, 1941 Attachment C Impact of the Biannual Flood Tides On the Sea Scout Base Attachment D Scale in Tenths of a Mile 0.5 Please Follow Preserve Rules and Hours. (See other side of Map.) ¯ /’® ~--~ Gates open Locked ................ Paved Trail .......... Gravel Trail i~-, .~~-~-;; Trail on Levee t~) Mile Markers ~Ranger Station ~Parl¢ing Lot ~Picnic Area ~Drinking Water ~1~ Restrooms ~Public Phone San FranciscoBay Trail HNrriet -~-M un d y Marsh Palo Alto Airport ....... F~m~)arJdero Bike Bridge to Oregon Avenue via St, Francis Drive Attachment E Moving Historic Buildings - Help from the National Trust for Historic. Preservation Attachment F Help from The National Trust National Trust . Regional Offices State and Local Preservation Contacts Preservation Web Sites Information Sheets Help from the National Trust The National Trust in Your State Join the National Trust Contact the National Trust National Trust Home Page Search th Help from the National Trust lVloving Historic Buildings Although it is a delicate and comPlicated process, Americans have been moving entire buildings since the 18th century. Historically, buildings were moved primarily because it was cheaper than constructing an entirely new one. Today, Americans are more likely to move a house in an effort to save it from destruction. If you still c the informa looking for, contact the Trust’s Res Center. However, when it comes to structures that have historical significance, preservationists agree that moving them should be considered only as a last resort. The Case Against Moving an Historic Structure The value of an historical house is more than the sum of its structural parts. Of almost equal importance is the building’s relation to the surrounding landscape, its "sense of place" within the community. Even in the most carefully planned and executed relocations, some of the building’s historic integrity is compromised. In the case of a building that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, moving it may result in the property’s deletion from the National Register. A relocated building may also be disqualified from tax breaks given to historical structures that have been rehabilitated for commercial purposes. When all other alternatives have been tried and have proved unsuccessful, relocation may be the only means of saving a house from destruction. The following information includes-important tips to keep in mind when planning to move a house or other historic structure. Contact your State Historic Preservation Office If the house is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and you want to retain the listing at the new site, you need to discuss this with your State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) prior to planning the move. See the National Trust’s state-by-state list for contact information. Your SHPO will ask you to submit evidence to support your reasons for moving the building, the effect of the move on the property’s historical value, and information about the proposed location. Frequently, houses on the National Register that are moved without prior approval from your State Historic Preservation Officer are taken out of the National Register. The owner must then seek renomination. Choosing a site http ://www.nationaltrust.org/help/moving_historic_buildings.html 5/26/02 Moving Historic Buildings - Help from the National Trust for Historic Preservation Page 2 of 3 Choose a new site that is compatible with the style of the house and as near - both in location and appearance - to the original site. Contact organizations and individuals in the vicinity of the proposed new site to make sure there are no conflicting interests. .Try to avoid new sites that would require the house to be.transported over railroads, interstate highways, overpasses, hills, bridges, or narrow streets. Planning the move Before hiring a moving company, get estimates from more than one firm. Also, ask to see references and photographs of previous projects to verify that the mover has experience working with historic structures. Insurance is a must. Make sure that the house-moving firm is covered against public liability, workers’ compensation, and any damage to the house that may occur during the move. Do not plan a move without first securing all necessary building permits (for the original site as well as for the new site). You will also need moving permits from state and local highway departments. Also, arrange for police escorts and, if necessary, for the temporary removal of road obstructions such as signs and lights. Contact utility, cable television, and telephone companies in order to raise, lower, or temporarily remove overhead wires along the transportation route. Be aware that this can add significantly to the cost of moving a house. Documentation Make a thorough photographic documentation of the house while it is still in its original location (and intact) prior to the move. Measured drawings are extremely important to have if the house is historically significant. Also, carefully keep a record of any disassembly that is done as part of the move. Choosing,a Hoving Company The International Association of Structural Movers (IASM) is a good place to start looking for a contractor to move an historic building. The IASM is an organization whose members are actively involved with moving houses, bridges, ships, and other structures, or who manufacture products used in moving these structures. The IASM’s web site, www.iasm.org, lists their members by state. Many moving moving companies are listed at www.buildingHovers.com. This site offers the names Of moving companies, listed by slate, tips on moving a building, and news on current building relocation projects. Your State Historic Preservation Officer may also be able to recommend a moving company. Since a http ://www.nationaltrust.org/help/moving_historic_buildings.html 5/26/02 Moving Historic Buildings - Help from the National Trust for Historic Preservation Page 3 of 3 SHPO should be contacted prior to moving a site registered on the National Register of Historic Places, they will know which companies have been used in the past to move historic structures. Printed Resources Moving Historic Buildings, by John Obed Curtis, is a publication of Heritage Preservation Services, a division of the National Park Service. It includes a methodology for planning, research, and restoration involved in moving an historic building. For ordering information, visit the HPS Web site, http:llwww2.cr.nps.govltpsltpscat.htrn, and look under "Standards and Guidelines." Save Historic Places Build Better Communities I Travel with the Trust I Support Preservation I Shop for Preservation National Trust Home I Search I Site Hap @2002 National Trust for Historic Preservation. All ri~lhts reserved. http ://www.nationaltrust.org/help/moving_historic_buildings.html 5/26/02 Salisbury Design Guidelines/Relocation of Buildings Return to [ Table of Contents ] Attachment G Demolition or Relocation of Buildings Relocation of Buildings Relocation of a structure within the historic district should be carefully deliberated. A historic building should be moved only if all other preservation options have been exhausted. Relocation often results in a Loss of integrity of setting and environment that compromises the significance of the relocated building. Consequently, relocation of a property on the National Register of Historic Places may result in its removal from the register. However, relocation of a building or a portion of a building to the extent that it is practical may be a desirable alternative to demolition. In reviewing a request to move a building within the district, the commission considers whether the proposed relocation will adversely affect other historic buildings in the district or the overall character of the district. Moving buildings into the historic district or relocating them within it should be based on thorough planning and meet the guidelines for new construction with regard to architectural compatibility, siting, orientation, and landscaping. Relocation of Buildings: Guidelines 1.Document original site conditions before moving the structure. Use photographs and other written or graphic items such as site plans to record the original setting. 2.Assess the structural condition of the building before moving it, to minimize damage during the move. 3.Work with contractors experienced in successfully moving historic buildings. 4.Protect the building from weather damage and vandalism during the relocation. 5.If a structure is moved to a site within the historic district- o Assess the architectural compatibility of the relocated structure with adjacent buildings according to the guidelines for new construction. o Review the proposed siting, setback, landscaping, and other site-specific treatments according to pertinent guidelines. o Ensure that the relocation will not damage existing historic buildings or the character of the district. [ Top of This Section ] - [ Next Section ] - [ Table of Contents ] http ://www. ci. salisbury.nc.us/histdist/relocate htm 5/26/02 Attachment H CRITERIA CONSIDERAT MOVED .PROPERTIES ON : A property removed from its original or historically significant location can be eligible if it is significant primarily for architectural value or it is the surviving property most importantly associated with a historic person or event. UNDERSTANDING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION B: MOVED PROPERTIES The National Register criteria limit the consideration of moved proper- ties because significance is embodiedin locations and settings as well as in the properties themselves. Moving a property destroys the relationships between the.property and its sur- roundings and destroys associations with historic events and persons. A move may also cause the loss of his- toric features such as landscaping, .foundations~ and chimneysi as vcell . as loss of the potential for associated archeological deposits.¯ Properties that were moved before their Period of Significance .do not need to meet the special requirements of Criteria Consideration B. One 6f the basic purposes of the National Register is to encourage the preservation of historic properties as living parts of their communities. In keeping With this purpose, it is not usual to list artificial groupings of buildings that have been created for purposes of interpretation, protec- tion, .or maintenance. Moving build- ings to such a grouping destroys the integrity of location and setting, and can create a false sense of historic development. Examples~ of Properties that MUST Meet Criteria Consideration B: Moved Properties o A resource moved from one location on its original site to another loca- tion on the property, during or after its Period of Significance.. ¯A district in which a significant number of resources have been r~oved from their original location. ,A district Which has one moved build- ing that makes an especially sig- nificant contribution to the district. ~A portable resource, such as a ship or railroad car, that is relocated to a place incompatiblq with its original function. ¯ A portable resource, such as a ship or ¯ railroad car, whose importance is critically linked to its historic Ioca- ’ tion or route and that is moved. Examples of Properties that DO NOT Need to Meet Criteria Con- sideration B: Moved Properties o A property that is moved prior to its Period of Significance. , A district in which only a small per- centage of typical buildings in a dis- trict are moved. A moved building that is part of a complex but is of less significance than the remaining (unmoved) buildings. A portable resource, such as a shipor railroad car, that is eligible under Criterion C and is moved within its natural setting (water, raiIs, etc). A property that is raised or lowered on its foundations. APPLYING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION B: MOVED PROPERTIES ELIGIBILITY FOR ARCHITECTURAL VALUE A moved property significant under Criterion C must retain enough histo~-ic features to convey its architectural values and retain in- tegrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and associa- tion. 29 ELIGIBILITY FOR V/ HISTORIC ASSOCIATIONS " .&moved property significant under Criteria A or.B must be demonstrated to be the surviving property most importantly as- sociated witha particular historic event.or an important aspect of a his- tonc person s life. The phrase, mos importantly associated" means that it must be the single surviving proper- ty that is most closely associated vdth the event or with the part of the person’s life for which he or she is sigrfificant. Eligible -A moved building occupied by a business woman during the majority of her productive career would be eligible if the -other extant properties are a house she briefly inhabited prior to her Period of Sig- ¯ nificance and a commercial building She owned after her retirement. Not Eligible .A moved building associated with the beginning of rail transportation in a community is not eligible if the original railroad station and ....... warehouseremained intact on their original sites. SETTING AND ENVIRONMENT In addition to the requi.’rements above, moved properties must still have an orientation, setting, and general environment that are com, parable to those of the historic loca- tion and that are compatible with the property’s significance. " Eligible ¯A propertysignificant as an ex- ample of rnid-19th century rural house type can be eligible after a move, provided ¯ that it is placed on a lot that is sufficient in size and character to ~ecall the basic qualities of the historic environment and setting, and provided that the building is sited appropriately in relation to natural and man- made surroundings. Not Eligible A,rural house that is moved into an urban area and a bridge that is no longer situated over a waterway are not eligible. ASSOCIATION DEPENDENT ON THE sITE For a property whos~ design values or historical associations are directly dependent on its location, any move " will cause the.property to lose its in- tegrity and prevent it from convey- ing its significance. Eligible -A farm structure significant only as an example of a method of construction peculiar to the local area is still eligible if it is moved within that local area and the new set- ting is similar to that of the original location. Not Eiigible ¯ A 19th century rural residence that was designed around par- ticular topographic features reflecting that time period’s ideals of environmentis not eligible if moved. HOW TO,EVALUATE INTEGRITY OF A PROPERTY INTRODUCTION Integrity is the ability of a proper2 ty to Convey its significance. To be listed in the National Register of His- toric Places, a property must not only be shown to be- significant under the National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. The evaluation of integrity is sometimes a subjective judgment, but it must always be grounded in an understanding of a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance.. Historic properties either retain in- tegrity (that is, convey their sig- nificance) or they do not. Within the concept of integrity; the National Re~ister criteria recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various b/ combinations, define integrity. To retain historic integrity a proper- ty will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. The retentionof specific aspects of in- tegrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. Determining which of these aspects are most imp6t- tant to a particular property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is signific~at~ The follow- ing sections define the seven aspects and explain how they combine to produce integrity. SEVEN ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY ¯Location ¯Design ¯Setting ¯Materials ¯ Wgrkmanship . Feeling r Association UNDERSTANDING THE ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY LOCATION ¯ Location is the place where the his- toric property was constructed or the place where the historic’event oc- curred. The relationship between the propertyand its location is often im- portant to understanding why the- property was created or why som~ thing happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly impor- ’ tant in recapturing the sense of his- toric events and persons. Except in rare cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved. (See Criteria Consideration B in Part VII: How to Apply the Criteria Con- siderations, for the conditions Under which a moved property can be eligible,) DESIGN Design is the combination of ele- ments that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from consdous decisions made during the original " conception and planning of a proper: ty (or its sign~.ficant alteration)and applies to a4tivities as diverse as com- munity planning, engineering, at- ¯ chitecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as 6rganization of space, proportion, scale; technology, or- ’~namen~ation, and materials. . A property’s design refl.ects historic functions and t~hno!ogies as wel! as aesthetics. It includes such.considera= tions as the structural System; mass- ing; arrangement of spaces; pattern of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount, and style of ornamental detailing; and ar- rangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape. Design can also apply to districts, whether they are important primari- ly ~or historic association, architec- tural value, information potential, or a combination thereof. For districts significant p.rimarily for historic as- sociation or architectural value, design concerns more than just the in- dividual buildings or structures lo- cated within the boundaries. It also applies to the way in which build- ings, sites, or structures are related: for example, spatial relationships be- tween major features; visual rhythms in a streetscape or landscape plant- ings; the layout and materials of - walkways and roads; and the relationship of other features, such as statues, water fountains, and ar- cheological sites. ¯ 44 SETI’ING t/ Setting is the physical environ- ment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was. builtor an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the plac.e in which the property played its histori- cal role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding fea- tures and open space. setting often reflects the basic . physical conditions under which a property wa~ built and the functions it was intended.to serve. In addition; the way in which a property is posi- tioned in its environment can reflect the designer’s concept of nature and aesthetic preferences. The physical features that con- stitute the setting of a historic proper- ~ can be either natural or manmade, ¯ including such elements as: . To aphic features (a gorge or¯pogr 1~"the crest of a hi ); Vegetation; Simple manmade features (paths or fences); and .Relationships between buildings and other features or open space. These features and their relation- ships should.be examined not only.. within the exact boundaries of the property, but also between the ~roperty and its surroundings. This is ar~icularly important for. districts. MATERIALS Materials are the physical ele- mer.ts that were combined or deposited during a particul~ period of time and in a particular pattern.or con.figuration to form a historic property. The choice and combina- tion of materials reveals the preferen- ces of those who created .the property and indicate the availability of par- ticular types of materials and tech- . .nologies. Indigenous materials are often the focus of regional building trad!tions and thereby help define an area’s sense of time and place. A property must retain the key ex- terior materials dating from the period of its historic significance. If the property .has been rehabilitated, the historic materials and significant features must have been preserved. The property must also be.an actual historic resource, not a recreation; a recent structure fabricated to look his- . toric is not eligible. Likewise, a property whose historic features and materials have been lost and then reconstructed is usuall~ifi6teli~ibl~ (See Criteria Consideration E in Part VII: How to Apply the Criteria. Con- siderations for the conditions under which a reconstructed property can be .eligible .) WORKMANSHIP Workmanship isthe physical " . evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans’ labor and skill in constructing or altering building, structure, object, or site. ¯ Workmanship can apply to ttt~ property as a whole or to its in- dividual components. It can be ex- pressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticat~:l configurations and ornamental detailing; It can be based on common traditions or in- novative period techniques: Workmanship is important because it can fumish evidence of the technol- ogy of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic ~r prehistoric period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national applications of beth technological practices and.a.es~ ~hetic principles. Examples.of.: workmanship in historic buildings in- clude tooling, carving, painting, graining, turning, and joine~y. arriples of workmanship in prehis- toric contexts include Paleo-Indian clovis projectile points, Archaic period beveled adzes, Hopewellian birdst0ne pipes, copper earspools and worked bone pendants, and Iro- quoian effigy pipes. FEELING Feeling is a property’s e.xpression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results. from the presence Of physical fea- . tur.es that, taken together, convey the property’s historic.character. For ex- ample, a rural historic district retain- ing original design, materials,workmanship, and setting will relate the feeling of agricultural lifein the 19th century. A grouping of prehis- toric petroglyphs, unmarred by graf- fiti and intrusions and located on its original isolated bluff, can evoke a sense of tribal spiritual life. ASSOCIATION J Association is the ~lirect link be- tween an important historic even~ Or person-and-a-historic-prop er ty.--~A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity oc- curred and is suffidenfly intact to. convey that relationship to an ob- server..Like feeling, association re- quires the presence of physical featu-res that convey a property’s his- toriccharacter. For example, a Revolutionary War battlefield whose natural and manmade elements have remained intact since the 18th cen- tury will retain its quality of associa- tion with the battle. Because feeling and as.soc!ati6n depend on individual perceptions, their retention alone is neversuffi- dent to support digibility of a property for the National Register. ASSESSING INTEGRITY IN PROPERTIES. Integrity is based on significance: why, where, and when a property is important. Onlyafter significance is fully established can you proceed to the issue Of integrity. The steps in assessing integri~ are! Q Define the essential physical fea- tures that must be present for a ..property. to representitssig-.. ...... nificance. Q Determine whether the essential physical features are visible enough to convey their sig- . nificance. . Determine whether the property needs to be compared.with similar prope~ies. And, ¯Determine, based on the sig- nificance and essential physical features, which aspects of in- tegrity, are particularly vital to the property being nominated and if . they are. present. Ultimately, the question Of integrity is answered by wl~ether or not the , property retains the identity for which it is significant. ’45 3. RETAINING CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Attachment A study of issues surrounding moving buildings of heritage value for use in outdoor museums in Queensland Previous Next Contents Print Version 3.1 Effect of removal and relocation on heritage values of buildings 3.2 Relocating objects from historic sites 3.3 Retaining existing significance 3.4 Retaining aesthetic value 3.5 Retaining historic value 3.6 Retaining scientific value 3.7 Retaining social value 3.1 Effect of removal and relocation on heritage values of buildings Are we really saving the building by moving it to a new setting especially an historical village/museum? Is it an example of adults ’playing historic cubby houses’? Or is it ’collecting’ buildings to put up as stage sets on which to display the groups’ collections? Many persons, when asked, say "1 remember..." but when pressed for detail they cannot describe for example the interior or relationships of objects or people using them. Cultural significance often stems from the relationship of a place with its surroundings. This relationship can demonstrate important aspects of its history and this evidence is lost if the relationship is broken. An extreme example would be the proposed relocation to mainland Australia of Mawson’s Huts from Commonwealth Bay in Antarctica where they demonstrate an heroic period of exploration and living in harsh surroundings whilst awaiting rescue. Buildings which are moved may also lose fragile jointing materials, such as nails, mortar and plaster as well as accumulated layers of applied decoration and the patina of age and wear and tear. Claiming that removal is the only means of ensuring survival can be used as an easy way out of finding an acceptable solution. Structures that are seen as robust and portable are especially vulnerable to this claim. By clearly expressing the cultural significance it can be shown that removal is not an acceptable conservation policy for retaining that significance. For example, relocating Mawson’s Huts would do irretrievable harm to their historical, symbolic and scientific value. Culturally significant structures that can be moved without damage to their significance are extremely rare. Some times the sole means of ensuring survival does involve relocating significant buildings or structures. Bellevue Homestead is a case in point. It was originally the centre of a major pastoral holding in the upper Brisbane valley and was one of many hundreds of p’roperties to http ://www.maq.org.au!publications/resources/moving04.htm 8126/02 3. RETAINING CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Page 2 of 7 be inundated by the construction of the Wivenhoe Dam in the late 1970s. The National Trust acquired the complex of homestead buildings and relocated them to higher ground. On their new site, the buildings have lost their former relationship with the river and the river flats - attributes that can never be reinstated. But the significance of the buildings as examples of a range of rare early building methods has survived. So has much of the evidence of the taste, aspirations and way of life of their former owners (Marquis-Kyle and Walker, 1992:44). Structures or objects vulnerable to decay or vandalism are often moved with the loss Of significance -especially if they are forgotten in their new place of ’temporary’ storage! Headstones from pioneer graves where the inscriptions are fading are one category. Mining machinery on abandoned fields is another. Some structures were designed to be readily removable or already have a history of previous moves, for example, prefabricated houses and mine shaft poppet-heads. Provided that such a structure does not have a strong association with its present site, its removal may be considered. If any structure is moved, it should be moved to an appropriate setting and given an appropriate use. Such action should not be detrimental to any place of cultural significance. Dr Miles Lewis has documented the sad case of Police Magistrate William Lonsdale’s cottage: it stood on the corner of Spring and Flinders Streets, Melbourne from 1842 until 1891, when it was sold and relocated to Carrum as a seaside cottage. The National Trust ’rediscovered’ it in 1959 and set about moving it back to Melbourne, but en routea portion fell off the back of the low loader and had to be replaced when the building was in temporary storage-awaiting a new site. As one was not forthcoming, the cottage was dismantled in 1962 and put in storage at "Como" and covered with corrugated iron. Unfortunately over the next decade bits of the cottage components were used for other repairs and even for Moomba floats. In 1973 an attempt was made to assess what authentic material remained and the pitiful remains were placed in commercial storage. There was continual pressure within the Trust to re-erect the building, which in effect would have been a mock up of the original form. That only a minority of the original fabric remained had not convinced those arguing for a recreation of the building, but rather the lack of accurate information on the exact form of the missing material halted the project (Lewis, 1987:23-5). 3.2 Relocating objects from historic sites Collections within buildings are particularly at risk when the owner disposes of the house for relocation. Collections are often sold off then or.dispersed without any thought as to their significance in relation to the history of the building and its use. Outbuildings and garden structures as well as fencing and ephemeral fixtures such as signboards are also at risk without proper recording and assessment of their significance. Yet it is often the combination of place and its collections in context which give greater significance. Greenmount Homestead at Pioneer valley near Mackay is a good example where the descendants of the original land owner bequeathed the homestead, all its contents, business and family papers, plus a life tenancy for the domestic servant. This rich layered evidence provides the basis for a spectacular interpretation of one family’s impact on the pioneering life of the valley. Mining equipment and vernacular structures such as slab huts are prone to vandalism or theft on remote sites. Many collections of steam engines, stamper batteries and other equipment have been moved off site into new locations, such as in Georgetown next to the former assay office, and promoted as pioneer parks. However, out of their original setting and functional context they lose their significance and visitors need assistance to decipher the history of these objects and their former function in their original location. In addition, the remote site has had its significance lessened by removing prime evidence of its functions and operations and the new location is. confusing by the introduction of historically irrelevant evidence. This relocation of mining equipment is a major problem as groups and sponsors believe they are undertaking conservation action, but in reality they are destroying the historical and scientific significance and turning the evidence into something new -a social significance. This is also highlighted by the case of the railway steam locomotive which no longer runs on rails but is http ://www.maq.org.au!publications/resources/moving04.htm 8/26/02 3. RETAINING CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Page 3 of 7 relocated into a park where it assumes new functions as a monument, public art sculpture or play equipment. 3.3 Retaining existing significance Case studies (see those in Appendix 7.1) show how the saved historic building bears no relationship to its previous use, setting or location -but "it has been saved" according to those passionately behind its rescue and relocation. For example, the Atherton Post Office building was sold and had to be moved from its site; a generous local person donated land on the outskirts of town for the Historical Society to use in relocating the historic building which was developed as a small museum and tourist information centre, but it was re-erected inappropriately on land that was part of the original Chinatown -a significant feature of Chinatowns was their separation from the main European settlementwhich makes the recent intrusion of a European building particularly unfortunate. It is now realised that the new site had greater cultural significance as a historical archaeological place rather than regarding it as an empty or spare block of land. The siting and new use of the former post office bore no resemblance .to its former cultural significance as a place of communication other than that it acquired new functions of tourist information that have communications value. Jondaryan Woolshed has lost its context and historical setting because too many unrelated historic buildings have been collected and moved on to the site without the benefit of a master plan to illustrate the functional relationship of the original woolshed building to its pastoral setting. Some public buildings have been moved several times in response to population shifts and then returned to their original sites; the Port Douglas and Ravenswood Court Houses are examples. How much original fabric was lost might not be an indicator here of success, but rather the return to its original site and restitution of the relationship with the street and its town function might be better indicators of success in conserving cultural significance. The railway line at Tiaro was behind the main street and when the line closed, the railway station building was relocated into the town on the main road to serve as a bus stop and visitor information centre. A similar function of receiving/despatching passengers and providing information is continued. The former hospital at Cooktown was relocated to a site where it did not fit so the two wings were taken off and repositioned by joining together behind the main front hall. It would have been one of the few examples of a nineteenth century pavilion style hospital remaining. The group who purchased the building (Jehovah’s Witnesses) cannot afford to keep going and it is up for sale -putting it back on its original site (still vacant) and using it for staff accommodation is an option. 3.4 Retaining aesthetic value Given that aesthetic value relates to the landscape setting, orientation of the building, its form, scale, colour, texture and material of the fabric; the smells and sounds associated with the place and its use, and the emotional response to these attributes, it is very difficult to retain this value in relocating a building. The National Trust tried with the relocation of Bellevue at Coominya. The Trust looked for another site nearby -land with an historical association, convenient and logistically practical. The new site was a corner of the original property allowing the building to have the same orientation and view. But the original site was on alluvial land and all similar sites were also to be inundated. The new site had very different soil conditions and a different micro climate and although the garden layout was able to be reproduced, the same foliage growth was not. The previous character and aesthetic value arising from that was not able to be retained or http ://www.maq.org.au/publications/resources/moving04.htm 8/26/02 3. RETAINING CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Page 4 of 7 recreated (Walker, 1991:16). Conversely, retention of the surrounding verandahs and screening lattices has enabled the light effects to be replicated; the layout, and space around the house and outbuildings has been attractively recreated. The patination of interiors has been retained especially in the kitchen. Buildings moved into an historical village setting often are not relocated in the exact position they would have been in the previous historical street setting. Some of the buildings relocated to the Caboolture Historical Village were originally located in King Street but in their new setting they do not have the same arrangement along the street. Others have been elevated to different levels after their relocation so that they do not sit plumb in the landscape -the Sandgate Drill Hall on its 88 new concrete stumps in a Chermside park or the grand Fairymead House at Bundaberg gardens are good examples of this. There are many example of relocated buildings being repainted in different colours that bear no resemblance to the original -or worse still, oiled timbers that have now been painted, both destroying the original finish and now introducing a recurring maintenance cost. Fascias, decorative friezes, finials are often lost or damaged in the move and not replaced or are replaced with other pieces in a dissimilar pattern. 3.5 Retaining historic value A place may have historic value because it has influenced, or been influenced by, an historic figure, event, phase, period or activity. It may also have historic value as the site of an important event. For any given place the significance will be greater where evidence of the association or event survives in situ, or where the settings are intact, than where it has been changed or evidence does not survive. Moving a building will alter this significance because the evidence will not remain in situ. Lack of proper recording prior to the move leads to faked up results -"it would have looked like this because .... " But did it? Bert Hinkler’s house in Bundaberg had a verandah added to suit the local climatic conditions as the original English building components were drying and cracking in the harsher conditions. " A recent case is the relocation of the Sandgate Drill Hall (despite being listed on the Queensland Heritage register). This building was significant because it demonstrated the Armed Forces involvement with the community from the evolution of the volunteer militia in Queensland from the 1911 Defence Forces Act to the present day. The functional timber building was located in the civic precinct next to the grand Post Office and near the railway station for ease of access. This association with the site was an.important element in its history of drill training. It was also a building built in response to new arrangements for national defence following Federation, and ironically its move has been funded by monies to celebrate the centenary of Federation. It has now been moved to Seventh Brigade Park at Chermside to house the 9th Battalions War Memorial Museum Collection. It is now a stranded building i’n a park bearing no relationship to the civic precinct in which it was located to provide drill training for the male population. There is an armed forces link but it does not relate to the history and function of this building.’ http ://www.maq.org.au!publications/resources/moving04.htm 8/26/02 3. RETAINING CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Page 5 of 7 ce comp roof. (September, 1999) red http://www.maq.org.au!publications/resources/moving04.htm 8/26/02 3. RETAINING CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Page 6 of 7 stumps (February 2000) S Sandgate Drill Hall and another moved building on site in 7th Brigade Park, Chermside There are many similar examples where a building with a redundant function becomes a new museum building and loses its historical value: the following examples are from Caboolture Historical Village - a real estate agent’s office became a barber’s shop in the museum, a surveyor’s cottage became a CWA cottage, a church hall becomes an exhibition space for gems, bottles etc. 3.6 Retaining scientific value http://www.maq.org.au!publications/resources/moving04.htm 8/26/02 3. RETAINING CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Page 7 of 7 As the scientific or research value of a place depends upon the importance of the data involved: on its rarity, quality or representativeness, one could argue that such value may best be conserved by moving the rare building or structure with these values. However, the degree to which the place may contribute further substantial information about environmental, cultural, technological and historical processes could well be lost in the move. Industrial processing works are a good example -located close to either the transshipment point or the resources used .in the processing such as water supply, ore supplies etc. The Skansen folk village in Stockholm contained vernacular buildings specifically moved with contents, and people to interpret disappearing customs and dialects, as part of a movement to retain cultural and scientific values. 3.7 Retaining social value This embraces the qualities for which a place has become the focus of spiritual, political, national or other cultural sentiment to a group. It is a special meaning important to a community’s identity, perhaps through their use of the placeor association with it. Places which are associated with events that have had a great impact on a community often have high social value. Hence public buildings such as shire chambers, halls, churches, railway stations and post offices often exhibit this value. When a community lobbies to save the historic building it is often this social value of memory and meaning that is being expressed rather than the historic value. On its new site in an outdoor museum the re~dur~dant Shire Chambers acquires a social value -it is of benefit primarily to those who ’collected it’ for its new use as a museum artefact in their collection. Its historic value ceased when it lost its operating context. Conversely, some buildings such as churches, like St Laurence’s Church of England at Caboolture, retain their social value for the group who promote the continuing use of the church for weddings and special commemorations. Jane Lennon and Associates - April 2000 Previous Next Contents Print Version © 2001 Museums Australia Queensland. Site queries: mait@maq.org.au Ph: +61 7 3215 0840 Fax: +61 7 3215 0841 Last Modified: Thursday February 28 2002 Site hosting by m~eum MAQ is funded by Government A~s Queensland http://www.maq.org.au/publications/resources/moving04.htm 8/26/02 CEQA and Historical Resources Attachment J CEQA Resources TECHNICAL ADVICE SE:RtES State of California Pete Wilson, Governor Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-322-2318 Lee Grissom, Director, Office of Planning and Research Robert Cervantes, Chief Planning Unit Antero Rivasplata, Chief State Clearinghouse May 1996 The CEQA Technical Advice Series is intended to offer CEQA practitioners, particularly at the local level, concise information about some aspect of the California Environmental Quality Act. This series of occasional papers is part of OPR’s public education and training program for planners, developers, and others. A print version of this document can be ordered for $3.00 from the above address. Please make your check or money order payable to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Acknowledgment The author thanks Carol Roland of the State Office of Historic Preservation for substantial help in preparing this advisory paper. Her generous assistance contributed greatly to the quality of the following http ://ceres. ca. gov/topic/env_law/ceqa!more/tas/page 1 .html 6/17/02 CEQA and Historical Resources Page 2 of 2 document. Introduction When a proposed project may adversely affect a historical resource, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the Lead Agency to carefully consider the possible impacts before proceeding (Public Resources Code Sections 21084 and 21084.1). Revisions to the Act made in 1992, particularly Chapter 1075 of the Statutes of 1992, have highlighted the importance of evaluating possible impacts upon historic resources. This advisory paper discusses how CEQA applies to city and county decisions on proposed projects which may potentially impact or otherwise involve historic resources. CEQA exists to ensure that governmental decisionmakers consider the potential significant environmental effects of proposed projects before taking action. The Lead Agency is responsible for determining whether a significant adverse environmental impact may occur and whether it can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Where substantial evidence indicates that a significant adverse effect may occur, the lead decisionmaking agency is required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which discusses in detail the potential impact and feasible means of avoiding or reducing it. Where such an effect may be mitigated to a level of insignificance through changes in the project or other requirements, a mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared rather than an EIR. CEQA and Historical Resources is advisory only. Although it supplements the CEQA Guidelines (hereafter referred to as Guidelines) on this topic, it does not amend or replace the regulations represented by the Guidelines. All code references herein are to the Public Resources Code unless otherwise noted. Next: Background on Historical Resources Preservation Appendix 1: Excerpts from the Public Resources Code Appendix 2: Historical Resources Information Centers http ://ceres. ca. gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/more/tas/page 1 .html 6/17102 CEQA and Historical Resources Page 1 of 2 Appendix 1 Excerpts from the Public Resources Code Excerpts from Public Resources Code Section 5020.1: (h) "Historic district" means a definable unified geographic entity that possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. (i) Historical landmark" means any historical resource which is registered as a state historical landmark pursuant to Section 5021. (j) "Historical resource" includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. (k) "Local register of historic resources" means a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution. (q) "Substantial adverse change" means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired. Subdivision (g) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1: (g) A resource identified as significant in an historical resource survey may be listed in the California Register if the survey meets all of the following criteria: (1) The survey has been or will be included in the State Historic Resources Inventory. (2) The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance with office procedures and requirements. (3) The resource is evaluated and determined by the office [of Historic Preservation] to have a significance rating of Category 1 to 5 on DPR Form 523. http ://ceres.ca. gov/topic/env_law/ceqaJmore/tas/appen 1 .html 6/17/02 CEQA and Historical Resources Page 2 of 2 (4) if the survey is fi;ce or more years old at the time of its nomination for inclusion in the California Registry, the survey is updated to identify historical resources which have become eligible or ineligible due to changed circumstances or further documentation and those which have been .demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the significance of the resource. Public Resources Code Section 21098.1: A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. For purposes of this section, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subsection (k)~of Section 5020.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources, or not deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1 shall not preclude a lead agency from determining whether the resource may be an historical resource for purposes of this section. For more information, contact: State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-322-2318 http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/more/tas/appenl.html 6/17/02 Attachment K Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and M Attachment Prese a io Techrfical Preservation Services National Park Service Protecting Cultural Landscapes Planning, Treatment and Hanagement of Historic Landscapes Charles ,A, Birnbaurn, ASLA >>Developing a Strategy and Seeking Assistance >~Preservation Planning for Cultural Landscapes ~Developing a Historic Preservation Approach and Treatment Plan ~>Developing a Preservation Maintenance Plan and Implementation Strategy ~Recording Treatment Work and Future Research Recommendations >~Summary >~Selected Readinq Cultural landscapes can range from thousands of acres of rural tracts of land to a small homestead with a front yard of less than one acre. Like historic buildings and districts, these special places reveal aspects of our country’s origins and development through their form and features and the ways they were used. Cultural landscapes also reveal much about our evolving relationship withthe natural world. A cultural landscape is defined as "a geographic area,including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values." There are four general types of cultural landscapes, not mutually exclusive: historic sites, historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes. Patterns On the land have been preserved through the continuation of traditional uses, such as the grape fields at the Sterling Vineyards in Calistoga, California. Photo: NPS files. http ://www2. cr.nps, gov/tps/briefs/brief36.htm.8/27/02 Attachment M Option A (Existing Site) Option A (Existing Site) Attachment N Attachment 0 Option B (Former Yacht Club Site) Seen From the Sea Scout Base Option B (Former Yacht Club Site) Seen From the Sea Scout Base Highest Tide of the Year January 11, 2001 Attachment P Option B (Former Yacht Club Site--in Foreground) and Option A Locations At the Same Hour Attachment Q Option C (Parking Lot Site) Option C (Parking Lot Site) Attachment R Highest Tide of the Year January 11, 2001 Option C (Parking Lot) and Option A Locations At the Same Hour Excerpts ~Attachment S GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SEA SCOUT BASE RENOVATION PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: LUCIE STERN MARITIME CENTER 2069 HARVARD STREET PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94306 PREPARED BY: ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. 611 VETERANS BOULEVARD, SUITE 211 .REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 MARCH 2002 ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Letter of transmittal Title Page TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................r ................................................................1 Project Description ..................................................2 .............................................1 Scope of Work .......................................................................................................2 Limitations .............................................................................................................2 SITE EXPLORATION AND RECONNAISSANCE ....................................................3 Surface ...................................................................................................................3 Subsurface ...........................: .................................................................................3 Ground Water ........................................................................................................3 GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................................................................3 Seismicity ......: .......................................................................................................4 Table 1. Earthquake Magnitudes and Historical Earthquakes .....................4 1997 UBC Earthquake Design Parameters ............................................................5 Geologic Hazards ..................................................................................................5 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................6 FOUNDATIONS ...........................................................................................................7 Friction Piles ..........................................................................................................7 DRILLED PIERS ..................................................................................................9 Corrosion Protection ............................................................................................10 Flexible Utility Connections ...............................................................................10 EARTHWORK ......................................................................................................: .....10 Clearing & Subgrade Preparation ...........................................: ............................10 Material For Fill .......................................................... .........................................11 Trench Excavation Support in Bay Mud .............................................................11 Temporary Slopes and Excavations ........................................~ ...........................11 Compaction ..........................................................................................................11 Table 2. Compaction Specifications ..........................................................12 Surface Drainage .................................................................................................12 Landscaping Considerations ................................................................................12 Construction Observation and Testing ................................................................13 FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 - SITE PLAN FIGURE 3 - VERTICAL PILE & PIER CAPACITIES APPENDIX A - FIELD INVESTIGATION Cone Penetration Test Logs ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR SEA SCOUT BASE RENOVATION PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION We are pleased to present this geotechnieal investigation report for the planned renovation of the Sea Scout Base located at the Baylands in Palo Alto,. California, as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site, and to provide geotechnical design recommendations for the planned renovation. Proj ect Description We understand that the project will likely consist of replacing the existing foundation of the Sea Scout Base with either a driven pile or drilled pier foundation. The floor of the new building will be constructed of wood framing over a crawl space. Based on information we received from Ms. Beth Bunnenberg, the archives chair of the Palo Alto Historical Association, we understand that the existing foundation consists of 6-inch diameter by 20-feet long, steel pipe piles (Birge M. Clark, 1982). Reportedly, the piles were driven through soft Bay Mud to a depth of 20 feet where they encountered an approximately 4-feet thick "shell bank." It was understood that a considerable depth of more soft Bay Mud apparently underlay the shell bank. Since the use of the pile driver, the piles and construction labor were donated, we understand that the decision was made to support the relatively lightly loaded structure on the shell bank. The one- and two- story, wood frame building, which we understand was designed by architect Bire M. Clark in 1940 and constructed soon thereafter, has reportedly settled approximately 1 to 2 feet. Since portions of the building have been inundated by Bay water during high tide events, the project will also include elevating the structure. We understand that the building will either .remain at its current location with the new foundation being constructed beneath it, or the building will be moved to a new location immediately adjacent to its existing location after the new foundation is constructed. -~-:ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. Lucie Stern Maritime Center Sea Scout Base Renovation Page 2 of 13 Scope of Work The scope of work of this investigation was presented in detail in our agreement with you dated May 23, 2001. In order to accomplish this work we have performed the following services: Briefly reviewed the geologic and seismic conditions in the site vicinity and commented on the potential for geologic hazards to impact the site. Subsurface exploration including advancing and logging two cone penetration test probes at the site of the existing and alternative Sea Scout Base sites. Engineering analysis and evaluation of the subsurface data to develop geotechnical design criteria. Preparation of this report presenting our recommendations for the structure. Limitations This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Lucie Stern Maritime Center for specific application to developing geotechnical design criteria, for the currently planned renovation of the Sea Scout Base located at the Baylands in Palo Alto, California. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, except that our services were performed in accordance with geoteclmical engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location. The report was prepared to provide engineering opinions and recommendations only. In the event that there are any changes in the nature, design or location of the project, or if any future improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless 1) The project changes are reviewed by us, and 2) The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are modified or verified in writing. The analysis, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our investigation; the currently planned improvements; re~ziew of previous reports relevant to the site conditions; and laboratory results. In addition, it should be recognized that certain limitations are inherent in the evaluation of subsurface conditions, and that certain conditions may not be detected during an investigation of this type. Changes in the information or data gained from any of these sources could result .in changes in our conclusions or recommendations. If such changes do occur, we should be advised so that we can review our report in light of tho~e changes. ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. Lucie Stern Maritime Center Sea Scout Base Renovation Page 3 of 13 SITE EXPLORATION AND RECONNAISSANCE The site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration was performed on July 13, 2001, using a truck-mounted cone penetrometer, Two cone penetrometer probes were advanced to depths ranging from 65 to 87 feet. The ~pproximate location of the probes is presented on the Site .Plan, Figure 2. The cone penetration test data is attached in Appendix A. Surface At the time of our exploration, the existing Sea Scout Base facility was located on relatively flat ground adjacent to and just west .of Mayfield Slough, which is a tributary that flows into San Francisco Bay, just south of the site. The surface immediately north and south of the Sea Scout Base consisted of dirt parking areas. An asphaltic-concrete paved extension of Embarcadero Road passed adjacent to the west side of the facility. Subsurface Based on the logs of the cone penetrometer tests, the site is underlain by 5 to 7 feet of sandy clay fill, which is underlain to a depth of approximately 20 feetby soft compressible Bay Mud (silty clay). The Bay Mud is underlain by firm to very stiff clays and occasional interbeds of medium dense to dense sand to the maximum depth explored of 87 feet at CPT- 1 and 65 feet at CPT-2. Ground Water Free ground water was measured at a depth of approximately 6.5 feet during the exploration program. The CPT probe holes were back_filled with grout immediately following extraction of the probes. It is not clear if this was .a stabilized ground water level. Please be cautioned that fluctuations in the level of ground water can occur due to variations in rainfall, the tides, landscaping, and other factors. GEOLOGIC SETTING The site is located along the southwest margin of the San Francisco Bay. The information reviewed indicates that the site is located in an area underlain by Holocene aged intertidal deposits (peaty mud) (Wagner, Bortugno and McJunkin), 1991). The Younger Bay Mud is expected to be on the order of 10 to feet thick in the vicinity of the Sea Scout Base (CDMG, 1969). ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. Lucie Stern Maritime Center Sea Scout Base Renovation Page 4 of 13 Seismieity The San Francisco Bay Area is located in an active seismic area. The faults most likely to produce large earthquakes lQcally, include the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras Faults. The San Andreas Fault is located about 8.4 miles (13.5 kilometers) southwest of the site. The Hayward and Calaveras Faults are located approximately 8.6 and 14 miles northeast of the site, respectively. The estimated maximum magnitude of earthquakes along these faults, and selected historical earthquakes with an estimated magnitude greater than 6.0, are presented in Table 1 below. The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, an area where the potential for fault rupture is considered probable. Thus, the main hazard from earthquakes is expected to be related to the strong ground shaking that is produced. While the ability of engineers and seismologists to reliably predict earthquakes is still uncertain, it can be concluded from these studies that the site is likely to experience a large earthquake, and several moderate ones, within the next few decades, as is the rest of the Bay Area. Table 1. Earthquake Magnitudes and Historical Earthquakes Sea Scout Base Renovation Palo Alto, California Fault San Andreas Maximum Magnitude 8.3 Historical Earthquakes 1989 Loma Prieta 1906 1865 1838 1836 Estimated Magnitude 6.9 San Francisco 8.3 N. of 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake 6.5 San Francisco-Peninsula Segment 6.8 East of Monterey 6.5 Hayward 7.3 1868 Hayward 6.8 1858 Hayward 6.8 Ca~averas 7.3 1984 Morgan Hill 6.2 1911 Morgan Hill 6.2 1897 Gilroy 6.3 A panel of experts convened in 1999 by the U. S. Geological Survey, concluded that there is a 70 percent chance for at least one "large" earthquake of Magnitude 6.7 or larger in the Bay Area, before 2030. They also concluded that there could be more than one earthquake of this magnitude, and that numerous "moderate"-earthquakes of about magnitude 6 are probable during this timeframe. The San Andreas Fault has the second highest likelihood of a large earthquake in the Bay Area, estimated tohave a 21 percent chance of a Magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake while the Hayward Fault has the highest likelihood of rupture (32 percent) during the next 30 years (Working Group, 1999). ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. Lucie Stern Maritime Center Sea Scout Base Renovation Page 5 of 13 1997 UBC Earthquake Design Parameters The International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), has released the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), which contains major revisions to the seismic design approach presented in earlier versions of the UBC. The main geotechnical related revisions are that the structural design must consider near-source effects for active faults (Holocene age-displacements in the past 11,000 years) located within 15 kilometers of the site. This can result inhigher lateral earthquake forces than in the previous code for structures located close to active faults. The 1997 UBC seismic design philosophy was also clarified under Division IV - Earthquake Design, Section 1626 - General. It reads: "1626.1 Purpose. The purpose of the earthquake provisions herein is primarily to safeguard against major structural failures and loss of life, not to limit damage or maintain function." If the structure will be designed in accordance with the 1997 UBC, the following geotectmical related factors should be considered. The site is located within Seismic Zone 4; therefore a Seismic Zone Factor, Z, of 0.40 applies to the site. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site, Soil Profile Type, SE (Soft Soil Profile), applies to the site. The site is approximately 13.5 kilometers from the active San .Andreas Fault, Seismic Source Type A, .and approximately 10 kilometers from the active Monte Vista - Shannon Fault, Seismic Source Type B.~ Near-Source Factors Na, of 1.0 and Nv, of 1.1 will apply. Geologic Hazards We briefly reviewed the potential for geologic hazards to impact the site, considering the geologic setting, and the soils encountered during our investigation. The results of our review are presented below: Fault Rupture - The site is not located in an Alquist Priolo special studies area or zone where fault rupture is considered likely, Therefore, active faults are not believed to exist beneath the site, and the potential for fault rupture to occur at the site is considered low, in our opinion. Ground Shaking - The site is located in an active seismic, area. Moderate to large earthquakes are probable along se;ceral active faults in the greater Bay Area over a 30 to 50 year.design life. Strong ground shaking should therefore be expected several times during the. design life of the development, as is typical for sites throughout the Bay Aria. The improvements should be designed and constructed in accordance with current earthquake resistance standards. ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. Lucie Stern Maritime Center Sea Scout Base Renovation Page 6 of 13 Differential Compaction - Differential compaction occurs during moderate and large earthquakes when soft or loose, natural or fill soils are densified and settle, often unevenly across a site. The fill soils encountered at the location of our cone penetration tests were generally stiff to very stiff. The Younger Bay Mud encountered below the fill was generally soft to a depth of 20 feet, however. Therefore, the foundation for the Sea Scout Base should consist of driven .piles or drilled piers bearing in the stiffer soils encountered below a depth of 20 feet. Provided our recommendations are followed, in our opinion, the potential for differential compaction affecting the planned structure is low. It should be noted however, that exterior slabs or pavements not supported on the pile foundations would be susceptible to differential compaction damage following an earthquake and to continuing long term settlements of the Bay Mud. Liquefaction- Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated sandy soils lose strength and flow like a liquid during earthquake shaking. Ground settlement often accompanies liquefaction. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, loose, silty sands, and uniformly graded sands. Loose silty sands were not encountered in the cone penetrometer tests advanced at the site. Therefore, in our opinion, the likelihood of liquefaction occurring at the site is low. CONCLUSIONS In our opinion, from a geotechnical viewpoint, the site. is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations presented in our report are followed during design and construction. The primary geotechnical constraint at the site is the presence of approximately 15 feet of soft and highly compressible Bay Mud located just below the 5 to 7-foot thick surface fill. The Bay Mud is too weak to adequat’ely support the planned building loads on shallow foundations without additional damage from differential settlement. Therefore, in our opinion, the building should be supported either on driven precast prestressed reinforced concrete piles or drilled concrete piers gaining friction support within the stiffers0ils below a depth of approximately 20 feet. Some differential settlement is also expected to occur between any planned approach slabs and or wooden steps. In our opinion, appurtenant slabs and/or entrance stairs should be designed and constructed to accommodate the anticipated differential settlements. In addition, the design of utilities and surface drainage should incorporate the anticipated differential settlements. Ball joints and sleeve type couplings or, other flexible couplings, as appropriate, should be considered at the building connections and in utility areas where differential settlement is expected to occur. ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. Lucie Stern Maritime Center Sea Scout Base Renovation Page 7 of 13 The Bay Mud underlying the site is known to contain high concentrations of sulphates that can be detrimental to concrete pile or pier foundations and other underground structures. In order to reduce the corrosion potential for damage to concrete foundations, Type II cement with a low water-cement ratio has been used on nearby developments. Detailed recommendations, are presented in the following sections of this report. ¯Because subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the location of our trenches, and to observe that our recommendations are properly implemented, we recommend that we be retained to 1) Review the project plans for conformance with our report recommendations and 2) Observe and test the earthwork and foundation installation phases of construction. It should also be noted that at this time 0nly preliminary structural loading information is available. As the structural loads are established, it may be necessary for us to provide additional geotechnical criteria. FOUNDATIONS Friction Piles In our opinion, the Sea Scout building may be supported on driven, pre-cast pre-stressed reinforced concrete friction piles. However, we are also providing recommendations for drilled, cast-in-place reinforced concrete piers in the section entitled Drilled Piers. Figure 3 presents estimated allowable downward vertical capacities for 12- and 14-inch square concrete piles and 24-inch diameter drilled piers. The indlcated capacities are for dead plus live loads. Dead load capacities should not exceed two-thirds of the indicated capacities. The pile capacities shown in Figure 3 may be increased by one-third for all loads including wind and seismic. BeCause our investigation indicates there is no significantly thick or continuous dense sand .layer that would provide end-bearing support, pile support is .expected to come predominantly from frictional support in the stiff clays below the Bay Mud. Because of the settlement of the Bay Mud, negative skin friction or downdrag will act on the pile. Pile capacities shown on Figure 3 take into accountnegative skin friction as shown, amounting to 31 kips for 12-inch square piles and 36 kips for 14-inch square piles. Thus, a 12-inch square pile 40 feet long will have a gross capacity of 52 kips; 31 kips contributing to support of downdrag forces and 21 kips contributing to support of structural loads. Based on structural pile capacities of 52 and 60 kips, we estimate a pile length of 40 feet for each pile size. Thus, a pile length of 40 feet would have allowable dead plus live load capacities of 21 and 24 kips’, for 12- and 14-inch square piles, ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. Lucie Stern Maritime Center Sea Scout Base Renovation Page 8 of 13 respectively. We also recommend that piles extend at least 25 feet below the compressible Bay Mud. To effectively minimize pile group effects and reduction in individual pile capacity, piles should be located with a minimum center-to-center spacing of three times the pile width. Total settlements for the recommended pile foundations should not exceed ¾-inch and post construction differential settlement between adjacent columns founded on piles should be less than ½-inch over the 30-year period following Construction. Due to the small number of piles anticipated at the site and the relatively light structural loads, an indicator pile program doesnot appear feasible. If unexpected driving conditions occur during the initial pile driving, it would be possible to alter the pile spacing if lower capacities are indicated. Lateral resistance to wind or earthquake loadings will be developed by passive resistance against pile caps and grade beams and by bending in the piles. For pile caps and grade beams, a passive resistance of 300 pounds per square foot may be used. Lateral loads may also be resisted by passive earth pressure based upon an equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pounds per.cubic foot, acting on one and a half times the projected area of the pile. All piles should be driven under the continuous observation of our personnel. Piles should be driven without interruption until the driving and depth criteria are attained. Adjacent piles should not be driven in sequence, unless in a pile group, before moving to the next location. The piles should be driven to the required depth using a hammer selected by the contractor that is compatible with the piles and site conditions. Measures such as blocking should be used during driving to avoid overstressing the piles. Our office should review the pile hammer proposed by the contractor. Predrilling is not expected to be needed over the entire length of the pile, although it may be desirable to predrill through the upper fill soils to a depth of approximately 5 to 10 feet. During the initial pile driving, selected piles should be restruck one to two days following driving to measure the pile setup and to confirm that the piles have adequate capacity. ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. Lucie Stern Maritime Center Sea Scout Base Renovation Page 9 of 13 DRILLED PIERS If it appears economical, the structure may also be supported on drilled piers gaining support in the stiffer soils below a depth of 20 feet. We recommend that the piers be constructed with a minimum diameter of 24 inches. As with the design of friction piles, the drilled piers must also consider a downdrag affect from the continuing settlement of the soft Bay Mud above a depth of 20 feet. Figure 3 also presents estimated allowable downward vertical capacities for 24-inch diameter drilled piers. The indicated capacities are for dead plus live loads. Dead load capacities should not exceed two-thirds of the indicated capacities. The pile capacities shown in Figure 3 may be increased by one- third for all loads including wind and seismic. The 24-inch diameter pier capacity shown on Figure 3 takes into account negative skin friction as shown, amounting to 48 kips. Thus, a 24 inch cylindrical pier 42 feet long will have a gross capacity of 80 kips; 48 kips contributing to support of downdrag forces and 32 kips contributing to support of structural loads. Based on a structural pier capacity of 80 kips, we estimate a drilled pier length of 40 feet for a 24-inch diameter pier. Thus, a pier length of 40 feet would have an allowable dead plus live load capacity of 32 kips. In addition, drilled piers should have a center-to-center spacing of at least three pier diameters. Pier drilling operations should be observed by our representative, to establish that pier excavations are bearing in competent materials, extend the required depth into the expected materials, and that the pier excavations are properly cleaned. It is likely that ground water will be encountered during pier drilling operations. The ground.water could cause some sloughing, or caving conditions below a depth of about 5 feet. Due to the potential for sloughing and or squeezing of the soft Bay Mud and stiffer clays and occasional sand lenses below a depth of 20 feet, casing of pier shafts or drilling with drilling fluid will likely be required during drilling. It is imperative that pier excavations be poured the same day they are drilled and under the observation of the geotechnical engineer. If cavingoccurs, the holes should be stabilized with casing or controlled slurry. If there is water or slurry in the pier holes at the time of concrete placement, the tremie method should be used. ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. Lucie Stern Maritime Center Sea Scout Base Renovation Page 10 of 13 Lateral resistance to wind or earthquake loadings will be developed by passive resistance against pier caps and grade beams and by bending in the piers. For pier caps and grade beams, a passive resistance of 300 pounds per square foot may be used. Lateral loads may also be resisted by passive earth pressure based upon an equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pounds per cubic foot, acting on one and a half times the pier diameter. Thirty-year differential movement due to static loads is not expected to exceed approximately 1/2-inch across the structure supported on pier foundations. Corrosion Protection A potentially high sulphates content could cause corrosion of the reinforcing strands used in piles and reinforcing steel in underground structures..Typically, if high sulphates contents are present, protection from corrosion can be achieved by utilizing admixtures in the concrete at the time of casting. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table no. 19-A- 4, provides requirements for concrete exposed to sulfate-containing solutions. In our .experience, sulfate levels in the Bay Mud are typically in the range of 1,000 to 1,500 parts per million (ppm). Therefore, based on the UBC Table 19-A-4~ sulfate exposure for Bay Mud may be considered Moderate. Consequently, for all concrete piles and!or piers and any other concrete structures placed within the Bay Mud or overlying fill, Type II cement with a maximum water-cement ration of 0.50 (by weight) should be used. Flexible Utility Connections Due to the large total and differential settlements expected, consideration of the settlement will also be required for design of utilities and surface drainage. Ball joints and sleeve type couplings or other flexible couplings, as appropriate, should be considered between piping and the building~ and in utility areas in which differential . settlement are expected to occur. EARTHWORK Clearin &g_~_~u__b_gS ub rad e Preparation All deleterious materials, including concrete, topsoil, roots, vegetation, designated utility lines, etc., should be cleared from the area which will be reworked or receive structural fill. The actual stripping depth required will depend on site usage prior to construction, and should be established by us at the time of construction. Excavations that extend below finish grade should be backfilled with structural fill, as described below. ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. Lucie Stern Maritime Center Sea Scout Base Renovation Page 11 of 13 After the site has been properly cleared, stripped, and excavated to the required grades, the exposed surface soil in areas to receive structural fill, should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moistm:e conditioned, and compacted to the specifications for structural fill, listed below under section captioned "compaction." Material For Fill Bay Mud removed from trenches and excavations may be used for fill or back_fill provided it is placed at least 2 feet below finish grade. Bay Mud may not be a suitable source for landscaping soil due to its marine origin and high sulfate content. In general, all on-site fill soil containing less than 3 percent organic material by volume (ASTM D2974) is suitable for use as structural fill. However, structural fill placed at the site, should not contain rocks or pieces larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension, and contain no more than 15 percent larger than 2.5 inches. Imported fill should have a plasticity index of less than 15 percent or be predominately granular. Our representative should approve import materials prior to their use on-site. Trench Excavation Support in Bay Mud Support of the walls of trenches mad in Bay Mud may be accomplished using sheet piles or an equivalent method. This choice should be left to the contractor’s judgment, since economic considerations and/or the individual contractor’s construction experience may determine which method is more appropriate. Support of adjacent existing roadways without distress should also be the contractor’s responsibility.. We recommend that the contractor forward his plan for the above support systems, if required, to the structural engineer and geotechnical engineer for.review prior to construction. Temporary Slopes and Excavations The contractor should be responsible for the design and construction of all temporary slopes and any required shoring. Shoring and bracing should be provided in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Compaction The scarified surface soils and all structural fill should be compacted in uniform lifts, no thicker than 8-inches in uncompacted thickness, conditioned to the appropriate moisture content, and compacted to the specifications for structural fill, listed in Table 2 below. The relative compaction and moisture content specified in Table 2 is relative to ASTM D .1557, latest edition. ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. Lucie Stern Maritime Center Sea Scou[ Base Renovation Page 12 of 13 Table 2. Compaction Specifications Sea Scout Base Renovation Palo Alto, California General ¯Scarified subgrade in areas to receive structural fill. Relative Compaction* 90 percent Moisture Content* 2 to 3 percent above optimum General structural fill.90 percent 2 to 3 percent above optimum Utility trenches On-site soils - upper 3 feet. On-site soils - below 3 feet. 90 percent 85 percent 2 to 3 percent above optimum ¯Imported sand - upper 3 feet.95 percent Imported sand - below 3 feet.90 percent ¯ Relative to ASTM D 1557, latest edition. At optimum Surface Drainage The finish grades should be designed to drain surface water away from foundation and slab areas, to suitable discharge points. Slopes of at least 2 percent are recommended. P0nding of water should not be allowed near the structure. Thefinished grade adjacent to the structure should also be graded to drain water away from the foundations and any exterior slabs. A minimum, slope of 2 percent is recommended within 5 feet of the structures. The drainage facilities should be observed to verify that they are adequate and that no adjustments need to be made, especially during first two years following construction. Landscaping Considerations Landscaping fill berms may adversely affect the development by contributing to differential settlements adjacent to structures and pavements. Because of the relatively large total and differential settlements anticipated at the site due to continued settlement of the native Bay Mud overlain with the existing 3 to 5 feet of fill, we recommend that landscaping plans be reviewed by us to limit adverse affects on the planned development. ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. Lucie Stern Maritime Center Sea Scout Base Renovation Page 13 of 13 Construction Observation and Testing The earthwork and foundation phases of construction should be observed and tested by us to 1) Establish that subsurface conditions are compatible with those used in the analysis and design; 2) Observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations; and 3) Allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated. The recommendations in this report are based on a limited number of borings. The nature and extent of variation across the site may not become evident until construction. If variations are then exposed, it will be necessary to reevaluate our recommendations. ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. CPT1 PCX.ES W/ | ~LATFC~M ’ I DUCK POND CPT2 ~ POTENTIAL AREA OF RELOCATION PARKING AREA PARCEL 2 F’l’. 17 S6 o. a~ AC~ES SAN FRANCISCO BAY Approxim ate Location of Cone Penetration.Test. Appi:0ximatd-Scale: I inch = 40 Feet. Base is site plan provided by’JayRemle¥, Surveyor, dated October 1988. SITE PLAN SEA SCOUT BASE PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 2 MARCH 2002 ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION AND SUMMARY OF CONE PENETRATION TESTS ¯ The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program using truck-mounted cone penetration tests to explore the subsurface soils. A total of two CPT soundings were advanced on July 13,. 2002 to a maximum depth of 87 feet. The approximate locations of the CPTs are shown on. the Site Plan, Figure 2. The logs of the CPTs are included as part of this appendix. The location of the CPTs was established by pacing, using the site plan provided to us. The location should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. The CPT logs and related information depict our interpretation of subsurface conditions only at the specific location and time indicated. Subsurface conditions and ground water levels at other locations may differ from conditions at the locations where sampling was conducted. The passage of time may also result in changes in the subsurface conditions. ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. REFERENCES Goldman, Harold B., Editor, 1969, Geologic and Engineering Aspects of San Francisco Bas~ Fill, Prepared for San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, by California Division of Mines and Geology. Special Report 97 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG), 1982, Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Map, Palo Alto Ouadrang~. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG), 1994, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42. California Division of Mines and Geology, July 1,1974, State of California Special Studies Zones Maps~ Palo Alto 7.5’ Quadrangle. International Conference of Building Officials, April, 1997, 1997 Uniform Building Code, Volume 2 Structural Engineering Design Provisions. International Conference of Building Officials, February, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and ~diacent Portions of Nevada, (To be used with 1997 Uniform Building Code) Schwartz, D.P., 1994, New Knowledge of Northern California Earthquake Potentia!, in Proceedings of Seminar on New Developments in Earthquake Ground Motion Estimation and Implications for Engineering Design Practice, Applied Technology Council. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1999, Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2000 to 2030, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1189. ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. F MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26 Wednesday, August 7, 2002 REGULAR MEETING- 8." O0 AM City Council Chambers Civic Center, First Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ROLL CALL: Board members: Martin Bernstein, Chair Beth Bunnenberg, Vice-Chair Roger Kohler Michael Makinen Carol Murden Mildred Mario - absent Susan Haviland City Council Liaison: Jim Burch Staff." Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager Dennis Backlund, Historic Preservation Planner Diana Tamale, Staff Secretary PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows." Announce agenda item Open public hearing Staff recommendation Applicant presentation - Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board. Historic Resources Board questions of the applicant/staff Public comment-.Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3) minutes depending on large number of speakers per item. Applicant closing comments- Three (3) minutes Close public hearing Motions/recommendations by the Board Final vote ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. None. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Page l of 27 UNFINISHED BUSINESS. 2560 Embarcadero Road: Board comments under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation regarding location options for the Sea Scout Base, a Category 1 building on the City’s Historic Inventory. Chair Bernstein: Does staff have a presentation for us? Mr. Backlund: Yes. Thank you, Chair Bernstein. 2560 Embarcadero Road, the Sea Scout building is an area that has changed geographically, and because of that, there have been some proposals that the building would be moved, and there have been different people and City divisions proposing different options, and, therefore, one of the purposes of this meeting is to bring alI these suggestions and all this dialogue that has been occurring for many months all together under the banner of the Secretary’s Standards. The area is subject to a Baylands Master Plan that was first approved in 1978. There have been some updates in the 1980s, but since then a critical event has occurred that affects this building and the area which we emphasized in the staff report [changes to CEQA in 1992--see next paragraph]. One thing I will say about the staff report, since several in the public have the full version that you do, the staff report is not going to be summarized in entirety by myself by any means. The reason that that material is there is to clarify issues not only for the HRB, but for other decision makers that this item will be going to, and you will have seen in the timeline that on September 10 the item is scheduled to go to Council Policy and Services Committee, and eventually this would go on for Council consideration. Also there are many agencies involved in decision making on this building--agencies outside of the City--but there are also several departments and divisions within the City, some of whose representatives are here this morning, and so we tried to provide kind of a library of reference materials, circulating around the question of what has changed in environmental law since the Baylands Plan, and what now would be meeting the Secretary’s Standards, because the changes in environmental law would trigger review under the Secretary’s Standards, under CEQA if a discretionary project was involved, and when multiple agencies are involved in any decision making on this building, probably every project and repair and whatever would be. considered discretionary. But if so, then there would be an environmental concern, and what has changed that we spend so much time documenting--what has changed in environmental law is that it was clarified in detail in 1992 that historic and cultural resources are part of the environment covered by the Environmental Quality Act, and we appended, in one of the attachments, some pages from CEQA that make the general conclusion that now an adverse impact on a historic resource may be an impact on the environment, and therefore the project would be subject to review environmentally to make determinations if there would be an adverse impact. That situation in the environmental law becomes involved with relocating the building, and that’s where a number of other attachments come in--from all over the world--presenting standards of various cities and countries by which buildings can be moved and keep their historic integrity. We emphasized the National Register’s information on the subject, because that is the haven of the national standards that the City uses. So we determined that when the building is moved, there would be three main criteria that examine whether the historic integrity of the building would be lost in a move, and they are the criteria of location, where any change from the original location may be an adverse impact. It may not be. You have to examine the situation under location. Page 2 of 27 And then there is ~ which goes a little further afield into the environment around the building, and then there is association, which is also involved with location, because if you alter the location past a certain degree, then the association with events and persons becomes greatly weakened, and in considering the.three options in front of you, we presented those under these three headings, and examined Option A, which inadvertently was referred to as Option 1 on your maps. There’s Options A, B and C in the staff report, and they are 1, 2 and 3 on our map to show you where those are, but those just correspond to the first three letters of the alphabet, so I think it is clear. We examined each option, A, B and C, separately under these three criteria and attempted to make determinations, and, as you will recall, the conclusion that we reached is that Option A would be the preferred version if that is feasible. The Secretary’s Standards has the language in their introduction that "the Standards are to be applied in a reasonable manner, taking into account technical and economic feasibil!ty." So those factors are still to be determined through structural reports and further studies on the building prior to a project and studies of the site area, too. We did provide the geotechnical report, or soils studies, it might be called, done by a private organization, the Lucie Stem Maritime Center, and that was included because it was at the request of the Vice-Chair of the Board that that information be made available, and that reaches the conclusions from a geotechnical point of view that Options A and B both appear to meet the Secretary’s Standards and are feasible from that point of view. There are other factors of feasibility that are still to be determined; for instance, a full structural report on the building. So in our conclusion, we determined that Option Ameets the Secretary’s Standards because it is all original, and that is why it is preferred, of course, and Option B, which is to locate it about .80 to 100 feet to the north on the site of the Yacht Club building that was demolished back in the ’80s, appears to us to meet the Secretary’s Standards because the building remains related to the historic harbor edge. It’s essentially the same setting, but not the exact spot. The advantage that you could see in the photographs is that the ground rises as you go to the Yacht Club site, and it’s about two feet higher, and it makes a lot of difference in flooding as you could see in all the photographs that we’ve provided that were provided to staff by Beth Bunnenberg, the Vice- Chair, taken at high tide, and so that is a much drier site at the Yacht Club, and would also meet the Secretary’s Standards, but under the Standards it is recommended that you consider the best option under various feasibility factors first, and then you do your backup option if that proves to be necessary, and we do have a backup option in Option B. We also examined Option C, which was to locate the building several hundred feet to the northeast in a parking lot area, and we provided a photograph there at high tide, and there was a photograph that accompanied it on the same page. That’s the Sea Scout building’s current site all on the same day of the highest tide of the year, and the Sea Scout building is inundated, and the parking lot is still completely dry. That was one of the reasons that the real estate division proposed that, because it would solve flooding problem pretty thoroughly. There were a number of other technical advantages to that site that we detailed in the staff report: the ease of obtaining permits, and the creation of shared parking for a whole group of buildings that is down there, rather than splitting up the parking to different parts of the old bay front area. After staff considered all those technical advantages, we were left with the factor that is the major one here under environmental law as it-currently stands, and that is that the building is a Page 3 historic resource, so we must examine Option C under historic standards, in addition to the technical advantages. We found that the location which is out of sight of the original location is very, very different in character. The fact that it is separated from the bay front by Embarcadero Road and isolated into a more landed area, we saw as a significant change when one is dealing with a building whose eligibility for the National Register is based off its nautical associations. So we concluded that Option C did not appear to meet the Secretary’s Standards because of the loss to a significant level of location and setting and association. Then one final factor - We’ve been talking up tonow of the building itself and its integrity. A more recent environmental category has arisen, and that is the category of cultural landscapes. We gave the definition that is accepted nationally for cultural landscapes: that it includes listed natural features and wild life and plants--all of those things that this Baylands location possesses and had documented--but the cultural landscape also possesses historic and cultural buildings and features, and when that is the case, the landscape itself derives a meaning from the historic buildings that are within it, and we are dealing with a cultural landscape at the Baylands, and we believe that the Baylands Plan needs to be looked at under these more recent realities under environmental law of cultural landscapes. We propose that you, or anyone, take the photograph of Attachment K that shows the cultural landscape with the Sea Scout building in the middle of it and simply cover the image of that building and one sees immediately that the meaning of that landscape changes. When the building is there, one asks, "What has happened there? Why is that there?" I have had people ask me who have seen it for the first time. The presence of the building triggers historical questions about the past of that area. Finally, within the cultural landscape the Sea Scout building is the last strong recollection of the history of the Palo Alto harbor, and it is there near the water as you see in the photograph. When the tides are a little higher, it becomes a waterfront building again. Certainly any project at the building will have to be closely reviewed under principles of the Baylands Master Plan. That is a given, but the fact that the Sea Scout building is embedded in a cultural landscape now seems very clear and becomes part of the decision making on location options. Thank you very much. Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Dennis, for a thorough and well-researched report. We will be getting to HRB questions of the applicants and staff, but next in our process is the applicant presentation, so ten minutes for the discretion of the Board. The applicant, I’m assuming, might be represented from the City of Palo Alto? Mr. Backlund: I think we could term possible speakers as from departments that are owners of that area. It’s a City-owned property, and they may wish to make a presentation. We do not have an application leading to a permit at this time. Chair Bernstein: I’ve got five cards from members of the public who’d like to speak, and I do see that two of them are representatives of the City of Palo Alto. Let me just ask, because that’s on our procedure here, if the applicant or representative of the City would like to speak first. If not, you will be asked to speak. I’m not seeing any preference. We’ll go.with speaker number one, and that is Rocky Trujillo. If you’d like to come up and present. Thank you. Rocky Trujillo: Good morning. Rocky Trujillo. I live at 848 Via Poudre in San Lorenzo. Page 4 of 27 You have a copy of my presentation in your file here. Chair Bemstein: Excuse me, Rocky. I think for recording we’ll need to hear your voice. The mike picks up real well. You just need to be a little closer. Rocky Trujillo: Okay. My name is Rocky Trujillo. I live at 848 Via Poudre, San Lorenzo. You have a copy of my presentation and material handed out by Mr. Backlund. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Historic Resources Board, my name is Rocky Tmjillo. I’m here to represent the Lucie Stem Maritime Center. Our interest concerns the relocation of the Sea Scout building from its presentation location to another site. I am the project manager of the Maritime Center for the restoration of the Sea Scout building. I’m also the single-point contact betweenthe City of Palo Alto real estate manager, Bill Fellman, and the Maritime Center. In this position, I’m involved .in all aspects of this project. I would like at this time to present the Maritime Center’s analysis and recommendation. Building concerns: the Sea Scout building has been at its present site for 60 years. Over the years, the building has sunk approximately 30 inches. The sinking of the building has occurred in part because of the original pilings being anchored in the shale mound layer at a depth of 20 feet. Soft bay mud under the shale mound, along with the collapse of the sea wall in early 1970, has also contributed to the sinking of the building and its foundation. ’Winter rain drains directly to the building’s foundation from the road and surrounding landscape. Parts of the building flood at extreme mean high tide three to four times a year as a result of the existing conditions. Conclusion: Positive action has to be forthcoming or deterioration will continue. These conditions will cause the building’s foundation and lower form to deteriorate to a point that the building’s survival will be in jeopardy in the future. Proposal: The Maritime Center has proposed to the City that the building be raised and a new foundation be constructed as part of the building as part of the building restoration. Options: Options 1 and 2 vcere proposed by the Maritime Center.- The City staff proposed 3. Option 1 is raise the building and install a new foundation on the original location; 2, move the building, install new foundations at the site of the old Palo Alt0 Yacht Club; 3, raise and move the building, install new foundations at the parking lot between the Adobe Building and the Interpretive Center. This proposal was proposed in previous Staff Report for the Baylands Master Plan, dated 1988. All options were considered by the Maritime Museum based on the following criteria: 1, documentation of the historic designation of the building; ongoing efforts to have the building added to the National Historic Register; application for funding, positive or negative impact by the designation of the National Register; site location impact upon the Nation Registration designation; geotechnical reports, i.e., soil reports; building moving; building foundation; required mitigation; utilities; permits. Of the three options, the Maritime Center favors the Yacht Club site’. This choice took into account maintaining the historic nature and use of the building, building location based on past history, original design and restoration. Page 5 Below that, we listed some of the reasons that we took into Consideration. One was qualifying the building for National Historic registering. This is required for long-term preservation. Applying for funds from the state of California Proposition 40 and the National Trust, both of which require the National Historic Registry. Impact on the historic registry of the building by moving it from the original site. This is critical. Geotechnical soil report for piling foundations .supplied to the City for the original site and Yacht Club site for the Lucie Stem Maritime Center. We needed to do this to find out what was down there, We had no idea what was down there originally other than was took place on the original architect where he mentioned the shale mound at 20 feet, plus possible contamination. Also, projected cost of another geotechnical report for the parking. I saw that the City does not have one. We estimated that cost at $12,000. Building cost moving: Cost estimate for moving the building one time. The Yacht Club site, $30,000. Cost estimate for moving the building twice, once off the original site and back again, $50,000. Cost estimate for moving the building 900 feet to a parking lot location, $70,000. Foundation cost to be determined based on final site for location. For planning purposes, we figured $60,000. Structural engineering report. That has to be site specific, depending on the site finally chosen, so that’s up in the air. Piling removal, if it’s required at the original site. Also to be determined under mitigation, and additional geotechnical reports on the parking lot site. Required mitigation. Costs are unknown, based on the final location. Removal of the sea wall, mad repair after moving the building to a parking lot site, if there’s damage to the road. Landscaping at the original site due to the removal of plants and the Bay-side access to the road to allow the building to be raised. Landscaping on the Bay side of the access .road to the parking lot, which means all vegetation would have to be moved on the Bay side for about 900 feet to move the building all the way down. Removing of the utilities at the original site, if not used for the Yacht Club site. Utilities, costs ¯ are unknown at this ,time, because we don’t have the place. In site or new utilities at the parking lot site, or reusing the ones at the Yacht Club site. Permits. Permits are up in the air. The original BCDC permit would have to be amended by the City of Palo Alto, since they are the owners of it, the Master Bay Plan would have to be amended, and all this would have to be in place prior to any City building permits or that process starting. Summary: The Lucie Stem Maritime Center endorses moving the Sea Scout building to the site of the old Palo Alto Yacht Club. This offers the best solution for preservation and restoration of the building, total elimination of the on-going flooding problems, while simplifying foundation construction, preventing damage to the building by moving the building only once for a short distance. Construction and restoration costs would be decreased as well. The permit process could then begin with the many agencies that need to give their approval for this project to Page 6 of 27 proceed. The Lucie Stern Maritime Center could then move forward with more planning and fund raising. If the site chosen by the City is other than the Palo Alto Yacht Club, the Maritime Center would use its expertise and resources to facilitate that restoration of that building site. In closing, I’d like to say that the goal of the Lucie Stern Maritime Center is, as it has always been, to restore the Lucie Stem Sea Scout building and to preserve for the citizens of Palo Alto a building that reflects their commitment to the historical past, as well as their future needs as a community. I had the clerk pass out to you a copy of our by-laws so you can have some basic information. Another item is that we have been given the okay by the City at this time to have a environmental analysis done of the building for lead paint, asbestos and the rest of that, and we’re proceeding on the contract right now. Since the historical designation has been given by the City, we’ve been able to move forward off the dime, so to speak, since now we have a direction that wasn’t available beforehand. Our progress has been considerable. We have presented preliminary drawings to Bill Fellman of proposed foundation repairs, drawings and such, but they where preliminary and just to give a basic understanding. They will follow with better drawings when we get final site approval. Without that, we have no place to go. Thank you very much. Chair Bemstein: Rocky, Board Member Carol Murden would like to ask you something. Board Member Murden: I just wondered2 You mentioned that there would be--the vegetation would have to be removed for 900 feet along the Bay side of the building. Was that in all three options or one particular one? Rocky Trujillo: Only in the option of taking the building down to the parking lot site between the Adobe building and the Interpretive Center. Board Member Murden: Option C. Rocky Tmjillo: There would be some vegetation removal. As you can see in the picture here, you have a large vegetation mass at the head of the building. In order to get underneath the building by the building movers, they would have to remove that to get inside on the shore side to bring their steel beams and such underneath the building. Then again, that would be part of the mitigation afterwards, replacing [inaudible] and such, depending on the site. Board Member Bunnenberg: Now, let’s see. When you said that y0u~d need to remove some of the vegetation mass, were you talking about the trees that are there between the building and the roadway, or were you talking vegetation just to the sides? Rocky Tmjillo: We’re talking one of the trees to allow us access to get underneath the fireplace end of the building. That area is cement and requires a. different method of access than coming in with the beams from the side; where we would come into the parking lot side. Board Member Bunnenberg: And those trees were planted by the City? Page 7 Rocky Trujillo: Yes. Those were not original trees. They were planted as part of their road restoration on there, and they have grown to a point now, they obstruct the view and the design of the building itself. It would be our intent with the mitigation to provide foliage that would enhance the building and allow vegetation to take root and control erosion. Chair Bemstein: Rocky, thank you very much. I appreciate it. The next speaker we have is Pria Graves. Pria Graves: Good morning. I’m Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street. First I want to thank Dennis for the extremely thorough nature of his report. I think it’s just a phenomenal job of distilling down a lot of language that can be very tedious in the National Register and guideline documents and making a succinct summary of it for us. I was particularly personally touched by the Web pages that he reproduced from the site in Queensland, Australia. When it referenced the moving of the post office in Atherton Queensland, it struck a real cord. My mother was born in Atherton. It’s a tiny town in the north part of Queensland, and I’ve never seen a reference to it anywhere before. I think there were a few hundred people there at the time she was born there. She’s never been back. The family moved away when she was six months old, so I don’t think she remembers the post office, but it still was interesting to encounter. I’m particularly pleased the Dennis mentioned the cultural landscape aspects of this project. Cultural landscapes are something that have kind of come to the fore in the preservation view of the world in the last few years. If you look at the CPF conference this last spring in Santa Rosa, one entire track was devoted the concept of cultural landscape. The key note speaker was Charles Birnbaum, who produced document 36 that Dennis reproduced the first page of for you, ¯ the preservation brief, and so, obviously, this is where preservation is looking at this time. We started with buildings that were big and grand and national important figures associated with them, and then we’ve realized that locally important figures and locally important buildings are worth saving, and now we’re beginning to reach out and say that cultural landscapes help provide the setting for these buildings. I want to elaborate a little bit beyond the piece that Dennis gave you. Within the concept of cultural landscapes there are four different categories. There is a historic designed landscape. There is a historic vernacular landscape, a historic site and an ettmographic landscape. Now I think this qualifies as a historic site, clearly, since there are a number of events associated With it, but one of the things that I believe this site qualifies for that is very unusual in Palo Alto is the historic vernacular landscape. It is a landscape that evolved through use by people whose activities or occupancy shaped that landscape. The definition goes on to say that the landscape reflects the physical, biological and cultural character of those everyday lives. Function plays a significant role in vernacular landscapes. Now most of Palo Alto has been designed or redesigned in some fashion over the years, and I don’t think that We have very many pieces of culturally or vernacularly evolved landscape left, and so I think that this is more important than it might be than if it were simply a designed garden. Within preservation, our role is to preserve the best of things that we have lots of, and the few remaining examples of those things that We don’t have much of, and so I think that the setting of this building and its presence as the entrance to the Baylands - the middle photograph Page 8 of 27 over there is extremely poignant, and I think talks to the fact that this is a landscape that has had human touch for a long time. I think it’s very important to protect that. So I would strongly urge you to endorse the staff recommendation. Site A, the existing location, I believe, is the preferred location, because it does guarantee us that we preserve both setting and location and the connection to historic events. There is some degradation of--except setting, in the case if we move it next door. That would be the second best choice, but I strongly discourage endorsement of Option C. Thank you so much. Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Pria. Next we have Emily Renzel. Emily Renzel: Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, and I concur with Pria’s remarks endorsing Option A first and B second and discouraging Option C. As a little bit of history, I haven’t heard the staffs reasons for even proposing this Option C, but apparently it has to do with permitting complexities and obviously the groundwater issues, geologic issues, but certainly that parking lot between the Interpretive Center and the Harbor Master is also Bay fill. The County, when it was operating the Yacht Harbor, looked everywhere to get rid of dredge spoils, and that huge parking lot between the Harbor Master’s Adobe and Baylands Interpretive Center was one such location and the Sand Point parking lot was another where they just dumped spoils as much as they could, and so I doubt we’re going to find anything geologically superior about that parking lot site. But for other reasons, I think it’s inappropriate to move it there. I Concur completely with all of the historical analysis. As far as the Baylands Master Plan, and a little more history there, the original Baylands Master Plan was a result of a mandate by BCDC to come up with a strategy for long-term disposal of dredge spoils. They would not issue a permit for continuing to dredge unless the City could show where they were going to put the spoils for the term of the lease of the Yacht Harbor, which at that time was 40 years. So the main thrust of that Baylands Master Plan, and the main concentration of effort was on that disposal of dredge spoils issue, and they came up with dewatering ponds on the ITT property and all kinds of manipulation and then.using it for cover on the dump, and so forth. There was a long emphasis there. I was on the Planning Commission at the time that that plan was initiated, andon the Council subsequently, and we did inject some other policies regarding the Baylands, including that it was to be a nature area, an open space area, a high priority for wild life and protection of endangered species, and then there were some policies with respect to trying to restore the Baylands to more of its historic, natural character. We had no second runway, no second lift on the dump. We had a lot of different policies that got in there, but at the time that was adopted, the Sea Scout building and Yacht Club building were both in existence, and there was reference in the plan to removal of the buildings; however, the Sea Scouts had a lease on the building, and it was contemplated by them arid by the City that they would move it to where ever they went when the Harbor closed. That was how the sequence of the decision-making went, and so there was always in people’s minds the idea that the building would be preserved, no! for its historic character, but because the Sea Scouts wanted to continue to have it, and that it would perhaps be moved to Redwood City or someplace else. Page 9 Since then, the building in 1991 became eligible for historic designation. Up to that point, it was not eligible, and so there was no historic handle for protecting it as a historic resource. We now not only have the handle, but we’ve, in fact, thanks to you, designated it as a historic building, so it changes the whole picture. The Baylands Master Plan has been amended many times by Council action. It’s been unclear what the legal status of that plan was in terms of whether’at one point a summary of it was in the comprehensive plan, then it isn’t in this one, but at one point, public works was in charge of amending the plan, and they weren’t amending it, but they were going to summarize changes that had occurred by Council action during the year and then put it into this summary of the plan, so there’s been--from all I can tell, there’s been no action on "amending" the plan since 1988. There’s been a large ignoring o2 the plan in terms of what goes on. But my real, significant point is that it can be amended. It was been amended, and it would not be difficult to amend it. BCDC, as far as I can tell from my correspondence with them, would not have any objection to maintaining this building in its general location, which I would think includes the Yacht Club site. The only caveat might be that they might require additional public access improvements. That might mean a picnic table or who knows what. Because it’s a small site and a relatively small project, they can’t require a huge public access. It has to relate to the project itself, so that’s another issue there. I had one other point I was going to make. I think whoever ends up restoring this building is probably going to want to have access after hours and there is a gate to the Baylands that is closed after dusk, and currently there is a small parking lot outside of the gate from which there is a path to the Sea Scout building, which makes that a feasible option to use the building at night, without being locked inside the gate. So moving it to the far site would preclude nighttime use of the building, and I think that would be very deleterious to any group wishing to preserve the building. Thank you very much. Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Emily. We have one question from a Board Member. Board Member Murden: Actually, it’s not a question. It’s a request to staff, and I don’t know whether this is the appropriate time to make it, but I would like Emily’s comments on the history of that site to go forward with any information on the Sea Scout building as it goes forward to other boards and commissions. I found it very helpful. Chair Bernstein: Susan, you have a question? Board Member Haviland: I just wanted to ask Emily while she’s still up here and seems to be so knowledgeable about the Baylands Master Plan, if there is anything in the Master Plan that sort of refers to historic properties in a general way. I mean the adobe building was always a part of that site, so it seems to me that there might well have been something in the Master Plan that dealt with historic resources. Emily Renzel: I don’t believe that there was, simply because at the time the Master Plan was developed, only the Harbor Master’s Adobe was eligible for historic listing, and it may have been--I think there probably was a policy to preserve the Harbor Master’s Adobe, but none of the other buildings at that point had been eligible to be historic. But BCDC and all the permitting agencies have provisions that provide exceptions for historic buildings. I don’t think permits are an issue, as far as where the building is located. Page 10 of 27 Board Member Haviland: I’m just thinking forward to the amendment of the Baylands Master Plan, and if the adobe is mentioned, there may be some way to put in a very small phrase, such as "any other historic property" which would make it-- Emily Renzel: I think that might an important recommendation for your Board to make as part of your recommendation that’s going forward. There is one other point that I had intended to make that’s my own personal point of view regarding Option C or third option, and that is that once you get past the Harbor Master’s Adobe, the entire Baylands area is really primarily an open space area and intended to be, and the Interpretive Center, which in the not too distant future itself might be eligible for historic listing, was designed in the low, horizontal nature of the landscape out there, and to put a building in the nature of the Sea Scout building in direct visual competition with that other building, it seems to me, would be a very big aesthetic mistake and quite inappropriate for the open space character that you begin to feel once you get past the duck pond. You even feel it before then after you get past the utility storage area that’s at the entrance, and some other things that are not supposed to be there, but anyway-- There is a character out there that we intended to achieve and it was an overriding goal of the Badlands Master Plan. So I think I took a little liberty there with your question. Chair Bemstein: Thank you, Emily. Our next speaker is Greg Betts. Greg Betts: Good morning. I’m Greg Betts, superintendent of open space for the City of Palo Alto, including the Baylands Nature Preserve. This jewel in the Baylands has an important past, but I’m concerned about its future as well, and I would like to do anything we can to make saving the building feasible. I have spoken with a couple of groups to find out if there is other interest besides the Lucie Stern Maritime Center for leasing the building, and it doesn’t appear that either the Wild Life Rescue in Palo Alto, or Bird Observatory is at a point where they’re interested in the building at present. I would like to do what we can to try to make this feasible for the Lucie Stern Maritime Center to help maintain the building. Now a couple of points I want to address is that I’m a little concerned. I’ve had a chance to read Dennis’s report, and it’s very, very complete, and it’s really helped make some good decisions based on the historic character of the building and its setting of what would be very good options for the building, but I’m a little concerned--and I just wanted to share my own experience in this permitting process that’s beenalluded to--that you may be making a decision without benefit of at least preliminary feedback from the agencies that will be involved with this program, and I frankly think that it would worth the time just to get a preliminary review to say, "What are the restraints or the opportunities for this building?" Whenever we do anything with the Baylands, whether it’s repairing a culvert, taking down the old sailing dolphin that was out in the Bay that used to be used for the sailing regattas, even putting in the oyster shell pathway connecting the Sea Scout building with the Bixby Park Hills area requires permits from the BCDC, the regional Water Quality Board, the Army Corps of Engineers, the US Wildlife Service, and the California Fish and Game Department. As Emily’s mentioned, it’s hard to tell what provisions they may put on any of their requirements. Sometimes they’re as simple as a picnic bench, and sometimes they’re quite complicated; for example, when we put in the oyster shell pathway between the Sea Scout building and the Bixby Park Hills, the BCDC required us to also put in bicycle lanes between the T junction of Embarcadero Road and the Interpretive Center, so tacked on a big cost for us just to put in that pathway. Page 11 So I think it has merit trying to find out what the constraints on this project will be. I would like to see as much of the area restored as the Master Plan suggests, because I do have a bias for the wildlife and plant protection there. There is a little parking lot next to the Sea Scout building and I am concerned about just being. able to see the building used once it is moved. That is one of the reasons why the Option 1 and 3 do have some benefits. If it’s moved to Site #3, there’s a large parking lot that could handle the parking of large groups of people for benefits or other special events. As Emily mentioned, there is a parking lot just outside of the gate of the Baylands Nature Preserve, but I would mention that like the Interpretive Center, we do have night meetings and so arrangements can be made for a building attendant to have keys to the gate so that folks can i~se either the Interpretive Center or the Sea Scout building after hours. So just the gate issue and closing wouldn’t, in my mind, be a factor. But I would like to see the building close to existing parking lots so either the duck pond, the .outside gateway or the existing gravel area of the third parking lot. Thank you. Chair Bernstein: Greg, I’ve got a question. Thank you, by the way, for your presentation. My question is, given yo-ur sense of all these different jurisdictions that you mentioned, is there any summary you can make from your observation of them about what their overall concern would be, if there’s a way to summarize what you think those jurisdictions may be concerned about? Greg Betts: That’s a good question. They each look at it from a different angle. I do know that in the past that where the Sea Scout building sits right now, one of the access issues is that it’s difficult to get from the existing trail that goes to the Interpretive Center, connecting with the " trail that goes out to the Bixby Park Hills. Getting over a seawall and over the deck itself does presentaccess issues. I do know that if you’re talking about any type of fill under the foundation of the existing building, that’s huge, and BCDC and the Army Corps of Engineers have extensive regulations whenever additional fill is put in on the edge of the marsh. Chair Bernstein: Just for the education of people listening, what does BCDC stand for? Greg Betts: The BCDC is the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Chair Bernstein: All right. Thank you very much, Greg. I appreciate it. Our next speaker is Kevin Murray. Kevin Murray: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for having us. I’m the president of the Lucie Stern Maritime Center. I have a 35-year relationship with this building, a 43-year native of Palo Alto. Time marches on, and of course I’ve had a great opportunity of working with some of the Class of ’41 and ’42 from Palo Alto High School who were there when the building was commissioned, whom I’ve interviewed as I’m working on a book on the history of Palo Alto Sea Scouts, and of course, this building plays a key role. I’d also like to echo the remarks earlier shared by Pria Graves. What an outstanding research job that Mr. Backlund has put together. Being a professor, I recognize these reports just don’t happen overnight. There’s a lot of hours that have gone into this very thorough analysis. Page 12 of 27 The building--my personal preference is I’d love to leave the building right where it is. The only reason we have considered site #2 is because the engineers have told us to protect the building, it’s safer to move it only once. If we can get some other kind of report, however, we’d be overjoyed to leave it right where it is. So maybe there’s a further engineering analysis that can allow that to take place; otherwise, we’ll continue to endorse site #2. But on a personal level, I’d love to leave it fight where it is. I have to defer to the experts, the engineers who tell me what’s the least risk to the building in terms of the restoration. Site #3, I think it’s already been stated by your other speakers. I like to concur with all the remarks. It would just really take away from the historic setting, cultural setting, and echoing the remarks earlier of Emily Renzel, it would be an eyesore and in competition with the Interpretive Center, and for another host of reasons already echoed, I’d really like to keep it at 1 and 2. I also like the fact - and it’s too bad that the decision in ’91 came about. We could have saved the Palo Alto Yacht Club building, an equally important historic site. But sadly, the regulations that exist now weren’t in time to save that very important structure; in fact, if you refer to your attachment, lettered number N, you can see its position juxtaposed to the Palo Alto Sea Base. In fact, when the photograph--I have a moving film, interestingly enough, that I discovered at the Lucie Stern Community Center. It was a film that was in a box for 60 years out in the shed, and we took this film and transferred it to a video tape, and I discovered that. Maybe in the future we can figure out a timeframe when I could project that film over this screen, but if you scroll back one page further, scrolling to the site of where Lucie Stem is being photographed on the deck of the Sea Base. Here we are, Attachment B. That’s rather an emotional photograph for me and many of those interested in the history of this facility and of Palo Alto in general. I actually have incredibly restored colored film of that exact photo in process. I’m very much looking forward to showing the City, particularly the HRB. The guy off to the right, the young man in the Sea Scout uniform would later be sent to Pearl Harbor, about a month before the bombing. I mean the historic significance of this. He would join the Navy. We just recently found that out. In this film, it shows the then mayor of Palo Alto, Mr. Boyce, Lucie Stem, and other key individuals in the Palo Alto community who played a role in the commissioning of this site. Our plan with the Lucie Stem Maritime Center is successful in first, restoring thd building; second, preserving it as a Sea Scout meeting site. Third is opening it as a free public site as a Maritime Museum,’celebrating the unique history of the Palo Alto harbor, and the larger history of the San Francisco Bay, is to take this original photo, have it placarded and post right it right where Lucie Stem is standing on the original railing for the rest of the public to enjoy. One of the fascinating things about being a poor neighbor - that is to say, the Sea Scouts - we’ve always been a volunteer poor organization - is we’ve never had the money to replace anything. That’s good. Everything is original throughout the building, and we’re quite thankful for that, including all the railings, the doorknobs, the portholes. So unintentionally, we’ve done a good job of historically preserving the site almost to the exact nature, and in fact, we’re looking forward to returning it to its pre-1941 May restoration state. We’d like to restore it beyond original condition. Finally, let me close with, as a Sea Scout scoutmaster, although we call it a skipper--for Palo Alto, skipper of the ship 65--I am really excited about telling my crew--right now we meet at the Lucie Stem Community Center, which is nice that they’re h0sting.us in this interim process. Page 13 They used to meet there, my crew, and we used to walk down that pathway at night, and as Emily noted, that’s right. We’re very comfortable with that. We park outside. We used to walk in before we lost the lease, and so we’re using the other site. That was always a fun time where the guys would enjoy being there in the evening and having our one night in the evening where they were connecting. I can’t tell you how wonderful it is to see the lights illuminating out of those portholes at night, and you just really connect with the historic sense of the harbor, rm glad, too, even though the harbor’s closed--and that’s fine, I recognize that’s a different era--but at least we can now publicly say that the building does celebrate the rich history of that harbor from 1928 to 1988, and those were wonderful times and a lot of souls who are especially connected to this great city spent a lot of their recreational time, who were really equally interested in the environmental protection of the Bay, because that is where we recreate and we didn’t want it spoiled either. So I think that’s neat that that has finally been recognized as a part of the historical significance of the structure. In closing, the Lucie Stern Maritime Center in its restoration has been successful at securing a structural engineer free. Wonderful individual, has donated $30,000 of his time, had we hired him full-time. Of course, we couldn’t afford it, but he liked the project so much that he wanted to do that for the community. The geotecbmical engineer should have charged us $14,000. He only charged us $3,200 for the same reason--because of the historic nature and the youth service of the building. Our contractor is doing it for 70 percent off. He’s supplying a lot of his own materials and his professional labors. All we’re paying for is some of the equipment he has to rent. The house mover is giving us 50 percent off, because, again, of the historic nature and the youth designation of the building. There again, I’d like to emphasis, the LSMC is really looking forward to having the rest of the community emotionally buy into the building by having free public access and maybe we can make provisions for evening meetings, too, for others beyond the Sea Scouts to rent the main. meeting hall. That would be wonderful for the rest of the community, whatever the organization--a change to have the same emotional connection that myself and other Sea Scouts and Sea Scout alumni have by virtue of using it as a meeting site and training site. So we hope for number 1 or number 2, whichever presents the least structural challenges to the building, but certainly we’re committed to the restoration. Thank you very much for your time. Chair Bernstein: Kevin, thank you very much. Our next speaker, and our last speaker card I have is from Herb Borock. Herb Borock: Good mornilig, Chair Bernstein and Board Members. I’d like to start with the policy direction that was given by the City Council two months ago that begins my letter to you of June 14, and that is that they voted to designate the building as a Category 1 historic structure, and secondly, they request staff to obtain a structural engineering report, funded by a community organization or organizations. I’ll stop there and note that there’s nothing in the staff report and nothing from staff member Greg Bettswho spoke about that. The comments by Mr. Murray about free work from a structural engineer or the geotechnical report you have attached to staff report have nothing to do with that Page 14 of 27 structural engineering report that’s been requested, so I suggest the Board get on the record what the status is of that Council direction, and if there’s a community organization that the City staff is already working with and is already chosen for that. I’d like to know who it is, because you will recall that this policy issue--and that is the third thing that the City Council did--was referred to the Policy and Services Committee to explore how this building could become a viable element in the Baylands, and also to review as expeditiously as possible, issuing a request for proposals so other non-profit organizations would be encouraged to participate, and that Policy and Services meeting was set for last month originally. So I would like to know what the status is of the structural engineering report, because all of the cost estimates that you’ve seen from the Lucie Stern Maritime organization are unreliable if you don’t know what the structural engineering report says what the condition of the building is. It’s going to cost more or less, depending upon that. Secondly, some of the other speakers have referred to other agency approvals that are required. This issue was before the Board five and a half years ago when you received a memo from Bill Fellman, who’s present today, and he wrote the Board that there are 14 state regulatory agencies that oversee approval for various aspects of projects in the Baylands. It took two years for City staff to receive approval for the Baylands Marsh Restoration project. If the Sea Scout building was moved out of the Baylands, staff anticipates allowing one to two years for the agencies’ review: If the building was to be located to another site within the State’s jurisdiction, staff anticipates allowing over two years turnaround due to the analysis that would be required to approve the new site. That gives you some idea of what staff was advising you five-and-a-half-years ago when they were asking you to postpone the designation of the property. There are other issues, certainly at this Board. Are the historic issues going to be the most important one? But as we’ve seen in a couple of elections, for the community as a whole that’s not necessarily the most important issue. It seems to me that for setting--if the building was were the boats were, that would meet that historic criteria, and I realize that the Sea Scout organization, as an organization has not followed through, and I’m not sure whether there’s some lack of communication or some breakdown, but it would seem that that was suggestion that the real estate department indicated in the past to follow through with the possibility of seeing if we could move the building to Redwood City where the boats are. The other thing is that as you go through this and as other bodies go through it, it’s very easy to use language loosely and get confused that the Lucie Stern Maritime Center is the same thing as the Sea Scout organization. The Sea Scout organization used to have a separate Stanford Area Council covering the northern part of the County, including Palo Alto and Stanford. But now there’s a specific Skyline Council only, which covers all of San Mateo County and what used to be in the Stanford area council, and they have their own organization and governance; and if you want to know what the Sea Scout organization believes, you should contact them directly, and the staff should contact them directly. Yes, it’s true that there are adults and children and teenagers in Palo Alto who are involved in the Sea Scout organization, but for example, the ship that Kevin Murray referred to is, I believe, in the City of San Mateo. Not even in Redwood City, because I think there are differences in the Sea Scout organization about whether powered vessels or vessels under sail can be in the same place or belong with the organization. I’m not sure in terms of where boats are docked. Page 15 I believe that there are many people interested in this building who are interested in dredging the harbor again. As long as the building is in Palo Alto, I believe the dredging issue will resurface. To me, that’s more important than having the building in Palo Alto. It’s a Sea Scout building. There are Sea Scout vessels in Redwood City that used to be berthed in Palo Alto. If the vessel is in Redwood City, I believe the building should be in Redwood City as well. Thank you. Chair Bemstein: Thank you, Herb. All right. The public hearing is still open and we have not maintained our strict policy of three minutes, so since the public hearing is still open, Emily, go ahead. Emily Renzel: Thank you very much. You asked the question of the concerns of the agencies, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission has basically two concerns: One is minimum fill in the Bay, and maximum feasible public access. Those are the two big by-words of the Bay Plan and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The fact that this is an existing building now declared historic on an already existing site. If it were moved, it would be considered removal of fill from its present site, assuming that they’re talking fill in the Bay, and if they assume that the Yacht Club site would also be fill in the Bay, it would be neutral in terms of fill in the Bay, and as to maximum feasible public access, I have not heard previously that they had required that the road be widened for this bicycle path. That’s pretty major, but nonetheless, those are the BCDC concerns. The Army Corps of Engineers looks at the 404 fill in wetlands, and they get consultations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department ofFish and Game, who are charged with protecting the wildlife resources. So those groups advise the Army Corps, who issues permits for fill in the Bay. If there’s no fill in the Bay, if there’s no jurisdiction taken over the site, then it doesn’t even require an Army Corps permit. Once the jurisdiction’s determined, Fish and Wildlife and Fish and Game may still advise BCDC with respect to Wildlife aspects, but I think the reason perhaps the Marsh restoration took so long was because they had to do some habitat studies of what already existed there before they removed it and were creating new habitat and that obviously was a very complex design issue, which turns out, as far as I can tell, to be very successful. But that’s what the agencies require, and BCDC has preliminarily, as of the year 2000, indicated that they saw no policy obstacles to retaining this building, but might require some additi~)naipublic access. Chair Bemstein: Thank you. The public hearing is still open. Mr. Tmjillo, I think you’d like to speak. Go ahead. Rocky Tmjillo: Yes. A couple of items. One, engineering report. I’ve submitted toMr. Fellman three different reports from our structural engineer concerning the structure of the building. This is prior to its move. No engineer is going to give you a final report before you move a building X amotmt of feet, when damage can occur to it. Just a point of clarification. The City has been kept informed on that. I recently talked with the BCDC and got a copy of their permit, which was 1181. They concur with what Ms. Renzel has said, that they believe it’s an amendment to the permit and that there’s no fill involved. It is simply an amendment with possible more public access to be determined and along the same lines--picnic tables or, in case, access to the building after hours or such. Access to the building.after hours, if y.ou look at the by-laws of the Lucie Stem Maritime Center, the first segment of that states that specifically. That’s one of the goals of the center itself, to allow that to happen. .Page 16 of 27 The other thing that concerned me was the moving the building to Redwood City. The boats were moved to Redwood City and the Port of Redwood City made accommodations for their own boats and the boats from Palo Alto. There was nothing in that agreement reached between the Boy Scouts of America, which is now the Pacific Skyline Council, for moving the building. It was strictly at that time to accommodate moving the boats to allow fulfillment of the Baylands Master Plan, which mandated that the piers and the boats be moved. The building was not put into that. The other thing that - And I’ll address this, because I know this for a fact - berthage for boats, depending upon your program, requires certain things. Running out of Redwood City versus running out of San Mateo harbor where the Sea Eagle pays rent on a berth is directly proportional, the fact they are a sailboat unit. Have you ever tried sailing South Bay on this end of the Bay? There is no wind. You need wind and to get that you have to be up where you can catch it, so you can run a program. I speak to that as being a member of the program for 40 years and running a sailboat program out of San Francisco, which luckily we were blessed with some of the best winds in the Bay, but once you get past the Bay Bridge down this way, your wind drops dramatically, so the boat being moored up there does not mean that the unit is not from Palo Alto. The kids are from Palo Alto. The boat is physically there because of an operational need. The other point of clarification - Our estimates on various costs that we have submitted to the City have been submitted from contractors to the City with letters to the City, so that they do have a valid point.. We’re looking at costs based on all three. Soil reports are going to impact us. Right now we’re looking at 40 to 60 feet piles that are being driven in either.location number 1 or number 2. We do not know what number 3 would entail at this time. The size of them is under discussion right now because the geotechnical said 24-inch pylons. Well, there’s 36 of them down there. The " base was built on six inch, so there’s a discussion going between the engineer - the structural engineer and the geotechnical people right now that has to be solved. The site lodation is important for us to proceed on all fronts. I have talked with the Corps of Engineers, and their comment to me was, "If you’re not filling, we really don’t want to have any concern with you." The time span starts from the day we know where we’re going. Then we can address the departments and the agencies that have jurisdiction. Until that’s known, there is no way we can precede other than getting general information. Chair Bernstein: Thank you very much for all of the eloquence of all of our speakers today. Our next item on our procedure would be HRB questions of the applicant or staff. Are there any? Carol, go ahead, please. Board Member Murden: Just for clarification, what area does the Baylands Nature Preserve cover? I probably should know this, but I don’t. Greg Betts: The Baylands Nature Preserve is about 1900 acres and it covers, including in East Pal0 Alto, there are marshlands that go from Cooley Landing at Bay Road to-perhaps you know. where the Friendship Bridge that crosses at O’Connor Street from East Palo Alto to the comer of Page 17 the golf course, and includes all the way down to San Antonio Road and Terminal Boulevard in Mountain View. Chair Bernstein: Susan. Board Member Haviland: In the materials that were presented to us, it.mentions that Option C was proposed by the Real Estate Division of the City of Palo Alto. There seems to be a presumption in the presentation--and I may be completely misreading this--that Option C is the preferred option for the real estate division of the City. I guess my question is, is this correct? And B, if it is correct, why is it the preferred option for the City of Palo Alto? Bill Fellman, Real Estate Manager: I’m Bill Fellman, the real estate manager, and it’s not a real estate option. It was an option proposed by public works when there was a study to preserve the Sea Scout building at one time as part of the Master Plan, and I think for financial reasons, it was dropped at that time. But it was a location that was preferred because it was away from the sea wall, that the sea wall was going to be removed and under a Phase 8 of the plan to restore the harbor to its natural condition,, the sea wall was going to be removed and the Yacht Club and the Sea Scout building were going to be removed and that whole area was going to be restored, and included in the Phase 8 was the wording, and it covered all of the restoration of the Baylands, was to remove public access directly from the harbor in order to protect the wildlife that was there. That was the concept that was [inaudible]. That’s why it’s not a real estate recommendation. It was a public works recommendation or a past City recommendation, when they actually did look at moving the Sea Scout building to another location. Board Member Haviland: And since the Sea Scout building was not moved, what happened to the sea wall? Is the sea wall still in place? Bill Fellman: Sea wall is still in its original condition, and I believe it deteriorated. I think it was in the ’70s, ’71, something like that, so that’s one of the reasons why the Sea Scout building floods at high tide. Board Member Haviland: And would that affect flooding at Option B’s site? Bill Fellman: The sea wall extends in front of Option B also. Board Member Haviland: So would any of these plans, either keeping the Sea Scout building at its original location or moving it to the adjacent. Yacht Club site, involve restoring the sea wall? Bill Fellman: I believe so. Even to move the building at all, they’re going to have to--the movers have indicated that they’re going to have to seal the sea wall so that the land underneath the Sea Scout building can dry in order for them to pick up the building. So it’s proposed in almost every option. Board Member Haviland: And restoring the sea wall, would that constitute fill as far as BCDC is concerned? Bill Fellman: I’m not Sure. I know that the Sea Scouts attempted to restore the sea wall and actually brought in a barge with different material, and the BCDC told them that they couldn’t do it without a permit, so that’s as far as I know. Right now, the sea wall is made up of old cement bags, and then the bags have gone away, and it’s the cement bags that are still there. So I’m not sure what would be involved and if it would require fill material to do that. Page 18 of 27 Board Member Haviland: Thank you. It looks like there’s someone else who maybe has something to add on this issue. Rocky Trujillo: Yes. The method for the movers is to put plastic and sandbags temporarily to seal the sea wall to allow movers to get underneath the building. The major part of the sea wall is earth to the sand bags. At the Sea Scout location, there is a void behind it, and that’s the reason why.it floods underneath the building. The plan from the house mover is to put a temporary removable plastic sandbag structure with pumps on the inside so they can work underneath the building to raise it. It will not require any fill being put into the building itself. " As I understand reading the Master Plan on that, that area was to revert back to marshland itself by a natural fill in of the Bay itself. Removal of the sea wall would be the final phase of the Master Plan, where the bags themselves would be physically removed. How that would affect the building if that was to take place is something that the engineers still have to give us an assessment on. They believe that building the building in location B with the pony walls on top of the pilings will keep it above the mean high or high tide that they looked on a 100-year historical high tide chart that would keep them above that level. Board Member Haviland: So the idea in both cases in Option A or Option B is to simply put the building on pilings and then allow water to come underneath it if it needs to. Rocky Trujillo: Well, the pony walls would support the building above the highest mean high water mark ever recorded in the last 100 years, and that would keep it at the height that the building was originally, because the pictures we have and the original drawings show us that it is at the height. When you look at the pictures of this thing, you’ll see that the rails and the building itself actually sets about a foot and a half above the ground level. That was to keep it above any possible high tide overflowing the banks of the harbor. Board Member Haviland: I’m just trying to get to--apparently the reason that the City had a preference for Site C was this issue with the sea wall, and that is, I understand, a major issue. Rocky Trujillo: That was part of the Master Plan when it was written, and it was a proposal for $350,000, of which $250,000 was approved by the City Council and raising the other money became the issue that killed that plan. But they had made plans in the original proposal, and it’s in the Master Plan, to move the building to there, and there was an entire proposal made at that time. So, as I understand what Mr. Fellman is saying that this is a follow-up on the original proposal. Board Member Haviland: Right. I’m just trying to understand why we are still considering Option C. Rocky Trujillo: It’s part of the process to look at every possible optionbased on-- Board Member Haviland: I understand that, but I’m trying to understand if there is some reason that Option C should still be considered. Rocky Trujillo: The only one that I can see on that is the fact that part of the final phase of the Master Plan was to underground all utilities, and that would be part of it--by taldng up and tying Page 19 in and bringing the Adobe and Interpretive Centers--the utilities all underground, electric and such. Right now utilities-- Board Member Haviland: I’m sorry. I just don’t understand how that refers to why site C would be preferable. Rocky Trujillo: That would allow you to put all three, the Adobe building, the Interpretive Center and that all in a line with all the overhead wires and such underground, and remove all aspects of overhead wires within the Baylands Park. That was part of the final phase of the project, and that was also part of the original recommendations.. Board Member Bunnenberg: Has there been any action to really work on the Phase 8? It seems. to me it’s been a very long time since I’ve seen or heard anything about Phase 8. Bill Fellman: Phase 8 was delayed until--one of the reasons--until we could figure out what we’re doing.with the Sea Scout building. Also included in the staff report for all of the work that’s being done was a reference that Emily made, was that they haven’t updated the Baylands Master Plan to include the work that’s being done for the renovation of the harbor, and so in addition to Phase 8 being delayed, so is the upgrade of the Master Plan. Another backup to the information of why C is still being considered, right now all we have to go by is what’s been approved by previous Councils and the current Council to make it a historic building, and what’s been approved by previous Councils is the Master Plan. There is some concern that there would be some fill that would be required for A and B, and also under the original Master Plan, the sea wall was to be removed in order for the area to revert back to its natural state. That’s why C is still included in the report. One additional thing was, if the Sea Scout building is put on A or B, that then becomes a public access point, and under the Master Plan, the public access points were supposed to be withdrawn from the harbor sothat there would be less people near where the flora and fauna would be reverting to its natural state. Chair Bernstein: Are there any other comments or questions? We do have the public hearing still open. Emily Renzel: Just because I’m familiar with BCDC, pile-supported fill is considered fill, the same as putting a bunch of dirt on the ground. It’s a little less onerous because it allows water flow underneath, but in terms of definition of fill, pile-supported is the same as filling in the Bay- -I mean, putting dirt down. So it’s the same issue regardless of the construction technique that would be used for the building, but because it’s essentially neutral, since it’s already there, I don’t think it’s an issue of BCDC, and I think most particularly because they do have provisions for historic structures. Chair Bernstein: Thanks. Carol. Board Member Murden: I just had one question. If Option C was pursued and the Sea Scout building was removed and the sea wall was removed, I know that the road that the City has put in is above, I guess, where the tidal waters come in. Would that continue to be the same, or would you have to put a sea wall closer to the road, do you think? I realize you may not be able to answer that definitely. Page 20 of 27 Greg Betts: Nd. There wouldn’t be any plans for raising the road. Board Member Murden: It would be all righ~ just as it is? Greg Betts: Yes. It’s assumed that the parking lot at the duck pond and part of the road will flood from time to time. Board Member Kohler: Quick question for Greg. Is there any move afoot to remove the airport and return that area to its natural state? Greg Betts: No. None whatsoever. Board Member Kohler: Okay. Just want to clarify that. Chair Bernstein: Okay, we’ve received a lot of good testimony today, emotionally based, historically based, and factually based. Our next part of our process here is to form motions or recommendations by the Board. Do we have any comments by the Board Members? Board Member Haviland: I just have a request for clarification as to what staff would like to see us end up with--what sort of motion are we expected to make? Are we to approve a location or recommend a specific location? Recommend a specific direction? Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager: I think staff would like you to evaluate the information provided in the staff report, as well as through the public testimony and make a recommendation on a location with the understanding that all the information is not available. We’re asking you to look at the historic merits of relocation. That’s your focus. As many of the speakers raised, there are other issues that will have to be addressed by the Council when they make a final decision, but for your recommendation, it is to focus on the historic nature of the building and what would be the appropriate location for that building’s placement. Board Member Bunnenberg: I’d like to take a couple of minutes to look at some things that stood out to me as major considerations around the site, because we’ve certainly have heard there are a maze of regulations. To begin with, the Baylands Master Plan of 1978 was an extremely forward-looking document for its time. Cities around the Bay have been filling that ugly mud and building things all around the edge of the Bay, and with the Baylands Master Plan, we have managed to save a large area of natural marshland. But I do want to point out that that 1978 Master Plan didn’t wipe out all man-made structures. The Duck Pond, which was man-made and was a swimming pool to begin with, was kept. The Harbor Master’s house was kept as a historic structure. So one of the factors is now we have two historic structures down in the Baylands, and even in the ’87 update summary, it didn’t specifically address the Sea Scout base. It called for removal of the Yacht Harbor building and other buildings, but was not specific about the~Sea Scout base. Now, here we are, 24 years later and a number of things have changed. Number one, the historic significance of the Sea Scout base has been recognized. I also would like to point out that in the Page 21 City Council motion of April the 17th of 2000, there was incorporated in the motion "that consideration be given to preservation of the site of the Sea Scout Base." So keeping the building on the site in the general area was a part of that Council motion in the year 2000. So in short, we have a different Council from the one that framed the Baylands Master Plan. We also have had changes in federal and state law regarding historic buildings located on park lands. We have the cultural landscape. We also have the passage Of Prop 40, which was a bond act for state parks, and this was statewide--voters that approved a bond issue which had money for preservation of historic structures in parks. There is also something that has not been mentioned that is due to go into effect November 1, 2002, which is some changes in the California Historic Building Code. In that code, Part 8, Title 24, CCR, there is a specific section that addresses historic sites and open spaces, and ittalks about not only the buildings, but also the site, and it lists that this should include natural open space~ including earth, rock, water, vegetation and I assume, mud. This is law, which will affect all cities, counties and state agencies that issue permits, and it speaks very much--"a designated historic building may be considered toinclude the site, open space, access way andso forth. The relationship between a structure and its site is important." I think that’s an additional piece of legislation that we need to be aware of. Chair Bernstein: Thank you very much, Beth, for that. Looking for recommendations, motions, by the Board. Susan. Board Member Haviland: First of all, I just want to thank everybody who spoke today. The amount of research and intelligent thought that has gone into this project is truly impressive. I, for one, am extremely appreciative because this is a building that is just a gem. It’s just a wonderful building. It’s whimsical. It’s got this strong connect to Palo Alto history,-and I really, really want to see it preserved. My sense of these three options is that I’m kind of reluctant to rule out anything that might make it possible to preserve, the building, which is why I’ve been asking these questions about Option C, because I would rather see this building moved to Option C than moved to Redwood City, frankly, or moved to some other site, so my personal evaluation of the three options is a little bit different from the staffreport~ and to me, all of them are acceptable. Option. C is acceptable because the building is a building that is important for its architectural significance in addition to its historic significance, and Option C is reasonably close to the original site, and it still is in somewhat a maritime setting. So I don’t Want to completely rule Out Option C if it turns out that that is the only way that we can preserve the building. But I think that the ranking of Options A, B and C represent a very, very clear indication of the relative desirability of the sites. Option A, I think, for all of us is definitely the most preferred-- to leave the building where it is. However, listening to all of the information that was brought forward today, it appears that if we’re being pragmatic about it, and we must be pragmatic if we’re going to preserve this building, Site B offers many si.gnificant advantages, just in terms of getting the project done. It does offer a site that is right next door to the original site. So the amount Of moving is very, very small. In some ways I find that preference in terms of the historic significance is clear, but when you’re evaluating the project overall, it seems that the pragmatic concerns of Site B make it superior to Site A. I’m sort of torn between the two, and I think we should perhaps let further study indicate which one of these would be the preferable site. Page 22 of 27 I just have a few more comments. I really appreciated Beth’s analysis and the information she brought to us, and I think she is so very, very right about how things have changed, and I think it’s important. This is a project that’s had a long history with the City. It’s just been going through a lot of iterations. I think it’s really, really important for us to kind of recognize what the situation is now and act accordingly, rather than make references constantly to decisions that were made in the past, because I think many of those decisions have been overridden by changes in attitude and changes in status, such as changes in status of the bgilding. I appreciated Prigs comments about the cultural landscape, which is something that I, myself, refer to as the working landscape. It’s the kind of landscape that I think until very, very recently has been not much considered, ’ and it’s the landscape of industry, of real everyday activities, and one of the most ironic things is that if the Baylands Master Plan were to proceed today, it probably wouldn’t have been allowed to propose removal of the Sea Scout building or the Yacht Club, or even the uses of the Bay at the time. So we have an area that’s got this past as a recreational area and this future that was designated for it several years, ago of this completely pristine natural area. To a certain degree; these two notions of this area are a little bit in conflict. I think one thing that’s been so hard in dealing with this building has been that conflict between these two. I think we just have to understand that there’s a compromise here and if preserving the building requires keeping the sea wall or providing more public access, and if that is maybe a little bit at odds with its sense of a ¯ completely pristine natural area, I think we sort of have to understand that we’ve got to find a way for the two of those to live together, that it’s going to be a natural area, but it’s got traces of its past. Those traces of the past are very, very important to us. Chair Bernstein: All right. Roger. Board Member Kohler: I have to think back to when I first came on the Board, which is now many years ago, and we all went out and met with.Bill Fellman out at the Sea Scout Base and walked up around and looked at it, and during those discussions in those days, in ’95, ’96, there was a structural engineer who did walk through the building and inside and gave a cursory review of the building and felt that the above-floor level was in relatively good shape, and it’s my understanding that I think in today’s world, any building like this that’s getting refurbished would have to probably have a seismic upgrade of some sort. Looking at the pictures, there are a lot of solid walls in many areas, but in other cases there are a. lot of windows, which require some thought on the inside. I know it was kind of a dumb question to ask about the airport, but I was trying to make a point in the sense that at some point returning everything to a natural state totally is getting beyond whatI think we really want..We want people to experience the natural landscape and things like that. I whispered over here to my fellow Board Member that maybe start taking houses out of Palo. Alto to return it to its natural state as well. At some point you’ve got to stop doing this. I totally agree with Susan’s comments about all three sites. I mean, if the goal here is to preserve this building which has been since I’ve been on the Board and since I can remember even before on the Board, why isn’t anything happening with the Sea Scout building? So I agree that I would not totally rule out Option C. I could see where it would bring a lot of the public uses closer together. It might actually benefit the building; however, also sitting here as a professional and having been involved in moving some houses lately, I can see the advantage of Site B, because Page 23 you could do all your site prep, pick the building up and move it over and you’re done, and I think that’s going to be a huge consideration in the whole process. So Site B, because of its proximity and the fact that it’s separate, and from a historic standpoint, yeah, it’s moved, but it’s not much. When you look at the aerial photograph down there, the distance it’s moving is miniscule compared to the overall surround, so I tend to agree with Susan to say that all three sites--in terms of preserving the building, which is our goal here today, we shouldn’t rule out any three of them. My sense is that building Site B is probably going to end up being the most economical and the easiest to have this building saved and moved on the site, so I guess if there was a motion to put forth, I would probably say that the Board is in favor of--I would move that we recommend that the building move forth and be preserved on the site and " the three sites be considered and that if one of the other sites turns out to be the most economical, that would be acce~ptable to the Board. I’m not sure that’s phrased right, but that’s kind of what I’m trying to say. Chair Bernstein: Anyone want to comment or clarify or amend? Go ahead. Board Member Murden: Yes, as other Board Members would recommend Site A, I think that historically is the appropriate place for the building to stay. I also feel that Site B would be acceptable. Unlike some other Board Members I feel that moving the building to.Site C will make it lose its National Register eligibility. I feel that its relationship to the water becomes different and obviously the location is, different, and I feel it does lose something of its association, so that I think being eligible for the National Register, being puton the National Register is important to this building from the sense of funding. I think it’s something that in the long term will help the preservation of the building, so that, yes, ifA and B were ruled absolutely impossible, I would rather see it go to Site C rather than go to Redwood City, where it certainly, I think, would lose its historic designations. But I think that going to Site.C may also make it lose its historic designations, and I therefore would very strongly recommend Site A with the second option of Site B. I hesitate to even recommend or say that I’m agreeable to Site C. It certainly would be very much a case of "Well, all right, let’s not tear the building down." To me it is not an acceptable option, and as other members have said, when you step back, this area has gone through quite an evolution. That was why I found Emily’s comments so interesting on the Baylands Nature Preserve as it has developed, and I also very much agree with Susan that you have to look at the site now, I think that is the way to look at it. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My thoughts pretty much go along with what Roger has just stated. Any of the three sites is preferable to not having a restoration plan. Probably the plan B is the most practical from a [inaudible] standpoint, as Roger pointed out. But any of these proposals I wo.uld definitely support: A, B or C. The thing I would like to add into any motion that we go ahead with-’I think we’re all pretty much thinking along the same lines-~is that City make a commitment to stabilizing further deterioration of this building in the interim until something is actually resolved as far as its relocation. I think the building is susceptible to further degradation and deterioration unless there’s some investment made in the stabilization. Page 24 of 27 Board Member Bunnenberg: I’d like to try an attempt at a motion to see if we could put some of these ideas together. My motion would be that the HRB’s goal is to preserve the building. The HRB favors the option location of the Sea Scout Base at the site of the old Palo Alto Yacht Club, unless a plan to maintain the Sea Scout base in its current historical location can be proposed as financially feasible and would incur minimal moving of the building. The site on the parking lot would cause significant loss to the historic character of the building; however, it would be preferable to loss of the building. Chair Bernstein: Right. We have a motion. Is there a second to the motion? Board Member Haviland: I’ll Second the motion, and I just wanted to add on a littlebit about the historic significance if it were moved to Site C. I think if the building were moved to Site B, there’d just be no question. Site C, I agree that it might be a bit questionable, andthere’d have to be an argument mounted. What I’m looking at here as part of our packet, which is labeled "Criteria Consideration B, Moved Properties" which has to do with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and it states that "a property removed from its original or historically significant location can be eligible if it is significant primarily for architectural value or if it is a surviving property most importantly associated with a historic person or event." I think that the Sea Scout building would meet that criteria, i think you’d have to make an argument about it. I don’t think it would be as simple or as straightforward, and for that reason, I’m seconding Beth’s motion. I think it’s important to make Clear to everybody involved that it’s the least preferred, but we certainly prefer it to not retaining the building in Palo Alto. Chair Bemstein: Susan, you had some earlier comments today about including in your comment and maybe seeing if Beth would agree with that is that there be a Master Plan amendment as part of the recommendation. Board Member Haviland: Thank you for reminding me. Perhaps your amendment, Beth, could include that the Master Plan be amended to include a reference to the City’s commitment to preservation of all historic buildings within the BaylandS area. Chair Bernstein: Is that acceptable to the maker of the motion? Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes. That’s acceptable. Board Member Murden: I’m having some difficulty with the motion. Not in reference to the way you stated what the Board thinks about Option C. That’s fine. The way you put it is acceptable to me. But rather, my first preference is very much to have it stay where it is on Site A, and I realize that economically there may be a lot of reasons why it can’t do that, but that is my first preference, and Site B is acceptable to me, but very much as a second choice, and I feel that the motion says that the Board is quite willing to see it moved to Site B, even though it maybe prefers Site A. So I wondered if you would be willing to reword that. I don’t know if you would. Board Member Bunnenberg: I’m not sure that I would, because I think that we are reaching a time when we need some clear messages on what can happen. Chair Bemstein: Carol, the option is an alternative motion. Page 25 Board Member Murden: All right, let me try it. I would move that the Board recommends that Site A be the preferred location for the Sea Scout building--that is, leaving it were it is, that if economic or other considerations make Site A unworkable, that the Board would also accept--or feels that Site B would be an acceptable option, and then I would pick up what Beth said about Site C. Chair Bernstein: Okay, we have an alternative motion on the floor. Is there a second? Board Member Kohler: I like that as well. They’re so similar, I’m not sure. One comment I want to make that if you look on this aerial photo, Attachment E, I don’t think that anyone’s thinking that the building is actually going to get moved all the way down to where the Yacht building was per se. It just is going to get mo.ved over--it could be as much as right next door. Somewhere in between 1 and 2 is where that building is.going to end up, and maybe one reason why it should go all the way down to the old Yacht building. Board Member Bunnenberg: My concern is that unless it’s stated clearly that the Board feels that the building should stay at Site A if at all possible, that that will just get somewhat ignored, and people will move immediately to Site B. Board Member-Kohler: Isn’t your proposal the most economically feasible, that keeps the building in the area. That’s what you’re trying to say, and that Site A is the preferred one. Is that what you said? Board Member Bunnenberg: [Off mike] be able to maintain the Sea Scout base at its current historic location that could be proposed to be both financially feasible and incur minimal moving of the building. I’m really concerned about movement of this building over and back, and thus far I have not seen anything that suggests that they could build a foundation around the building or under the building if they just raised it up and tried to tuck the foundation under. Board Member Kohler: The difficulty of putting piers in under the building--It’s pretty much saying what you said, Carol. I don’t see-- Board Member Murden: I do agree. I just felt the emphasis was somewhat different, and as I said, my concern was that A wouldn’t be looked at quite as strongly before moving to B and I think that should be done. Chair Bernstein: I’m not clear if we have a second on the motion yet. Michael. Board Member Makinen: I just had one further thought. Beth, did your motion include some language about a commitment from the City to invest in stabilization of the building until such action occurs for its relocation. Board Member Burmenberg: It did not, but I would certainly be accepting of that. Board Member Makinen: Would you consider adding some words then? Board Member Bunnenberg: That addition, for immediate protection of the building. Board Member Makinen: Yes. If you could add some words to your motion, I would really appreciate it. Page 26 of 27 Board Member Bunnenberg: Okay, so we have: the amendment to the Master Plan is needed, and to strongly recommend. Board Member Kohler: Could I just interrupt for one thing? At one time the HRB considered having a meeting out there and a sandbagging meeting where we would put sandbags around, but the complications of permits and all that we decided not to do it. Board Member Makinen: I’m thinking in terms of insect infestation, things that can go on in the interim that can greatly deteriorate it, and perhaps even prevent it being salvaged. [Inaudible] eaten away by bugs. Board Member Haviland: So Beth, I’m wondering if you could repeat the entire motion. I know there are a lot of additions, here, but I think it would be helpful to everybody. Board Member Bunnenberg: You want the whole motion from the top? I’m glad I wrote it down. Board Member Bunnenberg: The motion is that the HRB’s goal is to preserve the Sea Scout building. The HRB favors Option B, which is location at the site of the old Palo Alto Yacht Club, unless a plan to maintain the Sea Scout building at its current historical location can be proposed that would incur minimal moving of the building and not excessive financial costs. The site on the parking lot, Site C, would cause significant loss of historic significance, but is preferable to loss of the building. We have also the amendment that suggests the amendment of the Master Plan referencing protection of all historic buildings in the Baylands, and the HRB strongly recommends the City take steps to protect and stabilize the building now. Chair Bernstein: I want to finish up a little bookkeeping issue on the alternative motion that was made. Does that havea second? That motion has died from lack of a second. That brings us to the motion that Beth has just presented us. Any comments on this motion before bringing it to a vote? I have a comment, and that is; in the overall scheme of things, first there is nature in the Baylands; next there’s history and human use of the property; and then we in our society, we have laws. I’m relying on the City Council to amend laws as needed to respect the past history and also then the natural aspects of the site. I believe we’re ready to vote. All those in favor of the motion, signal by saying "Aye." All: Aye. Vote: 6-0-0-1 (Mario absent) Chair Bernstein: Passes unanimously. Thank youvery much. Thank youto everybody who participated in this. Thank you. Thank you, everybody, on this very important topic, both emotionally and historically. Thank you. Page 27 Priority g Restoration Enhan~ment ) // ( Fig~e 5. Potential restoration/enhancement areas prioritized according to wildlife habitat,, public use, and economic evaluation crite~$@~ Exhibit 1 WETLANDS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES INC. The City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Baylands .Exhibit 2 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS jthayer, 2002-0~-27 06:30:31 TNs document Is a graphic representation only of best awJlable souroes. Sea Scoul Bldg Photo (~c-prmlrak~gis$~dataWer sona~dmat son.mdb)Toe City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for ar~ errors.