Ventura County Gultural Heritage Board Agenda Mondayn June 11,2012
Notice is hereby given that on Monday, June 1'1, 2012, the Cultural Heritage Board will convene at 1 :1Sp.m for a public hearing at the Ventura County Government Center, Administration Building, Third Floor, Santa Cruz Conference Room (a.k.a. Room 311) located at 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA. Members of the public are welcome to attend.
. ROLL CALL Pat¡cia Havens, Ricki Mikkelsen, John Kulwiec, Don Shorts, Gary Blum, Stephen Schafer, Miguel Fernandez
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Discussion is limited to items not on this agenda which are within the purview of the Board Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. Board may question the speaker but there will be no debate or decision. Staff may refer the matter for investigation and report.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 1 1,2011 Minutes December 12, 2011 Minutes January 23,2012 Minutes 4. CONVENE THE MEETING OF THE PORT HUENEME CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD a) Proposed Port Hueneme Navy Renovation of Building PH104 Project Ser N45VCS/031 1, City of Port Hueneme, CA, Proiect No.11-346 Action: Continued Section 106 Environmental Review and Comments 5. DISCUSSION a) DVD Presentation completed by Cynthia Thompson
b) Review of Draft Mills Act Ten Year Rehabilitation Plan's List of Potential Projects Action: Review and provide recommendations to staff
c) Review of the Berylwood Historic District HABS Survey completed by Jennifer Krintz and Shannon Davis, Architectural Historians, ASM Affiliates, November 2011 Action: Review and provide comments to San Diego Family Housing and Navy Base VC d) Board Comments
e) Staff Update Regarding the Hueneme Masonic Cemetery
ln compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Nicole Doner at 805-654-5042. Reasonable advance notification.of the need for acõommodation prior to the meeting (48 hours advance notice is preferable) will enable us to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. 6. CONVENE THE MEETING OF THE VENTURA COUNTY CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD a) Request for a Certificate of Review of a Site of Merit, 1332 Briggs Road, Unincorporated Area of Santa Paula, Guest House Renovations, Project No. CH12-0008 Action: Review and approve the Certificate of Review
7. MEETING ADJOURNMENT
ln Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Nicole Doner at 805-654-5042. Reasonable advance notification of the need for accommodation prior to the meeting (48 hours advance notice is preferable) will enable us to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board Minutes Third Floor, Room 311, 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura July 1 1,20'11
1 Meeting was called to order at 1:30p.m. by Chairman Blum. Commissioners Present: Patricia Havens, Don Shorts-Vice Chair, Gary Blum - Chair, Miguel Fernandez, Ms. Ricki Mikkelsen, John Kulwiec and Stephen Schafer Staff Present: Nicole Doner
2. Oral Communications None.
3. Approval of Minutes Minutes of May 9,2011 approved by motionTl0
4. Convene the Meeting of the Oxnard Cultural Heritage Board
4a) Oxnard Survey Area 256 and 258 Palm Drive, Oxnard, Replacement of Windows and Shutters, Certificate of Review, Project No.1 1-349
Ms. Doner, staff to the Cultural Heritage Board (.CHB"), presented the staff repoft and recommendation of denial of the installation of vinyl windows along the front and side. Mr. Padilla, representative of the owner was present. Board discussed that the front elevation was the most important and wondered if a compromise could be reached with the owners that the front windows be replaced with wood and the replacement vinyl windows could be recycled elsewhere on the house. Applicant stated that the original shutters were going to be replaced because the original shutters were not working. The replacement windows are different sizes than what was original. Motion made by Mr. Schafer that the project of replacing the original wood windows with vinyl sliders will create a significant adverse impact to the historic sulvey area. Seconded by Mr. Kulwiec. The motion passed 7-0.
5. Convene the Meeting of the Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board
a) Proposed Point Mugu Navy Repairs of Building PM36 Project Ser N45VCS|0270 Ventura County, CA; Section 106 Environmental Review, Project No.11-348,
Board toured PM36 site with the Navy Personnel (Ms. Catherine Girod) at 10:30am that morning. Ms. Doner presented the staff repoft on PM36. Staff
Cultural Heritage Board Item 3 Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board July 11, 2011 Minutes Page 2 of 3
recommended the Board find that the handicapped accessible ramp project located in the rear is not an adverse impact and would meet the Secretary of Interior Standards. Staff considered the proposed interior remodeling would not have an impact because PM36's interior no longer retains historic integrity. Schafer discussed his concerns with Tristan Tozer of SHPO that the NaW is not doing a good job of maintaining the historic integrity of the outside of the building. Tristan Tozer is in charge of processing Section 106 comments on the Navy's projects. Schafer stated he is comfortable with the previous motions made for the PM36 project and made a motion that the rear concrete ramp (completed without SHPO review) is not an adverse impact. Seconded by Mikkelsen. Motion passed 7lO.
Schafer made a motion that the front concrete repair is more than a repair, because of the changes to the missile monument but has no adverse impact. Mr. Schafer wished to note that the project's scale should have been reviewed by SHPO. Seconded by Havens. Motion passed 7/0.
b) Proposed Pool to be located in the rear of the property on a Site of Merit located at 1414 Grand Avenue, Fillmore area, Certificate of Appropriateness, Project No. 11-349
Staff presented the staff report and recommendations of approval. The conditions of the approved deviation required the property owner to record a Cultural Heritage Restrictive Covenant against the property which has been done. Fernandez made a motion to approve the project. Shorts seconded the motion. Motion passed 7/0.
6. Convene the Meeting of the Port Hueneme Cultural Heritage Board
a) Proposed Port Hueneme Navy Renovation of Buildings PH41 and PH44 Project Ser N45VCS/031 1 , City of Port Hueneme, CA, Project No.1 1-347, Section 106 Environmental Review
Staff presented the staff report regarding the removal of original windows and replace with blast resistant windows on the buildings PH41 and PH44 which are considered temporary by the Navy (per Dept. of Defense programmatic agreement). Schafer wanted to see more historic context from the Navy regarding these buildíngs built during WWll. Havens stated that the military has to make changes all of the time and asked if a tour was necessary. Schafer stated that a tour was not necessary. These utilitarian two-story wood-framed buildings may not necessarily be temporary and made a motion to request more information on the temporary nature of these buildings that have existed for 66 years and to continue this item to a later meeting. Seconded by Fernandez. Motion passed 7/0. Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board July 11, 2011 Minutes Page 3 of 3
b) Proposed Poft Hueneme Navy Renovation of Building PH104 (Seabee College) Project Ser N45VCS/0311, C¡ty of Port Hueneme, CA, Project No.11-346, Section 106 Environmental Review
Statf presented the staff report regarding the Navy's request to replace all existíng wood casement windows with vinyl windows, replace all doors, hardware and frames with fiberglass reinforced polyester (FRP) doors and frames, removal of wood stairs and replace with steel stairs; removal of concrete stoops and replace with handicapped accessible concrete ramps, underground the utilities, and reroof the second floor and install new roof framing to increase roof pitch of the first floor using fish scale green asphalt composition shingles.
Schafer stated that the Navy's own information - lntegrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) Historic Context, Section 4.2.4 (page 39, fourth paragraph) indicated how important the Port Hueneme Seabees and their training facility were to World War ll, Korean War and the Vietnam Conflict. Schafer stated that more information was needed and that he disagreed with the statements made by the Navy historian/archaeologist that the Seabee buildings were not important to the Cold War historic context.
Schafer motioned to include the following comments to be sent to the Navy regarding this project: . Proposed roof design raises the roof pitch and uses fish scale shingles not in keeping with the original architecture; . Project architect appears to be unfamiliar with the Secretary of lnterior ' Standards for Rehabilitation; . Replacement of the existing windows with vinyl windows not in keeping with the original type and design; and . Creates new stairs of incompatible design. Fernandez seconded the motion. Motion passed 7/0.
7. Adjournment of the Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Board by Chair Blum. Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board Draft Minutes Meeting Ventura County Government Center, Administration Building, Third Floor, Room 311, 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura Monday, December 12,2011. 12:00 p.m.
1. Meeting was called to order at 12:p.m. by Chair Blum
Commissioners Present: Gary Blum- Chair, Don Shorts-Vice Chair, Patricia Havens, Miguel Fernandez (came later), John Kulwiec, Stephen Schafer, and Ricki Mikkelsen
Statf Present: Nicole Doner, Franca Rosengren, and Tricia Maier
California Preseruation Foundation Webinar - Architectural Styles 12:O0 -1:30 PM by Diane Kane, Phd.
2 Oral Communications None.
3 Approval of Minutes None
4. Convene the Public Business Meeting of the Oxnard Cultural Heritage Board
4a) Oxnard 19ô1 Survey Area, 527 West Fifth Street, Oxnard, Project No. 10-318
Recommendation: Consider Ceftificate of Review, Renovation of existing front residence and construction of a two-story rear residence and four-car garage, Project No. 10-318
Ms. Doner, statf to the Cultural Heritage Board ("CHB'), presented the staff repoft.
Mr. Schafer stated that the City of Oxnard should use the provisions in the California's State Historical Building Code for permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary for the preseruation, rehabilitation, relocation, and related construction of this potentially eligible historical building. Mr. Kulwiec mentioned that if the City required the replacement of the curved concrete steps fronting the existing maín residence with square concrete steps require a stair rail to be installed, then the railing should be made of wrought iron, detached from the existíng structure, but located close to the structure.
Mr. Schafer motioned that the proposed new rear structure of approximately 22 lz teet in height to the peak should be built to be compatible with the historic Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board December 12,2011 Minutes Page 2 of 3
materials (wood windows), features, and architectural style of the existing front residence using single hung wood windows framed with 1x4 trim, hipped rooí,4- inch redwood siding on all elevations and a stairway that is enclosed on the bottom with an outside wall of 36 inches in height and handrail. Mr. Fernandez seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried.
Adjourn the Meeting of the Oxnard Cultural Heritage Board
5. Convene the Meeting of the Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board. 5a) CEQA Review of Coastal Planned Development Case No. LU11-0061 , 12220 Cotharin Road, Santa Monica Mountains. Project No. 1 1-380 Recommendation: Consider staff recommendations for CEQA compliance
Ms. Doner presented the staff repoft regarding the CEQA project review and recommendations
A motion was made by Mr. Schafer and seconded by Mr. Fernandez that the single family residence was considered historically significant based on the findings presented in the staff report. Motion carried. Another motion was made by Mr. Schafer and seconded by Mr. Fernandez that the proposed project (CPD Case No. LU11-0061) would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource based on the analysis in the repoft. Motion carried Mr. Schafer discussed with the applicant the possibility of the applicant obtaining a Mills Act Contract, which would provide the applicant an annual property tax credit as the single family dwelling at that point would be considered an historical landmark. The Board did not specifically address whether the proposed additional construction of the CPD Area did conform to the Secretary of lnterior's Standard's.
5b) U.S. Navat Base, Ventura County, Point Mugu, Proposed Navy Removal of Gantry Cranes from Rooftop of Building PM55, Project No.11-381 Recommendation: Consider staff recommendations for NEPA Section 106 review
Ms. Doner presented the staff repoft regarding the proposed gantry cranes removal. Email from the President of the San Buenaventura Conseruancy sent to the U.S. Navy and State Office of Historic Preservation and copied to the Cultural Heritage Board staff stated that the gantry cranes were historically significant, should be maintained, to remove them would be a significant adverse impact.
Per Mr. Schafer, the U.S. Navy's first letter stated that the proposed undertaking involves the removal of five gantry cranes because they were obsolete, no longer in use, and they did not have the public funds to maintain and ceftify the cranes. According to the Nuuy, Building PM55 is a National Register elÍgíble building and since the cranes are not original to the building, then the cranes are not important Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board December 12,2011 Minutes Page 3 of 3
to the historic significance of the building. However, Schafer stated that since the cranes were installed within two years from the date of construct¡on, the cranes became a standard staple of the building and are character defining elements. The Navy later provided a different story by stating that they wanted to launch different missiles off the building and the cranes in the way.
Schafer made a motion that the cranes are considered character defining features of Building PM55 and should be dealt accordingly in the Section 106 process. Motion passed - 4 ayes (Fernandez, Schafer, Blum and Shofts) and 3 nays (Kulwiec, Havens and Mikkelsen).
6. Discussion: 6a) Comments from Board Members District 1 - Mr. Shorts discussed an upcoming tour of Ventura County's Tudor Revival homes in January of 2012. District 2 - Ms. Mikkelsen - Nothing to report District 3 - Mr. Kulwiec - nothing to report District 4 - Ms. Havens - Bell choirs from Presbyterian church will be combined on allthree churches (Methodist, Presbyterian and Trinity Lutheran) at the Simi Valley Town Center Mall. At large member, Mr. Fernandez nothing to report. At large member -Mr. Schafer nothing to report District 5 - Mr. Blum reported that the Teatro theater building is wrapped in scaffolding for the façade improvement project. Neon sign company found a different color behind one of the signs. In addition, they found an unusual bulkhead that they found during sandblasting: "Sandler building 1928" corner stone.
6b) Staff Update Board members reports: Staff mentioned a minor change to the tile on the 705 Oxnard Boulevard front columns to be a 4x4 black glossy tile. Staff requested that the board members sign two thank you cards, one for Theresa Lubin of GSA and the other for Kim Hocking, previous CHB staff for all of their work on the Mission Aqueduct.
7. Adjournment of the Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Board by Chair Blum. Ventura County Gultural Heritage Board Draft Minutes Ventura County Government Center, Administration Building, Third Floor, Room 311, 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura January 23,2012
1 Meeting was called to order at 1:12p.m. by Chairman Blum. Commissioners Present: Don Shorts -Vice Chair, Gary Blum - Chair, Miguel Fernandez, Stephen Schafer, Ricki Mikkelsen, Pat Havens and John Kulwiec Staff Present: Nicole Doner Absent: None.
2. Oral Communications - None. 3. Approval of the Minutes - Auqust 22. 2011 Minutes - Correct last paragraph on Page 2 to state "resurvey areas that haven't been surueyed in 5 yrs" Motion by Mr. Fernandez to approve the minutes with the correction. Mr. Kulwiec seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. September 15. 2011 Minutes - Ms. Mikkelsen motioned to approve minutes, Mr. Kulwiec seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0, October 10. 2011 Minutes - Mr. Schafer motioned to approve the minutes. Ms. Havens seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0 with 1 abstention.
4. Convene the meeting of the Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board (CHB) a) Review Draft 2010-2011 Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report.
Recommendation: Review, provide comments, and forward to the State Office of Historic Preservation
Discussion: Mr. Fernandez requested changes to the goals (under ltem F). Continue our awareness and educational efforts such as the Ventura County fair. Mr. Schafer asked if there was a possibility of that the Board can require historic preservation policy for making demolitions a discretionary. Staff suggested the Board place it on the next agenda to discuss implementation of an Ordinance amendment regarding demolitions. Mr. Schafer stated that it might be time to update the Cultural Heritage Ordinance No. 4225. Schafer mentioned that a CLG grant is good when the Board has identified areas to develop a historic context statement. Ms. Mikkelsen stated that she thought a review of the Cultural Heritage Ordinance would be a goal. Mr. Fernandez motioned to approve with changes the CLG Annual Repoft, Ms. Mikkelsen seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0.
4b) Consider Re-appointment of the at-large Cultural Heritage Board members, Miguel Fernandez and Stephen Schafer.
Recommended: Reappoint both as at large members. Page2 January 23,2012 CHB Minutes
Ms. Mikkelsen motioned to approve both at-large members. Mr. Shods seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. (two abstentions). 5. Discussion
5a) Comments from Board Members Ms. Havens discussed the potential for designating the School Street homes on the California Register. Ms. Mikkelsen - Stagecoach lnn is a California landmark. Mr. Kulwiec Mr. Shorts - No comments Mr. Fernandez- Provided a presentation on the LaJanelle shipwreck built in 1930 on the East Coast off of Silverstrand Beach. The luxury cruise ship was previously named Borinquen, the luxury cruise ship and named Bahama Star Mr. Schafer - SHPO wants to revive a signage program for identifying CA Landmarks. February 7 CPF Workshop in Los Angeles - Designation and Documentation of Historic Resources. Mr. Blum -
6. Adjournment of the Meeting of the Ventura County Gultural Heritage Board PORT HUENEME CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AGENDA OF JUNE 11,2012 ITEM NO. 4a
SUBJEGT:
Continued Section 106 consultation regarding the Proposed Poft Hueneme Navy Renovation of Building PH104 Project Ser N45VCS/031 1, City of Port Hueneme, CA; Section 106 Environmental Review, Project No.11-346
Captain L.R. Vasquez, Commanding Officer Depaftment of the Navy Naval Base Ventura County 311 Main Road, Ste. 1 Point Mugu, CA 93042-5033
REQUEST/LOCATION:
The US Department of the Navy (Navy) is requesting continued Section 106 consultation regarding the exterior renovation project of PH104 (known as Seabee College orWhite House) located at Poft Hueneme Naval Construction Battalion Center. The proposed projeci at Seabee College is located north ol 23'd Avenue between Harris and Dodson Streets (Exhibit 1 luly 11,2011 CHB Staff Repoft and Attachments).
BACKGROUND:
Construction Date: 1951 and minor renovation in 1984. The extent of 1984 renovation is unknown per the Navy.
Architectural Design/Architect: Early Classical Revival wood framed building on a concrete slab. Architect Unknown.
Historic Context: Cold War Guided Missile Program. The building has been used as a classroom for Navy Construction Battalion personnel (Seabees).
Previous Cultural Resource lnvestiqations: This building has not been included in previous surveys and evaluations by JRP Historical Consulting Seruices. The Naval Base Ventura County archaeologist, Ms. Catherine Girod, evaluated PH104 and prepared a Depadment of Parks and Recreation (DPR 523) form for this building in 2011 (See Exhibit 2, 2011 DPR forms). Ms. Girod concluded that the building was not eligible for the National Register and the APE does not contain any known prehistoric archaeological sites or historic sites. Staff Report and Recommendations, Project No. 11-346 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of June 11,2012 Page 2
On July 11, 2011, the Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board (Board) held a public hearing to review and provide comments on the proposed project. The Board found the Navy's information on the Seabee College to be lacking and determined that the building is historical and potentially eligible for listing under the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Seabee building is an important training and educational center for the Seabees after WWll based on information provided in the Navy's final Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Naval Base Ventura County, Point Mugu and Port Hueneme (Exhibit 2 - Final ICRMP). The information from the ICRMP Hístoric Context, Section 4.2.4 (page 39, fourth paragraph) indicates how impoftant the Port Hueneme Seabees and their training facility were to World War !1, Korean War and the Vietnam Conflict.
PROJECT ANALYSIS
Project Description: The Navy proposes to remove all existing wood casement windows and replace with vinyl windows, remove all doors, hardware and frames and replace with fiberglass reinforced polyester (FRP) doors and frames, remove wood stairs and replace with steel stairs; remove concrete stoops and replace with handicapped accessible concrete ramps, underground utilities, and reroof the second floor and install new roof framing to increase roof pitch of the first floor using fish scale green asphalt composition shingles.
Updated Proiect lnformation: According to the May 8, 2012 letler from Dept. of Navy, Captain Vasquez to SHPO, the existing doors and windows are deteriorated due to water damage and termite infestations and do not meet Anti-Terrorism Force Protections. The existing staircase at the rear of the building does not conform to any current safety code and must be replaced to reduce risk of injury. The building also does not meet the ADA accessibility requirements; therefore, the concrete stairs at the rear of the building will be convefted to concrete wheelchair ramps to allow access to the building.
Seabees Historic Context Statement: Recently, the Navy prepared a historic context for the Seabees at Poft Hueneme during the Cold War (See Exhibit 3, Attachment - pgs. 1- 23). According to the Navy's historic context, a propert¡i that has specific and important association with the Seabees during the Cold War, and which is both greater than fifty years old and retains sufficient integrity is eligible for listing under Criterion A of the National Register of Historic Places. The Navy concluded: The work of the Seabees is an important pattern of events because of the construction effotts in the various war zones of the Cold War. The Seabees are significant for the extraordinaty execution of their mission, not for their training, warehousing and administrative activities.
Staff Comment: Although the building is not considered the work of a master and is considered by the State Office of Historic Preservation staff as "flimsy," the architecture of this building, Early Classical Revival, is relatively distinctive for a Navy building and could be considered rare as the only building of its style and one of the last Seabee buildings that have retained its integrity. Staff Report and Recommendations, Project No. 11-346 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of June 11,2012 Page 3
Staff considers the building's importance lies as a tra¡ning and education center for the Seabees after WWll and their significant role in maintaining military bases around the world. According to the attached history of the US Navy Seabees (Exhibit 1 -DPR 523 Forms), all of the Seabee activity was concentrated at the Port Hueneme base between 1946 and 1960.
The following proposed lmprovements appear incompatible with the Secretaru of lnterior's Standards:
. Replacement o1212 double hung sash wood windows with the vinyl windows; . Replacement of the asphalt shingles with fish scale asphalt roof shingles proposed on the Early Classical Revival building. Fish scale shingles would normally be used for Victorian style buildings; and . Replacement of the wood stairs with steel stairs would be using materials that are incompatible with the building's character. The ramp and the steel stairs would be located in the rear and would be visible from the rear along 22no Avenue.
Based on the Navy's new project-related information and the historic context statement, the Board must either agree or disagree with the Navy's finding that the Seabee College is not eligible for National Register listing and therefore, the project would have no adverse impact on historic resources. lf the Board disagrees, evidence must be cited to support the finding that the building is considered eligible if it has a specific and impoftant association with the Seabees during the Cold War. lf the Board agrees, evidence cited in the Report may be used to support the finding of lack of National Register eligibility.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
San Buenaventura Conservancy comments were received by email on May 22,2012 and June 17,2011 (Exhibit ).
1. Conduct public hearing, hear testimony and consider the staff repoft;
2. Find by motion based on the evidence presented to agree or disagree with the finding that no historic properties will be affected.
3. lf finding the sites historic, then find that the renovation will create an adverse effect, and
4. Adopt the proposed findings. Staff Report and Recommendations, Project No. 11-346 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of June 11,2012 Page 4
Prepared by:
Nicole Doner, Senior Planner 805-654-5042
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: July 11,2011 CHB Staff Report and Attachments Exhibit 2: Navy's final lntegrated Cultural Resource Management Plan (ICRMP) for the Naval Base Ventura County,'Point Mugu and Port Hueneme Exhibit 3: May 8,2012 Letterfrom Dept. of Navy, Captain Vasquez to SHPO and Attachments Exhibit 4: San Buenaventura Conseryancy comments via email dated May 22,2012 and June 17,2O11 PORT HUENEME CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AGENDA OF JULY 11, 2011 ITEM NO. 6b
SUBJECT:
Proposed Port Hueneme Navy Renovation of Building PH104 Project Ser N45VCS/0311, City of Port Hueneme, CA; Section 106 Environmental Review, Project No.11-346
Captain J.J. McHugh, Commanding Otficer Department of the Navy Naval Base Ventura County 311 Main Road, Ste. 1 Point Mugu, CA 93042-5033
REQUEST/LOCATION:
The US Department of the Navy (Navy) is requesting a Section 106 review for the exterior renovation project of PH104 (Seabee College) located at Port Hueneme Naval Construction Battalion Center. The proposed project at Seabee College is located nodh of 23'd Avenue between Harris and Dodson Streets (Exhibit 1 - May 27, 2011 Letter and Attachments -PH104 APE Drawing).
BACKGROUND:
Construction Date: 1951 and minor renovation in 1984. The extent of 1984 renovation is unknown per the Navy.
Architectural Design/Architect: Early Classical Revival wood framed building on a concrete slab. Architect Unknown.
Historic Context: Cold War Guided Missile Program. The building has been used as a ctassroom for Navy Construction Battalion personnel (Seabees).
Previous Cultural Resource lnvestiqations: This building has not been included in previous surveys and evaluations by JRP Historical Consulting Seruices. The Naval Base Ventura County archaeologist, Ms. Catherine Girod, evaluated PH104 and prepared a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR 523) form for this building in 2011(See Exhibit 2, 2011 DPR forms). Ms. Girod concluded that the building was not eligible for the National Register ãnd the APE does not contain any known prehistoric archaeological sites or historic sites.
Cultural Heritage Board Item 4a Exhibit 1 Staff Report and Recommenda.. . rs, Project No. 1 1-346 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of July 11,2011 Page 2
PROJECT ANALYSIS
The project is a federal undertaking that could potentially affect historic propeñies, and therefore under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ("NHPA"), the project will specify how the applicant will take into account and resolve any adverse effects to historic propefties. The applicant will be following regulations at 36 CFR 800.8 in the review process integrating the Section 106 review with the development of the Environmental Review for these projects.
APE: 50'foot work buffer around the building
Proiect Description: The Navy proposes to remove all existing wood casement windows and replace with vinyl windows, remove all doors, hardware and frames and replace with fiberglass reinforced polyester (FRP) doors and frames, remove wood stairs and replace with steel stairs; remove concrete stoops and replace with handicapped accessible concrete ramps, underground utilities, and reroof the second floor and install new roof framing to increase roof pitch of the first floor using fish scale green asphalt composition shingles.
After the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma federal building, the U.S. General Seruices Agency established security criteria for window glazing and blast resistance glass in all federal buildings. ln 2007, the Department of Defense (DOD) instituted UFC 4-010-01 "Anti-terrorism Standards for Buildingd' which provided anti-terrorism force protection technical criteria for military construction. In adherence to these criteria, the Navy is retrofitting PH 104's windows to install high blast glazing and blast resistance laminated glass. The blast resistant glass is so thick that it cannot be placed in regular window frames and therefore, the wood frames are to be replaced with vinyl window frames.
Staff Comment: Since the proposal is exterior renovation, staff considers a fifty foot APE adequate. The architecture of this building, Early Classical Revival, is relatively distinctive for a Navy building, but is not considered the work of a master.
The Navy states that the building's association with the Cold War's guided missile development program is neither direct nor significant. According to the DPR 2011. "Building 104 reflects no direct or imporiant connection to the role played by Port Hueneme in the Cold War, nor is it associated with important persons in history." Staff believes that the Cold War Guided Missile historic context may not be the most appropriate for the Seabee College. The building's importance lies as a training and education center for the Seabees after WWll and their significant role in maintaining military bases around the world. According to the attached history of the US Navy Seabees (Exhibit 3), all of the Seabee activity was concentrated at the Porl Hueneme base between 1946 and 1960. No information or historic context retating to the Seabees' role during this period was offered by the Navy.
Proposed lmprovements that appear incompatible with the Secretary of lnterior Standards: . Replacement oÍ 212 double hung sash wood windows with the vinyl windows; Staff Report and Recommenda..,,ls, Project No. 11-346 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of July 11,2011 Page 3
a Replacement of the asphalt shingles with fish scale asphalt roof shingles proposed on the Early Classical Revival building. Fish scale shingles would normally be used for Victorian style buildings; and a Replacement of the wood stairs with steel stairs would be using materials that are incompatible with the building's character. The ramp and the steel stairs would be located in the rear and appears to be visible from the rear atong 22nd Avenue. lf the Board finds that no historic properties will be affected, then find by motion to agree with the Navy's determination. lf the Board finds that historic properties will be affected, then they must review the improvements in light of the Secretary of lnterior Standards. Your Board must agree oi disagree with this finding. lf the Board disagrees, evidence must be cited to support this finding. lf the Board agrees, evidence cited in the Report may be used to suppoft the finding of lack of National Register eligibility.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comment regarding this application has been received
1. Conduct public hearing, hear testimony and consider the staff report;
2. Find by motion based on the evidence presented to agree or disagree with the finding that no historic properties will be affected.
3. lf finding the sites historic, then find that the renovation will/will not create an adverse etfect, and
4. Adopt the proposed findings.
Prepared by:
Nicole Doner, Senior Planner 805-654-5042
Attachments
Exhibit l: May 27 2011 Letter from Captain McHugh and Attachments Exhibit 2: DPR Forms Exhibit 3: US Navy Seabees History Exhibit 4: San Buenaventura Conservancy Comment Letter dated June 1'1,2011 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Ë* NO\/1720n NAVAL BASE VENTUBA COUNTY 311 MAIN ROAD, SUITE 1 POTNT MUGU, CA 93042-5033 IN REPLY FEFEB TO: 5090 Ser N45VCS/0993 November 8, 2071
Mr. Milford Wayne Donaldson State Hístoric Preservation Officer Department of Parks and Recreation l-725 23'd Street, Suíte l-00 Sacramento, CA 9581-6-71-00 Dear Mr. Donaldson This letter continues consultation on the subject undertaking and is a feply to your comments in a letter dated JuLy 7 , 2011, (reference USN1106064, Enclosure (f-) ) . In your letter you expressed corfcern with the Nawy's decision to replace, rather than repair, the windows of PHl-04. You also expressed concern regardíng the building's eligibí1íty for the National Register of Historic Places.
Due to project funding timing constraints, the Naw¡¡ respectfully requests your support for expedited consultation, consístent with 36 CFR 800.S (g) . The Narry believes that, given the nature of the proposed undertakirg, the public and other interested parties will have adequate opportuníty to comment wíthín 30 days of receipt of this correspondence, which both documents the Area of Potential Effects (ApE) and provides supplemental documentation to support a finding of No Historíc Properties Affected. As stated in an email response to your off,íce (Enclosure (2) ) , no comprehensive historic contexts concerning the Naval Constructíon Battalion (Seabees) at Naval Base Ventura Count.y (NBVC), Port Hueneme (or nationwide) exist to date. There is an emergent funding reguest to develop a Seabee context for port Hueneme; however, it will not be completed for at leasÞ two months, depending on when the funding is available. The earliest Seabee facilitíes, dating to L942, v/ere located in Davisville, Rhode ïsland. Later in L942, the Advance Base Depot of Port Hueneme was established as a West Coast base where Naval- Construction Battalions could be trained and staged, and construction materials marked for the Pacífic theater could be amassed and l-oaded for shipment. PorÈ Hueneme was chosen as the location because of the existing deep-water port. Buíldings associated with the Seabees at Port Hueneme at that time consisLed of large warehouses and administrative offices, as 5090 ser N45VCS/0993 November B, ZOLL well as camp Bedilion (which has since been al-most completely demolished). Large vacant lots where materials could be amassed for shippíng \^rere arso pervasive at port Hueneme during that time. During those earl1r days, Seabees hrere recruited from the constructíon trades. Later, during the Korean conflict, port Hueneme became the home port for five newly-formed seabee battalions. During thís time, well after the development of Port Hueneme as a Seabee base, classroom facilities were needed to train the incoming Seabees; buildings PH1O3 and PHi-04 r/ùere constructed in ]-952 to meet that need. These build.ings are not associated with the development of port Hueneme as a base. while PH104 is associated with the seabees, it fits within an education property type rather than a mílitary property type. The training/education property type is not importanÈ in illustrat.ing a historic context rerated to the development and/or deployment of seabee personnel. There'are no specífic historíc associations, engineering values, ot information potential which represent a seabee context. considering this l-ack of historical connections, the building is not eligíbIe for the NRHP under Criteria A, C, or D.
Building PH104 does embody some characterístics of an architectural type. In your letter of ,Ju1y 7, 201_1 you described PHI04 as colonial Revival. According to American Architecture: An rllustrated Encyclopedia by cyri! M. Harris (W.W. Norton & Company, 2002, p. 6g) , 'rColonial Revíval architecture usually exhíbits a hipped, gabled, or (less frequently) gambrel roof.rr The most invasive portion of the proposed undertaking is the replacement of the currently complex roof with a uniform gabled roof, which would actually bring the building closer to the colonial Revival style. The Navy ídentified PH1o4 as classícaI Revivar style, rather than Colonial Revival sty1e. There are no other C1assical Revival buildings cl-ose by and whíIe the buíIding has a particular style (a relatively poor example), it is one of many around the united states. Further, the buildíng has been subjected to several renovations throughout the years, including replacement of the roof, two additions at the north side of the building, replacement of exterior doors, and the addition of low brick pranters at the east, south and west sides of the building. Additionally, the interior of the building has been subjected to renovations and repaírs throughout its 1ífetime, íncluding the
a 5090 ser N4sVCS/0993 November B, 2011- two additions at the rear of the building, so that the interior no longer conveys its origínal design. The building does not represent the work of a master, oy possess'high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguíshable entity whose components lack individual distinctions. Therefore, the buildíng is not e1ígib1e for the NRHP under Criterion B. The buíldíng is not part of a hístoric dístrict. Though the buildíng is located in an area of the base dominated by classroom facilities, most, with the exception of pH103 and PHl-04, hrere constructed in t99O or after. The renovations at PHI-04 (Enclosure (3)) will incl-ude the replacement of the roof, exterior doors (including door frames and associated hardware), window repairs, and exterior wood stairways. Exterior concrete stairways will be replaced wit.h concrete wheelchair access ramps. The sidewalk between the building and the parking lot will have a wheelchaír access ramp installed. V'Iindows wíl1 be repaired. Utilities will be undergrounded from the existing pole at the southeast corner of the building to a neh/ wa11 panel inside the building. The exterior doors (not original) are deteriorated due to water damage and termite infestations. In additíon, the windows do not meet Antí-Terrorism Force Protection standards (see Sections L-5 and 1-6 of Enclosure (4) ) and are required to be replaced to reduce the risk of injury to personnel in the event of a terrorist attack. Though the windows need to be replaced, they will be repaíred to the extent possible as a témporary measure until the building can be formally evaluated in the context of the Seabees at Port Hueneme. The exterior wood stairway at the rear of the building does not conform to any current safety code and must be replaced to reduce risk of injury to personnel. The building does not meet Americans with Disabilities Act access requirements; therefore, the concrete stairs at the rear of the building will be converted to concrete wheelchair ramps to allow access to the building.
Consistent with the above considerations and 36 CFR 800.4(d) (1), NBVC finds that no historic properties will be affected by the proposed undertaking. NBVC conferred with Commander, Nawy Region Southwest (CNRShI) Cultural Resources offíce
3 5090 ser N4svcs/o993 November B, 20Ii
concerning this undertaking. CNRSW Cultura] Resources office concurs wíth the fínding of no historic properties affected. The Navy respectfully requests your concurrence on the proposed delineation of the ApE and its determination of no historic properties affected by the proposed und.ertaking withín 30 days of receipt of thís letter. Should you have any questions or need further information, please contact Catherine GÍrod at (B05) 989-g24g. Sincerely,
J. Captaín, U.S. Navy Commanding Offícer
Enclosures: (r SHPO response, J:uIy 7, 201-1- (2 Copy of email to SHPO, dated 25 August. 2OIL (g Project description (+ Unifíed Facilíties Criteria 4-Ol_O-01, DoD Mínimum Antj-terrorism Standards f.or .Buildings Copy to: commander, Navy Regíon southwest, Enwironmental Department culturar Resources Management program (w/o Enclosures) San Diego, CA 92L47
Friends of t.he Bard Mansíon P. O. Box 1-13 Port Hueneme, CA 93003 Port Hueneme Historical Socíety 220 Market Street %;":,",:""":","";".:::;,, 800 South Víctoria Avenue""",u Ventura, CA 93009
4 5090 Ser N45vCs/0993 November 8, 2017
Heritage Trust of Oxnard Attn: Ben Moss ]-25 North F Street Oxnard, CA 93030 SanÈa Ynez Band of Mission Indíans Attn: Vincent Armenta - Chairman P.O. Box 5L7 Santa Ynez, CA 93460 San Buenaventura Conservancy P.O. Box 23263 Ventura, CA 93002
5 f?ø'Yr" STÂTE OF CALIFOÊNIA - THE RÊSOURCES AGËh. Govemol OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTI'ENT OF PARKS AND RECREAT¡ON ^o. BoxE428Sô :RÁI,ENïO, CA 9.+29ô{Xl0f .-16)653€ô24 Fðc (S16)659S824 [email protected]árfis,ca.€|o.ì/ wYYr,T.Oh p.pêrþ.(a. gov
July 7,20'11 Reply in Reference To: USN11060eA
Captain J.J. McHugh Naval Elase Ventura County 311 ft4ain Road, Suite 1 Point Mugu, CA 93042-50
RE: Renovation of Building PHIO4, NavalBase Ventura County, Port Hueneme; CA
Dear Captain McHugh:
Thank you for reguesting my comments on the above-referenced undertaking. Pursuant to 36 GFR Part 800, the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Hietoric Preservation Act, the United States Navy (Navy) is requesting my concurence with a finding of No Historic Properties Affeded.
The Naly proposes to renovate Building PH1O4, a two-story Colonial Revivalstyle educational facility constructed in 1951. Project components includethe replacement of wood-framE and rnetal-frame windows with únyl dual gane windorrs, You define the APE for this undertaking as the building to be affected and a fifryfoot bufre¡zore around this property. ln addition to your letter, you have provided National Register evaluations of the building.
Having revie$€d your subm¡ttal, of or F¡nding of Effecf,. Nowhere in appear you considered the propertt's elþibility within the historical context of the Seabees. One could imagine that an argument could be made for its eligibility under Griterion A. I am also inclined to disagæe with your assertion that the building does not embody distinctive cìaracteristics of a type; the buildi¡g's Colonial Revival style certainly stands out. Are there other similar examples on the Base? ls it possible that the property is part of a potential historic distric't? Please address these,concems in orderto cor¡tinue consultation. Please be advised that in the event of a change in project description or an inadvertent discovery, you may have additional rcsponsibilities under 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for considering historic properties during proiec* plannÍng. lf you have any questions or comments, please contact Tristan Tozer of my staff at (918) 44i5-7027 or by ernail at [email protected] Sincerely,,fude-a*,y Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA State Historic Preservation Officer Girod, Gatherine A CIV NAVFAC SW
From Girod, Catherine A CIV NAVFAC SW îent: Thursday, August 25,2011 9:06 AM lo: 'Tozer, Tristan' Cc: 'Nicole Doner'; 'San Buenaventura Conservancy'; Montoya, Joseph L CIV NAVFAC SW, PRV42; Smith, Everett CIV NAVFAC SW Subject: PH104 consultation Attachments: PH1O4 SHPO 7 July 2011 letter.pdf; PH104 DPR form.pdf Signed By: [email protected]
Tnistan,
In nesponse to youn comments (attached) neganding nenovatíons at Building PHIø4 (a1so known as the.l¡lhite House), please see below.
No comprehensíve historic contexts concenning the Navy Constnuction BattalÍon (Seabees) at NBVC Pont Hueneme (on nationwíde) exist to date. The earliest Seabee facíIitÍes, dating to 1942, wene located in Davisville, Rhode Island. Also in L942, the Advance Base Depot of Port Hueneme was established as a l¡lest Coast base where Naval Construction Battalíons could be tnained and staged, and construction matenials marked for the PacifÍc theater could be amassed and loaded for shipment. Port Hueneme was chosen as the location because of the existíng deep-waten port. Buildíngs associated with the Seabees at Port Hueneme at that time consisted of large warehouses and administrative offices, as well as Camp Bedilion (which has since been almost completely demotished). During those eanly days, Seabees uJere recnuited from the constnuctÍon trades. Laten, duning the Konean Conflict, Port Hueneme became the home port fon fíve newly-fonmed Seabee battalions. DurÍng this time, classnoom facilitíes 'vere needed to train the íncomíng Seabees; buildings PHLø3 and PHIØ4 brere constructed in L952 to meet that need. t¡lhile PHIø4 is associated wÍth the Seabees, ít fits within an educatÍon pnoperty type nathen than a mitítany propenty type. The tnaining/education pnopenty type is not important ín illustnating a histonic context related to the development and/or deployment of Seabee pensonnel. There are no specific histonic associations, engineering values, on infonmation potentíal which represent a Seabee conteÎt. Considening this lack of histonical connections, the buílding is not elígible for the NRHP unden Cnitenia A, C, or D.
BuildÍng PHLø4 does embody some chanactenistics of a type. In your letter of JuIy 7, 2ØtL you descnibed PH1.ø4 as Colonial Revival. Acconding to Amenican Anchitecture: An Illustrated Encyclopedía by Cynil M. Harris (hJ.t^I. Nonton & Company, 2øø2, p. 68), "Colonial Revival architectune usually exhibits.a hipped, gabled, on (less fnequently) gambrel noof." The most ínvasive portion of the pnoposed undentaking Ís the replacement of the currently complex noof with a uniform gabled roof, which would actually bning the building closen to the Colonial Revival style. The Navy identified PH1.ø4 as Classical Revival style, rathen than Colonial RevivaL style. There are no othen Classical Revival buildíngs close by and while the building has a panticulan style (a relatively poor example), it is one of many anound the United States. The buíIdÍng does not nepresent the wonk of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinctions. Additionally, the intenior of the building has been subjected to nenovations and repains throughout its lifetime, including the two addítÍons at the rear of the building, so that the interior no longen conveys Íts oniginal ínterion desígn" Therefone, the building is not eligible fon the NRHP unden Cnitenion B.
Ihe building is not part of a histoníc distríct" Though the building Ís located in an anea of the base dominated by classnoom facilíties, most, with the exception of PH1Ø3 and PHLØ , h,ene constnucted in L99Ø or after. I rf you have any concenns on questions, please eithen cal_r on emair me.
Thank you, Catherine
CathenÍne Ginod, M.A. CulturaI Resources Pnognam Manager Naval Base Ventuna County (8Øs)eïe-e24e DSN 35L-9249
2 ru
u fI I
ND FLOOR
t--- l-t-t lI ft- I ilt 2 2 1
O (Ð
2
=_J
IG NO . 104. SECOND FLOOR
11
5'-0" 15'-0'
1 2 2 2
2 1 5 Ll rl L:JtJL:J LJIL_lr tL__Jt I <1)
IT" ELEVATION '-0n
\ I I - tu I I I ilt LJ L \- \.t, ù ..1.') j6) -l\\
T'' ELEVATION -0' F F F F F F F F F
U_'{ ELEVATION 1'-0"
z T -\--
/
-l F ,¿ ü:1L..lll HI F F '/z F Ø tt -l l--r ll
ttt I
.ELEVATION LT', '-0t
F
F :'. VVKI ¡ Its,N I-'IMtsNì'IUNö ì'F1ALL IAKts, I-lKts,I-ts,Kts,NL;E Uvts,f( t'I CONSTRUCTION TYPE: N/A DIMENSIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SI-{ALL VERIFY ALI- DIháEN OCCLjPANCY GROUP: N/A CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCIES AND SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF TI-.IE AR.C¡-I!TE(
LOT SQ. FT.: N/A 4. GONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBI-E FOR DETE EXISTENCE, PRECISE LOCATION AND PREVENTION OF DAII MAX LOT COVERAGE: N/A UNDERGROUND FACILITIES UTILITY RUNS ANÐ STRUCTUR V¡CINITY OF THE PROJECT WORKAREA. AVOID DAMAGIN¡( CONDUITS OR EQUIPMENT THAT IS TO REMAIN WI.{ETh{ER (E) BUTLDTNG SQ. FT.: 3,494.25 SQ. FT INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR S!-L\I-L NOTIFY EACH UTILIW COMPANY, MUNICIPALITY OR OTHEF OWN AND OPERATE AND SUBSTRUCTURES, AND REQUES' ENGINEERING INFORMATION OR PLACE PHYS¡CAL MARK¡N FACILITIES IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO STARTING ANY WORK. PROPOSED SQ. FT.: 3,494.25 SQ. FT OWNER NOR THE O\ANER'S REPRESENTATIVE REFRESEN' HAS ANY PRECISE KNOWLEDGE AS TO EITHER TI-IE FULL E LOCATION OF EQU¡PMENT AND RUNS THAT MAY FALL WITI OR PROJECT S¡TE. EXECUTE EXCAVATION AND DEMOLIT]( AND tN THE BUILD|NG W|TH EXIREME CARE (By HANDS O[ WHEREVER AppROpRtATE) AND AT THE SOLE R|SK OF Tl{t AND THE WORKERS INVOLVED.
5. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE FORJOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING TI-{E COARSE OF CONT .THE PROJECT. INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND REQUIREMENT SIIALL APPLY CONTINI..'OUSLY AND NOT BE NORMAL WORKING HOURS.
6. ONLY'APPROVED" CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT DRAWINIG SPECIFICATIONS ARE PERMITTED FOR USE ON TFI¡S PR.O..!I PROJECT DIRECTORY CONTRACTORS USING'UNAPPROVED' CONSTRUCTION D( SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FORALL WORK NOT PERFOR.MED II WITH THE "APPROVED' CONSTRUCTION DOCUMEN¡TS.
7. THESE CONTRACT DOCUMENTDRAWINGS AND SPECIFIGP ARCHITECT INCLUDING THE DESIGN INCORPORATED I-IEREIN, AR.E INS PROFESS¡ONAL SERVTGE PREPARED FOR JSA ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING USE IN¡ CONNEC PROJECT IDENTIFIED HEREON UNDER TI.IE 23OO KNOLL DRIVE, SUITE A- CONDITIONS E JANUARY,2OO5. ANY USE, IN WI-IOLE VENTURA, CA 93003 OR IN PART FORANY PROJECT, WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION TELE: 805.2f 8.5782 FAX: 805.676.'1006 OF JOHNI SI ARCH ¡TECTS, A PROFESS CONTACT: JOHNSERRATO IONAL CORPORATTON (DBA .jSA I PLANN¡NG), EMAIL: [email protected] SHALL BE AT USER'S SOLE R!SK.
IY 8. SPECIAL INSPEGTION: SEE STRUCTI-'RAI- DRAWINGS
I SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND S{JBSEQUENT REPOR.TS REINFORCED IN GONFOR.MANCE WITI.I SECTION 170' CBC AT THE OWNERS EXPEÀ.¡SE.
2. ALL SPEC¡AL INSPECTIoNS SIIALL .VIADE BYAN¡ IN INSPECTION AGENCY SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY TI-i
Building PH1O4, east elevation, facing west/southwest. Building PH103 is in the background. PH103, constructed.in 1952, is the 3l't Seabee Readiness Group headquarters building, consisting of offices and academic instruction classrooms.
Building PH104, south and east elevations, facing north. Building PHL447 is in the background . PHt447, constructed in 1990, is a classroom facility. Building PHLO4, south elevation, facing west/northwest. Building PHi.O3 is in the background.
Building PH104, south elevation, facing north. Building PH1446 is in the background. pH1446, constructed in L990, is an academic instruction facility. Building PH1O4 west and south elevations, facing northeast. Building PH1446 is in the background
Building PH!446, south elevation, facing north Building PH104 west elevation.
Building PH104 north and west elevations, facing southeast. Building PH104, north elevation, facing southeast.
Building PHt447, west and south elevations, facing noftheast. Building PH1,04, north elevation, facing southwest.
BuÌlding PH104 east and north elevations, facing southwest. Building PH1415, west elevation, facing east.
Buildings PHL446 and PH1447, south elevations, facing northwest Building PH104 south elevation. Sttta of Califom¡a-The Resources Agerìcy Prlmery# ÐEPÀRTMENT OF PARKS ANÐ RECRËATION HRI# PRIITIARY RECORD T¡lnor{al NRHP Sta¡us Code Otfter Llstinge Revlcw Godo ReY¡ewer Date or ldlng P1. qher ldentÌflen &abee Cotlege; theWhtte House tPZ. Locstion; tr Not for Publlcation r UnrsEtr¡cted *a. Çounþ: Ventura and (P2b and F2c or P2d. Alhch a Locâtion Mep as necessary.) "b. ugcs 7.5' Quad: oxnard, cA Date: 1949, photorevis€d 196? T ; R : vc ol % of sec ; M.Ð. E.M. c. Address: Clg: port Huenerne CA ãp: B0rl3 d, UTM: Zone: 11; 297320 m E; 3783)96 mN (cerrter of front sçs); l¡Roæ e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parce¡ #, direotior¡s to resource, elevâtion, sto., as appÞprial€) Etevaüon: Buitding PH 104 is located onboæd Na¡al BaseVenturaCounty FortHuan€,Íne,north of 2SdAvenue, bdween Hanissnd Dodsn ãreets.
tP3a. Description: (Describe resource and lts major elemenls. lnclude design, matødds, condition, atterat'r:rs. size, aetting, and boundar¡sg) Building PH 104 ls a 3,868 square foot, Faly Clasdcd Rerrivd wood frame building on a concrete slab. The f¡ont (south side) of the bu¡lding lsdomin¡ûd by alarge2-Sory gål+roofed pordt with 4srpporting columncThee6t and we$wingsaes¡nglestory, whiletheslter portion istwo story. Wlndolr,ssrÉ Z 2doublehung sash, somedngleald others in groupsof two or thre€. ThB roof ¡s asPhdtdtingled- Theroof on thecerrter portion of ihebuilding isgáled,lhe roof m theea$ and wêd portionËisgâb¡ed with an o *PSb. Reisource Attrlbutes: (LiÊt Etùibures and 6odÊs) HP34: Military property *P4. Rssourcee Present rBu¡iding trstructure EObjed trSlte trDlstric[ trElement of DisÈic{ trOther (¡solâtes, etc.) P5b. Deecription of Ptroto: (lfeuv, P5a. Photoor grr¡,jlq, J€quireq {ï*;" Ilr date, accasslon #) Bttílding Ptl 104, 'r" ,. -,' æuth dsvation, ønera facing north ÉP6. Date Consbucted/Age and Sourcee: rHistôrlc trPrehlstorJc ClBoth Constructed ln f 951 *P?. OwnerandAddrcse: Navd BæVenturaCounty 311 M¿ùn Road, S¡ite 1 Point Mugu CA 9S042 *P8. Recordodby: (Nama sffilatlon, and address) CathsineGirod N BVC Ênvl ronmentd Divisi on *P9. Date Recordrd: ãl fil n11 *Pt0, Suwey Type: (Describe¡ lntensive tPl l. Report Cltatlon: (Cile suruey report and othe¡ sources, or ènter "none.') .RP Hi$orìcal Consufting, LLC. æ1O Hi$oricd Resources lnventory and Fvslustion Report for Ten Buildings on N avd Baçe Ventura CcFJnty, Port Huenem6, Cdiforina R€port on file, Natraf BæeVe¡¡tura County Environmenld Division, "Attächmëntâ: úNONE rLocaüon lì¡ap trSkelch Map tGontinuation Sheet tBuilding, Structure, and Object Record ElArchaeological Record trDlstr¡ct Recôfd trLinear Feature Record trMilling Stal¡on Record trRock Art Record trArtifact Record trPhctograph Rocord tr Other (Ust); DPR 523À (l/S5) ÈRêqutred lnformsflorl Exhibit 2 Stats of Galifornia-Tho Resourcee Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RËCREATION HRHÊ BUILDING, STRUCTU AND OBJEGT REGORD Page 2 of6 Status Codo *Resou¡te Name or # (Assigned by recorder) : Erildlng PH 1@ Bl. Historic Name: Sabe¿College E.2. Common Name: SeebeeCollege lhe White House 83, Origlnal Use Seebeedæoom çaæ84. Present Use: SabæCollqe *85, Archlt€ctural Stylê: Erly Clasdcd Revival nB6. Conetsuct¡on History: (constrúction date, aitcratlons, ard däte of elterauons) Condruded in 1951, renovated ln 19&4. Extefll of rr¡ovations is unknow n. *87. Moved? lNo trYêÊ EUnknown Date: Origlnal Location: *88. Related Features: None B9a. AtchiÞc't: Unknown b. BulHsn Unknorrrn *810, Sþnlfioance: Thcms: N/ A Arca: N/ A PeriodofSignificancel N/A PrcpertyT¡lpe: N/A AppllcableCrlterla: N/A (Dlscuse lmpotance ln terms of hielorioaÌ or a¡dútectural context as deflned by theme, poriod, and gaographlc scope. Also addrcss int€grity,) Building PH 104 doæ nqt appe€r to med the signiflcæoa critsia and lstherefore not dlglblefor li$ing on the Nationd R4lder of Hi$oricHæs (NRHP). While¡mporlrtt historicconte¡ttsconmnirg the Nwy Constructlon Battalion (s€âhees) ma!, etdst, PHlO4 lsorìly æsod€ted wlth thetre$ning of these units and isnot dirsdly oonnec{ed to any partlanlã misson or event thd has madea significant æntributlon to the brqad pdtane of the hlsory of Narrd BaseVentura Cornty, thê Sáees, the 8de of Callfornia or lhe Un¡Îed $deq therefore the bullding ie not dlglble for the NRHP undç Criterion A. Llkerlse, the bul¡dlng is not dlglblo for the NRHP und€f Cr¡tslä B through D. The building is not as€odât€d with any spedfic indlvlduds rlgnificant to ôüf påd; mily people have worked in thaÉ bullding over the pad 60 y*s The bullding does not qnbody didinc{ive d¡*æterlg¡cs of a typq perlod, or md,hod of condrudlqt, or r+rffiìt lhe work of a mds, ü poscrss hlgh afil$ic vduæ, or represent a Sgnif¡cant Ðd didingui$aÞle entity whose compon$ts lack indlvidud didlndion. The bulldlng ls not llltdy to yleld intormatlon ¡mportät in hl$ory. This property hæ been waluded ln ærdãnce wlth the d¡gib¡lity criterla for the NRI-IP in 36 CFR €0 and e¡pldned in gu lddlnes publ¡sh€d by the Keeper of the Regi$er. Bil. Additional Resouroe A¡üibuteB: (Llot anributes and codes) tBl2. Reterences: 813. Remafie; (Sketch Mâp wíth north anow required.) *B.|4. Evaluator: CethÊrine Girod, N BVC Environmentd D¡v¡gon Revlewcd þ!r: EverÉ*t Snilh, Histor¡an, NAVFAC S/V rDate of Eveluatlon: 5f 111 2011 (This space ressrved foroflicid comments.) DPR5238 (1&Ð 'Bequirad ¡r¡fÖûration State of Gslilornla Rssourcss Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF -ThePARKS AÌ,¡D RECREAT]ON HRT# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomlal *Resource Pago 3 of Hame or # (Assigned by recorder) Buif ding PH 104 *Recorded Catherine Gi NBVC Envíronmentd Dlvlsion*Date: 51 1112011 rContinuation tr HlSorlocpnt€Ð.t Following thedtack on Fe*l Habor on Desnber 7,19.1, the Nävy sught â $ipping port for condrudion mat€ría¡s. Fort Huer¡erneoffered arcdlmt ndurd fedureeæd plenty of opør lar¡d for dêrrdopment. Thegovernmenl acquired theport for the war effort.'Consrudion began on Macf¡ 9, 1942whllethe ls¡d waadill being seanred. The Nary €nlãged lhEharbor end mnsruded Soragefacilitiæ, offioæ, houslng, roadsar¡d a rail gur,'¿Throughout thewar lheNat/y proo.rred, pad ACORN (Aviatlon Condrudlon Ordnarce Repdr Navy) was the namethe Bu¡ea¡ of Aeronautlcsgave to prepad At th6 ênd of World War ll in 1945, the Navy disbr¡ded th€ Aoorn Assernbly and Tralning Detaúment. The bæe converted Brilding 452 into a laundry fadlity, with aonÈton hoid and lrgecapæity boll6r. Thebulldlng supported Construdion Batldion Center divities ¡nto the 1970e wh€n it wæturned over lo lhe Nwd S¡rfæ M issile $rSems Engineeing $dion. TheNavy €dabl¡$ed a neu/ teflilt orgs¡ization at Fort Huenerne f n 1S3. TheNa¡al srip MisileSdemsEng¡n€ering $ation (NSMSE$ pronornced ar¡d somdimespdled NEMES$wælnltiated to$pportthein$dlationof narv guided missileson Navy $Ípa The Narry dwdoped Tdoe, Terrier, and Ttrta missiles diredly after World War ll and in$alled them on Navd *tips in the 1qF0s By l9@, The"ThreeTe" ffdos, Terrler, ry¡d Terttr) hâd bæomsknown æthe"TeribleTs/. o Søday of D€frlse Rob€rt Mclrlamaawas æncerned ebout therdlSillty of the ThræTsand cdled on ân €nd to æ¡ìtinu¡ng the devdopment until rdiability could bsimproved.tThe'GetWdl" progranr for the"TerriHeTs," NSfuISE$ bêgan €* Forl Huenerne." | " The Farmers Fort ând the Draft ," Ãrløne{Volume 31, No. 2, Februay 1915), 249. e " 6fl1 H arbor Attd( Triggss Fo¡t H uernqre Acltvlty," G# eilHn (Jtne ISB), 3. Eerl F. Sdìn€¡ds, lnlerviEr¡v with Earl F. Súndder by Shzun lllingworth, NE¡¡ Brunsvrrick N.l Novernber 19,20@; Nan¡ Brun s¡¡ i dt H islory Department, RJtgers Oral hiSory A rùivec avai I ebl e ofl I i ne htto/ / or4hi.eîgn¡.iutoers.edu.intgviel¡r# schneidêr eart.h¡ral¡ æcecÊed msdt 24,2008; DouglæMayotteCdledion (AFC/ 2001/ úl/ 43313) Vá€räìs H¡sotry Projed, Arfleris¡ Fotklife Oent*, Llbrafy of Gongræq ardlSle online åcæÊd Marcì 31,3008. "Commender's Llfe Dwoted to Nary frorn gert to Fin¡dì," ,4ø"?,4¿fiät(Augud æ, 1944), 1. 'Ðrt Hueneyns, Callfornía, Gen*al map. ProgreasSrorvn to 7-143; Bur"eu of Yardea¡d Docks, RtdìcWttçdtlcNry Bulldnga (.Lrly 1945),7Sþ759; United SateeN a'ry, Ëluath Nud Dìdrìd H@tairq Èt Diqp 04 (Unlted SatesNary. January 1945), 131, 'Henryh,lorrls,"NStvlg.STh€n,N$I/SESNow;Howthe'TerrlbleTsGotUsWh€reWeAreToday," lntsfæ(+ed,dEdltlon 1988),12 'R. Chri$ophø Goodwin ar¡d Associates,lno. Nauy HdWa GulHMfæìteãætd:Ræ,træAsdddwilhtlønavy'sGuiH Misileprqrzrt lgùlW(August 19S), 69. 8 Recommended: lmrnediateEstùllstrment of an Englneerlng Cantc," ttttsfæ(, æid Edition, 19SS), 3; lntsviaiu with Henry Morris.Marcfr12.2008;RussPyle'H¡Sory,ThoseWeretheGoodOldDayq'lntqfæ(ldAnniversaryEditimlgTS),4. (rre5l "Required State sf Callfornla-Thê Resources Agency Primary# OEPARTTIENT OF PARI(S AND RECREATION HRI# GONTINUATION SHEET Trinomlal *Resource Page 4 of Nams or#(Aesigrrad by recordor) Bu¡ld¡ng FFl104 'Recorded CdherineGirod, NBVC Environmentd Divi$on*Date: 5/ 1112011 | Continuation tr N SJSESw ascommlæioned ùlv 1963d ng Æ, with C+td n Rldr*d E. Bell n command. The me¡nbss of ths 5&perÈon std¡on consisted of six mt titary p*sonnel 38 civil servants, fld 14 cDntrætors. To sëcure lhê requi red teónl cd knowledgethe €ngine€rlng station ¡wersd the cafeef path ol skilled teúni cal srd flg¡ neerlng *df Usually oompañaæ reøuited from former militüy or dvl¡ sêrviceÉd. Theengineerlng $ation wasúl€to recrult from prlvdeærnpilles, bringlng in Stilled tedrnlcd staff fir$ as æntraü,org, then trand€rring them to the dvjl servlcÊ.t With approxlmatdy S0trrfaceMiesllesrlpsdready ln theileet, end dill morein,produdion,themglneering datlon moved quickly to determlnåwhatequipment wæôoød eadr strlp, deve{op regular t€ling for the€qulpmfit, trein sdlorsln it6usê, æd dwdop logisicd suppod.r' Keeping up with theThree Tswasnol theonly td(; æthestation cde0rated ¡ÎssÊcond anniversar¡r, theSlrfaca M iesles/st€rn Projd Off¡oo, Br¡æu of Navd W@onsfid the Br¡reau of Srips hd added arother Soprojects to the ddion'rloed.rl With fundsand resources being dranneled into the Vletnan conllld. bdwæn 1æ1 ând 197?, phydcd Salion growth wær4id, but somauhat hryha¿rd.Theenglneeringddion waaoriglndly housed ln rsnnantsof Canp B€d¡llon: Buildlngs44?, rl{, a1çt 44,g.P Therapid upansion of thedation neceËsital€d theconsrud¡on of ns¡ì/ bülldlngs. Thsfirst ner¡r building wæB,r¡lding 1163. Logi$ics ud thesernÈp*menenl bulldlng of tllt-trp compogtepands, whldr typlfi€d *ni-permzrert buildingstheû would bætnecommon for theSstlon.Thenort yeð thsståtion ænSruded aønplo< of dght modula bulldinçin theaeawesl of Bulld¡ng 447' Theaginecing ddion also leased bulldinga, rdared to æ"annexes," off base. Mob¡l€t€mporæy unlts (trcrilers) dm bøneoommon dthedatìon. with 6omelocat€d in theæurtytrd ôf Building445and in thecll formd by suilding a44. NS[¡lsEScontinued to opport themissilesyg€msthat had sparned itthrotrgh the 1980s. Along with slpportingtheoriginal surfæ missilesY$ems N€MSShdped writethespæiflcatlons, eded cont¡dors, observed demon$rations, esisl€d w¡th tedtnical €vduailions, æd p¡aflnq! Íns ¡ú¡on of the$andard mls$le NATO*a Sarrow, Rotling AirframeMisúle(RAM), Harpoon, Tomahark, and Aêgis.É ln addilion, theddion supplied in-sviæengineering to theseþrograms, whidr lnduded prepadion of manudsand melntenanceproceduræ, srpply or repalr ptrts, and planning for upgrades The increæin dationanpported sy$emsand opsalionsreEllted In thedevdopmert of uniquéfacilit¡€e, ¡flcluding theglrfacê W*fae Enginær¡ng Fâdl¡ty (g\rEF), Sdf DdeûseT€d Ship (SDT$, antt Underway @tenlsrment (UNRFlt€d €¡t€. Thegrowirrg numbs of ddion-orpported S¡ipsand systernsr¡e',lted in organizatlond ùatgæ. lntendly, thoddion added ne¡r dep*tmentsand dlro€toriæfor lhe new sydens" Externally, the incræed number *rd typeof weapoflssy$€ms lhedation q¡pporled resJlted ¡n thesld¡on nrne drangefrom "mlsdld to "we+on.' Thedation offìcidly b€cÉmê Na/d S¡rfaceWqons 9ydern Engineffing Satíon (NS,\rSS) in 1972oThe Na/y asa wholê underwent a reorgilizaflon in 1966 that dirnin*ed the old $an syetem' Unds tftêne$t orgmlzdiond syS€m thesdlofl beÈam€a part of theNa¡d Sea S/stefiìsCommând (NAVSEA) in 1974. NAVSEA snhined operdlonsfrorn theBurs¡ of Con$rudon, Equ¡pmãt ând Reprir, theB$r€flJ of Ordnanæand Hydrography, and the Eh¡reau of $rips. The æmmand overseæthederrdopm€nt ãrd d€sign of $lpsand ÐrsÊerns, äd sr¡pports $ipsand €y$g¡sthrough mdntenanæ, repair, conversion, trrd sjpptrt.ú ry le " Br¡dge to the Fl æt," $4:' Recom merided : Immd¡atê EstÐl ishm erit of an Ëngineering Côntâr," 94t lntervieu¡ with Henry M orr¡s,Mardr P,ãJ08,. 10 ùle, "Bridge to theR€d,"'4. " "M¡ssilegation (.trly 9, 1965),5. " Russ Pylq, 'H¡d ie ¡nil¡veruarv Edlt¡on 19i€), 2-S. ''Goodwin std A 72,77; ConnieHævey,-MidieprogransMakeRogræswilh Lâirnáing, $dm Capôlll!(æi htsfæ($edsl Edit¡on 19€S), 5&8q Rqer önes. " Hapoon...AdOè tr¡e¡, Ðlmmson to the Flú," lntsfæ(Sedd Editlon 1975), $4;"GruiseWæponsOffffrslveCâpablllty," tntstu(1e8Ì¡Az,A4ifole "Bridgetothe tlsd," 3. .']n"*"y M. Srær, "Teet & Try Bdore Buylng," tnteÍæ(S€cld Edlllon 1976), S7; fulg "Bridgetothe FleÉf," 4. "flile, " Bridge lo the Flest," 4 'ouRÊæmmended: lmmediateEsÐllshm€ntof an Engineering Cefiter," 94 Ndhil Miller, LTeU,.S Nary:Atl/dry(Annæoliq Maryland: Naval ln$ihrtePress, 1997), ffi. Seúe of Cdlfo¡nlâ-The Resources Ag*rry Èimay# D EPARTM ENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomlal OT by recorder) Building PH104 *Rêærdêd by: CdherineGirod, NBVC EnvÍronmental Divi$on 'Dds S 11/, 2011 I Contìnuat¡on tr Update ÐæiÊsu6remdned aproblern.Thedatlon Þreparcd amâdêr plan ln 1978, outliningülrr€rlt€onditionsand n€csssÉry building proieds. The mæter plan found e,(istíng ændltlonslo bås¡bdandard, crowded, and pooly ventilaÉed,r Buildingscoeting more than $200,000 qudify as MILCON (Military Conlrudlon) projcdssnd require corgressional approval. The Nary did not índude thefir$ MILCON progran fortheSation in itscongresdond requedauntil the1980llscc yean, Thema$er plm proposed another fiveprojeds.ro ln lB1 the Dçatment of Ddensend the Nary r€comm€nded lhe crætlon of e Na\rd S¡rface Warfae Center (NS¡VC) to consolidderesearú Ðd deì/dôpment, teding and avdudion, and enginaing and fled support adivities. The plan wasapproved by theBase ReClgnrnat and Oozure (ERAC) æmmitt€oäld tongrecsand implarented in 19!P, NSI/VSESwould no longø bea s€pãåtecommard, but oneof four æmpon€ntsunder NS/ì/C,te Evduation The NRH Pplaæaflfly-year age minimum on propertiesln order to províde enough hl,$orical perspedlveon placesand wents for meaningful a¡dueillorr. The HiløniaHlduicBnildngsand$rudurælnvÐtay, afour-volumesudy lhat pro\ridesa contêdud and mdhodologfcd franeworkdesigned toarfl¡rethat military prop*liæthroughoutthedateand acrosall servicebrandresare o¡aluated for Ndional ReglsÈe digibitity in a conei$ent manner. offasguidance in the æsssm€nt of dgnlflcancafor Cofd War- erapropertÌes.Thestudy sìlphaiz€sthd Cold Wr+aproprtieslhetaremo$ likdy tobefound dlglblefortheNational Reg¡ster trethosethd plây€d a pivotal role in thedwdopmant of ledingredge mllltay tefinologlcd advanæâ Thê D€pãtment of Dêlênshâsde'rdoped a Leæcy R*ouroa Managern€nt Ptogratì that hæ produced æveral Hldorlcal conte¡tsto a¡d ln the ldentification and enraludion of Côld War rmuræs. Of partio¡lar intsd rrd importance lstãe Nauy Ød Wt GttlM Midle ù1ted, 1946-lW,whiô provldeêddltonal guldanæon prop€rtlËssrÍded wlth theNavy'sguided mlsdleprogranra' ThscÐntod providesfour ænteÞ(t$ gulded misdlereseard¡ a1d de/dopûlent, guld€d misdletæl and evaluatlon, guided misslê educatlon and trán¡ng, aìd logistical and operdiond e.rpport. Though consruderl durlngthe€*¡y y*sof theCold War, Butldlng Pl'l104hes no direct fficidion wltñ thedsvdopmmt of misdleteünology. Thebulldlng wæcondluded æadassroom fadllty fo¡ Seiab€€e, thèConSruction Baldlton. lt served æ officeeparnfor aslrort time, then wæ rdurnêd to its original us lt is still usd æa dassroom feillty. Thebuilding ls r,lot digiblefor the Nationd Rælder under Cr¡l€rlon A, an ssoe¡ation with wents ütd have mde a slgnificant cofitrlbut¡on to theb{oad pdternsd o.rr hidory. Llkarlse, the bulldlng lsnot dlgìbl€ for the Nationd Regider under Crlterla Bthrdrgh D. Thebuilding lsnot ñodated with rry pxiflcindlvlduds dgnÌflcant to our pâg: many people hareworked ln thdäuilding ovÊr thepd q)yea-s Thobulldlng does not ønbody dl*inctlve úardül$icsof âtypê, pslod,ormdhodofcon$rudlontor r€prsertttheworltofama$er.orpmhighartislicvdues,orrepre€entâdgnlflcantand whoseoomponü¡ts ma/ ldr lndividud diSindion. Thebuilding ianot likdy to yidd informdlon lmporlant in hldory. Thisproperty hæbeen wduded in eccordance wlth the digibility criteria fo rhte N RH P in 3ôCFR60and a lnnisTenneba.¡m Arültectg Navd *fp V4lryt WetæErlns¡ng gâl¡q frt HuaÊne HitazìeMds øø, (Sn Diego: lnni+ Tenneban m, 1978), ¡l$¡. 'nTeri Rdd, "M|LGON:A $æOdysy," lnterfaæ(gedd Editiør fffi),3È37. 'n Department of DêfÐÊe, Deprtment of Defmsê Bæe Cloorre srd Redignment Report, Aprll 1991, # online u¡ww.dete¡selink.rnii/ brad.otiorbracs,html Merch ?4.2005ì 798S "The furt Huenrne Dlvldon Naval 9rrfæeWarfafeC€nt€r." lnt€rfaæ (1993), 1$14. ' Goodw in ãd A societ€s. Nauy Ød Wt GuiM M ¡csíte tutta(t. oÍl JUN t ff 20tî INTEGRATED CULTTJRAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR POINT MUGU AND PORT HUENEME, NAVAL BASE \¿ENTURÄ. COIINTY, CALTTOnNIA Submítted to: Naval Facil ities Engineering Command Southwest 1220Pacifrc Highway Code EVP.ES (Bldg. 128) San Diego, California 92132 Under: Indefinite Þelivery Indefiniæ Quantity (IDIQ) Contract Number N68711-0+D-3620 Delivery Order #4 Prqared by: Michael P. Pumphrey, M.Arch., M.P.S. Senior Historical Architect/Architecn¡ral Historian Shannon Davis, M.A. Associate Architectural Historian Catherine A. Wright, B.A. As sociate Archaeologist Sarah Stringer-Bowsher, M.A. Project Historian Sinéad Ní Ghabhláin, Ph.D. Project Manager ASM Affiliates, fnc. 2034 Corte del Nogal Carlsbad, Califomia 9201 1 ASM Project Number 7880 Ocrober 2010 Cultural Heritage Board Item 4a Exhibit 2 4- Novel Base Ventur¿ Conflty Cultüml Conlext Hueneme did not regain its prominerrce as a shþing facility until the construction of a deep- wâter port in 1940 (Triem 1985:l0l). At the beginning of W'WII, the Venfura County Railway expanded once again, this time providing üånsport for goods and troops to the newly established Port Hueneme naval installarion (EDAW 2004). The Vicinity of Point Mugu Two Mexican-era ranchos encompassed the arcâ around Point Mugu: Rancho El Rlo de Santa Clara o La Colonia, and Rancho Guadalasca. Ysabel Yorba was granred both of the ranchos, which included all of Mugu Lagoon and extended to what is now the city of Camarillo, along the westernmost fringe of the Santa Monica Mountains (AMEC Earttl and Environmental 2001). U.S- annexation of California and the drought of 1862 did much to destroy the Hispanic rancho system (Swanson 1994)- The nvo ranchos were divided and sold before their grants finally received formal approval from the U.S. Lar¡ds Commission. Some early efforrs at development of thc area nevêr reached fruition. The Pacific Coast Steam Ship Company bought nvo parcels neâr the lagoon ftom Yorba. It is believed that the company intended to create a wharf site, but the a¡ea was never developed as such. Thomas Alexander Scoü started buying portions of thc Rancho Et Río de Sanra Clara in 1864, hoping tl¡at it would yield higli-gracle petroleum (swanson 1994:16). Frustrated in rhis, Scott, along with Thomas Bard, the California senafor who heþd to esablish Port Hueneme, developed an extensive real estate empire in VenHra County. The establishment of tbe town of Hueneme made it possible for agriculture to profitably spread to the outskirts of Mugu Lagoon. Ho'wever, the marshy lar¡d in this area thwarted attempts to develop a railroad near the lagoon and the areas arourd the lagoon rem¿ined undeveloped until the 1920s. In 1910, the Mugu Fish Camp (Figure 9), a recreatíonal resort, wâs established on a sand spit situated between the ocean and Mugu Lagoon (AMEC Ëarth and Environmental 20ûl). The l-rsh camp included charter boats, a store and bait shop, and other shore operatio¡ts, the central feature of which $ras â small wooden fishiug pier. Many of the buildings and roads related to the fish camp were destroyed by a storm on September 24, 1939 (Schaefer and McCawley 1999), but repairs were made where possible. The camp remained operi until 1941, when the Japanese owners were rernoved to an internment camp and soldiers rJyete stationed at the resort (Schaefer and McCawley 1999). Between the 1920s ¿nd 1940s, Mugu Lagoon was used for duck and game hunting and some limited agriculnrre. 4.2.4 llistory of NBVC Port Hueneme The Japanese attack on U.S. Navy ships and aircraft at Pearl Harbor on Decenrbe¡'1, 1941, provoked the entry of the U-S. into war with Japan. Atthough tlre artack came âs a surprise to many, the posiibility of war had been looming on the horizon for some time. The U.S. Uavy responded to this threat by transferring much of the fleet to the Pacif,rc Ocean in 1939, in particular to the base at Pearl Harbo¡. ICRMP, Point Mugu and Port lluenemq Naval Base Vcntuá County 37 4. Naval Base Ventura County Cultural Corrtext FI{!H CAIiP '{UGU '¿^ PHO'r'OrN5PËCTED 1$74 ls'49 4.....''¿ , 'j;i...:r_: '. ¡4\rr:ßivrltr l+,-' , ,: ri. . r.. r : .; .:. ; ; Scale 1:24OO0 O-- ---'- ---.--- rr.5- - ¡.O tfito o o.5 i.ü À-¡i¡t¡rx'¡c¡l Point Ml,gq. Cal¡fofr}iä. 7,5'USGS Qued Figure 9. Location of Mugu Fish Camp 38 ICRMP, Poirrt Mugu and Porl Hueneme, Nov¡l Bæe Venfurû County 4- Nuval Eaue Ventu¡a Countv Culh¡¡al ContÈxt After the attack on Pearl Harbor, a coflrmÐnd decision was rnade to have Navy personnel Engage in the constructio¡ of advance bases, The Seabees tryere organized to do this work. It meant that additional transshipment facilities would be needed on the West Coast, since the facilities in Oakland, California, were clearly inadequate (U.S. Bureau of Yards and Docks 1947:118). After the Navy reviewed a number of sites, Port Hueneme was selected, primarily because it had a small commercial harbor that coutd be used immediately. According to Manley (in EDAW 2W4} "At Port Hueneme, the Navy's initial intent was to lease land for the installation, based on an expectation that its utilify would be temporary; but it soon became clear that the installation would requlre so much improvement that it made more sense to buy it.' The Navy bought both the land and the harbor with the intent that rhe property would be sold back when no longer needed (EDAW 2004). The Advance Base Depot (ABD) at Port Hueneme was established in }lay lg4} as a site where Seabees could be trained and staged, and where constmction materials for the Pacific rheater could be collected aud loaded for shipment. The ir¡stallation was "one component in an expanded logistical support system of advance bases and stateside support iustaltations recomrnended by the Navy's Bureau of Yards and Docks. A key component of the new system were the construction battalions...organized to provide personnel and materiel to construct forw¿rd bases in advance of troop arrivals" (U.S. Bureau of Yards and Docks 1947:133). The area surroundirtg the small barbor at Port Huener¡e grew rapídly during the war, owing largely to the presence of ttre existing harbor and railway. Berween 1942 and 1g4S,3t mi. oÌ railroad tracks, 33 mi- of roads, Quonset hut barracks, administration buildings, and other facilities to support 21,000 milihry personrel were constructed. The harbor was eirlarged fo hold ninç cargo vessels, lwo ønk-landing ships, and several smaller craft. During the war, more than 175,000 military personnel and 3,750,000 tons of zupplies and equipmeût were transported through the har-bor to Pacific constructíon sites. In fact, Port Huenerne shipped more constmction supplies during WWn than any other port in the U.S. (U-S. Bureau of Yards and Docks L947:118-119), Following the zurrender of Japan in 1945, activities ar Porr Hueneme diminished markedly. Although the majority of construction battalions rvere deactivated, ths Navy decided to retain tlre Seabees as a perma[ent addition to irs forces. In Octobet 1g45, port Hueneme was renamed the Naval Construction Battalion Center, and it was ttle only Seabee base in the U,S. to remain activç afrer the war (EDAW 2A0Ð- Although operations dectined, the base served as a processing center for returned war materials until 1956, With the beginning of the Korean War in 1950, there was a resurgence of activity at porr Hueneme. NBVC Port Hueneme became tlte homeport for five newþ formed construction battalioru. The Naval ConstructÍon Schools and Civil Engineer Corps Officer School (CECOS) expanded their operations to train an increasing number of newly arriving Seabees a¡rd off,rcers. Port Hueneme's logistical facilities grew in response to the arnount of construction equipment ard other war materials that were processed, stored, and shþed to baftalions in Korea and other Pacific locations. The end of the Korean War resulted in another decrease in activity at Port Hueneme, although not as g¡eat as that following \VWII. Port Hueneme ICRMP, Point Mugu and Port Hueneme, Naval Bsse Ventura County 39 4. Noval l]use Ventura Contcxt suppoÍed all Navy construction in the Pacific and Southeast Asiâ. The 1950s also brought changes to the infrastructure at NBVC Port Huenetne; the rail line was reduced from 30 to 19 mi. of tracks and 65 mi. of roads were pâved (EDAW 2004). In 1954, all Scabee activities, including the Advanced Base Tactical Training Center, the Advance Base Supply Depot, the Construction Equipment Dèpot, and the Construction Forces Operational Training Unit, were combined âs the Construction Battalion Center at NBVC Port Hueneme (Tetra Tech 1999). The next flood of activity at the installation came with the onset of the Vietnam conflict. As American troops entered Southeast Asia, the need fbr air bases, mititary cåfnps, ha¡bor facilities, and ancillary sFucfures increased, Seabees were first deployed to Vietnam in the spring of 1965- Between 1965 and 19ó7, several new construction t¡attalions wete established to meet tlre escalating demand. As the locus of support and the main zupply depot for the Vietnam campaign, Port Hueneme rrvas once again operating at its peak. Procurement tripled, and shipped lonnage reached levels uumatched since rfflffÏI. In 1962, therc wss an effort on ttte part of the PWD to provide befter shore lhcility planning and utilization (EDAW 2004)- As part of the efilort. PWD awarded 48 contracts to demolish 17 buildings and relocate or demolish 27 more- It also included the demolition of 370 housing units comprised of Quonset huts that had beeu in use since 1944. In 1968, CECOS repaired and upgraded WWII buildings on the base that had been occupied since 1946 (EDATU ?n0Ð. The activity on the base resultqJ in a windfall for the City of Port Hueneme, raising the annuai economic impact of the base from $30 million to $100 million during the Vienram Wa¡ (EDA\4/ 2004)_ The majority of heavy construction in Southeast Asia was compleæd in 1969, and once again activity began to decline at NBVC Port Hueaeme. However, the reductions were not as severe as those at other naval bases- For example, in 1974, NBVC Port Hueneme lvas responsible for logistical support of Operation Deep Froeze in the Anta¡ctic and for consfruction of a naval insallation on Diego Garcia in the tndian Ocean. In the 1970s, as the military changed from a draft force to all volunteer forces, the need for modern housing gained priority on military inst¿llations. The emphasis on physical fitness also gained popularity. As a result, constructioü of new housing and recreational faeilities occurred and most of the lV'WII-era buildings at Port Hueneme were replaced. By 19*1, the values of demolition and construction at the installation totaled more than $100,000,000 (EÐAVÍ 2004). Since 1974, the primary ruission of NBVC Port Hueneme has been to provide a homeport, training, administratiye services, and logistical support for the Seabees. Additionally, the Center Eerves a number of functions related to possible wartime mobilizaúon of tlrc Naval Constn¡ction Force. It was designated Naval Base Ventura Counry Port Hueneme in 2000. 4.2.5 llistory of NBVC Point Mugu NBVC Point Mugu first became a Navy installatiou during \rVWU in connection witlr the development of Port Hueneme as an ABD for the Seabees. The depot quickly outgrew the space available at Port Hueneme, and in eafly 1943, the Navy arranged to lease 4,0(X) acres 40 ICRMP, Point Mugu and.Port Hueneme, Navnl Base Yentura Cotìnfy ÐEPARTMENT OF TI{E NAVY NAVAL BASE VENTURA COUNTY 3f T MAÍN ROAD, SUITE 1 1 0 201? POTNT MUGU, CA 93042-5033 I4AY W- IN REPLY BEFER TO: 5090 ser N46VCS/0402 B May 12 Milford Wayne Donaldson State Hist.oric Preservation Officer Department of Parks and Recreation I725 23'd Street, Suit.e l-00 SacramenLo, CA 95816-7100 Dear Mr. Donâldson: SUB.]ECT: RENOVATTON OF BUILDTNG pH-104, THE WHTTE HOUSE, NAVAL BASE VENTURA COUNTY, PORT I{UENEME, CA (REFERENCE USN]-].O6O6A) This letter contínues consultation on the subject undertakíng and is a reply to your comments in a letter dated .fuIy 7, 2OIl (reference USNI-L0606A, enclosure (1) ) and verbal comments received via telephone In your letter you expressed concern \^rith the Navy, s lack of a historic context for the Seabee command, the architectural style of the buil and Ehe potentiâI. fof a histË?Ic-diÉÈriôt .- Íou á1so expresse concern r lòil-ladíàg' ë-ëfïgiíbíl-ity for the National Register of Historic Pl-aces. To date, no naLíonwide historic context for the Seabees exists rhe Navy pfçpg red a historic context þ"q. '(2)for the Seabees at Port Hùërfê-më--düring tþå Cold Vüar (encIösure ) . The enclosed documents should provide sufficient context to make informed decisions regarding the Natianal RegísLer eligibí1íty for Seabee-related buildíngs focated at NBVC Port Hueneme, incl-udíng Building pH-104- The Seabees are an important command wíthin the Navy structure, and they represent an ímportant pattern of events whích made a significant contribution Lo the development of t.he United States míIitary during the Cold War. A property that has specifíc and important association with the Seabees during the Cold War, and which ís both greater than fifty years old and retains sufficient integrity, should 1íke1y be considered eIígible for listíng on the Natíonal Register of Historic Places under eligibility Criterion A. However, the Natíonal Park Service BulleLin 15, How to AppJy the Natíona7 Register Criteria for EvaTuation, clearly states t.hat ..Mere association with historic events or trends ís not enough, ín and of itself, to qualify under Criterion A: the properLy' s specific association must be considered ímportant as \^/e1l-." vühi1e PH-l-04 is associated with t,he Seabees, it fits within educatio-n propáiïytyp. - an rather t,han a mîtîtáiylroljerty tyþe :--Thê È rãining fe¿ùca-l ioñ þroþérty tl4ge iS tiöt -ímportan't in illustrãting a hístoric context rela-ted- to the d-eployment of Seabee personnel or their mj_ssíon. Cultural Heritage Board Item 4a Exhibit 3 5090 Ser N46VCs/0402 I May 12 Naval- instal-lations ín the United Stat,es which hosted Seabees, namely Port Hueneme, carifornia; Davisví11e, Rhode rsLand; and Gulf Port, Mi-ssissíppi have many great buildings which were constructed for the use of Lhe seabees. However, simply because the seabees once occupied a building does not. make the associat.ion .,important,,. The work of Lhe Seabees ís an import.ant paLtern of events because of the construction efforts in the various war zones during the CoId üIar, as well as theír humanitarian work throughout the world. The aírbases and beachheads built under enemy fire in Korea, the special Forces camps and civic action projects of Vietnam, and the refugee facilities on Guam are examples of properties wíth "important,, assocíations to the seabees. fn short, the seabees are signíficant for the extraordinary execution of their mission, not for their training, warehousing or administrative activities. The california Historic Mílitary BuiJdings and, structures rnventory, or "statewide study,,, prepared by .TRp Historic consulting Servíces for the US Army Corps of Engíneers in March 2000 sums up t,he mission and accomplishments of the military ín California during the Cold lvar in a síngle word: technology. The cold war was a time of great technological innovation and refinement. Radar, the proximity fuse, jet aircrafL, guided míssiles and the atomic bomb were all significantly improved by US military scientísts and engineers in California. Calífornia's contríbutions to a technologically advanced military played a major role in making California the great center of advanced technology in the united states that it is today. fn the Statewide Study, "routíne" was used to distinguish between facilitíes Lhat traíned for the use of established technologies and those facilities invoLved in the development of new technologies. That is, to distinguish the normal activities of any milítary organízation from the significant and important accomprishments of the us military during the Cold ùlar, both in the state of Cal-ífornía and the nation as a whole. Considering this l-ack of historicar connections, the building is not eligible for Lhe NRHP under Critería A, B, or D. Regarding Lhe archit'ectural style of Buil-ding PH-1-04, the louilding does not appear to meet Nationa1 Register evaluation críterion C. The statewide study (volume 3, p. l--l-3) states that ,'Any property can be sa-id- to be 'Tare,'províded the definition of a properLy type ís tightly dra¡¡ITI." In.this insLance, it could be argued that the arc-hítãclr¡ral styÍe is rare in a miriLary cq_aUeëti rr"*.rår, in the larger schême of archit,ecture in Ameriöá, th¿ nuìfaing ís of a fairly colnmon type" rn fact, the building is a rather poor exampre of its type, having been quickly const.rucLed by the Seabees as part of their training efforLs, with 1ittle Lo no eniphasis on authentic details. The building does not represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a signíficant and distinguishable entity a 5090 Ser N46VCS/O+OZ 8 May 12 whose components l-ack individual distincLions. Further, the,National- Register Bullelin 15, How to AppTy the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, clearly states (p. 18) "A property is not eligib1e, however, simply because iL has been identífied as the only such property ever fabrícated; ít must be demonstrated to be significant as wel-1." Because PH-104 is not historically or architect.urally signifícant, íts "rarity", being the only building of its style onboard NBVC, does not make it eligible for the National Register" Therefore, it ís not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. The building is not part of a historic distríct. The building ís located in an area of the base dominated by classroom facilities, most of whích, with the exception of PH-103 and PH-1-04, \^rere constructed in 1990 or after. The renovations at PH-l-04 (enclosure (3)) will include the .*assocîàEád-ñáidràr"),replacement of the roof, exlerior doors (including door frames and win¿ow repairs, and exterior wood stairways. ExterÍor concrete stairways will be replaced with concrete wheel-chair ävðe3s-ramps. The sidewalk between the building and the parkíng 1ot r^tïf1"lääve a wheelchaír access ramp installed. Windows will be replaced to meet required Anti-Terrorism Egqqe Protéction standards. UEtIlaîès wilt be undergrounde¿ iro* trre existing poië 'át -the -' southeasL corner of the building to a new wall panel inside the r-1d1ng The exterior doors (not origínal) are deteriora-ted due to waLer damage and termite infestations. In addition, the windowg do not meet Anti-Terrorísm Force Protection sLandards (see Sectíons L-5 and l--6 of enclosure (4) ) and are required to be replaced to reduce the risk of injury io personnel in the event of a terrorist attack. The exteríor wood'stairway at the rear of the building does not conform to any current safety code and must be replaced to reduce risk of injury to personnel. The building does not meet Americans with Disabilities Act access requirements; therefore, the concrete stairs at the rear of Lhe buildíng will be converted to concrete wheel-chair ramps to allow access Lo the building. ConsisLent with the above consíderations and 36 CFR 800.4 (d) (1), NBVC finds thaL no historic properti-es wil-l- be affected by the proposed underLaking. NBVC conferred with Commander, *".ry Region Southwest (CNRSW) Cultural Resources office concernj-ng this undertaking. CNRSW Cultural Resources office concurs wíth the finding of no historic properties affected." The Navy- respectfully requests your concurrence orì t.he proposed delineatíon of the APE and iLs d-eterniina-tion of no historic properties 3 5090 Ser N46VCS/O+OZ I May 12 affected by Lhe proposed undertaking at Building PH-104 within 60 days of receipt of t.hís retter. should you have any quesLions, please cont,act Catheríne Girod at (805) 989-9249. Sincerely, / . R" VAS Captain, U Commanding Officer Enclosures: I SHPO letter, 7 'Iuly ZOLI 2 Smith 20L2, The Seabees: A Historic Context of the Col-d llar 3 PH-1-04 Project Description 4 Unifíed Facil-itíes Criteria: DoD Minímum Anti- Terrorism Standards for Buildìngs Copy to: commander Navy Regíon southwest, Environmental Department CuLtural Resources Management program (w/o encl_osures) San Diego, CA g2L47 Fríends of the Bard Mansion P. O. Box l-l_3 Port Hueneme, CA 93003 Port Hueneme Historical Society 220 Market Street Port Hueneme, CA 93041- entura County Heritage Board 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 Heritage Trust of Oxnard Attn: Ben Moss 1-25 North F Street Oxnard, CA 93030 SanLa Ynez Band of Míssion Tndians Attn; Vincent Armenta - Chairman P"O" Box 517 Sa-nta Ynez, CA 93460 San Buenaventura_ Conservancy P"O. Box 23263 Ventura CA 93002 ¿- rp*'arþU STAÎE OF EAL'FORNh . THË RËSOURCES AGË}.¡CY ARNOLD OFFICE OF HISTORIG PRESERVATION DEPARTHENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. BOX S42ES6 SACRAI¡ENTO, CA C42964001 (sl6)6534624 Färc (S16)ê6s9824 [email protected]árts. ca.go, www,ohp,parks.ca,gov July 7,2011 Reply in Reference To: USN110806A Captain J.J. McHugh Naval Base Ventura County 311i,Iiain Road, Suite 1 Point ftiugu, CA 93M2-50 RE: Renovation of Building PH104, NavalBase Ventura County, Port Hueneme; CA Dear Captain McHugh: Thank you for reguesting my cornments on the above-referenced undertaking. Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800, the regulations implementing $ec{ion 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the United Statcs Navy (Navy) is requesting my concurence with a finding of No Histoíc Properties Affected. The Navy proposes to renovate Building PH104, a two-story Colonial Revival style educational facili$ constructed in 1951. Project components include the replacement of wood-frame and rnetal-fiame windows with vinyl dual pane windows. You define the APE for this undertaking as the building to be affeeted and a fifty foot buffer zone around this property. ln addition to your letter, you have provided National Register evaluations of the building. Having reviewed your submittal, or Finding of Effec{. Nowhere in the submitted considered the property's eligibility within the historical context of the Seabees. One could imagine that an argument could be made for its eligibility under Griterion A. I am also inclined to disagree with your assertion that the building does not embody distinc{ive characteristics of a type; the building's Colonial Revival style certainly stands out. Are there other similar examples on the Base? ls it possible that the property is part of a potential historic district? Please address theEe concerns in orderto continue consultation. Please be advised that in the event of a change i¡ project description or an inadvertent discovery, you may have additional responsibilities under 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for considering historic properties during project planning. lf you have any questions or comments, please contact Tristan Toze¡ of my staff at (916) M5-7O27 or by email at [email protected]. Sincerely,,fuv(e'**,,y Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA State Historic Preservation Officer NAVFAC Southwest The Seabees A Historic Context of the Cold War Eve.r.ett E, irriiiít l'{istur ian i{AV ÊÁ C S ri uÍ'['r YiËf. i f ¡'¡r.r ; ¡ ri ;. r-i'¡ ç ¡ 1-¡;.; I CLilf i¡laI P.sstiurt:+,i tûf e. i\it L I Cl't :! t -t .! !: ',,.i.ne,'..,i¡i1t1¡'n¡titie\\,i(¡'i\rt)ti¡'5'ctt.i:t:csititutt.,¡rit¿i t'iuiri' l¡ ø,,,e r:¡i r-i tt gh aj' tlt tttt,i " -*Generai Lloiiglas ir4 acÁi i llu¡: '¡o !icr:,AtJläiral llell lrf ore-ell, Feir i'i.i ar¡,, { Ç,1'.{ filiric+ lci4¡+, 7c)3 ) The Seabees Tatrrle of Contents Executive Summary,... 4 L. lntroduction 5 t,t. Plan for this Document 5 L.2. lntendedAudience...... 6 6 1.4. The Seabees ...... 7 2. Historic Outline 8 8 2.2. Early Cold War-era (1946-L9531and Korea I 2.3. Mid Cold War-era (I953-L972) and Vietnam L0 2.3.t Vietnam..,... L1 2.4. Late Cold War (L972-1989) L4 2.4.1. Diego Garcia L4 2.4.2. Around the World 15 2.4.3. Operatíon "New Life".. L5 2.4.4. Reorganization...... L6 2.4.5. End of the Cold War...... L7 3. Evaluating a Property for National Register Eligibility..... 18 4. Conclusions 2T 4,L. "Specific" and "lmportant" ...,...... 2L References...... 23 'l'it r-' Íe ¿ri::c.es Executive Summary Executi.r'e .Surrmna l.5r This document was created by the Everett Smith, a Historian with NAVFAC Southwest Environmental, Cultural Resources Core Team as part of Naval Base Ventura County's (NBVC) National Historic Preservation Act, Sections L06 and L10, responsibilities. The Port Hueneme port¡ori of NBVC has been the host of Naval Construction Forces (Seabees) since World War ll. Until this point there has been no historic context for Port Hueneme which addresses adequately the ínstallation's connection to the Seabees, the Seabees contributions to the broad patterns of history, or the potential for historic properties to be eligible for llsting on the National Register of Historíc Places for their association to the Seabees at NBVC. This document will provide Navy evaluators, State reviewers, and public consulting parties with an organizational framework to identify important property types at NBVC and to identify, evaluate, register and treat the full range of properties which represent the Seabee's míssion, achievements and contributions from the end of World War ll in 1946 through the end of the Cold War in 1989. -l lntroduction ire Se;,r.he es t" [nËro.ductirn 1"1,FIan for this Docurnelrt This document is intended to do two things: develop a detailed historic context for Naval Construction Battalions ("Seabees") during the Cold War and make recommendations on the types of buildings, structures and objects (collectively known as "properties") which might be eligible for listing on the National Register of HistoriC Places within such a context. This document was developed ín response to a lack of sufficient contextual information to properly evaluate buildings at Naval Base Ventura whích are associated with the Seabees and either built during the Cold War or associated with that era. lt will, therefore, not dwell on the formative years of the Navy's Construction Forces, nor will it devote a significant discussion to the Seabees during World War ll. A need does exist for a World War ll Seabee context but it was felt that the missions, act¡vit¡es and property types of the two periods were different enough to justify splítting the context into two parts. The National Park Service states in its bulletin How to apply the National register Criteria for Evaluotion that in order for a property to be eligible for listing on the National Register it must be s'ígnificant; thøt is, ít must reprcseftt ø sígnilicant part af the history, ørchítecture, ørcheology, englneeríng, or culture of an area, and it must hsve the ehoracteristîcs that mdke ît a good representøt[ve ef praperties øssocíated wîth thøt øspect af the past., The sígnifícance af a hîstoric praperty can be judged ønd expfaíned onfy s,hen ít ís eva.tudted within íts hístorîc cantext. (Natfonaf Park Seruice, 7l The National Park Service defines a historic context as "those patterns or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property or site is understood and íts meaning (and ultimately its significance) wíthin history or prehistory is made clear." Furthermore the bulletin, gives the instruction that a property must have "relevance and importance in illustrating the historíc context". (National Park Service, 7) This final instruction is very important as it reminds evaluators that simply because a property is assocíated w¡th a particular significant historic context does not necessarily mean that the property is eligible for the National Register; unless the property is both relevant and important. This document will explore the specific patterns and trends by which the Seabees, their mission and their contribution to the history of the US Military can be made clear. Furthermore, this document will identífy what, if any, types of buíldíngs, structures, objects, sites or districts might be eligible for lísting on the National Register for tlreir connections to the Seabees during the Cold War. 'j'1i c. :icel; e çs lntroduction 1. Z.hil-elt cl c'rl du el f e ¡rc c.. This document was prepared primarily by quallfied IJS Navy cultural resources professionals during their evaluation of buildings and structures at Naval Base Ventura County, specifically the Port Hueneme Site. Port Hueneme has been home to a sizable portion of the Naval Construction Forces since World War ll and therefore has many properties with varying levels of connection to the Seabees. ln the absence of a robust context, there has been dífficulty evaluating these properties as part of Naval Base Ventura County's National Historic Preservation Act Sections 106 ancl 1L0 responsibilities. This document will also be useful to the California State Historic Preservation Officer, to other Naval Commands with a Seabee presence, and to various consulting partíes involved in NHPA Section L06 actions on buildings which fall into a Seabee context. f ,3"Por"t Huenerne The Port Hueneme installation is located ín Ventura County, California on a protected harbor that emptíes into the Pacific Ocean. The city of Port Hueneme surrounds the facilítyl with the city of Oxnard nearby and agricultural fields reachíng toward the interior. (Dolan 2oog,7) The Navy purchased Port Hueneme and the surrounding land for $t.S million in !942, in response to the Uníted States' entry in World War ll, as one component in a massive logisticalsupport system of advance bases and stateside support ¡nstallat¡ons. At the time the Navy did not intend to establish a permanent facility and the purchase was made with the understanding that it would be transferred back to the previous owners, Maritime Service Station, when the base was no longer needed. When it was constructed, the Port Hueneme installation's mission was the ".,.establishment and operation of purchase, receipt, inspection, inventory, unpacking and packing, storage, assembly, fabrication, testing, preparation and trans-shipment of materials and equipment for Advance Base," The Seabees2 were the primary unity on the base and were organized to provide personnel and materiel for the construction of ship repair facilities, air bases, and staging areas in advance of troop arrivals. By the end of World War ll, the installation had a storage area of about 600 acres, t4 major and 2l minor warehouses occupying more than 700,000 square feet and L9,00O000 square feet of improved open storage area. (Dolan 2008, 11) ln October 1945, the U.S. Advance Base. Receiving Barracks, US Naval Base, Port Hueneme was renamed US Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, California (CBC, Port Hueneme). The newly consolidated command contained two subordinate units: U,S. Naval Advanced Base Depot and U.S. Training and Distribution Cénter. (Dolan ZOOB, ltl Since it was nrerged with Naval Air Weapons Station, Point Mugu, on October LL,2AOO the Port Hueneme facility forms one part of Naval Base Ventura County. ln 2006 it was found that Naval Base Ventura County was the largest employer in Ventura County with 19,000 civilian and military personnel. l Occasíonally, the Navy lands at Port Huene¡ne will be referred to as "the facility" to distinguish it from the City of Port Hueneme, California. 'The name "Seabee" was derived from the inítiais C.8., for Construction Battalion. Adrniraf Morèell personalllr furnished the Seabees with iheir official nrotto: Cansiruimus, Batuimus - "We Build, We Figlrt". I T i lntroduction 'îhe Ssa-liee.s There are more than L00 dífferent commands located at Naval Base Ventura County, including the 36,000 square mile Sea Range, Four Seabee battalions, an Underwater Construction Team and the Naval Construction Training Center. (Naval Base Ventura County History n,d,) 1.4"'I'[re S'eabees According to OPNAVINST 5450.46K "Naval Construction Force Policy", the mission of a Naval Mobile Construction Battalion (NMCB), the most modern type of Seabee unit, is to "deploy rapidly and construct advance base facílities in support of the Navy, Marine Corps, and other armed services engaged in military operations. NMCBs perform construction, conduct defensive combat operations, and are self-sustaining,.. Additionalfunctional capabilities for NMCBs include repair, maintenance, and capital improvement of shore facilities and lines of communication during contingency, emergency or disaster recovery operations." Port Hueneme is host to Naval Mobile Construction Battalions 3, 4,5, and 40; Underwater Construction Team Two, which specializes in underwater construction, inspection, repair and demolition; Lst Naval Construction Regiment, which provides active duty command of three reserve Naval Mobile Construction Battalions and a Naval Construction Force Support Unit; 30th Naval Construction Regiment, which provides administrative and operational control over the four construction battalions of the US Pacific Fleet; and 3Lst Seabee Readiness Group, which provides support to the Commanders of the Lst, 9th, and 30th Naval Construction Regiments as well as the 3Lst Seabee Readiness Group. The Center for Seabees and Facilities Engineering, the Naval Construction Training Center, the Naval Civil Engineer Corps Officers School U.S. Navy Seabee Museum are also located at Port Hueneme as well as. fl I 'i'ir': 5e¡-rircc":,: Histonic Outline Z" Flisturlc Ollt]i¡re On December 7, !941, forces of the lmperial Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor. On this day the US war effort in World War ll began. Civilian Iabor in war zones was not permitted under international law and if civilians were caught resisting enemy milítary attack could be executed as guerrillas. A military construction force to build advanced bases in the war zones would, therefore, be absolutely essential. (Transano L997) On January 5, L942, Rear Admiral Ben Moreell received orders from the Bureau of Navigation to activate, organize and man Navy Construction Units. He recruited men from the construction trades, the men who had built Boulder Dam, the national highways and the New York skyscrapers, the men who had quarried and dug and mined the nation's resources, for a Naval Construction Regiment composed of three Naval Construction Battalions. Thus, the renowned Seabees were loorn. (Transano 1997) The Navy quickly established at Port Hueneme, California and Davisville, Rhode lsland. At these Depots Seabee recruits received six weeks of advanced military and technical training, underwent unit training and then were shipped overseas. During World War ll, approximately L75,OOO Seabees passed through Poft Hueneme. (Transano 1_997) Z,1.End of Wol'ld War.lIs At the beginning of the Seabee program, the Navy placed extra recruiting emphasis on skilled construction workers and íncreased the maximum enlistment age to 50. Until the Navy halted voluntary enlistment in December t942,the average age of Seabees was 37. When recruits began coming in through the Selective Service System the average Seabee was much younger and comparatively unskílled. The Navy constructed bases like Port Hueneme to train these younger recruits and the vast majority of the infrastructure was dedicated to this goal. Once trained in construction practices and light arms, the new Seabees shipped out with their supplies to take part in nearly every island invasion in the Pacific Theater. (Transano 1997) Following the victories in Europe and Asia over the Axis Powers, the U.S. armed forces, including the Seabees, rapidly demobilized. By June L946, the total strength of the Seabees fell from a peak of more than a quarter of a million men to approximatefy 20,000. ln the continental United States, the Defense Department dismantled most of the network of training bases and supply depots and concentrated all Seabee activity at the Naval Constructíon Battalion Center, Port Hueneme. (Transano 1g97) During the immediate post war-period, the Seabees took their first foray ínto peacetime constructíon projects. ln September 1946, Seabees of the 114th NavalConstruction Battalion stationed in the Aleutian lslands undertook one of the more unusual assignments of the Cold War, building a fleet weather station on the Kamchatka Pe¡rinsula in the Soviet Union, Seal¡ees also constructed harbors and airfíelds to be used for the evacuation of the defeated Japanese troops from China at Shanghai, Tsingtao, Tangku and other cities. ln L946 Seai:ee also constructed facíf itíes at the Bikini Atoll in 3 For a detailed, if florid description of the Seafrees durirrg WWll see Huie, William B. Can Do!The Story of the Seabees. New York: E, P. Dutton & Compan'¡ lnc.,'L944.. Historic Outline 'I'ire 5t'aliees preparation of the atomic bomb tests there. Operation "High Jump" took Seabees to Antarctica and the behemoth war game, code named Operation "Portex," took them to Puerto Rico. (Transano l-997) Most of the draftees during World War ll, including the Seabees, were conscripted into the Naval Reserved. ln 1947 the Seabees were moved from the Reserve and into the active Navy. A new Seabee Reserve Organization was established and by 1949 the number of active Seabees had dwindled to 3,300. (Transano L997) Z.Z.Early Cotd War-era [1946-1953) and l{orea After the Japanese surrender ended World War ll the United States and íts allies began the long process of occupying and pacifying the Japanese possessíons and home islands. President Truman and Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin agreed to divide the Korean Peninsula, a Japanese colony since 1910, along the 38th parallel, with the United States occupying the southern half and the Soviet Union to the north. (Boose 1995, L2t) Each of the occupying nations began quickly rebuilding Korea's economy and infrastructure. However, the Soviets immediately took steps to keep the two zones apart, rather than working toward a unified Korea. Six years of political unrest, stubborn unwillingness to negotiate and growing ideological divides culminated on June 25, L95O with a full-scale attack by the Communist North across the Parallel. (Hermes L992, LOI On September 15, L950 the United States, with the United Nations, counter attacked with one of the most brilliant amphibious assaults in history. lmpressive work by Seabees made the attack possible as they battled enormous thirty-foot tides, swift currents and constant enemy fire while posítioning pontoon causeways within hours of the first beach assault. When faced with an equipment bottleneck at the recently retaken harbor a group of Seabees snuck behind enemy lines and stole several locomotives under enemy mortar fire. The incident became known as "The Great Seabee Traín Robbery". The Seabees brought back the engines intact and turned over to the Army Transportation Corps. (Transano 1997) During the Korean War the Seabees returned to their roots and contributed to the construction of 55 airfields, building some from scratch in as little as L6 days. Seabees even perfected a technique of completely rebuilding a runway without stopping air operations. The Seabees were able to keep a promise to rebuild any damaged bridge ¡n Korea within síx hours, even in sub-zero weather. Allof these feats of courage and engineering were completed while under enemy fire from artillery, aircraft and infantry. (Transano L997) The rapid demobilization that followed World War ll was not repeated after the signing of the Korean Armistice in July 1953. Crises in Berlin, Cuba, Africa, South America, and especially in Southeast Asia created the necessity to maintain military strength and preparedness. Seabee Reservists had helped meet the Korean crisis, but the onset of the Cold War had indicated the need for a basic reorganízation of Seabee capabilities as well as for increased Seabee numbers. Between 1949 and L953, the Seabees stood up 1.3 new battalions. The Seabees role was expanded to include causeway construction, ship-to- shore fuel lines, pontoon docks, the expeditious landing of ,men, equipment and supplies, camps, roads, tank farms, airstrips, permanent waterfr-ont structures and many other facilities. (Transan o 79971 ,llii1_ !ìE¡J^,1;¿;. Historic Outline L)5'3"L9?Z) ,1,3.S{irl Cold \4iar..errr [1 autl \iîetnärr After Korea and before the escalation of American involvement in Vietnam, the Seabees took the tasks of watchful peacetime and shifted their focus toward more building and less fighting. However, the Seabee achievements were no less impressive than those of wartime. ln Okinawa, the Seabees built a Marine Corps Air Facility using innovative concrete pre-casting methods. ln Ecuador, the Seabees instructed locals in modern construction methods while building the new Ecuadoran Naval Academy. (Transano L997) ln 1955, Seabees began taking annual deployments to Antarctica as part of Operation "Deep Freeze." On the frozen continent the Seabees expanded scientific facilities and built a 6,000-foot ice runway on McMurdo Sound during a "wintering over" mission. Despite some of the harshest weather on the planet including a blizzard that destroyed the entire project, the Seabees completed the airstrip in time for the advanced party of "Deep Freeze ll" to be the first men to arrive at the South Pole by plane. The Seabees also built permanent scientific facilities, snow-compacted roads, underground storage, laboratories, living areas and the continent's first nuclear power plant. (Trans ano L997) ln the 1950s, the Seabees undertook the construction of the sprawling Cubi Point Naval Air Station in the Philippines, a job that civilian contractors said was impossible. Construction started in L95L, at the heíght of the Korean War, took five years and an estimated 2O-million man-hours to complete, and required a mountain to be split in half, a port¡on of Subic Bay swampland filled, I foot díameter trees moved, a native village relocated, and a 2 mile long airstrip laid out. When it was finished it becarne a major component of the largest US military presence in the Pacific, capable of supporting all US military aircraft and ships, including the new "super carriers,f . (Transano 1997) During the 1960s, Seabees assembled a floating dry dock at Holy Loch, Scotland as part of the Polarís missile submarine program; buílt a Naval Communication Station from scratch on the Greek plain of Marathon; and built missíle ranges in the Atlantic and Pacific and countless housing and apartment complexes for US servicemen and their families across the globe. Seabees during this period could be found everywhere with various battalions deploying regularly to Guam, Okinawa, Midway, the Phílippines, Cuba, Newfoundland, and Spain. Their primary mission was base expansion and maíntenance with assignments including building and paving roads, laying sewer lines and water ma¡ns, building airfields and harbor facilities, restoríng and converting old structures for new uses, wiring buildings and erecting power lines. (Transano 1997) The 1950s and 1960s saw the Seabees assume yet another new role: operationally-ready disaster relief. Seabees were involved in the recovery of the Greek island of Cephalonia after an earthquake in L953. They used pontoons to protect Californía beach communities from tidal surges in 1961. Seabees restored power and rebuilt numerous structu!-es on Guam after the devastation wrought by Typhoon "Karen" in L962.ln 1964, the Seabees restored utilities and roads ín Alaska afier a devastating earthquake and tidal wave. (Transano Lg97) By 1963 the Seabees had developed a new vital aid program known as Seabee Teams. Small groups of Seabees provided aid and socioeconømíc pro¡'ects in underdeveloped ccuntries. The Seabee Teams i i'¡ Historic Outline '-[fue !ir-'ai:c=eS proved exceptionally effective in rural development programs, teaching construction skills in Africa, Central and South America, Southeast Asia and the Trust Territories of the Pacific lslands, ln Haiti, Seabees restored a vital nrunicipal pier which had begun to collapse, Spanish-speaking Seabees built and staffed a technical school in the Dominican Republic and protected the Costa Rican city of Cartago from a mud-flow. Seabee Teams constructed roads, schools, orphanages, public utilities and other community structures in various locations across the globe. The Seabee Teams were careful to not only build local infrastructure but to teach locals the skílls needed to complete and maintain their own projects. ln recognition of their good will projects the Seabees became known as the "Navy's Peace Corps". (Transano 1997) ln a letter to the Commander of Pacifíc Fleet Construction Battalions, the officer in charge of the ,.The Seabees in Vietnam, R. N. Enderbock stated primary mission of the Seabee Teams is to provide technical assistance to agencies of the U.S. Government abroad and to foreign governments participating in the U.S. Techníðal and Economic Foreign Aid Programs in both socio-economic and military construction areas. Limited construction support is also provided these agencies concurrent with "on-the-job" training of foreign nationals in modern construction techniques." (Engebrock 1972) ln the summ er of 1964, the Seabees became the primary construction and renovation providers to the US State Department. Thís program was started after listening devices were discovered hidden throughout the US Embassy in Moscow. Thereafter, the Seabees completed all work in secured areas of the Embassy. (Transano L997) Peacetime deployment had slowly reduced the Seabee strength. ln the spring of 1965, the eve of large scale American deployment to Vietnam, there were 9,400 Seabees on active duty at various sea and shore locations. By the autumn of 1968, when the need for military construction in Vietnam and Southeast Asía reached its peak, world-wide Seabee strength had grown to more than 26,000 men serving in 21. full-strength Naval Mobile Construction Battalions, 2 Construction Battalion Maintenance Units, and 2 Amphibious Construction Battalions. (Transano 1997) 2.3,1. Vietnam The earliest US Navy involvement ín Vietnam took place in May L845 when the USS Constitution received a request for assistance from Bishop Dominique Lefèbvre who had been imprisoned and condemned to death by Thieu Tri, Emperor of Cochin China. The next ínstance of significant US Naval activity in Vietnam took place L08 years later, with the Seabees playing a leading role. ln May of 1955, as part ofTask Force 90 and the "Passage to Freedom", Seabees helped evacuate 31-0,000 refugees frorn North Vietnam, Detachments from Amphibious Construction Battalions One and Two constructed a massive refugee tent camp at the mouth of the Saigon River where the Seabees had to wear civilian clothes and remove all US markings from their equipment. ln recogqition of their huinanitarian effotts, The government of the Republic of Vietnam awarded the Vietnamese Presidential Unit Citation tothe Seabees of Amphibious Construction Battalion One. (Transano 1-997) Two years before Seabee battalions began building the large coastal bases in the nofchern tier of provinces to counter military moves by Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army units, the smaller Seabee ,i .a I i I r.i .',i:'i-; 1., UL:¡, l-listoric Outline Teams were already constructing small support points throughout interior Souih Vietnam to counter ' Viet Cong political influences in the rural villages ancl hamlets, The first two teams, 0501 and 0502 were introducåd into Vietnam in January 1963 to support the U,S. Army Special Forces in camp construction, civic action and military engineering under the Civil lrregular Defense Group (CIDG) Program. The new experimental units were funded by the Central lntelligence Agency but they were so successful that the U' S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam eventually took over their funding. (Engebrock L972) ln tlre early years of the Seabee Teams program twelve Teams (two at any given time) supported the Special Forces who were advising and training Vietnamese Strike forces and CIDG in anti-guerrilla fighting and defense tact¡cs. ln addition to constructing, maintaining and fortifying the Special Forces camps the Seabee Teams were called upon to engage in civic action projects and medical assistance program in nearby hamlets and villages. (Engebrock 1972) ln October L963, Teams 1001 and 1002 were deployed to support rural development programs, bringing the total up to four in-country teams. Later command of these programs was taken over by the State Department's U.S. Agency for lnternational Development (USAID) and when it was decided that the Seabees were no longer needed to support the Special Forces, the Teams remained to support USAID. By January 1966, the entire Seabee Team Program in Vietnam was under USAID sponsorship supporting the rural development and pacification programs of the government of Vietnam. As part of this support the Seabee Teams constructed facilities, trained indigenous workers in construction skills, provided technical advice on engineering and construction matters and medical assistance in public health and sanitation. (Engebrock 1972) Between L963 and L966 Seabee Teams were located at thirty-nine different sites, scattered throughout the twenty-two provinces in all four military regions from the Mekong Delta, the provinces along the Cambodian border and the central highlands, to the North Vietnamese border . By 1967 the success of the Seabee Team Program in their support to rural villages and hamlets prompted the expansion to 1-5 Seabee Teams in Vietnam. (Engebrock19721 By 1-965 larger Seabee units deployed to V¡etnam. The first full Seabee battalion arrived in Vietnam on May 7,1965 to build airfields for the Marines at Chu Lai. The Seabee presence in Southeast Asia increased rapidly and eventuaf ly it became necessary to transfer battalions from the Atlantic Fleet to the Pacific. The Seabees called two reserve battalíons up to active duty ín May of 1.968 bringing the number of battalions rotating to Vietnam to 21 plus an addítional two Amphibious Construction Battalions, two Construction Battalion Maintenance Uniþ two Naval Construction Regiments and a Naval Construction Brigade. During the war the Seabee community grew from 9,400 in 1965 to L4,000 in 1966 to 20,000 in L967 and finally to more than 26,OAA in 1968. (Transano 1997) As American military operations slowed in the last years of the 1960s, Seabees assisted the South Vietnamese to establish coastal bases and radar sítes to allow the Vietnamese Navy to take over coastai surveíllance, Even though American troops began to rotate back to the United States, Seabees remained to construct hospitals at Da Nag Chu Lai, Phu Ba!, Quang Tri and numerous villages arrd towns across South Vietnaril. Other civic actíon projects completed by the Seabees included roads to provide access Historic Outline 'lhe Sc-a-L'r¡es to farms and markets, fresh water wells, medical treatments, schools, hospitals, utilities, and community facilities all while teaching construction skills to the locals, helping them to help themselves. (Transano 1ss7) Seabees were first and foremost builders and instructors. However, they were also traìned to defend themselves and their comrades. lt fell to Construction Mechanic Third Class Marvin G. Shields to do just that and hè became the first US Navy Sailor in Vietnam and, to date, the only Seabee to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. Petty Officer Shields' citation reads as followsr For canspícuaus gallantry ønd intre¡tidity ot the rísk of fris life above and beyand t[¡e cali ol ctuty white serving ruíth Uníted States Nøvy Seabee Teøm 1104 øt Dang Xoai, Republfe olVÌetnam, on lA lune 7965. Ãlthough wøunded when the compound of Ðetachntent A-342, íth Specíøl Farces Grøup (Af rhørne), lst S¡teciol Farces, curne vnder íntense îire Írom an estímated reinlorced l4iet ConE regirnent empÍoyîng møch[ne gun, he*vy wedpans ønd smdll arms, Shields continued to resupp[y his fellow Ameriedns wíth needed ammunîtian and to rctun1 the enerny fire for * perioú of approxírnately three hours, dt which tinte the Viet Cottg lsunehed a møssÍve attdck ctt clase raftge wlth flame throwers, hand grenøcles and srnoll-ørms fire, Waunded a secand tÍme durìng this øttack, ShieÍds nevertheless assísted în carryÌng q ffrore erítlcal[y wounded mqn ta safety, and then resumed ffring dt the enemy far faur more hours. When the Commander asked for ø votqnteer to üccampdny him ín qn attempt to knock out øn enemy møchine gun empleceffiebt which utøs endøngering the lives ol ell personne[ ín the eampound because of the üccurdcy of íts fíre, Shíelds unhesítatingly valunteered far this extremely hazdrdaus mission. Froeeedíng taward theîr abjectíve with s 3.5- ínch rac4et [awncher, they sueceeded ín destraying the enemy ¡nachíne gun emplacement, thus undaubtedly søví49 the líves of rnany of theír fellow servicemen ín the compøund. Shíelds was mortøÍly wounded by hostite fíre whíle returning ta his defenskre pøs'îtËon. Hís heraÍc inítiative and great persanøl volør in the føce of íntense eneory lire sustain and enhance the finest tradítion of the Uníted States Navaf Service. {Navy Medql af Honor 7999) ln total, ten Seabees were killed in actíon in Vietnam. ln addition to Petty Officer Shields, two Seabees received the Silver Star, 24 received the Bronze Star, and more than 250 other medals were awarded. Furthermore, one Battalion and one Seabee Team received the Navy Unit commendation and four units receíved the Meritoríous Unit Commendation. (Engebrock 19721 During their years in Vietnam, Seabees built thousands of miles of road, airfíelds, cantonments (fortified temporary facilities which included strongback tents, mess halls, shops, sanitary facilities, and water dístribution systems), warehouses, hospítals, storage facílities, bunkers, massive coastal strongholds and petroleum storage facilities. Some notable accomplishments incfude the construction of a 3,500 foot airfield at Chu Lai, constructed frorn a beach landing surrounded lry enemy controlled mountains, from i 13 I 'I'ìl': ì:,çei-¡rL',s Historic Outline the beach landing to the arrivalof theflrst aircraft wasZ4days; and the2,O4O foot long Liloerty Bridge over the Thu Bon River, constructed during repeated enemy attacks in only five months. Two spans of this brídge were dropped by the Viet Cong on Septemb er 6,1967; it was back in operation 32 hours later, (Transa no 1,9971 By L97O,Seabee Teams began transferring out of South Vietnam without relief, initiating a phase-down program which corresponded to the wider withdr:awal of US troops. The last Seabee Team, located in Ham Tan, Binh Tuy Province, departed vietnam on April tB, \972. (Hooper rg7z, tB7) 2,4,Late Colcl \4/ar: (L97'2 "19S9) As the United States ended its military ínvolvement in Southeast Asia the Seabee's numbers were once again reduced. By September L97O, the Naval Mobile Construction Battalions were down to the planned post-V¡etnam level of ten full-sized battalions. ln the post-Vietnam era, the Seabees turned their attention to the neglected peacetime projects. Geographic boundaries became increasingly irrelevant as battalions and details deployed to satisfy the ever-increasing demand for Seabee expertise. Seabees were involved in new construction in the lndian Ocean, the Trust Territory of the Pacific lslands, Europe and on the ocean floor itself. (Transano 1997) ln 1972 the Chief of Naval Operations announced that female naval personnel would be granted entry into all Navy ratings. That same yeat a female sailor had her request to cross-rate approved and subsequently became the first female Seabee. Many more followed her, and by the 1990s women became common in the ranks of the Seabees. (Transan o 1997) '¿,,4,7. Diego Garcia The tiny atoll of Diego Garcia in the Chagos Archipelago, part of the British lndian Ocean Territory, is located 960 miles south of lndia and near the geographic center of the lndian Ocean. ln October L972, the US anci Br:itish governments signed an agreement concerning the construction of a US Naval Communication Station on Diego Garcia to provide a necessary link in the US defense communications network and furnish improved communicatíons support in the lndian Ocean for ships and aircraft. (Transano L997) The Seal¡ees of Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 40 arrived on January 23,1971- and quickly established a camp and runway. ln October, Detachment CHAGOS of Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 7t and the entirety of Naval Construction Battalion L arrived and began work on transmitter and receiver infrastructure and a permanent runway. On March 20, !973, two years after Seabees first arrived on a completely undeveloped and overgrown atoll, US Naval Communication Station, Diego Garcia, was officially established, (Sand 2009, 52) The work continued through 1973 and L974with the construction of port facilities, suppoft and personnel facilities and an expanded air field. A fuel farm was built to suppty the rnore than 600,000 barrels of petroleum products needed by the Navy and Air Force. The late 1-970s saw further expansion of the port facilitles, airfield facilities and fuel farm largely intended to provide logistics support for US task groups operating in the lndian Ocean. {Transano L997) Historic Outline Th,: Sr=aÌ:c;es ln the L980s Congress ordered that the Navy facility at Diego Garcia be expanded to support pre- positioning ships loaded with supplies for rapid US military deployment in the region. The expansion required dredging and new construction. This period also saw the increased use of civilian contractors rather than active duty construction personnel. Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 62 departed the atoll in July 1982, ending the Seabee's contribution to the construction of Diego Garcia. (Transano L997) What began as a simple communication station on a remote atoll became a major fleet and armed forces support base. The work the Seabees completed on Diego Garcia since l-971 represented the largest peacetime construction effort in their history. When the Seabees arrived they lived in tent camps, when they departed they left a fully-developed, modern military facility capable of supporting thousands of US personnel. (Transano 1.997) 2,4','¿,, Arounel the lVor]d Duríng the early 1970s the Seabees worked to improve US Navy infrastructure in Europe. Seabees built or upgraded recreation and communication facilities at Naval instàllations at Makri, Greece; Souda Bay, Crete; Sigonella and Laddalena, ltaly; Rota, Spain; Greenock and Holy Loch, Scotland; London, England; and Todendorf, Germany. Projects ranged from building radio facilities to bowling alleys. The various Seabee deployments throughout Europe exemplify the broadening reach of the US Military during the Cold War. (Transano L997) ln the Pacific, Seabee construction efforts were centered on Okinawa and Guam. On Okinawa, Seabees upgraded the utility infrastructure at Camp Kinser and Marine Corps Air Facility, Futema. On Guam, the Seabees used pre-engineered buildings to build Camp William Lee Covington. Guam also got Seabee expertise on projects at the Naval Hospital, magazine, communication station and submarine facility. Seabees also renovated bases and built facilities at Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Newfoundland, and Cuba. (Transano L997) Seabee Teams built roads, dispensaries, water tanks, bridges and public utilities at the request of the inhabitants of the Pacific Trust Territory islands of Panape, Truk, Palau, Kusaie and Yap, ln the summer of L972 a Seabee Team and an Amphibious Construction Battalion built a floating hospitalon Lake Titicaca, high on the central plateau of Bolivia. (Transano L997) ln 1974, Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 71 returned from their Antarctic and ended Seabee participation in Operation "Deepfreeze". The National Science Foundation took over all remaining construction responsibilities for the research programs on the Southern Continent. (Transano L997) 2..,+.3. 0¡reratiolr'oNerç Life" ln April 1975 the North Vietnamese Army began closing on Saigon. President Gerafd Ford ordered a mass evacr:atíon of Americans and Vietnamese before the surrender on April 29. Thousands of Vietnamese fled the country by air and sea. The 30th Naval Construction Regiment on Guam halted all other construction projects and began the mammoth undertaking of constructing housing and facilítíes for 50,000 refugees. 48 hours later, aîter working around the clock, the Seabees had rehabilitated the abandoned hospital at Asan Point and began receiving evacuees, By April 26 more than 10,000 refugees had arrived. Once the Asan Point facility was lívable the Seabees turned their attention to the 'fE 'ì' ii,,: t ¡.;;¡i1 ¡11'='1; l-listoric O¡.¡tline abandoned and overgrown airfield at Orote Foint and began constructing a massive tent city. (NMCB-4 t97sl The Seabees considered Operation New Life to be their "trial by fire". Every Seabee, including officers and administrative staff, put in L2-hour shifts seven days a week. After clearing over 50 acres of unkempt land, crews began building tents (often learning as they wenti, showers, mess halls, toÍlets, and ut¡lities. ln some cases people were movíng into tents as they were still being erected, Prefabricated restrooms and showers were dellvered by forklift as a row of tents was finished. Miles of electrical lights were hutig and thousands of feet of water main were installed. Just as the stream of refugees airiving by air began to slow the flood of refugees arriving by ship necessitated the Seabees of Mobile Construction Battalion Four to step up the pace even further. (NMCB-4 1975) Despite the Seabee's best efforts, conditions were crowded. One refugee, who left Saigon on a US Navy vessel on April 29, 1975 at the age of thÍrteen, described the cam p. It was so hot during the day and so cofd ct night in Guam. We were led three nteals o day bwt we hsd ta stasd Ín tine far long hours to get the food, We rqtere pravided with toothpøste, sodp, haby foad dnd much more. Each tefit haused obout {ífteen petso,ls, There ¡ryere onfy a sntuil number af toilets snd not enough wdter for bathing (Chan 2006, IJL) All told, the Orote Point facility, dubbed Camp "Fortuitous" by the Seabees, contained 3,381- tents, 360 heads, L5Û showers, nearly L00,000 feet of electrical wiring, L5 miles of PA system wiring; 17,OAO feet of fence, and 46,000 feet of water main. "Much more important to the men of [Naval Mobile Constructíon Battalioni FOUR than statistics, however, was the satisfaction and sense of accomplíshment felt by everyone. Rear Admiral Fisher [Commander, Mobil Construction Battalions, Pacific], gave the Seabees a BRAVO ZULU "well done," and declared the operation "a proud chapter in Seabee history." (NMCB-4 rsTsl 2.+,,+, ReorganÍzafiorr ln 1973, as part of the effortto realign the navalshore establishment, the mission of the Navy reduced Naval Construction Battalion Center, Davisville, Rhode lsland to providing storage and preservation facilities for advanced base and mobillzation stocks to support the Naval Construction Force. On June 30, 1974, Naval Mobile Construction Battalion TL was transferred to the Naval Construction Battalíon Cente; Gulfport, Mississippí; Naval Mobíle Construction Battalion 40 was tra,nsferred to the Naval Construction Battalíon Center, Port Hueneme, Calífornia. The 31st NavalConstruction Battalion at Port Huenente, California was made responsible for the operation control of Naval Mobíle Construction Battaf ions 3, 4,5,10 and 40 and Underwater Construction leam 2. The 20th Naval Construction Regíment had similar responsibilities for Battalions !,62,7L,74 and 1-33 at Gulfport. Other units were stationed at Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Virginia; Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado, California; Naval Base Subic Bay, the Philippines and Guam ín the Mariana lslands. (Transano 1-997) Historic Outline Tlie. Si.abees By the middle of t976 the Seabees were further reduced by two battalions. A total of I Naval Mobile Construction Battalions remained for the remainder of the 1970s. (Transano L997) 'à",+.5. End of f-he Colr.l lVar The Seabees continued to be an important part of the US Military establishment during the 1980s Seabee unÍts participated in the lnvasion of Granada in Operation "Urgent Fury" and the Central American joint training exercise "Big Pine ll". (Transano L997) ln 1981 Seabees from Port Hueneme constructed facilities at President Ronald Reagan's ranch near Santa Barbara. During a subsequent thank you" barbecue for the men involved, President Reagan was made an honorary Seabee. (Transano 1-997) Mobile Construction Battalion 1-, deployed to Beirut, Lebanon in November of l-983 with orders to improve living conditions for the Marines stationed at the Beirut lnternational Airport. The Marine Barracks was virtually destroyed after a bombing by lslamic Jihad on October 23. More than 200 Marínes, l-8 sailors and three soldiers were killed in the bombing. This project was the first time the Seabees had been deployed under combat conditions since the Vietnam War. (Transano t9971 The 1980s was an eventful decade forthe Seabees. Active and reserve Seabees supported the Fleet Hospital program by constructing and preposítioning sixteen rapidly deployable, expandable hospitals worldwide. Amphibious Construction Battalion 2 became the first Seabee unit ever awarded the Joint Meritorious Unit Service Award, recognizing their "unsurpassed operational tempo, including support of the Multinational Peacekeeping Force ín Lebanon, Operation "Urgent Fury" in Granada, Teamwork 84 in Northern Europe, Ocean Venture 84 in the Caribbean and Joint Logistíc Over the Shore Test ll." Civic action teams made port calls in Abidjan, lvory Coast; Accra, Ghana; Lome, Togo; Guinea; Sierra Leon; Liberia; and Gabon where they received high praise from all concerned. (Transano L997) Once again, the Seabees became instrumental in disaster recovery efforts. On September 22, L989, Hurricane "Htrgo" struck Charleston, South Carolina killing 26 people and causing SS.g bill¡on of damage Seabees from Naval Constructíon Battalíon Center, Gulfport Mississippi immediately moved to provide disaster relief to the affected milítary and civilian communities. ln October 1989 a 7.1 magnitude earthquake shook the San Francisco Bay area. Seabees from Naval Air Station Alameda and Mare lsland began providing immediate disaster relief. Over the next several days units from Naval Air Station Lemoore and Naval Base San Dieþo joined the effort. (Transano 1-997) 1t 'l'Ìir:r Se:iil'¡esli Evaiuating a Proper"cy for National Register Eligibility 3. Evaluating a Pr"o¡lertl' for National Register Eligibility The National Park Services provides guidanee in its National Register Bulletin How to Appty the Notiansl Register Criteria for Evaluqtiott. This document explains the National Register criteria and how it should loe applied while evaluating properties. The Bulletin gives a list of steps for determining if a property is eligible for listing on the national register 1" Categotize tlte property: A property must be classified as a district, site, building, structure or object for inclusion in the National Register. 2' Deterntirte vthÍch ¡trehístoric or historic context(s j the ¡sraperty teptèsentsiA property must possess significance in American histor¡ architecture, archeology, engineering or culture when evaluated within the historic context of a relevant geographic area. 3' Detet mine whether the propefty is significønt under the Natianql Register Críterid:,This is done by identifying the links to important events or persons, design or construction features or information potential that make the property important. Ðetermine 4. if the ¡sroperty rellresents d type usuaÍfy excluded frorn the Natisnal Register: 11 so, determine íf it meets any of the Criteria Consideratíons. 5. Ðetermine whether the property retaíns integrÍty: Evaluate the aspects of location, design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and associate that the property must retain to convey its historic significance. According to the National Park Service, a "building" is a construction created principally to shelter any form of human act¡v¡ty which ís not a ruin. A building should be distinguished from a "structure" which is a functional construction made for purposes other than creating human shelter. Similarly, an "object', is a construction which is primarily artistic in nature or relatively small in scale. A "site" is a locatíon of a significant event, prehistoric or historic, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural or archeologicalvalue regardless of the value of any existing structure. These are all different from a "district" which possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continulty of sites, bulldlngs, structures or objects uníted historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. The National Park Service defines a historic context as "those patterns or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property or site is understood and its meaning (and ultímately íts significance) within history or prehistory is nrade cleatr-" The Secretary of the lnterior, in the Secreú ary's Standards Jor Archeology snd Hlstoríc Preservotion, defines a historic building slightly differently. The Secretary of the lnterior specifically defines a hístoric context as "an organizational framework" which "organizes information based on cultural the¡rie and its geographicaI and chronological limits [and] describe{s)the significant broad patterns of developrnent in an area that may be represented by historic properties." There are four National Register Criteria. They are normally referred to by the paragraph letter they are given in 36 CFR 60'4.To be elígíble for f isting c¡r ihe National Regíster u¡rder a property must be A" Associated with '::\tttt'.ii that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of cur history; or i,I'l Evaluating a Properh¡ for National Register Eligibility 'f'lie Seaiices B. Associated with the lives of pers,;ris significant in our past; or C. Embody the dfrti/Ì(.tive characteústit:s of a type, period or method of construction, or that represent the i¡¡orfr of d master, or that possess hîgh ørtìstf e vafues, or that represent a significant and distinguished entity whose components may lack individual distinction; oi D, Have yíelded, or may be likely to yield, informatiott lrnportant in prehistory or history. Criterion D is generally, but not exclusivel¡ applied only to archeological sites. According to 36 CFR 60.4 certain categories of properties are not normally considered eligible for the National Register. However such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within one of the following categories: A. A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historic importance; or B. A building or structure rentoved from íts origtndl løc.qtìon but which is significant primarily for architecture most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or C. A bf rthplace or grqve of a historical figure of outsta nding importance if there is no appropr¡ate site or building directly associated with his productive life. D. A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or E. A, reeanstructed buífding when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or F. A property prímarily carnnTemorqf¡'ve in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or G. A property achieving significance in the past 50 yeørs if it is of exceptional importance." lntegrity is defined as the ability of a property to convey its significance, For a property to be eligible for the National Register is must be both significant and retain integríty. This means that if a property ¡s significant under the National Register Criteria and wíthin a historic context, but lacks integrity it is nof eligible for listing on the National Register. Historic properties either retain integrity (this is, convey their significance) or they do not, There are seven aspects of integrity. o f)esign: the combínation of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. . ïÊttiftgi the physícal environment of a historic property. c lvlaftriøls: the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of tíme and ín a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. ¡ Warkmttnshí¡t: the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. t Assacíution: the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic properiy L.4 'i'hr: 5r:al;ce:, Evaluating a Property for National Register Eligibility To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. The ' retention of specific aspepts of integrity is paramcunt for a property to convey its signifícance. lntegrlty is based on significance and only after significance is fully established can the issue of integrity be assessed. According to 36 CFR 800.16(l) any property that meets the National Regíster criteria, even if it hasn't formally been determined as such, or actually listed on the National Register is afforded the same protections and has the same consultative requirements as a property fisted on the National Register. Conclusions The Sealrees 4. Conclusiûr1s Based on the Historic Context presented in this document it is safe to conclude that the work of Naval Construction Forces, namely the Seabees, during the Cbld War-era represent an important pattern of events which made a significant contribution to the development of the United States Military during that period. A property that has s¡tecífic and ímporttnf association with the Seabees during the Cold War, and which is both greater than fifty years olda and retains sufficient integrity, should likely be considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A. Because the Seabees were a large and changing organization made up of thousands of individuals it is unlikely that a property would be considered eligible for the National Register for its association with a single significant indivídual, that is to say, Crlterion B. The Seabees of the Cold War-era used a large variety of construction methods, many of which were by definítion utílitarian, repetitive, and used materials which were readily available, with little regard to artistry or aesthetics. lt would, therefore, be unlikely for a property to be considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion C within the Seabee Context. The one possible exception would be an example of distinctive or unusual of military engineering. The primary resource for further information about the Seabees would likely be written documents either generated by the Seabee commands or by veteran Seabees. Therefore, it would be unlíkely for a property to be considered eligible forthe National Register because of the information it has yielded, or may be likely to yield about the Seabees (Criterion D). 4, 1, "Specific" an d- "Irn p o rtant" 'How The National Park Service Bulletin to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evoluotion clearly states that "Mere association with historic events or trends is not enough, in and of itseif, to qualify under Criterion A: the property's specific association must be considered important as well." Naval installations in the United Stateswhich hosted Seabees, namely Port Hueneme, California; Davisvílle, Rhode lsland; and Gulf Port, Mississippi have a great many buildings which were constructed for the use of, and occasion ally by, the Seabees. However, simply because the Seabees once occupied a o'important". buildíng does not make the associatíon The work of the Seabees is an impoftant pattern of events because of the construction efforts in the varíous war zones of the Cold War. The airbases and beachheads built under enemy fire in Korea, the Special Forces camps and civic action projects of Vietnam, and the refugee facilities on Guam are examples of propertíes with "¡mportanf' associations to the Seabees. ln short, the Seabees are significant for the extraordinary execution of the¡r míssion, not for their training, warehousing or administrative activities. a A praperty which ís less than fifty years old trut of exceptional significarrce might al-so by eligible for listing on the National Regîster. /-. I --f J;+ 5e¿Llir:r.r; Conclusions The Califarnio Historic Military Buildings and Structures lnventory, or "statewide Study", prepared by JRP Historic Consulting Serviees for the US Army Corps of Engineers in March 2000 sums up the mission and accomplishments of the military in California during the Cold War in a single word: technology. The Cold War was a time of great technological innovatíon and refinement. Radar, the proximity fuse, jet aircraft, guided missiles and the atomíc bomb were all significantly improved by US Milítary scientísts and engineers in California. Calífornia's contributions to a technologically advanced military played a major role in making California the great center of advanced technology in the United States that it is today. The Statewide Study specifically calls out the warehouslng activitles in the supply depots of Oakland, Stockton, San Pedro, and the Seabee facifíty at Port Hueneme as inherently routine in nature. ln this instance, routine was used to distinguish between facilities that trained for the use of established technologies and those facilitíes involved in the development of new technologies. That is, to distinguish the normal activities of any military organization from the significant and important accompl¡shments of the US Military during the Cold War, both in the state of California and the nation as a whole, When evaluating a property whích has some association with the Seabees, the evaluator must be careful not to overstate the importance of the association. For example, a facility wherethe Seabees store construction equipment, carryout their training or administrative duties, while necessary pieces of infrastructure, do not represent any of the important aspects of the Seabees' mission, accomplishments, or historic context. It is an unfortunate coíncidence that most of buildings, structures, objects and sítes which are most importantly associated with the NavalConstruction Forces are located abroad. This ís an unavoidable consequence of the Seabees' missíon and areas of deployment. This relative dearth of properties within the contihental United States does not, necessarily, increase the importance of the otherwise triv¡al pieces of Seabee infrastructure. References 'fire Sr.aliee¡- RefereEees Boose, Donald W. "Portentous Sideshow: The Korean Occupation Decision." Parømeters: IJS Army War College Quorterly 25, no. a (1995): tL2-L28. Chan, Sucheng. The Vietnamese American L.5 Generation: Stories of War, Revolution, Flight ond New B eg i n ni ngs. P h i la delph ia : Temple University Press, 2006. Dolan, Christy. Draft: Evaluøtion of Nationøl Register of Historic Places Eligibility for Eighteen Buildings on Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme Site, Port Hueneme, California. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, San Diego, CA; EDAW, lnc, 2008. Engebrock, R. N. "Officer in Charge, Naval Construction Battalions, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Detachhment Vietnam to Commander, Naval Construction Battalions, U,S. Pacifíc Fleet." U.S. Navy Seabee Museum, May 30, L972. Hermes, Walter G. Truce Tent and Fighting Front. Washington: Center of Military History United States Army,1992. Hooper, Edwin Bickford. Mobility, Support, Endurance: A Story of Naval Operotionol Logîstics in the Vietnam War, L965-L968. Washington: NavalHistory Division Department of the Navy,L972. Huie, William B. Con Do! The Story of the Seabees. New York: E. P. Dutton & Company,lnc.,1944. National Park Service. "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation." Notionsl Register Bulletin, L997. Naval Base Venturd County History. hfip:/ lwr¡¡w.cnic.navy.mil/Venturalnbout/History/index.htm (accessed February L7, 2:OLZ). Novy Medal of Honor: Vietnom Wor 1964-L975. Naval History & Heritage Command. June 8, 1999. htlp://www.history,navy.milftaqs/mohlmoh20.htm#shields (accessed February 9,20t2]l. NMCB-4. Navsl Mobile Construction Bøttolion 4. The Guam Deploymenf. U.S. Navy Seabee Museum, 1975. Sand, Peter H. United Stqtes ønd Brítaín in Diego Garcia: The Future of a Controversiol Bqse. New York: MacMillan,2009. Transano, Vincent. History of the Seabees. Naval History & Heritage Command" Ig97. www. h isto ry. n avy. m i l/fa qs/ f aq67 -7.htm (accessed Fe b ru a ry IA, 2AI4. Tregaskis, Richard. Sautheast Asia: Building the Bases: The History of Canstruction in Southeast Asia. Washington: GPO,1975. -¡2 GENERAL NOTES: M@Fq@MYtur@Amrcffi ffi@roømSEnoRUl{sam Architecture & Planning 2300 l&reU orive, Suite A VùEE. Cêlitomte s0ß WJsEmec-llon.com t 862185æ €,sÉ@ls@nædlolìø I I L I L a T I I lo o o ol L J KEY NOTES: o ËlHB," o PROEqME @ffi,ffiffi^ffiffiH¿ffi"*æÆu BUIU}ING #,!(}4 ú SEA BEE CO[-!-EGE o qËffi8@BmE@@[email protected]ÉF!ffiwu Ð(TERIOR @ercøneørurcru RENOVATIOi'{S O€HQMeEffiEÐr o PoÉ Huohèho CBC NEVC Publ¡c Wo.ks Dcpatunî @ Port Huáeme, Califomia (Ð o @ wflu: { @ ffief;A:^"fÆ**PmorùsmñMffioG @ (E) BU¡T.OING DEMOLITION PTANS FIRST @ W{AER & SECOND FLOORS @tr @ TSSM@_ ( A Ffficollcq 0gr0 A @soN Noi @EoN W ^ I TOPdM(ry t 40.01 ColffiæGIUüM W'MruruEMMMÐft¡ þqMi&8ÀÌON Æñffimrrd@ rcffiÁE@EWMUl]@MGMñWæ Ardìitecf!re & Planning 800 hoÍ Drt€ Suib A VúbE, <roñh 53003 l@jÉ@ùedm6m | 86218æ @[email protected] ¿ UMGNMUrufuæîlrl@NMfi øilrcnrcwHffiffiffif,qNæÆù Á@mffia6ftffih$!ffi@É a ul@6Mffi6hæWærurcF0¡À waìffisffim1€@ ¡íÆDTEMBrctÑNffrcfuMUMÉNÀ wÀ-lmffi dÞnil mÀÆÈo6Mffi trÂÆtNGOF ftM¡lÆffiENE ruæflMLYsæMF&RrcUSMruNW -t T KEY NOTES: I I tr (]. Þ@erRfugææwtrNmDmFWæINM |l.¡lll@lrfuORllrcùÈOomM^ruYÉl@8ro l= 1l - ffiWOOR O MÀffi@DoEwffmnffirEs@uFq MfuEÆßYÆEÐqrcEffiTWM'r¡lw&@MùFrcÑ WAIffiFÀæHdtmoß mll^@Mæñr/EeMs@eo]ljwryfts O BOJEøIre oMnÞ O@@MFÆrenRElN BU|LÞIÀ¡G # no4 @eueueæærcm SEA BEE CO¡-I-EGE ( OreÆ^ËmmEGr¡@ÆsE@ ËXTERIOR @ uompcmrcwrwmpreru€Mrc€ RENOVAT¡OilIS o F;ffi" FoÉHuollmê Cæ NBVC Publ¡c WodG DeÞañfient @wmærugswu Pd Huære, cdifoñ¡e O runpñÆwE @ ffiwsÉsÌrÉ o o @ H1åî* stffime PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS tr a ffi@Nø qåro .a MoH6l -T \\ \ \aò (.) {\ \/ b 40.02 KEYNOTES: G)orcoarercæw¡mwm AEhiGchrE O@ûEN@ffiRo@@@r & Planning (ЀffircænffiMnfuÐ_UMffi. 2300 K¡oll Dd€, Suite A V€úÈ, Gllbmb S003 OnMÆffiacnuoDn^r6r w.Jsffimdon.@m G) enæøwn*ffiæÆÈnoøa @wÞffi { 86218æ €lsffi@Jsmnnedjon.@m o o SEABEE GoLLEGE O I I ROJEøru ELÉVAT]ON EI.INLDING # 104 SEA BEE COL¡-EGE EKIERIOR REtr{OVAT!Oñ¡S Port Huen€me cBC NEVC Publ¡c WorkÊ Depfficd PoÌt HHmê, Côi¡fomia sqtru (E) ELB/A1lON DEMOLI'ÍION PLANS WlNDOI¡ EDULE ô À Frrqfr #G l\ @5Q w a REW4m2 :DULE @ A0.03 DEMOLITION NOTES: OwowooDsE@ÆwsÉñ @rcm¡qffinl¡Noawrow@ Æchitecùrß & Pldning a¡J ffiDE6vmflGdmùEmqrË 2300 Kno[ Odv€, Suþ A -'ñsriltrmtu V€nbE, G) Þffi uNcro¡cßN. cÞMrcruEory trlomia !3003 v ßvJtumdon.conì (òffiÂ@ENpffiFeFW. ù æ521&æ @þmlo@[email protected] I o o PROJETT lNE tst,tLu|Nc # 10r. SEA BEE COB.!.EGE ÐOERIOF RENOVATIOñNS PoË Husremo 6BC NBVC Publ¡c Works Dopûhrent Port Huenemq Califomia glffitG (q ELEVA'¡ION DEMOLMON PLANS o ^¿\ @rsN Nqr ,^ @ 40.04 DEMOLITION NOTES: o o Archltecture & Planning o æ0 hollDtu,S!¡bA o VênU@ CêÍfm¡¿ Sæ03 o WJs@mecüotr@m t es21wæ Glsêd@Jsmnndon.æm o o SEABEE cor.lEGE O PTJEqTE BUil_DtNG #.t04 SEA BEE COI-.i-EGE EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS Port HuoÞmo CBC NBVC Publ¡c Wo.l6 Dopanneft PoÉHuelæ,C¡libmiÁ SlFIE BUII.DING ELEVAIIONS æ:l¡&É¡1t@ffiEG/æEUULffi6ilG ffE:lÆN^Wl.@@ tuNuñr ù.@r ^ /À w3N Nor a nãEEN Na 40.05 KEY NOTES: o I6UwMFFWIilSNROOÉ o rKMfrL@uffiME,*ÉÈÈ@u ArchiGcture & Planning m0 l(rbll Drire. Su¡b A OMÐrwÆ@¿nffi Vênffi, Califomlâ !8003 O MMwæD@nÁrorNo \WJsmn¡ecto[com @ wmnrcmvo:mnmrcç. ù s05,218582 €[email protected] I PRqECTMÊ Buil-Dliltc # t04 SEA BEE GOI I FGE Ð(TERIOR RENOVANONS PoÉ Huenome CBC NBVC Public WorlG ÞeÞûrbænt PoÌt Hmnere, Côlifumio sHqru BUILDING ELEVATIONS :I..@E'trÈ@IMELUE :0PEsEMNerffiFlE À Fns@N@r A  40,06 ü Æch¡tecture &i Planning æm Krþll Drlþ, Sutb A vúq dtbtu 93003 # wj@æmdiù.æm t sMlWæ E €1ffi@Famedotr6h PÐ DL! 1 I I PROTre trffiSUMMEMMffi BUIU)III¡G # 104 trmruG@&FtMe ÉmG SEA BEE COLI.EGE EXTERIOR 2 RENOVATIOñTS Port Huonsm6 CEC NSI'C Public Works ltoparfmotlt ÞortH!ùæ, Catitumtâ 8 E qqrc I E DETAI.S llMruMlW a f,¡&Í@rcwÆ EMNNM6W AWMþM uÛru8@0FW @@uN06 MOFT À 6mffi Þq@l Mlo 3 ^a @sÍ N@ 0qÊ10 r.ün@wÆwEstffiM. 2ún8ruEñßÐ. 10ü I S|€¡WA 40.07 4 BUILDING #104 SEABEE COLLEGE Arch¡tecbre & Planning æ00 ltDll Ddw, Sb A - VenM, Gffmh SO03 EXTERIO OVATI rMvJsæmdon.@m t 805.ãæ €þehb@lsconnæ[-o.øñ NBVC Publicworks- Department, Port Hueneme, California ABBREVIATIONS SYMBOLS PROJECT INFORMATION GENERAL NOTES SHEET INDEX @æ R(@qdwæs A MTôMJæffiM@EmOffiRü ilM@4W@Dæffi L ilEMEl'r]læUMNGËPMWE sllÁgþflE@@4ffi@e d@¡lffi@E Gilfu + ry@Mru@@ Møl.¡W¡ffiæ @ì tuffi c4@@F@rullADs Ñ M@ruG ÈmÆ''.reæREulñdoæM @miPN,ÊM¡GWtum @!ùMruTÆ@Mff @æÀlN¡ÞffioN @qitrffisN!ffi&offiuÆ F@aìw¡@moN @--** v@ruþ MM4WE' F MIì&FW €,-** wLolc@@ NC ùt¡trffi @ RqEqTE c l-.tgg.l--@I@-wrc @L-**** ts[Jil_DtNG # 104 2\_"*@w SEA BEE COL!.EGE EXTERIOR @/1\ Fpn* REil@VATIONS ffiEEÀFÈ MÆl.l@Éq. Pod l.luomme cBC ÈI æHsolÆG qe-* NBVC Public Worl€ DêEtuem e mhÊ /À PROJECT DIRECTORY FdHælMe,Cditomiü @¡_skFÆùvú) cM nE!!t@l / -_)- 'Jr- sgru: il ær@r0æ F&@ßt@ æl@ INFORMAT¡ON /TIIE SHES l-7l o*^wo ærcw l/-\l FnÆ v--2 'e¡Mw *c s@6MFl I ,- ffiM 4 S¡ÆsE .1øßÂ@ À ÉMcorcn FMro¡OÊEry@ffi l17ml *-*** a wE m ilo, Ha10 5úEs'JMDilE@@m@ffi a Hss No: cülffi¡ffiMuÈw@mffiùû reÆoffiA ffi: lE==Èã R@W ruEù86Ù{s@ræw^d' VICINITY / LOCATION MAP PROJECT DESCRIPTION o a PR@tñ[t vl@qtm .ffi oR @ovAtoN; @oE I @HEUfl SñG w@@sN o@Ë. wMmrcEuM@@trND oooÉ æ oN Dq& tuÉ P¡MEÐA@ æMfuEPANOFRVÈ PROGfr tomnoN G0.01 t h rq 'rn,' Fúí :+ !èr. BÍìßr Building PHLO4, east eleVation, facing west/southwest. Building PH103 is in the background. PHLO3, constructed in t952, is the 3l't Seabee Readiness Group headquarters building, consisting of offices and academic instruction classrooms. Building PH7O4, south and east elevations, facing north, BuildingPHL44T is in the background. PHt447, constructed in L990, is a classroom facility. Building Pl-|104, south elevation, facing west/northwest. Building PHL03 is in the background. Building PHL04, south elevation,facing north. Building,PH1446 is in the backgro und. pït446, constructed in L990, is an academic instruction facility. Building PHL04, west and south elevations, facing northeast. Building PHl446 is in the background. Building PHL446, south elevation, facing north Building PHLO , west elevation Building PH1O4, north and west elevations, facing southeast. Building PH104, north elevation, facing southeast. Building PH1447, west and south elevations, facing northeast. Building PH104, north elevation, facing southwest. Building PHLO4, east and north elevations, facing southwest. Building PH14-15, west elevatioñ, facing east. Buildings PHt446 and PHL447, south elevations, facing northwest Buílding PHLO4, south elevation. uFc 4-010-01 8 October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 UNIF E FACILI S ITE IA FC DoD MINIMUM ANTITERRORISM STANDARDS FOR BUILDINGS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for Public Release; Distribution is unlimited. uFc 4-010.01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 uNrFrED FAC|LtTtES CR|TERtA (UFC) DoD MINIMUM ANTITERRORISM STANDARDS FOR BUILDINGS Any copyrighted material included in this UFC is identified at its point of use. Usê of the copyrighted materialapartfrom this UFC must have the permission of the copyright holder. DEPUry UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVI RONMENT) (Préparing Activity) J3, DEPUry DIRECTORATE FOR ANTITERROR]SM AND FORCE PROTECTION, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER SUPPORT AGENCY Record of Changes (changes are indicated by \1\ .". l1l,) Ghanqe No. Date Location 1 Januarv 2007 See change summarv sheet for details This UFG supersedes UFC 4-010-01 of I October 2003. uFc 4-010-01 8 October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 FOREWORD The Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) system is prescribed by MIL-STD 3007 and provides planning, design, construction, sustainment, restoration, and modernization criteria, and applies to the Military Departments, the Defense Agencies, and the DoD Field Activities in accordance with USD(AT&LLMernorandum dated 29 May 2002. UFC will be used for all DoD projects and work for other customers where appropriate. All construction outside of the United States is also governed by Status of forces Agreements (SOFA), Host Nation Funded Construction Agreements (HNFA), and in some instances, Bilateral Infrastructure Agreements (BlA,) Therefore, the acquisition team must ensure complianc.e with the more stringent of the UFC, the SOFA, the HNFA, and the BlA, as applicable. UFC are living documents and will be periodically reviewed, updated, and made available to users as part of the Services' responsibility for providing technical criteria for military construction. Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE), Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), and Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (AFCESA) are responsible for administration of the UFG system. Defense agencies should contact the preparing service for document interpretation and improvements. Technical content of UFC is the responsibility of the cognizant DoD working group. Recommended changes with supporting rationale should be sent to the respective service proponent office by the following electronic form: Criteria Chanqe Request (CCR). The form is also accessible from the lnternet sites listed below. UFC are effective upon issuance and are distributed only in electronic media from the following source: Whole Building Design Guide web site http://dod.wbdq.oroi. Hard copies of UFC printed from electronic media should be checked against the current electronic version prior to use to ensure that they are current. AUTHORIZED BY Donald Basham, P.E. Dr. Ja W Wright, P.E Chief, Engineering and Construction Division Chief U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Naval Facilities Engineering Command d'!1 T, t^frkr Kath l. Ferguson, P.E Dr. G The Deputy Civil Engineer Di Requiirements and DCS/lnstallations & Logistics Management Department of the Air Force Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (l nstallations and Environment) uFc 4-0r0-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 FOREWORD (continued) This specific document is also issued under the authority of DoD lnstruction Number 2000.16, DoD Antiterrorism Standards which requires DoD Components to adopt and adhere to common criteria and minimum con struction standards to mitigate antiterrorism vulnerabilities and terrorist threats. ln addition , this document was further implemented by a USD(AT&L) Memorandum dated 20 September 2002 This document applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD); the Military Departments (including their National Guard and Reserve Componentô¡; the Chaiiman, Joint Chiefs of Staff and Joint Staff; the Combatant Conrmandsi the Office of the lnspector General of the Department of Defense; the Defense Agencies; the Department of Defense Field Activities; and all other organizatioñal entities within the Department of Defense hereafter referred to collectively as "the DoD Components." The standards established by this document are minimums set for DoD, Each DoD Component may set more stringent antiterrorism building standards to meet the specific threats in its area of responsibility. Any_chgnges, updates, or amendments to this particular UFC must have the approval of the DoD Engineering Senior Executive panel (ESEP). This document is effective immediately and is mandatory for use by all the DoD Components. uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncf uding change 1,22 January 2007 Unified Facilities Criteria IUFCI Change Summary Sheet Subject: UFC 4-010-01, DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings Cancels: UFC 4-010-01, DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings, Dated 08 October 2003 Description of Change(s): a Editorial and typographic corrections throughout. Chapter I - lntroduction . 1-1.2.2 lnstallation Commanders. Added information regarding guidance and requirements established by combatant commanders - i.e. EUCOM, PACOM, CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM. o 1-1.2.4 Geographic Combatant Gommanders. New paragraph outlining responsibilities for establishing additional guidance ensuring a uniform and consistent application of these standards within their areas of operations or to account for any special circumstances that apply within their areas of operations. . Additional References - Added the following: o Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-023-03, Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse (reference for Standard 6 - Progressive Collapse Avoidance) o ASTM Standard E1300-04e1, Standard Practice for Determining Load Resistance of Glass ín Buildings (reference for Standard 10 - Windows, Skylights and Glazed Doors) o ASTM Standard F1642-04, Standard Test Method for Glazing and Glazing Systeins Subject to Airblast Loadings (reference for Standard 10 - Windows, Skylights and Glazed Doors) o ASTM Standard F2248-03, Standard Practice for Specífying an Equivalent 3-Second Duration Design Loading for Blast Resistant Glazing Fabricated with Laminated Glass (reference for Standard 10 - Windows, Skylights and Glazed Doors) . 1-3 Standards and Recommendations: Added explanation that these standards are a combination of performance and prescriptive requirements, where in many cases the prescriptive requirements (standoff, glazing thickness) are based on performance standards set forth in other documents. " 1-4lntent: Added explanation on the intent of these standards with regards to bringing exísting buildings into compliance over time as major investments are made in them or as leases are renewed such that eventually all inhabited DoD buildíngs comply with these standards. o 'l-6 Applicability: Editorial changes and additions: Added "high occupancy family housing" - and added definition to Appendix A; Changed "uninhabited" to uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2OO7' "low occupângy" and added definítion to Appendix A; Added "Tenant Buildings on DoD lnstallations". n o 2'4"4 Levels of Protection: Added the following - "The potential levels of protection are described qualitatively in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. fhose descriptions should be used for general understanding of the goals of the levels of protection Detaíled, quantitative descriptions of the levels of protection are included in the DoD Security Engineering Facilities Desþn Manual." . Table 2-1 Levels of Protection - New and Existing Buildings andTable 2-2, Levels of Protection - Expeditionary and Temporary Structures: Revised the more quantitative description of potential damage and building performance to a more qualitative description. Added notes to both tables to assist reader better understand the levels of protection and direct readei to references with additional information on damage and performance levels, Appendix A - Definitions a Deleted the following: These definitions are found in other DoD UFC's, instructions, directives, standards, and manuals. o Collaterally protected construction o Hardened Construction o Protected Construction o Semi-hardened construction o Splinter protected construction. a Added/Changed/Modified the following: o Building overhangs o Force Protection Condition (FPCON), o High occupancy family housing, o Low occupancy buílding o Renamed and Changed "Effective Standoff Distance" to "Minimum standoff distance"; Clarifíed through rewrite and addítion - Conventional construction, DoD buildíng, Mail room, and Primary gathering building. uFc 4-010-0f I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 Appendix B - DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for New and Existing Buildings a B-1.1Standard L standoff Distances: Changed name by deleting "Minimum" and modified wording in accordance with new and clarified definitions in Appendix A. a Table B-1 Standoff Distances for New and Existing Buildings: Changed name by deleting "Minimum" and modified wording in accordance with new and clarified definitions in Appendix A. a Added Figure B-3, Parking and Roadway Gontrolfor Existing Buildings - Gontrolled Perimeter and Figure B-4, Parking and Roadway Control for Existing Buildings - No Gontrolled Perimeter a B,-2.1Standard 6 Progressive Collapse Avoidance: Complete rewrite of this standard in accordance with UFC 4-023-03, Design of Building to Resist Progressive Collapse, published 25 January 2005. a B-2.3 Standard L Building Overhangs: Clarified with regards to existing buildings and added a paragraph for "Adjacent Building Elements". a B.2.4 Standard 9. Exterior Masonry Walls: Complete rewrite of this standard, providing for both vertical and horizontal reinforcement and distribution of reinforcement, a B-3.1 Standard 10. Windows, and Skylights: o Changed from "Windows, and Skylights, and Glazed Doors" o Completely rewrote this standard in accordance with the design and testing requirements of ASTM Standard E1300-04, Standard Practice for Determining Load Resistance of Glass in Buildings, ASTM Standard F1642-04, Standard Test Method for Glazing and Glazing Systems Subject to Airblast Loadings, ASTM Standard F2248-03, Standard Practice for Specifying an Equivalent 3-Second Duration Design Loading for Blast Resistant Glazing Fabricated with Laminated Glass; with slight modifications made necessary by conservatism in ASTM E1300-04 and F2248-O3. o Added two tables to reflect the modifications to the application of ASTM E1300-04 and F2248-03: Table B-2, Laminated Glass Thickness Selection for Single Pane Windows and Table B-3, Laminated Glass Thickness Selection for lnsulating Glass Unit (lGU) Windows o Provided additional information on: Alternative Window Treatments, New Buildings and Existing Buildings Undergoing Major Renovation, Leased Buildings, and Other Existing Buildings. B-3.3. Standard 12" Exterior Doors" Moved all discussion on glazed doors from Standard 10 to this standard and made treatment of glazed doors consistent with treatment of windows. a B-3.4 Standard 13. Mail Rooms: Added the following for clarification - "These standards need not be applied to mail rooms to which maíl is delivered that was initially delivered to a central mail handling facility. These standards should be uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007' applied to such mail rooms where possible, however, to account for potential changes in mail handling procedures over the life of the building." a B-4.3 standard 18. Emergency Air Distribution shutoff: Added paragraphs for "Outside Air lntakes and Exhausts" and "CriticatAreas" Appendix G - Recommended AdditionalAntiterrorism Measures for New and Existing Buildings o' Various modifications and clarifications accounting for changes and addition of definitions in Appendix A. Appendix D - DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Expeditionary and Temporary Structures a D-1.1 standard 1. standoff Distances: changed name by deleting "Minimum" and modified wordíng in accordance with new and clarified definitions in Appendix A, Added the following: "Notê that container structures and pre- engineered buildings respond similarly to other buildings, so they are separated from the other expedÍtionary and temporary structures below. Of the remaining expeditionary and temporary structure types, the two structure types in Table D-1 respond in fundamentally different ways to explosive effects." a D'1.2.'1.1 container structures and Pre-Engineered Buildings: complete rewrite: "For these structures, ensure that adjacent inhabited structures are separated by at least 10 meters. Where it is necessary to encroach on that separation distance, analyze the structure and harden structure components as necessary to mitigate the effects of the explosive indicated in Table D-1 to the appropriate level of protection shown in Table B-1, Levels of protection are described in Table 2-1 and in the DoD Security Engineering Facitities Planning Manual." a D'2.1 (New Paragraph) Container Structu res and Pre-engi neered Bu i ld i n gs. For these structures, all standards in Appendix B apply. a Table D-1 standoff Distances and separation for Expeditionary and Temporary structures: changed name by deleting "Minimum" and modified wording in accordance with new and clarified definitions in Appendix A. uFc 4-010-01 8 October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 CONTENTS Paqe CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Paragraph 1-1 GENERAL 1-1 1-1.1 Dynamic Threat Environment,..,,..,...,. 1-1 1-1.2 Responsibility .,...... 1-1 1-1.3 Planning and lntegration.. 'l-2 1-2 REFERENCES,...... 1-2 1-3 STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.... 1-3 1-4 INTENT 1-3 1-5 LEVELS OF PROTECTION .1-4 1-5.1 DoD Component Standards ...,, .1-4 1-5.2 Th reat-Specific Req uirements ...... 1-4 1-5.3 Critical Facilities ...... 1-4 1-5.4 Explosive Safety Standards ...... 1-4 1-6 APPLICABILITY ...... ,....1 -5 1-6.1 New Construction .....,,,....1-5 1-6.2 Existing Buildings 1-5 1-6.3 Building Addltlons 16 1-6.4 Leased Buildings 16 1-6.5 Expeditionary and Temporary Structures 16 1-6.6 National Guard Buildings 1-6 1-6.7 Tenant Buildings on DoD lnstallations...... ,.,. 1-7 1-6.8 Exemptions...... ,...... 1-7 1-7 PROGRAMMING ...... 1-8 4A 1-7.1 Documentation ¡ -lJ 1-7.2 Funding Thresholds...,...... ,,. 1-8 1-8 INFORMATION SENSITIVITY,,..,.. 1-8 1-8.1 Distribution 1-8 1-8.2 Posting to the lnternet 1-8 1-8.3 Plans and Specifications ..:...... ,., 1-8 1-8.4 Design-Build Contracts....,...... ,. 1.9 1-9 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMPLIANCE .,,,.,1 -9 1-9.1 Security and Stewardship ...... 1 -9 1-9.2 Compliance with Laws...,,,.,....,...... ,.1 -9 1-9.3 Compliance with DoD Standards 1-9 1-9.4 Designation of National Emergency 1-9 1-10 INTERIM DESIGN GUIDANCE ..,...... 1-10 CHAPTER 2 PHILOSOPHY, DESIGN STRATEGIES, AND ASSUMPTIONS Paragraph 2-1 GENERAL...... 2-1 2-2 PHILOSOPHY 2"1 2-2.1 Time 21 2-2.2 Master Planning 2-1 UFC ¿t-010.01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 2-2.3 Design Practices ,.,. 2-1 2-3 DESIcN STRATEGlES.,...,,.,..;..,,, 2-2 2-3.1 Maximize Standoff Distance 2-2 2-3.2 Prevent Building Collapse 2-2 2-3.3 Minimize Hazardous Flying Debris 2-2 2-3.4 Provide Effective Building Layout.. 2-2 2-3.5 Limit Airborne Contamination ....,.., 2-2 2-3.6 Provide Mass Notification 2-3 2-3.7 Facilitate Future Upgrades 2-3 2-4 ASSUMPTIONS 2-3 2-4.1 Baseline Threat.... 2-3 2-4.2 Controlled Perimeters...... 2-4 2-4.3 Government Vehicle Parking 2-4 2-4.4 Levels of ProtectioÍt.... ;..,...... 2-5 2-4.5 Standoff Distances 2-5 2-4.6 Exempted Building Types 2-8 2-4.7 Policies and Procedure...... ,..., 2-9 2-4.8 Design Criteria,...... 2-9 2-4.9 Enhanced Fire Safety,,.... 2-9 2-4.10 Training...... 2-10 2-4.11 Expeditionary and Temporary Structures 2-10 2-4.12 Leased Buildings.,.. 2-10 APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS A-1 APPENDIX B DoD ANTITERRORISM STANDARDS FOR NEW AND EXISTING BUILDINGS ..,...... 8-1 Paragraph B-1 SITE PLANNING B-1.1 Standard 1. Standoff Distances.... B-1.2 Standard 2. Unobstructed Space B-1.3 Standard 3. Drive-Up/Drop-Off Areas...... B-1.4 Standard 4, Access Roads B-1.5 Standard 5. Parking Beneath Buildings or on Rooftops.. B-2 STRUCTURAL DESIGN...... ,.,...... B-2.1 Standard 6. Progressive Collapse Avoidance B-2.2 Standard 7. Structural lsolation B-2.3 Standard L Building Overhangs B-2.4 Standard 9. Exterior Masonry Walls B-3 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN.., B-3.1 Standard 10. Windows and Skylights B-3.2 Standard 1 1. Building Entrance Layourt...... B-3,3 Standard 12. Exterior Doors B-3.4 Standard 13. Mail Rooms B-3.5 Standard 14. Roof Access B-3.6 Standand 15. Overhead Mounted Architectural Features .. ii uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 B-4 ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL DESIGN,.,..,,.. ...8-17 B-4.1 Standard 16. Air lntakes ....,,,,,...;....,..., .,.B,-17 B-4.2 Standard 17. Mail Room Ventilation B-18 B-4.3 Standard 18. Emergency Air Distribution Shutoff B-18 B-4.4 Standard 19. Utility Distribution and lnstallation 8,19 B-4.5 Standard 20. Equipment Bracing B-19 B-4.6 Standard 21. Under Building Access B-19 B-4.7 Standard 22. lllass Notification B-19 APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL ANTITERRORISM MEASURES FOR NEW AND EXISTING BUILDINGS ...... c-1 Paragraph C-1. SITE PLANNING c-1 c-1.1 Recommendation 1 Vehicle Access Points c-1 c-1.2 Recommendation 2 High-Speed Vehicle Approach c-1 c-1.3 Recommendation 3 Vantage Points c-1 C-1.4 Recommendation4. Drive-Up/Drop-OffAreas c-1 C-1.5 Recommendation 5. Building Location c-1 C-1,6 Recommendation 6. Railroad Location c-1 C-1.7 Recommendation 7. Access Control for Family Housing...... c-2 C-1 .8 Recommendation 8. Standoff for Family Housing c-2 c-1 I Recommendation 9. Minimize Secondary Debris c-2 c-1.10 Recommendation 10. Building Separation ...,..,..... c-2 c-2 STRUCTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN c-2 c-2 1 Recommendation 11. Structural Redundancy....,..,.... c-3 c-2.2 Recommendation 12. lnternal Circulation c-3 c-2.3 Recomnnendation 13. Visitor Control r\_a c-2.4 Recommendation 14. Asset Location c-3 c-2.5 Recommendation 15. Room Layout c-3 c-2.6 Recommendation 16. External Hallways ¡. ¡ ¡ ¡.,,..... ¡. r, j....,...... c-3 c-2.7 Recommendation 17. Windows c-3 APPENDIX D DoD ANTITERRORISM STANDARDS FOR EXPEDITIONARY AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURES ...... ,.,,....D-1 Paragraph D-1 SITE PLANNING STANDARDS .D-1 D-1.1 Standard 1. Standoff Distances .D-1 D-1.2 Standard 2. Structure Separation .D-3 D-1,3 Standard 3. Unobstructed Space .D-3 D-2 ADDITIONAL STANDARDS .D-3 D-2.1 Container Structures and Pre-Engineered Buildings ...., .D-3 D-2.2 Fabric Covered and other Expeditionary or Temporary Structures D3 D-3 ANTITERRORISM RECOMMENDATIONS. D4 il1 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007, FIGURES Fiqurq Title B-1 Standoff Distances - Controlled Perimeter ...... ,...... B-3 B-2 Standoff Distances - No Controlled perimeter. B-3 B-3 Parking and Roadway Control for Existing Buildings - B-4 Controlled Perimeter B-4 Parking and Roadway Control for Existing Buildings - B-4 No Controlled Perimeter D-1 Standoff Distances and Separation for Expeditionary and Temporary Structures D-6 TABLES Table Title 2-1 Levels of Protection - New and Existing Buildings 2-6 2-2 Levels of Protection - Expeditionary and Temporary Structures 2-7 B-1 Standoff Distances for New and Existing Buildings B-2 B-2 Laminated Glass Thickness Selection for Single Pane Windows..,.. B-13 B-3 Laminated Glass Thickness Selection for lnsulating Glass Unit (lGU) Windows.. B-13 D-1 standoff Distances and separation for Expeditionary and remporary Structures D5 1V uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1-1 GENERAL. This UFC represents a significant commitment by DoD to seek effective ways to minimize the likelihood of mass casualties from terrorist attacks against DoD personnel in the buildings in which they work and live, 1-1.1 Dynamic Threat Environment. Terrorism is real, evolving, and continues to increase in fr:equency and lethality throughout the world. The unyielding, tenacious, and patient nature of the terrorists targeting DoD interests forces us to closely examine existing policies and practices for deterring, disrupting, and mitigating potential attacks. Today, terrorist attacks can impact anyone, at any time, at any location, and can take many forms. Deterrence against terrorist attacks begins with properly trained and equipped DoD personnel employing effective procedures. While terrorists have many tactics available to them, they frequently use explosive devices when they target large numbers of DoD personnel. Most existing DoD buildings offer little protection from terrorist attacks. By applying the Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings described in this UFC, we become a lesser target of opportunity for terrorists, 1-1.2 Responsibility. Protecting people on a DoD installation or site must start with an understanding of the risk of a terrorist attack. Application of the standards herein should be consistent with the perceived or identified risk. Everyone in DoD is responsible for protecting our people and other resources. 1-1.2.1 lndividuals. Each DoD employee, contractor, or vendor is responsible for minimizing opportunities for terrorists to threaten or target themselves, their co-workers, and their families on DoD installations or sites. 1-1.2.2 lnstallation Commanders. The installation commander must protect the people on his or her installation or site by managing and mitigating the risk to those people in the event of a terrorist attack. The installation commander is responsible for applying the standards herein, consistent with the identified or perceived risk of people being hurt or killed and with the implementing guidance established by the applicable Service or Agency and the geographic combatant commander for the area of responsibilíty within which the installation is located where that combatant commander has established additional guidance or requirements. The installation commander will obtain prior approval consistent with Service or Agency guidance if any new construction project, renovation project, or leased facility to which these standards apply will not meet any one or more of these standards. Lack of funding alone will not be cause to reduce any standard. 1-1.2.3 Service Secretaries and Agency Heads, Service Secretaries and Agency Heads will ensure compliance with these standards and will issue guidance for their implementation. That guidance wifl include dírection to require the installation commander to notify or seek approval from a major command or claimant or higher headquarters level if a new construction of renovation project, or a leased facility, will 1-1 uFc 4-0r0-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 not meet any one or more of the standards, Heads of DoD Components will establish plans and procedures to mitigate risks in such situations. 1-1,2.4 GeographiccombatantGommanders. Geographiccombatant commanders may establish additional guidance to ensure uniform and consistent application of these standards within their areas of operations or to account for any special circumstances. 1-1.3 Planning and lntegration. When the best procedures, proper training, and appropriate equipment fail to deter terrorist attacks, adherence to these standards goes far in mítigating the possibility of mass casualties from terrorist attacks against DoD personnel in the buildings in which they work and live. Although predictiñg the specific threat to everyone is not possible, proper planning and integration of those plans provides a solid foundation for preventing, and if necessary reacting, when terrorist incidents or other emergencies unfold. An effective planning proóess facilitates the necessary decision making, clarifies roles and responsibilities, añd ensures support actions generally go as planned, A team consisting of the chain of command and key personnel from all appropriate functional areas who have an interest in the building and its operation executes this planning process. The team should include, as a minimum, antiterrorism/force protection, intelligence, security, and facility engineering personnel. This team is responsible for identifying requirements for the p development of supporting operational procedures, obtaining and properly supporting all other efforts needed to prudenfly enhã occupants of every inhabited DoD building. For further planning information on - and integration, refer to the DoD Security Engineering Facitities Planning Manual. 1-2 REFERENCES. a lnterim Department of Defense Antiterrorism / Force Protection Construction Standards, December 16, 1gg9 (hereby cancelled) DoD lnstruction 2000.16, DoD Antiterrorism standards, october 2,2006. o DoD Handbook 2000.12-H, DoD Antiterrorism Handbook, g February 2004 (For Official Use Only (FOUO)) American society of civil Engíneers standard (AScE/sEl) T-os, Minimum Design Loads for Buíldings and Other Structures,2006 a unified Facilities criteria (uFc) 4-010-02, DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standoff Distances for Buildings; (For Official Use Only (FOUO)) o Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-020-01, DoD Security Engíneering Facilities Planning Manual a Unifíed Facilities Critenia (UFC) 4-02A-02, DoD Security Ëngineering Facilities Design Manual, (Draft) 1-2 UFC 4"010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2OO7 a Sections 2805(a)(1) and 2805(cX1) of Title 10, US Code o Security Engineering Working Group web site (https://sewg.dtic.mil) a DoD 6055.9-STD, DoD Ammunition and Explosive Safety Standards, S October 2004 a SHAPE Document 6160/SHLOFA-059/82, NATO Approved Criteria and Standards for Tacticat and Transport Ai¡fietds ¡Ath Additlon),30 March 1982 (NATO Restricted) o Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-021-01 , Mass Notification Sysfems, 18 December 2002 a Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-023-03, Design of Buildings fo Resisf Progressive Collapse, 25 January 2005 ASTM Standard E1300-04, Standard Practice for Determining Load Resisfance of G/ass in Buildings a ASTM Standard F1642-04, Standard Test Method for Glazing and Glazing Sysfems Subject to Airblast Loadings a ASTM Standard F2248-03, Standard Practice for Specifying an Equivalent S-Second Duration Design Loading for Blast Resistant Glazing Fabricated with Laminated Glass 1-3 STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Mandatory DoD minimum antiterrorism standards for new and existing inhabited buildings are contained in Appendix B. Additional recommended measures for new and existing inhabited buildings are included in Appendix C. Mandatory DoD minimum antiterrorism standards for expeditionary and temporary structures are contained in Appendix D. The standards and recommendations in this UFC include a combination or performance and prescriptive requirements. ln many cases where there are minimum prescriptive requirements such as standoff distance or glazing thickness, those requirements are based on performance standards and there are generally provisíons to allow those performances to be provided through alternate means where those means will result in equivalent levels of protection. 1-4 INTENT. The intent of these standards is to minimize the possibility of mass casualties in buildings or portions of buildings owned; leased, privatized, or otherwise occupied, managed, or controlled by or for DoD. These standards provide appropriate, implementable, and enforceable measures to establish a level of protection against terrorist attacks for all inhabited DoD buildings where no known threat of terrorist activity currently exists, While complete protection against all potential threats for every inhabited building is cost prohibitive, the intent of these standards can be achieved through prudent master planning, real estate acquisition, and design and construction practices. 1-3 uFc 4.010-01 I October 2003 t w h e re t h c n e i e o v n t o n a r c o n s t r u ct i o f.r'J,$ :8 i[ Í*iå J ;3äí31 i," äiJ"t standards are met, most conventional construction techniques can be used with only marginal impact on the total construction or renovation cost. The financial impact of these standards will be.sígnificantly less than the economic and intangible costs of a mass casualty event. While it is feasible to apply these standards to new constructíon as of the effective dates established herein, applying them to all existing construction and to all leased facilities as of those dates would not be feasible. The intent, therefore, is to bring existing buildings into compliance with these standards over time as rnajor investments are made in them or as leases are renewed such that eventually"alt inhabited DoD buildings comply with these standards. 1-5 LEVELS OF PROTECTION. The levels of protection provided by thêse standards meet the intent described above and establish a foundation for the rapid application of additional protective measures in a higher threat environment. These standards may be supplemented where specific terrorist threats are identified, where more stringent local standards apply, or where local commanders dictate additional measures. Detailed descriptions of the levels of protection are provided in Chapter 2 and UFC 4-020-01. 1-5.1 DoD Gomponent Standards. Where DoD Component standards such as geographic Combatant Commander standards address unique requirements, those standards will be incorporated in accordance with their implementing directives; but not to the exclusion of these standards. 1-5.2 Threat-Specific Requirements. Where a design basis threat is identified whose mitigation requires protective measures beyond thoselequired by these standards or DoD Component standards, those measures will be developed in accordance with the provisions of UFC 4-020-01. The provisions of UFi 4_O2O-O1 include the design oriteria that will be the basis for the development of the protective measures, estimates of the costs of those measures, and detailed guidance for developing the measures required to mitigate the identified threat. Íhe design criteria include the assets to be protected, the threat to those assets, and the desired levet of protection. Use of UFC 4-020-01 will ensure uniform application, development, and cost estimation of protective measures throughout DoD. 1-5'3 Critical Facilities. Buildings that must remain mission operatlonal during periodg of national crisis and/or if subjected to terrorist attack should be designed to signifícantly higher levels of protection than those provided by these standards. 1-5'4 Explosive Safety Standards. These antiterrorism standards establish criteria to minimize the potentialfor mass casualtíes and progressive collapse from a terrorist attack. DoD 6055.9-STD, DoD Ammunitian and Explosive Safety Standards as implernented by Service component explosive safety standards, establish acceptable levels of protection for accidental explosions of DoD-titled munitions. Tlre explosive safety and antitenrorisnr standards address hazards associated with unique events; 1-4 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 therefore, they specify different levels of protection, Compliance with both standards is required, Where conflicts arise, the more stringent criteria will govern. 1-6 APPLICABILITY. These standards apply to all DoD Components, to all DoD inhabited buildings, billeting, and high occupancy family housing, and to all DoD expeditionary and temporary structures in accordance with the following: 1-6.1 New Gonstruction. lmplementation of these standards is mandatory for all new construction regardless of funding source in accordance with the following: 1-6.1.1 M¡litary Gonstruction (MILGON). These standards apply to MILCON projects starting with the FiscalYear 20O4 Program. Projects programmed or designed under the lnterim DoD Antiterrorism / Force Protection Construction Standards do not have to be reprogrammed or redesigned to meet the requirements of these standards, The provisions of the lnterim Standards will apply to those projects. Due to minor changes between these standards and the lnterim Standards, projects prior to the Fiscal Year 2004 Program should comply with these standards where possible, 1-6.1.2 Host-Nation and Other Foreign Government Funding. These standards apply to new construction funded under host-nation agreements or from other funding sources starting in Fiscal Year 2OO4 or as soon as negotiations with the foreign governments can be completed. 1-6.1,3 Other Funding Sources. These standards apply to all new construction projects funded by sources other than MILCON (such as Non-Appropriated Funds, Operations and Maintenance, and Working Capital Funds) stafting with FiscalYear 2004. Projects funded prior to that fiscal year should comply with these standards where possible. 1-6.2 Existing Buildings. These standards will apply to existing facilíties starting with the Fiscal Year 2004 program when triggered as specified below, regardless of funding source. Projects funded prior to that fiscal year should comply with these standards where possible. For existing leased buildings see paragraph 1- 6.4. 1-6.2.1 Major lnvestments. lmplementation of these standards to bring an entire building into compliance is mandatory for all DoD building renovations, modifications, repairs, and restorations where those costs exceed 50% oÍ the replacement cost of the building except as otherwise stated in these standards. The 50% cost is exclusive of the costs identified to meet these'standards. Where the 50% threshold is not met, compliance with these standards is recommended. 1-6.2.2 Gonversion of Use. lmplementation of these standards is mandatory when any portion of a building is modified from its current use to that of an inhabíted building, billeting, high occupancy family housing, or a primary gathering buílding for one year or more, Examples would include a warehouse (low occupancy) being convented to administrative (inhabíted) use and an inhabited admir¡istrative building being converted to a primary gathering buílding or billetíng. 4_R uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding ehange 1,22 January 2007 1-6'2.3 Glazing Replacement. Because of the significancãof glazing hazaids in a blast environment, ng proviéions of these standards is mandatory for existin aìy planned wíndow or door glazing replacement project, projeôt meets the 50% cost trigger above. Such replacements may require windowframe modification or replacement. 1-6.3 Building Additions. lnhabited additions to existing inhabited buildings will comply with the minimum standards for new buildings. lf the;dd¡tion is S0% ol more of the gross area of the existing building, the existìng building will comply with the minimum standards for existing buildr:ngs in Ãppendix B, " 1-6'4 Leased Buildings. DoD personnel occupying leased buildings deserve the same level of protection as those in DoD-owneO nuilOings. lmplementation of these standards is therefore mandatory for all facilities leased for boD use and for those buildings in which DoD receives a space assignment from another government agency except as established below. This requirement is I situations: including General Services Administration space , and host-nation and other foreign government buildings. This req e for all new leases executed on or after 1 October 2005 and io renewal or extension of any existing lease on or after 1 October 2009. Leases executed prior to the above fiscal years will- comply with these standards where possible. 1-6.4'1 Partial Occupancy. These standards only apply where DoD personnel occupy leased or assigned space constituting at least 25% of ihe net interior useable area or the area as defined in the lease, and they only apply to that portion of the building that is occupied by DoD personnel 1-6'4.2 New Buildings. Buildings that are built to lease to DoD as of the effective date established above will comply with the standards for new construction, 1-6'4.3 Existing Buildings. New leases or renewals of leases of existing buildings will trigger the minimum standards for existing buildings in accordance with the effective dates established above. 1-6'5 Expeditionary and Temporary Structures. lmplementation of these standards is mandatory for all expedÍtionary and temporary stiuctures that meet the occupancy criteria for inhabited or primary gathering buildings or billeting. See Appendix D for structure types that meet the expeditionary ãnd temporaiy structures criteria: 1-6.5.1 New Struetures These standards apply to all new expeditionary sites effective imrnediately. 1-6.5'2 Existing Structures. These standards will apply to all existing expeditionary activities beginning in Fiscal Year 2004. P¡'ior to that fiscal yeãr, existing expeditionary structures should comply with these standands where possiÍlle. '!-6 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2Q07 1-6.6 National Guard Buildings. Any National Guard building that uses F'ederal funding for new construction, renovations, modifications, repairs, restorations, or leasing and that meets the applicability provisions above; will comply with these standards. 1-6.7 Tenant Buildings on DoD lnstallations. Because buildings built by tenants on DoD installations may be taken over by DoÐ during their life cycles, memoranda of understanding or similar agreements between DoD components and tenants will require tenant-built buildings to comply with these standards, regardless of funding source. For the purposes of these standards, tenant-built building occupancies will be calculated assuming that building occupants are DoD personnel. 1-6.8 Exemptions. Unless DoD Components dictate otherwise, the following buildings are exempt from requirements of these standards as specified below. However, compliance with these standards for those buildings is recommended where possible. In addition, there are some exemptions to elements of individual standards that are included in the text of those standards in appendix B. The rationale for all exemptions is detailed in chapter 2. 1-6.8.1 Family Housing with 12 Units or Fewer per Building. These buildings are exempt from all provisions of these standards. 1-6.8.2 Stand-Alone Franchised Food Operations. These buildings are exempt from standoff distances to parking and roadways. All other standards apply. 1-6.8.3 Stand Alone Shoppettes, Mini Marts and Similarly Sized Gommissaries. These buildings are exempt from standoff distances to parking and roadways. All other standards apply. 1-6.8.4 SmallStand-AloneGommercialFacilities. Stand-alonecommercial facilities similar in size to those in paragraph 1-6,8.3 and that have similar operational requirements are exempt from standoff distances to parking and roâdways. All other standards apply. An example of such a commercial facility would be a bank with a drive-through window. 1-6.8.5 Gas Stations and Gar Care Genters. These facilities are exempt from all provisions of these standards. 1'6.8.6 Medical Transitional Structures and Spaces. These structures are exempt from standoff distances to parking and roadways. All other standards apply 1-6.8.7 Other Transitional Structures and Spaces. Transitional structures and spaces that will be occupied for less than one year and that are not billeting, high occupancy family housing, primary gathering buildings, or medical transitional structures, are exempt from standoff distances to parking and roadways. All other standands apply. 47t-t uFc 4-010-01 I Octsber 2003 1-6 8.8 Recruitins stadions in Leased rrlI""'J:'å3.,.ifrlun:,li'31"''il:il1 T:o' leased spaces are exempt from ail provisions of these standards, 1-6.8.9 Military Protective Gonstruction. Facilities designed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (or equivalent) standards fõr collaterally protected, semi-hardened, protected, and hardened facilities are exempt from all proviðions of these standards; however, the threats included in this standard should be incorporated into the design criteria for the military protective construction. (Refer to SHApE document 6 1 60/5HLOFA-0S9-82. ) 1-7 PROGRAMMING. 1'7 '1 Documentation. The inclusion of these standards into DoD construction or the inclusion of protective measures above the requirements of these standards will be incorporated into the appropriate construction programming documents (such as the DD Form 1391) in acoordance with DoD Component guidance. Refer to UFC 4-O2O-O1 for guidance on the costs for implementing these stanãards and for providing protective measures beyond these standards. 1-7 '2 Funding Thresholds. For existing buildings, these standards are intended solely to correct design deficlencies to ãppropriãtely address emergent life- threatening terrorist risks. As a result, funding thresholds foi Unspecified Minor Military Construction and Operations and Maintenance funding may be increased in accordance with 10 USC Sections 2805(a)(1) and 280s (c)(1). 1-8 INFORMATION SENS¡TIVITY. Some information in these standards is exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of tnformation Act. The sensitive information that is exempt is the explosive weights upon which the standoff distances are based, which is included in UFC 4-010-02. Allowing potential aggressors to know the minimum explosive weights that all DoD inhabited b-uild¡ng" to ràs¡st could constitute a vulnerabílity. To minimize the possibility oflhat"r"ãärignão informãtion being used against DoD personnel, the following provisions appiy: 1-8'1 Distribution. Follow governing DoD and Component guídance for specific requirements for handling anO O¡str¡nution of For Officiat Use"Only information. ln general, distrÍbution of this UFC is unlimited. Distribution of the tables qtaltes 1 and 2) in UFC 4-010-02 is authorized only to U.S. Government agencies and iheir contractors. ln addition, where it is within Status of Forces Agreemenis (SOFA) or other similar information exchange agreements, the information in these standards may be distributed to host-nation elements for the purposes of their administration and dásign of host-rration funded or designed construction. 1-8'2 Posting to the lnternet" This UFe may be posted freely to the lnternet; however, because the tables (Tables 1 and 2) in UFC 4-O1O-02 are Fór Official Use On[y, they cannot be posted to any web site that ls accessible to the general public. ln addition, other documents that include information fronn these standards that are identified as For Offícial Use Only cannot be posted to web sítes accessible to the general pufrflie. For Officíal Use Only infornration nray be posted to protected, non- t-õ uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 publicly accessible web sites that comply with standards established by DoD for administration of web sites, 1-8.3 Plans and Specifications. The explosive weights from UFC 4-010-02 upon which these standards are based will not be entered into the plans and specifications unless the plans and specifications are properly safeguarded, Plans and specifications may be posted to the lnternet in accordance with existing DoD Component guidance, but such documents will not include For Official Use Only information. All plans and specifications for inhabited buildings will include an annotation that cites the version of these standards that was used for design. 1-8.4 Design - Build Gontracts. Where design - build contracts are employed, prospective contractors will be responsible for developing a design proposal for that project that may be impacted by provisions of these standards. Where that is the case, consider alternate means to provide sufficient information to support their proposals. Consider for example, either specifyÍng specific design loads or specifying the required standoff distance and providing candidate structural systems that would allow for mitigation of the applicable explosive if that standoff was less than the minimum. Once the design - build contract is awarded the contractor will be eligible to receive this complete document for use in the development of the final design package, but that contractor will be responsible for protecting the integrity of the information throughout the contract and through any subcontracts into which that contractor might enter. 1-9 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMPLIANCE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTI.TERRORISM STANDARDS, 1-9.1 Security and Stewardship. The Department of Defense remains the lead federal agency in balancing security threats with the protection of historic properties. The DoD abides by federal legislation on protecting cultural resources, and issues its own complementary policies for stewardship. Historic properties and archaeological sites on military land are protected with other facilities from terrorism where there is a perceived threat to people and critical resources. 1-9.2 Gompliance with Laws. ln the wake of terrorist attacks against the armed forces and civilian personnel, the DoD believes firmly that this new anti-terrorism policy represents an undertaking that is directly associated with continuing and immediate threat of further terrorist attacks. lmplementation of this policy, however, will not supersede DoD's obligation to comply with federal laws regarding cultural resources to include the National Historic Preservation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. lnstallation personnel need to determine possible adverse effects upon an'historic structure andlor archaeological resource prior to anti-terrorism standard undertakings and consult accordingly. Personnel at installations abroad should coordinate with the host nation regarding possible adverse effects to cultural resources. 1-9.3 Complianee with ÐoD Standards. eonversely, historic preservation compliance does not negate the requirement to implement DoD policy. Federal 1-9 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 agencies are always the decision-maker in the Section 106 proceés of the Nationál Historic Preservation Act. An agency should not allow for piolonged consultations that conflict with the eminent need to implement anti-terrorism standaids, Preservation issues need to be quickly and effectively resolved, so as not to obstruct force protection efforts. 1-9'4 Declaration of National Emergency. On September 14,2001, President Bush proclaimed a Declaration of National Emergéncy by Reason of CeÉain Terrorist Attacks (Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 181 , p.49199), As a result of this declaration, Federal agencies may use the e isory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations as ou r those undertakings that are an essential and immed declaration. 1-10 INTERIM DESIGN GUIDANCE. UFC 4-O2O-O1and the DoD Security Engineering Facilities Design Manual are currently unpublished. ln lieu of referring to those manuals, please see the guidance provided on the Security Engineering Wort 1-10 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 ' lncluding change 1,22 January 2407 CHAPTER 2 PHI LOSOPHY, DESIGN STRATEGIES, AN D ASSU M PTIONS 2-1 GENERAL. The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the philosophy on which these standards are based, the design strategies that are their foundation, and the assumptions inherent in their provisions. Effective implementation of these standards depends on a reasonable understanding of the rationale for them, With this understanding, engineers and security and antiterrorism personnel can maximize the efficíency of their solutions for complying with these standards while considering site- specific issues and constraints that might dictate measures beyond these minimums. 2-2 PHILOSOPHY. The overarching philosophy upon which this UFC is based is that comprehensive protection against the range of possible threats may be cost prohibitive, but that an appropriate level of protection can be provided for all DoD personnel at a reasonable cost, That level of protection is intended to lessen the risk of mass casualties resulting from terrorist attacks. Full implementation of these standards will provide some protection against allthreats and will significantly reduce injuries and fatalities for the threats upon which these standards are based. The costs associated with those levels of protection are assumed to be less than the physical and intangible costs associated with incurring mass casualties. Furthermore, given what we know about terrorism, all DoD decision makers must commit to making smarter investments with our scarce resources and stop investing money in inadequate buildings that DoD personnèl will have to occupy for decades, regardless of the threat environment. There are three key elements of this phílosophy that influence the implementation of these standards. 2-2.1 Time. Protective measures needed to provide the appropriate level of protection must be in place prior to the initiation of a terrorist attack. Incorporatíng those measures into DoD buildings is least expensive at the time.those buildings are either being constructed or are undergoing major renovation, repair, restoration, or modification or when new leases are being established or leases are being renewed. Because of that investment strategy, it is recognized that it may take significant time before all DoD buildings comply with these standards. 2-2.2 Master Planning. Many of these standards significantly impact master planning. The most significant such impact will be in standoff distances. lf standoff distances are not "reserved" they will be encroached upon and will not be available should tirey become necessary in a higher threat environment. The master planning implications of these standards are not intended to be resolved overnight. They should be considered to be a blueprint for facilities and installations that will be implemented over decades as those facilities and installations evolve. 2-2.3 Design Practices. The philosophy of these standards is to build greater resistance to terrorist attack into all inhabited buildings. That philosophy affects the general practice of designing inhabited buildings. While these standards are not based on a known threat, they are intended to provide the easiest and most economlcal methods to minínrize injuries and fatalities in the event of a terrorist attack. The primany 2-1 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 20OV methods to achieve tl'lis outcome are to maximize standoff-distanõe, tó construct superstructures to avoid progressive collapse, and to reduce flying debrís hazards, These and related design issues are intended to be incorporated into standard design practlce in the future. 2-3 DESIGN STRATEGIES. There are several major design strategies that are a.pplied throughout these standards. They do not account for all of the measi-lres considered in these standards, but they are the most effective and economical in protecting DoD personnel from terrorist attacks. These strategies are summ arized below. 2'3'1 Maximize Standoff Distance. The primary design strategy is to keep terrorists as far away from inhabited DoD buildings as possible, The eaéiest and least costly oppoftunity for achieving the appropriate levels of protection against terrorist threats is to incorporate sufficient standoff distance into project desig-ns. While sufficient rovide the standoff distances required for ailable standoff distance always results in standoff distance also ensures that there is to meet increased threats or to . 2-3'2 Prevent Building Collapse. Provisions relating to preventing buílding collapse and building component failure are essentiai to effeciively protectiñg buildiñg- occupants, especially from fatalities. Those provisions apply'Oeóigni-ing regardless of standoff distance or the ability of a building to resist biast effects. those provisions into buildings during new construction or retrofitting during major renoüations, repairs, restorations, or modifications of existing buildiñgs is the most cost effective time to do that' ln addition, structural systems thãt providã greater continuity and redundancy among structural components will help limit collapse in the event of severe structural damage from unpredictable terrorist acts. ebris. ln past explosive events where r of injuries resulted from flying glass d fixtures (non-structural features). Flying ign and avoidance of certain building glass used in most windows breaks ãt very agger-like shards. Minimizing those hazards through reduction in window numbers ãñd s¡zes and through enhànced window construction has a major effect on limiting mass casualties. Window and door designs must treat glazing, frames, connections, and the structural components to which flrey are attached as an integrated system, Hazardous fragmenis may also include secondary debnis such as those from barriers and site furnishingó. 2-3'4 Provide Effective Building l-ayout. Effectíve desígn of building layout and orientatíon can significantly reduce opportunitles for terrorists"to target OuiOing occupants or injure large numl¡ers of people. 2-2 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 2-3.5 Limit Airborne Contamination. Effective design of heating, ventilation, and air conditionlng (HVAC) systems can significantly reduce the potential for chemical, biological, and radiological agents being distributed throughout buildings. 2-3.6 Provide Mass Notification" Providing a timely means to notify buildíng occupants of threats and what should be done in response to those threats reduces the risk of mass casualties. 2-3.7 Facilitate Future Upgrades. Many of the provisions of these standards facilitate opportunities to upgrade building protective measures in the future if the threat environment changes. 2-4 ASSUMPTIONS. Several assumptions form the foundation for these standards. 2-4.1 Baseline Threat. The location, size, and nature of terrorist threats are unpredictable. These standards are based on a specific range of assumed threats that provides a reasonable baseline for the design of all inhabited DoD buildings, Designing to resist baseline.threats will provide general protection today and will establish a foundation upon which to build additional measures where justified by higher threats or where the threat environment increases in the future, While those baseline threats are less than some of the terrorist attacks that have been directed against U.S, personnel in the past, they represent more severe threats than a significant rnajority of historical attacks. lt would be cost prohibitive to provide protection against the worst-case scenario in every building, The terrorist threats addressed in these standards are further assumed to be directed against DoD personnel, Threats to other assets and critical infrastructure are beyond the scope of these standards, but they are addressed in UFC 4-020-01. The following are the terrorist tactiçs upon whicti these standards are based: 2-4.1.1 Explosives. The baseline explosive weights are identified in Tables B-1 and D-1 as explosive weights l, ll, and lll. Their means of delivery are discussed below, 2-4.1.1.1 Vehicle Bombs. For the purposes of these standards, the vehicle bomb is assumed to be a stationary vehicle bomb. The sizes of the explosives in the vehicle bombs associated with explosive weight I (in equivalent weight of TNT) are likely to be detected in a vehicle during a search. Therefore, explosive weight I is the basis for the standoff distances associated with the controlled perimeter, The quantity of explosives associated with explosive weight ll ís assumed to be able to enter the controlled perimeter undetected; therefore, explosive weight ll is the basis for the standoff distances for roadways and parkíng. Explosive weight ll was selected because it represents a tradeoff between likelihood of detection and the risk of injury or damage. 2-4.1.1.2 Waterborne Vessel Bombs. For the purposes of these standards, waterborne vessels will also be assumed to contain quantities of explosives associated with explosive weight l. That weight was selected because areas beyond the shoreline are assumed not to be controlled perimeters, 2-3 uFc 4-010-01 I Oetober 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007, 2-4'1'1.3 Placed Bombs. Hand-carried explosives plãced neãr buildings can cause significant localized datnage, potentially resulting in injuries or fatalitiés. lt is assumed that aggressors will not attempt to place explosive devices in areas near buildings where those devices could be visually detected by building occupants casually observing the area around the building. lt is alêo assumed that there will be sufficient controls to prgclude bombs being brought into buildings. Explosive weight ll is assumed to be placed by hand either in trash containers or in the.immediate vicinity of buildings. That quantity of explosives is further assumed to be built into a bomb 15Ó millimeters 1O inches) or greater in height. 2-4'1'1'4 Mail Bombs. Explosives in packages delivered through the mail can cayle significant localized damage, injuries, ãnd fatalities if they det-onate inside a building. No assumption as to the size of such explosives is màde in these standards, Provisions for mail bombs are limited to locations of mail rooms so that they can be more readily hardened if a specific threat of a mail bomb is identifíed in the future. 2-4'1.2 lndirect Fire Weapons. For the purpose of these standards, indirect fire weapons are assumed to be military mortars with fragmentation rounds containing explosives equivalent to explosive weight lll in Tableb-1. protection against the effects of such rounds on an individual building is not considered practical as Jminimum standard;.therefore, these standards are intended to limit collateral damage to adjacent buildings from these weapons. 2-4'1'3 Direct Fire Weapons. For the purpose of these standards, direct fire weapons include small arms weapons and shoulder fired rockets that require a direct line of sight. Some standards in this UFC are predicated on a direct fire weapon threat. Provisions of those standards are based on the assumption that those weapons will be fired from vantage points outside the control of an installation or facitity. Obscuration or screening that minimizes targeting opportunities is assumed to be the primary means of protecting DoD personnel from these weapons in these standards. 2-4'1.4 Fire. Recent incidents indicate that causing fires can be considered a terrorist tactic. Fire may be used as a direct terrorist tactic or it may be a secondary effect of some other tactic. Examples of how fire might be used asa direct tactic would include arson and driving a fuel truck or other fuelJaàen vehicle into a building. 2-4'1'5 Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Weapons. For the purposes of these standards, these weapons are assumed to be improvised weapons containing airborne agents employed by terrorists, These standards do not assume comprehensive protection against this threat. They provide means to reduce the potential for widespread dissemination of such agents throughout a building in the event of an attack either outside buildings or in mail rooms. 2^4.2 Gontrolled Pe¡"imeters. These standards assume that procedures are implemented to search for and detect exploslves to limit the likelihood that a velricle carrying qttantitíes of explosives equivalent to explosive weight I in Tables B-1 and D-1 could penetrate a co¡ltnoiled perimeten u¡ncletected. lt is furtller assumed that access 2-4 uFc 4-0f 0-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 control will include provisions to reject vehicles without penetrating the controlled perimeter. 2-4.3 Government Vehicle Parking. Limitations on parking near buildings apply to all vehicles, including offícial and tactical vehicles, except for emergency vehicles and for operations support vehicles that are never driven out of restricted access areas, as established in these standards, Government vehicles other than those support and emergency vehicles are included in the parking limitations in these standards because it is assumed that when they are out of restricted access areas they may be out of the immediate control of their operators, which could make them susceptible to having explosives placed on or inside of them. 2-4.4 Levels of Protection. The potential levels of protection are described qualitatively in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. those descriptions should be used for general understanding of the goals of the levels of protection. Detailed, quantitative descriptions of the levels of protection are included in the DoD Security Engineering Facilities Design Manual. These standards provide a Low level of protection for billeting, high occupancy family housing, and primary gathering buildings and a Very Low level of protection for other inhabited buildings. Greater protection is provided for primary gathering buildings, billeting, and high occupancy family housing because of the higher òoncentration of personnel and the more attractive nature of the target, lf the conventional construction standoff distances are provided, or if mitigating measures are provided to achieve an equivalent level of protection, and if the threats are no greater than those indicated in Tables B-1 and D-1, the risk of injuries and fatalities will be reduced. Threats higher than those envisioned in Tables B-1 and D-1 will increase the likelihood of injuries and fatalities regardless of the level of protection. Refer to the DoD Security Engineering Facilities Design Manualfor detailed guidanie on levels of protection and how to achieve them for a wide range of threats, 2-4.5 Standoff Distances. The conventional construction standoff distances identified in Tables B-1 and D-1 were developed to provide survivable structures for a wide range of conventionally constructed buildings and expeditionary/temporary structures. These buildings range from tents and wood framed buildings to reinforced concrete buildings. For a more detailed discussion of this issue, refer to the DoD Security Engineering Facilities Design Manual. 2-4.5.1 Conventional Gonstruction Standoff Distance. The standoff distances in the "Conventional Construction Standoff Distance" column in Table B-1 are based on explosíve safety considerations that have been developed based on years of experience and observation, Those standoff distances may be conservative for heavy construction such as reinforced concrete or reinforced masonry; however, they may be j ust adeq uate for lig hter-weig ht con struction. 2-4.5.2 Mini¡r¡um Standoff Distance. Because standoff distances from the "Conventional eonstruction Standoff Distance" column of Table B-1 may be overly OE ¿--.J uFc 4.010-01 I October 2003 Including change 1,22 January 2007 conservative for some construction types, these standardJallow fór the adjustmeñt of standoff distances based on the results of a structural analysis considering the applicable explosive weights in Table B-1. For new buildings, even if sucñ an analysis suggesfs a standoff distance of less than those shown in thè "Minimum Standoff Distance" column of Table B-1, standoff distances of less than those in that column are not allowed to ensure there is a minimal standoff distance "reserved" to accommodate future upgrades that could be necessitated by emergíng threats, ln addition, the 10 meter (33 feet) minimum is established to ensure there is no encroachment on the unobstructed space. For existing buildings, the standoff distances in the "Minimum Standoff Distance" column of Table B-1 will be provided except where doing so is not possible' ln those cases, lesser standoff distances may be ailowed where the required level of protection can be shown to be achieved through analysis or can be achieved through building hardening or other mitigating construótion orretrofit. 2-4.5'3 Operational Option for Existing Buildings. Because moving parking and roadways associated with existing buildings or applying structural retrofits to harden those buildings may be impractical, operationãl options âre provided for complying with the standoff distance requirements for existing parking and ioadways associated with existing buildings (including leased buildings)- Those-operational options allow for establishing access control for parking at the applicable standoff distances in either Table B-1 or Table D-1, in which case parking can be allowed to be as close as 10 meters to buildings without hardening or analysis. The access control ín those situations must be established at a location in accordance with Tables B-1 or D-1, The assumption is that by establishing access control into the parking lot, there will be a leSser opportunity to enter the paiking area with an explosive in a vehicle. For roadways, the operational option is to pronin¡t parking along roadways within the applicable standoff distances in Tables B-1 and D-1. These operational options will result in increased risk for existing buildings, but acceptance of that risk is necessary to make application of these standards to existing buildings practical. The addltional option'for allowing parking even closer than 10 meters (33 feet) as long as the applicable level of protection is mei, is based on the recognition that there may be some buildings, especially in urban areas, where achieving even 10 meters (33 feet) is not possible, 2-4.5'4 Temporary and Expeditionary Construction. The standoff distances in Table D-1 are based on blast testing conducted against TEMPER Tents, SEA Huts, General Purpose Shelters, and Small Shelter Systems. With adequate analysis those .distances nray be able to be reduced without requiring mitigating measures. 2-6 uFc 4-010-01 8 October 2003 lncluding ehange 1,22 January 2007 Table 2-1 Levels of Protection - New and Existi Buildi s Level of Potential Building Potential Door and Potential Iniury Protection Damage / Performance Glazing 2 Hazards3 Below AT Severe damage. Doors and windows will fail Majority of personnel in standardsl Progressive collapse likely. catastrophically and result collapse region suffer Space in and around in lethal hazards. (High fatalities. Potential fatalities damaged area will be hazard rating) in areas outside of collaPsed unusable. area likelv. Very Low Heavy damage - Onset of Glazing will fracture, come Majority of personnel in structural collapse, but out of the frame, and is damaged area suffer serious progressive collapse is likely to be propelled into injuries with a potential for unlikely. Space in and the building, with the fatalities. Personnel in areas around damaged area will potential to cause serious outside damaged area will be unusable. injuries. (Low hazard experience minor to rating) moderate injuries. Doors may be propelled into rooms, presenting serious hazards, Low Moderate damage - Glazing will fracture, Majority of personnel in Building damage will not be potentially come out of the damaged area suffer minor. economically repairable. frame, but at a reduced to moderate injuries with the Progressive collapse will velocity, does not present a potential for a few serious not occúÌ. Space in and significant injury hazard. injuries, but fatalities are around damaged area will (Very low hazard rating) unlikely.. Personnel in areas be unusable. Doors may fail, but they will outside damaged areas will rebound out of their frames, potentially experience a presenting minimal minor to moderatè injuries. hazards. Medium Minor damage - Building Glazing will fracture, remain Personnel in damaged area damage will be in the frame and results in a potentially suffer minor to economically repairable. minÌmal hazard consisting moderate injuries, , but Space in and around of glass dust and slivers. fatalities arg unlikely. damaged area can be used (Min imal hazard rating) Personnel in areas outside and will be fully functional Doors will stay in frames, damaged areas will after cleanup and repairs. but wíll not be reusable. potentially experience superficial iníuries. High Minimaldamage. Glazing will not break. Only superficial injuries are No permanent (No. hazard rating) Doors likely. deformations. The facility will be reusable. willbe immediately operable. Notes: 1. This is not a level of protection, and should never be a design goal. lt only defínes a realm of more severe structural response, and may provide useful information in some cases 2. For damage / performance descriptions for primary, secondary, and non-structural nlembers, refer to UFC 4-020-O2, DoD Security Engineering Facilities Design Manual. 3, Glazino hazard levels are from ASTM F 1642. 2-V uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lneluding change 1,22 January 20AT Table 2-2 Levels of Protection - Expeditionary and Temp orary Structures Level of Potential Structural Potentiallnjury Protection Damaqe Below AT Severe damage, Frame Majority of personnel in I Standards collapse/massive destruction, collapse region suffer fatalities. Little left standing. Potential fatalities in areas outside of collapsed area likelv Very Low Heavy damage. Major porli ons Majority of personnel in of the structure will collapse damaged area suffer serious (over 50%). A signifícant injuries with a potentialfor percentage ofsecondary fatalities. Personnel in areas structural members will outside damaged area will collapse (over 50%). experience minor to moderate iniuries. Low Moderate damage. Damage Majority of personnel in will be unrepairable, Some damaged area suffer minor to sections of the structure may moderate injuries with the collapse or lose structural potential for a few serious capacity (101o 20% oT ínjuries, but fatalities are structure). unlikely. Personnel in areas outside damaggd areas will potentially experience a minor to moderate iniuries. Medium Minor damage. Damage will Personnel in damaged area be repairable. potentially suffer minor to Minor to major deformations of moderate injuries, but fatalities both structural members and are unlikely. Personnel in non-structural elements, Some areas outside damaged areas secondary debris will be likely, will potentially experience but the structure remains intact superficial injuries. uith collapse unlikelV. Hish Mínimaldamage, Only ufl ES re No permanent deformation of likely primary and secondary structural members or non- structural elements. Note 1: This ís not a level of protection, and should never be a design goal. lt only defínes a realm of more severe structural res ponse, and may provide useful information in some cases 2-4'6 Exempted Building Types" For the reasons below, some building types are exempted from some or all of these siandards. The minimum standards should be applied to the exempted buílding types where possible, 2-4'6.1 Family Flousing. The exemption of family housing with 12 units or fewer in a single buildlng acknowledges that the density of such units is generally low, reducil'lg the likelihood of mass casualties, lt also acknowleelges the fact that low- density housing lras narely been directly targeted by terronlsts. A fu¡,ther assumptiorì 'lor 2-8 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 existing familyr housing with 13 or more units per building is that by designating parking spaces for specific residents or residences, the risk of parking vehicle bombs in those parking areas is reduced due to increased awareness of the vehicles that are authorized to park there, 2-4.6.2 Stand-Alone Franchised Food Operations, Shoppettes, Mini Marts, Similarly Sized Gommissaries, and Other Small Stand Alone Commercial Facilities. These facilities by the nature of their smaller size and their operation require parking in close proximity; therefore, they are exempted from the minimum standoff distances for parking and roadways. Applying other upgrades required by these standards is feasible, however, and will lessen the risk of mass casualties. 2-4.6.3 Gas Stations and Gar Gare Genters. These facilities are exempted from these standards because, by the nature of their operation, cars must be allowed to be in close proximity to them. Other measures included in these standards would be ineffective in the absence of any control on vehicles. 2-4.6.4 Medical Transitional Structures and Spaces. These structures and spaces may be required for limited durations to maintain mission-critical operations during construction that require close proximity or physical connection to the existing building undergoing construction. This may make compliance with some of the standoff distance provisions of these standards impractical during the limited construction duration. 2-4.6.5 Other Transitional Structures and Spaces. These structures and spaces are exempted from some of the standoff distance provisions of these standards because it would be impractical to apply them considering the limited less-than-1-year duration of occupancy, 2-4.6.6 Recruiting Stations in Leased Spaces. These facilities are exempted because their vísibility and accessibility necessitate their being located in public spaces, which makes requiring them to comply with these standards impractical. ln addition, the majority of these facilities do not have a sufficient population and population density to meet the inhabited building standard. 2-4.6.7 Military Protective Gonstruction. These facilitíes are exempted because the military conventional and nuclear weapons threats to which they are designed are much more stringent than those included in these standards, Facilities designed to protective construction standards will provide hígher levels of protection for facility occupants than those required by these standards. 2-4.7 Policies and Procedunes. Policies and procedures are a critical adjunct to building standards. lt is assumed that there are means to control access to controlled perimeters, underground parkíng, and other locations where vehicle access needs to be limited. lt is further assumed that unusual packages or containers or improperly parked vehicles will be recognized as potential terrorist threats and appropriate reactive measures will be irnplemented to reduce the potential for casualties, Finally, it is assumed that policies and procedures will be developed to support these and other 2^9 ¡,rFc 4-0'¡0-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 related issues and that those policies and procedures will be iricoiporated into antiterrorism plans, training, and exercises. 2-4.8 Design Criteria. lt is assumed that the provisions of these standards will be coordinated with all other applicable DoD building and design criteria and policies, Nothing in these standards should be interpreted to supersede the provisions of any other applicable building or design criteria. Where other criteria mandate more striñgent requirements, it is assumed that the provisions of those criteria will be followed. 2-4'9 Enhanced Fire Safety. Historic fire scenarios and fuel loadings for various common buildings types that are the basis for requirements in buildiñg and life safety codes are likely to be much less severe than those experienced in terrorist attacks. Therefore, in the event of a terrorist attack, fire safety rnay be critical to the survival of building occupants and limiting the extent of building damage. Fire safety may be enhanced by designing buildings to limit the extent or õeverity of a fire and providing more effective egress routes. Changes to fire safety requirements, while they may be justifiable from an antiterrorism standpoint, are beyond the scope of these standards. 2'4.10 Training. lt is assumed that key security and facility personnel witl receive training in securlty engineering, antiterrorism, and related areas, Refer to the Security Engineering Working Group web site for available training and to DoD 2000.12- H for additional information on training issues. lt is further assumed that all DoD personnel have been trained in basic antiterrorism awareness in accordance with DoDl 200016, that they are able to recognize potential threats, and that they know the proper courses of action should they detect a potential threat. 2-4.11 Expeditionary and remporary structures. Expeditionary and temporary structures are commonly built of either combinations of metal frames and fabric or wood frames and rigid walls. lt is assumed that most expeditionary and temporary structures cannot be retrofitted or hardened suffíciently for higher threats; therefore, unless adequate planning is done to obtain the needed space to achieve appropriate standoff, DoD personnel will be highly vulnerable to terrorist attack. 2-4'12 Leased Buildings. DoD personnel occupying leased buildings deserve the same level of protection as those in DoD-owned buildings; therefore, thèy should meet the requirements of these standards wherever possible. They must meet the requirements when the DoD occupancy meets the criteria in these standards. The thresholds in those críteria reflect the significance of higher populations of DoD personnel as targets versus the inherent risk reduction associated with dispersing DoD personnel. 2-1t uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS Access control. For the purposes of these standards, any combination of barriers, gates, electronic security equipment, and/or guards that can deny entry to unauthorized personnel or vehicles. Access road. Any roadway such as a maintenance, delivery, service, emergencV, or other special limited use road that is necessary for the operation of a building or structure. Billeting. Any building or portion of a building, regardless of population density, in which 11 or more unaccompanied DoD personnel are routinely housed, including Temporary Lodging Facilities and military family housing permanently converted to unaccompanied housing, Billeting also applies to expeditionary and temporary structures with similar populations and functions. Building hardening. Enhanced conventional construction that mitigates threat hazards where standoff distance is limited. Building hardening may also be considered to include the prohibition of certain building materials and construction techniques. Building overhangs. Any structural configuration in which the outer wall of the ground floor is set back from the outer walls or first column lines of floors above. Building separation. The distance between closest points on the exterior walls of adjacent buildings or structures. Collateral damage. lnjury to personnel or damage to buildings that are not the prinrary target of an attack, Gommand vehicles. Vehicles operated by ínstallation commanders and/or their designated staff, Gontainer structures. Structures built using shipping containers that are designed to withstand structural loadings a'ssociated with shipping, including Container Express (CONEX) and lnternational Organization for Standardization (lSO) containers. Testing has shown that these structures behave similarly to buildings for the purposes of these standards. Controlled perimeter. For the purposes of these standards, a physical boundary at which vehicle access is controlled at the perimeter of an installation, an area within an installation, or another area with restricted access, A physical boundary will be considered as a sufficient means to channel vehicles to the access control points, At a minimum, access control at a controlled perimeter requires the demonstrated capability to search for and detect explosives. Where the controlled perimeter includes a shoreli¡'le and there is no defined perimeter beyond the shoreline, the boundary will be at the mean high water mark. A-1 [JFG 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2A07' Gonventio¡ral construetion" Building construction that is not specifically designed to resist weapons or explosives effects. Conventional construction is designed only to resist common loadings and environmental effects such as wind, seismic, and snow loads. Note that for the purposes of these standards, conventional construction may still require special windows and progressive collapse resistant construction. Conventional construction standoff distance. The standoff distance at which conventional construction may be used for buildings without a specífic analysis of blast effects, except as otherwise required in these standards. Design basis threat. The threat (aggressors, tactics, and associated weapons, tools, or explosives) against which assets within a building must be protected and upon which the security engineering design of the building is based, DoD building. Any building or porlion of a building (permanent, temporary, or expeditionary) owned, leased, privatized, or othenruise occupied, managed, or controlled by or for DoD. DoD buildings are categorized within these standards aé low occupancy, inhabited, primary gathering, high occupancy family housing, and billeting, DoD components. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD); the Military Departments (including their National Guard and Reserve Components); the Chairman, Joínt Chiefs of Staff and Joint Staff; the Combatant Commands; the Office of the lnspector General of the Department of Defense; the Defense Agencies; the DoD Field Activities; and all other organizational entities within DoD. DoD personnel. Any U.S. military, DoD civilian, or family member thereof, host-nation employees working for DoD, or contractors occupying DoD buildings. Emergency vehicles. Vehicles such as fire trucks and ambulances that are critical to emergency response, and for which close proximity to inhabited buildings or containment therein is essential. Expeditionary structures. Those structures intended to be inhabited for no more than 1 year after they are erected. This group of structures typically include tents, Small and Medium Shelter Systems, Expandable Shelter Containers (ESC), ISO and CONEX containers, and General Purpose (GP) Medium tents and Gp Large tents, etc, Fabric covered structures. A construction type that can be identified by wood or metal (usually aluminum) posts or load-bearing frames with some type of fabric (such as canvas) stretched or pulled over the posts or frames. Exannples of the types of structures that should be considered uhder this classification of structures include Frame-Supported Tensioned Fabric Structures (FSTFS); Tent, Extendable, Modular, Personnel (TEMPER Tents); and Small and Medium Shelter Systems (SSS and MSS); General Furpose (GP) Medium tents and GP Large tents; and air supported fabric structures. Testing has shown that for these fabric structures, the posts and frames are what cause hazards. A-2 uFc 4-010-01 8 October 2003 lncluding ehange 1,22 January 2007 Family housing. DoD buildings used as quarters for DoD personnel and their dependents. For the purposes of these standards, family housing will be considered to include Morale, Welfare, and Recreation housing (cottages) of similar occupancies. Force Protection Condition (FPCON). A DoD-approved system that standardizes the Departments' identification and recommended preventive actions and responses to terrorist threats against U.S. personnel and facilities. This system is the principle means for a commander to apply an operational decision on how to protect against terrorism and facilitates inter-Service coordination and support for antiterrorism activities, Glazing. The part of a window, skylight, or door assembly that is transparent and transmits light, but not air, High occupancy family housing. Family housing with 13 or more units per building. lnhabited building. Buildings or pofiions of buildings routinely occupied by 11 or more DoD personnel and with a population density of greater than one person per 40 gross square meters (430 gross square feet). This density generally excludes industrial, maintenance, and storage facilities, except for more densely populated portions of those buildings such as administrative areas, The inhabited buildíng designation also applies to expeditionary and temporary structures with simílar population densities, ln a building that meets the criterion of having 11 or more personnel, with portions that do not have suffícient population densities to qualify as inhabited buildings, those porlions that have sufficient population densities will be considered inhabited buildings while the remainder of the building may be considered low occupancy, subject to provisions of these standards. An example would be a hangar with an administrative area within it. The administrative area would be treated as an inhabited building while the remainder of the hangar could be treated as low occupancy. (Note: This definition differs significantly from the definition for inhabited building used by DoD 6055.9-STD and is not construed to be authorization to deviate from criteria of DoD 6055,9-STD,) Laminated glass.. Multiple sheets of glass bonded together by a bonding interlayer. Level of protection. The degree to which an asset (person, equipment, object, etc.) is protected against injury or damage from an attack. Low occupancy building, Any building or portion of a building occupied by fewer than 11 DoD personnel or with a population density of one person per 40 gross square meters (430 gross square feet) or less. Mail room, A facility operated by or for the DoD for the receipt and delivery of mailfor military units or other authorized organizations and agencies by entities outside the DoD. This does not include mail rooms that receive mail distribution that was initially received at a central DoD mail handling facility. A-3 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 Mass notifieation. Capability to provide real-time information to all building occupants or personnel in the immediate vicinity of a building during emergency situations. Medical transitional structures and spaces. Structures that are erected or leased for temporary occupancy to maintain mission-critical medical care during construction, renovation, modificatíon, repair or restoration of an existing medical structure. Examples include urgent, ambulatory, and acute cat" op"iations, Military protective construction. Military facilities designed to resist military conventional and nuclear weapons to the NATO (or equivalent) standards of hardened, protected, sem i-hardened, collateral ly protected, or spli nter protected. Minimum standoff distance. The smallest permissible standoff distance for new construction regardless of any analysis or hardening of the building. Operations support vehicles. Vehicles such as airfield support equipment whose purpose is direct support to operations and which are operated only within a restricted access area. Parking. Designated areas where vehicres may be reft unattended, Primary gathering building. lnhabited buildings routinely occupied by 50 or more DoD personnel. This designation applies to the entire portion of a building that meets the population density requirements for an inhabited building. For examþle, if a portion of an inhabited building has 50 or more people in it, the entire inhabited portion of the building will be considered a primary gathering building. lnhabited nuildings whose populations are increased through inhabited building additions such that the combined building meets the definítion of a primary gathering building will be considered to be primary gathering buildings for their entire inhabited portions. The primary gathering building designation also applies to expeditionary and temporary structures with similar populations and population, Progressive collapse. A chain reaction failure of building members to an extent disproportionate to the original localized damage. Such damage may result in upper floors of a buildíng collapsing onto lower floors. Roadways. Any surface intended tor motorized vehicle traffic. Routinely occupied. For the purposes of these standards, an established or predictable pattern of activity within a building that terrorists could necognize and exploit. Seeurity engineering. The process of identifying practical, risk managed shori and long-term solutions to reduce and/or mitigate dynamic manmade hazards loy integrating multiple facto¡"s, including construction, equipment, manpower, and procedures. Specifie thneat" Known or postulated aggnesson activity focused on targetirrg a particular asset. A-4 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change '1,22 January 2007 Standoff distance. A distance maintained between a building or portion thereof and the potential location for an explosive detonation. Structure group. A cluster of expeditionary or temporary structures consisting of multiple rows of individual structures with 200 or fewer DoD personnel. Structural glazed window systems. Window systems in which glazing is bonded to both sides of the window frame using an adhesive such as a high-strength, high- pedormance silicone sealant. Superstructure. The supporting elements of a building above the foundation. Temporary structures. Those structures that are.erected with an expected occupancy of 3 years or less. This group of structures typically includes wood frame and rigid wall construction, and such things as Southeast Asia (SEA) Huts, hardback tents, ISO and CONEX containers, pre-engineered buildings, trailers, stress tensioned shelters, Expandable Shelter Containers (ESC), and Aircraft Hangars (AGH). TNT equivalent weight. The weight of TNT (trinitrotoluene) that has an equivalent energetic output to that of a different weight of another explosive compound Transitional structures and spaces. Structures or spaces within buildings that are used to temporarily (less than 1 year) relocate occupants of another building while that building undergoes renovations, modifications, repairs, or restorations. Unobstructed space. Space within 10 meters (33 feet) of an inhabited building that does not allow for concealment from observation of explosive devices 150 mm (6 inches) or greater in height. Þ A-5 uFc 4-010.01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 This Page Intentionally Left Blank A-6 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lneluding change 1,22 January 2407 APPENDIX B DoD MINIMUM ANTITERRORISM STANDARDS FOR NEW AND EXISTING BUILDINGS B-1 SITE PLANNING. Operational, logistic, and security requirements must be integrated into the overall design of buildings, equipment, landscaping, parking, roads, and other features. The most cost-effective solution for mitigating explosive effects on buildings is to keep explosives as far as possible from them. Standoff distance must be coupled with appropriate building hardening to provide the necessary level of protection to DoD personnel. The following standards detail standoff distances that when achieved will allow for buildings to be built with minimal additional construction costs. Where these'standoff distances cannot be achieved because land is unavailable, these standards allow for building hardening to mitigate the blast effects. Costs and requirements for building hardening are addressed in UFC 4-020-01. B-1.1 Standard l. Standoff Distaq. The standoff distances apply to all new and existing (when triggered) DoD buildings covered by these standards, The standoff distances are presented in Table B-1 and illustrated in Figures B-1 and B-2for new buildings and Figures B-3 and B-4 for existing buildings, Where the standoff distances in the "Conventional Construction Standoff Distance" column of Table B-1 can be met, conventional construction may be used for the buildings without a specific analysis of blast effects, except as othen¡¡ise required in these standards. Note that regardless of standoff distance, where the building is'three stories or more, the progressive collapse provisions of Standard 6 must be applied. Where the conventional construction standoff distances are not available, an engineer experienced in blast-resistant design should analyze the building and apply building hardening as necessary to mitigate the effects of the explosives indicated in Table B-1 at the achievable standoff distance to the appropriate level of protection. The appropriate levels of protection for each building category are shown in Table B-1 , and are described in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 and in UFC 4-020-01. For new buildings, standoff distances of less than those shown in the "Minimum Standoff Distance" column in Table B-1 are not allowed. For existing buildings, the standoff distances in the "Minimum Standoff Distance" column of Table B- 1 will be provided except where doing so is not possible. ln those cases, lesser standoff distances may be allowed where the required level of protection can be shown to be achieved through analysis or can be achieved through building hardening or other mitigating eonstruetion or retrofit as described in these standards and in the DoD Security Engineering Facilíties Design Manual. B-1.1 .1 Gontrotled Perimeter. Measure the standoff dístance from the controlled perimeter to the closest point on the building exterion or inhabited portion of the building. B-1.1.2 Parking and Roadways" Standoff distances for parking and roadways are based on the assumption that there is a controlled perimeter at which larger vehicle bombs will be detected and kept from entering the controlled perirneter. Where there is B-'1 uFc 4-010-01 I Oetober 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007' a controlled perimeter, the standoff distances and explosive weight associated with parking and roadways in Table B-1 apply, lf there is no controlled perimeter, assume that the larger explosive weights upon which the controlled perimeier standoff distances are_based (explosive weight lfrom Table B-1) can access parking and roadways near buildings, Therefore, where there is no controlled perimeter, use standoff distances from parking and roadways according to the distances and the explosive weight associated with controlled perimeters in Table B-1. Measure the standoff disiance from the closest edge of parking areas and roadways to the closest point on the building exterior or inhabited poftion of the building, ln addition, the foliowing apply: Table B-1 Standoff Distances for New and Existin ¡rd Location Building Category Standoff Distance uirements Applicable Conventional Minimum Applicable Level of Construction Standoff Explosive Protection Standoff Distance(r) Weight Distance (2) Billeting and High 45 m(3) 25 m(3) Controlled Occupancy Family Low I Perimeter Housing (148 ft.) (82ft.) or Parking and Primary Gathering 45 (e) (a) Low r 2g Roadways Building (r48 ft.) (82ft.)^ltlØl without a Controlled 25 mFl 1o m(3) Perimeter lnhabited Building Very Low I (82 ft.) (33 fr.) Billeting and Hí9h 25mß) 1o m (3) Parking and Occupancy Family Low Roadways Housing (82ft.) (33 fr.) within (3) (4) (3)(4) a Primary Gathering 25 m 10 m Controlled Low Building (82 ft.) (33 ft.) ll Perimeter (t) 1o m 1o m (t) lnhabited Building Very Low (33 ft.) (33 ft.) il Billeting and High 25m Trash Occupancy Family Low 10m Containers Housíng (82ft.) (33 ft.) Prirnary Gathering 25m 10m Low il Building (82 ft.) (33 ft.) 10m 10m lnhabited Building Very Low il (33 ft.) (33 fr.) (1) Even with analysis, standoff distances less than those in this column are not allowed for new buildings, but are allowed for existing buildings if constructed/retrofitted to provide ihe required level of protection at the reãuced standoff distarrce, (2) weights (kg/pounds of TNT) associated with designations - I and ll. UF (3) 2 for additional options. (4) 1.1.2,2.3 for addiiional o¡:tiorrs, B-2 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 Fiqure B-1 Standoff Distances - Controlled Perimeter Trash 45 m: 148 ft ¡¡) ro ô{ \l 25n:82ft. o 10 m:33 ft o, E ! o 10 rD À I Note: Standoff cy distances arefrom gE of 1 õ I L I o n"" o I column of Tabte B-1 I I I.rj F.a. ri: Ç Ft h.Þi.t n'$.,'..'.. I ilq 4l th.q t. e l..F.r lt çti | 9.. I Unobstructed Space I Low L Roadw Parkinq Figure B-2 Standoff Distances - No Controlled Perimeter Roadways 45 m: I48 ft Trash 25 m:82ft Containers ro 10 m: 33 ft N Low W accupancy Fort¡on Low accupancy of Building Buílding I,i¡h.â.b.ì(e.il.'. 45m Sultdin'cíc'. Note : Støndoff distances arefrom Conventionql ConsLntction Stando.ff Distance colunt¡t of ctud Spa<,"e Table B-1 uFc 4-010.01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 Figure B-3 Parking and Roadway Control for Exist!¡'lg Buildings - Controlled Perimeter l0m Existíng Note: lnhabited 25m Srandoff Building 25m distances are l0m ,front Conventional Construction Standoff Distance 10 P column oJ' Table B-l _l Roadways 45 m: 148 ft ConÍrolled 25 m:82 ft. NNS '%¿ No Parking Pørking 10 m: 33 ft Figure B-4 Parking and Roadway Control for Existing Buildings - No Gontrolled Perimeter Nole: 25m Standaf Existing distances are 'lnhabited 45m front Buildíng E 45m ConvenÍional o Constntction 25m Standoff Distance colu.ntn of Table B-1 E ¡o (\{ _l Roadways 45 m:148 ft ÑNN' Controlled ///ø, No parteìng 25 m:82 ft Pøt'leiteg 10 m:33 ft B-4 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 Janaary 2007 B-1.1.2.1 New lnhabited Buildings. The minimum standoff distance for all new buildings regardless of hardening or analysis is the minimum standoff distance in Table B-1 for both parking areas and roadways. B-1,1.2.2 Existing lnhabited Buildings. Where possible, move parking and roadways away from existing inhabited buildings (including leased buildings) in accordance with the standoff distances and explosive weights in Table B-1. lt is recognized, however, that moving existing parking areas and roadways or applying structural retrofits may be impractical; therefore, the following operational options are provided for existing inhabited buildings: B-1.1.2.2.1 Gontrolled Parking Areas. Controlled parking associated with existing inhabited buildings may be allowed to be as close as the minimum standoff distance in Table B-1 without hardening or analysis if access control to the parking area is established at the applicable conventional construction standoff distance for parking in Table B-1. ln cases where the applicable level of protection can be provided (based on hardening or analysis) with a standoff distance between the conventional construction standoff distance and the minimum standoff distance, parking may be allowed as close as the minimum standoff distance in Table B-1 ¡f parking is controlled at that lesser applicable standoff distance subject to the following: B-1.1.2.2.1.1 Parking Within a Gontrolled Perimeter. The applicable conventional construction or minimum standoff distance at which access will be controlled will be based on the standoff distances for parking and roadways within a controlled perimeter in Table B-1 and illustrated in Figure B-3 for the applicable building category. B-1.1.2.2.1.2 Parking Without a Gontrolled Perimeter. The applicable conventional construction or minimum standoff distance at which access will be controlled will be based on the standoff distances for parking and roadways without a controlled perimeter in Table B-1 and illustrated in Figure B-4 for the applicable building category. B-1.1.2.2.1.3 Alternate Situations. Controlled parking may be allowed to be closer to existing inhabited buildings where conditions necessitate it and where it can be shown through analysis that the required level of protection can be provided at a lesser standoff distance or if it can be provided through building hardening or other mitigating' measures or retrofits. Allowing any parking closer than the distances established in the paragraphs above should be avoided wherever possible, however. B-1.1 .2.2.2 Parking on Existing Roadways. Parking along roadways is subject to the same standoff consíderations as other parking, Ensure that there is no parking on roadways within the required standoff distances (conventional construction or minimum in accordance with Table B-1 and illustrated in Figures B-3 and B-4) along existing roads adjacent to existing buildings covered by these standards. B-1.1 .2.2.3 Parking for Family Housing" For high occupancy family housing within a controlled perimeter or where there is access control to the parkinE area, parking within the required standoff distances may be allowed where designated parking spaces are assigned for specific residents or resídences. Do not label assigned parking spaces B-5 LtFc 4.010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 with names or ranks of the residents, however, Do not enóroach upon existing stándoff distances where the existing standoff distances are less than the required (coñventional construction or minimum in accordance with Table B-1) standoff distances. For example, where existing designated parking is only I meters (27 feel) from existing family housing, that parking may be retained, but additional þàrking will not be allowed closer than I meters (2T feet.) B-1'1'3 Parking of Emergency, Gommand and Operations Support.Vehicles. Emergency and command vehicles, as well as operations support vehiòles may be parked closer to inhabited buildings than allowed in Table B-1 without hardening or analysis if access to them is continuously controlled or as long as they are never removed from a restricted access area, but they may not be paiked cioser than the distance associated with unobstructed spaces as established in Standard 2. ln addition, where standard operation of buildings includes parking emergency vehicles inside them, such as in fire stations, those emergency vehicles may be paiked-inside the buildings where necessary as long as access to the buirding is óontrolled. B-1.1'4 Parking of Vehictes Undergoing Maintenance. Vehicles undergoing maintenance may be parked inside maintenance buildings closer to inhabited aieas of those buildings than allowed in Table B-1 while they arelndergoing repair where operationally necessary. B-1 1 5 Adjacent Existing Buildings. Where projects for new and existing buildings designed in accordance with these standards iñclude locating parking, roadways, or trash containers near existing inhabited buildings that arã not required to meet these standards, the standoff distances from parking, ròadways, and trash containers to the buildings that are not required to complywith these standards should comply with the applicable standoff distances in Table B-1. Where those standoff dístances are not available, do not allow the parking, roadways, and trash containers to encroach on existing standoff distances to the parking, roadways, and trash containqrs associated with those existing buildings. For example, if existing parking associated with an existing inhabited building that does not have to comply with theée standards is 10 meters from the building, do not allow new parking and roadways associated with a new building closer than 10 meters from the existing building, B-1'1.6 Parking and Roadway Projects. Where practical, all roadway and P"!,¡lg area projects should comply with the standoff distances from inhabitéd buildings in Table B-1. Where parking or roadways that are within the standoff distances in Table B-1 from existing buildings are being constructed, expanded, or relocated, do not allow those parking areas and roadways to encroach on the existing standoff distances of any existing inhabited building, That applies even where such projects are not associated with a building renovation, rnodification, repair, or restoration iequlring compfiance with these standards B'1'1'7 Trash Containers. Mleasure the sta¡rdoff distance from the nearest point of the irash container or trash container enclosure to the closest ¡:oint on the buildíng exterion or lnirabited portion of the buildíng, Whene tlre standoff dista¡'lce is not B-6 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lneluding change 7,22 Janaary 2007 available, harden trash enclosures to mitigate the direct blast effects and secondary fragment effects of the explosive on the building if the applicable level of protection can be proven by analysis or testing. Alternatively, if trash containers or enclosures are secured to preclude introduction of objects into them by unauthorized personnel, they may be located closer to the building as long as they do not violate the unobstructed space provisions of Standard 2, Openings in screening materials and gaps between the ground and screens or walls making up an enclosure must not be greater than 150 mm (6 inches). B-1.2 Standard 2. Unobstructed Spacè. lt is assumed that aggressors will not attempt to place explosive devices in areas near buildings where these explosive devices could be visually detected by building occupants observing the area around the building. Therefore, ensure that obstructions within 10 meters (33 feet) of inhabited buildings or poftions thereof do not allow for concealment from observation of explosive devices 150 mm (6 inches) or greater in height. This does not preclude the placement of site furnishings or plantings around buildings, lt only requires conditions such that any explosive devices placed in that space would be observable by building occupants. For existing buildings where the standoff distances for parking and roadways have been established at less than 10 meters (33 feet) in accordance with paragraph B-1.1.2.2,the unobstructed space may be reduced to be equivalent to that distance. B-1.2.1 Electrical and Mechanical Equipment. The preferred location of electrical and mechanical equípment such as transformers, air-cooled condensers, and packaged chillers is outside the unobstructed space or on the roof. However this standard does not preclude placement within the unobstructed space as long the equipment provides no opportunity for concealment of explosive devices. B-1.2.2 Equipment and Trash Container Enclosures, lf walls or other screening devices with more than two sides are placed around trash containers or electrical or mechanical equipment within the unobstructed space, enclose the trash containers or equipment on all four sides and the top, Openings in screening materials and gaps between the ground and screens or walls making up an enclosure will not be greater than 150 mm (6 inches). Secure any surfaces of the enclosures that can be opened so that unauthorized personnel cannot gain access through them, B-1.3 Standard 3. Drive-Up/Drop-Off Areas. Some facilities require access to areas within the requíred standoff distance for dropping off or picking up people or loading or unloading packages and other objects. Examples that may require drive- up/drop-off include, but are not limited to, medical facilities, exchanges and commissaries, child care centers, and schools, B-1.3,1 Marking. Where operational or safety considerations require drive-up or drop-off areas or drive-through lanes near buildings, ensure those areas or lanes are clearly defined and marked and that their intended use is clear to prevent parking of vehicles in those areas. B-1.3.2 Unattended Vehicles. Do not allow unattended vehicles in drive-up or drop-off areas or drive-through lanes. B-7 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 B-1'3.3 Location. Do not allow drive-through lanes ór drive-upidrop-off to be located under any inhabited portion of a building. B-1'4 Where access roads are necessary for the operation of ired for fire department access), enêure that access control measures are implemented to prohibit unauthorized vehicles from using access roads within the applicable standoff distances in Table B-1. Eliminate oftops of inhabited buildings. Where very oidable, the following measures must be s or mitigating measures must be e an equivalent level of protection, B-1.5'1 Access Control. Ensure that access control measures are implemented to prohibit unauthorized personnel and vehicles from entering parking areas. B-1.5.2 Structural Elements. Ensure that the floors beneath or roofs above inhabited areas and all other adjacent supporling structural elements will not fail from the detonation in the parking area of an explosivã equivalent to explosive weight ll in Table B-1. B'2 STRUCTURAL DESIGN. lf the conventional construction standoff distances are achieved, conventional construction should minimize the risk of mass casualties from a terrorist attack. Even íf those standoff distances can be achieved, however, incorpoiate the foìlowing additional structural measures into building designs to ensure that buildings do not experience progressive collapse or otherwise éxperience disproportionate damage. B-2.1 considered to Jrå?'3::'Ë::#5?:";; be considered stories if they have one or more exposed walls. For all new and existing inhabited DoD buildings of ihree stories or more, iegardless of the standoff distance provided, design the superstructure to sustain local damage with the structural system as a whole remainíng stable and not being damaged to an extent disproportionaie to the original local damage. B-2'1.1 ProgressiveCollapseAvoidanceDesignProcedures. Competent structural engineers who engage in design work typicai or similar to DoD faciiity design can address the design requirements necessary to reduce the potential of progressivã collapse for new and existing facilities requíred by these standards. For existlng and new construction, the progressíve collapse avoidânce design procedure involvãs the application of the tie force method and/or alternate path method. B-2'1'1'tr Tåe Force Method" The tie force method is an i¡rdirect design method that provídes resisfance to pnogressive collapse by enhancing continuity, ductility, and - structt¡rc| redundancy through the design of elements within the structr.¡re fl-rat tie the nnembers together so they can bnldge over dannaged areas. The tie force rnethocl B-8 UFG 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 satisfies the minimum requirements of this standard when only the very low and low levels of protection are required. B-2.1.1.2 Alternate Path Method. The alternate path method is a direct design method that provides resistance to progressive collapse by demonstrating the structure's capacity to bridge over missing or deficient elements with only localized damage. The alternate path method is applicable to higher levels of protection, but can be used as an alternative design procedure to satisfy requirements of this standard. B-2.1.1.3 Other Design Requirements. Other prescriptive design requirements, such as effective column and wall height requirements, and design requirements for upward loads on floors are addressed in UFC 4-023-03, Deslgn of Buildings fo Resisf Progressive Collapse. B-2.1.2 Progressive Coltapse Avoidance Design Requirements. Follow the design guidance in UFC 4-023-03, Design of Builclings fo Reslét Progressive Collapse for new and existing DoD Buildings in accordance with the following to reduce the potential for progressive collapse due to localized structural damage due to unforeseeable events, B-2.1.2.1 lnhabited Buildings. For inhabited buildings, apply the design guidance for at least the very low level of protection in UFC 4-023-03. B-2.1.2.2 Primary Gathering Buildings, Billeting, and High Occupancy Family Housing. For primary gathering buildings, billeting, and high occupancy family housing, appfy the design guidance for at least the low level of protection in UFC 4-023-03. B-2.2 Standard 7. Structural lsolation. F.-2.2.1 Building Additions. Design all additions to existing buildings to be structurally independent from the adjacent existing building, This will minimize the possibility that collapse of one part of the building will affect the stability of the remainder of the building. Alternatively, verify through analysis that collapse of either the addition or the existing building will not result in collapse of the remainder of the building. 8-2.2.2 Portions of Buildings. Where there are areas of buildings that do not meet the criteria for inhabited buildings, design the superstructures of those areas to be structurally independent from the inhabited area. This will minimize the possibility that collapse of the low occupancy areas of the building will affect the stability of the , superstructure of the inhabited portion of the building, Alternatively, verifythrough analysis that collapse of low occupancy portions of the building will not result in collapse of any portion of the building covered by this standard or design the low occupancy portion of the building to meet the requirements for an inhabited building in accordance with these standards. This standard is not mandatory for existing structures, but it should be implemented where possible B-9 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 2oo' B-22 'iliiläiJÍ,i3iJ;:îJ,"üif;" inhabited spa gain access to the arefunderneath the overhang ed, incorporate the following measures into the design for new buildings. lncorporate mitigating measures into existing buildings to achieve an equivalent level of protection. 8-2'3.1 Parking and Roadway Restrictions. Ensure that there are no roadways or parking areas under overhangs. in the case of existing buildings, roadways that cannot be abandoned or relocated may be controlled to ensure vehicles do not park underneath the overhang. B-2'3'2 Floors. Ensure that the floors beneath inhabited areas will not fail from the detonation underneath the overhang of an explosive equivalent to explosive weight ll where there is a controlled perimeteránd explo'sive weigtrt I for an uncóntrolled perimeter. Explosive weights I and ll are identified in Table B-1, ?-2'3:3 Superstructure, The progressive collapse provisions of Standard G, will include all structural elements within and adjacent to ihe overhang. Adjacent Building Elements. Ensure that all building elements adjacent to?-?..3.4 the,overhang area provide the appropriate level of protection to e-xplosive weigñts I and ll in Table B-1, as applicable, based on the explosive detonating underneatlr the overhang. B-2.4' ,nreinforced masonry walls are prohibited for external masonry wallê must have vertical and horizontal reinforcement distributed throughout the wall section. The vertical reínforcement ratio will be at least O.O|yo, spaóed no more than 1200 mm (4 ft) with reinforcement within 410 mm (1.3 ft) of the ends of walls. The horizontal reinforcement ratio must be at least 0.025yo, consisting of either joint reinforcement spaced no more than 410 mm (1.3 ft), or bond beam rãinforcement spaced no more than 1200 mm (4 ft), with reinforcement within 410 mm (1.3 ft) of the iop and bottom of the wall' For existing buildings, implement mítigating measures to provide an equivalent level of protection. B-3 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN. Even where the conventional construction standoff distances are achieved, many aspects of building layout and other architectural design issues must be incorporated into designs to improve óverall protection of personnel inside buildings. B-3-1 To minimizehazardsfrom flying glass frag following provisions for glazing," framing, c ts for all-new and existing inhabited buildings covered by these standards, These provisions apply even if the conventíonal construction standoff distances are met or exceeded. Tlrese provisions only address ¡níninrum standards (very low and low levels of protection.) For higher levels of protectlon, refen to the DoD Securíty Engineering Facilities Design Manuat. B-'t0 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 Including change 1,22 January 2007 The specific requirements below will result in window and skylight systems that provide for effective hazard mitigation. B-3.1.1 Windows and Skylights with Laminated Glass Glazing. Windows and skylights fabricated using laminated glass glazing will be designed in accordance with the requirements below. B-3.1.1.1 Glazing. Determine the required thickness of laminated glass and associated polyvinyl-butyral interlayers in single panes and insulating glass unit (lGU) windows using Tables B-2 and B-3, respectively for the applicable level of protection, explosive weight, and standoff distance. Those tables are based on application of ASTM F 2248, Standard Practice for Specifying an Equivalent 3-Second Duration Design Loading for Blast Resrsfanf Glazing Fabricated with Laminated Glass and ASTM E 1300 Standard Practice for Determining Load Reslsfance of G/ass in Buildings., which result in higher levels of protection than those required in these standards as reflected in Table 2-1. The following adjustments to the ASTM standards are made to provide the appropriate performance, Where the tables indicate "F 2248 / E 1300', determine the glass thickness using the procedures in ASTM F 2248 and E 1300, respectively based on the applicable charge weight and siandoff distance noted in Tables B-2 and B-3. Do not use less than 6-mm (114-in) nominal laminated glass for any single pane exterior windows or skylights, The 6-mm (114-in) laminated glass consists of two nominal 3-mm (1/8-in) annealed glass panes bonded together with a minimum of a 0.75-mm (0.030-inch) polyvinyl-butyral (PVB) interlayer. For insulating glass units (lGU), use 6 mm (114 inch) laminated glass for the inboard pane as a minimum. Note that ASTM F2248 can be used for a limited range of charge weights and standoffs, including those covered by this standard, For charge weights and standoffs outside of the range of ASTM F2248 and for glazing alternatives to laminated glass that provide equivalent levels of protection, refer to the DoD Security Engineering Facilitíes Design Manual. B-3.1.1.2 Frames. Provide window and skylight frames, mullions and sashes of aluminum or steel. ln accordance with ASTM F2248, ensure that the framing members restrict deflections of edges of the blast resistant glazing they support to 11160 of the length of the supported edge at allowable stress levels under the equivalent 3-second design loading. The equivalent 3-second duration design loading determined using ASTM F 2248 will be based on the applicable explosive weight at the actual standoff distance at which the window is sited, but not greater than the conventional construction standoff distance. ln the case of a punched window, the supported edge length will be taken as equal to the span of the glass, regardless of any intermediate support connections, ln the case of multi-panel glazing systenrs, the supported edge length to be considered B-11 uFc 4-010-01 8 October 2003 lneluding change 1,22 January 2007' will be taken as equal to the span of a single glass panel and the deflection will be calculated based on simple supporl conditions for that length. For existing buildings, complying with this standard may require replacement or significant modification of window and skylight frames, anchorages, and supporting elements. B-3.1'1.3 Glazing Frame Bite. Refer to ASTM F 2248 for glazing frame bite requirements for structurally or non-structurally glazed windowJ or st E-12 uFc 4-010"01 I October 2003 lncf uding change 1,22 January 2007 Table B-2. Laminated Glass Thickness Selection for Sin le Pane Windows Applicable Applicable Thickness Level of Explosive Nominal Laminated Glass and PVB lnterlaver Protection Weight Requirements(1) At Conventional Construction Between Conventional Construction (2) Standoff Distance (2) and Minimum Standoff Distances Minimum Minimum Nominal lnterlayer Nominal lnterlayer Glass Thickness Thickness Glass Thickness Thickness F2248t81300 1.50 mm (0,060") -(3x4) I 6mm 0,75 mm 3 mm (1/8") Low (114") (0.030") F22481813001"' 1.50 mm (0.060") ll ('/ F2248451813001"' 1.50 mm Refer to DoD Security Engineering (0.060") Facilities Design Manual Very Low F2249ß181300t", 1.50 mm(" Not Applicable (E) il (0.060") (1) Nominal thickness will be achieved by laminating two thinner glass panes of the same thickness to achieve the nominal thickness. (2) Refer to Table B-'l for applicable standoff distances. (3) Enter ASTM F 2248 with the applicable explosive weight and the actual standoff distance achieved to determine the equivalent 3-second duration design loading. (4) Calculate the required laminated glass thickness for this pane by subtracting 3mm (1/8") from the thickness determined by ASTM E 1300. (5) For this window, enter ASTM F 2248 wilh explosive weight I at a standoff distance of 45m (148') to determine the equivalent 3-second duration design loading. The laminated glass thickness selected for this design loading may then be used at the 25m (82') conventional construction standoff distance. (6) For this window, enter ASTM F 2248 with explosive weight ll at the 'l0m (33') conventional construction sfandoff disfance to determine the equivalent 3-second duration design loading, (7) For standoff distances greater than the conventional construction standoff distance, lesser interlayer thicknesses may be allowable based on analysis, but they shall not be less than 0.75 mm (0.030") (8) Conventional construction standoff distance = minimum standoff distance. Table B-3. Larninated Glass Thickness Selection for lnsulating Glass Unit (lGU) Windôws Applicable Applicable (1) Level of Explosive Nominal Lamínated Glass Thickness w/ PVB lnterlaver Requirements Protection Weight At Conventional Construction Between Conventional Construction (2) Standoff Distance (2) and Minimum Standoff Distances Minimum Glass Thickness lnterlaver Glass Thickness lnterlaver (3) Thickneês(a) (3) Thickneäs(a) I 6mm 0.75mm 6mm 1.50mm Low (114',) (0.030') (1t4',) (0,060") F22484518130\"t 0.75mm Refer to DoD Security Engineering (0,030') Facilities Design Manual Very Low 6mm 0.75mm Not Applicable (6) lt (114',) (0.030") (1) Nominal thickness will be achieved by laminating two thinner glass panes of the same thickness to achieve the nominal thickness. (2) Refer to Table B-1 for applicable standoff distances. (3) Glass thickness is the same for interior aud exterior panes. (4) lnterlayer is wifhin the inboard pane only as a minimum. (5) Forthiswi¡rdow,enterASTMF224Swilhexplosiveweightlatasiandoffdistanceof4Snr(148')fodeterminetheequivalent 3-second dutztion design loading. The glass thickness selected for both panes of the IGU for this design loading may then be B-13 'uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 used at the 25n (82') conventional construction standoff distance. (6) Conventional construction stàndoff distance = minimum standoff distance. E-14 uFc 4-010.01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 B-3.1.1.4 Connection Design. The design of connections of window and skylight frames to surrounding walls or roofs, of hardware and associated connections, of glazing stop connections, and of other elements in shear will be based upon allowable stress levels. The connection design load will be determined in accordance with ASTM F 2248 based on the applicable explosive weight at the actual standoff distance at which the window is sited, but not greater than the conventional construction standoff distance. Additionally, the allowable fastener loads will be as recommended by the fastener manufacturer for the materials to which the window or skylight systems are being connected, Designers will account for the geometry of the particular frame and the connection configuration being used when calculating bending, shear, bearing, and pull out loads for the connections. Note: The actual connection design load is dictated by the glass type and thickness determined by ASTM E 1300. Therefore, in order to keep the connections loads reasonable, use a glass type and thickness that just exceeds the required glazing resistance. Connections must be capable of preventing the frame from being dislodged from the supporting structuial element. This may be demonstrated by calculation as noted above or by testing. lf testing is used, the type, number, arrangement, and orientation of the fasteners must be the same in the test as in the fielded application, including eccentricities between the glazing system frame and the line of action of the connections. The structural supporting material used in the test for fastener attachment will be representative of the fielded application. Any deviations ín field application of the connections or the connected elements from the test must be demonstrated by calculation to provide equivalent support for the specific application. B-3.1.2 Supporting Structural Elements. For window and skylight systems, surrounding wall and roof elements and their connections to the rest of the structure may be designed using their nominal strengths, For systems using laminated glass glazing, the design load will be eight times the glazing resistance determined using ASTM E 1300 in conjunction with'ASTM F 2248 based on the applicable explosive weight at the actual standoff distance at which the window is sited, but not greater than the conventional construction standoff distance. This design load will be distributed to the structural element only from the tributary area of the window. It is not necessary to account for reactions from the supporting structural elements in the design of the remainder of the structure, because the resulting dynamic loads are likely to be dissipated through multiple mechanisms. B-3.1.3 Alternate GIazings. Where glazing other than laminated glass is used, design glazing, frames, and connections that will provide the applicable level of protection as described above and in Tables 2-1 and2-2for the applicable explosive weight in Table B-1. Refer to the DoD Security Engineering Facilitíes Design Manualfor further guidance. When window or skylight systems use glazing other than laminated B-15 uFc 4-010-01 I Oetober 2003 lncluding change 1,22 Janua;ry 20A7' glass, the design loads distributed to the frames, the connections, and the supporting structural elements will be based on the ultimate resistance of the glazing being used. B-3.1.4 Alternate Method of Analysis. As an alternative to the design approach described above, any or all of the glazing, framing members, connections, and supporting structural elements may be designed using dynamic analysis to prove the window system will provide performance equivalent to or better than the hazard rating associated with the applicable level of protection as indicated in Table 2-1. The design loading for a dynamic analysis will be the appropriate pressure and impulse from the applicable explosive weight at the actual standoff distance at which the window is sited, 'but not greater than the conventional construction standoff distance. The design loading will be applied over the areas tributary to the element being analyzed. B-3.1'5 .Testing. As an alternative to the provisions of this standard, window and skylight systems may be dynamically tested to demonstrate pedormance equivalent to or better than the hazard rating associated with the applicable level of protection as indicated in Table 2-1. Testing will include the entire window or skylight system, including connections, and will be in accordance with ASTM F 1642.-lf standoff distances greater than conventional construction standoff distances are provided, the standoff distances on which the analysis and testing are based will not exceed the conventional construction standoff dlstance. B-3'1.6 Window and Skylight Replacement Projects. Whenever window and skylight glazing is being replaced ín existing inhabited buildings as part of a planned window or glazing replacement project, whether or not the building meets the triggers in paragraph 1-6.2, install glazing and frames that meet all of the requirements above. B-3'1.7 Alternative Window Treatments. Window retrofit products that rely on fragment retention film, fragment retention film as part of a retrofit system, or blast curtain systems generally have higher life cycle costs than laminated glass windows due to their shorter design lives and due to operation and maintenance issues. Application of those products, therefore, will be governed by the following paragraphs: B-3.1.7.1 New Buildings and Existing Buildings Undergoing Major Renovations or Window Replacemenf Projects. Window retrofits incorporating fragment retention film or blast curtains will not be considered an acceptable alternativê for new inhabited buildings or for existing inhabited buildings that are required to comply with these standards, except for leased buildíngs as stated betow, B-3.1.7 .2 Leased Buildings. For inhabited leased buildings that are required to comply with these standards, windows using laminated glass are preferred, but window retrofits incorporating fragment retention filnr or blast curtains may be allowed if they provide an equivalent level of protection to the laminated glass windows as long as the lease agreement stipulates that they will be maintained and neplaced in accordance with manufacturers'recommendations. This will include meeting the requirements for supponting structural elements, Complíance with the required level of protection may be demonstrated through analysis or through testing, Testing will be performed !n accondance witli ASTft/l F1642. B-'t6 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change '1,22 January 2007 B-3.1.7 .3 Other Existing Buildings" For existing buildings that are not required to comply with these standards, window retrofits incorporating fragment retentlon film or blast curtains are considered to be viable and economical solutions to mitigating the effects of explosive attacks, but should be evaluated prior to installation so that reduction in glass hazards may be determined. B-3.2 Standard ll. Buildinq Entrance Lavout. The areas outside of installations are commonly not under the direct control of the installations. Where the main entrances to buildings face installation perimeters, people entering and exiting th.e buildings are vulnerable to being fired upon from vantage points outside the installations. To mitigate those vulnerabilities apply the following measures: B-3.2.1 .New Buildings. For new inhabited buildings, ensure that the main entrance to the building does not face an installation perimeter or other uncontrolled vantage points with direct lines of sight to the entrance or provide means to block the lines of sight. B-3.2.2 Existing Buildings. For existing inhabited buildings where the main entrance faces an installation perimeter, either use a different entrance as the main entrance or screen that entrance to limit the ability of potential aggressors to target people entering and leaving the building. B-3.3 Standard 12. Exterior Doo¡g. For all new and existing buildings covered by these standards where the conventional construction standoff distance is met or exceeded, ensure that all exterior doors into inhabited areas open outwards. By doing so, the doors will seat into the door frames in response to an explosive blast, increasing the likelihood that the doors will not enter the buildings as hazardous debris. Where the standoff distance avaílable is less then the conventional construction standoff distance, design the doors to achieve the applicable performance in Table 2-1. B-3.3.1 Glazed Doors. ln addition to the provisions above, glazing in glazed doors must meet the glazing and frame bite provisions of Standard 10. B-3.3.2 Alternative Designs. As an alternative to the above provisions for all doors, position doors such that they will not be propelled into rooms if they fail in response'to a blast or provide other means to ensure they do not become hazards to building occupants. The glazing in glazed doors must still meet the provisions above if this alternative is exercised. B-3.4 Standard 13. Mail Rooms. The following measures address the location of rooms to which mail is delivered or in which mail is handled Ín new and existing inhabited buildings, These standards need not be applied to mail rooms to which mail is delivered that was initially delivered to a central mail handling facility, These standards should be applied to such maíl rooms where possible, however, to account for potential changes in mail handling procedures over the lífe of the building. The measures involve limiting collateral damage and injuries and facilitating future upgrades to enhance protection should they become necessary. B-17 uFc 4-010.01 I Oetober 2003 lncluding ehange 1,22 January 20OT B-3'4.1 Location" Where a new or existing building covered by these standards must have a mail room, locate that mail room on the perimeter of the building. By locating the mail room on the building perimeter there is an opportunity to modify it in the future if a mail bomb threat is identified. Where mail rooms are located in the ínterior of buildings, few retrofit options are available for mitigating the mail bomb threat. B-3.4'2 Proximity. , Locate mail rooms as far from heavily populated areas of the building and critical infrastructure as possible. This measure wili minimize injuries and damage if a mail bomb detonates in the mail room. Further, it will reduce thé potential for wider dissemination of hazardous agents. These apply where the mail room is not specifically designed to resist those threats. 8-3'4'3 Sealing. To limit migration into buildings of airborne chemical, biological, and radiological agents introduced into mail rooms, ehsure that mail rooms are weil sealed between their envelopes and other portions of the buildings in which they are located. Ensure the mail room walls are of full height construction that fully extends and is sealed to the undersides of the roofs, to the undersides of any floors above them, or to hard ceilings (i.e, gypsum wallboard ceiling,) Sealing shoutd include visible cracks, the intedace joints between walls and ceilings/roofs, and atl wall and ceiling/roof penetrations. Doors will have weather stripping on allfour edges. Refer to the DoD sec u rity E ng i n ee ri ng F aci lities De si g n M a n u a I for additionat g uida nce. B-3.5 Standard 14. Roof Access. For all new and existing inhabited buildings covered by these standards, control access to roofs to minimize the possibility of aggressors placing explosives or chemical, biological, or radiological agents there or otherwise th reatening bu i ld in g occupa nts or critícal infrastructure. B-3.5.1 New Buildings. For new buildings elirninate all external roof access by providing access from internal stairways or ladders, such as in mechanical rooms. B-3.5'2 Existing Buildings. For existing buildings, eliminate external access where possible or secure external ladders or stairways with Iocked cages or.similar mechanisms. B-3.6 For all new and existing build ings covered by these standards, ensure that overhead mounted features weighing 14 kilograms (31 pounds) or more (excluding distributed systems such as suspended ceilings that collectively exceed that weight) are mounted to minimize the líkelihood that they will fall and injure building occupants. Mount all such systems so that they resist forces of 0.5 times the component weight in any horizontal direction and 1.5 times the component weight in the downward direction. This standard does not preclude the need to design architectural feature mountings for forces requlred by other criteria such as seismic standards. B-4 ELECTRICAL AND MECHANIGAL ÐESIGN. Electrical and ¡nechanical design standands address lirniting damage to critical infrastructure, protecting building E-'tr8 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 occupants against chemical, biological, and radiological threats, and notifying building occupants of threats or hazards. B-4.1 Standard 16. Air lntakes. Air intakes to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems that are deslgned to move air throughout a building that are at ground level provide an opportunity for aggressors to easily place contaminants where they could be drawn into the building. The following measures will be applied to minimize those opportunities. B-4.1.1 New Buildings. For all new inhabited buildings covered by this UFC locate all outside air intakes that distribute air throughout the building at least 3 meters (10 feet) above the ground. B-4.1.2 Existing Buildings, The above requirement is recommended, but not mandatory, for existing inhabited buildings covered by these standards. B-4.2 Standard 17. Mail Room Ventilation. To ensure airborne chemical, bíological, and radiological agents introduced into mail rooms do not migrate into other areas of buildings in which the maíl rooms are located, provide separate, dedicated air ventilation systems for mail rooms. Refer to the DoD Security Engineering Facilities Design Manual for additional guidance. B-4.2.1 Other Heating and Gooling Systems. Building heating and cooling systems such as steam, hot water, chilled water, and refrigerant may serve mail rooms as long as the ailflow systems for the mail rooms and other areas of the buildings in which they are located remain separate. B-4.2.2 Dedicated Exhaust Systems. Provide dedicated exhaust systems within mail rooms to maintain slight negative air pressures with respect to the remainder of the buildings in which the mail rooms are located so that the flow of air is into and contained in the mail rooms. Though the airflow into the mail rooms will not eliminate the potential spread of contamination by personnel leaving the mail room, it will límit the migration of airborne contamínants through openings and open doonruays. 8-4.2.3 Outside lntakes, Relief, and Exhausts. Provide mail room ventilation system outside air intakes, relief air, and exhausts wíth low leakage isolation dampers that can be automatically closed to isolate the maíl rooms, The low leakage dampers will have maximum leakage'rates of 3 cfmisquare foot with a differential pressure of one inch of water gage across the damper. B-4.2.4 lsolation Controls. Provide separate switches or methods of control to isolate mail rooms in the event of a suspected or actual chemical, biological, or radiological release. B-4.3 ir Distribution Shutoff. For all new and existing inhabited buildings, provide an emergency shutoff switch in the HVAC control system that can imrnediately shut down the air distribution system throughout the B-19 uFc 4"0't0-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 20A7 building except where interior pressure and airflow control would rnore efficiently prevent the spread of airborne contaminants and/or ensure the safety of egress pathways, Locate the switch (or switches) to be easily accessible by buildlng occupants' Providing such a capability will allow the facility manager or building security manager to limit the distribution of airborne contaminantslhat may be introduced ínto the building, B-4'3'1 Outside Air lntakes and Exhausts. Provide all outside air intakes, relief air, and exhaust openings with low leakage dampers that are automatically closed when the emergency air distribution shutoff switch is activated, The low leakage dampers will have maximum leakage rates of 3 cfm/square foot with a differential pr"õsur" of one inch of water gage across the damper. B-4'3'2 Critical Areas. Local air handing units serving critical areas where cooling andlor heating must be maintained to [revent missiõn faílure, loss of data or unsafe conditions can continue to recirculate air, but outside air, relief air and exhaust must be closed with low leakage isolation dampers. Utility systems can the shock of an explosion. Some of these personnel from the building or their roportionate to other building damage e possibility of the above hazards, apply the following measures: B-4'4'1 Utility Routing. For all new inhabited buildings, route critical or fragile utilities so that they are not on exterior walls or on walls shared with mail rooms. Íhis requirement is recommended, but not mandatory, for exísting buildings. B-4.4.2 Redundant Utilities. Where redundant utilities are required in accordance with other requirements or criteria, ensure that the redundant utílities are not collocated or do not run in the same chases. This minimizes the possibility that both sets of utilities will be adversely affected by a single event. 8-4'4'3 Emergency Backup Systems. Where emergency backup systems are required in accordance with other requirements or criteria, ensuie that they are located away,from the system components for which they provide backup. This minimizes the possibility that both the prímary system and its backup will be adversely affected by a single event, lVount alloverhead utilities and other r more (excluding distributed systems such at weight) to minimize the likelihood that esign all equipnrent mountings to resist forces of 0.5 ti¡nes tlre equipment weight in any horizontal direction and 1.5 times the equipment weight in the downward dlrection, This standard eloes not preclude the need B-2A uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 to design equipment mountings for forces required by other criteria such as seismic standards. 8-4.6 Standard 21. Under Buildinq Access. To limit opportunities for aggressors placing explosives underneath buildings, ensure that access to crawl spaces, utility tunnels, and other means of under building access is controlled. B-4.7 Standard 22. Mass Notificallq. All inhabited buildings must have a timely means to notify occupants of threats and instruct them what to do in response to those threats. To achieve that goal, provide the following: B-4.7.1 New Buildings. All new inhabited buildings must have a capability to provide real-time information to building occupants or personnel in the immediate vicinity of the building during emergency situations. The information relayed must be specific enough to determine the appropriate response actions. Any system, procedure, or combination thereof that provides this capability will be acceptable under this standard. Refer to UFC 4-021-01 for further guidance. B-4.7.2 Existing Buildings. For existing buildings, the above requirement is mandatory for primary gathering buildings, billeting, and high occupancy family housing, but recommended for all inhabited buildings. B-21 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 This Page lntentionally Left Blank E-22 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL ANTITERRORISM MEASURES FOR NEW AND EXISTING BUILDINGS C-1 SITE PLANNING. The following additional measures, if implemented, will significantly enhance site security with little increase in cost and should be considered for all new and existing inhabited buildings. C-1.1 Recommendation 1. Vehicle Access Points. The first line of defense in limiting opportunities for aggressors to get vehicles close to DoD buildings is at vehicle access points at the controlled perimeter, in parking areas, and at drive-up/drop-off points. Keep the humber of access points to the minimum necessary for operational or life safety purposes, This will limit the number of points at which access may have to be controlled with barriers and/or personnel at increased Force Protection Conditions or if the threat increases in the future, c-1.2 The energy of a moving vehicle increases with the square of its velocity; therefore, minimizing a vehicle's speed allows vehicle barriers to be lighter and less expensive should vehicle barriers ever become necessary. To facilitate reductions in vehicle speeds in the future, ensure there are no unobstructed vehicle approaches perpendicular to inhabited buildings at the required parking and roadway standoff distances. C-1.3 Recommendation 3. Vantaqe Points. Vantage points are natural or man-made positions from which potential aggressors can observe and target people or other assets in and around buildings. ldentify vantage points outside the control of personnel in targeted buildings and either eliminate them or provide means to avoid exposure to them, Means to avoid exposure may include actions such as reorienting buildings or shielding people or assets in and around them using such measures as reflective glazing, walls, privacy fencing, or vegetation. c-1.4 Recommendation 4. Drive-Up/Drop Off Areas. Locate these areas away from large glazed areas of buildings to minimize the potentíal for hazardous flying glass fragments in the event of an explosion. For example, locate the lane at outside corners of buildings or otherwise away from main entrances. Coordinate the drive- up/drop-off points with building geometries to minimize the possibility that explosive blast forces could be increased due to being trapped or otherwise concentrated. For further discussion of this issue, refer to the DoD Security Engineering Facilities Design Manual. C-1.5 Recommendation 5. Buildinq Location. Activities with large visitor populations provide opportunities for potential aggressors to get near buildings with minimal controls, and therefore, limit opportunities for early detection. To limít those opportunities, maximize separation distance between inhabited buildings and areas with large visitor populations. c-1 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lneluding change 1,22 Janvary 2007 c-t.6 Avoid sites for inhabited buíldings that are close to rai lroads. Where railroads are in the vicinity of existing buildings, provide standoff distances between the railroad and any inhabited buildings based on the standoff distances ancl explosive weight associated with controlled perimeters in Table B-1, Where those standoff distances are not available , and since moving existing railroads may be difficult and prohibitively expensive, ensure that there are procedures in place to prohibit trains from stopping in the vicinity of inhabited buildings c-1.7 For new family houstng areas, e space for ing access at the perimeter of the housing area so that a controlled perimeter can be established there if the need arises in the future 9-1 q For new famity housing construction, maintain a feqt) from installation perimeters and roads, streets, or highways external tò housiÁg areas. c-1.9 To reduce the hazard of flying debris in the event of an explosion, eliminate unrevetted barriers and site furnishings in the vicinity of inhabited structures that are accessible to vehicle traffic. Revet exposed barriers and site furnishings near inhabited buildings with a minimum of 1 meter (3 feet) of soíl or equivalent alternative techniques to prevent fragmentation hazards associated with destruction of the barriers in the event of an explosion c-1.10 This recommendation applies to new buildings and is establ hed to minimize possibility that an attack on one building causes injuries or fatalities in adjacent buildings. The separation distance is predicated on the potential use of indirect fire weapons such as those containing explosives equivalent to explosive weight lll in Table D-1. C-1.10.1 primary G ng, and High Occupancy Family Housing. For all new bi ily housing, anO primary gãthering buildings, ensure that all s are sepãrated irom fllose buildings by at least 10 meters. Where it is necessary to encroach on those building separations, analyze the buildings and provide hardened building components as l9ce.ssary to mitigate the effects of the indirect fire weapons equìvalent to those identified as explosive weight lll in Table D-1 to the low level of protection. Levels of protection are described in Table 2-1 and in UFC 4-020-01. The indirect fire weapon should be assumed to detonate at a distance fron'l the target building of one-half of the separation distance. C-1.10.2 Other lnhabited Buildings. There are no minimurn separation distances recommended for antiterrorism purposes for inhabited buildings othei than billeting, higl.l occtrpancy family housing, and primary gathering buildings. C-2 STRUGTL¡RAI AND ARCFI¡TËCTURAL IIESIGî\¡. The following additional nleasu¡"es, if implemented, wil! significanrtly enhance hurilcling occupaits' a-2 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1, 22 January 2007 safety and security with little increase in cost Consider these measures for all new and existing inhabited buildings. C-2.1 Recommendation 11. Structural Redundancv. Unexpectedterrorist acts can result in local collapse of building structural components. To Iimit the extent of collapse of adjacent components, utilize highly redundant structural systems such as moment resisting frames, detail connections to provide continuity across joints equal to the full structural capacity of connected members, and detail members to accommodate large displacements without complete loss of strength. This recommendation is consistent with paragraphB-2.1(Standard6) for preventing progressive collapse, but recommends selection of certain structural systems and greater attention to structural details. C-2.2 Recommendation 12. Internal Girculatiq. Design circulation within buildings to facilitate visual detection and monitoring of unauthorized personnel approaching controlled areas or occupied spaces. C-2.3 Recommendation 13. Visitor Gontrol. Controlling visitor access maximizes the possibility of detecting potential threatening activities. Keep locations in buildings where visitor access is controlled away from sensitive or critical areas, areas where high-risk or mission-critical personnel are located, or other areas wifh large population densities of DoD personnel. C-2.4 Recommendation 14. Asse!!oca!!9. To minimize exposure to direct blast effects and potential impacts from hazardous glass fragments and other potential debris, locate critical assets and mission-critical or high-risk personnel away from the building exterior. c-2.5 F!aertrr¡rn en¡lqfinn 'tE Roorn I qr¡rr¡¡f ln rooms adjacent to the exterior of the building, position personnel and critical equipment to minimize exposure to direct blast effects and potential impacts fromhazardous glass fragments and other potential debris. C-2.6 Recommendation 16. External Hallwavs. Since doors can become hazardous debris during explosive blast events, doors designed to resist blast effects are expensive, and because external hallways have large numbers of doors leading into inhabited areas, avoid exterior hallway configurations for inhabited structures. C-2.7 Recommendation 17. Windows. To minimize the potentialfor glazing hazards, minimize the size and number of windows for new construction. e-3 uFc 4.010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 This Page lntentionally Left Blank c-4 uFc 4-010"01 I October 2003 lneluding change 1,22 January 2007 APPENDIX D DOD MINIMUM ANTITERRORISM STANDARDS FOR EXPEDITIONARY AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURES D-1 SITE PLANNING STANDARDS. All the standards that are unique to expeditionary and temporary structures pertain to site planning. lntegrate operational, logistic, and security requlrements into the overall configuration of structures, equipment, landscaping, parking, roads, and other features. The most cost-effective solution for mitigating explosive effects on expeditionary and temporary structures is to keep explosives as far away as possible. This is especially critical for these types of structures because hardening may or may not be possible. Dispersed layouts reduce risks from a variety of threats by taking full advantage of terrain and site conditions; therefore, nothing in these standards is intended to discourage dispersal. Costs and requirements for expeditionary and temporary structure hardening are addressed in UFC 4-020-01. D-1.1 Standard l. Standoff Distaq The standoff distances apply to all new and existing DoD expeditionary and temporary structures covered by these standards except as otherwise stated below. The standoff distances are presented in Table D-1and illustrated in Figure D-1. Except as othenrvise required in these standards, where the standoff distances in Table D-1 can be provided, use conventional expeditionary and temporary structures without a specific analysis of blast effects. Where those distances are not available, analysis of the structure by an engineer experienced in blast-resistant design is required and hardening will be applied as r'¡ecessary (in those eases which permit structure hardening) to mitigate the effects of the explosives indicated in Table D-1 at the achievable standoff distance to the appropriate level of protection. The appropriate levels of protection for each structure category are shown in Table D-1, and are described in Table 2-2 and in UFC 4-020-0'1. Note that container structures and pre-engineered buildings respond similarly to other buildings, so they are separated from the other expeditionary and temporary structures below. Of the remaining expeditionary and temporary structure types, the two structure types in Table D-1 respond in fundamentally dífferent ways to explosive effects. Standoff distances ín Table D-1 reflect those differences, D-1.1.1 Controlled Perimeter. Measure the standoff distance from the closest point on the structure exterior to the controlled perimeter, Ð-1.1.1.1 Container Structures and Pre-engineered Buildings" For these structures, apply the guidance for new and existing buildingç in Appendix B. D-1.1.1.2 Fabric Govered and other Expeditionary or Temporary Structures. Provide the standoff distance from Table D-1 for the applicable structure category. D-1 uFe 4-010-01 I Oetober 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 D-1'1'2 Parking and Roadways. Standoff distanceõ for paiking and roadwáys are based on the assumption that there is a controlled perimeter at wñ¡cn larger veñicle bombs will be detected and kept from entering the controlled perimeter. Where there is a controlled perimeter, the standoff distances and explosive weight associated with parking and roadways in Table D-1 apply unless otherwise stated below. lf there is no controlled perimeter, assume that the larger explosive weights upon which the controlled perimeter standoff distances are based (explosive weight I from Table D-1) can access parking and roadways near structures. Therefore, where there is no controlled perimeter, use standoff distances from parking and roadways according to the distances and the explosive weight associated with õontrolled perimeters in láUe D-1. D-1'1.2'1 Container Structures and Pre-engineered Buildings. For these structures, apply the guidance for new and existing buildings in Apþendix B, D'1'1.2.2 Fabric Govered and other Expeditionary or Temporary Structures. Measure the standoff distance from.the closest point onthe structure exterior to the closest gdge of parking areas and roadways, The minimum standoff for all structures regardless of hardening or analysis is 10 meters (33 feet). D-1.1.2.3 Existing Fabric covered and other Expeditionary or Temporary Structures. Moving existing parking areas and roadways may Ué O¡ficult io achieve and structural retrofits to existing structures may be prohibitively expensive or technically impossible; therefore, the following operational options are provided for existing inhabited structures where the standoff distances in Table D-1 are impractical to achieve. D-1.1 .2'3'1 Parking Areas. Establish access control to portions of parking areas to ensure unauthorized vehicles are not allowed closer than the requirêd standoff distance For primary gathering structures and billeting, if access control is provided to prevent unauthorized parking within the required standoff distance, controlled parking may be permitted as close as 10 meters (33 feet) without hardening or analysis. D-1.1'2.3.2 Roadways; Eliminate parking within the required standoff dístance along roads adjacent to existing structures covered by these standards. D-1 '1'3 Trash Containers. Measure the standoff distance from the nearest point of the trash container or trash container enclosure to the closest point on the structure exterior. Where the standoff distance is not available, hardening of trash enclosures to mitigate the direct blast effects and secondary fragment effects of the explosive on the structure is acceptable, if the applicable level of protection can be proven by analysis or testing. lf trash enclosures are secured to preclude introduction of objects into the enclosulres by unauthorized personnel, they may be located closer to tne structure as long as they do not violate the unobstructed space provisions of Standard 3 below. Openings in screening materials and gaps between the ground and screens or walls rnaking up an enclosure will not be greater than 1b0 ¡-nm (6 inches). D-2 UFC 11"010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 D-1.1.3.1 Container Struetures and Pre-engineered Buildings. For these structures, apply the guidance for new and existing buildings in Appendix B. D-1.1.3.2 Fabric Covered and other Expeditionary or Temporary Structures" Provide the standoff distance from Table D-1 for the applicable structure category, D-1.2 Standard 2. Structure Separation. Structure separation requirements are established to minimize the possibility that an attack on one structure causes injuries or fatalities in adjacent structures. The separation distance is predicated on the potential use of indirect fire weapons. D-1.2.1 Billeting and Primary Gathering Structures. D-1.2.1.1 Container Structures and Pre-engineered Buildings. For these structures, ensure that adjacent inhabited structures are separated by at least 10 meters. Where it is necessary to encroach on that separation distance, analyze the structure and harden structure components as necessary to mitigate the effects of the explosive indicated in Table D-1 to the appropriate level of protection shown in Table B- 1 , Levels of protection are described in Table 2-1 and in UFC 4-020-01. D-1.2.1.2 Fabric Govered and other Expeditionary or Temporary Structures. For all new billeting and primary gathering structures, ensure that adjacent structures are separated by at least the distances in Table D-1. Where it is necessary to encroach on those structure separations, analyze the structure and provide hardened structure components as necessary to mitigate the effects of the explosive indicated in Table D-1 to the appropriate level of protection as shown in Table D-1. Levels of protection are described in Table 2-2and in UFC 4-020-01. D-1.2.2 Other lnhabited Structures. There are no minirnum separation distances required for antiterrorism for inhabited structures other than billeting and primary gathering structures. D-1.3 Standard 3. Unobstructed Space. Keep areas within 10 meters (33 feet) of all expeditionary and temporary structures free of items other than those that are part of the utilities and other supporting infrastructure. D-2 ADDITIONAL STANDARDS. ln addition to the specifíc standards detailed in this appendix, apply the standards from Appendix B to expeditionary and temporary structures as follows: D-2.1 Gontainer Structures and Pre-engineered Buildings. For these structures, all standards in Appendix B apply. D-2.2 Fabric Govered and sther Expeditionary or Temporary Structures" Apply the following standards from Appendix B to these structures: n-2.2.1 Standard 3" D-2.2.2 Standard 4" Aceess ds" D-3 uFc 4-010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007' D-2"2.3 ts. D-2.2.4 D-2.2.5 D-2.2.6 D-3 ANTITERRORISM RECOMMENDATIONS- Apply all recommendations except for Recommendation 7 (Access control for family housing) and Recommendation I (Standoff for family housing) from Appendix C to all expeditionãry and temporary structures. D-4 uFc 4.010-01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 Table D-1 Standoff Distances and Separation for itiona and Tem Struetures Location Structure Standoff Distance or Seþaration Requirements Category Applicable Fabric Other Applicable Level of Covered Expeditionary Explosive Protection Structures(1) and Weight Temporary (rNr) g1¡uç1u¡ss(tXz) (3) 3lm 71m Controlled Billeting Low Perimeter (102ft.) (233 ft.) or Parking and Primary Gathering 31 m 71m Low I Roadways Structure (102ft.) (233 ft.) without a Controlled 24m 47m Perimeter lnhabited Structure Very Low (7e ft.) (154 ft.) 14m 32m Parking and Billeting Low il Roadways (46ft.) (105 fi.) within a Controlled Primary Gathering 14m 32m Low il Perimeter Structure (46 ft.) (105 ft.) 10m 23m lnhabited Structure Very Low ll (33 ft.) (75 ft.) 14m 32m Trash Billeting Low il Containers (46 ft.) (105 ft.) Primary Gathering 14m 32m Low Structure (46 ft.) (105 ft.) 10m lnhabited Structure Very Low 23m (33 ft.) Q5fi.) Separation Structure 18m 18m between Structure Low I I (5e (5e l(s) Separation(a) Groups ft.) fr.) Separation 9m between Structure Low 9m (5) (30 ft.) (30 lll Rows ft.) Separation 3.5 m 3.5 m between Structures Very Low (12 ft.) (12ft.) lll(5) in a Row ('l) see a complete description of these structuÍe types (2) For container structures, Appendix B applies. (3) See UFC 4-010-02, for the specific explosive weights (kg/pounds of TNT) ássociated with designations - l, If , lll, UFC 4-010-02 is For Official Use Only (FOUO) (4) Applies to Billeting and Primary Gaihering Structures only. No minimum separation distances for other inhabited stluctures, (5) Explosive for buildirrg separation is an indirect fire (moriar) round at a standoff distance of half the separation distance. D-5 uFc 4-010.0r B October 2003 lneluding change 7,22 Janaary 20Ai: Figure D'1 Standoff Distances and Separation for Exþeditionary and Tennpôrary Struetures Controlled Perìmeter Trash 3.5 m (12 ft) + Containers between structures :q..È.:. .(). o .' .c!)..rlt " ,ã.ã.H .qr.o.È Unobstructeclspace -;f, Roadways Pa rking * Þistanee varies hy eonsfructlon and category of structure {Table D-1) D-6 uFc 4-010.01 I October 2003 lncluding change 1,22 January 2007 This Page lntentionally Left Blank D-7 1 N Lack of From: SB-conseruancy-email HiTristan, I understand that the NBVC needs to have a decision on the Seabee College, but the VC Cultural Heritage Board and some members of the San Buenaventura Conservancy would like to take the same tour you did before the building gets modified beyond potential significance. We realize that the building is "flimsy" as you pointed out, but we think that would be character defining for the type/method of construction (we would not expect it to be overlcuilt if the Seabees built it) Also we believe it may be eligible for the National Register on a National Level as the only remaining building associated with the Seabees in America from the Cold War era. While the Seabee context does a good job of pointing out that buildings at NBVC are probably not associated with persons and not relevant to the guided missile or cold war contexts, the context does a poor job of dealing with rarily, one of the factors in significance of a resource. ln fact the new Seabee context points out that most Seabee related sites are offshore in other countries, but what about the few remaining resources connected to the Seabees at Port Hueneme? Are they the only extant Seabee related structures in the USA? The context is silent on rarity of extant American Seabee buildings, and does not attempt to identify the numbers or types of buildings outside of Port Hueneme. I agree that most of the Seabee related buildings at PH do not rise to the significance or integrity thresholds needed to be historic, however the Seabee College may be the ONLY building on the base that is worthy, and tells the story better than any other site in America that the Seabees played a major role in the Pacific theater after WWll. lf the planned alterations take place then the building will no longer have integrity of design, since the modifications do not follow the SIS standards. Since it is not a matter of needing to demolish the building, if the navy could modify their plans slightly to maintain as much of the seven aspects of integrity and follow the SIS standards, we believe we could satisfy all the goals: Maintain the resource, and upgrade and modify the resource for future use. We believe the wait is worth it if the building is preserued and rehabilitated sine we believe it is the only one of its kind and may be no better extant mid-century examples, this may be the only building of merit on the base from after WWll. You've seen the entire port and base if you didn't see a better example then there are none anywhere else in the world. -Stephen Schafer San Buenave ntu ra Conservancy http://www.sbconservancy. org The Conseruancy works to recognize, preserve and revitalize the irreplaceable historic, architectural and cultural resources of San Buenaventura and surrounding areas. We seek to increase public awareness of, and participation in, local preservation issues, and disseminate information useful in the preservation of the structures and neighborhoods of San Buenaventura. San Buenaventura Conservancy PO Box 23263 Ventura Ca 93002 Cultural Heritage Board Item 4a Exhibit 4 (06lo4/2o12) of Seabee 2 sbconservancy @ mac.com On Jun 17,2O'l1 , at 10:00 AM, Tozer, Tristan wrote > HiStephen, > I understand your concerns. I will be meeting with the Naval Base Ventura County cultural staff. This and other issues will be addressed. > Sincerely, > Tristan Tozer > Historian > Review and Gompliance Unit > Office of Historic Preseruation > (916) 445-7027 > 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100 > Sacramento, CA 95816 > From: San Buenaventura Conservancy [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 9:23 AM > To: Catherine Girod;TozeÍ, Tristan > Cc: Nicole Doner > Subject: Lack of Seabee significance statement and context > Hello > Surprisingly, it seems there is no historic context statement or Cultural Resources significance statement associated with the Seabees. lt is unlikely that they arè insignificant, but under the guided missile context, it may seem so. Therefore, in order to effectively evaluate resources associated with the Seabees on Navy Base Ventura County - Port Hueneme (the first West Coast Seabee base established circa 1942) A context should be written before demolition or adverse impacts to any Seabee-related structures on the base move fonruard, since much of the base was created by and for the Seabee operations in World War ll. Since Port Hueneme is the home of the Unites States Navy Seabee Museum, that seems like a likely place to stañ. > Stephen Schafer > President, San Buenaventura Conservancy. > Catherine Girod, M.A. > Cultural Resources Program Manager > Naval Base Ventura County (Port Hueneme) > (805)989-924e > DSN 351-9249 > 311 Main Road, Suite 1 > Point Mugu, CA 93042-5033 > > Buildings PH104 (Seabee College) Navy Base Ventura County (Port Hueneme), renovations I rerool I doors/stai nruays/accessi bil ity/utilities > . The sites associated with Seabee training such as PH104 have been found insignificant under the Navy Cold War Guided Missile Context, 1946-1989. Under this context the entire Seabee mission at NBVC is insignificant in the "development of leading-edge military technological advances." however we believe it would be inaccurate to assume the Seabees and their role at NBVC is of no significance. Since the building may not stand alone as an architectural masterwork, establishing the aspects of integrity and significance are much more complex, the context used is critical to determination, and this is not the correct context under which to evaluate the role of this building' > . We are not comfortable with a blanket statement ( 5-11-2011 - Primary Record page 5 of 6) that "The building is not associated with any specific individuals significant to our past; many people have worked in the building over the past 60 years". lf every Seabee on the west coast came and went through that building then it would be significant to the entire history of Navy Construction Battalions, but background regarding the use and importance of the building or its mission are not included in the context. > . Building may be part of a historic district, no recent comprehensive suruey of Port Hueneme, and no discussion of a potential district. > . lf the building has significance individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district - then renovation with like-materials would be preferred under the SlS. > Since there are so many projects on NBVC requiring comment, we are respectfully submitting our comments in a quick-to-read bullet format outlining our concerns with the findings or process. lf more detail or a narrative is needed for a pafticular project, please contact us for more information. cc: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation - Louise Brodnitz State of California Historic Preseruation Officer Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board South Coastal lnformation Center - Cal State Fullerton Item 5a DVD Presentation of the Hobson Brothers History DRAFT Mrr-¡-s Acr Lrsr or PoreNïAL Pno¡ecrs \ccess Modifications - Exterior Access Modifications - Interior Accessory Structure Repair or Replace Annual Maintenance & Repairs Appliance Vent Architectural - Remove Non-historic Feature & Restore to Original Architectural Trim - Repair Architectural Trim - Replace Architectural Trim - Install New Balcony/ Decks - New Railings Balcony/ Decks - Repair or Replace Basement - Access - Repair or Replace to Code Basement - New or Rebuild Cabinets - New Built-in Bathroom Cabinets - New Built-in Kitchen Cabinets - New Built-in Other Carpentry - Remove window & reframe shower including Siding/Caulking Chimney - Inspect and Clean Chimney - New Chimney - Rebuild or Repair Code Repair Item Column - Replace or Rebuild Corbels/ Structural Brackets Replace or Repair )oor - Repair or Replace Screen Door Door - Hardware Door - New Basement Hatch Cover and Base Door - Repair Door - Replacement Drain for Deck - Install & or Repair Drainage Protection or Correction Dry-Rot Remove, Repair and or Replace Electrical - Rewire or Install New Outlets Electrical - Complete Rewire and Service Upgrade Electrical - Ground & Service Entry Electrical - Install New Circuits Electrical - Lighting Fixtures Electrical - New Service Lines to Garage Electrical - Security Lighting and Alarm Electrical - New Outlets Fence - Repair or New Flashing Floor Furnace - Remove or Restore floor Flooring - Carpet Flooring - Repair Flooring -Repair Wood Floors Flooring - Replacement -oundation - Bolting and Seismic'Work - oundation - New Cultural Heritage Board Foundation - Repair ltem 5b Gable or Attic - Re-screening Garage Door Gutters & Downspouts HVAC - Complete New System HVAC - Maintenance & Replacement/Plumbing Service & Painting Insulation - Walls - Blown-in Insulation - Attic Interior Trim - Refinish Kitchen - New Counters Masonry - New Masonry - Repair or Replace Tile Hearth Masonry - Repair or Repoint Masonry - Repoint Brick Mechanical - Air Conditioning Mechanical - Heating Unit Mechanical - Ventilation - New Kitchen/Bath Fan & Duct'Work Mechanical - Venting & Duct Mechanical - Venting & Duct \Work Minor Painting and Exterior Repairs Painting - Exterior Painting - Interior Painting - Removal of Lead Based Paint Painting - Exterior Trim Patio - Repair Plastering - Remove, Replace, or Refinish Plumbing - DWV, Drain, Waste & Vent Plumbing - Fixtures Plumbing - Install new supply lines Plumbing - Install Sump Pump & Discharge Drain Plumbing - Minor Repairs Plumbing - New Supply Plumbing - Service Lines Plumbing - Sewer Plumbing Repairs Porch - Ceiling replacement Porch - Rebuild or Replace Porch - Repair Porch - Repoint Brick Porch Railing - Repair or Replace to Code Porches - Resurface Remove Substandard Construction (Tin Shed) Repair Eaves and/or Overhangs Repair Exterior Stucco Repair Garage Replace Garage Replace Non-Historic Feature Roof- Minor Repair Roof- Reroof Roof- Strip and,Install New Security Lighting and Alarm System Seismic Retrofitting - Other than Foundation Siding - Remove Asbestos Siding & Restore Siding - Repair Skylights - Replace Stair - Repair Stair - Replacement Stonework Stoop - Repair Stoop - Replacement Structural - New Framing or Repairs Structural Bracing Structural Modifications Structural Repairs - Roof and/or Ceiling Joists Termite Treatment Termite Treatment and Repair Tile - Replace, Repair or Repoint Utility Enclosure - New Ventilation - Attic Fan Waterproofing Weatherproofing Window - Screens or Hardware V/indows Repair 'Windows - - Replacement in kind HISTORIC AMERICAN BTJILDINGS ST]RVEY Berylwood Historic District Location: The Berylwood Historic District is located on Naval Base Ventura County in Oxnard, Ventura County, California. The district is roughly bounded by 36ft Avenue to the north, Ventura Road to the east, Addor Street to the South, and Guadalcanal Street and Coats Street to the south, with an extension 200 feet west of Coats Street between the two separate Bard Lanes (see sketch map). To pinpoint the structure geo-spatially, the Thomas Bard Mansion at Berylwood is located at latitude: 34.1586297, longitude: -L19.1967836. The coordinate was obtained in 2011 and the datum is North American Datum 1983. Present Owner/ Commander, Navy Installations Command/Naval Base Ventura County Occupant: N9, the installation's commanding officer, and visiting Naval officers hesent Use: Conference center, offices, dining and event space for Naval Base Ventura County (Bard Mansion), residential for Naval officers (Richard Bard House and Farm Dwelling), storage (Garage), and vacant (Pool House) Significance: The Berylwood Historic District is locally significant for its association with Senator Thomas R. Bard, an influential and early oil and land developer of the town of Hueneme and the county of Ventura, California, as well as the founding president of the Union Oil Company. His son, Richard Bard, was also an influential local figure in the development of Hueneme. The property is architecturally significant as the 1911 Thomas Bard Mansion is the work of a master architect, Myron Hunt, as well as an excellent example of the Italian Renaissance Revival style. Further, the district is a signifrcant cultural landscape, containing the remains of the extensive botanic garden and plantings of Thomas Bard, also an avid horticulturalist. Hunt, an early advocate of landscape architecture, respected and incorporated Bard's gardens in his designs for the mansion. Berylwood (77000360) was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1977. Historian: Jennifer Krintz and Shannon Davis, Architectural Historians, ASM Affiliates, November 201 1 Cultural Heritage Board Item 5c BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page2 hoject This recording project was sponsored by San Diego Family Housing, Information: property manager, in cooperation with the Navy as property owner. It follows the guidelines established by the Historic American Buildings Survey division of the National Park Service. The documentation was undertaken by ASM Affrliates. The overall project manager was Sirlead Ní Ghabhláin, Ph.D. The field supervisor was Shannon Davis, M.4., Senior Architectural Historian; assisted in the field, archival research, and in preparation of this report by Associate Architectural Historian Jennifer Krintz, M.H.P. Reproductions of original drawing and historic photographs were t¿ken by Shannon Davis and Jennifer Krintz (with some provided by Suzanne Guerra and Naval Base Ventura County) and current photographs were t¿ken by Jennifer Krintz. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 3 Part I: Historical Information A. Physical History: The Berylwood Historic District consists of approximately 10 acres of land with five contributing buildings-the Thomas Bard Mansion, the Richard Bard House, Garage (associated with the Richard Barn House), a Farm Dwelling (also known as the Guest House or Doll House), Pool House, and the historic botanic gardens and landscape planted by Thomas Bard. 1. Building 1: Thomas Bard Mansion a. Date of erection: The Thomas Bard Mansion (Bard Mansion), the central building of the district, was constructed in lgIl-12.1 b. Architect: Myron Hunt, AIA (Bard Mansion), others buildings not architect designed. c. Original and subsequent owners, occupants, uses: The buildings within the Berylwood Historic District were ah originally built and owned by Thomas Bard and patr of the Bard's estate, Berylwood. The Bard Mansion was occupied by the Thomas Bard family until the 1937 death of Mrs. Thomas Bard. After 7937, the mansion was used only seasonally by Beryl Bard until 1944 when the Navy purchased the property. The Navy initially used the residence as an officer's club with some rooms for officer's quarters. Later those former bedrooms became offices for various Naval personnel, with the majority of the space used as the officer's club. The Bard Mansion continues to be occupied by the Navy, now as a conference center, event space, and offices. d. Builder: E. D. Tyler e. Original plans and construction: The original floor plan for the Bard Mansion included a first and second floor, full attic, and basement. The plan of the house is roughly H-shaped, with the top of the "H" open to the north. Hunt's original drawings for the mansion are believed to exist, and are potentially being acquired by the Huntington Library, in San Marino, California. The floorplan was sketched by Reginald C. Shand (who became the Bard's son-in-law in 1913) and Molly Bard (Thomas's wife), and then provided to architect Myron Hunt in the spring of 1911 for his full execution I Contract for Residence for Thomas R. Bard between Myron Hunt and Berylwood Investment Company, General Contract #B381, June 7, l9l l; and multiple letters of correspondence from 19l l-1912, Boxes 13 C and D. Papers of Thomas Robert Bard. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS ffäT of drawings.2 Prior to hiring Hunt, the Bards first contracted with another architect, Russell Ray, in early 1910 to design the house, again from a floor plan drawn by Molly Bard and Shand.3 Because Thomas Bard became ill in April of 1910, the plans were put on hold. In late April/early May of r9rr, the Bards contacted Ray to request he submit his flrnal bill and let him know they had decided to hire Hunt instead.4 Hunt showed the Bards elevations at the end of May and a contract was drawn June 7ú.5 Hunt finished his plans by August of 1911; construction was undertaken shortly thereafter and completed by the end of I9I2. The earliest plans located for the house were published (presumably by Hunt) in November 1916, four years after the house was completed, in The Architect, the San Francisco-based publication that was the "official organ" of the southem california chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA).6 Those plans only include the first and second floor, with no elevations. No early plans exist for the full attic or basement. The general contractor for the construction was E. D. Tyler, at Hunt's recommendation. Bard also hired shand as his "supervisor" for the construction at $5 per day.7 Shand eventually practiced as an architect, though the extent of his training at this point in his life is unclear.s Some of the materials (including wood framing and windows) for the house were reused from the Bard's earlier house located at the same site, a Victorian- style wood frame house, that began as a single-story house in 1876 and expanded into a three-story house in 1890. Most of the materials came from local distributors and suppliers based in Pasadena and Los Angeles.e f. Alterations and additions: The Bard Mansion remained unaltered until its acquisition by the Navy n 1944. An early alteration was the removal of the elevator. Based on remaining plans available in the Navy's current Public Works archive, it appears that the Navy enclosed the north porch and south terrace in the late 1950s, creating a sitting area in the former porch space 'Letter from Hunt to Russell Ray, May 16, lgll, Box 13 C. Papers of Thomas Robert Bard. The Huntington I-ibrary, San Marino, California. ' Ibid. and Letter from Otto Gerberding to Russell Ray, April 24, lgl0, Box 13 C. Papers of Thomas Robert Bard. The Huntington Library, San Marino, Califomia. o Ibid. 5 Contract for Residence for Thomas R. Bard. 6 Bard Residence, The Architect, San Francisco, American Institute of Architects, Vol. 12, No. 5, November 1916, Plate 78. t Letters from Bard to Otto Gerberding, July 14 and July lT,lgll,Box 13 C. Papers of Thomas Robert Bard. The Huntington Library, San Marino, Califomia. " Two sources indicate Shand was an architect by the time he designed additions to the Richard Bard House in the 1920s: "Notes from Conversation with Joan Bard," Interviewer unknown, Record Group 7, Local History Collection, Bard Estate, U.S. Navy Seabee Museum, December 1972; and Transcript from Toui of Quarters A: Thê Richard Bard House, Record Group 7, Local History Collection, Bard nMultiple Estate, U.S. Navy Seabee Museum, 1990. letters of correspondenôe from lgll to 1912, Boxes 13 C and D. Papers óf Tho.u, Robert Bard. The Hnntington Library, San Marino, California. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 5 and a bar area in the terrace. Additional alterations at that time include the removal of the elevator and the creation of one large room (initially a cocktail lounge, latet a meeting space) in the central section of the second floor by eliminating the two chambers and adjoining bath originally in the area south of the hall. Subsequent alterations occurred mostly throughout the 1960s and 1970s, especially periodic painting, mechanical/electrical work, kitchen alterations, and interior decor. The first-floor chamber and bath to the north of the stairway were replaced by 1982 with two modern, separate bathroom spaces with multþle toilets and no baths. A major single-story addition was added to the west side of the house in L968, which resulted in the removal of the windows and built-ins on the west wall of the dining room. That addition created a large multi-purpose room. A final single-story addition to the north of the new multi-purpose room created additional service facilities tn 1977.10 2. Building 2: Richard Bard House a. Date of erection: The original portion of the Richard Bard House, the secondary residence within the district, was constructed in 1910, with significant additions dating to 1916-1925. b. Architect: additions designed by Reginald Shand c. Original and subsequent ovyners, occupants, uses: The original small core of the Richard Bard House was first constructed for and occupied by Anna Bard for a short period of time after it was completed in 1910. Anna preferred a more solitary life style than the busy mansion offered, but not long after her bungalow was completed, she moved to Northern California. ' From mid-1911 to December of 1912, the house became the temporary residence of the remaining members of the Thomas Bard family living at Berylwood during construction of the current Thomas Bard Mansion. It was used as guest quarters until 1916, when the house became home to the Bard's middle son, Richard, and his new wife Joanna (Joan) March Boyd. The Richard Bard family lived in the home lurirttl 1944. ln 1944, it became used as the quarters for the Naval installation's commanding officer, and l0 Dut", for alterations to the Thomas Bard Mansion obtained by review of plans for Building 36, Port Hueneme Inspection & Repair Drawings, Public Works Offtce, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Archives, Port Hueneme, California. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 6 continues in this use today. Thirty-three commanding officers and their families have lived in the house from 1944 to 2}ll. d. Builder: unknown e. Original plans and construction: No early plans exist for the Richard Bard house. The most recent plans available date to 1944. The house was originally a one-story cottage now comprising the western-most sectibn of the current building. Later additions and alterations obscure architectural evidence that might provide a definitive picture of the original floorplan, and few photos from the first two decades of this building's history exist. However, the house was generally comprised of one or two public rooms around one central fireplace with likely two bedrooms, a kitchen at the north side, and bathroom. It was originally rectangular in shape with a central chimney, hip roof and vertical plank siding with a porch to the south.lr f. Alterations and additions: Additions were made to the house soon after it was constructed and newlyweds Richard and Joan Bard moved into the cottage in 1916. Their growing family was the impetus for several additions made between ca. 1916 and 1.925. Photographic and architectural evidence (window and door patterns, roof forms and lines, chimneys, and floor plans), supported by the recollections of Richard and Joan's daughters Joanna and Margaret, indicate the order of those additions. The first was a single-story addition to the east of the house that included two bedrooms and an adjoining bathroom, with exterior doors from both bedrooms that opened to the south, and a change in the roof form to a gable roof.r2 This addition may have been completed prior to Richard and Joan's occupancy; possibly as early as 1911 when the extended Bard family used the cottage as a temporary residence while the Bard Mansion was under construction. Richard and Joan added another bedroom to the southeast corner of the house, a bathroom, and likely reconfigured the earlier two-room addition to include a new entry and hallway. Next, a second story was added above these three bedrooms, which also included two adjoining bathrooms.l3 In an interview conducted with Joan Bard in 1972, she stated that Reginald Shand tr Fooçrint of building included on Diagram of Dwelling, Barn and Other Buildings belonging to Berylwood Investment Company and located near Hueneme, Ventura County, California. Dankin Publishing Co., San Francisco, California. Apnl20,19ll. Photos of the house include: Photos of 1910 Bungalow, Friends of the Bard Museum Photographic Collection; Photo of Home of Richard and Joan Bard in 1916 in Powell March Greenland, A , Olive Press Publication, Los Olivos, California, 2005,2; and Photo of Richard and Joan Bard's House, Personal Collection of Georgia Pulos, Santa Barbara, California, Date Unknown. 12 rbid. 13 Georgia Pulos, Email correspondence with Shannon Davis, Octob er I,20ll. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report PageT was the architect for that addition. 14 The last second-floor bedroom was added around 1928 in the former attic of the original section, with the addition of two dormer windows to the north and south. The original front (south porch) was enclosed to expand the living room space at an unknown point in time. Sometime after 1944, a small northern single-story addition was added to the kitchen and current laundry room, expanding that section of the original building and adding a northern cross-gable roof. 3. Building 3: Garage of Richard Bard Ifouse a. Date of T.rection: circa 1925 b. Architect: unknown c. Original and subsequent ovÍners, occupants, uses: This building was historically used as a garage for the occupants of the Richard Bard House, or in subsequent years for Quarters A. In later years, after an addition was made by the Navy, it was also used as a small dwelling. d. Builder: unknown e. Originat plans and construction: There are no original or early plans or photos prior to 1944. At that time, the building was a single-bay garage- that section which currently comprises the western-most portion of the building.ts f. Alterations and additions: At some unknown date after 1944, the Navy expanded the building with an addition to the east, more than doubling its size. The addition was comprised of a small dwelling and a second garage bay. 4. Building 4: Farm Dwelling a. Date of Erection: circa 1942 b. Architect: unknown c. Original and subsequent owners, occupants, uses: The small residential building located northwest of the mansion adjacent to the former farming/dairying area of the estate (referred to by the Navy as the Doll House or Guest House) was likely constructed by the Bard family in the early 1940s as a dwelling for farm workers. Upon acquisition by the Navy, t4 "Notes from Conversation with Joan Bard," and Transcript from Tour of Quarters A: The Richard Bard House. 15 Historic photos document that the building at this location was originally a single-bay garage: Photo 5955, Base Archive Appraisal Photos, Record Group T,Local History Collection, Bard Estate, U.S. Navy Seabee Museum, and Photo I tZg7, lrenal overview of proposed housing construction site near Bard Estate, view Southeast. Original structures intact, base housing adjacent. Circa 1944. Contracts NO y-8173, Projects 3-20 1943. U.S. Navy Seabee Museum. A servant's quarters (no longer extant) was located southwest of the garage. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT IIABS Report Page 8 the building was first used as married officer's quarters in 1945.16 However, it was later determined that it was too small to qualify as public quarters, and the building was then used as the Housing office from 1954 to 1958.17 In 1958, the building was converted to residential use again, and has been used as temporary living quarters for visiting officers. d. Builder: unknown e. Original plans and construction: There is little information on the construction of this building. The shape, size, location, and features of the building (including the fireplaces and windows) indicate that this building was constructed to be a dwelling. The earliest plans identified for the Farm Dwelling date to 1970.18 The appraisal paperwork from the Navy's purchase of the propeffy ascribes a construction date to it of 1925. However, the Bard children and grandchildren do not recall the building, and confirmed that it was never used as a guest house.leEdmundo Chavez, the son of the Bard family's gardener, grew up on the estate in a house built in the 1880s near this site, and does not recall it being there prior to his enlistment in the Army in 1,94I.'o That 1880s dwelling was torn down shortly after he enlisted, and this Farm Dwelling was likely erected around that time to replace the previous dwelling, as a residence for farm workers.2r f. alterations and additions: The building was altered in 1970 and in the years since then, but no known additions have been made. The building was originally a two-bedroom house, but in 1970, one of the interior bedroom walls was removed to create a larger living room. Much of the original finishes have been replaced, including the flooring and ceilings materials. Fewer alterations have occurred on the exterior, although the original composite sheet roofing material was replaced with wooden shingles. 5. Building 5: Pool House a. Date of Erection: circa 1938 b. Architect: unknown tu John C. Peterson, , port Hueneme, Califomia, U.S. Navy Report, 1963,12. rT Ibid. ' 18 Alterations to Building 39, Feb. 16, lgll,Public Works Drawing No. F-|736, Port Hueneme Inspection & Repair Drawings, Public Works Offtce, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Archives, Port Hueneme, Califomia. re Friends of the Bard Mansion and Bard Family Descendents (Joanna Bard Newton and Georgia Pulos), Personal Interview by authors, Thomas Bard Mansion, Port Hueneme, Califomia, July 7,2011. 'u Carol Marsh, Former Command Historian, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Telephone Interview by Shannon Davis; and Pulos, October ll,20ll. 2l Marsh. BERYLIiI/OOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 9 c. Original and subsequent owners, occupants, uses: This building was historically used as a dressing room for the pool previously located due south. It is currently vacant. d. BuÍlder: unknown e. Original plans and construction: There are no original or early plans or photos prior to 1944. At that time a historic photo indicates the building was nearly identical in form and materials to its current appearance. f. Alterations and additions: No known alterations or additions 6. Historic Designed Landscape/Botanic Gardens a. Dates of Establishment: 1871-1915. The designed landscape and botanic gardens of Berylwood pre-date the current Bard Mansion. In 1868, Thomas Bard acquired the land, and began planting the land within a few years. Designed as an escape from his ventures in business and politics and as his main hobby was horticulture, Bard planted exotic trees, flowers, and shrubs onto his estate grounds from 1871 until his death in 1915. Molly and Richard Bard were also instrumental in the maintenance of the estate gardens, particularly after Thomas Bard's death. b. Landscape Architect: no professional architect involved; designed and planted by Thomas R. Bard and Molly Bard. c. Original and subsequent owners, occupants, uses: The Bard family utilized the landscaped grounds of the Berylwood estate for recreation and leisure, as well as in later ye¿rrs to support a shortJived commercial enterprise to sell some of the plantings. Since the Navy's lease of the property n 1944, the gardens continue to be used for recreation and leisure by the military. d. Original plans and construction: The majority of the original Berylwood gardens were planted from 1871 to 1890, but plantings and trees were constantly planted by Thomas and Molly Bard until Thomas' death in 1915. Over 260 trees in 48 genera and 78 species were documented by Thomas Bard in 1905.22 e. Changes and additions: As a result of the Navy's acquisition of the property beginning in l944,portions of the historic landscape have been lost or altered. The original gardens extended beyond the approximate l0 acres that remain today. Additionally, the Navy removed some of the original circulation patterns and constructed military housing within portions of the gardens that remain today. " W.H. Hutchinson, Oil. Land. and Politics: the California Career of Thomas Robert Bard. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, 1965, 276. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page l0 B. Historical Context: 1. Thomas Bard and the Bard Estate Senator Thomas Robert Bard was born in December 8, 1841, in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, son of Robert M. Bard, a prominent lawyer, andBlizabeth Smith Little.23 As a young man, he initially pursued a law career, but health reasons led him to a more active job conducting engineering survey work for coal companies in his early twenties.2a During the Civil War, he was the transportation agent for the Cumberland Valley Railroad at Hagerstown, Maryland, where he was responsible for transportation of Union troops and supplies to the Potomac and Shenadoah Valley-highly contested areas during the war, and in a town that was home to many Southern sympathizers. Through this position during the war he met Thomas A. Scott, Assistant Secretary of War, Vice-President of the Pennsylvania Railroad, and oil magnate.25 Near the end of the war, Scott acquired more than 275,000 acres of former Mexican ranchos in Southern California, primarily in Santa Barbara County and what would become Ventura County.26 Scott hired.Bard to manage his Southern California land interests and oil exploration. In 1865, at age 24, Bard, arrived in California, first in San Francisco and then traveling to Santa Barbara County where he lived in Ojai for seven years in a newly constructed Swiss-style cottage/office that Bard named "No. I" after the nearby oil well, the first he established.2T Bard introduced the first free-flowing oil well in the state at well No. 6 in Ojai. However, by the following year, it became clear the California's oil was not as desirable as that from the east, which was also so prolific that the oil market became temporarily saturated.28 Bard recommended to Scott that there was profit to be made instead by selling his vast land holdings in smaller parcels and developing the area."n Bard received a commission for each sale, and began to grow his own wealth. In 1867, while exploring the coastline with a captain of the U.S. Geological Survey, Bard learned of a deep submarine canyon east of Point Hueneme. That visit first sparked Bard interest in establishing a wharf here.3o He purchased land in 1868 along the south side of Santa Clara Street and formed the Salisbury Company to develop the 23 JackSmalley, 'o Jesse Mason. Howell North Books, Berkeley, California, 1961. Ibid. 26" Powell March Greenland, Thomas R. Bard and his Beloved Berylwood. Friends of the Thomas R. Bard Mansion, Port Hueneme, California, n.d., 31 and Amy Eleanor Smith, Thomas Robert Bard Pioneer of Ventura County, Master of History, University of Southern California, 1933,5. " E.M. e Planted in Memory of Thomas R. Bard," Ventura County Star,January 2l,lg2g. Gree 36. 2e" lbid. and E. M. Sheridan, "sequoia Tree Planted in Memory of Thomas R. Bard." 30 Greenland. Thomas R. Bard, 3. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 11 wharf and a lighthouse, both complete by 1875.31 The Hueneme Wharf grew to become the greatest grain port south of San Francisco and the second largest on the Pacific Coast from 1871 to 1895.32 The success of the Hueneme \ilharf lead to the Salisbury Company's development of other wharfs at Lompoc, Gaviota, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Santa Monica and Santa Rosa Is1and.33 However, it was the Hueneme Wharf that provided the principal means for transport¿tion to and from Ventura County south of the Santa Clarariver, until the railroad was extended to Oxnard in 1898.34 In October 1868, Bard purchased more than 20,000 acres in Hueneme, the former Rancho El Rio de Sant¿ Clara o' la Colonia, from Scott for the sum of $150,000. Bard created 40 subdivisions from that acreage for resale. He platted the town n 1872 and named its main streets. Bard reserved a portion of Subdivisions 87 and 89 as his homestead and operation headquarters, the area that eventually became known as Berylwood.3s In 1874, Bard erected his first residence (no longer extant) at the homestead, one mile inland from the wharf. Called the "bungalow" by Bard, it was a several room dwelling, wood-frame with vertical plank siding, hipped roof, and pergola covered porch. Early descriptions of the land in the Oxnard area were described as a remote desert plain, lacking vegetation and much of the land was used for cattle grazng. Bard began planting trees and various specimens of plants in the barren landscape of his new land. Among the earliest of these plantings, in June 1871, were rows of several hundred eucalyptus seedlings, to serve as windbreaks, that he bought from Elwood Co_oper of SantaÈarbata.tu Varieties included Monterey Cypress and Norfolk Island Pine.37 Bard became an amateur horticulturalist and collected exotic seeds from his world travels. It was his dream early on to create a garden escape from his business and political ventures. Bard wrote that "The future of Southern California depends more on Forest tree planting than all other industries...Desert plains offer but little to an intefiigent mind, the influence on the train of thoughts is discouraging, contracting. The social feelings are blunted, hope destroyed. In fact man cannot exist without forest trees.38 In 1868, Bard's brother Cephas, a doctor, joined him in Ventura County. Shortly thereafter, Cephas married Clara Gerberding in 1871. After 10 successful years in '1 Ibid., 5. 32 Peterson, 3. " Ibid. Places Nomination," September 15,197'7. 'a Julie Streets, "Berylwood, National Register of Historic 3t Peterson, 2, and Streets. 'u Hutchinson, Vol. I,200 and268. 37 Greenland. Thomas R. Bard, 6. 3t Hutchinson, Vol. l,200. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 12 developing Ventura County, Bard at age 35 believed he would always remain a bachelor. However, he fell in love with Clara's younger sister Mary (Molly) Gerberding (1858-1937). The Gerberding girls were from San Francisco, daughters of a successful newspaper editor. Molly's mother insisted that Thomas and Molly wait until she was 18 to get married, and they did so. They married in 1876 and the couple began their married life in Thomas's Hueneme bungalow. Construction of a new residence was undertaken in anticipation of the marriage, and a single-story, Italianate-style house was completed in 1876 due south of the bungalow. The Bards lived in this house for 14 years, through the birth of six children (the first of whom died in infancy). At some point after the birth of their eldest surviving child, Beryl (1878-1957), the family began referring to the grounds of the estate as Berylwood. Shortly after the construction of the new residence, Molly described the bleakness of the land surrounding her new home: "where there is no tree or bush except those which we have planted." " Eurly photographs of Berylwood at that time illustrate the young vegetation. Trees could not be seen above the single-story building's roofline. In 1878, in Bard wrote to Molly that "This year I am planting a forest 40 acres in extent of eucalyptus to which I shall add more trees every year. The propagation of the trees from seed has been part of the work, and I have about 60,000 on hand now." Five years later, in 1883, Bard noted in another letter that he was trying "to refrain from business and works on beautiÛring the grounds at Berylwood and propagating roses.'4O He produced prize-wiruring fruit in his orchards as well, with his Glorta Mundi apples winning first prize at the California Midwinter Exposition in San Francisco.at An account of Berylwood at the end of the 1880s by a visitor to the estate, published in Overland Monthly, indicates that the barrenness that Molly f,rrst encountered had been replaced by a well-developed botanic garden: ". . we drove toward what seemed a wilderness of gum and pepper trees, but which turned out to be an enclosure of sixty acres of orchards and gardens. In the foreground was heaped the scarlet of geraniums around the great basin of a fountain. Wide graveled walks wandered throughout a confusion of tropical plants, with gorgeous-hued blossoms and gigantic leaves grotesquely shaping all manner of fans and sun-shades."û During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Bard proved influential in the growth and development of Ventura County. In partnership with other associates, he purchased a good amount of Scott's land himself, along with the mineral rights. His sale and leasing of this land to new settlers proved to be very profitable, and by the late 1880s 'e rbid., vol. I, 295. ao Hutchinson, Vol. I, 318. al Greenland. Thomas R. Bard, 6 4'rbid,7. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 13 he was the wealthiest man in Ventura County.a3 He continued to pursue oil development and became president of several small oil companies, with whom he helped build the first refinery in California, lay the first California oil pipeline, and build the first tanker ship on the Pacific Coast.4In 1890, along with eight other oil industry pioneers, Bard created the Union Oil Company in 1890, for which he was founding president (1890- 1894).4s The Hueneme Wharf proved to be an asset as a viable shipping port for the oil. Concurrently, Ventura County was irrigated and the numerous individuals to whom Bard had sold land converted the area's vast open lands to fertile grain fields, fruit orchards, and dairy farms. Hueneme itself became the largest town in the Oxnard Plain in the late nineteenth century.fi In 1890, the Bard's single-story house was greatþ expanded, likely to accommodate the continually growing family (two more children were born in the 1890s) and Molly's sister who moved in with them for a time after her divorce in 1889. The expanded house \ryas a three-story wood-frame high-style Victorian, oriented to the east. Near the completion of the expansion, a young English woman, Miss Alethea Malden, was hired as a governess. ot She become considered a member of the family, and was a constant companion to Molly Bard. Historic photographs show the construction of the second Berylwood house with large trees and exotic plantings surrounding. Bard continued to plant extensively throughout the grounds, which included a green house and resident gardener. Molly and his daughters also played an active role in overseeing the landscaping. Historic photographs illustrate the girls in the gardens, and Bard named rose variations after the girls and Molly. By the turn of the twentieth century, the nearby town of Oxnard had grown, and after enough people started wandering on the Berylwood grounds thinking it was a community park, Bard decided to post signs and hire men to assist with keeping them off his property. a8 In the summer of 1898, Bard purchased a house on West Adams Street in Los Angeles, where Molly and the older children lived during the academic school year, while he remained at Berylwood with some of the younger children and presumably Miss Malden.ae However, in October of 1898, Molly returned to Berylwood so that their last child, Philip, could be born there, and then returned sometime after his birth. Bard o' Script for Slide Show on the Life of Thomas R. Bard. Naval Facilities Engineering Comrnand Historian's Office, October 1993. aa Streets. a5 Greenland. Thomas R. Bard,38. a6 Script for Slide Show. a7 Excerpts from a letter written by Alethea Malden from Hueneme to her cousin Minnie Maude, in England on December l, 1890. Box#2,Record Group 7, Local History Collection, Bard Estate, U.S. Navy Seabee Museum' ot Hutchinson, Vol. II, 96. 4e lbid.,96. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 14 wrote to the family that the gardens at Berylwood were his only amusement while they were living separately from each other.sO The children returned in the sufltmer of 1899, although Molly remained in the cþ with the infant Philip. In addition to Bard's role as a land and oil developer, the lifeJong Republican also served the people of Ventura County and the state of California in elected office. His first position was as the Supervisor of Santa Barbara County from the district of Ventura (Ventura did not become a separate county until 1872) for successive terms from 1868 to 7872.s14s Supervisor, he was asked to meet visiting Secretary of State V/illiam H. Seward as his guide though the county, traveling with him from Los Angeles to Santa Barbara in 1869.52 In 1877, Bard ran for the State Senate, but lost.s3 In 1880, he was a presidential elector, and in 1884, a delegate to the Republican National Convention.to From 1886 to 1887, he served as director of the State Board of Agriculture, which although not an elected position reflects his continued involvement with local and state government. In 1900, Bard was elected to the U.S. Senate for one term. At the time of his election, his brother-in-law Albert Gerberding wrote to congratulate him for "winning Senatorship in the way he received it (without having to use tons of money and political backing or shady business)."55 Gerberding was referring to Bard's election to office during a special session of the State Legislature, which chose U.S. Senators at that time, after a year's vacancy in the office as a result of political disagreement.s6 Bard's friends were largely the proponents of his election, doing little campaigning himself.s7 That disagreement was rooted in the late nineteenth century domination of California politics by the interests of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Bard, who was well-known for his opposition to corporate influence in the political realm, was supported by the new influx of Progressive Republicans in the state legislature, and who shared these opinions.5s Bard quickly became respected by his colleagues in the Senate as a result of his wide knowledge of the Pacific Slope.se Of note in his term was his opposition to statehood for Arizona and New Mexico.t His contributions as a U.S. Senator include influential so lbid., 1og. ttMason. t'E. M. Sheridan, "senator Bard Acted as Host to V/illiam H. Seward in 1869," Ventura CountySlør, October 15, 1929. t'smith,56-57. to Ibid., 57, and "Remember When," Ventura County Star-Free Press, August 18, 1968. 5s Hutchinson, Vol. II, 153. 56 Jack Smalley, "Bard Family, Part Three," l/entura County Star-Free Press, Apnl 11,1964. tt smith,63-65. tt Script for Slide Show. tn smith,76. uo lbid. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 15 projects that affected Southern California's Native Americans and forest land. Bard served on the Committee for Indian Affairs, having always been sympathetic to issues surrounding Native Americans. He visited a number of reservations in Southern California and Arizona, and helped est¿blish the Sherman Institute for Indians at Riverside. Bard introduced Senate Bill 3536, an appropriation to assist a group of Native Americans at'Warner Hot Springs to relocate to a reservation which afforded much better living conditions. Bard was also a member of the Committee of Public Lands and Irrigation. During Bard's term in offrce, President McKinley was assassinated in 1901, succeeded by Theodore Roosevelt. The two shared similar interests and Bard made a personal appeal for Roosevelt to issue an executive order to assist with the creation of the new Santa Barbara Forest Reserve (later incorporated into Los Padres Nation¿l Forest). Reflecting his avid personal interest in plants and gardens, one of Bard's favorite places in Washington, D.C. was the National Botanic Garden.6l While serving his term as Republican Senator Bard, and residing in Washington, D.C., Molly, Miss Malden, and the younger children (who were not at boarding schools), lived in their Los Angeles home. After completing his term as Senator in 1905, Bard essentially entered retirement. He was appointed by the Governor as regent of the University of California.62 He and Molly traveled to'Naples and collected seedlings for Berylwood.63 Gardening became his creative outlet, and by 1905, Bard had catalogued 260 trees in 48 genera and 78 species on the grounds of Berylwood, species from North and South America, the Cunury Islands, China, Italy, New Zealand, and the U.S.64 In 1910, cognizant of his own mortality and concerned about the fragmentation of his assets after his death, Bard formed the Berylwood Investment Company-a family corporation. The board was comprised of blood family members. Bard intended that his son Richard would eventually become General Manger of the company upon his graduation from college. By 1910, the Bards also decided to tear down their 2O-year-old Victorian house and replace it with a new house. Molly was the primary impetus for this decision, as she reportedly did not like the Victorian, which she believed was haunted and which held some bad memories for her (the core of it was that this was the house in which her first child had died, and her sister spent many years living with the family after her divorce from Cephas, much of the time shut away in her room battling a mental illness). In a letter written in 1905, Molly told her husband that she loved the gardens at Berylwood more than the house which has sad memories for her.65 Bard's failing health was also a factor, in that he now. required an elevator to reach the second floor-which the ut Hutchinson, Y ol. II, 167 . u'smith,93. 63 Hutchinson, Y ol. lI, 27 0. 64 Ibid., 276, andProgram for the Sunday Brunch and Garden Walk at the T. R. Bard Mansion, September 21,1997 6t Hutchinson, Y ol. Il, 27 5. BERYLV/OOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 16 Victorian house did not have. Rather than remodel, the Bards hired local architect Russell Ray in the spring of 1910 to design a new house based on a floorplan designed by Molly and Reginald C. Shand (their future son-in-law, who married Elizabeth Bard in 1913).6 However, Thomas became severely ill shortly thereafter, and Ray was instructed to put the drawings on hold. By the following spring of 1911, Thomas had largely recovered and plans for the new house were revived. However, the Bards decided to hire architect Myron Hunt instead, and paid Ray a final bill with apologies and "regret if abandonment of your plans should be in any way harmful to you. "67 Although there is a good deal of correspondence existing between Hunt and Bard in regard to the construction of the house, there is no record of the specific reasons the Bards decided to hire Hunt, and to abandon the first architect they hired. The Bards were acquainted socially with the Hunts prior to hiring Myron Hunt as their architect.6s Hunt completed one of his most significant private residences, the Huntington Mansion in San Marino, California, in 1910. It is likely the Bards' decision was influenced by the success of that project, which was widely recognized and admired. Bard sent Hunt plant clþings from Berylwood during the project, and the two clearly shared an interest in gardens.6e Hunt's ability and desire to incorporate the landscape in his designs may have also been a motivating factor in choosing him. Construction of the new house began in August of 1911 and was mostly completed by the end of I9I2 (with the family moving in by Christmas). During construction, the Bards lived in the small cottage constructed in 1910 sogth of the house (which eventually became the Richard Bard House). The household was less numerous than normal-the adult children traveled, and Philip was at boarding school. Molly spent much of her time at the Potter Hotel in Santa Barbara, which the Bards had helped finance in 1901 and where they maintained a private suite. Thomas Bard lived in the house only three years before his death at age 73 n 1915. After Bard's death, Molly, Beryl, and various.other members of the Bard family continued to live in the Bard Mansion for another 20 years. Molly became interested in dairying, and she and Richard Bard hired Hunt again to construct a complex of farm uu Letter from Hunt to Russell Ray, May 16, lgll, Box 13 C. Papers of Thomas Robert Bard. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California. 6' Letter from Hunt to Russell Ray, May 22, lgll, Box 13 C. Papers of Thomas Robert Bard. The Huntington Library, San Marino, Califomia. u* The personal interview the authors conducted with the Friends ofthe Bard noted this social connection. The social connection prior to the construction of the house is confirmed in Harriet Hunt's joumals, in which she notes that their son Charlie went camping with members of the Bard family in the summer of 1910 and l91l (Entry in joumal of Harriet Hunt, August 1911, Myron Hubbard Hunt Collection. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California). u'Correspondence from Hunt to Bard, May 13,1911, Box 13 D. Papers of Thomas Robert Bard. The Huntington Library, San Marino, Califomia. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 17 buildings northwest of the Bard Mansion in I9l7.7o Richard and Molly, through the Berylwood Invesfinent Company, also created a botanical garden business-selling varieties of plants to local distributors. Because the country was in the midst of the Great Depression, the commercial nursery business was only in operation from early 1931 to mid-1932. In the meantime, the gardens were becoming a world-renowned botanical collection in Southern California. Landscape architects, journalists, and horticulture and botany professors visited the grounds at Berylwood throughout the early twentieth century. Newspaper articles and private correspondences with Richard and Molly document the importance and fame of the Berylwood botanical garden, particularly for the wide variety of trees and plantings. It was once noted as being "one of the most interesting... and fascinating places for the lover and student of plant life along this coast."7l One newspaper articlé describes the innovations of Bard and his gardens upon the natural terrain of Ventura County: "From a waste of sand dunes Mr. Bard transformed the acreage into a garden containing more rare and unusual trees and flowers than any other in Southern California, demonstrating that Ventura County is favorable for most varieties of trees and vegetation."T2 In 1933, a new house in Ojai was constructed, and after that point the mansion at Berylwood became a seasonal residence. By then none of the remaining children wanted to make the mansion their permanent residence. Richard and Joan Bard used the main floor of the mansion to host large social functions.73 In the early l94}s, the farnily sold some of the extensive land around the mansion to the military, developing a Naval Base for World War II's Pacific Fleet. ln 1944, the Navy undertook a lease for the mansion to serve as an Officer's Club (prior to that lease, the Farrel Residence, now known as Quarters D, served that purpose).74 Of the 62.45 acres leased by the Bards to the Navy, approximately 20 acres consisted of the house and surrounding botanic garden, whereas the remaining acreage was farm land. The estate was bounded on the east by Ventura Road, on the south by Pleasant Valley Road, on the west and north by the previously established U.S. Naval Advanced Base Depot (land previously sold to the Navy).7s The farm land was developed with housing units almost immediately. The lease only allowed use of the first floor of the Bard Mansion, as the family was concerned about the structural stability of the flooring upstairs.T6 The 70 Contract for Bard Farm Buildings and Garage between Myron Hunt and Berylwood Investment Company, General Contract #P.2201, February 21,1917, Box 13 C. Papers of Thomas Robert Bard. The Huntington Library, San Marino, Califomia; and Marsh. 7r Peter D. Bamhart, "The Bard Botanic Garden," The Florists Exchange and Horticultural Trade World,1925. 72 Charles Sayler, "Bard Garden at Hueneme Has Many Unusual Trees From Over 20 Far Lands," Publication Unknown, March 27, 1931. t3 Marsh. 74Ibid. 75 Peterson, 4. 79 Marsh. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 18 entire estate was sold to the Navy in 1951 for $149,500.77 The first floor of the Bard Mansion continued to serve as the Officer's Club for several decades, while the second floor initially was converted to officer's housing, and later offices with additional recreational space. In 1961, housing units were constructed for senior officers in locations within the botanic garden surrounding the Bard Mansion and Richard Bard House. In the early 1960s, the Bard family hired author V/. H. Hutchinson to write a biography of Senator Thomas Bard. Hutchinson was provided with Bard's extensive collection of personal papers. After publication of the two-volume biography in 1965, Richard and Philip Bard donated the papers to the Henry H. Huntington Library and Art Gallery in San Marino, California, which said the donation was "the largest single collection and one of the finest gifts ever received by the Library. "78 2. Richard Bard Richard Bard was born at Hueneme in 1892 as the seventh child of Thomas and Molly Bard. Like his father, Richard was an important figure in the development of Port Hueneme and the maintenance of the Berylwood est¿te into the twentieth century. As a youth, Richard attended Throop Poly (now Cal Poly) Institute in Pasadena and subsequently Princeton University where he attended law school. He graduated from Princeton in 1916, one year after his father, Thomas, passed away. He returned home to Berylwood after graduation and assumed his position as general manager for the 'War family business. At the outbreak of World I, Richard joined the army and served in France. He returned home after 19 months of service in 1918, and resumed his managerial duties for the family's Berylwood Investment Company. Richard Bard's greatest contribution to Hueneme was his leadership efforts in following through with his father's dream of constructing its harbor. In the late nineteenth century, Thomas Bard had purchased land and constructed a wharf along the Ftrueneme shoreline aft'er learning that there was a deep sea canyon off the coastline that could accommodate a harbor entrance. With his intention of capitalizing on the potential for a shipping industry into Hueneme, Bard was instrumental in this effort. At the turn of the twentieth century, Bard sold off much of his land holdings to developers, which changed hands over time. Before his death, Thomas Bard had obtained twenty percent of the stock of the Farmer's Warehouse Company, the company that owned the wharf and its operations.Te 77 Peterson, l. 78 Lee G r Bard Papers," PC, The líreekty Magazíne of Ventura County. n.d. 7e Green p.4. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 19 After his father's death, Richard Bard became interested in finishing what his father started and began to seek out other interested investors for the construction of a port at Hueneme. In 7926, Richard Bard also purchased 250 acres of mud flats and sand dunes a-djacent to Point Hueneme for a harbor site and organized local businessmen and farmers to support the project.80 Despite 10 years of battle with opposition for the Hueneme port, including politicians and businessmen in Ventura who wanted to open a port in their own city, Bard continued to fight for a port at Hueneme. He was instrumental in the formation of a harbor district, called the Oxnard Harbor District, from 160,000 acres of local farmland. Bard donated his own 250-acre site to the district. After the residents of the Oxnard Plain voted in favor of a bond for a Hueneme harbor, construction began in 1939. The harbor was finally completed in June 1940. One year later, Pearl Harbor was attiacked and the U.S. govemment began to rally a strong military presence on the west coast. The Navy took over the Port of Hueneme and the new Naval Base was officially estabtished in l:[lay 1942. Over the course of 'War World II, the Port of Hueneme shipped more than 150,000 tons of cargo each month making the harbor the second largest shipping point for war material of any port on the Pacific Coast.8l Although Richard Bard is best known for his leadership in the completion of Port Hueneme, he was also a prominent member of the community as well as a civic leader and philanthropist. He served in both World War I and World War II, where in the latter he was a recipient of the Croix de Guerre with silver star medal from General Charles de Gaulle. In his later years, he was appointed as a Ventura County supervisor from 1947-1951, as well as a board member on several committees including education and agriculture. He served as the Hueneme School District president for 25 years. In 1956, Richard Bard donated 1,12 acres for the Ventura County Small Boat Harbor.82 Richard Bard inherited the small bungalow south of the Bard Mansion in 1916 after he married his wife Joan, to whom he was married for 53 years. Together they had three daughters and two sons who grew up in the Richard Bard House and were the impetus for its continual expansion into the mid-1920s. In 1944, the Bard family leased the Berylwood property and mansion to the Navy. In 195I, the properly was then purchased by the Navy from the Bard family. Richard and his wife then moved to a house in Moorpark, California. He died in 1969 at the age of 77. 80 Transcript from Tour of Quarters A, The Richard Bard House, Record Group 7, Local History Collection, Bard Estate, U.S. Navy Seabee Museum, 1990. 8l Greenland, Thomas Bard, 11. 82 Peterson, 15. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page20 3. Myron llunt Myron Hunt (1868-1952) is recognized as a master architect in Southern California, and noted for his efforts to establish an architectural style appropriate for the region and time during which he practiced (1896 to 1947). Hunt was born in Sutherland, Massachusetts, the second of six children, but spent most of his childhood living in the suburbs of Chicago, Illinois. Hunt attained an undergraduate degree from Northwestern University before earning a degree in Architecture from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1893. V/hile at MIT, he worked as a draftsman for the Boston architecture firm of Hartwell and Richardson.s3 After finishing his academic studies, he spent more than two years in Europe where he studied architectural antiquities. In 1896, he began working as a draftsman for the Chicago offîce of Shepley, Tutan, and Coolidge, a prominent Boston firm. He became a Principal with the firm by the following year, and primarily designed expensive suburban homes in Evanston, Illinois.s4 Hunt shared office space with Frank Lloyd Wright during that time, and Hunt's Illinois projects reflect their shared perspectives of organic architecture and the Prairie School of design.85 Hunt married Harriet Boardman immediately upon graduation from MIT. Harriet traveled throughout Europe with her husband for the next three years, and helped nurture his career.t6 After returning to the U.S. and moving to Chicago, the couple had three children. However Harriet suffered from tuberculosis, and doctors recommended a waÍner climate. As such, Hunt left behind his highly successful practice in Chicago, and moved to Pasadena, California, in 1903. The couple were typical of the many other east-coast transplants locating in Pasadena. Hunt's reputation for his work in Chicago helped him quickly build a clientele in the Los Angeles area. Hunt designed his own home at 200 North Grand in Pasadena in 1905, and the family welcomed a fourth (and last) child in 1906.87 Even in the dry warm climate of Southern California, Harriet Hunt was never able to overcome her tuberculosis, and died in 1913. Two years later, Myron married Virginia Pease, whom he came to know while designing Pasadena's Polytechnic Institute, which Pease founded and served as the school's first principal. They had a long marriage, and were recognized for their consistent philanthropy to the community of Pasadena. Although the Hunts resided in Pasadena, Hunt located his office in downtown Los Angeles. He practiced independently from 1903-1904 and again from 1910-1921. He also had successful partnerships, first with Elmer Grey in the firm of Hunt and Grey 83 Alan Michelson, "Myron Hunt," Pacific Coast Architecture Database, Architecture and Urban Planning Library, University of Washington, htþs://digiial.lib.washingto o'Michelson and JRP Historical Consulting Services, , April2000,34. tu Therese T. Hanafin, "The Eclectjc Architecture of Myron Hunt," Master's thesis, San Diego State, 1969,l3g. 87 "Horrr" and Lot-The Times' Weekly Review of Real Estate and Building," Los Angeles Times, Aug.6, 1905. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page2l (1904-1910). From l92l to 1947, Hunt partnered with Harold C. Chambers, a 1909 graduate of the Armour Art Institute who had been a junior Architect in the Hunt and Grey firm.88 During the difficult years of the Great Depression, Hunt and Chambers had far fewer commissions than in previous years, and in 1930, at the age of 62, H'unt scaled back his work load.se Hunt and Charnbers remained in partnership until Hunt's retirement in 1947 . After retiring, he moved to Port Hueneme, where he died at age 84 in 1952-near the Bard Mansion that he had designed four decades earlier. During the span of Hunt's career (L896-L947), he is known to have designed more than 400 buildings. m He is recognized for designing numerous well-known Southern California landmarks. His most significant and widely recognized works include the Huntington Mansion and Library in San Marino (1910, with Chambers in L920), Occidental College Campus in Los Angeles (1910-16, with Chambers from 1922 to 1944), First Congregational Church in Riverside (1913), and the Rose Bowl (with Chambers n 1922). Other significant works include the Valley Hunt Club in Pasadena (Hunt and Grey, 1907), Flintridge Country Club (with Chambers n 1922), Huntington Hotel in Pasadena (1913), the courtyard wing of the Mission Inn in Riverside (1914), Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles (1919), Flintridge Hotel (with Chambers in 1927), Palos Verdes Public Library 0920), and Pasadena Public Library (1921). In addition to his most well-known private residence for Heqry Huntington, Hunt and his partners also designed numerous houses for Southern California's elite. Hunt served as member of the st¿te licensing board, na:ned as a Fellow with the American Institute of Architects (AIA) in 1908, became President of the AIA's Southern California chapter and was the first Southern California representative to the Architectural League of the Pacific Coast in 1909.e1 One of Hunt's characteristics as an architect was his ability to practice in a variety of architectural styles. He primarily practiced in popular early to mid-twentieth centur!, eclectic period revival styles, although his progression of work reflects a desire to develop a regional architecture for Southern California. Hunt's earliest designs in Chicago exhibit Prairie School influences, while his better known works in California- for example, the Rose Bowl and the Huntington Library-follow the Beaux Arts, neo- classical tradition.e He is noted as one of the first architects to design in the lavish Churrigueresque idiom, a highly stylized, heavily ornamented style most closely associated with the Spanish Colonial Revival, as seen in his First Congregational Church design in Riverside, which Hunt professed was his favorite design.e3 Yet he 88 David Gebhard, ed. Mvron Hunt. 1868-1952: The Search for a Regional Architecture. Hennessey & Ingalls, Santa Monica, California, 1984. tn JRP, 34. 4 Gebhard, 110-115. Ibid. nt'' JRP,35. e3 Gebhard,77. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page22 also designed in the more restrained Craftsman bungalow and Moderne styles. In this way, Hunt's designs reflect the interests and attitudes of his clients. Hunt strove to incorporate the landscape and climate in his designs, no matter what stylistic reference he chose to work with, and usually incorporated outdoor living spaces such as porches and verandas. Shortly after moving to California, Hunt published a 1903 article in the Los Angeles Express in which he stated that it was inevit¿ble that "architects and gardeners would now be turning to the south of Europe for appropriate precedent. "ea Overall, his very long and very successful career reflects a preference for restrained execution of the classical period revivals, often with broad simple surfaces interjected by ornamentation.es Hunt, along with a group of Southern California architects (including George Washington Smith, Wallace Neff, Reginald Johnson, Gordon Kaufrnan, Ronald Coates, William Templeton Johnson, Marston, Van Pelt, and Maybury, and Mead and Requa), is credited for developing a "Californian" architectural style. Hunt's personal interpretation was a blend between Mexican, Spanish, and American influences. This native approach acknowledged an influence from Spanish Colonial ranchos and missions, but had stronger overtones from the Californian miner and rancher. Unlike Spanish Revival, this technique celebrated simplicity with minimal detail and was more dictated by taste and climate (which Hunt felt grew naturally out of the landscape and culture of Southern California) than its Mediterranean counterpart.e6 Early in his career, Hunt embraced the use of concrete as a building material, and sought constant improvement of it from his suppliers. In 1903, Hunt noted that use of concrete and plaster he had observed in Southern Europe was also an appropriate choice of materials for Califorria.eT In 1915, he commented that "southern California is almost devoid of the usual building materials. There is no good building stone within hundreds of miles; there has always been an inclination, especially since the advent of reinforced concrete, to lean toward a plastered exterior surface, the work of the old padres forming a natural precedence."es Hunt's body of work reflects not only his preference for concrete, but also his innovations with this material. In the 1920s, he and Chambers began designing with hollowed wall concrete-double walls of reinforced concrete with air space in between.ee In terms of Hunt's body of work, the Bard Mansion was completed during a very productive and notable period in the architect's career, at the beginning of the decade of his work as an independent architect. Hunt began designing the Bard Mansion in 1911, ea Hanaftn, 173. et lbid. e6 Parugraphdrawn from both JRP and Hanafin. ei Hanafrn, 173-174. es Ibid. ee Gebhard. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page23 one year after the completion of his most celebrated private reside.nce (the Huntington Mansion), and while he was continuing his major commissions for the Occidental College campus, the Polytechnic School in Pasadena (where Bard's youngest son Philip was in attendance), and other commissions for Huntington. Hunt's publication of the photographs and plans of the house in The Architect, indicates that it was a project he felt worthy of publicity. Hunt's design of the Bard Mansion was likely responsible for other commissions he received in Port Hueneme: Hueneme Grammar School (1919), Bank of Hueneme incorporated by Bard (1925), and Civic Center (1925). The Bard Mansion is a typical example of his residential designs and eclectic style preference. In particular, it is representative of his application of It¿lian Renaissance Revival design elements, popular with Hunt and other California architects at the time as an appropriate expression for the region. The style also integrated well with the Mediterranean and Spanish Colonial revivals, also popular in Southern California in the 1910s. Having spent several years in Italy after finishing college, Hunt was very familiar with the architecture of Italian villas. In the Bard Mansion, Hunt employed many of the characteristics of the Italian Renaissance Revival-the proportion of mass, symmetry, rectangular shapes, stucco walls, tiled hipped roof, deeply recessed rectangular windows, Ionic pilasters, and the overall restrained nature of the style. His own interpretation of the style includes elements such as the refined dentil on narrow overhanging eaves, a double string course, and delicate iron balustrades.lm The Bard Mansion also reflects Hunt's willingness to work with his clients to create a design that best met their desires. After the completion of the house, Hunt wrote to Bard: "The building of this house, and my dealings with you and your family, have been a source of so much pleasure to me, that I want to conclude the work with the knowledge that you are as nearly satisfied in our entire relations as is possible for me to make you."tot Correspondence betweenThomas Bard and Hunt indicate that the Bards and Shand communicated frequently with Hunt throughout the design and construction phases, both in writing and in visits with Hunt at his Los Angeles office. Hunt is believed to have largely used the rough floorplan provided to him at the outset of the project by his clients, and also incorporated their requests for specific materials. Hunt found ways to reuse features and materials from the 1890 Victorian in his plans for the new house. Hunt, a pioneer in landscape architecture, was certainly a good choice of architect for the Bards in that he was not just willing but eager to incorporate the surrounding landscape that Bard had been cultivating for 40 years in the design and orientation of the house. This is evidenced in Hunt's own words, in a letter to Bard in January 1912, in which he stated "The garden is an essential part of the house, and loo Hanafin, l8l. r0r Letter from Hunt to Bard, December 12, 1912. Papers of Thomas Robert Bard. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT IIABS Report Page24 every line seen from within the garden should, if possible, be parallel with the house. "lo2 t" Letter from Hunt to Bard, January 14; 1912. Papers of Thomas Robert Bard. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 25 Part II. Architectural Information A. Building 1: Thomas Bard Mansion 1. General Statement a. Architectural Character: The Bard Mansion is a two-story residential building constructed in I9l2 in the Italian Renaissance Revival style, an eclectic style architect Myron Hunt utilized especially during the 1910s. The house is generally rectangular in mass, with an H-shaped plan oriented north and south. The wood fra:ne building was constructed with stucco over a brick veneer, tenacott¿ tile roof, concrete foundation, with architectural details in cast concrete, wrought iron, and wood. Fenestration is regular, with a high ratio of height to width. The character defining features of the building are largely intact and it remains a good example of the Italian Renaissance Revival style, irrespective of the inappropriate additions made to the central and western sections of the house. b. Condition of Fabric: The building appears to be structurally sound and in good repair. 2. Description of Exterior: a. Overall DÍmensions: The Bard Mansion measures approximately 155 feet by 83 feet. It rises to a maximum height of approximately 44 feet from grade to the top of the cornice on the attic section. b. Foundations: The building is constructed atop concrete slab and l' x '1-.' wood posts which are found in the basement area below the galley. c. Walls: The walls are stucco on the exterior and dry wall and plaster construction on the interior. The exterior stucco is an off-white color. d. Structural System, Framing: The Bard Mansion is a wood frame building with a concrete foundation. e. Stairways: There are no exterior stairways on the Bard Mansion' f. Openings: i. Doorways and doors: The building's most prominent exterior doorways are on the east, south, and north facades, all of which have simple narrow wood surrounds with no decorative molding, except for the main entrance on the east façade. Most of the doors and doorways are wood with glazing, except for a pair of double doors leading from the dining hall on the south façade to the exterior south courtyard. Other secondary entrances lead to the service entrances on the northwest side of the building and have flush wood doors with no ornamentation. ii. Windows: The windows on the Bard Mansion vary. Most of the windows on the first floor are either double or triple hung sashes BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page26 oriented vertically. The second story windows are generally wood casements. On the third story or attic level, there are vents and small casement windows. Large multi-light additions from the 1950s and 1960s are on the north and south facades that coincide with the dining room alterations on the interior g. Roof: i. Shape, Covering: The roof is composed of three hipped-roof sections which intersect and have a near symmetrical H-shaped plan. The roof is covered by red clay tile. ii. Cornice, eaves: The Bard Mansion has shallow eaves with large cornices, underneath which are dentils. 3. Description of fnterior: a. Floor Plans: i. FÍrst Floor: The main entrance is located on the east façade, opening into main hall. A stairway to the second floor is located in the hall, and a chamber with a dedicated bathroom was located to the north of the stairway, as well as a small closet for a telephone. A study is located to the south of the entry hall, also with a separate half bath. A vault closet is located between the hall and the study. To the west of the entry hall, in the center of the first floor, is the living room, flanked on either side by outdoor spaces-an enclosed porch to the north and an enclosed terrace to the south. The west section of the first floor contains a sun room on the south side, dining room (adjacent to the living room), secondary stairway, and service area, with a large kitchen. A large auditorium/ballroom, an addition circa 1970, is located west of the original dining room. Norttr of the auditorium and north of the original kitchen are located several large kitchen service rooms, additions circa 1980. ii. Second Floor: Access to the second floor is obtained by one of two stairways: one from the main entry hall, and the secondary stairway near the living room. Eight chambers weÍe originally located on the second floor, all with closets and direct access to one of five bathrooms. The eastern section of the second floor contains three of those chambers, divided by the main stairway. The northern most of those three chambers, with attached bath, was originally used by the family's long-term governess, Miss Malden. On the other side of the stairway are two more chambers with an adjoining bath, used by Thomas and Mary Bard-with Thomas's room furthest south. BERYLIWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page27 A central hall leads west from the top of the stairway and provided access to the remaining five chambers, and a sleeping porch north of the hall (now enclosed). Two chambers were originally located off the hall across from the porch in the center section of the second floor. Although it is not certain, those two chambers are believed to have been used by the Bard's two youngest children still living with the family at the time the house was completed, Elizabeth (24) and Philip (14). In between these chambers was located another shared bathroom. These two chambers and the bathroom were removed after 1944 to create one large central room on the second floor. The western section of the second floor consists of a north/south hall, three chambers, sleeping porch (now enclosed), and a large linen closet, as well as the top of the secondary stair. The northern-most chamber was assigned to the Bard's eldest daughter Beryl (34 at the time the- house was completed), and was adjacent to the sleeping porch. A bath is located between Beryl's chamber and the linen closet. Two additional chambers are located in the south half of the western section, agarn with an adjoining bath in between the two rooms. The middle room is believed to have been used occasionally by Richard Bard (20), the second eldest son while the southern room used by Anna (28), the third eldest daughter. iii. Attic: Access to the attic is obtained through a door in the western section of the second floor, through an enclosed stairway. A wide hallway extends north/south in the western section of the attic, off which several storage rooms and one large room are located along the western wall. The central section of the attic contains two adjoining rooms, accessed by the main hallway and a secondary hallway extends along the southern wall. That secondary hallway also provides access to two rooms in the eastern section. Two additional small rooms are located in the northeast corner of the attic, accessed from rooms that open onto the hallways. The attic was used as living quarters for servants and as storage space.l03 No information was identified about the specific room's functions. iv. Basement: A partial basement is accessed from the kitchen. It is comprised of one large and several small storage rooms. b. Stairways: The primary staircase in the Bard Mansion is located immediately north of the primary entrance on the east façade and leads to the lo3 Marsh. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page28 second story. This is the primary staircase which is located in a prominent area of the house and opens to the main lobby. Ornate features of this stairway include the ornate railing and squared columns. There is a secondary st¿ircase originally used for the help tha lacks any ornamentation. This staircase is located next to the kitchen and also leads to the second story. c. Flooring: The flooring of the building varies. The first floor has wood floors in the entrance lobby area and carpet in the dining areas. The second floor has wood floors and carpet in the main conference room. d. Wall and Ceiling Finish: The interior walls are composed of gypsum board and dry wall. e. Openings: i. Doorways and doors: All the doors, door surrounds, and door framing are wood. On the main floor, there are three single doors which lead to the main entrance. There are double doors which lead to the south elevation. All doors have glazing. ii. Windows: The windows on the Bard Mansion generally consist of their original wood casement windows. On the rear of the building, the 1950s addition consists of fixed windows with multþle lights. f. I)ecorative Features: The Bard Mansion is the most ornamented building within the Berylwood Historic District. Decorative features include decorative paneling along the walls, decorative cornices along the ceiling, and chamfered square columns within the main foyer of the building. The fireplaces also have marble and ornamented wood features. E. Hardware: Most of the original hardware of the Bard Mansion, such as the door knobs, hinges, and handles have been retained. Light fixtures from the 1940s have also been retained in the main dining rooms as well. h. Mechanical Equipment: i. Heating: The building is equipped with a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) unit. ii. Plumbing: The building has running water. iii. Electric: The building has electricity. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page29 4. Site: a. Historical Landscape Design: The landscape is addressed in detail below in Section F. b. Outbuildings: There are no outbuildings-in the strict definition of that term. B. Building 2: Richard Bard House 1. General Statement a. Architectural Character: The Richard Bard House is a two-story residential building originally consffucted as a one-story building in 1910 and with additions made between circa 1916 and 1925, possibly even earlier. The residence possesses some features of the Colonial Revival Style, although it is inegular in plan. The wood frame building is sheathed in horizontal wood siding and rests on a concrete foundation. The residence is comprised of three sections, resulting from additions to accommodate the increasing family members. The first section is the original one-story building located on the southwest side of the building. The second section is a central two-story section (first constructed as a single-story two- room addition). The third section is the two-story section that projects to the southeast (also first a single-story addition). b. Condition of Fabric: The building appears to be structurally sound and in good repair. No areas of deterioration could be found. 2. Description of Exterior: a. Overall I)imensions: The Richard Bard House plan is approximately 58 feet by 55 feet. The one-story section is located on the southwest end of the house. The two-story section was done through a series of later additions and is located on the east end of the house. b. Foundations: The building is constructed atop a concrete block and wooden post and beam foundation system. 'Walls: c. The exterior walls are wood clapboard d. Structural System, Framing: It is a wood frame building with a concrete foundation. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 30 e. Porches, stoops, balconies, porticos, bulkheads: There are three porches; the main porch is located on the southeast façade. It is an open raised brick patio with steps that have metal railings that lead to the main driveway. This patio leads to the main entrance and also a secondary entrance that leads to the living room. The second porch is located on the southwest façade. It is an open brick stoop partially covered by the overhanging hood that surmounts the entrance door. The third porch is located on the northwest façade. There are two entrances on this open brick stoop that lead to the laundry room and the kitchen. f. chimneys: There are three chimneys. one chimney is located off of the southeast porch located on the southwest facing wall; it has two corresponding iruerior fireplaces on the main and second floors. Another chimney is located within the roof surface on the original one-story building. It has a corresponding fireplace in the living room. A third chimney is located in the northeast section of the building within the roof surface. Its corresponding fireplaces are located on the main floor in the library and one of the main floor bedrooms. g. Stairways: There are no exterior stairways, but there are three brick steps leading to the both the northwest and southwest entrances and three brick steps leading the southeast patio. h. Openings: i. Doorways and doors: The building has five exterior doorways; two are on the southeast façade, one on the southwest façade, and two on the northwest façade. All the doors have wooden screen doors and wide wood surrounds with no decorative molding. All but one door have surmounting decorative hoods. The main entrance on the southeast facade has the most ornate features including a paneled door with alarge pedimented hood, a decorative bracket that encloses sidelights. The remaining four doors are glazed. with multiple panes. ii. Windows: There arc l7 double hung windows with lamb's tongues on the southeast façade as well as a shed roof dormer which has a ribbon of three casement windows within. Three of these windows are six-over-six sash windows; the rest are four-over-four. All windows have shutters except for the dormer window. There are three sets of paired windows which share a pair of shutters. on the southwest façade, there are two large fixed multilight windows. One window has 24 lights. The other has 18 lighrs flanked by l2-light windows on either side. The northwest façade has 14 windows, one BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 3 I angled bay window and a shed dormer with two windows. Six windows are four-over-four double hung sash windows; two are two- over-two light sashes; three are six-over-six. All sash windows have lamb's tongues. Additionally, there are two six-light casement windows and one l2-light casement window. The dormer has two four-over-four double hung sash windows. The angled bay window has six-over six double hung sash windows flanked by four-over-four double hung sash windows with lamb's tongues. The northeast façade has six four-over-four double hung sash windows with lamb's tongues and one two-over-two sash window. Four of these windows do not have shutters. i. Roof: i. Shape, Covering: The roof has an irregular shape and is composed of three sections corresponding to the progression of the construction of the building and its additions. The original section of the building has a side gable roof with two front gable projections, a shed roof dormer on the northwest facade and a front gable dormer window on the southeast façade. The eastern two-story section of the building also has a side gable. Connected to this is the southeast section of the building which has a front gable. The entire roof is clad in asphalt shingles. ii. Cornice, eaves: There are shallow eaves and modest cornices along the exterior roofline of the building. 3. Description of Interior: a. Floor Plans: i. First Floor Level: The Richard Bard House's first floor level plan is comprised of a living room, dining room, kitchen, laundry room, foyer, den, library, two bedrooms and three bathrooms. The plan is irregular, reflecting the multiple additions to the house over time. The primary entrance is located on the central section of the building, on the southeast façade. The entrance leads to a central hallway and the main stairwell providing access to the second floor. Across the hallway and opposite the main entry is a doorway to the library. At the north end of the hallway there are entrances to two bedrooms that share an adjoining bathroom. The second (northeast) bedroom also has an adjoining bathroom to the west end of the room which is shared with the library. At the south end of the hallway is the foyer, BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page32 which leads to a laundry room to the northwest, the kitchen to the west, the living room to the southwest, and a powder room and den to the south. The living room is the largest room on this level and leads to the dining room at the west side of the building. The dining room is also adjacent to the kitchen to the north, which leads back to the hallway. ii. Second Floor Level: The second floor is accessed through a stairway located in the hallway of the first floor. This stairway leads to the second floor hallway. At the north end of this hallway are entrances to a closet and two bedrooms which share an adjoining bathroom- nearly identical to the floorplan of the two bedrooms located below on the first floor. The second (northeast) bedroom also has an adjoining bathroom to the west end of the room which is shared with a third bedroom, located above the first floor library. That bedroom is accessed from the south end of the hallway. The fourth bedroom is accessed through the third bedroom, and is located within the roof space above the original section of the house. iii. Cellar: The cellar is accessed through cellar doors located adjacent to the exterior of the building on the northeast façade. This cellar has a wooden ladder that leads to a concrete floor. The cellar has a water heater and storage space, but is not used as a main roorn of the building. b. Stairways: The primary stairway in the Richard Bard House is located with the central hallway, the entry to which is opposite the primary entrance on the southeast façade. It provides access to the second floor level. This stairway has plaster risers and wooden treads with nosings. The wooden railing has simple rounded balusters and a newel post at the base of the stairway. c. Flooring: The flooring of the house is primarily wood. The bathrooms, laundry room, and kitchen have tiled floors. d. Wall and Ceiling Finish: The interior walls are composed of drywall and plaster. e. Openings: i. Doorways and doors: All the doors, door surrounds, and door framing are wood. On the main floor, there are 25 single wood BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT IIABS Report Page 33 doors, one of which is a swinging door leading to and from the kitchen, two squared entryways; fîve of these doors lead to the exterior. On the upper story, there are 14 single doors; one of these doors leads to the exterior atop the roof of the one-story original section of the building. In the cellar, there are cellar doors that lead to and from the exterior. All doors are paneled wood and painted white. ii. Windows: Two large windows are situated on the southwest façade. They are the largest windows in the building, have multþle lights and are fixed in place. f. I)ecorative Features and Trim: The living room has decorative woodwork that includes exposed ceiling beams that have been painted. The wall surrounding the living room fireplace has ornamental plaster molding. The den also has decorative cross-board trim along the ceiling as well as built-in cabinets, window seats, and shelves. Built-ins are also found in the laundry room, the library, the closet underneath the stairway, the closets, and the bedroom above the original one-story section of the house. All of the fireplaces retain their original wood and brick materials. g. Hardware: The doors and windows that have not been replaced retain their original hardware. Original hinges and knobs remain on the built-in features of the closets. Most of the original doors retain their original door knobs. h. Mechanical Equipment: I Heating: The building is equþed with a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) unit. Most of this equipment is located in the cellar. ii. Plumbing: The building has running water. The water heater is located in the cellar of the house. iii. Electric: The building has electricity. 4. Site: a. Historical Landscape Design: The Richard Bard House is part of the larger Berylwood Historic District that includes a designed historic landscape- addressed in detail below in Section F. It is situated in the southwest corner of the district. Landscaping elements include the original plantings and trees, lamp posts that corresponded to the original driveway (demolished), and the eucalyptus tree-lined roads that lead to the estate. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 34 b. Outbuildings: The Richard Bard House has two remaining outbuildings: Building 3, Garage; and Building 5, Pool House. C. Building 3: Garage of Richard Bard House 1. General Statement: a. Architectural character: The Garage is a single-story garage and residential building originally constructed as a single-story, one-bay garage circa 1925. At some point after acquisition by the Navy, the garage was expanded to include a second one-vehicle Earage space as well as a central hall leading to a rear one-story residential addition. The garage/residence was not constructed in a particular architectural style and is irregular in plan. The wood frame building is sheathed in horizontal wood siding and rests on a concrete foundation. The Garage is comprised of two single-bay garages that flank a central hall that contains a kirchen and bathroom, and leads to a bedroom and living room at the north end of the building. b. ConditÍon of Fabric: The building appears to be structurally sound and in good repair. No areas of deterioration could be found. 2. Description of Exterior: a. Overall Dimensions: The Garage is a two-vehicle garage with a rear one- story addition. b. Foundations: The building is constructed atop a concrete foundation system. c. Walls: The exterior walls are wood clapboard. d. structural system, Framing: The Garage is a wood frame building with a concrete foundation. e. Porches, stoops, balconies, porticos, bulkheads: None of these elements are features of the Garage. f. Chimneys: There are no chimneys on the Garage building. g. Stairways: There are no exterior stairways. h. Openings: BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS RepoÍ Page 35 Doorways and doors: The building has three exterior doors; and two garage doors. The two garuge doors and one exterior door are located on the south façade. A second and third exterior door are located on the west and east façades, respectively. The exterior doors én the west and south facades are both paneled wood doors with glazng on the top part of the door. The east façade door is a paneled wood door with no glazing. The garage doors are roll-top electric wood doors. ii. \ilindows: There are 10 wood windows; all double hung wood sash and one hopper window. There are three one-over-one sash windows with lamb's tongues. Two are located on the south façade and one is located on the east façade. The remaining sash windows are two- over-two with lamb's tongues. i. Roof: i. Shape, Covering: The roof has an irregular shape and is composed of four sections corresponding to the progression of the construction of the building and its additions. The original section of the building has a front gable roof. The second garage, the eastern section of the building, mirrors that front gable roof. The central section of the building, used as a residence and constructed between the two garages, has a flat roof. This central unit connects to the rear of the garages to another front gable roof section of the building. The entire roof is clad in asphalt shingles. ii. Cornice, eaves: There are overhanging eaves and modest cornices along the exterior roofline of the building. Underneath the eaves are exposed rafter beams. 3. DescrÍption of Interior: a. Floor Plan: The Garage has one level and it is comprised of two garage spaces, a central unit that has a bathroom, kitchen and stairs that lead to the rear living room area and bedroom. The primary entrance is located on the south façade between the two Earuge doors. The main entrance leads to the kitchen. The kitchen is located south of the bathroom area. To the north of the bathroom area is a hallway adjoining the rear to the living room area and a bedroom. b. Stairways: There are steps located in and connecting the central unit and rear section of the Garage building. They consist of two carpeted steps with nosing. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page36 c. Flooring: The flooring of the Garage consists of linoleum tiles within the kitchen and central unit; carpet within the living room area and rear bedroom; and concrete floors in the garage. d. Wall and Ceiling Finish: The interior walls are composed of drywall and plaster. e. Openings: i. Doorways and doors: All the doors, door surrounds, and door framing are wood. On the main floor, there are eight single wood doors, three of which lead to the exterior. The interior doors are flushed and painted white. ii. Windows: There are 10 windows on the interior. Two windows on the south façade are paired; and two windows on the east façade are also paired. f. I)ecorative Features and Trim: There are no interior decorative features or trim. g. Hardware: The doors and windows that have not been replaced retain their original hardware. Original hinges and knobs remain on the exterior doors. h. Mechanical Equipment: i. Heating: The building is equþed with a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) unit. ii. Plumbing: The building has running water. The water heater is in the cellar of the house. iii. Electric: The building has electricity. 4. Site: a. Historical Landscape Design: The Garage is part of the larger Berylwood Historic District that includes a designed historic landscape-addressed in detail below in Section F. It is situated in the southwest corner of the district, north of the Richard Bard House. Landscaping elements include the original plantings and trees, and a driveway located to the south of the building. b. Outbuildings: The Garage has no outbuildings BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page37 D. Building 4: Farm Dwelling 1. General Statement: a. Architectural Character: The Farm Dwelling is a one-story residential building originally constructed circa 1942. The residence was not constructed in a particular architectural style and has an irregular plan. The wood frame building is sheathed in channel drop wood siding and rests on a concrete foundation. The building was once paft of a grouping of buildings that included several barns, other fann dwellings, and a milk house. The barns and dwellings have been demolished and the milk house was moved to another location on the installation north of the historic district and rehabilitated as a dwelling. b. Condition of Fabric: The building appears to be structurally sound and in good repair. No areas of deterioration could be found. 2. Description of Exterior: a. Overall Dimensions: The Farm Dwelling is one-story and approximately three bays wide and three bays long. b. Foundation: The building is constructed atop a concrete foundation system. 'Walls: c. The exterior walls ate channel drop wood painted white and decorative vertical beadboard siding underneath the gable ends painted in blue and cut in an ornate fish-scale pattern along the board ends. d. Structural System, Framing: The Farm Dwelling is a wood frame building with a concrete foundation. e. Porches, stoops, balconies, porticos, bulkheads: There are two porches on the Farm Dwelling. A concrete walkway leads to the main entrance which is covered by an extension of the roof and supported by a single wood post. The other porch is located on the on the east façade and consists of a stone patio that leads to a concrete step and sliding-door entrance. f. Chimneys: There is one chimney located on the exterior of the main façade. It corresponds to the fireplace in the living room. g. Stairways: There are no exterior or interior stairways. There is a concrete step down at each of the exterior entrances. h. Openings: BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Reporl Page 38 i. I)oorways and doors: The building has three exterior doorways; one is on the south façade and the two others are on the north façade. The south entrance door consists of a wooden flush door with a metal handle and magnetic card reader. One entrance on the north facade consists of a glass sliding door. The other entrance has a flushed wood door. Both entrances have modest unadorned surrounds. ii. Windows: There are six wooden windows with moderate casings. There are three windows on the west façade; two of them are paired casements and the third is a tripartite casement window. On the north façade is one window located on the corner of the main façade. It is a paired casement with lights. Each casement window has three lights. There is a fixed corner window on the south façade projection with 18 lights. i. Roof: I Shape, Covering: The gable roof is intersected by a side gable, both of which are clad in wood shingles. There is a front shed roof projection on the south façade. ii. Cornice, eaves: There building possesses shallow eaves and moderate cornices and scalloped wooden beadboard underneath the gable ends. 3. Description of Interior: a. Floor Plan: The Farm plvelling's main floor level plan is comprised of a living room, bedroom, laundry room/office, bathroom, kitchen, and dining room. The primary entrance is located on the south façade and opens directly into the living room. The bedroom is located to the east, within the shed roof southern projection. The bedroom can be enclosed by a partition accordion wall that slides on a track along the floor and ceiling. To the north of the living room are the ofhce/laundry room and the north entrance. There is another partition accordion wall that divides the office/laundry room from the living room. Leading east from the living room is a short hallway that leads to the bathroom, dining room, and kitchen. The kitchen is located in the northeast section of the Farm Dwelling and contains the third exterior entrance. b. Stairways: There are no stairways in the house. c. Flooring: The flooring of the house is carpeted everywhere except the bathroom and kitchen which have tile floors. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 39 d. Wall and Ceiling Finish: The interior walls are composed of drywall and plaster. e Openings: i. I)oorways and doors: All the doors, door surrounds, and door framing are wood. There are six doors in the house, three which lead to the exterior. The internal doors consist of two accordion partition walls and one flushed wood door. ii. Windows: All of the windows are original wood with their original latches and hinges. They all have large sills. f. Decorative Features and Trim: There are no original trim or decorative features in the Farm Dwelling. g. Hardware: The windows retain their original hardware. h. Mechanical Equipment: i. Heating: The building is equipped with a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) unit. ii. Plumbing: The building has running water. iii. Electric: The building has electricity. 4. Site: a. Historical Landscape Design: The Farm Dwelling is associated with the Thomas Bard Mansion and situated on the northwest corner of the Berylwood Historic District. It is located within the botanic gardens of the district-addressed in detail below in Section F. Landscaping elements include trees and plantings immediately surrounding the house and an open but fenced in yard to the west and north of the building where barn and milk house once stood. Outbuildings: The Farm Dwelling does not have any outbuildings BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 40 E. Building 5: Pool House 1. General Statement: a. Architectural Character: The Pool House is a one-story ancillary building located north of the previously existing pool constructed for the Richard Bard family. The building was originally constructed circa 1938 as a dressing room. The building was not constructed in a particular architectural style, is T-shaped in plan and has a concrete slab foundation. The wood frame building is sheathed in vertical wood board siding. The Pool House is no longer in use as a dressing room and is currentþ vacant. b. Condition of Fabric: The building appears to be structurally sound and in good repair. No areas of deterioration could be found. 2. Description of Exterior: a. Overall Dimensions: The Pool House is one story and approximately one bay wide and three bays long. There is also a front gable projection on the south elevation. b. Foundation: The building is constructed atop a concrete slab. c. Walls: The exterior walls are vertical wood boards painted white. d. Structural System, Framing: The Pool House is a wood frame building with a concrete foundation. e Porches, stoops, balconies, porticoes, bulkheads: There is one porch which is recessed and full-width. It leads to three flush wood doors. f. Stairways: There are no exterior or interior stairways. g. Openings: I Doorways and doors: The building has four exterior doorways; one is on the east façade and the three others are on the north façade. ii. Windows: There are two windows on the exterior of the Pool House. One is boarded over with plywcod. The other is aluminum sliding windows. h. Roof: BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 4l i. Shape, Covering: The roof has side and front gable roof clad in an asphalt roll. Cornice, eaves: There are widely overhanging eaves and exposed rafters. 3. Description of Interior: The interior of the Pool House was not observed. a. Openings: I Doorways and doors: All the doors, door surrounds, and door framing are wood. There are four doors in the house; all lead to the exterior. ii. \ilindows: One of the windows has been boarded over with plywood and the other has been replaced with aluminum sliders. b. Mechanical Equipment: i. Heating: The building is not equipped with a heating, ventilation, or air conditioning unit. ii. Plumbing: It is unknown if the building is equipped with running water iii. Electric: It is unknown if the building is equþed with electricity 4. Site: a. Historical Landscape Design: The Pool House was associated with the former pool and is located within the botanic gardens of the Berylwood Historic District-addressed in detail below in Section F. It is situated at the south of the district, east of the Richard Bard House. Landscaping elements include the original plantings and trees. b. Outbuildings: The Pool House does not have any outbuildings. F. Historic Designed Landscape/Botanic Gardens L. General Statement: The Berylwood bot¿nical garden was a designed landscape and an integral component of the estate of Thomas Bard. This landscape was shaped and formed as a result of Bard's passion for horticulture and botany, an interest he passed on to and shared with his wife and children. The gardens were used as a sanctuary for the family, and later for a short time as a cofllmercial nursery business. Thomas and Molly Bard planted numerous different types of trees, BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 42 shrubs, and flowers from all over the world. The botanical collection within this garden was one of the largest and most extensive in southern California. Letters to the Bards from professors, landscape architects, garden societies, and others generally fascinated with botany indicate the garden was also used for educational purposes. 2. Description: a. Natural Features: The success of the growth at the Berylwood botanical garden was due to artesian wells that Bard bored himself as well as the mild climate of southern California. Another factor was the virgin soil that allowed the seeds to grow quickly.tø Today the landscape's natural features have little changed. i. Topography: The topography is relatively flat at the Berylwood estate and gardens. ii. Vegetation: Mostþ all of the plantings at Berylwood were imported as a result of Thomas Bard's travels, so likely none of the vegetation is native to the area. The vegetation that was planted by Bard consists of several types of exotic trees, example of which include: Blue gum, Guadeþe palm, Queensland kauri, Southern mahogany, Chinese fountain palm, Australian tea tree, African honeysuckle, and the Chilean wine palm.tot Other vegetation includes shrubs and flowers. iii. Water: There are no natural water features at Berylwood botanical gardens. b. Designed Features: Thomas Bard's original idea for Berylwood was to plant a forest of trees and other plantings surrounding his house. These trees grew quickly and soon the natural flat and barren terrain of the estate transformed into a garden with tall trees, thick canopy, and a grassy floorbed scattered with various exotic plantings. These designed features orient the landscape from its original horizontal orientation to a textured orientation of both vertical and horizontal planting features. Land Patterns/Circulation: The main circulation pattern is the driveway which connects the Bard Mansion to the Richard Bard House from Ventura Road to the west and the residential surface streets that lead to the miiitary housing neighborhoods to the north, loa Sayler. lot Laurie Hannah, Georgia Pulos, and K. (Kevin) A. Knight, "Trees of Berylwood, Home of Senator Thomas R. Bard," GPS Tree Survey and Inventory,2003. BERYLìWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 43 east and south. The driveway follows the designed plantings and tall trees of the botanical garden which results in a curved driveway through a partial scenic tour of the landscape. ii. Views and Vistas: The views and vistas of the botanical gardens of Berylwood were originally associated with the main driveway (partially demolished) as well as the views from inside the Bard Mansion and the Richard Bard House. These views and vistas highlight some of the focal points of the landscape such as the designed landscape in front of the east and south façades of the Bard Mansion. The driveway from the north gateway entrance toward the Richard Bard House also has vistas of the gardens as it turns from the south to the west to the house. iii. Water: There are no water features in the Berylwood botanical garden. iv. Buildings and Structures: The buildings associated with the Berylwood botanical garden include the Bard Mansion and the Richard Bard house. v. Small Scale elements: These elements include the light posts that line the garden where the original driveway used to be to the east of the Richard Bard House and Bard Mansion; the main sign of the Berylwood estate that is near the northeast corner of the Bard Mansion and surrounded by plantings. vi. Archeological sites: No archeological sites were sutveyed for this project. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 44 Part III. Sources of Information A. Architectural Drawings Bard Residence, The Architect, San Francisco, American Institute of Architects, Yol. 12, No. 5, November 1916. Diagram of Dwelling, Barn and Other Buildings belonging to Berylwood Investrnent Company and located near Hueneme, Ventura County, California. Dankin Publishing Co., San Francisco, California. April 20, 1971. 'Works Port Hueneme Inspection & Repair Drawings, Public Office, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Archives, Port Hueneme, California. B. Early Views Historic Photos of the Berylwood Estate. Friends of the Bard Museum Photographic Collection. Port Hueneme, California. Historic Photos of the Berylwood Estate, Record Group 7, Local History Collection, Bard Est¿te, U.S. Navy Seabee Museum, Port Hueneme, California. Historic Photos of the Berylwood Estate. Museum of Ventura County. Ventura, California. Photo of Richard and Joan Bard's House. Date unknown. Personal collection of Georgia Pulos. Santa Barbara, California. "Photo of Richard and Joan Bard's House, ctca L916,' h Greenland, Powell March. A Troubled Dream, Richard Bard's Strussle to Build a Harbor at Hueneme" California. Olive Press Publication, Los Olivos, California.2005. p.2. C. Interviews Marsh, Carol, Former Command Historian, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Telephone interview by Shannon Davis. October 28,2OL1. Friends of the Bard Mansion and Bard Family Descendents (Joanna Bârd Newton and Georgia Pulos). Personal Interview by authors. Thomas Bard Mansion, Port Hueneme, California. July 7, 2011. Pulos, Georgia. Email correspondence with Shannon Davis. Octobér I,20ll. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 45 D. Selected Sources 1. Primary Sources: Barnhart, Peter D. "The Bard Botanic Garden." Thg Etorists gxcnange an¿ Horticultural Trade World. 1925. Contract for Bard Farm Buildings and Garage between Myron Hunt and Berylwood Investment Company, General Contract #82201, February 21, 1917, Box 13 C. Papers of Thomas Robert Bard. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California. Contract for Residence for Thomas R. Bard between Myron Hunt and Berylwood Investment Company, General Contract #B.38I, June 7, 1'911. Box 13 C. Papers of Thomas Robert Bard. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California. Descendants of Thomas Robert Bard and Mary Beatrice Gerberding, Compiled for the First Bard Family Reunion at Berylwood, Port Hueneme, California, July 28, 1990. Friends of the Bard Museum. Excerpts from a letter written by Alethea Malden from Hueneme to her cousin Minnie Maude, in England on December 1, 1890. Box #2, Record Group '7, Local History Collection, Bard Estate, U.S. Navy Seabee Museum. Grimes, Lee. "Huntington Library: A Home for Bard Papers." PC, The Weekly Magazine of Ventura County. n.d. Hannah, Laurie, Georgia Pulos, and K. (Kevin) A. Ifuight. "Trees of Berylwood, Home of Senator Thomas R. Bard." GPS Tree Survey and Inventory, 2003. "House and Lot-The Times' Weekly Review of Real Estate and Building." Los Angeles Tímes, Aug. 6, 1905. Myron Hubbard Hunt Collection. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California. BERYL'Iù/OOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 46 "Notes from Conversation with Joan Bard, " Interviewer unknown. Record Group 7, Local History Collection, Bard Estate, U.S. Navy Seabee Museum. December I97 Papers of Thomas Robert Bard. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California. Program for the Sunday Brunch and Garden Walk at the T. R. Bard Mansion September 21, 1997. "Remember'When," Ventura County Star-Free Press, August 18, 1968 Sayler, Charles. "Bard Garden at Hueneme Has Many Unusual Trees From Over 20 Far Lands." Publication Unknown, March 27, 1931. Sheridan, E. M. "Senator Bard Acted as Host to William H. Seward in 1869," Ventura County Star, October 15, 1929. Sheridan, E. M. "Senator Bard Once Had to Yield to a Smart Highwayman," Ventura County Star,Iuly 13, 1929. Sheridan, E. M. "Sequoia Tree Planted in Memory of Thomas R. Bard," Ventura County Star, January 21, 1929. Smalley, Jack. "The Bard Family, Part One," Ventura County Star-Free Press, March 28, 1964. Smalley, Jack. "Bard Family, Part Three," Ventura County Star-Free Press, April ll, 1964. 2. Secondary Sources: Gebhard, David, ed. Myron Hunt, 1868-19522 The Search for a Regional Architecture. Hennessey & Ingalls, Santa Monica, California, 1984 Greenland, Powell March. A Troubled Dream, Richard Bard's Strussle to Build a Harbor at California. Olive Press Publication, Los Olivos, California. 2005. Greenland, Powell March. Thomas R. Bard and his Beloved Berylwood. Friends of the Thomas R. Bard Mansion, Port Hueneme, California. n.d. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 47 Guerra, Suzanne. Final Report: Thomas R. Bard Estate "Berylwoq!," \gv4! Base Ventura Hueneme, CA, National of Places. Report submitted to Naval Base Ventura County. Guerra & McBane, Bayside, California, February 21, 2002. Hanafin, Therese T., "The Eclectic Architecture of Myron Hunt," Master's thesis, San Diego State, 1969. Hutchinson. 'W. H., Oil. Land. and Politics: the California Career of Thomas Robert Bard. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, 1965. JRP Historical Consulting Services, and Evaluation of National Resister Elieibility for Buildines and Structures at Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, April 2000 Kaplan, David, and Pam O'Connor, Occidental College, Swan Hall Rehabilitation and Addition, Historic Resource Impact Assessment. Kaplan Chen Kaplan, Santa Monica, California, September 20,2010. Mason, Jesse. Reproduction of Thompson and West's History of Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, California: With illustrations and biographical sketches of its prominent men and pioneers. Howell North Books, Berkeley, California, 1961. Michelson, Alan. "Myron Hunt." Pacific Coast Architecture Database, Architecture and Urban Planning Library, University of Washington, https://digital.lib.washington.edu larchitectlarchitects/197, accessed November 16,20L1. Peterson, John C. Berylwood, The Bard Estate at the U.S. Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, California. U.S. Navy Report, 1963. Pumphrey, Michael, Shannon Davis, Sarah Stringer Bowsher, James T. Daniels, Jr., and Jennifer Krintz. Historic Structure Report Building 51811 (San Onofre Beach Club) Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton San Diego County, California. September 2011. Script for Slide Show on the Life of Thomas R. Bard. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Historian's Office, October 1993. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT H.A.BS Report Page 48 Smith, Amy Eleanor. Thomas Robert Bard Pioneer of Ventura Countv. Master' thesis for Department of History, University of Southern California, 1933. Streets, Julie. "Berylwood, National Register of Historic Places Nomination." September 15, t977. Transcript from Tour of Quarters A: The Richard Bard House. Record Group 7, Local History Collection, Bard Estate, U.S. Navy Seabee Museum. 1990. BERYLWOOD HISTORIC DISTIRCT HABS Report Page 49 APPENDICES Appendix A Photographs Appendix B Drawings Appendix C Sketch Map l:r nàw,c:t I -Lrlr r x L-HJ \ B t¡ I ¡lo¡ Iraa t ru I¡¡¡ra ¡oal i corra la .. ¡{ Farm Dwelllng/ }: IX IX Gue¡t Houeo t. I ort,-.,- ,al¡I \ rñ....ri¡c. .l ;.,ú - c^iD - L Thomas Bard Mansi a¡tx f n J I Éstate þ fr Berylwood Historic District lr?¡tlN s R, Be rd Mansion Bulldlng 36 Rlchard Bard House Quðrters A Bulldlng 575 ( Pool House Bulldlng 35 h Farm Dwelling/Guest House Bulldlng 39 tot¡ a rt A I PAII a I I I ro Formor dt. Swlmmlng Pool t ¿ ,OtJ toto d c ¡ rub l.a ( lx I T tt $ ÞqF lott o¡ I;I T Â^ Sketch Map of the Berylwood Historic District, identifying a new recommended boundary and those buildings that contribute to the district. Landscape features are located throughout the boundaries. )L. ll No. t T+Ir,AnC$ÍIES IrAtE ta ¡ I ¡ aúú1 t tl¡{EFa PIOF,CH I ¡¡FH CT¡|A¡ïAEÈ C}tAFtBEE æ ¡Ctl^ttEl¡È Ê cltA,Ètû¿¡t EF '-f EM u.ltiil'i.Ê ElÞDr.î Llì/li.llG nO¡flf-t }IA.LL ili FIRST AND TECONO FLOOÀ ÞIÀNs rAdD11 8ARD RE$DENCE, HUENÊME. C^1. STI,JIIY MYñ.OàI HUNî. AiCtsITEîT t irE'Â{ ir t a 2 fqrgf :, 'l ¿¡a t¡ a--- Æfr!3 f IB-tMI afuõñ r:¡ri¡iä--r¡¡r-¡.---'--- : SITT'!'i--]"' al fw dq al ^d<{$lrú¡l -' r! a a':-- lat.ruì .,t ,.Ì' f. 69C:- à(øi!û þÈÉ4 -uj .,'l {i.. +. I 1i SlOl¡S ..i æt\ff ru . rue-.. I ,"r .dt ''"'¡7 iÀ. I Ê !l-¡-m.71'î 9dlaalOaú!a + -, '-¿/ ( ñ4 rN4rfl d 4Ê d ît: ilf ú1 lút¡ *drd'al .t11:," I'tq'îF. tq4rBru1 ExfERloR wÊ.LL sÉcfroN l1\ !d.* t fËatE vm 6 Þt ll.d &-fr^@ ø'^,\ ær!ñ.q. ¡rcIr .v, [ç tr.v- ?ttl nlEÃfs 4fÍr^L EJ,o ' an 6 oa, r54L @ trr rLooR pLl¡.t r.if a..-:2.: d. ì:tt;1-ii '$ .r¡ { flq f sI ! i\I .J f,ÊD-Ècôlr bÈs lacu a- ¿.'1 R t.-lric B:. h--1, Jo- tii -}. ¡tÉ¡a':-J *n â 44' ì =-æ.R-:-_:j=:j - ---r __rJ i -+t'"- -_- -- _- þ'r -¡ à! ' tß.tta :t; : - ..:-,-Lqta4J P' il .- .- ..- 1.< il F',: Èau35- 3a z;a- ¡i ft ¡ -.-\. 4Èg ¿i - af r-A' '- 9 c .;-- r-ñtr,. .Àoos r' : 1- ¡.:l ' L:vr!6 i ti'. ¿t' '--.-/ G.^cst Rn. r, 9E r¡ , J l.-rlr' '5r-¡:l: : -31.r-ra¿ ç I 'tge-, ,t -.: '; P1",', ô *.J Hor^se -, -o-.- -.*.i" :!ì'ì¿ loo-atr Oe¡q>¡i I sf e¡i¡ tì i: ,/i .Ë¡l -.-^-' Iì¡- F F -- l¡ KEY NOTES REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXTST¡NG WALL FINISH AS REQUIRED TO INSTALL NEW PLUMBING SEE DETAILS /'1\ /.;\ FOR TIPICAL WALL RNISH AtblrA+l3DEMouIoN AND PArcH BA]H 4 : :: ; ;: INDICAÌES AREA OF WA¡,L FINISH REMOVAL AS REAUIRED FOR PIPING REMOVAL & TYP RæLACEMENÍ - COOROINAÍE W]TH PLUMBÍNG WORK. cL. 5 4 BEDROOM 4 EEDROOM 5 REPAIR NOIES 1. FLOOR PLAN REPRESENTS EXIS¡NG CONDIIION. SEE NNISH SCHEOUTT FOR EXIS'TING RNISHES- _.:::i::::i:::_ 11 ::9! 2. CONNNE WALL FINISH DEMOLIT]ON A1 NEW PLUMBING AND EI.ECIRICAL INSTALATION TO MINIMUM AREA a- (-" HÛP. REQUIRED TO FACILITA'ÍE REMOVAL ANO 2l 3 :. INSTALLATON OF NEW WORK. SEE PLUMBING AND "-: ELEC'ÍRICAL DRAVII NGS. # : HALL 2 3. WHEREVER POSSIBIE, CONFINE ARCHI'ÍEC'IURAL þ" DEMOLI¡ON TO WAI F¡NISH ONLY. I,ÍÀVE ATI ..... :1 CASINEIRY, IRIM. BASE. MOLDING. ETC. IN PLACE ANO UNDISTURBEO. 3 TYP. cL. --.1 4. DO NOT OÐ.IOUSH WALL RNISHES CONÍAINING SEWNG ROOM CERAMIC TLE. ALL C€RAMIC T|LE S{ALL REMAIN IN TYP. IE) MASONRY PLACE AND UNOISIURBED. È¡ÉEPLACE 5. CONFINE CEIUNG DEMOLITON TO BA]HROOT,I AND CLOSET AREAS. DO NOT OEMOLISH ANY CEILING AREAS llHERE SPRAYEO ON ACOUSÎCAL CEILING BEDROOM 3 FINISIi EXISTS. SEE F]NISH SCHEDULE FOR LOCA'ÍIONS. 6. PArcH A[ WALLS AND CEILINGS AT AREAS AFFEC'ÍED BY NEW TVORK TO MATCH 'IEXÍURE. EXISTING J ADJACENT FINISH MAÎCH EXISTING WALL FINISlì MAIÊR¡AL. PAINT ENÎRE WAI.I OR CBUNG WHERE PATCH OCCURS TO MATCH EXS¡NG ADJACENf c0L0R. 7. VIHEREVER POSSIELE FEED NEW ELEC'IRICAL FROM IHE CRAVIL SPÅCE BELOW OR'fHE ATÎC A8OVE. (_- CORE HOI-ES ]HRU SILL AND,/OR TOP PLA-IES ANO FEED \IIRE TO NEW OUIIET, SWTCH OR LIGHT L0cAf¡oN. E. PLUMBING & ELEC'IRICAL CON'IRACTORS SHAI.! COORDINA]E AIT REQUIRED WALL & CEIUNG FINISH OEMOLIÎON W]H'fHE GENERAL CONIRACTOR. 9, PROVIDE ANO ALL BACKING, SUPPORTS, HANGERS, ETC. REQUIRED FOR INSTALLAÎON OF NEW PLUMBING AND ELEC'ÍR¡CAL WORK. IF S¡IEET IS ÉSS ÌHN 28INBY€IN A IT IS A REDUCEO PRNT / \ SCAI.E REOUCED ACCORDINGLY - OUAffMS *IOI.E¡IE RE\ITAUZA]IOI¡ PHASE 1 ,,A" sfcam R00R nÆ QUARTERS SECOND FLOOR PLAN RI R r- g mH.þ PROJECT 'IRUE o 2' to' eæt NORÍH NORil GRAPHIC SCALE: 1 /4"=1'-O- KEY NOTES REMO\E ANO OISPOSE OF EXISTNG WALL NNISH AS E REAUIRED fO INSTALL NEW PLUMBING. SEE OEÎAILS SPÀCE .fHRU /'ì\ /6\ FoR TYPICAL WALL FINISH EXIST. CRAWL SPACE REMOVABLE AND PÀrcH. ACCESS]HRU REMOVABLE SCREEN \ENT TYP- Ati4l3atitf 3oEMorrnol SMEEN WNT M. J BÁ]H 2 :::::::::: INDICA'ÍES AREA OF WALL FINISH REMOVAL AS REQUIREO FOR P¡PING REMOVAL & IYP. REPLACEMENT _ COOROINA]E TIÍH PLUMBING WORK. cL6 CL 2A BREAKFAST UBRARY BEDROOM 2 NOOK REPAIR NOTES LAUNDRY MASONRY 1. FLOOR PLAN RPRESENTS EXSTING CONDIIION. il TYP, SEE NNISH SCHEDULE FOR EXIS]ING FINISHES. : 2. CONFINE WÀLL FINISH DEÀIOUIION AT NEW PLUMBING [_]tl AND EI'EC]RICAL INSTALLA]ION TO MINIMUM AREA K TCHEN CL 28 OINING REOUIRED TO FACIUTA-IE REMOVAL AND BA'IH 1 INSTALLA]'ION OF NEW WORK. SEE PLUMBING AND ELEC]RICAL DRAWNGS. WHERE\ER POSSIBLE, CONFINE FOYER HALL 1 3 ARCHI]ECÍURAL BÆEMENT- DEMOUÎON TO WÀLL FINIST.{ ONLY. LEAVE ALL FAU. CABINE'ÍRY,'IRIM, BASE, MOLDING, ETC. IN PLACE AND UNDIS'fURBED. PtAN]ER & ACCESS 4. DO NOT DEMOLISH WALL FINISHES CONTAINING CERAMIC ÎI.-E, ATI CERAMIC IIT.E SHAL! REMAIN IN PLACE AND UNDISÌURBED. 5. CONFINE CEIUNG DEMOLIÎON TO BA'IHROOM AND CLOSET AREAS. DO NOT DEMOUSH ANY CEIUNG til AREAS WHERE SPRAYED ON ACOUS]ICAL CEIUNG RNISH EXISTS. SEE FINISH SCHEDUI.€ FOR LOCATIONS. UVìNG ill 6 PATCH ALL WATIS AND CEIIJNGS AT AREAS AFFEC'ÍED 8Y NEW WORK TO MATC¡'I EXISÌING j prro ADJACENT FINISH 'IEX'IURE, MATCH EXSÌING WAI.I (E) BR|CK PATIO fll F(E) BRrcK -+ FINISH MAÍERIÀL PAINf ENÍIRE WAI.! OR CEIUNG WHERE PATCH OCCURS fO MAÍCH EXIS]INC ADJACENÍ coLoR. f lilt -.... ----- tHilts 7. .IHEWHEREVER POSSIBLE FEED NEW ELEC]RICAL FROM CRAWL SPACE BELOW OR ]ÈE ATTIC ABOVE. Ëil CORE Hol.rs THRU sI.! AND,/OR IOP PLA.IES AND FEED IIIRE TO NEW OU]LEI SWTCH OR UGHT til ffi LOCATION. 1,___j IF '+ 8. PLI.,MBING & ELEC'ÍR¡CÀL CON'ÍRACIORS SHALL COORDINA]E ALL REQUIRED T/ALL & CEIUNG NNISH 'IHE DEMOLIÍION WTH GENERAL CON'IRACTOR. 9. PROV¡DE ANO ALL BÀCKING, SUPPORTS, HANGERS, ETC. REQUIREO FOR INSTALLATON OF NEW PLUMBING AND EI,EC]RICAL WORK. IF SHEET IS I.ESS fHil 28 IN 8Y 40 IN IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SCÀLI REDUCED ACCOROINCLY COilSrRrIotì 8^ll^llû{ €lrB PmT filElÐlq cr qJÆIIÌS A' *|otISlE Rt'¡fIALE n(}i N PHASE 1 OUARTFRS " A,, FIRST F PLAN tìRst È0m n.¡¡¡ 1' 5' PROJECT IRLT o 10' NOR1H NOT 2' GRAPHIC SCALE: I .h;61 ;o/ i¿l ,h'¡L t l n LI t .apz (n I l I J'zã O? I ¿ s'øçE to{ / I (9-J tur4 I o_J I rl ( JC c ( ( MO l ,q f ¡ ¿ ( I þ-16 a z¿ 7. a 'le I i .t I '--- -' :--Ê -il--_l I ^,^rt I *L Venlura County Resource Management Agency He*age B'ard lnlormation Systems Departmenl N/ap created on 06/01/20'12 ;:'ill This aerial ¡magery is under the copyrights ol P¡clometr!@ Source: P¡clometryO, December 201 ,(Ð c#...:ilÅyåïä'L" . VENTURA COUNTY CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AGENDA OF JUNE 11,2012 ITEM NO.6a SUBJECT: Request for a Certificate of Review of a Site of Merit, 1332 Briggs Road, Unincorporated Area of Santa Paula, Guest House Renovations, Project No. CH12-0008 APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNERS: lntegrated Concepts George and Delphine Wilde Richard Maftinez 1332 Briggs Road 1664 Callens Road Santa Paula, CA 93060 Ventura, CA 93003 REQUEST: The applicant has requested a Ceftificate of Review to renovate the existing guest house on property designated as a Site of Merit. LOCATION AND PARCEL NUMBER: 1332 Briggs Road, Santa Paula, CA/APN: 097-0-010-120 BACKGROUND: The Mid-Century designed one-story guest house was built for the current owner in 1961 by Roy C. Wilson. The guest lrouse was built first to house the Wilde family whìle the main house was being constructed. The guest house was originally intended to be used as the garage. The grounds were designed by landscape architect Robeft Fleckenstein, the same landscape architect who designed the Santa Paula's Glen City Etementary School grounds. (Exhibit 1 - Santa Clara Valley Survey Phase V, DPR. 1ees). According to the 1995 DPR, this propefty's agricultural land use contributes to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of the district, and now that the building is fifty years old, is of sufficient age to be considered potentially eligible for the National Register. Both the main and guest houses are important architecturally as a late example of Roy Wilson's designs and have retained most of its design integrity. Staff Report and Recommendations, Project No. CH12-0008 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of June 11,2012 Page2 Fufthermore, the 1995 DPR describes the main house as follows: "Modern in desígn, this one-story residence has a long rectangular section w¡th the eastern end turned to form a modified L-shape. The very low pitched side gable roof is covered with pea gravel and beams extend from the open eaves" The front entrance is inset with an open porch and large single front door flanked by opaque windows on each side. West of the front door is an ornamental open wood screen. Roy Wilson designed a special 'Tractured" glass window in the living room. Windows are wide sliding aluminum with some fixed aluminum frames. The house is built of concrete block and stucco and has a concrete foundation. A concrete block chimney is located on the west side of the house. The house and grounds are in excellent condition. No alterations have been made to the house." PROJECT ANALYSIS The owner is requesting the following improvements to the guest residence (Exhibit 2 - Floor Plan and Elevations): a) Replace all existing single-hung aluminum framed windows with aluminum framed double-paned windows. The original building plans dated November 15, 1961 show louvered windows which were replaced with single-hung aluminum windows sometime in the past. b) Remodel and expand existing bathroom into dressing area with a larger shower stall, water closet and vanity; c) Add interior partition walls to create vestibule and bedroom. Original building plans show open area which has since been partitioned into a bedroom. d) Rearrange kitchen appliances and replace counteftop and flooring. e) Replace exterior plywood panels with insulation and exterior plaster. f) Replace sliding glass door with double-paned glass door. Original plans show plywood panels which were replaced with single-paned sliding glass doors. The original building plans are attached for your review, however, some minor changes to these plans have taken place over the years as is described above (Exhibit 3 - Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations). The Significance of the New Gonstruction and the Secretary of the lnterior Standards and Guidelines Review As required by Ordinance, the Standards and Guidelines have been used to review this project and the Board's review must be based on consistency of the project with them. 1 Cumulative Effect- The Board must decide if the project adversely affects the overall historÍc fabric of the site as a Site of Merit, and affects the propefty's potential eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and whether ¡t, either Staff Report and Recommendations, Project No. CH12-0008 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of June 11,2012 Page 3 individually or cumulatively, would diminish its historic character. The Guidelines indicate: "lt should be remembered...that such loss of character is iust as often caused by the cumulative effect of a series of actions that would seem to be minor interuentions. Thus, the guidance in all of the 'Not Recommended" columns must be viewed in that larger context, e.9., for the total impact on a historic building.' (p. lx) Staff Conclusion: The exterior improvements to the guest house consisting of the replacement of the exterior plywood panels with insulation and exterior plaster appears to change the building's exterior historical appearance through the use of inappropriate designs, materials and finishes. 2. "@"- "The setting is the area or environment in which a historic property is found...The elements of setting, such as the relationship of the buildings to each other, setbacks, fence patterns, views, driveways and walkways, and street trees together create the character of a district or neighborhood." Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildinos, p. 76) Staff Gonclusion: The proposed interior improvements to the guest house do not appear to significantly alter the setting or the original design. The proposed exterior improvements of the replacement of the exterior plywood panels with insulation and exterior plaster would be incompatible with the building's original historical appearance. Staff recommends that the exterior plywood panels be maintained and the proposed insulation and dnrwall be added to the interior side. The previous replacement of the plywood panel with sliding glass doors and the replacement of the louvered windows with aluminum framed windows have changed the original appearance of the building; however, the sliding doors are focated to the rear ol the dwelling and are aluminum-framed and the replacement windows are aluminum-framed which reflect the Mid-Century Modern period. Gultural Heritage Ordinance ln taking the steps noted above your Board must also make the specific Ordinance finding which logically follows to approve or deny the request for Certificate of Review. For approval one or both of the following findings must be made: Section 1365-1.c.(1) states:'The proposed work will neither adversely affect the significant architectural features of the County landmark nor adversely affect the Staff Report and Recommendations, Project No. CH12-0008 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of June 11,2012 Page 4 character of historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the County landmark and its site." For denial the following finding must be made: Section 1365-1 (g) (l ) states: "The proposed project to renovate a County cultural resource site that is determined by the Cultural Heritage Board to be significant and important to the history of the County." Section 1365-1 .c.(2) states: '-l-he proposed project would adversely affect the historical significance of the County landmark or would not be compatible with the use and/or exterior of the County landmark or its site." Staff Conclusion: Since the subject property is designated a Site of Merit, the Board can only make recommendations. The Certificate of Review is advisory in nature and not mandatory. Staff recommends that the Board find that the project's interior and exterior improvements consistent with The Secretarv of the lnterior's Standards. Staff recommends that the Certificate of Review be approved with a condition that requires the exterior plywood panels be maintained and the proposed insulation and drywall be added to the interior side. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comment regarding this application has been received RECOMMENDATION ACTIONS: 1. Conduct public hearing, hear testimony and consider the staff report; 2. Find the project proposal of the new interior and exterior improvements would be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the Cultural Heritage Board Ordinance with the above condition of approval. 3. Based on the preceding evidence and analysis, Staff recommends that your Board recommend approve the Certificate of Review (COR). The owner must be given the opportunity to plead hardship as provided by Ordinance Section 1365-1 .(c). The Cultural Heritage Board's action will be final unless appealed to the Board of Supervisor's within 15 days of notification of the decision (Section 1366- 7.c). Prepared by: Nicole Doner, Senior Planner Staff Report and Recommendations, Project No. CH12-0008 Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of June 11,2012 Page 5 805-654-5042 Attachments: Exhibit 1: Santa Clara Valley Survey Phase V, DPR Exhibit 2: Proposed Floor Plan and Elevations Exhibit 3: Original Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations Exhibit 4: Proposed Site Plan cc: Richard Martinez, lntegrated Concepts 1664 Gallens Road, Ventura, CA 93003 Primary # . P'BI MARY HRr...... # Trinómial NRHP Status. Gode 3D[htld] Other :Ll$ti¡gs 'Gode .- Page 1 ol 2 Resouroe Nemo or #: (Ass¡gned by recorder) Wilde Ranch Pl. Other ldentifier: P2. Locetlon: fl Not lor Pubtloation El Unrestr¡cted e. Gounty Vanlura and (P2b and PZc or Pzd. Att¡ch ¡ Locátlon Mep as necessary-) þ. USGS 7.5' Ouad Sanla Paula Date 1951 T ; R ; In 01 lr4 of Sec i B.M. c. Address: lSga Brlggs Êoad City santa Paula Zip 99060 d. UTM: (Glve more than one for large andíinear resources) 11 ; mFJ mN e. Other Locational Deta (Enter Parcel #, legal descr¡pt¡on, directíons to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Parcol No. 97-O10413:015 P3. Deccription {DesøÈe ræource and ib maþr elernents. lnci¡de dæ¡gn, rìatsiâls, concllion, alterations, dze, seltirg, arú boundariæ) Modem in destgn, thls one-story resìdence has a long rcctanguler sætion vvÍth lhe easlem end tumed lo form a modiÍid l-shape. The very low pltched slde gable roof is coved with Wa gavel ancl bæms extend lrom the open eaves. The f¡on entrance is insot wilh an qen porch and larye singld front door flanlcad Þy oæque w[ndotttts on each s¡de. West of tlþ Írcnt door is erì omemanÌal open vwod scnen. Foy Wilson designed a special'lradurct glase window ln the livlng rcom. Mndows are wlde sliding aluminum with some lixed elutninum f¡e,mes, The lpuse is built of conqete block and stucæ and has a concrete foundatìon. A contete block chimney ls læaled on the wgst side of the house, The house end grounde arc in excellent ændition. No altenlions have @en made to ìhe lpuse. The driveway enterc from Eúggs Road atú runs along the north side of the house ¡nlo the pa¡*ing arca, To the north of the lpuse ¡b a small guedhouse, originally intendad æ the gange. It Is sÍmilar in style to the main house and buill the year bøforc lhe main house, in 1961 , to house the Wilde family while the maÌn lrcuse was being constructed. The house and grcunds weæ designad by landscape drahitaÇt flobett Flec*enstein. (continued) P9b,'Fesource Attriþute¡¡ (List attributes and codes) H2-SlnglêFanilyPrqetly Hftß-Fa¡núranclt P4. Resourceg Preeent EBuilding EStruciure EObJect trSile trD¡Ëtr¡ct 8Ëlementof District EOther(lsolates,etc.) Psa. Phobgrâptr or Draw¡ng (Photograph r€quirud for bufdngs, Sructurce and obJecb) PSb, Desolpüon 0l Phoh Meyr, dsþ, ffiéseôoflf) Rældo¡¡æ, ndú alevalø,\ gÐgÐ5, #1æ5 P6. Dåte GonstructeüAge and Sources: D Prehistoric I H¡storic fl Both ß&F;e€opêltlilde P7, Owner and Address P8. Reoolded by: (Name, dfilhtion, and addrcss) ássoc. VerfirÊ.C4ffi P9. Detê Becorded: l1t3/56 P10. Survey Type; (Þescríbe) Inbndve Pf l- Feporl Clffi¡on: (Cile suruey report and olher sourccs, or enler "nonet San Brenarærlun RecealdtAsso(f8þs, 1996, We.l Stíta &raValtcy Crfuial HeiÞgp Suy€'', PhaseV, Gene¡at Seruiceg ¡{dmÍünton Attlchmstús Ë NONË _ E çontluåtigr Shçct E DístÉct Record tr Rock Art FÊcord tr othen (Lhrl) tr l-æat¡on Map El 8u¡ldirE, Structue, rrC Ob¡bct Flecord E Linear FeãEre Reco¡d El Artrtact Record tr Skeùrh Map tr ArdraeoloE¡csl R€cord D Milling Shtím Rêcold tr Pho(oglaph Record DPH523 (l/E)l¡.brytrglff Sú Bffi lrÆr F"sEù Asodåles Cultural Heritage Board Item 6a Exhibit 1 lPr¡mf,.ry .¡tlO ,Oe¿eCt REEORD HRt # Page 2 ol 2 3D flandl Resourcs Namê or #: (Assisned rrHHe;t',iå"#,i* 81. HisoricName: GeorgeandDeþhíneVl'tkte Fandt 82. GommonName: none 83. Originaf Use: ranch Bt. presEnt Use: same 85. Archltectural Style: mdem 86. construct¡on Hbtory: (constn¡stion date, alterafions, and date of altcations) I96l-West house: lSÆz.main house 87, Moved?El lrlo E Yes E Unknown Date: Original Location; BE. Relatsd Features: guasl houæ. pôol B9a. Architect: BoyC,Wrlstn b. Builder: BfO. Signiflcanoe: Thame: Agrianlturc Area; VüestSanta?tanValley Period of Slgnlllcancez 18tu1946 property Typezanchbuldlngs Applioable Griteria: A,6 (Dlsclns tnponancå in b¡ms ol histolcål or aÛiteclr¡ral dlnte*i as ¿Éinec by thÇr¡s, period end gêqraphb scqpc. ¡ü* i tostfty.l This house ß ¡mlg.rtant ardtitectunlly as a tate example "a*"c" by Roy, who liked to add aûisïic teatures to h¡e âouses. raised lheir family on the æ,ndt. lw baeanne manager oî lhe The propeûy's land agdcultv,al use cþntilbutes to the Ndt¡onâ/ Regiâer elìgibil,ity of the disttíêt, although the bulldtng ttêëlf ts pÊsent¡y a non-@ntibutor b the dlstrtd . Howwer, the buitdlng may atso oecone ettgible wlnn i *s my iears oø, ts1 1. Additiona¡ ResoutE€ AürlbutEi: (Ust etíbutes and codee) llÆ - Sìngle Fanily Ptryeûy HPgg - Fàflnl,ârcJt 812. References: lnterv¡ew wíth lrv Mlde, gl4/gs (81€bù Àep úh mrth ârevyroquir€d.) { 813. Remarks: 14frn 814- Evalualor: JudyTilem Date of Evaluation: 1n5/95 t 1W, ffhis spece rÉsáßed br ofiiëht commÉntÊ ) 1t¡g¡ 14fr. oPR 5238 tfrroryM¡}rr {1,951 S¡n BUEírYñillä R¡a¡{â Asd40 { å \ L Í: il m I¡lË rrJå' Cultural Heritage Board Item 6a Exhibit 2 ,\t ¡ 6 : /6 I ti I \ þ, þ g 1",:4"Ìv,í, t ¡ wÏ- trli I I tfti:,;ß L ffi$ ffi 1t v7 r\.1,; F.'=,r- i I \ \ \ 7 p n ì þ I i¡ ñ I c I f n I r| q ; 0 Ê ! o I ¡ r I ú ') rl Cultural Heritage Board -.-. ¡1s¡ 6t Exhibit 3È t. Cultural Heritage Board Item 6a Exhibit 3b I !I i \ ï I t ¡ ; I ti t R È I I inbCEHcmapb lght¡rEdre - a FÊ'-æae4Ê l; W t Læ eEâævê æ,-é.W-- E -ã+-fT..tr-iÀtu.. Cultural Heritage Board Item 6a Exhibit 4