The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About20190424 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 19-11 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, April 24, 2019 Special Meeting starts at 5:00 PM* Regular Meeting starts at 7:00 PM* A G E N D A 5:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – CLOSED SESSION ROLL CALL 1. Conference with Legal Counsel – EXISITNG LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) Name of Case: Scranton v. Prokofyeva and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Superior Court Case Number 19CV345161 2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: Potential addition to Long Ridge OSP (San Mateo County APN: 085-160-160 and portion of Santa Cruz County APN: 088-051-37) Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Sr. Real Property Agent Negotiating Party: Silicon Valley Monterey Bay Council, Inc., Boy Scouts of America Under Negotiation: Price and terms 3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: San Mateo County APNs 081-060-100, 081-060-120 Agency Negotiator: Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager Negotiating Party: Erik and Doniga Markegard Under Negotiation: Lease terms ADJOURNMENT Meeting 19-11 Rev. 1/3/19 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ROLL CALL REPORT ON RETURN FROM CLOSED SESSION (IF NECESSARY) (The Board shall publicly state any reportable action taken in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code section 54957.1) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The Board President will invite public comment on items not on the agenda. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes; however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow action by the Board of Directors on items not on the agenda. If you wish to address the Board, please complete a speaker card and give it to the District Clerk. Individuals are limited to one appearance during this section. ADOPTION OF AGENDA SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY • Introduction of staff O Miguel Ojeda, Farm Maintenance Worker CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members, the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar. 1. Approve April 9, 2019 and April 10, 2019 Minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Award of an Engineering Contract for the Deer Hollow Farm White Barn Structural Stabilization Project at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (R-19-49) Staff Contact: Leigh Guggemos, Capital Project Manager III, Engineering and Construction Department General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract with Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., of Emeryville, California for $149,000. 2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $22,350 to be expended only if necessary to cover unforeseen conditions, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $171,350. 4. Award of an Engineering Contract for a Structure Stabilization Assessment of the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek White Barn, and Sierra Azul Beatty Property Home (R-19-51) Staff Contact: Tanisha Werner, Capital Project Manager III, Engineering & Construction Department General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract with ZFA Structural Engineers, of San Francisco, California for a not-to-exceed base contract amount of $366,978. 2. Authorize a 15% contract contingency of $55,047 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, thus allowing the total contract amount not-to-exceed $422,025. Rev. 1/3/19 5. Approval of a commemorative rock with plaque for Dr. Frances Conley at Long Ridge Open Space Preserve (R-19-50) Staff Contact: Carmen Lau, Public Affairs Specialist I General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the recommendation from the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee to install a commemorative rock with plaque for conservationist and significant supporter Dr. Frances Conley, who wishes to honor her late parents, Konrad and Kathryn Krauskopf, at Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. 6. Amend Contract for Fire Ecology Services: Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Development (R-19-52) Staff Contact: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manager to amend the multi-year contract with Spatial Informatics Group, LLC of Pleasanton, California, to provide additional fire ecology services in the amount of $194,755, for a new not-to-exceed contract amount of $296,005 (original contract is $101,250). 2. Authorize a 15% total contingency of $44,400, to be awarded only if necessary to cover unforeseen conditions, for a new total contract amount not-to-exceed $340,405. 7. Written Response to CAL FIRE and Woodside Fire Protection District Staff Contact: Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the written response to CAL FIRE and Woodside Fire Protection District. BOARD BUSINESS The President will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates. 8. Administrative Office Project – Schematic Design and Cost Estimate Update (R-19-48) Staff Contact: Felipe Nistal, Senior Capital Project Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: Review updated progress on the schematic design and associated cost estimate to reconfigure and repurpose the recently purchased office building located at 5050 El Camino Real, and provide feedback to inform the final design work and revisions to the schematic design. No formal Board action required. INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • Legislative Actions Update to Board • La Honda Preserve Forest Management Plan INFORMATIONAL REPORTS – Reports on compensable meetings attended. Brief reports or announcements concerning activities of District Directors and staff; opportunity to refer public or Board questions to staff for information; request staff to report to the Board on a matter at a future meeting; or direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. Items in this category are for discussion and direction to staff only. No final policy action will be taken by the Board. Rev. 1/3/19 Committee Reports Staff Reports Director Reports ADJOURNMENT *Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to Board members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the special and regular meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on April 18, 2019, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at http://www.openspace.org. Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk April 9, 2019 Board Meeting 19-09 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT La Honda Elementary School 450 Sears Ranch Road La Honda, CA 94020 April 9, 2019 DRAFT MINUTES REGULAR MEETING President Siemens called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 6:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, Pete Siemens, and Curt Riffle Members Absent: None Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Senior Planner Tina Hugg ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No speakers present. BOARD BUSINESS 1. Formation of the La Honda Public Access Working Group (R-19-39) General Manager Ana Ruiz provided opening comments reviewing the District’s previous work on the project aimed at opening the central portion of the La Honda Open Space Preserve to public access. The current phase of the project seeks create a public access working group to provide public input on options for providing public access as prioritized through the Vision Plan and by the voters in approving Measure AA. Meeting 19-09 Page 2 Senior Planner Tina Hugg described earlier public meetings for the project and public feedback received at those meetings. On June 12, 2018, the Board directed formation of an ad hoc committee to further study options for the project. Ms. Hugg presented the project goals and objectives previously approved by the Board and described the purpose of the proposed public access working group. Ms. Hugg explained the process and timeline for forming the proposed working group, including the process by which the working group’s recommendations will be reviewed by the Planning and Natural Resources Committee, composition of the working group’s membership, and the process for application and appointment. Director Kishimoto inquired if limits would be set on the various solutions, such as limiting it to land the District currently owns. Director Kersteen-Tucker suggested including dog owners who visit open space as an interest group on the application. Ms. Ruiz reported dog access is already available from Allen Road and is planned from Sears Ranch Road, following additional negotiations with the tenants to discuss feasibility. Public comments opened at 7:10 p.m. Patty Mayhall thanked the District for listening to previous public feedback and asked the District to encourage California Highway Patrol to increase enforcement on Highway 84. Ms. Mayhall spoke in favor of preserving the current rural nature of the Red Barn site. R. Vail commented on the composition of the working group and requested the Board consider other interview dates to accommodate applicant availability. Nigel Webb spoke against considering the Red Barn site for public access due to the traffic safety along Highway 84. Gordon Ray commented on the composition of the working group and inquired how consensus will be created within the working group. Bob Rosenberg commented on maintaining the rural beauty of the Red Barn site and commented regarding many accidents and heavy traffic along Highway 84. Kathleen Moazed inquired whether the working group would be allowed to work with Caltrans and the local fire brigades. Ms. Moazed inquired regarding the Ward stakeholder appointments. Barbara Hooper spoke against developing the Red Barn site for public access. Vicki Skinner commented on the composition of the working group and expressed surprise that stakeholders from other wards would be included in the working group. Director Siemens commented that taxpayers from throughout the District’s 550 square miles. Additionally, there will be five representatives to represent approximately 105,000 residents of Ward 6, and one representative each to represent the approximately 105,000 residents of each of the other six wards. Meeting 19-09 Page 3 Directors Hassett and Kersteen-Tucker commented on the relatively large representation of Ward 6 and the Coastside area through the stakeholder appointment for Ward 7. Peter Marchi expressed his concerns regarding traffic along Highways 84 and 92 and the potentially negative impact of increased public access use on the San Gregorio Creek watershed. Public comments closed at 7:34 p.m. Director Holman inquired regarding the role of the Board members serving on the working group. Ms. Ruiz explained the Board members would be participating members of the working group and recommended the Board members would not serve as the working group Chair and Vice- Chair. Director Holman suggested the working group take votes on motions in order to be able to determine a formal consensus. Director Holman suggested the Board members serving on the working group should not being voting members and that there should be five representatives of the La Honda community. Director Hassett expressed his desire to build consensus through the advisory working group to make a recommendation, and members of the public can continue to comment at the Board level. Director Siemens suggested formalizing the process for getting consensus and expressed concern with the Baord members acting as voting members of the working group. Ms. Stevenson explained the current ground rules do not require consensus, and explained the working group simply provides feedback. Therefore, she does not anticipate a Brown Act concerns. Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to: 1. Reconfirm and approve the goals and objectives for the La Honda Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study project. 2. Direct the formation of the La Honda Public Access Working Group. 3. Approve the La Honda Area Community Representative application form and area map that will be presented at an informational meeting in La Honda on May 2, 2019. 4. Approve the proposed criteria and process for selecting La Honda Area Community Representative applicants for interviews. 5. Authorize the Board President to appoint two Directors, not serving on the 2019 Planning and Natural Resources Committee, to serve on the La Honda Public Access Working Group, as non-voting liaisons. 6. Authorize each Board Director to submit the name(s) of selected stakeholder(s) for inclusion in and appointment to the La Honda Public Access Working Group by May 7, 2019. Friendly Amendment: Director Kersteen-Tucker requested including on the application a category for dog use. Meeting 19-09 Page 4 Directors Kishimoto and Holman accepted the friendly amendment. Friendly Amendment: Director Cyr stated the Board members serving on the working group would not be voting members of the body. Directors Kishimoto and Holman accepted the friendly amendment. Friendly Amendment: Director Holman moved that the number of local community representatives on the working group should be increased from three to five. Mover declines. Director Hassett seconded the friendly amendment. Directors Kishimoto and Riffle spoke in opposition to the friendly amendment stating the District is a regional organization and must represent the interests of all of its constituents. Director Kersteen-Tucker spoke in favor of the friendly amendment stating that increasing the number of the local community representatives will help empower the community to work cooperatively with other ward stakeholders. Director Cyr spoke in opposition to the friendly amendment stating the District has previously had to address local community concerns related to other preserves. The formation of the proposed advisory committee may be able to serve as a model for future. Director Cyr expressed concerns regarding heavily weighting the composition of the working group for one community. VOTE ON THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: 3-4-0 (Cyr, Siemens, Kishimoto, Riffle dissenting) Directors Siemens and Kishimoto spoke in favor of having a positive experience for the working group and looked forward to receive feedback and input from the working group. VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION: 7-0-0 ADJOURNMENT President Siemens adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 8:04p.m. ________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk April 10, 2019 Board Meeting 19-10 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 April 10, 2019 DRAFT MINUTES REGULAR MEETING President Siemens called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, Pete Siemens, and Curt Riffle Members Absent: None Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Engineering and Construction Manager Jay Lin, Senior Capital Project Manager Felipe Nistal, Senior Real Property Agent Allen Ishibashi ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No speakers present. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. VOTE: 7-0-0 Meeting 19-10 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR Public comment opened at 7:02 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 7:02 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 1. Approve March 27, 2019 Minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Award of Contract with LSA to provide Biological/Cultural, Environmental Review, and Permitting Services for the Alpine Road Trail Improvements and La Honda Creek Loop Trail (R-19-44) General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with LSA to provide services to support two Measure AA capital projects for a base amount not to exceed $163,600. 2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $24,540 to be awarded if necessary to cover unforeseen conditions, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $188,140. 4. Adopt a Resolution Accepting State Funding Allocated for the Upper Guadalupe/Los Gatos Creek Watershed to Restore Upper Pond and Mud Lake and Construct Phase II Trails within Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-19-42) General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the General Manager to file an application and execute a funding agreement with the California Natural Resources Agency for state funding to assist with the restoration at Upper Pond and Mud Lake, and construction of Phase II trails, at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. BOARD BUSINESS 5. Report from the Bond Oversight Committee to the Board of Directors for the review period from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 (R-19-43) Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak introduced Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee Chair Denise Gilbert. Ms. Gilbert presented the annual report that covered the review period from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018, including the process used by the Bond Oversight Committee (BOC) to select and review a representative group of Measure AA transactions. Additionally, this year staff converted the BOC’s review guidelines into a checklist for each sampled transaction, which created a more efficient process. Also the BOC discussed potential improvements to the process Meeting 19-10 Page 3 for the next year, such as additional supporting documentation and updates to the District’s financial system that till assist in verifying labor reimbursement and credit card charges. Ms. Gilbert reported the BOC found that all transactions reviewed related to the Measure AA bond language. The Board members thanked the members of the BOC for their service and staff for following the parameters set by Measure AA. Director Kersteen-Tucker suggested promoting the BOC’s annual accountability report to demonstrate transparency. Public comments opened at 7:20 p.m. Bruce Tolley spoke in favor of the District promoting how the Measure AA funds were used. Additionally, Mr. Tolley stated that the BOC is not an audit committee. Public comments closed at 7:21 p.m. Director Kishimoto suggested including information regarding the high level of qualifications of the committee members. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to accept the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee report for FY2017-18. VOTE: 7-0-0 6. Authorization to Solicit Bids for the South Area Field Office Project (R-19-41) General Manager Ana Ruiz explained staff does not typically seek Board authorization to solicit bids; however, due to the scale and important nature of this project, staff is bringing this item to the Board. Senior Capital Project Manager Felipe Nistal presented the staff report providing an overview of the project’s history and milestones to date. Mr. Nistal outlined the advantages of purchasing the 240 Cristich Lane property to act as a South Area Field Office, including existing infrastructure, relative low cost as compared to new development, and potential for expansion if eventually needed. Mr. Nistal described the current conditions of the site and proposed floor plans and improvements. Senior Real Property Agent Allen Ishibashi explained the City of Campbell’s requirement for an irrevocable offer of dedication. This is a requirement of the District being issued a conditional use permit. Mr. Jaskulak discussed the available funding for infrastructure improvements, including purchase and improvements at 240 Cristich Lane and 5050 El Camino Real. Mr. Nistal reported on the value engineering exercise completed by staff and the District’s architect, Terry Martin & Associates, to lower the project costs potentially saving the District over $400,000. Meeting 19-10 Page 4 Director Hassett inquired whether it would be less expensive to leave the south wall as it is rather than reskinning the entire building with galvanized corrugated metal. Terry Martin, from Terry Martin & Associates, reported there is extensive damage to the metal surrounding the entire building; however, there may be an option to repair and waterproof some sections of the corrugated metal for potential reuse. Director Hassett inquired why galvanized metal is being used. Mr. Martin reported the project team looked at other options, but the corrugated metal material is less expensive. The District may also choose to powder coat or otherwise treat the material to protect it. This decision may be made later in the project based on the contractor’s cost. Director Holman suggested installing more public-facing signage. Director Siemens spoke against using corrugated metal on the front of the building. Director Hassett spoke in favor of preserving and reusing as much of the existing material as possible. Director Hassett inquired whether there would be electric vehicle charging stations and/or bike racks on the site and expressed support for ensuring the site is prepared for installation of electric vehicle charging stations in the future. Director Riffle inquired regarding how the project balances with the District’s climate action plan and commitment to green standards. Mr. Martin explained the current building is very inefficient and the planned upgrades will follow California Green Building Standards, which make the building much more efficient. Ms. Ruiz also commented that the District’s decision to purchase and repurpose an existing building has a much lower impact on the environment than the alternate option to building a new building in another location. Director Hassett suggested inclusion of an outdoor seating area for staff. Director Kersteen-Tucker spoke in support of the proposed simple and functional design for the building. Director Holman inquired regarding use of permeable paving materials and potential addition of shaded areas. Mr. Martin explained that non-permeable paving will be used, but water will be able to be recaptured through installation of a bioswale. Shaded areas may be added later but are not part of the current facility improvement project. Ms. Ruiz also explained that District staff can install various types of landscaping after the construction phase is completed. Meeting 19-10 Page 5 Mr. Nistal commented on the weight limitations on the skin of the building explaining heavier materials would require additional building upgrades. Those additional building upgrades would trigger additional regulations and limitations on the site, which is why staff recommends use of corrugated metal. Public comments opened at 8:38 p.m. No speakers present. Public comments closed at 8:38 p.m. Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to authorize the General Manager to solicit construction bids for South Area Field Office Project. VOTE: 7-0-0 INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • BCR Public Access Vault Toilet Construction Update INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports Director Kishimoto reported the Planning and Natural Resources Committee met on April 9, 2019 to discuss the wildlife and livestock protection amendment to the grazing policy. B. Staff Reports Ms. Ruiz reported she and other staff met with representatives of the San Jose Water Company to discuss potential sale of property to the District and conservation easements, such as in the El Sereno area and for Highway 17 trail connections. Ms. Ruiz provided an update on the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s work at Rancho San Antonio and reported the Army Corps of Engineers is reviewing work near potential cultural historic resources and there may be potential delays to projects. C. Director Reports The Board members submitted their compensatory reports. Director Kersteen-Tucker reported her attendance at the Redwood City Chamber of Commerce Progress Seminar in Monterey. Director Kersteen-Tucker reported she and staff met with District tenants and members of the San Mateo County Farm Bureau to discuss rangeland management. Director Riffle commented that the San Mateo Farm Bureau does not represent the entire agricultural community in the area and stated the District and Board should continue to reach out to the entire agricultural community. Meeting 19-10 Page 6 Director Kishimoto reported her attendance at a meeting of the Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Commission. Director Holman reported her attendance at her first Bay Restoration Authority meeting as a member. ADJOURNMENT President Siemens adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 8:57 p.m. ________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk page 1 of 8 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING # 19-11 MEETING DATE: April 24, 2019 Fiscal Year to date EFT:25.64% Payment Number Payment Type Payment Date Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount 79978 Check 04/12/2019 11410 - SANTA CLARA CO. REGISTRAR OF VOTERS November 2018 Election - Wards 1 & 5 174,688.00 79970 Check 04/12/2019 10343 - GRANITE ROCK COMPANY Bear Creek Redwoods Public Access Project January 2019 68,271.36 79974 Check 04/12/2019 11523 - PGA DESIGN, INC.Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation - February 2019 35,916.44 79964 Check 04/12/2019 10723 - Callander Associates Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Design & Construction Mgmt 33,349.86 637 EFT 04/12/2019 10546 - ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS INC Invasive Species Management - Ivy (BCR) & Vegetation Management - Early Detection (PCR) 29,770.00 650 EFT 04/12/2019 11533 - NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC 2019 OpenRoad Founding Sponsorship 25,000.00 654 EFT 04/12/2019 11854 - RECON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.Plant maintenance and revegetation sites - February 2019 18,602.54 79975 Check 04/12/2019 11912 - RHINO ADVENTURE GEAR LLC Two electric 2x2 scooters for trail maintenance w/accessories 16,518.91 642 EFT 04/12/2019 11593 - H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ravenswood Bay Trail Environmental Consulting / Alma College Bat Relocation & Habitat Replacement 14,577.07 660 EFT 04/12/2019 10216 - VALLEY OIL COMPANY Fuel for District vehicles 10,407.19 79973 Check 04/12/2019 *10180 - P G & E Electricity & Gas - 22 Locations 9,554.66 79981 Check 04/12/2019 11961 - Telepath Corporation Install Code 3 Equipment (P117) / Radio installation (P116, P117) / Radio strip out (P87) 6,678.56 643 EFT 04/12/2019 11177 - HARRIS CONSTRUCTION Repairs at 16995 Skyline 6,122.60 647 EFT 04/12/2019 10190 - METROMOBILE COMMUNICATIONS Radio Base Station for SFO 6,120.25 644 EFT 04/12/2019 10222 - HERC RENTALS, INC.Telehandler Rentals - 2 (BCR) (FFO) 3/11/19 - 3/19/19 5,888.13 79980 Check 04/12/2019 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Class II Baserock for SFO parking lots maintenance 5,201.49 79962 Check 04/12/2019 10082 - Advantage Anaheim Business cards, Alpine Road Fact Sheets, Purisima-to-the-Sea Fact Sheet, Postcards & RSA Brochures 4,927.68 648 EFT 04/12/2019 10031 - MILLS DESIGN Spring 2019 Newsletter and Outdoor Activities and Web Files 4,793.50 653 EFT 04/12/2019 12031 - Ray & Jan's Mobile Truck Service 5K Service - P107, P95, P96, P103, M203, M204, P116, M39, P85, P101, M225 4,785.92 658 EFT 04/12/2019 10143 - SUMMIT UNIFORMS Ranger uniform items - Barshow, Verbrugge, Smutnak, Barnes, Anaya 4,261.84 79984 Check 04/12/2019 10978 - VOLLMAR NATURAL LANDS CONSULTING, LLC Biological services for Hendrys Creek 4,013.00 79986 Check 04/12/2019 11856 - WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC.5050 El Camino Assessment - Site Visit 03/08/19 3,640.00 79968 Check 04/12/2019 12065 - Fidelity National Title Company Deposit for Escrow 3,000.00 661 EFT 04/12/2019 11830 - ZIONS BANK Annual Administration Fee - Green Bonds 2016, 2018 2,700.00 79979 Check 04/12/2019 11477 - SCA ENVIRONMENTAL INC.Professional Services - Lysons work plan thru 03/10/19 2,350.00 79982 Check 04/12/2019 10307 - THE SIGN SHOP GP Signs 2,287.90 79963 Check 04/12/2019 10815 - AMERICAN RED CROSS CPR/AED Bloodborne Pathogens Challenge & EMR 2,280.00 638 EFT 04/12/2019 10524 - ERGO WORKS Chairs & armrests 2,246.60 79961 Check 04/08/2019 11005 - SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING & BUILDING DEPT General Plan Conformity Permit 1,744.50 79969 Check 04/12/2019 10509 - GEOCON CONSULTANTS INC Bear Creek Dump Investigation February 2019 1,687.75 79988 Check 04/12/2019 11990 - ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Mt. Um Radar Tower Exterior Analysis Project 1,329.01 651 EFT 04/12/2019 11144 - Peninsula Motorsports Annual Service - ATV15, ATV4 & replace rear axle boots - ATV2 1,227.20 79987 Check 04/12/2019 12050 - Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Assessment Project 1,222.00 79971 Check 04/12/2019 11463 - MARLENE EYRE Accommodations at Ranger Academy 1,145.00 649 EFT 04/12/2019 12059 - Mountain View Radiator Replace intake fuel pump - P108 1,132.75 635 EFT 04/12/2019 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC Maintenance repairs - P88, P106, A98 1,081.53 641 EFT 04/12/2019 10005 - GRASSROOTS ECOLOGY Nursery Plants for Revegetation Projects 1,057.50 79967 Check 04/12/2019 10793 - FALL CREEK ENGINEERING La Honda Creek Loop Trails - Design & Engineering 980.00 640 EFT 04/12/2019 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Stihl equipment parts - fuel filter, starter rope 786.42 657 EFT 04/12/2019 10383 - SMUTNAK, GREG Reimbursement for PRAC Conference Expenses 640.83 646 EFT 04/12/2019 12049 - Kersteen-Tucker, Zoe Ann Reimburse lodging expenses - Redwood City Progress Seminar 638.88 79977 Check 04/12/2019 10136 - SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY Water Service (RSACP) 565.53 79965 Check 04/12/2019 11530 - COASTSIDE.NET Skyline Broadband Access & Antenna Rental 550.00 639 EFT 04/12/2019 11151 - FASTENAL COMPANY Supplies (SAO) 506.10 79985 Check 04/12/2019 10527 - WASTE MANAGEMENT Mt Um abandoned debris - GP pressure treated wood disposal 502.51 632 EFT 04/12/2019 10001 - AARON'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE Sanitation services at Bechtel property 495.00 645 EFT 04/12/2019 11041 - INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER - SILICON VALLEY Batteries for radios 452.35 655 EFT 04/12/2019 11479 - Rootid, LLC Website maintenance - 4 retainer hours 378.00 636 EFT 04/12/2019 10032 - DEL REY BUILDING MAINTENANCE Janitorial Services - Daniels Nature Center 296.00 79976 Check 04/12/2019 10182 - ROYAL BRASS INC T52 Parts for CAT SkidStear 287.47 652 EFT 04/12/2019 11743 - PRO-WEST & ASSOCIATES Enterprise GIS Planning and Implementation / Technical Support Services for Esri GIS Project 197.32 79983 Check 04/12/2019 11596 - Toshiba Business Solutions CPC Billing 190.92 79966 Check 04/12/2019 11774 - CPS HR Consulting Course - Job Analysis 184.00 656 EFT 04/12/2019 11042 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY-OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF Live Scan Service - February 2019 138.00 79972 Check 04/12/2019 10670 - O'REILLY AUTO PARTS Vehicle supplies 136.95 659 EFT 04/12/2019 10107 - SUNNYVALE FORD Replacement hub caps 80.26 634 EFT 04/12/2019 10183 - BARRON PARK SUPPLY CO INC Supplies 49.87 633 EFT 04/12/2019 11947 - ANDERSON, MATTHEW Partial reimbursement - PRAC membership 37.50 Grand Total 527,674.65$ *Annual Claims **Hawthorn Expenses Finance has started to roll out electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors page 2 of 8 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING # 19-11 MEETING DATE: April 24, 2019 Fiscal Year to date EFT:25.64% Payment Number Payment Type Payment Date Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount Finance has started to roll out electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors A### = Administrative Office Vehicle FLSA = Fair Labor Standards Act PARMA = Public Agency Risk Mgmt Assoc SCNT = Stevens Creek Nature Trail AFP = Association of Financial Professionals FOOSP = Fremont Older Open Space Pres.PCR = Purisima Creek Redwoods SCS = Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area AO2, AO3, AO4 = Leased Office Space GP = General Preserve PIC= Picchetti Ranch SFO = Skyline Field Office BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods HR = Human Resources PR = Pulgas Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap CAO = Coastal Area Office LH = La Honda Creek PRAC = Park Rangers Assoc of CA SJH = Saint Joseph's Hill CC = Coal Creek LR = Long Ridge RR = Russian Ridge SR= Skyline Ridge CMAA = Construction Mgmt Assoc. of America LT = Los Trancos RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill T### = Tractor or Trailer DHF = Dear Hollow Farm M### = Maintenance Vehicle RSA = Rancho San Antonio TC = Tunitas Creek ECdM = El Corte de Madera MB = Monte Bello RV = Ravenswood TH = Teague Hill ES = El Sereno MR = Miramontes Ridge SA = Sierra Azul TW = Thornewood Abbreviations MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT Wells Fargo Credit Card - February 2019 MEETING # 19-11 MEETING DATE 04-24-19 GL Date Amount Description 3/8/2019 4.00 Parking for Mtg with Sup. Simitian-Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail 3/8/2019 16.00 Parking for Joint Venture SV State of the Valley 2019 Conf 3/8/2019 9.00 Parking for MROSD Legislative Appreciation Lunch in Sac 3/8/2019 9.00 Parking for MROSD Legislative Appreciation Lunch in Sac 3/8/2019 216.18 Hotel for City's Clerk Assoc. 2019 Nuts & Bolts Training Conf 3/8/2019 400.00 Reg fee for GM attendance to Special Park Districts Forum 3/8/2019 35.96 Adhesive Name Tag 3/8/2019 158.73 Midpen Jackets for Directors Kersteen-Tucker and Holman 3/8/2019 150.00 Rental fee for MV Community Ctr District Staff Mtg 3/8/2019 395.00 City Clerks Nuts and Bolts Training 3/8/2019 640.00 Registration for Special Parks District Forum - Dir. Kishimoto 3/8/2019 640.00 Registration for Special Parks District Forum - Director Hassett 3/8/2019 125.00 IRWA CHP 42 Spring Education Conference 3/8/2019 45.00 Ca Society of Ecological Restoration 2019 Membership Fee 3/8/2019 200.00 Reg fee - 2019 Advanced CEQA workshop - G. Laustsen 3/8/2019 19.00 Webinar Fee on "e-Bikes are on Trails" for District Staff 3/8/2019 265.00 Ca Society of Ecological Restoration Conf Reg Fee & Field Trip 3/8/2019 196.75 Lodging for UC Davis Extension Class - M. Borgesi 3/8/2019 304.60 Airline Travel to SERCAL Conference - M. Manning 3/8/2019 285.00 Ad for the La Honda Creek Ag Workforce Housing Proj 3/8/2019 1275.00 Construction Management Training - Z. Alexander 3/8/2019 1400.00 CMAA 3-day Construction Management Course Training 3/8/2019 29.97 Hardcover Notebooks 3/8/2019 292.00 Monthly Storage Unit Fee 3/8/2019 16.25 Staff/Volunteer Name Badges 3/8/2019 16.25 Staff/Volunteer name badges 3/8/2019 212.50 Email Marketing 3/8/2019 39.00 Web PDF viewer 3/8/2019 29.00 Web store fee 3/8/2019 15.96 Recurring Online News Subscription 3/8/2019 2046.56 Legislative Lunch Reception in Sac with State Delegation 3/8/2019 103.09 Posters for Legislative Luncheon held 2/6/2019 3/8/2019 378.78 Printing of Midpen Fact Sheets for Legislation Lunch Event 3/8/2019 5.44 8x10 Photo Print/Donation Recognition 3/8/2019 1263.31 Printing of Dog Access & Midpen Budget Brochures 3/8/2019 1500.00 2019 Sponsorship Dinner Attended by 2 Board Members 3/8/2019 50.00 Facebook Advertisment 3/8/2019 1.50 Parking fee - Partners Strategic Planning Committee Mtg 3/8/2019 1.15 Parking - Bay Area NWL Partners Mtg - Save the Redwoods 3/8/2019 20.00 Parking fee for Joint Venture Silicon Valley Conference 3/8/2019 17.00 Parking Fee for State of the Valley Conference 3/8/2019 17.00 Parking Fee for State of the Valley Conference 3/8/2019 1.00 Parking fee for SMC Parks Commission DAC Mtg 3/8/2019 24.00 Parking fee for Wildlife Corridors Working Group Legislative Day 3/8/2019 61.51 Lunch for Working Meeting 3/8/2019 14.16 Portable USB 3/8/2019 -25.34 Office Supplies Return 3/8/2019 -11.43 Office Supplies Return 3/8/2019 900.00 GFOA Accounting Academy Training for Accountant - W. Chan 3/8/2019 159.95 Coffee Supplies 3/8/2019 261.54 Paper Supplies 3/8/2019 69.48 Batteries & Coffee 3/8/2019 73.43 Office Supplies 3/8/2019 111.38 Office Supplies 3/8/2019 101.30 Office Supplies 3/8/2019 5.91 Office Supplies 3/8/2019 225.00 Application for PAFR award from GFOA 3/8/2019 450.00 Training: Govt Acct. for Budget Team: CN, EM, LH 3/8/2019 150.00 Training: Government Accounting - D. Ledger 3/8/2019 85.00 Webinar training 3/8/2019 420.00 Ca Natural Diversity Database - Special Status Species Data 3/8/2019 7.00 GIS Help Desk February 2019 3/8/2019 950.00 NWS Tyler Connect Conference Reg Fee - (C. Hiatt) 3/8/2019 274.60 Airfare for Tyler Connect Conference - C. Hiatt 3/8/2019 220.41 Cradlepoint NetCloud Subscription 12 months 3/8/2019 654.67 Replacement Batteries for Server Room 3/8/2019 18.99 Podium Light 3/8/2019 127.66 iPad Utility Holders 3/8/2019 32.43 USB Flash Drives 3/8/2019 13.03 iPad Lightning Extension Cable. 3/8/2019 38.89 iPad Case Straps 3/8/2019 35.82 Replacement Remote for Projector 3/8/2019 21.99 Drinks for New Employee Welcome Event 3/8/2019 219.64 New Employee Welcome Event Lunch 3/8/2019 195.00 Northern CA HR Association Membership 3/8/2019 65.40 Recruitment Lunch - Admin Assistant/Front Desk Admin 3/8/2019 12.87 IT Technician Panel Snacks on Interview Day 3/8/2019 16.99 IT Technician Panel Snacks on Interview Day 3/8/2019 114.92 IT Tech Panel Lunch - Hiatt, Vargas, Martinez, & B. Lindsay 3/8/2019 19.49 Panel snacks for Planner III interviews 3/8/2019 148.48 Panel lunch for Planner III interviews 3/8/2019 -22.02 Refund from Vendor Error 3/8/2019 196.60 Flights to New World Conference 3/8/2019 66.04 Breakfast for Leadership Academy 3/8/2019 265.86 Lunch for Leadership Academy 3/8/2019 195.00 Membership to HR Professional Group 3/8/2019 172.78 Ergonomic Supplies 3/8/2019 178.31 Ergonomic Supplies 3/8/2019 7.90 Flat Rate Postage Fee to Send Tick / Receipt Lost 3/8/2019 150.00 California Rural Water Association Training. 3/8/2019 780.00 Welding Training for 3 EMOs 3/8/2019 350.00 Trails Conference Partial Payment 3/8/2019 400.00 California Trails Conference registration - B. Snider 3/8/2019 50.00 Trails Conference partial payment - E. Viik 3/8/2019 19.00 Webinar Training 3/8/2019 126.60 Airline flight to CA Trails Greenways - B. Snider 3/8/2019 126.60 Airline flight to CA Trails Greenways - E. Viik 3/8/2019 15.02 Staff Breakfast Recognition 3/8/2019 29.68 Staff Breakfast Recognition 3/8/2019 43.59 Filling Cabinet Rails 3/8/2019 105.99 Noise Cancelling Headset 3/8/2019 20.39 Magnets, hooks 3/8/2019 17.42 Batteries for Office Items 3/8/2019 5.43 Binder Clips 3/8/2019 8.42 Sharpies 3/8/2019 23.57 Organizer, Coffee Refillable Cups 3/8/2019 256.97 Garage Side Door - (Big Dipper) 3/8/2019 5.43 Front Outdoor Light Jar for Downing Residence 3/8/2019 30.59 Shipping Cost for Handle Replacement on Woodstove at Toto 3/8/2019 860.00 Rodent Control, Extend Warranty at Bechtel 3/8/2019 860.00 Rodent Control, Extend Warranty at Sherrill 3/8/2019 860.00 Rodent Control, Extend Warranty at Cunha 3/8/2019 860.00 Rodent Control, Extend Warranty at Hawthorns 3/8/2019 1525.99 FFO Shop - Air Compressor 3/8/2019 30.71 Quart & Gallon Ziplock Bags 3/8/2019 151.30 Supplies for SAO 3/8/2019 30.44 Shovel & 3 Bags of Sand for Snow/Ice at Mt Um 3/8/2019 38.65 HazMat Spill Kit (FFO) 3/8/2019 541.47 Post-Hole Digger 3/8/2019 266.92 Tools 3/8/2019 212.52 Livestock Utility Panels (DHF) 3/8/2019 45.40 Shop Stock Supplies 3/8/2019 152.62 Tool Supplies 3/8/2019 125.40 Hardware for steel roof (FFO) 3/8/2019 65.39 Canvas tarp 3/8/2019 57.88 FFO Shop Supplies, SA-Mt Um Fence Supplies 3/8/2019 335.22 Bathroom Fan (FFO), 6 Shovels (GP) 3/8/2019 17.05 Gas for Mud Lake Pumping. 3/8/2019 162.00 Concrete for Deer Hollow Farm 3/8/2019 17.71 Fuel for Mud Lake Overflow Pumps 3/8/2019 145.61 Concrete for Deer Hollow Farm 3/8/2019 16.30 Overflow Pumps for Mud Lake 3/8/2019 55.72 Paint for Gates 3/8/2019 24.14 FFO Kitchen Supplies 3/8/2019 102.09 Kitchen Supplies (FFO) 3/8/2019 175.28 Shop Supplies - FFO 3/8/2019 358.13 Tools and hardware 3/8/2019 68.72 Ear plugs and Ear Muffs 3/8/2019 190.97 Poly sheet and foam 3/8/2019 311.56 Bathroom fan motor (FFO) 3/8/2019 395.76 Sand Bags 3/8/2019 219.92 Sand Bags 3/8/2019 24.79 Fill sand for Mt Um black ice 3/8/2019 45.79 Oil Filters for Plate Compactor 3/8/2019 37.80 Air Filters for District Truck 3/8/2019 51.11 Synthetic Winch Rope / Hook / Winch Rubber Stop 3/8/2019 2079.71 Replacement parts for equipment 3/8/2019 121.83 Office Supplies 3/8/2019 26.09 Laminating Pouches 3/8/2019 8.18 Office Supplies - pens 3/8/2019 55.60 Office Supplies - Pens, packing tape, cleaning brushes 3/8/2019 369.00 Binoculars 3/8/2019 8255.00 Welder w/CPS Wireless Foot Control (SFO) 3/8/2019 211.01 Electrical for Hawthorn Residence 3/8/2019 221.72 Chain Saw Supplies 3/8/2019 175.83 Small Tools for Shop - CAO 3/8/2019 17.47 Storage Tote 3/8/2019 151.89 Grabber tools 3/8/2019 1496.93 Boot Dryer 3/8/2019 84.00 Air Tool attachments 3/8/2019 39.56 Storage tote 3/8/2019 7200.00 Rubber track dump carrier 3/8/2019 80.74 Shop tools 3/8/2019 37.14 Black Spray Paint for SFO Stock 3/8/2019 49.25 Flat Head Screws 3/8/2019 137.75 Saftey Helmets 3/8/2019 19.59 Shop Suppies - Paint 3/8/2019 81.12 Shop Supplies - Paint Brushes 3/8/2019 103.44 Sand Bags - (SFO) 3/8/2019 401.04 Shop & Office Supplies - Paper Towels, Grabber Tools 3/8/2019 89.95 CA State Flag 3/8/2019 12.20 Parts for CAO water system 3/8/2019 118.03 Water system Connectors 3/8/2019 115.26 Fence for CAO 3/8/2019 26.52 Vehicle Emergency Supplies (A105) 3/8/2019 11.63 Vehicle Key Supplies 3/8/2019 25.00 FasTrak Replenish 3/8/2019 10.00 Activation Fee for Semaconnect Account for A98 3/8/2019 42.51 Exhaust Fluid 3/8/2019 25.00 FasTrak Replenish 3/8/2019 25.00 FasTrak replenish 3/8/2019 203.56 Troubleshoot Electrical (M22) 3/8/2019 148.00 District Vehicle Towed to Repair Shop (M066) 3/8/2019 155.00 District Vehicle Towed from Shop to FFO for Auction (M066) 3/8/2019 25.04 Gear Ties for Hideakey 3/8/2019 11.00 Uniform Sample 3/8/2019 62.39 Uniform Sample 3/8/2019 21.82 Uniform-Rain Boots (M51) 3/8/2019 43.67 Window film for CAO 3/8/2019 -10.90 Credit Window Film Wrong Size 3/8/2019 27.72 Key Copies for Electrical Room 3/8/2019 517.25 Recycle Containers for AO Project 3/8/2019 44.73 Window Tint for Dressing Area - CAO 3/8/2019 -43.67 Credit Window Film Wrong Pattern CAO 3/8/2019 40.98 Key Copies - New AO Bldg 3/8/2019 14.15 Batteries for Locks 3/8/2019 26.95 Hooks for Public Affairs department shed 3/8/2019 1221.12 Trash Bins for AO1, AO2, and AO3 3/8/2019 66.78 Laminating Supplies for Printed Materials 3/8/2019 112.21 Refreshments for Principled Policing Training 3/8/2019 79.00 Field Training Officer Supervisory Course 3/8/2019 75.23 Connector Cable for Projector 3/8/2019 -75.21 Order cancelled - Connector Cable for Projector 3/8/2019 75.21 Order cancelled - Projector Cable (see refund) 3/8/2019 57.73 Labels for citations 3/8/2019 34.87 Flash Light for Patrol 3/8/2019 250.00 Deposit for Shuttle - Fremont Older House & Garden Tours 3/8/2019 30.43 Frozen mice - snake food 3/8/2019 13.72 Volunteer Supplies 3/8/2019 7.29 Volunteer Supplies 3/8/2019 32.41 Snacks for Volunteer Projects 3/8/2019 10.49 Volunteer Supplies 3/8/2019 30.96 Snacks for Volunteer Projects 3/8/2019 625.00 2019 City Attorneys Spring Conf Reg - H. Stevenson 3/8/2019 175.00 CA Council of Land Trusts Conference Reg. - H. Stevenson 3/8/2019 25.00 City Attorney Webinar Feb 2019 - M. Vakharia 3/8/2019 453.96 Hotel for PARMA Conference 3/8/2019 35.95 Research Paper 3/8/2019 39.95 Research Paper 3/8/2019 10.50 Parking Fee in Sac for the IPM Achievement Award 3/8/2019 30.70 IPM Achievement Award 3/8/2019 525.00 Drone Workshop Training 3/8/2019 306.70 Lodging for RMS I for The Wildlife Society Conference 3/8/2019 240.00 Salmonid Restoration Federation Conf. fee with Field Tour 3/8/2019 574.20 Hotel for Drone Workshop Training - K. Tokatlian 3/8/2019 318.76 Wall Calendar, Post-it, Markers, Steno Pads 3/8/2019 128.15 Chest waders for aquatic biological surveys 3/8/2019 62.30 Gloves and Plant Collection Bags 3/8/2019 8.99 Pouch for Holding GPS 3/8/2019 21510.00 IPM Routine Maintenance Agreement (5 yrs) with CDFW 3/8/2019 5975.00 Routine Maintenance Agreement ( 5 yrs) with CDFW 3/8/2019 40.29 Test Strips for use in Sampling Water at BCR 3/8/2019 526.03 Printing - Drawings for Submittal to County Permitting 3/8/2019 286.14 Lumber, building materials for Bat Habitat carport (BCR) 3/8/2019 575.00 Initial Site Assessment for Septic Tank Consultant 3/8/2019 2355.06 City of Campbell Plan Review fees for 240 Cristich Lane 3/8/2019 -92237.28 Wells Fargo Bank Credit Card February 2019 Rev. 1/3/18 R-19-49 Meeting 19-11 April 24, 2019 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Award of an Engineering Contract for the Deer Hollow Farm White Barn Structural Stabilization Project at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract with Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., of Emeryville, California for $149,000. 2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $22,350 to be expended only if necessary to cover unforeseen conditions, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $171,350. SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) requires a qualified consulting team to provide engineering design services for the Deer Hollow Farm White Barn Structural Stabilization Project (Project) at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on January 25, 2019. The General Manager recommends awarding a contract to Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., (WJE) for a total amount not-to-exceed $171,350, which includes a 15% contingency in the amount of $22,350. This project is receiving $330,000 in outside donations and contributions. Any remaining costs are eligible for Measure AA funding. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 budget includes sufficient funds to cover costs through the end of this fiscal year. The proposed FY2019-20 Action Plan and Budget will include additional funds to complete design, engineering and construction work. Phase I will include a site assessment, basis of design development, preparation of construction documents, and permitting assistance. Phase II consists of construction administration and bidding support services. Both Phase I and Phase II are included in this contract. DISCUSSION The District began evaluating the potential scope for the Project upon the donation of approximately $330,000 by the George Tindall Estate to the District and the Friends of Deer Hollow Farm (FODHF) in 2016. The donation was specified to fund the most critical improvements at Deer Hollow Farm. The District, the City of Mountain View, and Deer Hollow Farm staff collectively determined that the stabilization of the White Barn was the highest priority. The Project was included in the FY2017-18 Action Plan, with an initial scope of assessing the structure’s historical significance and stabilization needs. In collaboration with the City of Mountain View and FODHF, staff contracted Page & Turnbull to conduct the assessment and prepare a Historic Structure Report. R-19-49 Page 2 The White Barn, located prominently near the center of the Deer Hollow Farm homestead, is currently used to process milk, house goats, and for storage. Constructed sometime prior to 1948, the barn is a wood frame building about 30 feet wide by 58 feet long; it is 25 feet tall at its highest point. The roof is clad with corrugated metal panels. The barn has a concrete slab foundation in the northwest corner and is otherwise supported by low brick piers. In the northwest corner there is a milk room and a goat pen. The center section is dedicated to hay storage, with a hay loft in the gable above (accessed by a steep wood staircase). In the southeast extension, horse stalls are currently used for storage. Public access is permitted into the milk room when staff are present, but the majority of the barn is closed to the public. No change in use is proposed as part of this Project. Historic Significance The White Barn and Deer Hollow Farm are not currently listed on federal, state, or local historic registers. However, the Historic Structures Report concluded that the White Barn is historically significant: it is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 1 (Events), Criterion 2 (Persons), and Criterion 3 (Architecture); and it retains integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. As such, repairs to the barn should be designed to minimize impacts on features of the barn that define its historic character. Conditions Assessment Overall, the White Barn is in fair, serviceable condition owing to regular use and maintenance. However, the preliminary structural analysis indicates inadequate capacity of the roof structural supports, siding, and foundation connections to brace the roof and walls during seismic and high wind events. In addition, the existing brick foundation piers do not have adequate capacity to resist their code-required load without replacement or additional strengthening. These structural deficiencies threaten the long term stability of the barn. Furthermore, a number of hazards and minor deficiencies exist at the White Barn. Insect damage is present in wood materials throughout the building, and the vertical siding that terminates at grade is in poor condition. The wood frame posts that support the barn are also degraded and damaged, and some have been moved, which creates a pronounced sag in the northwest corner. While the metal roof is in fair condition, many rafter ends show pronounced rot. Finally, the interior stair to the hay loft, which is used for storage, is unstable. White Barn Structural Stabilization Project Scope of Work The Project will be conducted in two phases. Phase I will include review of the existing information and onsite investigations, conceptual design, and completion of construction documents. The design will use the recommendations of the Historic Structures Report as the basis of design, as summarized below. Phase II consists of bidding support and construction administration. Both Phase I and Phase II are included in this engineering contract with WJE. The Historic Structures Report includes recommendations and conceptual designs for a number of treatment measures to ensure the long-term stability of the White Barn. Major treatment measures include improved site drainage, foundation replacement, and strengthening the roof and wall structural supports. These measures are guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and are designed to meet the following goals: 1. Mitigate hazardous and structurally unsound conditions. 2. Allow for safe and accessible public access into the first floor of the barn. R-19-49 Page 3 3. Replace degraded materials for maximum longevity. Deer Hollow Farm Partnership Agreements The District entered into the original Agreement for the operation of Deer Hollow Farm facilities and environmental education program in 2001 (R-01-46) for nine years and extended in 2010 for an additional five years (R-10-133). In July 2015, the Board authorized the General Manager to execute an Agreement with the City of Mountain View for the continued operation of Deer Hollow Farm for an additional five years (R-15-91). In March 2018, the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) reviewed and confirmed a partnership funding agreement with the City of Mountain View and the FODHF for the Structural Stabilization of the White Barn (R-18-31). In August 2018, the Board approved the LFPAC recommendations to enter into the partnership funding agreement (R-18-95). The funding agreement allows for the transfer of funds from the City of Mountain View and the FODHF to the District for design and construction. The City of Mountain View will contribute $35,000 towards the design phase of the Project; the funding agreement is incorporated as an amendment to the existing Deer Hollow Farm agreement between the District and City. FODHF wishes to contribute its portion of the Tindall donation, a sum of $165,000, to the District for the construction phase of the Project. In total, this project is receiving $365,000 in donations and outside contributions ($35,000 from the City of Mountain View, $330,000 from the George Tindall Estate of which $165,000 is being transferred from the FODHF). Selection of Consultant An RFP was issued on January 25, 2019 on the District’s website and on BidSync. Consulting firms on the structural engineering on-call list, managed by the District’s Engineering and Construction department, were also directly notified of the posting. A pre-proposal meeting and site tour was held on February 6, 2019 with six firms attending. Staff received four proposals on February 21, 2019: Consultant Location Proposal Price Knapp Architects San Francisco, CA $136,979 Mesiti-Miller Engineering, Inc. Santa Cruz, CA $174,404 Page & Turnbull San Francisco, CA $205,832 Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Emeryville, CA $149,000 Based on a thorough evaluation conducted by District staff in partnership with City of Mountain View staff, WJE was deemed the most qualified. WJE has diverse set of expertise with prior experience with similar structures and demonstrated a deep knowledge of the project’s background, setting, deliverables and goals, and submitted a high quality proposal to perform the scope of work at a fair and reasonable price. WJE has extensive experience with historic resources and complying with State standards and the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Historic project experience includes the Horse Barn at Año Nuevo State Park, White Wolf Lodge in Yosemite National Park, and the Faculty Club at University of California, Berkeley. For these reasons, the General Manager recommends entering into an agreement with WJE to complete the Project. R-19-49 Page 4 FISCAL IMPACT The Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 Budget and Action Plan includes $55,688 for the Rancho San Antonio – Deer Hollow Farm – White Barn Rehabilitation project (MAA11-002) for the design phase of the project. There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the recommended action and expenditures in FY2018-19. Additional funds will be requested for FY2019-20 as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process. In total, this project is receiving $365,000 in donations and outside contributions ($35,000 from the City of Mountain View, $330,000 from the George Tindall Estate of which $165,000 is being transferred from the FODHF). Remaining costs not funded through these contributions are eligible for Measure AA funding under Portfolio #11, Rancho San Antonio: Antonio: Interpretive Improvements, Refurbishing, and Transit Solutions. MAA11-002 Rancho San Antonio – Deer Hollow Farm – White Barn Rehabilitation Prior Year Actuals FY2018-19 Adopted Budget FY2019-20 Projected Budget FY2020-21 Projected Budget Total District Funded (Fund 30): $29,511 $20,688 $143,890 $124,000 $318,089 Donation/Gift Amount: $0 $35,000 $330,000 $365,000 MAA11-002 Budget $29,511 $55,688 $143,890 $454,000 $683,089 Spent-to-Date (as of 03/25/2019): ($29,511) $0 $0 $0 ($29,511) Encumbrances: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WJE Contract - Costs: $0 ($45,000) ($104,000) $0 ($149,000) 15% Contingency: $0 ($6,750) ($15,600) $0 ($22,350) Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $3,938 $24,290 $454,000 $482,228 The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio #11 budget, costs-to-date, and the fiscal impact related to the Deer Hollow Farm – White Barn Rehabilitation project. MAA11 - Rancho San Antonio: Interpretative Improvement, Refurbishing, and Transit Solutions – Portfolio Appropriation: $10,811,000 Life-to-Date Spent (as of 03/25/2019): ($29,511) Encumbrances: $0 WJE Contract - Costs: ($149,000) Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $10,632,489 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The proposed funding agreements were reviewed and confirmed by the LFPAC on March 27, 2018 (R-18-31). PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. R-19-49 Page 5 CEQA COMPLIANCE Award of contract is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Future environmental review will be conducted on the proposed improvements at a later date. NEXT STEPS Following Board approval, the General Manager will direct staff to enter into a contract with WJE for design, engineering, permitting assistance, and construction administration services for the proposed Project. The Project is anticipated to be constructed in 2019 and 2020. Award of the construction contract will come back to the Board for review and approval at a future date. Responsible Department Head: Jason Lin, Engineering and Construction Department Manager Prepared by: Leigh Guggemos, Capital Project Manager III, Engineering and Construction Department Rev. 1/3/18 R-19-51 Meeting 19-11 April 24, 2019 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Award of an Engineering Contract for a Structure Stabilization Assessment of the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek White Barn, and Sierra Azul Beatty Property Home GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract with ZFA Structural Engineers, of San Francisco, California for a not-to-exceed base contract amount of $366,978. 2. Authorize a 15% contract contingency of $55,047 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, thus allowing the total contract amount not-to-exceed $422,025. SUMMARY The Structure Stabilization at Multiple Preserves (Project) consists of securing and stabilizing the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek White Barn, and Sierra Azul Beatty Property Home. The Project requires professional services from an architect, archaeologist, structural engineer, geotechnical engineer, and hazardous materials specialist to prepare a complete set of construction documents for each structure. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on January 18, 2019 and three firms submitted proposals. After a competitive selection process, ZFA Structural Engineers (ZFA) was identified as the most qualified firm to complete the Project. The General Manager recommends awarding a contract to ZFA for a base amount of $366,978, with a 15% contingency of $55,047. Sufficient funds are included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 budget and additional funds will be requested for the proposed FY2019-20 budget. Phase I will include site assessments, basis of design development, preparation of construction documents, and permitting assistance. Phase II will include construction administration services at a cost of approximately $37,968. This contract covers the Phase I and II services. DISCUSSION Background The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) has identified three historically significant structures to stabilize and preserve: the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek White Barn, and Sierra Azul Beatty Property Home. Due to the similar nature of design services and solicitation process, staff combined these three structures into one Project for economy of scale. Combining the projects also resulted in a higher level of consultant interest for this contract. The buildings display structural deterioration and decay from years of deferred maintenance. Preservation efforts will enable safe exterior viewing of the structures for the R-19-51 Page 2 public. The Project is specific to structure stabilization; it does not include trail or interpretive sign improvements. The Project will provide site analysis, geotechnical engineering, archaeological resource surveying, structural engineering, and architectural historian services to provide stabilization measures for the three structures. A historic resources evaluation has been completed for the La Honda Creek White Barn and Beatty Property Home; a historic resource evaluation will be procured for the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin before design services begin on this Project. The consultant team will review all existing documents, perform testing, prepare site assessment reports, develop construction documents, and provide permitting assistance. Findings from the site assessment will be summarized in a Basis of Design (BOD) report. This report will inform and guide the development of the construction documents. The La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan was approved by the Board in the August 22, 2012 meeting (R-12-83) and identified the White Barn and Redwood Cabin as two of the Preserve’s most important cultural assets. Phase I of the Master Plan ranked the emergency maintenance repairs as high priority and the completion of a structural assessment as moderate priority. Redwood Cabin: The La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin was constructed in 1928 and used as a recreational retreat by its original owner and organizations such as the YMCA and Rotary Club. It is an example of early recreational destinations and represents the region’s history of logging. Its interior contains a large stone fireplace in the living room, two small bedrooms, a bathroom, and a kitchen. The exterior consists of redwood logs, timber roof framing, and a perimeter deck. The wood deck is supported on vertical poles that are partially embedded into the ground. Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc., (BCA) conducted a visual assessment of the Redwood Cabin on May 18, 2014. The assessment documents areas of localized deterioration and significant decay throughout the structure, particularly in the deck, vertical pole foundation, and roof areas. BCA recommends replacement or strengthening of the exterior deck and pole foundation to prevent further deterioration. Given the current condition of the structure and years of unaddressed deferred maintenance, this Project will provide an evaluation of the building’s structural integrity and a structural engineer and architectural historian will design rehabilitation and preservation measures. The rehabilitation of the Redwood Cabin satisfies the following La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan Goals and Objectives: 1.3.h: Retain the cabin as a cultural resource; 1.3.i: Address deferred maintenance as necessary to extend building longevity; and 1.3.j: Hire a qualified architectural historian and structural engineer to evaluate the historical significance and condition of the redwood cabin and surrounding landscape features and make recommendations for preservation, interpretation, rehabilitation, and reuse. White Barn: The La Honda Creek White Barn represents a long history of ranching and mid-19th century vernacular architecture. Aerial maps show that the original construction predates 1860 and the structure was partially rebuilt after 1900. Between 1860 and 1973, the White Barn was an integral part of cattle rangelands and a working farmstead. It continues to be surrounded by rich vegetation. The structure is rectangular and has redwood framing, a metal roof, and a wood R-19-51 Page 3 foundation. Due to its age and architectural significance, it is eligible for individual inclusion in the National Register and California Register of Historic Places and qualifies as a historical resource. Interactive Resources prepared a Conditions Assessment and Recommendations Report for the White Barn on November 30, 2017. The Report asserts that the foundation is severely deteriorated and the barn has started to lean to the southwest due to the loss of foundation wood. A new foundation is likely required to stabilize the structure. Given the current condition of the structure and years of unaddressed deferred maintenance, this Project will provide an evaluation of the building’s structural integrity and a structural engineer and architectural historian will design rehabilitation and preservation measures. The rehabilitation of the White Barn satisfies the following La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan Goals and Objectives: 1.3.d: Retain the White Barn as a cultural resource; 1.3.e: Address deferred maintenance as necessary to extend the building longevity; and 1.3.f: Hire a qualified architectural historian and structural engineer to evaluate the historical significance and condition of the White Barn and surrounding landscape features and make recommendations for preservation, interpretation, rehabilitation, and reuse. Beatty Property Home: The Sierra Azul Beatty Property Home sits on a 55-acre homestead that is located at 17820 Alma Bridge Road, in unincorporated Santa Clara County. The homestead contains a home, a workshop/garage, and a shed. Although there is an assortment of structures on the Beatty Property, the home is the only structure associated with this Project. The home was built in the 1860s and was part of the extinct community of Alma, and is an important remnant of this historic town. This structure is eligible for individual inclusion in the National Register and California Register of Historic Places; it qualifies as a historic home. The Beatty Property Home has a single wall construction with no foundation; there are wood posts and exterior walls resting on the ground. The floor level of the home shows signs of significant decay. The interior contains three small bedrooms, a substandard kitchen, and one bathroom. The Sierra Azul Beatty Property is located between Santa Clara County (County) parklands and the Lexington Reservoir. Since the District purchased the property in 2008, the County and District have worked collaboratively to provide trail connectivity between the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve and San Francisco Bay Area Ridge Trail. After the land purchase, the District and County entered into an agreement to record a conservation easement over the property. This easement requires the property to be maintained for open space and public park purposes. It also requires the construction of a trail connection linking the Lexington Reservoir County Park and Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. This trail connection, and an accompanying parking lot, are part of a future project for the Beatty Property. The structure stabilization scope will preserve the structure and provide a landmark/destination for the public to enjoy as they explore the area. Consultant Selection An RFP was issued on January 18, 2019 on BidSync and a project announcement was emailed to twenty firms. A pre-proposal meeting and site tour was held on February 5, 2019 for the Beatty R-19-51 Page 4 Property Home and on February 7, 2019 for the La Honda Creek White Barn and Redwood Cabin. Five firms attended these meetings and three of these firms submitted proposals on February 19, 2019. The following table summarizes the fee schedule for each consultant. Consultant La Honda Creek White Barn La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Beatty Property Home Proposal Price Knapp Architects $143,328.00 $143,328.00 $143,328.00 $429,984.00 Mesiti-Miller Engineering, Inc. $201,334.00 $211,994.00 $193,069.00 $606,397.00 ZFA Structural Engineers $117,363.00 $133,729.00 $115,886.00 $366,978.00 Based on staff’s thorough evaluation of the proposals, ZFA was deemed the most qualified given their project team’s diverse field of knowledge, prior experience with structural assessments and historic structures preservation, and expertise in the field of structural engineering. ZFA demonstrated a strong knowledge of the project’s background, setting, deliverables and goals, and submitted a quality proposal to perform the scope of work at a reasonable price. For these reasons, the General Manager recommends entering into an agreement with ZFA to complete the Project. The ZFA project team consists of experts in the following fields: • Structural Engineering • Geotechnical Engineering • Historic Architecture • Civil Engineering • Hazardous Materials Investigation and Remediation • Construction Cost Estimate Examples of relevant projects completed by ZFA’s project team include: • Emergency Landslide Repair (Woodside, CA) – landslide repair design and consultation • Folger Ranch (San Mateo County, CA) – rehabilitation of a 1970’s-era ranch style house • Historic Trefethen Winery Barn Seismic Restoration and Retrofit (Napa, CA) – repair and retrofit of an existing barn • Old Lincoln Ranch Barn Evaluations (Napa, CA) –evaluation of two 1900-era barns to determine feasibility of upgrading them for use as a commercial winery facility This Project will be delivered in two Phases; both are covered under this contract. Phase I will include site analysis, geotechnical engineering, archaeological resource surveying, structural engineering, and architectural services to develop construction documents. The estimated Phase I fee for the Project is approximately $329,010. Phase II will include construction administration services. The estimated Phase II fee for the Project is approximately $37,968. R-19-51 Page 5 FISCAL IMPACT Project design will take place in FY2018-19 and FY2019-20. The table below summarizes the contract cost breakdown by project and fiscal year. All recommended actions are Measure AA reimbursable. Subsequent tables outline each project budget and Measure AA portfolio impacts. Structure Stabilization at Multiple Preserves Project (Phase I and II, design through construction support services) FY2018-19 FY2019-20 Total La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation (White Barn) $30,000 $87,363 $117,363 La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Stabilization and Assessment (Redwood Cabin) $30,000 $103,729 $133,729 Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections (Beatty Property Home) $0 $115,886 $115,886 15% Contingency $9,000 $46,047 $55,047 Total $69,000 $353,025 $422,025 The adopted FY2018-19 budget includes $34,500 (with contingency) for the La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation project (MAA05-008). Additional funds will be requested for the proposed FY2019-20 budget to complete the contracted work. MAA05-008 FY2018-19 Adopted Budget FY2019-20 Proposed Budget Total La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation $218,777 $216,214 $434,991 Spent-to-Date (as of 03/18/2019): $0 $0 $0 Encumbrances: $0 $0 $0 ZFA Structural Engineers Contract - Costs: ($30,000) ($87,363) ($117,363) 15% Contingency: ($4,500) ($13,104) ($17,604) Budget Remaining (Proposed): $184,277 $115,747 $300,024 The FY2018-19 budget includes no funds for the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Stabilization and Assessment project (MAA05-XXX). A proposed net-zero budget adjustment of $34,500 in Quarter 3 will be taken to the Board in May 2019. Additional funds will be requested for the proposed FY2019-20 budget to complete the contracted work. MAA05-XXX (New for FY2019-20) FY2018-19 Proposed Amended Budget FY2019-20 Proposed Budget Total La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Stabilization and Assessment $34,500 $246,233 $280,733 Spent-to-Date (as of 03/18/2019): $0 $0 $0 R-19-51 Page 6 Encumbrances: $0 $0 $0 ZFA Structural Engineers Contract - Costs: ($30,000) ($103,729) ($133,729) 15% Contingency: ($4,500) ($15,559) ($20,059) Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $126,945 $126,945 The following table outlines the MAA Portfolio #5 budget, costs-to-date, and the fiscal impact related to the La Honda Creek White Barn and the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Stabilization and Assessment projects. MAA05 Portfolio La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and Conservation Grazing $11,733,000 Life-to-Date Spent (as of 03/18/2019): ($2,232,854) Encumbrances: $0 FY2018-19 Recommended Action - Costs: ($69,000) FY2019-20 Recommended Action - Costs: ($219,756) Portfolio Remaining (Proposed): $9,211,390 There are sufficient funds in the FY2018-19 budget to begin the recommended contract work on the Beatty Property Home under the Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections project (MAA22-004). Additional funds will be requested in the proposed FY2019-20 budget to complete the contracted work. MAA22-004 FY2018-19 Adopted Budget FY2019-20 Projected Budget Total Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections $119,602 $424,544 $544,146 Spent-to-Date (as of 03/18/2019): ($192) $0 ($192) Encumbrances: ($22,235) $0 ($22,235) ZFA Structural Engineers Contract - Costs: $0 ($115,886) ($115,886) 15% Contingency: $0 ($17,383) ($17,383) Budget Remaining (Proposed): $97,175 $291,275 $388,450 The following table outlines the MAA Portfolio #22 budget, costs-to-date, and the fiscal impact related to the Beatty Property Home. MAA22 Portfolio Sierra Azul: Cathedral Oaks Public Access and Conservation Projects $6,714,000 Life-to-Date Spent (as of 03/18/2019): ($962,189) Encumbrances: ($120,297) FY2018-19 Recommended Action - Costs: $0 FY2019-20 Recommended Action - Costs: ($133,269) R-19-51 Page 7 Portfolio Remaining (Proposed): $5,498,245 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW No Board Committee review has occurred for this Project. The La Honda Creek Master Plan was approved by at Board at the August 22, 2012 meeting (R-12-83). PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of this Agenda Item was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE Award of contract is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed stabilization and maintenance repairs of the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin and White Barn structures were included in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the La Honda Creek Master Plan, adopted by the Board in August 2012. The proposed stabilization and repairs to these two structures at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve would be consistent with the Board adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff will conduct CEQA analysis of the Beatty Property structural stabilization and repairs as part of the future environmental review for the Beatty Property Staging Area and Trail Connections project, where initial planning and feasibility analysis is underway. NEXT STEPS If approved, the General Manager will execute the contract with ZFA. Design work will continue through 2020. Attachments 1. Project Location Map for La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin and White Barn 2.Project Location Map for Beatty Property Home Responsible Department Head: Jason Lin, Engineering & Construction Department Manager Prepared by: Tanisha Werner, Capital Project Manager III, Engineering & Construction Department Graphics prepared by: Nathan Greig, GIS Data Analyst I 88 S a n M a t e o C o. S a n t a C l a r a C o . 88 ÄÆ280 La Honda MROSD OPEN SPACE PRESERVE LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ÄÆ35 P e s c a d ero C r e e k Rd ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 PortolaRd A r a s t r a deroR o a d A lpineRo a d Page M i l l R oad Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) January 2019 Project Location Map for La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin and White Barn Pa t h : E : \ 3 0 0 - P r o j e c t s \ S t r u c t u r e S t a b i l i z a t i o n \ 5 0 - M a p p i ng a n d D r a w i n g s \ 5 2 - G I S \ S t r u c t u r e S t a b _ P r o j e c t A r e a 2 0 1 9 0 1 1 4 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t w e r n e r 021 MilesI MROSD Preserves Private Property While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Watershed Land ***SEE GUIDELINES AND SYMBOL LIBRARY TO THE SIDES******SEE GUIDELINES AND SYMBOL LIBRARY TO THE SIDES*** Highlighted Property Area of Detail ÄÆ84 ÄÆ92 ÄÆ35ÄÆ9ÄÆ236 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ85 Half Moon Bay Redwood City East Palo Alto Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga La Honda Sunnyvale Other Protected Lands Land Trust Other Public Agency White Barn (Dyer Barn) Redwood Cabin Barn CabinCounty Boundary 88 88 ATTACHMENT 1 SantaCruzCo. SantaClaraCo. 88 Beatty House SIERRA AZUL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ÄÆ9 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ85 ÄÆ9 O l d S a n t a C r u z H i g h w a y Summit Road Bear Creek R oad ÄÆ17 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) December 2018 Project Location Map for Beatty Property Home Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ S i e r r a _ A z u l \ S t r u c t u r e S t a b i l i z a t i o n \ S t r u c t u r e S t a b _ P r o j e c t A r e a 2 0 1 8 1 2 1 0 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : f l o p e z 0 21 MilesI MROSD Preserves While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Area of Detail ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ85 Redwood City Los Altos Palo Alto Menlo Park Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Cruz Milpitas Santa Clara San Jose Beatty House County Boundary 88 S a n b orn R d A l m a d en Expy ATTACHMENT 2 R-19-50 Meeting 19-11 April 24, 2019 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Approval of a commemorative rock with plaque for Dr. Frances Conley at Long Ridge Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Approve the recommendation from the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee to install a commemorative rock with plaque for conservationist and significant supporter Dr. Frances Conley, who wishes to honor her late parents, Konrad and Kathryn Krauskopf, at Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. SUMMARY Dr. Frances Conley is a conservationist and a long-standing supporter of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) and Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST). In November 2018, POST requested that the District recognize Dr. Conley with a commemorative rock with plaque for her donation of land to Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. The request was reviewed and unanimously supported by the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) on March 12, 2019. An existing rock on the property would serve as the commemorative rock and POST would pay for the cost of the plaque. If approved by the Board of Directors (Board), installation and future maintenance of the rock with plaque would have no direct fiscal impact; staff would install the plaque and perform future maintenance as needed. DISCUSSION Konrad and Kathryn Krauskopf raised their daughter Dr. Conley and her three siblings in Palo Alto, instilling in them a love of the outdoors. Konrad Krauskopf was a professor of geochemistry and dean of the School of Earth Sciences at Stanford University. In the 1960s, the Krauskopfs bought a 191-acre redwood forest property on Shingle Mill Road, close to what is now Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. Upon the death of her parents, Dr. Conley honored their wishes by donating a conservation easement to POST in 2004 and preserving the 191-acre redwood forest property in perpetuity. The property consists of three parcels, mostly undeveloped, in unincorporated San Mateo County. The property lies just outside the western boundary of Long Ridge Open Space Preserve, 1.5 miles southwest of Skyline Boulevard near the intersection of Shingle Mill Road and Big Basin Way. In May 24, 2017, the Board approved the purchase of the POST (Conley) 191-acre property as an addition to Long Ridge Open Space Preserve (R-17-29). The property was sold by Dr. R-19-50 Page 2 Conley to the District, through POST, for $500,000 with a gift component of $450,000, equaling a fair market appraised value of $950,000. The purchase was funded by Measure AA Portfolio #15, Regional Redwood Protection and Salmon Fisheries Conservation. The District currently manages the property as a closed area. The purchase agreement with POST included a covenant providing POST five years to recognize the Krauskopf family as significant donors in accordance with District Policy 5.01 Site Naming, Gifts, and Special Recognition. That policy requires Board approval of such proposals. The Conley and Krauskopf families have been long-standing supporters of the District and POST. With this property donation, Dr. Conley meets the criteria as a significant supporter. Providing a commemorative rock with plaque for Dr. Conley in honor of her parents, Konrad and Kathryn Krauskopf, is consistent with Board Policy 5.01 Site Naming and Special Recognition, which includes the following criteria: I. SITE NAMING B. Preserve Areas, Trails, Site Improvements, Historic Sites and Unnamed Natural Features This designation refers to specific locations, land formations, trails, natural and physical features, staging areas and other site improvements, and areas of significance within open space preserves. Recognition of significant land gifts, including "bargain" purchases, will be negotiated at the time of the gift or bargain purchase. 1.Preserve areas, trails, site improvements including benches and bridges, historic sites and previously unnamed natural features shall ordinarily be named after: a)Geographical, botanical or zoological identification; b)Historical persons, uses, or events associated with the site, or persons and organizations listed in Section III: “Special Recognition.” III.SPECIAL RECOGNITION D. Founders, Significant Supporters, and Volunteers "Significant Supporters" shall be defined as individuals or group of individuals who have shown conspicuous or noteworthy support for the District through extraordinary contributions of time and effort to the advancement of the goals, philosophy and mission of the District. The General Manager is forwarding LFPAC’s recommendation to approve a commemorative rock with plaque for Dr. Conley, who wishes to honor her late parents, Konrad and Kathryn Krauskopf, at Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. FISCAL IMPACT There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the recommendation. The recommendation includes the following elements: one rock, one commemorative plaque, plaque installation and occasional maintenance. An existing rock will be identified on the property to serve as the commemorative rock. The commemorative plaque purchase will be paid directly by POST. District staff would facilitate commemorative plaque installation and perform ongoing maintenance as needed. R-19-50 Page 3 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW LFPAC reviewed this item on March 12, 2019 and recommended Board approval. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act exempts the minor alteration of existing public structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of existing use. The installation would be a minor alteration to an existing trail. NEXT STEPS If approved by the Board, staff will work with POST to prepare the materials for installation at the proposed site in June/July 2019. Attachments 1. Board Policy 5.01 Site Naming, Gift and Special Recognition 2. Map of Conley Property Acquisition in Long Ridge Preserve 3. Plaque language 4. Site photos Responsible Department Head: Korrine Skinner, Public Affairs Manager Prepared by: Carmen Lau, Public Affairs Specialist I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board Policy Manual Site Naming, Gift, and Special Recognition Policy 5.01 Chapter 5 – Historical/Cultural Effective Date: 8/25/93 Revised Date: 9/12/18 Prior Versions: 8/25/93, 9/14/94, 6/24/98, 9/12/01, 10/8/08, 1/13/10, 10/27/10, 11/13/13 Board Policy 5.01 Page 1 of 4 I. SITE NAMING All District site names and signs should be kept as simple and functional as possible. When a property is acquired, either as an addition to an existing preserve or for the establishment of a new preserve, a name will be recommended in the Preliminary Use and Management Plan. In most cases, "open space preserve" is appropriate as part of the name; however, there may be circumstances when another designation may be used. In some cases, a temporary name may be retained until the next Comprehensive Use and Management Plan review. A. Open Space Preserves The name given to each open space preserve should be general enough to remain suitable if the site is enlarged, but specific enough to give its location some significance. Properties added to an open space preserve may not always be contiguous with that preserve. 1. Preserves shall be named after: a)Geographical features of broad, general significance to the preserve; b) Historical persons, cultural names, uses, or events broadly associated with the locale. 2. Preserves shall not be named after any individuals other than historical persons as noted above. B. Preserve Areas, Trails, Site Improvements, Historic Sites and Unnamed Natural Features This designation refers to specific locations, land formations, trails, natural and physical features, staging areas and other site improvements, and areas of significance within open space preserves. Recognition of significant land gifts, including "bargain" purchases, will be negotiated at the time of the gift or bargain purchase. 1. Preserve areas, trails, site improvements including benches and bridges, historic sites and previously unnamed natural features shall ordinarily be named after: ATTACHMENT 1 Board Policy 5.01 Page 2 of 4 a)Geographical, botanical or zoological identification; b) Historical persons, uses, or events associated with the site, or persons and organizations listed in Section III: “Special Recognition”. 2. Preserve areas, trails, site improvements, historic sites and unnamed natural features may in rare instances be named after a living individual who has made an outstanding contribution to the District, subject to approval by the Board of Directors. II. GIFT RECOGNITION The purpose of the gift recognition policy is to provide an opportunity for the District to recognize and commend individuals or groups that have made significant contributions of cash, equipment, materials, goods or professional services toward the enhancement of the District, its programs, and its facilities. A. Unsolicited Cash Gifts: Up to $25 Postcard of thanks $26 to $499 Letter signed by General Manager $500 to $1,999 Letter signed by President of the Board $2,000 to $4,999 Letter signed by President of the Board and District gift item (note cards, etc.) $5,000 to $9,999 Letter signed by President of the Board and framed photograph of favorite District preserve $10,000 or more Letter signed by President of the Board and Resolution and framed photograph of District preserve and mention in a District publication* *These items will be provided only if desired by the donor. III.SPECIAL RECOGNITION The Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) shall be the committee designated to discuss all requests that meet the criteria of the policy for special recognition made by members of the Board of Directors, and after deliberation shall forward a recommendation to the full Board for a vote. The General Manager or his/her designee will review constituent bench dedication requests to determine eligibility based on the policy guidelines outlined below in Section III D. Constituent bench requests may be brought to LFPAC if there exists ambiguity regarding whether the request meets the requirements below. The District places benches in its preserves for three distinct purposes: A. District Rest Benches Board Policy 5.01 Page 3 of 4 These benches provide constituents with a place to rest. District staff places these benches without involving a District committee or the full Board. Regular benches must be either a backed or a backless standard bench as described in Section V below. B. Constituent Bench Dedications These are benches which have been requested by constituents in order to honor or memorialize a member of the public and are funded by the requestors who must pay $5,000 for a 10-year term. Requests must be in reference to a significant supporter or a volunteer, as defined in Section III D below. The General Manager or his/her designee reviews requests to determine if they meet the eligibility definitions. Requests that are administratively declined because they do not meet the eligibility definitions may be appealed to the General Manager for a second review. Eligible requests will be administratively implemented. a)Constituent bench dedications shall only be selected from and placed in locations that have been pre-determined by the District and/or approved by the Planning and Natural Resources Committee and/or by the full Board of Directors. b)If a request for a constituent bench meets the eligibility requirements, the requestor(s) shall pay for the cost of constructing, installing and maintaining a bench and plaque by contributing $5,000 to cover the 10-year dedication term of the bench. c) Bench plaques will be 2 x 6 inches in size. d) Benches must be one of the two District standard bench designs. e)Constituent bench dedications will have a term limit of 10 years. After 10 years, the original donor will have the option to contribute an additional $5,000 donation for each additional 10-year term. Should the original donor decline to renew an existing bench, the bench will be offered to the public for re-dedication. C. District Bench Dedications These are benches which are installed by the District in response to requests by members of the Board of Directors to honor "Founders," "Significant Supporters", and “Volunteers”. a)LFPAC can initiate a bench request and refer a decision to the full Board or individual Board members can initiate a bench request which will be referred to LFPAC for discussion before it is referred to the full Board for a final decision. Honorees must be "Founders", "Significant Supporters", and “Volunteers” (per policy Section III D below). b) For these benches there are no design specification limits or limits on their location. The District will pay for the lifetime cost of the bench. D. Founders, Significant Supporters, and Volunteers "Founders", "Significant Supporters", and “Volunteers” are eligible for special recognition, including memorials. "Founders" shall be defined as an individual or group of individuals who participated in the formation of the District, or were significant supporters of the formation of the District. Board Policy 5.01 Page 4 of 4 "Significant Supporters" shall be defined as individuals or group of individuals who have shown conspicuous or noteworthy support for the District through extraordinary contributions of time and effort to the advancement of the goals, philosophy and mission of the District. “Volunteers” shall be defined as individuals or groups of individuals who donated a minimum of 250 volunteer hours and 5 years of service to the District by working for the District’s docent or volunteer program. IV.RECOGNITION OF HISTORIC SITES A.A recognition monument, normally in plaque form, may be considered by the Board if it is in relation to a specific existing building or other remaining structure of significant historic value. In such cases, the plaque will be affixed or in close proximity to the structure itself. If there is no structure, then recognition may he considered for inclusion on District informational materials or trail signage. Such a site, in the absence of a building or structure, will ordinarily not be physically marked except as determined by the Board on a case-by-case basis as part of the Use and Management planning process for the corresponding open space preserve. Any Board-approved memorial names shall be included in site brochures, maps, or other informational materials. V. STANDARD BENCH DESIGN SPECIFICATION A. District Rest Benches and Constituent Bench Dedications, described in III (A) and (B) above, are limited to either of the two following standard bench designs: Backed bench: Dumor - Bench 88, recycled plastic slates (color: CEDAR), steel leg supports (color: BLACK, IMBEDDED) 6’ or 8’ lengths Backless bench: Dumor - Bench 103, recycled plastic slates (color: CEDAR), steel leg supports (color: BLACK, IMBEDDED) 103-60PL 6' long, 3 supports 103-80PL 8' long, 3 supports B. The General Manager or LFPAC can at any point bring designs to the Board that differ from the District’s standard bench designs. Management Agreement !# LONG RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE SARATOGA GAP OPEN SPACE PRESERVE S l a t e Creek San Lorenzo River O i l C r e e k T in C a n Cree k W a t e r m a n C r e e k Ã35 Ã9 Skyline Tr a il H ickory O a k s T r a il Frog FlatTrail S l a t e C r e e k T r a il Skylin e -t o -t h e-S e a Trail W a rdRoad S a r a t o g a G a pT r ail C h arcoalRoad Sarat o g a G a p T r ail S ummitMeadowsTrail Red M o u ntain Trai l S ky l i n e -t o -t h e -S e aTrail Skylin e -t o -t h e - S e a Tra i l W a r d Truc k T r a i l Be a r C r e e k T r a i l Saratoga T ollRo a d T r a il Achist a c a tr a il Travertine Sprin gs Trai l Sara t o g a Gap Trail C A S t a teRoute35 CA State R o ut e 9 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) March 2019 Conley Property Acquisition Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ L o n g _ R i d g e \ C o n l e y _ P r o p e r t y \ L R _ C o n l e y _ B o a r d R e p o r t _ 2 0 1 9 0 3 0 5 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : n g r e i g 0 0.50.25 MilesI MROSD Preserves Private Property While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Ã9 Ã880 Ã101 Ã1 Ã17 Ã35 Cupertino Santa Cruz Area of Detail Other Protected Lands Conley Property APN 085-170-020 40.0 Acres Proposed Site for Conley Rock Conley Property APN 085-170-310 39.59 Acres PORTOLA REDWOODS STATE PARK CASTLE ROCK STATE PARK MROSD Boundary County Boundaries LR13 ROADSIDE PARKING !# SEMPERVIRENS VISTA POINT Sa n M a t e o C o u n t y Sa n t a C r u z C o u n t y S a n t a Clara C o u n t y Coastside Protection Area Coastside Protection Area Skyline-to-the-Sea Trail S hin g l e M ill R d Property Access Road Conley Properties w/ POST Conservation Easement Coastside Protection Boundary Conley Property APN 085-170-290 111.61 Acres ATTACHMENT 2 This land was gifted to the public by Frances Conley, in honor of her parents, Konrad and Kathryn Krauskopf and shall serve for all time as a nature sanctuary for people and wildlife alike. June 2019 ATTACHMENT 3 Site Location Photos for the Conley Rock and Plaque Site location is marked by the umbrella ATTACHMENT 4 Rev. 1/3/18 R-19-52 Meeting 19-11 April 24, 2019 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Amend Contract for Fire Ecology Services: Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Development GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to amend the multi-year contract with Spatial Informatics Group, LLC of Pleasanton, California, to provide additional fire ecology services in the amount of $194,755, for a new not-to-exceed contract amount of $296,005 (original contract is $101,250). 2. Authorize a 15% total contingency of $44,400, to be awarded only if necessary to cover unforeseen conditions, for a new total contract amount not-to-exceed $340,405. SUMMARY California has experienced devastating fire seasons over the last two years and the trend has been toward bigger, more damaging, and deadlier fires. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) commits extensive staff time and resources toward fuel reduction work every year and recognizes that more work needs to be done. Due to the increased fire risk, the Board of Directors (Board) added an objective to its Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 to work with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen the prevention of, preparation for, and response to wildland fires. The District is currently under contract with a consultant to develop a Prescribed Fire Program. The General Manager recommends expanding the scope of services to add additional tasks that will allow the District to complete more fuel reduction work and accelerate the creation of preserve focused wildland fire preplans. This increase in scope would result in a Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (Program), establishing a more robust, strategic, and comprehensive fire and fuels management plan for District lands. An expanded Program would include non-fire fuels reduction and other techniques (in addition to prescribed fire) to promote wildland fire resiliency. The General Manager recommends amending the contract with Spatial Informatics Group, LLC (SIG) to provide fire ecology services for a not-to- exceed new contract amount of $296,005 and authorizing a 15% contingency amount of $44,400. Staff anticipates the contract work to span four fiscal years. There are sufficient funds in the adopted Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 budget to cover the anticipated scope of services for this fiscal year. Additional funds would be included in future budgets to fund the contract work. DISCUSSION In June of 2018, the Board authorized the General Manager to enter into contract with SIG to perform fire ecology services to develop a Prescribed Fire Program for a total not-to-exceed amount of $116,438 (R-18-72; includes 15% contingency). Staff returned to the Board in R-19-52 Page 2 February of 2019 to provide an informational update on the development of the Prescribed Fire Program (R-19-16). Staff discussed potential changes in the project scope that would transform the project from a Prescribed Fire Program to a comprehensive Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (Program). The expanded Program and the scope of work under the proposed contract amendment includes: • Fuels Management (non-fire) Multiple fire agencies have requested that the District increase the number and scale of its fuel management projects. Currently, fuel management activities fall under the District’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM ) Program’s CEQA, which evaluated a limited number of acres for fuel reduction. Working in conjunction with partner fire agencies, the new CEQA Project Description would allow the District to expand its fuels management work beyond what was evaluated in the IPM program to address recent requests from the fire agencies. • Wildland Fuels Monitoring The consultant would include a fuels monitoring plan in the CEQA Project Description that establishes baseline conditions for post Program analysis (including pre and post-project vegetation, soil, erosion, and water quality monitoring). The fuels monitoring plan would outline a process to assess the achievement of individual fire resiliency project objectives in reducing fuel loads and identify outcomes in a manner consistent with other land management agencies to allow for comparable analysis. Monitoring of fuel loads allows the District to respond to changing conditions in real-time and adapt management activities. • Wildland Fire Pre-Plans The consultant would also prioritize and prepare wildland fire pre-plans for each individual preserve or groups of preserves that identify existing infrastructure (e.g. roads, fuel breaks, water sources) as well as known sensitive natural and cultural sites for fire personnel to avoid during fire and fuels management activities. This effort would provide much needed capacity to expedite the work begun by the Visitor Services Department. To date, the District has completed one pre-plan and second one is in progress. • Education and Outreach The consultant would provide up to two educational overviews of fire ecology in the Santa Cruz Mountains to District docents as an enrichment activity to provide the information needed to engage the public on the topic of wildland fire resiliency. This work, if approved by the Board, would allow the District to increase the amount of fuels reduction work performed by the District and others on District land, hasten the creation of wildland fire preplans, continue the development of a prescribed fire program, and expand public awareness and support for wildland fire resiliency efforts. FISCAL IMPACT The cost of the recommended change in scope of services is beyond the authorized contingency amount of the original contract. A net-zero budget adjustment was executed in Quarter 3 to cover the additional amount. Sufficient funds will be requested for the FY2019-20 proposed budget as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process. R-19-52 Page 3 Prescribed Fire Program Development (new Wildland Fire Resiliency Program) (Project #80003-10) Prior Year Actuals FY2018- 19 Projected Amended Budget FY2019- 20 Projected Budget FY2020- 21 Projected Budget FY2021- 22 Projected Budget Total Project #80003-10 Budget: $29,534 $177,920 $466,000 $276,000 $311,000 $1,260,454 Spent-to-Date (as of 03/26/2019): ($29,534) ($27,189) $0 $0 $0 ($56,723) Encumbrances: $0 ($76,561) $0 $0 $0 ($76,561) SIG Contract Amendment: $0 ($74,170) ($115,845) ($101,940) ($4,050) ($296,005) 15% Contingency: $0 $0 ($11,100) ($11,100) ($22,200) ($44,400) Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $0 $339,055 $162,960 $284,750 $786,765 The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW Staff will bring Program related items to the Planning and Natural Resources Committee for review and guidance. See Next Steps for current timeline. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Public notice was sent to interested parties and tenants by postal or electronic mail. CEQA COMPLIANCE The amendment of the contract with SIG is not a project subject to CEQA. Future Board consideration of a Wildland Fire Resiliency Program will be subject to CEQA. The District has separately contracted with Panorama Environmental, Inc. (Panorama) (R-18- 120) to analyze the Program and address CEQA requirements based on the project description developed by SIG and subject to future Board approval. NEXT STEPS Following Board approval, the General Manager will amend the contract with SIG for a four- year period beginning in FY2018-19. To respond effectively to fire agencies requests for increased non-fire related fuels management activities, staff will direct SIG to prioritize the contract elements for the Program in the following order: 1. Fuels Management (non-fire) 2. Wildland Fire Pre-Plans/Resource Advisor Maps 3. Monitoring 4. Prescribed Fire The Program timeline described below includes multiple public and Planning and Natural Resources Committee meetings. If the Board approves the expanded scope of services for SIG, R-19-52 Page 4 the General Manager will return to the Board for authorization of a subsequent contract amendment with Panorama to complete the CEQA analysis of the expanded Program and staff will provide a CEQA timeline at that time. The increase in scope will hasten the development of fuels management plans and wildland fire pre-plans, but would delay the implementation of a prescribed fire component. Table 1: Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Timeline Meeting Type Description Expected Date Community Informational Meetings Engage the Community at 3 different locations within the District’s Boundary Q4 of FY2018-19 Planning and Natural Resources Committee Review Community Informational Meetings feedback; Review draft Wildland Fire Resiliency Policies Q1 of FY2019-20 Community Informational Meetings Engage the Community at 3 different locations within the District’s Boundary Q2 of FY2019-20 Planning and Natural Resources Committee Review draft Fuels Management (non-Fire) Q2 of FY2019-20 Planning and Natural Resources Committee Review Community Informational Meetings feedback; Review draft Monitoring Q2 of FY2019-20 Planning and Natural Resources Committee Review draft Prescribed Fire Q3 of FY2019-20 Planning and Natural Resources Committee Review refined Prescribed Fire Q4 of FY2019-20 Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Prepared by: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources STATE OF CALIFORNIA —NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Govemor CAL FIRE SINCE 1805 441. DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION 6059 Highway 9 P.O. Drawer F-2 Felton, CA 95018 (831)335-6740 Website: www.fire.ca.gov February 15, 2019 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 RE: Prescribed Fire Program and Non Fire -Fuels Reduction Dear Board of Directors, The Woodside Fire Protection District (WFPD) and CAL FIRE are both enthusiastic about continuing to work collaboratively with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) after hearing the comments during the February 13, 2019 MROSD Board of Directors' meeting. The comments of the board and staff reflected a positive initiative in wildfire risk reduction by increasing hazardous fuels reduction activities and expanding forest restoration and health in MROSD preserves. As climate change propels California into a new realm of wildfire incidents, we are all forced to take on new and improved wide scale prevention initiatives. Forest management and hazardous fuels reduction, within high fire severity zones of San Mateo County, has been placed on the highest level of priority by the SMC Board of Supervisors, SMC Parks, governing officials of the Town of Woodside, Town of Portola Valley, the jurisdictional fire agencies and the residents who live in these high -risk areas. The last two years of devastating California wildfires and record number of structures and human lives lost has initiated immediate wildfire prevention reform. We all acknowledge that left untreated and unmanaged, hazardous vegetation only increases fire intensity and rate of spread in our forested land, parks, open space and private residential property. MROSD is responsible for at least fourteen open space preserves in San Mateo County, encompassing over 28,000 acres in high fire severity zones. Single family homes by the thousands border many of these preserves. MROSD is well situated for a large-scale prevention effort with plentiful staff, ample budgets and willing local collaborators to address this immediate need for fire fuels reduction and fire hardening on the lands it stewards. CAL FIRE and the WFPD are staunch advocates that our boundaries be as resilient to wildfire as possible. We believe that the MROSD Board of Directors' and General and Assistant Manager's recent re -focus of their strategic objectives on fire fuels management shows a commitment that is sadly missing in many other organizations. We commend your willingness to align with "The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection serves and safeguards the people and protects the property and resources of California. " the new priorities of the local community by recently approving the MROSD fiscal year 2019-20 strategic plan with specific objectives to work with local fire agencies and surrounding communities on prevention and wildfire risk reduction. Fire prevention and fire fuels reduction, presents several mechanisms to choose from for implementation. MROSD has recently identified prescribed fire as a program in which it would like to re -develop as part of its fuels reduction program. CAL FIRE is committed to having discussions with MROSD and its contractors, SIG and Panorama, on how and where prescribed fire may possibly best be utilized. We agree that implementation of any prescribed burning would require CAL FIRE as the lead agency to issue the required permits. The Woodside Fire Protection District, by adopted ordinance, does not allow any open burning within its District boundaries. Also problematically, the preserves which reside in the WFPD; Teague Hill, Thornewood, Hawthorne and portions of Windy Hill, are situated in close proximity to numerous homes and do not appear suitable for prescribed fire activities. These preserves will likely need to undergo non fire fuels reduction with potential for varying means of implementation, including hand crews, pile burning, grazing and or mechanical methods. There presently exists a degree of concern within the community, which is shared by WFPD and CAL FIRE, that MROSD has previously underestimated the number of district owned acres requiring fuel reduction projects and forest restoration work for wildfire risk reduction and forest health management. This is especially the case in preserves where homes and critical infrastructure are adjacent. We applaud MROSD staff's goal to amend the current EIR to include the addition of the prescribed fire program to increase the total acreage of fuel reduction. Given the amount of time it is expected to take for the EIR to be approved (2-3 years) and the current urgency for fuel reduction work to be completed, we encourage the district to also consider other options with its cooperators to make their lands more fire resilient while working through the EIR process. One option is to evaluate and upgrade deferred maintenance or maintenance protocols for treating fuel from downed and dead vegetation such as fallen trees and branches along roadways and accessible trails. Instead of being pushed to the side of roadways or trails and allowed to accumulate as large piles of hazardous fuel, MROSD should implement treating these fuels by methods such as chipping, loping, pile burning and mastication for all downed and dead vegetation as part of an ongoing maintenance program. CEQA and EIR exemptions are allowed for ongoing maintenance and by addressing these hazardous fuel concerns, MROSD could drastically reduce the amount of dead fuels allowed to accumulate especially on roadways and the larger accessible trails which are important emergency access routes for all emergency responders. This should be considered the low hanging fruit of a fire prevention and wildfire risk reduction initiative. Fire Chiefs from both CAL FIRE and WFPD encourage MROSD to include in its proposed "Pre - plans" maps which include critical infrastructure and specific preserve locations in close proximity to homes. These maps may also assist in identifying future beneficial fuels reduction projects. In addition, the GIS data generated by this effort could be beneficial if shared with the local fire agencies for improved fire mapping. Instead of having multiple maps of individual ownerships, the objective is to have comprehensive data, in digital form, available in one GIS as a region wide dataset which can be made available in the field on mobile platforms. WFPD and CAL FIRE would like to be part of the interdisciplinary team MROSD has developed to reduce fuels and address wildfire risk. We are requesting a meeting be organized to visit a few preserves to better evaluate essential criteria for fuel reduction and forest restoration. We are requesting that this meeting include at a minimum, a member of the MROSD Board of Directors', a MROSD planning representative as well as the GM and Assistant GM. We look forward to working collaboratively in reducing the wildfire risk in our inimitable open space lands in which MROSD has committed to steward on behalf of San Mateo County residents. Doiy,a0 Rich Sampson Division Chief Cal Fire San Mateo —Santa Cruz Unit cc. Dan Ghiorso, Fire Chief WFPD Ian Larkin, Fire Chief Cal Fire San Mateo -Santa Cruz Unit Jeremy Dennis, Portola Valley Town Manager Kevin Bryant, Woodside Town Manager Don Horsley, Board of Supervisor SMC Dan Belville, Director Public Safety Communications, SMC Ana Maria Ruiz, General Manger MROSD Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager, MROSD Denise Enea Fire Marshal Woodside Fire Protection District RE: Prescribed Fire Program and Non Fire-Fuels Reduction Dear Division Chief Sampson and Fire Marshal Enea, Thank you for your support of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) expanding its vegetation management activities to continue to address and enhance wildland fire resiliency on the San Francisco Peninsula. Midpen recognizes the risks and challenges faced by communities within the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). As land stewards, fire safety has always been a critical component of our work. To reduce the risk of wildland fires, Midpen: • Maintains hundreds of miles of fuel breaks and fire roads; • Reduces fuels on 8,500 acres of grassland with grazing; • Strictly enforces no smoking and fire regulations; • Educates visitors about fire safety; • Follows maintenance practices to minimize risk of ignition; • Provides a defensible space clearing permit program to neighbors who own structures adjacent to our Preserves; and • Works with communities on escape routes. Midpen also works to complement the local fire agencies responsible for fire suppression by: training its staff on wildland fire suppression to act as fire first responders; providing staff with required safety equipment; equipping ranger trucks with water pumpers and fire tools; evacuating visitors from preserves during an emergency; providing fire suppression agencies with local knowledge of preserves; and coordinating closely with incident commanders during a response to wildland fires. Midpen’s Board of Directors formally recognized the need to quickly and proactively adapt to California’s intensified wildfire season by updating their Fiscal Year 2019-20 Strategic Plan Objectives to include the following directive to staff: Work with fire agencies and surrounding communities to strengthen the prevention of, preparation for, and response to wildland fire. In response to this highlighted goal and objective, staff are working to create a more robust, strategic, and comprehensive fire management plan: the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (Program). This work began in July of 2018. Midpen staff have been coordinating with fire agencies such as CalFire, since December of 2018, on our new Program. Through a comprehensive and collaborative effort with Midpen’s fire ecologists, we will: DRAFT RESPONSE FOR BOARD REVIEW 2 • Identify the highest risk areas on Midpen lands; • Accelerate fuels reduction projects; • Create fire response pre-plans for each preserve; • Identify where prescribed fire can be used as a tool; and • Efficiently undertake the California Environmental Quality Act process to guide informed decisions that protect the environment. Fire is a natural part of wildland areas and the District plays a crucial role in keeping fire prone areas as undeveloped open spaces to limit the potential fire risk and exposure to people. The Santa Cruz Mountains are part of the California Floristic Province and recognized as one of 36 biological hotspots in the world, with extraordinarily high biodiversity, including many rare, threatened and endangered species that the public has entrusted in our care. Biological hotspots support nearly 60% of the world's plant, bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian species while taking up just 2.3% of the land surface area of the world. As such, any work in wildland areas, including Midpen’s 26 Open Space Preserves, warrants a great degree of sensitivity to potential ecological impacts. The Program will allow Midpen to accomplish fuel reduction work and reduce fire risk to neighboring communities while ensuring that natural resources are protected. Midpen is starting a pilot restoration forestry project in La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve that aims to thin redwood forests to promote growth of the largest trees. This project has the potential to increase carbon storage, reduce fuel loads, reduce fire risk, improve fire resiliency within the forest, and serve as an example for future projects. Prescribed fire can also be an effective tool to manage fire risk and will only be considered after Midpen has gone through an extensive review process that incorporates public input and scientific analysis. We will only pursue prescribed fire with the support of Cal Fire and we will seek approval from the fire agency that has jurisdiction over the preserves where a prescribed fire is considered before conducting any burns. We agree that increasing our vegetation clearing and fuel reduction work along existing roads is a good strategy to increase fuel reduction work prior to the development of the Program and subsequent CEQA review. Midpen will be emphasizing increased maintenance of fire roads, which has already been evaluated under our Integrated Pest Management CEQA, as a method to improve access for firefighters and reduce fuel loads near trails. Midpen currently follows the maintenance protocols described in your letter to treat fuel from downed and dead vegetation along roadways and trails. Midpen’s standard vegetation management practice along roads and trails is to chip, lop, or masticate brush and trees that are cleared from the road and trail corridor. Midpen will continue to work with the fire jurisdictions in the creation of preserve fire response pre-plans. Our Program will accelerate the development of these plans. Our intent is to provide these pre-plans to fire agencies for use as a resource when responding to fires to help inform the most effective locations for fighting fire and to locate critical resources like access roads and water. At the same time, they will provide information to help reduce the environmental impacts of firefighting by identifying sensitive resources. While we are unable to create a region-wide data set ourselves, we share your goal of having a region-wide data set available to first responders and will share our internal GIS data with you to help with this goal. DRAFT RESPONSE FOR BOARD REVIEW 3 We understand that preparing for wildfire and enhancing our region’s wildland fire resiliency for ecological and human communities is a multifaceted issue requiring each of us to work together. Midpen commends fire agencies such as yours for recommending stricter building standards and laws that help “harden” homes against a wildland fire, as well as updating city planning regulations that determine where and how buildings are constructed in the WUI. Ultimately, actions like these complement fire-related conservation priorities. I understand that staff have been working with you to set up the meeting you requested in the letter and I look forward to meeting with you to hear your input on how we can work together to reduce wildland fire risk. Midpen will continue reaching out to fire agencies and other stakeholders within our boundaries as we proactively expand our ongoing land management efforts to reduce fire risk and meet the new challenges we are all facing as a result of California’s changing climate. Thank you again for your interest and support of a more robust, strategic, and comprehensive fire management plan. We look forward to your continued participation in its development. Regards, Pete Siemens MROSD Board President DRAFT RESPONSE FOR BOARD REVIEW R-19-48 Meeting 19-11 April 24, 2019 AGENDA ITEM 8 AGENDA ITEM Administrative Office Project – Schematic Design and Cost Estimate Update GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Review updated progress on the schematic design and associated cost estimate to reconfigure and repurpose the recently purchased office building located at 5050 El Camino Real, and provide feedback to inform the final design work and revisions to the schematic design. No formal Board action required. SUMMARY On March 13, 2019, the Board of Directors (Board) met with staff and the design team, Noll & Tam Architects, to review the new Administrative Office (AO) preliminary schematic design and related construction cost estimate. The Board provided feedback and directed Noll & Tam to provide additional cost and benefit analysis. At this April 24 meeting, the Board will review the updated cost estimate and provide feedback to direct Noll & Tam on the final schematic design. DISCUSSION Background Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) has been evaluating options to address the lack of sufficient administrative office space to meet ongoing and long-term business needs since 2015, as the organization began to undergo significant internal restructuring to accelerate project delivery, expand public service delivery, and ensure sufficient resources to manage public land and access facilities. The current administrative office building located at 330 Distel Circle in Los Altos (12,120 square feet) is no longer sufficient to house the additional staffing that has made it possible to expedite these accomplishments. As an interim measure, the District has been leasing 7,964 square feet of additional office space with an annual cost approaching $380,000. This annual cost will increase next fiscal year by 15% to $437,000, and is expected to continue rising into the future. In July 2017, the Board adopted a resolution to enter into a purchase and sale agreement for the building located at 5050 El Camino Real, Los Altos CA (R-17-90). Following purchase of 5050 El Camino Real, District staff and the Board began the design development process by prioritizing project goals and space needs. Escrow closed on the purchase on February 1, 2019. R-19-48 Page 2 Add Alternatives and Value Engineering Options At the March 13, 2019 regular meeting, the Board reviewed the draft schematic design and provided feedback (R-19-25) related to design options and costs, evaluated alternatives to reduce the total project costs, and reviewed new information about existing building conditions. Some of the recently discovered building conditions that need to be addressed include: • Leaking roof membrane system • Non-compliant Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) building features (wheel chair ramp, elevator, and stairs) • Outdated Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning (HVAC) mechanical units • Inefficient roof and siding insulation Considering these factors, Noll & Tam provided a preliminary schematic design and construction cost estimate of $25.7M. Noll & Tam also provided add alternatives and value engineering (VE) options for the Board to consider. Add alternatives are additional items of work that may be awarded as part of the construction contract if the bids come within the budget and/or the add alternative costs are deemed acceptable. VE is a method to find a product or design that serves the same basic function while reducing the project cost. This is typically done by removing project scope, reducing product quality or quantity, and/or deferring construction. On March 13, 2019, the Board reviewed six add alternates and three value-engineering options. Below is a summary of the Add Alternatives, VE options, and Board feedback to each item. Description Add Alternate Board Feedback or Value Engineering Replace all existing single glaze windows with double glaze, and include 30% manually operable windows Add Alternate Provide additional information Install exterior shade structure at the south side of the building Add Alternate Add Install roof solar panels including roof structural upgrades Add Alternate Provide additional information Replace exterior building sidings Add Alternate Exclude Replace parapet, soffit and fascia Add Alternate Exclude Provide skylight at the atrium space Add Alternate Provide additional information Remove lobby entrance extension and reduce atrium space Value Engineering Exclude (i.e. keep extension and atrium) Reduce the amount of acoustical clouds in the building Value Engineering Add Deferred replacement of the HVAC mechanical units and roof membrane Value Engineering Provide additional information R-19-48 Page 3 In addition to the feedback on the options above, the Board directed Noll & Tam to refine the lobby entrance designs and other details within the scope of the schematic design. The Board also directed Noll & Tam to include bird safe design, such as fritting or other technologies, and provide a nature themed entrance that is consistent with the District’s mission. The design concept will be provided during the current schematic design phase, while the details will be further refined during the next phase of the project (design development and construction documents). See Attachment 1 for the updated Schematic Design Package. Additional Information for Add Alternatives and Value Engineering Options Noll & Tam provided an updated cost estimate to address Board’s feedback. Below is a summary of the project costs and brief discussion of each add alternative and VE option as requested by the Board. See Attachment 2 for full cost estimate. Options that the Board declined to consider further are not included in this discussion. Enhanced Design Scheme Construction Costs $19,181,023 Soft Costs $2,285,818 Escalation $2,307,102 Project/Construction Contingency $1,918,102 PROJECT TOTAL $25,692,420 VE options Ceiling Clouds at Boardroom only -$230,000 Reuse existing HVAC mechanical units on roof -$1,207,500 TOTAL AFTER VE options $24,254,920 Add Alternative options * Replace all existing windows with double pane windows $1,196,005 Install exterior shade structure $162,511 TOTAL WITH ADD ALTERNATES (Proposed): $25,613,436 * Add alternatives of solar panels/roof upgrade ($2,388,217) and skylight/sola-tube ($200,000) are not included, pending Board decision on these items. Ceiling Clouds at Boardroom Only Limiting the use of acoustical clouds to the Boardroom will reduce the total project cost by approximately $230,000. Ceiling clouds were originally proposed throughout the building to provide additional ceiling height, reduce noise, and add visual interest. Ceiling clouds allow the wood beams, ductwork and cable trays to be exposed, expanding the ceiling height and the three- dimensional space. The Board selected the VE option to limit the use of acoustical clouds to the Boardroom and other public spaces. Other spaces in the building will use regular drop acoustic tile ceilings, which is an affordable alternative also improves the acoustical qualities in a space. Deferred replacement of the HVAC mechanical units and roof membrane Deferring the replacement of the HVAC mechanical units and roof membrane will reduce the initial total project cost by approximately $1.2M ($550,000 for mechanical units and $650,000 for the roof repair). R-19-48 Page 4 Although phasing the replacement of the four existing HVAC mechanical units and roof membrane could lead to initial construction savings, the District will need to replace all units and roof membrane eventually. Best practice for this type of project is to replace the HVAC mechanical units and roof membrane concurrently to ensure a watertight roof. Noll & Tam indicated these units are reaching the end of their useful life and will need to be replaced within the next five years. Roof membrane leaks were observed during initial building assessments, and will require localized repairs prior to roof membrane replacement. When the existing roof membrane is removed and the roof substructure is exposed, additional inspections and repairs may be required to fix any deficiencies. It may be possible to repair isolated dry rot in the roof and still provide new roof at a later date. Deferring the HVAC mechanical units to a future date will cause disruption to staff. While a majority of the installation would be performed over a weekend or extended holiday, some disruption in comfort and noise should be expected. Timing will need to be carefully considered to reduce disruptions. The District would also provide ample notification to staff to help plan accordingly and offer telecommute options to as many people as possible. There were early discussions about keeping the existing ductwork as a cost saving measure. However, a majority of the interior ductwork will need to be replaced to accommodate the new layout. The cost to make modifications to the existing ductwork will exceed installation of new ductwork. Replace all existing single glaze windows with double glaze The approximate cost would be $1.2M for replacement of existing single pane windows with new double pane windows, 30% of which would be manually operated units with sensors to maximize HVAC efficiency. The current windows are original to the 1982 building. These windows are composed of one single pane or layer of glass inset into the frame of the window. Double pane windows have two panes of glass inset into the frame of the window. The panes of glass are separated, creating an insulating air pocket that inhibits heat transfer much better than single pane windows. Currently, each window in the building is equipped with a film for reducing the amount of sunlight passing through the window into the interior spaces of the building. However, current window technology is much more advanced and energy efficient. Providing new, double pane windows will help the District save energy for the life of the building. Other benefits include controlled ultraviolet ray propagation into the spaces, reduction of disruptions from exterior noise, improved occupancy comfort, and reduced demand for individual space heaters and/or fans. Approximately 30% of the building windows are proposed to be manually operable. Operable windows function with the building’s computerized HVAC system by dividing the building into different HVAC zones. When operable windows are open in a particular zone, the computerized HVAC system would detect that occupants prefers outdoor air and automatically turn off the HVAC for that zone, further reducing energy costs. The zone’s temperature would be controlled by outdoor temperature and airflow. Install roof solar panels (may require roof structural upgrades) The approximate cost will be $2.4M to $2.8M for installation of solar panels covering 80% of the total roof area with roof improvements to support the solar panels. Solar panel procurement and R-19-48 Page 5 installation will cost approximately $1.8M, and roof improvements will cost approximately $640,000 for basic panel supports and $1M for panel supports plus major structural upgrades. Even though it is feasible to install solar panels on the existing roof, additional structural assessment will be required to determine whether the solar panels may be mounted directly onto the roof or additional structural upgrades will be necessary to handle the added weight to the building. Directly mounting the solar panels will cost approximately $2.4M ($1.8M plus $640,000) and mounting on a structurally upgraded roof may cost as much as $2.8M ($1.8M plus $1M). The Board may also choose to improve the existing roof as part of the initial construction and defer the solar panel procurement and installation to a future date. Solar panels would support the District’s Board-approved Climate Action Plan goals to reduce agency greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2022, 40% by 2030, and 80% by 2050. The District began purchasing renewable electricity for the AO through Silicon Valley Clean Energy in December 2018 However, installing solar panels on site would be environmentally preferable because it avoids the emissions associated with transmitting energy from distant solar farms and contributes to a cleaner grid in the region. In addition, installing roof solar panels would provide annual cost savings on electricity. The AO and supplemental leased offices currently account for 75% of the District’s electricity use, at an annual cost of approximately $80,000 per year. Finally, a solar panel system would be a highly visible statement of the District’s environmental values and would be one of the most high-profile and significant steps the District has taken to implement the Climate Action Plan. The solar panels could be used in public affairs materials and interpretive signage to educate the community about climate change and how it affects open space. East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) took a similar approach with a $7.5 million solar panel carport structure in one of their parks, which generates nearly enough electricity to power the entirety of EBRPD’s operations. As a possible alternative option, the District may want to consider initiating a study to assess whether installing solar panels elsewhere, such as at preserve parking lots, could achieve similar goals Provide skylight at the atrium space Noll & Tam originally allocated $400,000 for installing 1) a large skylight, or 2) several solar tubes in the atrium space. This dollar amount included the labor and material costs for each proposed option. Noll and Tam recalculated the cost for these two options to $200,000. This amount would provide 1) a medium-sized skylight, or 2) a reduced number of solar tubes in the atrium space. The design team explored installing a series of smaller skylights, installed in between the roof joists, giving the illusion of a large segmented skylight. This option is more costly than the other two options as it would require more labor and materials. Access to natural light, views, and outdoor space is highly desirable, and deemed of high priority by the Board. One major benefit for natural light in the building is the reduction of energy costs. Natural light also increases the aesthetics of a space, making interior spaces appear larger. Natural light can be achieved with either a large or segmented skylight on the roof or solar tube daylighting systems. These systems are engineered to efficiently capture the solar light and bring natural light into the inner spaces of the building. See Attachment 1, Section 4, Exhibits - Atrium Options. Design Elements for Board Feedback The remaining design elements for the Board to provide feedback and direction are: R-19-48 Page 6 • Windows: Whether to include replacing all existing single glaze windows with double glaze, with 30% set aside as manually operable windows, or other iteration of window replacement. • Solar Panels: Whether to include at this time the installation of roof solar panels, and possible necessary roof structural upgrades, or ensure the roof is solar-ready for a future installation, or other iteration. • Natural Light: Select skylights or solar tubes for the atrium space, or other iteration. • HVAC: Whether to replace the HVAC mechanical units and roof membrane at this time or defer replacement to a later date, or other iteration. FISCAL IMPACT An October 2018 appraisal for the 330 Distel Circle property (12,120 square feet) assessed whether potential proceeds generated from a sale can partially reimburse the remodel work. As a reminder, the first $7,500,000 from a sale are intended to call the 2017 parity bonds and pay the note that was issued for the property purchase. The October 2018 appraisal quote for the building at 330 Distel Circle is $10,350,000. The FY2018-19 budget for the AO Project (#31202) includes $31,550,100 for building acquisition and $600,000 for architectural and engineering design work, of which the schematic design phase is anticipated to be complete by the end of the fiscal year. The approved project budget is shown below. The AO project currently has $25.7 million in funding needs. This project will be funded using the current committed infrastructure reserve funds, any future additions to the reserve, rent income, parity bond proceeds, and interest earned from the parity bonds. Neither the recommended action nor the building purchase are funded by Measure AA. Project #31202 Prior Year Actuals FY2018-19 Total New AO Facility Budget $135,142 $32,150,100 $32,285,242 less approved Building Acquisition: $0 ($31,550,100) ($31,550,100) less Spent to Date (as of 03/05/19): ($135,142) ($185,854) ($320,996) less Encumbrances: $0 ($124,930) ($124,930) Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $289,216 $289,216 Depending on Board approval of the final schematic design, additional funding may need to be allocated to augment the available General Fund sources. If so, the General Manager and Chief Financial Officer would evaluate the funding options and bring recommendations to the full Board at a future date. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. R-19-48 Page 7 CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Future environmental review will be conducted on the proposed site improvements as part of the permitting process. NEXT STEPS The table below lists the remaining project milestones for the Schematic Design phase. PROJECT SCHEDULE WITH KEY MILESTONES DATE PROCESS AD HOC FULL BOARD 4/24/2019 Board review/comment on Schematic Design progress X 5/22/2019 Final Schematic Design X Attachments: 1. Schematic Design Package 2. Schematic Design Cost Estimate Responsible Department Head: Jason Lin, P.E., Engineering and Construction Department Manager Prepared by: Felipe Nistal, Senior Capital Project Manager DATE: April 24, 2019 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors THROUGH: Ana M. Ruiz, General Manager FROM: Joshua Hugg, Governmental Affairs Specialist SUBJECT: Legislative Actions Update to Board _____________________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND Board Policy 1.11 titled “Positions on Ballot Measures and Legislative Advocacy,” Section 2.0b, provides the General Manager the ability to take a position on pending legislation in time- sensitive situations. More specifically: b. When time is so short that neither the full Board nor LFPAC can be convened to consider positions to support or oppose local, state or federal legislation, the General Manager is authorized to take a position on behalf of the District if the legislation: i. Is related to the District’s mission; AND ii. Would directly impact the District’s business, such as project delivery, operations, finances, legal authority, or other District responsibilities; AND iii. The position being taken is consistent/inconsistent with existing District policy, past action, or District Strategic Plan; OR iv. The legislation carries other considerations that make it contrary to the District’s interests. In such instances, the General Manager or designee shall report to the Board any actions taken to support or oppose the legislation at or before the next Board meeting. DISCUSSION On behalf of the District, the General Manager has taken the following time-sensitive action:  AB 948 (Kalra): Coyote Valley Conservation Program. Action: At the behest of the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, the District has taken a SUPPORT position and communicated it to the Chair of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Bill Summary: AB 948 would create the Coyote Valley Conservation Program (Program) to be implemented by the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority (Authority). Under the Program, the Authority would undertake projects to conserve, protect, and restore the natural and working land aspects of Coyote Valley and the multiple benefits these lands provide. Consistency with Legislative Program: • District Legislative Priority #2 – Regional Conservation: The District supports legislation that enhances and funds regional collaboration and coordination of conservation efforts. • Natural Resources Protection and Restoration #27 - Enhances or streamlines the identification, creation, and maintenance of wildlife corridors both within District lands and adjacent entities, which may extend to statewide and international linkages  AB 450 (Irwin): Bees: Apiary Protection Act. Action: Midpen has taken a SUPPORT position and communicated it to the author on April 9. This bill would provide timely notification of apiary relocations to help entities avoid impacting apiaries when considering the use of pesticides. Bill Summary: This bill is a cleanup bill to AB 2468 (Arambula, 2018), which required timely apiary movement notification. The 72-hour reporting requirement of AB 2468 when an apiary is moved into another county will also be required for an apiary relocated within a county under this new bill. Consistency with Legislative Program: • Natural Resources Protection and Restoration #17. Emphasizes the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices that aligns with the District’s program • Natural Resources Protection and Restoration #29. Enhances regulatory permit and closer collaboration and coordination between regulatory agencies  State Budget Program – Prop 68 Community Access Action: The District has signed a group support letter for a provision of Prop 68 (2018) in the state budget that helps enable community access to outdoor opportunities. Summary: The state Department of Finance (DOF) has come out against using Prop 68 funds for non-capital purposes. This support letter reinforces the message that voters who supported Prop 68 want barriers to accessing open space and outdoor recreational opportunities lowered. Prop 68 Provisions Under Scrutiny: 80002(b) “Community access” means engagement programs, technical assistance, or facilities that maximize safe and equitable physical admittance, especially for low-income communities, to natural or cultural resources, community education, or recreational amenities. 80008 (c) (1) Up to 5 percent of funds available pursuant to each chapter of this division shall, to the extent permissible under the State General Obligation Bond Law (Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 16720) of Part 3 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code) and with the concurrence of the Director of Finance, be allocated for community access projects that include, but are not limited to, the following: (A) Transportation. (B) Physical activity programming. (C) Resource interpretation. (D) Multilingual translation. (E) Natural science. (F) Workforce development and career pathways. (G) Education. (H) Communication related to water, parks, climate, coastal protection, and other outdoor pursuits. Consistency with Legislative Program: • Public Access and Education: #2. Increases public access to preserved land region-wide #4. Helps provide educational opportunities for preserve visitors about natural and cultural resources and the benefits of open space #6. Promotes involvement and engagement of communities in ongoing conservation #7. Funds and enables programs that hires youth to work in parks and open space and encourages them to consider careers in conservation  State Budget Program – Habitat Conservation Fund Action: At the behest of Defenders for Wildlife, the District has signed onto a group support letter requesting the Habitat Conservation Fund (HCF) be renewed and funded in perpetuity. Summary: HCF is slated to sunset in July 2020. The District has received HCF funds on several occasions and currently has two applications pending. California voters passed the California Wildlife Protection Act, Proposition 117 in June 1990. It created the HCF and required an annual transfer of $30 million into the fund until the year 2020. It also specified how the monies were to be expended for acquiring, restoring, and enhancing habitat to protect wildlife and plant populations, especially deer, mountain lions, rare, endangered, threatened or fully protected species, wetlands, riparian, and aquatic habitat. Consistency with Legislative Program: • Natural Resource Protection and Restoration: #13. Creates or enhances new funding sources to implement local or state government programs that benefit the environment such as: watershed protection, groundwater recharge and sustainability, water conservation, GHG reduction, Areas of Special Biological Significance compliance, Rare, Threatened, and Endangered species management and recovery #14. Expands funding for: • Wetland restoration projects that provide carbon sequestration benefits. • Forest health programs that reduce GHG emissions through fuel reduction. • Wildlife Corridor projects that improve wildlife habitat connectivity DATE: April 24, 2019 MEMO TO: Board of Directors THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, Acting General Manager FROM: Matt Baldzikowski, Senior Resource Management Specialist SUBJECT: La Honda Preserve Forest Management Plan ______________________________________________________________________ Natural Resource Department staff will release a Request for Proposals for the development of a La Honda Preserve Forest Management Plan (Forest Plan) in April 2019, with award of contract scheduled for approval at the Board of Director’s (Board) June 26, 2019 regular meeting. The La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan (Master Plan) includes a Forest Management Element, which directs District forest management efforts to begin with surveys to document specific conditions within the preserve. The Master Plan also identifies possible opportunities to manage portions of the forest to accelerate the development of late-seral conditions, with the goal of protecting and restoring old, mature, forest habitat for wildlife, fire resiliency, and to increase carbon uptake and storage. Additionally there are opportunities to reduce erosion from previously constructed logging roads, and to restore water courses within the preserve. The District’s landholdings include a total of approximately 30,000 acres of forest and woodland habitat. Much of the forest and woodland habitat was altered by historical land use practices including: timber and fuelwood harvesting, agriculture uses, residential development, and fire suppression activities. Forests today are markedly different than forests prior to the gold rush era settlement of California. These changes are most visible within redwood forests, where the widely spaced stumps of the original old growth forests remain and contrast with the often crowded stands of small diameter redwoods that have sprouted from the stumps of cut trees. Changes within oak, mixed hardwood, and riparian forests have also occurred, although the alterations are often less apparent. For example, old stumps in these ecosystems do not persist as evidence of the former habitat as they do in redwoods; and some riparian species such as sycamore and cottonwood may have been completely removed to accommodate floodplain land use, leaving only narrow strips of willow and alder trees along the immediate margins of creeks. Many of these alterations began over a century ago, and are difficult to recognize in the current landscape. The District’s Resource Management Policies contains a chapter on Forest Management with the following goals: “to retain and promote biologically diverse, dynamic forest conditions; maintain and enhance high quality forest and aquatic habitat; encourage and enhance the development of late-seral conifer forest; provide for visitor experiences within diverse forest habitat; and promote regional fire management objectives”. The Forest Management Policies offer the following guidance on how to achieve these goals: • Forest Management Policy FM-1 directs staff to inventory and assess District forests and woodlands. Inventories should assess forest age, structure, health, regeneration, biological legacies (such as residual old growth), and the reconnection and restoration of late-seral conifer habitat. Late-seral or late-succession redwood forests are defined as older maturing forests (between 100-300 years) with characteristics similar to old growth forests (typically 400 up to 2000 years old). • The Forest Management Policy also directs the District to provide necessary fire and fuel management practices to protect forest resources as well as public health and safety (FM- 5); and to monitor wildlife, water quality, and vegetation response to forest management activities (FM-7). • Forest Management Policy FM-4 directs staff to prepare Forest Management Plans for high priority District conifer forests. Natural Resources staff have selected the La Honda Forest as the location for the first forest inventory and management plan. The La Honda Forest encompasses the eastern portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, roughly following La Honda Creek, and includes the Northern portion of the Preserve (see attached map). The La Honda Forest was selected as the District’s first forest management plan location due to the variety of forest habitats and conditions, watershed restoration opportunity, and proximity to the wildland-urban interface with the surrounding rural residential communities of La Honda and Skylonda. The Forest Plan will draw from the substantial resource and preserve data already gathered to support the Master Plan. A portion of the preserve was designated as a closed Conservation Management Unit (CMU) due to an intensive timber harvest history. Many of the former dirt logging roads are in poor condition and should be restored to prevent erosion and sedimentation in adjacent creeks. Forest management work in the CMU area will not conflict with recreational access since this area is designated as closed to public access. Upon completion of the Draft Forest Plan, the consultant and staff will present the draft Forest Plan, including opportunities and recommendations for management, to the Board of Directors (Board) at a public study session. The draft plan may be revised based upon comments by the Board and public, and then finalized. The final Forest Plan will be presented to the Board at a regular public Board Meeting for final action. Upon approval, specific forest management projects will proceed and be brought to the Board during the budget preparation process. L a H onda C r ee k La H o n d a C r e e k L a ngl ey Creek W o o d r u f f C r e e k H a rrin gton Creek W eeks C r e e k P i ne Tree Gulch L a w r e n c e C r e e k S a n G r e g o ri o C r e e k E l C o r t e de M a dera C r e e k Mindego C r e e k B o g e ss C reek Dennis M a rtin Creek W histl e Cree k Woodhams C r e e k B e a r G u l c h R d O l d L a H onda Rd Allen R o a d E s p i n osa Rd O l d La Hon d a R d ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE La Honda Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) April 2019 La Honda Forest Project La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ L a _ H o n d a _ C r e e k \ F o r e s t M a n a g e m e n t P l a n \ L H C _ F o r e s t M a n a g e m e n t P l a n _ R F P _ 2 0 1 8 0 1 0 6 _ D O C _ n e w . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : a h e b e r t 0 10.5 Miles While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ84 ÄÆ82 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35ÄÆ9ÄÆ236 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ92 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ85 Half Moon Bay Redwood City San Carlos Belmont East Palo Alto Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail IProject_Area Paved Road Unoaved Road Trail Grassland Coastal Scrub Chaparral Redwood and Douglas Fir Riparian Wetland Preserve Boundary Hardwood Forest Weedy Ruderal Grassland Board Questions April 24, 2019 Director Kishimoto Item 4 - 3 historic structures * possible to get photos of the three? Yes, see attached site photos of the three structures (Attachment 1) * is goal to just “allow exterior viewing” or allow staff/contractors to occasionally enter safely to monitor and do maintenance? The goal is to allow exterior viewing for the public, no public entry into the structures. Staff/contractors may safely enter to monitor and do maintenance * if I want to see the historic reports by consultants, is there a PDF or I can borrow the documents (after the meeting is fine or I will be at Midpen tomorrow at 12 to go wildflower training) LHC White Barn Historic Report (Attachment 2) Beatty Historic Report (Note: this summary report was done for both Beatty and the Bear Creek Stables) (Attachment 3) Redwood Cabin (Attachment 4) Item 3 - White Barn * same question - how to view the historic report Report Attached (Attachment 5) * Also, is there a reason why most of the barn is closed to public? safety reasons or just nothing to see? Both safety and nothing to see. The interior of the barn is mainly used for storage so there’s not much to see. Most of the interior (such as floor, roof height, and stairs) are not ADA compliant so it poses safety concerns. Item 8 - still reviewing but a couple preliminary questions: * solar panels: covering 80% of roof - how many kW estimated to produce - what percentage of building needs if we have rough estimate based on average use? 80% covered roof with PV would produce 187kw; however, this amount isn’t realistic due to shade of trees/mechanical, and the subtraction of fire department’s walkways. 60% covered roof with PV would produce about 140kw. This amount would be less than half of what is needed to cover our expected use. Question from General Manager Ana Ruiz: One remaining question though to help answer all the questions raised: do the use of clouds require more energy use to warm/cool the space since the clouds create more 3D space that needs to be controlled? Is this true as compared to ceiling tiles, or is the difference negligible? Regarding your questions on ceiling clouds, acoustic ceiling tiles and energy use, the answer is no, ceiling clouds do not require more energy use as the heated or cooled air would move easily in between the ceiling clouds. Acoustic ceiling tiles are porous and warm/cool air circulates through them also, but not as easily as with the clouds; however, the difference is negligible. I also checked with our consultant and he indicated that the energy used in a space is much more determined by things like solar gain, lighting and people. The difference between a ceiling cloud and acoustic ceiling doesn’t really register compared to those factors. * impact on climate plan reduction goal - AO is 75% of District’s electricity use. And electricity use is what percent of our climate emissions? Electricity use is 4.8% of our total GHG emissions where, AO’s electricity use would be 75% of 5% = 3.6% of the District’s total GHG emissions. * ceiling clouds - report says they reduce noise - is that true? It would seem rooms with ceiling clouds vs. conventional tiles use more heat and maybe absorb less noise - ? Ceiling clouds absorb sound across their entire surface as these are hung parallel to the ceiling. Sound absorption is achieved at two points. It is absorbed at the bottom face of the cloud as the sound travels toward the underside of the slab above. Sound is also absorbed at the top face of the cloud as it bounces back to the floor. * Room for recycling ? Recycling will continue to change but please make sure there is some wiggle room for containers Noll & Tam will ensure of this. There is allocated space in the rear of the building as it has the opportunity to be flexible in size. * Exterior lighting of building, trees, safety lighting for night meetings to parking, out to sidewalk? (what page?) The current code requires path of travel lighting. This means from El Camino Real, up the ramp, across the plaza to the entrance. Noll & Tam will meet with Midpen staff about supplementing existing lighting in areas beyond that. * LED checklist - the energy and atmosphere assume which scenario? The LEED chart was done in early Dec 2018 and is conservative. As it was unclear at the time of which mechanical scheme we would be using, many of the points are in the “question” category. With new mechanical equipment, we will get more. If we re-use the existing equipment, it should not change much. * LED checklist - location and transportation - why zero points out of 16 for LED for Neighborhood Development Location? Because under the “Location and Transportation” credit if we take points in LTc1 “Neighborhood Development Location” we are not allowed to take points in the remaining category credits. It’s a USGBC rule. We get more points this way. * Sound - are acoustic tiles included? Yes Interior Photo of La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin SITE PHOTOS Exterior Photo of La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin and Deck Exterior Photo of La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin through the Trees Exterior Photo of La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin and Deck Exterior Photo of La Honda Creek White Barn Exterior Photo of La Honda Creek White Barn Exterior Photo of La Honda Creek White Barn and Road/Path in Front of it Exterior Photo of Sierra Azul Beatty Property Home Exterior Photo of Sierra Azul Beatty Property Home Interior Photo of Sierra Azul Beatty Property Home Interior Photo of Sierra Azul Beatty Property Home February 2018 HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION OF THE DYER BARN LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE U NINCORPORATED SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA February 2018 HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION OF THE DYER BARN LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE UNINCORPORATED SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Lisa Infante Bankosh Open Space Planner III Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, California 94022 Prepared by: Michael Hibma, M.A., DPH Architectural Historian/Senior Cultural Resources Manager LSA 157 Park Place Richmond, California 94801 (510) 236-6810 Project No. MOS1706 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LSA prepared a historical resource evaluation (HRE) of the Dyer Barn, part of the former the 615- acre Dyer Ranch, a 250-acre portion of which is owned and managed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). The Dyer Barn is located on Assessor Parcel Number 075-330-220, encompassing 90.7-acres in a rural setting within the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve in unincorporated San Mateo County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The Dyer Barn is a rectangular wood-frame, single-crib barn built circa 1860 on an open, sloping hillside site with two other detached buildings in the vicinity. These buildings consist of (1) a contemporary single-story, approximately 3,100 square-foot, single-family residence built circa 1948 approximately 280 feet northeast of the Dyer Barn; and (2) a two-story, approximately 2,000-square-foot garage built circa 1950 approximately 120 feet to the east of the Dyer Barn. A paved driveway leads from a gate at Allen Road to the main yard. This HRE evaluates the eligibility of the Dyer Barn for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). For the purposes of this evaluation, the “Dyer Barn” refers only to the subject barn built circa 1860 and does not include the residence and garage referenced above. This HRE is based on background research, an architectural field survey, and the application of evaluative criteria for the National Register, found at 36 CFR §60.4; and for the California Register, found at California Public Resources Code §5024.1. The Dyer Barn was part of a larger ranch property formerly owned by Calvin and Dora Dyer, with additional buildings (since demolished circa 2012) located south and east of the Dyer Barn. This HRE documents the methods and results of the evaluation. Based on background research and a field survey, LSA concludes that the Dyer Barn appears individually eligible for inclusion in both the National Register and the California Register at the local level of significance under Criterion A/1 for association with the early development of the ranching industry in the La Honda area; under Criterion C/3 for its vernacular architectural qualities; and under Criterion D/4 for its notable example as a local variation of the Vernacular architectural style, use of local materials, and as an example of mortise-and-tenon joinery construction that may yield information important to history. For these reasons, the Dyer Barn qualifies as a “historical resource” for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as defined at Public Resources Code (PRC) §21084.1. This HRE also includes, in an appendix, the Dyer Barn Structural Conditions Assessment and Treatment Recommendations prepared by Charles Duncan, preservation architect with Interactive Resources, Inc. H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Project Site and Description ................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 7 2.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 8 2.1 National Historic Preservation Act ......................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................. 8 2.1.2 National Register of Historic Places .......................................................................................... 8 2.2 California Environmental Quality Act ..................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 California Register of Historical Resources ............................................................................. 10 2.3 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ........................................................................ 12 2.3.1 Cultural Resource Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures ........................................ 12 2.4 Integrity ................................................................................................................................ 15 2.5 Eligibility ............................................................................................................................... 16 3.0 METHODS .......................................................................................................... 17 3.1 Records Search ..................................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Literature and Map Review .................................................................................................. 18 3.3 Archival Research ................................................................................................................. 18 3.4 Field Survey .......................................................................................................................... 18 4.0 RESEARCH AND FIELD SURVEY RESULTS .............................................................. 19 4.1 Records Search ..................................................................................................................... 19 4.2 Literature and Map Review .................................................................................................. 19 4.3 Archival Research ................................................................................................................. 23 4.4 Field Survey .......................................................................................................................... 23 5.0 ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION .................................................................................... 25 5.1 Historic Context .................................................................................................................... 25 5.1.1 Early Settlement ..................................................................................................................... 25 5.1.2 San Mateo County .................................................................................................................. 25 5.1.3 Dyer Barn ................................................................................................................................ 27 5.2 Architectural Context ........................................................................................................... 28 5.2.1 Vernacular .............................................................................................................................. 28 5.2.2 Barns ....................................................................................................................................... 29 5.3 Eligibility Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 30 5.3.1 Application of National Register/California Register Criteria ................................................. 30 5.3.2 Integrity Assessment .............................................................................................................. 32 5.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 33 6.0 REFERENCES CONSULTED ................................................................................... 34 APPENDICES A: California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Series Form record B: Structural Conditions Assessment and Treatment Recommendations H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 3 FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location and Project Site .......................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Project Site .............................................................................................................................. 6 TABLES Table A: Archival Map and Aerial Photograph Review ......................................................................... 20 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of an eligibility evaluation of a rectangular wood-frame, single-crib barn built circa 1860 in the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve in central unincorporated San Mateo County (Figures 1 and 2). Locally known as the Dyer Barn (also referred to as the “La Honda White Barn”), the project site is approximately 7.8 miles due southwest of downtown Redwood City on APN 075-330-220, a 90.7-acre parcel in rural San Mateo County. For the purposes of this evaluation, the “Dyer Barn,” “La Honda White Barn”, or “project site” will refer to only the rectangular, wood-frame, single-crib barn built circa 1860 and will be referred to in this report as “Dyer Barn.” The immediate setting consists of an open sloping hillside site with two other detached buildings in the vicinity. These buildings consist of (1) a contemporary single-story, approximately 3,100 square-foot, single-family residence built circa 1948 approximately 280 feet northeast of Dyer Barn, and (2) a two-story, approximately 2,000 square-foot large two story garage built circa 1950 approximately 120 feet to the east of Dyer Barn. These two buildings are not addressed in this report. The purpose of this HRE is to provide the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) with information regarding Dyer Barn’s status as a historical resource under CEQA so to assist the District with resource management and future project planning. LSA conducted background research, a field survey, and resource recordation to prepare this study. This report includes (1) a description of the regulatory context for cultural resources in the project site; (2) a summary of the methods used to prepare the analysis; (3) a description of the Dyer Barn; and (4) a combination National Register and California Register eligibility evaluation. The methods, analysis, and conclusions of the HRE are presented in this report. Please see Appendix A for Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Series forms for the Dyer Barn; and Appendix B for a Structural Conditions Assessment and Treatment Recommendations report prepared by Charles Duncan, Preservation Architect, and Al Whitecar, Structural Engineer with Interactive Resources (IR). The IR analysis of the Dyer Barn assesses its current structural condition, identifies its character- defining features, and provides conceptual treatment recommendations to stabilize the barn and maintain its historic integrity. 1.1 PROJECT SITE AND DESCRIPTION The project site is located in central unincorporated San Mateo County. Dyer Barn is located off Allen Road, approximately 1.4 miles due south of the intersection of Bear Gulch Road and Skyline Boulevard/State Route 35 (SR 35). South of Dyer Barn contains a wide, ridgetop clearing and offers expansive views of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the community of San Gregorio to the south and the coastline to the west; views to the north and east are blocked by a steep ridge. The project site is approximately 2,150 feet above sea level in rolling grassland with ravines of oak and redwood woodland with tanbark oak, canyon live oak, and chaparral. Other than the Dyer Barn and two mid- 20th century buildings to the east and northeast of Dyer Barn, the remainder of APN 075-330-220 consists of exposed prairie with steep, oak- and redwood-studded ravines to the west. Project Site SOURCE: Esri World Street Map and National Geographic World Map. I:\MOS1706\GIS\Maps\Cultural\Figure 1_Regional Location and Project Site.mxd (11/20/2017) FIGURE 1 Historical Resource Evaluation of the Dyer BarnLa Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Unincorporated San Mateo County, California Regional Location and Project Site Project Site Project Vicinity 0 0.5 1 MILES Project Site SOURCE: USGS 7.5-minute Topo: Woodside, Calif. (1973) and La Honda, Calif. (1968). I:\MOS1706\GIS\Maps\Cultural\Figure 2_Project Site.mxd (11/20/2017) FIGURE 2 Historical Resource Evaluation of the Dyer BarnLa Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Unincorporated San Mateo County, California Project Site 0 1000 2000 FEET H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 7 1.1 Project Description The District is exploring addressing repairs to the Dyer Barn which is anticipated to include foundation shoring, addressing deferred maintenance, and replacing decayed materials to stabilize and secure the Dyer Barn. The District is also contemplating plans for the Dyer Barn to remain as a possible future interpretive element on the landscape. To facilitate these efforts and assist future management decisions for the treatment of the Dyer Barn, the District is seeking to clarify the eligibility of the Dyer Barn for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 8 2.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT 2.1 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 USC §470) was enacted by Congress in 1966 to establish national policy for historic preservation in the United States. The NHPA created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) as an independent federal agency to advise the President and Congress on matters involving historic preservation, as well as to review and be afforded the opportunity to comment on all actions undertaken, licensed, or funded by the federal government that may have an effect on properties listed in the National Register, or eligible for National Register listing. National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, states: Preserving historic properties as important reflections of our American heritage became a national policy through passage of the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. . . The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 authorized the Secretary to expand this recognition to properties of local and State significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture, and are worthy of preservation. The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of the recognized properties, and is maintained and expanded by the National Park Service on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior [National Park Service 1991:i]. The NHPA establishes the role and responsibilities of the federal government in historic preservation. Toward this end, the NHPA directs agencies (1) to identify and manage historic properties under their control; (2) to undertake actions that will advance the NHPA’s provisions, and avoid actions contrary to its purposes; (3) to consult with others while carrying out historic preservation activities; and (4) to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties. 2.1.1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act If a project is subject to federal jurisdiction and is an undertaking, as defined at 36 CFR §800.16(y), with the potential to result in effects on historic properties (36 CFR §800.3(a)), Section 106 of the NHPA must be addressed to take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register (i.e., historic properties). The historic preservation review process mandated by Section 106 is outlined in regulations issued by ACHP. Revised regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR §800), became effective August 5, 2004. Section 106 review must be conducted for all federal, federally assisted, federally licensed, or federally funded projects. The regulations that implement Section 106 and outline the historic preservation review process are at 36 CFR §800. 2.1.2 National Register of Historic Places The National Register was authorized by the NHPA as the Nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The National Register is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect our historic and archeological resources. Properties listed in the National Register consist of districts, sites, buildings, structures, H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 9 and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture (National Park Service 2001). Properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register are considered in planning and environmental review, and effects to such properties are primarily addressed under Section 106. The National Park Service, which administers the National Register, developed evaluation criteria to determine whether a cultural resource has significance as a historic property. Cultural resources that meet the significance criteria and retain their historic integrity (i.e., the ability to convey their significance) are eligible for listing in the National Register. The National Register eligibility criteria are discussed below. 2.1.2.1 Significance Criteria. Four evaluation criteria are applied to the property in which the property’s significance for its association with important events or persons, importance in design or construction, or information potential is assessed (National Park Service 1991:11).These criteria defined at 36 CFR §60.4 and are as follows: “. . . the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” Under Criteria A, B, and C, the National Register places an emphasis on a resource appearing like it did during its period of significance to convey historical significance; under Criterion D, properties convey significance through the information they contain (National Park Service 2000:38). 2.2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CEQA applies to all discretionary projects undertaken or subject to approval by the state’s public agencies (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14(3) §15002(i)). CEQA states that it is the policy of the State of California to “take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with… historic environmental qualities…and preserve for future generations examples of the major periods of California history” (Public Resources Code [PRC] §21001(b), (c)). Under the provisions of CEQA, “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5(b)). H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 10 CEQA §21084.1 defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: • Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); • Listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined at PRC §5020.1(k)); • Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements defined at PRC §5024.1(g); or • Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency (CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5(a)). A historical resource consists of “Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California…Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the [California Register]” (CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5(a)(3)). 2.2.1 California Register of Historical Resources The California Register is a guide to cultural resources that must be considered when a government agency undertakes a discretionary action subject to CEQA. The California Register helps government agencies identify and evaluate California’s historical resources (California Office of Historic Preservation 2001b:1), and indicates which properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (PRC §5024.1(a)). Any resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register is to be taken into consideration during the CEQA process (California Office of Historic Preservation 2001a:7). The California Register was modeled after the National Register, and its significance and integrity criteria are parallel with those of the National Register. A resource eligible for the National Register is eligible for the California Register. The National Register criteria, however, have been modified for state use by the California Office of Historic Preservation to include a range of historical resources which better reflect the history of California (California Office of Historic Preservation 2001c:69-70; 2006:1). There are three instances in which a resource not eligible for the National Register may be eligible for the California Register: moved resources; resources achieving significance in the past 50 years; and reconstructed resources (California Office of Historic Preservation 2006): • Moved buildings, structures, or objects. A moved building, structure, or object that is otherwise eligible may be listed in the California Register if it was (1) moved to prevent its demolition at its former location; and (2) if the new location is compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource. • Reconstructed buildings. A building less than 50 years old may be listed in the California Register if it embodies traditional building methods and techniques that play an important role in a H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 11 community's historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices (e.g., a Native American roundhouse). • Historical resources achieving significance within the past 50 years. Resources less than 50 years old may be listed in the California Register if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance. 2.2.1.1 Significance Criteria. A cultural resource is evaluated under four California Register criteria to determine its historical significance. A resource must be significant in accordance with one or more of the following criteria: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of 1. California’s history and cultural heritage; 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 2.2.1.2 Age. In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time must have passed to allow a “scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource.” Fifty years is used as a general estimate of the time needed to understand the historical importance of a resource (California Office of Historic Preservation 2006:3; CCR Title 14(11.5) §4852 (d)(2)). The State of California Office of Historic Preservation recommends documenting, and taking into consideration in the planning process, any cultural resource that is 45 years or older (California Office of Historic Preservation 1995:2). 2.2.1.3 Period of Significance. The period of significance for a property is “the span of time when a property was associated with important events, activities, persons, cultural groups, and land uses or attained important physical qualities or characteristics” (National Park Service 1999:21). The period of significance begins with the date of the earliest important land use or activity that is reflected by historic characteristics tangible today. The period closes with the date when events having historical importance ended (National Park Service 1999:21). The period of significance for an archeological property is “the time range (which is usually estimated) during which the property was occupied or used and for which the property is likely to yield important information” (National Park Service 2000:34). Archaeological properties may have more than one period of significance. H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 12 2.3 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 2.3.1 Cultural Resource Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures The purpose of the goals, policies, and procedures outlined below is to formalize and enhance the District’s cultural resource management practices for the long-term stewardship of significant historical and archaeological sites.1 Goal CR-Identify, protect, preserve, and interpret cultural resources for the benefit of present and future generations. Policy CR-1 Maintain an inventory of cultural resources on District preserves. • Inventory and assess cultural resources throughout the District, including prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, structures, and cultural landscape features. The Cultural Resource Inventory should include a Geographic Information Systems database; however, access to this inventory must be restricted to District staff and qualified professionals, to the extent allowed by law to protect sites from looting and vandalism. • Record cultural resources in the District’s Cultural Resource Inventory when purchasing new property and perform research on previous uses of the property. Examples of research activities include performing a records search with the Northwest Information Center and consulting historic preservation organizations, previous residents, and descendants to gather local historical information. Complete archaeological site records for known unrecorded sites on District land and file reports with the Northwest Information Center. Policy CR-2 Address cultural resources in the development of preserve use and management plans. • Consult the Cultural Resource Inventory when planning projects that may have an impact on cultural resources in the project area. • Conduct appropriate reconnaissance measures, such as research or archaeological survey, early in the planning process for trail construction, maintenance activities, or other projects that entail ground disturbance in an area of known archaeological sensitivity. Monitor construction activities when appropriate. • Locate facilities, such as trails, staging areas, and new structures, to avoid loss or degradation of historically or archaeologically significant resources wherever possible. If not possible to avoid, minimize impacts, for example by: capping site, recording important features and/or artifacts, relocating structures, or data recovery excavation. 1 This section is adapted from Resource Management Policies prepared in December 2014 by the District and is available online at: ttps://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Resource_Management_Policies.pdf. H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 13 • Include stakeholder groups when developing plans for the management of historically or archaeologically significant resources. Consult with descendent communities such as Native American and other ethnic groups when developing plans for the management of historically or archaeologically significant resources related to their heritage. • Assess the significance, integrity, and feasibility of preservation of historic structures when developing Preserve Use and Management Plans or Master Plans. If a structure is determined to be eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, assess feasibility of preserving the resource. Policy CR-3 Protect cultural resources from disturbance to the maximum extent feasible. • Wherever possible and appropriate, preserve historical resources and archaeological sites in situ. • Prohibit looting, vandalism, and unauthorized removal of cultural resources and associated artifacts from District preserves. • Implement security measures such as protective fencing and patrolling to reduce vulnerability of the resources due to vandalism and looting. • Develop security protocols to limit availability and distribution of geographic information for cultural resources to protect sites from looting and vandalism. • Prohibit District sale, purchase, or commercial trade of individual archaeological artifacts. • Develop and follow guidelines for reporting, protecting and recording archaeological sites and features in the event of unexpected discovery. • Provide District staff with basic training to identify and protect cultural resources. • Assess existing operations within areas of known archaeological sensitivity to protect and preserve cultural resources. • Require that all archaeological investigations or research activities that have the potential to physically significantly impact archaeological resources are carried out by qualified archaeologists, and that a technical report for each project is provided to the District following excavation. Policy CR-4 Preserve and maintain cultural resources wherever feasible. • Actively pursue grant assistance from local, state, federal, and other programs to supplement District funds to implement historic preservation projects for historically and archaeologically significant resources. H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 14 • Seek partnerships with private or non-profit groups to aid in the restoration, management, and use of historic structures. • Assess the condition, identify needed repairs, and prepare maintenance plans for significant high priority historic structures as funds allow. • Assess the eligibility of cultural resources for nomination on local registers, the California Register of Historic Resources, and the National Register of Historic Places. Consider nomination to registers for which a resource is determined eligible. • Catalog artifacts associated with sites on District lands to prevent deterioration and to document the site and location where the artifacts were recovered. Consider curating artifacts in danger of deterioration. Maintain a cataloging system to preserve artifacts’ contextual information and storage locations. Where appropriate, coordinate with other agencies and organizations to assist in long-term curation of District collections. • Develop and follow guidelines and procedures governing loans of artifacts to other agencies and organizations. Policy CR-5 Provide public access and educational programs to interpret historical and archaeological resources. • Provide controlled public access to historical and archaeological sites where appropriate, considering other public access resource constraints and resource protection. • Allow appropriate uses of cultural resources by descendent communities. • Seek input from descendent communities, such as Native American and other ethnic groups, when planning public access and educational programs that interpret cultural resources related to their heritage. • When developing partnerships for the use and management of historic structures, plan for public access to the structures where appropriate while minimizing impact to the structures and respecting the needs of building occupants. • Provide interpretive materials such as signage or brochures for self-guided hikes to inform visitors about the history of District lands and the San Francisco Bay Area. Develop locations to display artifacts for public benefit. • Encourage, utilize, and support historical research by docents and volunteers. • Provide training opportunities for docents to aid them in the development of docent-led tours of historic and archaeological sites and landscapes. • Facilitate school field trips of historic and archaeological sites and cultivate other opportunities to work with educational groups to interpret cultural resources on District preserves. H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 15 • Support historical and archaeological research conducted by District approved, qualified cultural resource professionals on District lands. Policy CR-6 Preserve District institutional history. • Preserve documents and artifacts important to the history of the District. 2.4 INTEGRITY In order to be eligible for the National Register and/or California Register, a cultural resource must be significant under one or more criteria and must retain enough of its historic character and appearance to possess integrity, which is defined as the ability to convey the reasons for its significance (CCR Title 14 §4852(c)). The evaluation of integrity must be grounded in an understanding of a resource’s physical features and its environment, and how these relate to its significance. “The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance” (National Park Service 1991:44). Generally, a cultural resource must be 50 years old or older to qualify for the National Register and/or California Register.2 National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service 1991:2), states that the quality of significance is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity. There are seven aspects of integrity to consider when evaluating a cultural resource: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association; these aspects are described below. • Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. • Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. • Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. Physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or manmade, including topographic features, vegetation, paths or fences, or relationships between buildings and other features or open space. • Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. 2 Generally, for a cultural resource to be considered for listing in the California Register—and a historical resource for purposes of CEQA—it must be at least 50 years old or enough time must have passed for there to be a scholarly perspective on the resource and the reasons for its potential significance. H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 16 • Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of the artisan's labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. • Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. • Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. "To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects” (National Park Service 1991:44). 2.5 ELIGIBILITY National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service 1991:3), states that in order for a property to qualify for listing in the National Register, it must meet at least one of the National Register criteria for evaluation by: 1. being associated with an important historic context and 2. retaining historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance. Resources that meet the age guidelines, are significant, and possess integrity will generally be considered eligible for listing in the National Register and/or California Register. H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 17 3.0 METHODS LSA conducted records search, literature and map review, archival research, and field survey to prepare this HRE. Each task is described below. 3.1 RECORDS SEARCH LSA conducted a records search (File No. 17-1329) of the project site and adjacent properties within a one-mile radius on November 6, 2017, at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. The NWIC, an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation, is the official state repository of cultural resource records and reports for San Mateo County. As part of the records search, LSA also reviewed the following local and state inventories for built environment cultural resources in and adjacent to the project site: • Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Vision Plan (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2013); • California Inventory of Historic Resources (California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976); • Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California (California Office of Historic Preservation 1988); • California Points of Historical Interest (California Office of Historic Preservation 1992); • California Historical Landmarks (California Office of Historic Preservation 1996); • San Francisco Architecture: The Illustrated Guide to Over 1,000 of the Best Buildings, Parks, and Public Artworks in the Bay Area (Woodbridge, Sally B., John M. Woodbridge, and Chuck Byrne 1992); • San Francisco Architecture: An Illustrated Guide to the Outstanding Buildings, Public Artworks, and Parks in the Bay Area of California (Woodbridge, Sally B., John M. Woodbridge and Chuck Byrne 2005); • Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for San Mateo County. (California Office of Historic Preservation April 5, 2012). The directory includes the listings of the National Register, National Historic Landmarks, the California Register, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest; • Historic Sites Master List for San Mateo County (San Mateo County 1981); and • San Mateo County General Plan - Inventory of County Historic Resources (San Mateo County Department of Environmental Services 1986). H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 18 3.2 LITERATURE AND MAP REVIEW LSA reviewed the following publications, maps, and websites for historical information about the project site and its vicinity: • Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California (American Society of Civil Engineers, San Francisco Section 1977); • California Place Names (Gudde 1998); • Historic Spots in California (Hoover et al. 1990); • California 1850: A Snapshot in Time (Marschner 2000); • General Land Office (GLO) Plat for Township No. 6 South, Range No. 4 West (GLO 1866); • Santa Cruz, California, 60-minute topographic quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1902); • Half Moon Bay, California, 15-minute topographic quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1940 and 1961); • Woodside, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1953, 1961, 1968, 1973, 1991, and 1997); • Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps of Redwood City (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company, 1884, 1888, 1891, 1895, 1897, 1907, 1919, and 1950); • Historical aerial photographs of Dyer Barn (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, 1948, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1980, 1991, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, and 2012); • An Architectural Guidebook to San Francisco and the Bay Area (Cerny 2007); • Online Archive of California at http://www.oac.cdlib.org; and • Calisphere at http://www.calisphere.universityofcalifornia.edu. 3.3 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH LSA Architectural Historian/Cultural Resource Analyst Amber Long conducted property-specific background research at the San Mateo County Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder’s Office and the San Mateo County Historical Association, both in Redwood City. 3.4 FIELD SURVEY LSA Architectural Historian Michael Hibma conducted a pedestrian field survey of the project site on November 1, 2017, to identify alterations to the Dyer Barn and characterize its setting. The exterior, interior, and setting of the Dyer Barn were photographed. H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 19 4.0 RESEARCH AND FIELD SURVEY RESULTS 4.1 RECORDS SEARCH Two cultural resources have been conducted within a one-mile radius of the Dyer Barn. These resources include: • The Archaeological Reconnaissance of the “Weeks Driveway” in the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, Skyline Boulevard, San Mateo County, California, prepared by MRC Consulting archaeologist Matthew R. Clark in 1992, evaluated a 670-foot-long segment of an existing driveway or logging road/skid path on the “Lands of Weeks” (APNs 72-333-020; -030). The report also concluded that no evidence of precontact or historic-period archaeological deposits was found within the survey area (Clark 1992). • The Archaeological Survey Report for the Djerassi Timber Harvesting Plan, prepared by Gary Paul in 2003, identified a former sawmill boiler discarded in Harrington Creek approximately 0.7 miles due west of the Dyer Barn. This boiler is of riveted construction and measures 3 feet in diameter and 20 feet in length. The resource was assigned a Primary number of P-41-002153 (Paul 2003). One cultural resource study was conducted within a one-mile radius of the Dyer Barn. • The Cultural Resource Evaluation of a Piece of Land Located at 350 Allen Road, County of San Mateo, prepared by consulting archaeologist Robert Cartier, Ph.D., in 1996, presented the results of located study of the property at 350 Allen Road (APN 075-340-420), approximately 0.7 miles northwest of the Dyer Barn. The study did not identify any evidence of precontact or historic-period archaeological deposits (Cartier 1996). The results of a review of the following local and state inventories are described below. • A review of the Inventory of San Mateo County Historic Resources did not identify any historic resources within or adjacent to the project site (San Mateo Department of Environmental Services 1981, 1986). • A review of the California Registry of Big Trees did not identify any historic or notable trees within or adjacent to the project site (Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute 2016). 4.2 LITERATURE AND MAP REVIEW The literature and map review indicated that the project site remained relatively rural with no improved road to the Dyer Barn until the early 1950s, and that built environment resources (since demolished) within or adjacent to the Dyer Barn, since demolished, were in place by 1902. The changing nature of the built environment in the project site is described below. A review of Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps of the community of indicates that the project site was too far outside the limits of Redwood City to warrant insurance assessment and depiction H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 20 on maps (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1884, 1888, 1891, 1895, 1897, 1907, 1919, and 1950). Sanborn maps of nearby communities, such as Woodside, San Gregorio, or La Honda, were not available. Historical aerial photographs of the Dyer Barn from 1948 to the present depict changes in and around the project site through time (Nationwide Environmental Title Research 1948, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1980, 1991, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, and 2012). Table A, below, presents these changes. Table A: Archival Map and Aerial Photograph Review Source Project Site Features General Land Office 1866 – Plat of Township No. 6 South/Range No. 4 West The project site (including Dyer Barn) is not depicted. The central portion of Section 27 is shown as unsurveyed. Two fences cross into Section 27 at the southeast corner of the southeast corner of section 27. Other notable features depicted in Section 27 include: • “Rail Road in Creek Bed” is depicted in the northeastern corner of the northeastern corner of Section 27. Examination of subsequent topographic maps indicates that the creek referred to is La Honda Creek. • A “small house” is depicted straddling the border of sections 27 and 34, southwest of the project site. • A “Fence and Road” are shown meandering along the western border of Section 27. • One northeast/southwest-oriented gulch is depicted in the southeastern corner of the northwestern corner of Section 27. Another gulch is shown in the southeastern corner of the northeastern corner of Section 27. U.S. Geographical Survey Topographic Quadrangles 1902 Santa Cruz, California, 60-minute The project site is located in an area characterized by steep ravines. One unpaved road is shown leading to the project site from the north (not Allen Road). One building footprint is shown; however, it is located approximately 250 feet southeast of the Dyer Barn and is likely the location of a former homestead. La Honda Creek and Harrington Creek are depicted east and west of the project site, respectively. 1940 Half Moon Bay, California. 15-minute The single building depicted in 1902 remains in place. A benchmark is depicted south of the project site and is named “SKY.” Two unpaved footpaths are shown leading away from the project site to areas to the northwest and southwest. “Bowman Ranch” is depicted near an unnamed stream near the bottom of a deep ravine, southwest of the project site. 1953 Woodside, Calif. 7.5-minute This map depicts the barn among three other building footprints depicted within 200 feet of the Dyer Barn. These footprints are shown as unfilled squares, indicating they are secondary, non-dwelling buildings. Two buildings are east of the Dyer Barn and one is to the south. One of the unfilled square building H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 21 Source Project Site Features footprints, east of the Dyer Barn corresponds to the two-story, approximately 2,000 square-foot garage built circa 1950 approximately 120 feet to the east of the Dyer Barn. The other square is likely a separate house or dwelling that was demolished circa 2012. A rectangular filled square that corresponds to the contemporary single-story, approximately 3,100 square-foot, single-family residence built circa 1948 approximately 280 feet northeast of the Dyer Barn. Allen Road is depicted as a light duty road that connects Bear Gulch Road to Skyline Boulevard/SR 35. Allen Lookout, a fire lookout facility, is depicted approximately 1.1 miles northwest of the Dyer Barn. The modern community of Sky Londa is depicted approximately 1 mile east of the Dyer Barn. No other buildings, structures, or objects are depicted. 1961 Half Moon Bay, California. 15-minute This map depicts three dark-colored square building footprints in the vicinity of the Dyer Barn. No secondary building footprints are depicted. Two of these shapes correspond to the two contemporary buildings as shown on the 1953 Woodside, Calif. 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. A third filled shape is depicted south/south-east of the Dyer Barn. The benchmark and an associated name of “Sky” shown on the 1940 Half Moon Bay, California 15-minute topographic quadrangle are depicted. The segment of Allen Road that connects the parcel that contains the Dyer Barn to Bear Gulch Road is shown, but the segment connecting to Skyline Boulevard/SR 35 is depicted as a footpath or trail. Allen Lookout is depicted. No other discernable changes to the project site from 1940 or 1953 are depicted. 1961 Woodside, Calif. 7.5-minute This map depicts the same built environment as was shown on the 1953 Woodside 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Notable changes include the addition of an unfilled square building footprint west of two filled shapes shown east of the Dyer Barn, as was shown in 1953. Other notable changes include depiction of the benchmark and an associated name of “Sky.” Allen Road east of the Dyer Barn area is depicted as a “Jeep Trail.” 1968 Woodside, Calif. 7.5-minute This map depicts the same built environment as was shown on the 1961 Woodside, Calif. 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Notable changes include a power transmission line to the west. 1973 Woodside, Calif. 7.5-minute No discernable changes to the project site from 1968 were identified. 1991 Woodside, Calif. 7.5-minute This map depicts the same built environment as was shown on the 1973 Woodside, Calif. 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. 1997 Woodside, Calif. 7.5-minute No discernable changes to the project site from 1991 were identified. Historical Aerial Photographs 1948 Aerial This black-and-white aerial photograph depicts three square buildings or H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 22 Source Project Site Features structures, and two corrals or animal pens are shown approximately 100 feet southeast of the Dyer Barn. The contemporary single-story, approximately 3,100 square-foot single-family residence built circa 1948 is shown approximately 280 feet northeast of the Dyer Barn. The area around the Dyer Barn is mostly clear of vegetation, with extensive tree cover located south of the barn and towards top of the steep ravine to the west. The segment of Allen Road north of the Dyer Barn and leading into the property is depicted. 1953 Aerial This black-and-white aerial photograph depicts the two-story, approximately 2,000 square-foot two-story garage built circa 1950 approximately 120 feet east of the Dyer Barn. The two corrals or animal pens are gone and replaced with an expanded building – perhaps a residence and a detached outbuilding each set within a fenced yard or corral. A detached structure is depicted approximately 150 feet southwest of the Dyer Barn. 1956 Aerial This black-and-white aerial photograph depicts what appear to be two images spliced together. Poor resolution makes it difficult to identify discernable changes from 1953. 1960 Aerial This black-and-white aerial photograph depicts the same built environment shown in 1953. 1968 Aerial Although this black-and-white aerial photograph is somewhat washed out due to overexposure, this black and white aerial photograph depicts the same built environment shown in 1960. 1980 Aerial This black-and-white aerial photograph depicts mostly the same built environment as was shown in 1968. A notable difference includes the removal of an outbuilding southeast of the Dyer Barn; it has been replaced with a three-pen corral. 1991 Aerial This black-and-white aerial photograph depicts the same built environment shown in 1980. 2002 Aerial Although this black-and-white aerial photograph is somewhat washed out due to overexposure, this color aerial photograph depicts the same built environment shown in 1991. 2005 Aerial This color aerial photograph depicts the same built environment shown in 2002. 2009 Aerial This color aerial photograph depicts the same built environment shown in 2005. 2010 Aerial This color aerial photograph depicts the same built environment shown in 2009. 2012 Aerial This color aerial photograph depicts the same built environment shown in 2010. Sources: General Land Office (1866); USGS (1902, 1940, 1953, 1961a, 1961b, 1968, 1973, 1991, 1995); Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, (1948, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1980, 1991, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2012). H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 23 Architectural guidebooks of the San Francisco Bay Area and the South Bay do not include the Dyer Barn (Woodbridge, Woodbridge, and Byrne 1992, 2005). No other built environment resources in or adjacent to the project site are listed or depicted in the publications, maps, and websites reviewed by LSA. Please see the References Consulted in Section 6 for a complete list of materials and sources reviewed. 4.3 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH Based on archival information at the San Mateo County Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder’s Office and the San Mateo County Historical Association, the lands that contain Dyer Barn were originally owned by Stephen Burr Gilbert, a native of New York who came to California in 1850 during the Gold Rush. Stephen Gilbert operated a lumber mill near La Honda Creek and likely milled the logs that currently form the superstructure of the Dyer Barn. Stephen Gilbert died on February 4, 1892; between the year of his death and 1965, missing information at the San Mateo County Assessor-County Clerk- Recorder’s Office resulted in an incomplete chain of title for lands containing the Dyer Barn. The 615-acre Dyer Ranch comprised two parcels of 495 acres and 120 acres, respectively, located north of La Honda and accessed via La Honda Road. According to local newspaper accounts, by 1950 the ranch was owned by Calvin Y. and Dora F. Dyer, who lived in an apartment at 501 Forest Avenue in downtown Palo Alto (Ancestry.com; The Times 1950:4, 1962:6, 1965:18; Palo Alto Times 1975:2). A 250-acre portion of Dyer Ranch, which includes the Dyer Barn, was acquired by the District in 1986 as part of the eventual creation of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2017). 4.4 FIELD SURVEY LSA Architectural Historian Michael Hibma, M.A.; and IR Preservation Architect Charles Duncan; and Al Whitecar, Structural Engineer, conducted a pedestrian field survey of the Dyer Barn on November 1, 2017. The field survey identified the character-defining features of the Dyer Barn and the exterior of the building was reviewed and photographed, as was the site setting. The field survey identified the Dyer Barn in the project site, consisting of a tall, rectangular wood- frame, single-crib barn built circa 1860 in a rural setting. The visual signature of the Dyer Barn is common to other types of barns in San Mateo County and statewide. The barn rests on a redwood beam foundation and is covered by a medium-pitched, front-gabled roof sheathed in corrugated roofing. The walls are of 1’ by 12’ vertical redwood boards with 1” and 2” battens. The barn has two doors on the east façade, and side doors on the north and south façades. No hay loft door was observed. The barn’s superstructure is of hand-hewn redwood beams fastened by mortise-and- tenon joinery. The interior of the barn is open with hand-hewn redwood posts and centrally located feeding cribs and low partitions enclosing animal stalls or pens. It is divided into five slightly unequal bays from east-to-west. There are two 5’ wide doors at the corners of the east and west façades, and a 3’ wide door in the south façade. All doors are clad in board and batten. The east façade contains two roughly 4’ by 4’ foot four-light windows. The field survey indicates that the Dyer Barn was most likely constructed circa 1860, and partially rebuilt at a point sometime after 1900. The main structural post-and-beam framing elements, which H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 24 are hand-hewn redwood, are clearly original. In general, exterior cladding, roofing, and roof rafters are building elements prone to weathering and probable selective replacement over time. The Dyer Barn is currently unused. Please see Appendix A for California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 (DPR 523) Series form records for additional detail and photographs of the Dyer Barn. H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 25 5.0 ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION This section presents the historic and architectural context of the project site and evaluates the Dyer Barn under National Register and California Register significance criteria. 5.1 HISTORIC CONTEXT This section presents the land use and ownership history of the project site. 5.1.1 Early Settlement The project site area is located in rural San Mateo County, California. Prior to European settlement, the San Francisco Bay was home to numerous tribal groups. These groups included the Ohlone, who inhabited the area what would become San Mateo County. These semi-nomadic people were hunter-gatherers who depended on coastal plant and animal species for food and other resources. Spanish records indicate that by the mid-18th century, 10 to 12 indigenous tribelets with an estimated total population between 1,000 to 2,400 lived within San Mateo County (Postel 2007:72). Intensive Hispanic exploration and settlement of the Bay Area began with the first recorded visit on November 6–11, 1769, when a Spanish expedition led by Lieutenant Gaspar de Portolá and having accidently discovered San Francisco Bay from atop Sweeny Ridge, camped beneath a large redwood they named El Palo Alto, or “The Tall Stick.” In 1777, the Franciscan Order founded Mission Santa Clara approximately 18 miles east of the project site. The Mission claimed the surrounding area and forced the Ohlone out of their communities and into the new mission-controlled colony, which quickly resulted in the decimation of the native population. The priests located at missions along the peninsula capitalized on the expansive pastureland to raise cattle and horses for the Spanish government. By 1810, the missions grazed more than 10,000 cattle on lands in modern San Mateo County (Postel 2007:78). 5.1.2 San Mateo County Following independence from Spain in 1821, the Mexican government began to gradually secularize mission-owned property in California. Mexican governors granted large tracts of mission lands to political allies, as well as to veterans in recognition of their military service. The nearest land grant to the Dyer Barn was created on November 7, 1839, when Mexican Governor Juan Alvarado issued a land grant to Antonio José Buelna as a reward for his political support in forcing the former governor Nicolás Gutiérrez to resign (Bancroft 1886:454-455, 672-673). Buelna received two ranchos in 1839: San Gregorio, named after Pope Saint Gregory I, a 17,783-acre land grant that includes the present- day San Gregorio and La Honda, as well as Pomponio and San Gregorio state beaches; and San Francisquito (“Little Saint Francis”), a 1,471-acre land grant that includes present-day Menlo Park and the northern portion of Stanford University (Marschner 2000:121, 144). Buelna graded a road, known today as Old La Honda Road, to connect his two ranchos, and raised cattle for the tallow and hide trade. Following Buelna’s death in 1846, his will divided Rancho San Gregorio five ways, with a fifth each to his wife, María Concepción Valencia, his son Juan Bautista Buelna, and three others. María later H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 26 married Francisco Rodriguez, a widower and grantee of Rancho Arroyo del Rodeo in Santa Cruz County. In 1849, María sold a one-square league (7,863 acres) of the eastern portion of Rancho San Gregorio to Salvador Castro. After California became a territory of the United States following the Mexican-American War in 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo stipulated that land grants would be honored, if sufficiently proven. Separate claims for Rancho San Gregorio were presented by María and Salvador Castro for their respective portions; following the end of the lengthy land claim review process, Castro’s portion of the Rancho San Gregorio grant was recorded as 4,439 acres in 1860 (General Land Office 1860, 1865). The newly independent Mexican government disbanded the mission system in 1834 and liquidated the mission holdings into huge land grant ranchos. Due to the remoteness of Alta California, the native English-speaking Hispanic people, known as Californios, soon found themselves ignored by Mexico City. As more Anglo-Americans from eastern states came to California, sympathies to join the United States grew. The Mexican-American War, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the discovery of gold on the American River in January of 1848 set in motion the Californios’ loss of California (Laffey 1992:5). The discovery of gold in Coloma in 1849 resulted in exponential population growth in California and caused many ranchos to be subdivided and sold off for development. The abundance of redwood trees represented a valuable resource that was regulated by the government during the Spanish colonial period, which limited logging and levying a 10 percent tax on timber export revenue. During the Mexican colonial period, these restrictions eased, and many newly arrived American and European settlers participated in the redwood logging industry. In response to peninsula residents seeking to separate from the political corruption and lack of official attention from officials in San Francisco, the Legislature passed an act in 1856 to create the county of San Mateo – named after a creek in the city of San Mateo – by taking the southern 90 percent of San Francisco County. Subsequent annexations of land in northern Santa Cruz County in 1868 (which included the communities of San Gregorio and Pescadero), as well as refinements with the San Francisco County border in 1901, enlarged San Mateo County to its present size (Coy 1923:236, 238-241; Postel 2007:19-21; Hynding 1982:141-142). Although San Mateo County neighbors densely populated San Francisco County, it remained sparsely settled until the early-20th century. Following the construction of the San Francisco-San Jose Railroad in the 1860s, developers purchased large tracts of land near the rail corridor, which spurred settlement and private development throughout San Mateo County (Hynding 1982:63). This would change rapidly following the April 1906 Earthquake and Fire, when, within a week of the disaster, 60,000 survivors fled San Francisco for other peninsula communities via the San Francisco-San Jose Railroad. In the years following the reconstruction and recovery, 10,000 refugees chose to remain in San Mateo County, doubling its population (Hynding 1982:78). During the Great Depression, San Mateo County’s industries provided a diverse economic base to lessen economic hardship; by 1934, only three percent of residents received aid (Works Progress Administration 1939; Hynding 1982:87). At the onset of World War II, defense workers moved to H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 27 San Mateo County, which created another population boom in the county, and defense housing quickly expanded many communities’ suburban footprints (Hynding 1982:138). Following World War II, many defense industry workers, returning veterans, and migrants from the eastern United States wanted to remain and enjoy the state’s warm climate and plentiful jobs. By 1970, the state’s population doubled to nearly 20 million, which spurred a 20-year-long construction boom. The majority of the new residents were mostly young people forming families (Self 2003:257), which led to a pace of demographic change that transformed California. Then-Governor Earl Warren characterized the influx of residents as adding “a whole new city of ten thousand people every Monday morning” (Weaver 1967:147). In San Mateo County, the growth of the aircraft industry and passenger air service at San Francisco International Airport spurred growth of maintenance yards, shops, industrial parks, hotels, and restaurants. The popularity of the automobile and suburban development also fostered a boom in countywide transportation-related infrastructure (Hynding 1982:299-305); between 1946 and 1986, the Bayshore Freeway (U.S. 101), the J. Arthur Younger Freeway (State Route 92), the Portola Freeway (State Route 380), and State Route 280 were built and/or expanded. The San Mateo Bridge was built in 1967, and the Dumbarton Bridge opened in 1971 to carry State Route 84 over San Francisco Bay; the bridge was later enlarged in 1984 (Hynding 1982:256-261; Postel 2007:135-137). San Mateo County’s association with technological innovation in what was to become known as Silicon Valley began in 1948, when three scientists at New Jersey-based Bell Laboratories developed the transistor, the first semiconductor. One of the Bell scientists, William Shockley, relocated to Palo Alto in 1955 to be near his ailing mother in Menlo Park. He opened Shockley Transistors and soon assembled a talented staff via students from the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University. However, many found his abrasive managerial style discouraging and soon left Shockley Transistors, taking their knowledge with them. Many remained in the San Francisco Bay Area and formed their own company, Fairchild Semiconductors in 1957, using venture capital from New York bankers (Postel 2007:136; Storper 2015:81-83). This proved a precursor of a pattern of job hopping and venture capital-based firms that shaped Silicon Valley during the following 60 years. 5.1.3 Dyer Barn Background research indicates that the area containing the project site was used as cattle rangelands and settled as a farmstead in the 1860s. The general area remained sparsely unsettled until the mid-20th century, mostly due to a lack of serviceable roads. Few roads connected the Santa Clara Valley and the San Mateo Coast, and many local routes were unimproved roads (USGS 1902, 1940). In 1878, a lumber mill was built in Bear Gulch by William P. Morrison. In 1865, the lumber mill was relocated by Hanson, Ackerson & Company to a site on a ridgetop near La Honda Creek, just above Weeks Ranch, where it operated until 1871 or 1872. In 1875, a second lumber mill in the Bear Gulch area was established by H.S. Huntington, who operated the mill for five years (Moore & DePue 1878:17). The first identified owner of the land that contains the Dyer Barn was Stephen Burr Gilbert. Born in Yates County, New York, in 1825, Gilbert emigrated to Missouri in 1846 and a year later moved to Illinois. In 1850, Gilbert joined the gold rush and came to Eldorado County, California, before moving to San José in 1852; by 1859 he had settled in San Mateo County, where he was “interested in H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 28 agricultural pursuits.” In 1859, Gilbert married Ann Walkens, and they had three sons and four daughters (Barrows, Ingersoll 1893:348). The same year, Stephen Gilbert, “F.C. Gilbert”, and Milton Irish built a “shingle mill, propelled by water, on the Arroyo Honda- north branch of San Gregorio Creek” (Moore & DePue 1878:17). While listed as a “farmer” in the Woodside area of San Mateo County, Stephen Gilbert was active in local government and politics, serving as County Surveyor for two terms, a Trustee of the Redwood City School District, and a San Mateo County Supervisor in 1867 (Barrows, Ingersoll 1893:348; U.S. Census 1870, 1880; Moore and DePue 1878:34-35). By 1878, Gilbert’s holdings covered 600 acres and included part of the northern portion of Rancho San Gregorio (Moore and DePue 1878:38). Gilbert died on February 4, 1892; missing information at the San Mateo County Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder’s Office prevented the inspection of a complete chain of title for lands containing the Dyer Barn between the year of Gilbert’s death and 1965. The 615-acre Dyer Ranch comprised two parcels of 495 acres and 120 acres, respectively, located north of La Honda and accessed via La Honda Road. According to local newspaper accounts, by 1950 the ranch was owned by Calvin Y. and Dora F. Dyer, who lived in an apartment at 501 Forest Avenue in downtown Palo Alto (Ancestry.com; The Times 1950:4, 1962:6, 1965:18; Palo Alto Times 1975:2) and leased the ranch to tenants. In 1962, a permit was issued to harvest 10,000,000 board feet of lumber over three years from Dyer Ranch. In 1975, the Dyer Ranch was leased to Monte Stern, “heir to the Sears retail stores fortune,” who wanted to stage live open air concerts on the ranch. The proposal was met with stiff resistance from neighbors, “including rock star Neil Young,” and efforts to create a West Coast version of Woodstock ultimately failed (Palo Alto Times 1975:2). A 250-acre portion of Dyer Ranch, which includes the Dyer Barn, was acquired by the District in 1986 as part of the eventual creation of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2017). According to a water rights adjudication for San Gregorio Creek in 1989, the District was owner of Dyer Ranch at that time, and the previous owner was Calvin Y. Dyer, suggesting that Calvin and Dora Dyer retained continuous ownership up to the point of District acquisition (State Water Resources Control Board 1989:4). 5.2 ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT Architecture in the project site follows agriculture-related development trends elsewhere in late- 19th century California. Based on the physical characteristics of the Dyer Barn, the best applicable architectural style is Vernacular. The distinctive characteristics of this type and method of construction are described below. 5.2.1 Vernacular A useful approach to understanding what Vernacular style is, is by defining what it is not. That is, Vernacular architecture is not overly formal or monumental in nature, but rather is represented by relatively unadorned construction that is not designed by a professional architect. Vernacular architecture is the commonplace or ordinary building stock that is built for meeting a practical purpose with a minimal amount of flourish or otherwise traditional or ethnic influences (Upton and Vlach 1986:xv-xxi, 426-432). H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 29 The historical roots of the Vernacular style in the United States dates from colonial settlement during the 16th and 17th centuries. European immigrants, either of modest independent means, or financed with corporate backing, brought with them a wood-based building tradition. From this combination of the wood-based building tradition and open, unsettled, and heavily forested land developed a Vernacular style, "characterized by short-lived or temporary dwellings focused on the family and distinct from the place of work" (Jackson 1984:85-87). Typically associated with older hand-built, rural buildings in agricultural settings, Vernacular architecture can also include modern pre-fabricated, general purpose steel buildings used as shop space, warehouses, and many other functions (Gottfried and Jennings 2009:9-16). Character-defining features of the Vernacular style include (1) a simple roofline, with a medium to low-pitch; (2) small building footprint, generally rectangular; (3) simple construction techniques and mass-produced materials; and (4) designed and constructed by a carpenter. In the rural areas of San Mateo County and counties statewide, barns and other outbuildings associated with agricultural uses, such as livestock pens, poultry sheds, shop buildings, and storage sheds, are typically Vernacular in design. These were designed with the intent of serving a utilitarian function, a trend well represented in the existing agricultural building stock of San Mateo County. These buildings vary in size according to their purpose, are built of wood, and are designed to shelter machinery, equipment, animals, animal feed, and supplies from inclement weather. Over time, the utilitarian design accommodated land use or commodity changes, such as conversion from cattle ranching to sheep or hogs; or from row crops to orchard crops or vineyards (California Department of Transportation 2007:155-169; National Park Service 1989). 5.2.2 Barns Barns “evoke a sense of tradition and security, of closeness to the land and community with the people who built them” (Auer 1989:1). After the residence, barns typically are the most important, if not the largest, building on typical farm or ranch and its construction was among the “greatest single financial outlays a farmer would make during his or her lifetime” (California Department of Transportation 2007:107; Vlach 2003:1-28). Reflective of their importance in farm or ranch operations, barns have to serve many purposes. Accordingly, barns are designed with a general Vernacular utilitarian aesthetic, as described above, to allow for maximum longevity and versatility via modification to accommodate several uses such as storing crops, sheltering livestock, storing equipment, and materials, or housing for laborers (California Department of Transportation 2007:107). Gable roof single-crib barns, similar to the Dyer Barn, are the simplest and most common barn type built in California and nationwide. In the context of barns, the term “crib” refers to an area enclosed by a “pen or crib of logs, held together at the corners by notches” (Noble and Cleek 1995:62). California’s earliest barns were generally similar to the Dyer Barn – rectangular, supported by a post- and-beam system, and possessing tall sidewalls covered by a moderately-pitched gable roof (Noble and Cleek 1995:62; California Department of Transportation 2007:107; Vlach 2003:353-356). Beginning circa 1880, barns were built using either machine-cut or wire nails (California Department of Transportation 2007:107). H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 30 Over time, changes in land use patterns, increased immigration of people with an agricultural background, and advanced modes of production often resulted in modifications to the simple barn. In California, examples of advanced, more specialized uses include, but are not limited to, round barns, dairy barns, hay barns, hop kilns, and tower barns (California Department of Transportation 2007:155-169; Vlach 2003:362-369). 5.3 ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION This section applies the National Register and California Register significance criteria to the Dyer Barn. As stated previously, the two other detached buildings in the vicinity, the contemporary residence and garage, are not evaluated for National Register or California Register eligibility in this HRE. The period of significance for the Dyer Barn is circa 1860-1967, which encompasses the estimated date of construction and the continuous association of the Dyer Barn with agricultural land use in rural San Mateo County and mid-19th century vernacular architecture up to 50 years before the present.3 Because the California Register was deliberately modeled on the National Register significance criteria, the significance criteria of the two registers are similar. The evaluation below quotes the applicable National Register and California Register subject criteria (bold text) and is followed by a combined significance and integrity assessment. 5.3.1 Application of National Register/California Register Criteria National Register Criterion A: Is it associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history? California Register Criterion 1: Is it associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage? Research indicates that the Dyer Barn is associated with the early agricultural land use and development of San Mateo County in the mid-19th through the mid-20th century, events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of San Mateo County. Dyer Barn was originally constructed circa 1860 and portions of which were later rebuilt by 1900, as evidenced by the use of later building materials. It was also adaptively reused at various points in its history to accommodate new owners and/or new land use(s), but always related to agriculture or natural resource extraction. This building is a visible and prominent remnant at La Honda Open Creek Open Space Preserve of a prior land use once common in this part of San Mateo County and crucial to early economic development and settlement. For these reasons, LSA concludes that the Dyer Barn is significant under Criterion A/1. 3 According to National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, “[f]ifty years is the general estimate of the time needed to develop historical perspective and to evaluate significance. This consideration guards against the listing of properties of passing contemporary interest and ensures that the National Register is a list of truly historic places” (National Park Service 1991:41). H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 31 National Register Criterion B: Is it associated with the lives of significant persons in our past? California Register Criterion 2: Is it associated with the lives of persons important in our past? Research indicates that the property is associated with Stephen Burr Gilbert and Calvin Y. and Dora F. Dyer. Background research indicates that Gilbert was likely responsible for the construction of the Dyer Barn and was an official of relative prominence in the early agricultural and political development of San Mateo County; as he served as County Surveyor and a county supervisor. However he did not conduct his public duties on the ranch, nor did background research show that his role as a public official was of singular importance in the development of La Honda and San Mateo County, nor was the Dyer Barn an important part in the performance of his duties. Calvin and Dora Dyer, the namesakes of the Dyer Barn, owned the 615-acre Dyer Ranch from the 1950s through the mid-1980s before selling a 250-acre portion containing the barn to the District. However, prior to that, the Dyers rented out their ranch to tenants while living in an apartment in downtown Palo Alto. The Dyers did not construct the Dyer Barn, use the property as a primary residence, or directly oversee ranching or timber harvesting operations. For these reasons, LSA concludes that the Dyer Barn is not significant under Criterion B/2. National Register Criterion C: Does it embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values? California Register Criterion 3: Does it embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values? Dyer Barn is a representative example of a Vernacular utilitarian building type associated with mid-19th century agricultural development in San Mateo County and California. Although there is no evidence that it is a work of a master or important creative individual, the building’s surviving circa 1860 superstructure is of hand-hewn redwood beams fastened by mortise-and-tenon joinery, which embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of utilitarian agrarian architecture. The Dyer Barn shows evidence of modification, which is common to these building types that were subsequently adaptively reused by subsequent owners and/or to address deferred maintenance or other damage. For these reasons, LSA concludes that the Dyer Barn is significant under Criterion C/3. National Register Criterion D: Has it yielded, or may it be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory? California Register Criterion 4: Has it yielded, or may it be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history? This criterion is usually used to evaluate the potential for archaeological deposits to contain information important in San Mateo County’s historic-period and precontact past. Its application H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 32 to architecture and the built environment is less common in eligibility evaluations due to modern written sources and other forms of analysis. Although general information about the Vernacular style and mortise-and-tenon construction techniques can be obtained from other sources, the Dyer Barn is a notable example of a local variation on that widely represented style, and especially of that joinery technology. The use of local redwood is an example of the utilization of San Mateo County natural resources extracted and processed in a relatively isolated enclave in the Santa Cruz Mountains. As such, the Dyer Barn represents a local building tradition, labor-intensive craftsmanship, and the use of an important resource that supported economic development and traditional agricultural lifeways in a rural enclave in the 1860s. Further study of the joinery and other carpentry technology and techniques may yield information about the evolution of the style and design of barns in San Mateo County during the mid-19th century. For these reasons, LSA concludes that the Dyer Barn is significant under Criterion D/4. 5.3.2 Integrity Assessment Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the National Register or California Register, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the evaluate criteria, but it must also have integrity (National Park Service 1997:44). The integrity of the Dyer Barn was evaluated by LSA. As previously discussed, historic integrity refers to the ability of a resource to convey its significant historical associations. Integrity is a critical component of historical resources that are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register and/or California Register. This subsection discusses the historic integrity of the Dyer Barn with respect to seven aspects: location, setting, design, feeling, materials, workmanship, and association. 5.3.3.1 Dyer Barn • Dyer Barn has not been moved, and retains individual integrity of location. • Dyer Barn retains individual integrity of feeling. The building remains an agricultural building within an undeveloped, rural area. The building has been used by various owners, but has retained its overall utilitarian function for over 150 years. • Dyer Barn retains individual integrity of setting. The building remains in an undeveloped, rural area that retains historical land use patterns of cattle ranching on private property or designated open space. • Dyer Barn retains sufficient integrity of workmanship, design, and materials to convey singular importance as a representative example of a primary utilitarian building. Alterations to the Dyer Barn occurred through time to accommodate different owners and as part of routine maintenance and structural replacement. Alterations included siding repairs, reroofing, and the replacement of rotted components and missing fascia. The building retains sufficient historic fabric to convey its historic appearance and design. H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 33 • Dyer Barn retains individual integrity of association with ranching operations on the property from the 1860s to today. The District allows grazing on its lands as a grassland management tool to “remove plant biomass and control invasive non-native weeds…maintain native plant communities, enhance biodiversity, increase and regulate nutrient cycling on the environment, improve wildlife habitat and decrease fuel loads to reduce wildfire risk” (Midpeninsula Regional open Space District 2012:48). 5.4 CONCLUSION Based on background research and the field survey, LSA concludes that the Dyer Barn, consisting of a rectangular wood-frame barn built circa 1860 in central unincorporated San Mateo County, appears eligible for individual inclusion in the National Register and California Register under Criterion A/1 for significant associations with early agricultural land use and development of San Mateo County in the mid-19th through the mid-20th century; under Criterion C/3 as a representative example of a Vernacular utilitarian building type associated with mid-19th century agricultural built environment development in San Mateo County and California; and under Criterion D/4 for the potential to yield information as an early example of local adaptation of the Vernacular architectural style to rural San Mateo County, use of local materials, and mortise-and-tenon joinery construction. For these reasons, the Dyer Barn qualifies as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA as defined at PRC §21084.1, as defined in §5020.1(k), or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in §5024.1(g). H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 34 6.0 REFERENCES CONSULTED American Society of Civil Engineers 1977 Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California. American Society of Civil Engineers, San Francisco Section. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California. Ancestry.com 2017 Stephen Burr Gilbert. Biographical information. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. Auer, Michael J. 1989 Preservation Brief 20: The Preservation of Historic Barns. Technical Preservation Services, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/preservedocs/preservation-briefs/20Preserve- Brief-Barns.pdf, accessed July 15, 2016. Bancroft, Hubert Howe 1886 The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft – Vol. XX: History of California, Vol. III (1825-1840). The History Company, San Francisco. Reprinted 1966 by Wallace Hebberd. Brunskill, R.W. 1970 Illustrated Handbook of Vernacular Architecture. Universe Books, New York. Burrows, Henry D. and Luther A Ingersoll 1893 Memorial and Biographical History of the Coast Counties of Central California. The Lewis Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois. California Department of Transportation 2007 A Historical Context and Archaeological Research Design for Agricultural Properties in California. Division of Environmental Analysis, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, California. California Office of Historic Preservation 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California. 1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 1992 California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 35 1996 California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2001a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historical Resources. Technical Assistance Series No. 1. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2001b California Register of Historical Resources: Q&A for Local Governments. Technical Assistance Series No. 4. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2001c California State Law and Historic Preservation. Technical Assistance Series No. 10. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2016 Technical Assistance Series #6: California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility in the California Register). Electronic document, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011 %20update.pdf, accessed May 20, 2016. various Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File, April, 5, 2012. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento California State Water Resources Control Board 1989 San Gregorio Creek Adjudication – Order of Determination. State Water Resources Control Board. Electronic document, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/198 9/wro89-07.pdf, accessed various. Calisphere 2016 Homepage. Electronic document, http://www.calisphere.universityofcalifornia.edu/, accessed June 10, 2016. Cartier, Robert 1996 Cultural Resource Evaluation of a Piece of Land Located at 350 Allen Road, County of San Mateo. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. Clark, Matthew R. 1992 The Archaeological Reconnaissance of the “Weeks Driveway” in the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, Skyline Boulevard, San Mateo County, California. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. Coy, Owen C. 1973 California County Boundaries: A Study of the Division of the State into Counties and the Subsequent Changes in their Boundaries. Valley Publishers, Fresno, California. H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 36 Foss, Werner C. Jr. 1941 History of La Honda. San Mateo Junior College. On file at San Mateo County Historical Association, Redwood City, California. General Land Office 1866 Plat of Township 6 South, Range 4 West, Mount Diablo Meridian. U.S. Surveyor General’s Office, San Francisco, California. On file at Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. Gottfried, Herbert and Jan Jennings 2009 American Vernacular Buildings and Interiors, 1870-1960. W.W. Norton & Company Inc., New York. Gudde, Erwin G. 1998 California Place Names. The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. Fourth edition revised and enlarged by William Bright. University of California Press, Berkeley. Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, and William N. Abeloe 1966 Historic Spots in California. Third edition, revised by William N. Abeloe. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 1990 Historic Spots in California. Fourth edition, revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Hyding, Alan 1982 From Frontier to Suburb: The Story of the San Mateo Peninsula. Star Publishing Company, Belmont, California. Jackson, John Brinckerhoff 1984 Discovering the Vernacular Landscape. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. King, Thomas F. 2004 Cultural Resource Laws & Practice: An Introductory Guide. Second Edition. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California. McAlester, Virginia 2013 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Marschner, Janice 2000 California, 1850: A Snapshot in Time. Coleman Ranch Press, Sacramento, California. Maskell, Coramarie 1942 History of Woodside and the Woodside Library Association. San Mateo Junior College. On file at San Mateo County Historical Association, Redwood City, California. H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 37 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) 2012 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan. Final, August 2012. On file at Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Los Altos, California. 2013 Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Vision Plan. Electronic document, https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/VP_Appendix_E.pdf, accessed various. 2014 Resource Management Policies. Electronic document, https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Resource_Management_Policies.pdf, accessed various. 2017 About Us – History. Electronic document, https://www.openspace.org/about-us/history, accessed various. Moore & DePue 1878 The Illustrated History of San Mateo County, California. Moore & DePue, publishers. Reprinted 1974, Gilbert Richards Publications, Woodside, California National Park Service (NPS) 1986 Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Forms. Bulletin 16. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1991 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1997 How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1999 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 2001 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Preservation Planning. Electronic document, http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/arch_stnds_1.htm, accessed June 27, 2016. 2017 List of National Historic Landmarks by State – California. National Historic Landmarks Program. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, https://www.nps.gov/nhl/find/statelists/ca/CA.pdf, accessed various. Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR LLC). 1948-2012 Aerial photographs of Dyer Barn. Electronic document http://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed various. H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 38 Noble, Allen G. and Richard K. Cleek 1995 The Old Barn Book: A Field Guide to North American Barns and Other Farm Structures. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Online Archive of California 2016 Online Archive of California, Electronic document, http://www.oac.cdlib.org/, accessed June 27, 2016. Paul, Gary 2003 Archaeological Survey Report for the Djerassi Timber Harvesting Plan. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. Postel, Mitchell P. 2007 Santa Clara County: A Sesquicentennial History. Star Publishing, Belmont, California. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1884 Redwood City, San Mateo County, California. Sanborn Map Company, New York. 1888 Redwood City, San Mateo County, California. Sanborn Map Company, New York. 1891 Redwood City, San Mateo County, California. Sanborn Map Company, New York. 1897 Redwood City, San Mateo County, California. Sanborn Map Company, New York. 1907 Redwood City, San Mateo County, California. Sanborn Map Company, New York. 1919 Redwood City, San Mateo County, California. Sanborn Map Company, New York. 1950 Redwood City, San Mateo County, California. Sanborn Map Company, New York. San Mateo County 1980 Historic Sites Master List for San Mateo County. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. San Mateo County Department of Environmental Services 1981 Inventory of San Mateo County Historic Resources. San Mateo County Department of Environmental Services, Planning and Building Division, Redwood City, California. Electronic document, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1072/files/sanmateo.pdf, accessed various. 1986 County of San Mateo General Plan, Chapter 5: Historical and Archaeological [sic] Resources Background. San Mateo County Department of Environmental Services, Planning and Building Division, Redwood City, California. Electronic document, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1072/files/sanmateo.pdf, accessed various. H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 39 Storper, Michael, Thomas Kemeny, Naji P. Makaren, and Taner Osman 2015 The Rise and Fall of Urban Economies: Lessons from San Francisco and Los Angeles. Stanford Business Books, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. The Times (San Mateo) 1950 “Warrant Out for Mother.” The Times, 20 January 1950. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. 1962 “Logging Voted for La Honda.” The Times, 12 April 1962. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. 1965 “Famers Win Assessments.” The Times, 11 August 1965. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. 1975 “Neil Young Joins Ranch Foes.” The Times, 13 November 1975. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. Upton, Dell, and John Michael Vlach 1986 Common Places: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture. University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia. Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute 2016 California Registry of Big Trees. Electronic document, https://californiabigtrees.calpoly.edu/, accessed July 13, 2016. United States Census Bureau 1870 Stephen Burr Gilbert. 1870 United States Federal Census. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. 1880 Stephen Burr Gilbert. 1880 United States Federal Census. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995 1959 Calvin Y. Dyer. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. 1974 Calvin Y. Dyer. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. 1976 Calvin Y. Dyer. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. U.S. Geological Survey 1902 Santa Cruz, California. 60-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1940 Half Moon Bay, California. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) 40 1953 Woodside, California. 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1961a Half Moon Bay, California. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1961b Woodside, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1968 Woodside, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1973 Woodside, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1991 Woodside, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1997 Woodside, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Vlach, John Michael 2003 Barns. Norton/Library of Congress Visual Sourcebooks in Architecture, Design, and Engineering. W.W. Norton & Company, New York and Library of Congress, Washington D.C. Weaver, John Downing 1967 Warren: The Man, The Court, The Era. Little, Brown Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts. Woodbridge, Sally B., John M. Woodbridge and Chuck Byrne 1992 San Francisco Architecture: The Illustrated Guide to Over 1,000 of the Best Buildings, Parks, and Public Artworks in the Bay Area. Chronicle Books, San Francisco, California. 2005 San Francisco Architecture: An Illustrated Guide to the Outstanding Buildings, Public Artworks, and Parks in the Bay Area of California. Ten Speed Press, Toronto, Canada. Works Progress Administration 1939 California: A Guide to the Golden State. American Guide Series. Federal Writers’ Project. Hastings House Publishers, New York. H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) A-1 APPENDIX A CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 523 SERIES FORM RECORDS Dyer Barn P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\DPRs\PRIMARY.doc (12/18/17) State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code: 3CS Other Listings Review Code ______ Reviewer ____________________Date Page 1of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn P1. Other Identifier: La Honda White Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve P2. Location  Not for Publication Unrestricted a.County: San Mateo b.USGS 7.5' Quads: Woodside, Calif., Date: 1973; T6S; R4W, NE¼, SE¼, Section 27, M.D.B. & M. c.Address: Kebet Ridge Road City: Woodside (vicinity) Zip: 94062 d.UTM: Zone 10S 563763mE/4137011mN e.Other Locational Data: APN 075-330-220 P3a. Description: The resource, called the “Dyer Barn” consists of a tall, rectangular, wood-framed, single-crib barn built circa 1860 in a rural setting. The visual signature of Dyer Barn is common to other types of barns in San Mateo County and statewide. The barn rests on a redwood beam foundation and is covered by a medium-pitched, front-gabled roof sheathed in corrugated roofing. The walls are of 1’ by 12’ wide vertical redwood boards with 1” and 2” battens. The barn has two doors on the east façade and side doors on the north and south façades. No hay loft door was observed. The barn’s superstructure is of hand-hewn redwood beams fastened by mortise-and-tenon joinery. The interior of the barn is open with hand-hewn redwood posts and centrally located feeding cribs and low partitions enclosing animal stalls or pens. It is divided into five slightly unequal bays from east-to-west. There are two five foot wide doors at the corners of the east and west façades. In addition there is one three foot wide door in the south façade. All doors are clad in board and batten. The east façade contains two roughly 4’ by 4’ four-light windows. The Dyer Barn is in poor condition due to failing foundation and neglect. It is currently unused. The field survey indicates that the Dyer Barn was most likely constructed circa 1860, and partially rebuilt at a point sometime after 1900. The surviving main structural post- and-beam framing elements, which are hand-hewn redwood, are clearly original. See continuation sheets. P3b. Resource Attributes: (HP4) Ancillary building P4. Resources Present:  Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photograph: P5b. Description of Photo: Dyer Barn. La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, north and east façades. View southwest. LSA photo, 11/1/16. P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:  Historic, built circa 1860 (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District). P7. Owner and Address: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022 P8. Recorded by: Michael Hibma, M.A., RPH LSA 157 Park Place Richmond, California 94801 P9. Date recorded: 12/15//17 P10. Survey Type: Intensive P11. Report citation: Hibma, Michael, 2018. Historical Resource Evaluation Report – Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, unincorporated San Mateo County, California. LSA, Point Richmond, California. Attachments: Location Map Continuation Sheets Building, Structure, and Object Record DPR 523A (1/95) State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 22 NRHP Status Code: 3CS Resource Name: Dyer Barn B1. Historic Name: Dyer Barn, Dyer Ranch B2. Common Name: La Honda White Barn; La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve B3. Original Use: Agricultural B4. Present Use: Vacant B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular B6. Construction History: Information from the Midpeninsula Open Space District, the San Mateo County Historical Association, and architectural characteristics indicates that the Dyer Barn was built circa 1860 by Stephan Burr Gilbert use as part of a family ranch. A November 1, 2017, pedestrian field survey of the Dyer Barn indicates it was partially rebuilt at a point sometime after 1900. The main structural post-and-beam framing elements, which are hand-hewn redwood, are clearly original. In general, exterior cladding, roofing, and roof rafters are building elements prone to weathering and probable selective replacement over time. The Dyer Barn is currently unused. B7. Moved?  No B8. Related Features: None B9. a. Architect: N/A b. Builder: N/A B10. Significance: Theme: Agricultural development/Vernacular architecture Area: La Honda area, San Mateo County Period of Significance: 1860-1967 Property Type: Barn Applicable Criteria: A/1, C/3, D/4 The Dyer Barn is on a 90-acre property situated on an exposed ridge above a steep ravine covered in oak trees, redwood trees, and chaparral in a rural setting. Research indicates that the Dyer Barn is associated with the agricultural land use and development of San Mateo County from the mid-19th through the mid-20th centuries, an event that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of what would become San Mateo County. The Dyer Barn is also a representative example of a Vernacular utilitarian building type associated with mid-19th century agricultural built environment development in San Mateo County and California, and for potential information as an early example of local variation and adaptation of Vernacular architecture in rural San Mateo County, use of local materials such as redwood, and as an example of mortise-and-tenon joinery construction. (see continuation sheets). B11. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A B12. References: American Society of Civil Engineers 1977 Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California. American Society of Civil Engineers, San Francisco Section. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California. Ancestry.com 2017 Stephen Burr Gilbert, Calvin Dyer, Dora Dyer. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. Auer, Michael J. 1989 Preservation Brief 20: The Preservation of Historic Barns. Technical Preservation Services, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. B13. Remarks: None B14. Evaluator: Michael Hibma, M.A., DPH LSA 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 Date of Evaluation: 12/15/17 DPR 523B (1/95) (This space reserved for official comments.) North Dyer Barn State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 3 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 B10. Significance (continued) HISTORICAL CONTEXT This section presents the land use and development of the study area and its vicinity. The context integrates the results of background research and reviews of previous research regarding the Dyer Barn conducted by LSA. Early Settlement The project site area is located in rural San Mateo County, California. Prior to European settlement, the San Francisco Bay was home to numerous tribal groups. These groups included the Ohlone, who inhabited the area what would become San Mateo County. These semi- nomadic people were hunter-gatherers who depended on coastal plant and animal species for food and other resources. Spanish records indicate that by the mid-18th century, 10 to 12 indigenous tribelets with an estimated total population between 1,000 to 2,400 lived within San Mateo County (Postel 2007:72). Intensive Hispanic exploration and settlement of the Bay Area began with the first recorded visit on November 6–11, 1769, when a Spanish expedition led by Lieutenant Gaspar de Portolá and having accidently discovered San Francisco Bay from atop Sweeny Ridge, camped beneath a large redwood they named El Palo Alto, or “The Tall Stick.” In 1777, the Franciscan Order founded Mission Santa Clara approximately 18 miles east of the project site. The Mission claimed the surrounding area and forced the Ohlone out of their communities and into the new mission-controlled colony, which quickly resulted in the decimation of the native population. The priests located at missions along the peninsula capitalized on the expansive pastureland to raise cattle and horses for the Spanish government. By 1810, the missions grazed more than 10,000 cattle on lands in modern San Mateo County (Postel 2007:78). San Mateo County Following independence from Spain in 1821, the Mexican government began to gradually secularize mission-owned property in California. Mexican governors granted large tracts of mission lands to political allies, as well as to veterans in recognition of their military service. The nearest land grant to the Dyer Barn was created on November 7, 1839, when Mexican Governor Juan Alvarado issued a land grant to Antonio José Buelna as a reward for his political support in forcing the former governor Nicolás Gutiérrez to resign (Bancroft 1886:454- 455, 672-673). Buelna received two ranchos in 1839: San Gregorio, named after Pope Saint Gregory I, a 17,783-acre land grant that includes the present-day San Gregorio and La Honda, as well as Pomponio and San Gregorio state beaches; and San Francisquito (“Little Saint Francis”), a 1,471-acre land grant that includes present-day Menlo Park and the northern portion of Stanford University (Marschner 2000:121, 144). Buelna graded a road, known today as Old La Honda Road, to connect his two ranchos, and raised cattle for the tallow and hide trade. Following Buelna’s death in 1846, his will divided Rancho San Gregorio five ways, with a fifth each to his wife, María Concepción Valencia, his son Juan Bautista Buelna, and three others. María later married Francisco Rodriguez, a widower and grantee of Rancho Arroyo del Rodeo in Santa Cruz County. In 1849, María sold a one-square league (7,863 acres) of the eastern portion of Rancho San Gregorio to Salvador Castro. After California became a territory of the United States following the Mexican-American War in 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo stipulated that land grants would be honored, if sufficiently proven. Separate claims for Rancho San Gregorio were presented by María and Salvador Castro for their respective portions; following the end of the lengthy land claim review process, Castro’s portion of the Rancho San Gregorio grant was recorded as 4,439 acres in 1860 (General Land Office 1860, 1865). The newly independent Mexican government disbanded the mission system in 1834 and liquidated the mission holdings into huge land grant ranchos. Due to the remoteness of Alta California, the native English-speaking Hispanic people, known as Californios, soon found themselves ignored by Mexico City. As more Anglo-Americans from eastern states came to California, sympathies to join the United States grew. The Mexican-American War, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the discovery of gold on the American River in January of 1848 set in motion the Californios’ loss of California (Laffey 1992:5). The discovery of gold in Coloma in 1849 resulted in exponential population growth in California and caused many ranchos to be subdivided and sold off for development. The abundance of redwood trees represented a valuable resource that was regulated by the government during the Spanish colonial period, which limited logging and levying a 10 percent tax on timber export revenue. During the Mexican colonial period, these restrictions eased, and many newly arrived American and European settlers participated in the redwood logging industry. In response to peninsula residents seeking to separate from the political corruption and lack of official attention from officials in San Francisco, the Legislature passed an act in 1856 to create the county of San Mateo – named after a creek in the city of San Mateo – by taking the southern 90 percent of San Francisco County. Subsequent annexations of land in northern Santa Cruz County in 1868 (which included the communities of San Gregorio and Pescadero), as well as refinements with the San Francisco County border in 1901, enlarged San Mateo County to its present size (Coy 1923:236, 238-241; Postel 2007:19-21; Hynding 1982:141-142). DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 4 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 B10. Significance (continued) Although San Mateo County neighbors densely populated San Francisco County, it remained sparsely settled until the early-20th century. Following the construction of the San Francisco-San Jose Railroad in the 1860s, developers purchased large tracts of land near the rail corridor, which spurred settlement and private development throughout San Mateo County (Hynding 1982:63). This would change rapidly following the April 1906 Earthquake and Fire, when, within a week of the disaster, 60,000 survivors fled San Francisco for other peninsula communities via the San Francisco-San Jose Railroad. In the years following the reconstruction and recovery, 10,000 refugees chose to remain in San Mateo County, doubling its population (Hynding 1982:78). During the Great Depression, San Mateo County’s industries provided a diverse economic base to lessen economic hardship; by 1934, only three percent of residents received aid (Works Progress Administration 1939; Hynding 1982:87). At the onset of World War II, defense workers moved to San Mateo County, which created another population boom in the county, and defense housing quickly expanded many communities’ suburban footprints (Hynding 1982:138). Following World War II, many defense industry workers, returning veterans, and migrants from the eastern United States wanted to remain and enjoy the state’s warm climate and plentiful jobs. By 1970, the state’s population doubled to nearly 20 million, which spurred a 20-year- long construction boom. The majority of the new residents were mostly young people forming families (Self 2003:257), which led to a pace of demographic change that transformed California. Then-Governor Earl Warren characterized the influx of residents as adding “a whole new city of ten thousand people every Monday morning” (Weaver 1967:147). In San Mateo County, the growth of the aircraft industry and passenger air service at San Francisco International Airport spurred growth of maintenance yards, shops, industrial parks, hotels, and restaurants. The popularity of the automobile and suburban development also fostered a boom in countywide transportation-related infrastructure (Hynding 1982:299-305); between 1946 and 1986, the Bayshore Freeway (U.S. 101), the J. Arthur Younger Freeway (State Route 92), the Portola Freeway (State Route 380), and State Route 280 were built and/or expanded. The San Mateo Bridge was built in 1967, and the Dumbarton Bridge opened in 1971 to carry State Route 84 over San Francisco Bay; the bridge was later enlarged in 1984 (Hynding 1982:256-261; Postel 2007:135-137). San Mateo County’s association with technological innovation in what was to become known as Silicon Valley began in 1948, when three scientists at New Jersey-based Bell Laboratories developed the transistor, the first semiconductor. One of the Bell scientists, William Shockley, relocated to Palo Alto in 1955 to be near his ailing mother in Menlo Park. He opened Shockley Transistors and soon assembled a talented staff via students from the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University. However, many found his abrasive managerial style discouraging and soon left Shockley Transistors, taking their knowledge with them. Many remained in the San Francisco Bay Area and formed their own company, Fairchild Semiconductors in 1957, using venture capital from New York bankers (Postel 2007:136; Storper 2015:81-83). This proved a precursor of a pattern of job hopping and venture capital-based firms that shaped Silicon Valley during the following 60 years. Dyer Barn Background research indicates that the area containing the project site was used as cattle rangelands and settled as a farmstead in the 1860s. The general area remained sparsely unsettled until the mid-20th century, mostly due to a lack of serviceable roads. Few roads connected the Santa Clara Valley and the San Mateo Coast, and many local routes were unimproved roads (USGS 1902, 1940). In 1878, a lumber mill was built in Bear Gulch by William P. Morrison. In 1865, the lumber mill was relocated by Hanson, Ackerson & Company to a site on a ridgetop near La Honda Creek, just above Weeks Ranch, where it operated until 1871 or 1872. In 1875, a second lumber mill in the Bear Gulch area was established by H.S. Huntington, who operated the mill for five years (Moore & DePue 1878:17). The first identified owner of the land that contains the Dyer Barn was Stephen Burr Gilbert. Born in Yates County, New York, in 1825, Gilbert emigrated to Missouri in 1846 and a year later moved to Illinois. In 1850, Gilbert joined the gold rush and came to Eldorado County, California, before moving to San José in 1852; by 1859 he had settled in San Mateo County, where he was “interested in agricultural pursuits.” In 1859, Gilbert married Ann Walkens, and they had three sons and four daughters (Barrows, Ingersoll 1893:348). The same year, Stephen Gilbert, “F.C. Gilbert”, and Milton Irish built a “shingle mill, propelled by water, on the Arroyo Honda- north branch of San Gregorio Creek” (Moore & DePue 1878:17). While listed as a “farmer” in the Woodside area of San Mateo County, Stephen Gilbert was active in local government and politics, serving as County Surveyor for two terms, a Trustee of the Redwood City School District, and a San Mateo County Supervisor in 1867 (Barrows, Ingersoll 1893:348; U.S. Census 1870, 1880; Moore and DePue 1878:34-35). By 1878, Gilbert’s holdings covered 600 acres and included part of the northern portion of Rancho San Gregorio (Moore and DePue 1878:38). Gilbert died on February 4, 1892; missing information at the San Mateo County Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder’s Office prevented the inspection of a complete chain of title for lands containing the Dyer Barn between the year of Gilbert’s death and 1965. DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 5 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 B10. Significance (continued) The 615-acre Dyer Ranch comprised two parcels of 495 acres and 120 acres, respectively, located north of La Honda and accessed via La Honda Road. According to local newspaper accounts, by 1950 the ranch was owned by Calvin Y. and Dora F. Dyer, who lived in an apartment at 501 Forest Avenue in downtown Palo Alto (Ancestry.com; The Times 1950:4, 1962:6, 1965:18; Palo Alto Times 1975:2) and leased the ranch to tenants. In 1962, a permit was issued to harvest 10,000,000 board feet of lumber over three years from Dyer Ranch. In 1975, the Dyer Ranch was leased to Monte Stern, “heir to the Sears retail stores fortune,” who wanted to stage live open air concerts on the ranch. The proposal was met with stiff resistance from neighbors, “including rock star Neil Young,” and efforts to create a West Coast version of Woodstock ultimately failed (Palo Alto Times 1975:2). A 250-acre portion of Dyer Ranch, which includes the Dyer Barn, was acquired by the District in 1986 as part of the eventual creation of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2017). According to a water rights adjudication for San Gregorio Creek in 1989, the District was owner of Dyer Ranch at that time, and the previous owner was Calvin Y. Dyer, suggesting that Calvin and Dora Dyer retained continuous ownership up to the point of District acquisition (State Water Resources Control Board 1989:4). Architectural Context A useful approach to understanding what Vernacular style is, is by defining what it is not. That is, Vernacular architecture is not overly formal or monumental in nature, but rather is represented by relatively unadorned construction that is not designed by a professional architect. Vernacular architecture is the commonplace or ordinary building stock that is built for meeting a practical purpose with a minimal amount of flourish or otherwise traditional or ethnic influences (Upton and Vlach 1986:xv-xxi, 426-432). The historical roots of the Vernacular style in the United States dates from colonial settlement during the 16th and 17th centuries. European immigrants, either of modest independent means, or financed with corporate backing, brought with them a wood-based building tradition. From this combination of the wood-based building tradition and open, unsettled, and heavily forested land developed a Vernacular style, "characterized by short-lived or temporary dwellings focused on the family and distinct from the place of work" (Jackson 1984:85-87). Typically associated with older hand-built, rural buildings in agricultural settings, Vernacular architecture can also include modern pre- fabricated, general purpose steel buildings used as shop space, warehouses, and many other functions (Gottfried and Jennings 2009:9-16). Character-defining features of the Vernacular style include (1) a simple roofline, with a medium to low-pitch; (2) small building footprint, generally rectangular; (3) simple construction techniques and mass-produced materials; and (4) designed and constructed by a carpenter. In the rural areas of San Mateo County and counties statewide, barns and other outbuildings associated with agricultural uses, such as livestock pens, poultry sheds, shop buildings, and storage sheds, are typically Vernacular in design. These were designed with the intent of serving a utilitarian function, a trend well represented in the existing agricultural building stock of San Mateo County. These buildings vary in size according to their purpose, are built of wood, and are designed to shelter machinery, equipment, animals, animal feed, and supplies from inclement weather. Over time, the utilitarian design accommodated land use or commodity changes, such as conversion from cattle ranching to sheep or hogs; or from row crops to orchard crops or vineyards (California Department of Transportation 2007:155-169; National Park Service 1989). Barns. Barns “evoke a sense of tradition and security, of closeness to the land and community with the people who built them” (Auer 1989:1). After the residence, barns typically are the most important, if not the largest, building on typical farm or ranch and its construction was among the “greatest single financial outlays a farmer would make during his or her lifetime” (California Department of Transportation 2007:107; Vlach 2003:1-28). Reflective of their importance in farm or ranch operations, barns have to serve many purposes. Accordingly, barns are designed with a general Vernacular utilitarian aesthetic, as described above, to allow for maximum longevity and versatility via modification to accommodate several uses such as storing crops, sheltering livestock, storing equipment, and materials, or housing for laborers (California Department of Transportation 2007:107). Gable roof single-crib barns, similar to the Dyer Barn, are the simplest and most common barn type built in California and nationwide. In the context of barns, the term “crib” refers to an area enclosed by a “pen or crib of logs, held together at the corners by notches” (Noble and Cleek 1995:62). California’s earliest barns were generally similar to the Dyer Barn – rectangular, supported by a post-and-beam system, and possessing tall sidewalls covered by a moderately-pitched gable roof (Noble and Cleek 1995:62; California Department of Transportation 2007:107; Vlach 2003:353-356). Beginning circa 1880, barns were built using either machine-cut or wire nails (California Department of Transportation 2007:107). Over time, changes in land use patterns, increased immigration of people with an agricultural background, and advanced modes of production often resulted in modifications to the simple barn. In California, examples of advanced, more specialized uses include, but are not limited to, round barns, dairy barns, hay barns, hop kilns, and tower barns (California Department of Transportation 2007:155-169; Vlach 2003:362-369). DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 6 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 B10. Significance (continued) Eligibility Evaluation This section applies the National Register and California Register significance criteria to the Dyer Barn. National Register Criterion A: Is it associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history? California Register Criterion 1: Is it associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage? Research indicates that the Dyer Barn is associated with the early agricultural land use and development of San Mateo County in the mid- 19th through the mid-20th century, events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of San Mateo County. Dyer Barn was originally constructed circa 1860 and portions of which were later rebuilt by 1900, as evidenced by the use of later building materials. It was also adaptively reused at various points in its history to accommodate new owners and/or new land use(s), but always related to agriculture or natural resource extraction. This building is a visible and prominent remnant at La Honda Open Creek Open Space Preserve of a prior land use once common in this part of San Mateo County and crucial to early economic development and settlement. For these reasons, LSA concludes that the Dyer Barn is significant under Criterion A/1. National Register Criterion B: Is it associated with the lives of significant persons in our past? California Register Criterion 2: Is it associated with the lives of persons important in our past? Research indicates that the property is associated with Stephen Burr Gilbert and Calvin Y. and Dora F. Dyer. Background research indicates that Gilbert was likely responsible for the construction of the Dyer Barn and was an official of relative prominence in the early agricultural and political development of San Mateo County; as he served as County Surveyor and a county supervisor. However he did not conduct his public duties on the ranch, nor did background research show that his role as a public official was of singular importance in the development of La Honda and San Mateo County, nor was the Dyer Barn an important part in the performance of his duties. Calvin and Dora Dyer, the namesakes of the Dyer Barn, owned the 615-acre Dyer Ranch from the 1950s through the mid-1980s before selling a 250-acre portion containing the barn to the District. However, prior to that, the Dyers rented out their ranch to tenants while living in an apartment in downtown Palo Alto. The Dyers did not construct the Dyer Barn, use the property as a primary residence, or directly oversee ranching or timber harvesting operations. For these reasons, LSA concludes that the Dyer Barn is not significant under Criterion B/2. National Register Criterion C: Does it embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values? California Register Criterion 3: Does it embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values? Dyer Barn is a representative example of a Vernacular utilitarian building type associated with mid-19th century agricultural development in San Mateo County and California. Although there is no evidence that it is a work of a master or important creative individual, the building’s surviving circa 1860 superstructure is of hand-hewn redwood beams fastened by mortise-and-tenon joinery, which embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of utilitarian agrarian architecture. The Dyer Barn shows evidence of modification, which is common to these building types that were subsequently adaptively reused by subsequent owners and/or to address deferred maintenance or other damage. For these reasons, LSA concludes that the Dyer Barn is significant under Criterion C/3. National Register Criterion D: Has it yielded, or may it be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory? California Register Criterion 4: Has it yielded, or may it be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history? This criterion is usually used to evaluate the potential for archaeological deposits to contain information important in San Mateo County’s historic-period and precontact past. Its application to architecture and the built environment is less common in eligibility evaluations due to modern written sources and other forms of analysis. Although general information about the Vernacular style and mortise-and-tenon construction techniques can be obtained from other sources, the Dyer Barn is a notable example of a local variation on that widely represented style, and especially of that joinery technology. The use of local redwood is an example of the utilization of San Mateo County natural resources extracted and processed in a relatively isolated enclave in the Santa Cruz Mountains. As such, the Dyer Barn represents a local building tradition, labor-intensive craftsmanship, and the use of an important resource that supported economic development and traditional agricultural lifeways in a rural enclave in the 1860s. Further study of the joinery and other carpentry technology and techniques may yield information about the evolution of the style and design of barns in San Mateo County during the mid-19th century. For these reasons, LSA concludes that the Dyer Barn is significant under Criterion D/4. DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 7 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 B10. Significance (continued) Integrity Assessment Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the National Register or California Register, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the evaluate criteria, but it must also have integrity (National Park Service 1997:44). The integrity of the Dyer Barn was evaluated by LSA. As previously discussed, historic integrity refers to the ability of a resource to convey its significant historical associations. Integrity is a critical component of historical resources that are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register and/or California Register. This subsection discusses the historic integrity of the Dyer Barn with respect to seven aspects: location, setting, design, feeling, materials, workmanship, and association. • Dyer Barn has not been moved, and retains individual integrity of location. • Dyer Barn retains individual integrity of feeling. The building remains an agricultural building within an undeveloped, rural area. The building has been used by various owners, but has retained its overall utilitarian function for over 150 years. • Dyer Barn retains individual integrity of setting. The building remains in an undeveloped, rural area that retains historical land use patterns of cattle ranching on private property or designated open space. • Dyer Barn retains sufficient integrity of workmanship, design, and materials to convey singular importance as a representative example of a primary utilitarian building. Alterations to the Dyer Barn occurred through time to accommodate different owners and as part of routine maintenance and structural replacement. Alterations included siding repairs, reroofing, and the replacement of rotted components and missing fascia. The building retains sufficient historic fabric to convey its historic appearance and design. • Dyer Barn retains individual integrity of association with ranching operations on the property from the 1860s to today. The District allows grazing on its lands as a grassland management tool to "remove plant biomass and control invasive non-native weeds…maintain native plant communities, enhance biodiversity, increase and regulate nutrient cycling on the environment, improve wildlife habitat and decrease fuel loads to reduce wildfire risk" (Midpeninsula Regional open Space District 2012:48). Conclusion Based on background research and the field survey, LSA concludes that the Dyer Barn, consisting of a rectangular wood-frame barn built circa 1860 in central unincorporated San Mateo County, appears eligible for individual inclusion in the National Register and California Register under Criterion A/1 for significant associations with early agricultural land use and development of San Mateo County in the mid- 19th through the mid-20th century; under Criterion C/3 as a representative example of a Vernacular utilitarian building type associated with mid-19th century agricultural built environment development in San Mateo County and California; and under Criterion D/4 for the potential to yield information as an early example of local adaptation of the Vernacular architectural style to rural San Mateo County, use of local materials, and mortise-and-tenon joinery construction. For these reasons, the Dyer Barn qualifies as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA as defined at PRC §21084.1, as defined in §5020.1(k), or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in §5024.1(g). References American Society of Civil Engineers 1977 Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California. American Society of Civil Engineers, San Francisco Section. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California. Ancestry.com 2017 Stephen Burr Gilbert. Biographical information. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. Auer, Michael J. 1989 Preservation Brief 20: The Preservation of Historic Barns. Technical Preservation Services, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/preservedocs/preservation- briefs/20Preserve-Brief-Barns.pdf, accessed July 15, 2016. Bancroft, Hubert Howe 1886 The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft – Vol. XX: History of California, Vol. III (1825-1840). The History Company, San Francisco. Reprinted 1966 by Wallace Hebberd. Brunskill, R.W. 1970 Illustrated Handbook of Vernacular Architecture. Universe Books, New York. Burrows, Henry D. and Luther A Ingersoll 1893 Memorial and Biographical History of the Coast Counties of Central California. Lewis Publishing Co., Chicago, Illinois. DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 8 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 B12. References (Continued) California Department of Transportation 2007 A Historical Context and Archaeological Research Design for Agricultural Properties in California. Division of Environmental Analysis, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, California. California Office of Historic Preservation 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California. 1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 1992 California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 1996 California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2001a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historical Resources. Technical Assistance Series No. 1. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2001b California Register of Historical Resources: Q&A for Local Governments. Technical Assistance Series No. 4. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2001c California State Law and Historic Preservation. Technical Assistance Series No. 10. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2016 Technical Assistance Series #6: California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility in the California Register). California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. various Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File, April, 5, 2012. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. California State Water Resources Control Board 1989 San Gregorio Creek Adjudication – Order of Determination. State Water Resources Control Board. Electronic document, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/1989/wro89-07.pdf, accessed various. Calisphere 2016 Homepage. Electronic document, http://www.calisphere.universityofcalifornia.edu/, accessed June 10, 2016. Cartier, Robert 1996 Cultural Resource Evaluation of a Piece of Land Located at 350 Allen Road, County of San Mateo. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. 1992 The Archaeological Reconnaissance of the “Weeks Driveway” in the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, Skyline Boulevard, San Mateo County, California. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. Coy, Owen C. 1973 California County Boundaries: A Study of the Division of the State into Counties and the Subsequent Changes in their Boundaries. Valley Publishers, Fresno, California. Foss, Werner C. Jr. 1941 History of La Honda. San Mateo Junior College. On file at San Mateo County Historical Association, Redwood City, California. General Land Office 1866 Plat of Township 6 South, Range 4 West, Mount Diablo Meridian. U.S. Surveyor General’s Office, San Francisco, California. On file at Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. Gottfried, Herbert and Jan Jennings 2009 American Vernacular Buildings and Interiors, 1870-1960. W.W. Norton & Company Inc., New York. DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 9 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 B12. References (Continued) Gudde, Erwin G. 1998 California Place Names. The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. Fourth edition revised and enlarged by William Bright. University of California Press, Berkeley. Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, and William N. Abeloe 1966 Historic Spots in California. Third edition, revised by William N. Abeloe. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 1990 Historic Spots in California. Fourth edition, revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Hyding, Alan 1982 From Frontier to Suburb: The Story of the San Mateo Peninsula. Star Publishing Company, Belmont, California. Jackson, John Brinckerhoff 1984 Discovering the Vernacular Landscape. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. King, Thomas F. 2004 Cultural Resource Laws & Practice: An Introductory Guide. Second Edition. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California. McAlester, Virginia 2013 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Marschner, Janice 2000 California, 1850: A Snapshot in Time. Coleman Ranch Press, Sacramento, California. Maskell, Coramarie 1942 History of Woodside and the Woodside Library Association. San Mateo Junior College. On file at San Mateo County Historical Association, Redwood City, California. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) 2012 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan. Final, August 2012. On file at Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Los Altos, California. 2013 Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Vision Plan. Electronic document, https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/VP_Appendix_E.pdf, accessed various. 2014 Resource Management Policies. Electronic document, https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Resource_Management_Policies.pdf, accessed various. 2017 About Us – History. Electronic document, https://www.openspace.org/about-us/history, accessed various. Moore & DePue 1878 The Illustrated History of San Mateo County, California. Moore & DePue, publishers. Reprinted 1974, Gilbert Richards Publications, Woodside, California National Park Service (NPS) 1986 Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Forms. Bulletin 16. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1991 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1997 How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1999 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 2001 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Preservation Planning. Electronic document, http://www.cr.nps.gov/local- law/arch_stnds_1.htm, accessed June 27, 2016. 2017 List of National Historic Landmarks by State – California. National Historic Landmarks Program. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, https://www.nps.gov/nhl/find/statelists/ca/CA.pdf, accessed various. DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 10 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 B12. References (Continued) Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR LLC). 1948-2012 Aerial photographs of Dyer Barn. Electronic document http://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed various. Noble, Allen G. and Richard K. Cleek 1995 The Old Barn Book: A Field Guide to North American Barns and Other Farm Structures. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Online Archive of California 2016 Online Archive of California. Electronic document, http://www.oac.cdlib.org/, accessed June 27, 2016. Paul, Gary 2003 Archaeological Survey Report for the Djerassi Timber Harvesting Plan. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. Postel, Mitchell P. 2007 Santa Clara County: A Sesquicentennial History. Star Publishing, Belmont, California. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1884-1950 Redwood City, San Mateo County, California. Sanborn Map Company, New York. San Mateo County 1980 Historic Sites Master List for San Mateo County. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. San Mateo County Department of Environmental Services 1981 Inventory of San Mateo County Historic Resources. San Mateo County Department of Environmental Services, Planning and Building Division, Redwood City, California. Electronic document, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1072/files/sanmateo.pdf, accessed various. 1986 County of San Mateo General Plan, Chapter 5: Historical and Archaeological [sic] Resources Background. San Mateo County Department of Environmental Services, Planning and Building Division, Redwood City, California. Electronic document, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1072/files/sanmateo.pdf, accessed various. Storper, Michael, Thomas Kemeny, Naji P. Makaren, and Taner Osman 2015 The Rise and Fall of Urban Economies: Lessons from San Francisco and Los Angeles. Stanford Business Books, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. The Times (San Mateo) 1950 “Warrant Out for Mother.” The Times, 20 January 1950. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. 1962 “Logging Voted for La Honda.” The Times, 12 April 1962. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. 1965 “Famers Win Assessments.” The Times, 11 August 1965. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. 1975 “Neil Young Joins Ranch Foes.” The Times, 13 November 1975. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. Upton, Dell, and John Michael Vlach 1986 Common Places: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture. University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia. Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute 2016 California Registry of Big Trees. Electronic document, https://californiabigtrees.calpoly.edu/, accessed July 13, 2016. United States Census Bureau 1870 Stephen Burr Gilbert. 1870 United States Federal Census. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. 1880 Stephen Burr Gilbert. 1880 United States Federal Census. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995 1959 Calvin Y. Dyer. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. 1974 Calvin Y. Dyer. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. 1976 Calvin Y. Dyer. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed various. DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 11 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 B12. References (Continued) U.S. Geological Survey 1902 Santa Cruz, California. 60-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1940 Half Moon Bay, California. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1953 Woodside, California. 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1961a Half Moon Bay, California. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1961b Woodside, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1968 Woodside, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1973 Woodside, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1991 Woodside, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1997 Woodside, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Vlach, John Michael 2003 Barns. Norton/Library of Congress Visual Sourcebooks in Architecture, Design, and Engineering. W.W. Norton & Company, New York and Library of Congress, Washington D.C. Weaver, John Downing 1967 Warren: The Man, The Court, The Era. Little, Brown Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts. Woodbridge, Sally B., John M. Woodbridge and Chuck Byrne 1992 San Francisco Architecture: The Illustrated Guide to Over 1,000 of the Best Buildings, Parks, and Public Artworks in the Bay Area. Chronicle Books, San Francisco, California. 2005 San Francisco Architecture: An Illustrated Guide to the Outstanding Buildings, Public Artworks, and Parks in the Bay Area of California. Ten Speed Press, Toronto, Canada. Works Progress Administration 1939 California: A Guide to the Golden State. American Guide Series. Federal Writers’ Project. Hastings House Publishers, New York. DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 12 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 P5a. Photograph (Continued) Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. East and north façades view south. 11/1/17. Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. East and south façades view west. 11/1/17. DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 13 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 P5a. Photograph (Continued) Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. South facade, view north. 11/1/17. Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. West facade, view east. 11/1/17. DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 14 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 P5a. Photograph (Continued) Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. North and east facades, view southeast. 11/1/17. Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. North facade, view southeast. 11/1/17. DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 15 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 P5a. Photograph (Continued) Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Interior, view northwest. 11/1/17. Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Interior, view southeast. 11/1/17. DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 16 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 P5a. Photograph (Continued) Left - Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Interior, view southeast. 11/1/17. Right - Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Interior, superstructure system. 11/1/17. DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 17 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 P5a. Photograph (Continued) Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Interior, view towards northeast corner. 11/1/17. Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Interior, view of earthen foundation. 11/1/17. DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 18 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 P5a. Photograph (Continued) Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Interior, southwest corner. 11/1/17. Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Interior, view right side of south-facing wall. 11/1/17. DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 19 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 P5a. Photograph (Continued) Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Interior, mortise-and-tenon detail. 11/1/17. Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Interior, mortise-and-tenon detail. 11/1/17. DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 20 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 P5a. Photograph (Continued) Left: Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Interior, northeast corner, mortise-and-tenon detail. 11/1/17. Right - Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Interior, mortise-and-tenon detail superstructure detail. 11/1/17. DPR 523L (1/95) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 21 of 22 Resource Name: Dyer Barn Recorded by: Michael Hibma Date: 12/15/2017 P5a. Photograph (Continued) Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Single-family residence built circa 1948 (background), and (2) a two-story, garage built circa 1950 (foreground), south façades, view north. 11/1/17. Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Two-story, garage built circa 1950 (at left), view southeast. 11/1/17. DPR 523L (1/95) State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial Page 22 of 22 *Resource Name: Dyer Barn *Map Name(s): USGS 7.5’ topographic quadrangles: Woodside, Calif.,(1973),La Honda, Calif. (1968) *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map(s): 1973,1968 DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION F EBRUARY 2018 D YER B ARN, L A H ONDA C REEK O PEN S PACE P RESERVE U N INCORPORATED S AN M ATEO C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA P:\MOS1706_Dyer_Barn_HRE\HRE\LSA_Dyer_Barn_HRE_(FINAL)_2.6.18.docx (02/06/18) A-2 APPENDIX B STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS – DYER BARN. Interactive Resources, 2017 Memorandum Introduction At the request of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District), and working as a consultant to LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA), Interactive Resources, Inc. (IR) has prepared this Dyer Barn Conditions Assessment and Stabilization Recommendations Report (Assessment and Recommendations Report) which establishes design parameters for stabilizing the structure. This analysis identifies the Dyer Barn’s character-defining features, describes its architectural and structural conditions In addition it makes specific architectural and structural recommendations for maintaining its historic integrity based on compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties – Preservation Treatment. LSA found that the Dyer Barn appears eligible for inclusion in both the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) at the local level of significance under Criterion A/1 for the associations with the early development of ranching in the La Honda area and under Criterion and C/3for its vernacular architectural qualities. Date: November 30, 2017 Client: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ATTN: Lisa Infante Bankosh, Open Space Planner III Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Project Name and Address: Dyer Barn Conditions Assessment and Recommendations Report, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, unincorporated San Mateo County, California. IR Project No: 2017-082-01 2 Methodology To prepare this Assessment and Recommendations Report, IR conducted a site visit on November 1st, 2017. Attending from IR were Charlie Duncan, Preservation Architect, and Al Whitecar, Structural Engineer. Also present were LSA Architectural Historian Michael Hibma, and Leigh Guggemos with the Midpenninsula Regional Open Space District. The purpose of the visit was to gather information on the barn’s construction, historic character and physical condition by direct observation. The sections of this report include:  Building and Site Description  Character Defining Features Description  Conditions and Recommendations  Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Analysis  Conclusion  References  Appendix “A” Suggested Foundation Replacement Details Sketches  Appendix “B” Preservation Brief 17 Architectural Character / Preservation Brief 20 Historic Barns Building and Site Descriptions Site Description The Dyer Barn is located at the end of Kebet Ridge Road, Redwood City, San Mateo County, approximately 1.5 miles to the east of the intersection of Bear Gulch Road and Allen Road. Coordinates: Latitude: 37.37793, Longitude: 122.27907. The Dyer Barn shares an open sloping hillside site with two contemporary buildings: a single-story, approximately 3,100 square-foot, single-family residence approximately 280 feet northeast of Dyer Barn and a two-story, approximately 2,000 square-foot garage or shop uphill of and approximately 120 feet east of Dyer Barn. Generally, the site is open, rolling grassland bound by wooded areas. Dyer Barn stands at an elevation below the contemporary structures at the toe of a hill on a narrow flat section. The barn’s north and south façades are oriented roughly east to west. The hillside continues to fall away from the barn’s south face into a heavily wooded ravine. Building Description General. The Dyer Barn is a Vernacular style example of a mid / late 19th century utilitarian agricultural building. It is a simple gable end structure measuring 25’-8” by 40’-2” in plan. The ridge height is approximately 20 feet above grade, and the plate height at the long walls is roughly 8’-6” above grade. Dyer Barn is covered by a 12” in 12” pitch roof with rafters at a 45 degree angle above level. Spatially the barn is a single volume, broken up only by structural posts, feeding cribs and low partitions enclosing animal stalls or pens. It is divided into five slightly unequal bays longitudinally from east to west. It is two equal bays wide, side to side forming a north and south aisle on either side of the ridge line. 3 Materials  Primary frame –posts and beams: 8” by 8” hand hewn redwood.  Secondary wall framing braces: 6” by 6” hand hewn redwood.  Nailers: various dimensions of redwood, machine sawn with circular blade marks.  Rafters: full cut 2” by 8” redwood (assumed), machine sawn with circular blade marks.  Skip roof sheathing: full cut 1” by 8” redwood (assumed), machine sawn with circular blade marks.  Siding: full cut 1” by 12” redwood, machine sawn with circular blade marks, with 1” by 2” battens covering vertical joints.  Roofing: Corrugated galvanized steel. Structural. The barn’s foundation is square cross section, redwood lumber bearing on, or partially buried in the earth. This foundation system is typical of post Mexican Land Grant – Early American settlement era structures of the 1850s and 1860s in the San Francisco Bay Area and statewide, corroborating the estimated 1860 date of construction. The primary building structure is a post and beam system composed of 8 ” by 8 hand hewn redwood members for both the posts and beams. These framing members occur along the long north and south façades, and along the ridgeline (or centerline) of the building. In addition there are horizontal 8 inch by 8 inch members at the gable end walls tying the frames together. The frames are stiffened by wood, 6 inch by 6 inch angle braces. All of the post and beam elements bear on the original redwood foundations suggesting that, they too are part of the original 1860 construction. Of particular note is the fact that all of the wood described above is hand hewn. The finished surfaces have the telltale marks of being worked with edge tools such a broad ax for roughing the square cross section. In addition, the beams forming the top plate of the long walls as well as the ridge beam are each continuous pieces of wood, forty feet long. Our field inspection revealed mortice and tenon construction as the joining method for all post and beam elements. The mortices were cut into the beams and slipped over the tenons cut into the tops of the posts. The diagonal wood frame braces appear to be joined to the posts and beams in a similar way. There are no visible metal fixtures associated with the post and beam framing joinery. These conditions suggest that the wood used for the primary structure of the barn was possibly felled from a nearby wood lot, and worked to shape at the building site. The roof structure is a series of full cut, 2 inch by 8 inch rafters spaced at 2’- 8” on center. They bear on the 8” by 8” beams along the north and south walls, and span to the central ridge beam. These too appear to be redwood, but the large diameter circular saw marks on the faces indicate that they were cut to dimension in a mill which was likely remote from the barn site. The spanning elements perpendicular to the rafters is a combination of 1” by 6” and 1” by 8” skip sheathing. This wood also bears circular sawing marks similar to those on the rafters. It is notable that the dimension of the gaps between the skip sheathing boards is roughly 18”. Architectural - exterior. The barn’s cladding on all walls is 1” by 12” redwood, mounted vertically, with the gaps between boards covered with 1” by 2” battens. All exterior cladding wood bears circular saw milling marks. There are two, five foot wide doors at the corners of the east elevation and one similar door at the southern door of the west elevation. In addition there is a single three foot wide “man door” in the second bay from the west on the south elevation wall. All doors are vertical board and batten construction similar to the siding, such that when closed, they blend in with the walls. The east elevation contains two, roughly four foot by four foot, four light windows sharing the same beam forming the head as the doors. They are of a type that post-dates the 1920s, and appear to have been installed at a later date than the siding because of the installation details. 4 The Dyer Barn’s utilitarian character is evident for the lack of trim or ornament. The rafter tails extend about one foot beyond the wall face, are plumb cut, and exposed without fascia or soffit boards. The roof skip sheathing extends beyond the gable end walls by about one foot to form an overhang. The exposed skip sheathing boards are covered by a 1’ by 8” board that follows the roof line of the gale end. The roof is clad with corrugated galvanized steel sheets. The sheets are two feet wide, and between eight and ten feet long. It is evident that the weather face is to the north from rusting, and replacement sheets appear at the west gable end as well as a new ridge cap. Architectural – interior. For the most part, the interior description of any barn is the space formed by its structure and the visual quality of the exposed construction materials. The Dyer Barn’s interior also contains a variety of wooden feeding cribs, and low partitions. There are two enclosed animal pens, one each, at the east and west ends of the structure. The pens are formed by both horizontally and vertically oriented, one inch thick boards of varying widths. All wood used for partitions contains either circular saw, or surface planer milling marks. Additionally, there is a wood floor formed by boards two inches thick and on random width and length. The floor boards are oriented across the width of the barn, and bear on redwood grade beams buried directly in the earth. The wooden feeding cribs and partitions and flooring are significant because they tell the story of how the barn was used. Character-Defining Features Character-defining features are the distinctive visual aspects, physical elements, or qualities of a property that contribute significantly to its physical character and convey its historical significance. Prominent features of buildings typically include the overall form, dimensions, proportions, materials, craftsmanship, decorative details, interior spaces and features, as well as various aspects of the its site and environment. (Nelson 1988). In determining the character-defining features of a property, the period of significance must also be taken into consideration in order to establish which features are relevant to the building’s historical significance. Relative to the barn’s associates with the history of ranching in San Mateo County and its architectural characteristics, LSA has determined that the Period of Significance is from circa 1860 (the estimated date of construction) to 1967 (fifty years back in time from the present).1 The visual evidence from the IR team inspection strongly suggests that the Dyer Barn was originally built circa 1860, and partially rebuilt at a point sometime after the 1890s. The main structural post and beam framing elements, which are hand hewn, and still bear on redwood foundation grade beams are clearly original. In general, exterior cladding, roofing, and roof rafters / skip sheathing, (if deteriorated from water intrusion) are building elements prone to weathering and possible replacement over time. At the Dyer Barn all of these elements are of a more recent date than the surviving post and beam structural framing members. These elements are made of wood that was machine sawn and attached with round headed wire nails. The use of round headed nails started to be common in the 1890s, and was the construction industry standard by 1900. Although there are two distinct building phases, the later phase occurred more than fifty years in the past, and should be considered part of the Dyer Barn’s historic fabric. 1 According to National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National register Criteria for Evaluation, “fifty years is general estimate of the time needed to develop historical perspective and to evaluate signficnace. This consideration guards against the listing of properties of passing contemporary interest and ensures that the National register is a list of truly historc places” (National Park Service 1991:41). 5 Character-Defining Features Associated with the Setting  The natural topography of rolling hills;  The open grasslands; and  The stand of trees to the south of the barn structure. Character-Defining Features of the Dyer Barn Exterior  The tall, simple, one story volume;  The gable end roof;  The overhanging eaves with plumb cut exposed rafter tails;  The vertical board and batten siding;  Door and window opening sizes and locations;  Board and batten doors; four light windows, and  Corrugated metal roofing. Character-Defining Features of the Dyer Barn Interior  The exposed post and beam, hand hewn, structural framework;  The exposed machine sawn roof rafters and skip sheathing;  The interior division of space;  Wood board flooring; and  Wood stalls, feeding cribs and pens. Conditions and Recommendations Structural Foundation conditions: The original redwood grade beam foundations are original to the Dyer Barn’s construction, and have sustained over 150 years of earth / wood contact. They are severely deteriorated to the extent that they no longer provide adequate bearing for the post and beam structure above. In addition, the interior redwood grade beams that support the floor are also severely deteriorated. The barn has a distinct lean to the southwest caused by the physical loss of foundation wood. Recommendations: The deteriorated wood grade beams must be replaced with a permanent concrete perimeter foundation and a concrete grade beam below the posts along the center-line carrying the ridge beam. In addition, the east to west oriented wood grade beams carrying the floor should also be replaced with concrete. This treatment will ensure the longevity of the lower wooden elements by removing them from direct contact with soil. The new concrete foundations should be designed so that there is at least a six inch separation between any wood element and the earth. They should also be designed to retain the dimensional relationship between the top of the wood floor and the top of the east to west spanning beams. The barn will have to be lifted off the ground to properly excavate and pour the concrete foundations. Any original material that will be temporarily removed to perform this operation will be identified, numbered, and recorded by a preservation architect to allow for re-installation at its original location. Also see the recommendations for the post and beam system below. Original 1860 post and beam framing system conditions: The foundation deterioration has apparently penetrated into the bottom of the posts, particularly along the perimeter. The horizontal tie beam across 6 the west gable end elevation also shows clear signs of decay from termite activity. Recommendations: Determining the full extent of deterioration at the post bottoms as well as deterioration from insect activity is outside the scope of this report and is currently unknown. All structural post and beam framing elements should be surveyed for deterioration, given catalog numbers and recorded by a preservation architect in conjunction with a structural engineer. The goal is to re-use as much historic fabric as possible. Where the post bottoms are decayed, they may be cut back to sound material and placed on a new wood sill plate bolted to the new concrete foundation. The sill plate can be built up to make up the lost dimension caused by the deteriorated wood removal. Where a framing member is deteriorated beyond its continued use, it should be replaced in-kind considering its dimensions and material. Because the surviving posts and beams are hand hewn, replacement material should be distinct from the original by using wood with a smooth, machine milled surface. Roof framing system conditions: The roof rafters and skip sheathing show no visible signs of deterioration from water intrusion or insect activity. Recommendations: The extent of deterioration in the roof framing system is unknown, and beyond the scope of this report. A survey should be conducted by a preservation architect, prior to construction, to determine the extent of deterioration (if any), and the material that is deteriorated beyond use should be replaced in-kind. Please see the suggested structural detail sketches for the foundation replacement in Appendix A. Architectural Exterior wood cladding conditions: The exterior cladding, while not original, has clearly been in place for some decades. It is weathered on all sides with more severe weathering on the north elevation. In addition there are missing sections on both the east and west gable ends and on the north wall. Each elevation contains some partially detached boards. A large percentage of the battens covering the vertical gaps between the cladding boards are missing. Also deterioration caused by earth to wood contact at the bottom of the boards is found in various locations around the entire perimeter of the Dyer Barn and extends up into the siding approximately six to eight inches. Recommendations: The majority of siding still has a useful service life and should be retained. Where boards are missing, they should be replaced in-kind. Where the boards have come loose, they should be nailed back into position. Because water intrusion is a major issue, the 1’ x 2” battens covering the vertical gaps between the boards should be replaced in-kind. Finally, it is clear from the field survey that Dyer Barn was originally painted. After all major work is complete, the barn siding should be gently cleaned, primed, and repainted to stabilize, preserve, and extend the working life of the historic siding. Wood door conditions: The wood doors are generally in better condition than the surrounding siding. While weathered, and missing some battens, they are generally sound. All of the doors appear to be sagging in their openings because the barn is not square and plumb and some of the strap hinges have failed as well. Recommendations: If structural work is pursued, the doors should be removed and repaired reusing as much original material as possible. Where deterioration requires replacement, all wood should match the 7 existing material. The new foundation will allow the barn to sit level and square; therefore, if required the doors should be squared to match the openings. The installation of new strap hinges to match those that are deteriorated, is recommended. Wood window conditions: Only one of the two wood fixed windows was visible, but it appears to be sound. Recommendations: The windows should be surveyed and assessed by a preservation architect for repairs. If foundation work is undertaken they should be removed, professionally repaired and re-painted, and / or re-glazed in a shop, and re-installed using the original method. Corrugated metal roof conditions: The date of the roof material is unknown, but it is likely not more than twenty five years old. It appears to be in good condition. The north side is rusted, and contains some replacement material. From the inside the roofing appears new without stains, rust or any marks on the rafters indicating water intrusion. Recommendations: While corrosion is evident, the roof appears to be sound. We recommend monitoring for failure indicated by evidence of water intrusion, at which point complete in-kind replacement is appropriate. Wood floor conditions: The wood flooring is generally in place, but some of the boards show deterioration, especially at the perimeter where they were in contact with the redwood foundation elements. Also much of the flooring is dislodged. Recommendations: If foundation work is undertaken, the wood flooring will have to be removed to enable in installation of new foundations, and to create new bearing points for the floor boards. Each board must be individually numbered and catalogued on a plan showing its location and orientation. The boards should be safely stored in a secure location, outside the area of construction, and stacked to allow airflow around each piece to prevent cupping and warping. Where the boards are too severely deteriorated to re-install, they should be replaced in-kind. After the foundation work is complete, each board will be returned to its original location and orientation as directed by the survey documentation. Interior wood feeding crib / pen / partition conditions: The wooden elements related to the care and feeding of livestock are generally sound, and in place with no material deterioration, but they are in a state of disrepair. Recommendations: If foundation work is undertaken, the wooden cribs and partitions will be in the way of the work. All of these elements must be surveyed and documented in photographs and drawings. Each piece should be numbered and recorded with its location marked on a plan. The elements should be disassembled in the largest sections possible and safely stored until the foundation work is complete. After the flooring has been installed the elements can be re-assembled using the survey documentation. Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), any work on this property should be done in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and 8 Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer 1995).2 The Secretary’s Standards comprise four sets of standards to guide the treatment of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction (Weeks and Grimmer 1995:2). Those four distinct treatments are defined as follows: Preservation: The Standards for Preservation “... require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric, along with the building’s historic form, features, and detailing as they have evolved over time.” Rehabilitation: The Standards for Rehabilitation “... acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing new uses while retaining the building’s historic character.” Restoration: The Standards for Restoration “... allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and removing materials from other periods.” Reconstruction: The Standards for Reconstruction “... establish a limited framework for re-creating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes.” As it is currently understood, future work involving the Dyer Barn is a stabilization project, which requires the use of the Preservation treatment as defined by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards): “Preservation is the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electric al and plumbing systems and other code-required work to properties functional is appropri9aate within a preservation project.” IR understands the District is seeking to stabilize and repair Dyer Barn to prevent further deterioration and secure the building against vandalism. In this context, the relevant treatment as defined by the Secretary’s Standards is Preservation, as stated and discussed below. In addition to the Secretary’s Standards, there are numerous technical publications issued by the National Park Service that expand upon the concepts outlined in the guidelines and address specific issues that arise in preservation work. These publications are numerous and will not all apply to a given project. They will be referenced only as-needed. 1. A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention 2 According to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b), a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would create “an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical res ource.” Specifically, substantial adverse changes include “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(1)). With respect to mitigating such impacts, CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(3) states: Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a signific ant impact on the historical resource. [Italics added]. 9 of distinctive materials, features spaces, and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken. Comment: The Dyer Barn has served as a utilitarian agricultural and storage building for over 157 years. Any new purpose that deviates from an agricultural or storage use should require minimal changes to the building’s character defining features, its site and its environment. Most significantly, the building’s volume and significant exterior features should remain. Because its archaic foundations (direct burial of wood in the earth) are the primary area of deterioration, putting the entire building at risk, replacement with concrete foundations is recommended. This is a generally accepted treatment in structures of this type and age, which will ensure the longevity of the resource. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Comment: In order to retain the historic character of the Dyer Barn, repairs should take into account the character-defining features identified in this report and every effort taken to preserve those features. The, workmanship, materials, and the volume are three of the most significant features of the resource. The wooden foundations are well beyond their service life and cannot be repaired. As they are below grade, and for the most part not visible, their replacement in new materials that have and inherent longevity will not compromise this historic character of the barn. In addition one of the main 8” by 8” cross beams at the west elevations shows substantial termite infestation. A full survey of deterioration from dry rot or insect infestation should be conducted by a preservation architect in conjunction with a structural engineer to determine the full extent of necessary in-kind replacement. See Preservation Brief 20: The Preservation of Historic Barns, available at https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/20-barns.htm for additional guidance on the characteristics of historic barns. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection and properly documented for future research. Comment: All recommended stabilization work will conserve existing materials, unless deteriorated to a point requiring replacement. As stated above, this will include the foundations and identified wood elements such that if left un-treated, will compromise the resource. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Comment: It is evident that the Dyer Barn was repaired and partially rebuilt at a point in time well after its original construction in the 1860s. It is also clear that those changes are over fifty years old, placing them within the period of significance (circa 1860 to 1967). These changes to the original barn as described above have gained historical significance and should be preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 10 Comment: The identified character-defining features of the Dyer Barn (listed above) should be preserved as much as possible if the proposed preservation treatment of the Dyer Barn is undertaken. See Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character – Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving their Character, available at https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to- preserve/briefs/17-architectural-character.htm for information on how character-defining features are determined. 6. The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair of limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color, and texture. Comment: Any future work adhering to the preservation treatment recommendations should follow the requirement of repairing first and then replacing in kind when features are too deteriorated to be repaired. Further, the design of any replacement elements should be based on documented evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. Comment: No chemical or harsh treatments will be required for the repair work on the Dyer Barn. Before cleaning the building, particularly grime and dirt on the interior, a qualified contractor with experience in cleaning historic materials should conduct cleaning tests on sample areas to establish the most appropriate and gentlest methods. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. Comment: Archeological resources may be found at the site relating to the Dyer Barn’s use as an early agricultural building. If resources are found during construction, a qualified archeologist will be retained to assess and protect the finds. If the resources will be disturbed by the construction, the archeologist will determine the required mitigation measures. 11 Conclusion Any proposed work to the Dyer Barn, or its immediate setting, should be undertaken in a manner that avoids or minimizes the potential diminishment of its historic integrity or significance. The character- defining features identified and listed in this report comprise the primary elements that convey the Dyer Barn’s historical significance at the local level and supports inclusion as an individual historical resource in the NRHP and CRHR. Based on the District’s goal of stabilizing the Dyer Barn, all proposed work must comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties using the Preservation Treatment. In addition, the National Park Service technical publications cited in the text above may be referenced where applicable. By following the Secretary’s Standards and associated technical guidelines, the Dyer Barn will continue to physically maintain its associations with the early development of ranching in the La Honda area, as well as maintaining its mid-19th century vernacular architectural qualities. References Auer, Michael J. Preservation Brief 20: The Preservation of Historic Barns. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1989. Ballard, Hannah, Reese, Elena. Cultural Resources Existing Conditions report for the Midpenninsula Regional Open Space district Vision Plan. Pacific legacy Incorporated, 2013 California Register and National Register: A Comparison, California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series, no. 6. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 2006. California Register of Historical Resources: The Listing Process, California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series, no. 5. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, n.d. Hibma, Michael Historical Resource Evaluation - Dyer Barn, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, unincorporated San Mateo County, California. LSA, Point Richmond, California, 2017. McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992. McClelland, Linda Flint, J. Timothy Keller, ASLA, Genevieve P. Keller, and Robert Z. Melnick, ASLA. National Register Bulletin 30: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1999. National Park Service National Register Bulletin 15 – How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1991. Nelson, Lee H. Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character – Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving their Character. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1988. 12 Weeks, Kay and Anne E. Grimmer. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington D. C.: National Park Service, 1995. 13 Appendix A Suggested Foundation Replacement Details Sketches. Detail 1. Typical Perimeter Footing 14 Detail 2. Section at Ridge Post Footing 15 Detail 3. Typical Floor Plank Footing 16 Appendix B Preservation Briefs Technical Preservation Services National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Preservation Brief 17 – Architectural Character Preservation Brief 20 – The Preservation of Historic Barns 17 e PRESERVATION BRIEFS 17 Close-up of stone wall, showing craftsmanship. Photo: NPS files. Architectural Character—Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving their Character Lee H. Nelson, FAIA  Three-Step Process to Identify the Visual Character  Step 1: Overall Visual Aspects  Step 2: Visual Character at Close Range  Step 3: Interior Spaces, Features and Finishes  The Architectural Character Checklist/Questionnaire  Summary and References The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties embody two important goals: 1) the preservation of historic materials and, 2) the preservation of a building's distinguishing character. Every old building is unique, with its own identity and its own distinctive character. Character refers to all those visual aspects and physical features that comprise the appearance of every historic building. Character-defining elements include the overall shape of the building, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details, interior spaces and features, as well as the various aspects of its site and environment. The purpose of this Brief is to help the owner or the architect identify those features or elements that give the building its visual character and that should be taken into account in order to preserve them to the maximum extent possible. There are different ways of understanding old buildings. They can be seen as examples of 18 specific building types, which are usually related to a building's function, such as schools, courthouses or churches. Buildings can be studied as examples of using specific materials such as concrete, wood, steel, or limestone. They can also be considered as examples of an historical period, which is often related to a specific architectural style, such as Gothic Revival farmhouses, one-story bungalows, or Art Deco apartment buildings. There are many other facets of an historic building besides its functional type, its materials or construction or style that contribute to its historic qualities or significance. Some of these qualities are feelings conveyed by the sense of time and place or in buildings associated with events or people. A complete understanding of any property may require documentary research about its style, construction, function, its furnishings or contents; knowledge about the original builder, owners, and later occupants; and knowledge about the evolutionary history of the building. Even though buildings may be of historic, rather than architectural significance, it is their tangible elements that embody its significance for association with specific events or persons and it is those tangible elements both on the exterior and interior that should be preserved. Therefore, the approach taken in this Brief is limited to identifying those visual and tangible aspects of the historic building. While this may aid in the planning process for carrying out any ongoing or new use or restoration of the building, this approach is not a substitute for developing an understanding about the significance of an historic building and the district in which it is located. If the various materials, features and spaces that give a building its visual character are not recognized and preserved, then essential aspects of its character may be damaged in the process of change. A building's character can be irreversibly damaged or changed in many ways, for example, by inappropriate repointing of the brickwork, by removal of a distinctive side porch, by changes to the window sash, by changes to the setting around the building, by changes to the major room arrangements, by the introduction of an atrium, by painting previously unpainted woodwork, etc. Three-Step Process to Identify the Visual Character This Brief outlines a three-step approach that can be used by anyone to identify those materials, features and spaces that contribute to the visual character of a building. This approach involves first examining the building from afar to understand its overall setting and architectural context; then moving up very close to appreciate its materials and the craftsmanship and surface finishes evident in these materials; and then going into and through the building to perceive those spaces, rooms and details that comprise its interior visual character. 19 Step 1: Identify the Overall Visual Aspects Identifying the overall visual character of a building is nothing more than looking at its distinguishing physical aspects without focusing on its details. The major contributors to a building's overall character are embodied in the general aspects of its setting; the shape of the building; its roof and roof features, such as chimneys or cupolas; the various projections on the building, such as porches or bay windows; the recesses or voids in a building, such as open galleries, arcades, or recessed balconies; the openings for windows and doorways; and finally the various exterior materials that contribute to the building's character. Step One involves looking at the building from a distance to understand the character of its site and setting, and it involves walking around the building where that is possible. Some buildings will have one or more sides that are more important than the others because they are more highly visible. This does not mean that the rear of the building is of no value whatever but it simply means that it is less important to the overall character. On the other hand, the rear may have an interesting back porch or offer a private garden space or some other aspect that may contribute to the visual character. Such a general approach to looking at the building and site will provide a better understanding of its overall character without having to resort to an infinitely long checklist of its possible features and details. Regardless of whether a building is complicated or relatively plain, it is these broad categories that contribute to an understanding of the overall character rather than the specifics of architectural features such as moldings and their profiles. Left Photo—Overall Visual Character: Shape. Right Photo—Overall Visual Character: Openings. Overall Visual Character: Shape The shape of a building can be an important aspect of its overall visual character. The building illustrated here, for example, has a distinctive horizontal boxlike shape with the middle portion of the box projecting up an extra story. This building has other visual aspects that help define its overall character, including the pattern of vertical bands of windows, the decorative horizontal bands which separate the base of the building from the upper floors, the dark brown color of the brick, the large arched entranceway, and the castle-like tower behind the building. 20 Overall Visual Character: Openings The opening illustrated here dominates the visual character of this building because of its size, shape, location, materials, and craftsmanship. Because of its relation to the generous staircase, this opening places a strong emphasis on the principal entry to the building. Enclosing this arcade-like entry with glass, for example, would materially and visually change the character of the building. Overall Visual Character: Roof and Related Features Overall Visual Character: Roof and Related Features This building pictured on the left has a number of character-defining aspects which include the windows and the decorative stonework, but certainly the roof and its related features are visually important to its overall visual character. The roof is not only highly visible, it has elaborate stone dormers, and it also has decorative metalwork and slatework. The red and black slates of differing sizes and shapes are laid in patterns that extend around the roof of this large and freestanding building. Any changes to this patterned slatework, or to the other roofing details would damage the visual character of the building. Overall Visual Character: Roof and Related Features On this building pictured on the right, the most important visual aspects of its ch aracter are the roof and its related features, such as the dormers and chimneys. The roof is important to the visual character because its steepness makes it highly visible, and its prominence is reinforced by the patterned tinwork, the six dormers and the two chimneys. Changes to the roof or its features, such as removal or alterations to the dormers, for example, would certainly change the character of this building. This does not discount the importance of its other aspects, such as the porch, the windows, the brickwork, or its setting; but the roof is clearly crucial to understanding the overall visual character of this building as seen from a distance. 21 Left Photo—Overall Visual Character: Projections. Middle Photo—Overall Visual Character: Trim. Right Photo—Overall Visual Character: Setting. Overall Visual Character: Projections A projecting porch or balcony can be very important to the overall visual character of almost any building and to the district in which it is located. Despite the size of this building (3-1/2 stories), and its distinctive roofline profile, and despite the importance of the very large window openings, the lacy wrap-around iron balcony is singularly important to the visual character of this building. It would seriously affect the character to remove the balcony, to enclose it, or to replace it with a balcony lacking the same degree of detail of the original material. Overall Visual Character: Trim If one were to analyze the overall shape or form of this building, it would be seen that it is a gable-roofed house with dormers and a wrap-around porch. It is similar to many other houses of the period. It is the wooden trim on the eaves and around the porch that gives this building its own identify and its special visual character. Although such wooden trim is vulnerable to the elements, and must be kept painted to prevent deterioration; the loss of this trim would seriously damage the overall visual character of this building, and its loss would obliterate much of the closeup visual character so dependent upon craftsmanship for the moldings, carvings, and the see-through jigsaw work. Overall Visual Character: Setting Even architecturally modest buildings frequently will have a setting that contributes to their overall character. In this very urban district, setbacks are the exception, so that the small front yard is something of a luxury, and it is important to the overall character because of its design and materials, which include the iron fence along the sidewalk, the curved walk leading to the porch, and the various plantings. In a district where parking spaces are in great demand, such front yards are sometimes converted to off-street parking, but in this instance, that would essentially destroy its setting and would drastically change the visual character of this historic property. 22 Step 2: Visual Character at Close Range Step Two involves looking at the building at close range or arm's length, where it is possible to see all the surface qualities of the materials, such as their color and texture, or surface evidence of craftsmanship or age. In some instances, the visual character is the result of the juxtaposition of materials that are contrastingly different in their color and texture. The surface qualities of the materials may be important because they impart the very sense of craftsmanship and age that distinguishes historic buildings from other buildings. Furthermore, many of these close up qualities can be easily damaged or obscured by work that affects those surfaces. Examples of this could include painting previously unpainted masonry, rotary disk sanding of smooth wood siding to remove paint, abrasive cleaning of tooled stonework, or repointing reddish mortar joints with gray portland cement. There is an almost infinite variety of surface materials, textures and finishes that are part of a building's character which are fragile and easily lost. Arm's Length Visual Character: Materials Arm's Length Visual Character: Materials At arm's length, the visual character is most often determined by the surface qualities of the materials and craftsmanship; and while these aspects are often inextricably related, the original choice of materials often plays the dominant role in establishing the close range character because of the color, texture, or shape of the materials. In this instance, the variety and arrangement of the materials is important in defining the visual character, starting with the large pieces of broken stone which form the projecting base for the building walls, then changing to a wall of roughly rectangular stones which vary in size, color, and texture, all with accentuated, projecting beads of mortar, then there is a rather precise and narrow band of cut and dressed stones with minimal mortar joints, and finally, the main building walls are composed of bricks, rather uniform in color, with fairly generous mortar joints. It is the juxtaposition and variety of these materials (and of course, the craftsmanship) that is very important to the visual character. Changing the raised mortar joints, for example, would 23 drastically alter the character at arm's length. Arm's Length Visual Character: Craft Details Arm's Length Visual Character: Craft Details There are many instances where craft details dominate the arm's length visual character. As seen here, the craft details are especially noticeable because the stones are all of a uniform color, and they are all squared off, but their surfaces were worked with differing tools and techniques to create a great variety of textures, resulting in a tour-de-force of craft details. This texture is very important at close range. It was a deliberately contrived surface that is an important contributor to the visual character of this building. Step 3: Identify the Visual Character of Interior Spaces, Features and Finishes Interior Visual Character: Interior Features Perceiving the character of interior spaces can be somewhat more difficult than dealing with the exterior. In part, this is because so much of the exterior can be seen at one time and it is 24 possible to grasp its essential character rather quickly. To understand the interior character, Step Three says it is necessary to move through the spaces one at a time. While it is not difficult to perceive the character of one individual room, it becomes more difficult to deal with spaces that are interconnected and interrelated. Sometimes, as in office buildings, it is the vestibules or lobbies or corridors that are important to the interior character of the building. With other groups of buildings the visual qualities of the interior are related to the plan of the building, as in a church with its axial plan creating a narrow tunnel-like space which obviously has a different character than an open space like a sports pavilion. Thus the shape of the space may be an essential part of its character. With some buildings it is possible to perceive that there is a visual linkage in a sequence of spaces, as in a hotel, from the lobby to the grand staircase to the ballroom. Closing off the openings between those spaces would change the character from visually linked spaces to a series of closed spaces. For example, in a house that has a front and back parlor linked with an open archway, the two rooms are perceived together, and this visual relationship is part of the character of the building. To close off the open archway would change the character of such a residence. The importance of interior features and finishes to the character of the building should not be overlooked. In relatively simple rooms, the primary visual aspects may be in features such as fireplace mantels, lighting fixtures or wooden floors. In some rooms, the absolute plainness is the character-defining aspect of the interior. So-called secondary spaces also may be important in their own way, from the standpoint of history or because of the family activities that occurred in those rooms. Such secondary spaces, while perhaps historically significant, are not usually perceived as important to the visual character of the building. Thus we do not take them into account in the visual understanding of the building. Interior Visual Character: Individually Important Spaces Interior Visual Character: Individually Important Spaces In assessing the interior visual character of any historic building, it is necessary to ask whether there are spaces that are important to the character of this particular building, whether the building is architecturally rich or modest, or even if it is a simple or utilitarian structure. The character of the individually important space, which is illustrated here, is a combination of its size, the twin curving staircases, the massive columns and curving vaulted ceilings, in addition to the quality of the materials in the floor and in the stair s. If the ceiling were to be 25 lowered to provide space for heating ducts, or if the stairways were to be enclosed for code reasons, the shape and character of this space would be damaged, even if there was no permanent physical damage. Such changes can easily destroy the visual character of an individually important interior space. Thus, it is important that the visual aspects of a building's interior character be recognized before planning any changes or alterations. Interior Visual Character: Related Spaces Interior Visual Character: Related Spaces Many buildings have interior spaces that are visually or physically related so that, as you move through them, they are perceived not as separate spaces, but as a sequence of related spaces that are important in defining the interior character of the building. The example which is illustrated here consists of two spaces that are visually linked to each other. The photo shows a vestibule which is of a generous size and unusual in its own right, but more important, it visually relates to the staircase off of it. The stairway, bottom photo, is the second part of this sequence of related spaces, and it provides continuing access to the upper floors. These related spaces are very important in defining the interior character of this building. Almost any change to these spaces, such as installing doors between the vestibule and the hallway, or enclosing the stair would seriously impact their character and the way that character is perceived. Interior Visual Character: Interior Features Interior Visual Character: Interior Features Interior features are three-dimensional building elements or architectural details that are an integral part of the building as opposed to furniture. Interior features are often important in 26 defining the character of an individual room or space. In some instances, an interior feature, like a large and ornamental open stairway may dominate the visual character of an entire building. In other instances, a modest iron stairway (like the one illustrated here) may be an important interior feature, and its preservation would be crucial to preserving the interior character of the building. Such features can also include the obvious things like fireplace mantles, plaster ceiling medallions, or paneling, but they also extend to features like hardware, lighting fixtures, bank tellers cages, decorative elevator doors, etc. Interior Visual Character: Surface Materials and Finishes Interior Visual Character: Surface Materials and Finishes When identifying the visual character of historic interior spaces one should not overlook the importance of those materials and finishes that comprise the surfaces of walls, floors and ceilings. The surfaces may have evidence of either handcraft or machine made products that are important contributors to the visual character, including patterned or inlaid designs in the wood flooring, decorative painting practices such as stenciling, imitation marble or wood grain, wallpapering, tinwork, tile floors, etc. The example illustrated here involves a combination of real marble at the base of the column, imitation marble patterns on the plaster surface of the column (a practice called scagliola), and a tile floor surface that uses small mosaic tiles arranged to form geometric designs in several different colors. While such decorative materials and finishes may be important in defining the interior visual character of this particular building, it should be remembered that in much more modest buildings, the plainness of surface materials and finishes may be an essential aspect of their historic character. 27 Interior: Exposed Structure Interior: Exposed Structure If features of the structural system are exposed, such as loadbearing brick walls, cast iron columns, roof trusses, posts and beams, vigas, or stone foundation walls, they may be important in defining the building's interior visual character. Fragility of A Building's Visual Character Fragility of A Building's Visual Character Some aspects of a building's visual character are fragile and are easily lost. This is true of brickwork, for example, which can be irreversibly damaged with inappropriate cleaning techniques or by insensitive repointing practices. At least two factors are important contributors to the visual character of brickwork, namely the brick itself and the craftsmanship. Between 28 these, there are many more aspects worth noting, such as color range of bricks, size and shape variations, texture, bonding patterns, together with the many variable qualities of the mortar joints, such as color, width of joint and tooling. These qualities could be easily damaged by painting the brick, by raking out the joint with power tools, or repointing with a joint that is too wide. As seen here during the process of repointing, the visual character of this front wall is being dramatically changed from a wall where the bricks predominate, to a wall that is visually dominated by the mortar joints. The Architectural Character Checklist/Questionnaire This checklist can be taken to the building and used to identify those aspects that give the building and setting its essential visual qualities and character. This checklist consists of a series of questions that are designed to help in identifying those things that contribute to a building's character. The use of this checklist involves the three step process of looking for: 1) the overall visual aspects, 2) the visual character at close range, and 3) the visual character of interior spaces, features and finishes. Because this is a process to identify architectural character, it does not address those intangible qualities that give a property or building or its contents its historic significance, instead this checklist is organized on the assumption that historic significance is embodied in those tangible aspects that include the building's setting, its form and fabric. STEP ONE 1. Shape What is there about the form or shape of the building that gives the building its identity? Is the shape distinctive in relation to the neighboring buildings? Is it simply a low, squat box, or is it a tall, narrow building with a corner tower? Is the shape highly consistent with its neighbors? Is the shape so complicated because of wings, or ells, or differences in height, that its complexity is important to its character? Conversely, is the shape so simple or plain that adding a feature like a porch would change that character? Does the shape convey its historic function as in smoke stacks or silos? 2. Roof and Roof Features Does the roof shape or its steep (or shallow) slope contribute to the building's character? Does the fact that the roof is highly visible (or not visible at all) contribute to the architectural identity of the building? Are certain roof features important to the profile of the building against the sky or its background, such as cupolas, multiple chimneys, dormers, cresting, or weather vanes? Are the roofing materials or their colors or their patterns (such as patterned slates) more noticeable than the shape or slope of the roof? 3. Openings Is there a rhythm or pattern to the arrangement of windows or other openings in the walls; like the rhythm of windows in a factory building, or a three part window in the front bay of a house; or is there a noticeable relationship between the width of the window openings and the wall 29 space between the window openings? Are there distinctive openings, like a large arched entranceway, or decorative window lintels that accentuate the importance the window openings, or unusually shaped windows, or patterned window sash, like small panes of glass in the windows or doors, that are important to the character? Is the plainness of the window openings such that adding shutters or gingerbread trim would radically change its character? Is there a hierarchy of facades that make the front windows more important than the side windows? What about those walls where the absence of windows establishes its own character? 4. Projections Are there parts of the building that are characterdefining because they project from the walls of the building like porches, cornices, bay windows, or balconies? Are there turrets, or widely overhanging eaves, projecting pediments or chimneys? 5. Trim and Secondary Features Does the trim around the windows or doors contribute to the character of the building? Is there other trim on the walls or around the projections that, because of its decoration or color or patterning contributes to the character of the building? Are there secondary features such as shutters, decorative gables, railings, or exterior wall panels? 6. Materials Do the materials or combination of materials contribute to the overall character of the building as seen from a distance because of their color or patterning, such as broken faced stone, scalloped wall shingling, rounded rock foundation walls, boards and battens, or textured stucco? 7. Setting What are the aspects of the setting that are important to the visual character? For example, is the alignment of buildings along a city street and their relationship to the sidewalk the essential aspect of its setting? Or, conversely, is the essential character dependent upon the tree plantings and out buildings which surround the farmhouse? Is the front yard important to the setting of the modest house? Is the specific site important to the setting such as being on a hilltop, along a river, or, is the building placed on the site in such a way to enhance its setting? Is there a special relationship to the adjoining streets and other buildings? Is there a view? Is there fencing, planting, terracing, walkways or any other landscape aspects that contribute to the setting? STEP TWO 8. Materials at Close Range Are there one or more materials that have an inherent texture that contributes to the close range character, such as stucco, exposed aggregate concrete, or brick textured with vertical grooves? Or materials with inherent colors such as smooth orange colored brick with dark spots of iron pyrites, or prominently veined stone, or green serpentine stone? Are there combinations of materials, used in juxtaposition, such as several different kinds of stone, combinations of stone and brick, dressed stones for window lintels used in conjunction with rough stones for the wall? Has the choice of materials or the combinations of materials contributed to the character? 9. Craft Details Is there high quality brickwork with narrow mortar joints? Is there hand tooled or patterned stonework? Do the walls exhibit carefully struck vertical mortar joints and recessed horiz ontal 30 joints? Is the wall shinglework laid up in patterns or does it retain evidence of the circular saw marks or can the grain of the wood be seen through the semitransparent stain? Are there hand split or handdressed clapboards, or machine smooth beveled siding, or wood rusticated to look like stone, or Art Deco zigzag designs executed in stucco? Almost any evidence of craft details, whether handmade or machinemade, will contribute to the character of a building because it is a manifestation of the materials, of the times in which the work was done, and of the tools and processes that were used. It further reflects the effects of time, of maintenance (and/or neglect) that the building has received over the years. All of these aspects are a part of the surface qualities that are seen only at close range. STEP THREE 10. Individual Spaces Are there individual rooms or spaces that are important to this building because of their size, height, proportion, configuration, or function, like the center hallway in a house, or the bank lobby, or the school auditorium, or the ballroom in a hotel, or a courtroom in a county courthouse? 11. Related Spaces and Sequences of Spaces Are there adjoining rooms that are visually and physically related with large doorways or open archways so that they are perceived as related rooms as opposed to separate rooms? Is there an important sequence of spaces that are related to each other, such as the sequence from the entry way to the lobby to the stairway and to the upper balcony as in a theatre; or the sequence in a residence from the entry vestibule to the hallway to the front parlor, and on through the sliding doors to the back parlor; or the sequence in an office building from the entry vestibule to the lobby to the bank of elevators? 12. Interior Features Are there interior features that help define the character of the building, such as fireplace mantels, stairways and balustrades, arched openings, interior shutters, inglenooks, cornices, ceiling medallions, light fixtures, balconies, doors, windows, hardware, wainscoting, panelling, trim, church pews, courtroom bars, teller cages, waiting room benches? 13. Surface Finishes and Materials Are there surface finishes and materials that can affect the design, the color or the texture of the interior? Are there materials and finishes or craft practices that contribute to the interior character, such as wooden parquet floors, checkerboard marble floors, pressed metal ceilings, fine hardwoods, grained doors or marbleized surfaces, or polychrome painted surfaces, or stenciling, or wallpaper that is important to the historic character? Are there surface finishes and materials that, because of their plainness, are imparting the essential character of the interior such as hard or bright, shiny wall surfaces of plaster or glass or metal? 14. Exposed Structure Are there spaces where the exposed structural elements define the interior character such as the exposed posts, beams, and trusses in a church or train shed or factory? Are there rooms with decorative ceiling beams (nonstructural) in bungalows, or exposed vigas in adobe buildings? This concludes the three-step process of identifying the visual aspects of historic buildings and is 31 intended as an aid in preserving their character and other distinguishing qualities. It is not intended as a means of understanding the significance of historical properties or districts, nor of the events or people associated with them. That can only be done through other kinds of research and investigation. Summary and References Using this three-step approach, it is possible to conduct a walk through and identify all those elements and features that help define the visual character of the building. In most cases, there are a number of aspects about the exterior and interior that are important to the character of an historic building. The visual emphasis of this brief will make it possible to ascertain those things that should be preserved because their loss or alteration would diminish or destroy aspects of the historic character whether on the outside, or on the inside of the building. Acknowledgements This Preservation Brief was originally developed as a slide talk/methodology in 1982 to discuss the use of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation in relation to preserving historic character; and it was amplified and modified in succeeding years to help guide preservation decision making, initially for maintenance personnel in the National Park Service. A number of people contributed to the evolution of the ideas presented here. Special thanks go to Emogene Bevitt and Gary Hume, primarily for the many and frequent discussions relating to this approach in its evolutionary stages; to Mark Fram, Ontario Heritage Foundation, Toronto, for suggesting several additions to the Checklist; and more recently, to my coworkers, both in Washington and in our regional offices, especially Ward Jandl, Sara Blumenthal, Charles Fisher, Sharon Park, AIA, Jean Travers, Camille Martone, Susan Dynes, Michael Auer, Anne E. Grimmer, Kay Weeks, Betsy Chittenden, Patrick Andrus, Carol Shull, Hugh Miller, FAIA, Jerry Rogers, Paul Alley, David Look, AIA, Margaret Pepin-Donat, Bonnie Halda, Keith Everett, Thomas Keohan, the Preservation Services Division, MidAtlantic Region, and several reviewers in state preservation offices, especially Ann Haaker, Illinois; and Stan Graves, AIA, Texas; for providing very critical and constructive review of the manuscript. This publication has been prepared pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and make available information concerning historic properties. Technical Preservation Services (TPS), National Park Service prepares standards, guidelines, and other educational materials on responsible historic preservation treatments for a broad public. September 1988 DOI 32 \n Briefs . PRESERVATION BRIEFS 20 Barn with silos and outbuildings. Barnet, Vermont. Photo: Robert McCullough. The Preservation of Historic Barns Michael J. Auer  Historic Barn Types  Preservation of Historic Barns  Housing: A Special Concern  Summary and References  Reading List From the days when Thomas Jefferson envisioned the new republic as a nation dependent on citizen farmers for its stability and its freedom, the family farm has been a vital image in the American consciousness. As the main structures of farms, barns evoke a sense of tradition and security, of closeness to the land and community with the people who built them. Even today the rural barn raising presents a forceful image of community spirit. Just as many farmers built their barns before they built their houses, so too many farm families look to their old barns as links with their past. Old barns, furthermore, are often community landmarks and make the past present. Such buildings embody ethnic traditions and local customs; they reflect changing farming practices and advances in building technology. In the imagination they represent a whole way of life. 33 Unfortunately, historic barns are threatened by many factors. On farmland near cities, barns are often seen only in decay, as land is removed from active agricultural use. In some regions, barns are dismantled for lumber, their beams sold for reuse in living rooms. Barn raisings have given way to barn razings. Further threats to historic barns and other farm struct ures are posed by changes in farm technology, involving much larger machines and production facilities, and changes in the overall farm economy, including increasing farm size and declining rural populations.(1) Yet historic barns can be refitted for continued use in agriculture, often at great savings over the cost of new buildings. This Brief encourages the preservation of historic barns and other agricultural structures by encouraging their maintenance and use as agricultural buildings, and by advancing their sensitive rehabilitation for new uses when their historic use is no longer feasible. Historic Barn Types Dutch Barns The first great barns built in this country were those of the Dutch settlers of the Hudson, Mohawk, and Schoharie valleys in New York State and scattered sections of New Jersey.(2) On the exterior, the most notable feature of the Dutch barn is the broad gable roof, which in early examples (now extremely rare), extended very low to the ground. A gable roof, center wagon doors with pent roof, stock door at the corners, and horizontal clapboarding are all typical features of the Dutch barn. Photo: S. Matson. On the narrow end the Dutch barn features center doors for wagons and a door to the stock aisles on one or both of the side ends. A pent roof (or pentice) over the center doors gave some slight protection from the elements. The siding is typically horizontal, the detailing simple. Few openings other than doors and traditional holes for martins puncture the external walls.(3) The appearance is of massiveness and simplicity, with the result that Dutch barns seem larger than they actually are. To many observers the heavy interior structural system is the most distinctive aspect of the Dutch barn. Mortised, tenoned and pegged beams are arranged in "H"-shaped" units that recall church interiors, with columned aisles alongside a central space (here used for threshing). This interior arrangement, more than any other characteristic, links the Dutch barn with its Old World forebears. The ends of cross beams projecting through the columns are often rounded to form "tongues," a distinctive feature found only in the Dutch barn. 34 Relatively few Dutch barns survive. Most of these date from the late 18th century. Fewer yet survive in good condition, and almost none unaltered. Yet the remaining examples of this barn type still impress with the functional simplicity of their design and the evident pride the builders took in their work. Bank Barns The bank barn gets its name from a simple but clever construction technique: the barn is built into the side of a hill, thus permitting two levels to be entered from the ground. The lower level housed animals, the upper levels served as threshing floor and storage. The hillside entrance gave easy access to wagons bearing wheat or hay. (Fodder could also be dropped through openings in the floor to the stabling floor below.) The general form of the bank barn remained the same whether it was built into a hillside or not. Where a hill was lacking, a "bank" was often created by building up an earthen ramp to the second level. A gently sloping roadbed shows the "bank," from which bank barns get their name. Photo: NPS files. Bank barns were ordinarily constructed with their long side, or axis, parallel to the hill, and on the south side of it. This placement gave animals a sunny spot in which to gather during the winter. To take further advantage of the protection its location afforded, the second floor was extended, or cantilevered, over the first. The overhang sheltered animals from inclement weather. The extended forebay thus created is one of the most characteristic features of these barns. In some bank barns, the projecting beams were not large enough to bear the entire weight of the barn above. In these cases, columns or posts were added beneath the overhang for structural support. In the earliest examples of bank barns narrow-end side walls are frequently stone or brick, with openings for ventilation. (Since "curing" green hay can generate enough heat to start a fire through spontaneous combustion, adequate ventilation in barns is vital.) Crib Barns Crib barns form another barn type significant in American agriculture. Found throughout the South and Southeast, crib barns are especially numerous in the Appalachian and Ozark Mountain States of North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Arkansas. Composed simply of one, two, four or sometimes six cribs that served as storage for fodder or pens for cattle or pigs, crib barns may or may not have a hayloft above. Crib barns were typically built of unchinked logs, 35 although they were sometimes covered with vertical wood siding. Unaltered examples of early crib barns normally have roofs of undressed wood shingles. In time, shingle roofs were usually replaced with tin or asphalt. The rustic appearance of crib barns is one of their most striking features. The cribs sometimes face a covered gallery or aisle running across the front. In another arrangement, the cribs are separated by a central driveway running through the building. This latter arrangement defines the double crib barn. In double crib barns the second story hayloft is sometimes cantilevered over the ground floor, resulting in a barn of striking appearance. Round Barns George Washington owned a round barn. And in 1826 the Shaker community at Hancock, Massachusetts, built a round barn that attracted considerable publicity.(4) Despite these early examples, however, round barns were not built in numbers until the 1880s, when agricultural colleges and experiment stations taught progressive farming methods based on models of industrial efficiency. From this time until well into the 1920s, round barns appeared on farms throughout the country, flourishing especially in the Midwest.(5) Circular barns are found throughout the country. This round barn, dated 1910, is in Vermont. It is 80 feet in diameter. Photo: Jay White. Round barns were promoted for a number of reasons. The circular form has a greater volume-to- surface ratio than the rectangular or square form. For any given size, therefore, a circular building will use fewer materials than other shapes, thus saving on material costs. Such barns also offer greater structural stability than rectangular barns. And because they can be built with self-supporting roofs, their interiors can remain free of structural supporting elements, thereby providing vast storage capabilities. The circular interior layout was also seen as more efficient, since the farmer could work in a continuous direction. In general, multi-sided barns—frequently of 12 or 16 sides—are earlier than "true round" barns. Earlier examples also tend to be wood sided, while later ones tend to be brick or glazed tile. Interior layouts also underwent an evolution. Early round barns placed cattle stanchions on the first floor, with the full volume of the floor above used for hay storage. In later barns, the central space rose from the ground floor through the entire building. Cattle stanchions arranged around a circular manger occupied the lower level; the circular wagon drive on the level above permitted hay to be unloaded into the central mow as the wagon drove around the perimeter. In the last 36 stage of round barn development, a center silo was added when silos became regular features on the farm (in the last decades of the nineteenth century). In some cases, the silo projected through the roof. The claims for the efficiency of the round barn were overstated, and it never became the standard barn, as its proponents had hoped. Nevertheless, a great number were built, and many remain today the most distinctive farm structures in the communities in which they stand. Prairie Barns A peak roof projecting above a hayloft opening is one of the most familiar images associated with barns. The feature belongs to the prairie barn, also known as the Western barn. The larger herds associated with agriculture in the West and Southwest required great storage space for hay and feed. Accordingly, prairie barns are on average much larger than the other barns discussed in this brief.(6)Long, sweeping roofs, sometimes coming near the ground, mark the prairie barn; the extended roof created great storage space. (Late in the nineteenth century, the adoption of the gambrel roof enlarged the storage capacity of the haymow even more.) Affinities of this barn type with the Dutch barn are striking: the long, low roof lines, the door in the gable end, and the internal arrangement of stalls in aisles on either side of the central space are all in the tradition of the Dutch barn. Others This 19th century tobacco barn, characterized by its steep gable-on-hip roof, is located in Prince Georges County, Maryland. Photo: Jack E. Boucher, NPS. The barn types discussed here are only some of the barns that have figured in the history of American agriculture. As with Dutch barns, some reflect the traditions of the people who built them: Finnish log barns in Idaho, Czech and German-Russian house barns in South Dakota, and "threebay" English barns in the northeast. Some, like the New England connected barn, stem from regional or local building traditions. Others reflect the availability of local building materials: lava rock (basalt) in south-central Idaho, logs in the southeast, adobe in California and the southwest. Others are best characterized by the specialized uses to which they were put: dairy barns in the upper midwest, tobacco barns in the east and southeast, hop-drying barns in the northwest, and rice barns in South Carolina. Other historic barns were built to patterns developed and popularized by land-grant universities, or sold by Sears, Roebuck and Company and other mail-order firms. And others fit no category at all: these barns attest to the owner's 37 tastes, wealth, or unorthodox ideas about agriculture. All of these barns are also part of the heritage of historic barns found throughout the country. Preservation of Historic Barns Understanding Barns and Their History Historic barns are preserved for a number of reasons. Some are so well built that they remain useful even after a hundred years or more. Many others are intimately connected with the families who built them and the surrounding communities. Others reflect developments in agricultural science or regional building types. Before restoring a historic barn or rehabilitating it for a new use, an owner should study the building thoroughly. This process involves finding out when the barn was built, who built it, and why. It means understanding how the building was changed through the years. It means assessing the condition of the barn, and understanding its components. This process has as its end an appreciation of the building's historic character, that is, the sense of time and place associated with it. It is this physical presence of the past that gives historic buildings their significance. To assess the historic character of a barn, an owner should study old photographs, family records, deeds, insurance papers, and other documents that might reveal the building's appearance and history. Neighbors and former owners are often important sources of information. Local libraries, historical societies and preservation organizations are additional sources of help. As part of this overall evaluation, the following elements should be assessed for their contributions to the property. They are the principal tangible aspects of a barn's historic character, and should be respected in any work done on it. A barn is integral with its setting—orchards, ponds, fencing, streams, country roads, windmills, and silos. Photo: Jack E. Boucher, HABS Collection, NPS. Setting Setting is one of the primary factors contributing to the historic character of a barn. Farmers built barns in order to help them work the land; barns belong on farms, where they can be seen in relation to the surrounding fields and other structures in the farm complex. A barn crowded by 38 suburbs is not a barn in the same sense as is a barn clustered with other farm buildings, or standing alone against a backdrop of cornfields. Hence, the preservation of barns should not be divorced from the preservation of the setting: farms and farmland, ranches and range, orchards, ponds, fields, streams and country roads. Other important elements of setting include fences, stone walls, roads, paths, barnyards, corrals, and ancillary structures such as windmills and silos. (Silos, indeed, have become so closely associated with barns as nearly to have lost their "separate" identities.) These features help place the building in the larger agricultural context, relating it to its purpose in the overall rural setting. Form The shape of barns, as with other buildings, is of great importance in conveying their character. (For round barns, the shape is the defining feature of the type.) Often the form of a barn is visible from a distance. Often, too, more than one side can be seen at the same time, and from several different approaches. As a general rule, the rear and sides of a barn are not as differentiated from the front, or as subordinated to it, as in other buildings. This enormous late 19th century barn in Shelburne, Vermont, displays a complexity and sophistication of roofing elements. See interior, below. Photo: NPS files. The roof is among the most important elements of building form. Barns are no exception. The gable roof on Dutch and Prairie barns, the cone-shaped, dome-shaped, eight or twelve-sided roof of round barns, and the gambrel roof of the "typical" barn are among the most prominent features on these buildings. A barn roof can often be seen from a distance, and for this reason must be considered a major feature. Materials Among the major impressions given by well-maintained historic barns are those of strength, solidity and permanence. These impressions largely result from the durability and ruggedness of the materials used in them. Weathered wood siding, irregularly shaped stones, or roughhewn logs on the exterior; dressed beams, posts scarred by years of use, and plank flooring on the interior all contribute to the special character of barns. Openings Unlike historic residential, industrial and commercial buildings, barns generally have few openings for windows and doors. Yet the openings found in barns are important both to their 39 functioning and to their appearance. Typically, large wagon doorways and openings to the hayloft are among the most striking features on barns. Not as prominent as these large openings, but important from a functional perspective, are the ventilator slits found on many barns. With important exceptions (dairy barns, for example), windows are few, and are normally small. The relative absence of openings for windows and doors adds to the overall impression of massiveness and solidity conveyed by many historic barns, and is one of the reasons why they often appear to be larger than they are. The interior of the barn in Shelburne, Vermont, is a magnificent space that included an overhead hay loft with tracks that allowed workers to drop hay to the floor below. Photo: NPS files. Interior Spaces The impression received upon stepping into many historic barns is that of space. Not infrequently, the entire building appears as a single large space. To enter these buildings is sometimes to experience the entire expanse of the building at once. Even when haylofts and animal stalls "consume" part of the building, they often do not keep the full expanse of the interior from being seen. In large barns, this can be an imposing sight. More commonly, the barn is a combination of confined spaces on the lower floor and a large open space above; in this case, the contrast between the confined and open spaces is also striking. The openness of the interior, furthermore, often contrasts with the "blankness" typical of many barn exteriors, with their relatively few openings. Structural Framework The exposed structural framework is a major component of the character of most historic barns. Typically, barns were built for strictly utilitarian purposes. Accordingly, barn builders made no effort to conceal the structural system. Yet for that very reason, barns achieve an authenticity that accounts for much of their appeal. In some barns, the load-bearing members are of enormous dimensions, and the complex system of beams, braces, posts, rafters and other elements of the revealed framework create an imposing sight. Yet even in small barns, the structural system can be an important feature, helping to determine the historic character of the building. 40 Hex signs are among the wide range of decorative elements found on American barns. Photo: NPS files. Decorative Features Historic barns, like modern ones, are structures built for use. Nevertheless, decorative elements are not lacking on barns. Foremost among these is color (red being most common). Dutch barns traditionally sported distinctively shaped martin holes in the upper reaches of the building. Traditional hex signs on Pennsylvania barns are so well known as to have entered the mainstream of popular culture and taken on a life of their own. Decorative paint schemes, including contrasting colors to "pick out" cross members of the external framework, are common (these most frequently take the form of diamonds or "X's" on the main doors). Sign painters often took advantage of the size and visibility of barns in an age before billboards. "Mail Pouch Tobacco" signs were nearly as numerous in the first quarter of the 20th century as patent medicine ads were in the last quarter of the 19th. Another decorative motif on historic barns is the arrangement of spacings between bricks to form decorative patterns (as well as to ventilate the barn). In addition to these elements, arched window hoods, patterned slate roofs, fanciful cupolas, weathervanes, lightning rods and ornamented metal ventilator hoods can be found on historic barns. Finally, individual farmers and barn builders sometimes added personal touches, as when they carved or painted their names on anchor beams, or painted their names and the date over the entrance. The elements discussed here are major components of historic barns. Yet no list can convey the full historic character of an individual building. It is very important, therefore, to study each structure carefully before undertaking any project to restore it or to adapt it to new uses. 41 Maintenance This well-maintained late 18th century barn is located in Worcester, Pennsylvania. Note the use of indigenous stone in the structure and surrounding fencing. Photo: Robert McCullough. If a building is to be kept in good repair, periodic maintenance is essential. Barns should be routinely inspected for signs of damage and decay, and problems corrected as soon as possible. Water is the single greatest cause of building materials deterioration. The repair of roof leaks is therefore of foremost importance. Broken or missing panes of glass in windows or cupolas are also sources of moisture penetration, and should be replaced, as should broken ventilation louvers. Gutters and downspouts should be cleaned once or twice a year. Proper drainage and grading should be ensured, particularly in low spots around the foundation where water can collect. Moisture is one major threat to historic buildings. Insects, especially termites, carpenter ants and powder post beetles, are another. Regular examinations for infestations are essential. Additional periodic maintenance measures include repair or replacement of loose or missing clapboards, and inspections of foundations for cracks and settlements. Vegetation growing on the barn should be removed, and shrubs or trees near it should be cleared if they obstruct access, or, more serious, if roots and other growths threaten the foundation. Soil and manure buildups against the foundation should be removed. Such buildups hold water and snow against wooden elements, and promote rot. They also promote insect infestations. Door hardware should be checked for proper fitting and lubricated yearly. Lightning rods should be kept in proper working order, or added, if missing. Repair Many historic barns require more serious repairs than those normally classed as "routine maintenance". Damaged or deteriorated features should be repaired rather than replaced wherever possible. If replacement is necessary, the new material should match the historic material in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, material. The design of replacements for missing features (for example, cupolas and dormers) should be based on historic, physical, or pictorial evidence. 42 This horse barn, ca. 1875, is in Stowe, Vermont. Its cupola has been removed for repair. Photo: NPS files. Many barn owners have substantial experience in the care of farm structures. Where expertise is lacking, it will be necessary to consult structural engineers, masons, carpenters, and architects, as appropriate. In addition, for many repairs, a knowledge of historic building techniques may be necessary. Structural Repairs Ensuring the structural soundness of a historic barn is vital both to its continued usefulness and to the safety of its occupants. The following signs of structural settlements may require the services of a structural engineer to evaluate: major cracks in masonry walls, visible bowing, leaning and misalignment of walls, sagging windows and doors, separation of cladding from structural frames, trusses pulling away from seating points at support walls, sagging joists and rafters, and noticeable dips in the roof between rafters. This cupola will be repaired and returned to the horse barn roof (see photo, above). Photo: NPS files. To correct these problems, masonry foundations may have to be reset or partially rebuilt. Sills and plates may need to be repaired or replaced. Walls may have to be straightened and tied into the structural system more securely. Individual structural members may need bracing or splicing. 43 Roofing Moisture can damage historic materials severely, and, in extreme cases, jeopardize the structural integrity of a building. Every effort must be made to secure a weathertight roof. This may require merely patching a few missing shingles on a roof that is otherwise sound. In more severe cases, it may require repairing or replacing failing rafters and damaged sheathing. Such extreme intervention, however, is not usual. More typical is the need to furnish "a new roof," that is, to replace the wooden shingles, asphalt shingles, slate shingles or metal covering the roof. Replacing one type of roofing with another can produce a drastic change in the appearance of historic buildings. Great care should be taken, therefore, to assess the contribution of the roof to the appearance and character of the barn before replacing one type of roofing material with another. While some substitute materials (such as synthetic slate shingles) can be considered, the highest priority should be to replace in-kind, and to match the visual qualities of the historic roof. Gutters and downspouts should be replaced if damaged or missing. Finally, dormers, cupolas, metal ventilators and other rooftop "ornaments" provide needed ventilation, and should be repaired if necessary. Exterior In addition to the roof and the foundation, other exterior elements may need repair, including siding, brick and stonework, dormers and cupolas, windows and doors. Shutters may be falling off, doors may need to be rehung, and missing louvers replaced. The exterior may need repainting. (Unpainted brick or stone barns, however, should never be painted.) In the case of masonry barns, repointing may be necessary. If so, mortar that is compatible in appearance and composition with the historic mortar must be used. Using mortar high in portland cement can damage historic brick or stone. Masonry cleaning should be undertaken only when necessary to halt deterioration or to remove heavy dirt, and using the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other physical or chemical treatments that damage historic materials should not be used. Likewise, power washing under high pressure can also damage building material. Interior Typical interior repairs may include removing and replacing rotten floorboards, and repair or replacement of partitions, storage bins, gutters and stalls. Concrete floors may be cracked and in need of repair. Wiring and plumbing may need major overhaul. 44 Rehabilitation This historic barn was successfully converted into a furniture factory. Photo: NPS files. Some barns have served the same uses for generations, and need only periodic repairs and routine maintenance. Others have become obsolete and need extensive updating for modern farming methods. (To house livestock, for example, a barn may need new feeding, watering, waste removal, electrical, plumbing and ventilation systems.) Similarly, barns that can no longer be used for agriculture at all normally require changes to adapt them for commercial, office, or residential use. In such cases barns need more extensive work than the maintenance and repair treatments outlined above. However, when rehabilitating a historic barn for a new farming operation or a new use entirely, care must be taken to preserve its historic character while making needed changes. A successful rehabilitation project is best guaranteed when a work plan is drawn up by someone familiar with the evaluation of historic structures, and when it is carried out by contractors and workmen experienced with the building type and committed to the goal of retaining the historic character of the property. Help in formulating rehabilitation plans and in locating experienced professionals is normally available from the State Historic Preservation Office and local preservation groups. The following approaches should be observed when carrying out rehabilitation projects on historic barns: 1. Preserve the historic setting of the barn as much as possible. Modern farming practices do not require the great number of outbuildings, lots, fences, hedges, walls and other elements typical of historic farms. Yet such features, together with fields, woods, ponds, and other aspects of the farm setting can be important to the character of historic barns. The functional relationship between the barn and silo is particularly significant and should also be maintained. 2. Repair and repaint historic siding rather than cover barns with artificial siding. Siding applied over the entire surface of a building can give it an entirely different appearance, obscure craft details, and mask ongoing deterioration of historic materials 45 underneath. The resurfacing of historic farm buildings with any new material that does not duplicate the historic material is never a recommended treatment. 3. Repair rather than replace historic windows whenever possible, and avoid "blocking them down" or covering them up. Avoid the insertion of numerous new window openings. They can give a building a domestic appearance, radically altering a barn's character. However, if additional light is needed, add new windows carefully, respecting the size and scale of existing window openings. 4. Avoid changing the size of door openings whenever possible. Increasing the height of door openings to accommodate new farm machinery can dramatically alter the historic character of a barn. If larger doors are needed, minimize the visual change. Use new tr ack- hung doors rather than oversized rolled steel doors, which give an industrial appearance incompatible with most historic barns. If the barn has wood siding, the new doors should match it. If historic doors are no longer needed, fix them shut instead of removing them and filling in the openings. 5. Consider a new exterior addition only if it is essential to the continued use of a historic barn. A new addition can damage or destroy historic features and materials and alter the overall form of the historic building. If an addition is required, it should be built in a way that minimizes damage to external walls and internal plan. It should also be compatible with the historic barn, but sufficiently differentiated from it so that the new work is not confused with what is genuinely part of the past. 6. Retain interior spaces and features as much as possible. The internal volume of a barn is often a major character-defining feature, and the insertion of new floors, partitions, and structures within the barn can drastically impair the overall character of the space. Similarly, interior features should also be retained to the extent possible. 7. Retain as much of the historic internal structural system as possible. Even in cases where it is impractical to keep all of the exposed structural system, it may be possible to keep sufficiently extensive portions of it to convey a strong sense of the interior character. 46 Wholesale replacement of the historic structural system with a different system should be avoided. Housing: A Special Concern The conversion of barns to housing is not new, but has become increasingly popular in recent years. Yet the changes involved in converting most barns to housing are so great that such conversions rarely preserve the historic character of the resource. Ordinarily, numerous windows are inserted, walls are heavily insulated and refinished, the interior volume is greatly reduced, chimneys and other fixtures normally lacking in barns are added, and site changes, such as close-in parking and residential landscaping are made, giving the building a greatly altered site. Many other barns are "converted" to houses by dismantling them, discarding the exterior, and reusing the internal structural system in a new building. The beams are saved, but the barn is lost. In cases where the conversion from barns to houses has been successful, the positive outcome results in large measure from the careful choice of the barn: A modest-sized barn with a sufficient number of existing residential-scale windows, in which nearly the whole internal volume can be used as is, without building numerous new partitions or extending a new floor across the open space (haylofts in such cases serving as loft-space for "second story" bedrooms). Summary and References Historic barns form a vital part of our Nation's heritage. Not every historic barn can be saved from encroaching development, or easily brought back into productive use. Yet thousands of such structures can be repaired or rehabilitated for continued agricultural use or for new functions without destroying the very qualities that make them worth saving. By carefully examining the historic significance of each structure, owners of historic barns can draw up plans that preserve and reuse these historic structures while maintaining their historic character. NOTES 1. Nore V. Winter, "Design on the Farm: A Rural Preservation Forum," Unpublished proceedings from a Conference sponsored by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Denver, Colorado, January 13-14, 1986.Descriptions of the primary barn types featured in this section are heavily indebted to Eric Arthur and Dudley Witney, The Barn: A Vanishing Landmark in North America. Greenwich, CT: New York Graphic Society, Ltd., 1972. 47 2. John Fitchen, The New World Dutch Barn: A Study of Its Characteristics, Its Structural System, and Its Probable Erectional Procedures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1968, p 136. 3. Washington's "round" barn, actually a 16-sided barn, is shown in Lowell J. Soike, Without Right Angles: The Round Barns of Iowa. Des Moines: Iowa State Historical Department, 1983. Round, octagonal and other polygonal barns are normally all classed as "round barns." When it is necessary to be more precise, the term "true round" is used to distinguish round barns from hexagonal, octagonal, or other polygonal barns. The Shaker Round Barn is a true round barn. Gutted by fire in 1864, the barn was rebuilt shortly thereafter. See Polly Matherly and John D. McDermott, Hancock Shaker Village National Historic Landmark study, History Division, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 4. In addition to the sources mentioned above, the following studies were important sources for this section: Mark L. Peckham, "Central Plan Dairy Barns of New York Thematic Resources," Albany: New York State Division for Historic Preservation, 1984; and James E. Jacobsen and Cheryl Peterson, "Iowa Round Barns: The Sixty Year Experiment Thematic Resources," Des Moines: Iowa State Historical Department, 1986. These thematic studies document barns listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 5. Charles Klamkin, Barns: Their History, Preservation, and Restoration. New York: Hawthorn, 1973, p 57. Acknowledgements The author gratefully acknowledges the invaluable assistance of Mary Humstone, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Mountains/Plains Regional Office, and Sharon C. Park, Kay D. Weeks, and Robert Powers of the National Park Service. Significant contributions were also made by Stan Graves, Texas Historical Commission, on behalf of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers; Shirley Dunn, Dutch Barn Preservation Society, Rensselaer, NY; Janis King, Knoxville, IL; Marilyn Fedelchak, National Trust for Historic Preservation; Fred Swader, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Linda McClelland, National Register of Historic Places. In addition, useful comments and technical assistance were provided by the staff of the Technical Preservation Services Branch, directed by H. Ward Jandl, by the cultural resources staff of National Park Service Regional Offices, by Jack Boucher, Catherine Lavoie and Ellen Minnich of the Historic American Buildings Survey, and by Alicia Weber of the Park Historic Architecture Division. 48 This publication has been prepared pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and make available information concerning historic properties. Technical Preservation Services (TPS), National Park Service prepares standards, guidelines, and other educational materials on responsible historic preservation treatments for a broad public. October 1989 Reading List Arthur, Eric and Dudley Witney. The Barn: A Vanishing Landmark in North America. Greenwich, CT: New York Graphic Society Ltd., 1972. Fitchen, John. The New World Dutch Barn: A Study of Its Characteristics, Its Structural System, and Its Probable Erectional Procedures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1968. Halsted, Byron D., ed. Barns, Sheds and Outbuildings. New York: O. Judd Co., 1881. Rpt.: Brattleboro, VT: Stephen Greene Press, 1977. Humstone, Mary. Barn Again! A Guide to Rehabilitation of Older Farm Buildings. Des Moines, IA: Meredith Corporation and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1988. Klamkin, Charles. Barns: Their History, Preservation and Restoration. New York: Hawthorn, 1973. Schuler, Stanley. American Barns: In a Class by Themselves. Exton, PA: Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 1984. Schultz, LeRoy G., comp. Barns, Stables and Outbuildings: A World Bibliography in English, 1700-1983. Jefferson, NC, and London: McFarland and Co., 1986. Stokes, Samuel N., et al. Saving America's Countryside: A Guide to Rural Conservation. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989. DOIFrequently Asked QuestionsWebsite Policies TPS Home Contact TPS Frequently Asked Questions Website Policies TPS Home Contact TPS Historical Resource Assessments Summary Report Beatty Property and Bear Creek Stables, Los Gatos, CA October 13, 2010 1 SUMMARY REPORT: BEATTY PROPERTY AND BEAR CREEK STABLES Prepared for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by Knapp & VerPlanck Preservation Architects October 13, 2010 Beatty House Bear Creek Stables Historical Resource Assessments Summary Report Beatty Property and Bear Creek Stables, Los Gatos, CA October 13, 2010 2 I. Introduction This Historical Resource Summary Report was prepared by Knapp & VerPlanck Preserva- tion Architects to summarize the Historical Resource Assessments of the Beatty Property and the Bear Creek Stables complex. These two assessments (see Appendix Items A and B) were prepared by Knapp & VerPlanck Preservation Architects (KVP) for the Mid- peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD). The assessments, which are recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms, evaluate the poten- tial historical and architectural significance of these two properties, both of which are located in unincorporated Santa Clara County, near Los Gatos, California. Beatty Property The Beatty Property is located at 17820 Alma Bridge Road in unincorporated Santa Clara County (Assessor Parcel Nos.: 558-35-001, 558-36-011, and 558-36-012). The Beatty Property, which was constructed ca. 1866 by a pioneer Civil War veteran named Ed- ward Ditto, contains a ca. 1866 vernacular plank-frame dwelling, a ca. 1915 ga- rage/wood room, and a ca. 1920 barn/stable. The report completed by KVP concludes that the property is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) as a very early and well-preserved example of a redwood, plank- frame dwelling, once common as a form of vernacular housing in the Santa Cruz Moun- tains during the nineteenth century. Although constructed later than the house, the two historic outbuildings contribute in part to the property’s setting. The report concludes that the property is eligible under California Register Criteria 1 (Events) and 3 (De- sign/Construction) with a period of significance of 1866-1952. The period of significance begins with the likely date of construction of the Beatty House and concludes with the flooding of Lexington Reservoir, which altered the property boundaries and relationship of the property with the long since-vanished community of Alma. Bear Creek Stables Complex The Bear Creek Stables complex is located within the Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve at 19100 Bear Creek Road in unincorporated Santa Clara County (As- sessor Parcel No.: 544-32-001). The Bear Creek Stables complex was initially constructed 1916-17 as the core of Dr. Harry L. Tevis’ Alma Stock Farm. The stables were constructed in 1916, the original portion of the foreman’s house in 1917, and the office/cabin be- tween 1917 and 1933. The assessment concludes that the Bear Creek Stables complex is no longer a historical resource due to the many changes that have taken place over time, especially after the end of the period of significance, which is 1916-1950. The pe- riod of significance begins with the construction of the stables by Tevis’ contractor, Harley Hoerler (with design assistance from San Francisco architect George Kelham) and ends with the death of Tevis’ resident ranch foreman, Reginald Theobold, who lived and worked at the complex from ca. 1920 until his death in 1950. II. Methodology KVP contracted with MROSD to prepare historical assessments for the Beatty Property and the Bear Creek Stables complex – in mid-August 2010. Upon execution of the con- tract, KVP principal Christopher VerPlanck and architect Ruchira Nageswaran surveyed both sites on August 17, 2010. We documented the buildings and surrounding sites using Historical Resource Assessments Summary Report Beatty Property and Bear Creek Stables, Los Gatos, CA October 13, 2010 3 digital photography and field notes. We took rough measurements and made sketch plans of the buildings, noting their construction materials and methods used, overall di- mensions, and character-defining features. Our aims were twofold; we wanted to gather enough information to complete the architectural description sections of the assessments, as well as obtaining useful data on the construction methods and materi- als to assist us with dating and attributing these largely undocumented buildings. Mr. VerPlanck made a follow-up visit to the Bear Creek Stables site on September 9. With the field survey component complete Christopher VerPlanck began a series of re- search trips to various repositories to gather whatever information could be gleaned about these two properties. These research trips, which took place throughout the month of August and early September, involved researching the properties in the fol- lowing repositories: Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office (recent sales activity), Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office (deeds and official recorded subdivision maps), Santa Clara County Surveyor’s Office (surveyors’ maps, unrecorded subdivision maps, and county road maps), Santa Clara County Archives (recorded subdivision maps), Califor- nia Room at the San José-San José State University/Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library (Santa Clara County-City directories, USGS maps, aerial photographs, newspaper clip- ping files, marriage records, Santa Clara County atlases, and histories of Santa Clara County and Los Gatos), Los Gatos Public Library (maps, local histories, newspaper clip- pings files), the Western Society of Jesus Archives at Santa Clara University (maps, his- toric photographs, and other data pertaining to Alma College/Tevis Estate), the Ban- croft Library at the University of California, Berkeley (diaries and correspondence of Dr. Henry L. Tevis), and the collections of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (family records and photographs pertaining to the Beatty Property). In addition to these resources, Mr. VerPlanck obtained research conducted by MROSD staff, including a records request completed by the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, as well as copies of reports completed for both properties in the 1980s and 1990s prior to their acquisition by MROSD. In addition to these brick-and-mortar repositories, Mr. VerPlanck consulted several on- line resources, including digitized historical newspapers such as the Daily Alta California and the San Francisco Cal, both available through the California Digital Newspaper Collection at UC Riverside http://cdnc.ucr.edu/newsucr and the historical San Fran- cisco Chronicle available through the San Francisco Public Library www.sfpl.org. We also accessed United States Census data through www.ancestry.com and California death records through the California Office of Vital Records and Statistics in Sacra- mento: http://death-records.net/california/death-records.htm. KVP principal Christopher VerPlanck has an extensive collection of books, articles, and personal research related to local Bay Area history and Western ranch buildings. These sources were used extensively in the preparation of both assessments. Upon completion of the research, Mr. VerPlanck began writing both assessments. At the request of MROSD staff, we recorded each property on standard California Depart- ment of Parks and Recreation 523 forms and continuation sheets, with a separate sum- mary/introductory report (this document). Historical Resource Assessments Summary Report Beatty Property and Bear Creek Stables, Los Gatos, CA October 13, 2010 4 III. Current Historic Status Based on information obtained from the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, both the Beatty Property and Bear Creek Stables complex have been identi- fied as being part of properties identified as containing potential historical resources. Beatty Property The Beatty Property was evaluated in May 1986 in a report prepared by Archeological Resource Management. This report was authored by Robert Cartier and Glory Anne Laffey and titled: Cultural Resource Evaluation of Three Parcels at Lexington Reservoir in the County of Santa Clara. It was prepared as part of a proposed acquisition of the property (as well as two others) by the Santa Clara County Parks Department for a po- tential park on the shores of Lexington Reservoir. The report was commissioned to de- termine whether there were any significant cultural resources on the sites under consid- eration by the department. The evaluation consisted of a field visit and surface recon- naissance, as well as limited archival and secondary research. The report noted two po- tential cultural resources, including a prehistoric midden and the Beatty house itself, which was described thusly: “This house was part of the extinct community of Alma and is an important remnant of this historic part of the past.”1 The report concluded with the finding that the Beatty Property contains “potentially significant cultural materials,” and recommended “intensive historic archival and field study with possible recommenda- tions for preservation.”2 This report was completed before the development of Califor- nia Historical Resource Status Codes, so the property does not yet have official historic status under current methodology used in the California Historical Resources Inventory System. Bear Creek Stables Complex The former Alma College/ Tevis Estate has been evaluated several times since the No- viate of Los Gatos sold the property to developers in 1989. In February 1995, the entire site was evaluated as part of an environmental impact report prepared for the pro- posed Los Gatos Country Club project. The report, titled Historical and Architectural Evaluation for the Los Gatos Country Club in the County of Santa Clara, was prepared by Glory Anne Laffey and Robert G. Detlefs of Archives and Architecture. The report concluded that portions of the property contained historical resources, in particular the remnants of the Alma College/Tevis Estate but that other portions of the site, including the Bear Creek Stables complex, were ineligible for listing in the California Register un- der any of the criteria: “Never architecturally significant, the buildings have been ne- glected and altered over the years. It is concluded that the stable complex is not archi- tecturally or historical (sic) significant.”3 1 Archeological Resource Management, Cultural Resource Evaluation of Three Parcels at Lexington Reservoir in the County of Santa Clara (San Jose: 1986), 10. 2 Ibid., 7. 3 Archives and Architecture, Historical and Architectural Evaluation for the Los Gatos Country Club in the County of Santa Clara (San Jose: 1995), 17. Historical Resource Assessments Summary Report Beatty Property and Bear Creek Stables, Los Gatos, CA October 13, 2010 5 IV. Description Both the Beatty Property and the Bear Creek Stables complex are thoroughly described in the accompanying DPR 523 A (Primary) forms attached within Appendix Items A and B of this report. Photographs of each property can be found on the continuation sheets. V. Historic Context The development and subsequent evolution of the Beatty Property and the Bear Creek Stables complex are discussed in depth in the accompanying DPR 523 B (Building, Structure, & Object) forms attached within Appendix Items A and B of this report. VI. Evaluation of Historic Status A. California Register of Historical Resources The two properties were evaluated to determine if they were individually eligible for list- ing in the California Register of Historical Resources. The California Register is an authori- tative guide to significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-eligible properties (both listed and formal determinations of eligibility) are automatically listed. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, non-profit organiza- tions, or citizens. This includes properties identified in historical resource surveys with Status Codes of 1 to 5 and resources designated as local landmarks or listed by city or county ordinance. The evaluation criteria used by the California Register for determin- ing eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). In order to be eligible for listing in the California Register a property must be demonstrated to be significant under one or more of the following criteria: Criterion 1 (Event): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Criterion 2 (Person): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons im- portant to local, California, or national history. Criterion 3 (Design/Construction): Resources that embody the distinctive charac- teristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. The following section examines the eligibility of each property for listing in the California Register. Historical Resource Assessments Summary Report Beatty Property and Bear Creek Stables, Los Gatos, CA October 13, 2010 6 Beatty Property The Beatty Property appears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (events) and Criterion 3 (design/construction). The property appears eligible under Cri- terion 1 as a property associated with the broad patterns of local or regional history as a remnant of the pioneer community of Alma. Now submerged beneath Lexington Reservoir, Alma was the most important community between Los Gatos and Felton from the opening of the Southern Pacific Coast Railroad in 1878 until the completion of Highway 17 in 1938. The property embodies the transition of the Alma Valley from an isolated backwater region of hardscrabble pioneers, squatters, and lumberjacks into a more heavily settled and prosperous horticultural region dominated by prune orchards and vineyards. Although none of the owners of the property were prominent individu- als, they all played a part in the development of the Alma Valley before it was sub- merged beneath the Lexington Reservoir between 1950 and 1952. The Beatty Property appears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 (design/construction) as a property that embodies the characteristics of a type, period, region, and method of construction. It is a rare and quite intact example of a very old mid-19th-century rural dwelling in the Santa Cruz Mountains. With its simple redwood plank-frame construction, lack of a permanent foundation, and simple design devoid of ornament, the Beatty House embodies all the characteristics of a typical Western pioneer vernacular dwelling erected in 1860s. Built of redwood planks without a stud frame, the plank-frame (or “slab-sided” technique as it was called at the time), could be constructed cheaply and easily without advanced skills or labor. Once common in the Santa Cruz Mountains, few examples of the type remain today. Bear Creek Stables Complex If it retained integrity, the Bear Creek Stables complex would appear eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 (design/construction) as a good example of a complex of elaborate rural ranch buildings constructed for Dr. Henry “Harry” Tevis, son of capitalist, banker, mine owner, and land baron, Lloyd Tevis. Built in 1916-17 of red- wood and designed in a utilitarian mode with Craftsman detailing, two of the three buildings (the stables and the foreman’s house) display some characteristics of their original design, including wood-frame construction with board and batten cladding, exposed purlin and rafter ends and semi-decorative knee braces; as well as the func- tional features associated with buildings constructed to board and care for horses. The stables in particular demonstrate features of its building type, especially the western- most section of the complex which retains its original rectangular massing, shallow- pitched gable roof, exposed roof framing and knee bracing, and interior plan consist- ing of a central longitudinal aisle flanked to either side by individual stalls. The stalls and stall doors are reinforced against damage inflicted by horses biting and kicking and the building is ventilated through high windows located along the long walls as well as by vents located on the short walls. However, the stables and the two dwellings have undergone extensive alterations after the death of Alma Ranch foreman Reginald Theobold, who oversaw the stables com- plex for a quarter-century, from ca. 1920 as a young man until his death in 1950. The sta- bles complex has acquired a series of additions over their lifetime, including several Historical Resource Assessments Summary Report Beatty Property and Bear Creek Stables, Los Gatos, CA October 13, 2010 7 constructed during the period of significance (1916-1950) but after Theobold’s death in 1950, the building was neglected and later underwent several alterations that altered its character, including the construction of a two-level hay loft in 1968 and the substitu- tion of corrugated steel roofing for the original wood shakes. Additionally, the complex is in very poor condition and has lost many of its windows and some of its original detail- ing to deterioration. The foreman’s house was originally constructed as a pair of cabins ca. 1917 and they were combined into one dwelling ca. 1945. After 1950 the dwelling was extensively re- modeled, with new aluminum picture windows and interior detailing. The office/cabin was constructed before 1933 and has no architectural or historical sig- nificance. VII. Conclusion The two properties in the Alma Valley that are the subject of this report are two very dif- ferent properties. Although they share superficial similarities by virtue of being rural property types constructed of traditional redwood board-and-batten, each represents a different period of construction and very different historical contexts. Beatty Property Built of relatively primitive plank-frame, or “slab-sided,” redwood construction and dat- ing back to the immediate post-Civil War era, the Beatty Property likely incorporates one of the oldest remaining residential properties in the Alma Valley. Commonly aban- doned and/or replaced by stud-frame structures with modern amenities, vernacular residential building types like the Beatty House are now light on the ground. Although the two other historic-period structures on the site date to the early twentieth century, they are of compatible materials and embody many of the characteristics of the hum- ble rural homesteads that were once common in the Santa Clara Valley before most made way for rapid suburban expansion after the Second World War. The Alma Valley is a rare semi-rural backwater in the region and the Beatty Property is an even rarer ex- ample of the subsistence farms that once characterized the valley. As a rural ranching property embodying both the early historical evolution of the Alma Valley and as an intact example of an intact plank-frame redwood structure, the Beatty Property ap- pears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criteria 1 and 3. Bear Creek Stables Complex The Bear Creek Stables complex represents a very different type and period of con- struction, as well as a vastly different historical context. Although two of the buildings (foreman’s house and stables) are clad in redwood, board-and-batten materials, they are conventional stud-frame structures constructed during the first quarter of the twen- tieth century. In contrast to the Beatty Property, which was incrementally developed by ranchers, the Bear Creek Stables complex was built during the First World War by one of the Bay Area’s wealthiest individuals – Dr. Harry L. Tevis. Constructed to board his prized Tennessee walking horses, the stables complex served a peripheral function on Tevis’ Alma Ranch. Following Tevis’ death in 1931, the stables were managed by his trusted foreman Reginald Theobold. After Theobold’s death, the complex has been neglected and unsympathetically altered to suit the needs of several concessionaires who have Historical Resource Assessments Summary Report Beatty Property and Bear Creek Stables, Los Gatos, CA October 13, 2010 8 leased the complex from Alma College and subsequent property owners. In summary, the complex does not appear eligible for listing in the California Register due to exten- sive alterations that detract from the property’s historic appearance. Historical Resource Assessments Summary Report Beatty Property and Bear Creek Stables, Los Gatos, CA October 13, 2010 9 VIII. Bibliography A. Books, Periodicals, and Reports Archeological Resource Management – Robert Cartier, Principal and Glory Anne Laffey, Historian. Cultural Resources Evaluation of Three Parcels at Lexington Reser- voir in the County of Santa Clara. San José, CA: May 1986. Archives and Architecture. Historical and Architectural Evaluation for the Los Gatos Country Club in the County of Santa Clara. San José, CA: 1995. “Bigger Dam Too Costly.” San José News (January 15, 1976). Board of Directors of the Santa Clara County Water Conservation District. Official State- ment on I. Lexington Dam and II. Cross-Valley Canals. San José, CA: n.d. Farrell, Harry. “Last Days of Alma – It Dies Aug. 31.” San José News (August 13, 1952). Foote, H.S. Garden of the World: Santa Clara County, Calif. Chicago: The Lewis Publish- ing Company, 1888. “Foothill Farms.” San Francisco Chronicle (July 27, 1884), 1. Gardner, Christopher. “Lexington Reservoir.” Silicon Valley Metro (July 16-22, 1998). History of Santa Clara County, California, Including its Geography, Geology, Topogra- phy, Climatology, and Description. San Francisco: Alley, Bowen & Co., 1881. Iverson, Willa Okker. The Strange Case of Constance Flood. New York: Putnam & Sons, 1956. The Junior League of San José. The Valley of Santa Clara Historic Buildings, 1792-1920. San Francisco: Presidio Press, 1975. “Lexington Dam A Memorial Knight Lauds.” Los Gatos Times-Saratoga Observer (April 25, 1956). Los Gatos Times-Saratoga Observer (June 25, 1959). “Mountain Scenes.” Daily Alta California (September 23, 1888). “New Lexington Bridge, Boathouse.” Los Gatos Times-Saratoga Observer (February 10, 1966). “The Pacific Coast.” Daily Alta California (August 14, 1884). Payne, Stephen M. et al. Santa Clara County: Harvest of Change. Northridge, CA: Win- dsor Publications, 1987. Historical Resource Assessments Summary Report Beatty Property and Bear Creek Stables, Los Gatos, CA October 13, 2010 10 Pettley, John W. “The Mt. Diablo Initial Point, Its History and Use.” Mt. Diablo Review (Spring 1998). Polk’s Los Gatos City Directory. Polk’s San Jose-Santa Clara County City Directory. “A Pretty Village.” San Francisco Call (May 19, 1890). Pullman, Jon Porter. “60 Years Mark the Passing of Southern Pacific’s Mountain Line.” “Road Change Booming Alma Again.” San José Mercury Herald (January 17, 1938). Paul Rogers, “Loan Adds to Open Space.” San José Mercury News (June 28, 1999), 1A. Rogers, Paul. “Open Space Panel OKs Park.” San José Mercury News (June 29, 1999), 2B. Rogers, Paul. “Record Land Buy OK’d.” San José Mercury News (March 11, 1999), 1B. “Santa Clara County.” San Francisco Chronicle (January 1, 1892), 17. Santa Clara County and its Resources. San José: The San José Mercury, 1896. Santa Clara County Department of Parks and Recreation. Lexington Reservoir Master Plan. San José, CA: 1986. Sawyer, Eugene T. History of Santa Clara County, California. Los Angeles: Historic Record Company, 1922. “Scenic Beauties and Productiveness of Santa Clara.” Daily Alta California (August 24, 1887). “South Pacific Coast Railroad.” Daily Alta California (June 3, 1878). Spalding, John. “State Gives Up on Purchase of Jesuit Land.” San José Mercury (March 12, 1982). Stanger, Frank M. South from San Francisco. San Mateo: San Mateo County Historical Association, 1963. Thompson & West. Historical Atlas Map of Santa Clara County, California. San Francisco: Thompson & West, 1876. Young, John V. Ghost Towns of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Lafayette, CA: Great West Books, rev. ed. 1984. Historical Resource Assessments Summary Report Beatty Property and Bear Creek Stables, Los Gatos, CA October 13, 2010 11 B. Online Resources California Digital Newspaper Collection. University of California – Riverside: http://cdnc.ucr.edu/newsucr California State Board of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics. Death records: http://death- records.net/california/death-records.htm Historical San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Public Library, San Francisco, CA: www.sfpl.org United States Decennial Census Records for Redwood Township, Santa Clara County, California, etc.: 1860, 1870, 1880, 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930. Available from www.ancestry.com C. Repositories Bancroft Library, University of California – Berkeley: Dr. Henry L. Tevis Papers. California Room, San José-San José State University/Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, San José, CA: Santa Clara County directories, USGS maps, aerial photographs, newspaper clipping files, marriage records, Santa Clara County atlases, and Santa Clara County and Los Gatos histories. Los Gatos Public Library, Los Gatos, CA: Maps, clippings files, death records, secondary sources on Los Gatos and Santa Clara County. Santa Clara County Archives, San José, CA: Recorded county maps. Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office, San José, CA: Legal descriptions of each parcel, deeds, recorded subdivision maps. Santa Clara County Surveyor’s Office, San José, CA: Official county maps. Western Archives of the Society of Jesus, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA: Con- struction drawings, maps, and historic photographs of the Tevis Estate/Alma College. Historical Resource Assessments Summary Report Beatty Property and Bear Creek Stables, Los Gatos, CA October 13, 2010 12 Appendix Appendix Item A: Historical Resource Assessment: Beatty Property Appendix Item B: Historical Resource Assessment: Bear Creek Stables Complex PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF THE VISUAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REDWOOD CABIN, LA HONDA CREEK Prepared for The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Prepared by 101 CALIFORNIA STSAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PH: (415) 986-1911 FX: (415) 986-1918 May 18, 2014 BCA JOB # 2015105 ATTACHMENT C Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 18, 2015 1 | Page PROJECT BACKGROUND: The Redwood Cabin is within a forested area of the La Honda Creek Preserve which is operated by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. The cabin is understood to have been built in the 1920’s using traditional techniques. The building appears to have been in use until several decades ago but has been closed up for at least several years. We understand that the District is considering options for maintaining this historic structure, including the following three options: 1. Restore the building for use by the public. 2. Complete some repairs and upgrades to reduce further deterioration and to allow the building to be used for temporary low density storage. 3. Complete limited work to mothball the building. This report consists of a brief description of the nature and condition of the structure of the building. These descriptions are based on a limited visual observation that was carried out earlier this year. Drawings based on field measurements taken during that site visit are included in the appendix as well as some annotated photographs. No existing documents have been reviewed as part of this study. Other improvements in this relatively remote location, including a firepit, drainage cleanouts and an electrical service, were not examined. EXISTING STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION The log cabin includes a vertical pole substructure, wood framed first floor, log exterior and interior walls, heavy timber roof trusses, timber roof framing and a continuous deck around the perimeter of the structure. Non-structural elements that were present were not examined in detail, including the following: 1. Large stone fireplace at the center of the building. 2. Electrical service and wiring 3. Plumbing and fixtures. Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 18, 2015 2 | Page Substructure The existing substructure consists of a series of vertical poles or 12 –inches to 16-inches in diameter partially embedded below grade. The depth of embedment is not known. The poles are typically located directly beneath beams and walls. Due to the sloping ground beneath the building, the posts vary in height above ground from around 1-feet to around 10-feet. Some portions of the perimeter walls and existing deck framing are supported by sawn lumber posts of varying sizes up to 6x12. These posts are typically supported by 18- inch square concrete footings. It is not clear if these posts were part of the original construction or have been installed to replace original posts. Floor Framing The first floor framing includes a series of sawn lumber beams spanning in the North- South direction and sawn lumber joists directly above the beams spanning in an East-West direction. The beams are typically supported on notches in the substructure poles. The joists bear directly on top of the beams and there is typically no blocking or bracing between joists. The floor consists of 1x8 diagonal sheathing bearing directly on the joists. Redwood or similar tongue-and-grooved flooring was installed over the sheathing. A black building paper, roofing felt or similar layer between the sheathing and flooring was visible at gaps between sheathing boards. Nailed connections were typically not observed between the floor framing components. There are some nailed steel straps and clips that appear to have been added in recent decades, but the installation of these straps and clips is not consistent. Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 18, 2015 3 | Page Log Interior and Exterior Walls The four perimeter walls are typically horizontal stacked logs of between 6-inch and 12-inch diameter. At corners, each log is notched to provide interlock with the log above. There are three interior log walls of similar construction. The gaps between logs at exterior walls appear to have been caulked with a natural fibrous material. At door and window openings, the horizontal logs terminate at the opening framing. The logs are stabilized by vertical dowels of around 1.5-inch diameter that appear to have been installed into vertical holes in the logs. It appears that once the second log was installed, a vertical hole was drilled through the second log and partially into the first log below. The dowel was then driven into the hole, securing the second log. This was repeated up the height of each wall opening. The dowels are typically not visible but can be clearly observed at several locations. The two exterior walls at the ends of the building and the three interior walls bear directly on the vertical substructure poles. The bottom log is partially below the floor level, forming a break in the floor diaphragm. The connection of the floor framing to these logs was not observed. The two exterior walls at the sides of building are supported by a series of hidden sawn lumber beams. There appear to be three pairs of 3x8 beams stacked on top of each other along the base of these two walls. The beams are supported directly by 6x12 sawn lumber posts. The pairs of sawn beams are clad with split logs and are not readily visible. At the end walls, there does not appear to be any interlock or other mechanical connection with these beams. The ends of the beams are hidden with short pieces of logs that have been shaped to resemble the typical interlocking logs. It is not clear if these sawn lumber beams and posts are part of the original construction or have been added, perhaps as part of a replacement or deterioration. The exterior wall logs at the ends of the building are stabilized by the interlocking connections with the perpendicular walls. Above the eave height, where the perpendicular wall terminates, the exterior wall logs are stabilized by a nailed connection to the roof framing at the ends of the logs. At two locations along each side wall, the horizontal log walls are interrupted with a vertical log around 16-inches in diameter. The ends of the horizontal logs each side of this vertical log have Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 18, 2015 4 | Page been shaped to fit against the round surface. One or two large nails were used to secure the horizontal logs to the vertical log. There are several non-structural interior walls constructed with a single layer of tongue and grooved sheathing and no intermediate framing. Roof Structure The double pitched roof structure includes heavy timber trusses, rafters and sheathing. Two of the heavy timber trusses bear directly onto the two interior crosswalls. The other two walls span between side walls with an intermediate support location at the longitudinal interior wall. The truss components are around 6 ½’ by 6 ¼” timber with traditional notched connections and minimal mechanical fasteners. The 1x ridge beam spans between the trusses. Sawn lumber rafters are supported by the ridge and the exterior walls. The roof sheathing consists of skip sheathing – 1x6 horizontal sheathing boards at around 30-inches on center and vertical 7” wide smooth bevel-edged sheathing. Split wood shakes were installed for roofing. In one location where a gap has opened between sheathing, a block roofing felt, building paper or similar layer was observed. Perimeter Deck A sawn lumber deck extends around all four sides of the building. The deck around the west side of the building appears to be an older redwood deck with untreated joists and beams. The deck on the east side of the building appears to be newer and included pressure-treated beams and joists and untreated wood decking. The deck beams are typically supported by vertical logs of around 12-inches in diameter at the edge of the deck and on 6x6 sawn lumber posts at the edge of the Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 18, 2015 5 | Page building. CONDITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURE Summary In general, the building is in a reasonably good condition. The substructure and exterior decks have suffered varying degrees of deterioration and replacement or strengthening will be required to prevent further deterioration or to restore the building for a future use. The above grade portions of the structure are typically in a good condition, with relatively small areas of localized deterioration. Due to shrinkage, significant gaps have opened in the walls, allowing rodents to occupy the building. Substructure Three of the embedded poles were tested for deterioration below grade by pushing a screwdriver into the pole just below grade. In all three locations, the screwdriver could penetrate easily the full 6-inch length of the blade, suggesting significant deterioration of the below-grade portion of the poles. This is expected to be a fairly typical condition for the buried portions of the vertical poles. The above-grade portions of the poles were typically found to be in a reasonably good condition. Posts on concrete footings were typically in better condition although some deterioration may be expected at some post bases. Other improvements may be necessary as part of a seismic retrofit. Floor Framing The floor framing is typically in good condition. The finished wood floor showed little distortion, squeaks, cupping, warping, etc. Overall the floors appear to be sound and level. At some locations, particularly where the log walls penetrate through the floors, gaps appear to have opened up, allowing rodents to enter the building. These gaps should be closed. The connection of the floor framing to the log walls and vertical pole substructure may have to be improved as part of a seismic retrofit. Log Interior and Exterior Walls In general, the log walls appear to be in good condition. Some localized beetle or termite damage was observed and a more extensive inspection should be completed by a licensed pest control firm. Some gaps have developed between logs due to shrinkage and loss of the fibrous caulk material. These gaps should be re-filled and made rodent-proof. Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 18, 2015 6 | Page The roof overhangs the exterior walls by around 2-feet, providing some protection from rain. In general, the horizontal logs do not appear to have significant deterioration due to weather. However, at the corners of the building, the interlocking horizontal logs extend around 12-inches beyond the face of wall. These projecting ends of the logs have less protection from the roof overhang, and some of the lower logs have experienced significant water damage and deterioration. The short pieces of shaped logs at the ends of the sawn beams have in some cases experienced significant deterioration and have become detached. The lower portions of the walls may also have experienced some water damage. The sawn lumber beams are generally hidden from view although movement of the split log cladding at some locations has exposed some portions of the beams. It may be necessary to temporarily remove the split log cladding to allow complete examination of the sawn lumber beams and repair as necessary. The horizontal logs have generally experienced significant drying shrinkage. The moisture content of freshly cut lumber can be around 50%, including free water between the cells and water within cell walls. With long term exterior exposure, the moisture content of the lumber reduces until it is at equilibrium with the humidity of the air, typically between 10% to 15% for exterior conditions. During the first drying phase, free water between the cells is lost, reducing the moisture content to around 30%. The second drying phase results in water loss from within the cell walls, and as this water is lost, the cells shrink, resulting in shrinkage of the lumber. For redwood, drying shrinkage for this change in moisture content would result in a change in length of around 0.1%. The longest logs are around 35-feet long, resulting in a change in length of less than ½-inch. Radial shrinkage occurs at a much higher rate of around 3% to 4%. This would result in a single 12-inch diameter log reducing in diameter to 11 ¾-inches. For walls 10-logs high, this would result in shrinkage of around 3-inches in height. Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 18, 2015 7 | Page This differential shrinkage rates have resulted in significant gaps developing in some areas. The non-structural interior walls, for example, were originally built with semi-circular cut-outs to fit tightly into the log wall. As the horizontal logs have shrunk, the cut-outs now fit reasonable well at the base of the wall but are mis-aligned by several inches at the top of the wall. This was also observed at the chimney where the gap between stone chimney and the log wall was filled with mortar. We assume that the doors and windows have been adjusted over time to accommodate the shrinkage of the horizontal logs as the doors and windows fit reasonably well and do not show signs of distress. Given the age of the building, further shrinkage is not expected. If the interior of the building is conditioned in the future, humidity levels may reduce and some additional shrinkage may result. These gaps are typically non-structural although should be filled to prevent rodent entry. The horizontal logs in the end wall gables are only attached to the roof. These logs may become unstable during an earthquake and could be a significant falling hazard. These logs may require additional connections as part of a seismic retrofit. It may be possible to limit this to installing additional connections to roof, but additional structural elements on the interior face of the wall may be required. Roof Structure In general, the roof structure appears to be in good condition, with no significant deterioration or distress observed. The shingles may need to be replaced in the near future, although the evaluation of roofing materials is outside of our expertise. The roof structure bears directly on the log walls. As these bearing walls have reduced in height, the roof structure has lowered. However, two of the roof trusses are supported by vertical logs rather than horizontal logs and some of the trusses also have an intermediate support at the interior walls. Due to potential differential shrinkage between vertical and horizontal logs, some gaps have appeared between the roof structure and the supporting walls. This has changed the support conditions of the trusses, and the top connection of at least one truss has opened significantly. Under normal conditions, this joint would be kept closed by the compression forces in the truss. However, due to loss of support at the end of the truss and the additional support from the vertical log at the end of the interior wall, the top joint has now opened. This has also resulted in a significant gap opening in the roof sheathing, with the roofing felt Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 18, 2015 8 | Page or similar material clearly visible between the end of the sheathing and the ridge. While this does not appear to have resulted in any issues, leakage may occur due to the movement of the roof shingles. In general, the differential shrinkage does not appear to have resulted in significant structural issues. Some adjustments may still be necessary, such as lowering the top of some the vertical logs or shimming the support locations of trusses. Additional connections of the roof framing to the walls and vertical logs may be required as part of a seismic retrofit. Perimeter Deck The older deck on the west side of the building is in very poor condition and portions have already collapsed. This deck should be replaced including all sub-framing. The newer deck on the east side of the building is in reasonable condition, although some boards and joists may require replacement or strengthening. Portions of guardrail are missing. The guardrail does not meet current code requirements and may not be considered adequate to prevent falls. The deck is more than 10-feet above grade. SUMMARY In general, the building is in a reasonable good condition. The substructure and exterior decks have suffered varying degrees of deterioration and replacement or strengthening will be required to prevent further deterioration or to restore the building for a future use. The above grade portions of the structure are typically in a good condition, with relatively small areas of localized deterioration. Due to shrinkage, significant gaps have opened in the walls, allowing rodents to occupy the building. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Anthony Richardson Senior Engineer Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 18, 2015 9 | Page APPENDICES: Appendix 1 – Photographs Appendix 2 – Record Drawings Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 18, 2015 10 | Page Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 31, 2015 11 | Page APPENDIX 1 – PHOTOGRAPHS Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 31, 2015 12 | Page Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 31, 2015 13 | Page Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 31, 2015 14 | Page Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 31, 2015 15 | Page Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 31, 2015 16 | Page Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 31, 2015 17 | Page Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 31, 2015 18 | Page Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 31, 2015 19 | Page Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 31, 2015 20 | Page Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 31, 2015 21 | Page APPENDIX 2 – RECORD DRAWINGS Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek Visual Assessment May 31, 2015 22 | Page LOG, TYP 0 -H 0 N —o"+ 15 -o" 37'-6"± 13' — 3"± — 0"± Q 0 EDGE OF DECK 23___ O 0 0 O 0 0 8 o 0 0 0 O o 0 0 --C)- ---f ----- (E) EDGE OF BLDG ABOVE -0- 0 O 0 o 8 0 0 O 0 FOUNDATION PLAN 1/8" = 1'—O" PLAN CHECK SET/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION (5/14/15) 0 (E) 16"±o VERT LOG, TYP —— — BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES INC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS £65 The Alameda San Jose, California 95126 408-296-5515 3Cr. 0 FOUNDATION PLAN Redwood Log Cabin La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve DESIGNED BY: AwR DRAWN BY: RLQ CHECKED BY: DATE: 4/29 /15 SCALE: AS NOTED JOB No.2015105 SHEET OF DRAWING No. REV. No. 8100 0 (2015105S100) 201 51 05 LOG, TYP 0 7\ EDGE OF DECK DOUBLE 3x BEAMS BELOW LOG WALL (E) WALL, TYP I -1\- -IF DOUBLE 3x BEAMS BELOW LOG WALL ,,-A- �`T LOG WITH f 4"x51/2" JOIST I I BEAM EACH SIDE (E) LOG WALL, n VARIES 6" TO 12"o, TYP (E) FIREPLACE DIAGONAL SHEATHING WITH T&G FLOORING ABOVE 4"x51/2" JOIST FLOOR BEAM, TYP FLOOR FRAMING PLAN 1/8" = '" PLAN CHECK SET/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION (5/14/15) II II (E) 16"±o VERT LOG, TYP BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES INC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 865 The Alameda San Jose, California 95126 408-296-5515 :2„cr. 2"x51/2" JOIST C� 24"± OC, TYP FLOOR FRAMING PLAN Redwood Log Cabin La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve DESIGNED BY: AWR DRAWN BY: RLQ CHECKED BY: DATE: 4/29/15 SCALE: AS NOTED JOB No.2015105 SHEET OF DRAWING No. REV. No. 3101 0 (2015105S101) 2015105 2'-6"± TYP a 7 C 1 (E) 21/4x51/2 RAFTER © 2,_4 f OC, TYP 7 � (E) HEAVY TIMBER TRUSS, 4 TOTAL ROOF FRAMING PLAN PLAN CHECK SET/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION (5/14/15) BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES INC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 665 The Alameda San Jose, California 95126 408-296-551 5 :2„cr. 1 1 SKYLIGHT, TYP ROOF FRAMING PLAN Redwood Log Cabin La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve DESIGNED BY: AWR DRAWN BY: RLQ CHECKED BY: DATE: 4/29 /15 SCALE: AS NOTED JOB No.2015105 SHEET OF DRAWING No. REV. No. 8102 0 (2015105S102) 201 51 05 FIN FLR FIN FLR EAST ELEVATION (GRID 3) WEST ELEVATION (GRID 1) PLAN CHECK SET/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION (5/12/15) FIN FLR SOUTH ELEVATION (GRID A) FIN FLR BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES INC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 865 The Alameda San Jose, California 95126 408-296-551 5 3Cr. NORTH ELEVATION (GRID D) ELEVATIONS Redwood Log Cabin La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve DESIGNED BY: Aw R DRAWN BY: RLQ CHECKED BY: DATE: 5/1 /15 SCALE: AS NOTED JOB No.:2015105 SHEET OF DRAWING No. REV. No. 8200 0 (2015105S200) 2015105 TYPICAL SECTION T&G WOOD FLOOR OVER 1x8 DIAGONAL SHEATHING PLAN CHECK SET/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION (5/12/15) it LOG WALL, TYP 4x6 POST BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES INC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 865 The Alameda San Jose, California 95126 408-296-551 5 r3Cr‘ 2x DECK W/ 2x6 O 16"± OC OVER 4x12 BEAM TYPICAL SECTION Redwood Log Cabin La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve DESIGNED BY: AWR DRAWN BY: RLQ CHECKED BY: DATE: 5/1 /15 SCALE: AS NOTED JOB No.2015105 SHEET OF DRAWING No. REV. No. 5201 0 (2015105S201) 2015105 2'-6"± 1x8 SHEATHING 6" LOG INFILL TYPICAL EAVE DETAIL HEAVY TIMBER TRUSS 1x6 21/4x51/2 RAFTER 6"o LOG PLAN CHECK SET/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION (5/13/15) 1x8 SHEATHING 1x6 21/4x51/2 RAFTER HORIZ LOG, TYP TYPICAL GABLE DETAIL SPLIT LOG CLADDING FLOOR JOIST BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES INC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 665 The Alameda San Jose, California 95126 408-296-551 5 3Cr. HORIZONTAL LOG DOUBLE 3x BEAMS 4"x51/2" FLOOR BEAM DETAILS Redwood Log Cabin La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve DESIGNED BY: AWR DRAWN BY: RLQ CHECKED BY: DATE: 5/1 /15 SCALE: AS NOTED JOB No.:2015105 SHEET OF DRAWING No. REV. No. 0 (2015105S202) 2015105 imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology Page & Turnbull HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT WHITE BARN, DEER HOLLOW FARM APN 351-08-009 [17286] PREPARED FOR: MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PRIMARY PROJECT CONTACT: Peter Birkholz, AIA, LEED AP Page & Turnbull 417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415.593.3226 / 415.362.5560 fax birkholz@page-turnbull.com MARCH 2018 All images have been taken by Page & Turnbull, 2017, unless noted otherwise. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 iii - Table of Contents Page & Turnbull TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1 Study Summary ..................................................................................................................................1 Project Data........................................................................................................................................1 PART 1: DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY ............................................................................5 Historical Background and Context ...............................................................................................5 Chronology of Development and Use ..........................................................................................7 Physical Description..........................................................................................................................9 Evaluation of Significance .............................................................................................................11 Conditions Assessment ..................................................................................................................13 Structural Observations ..................................................................................................................25 PART II. TREATMENT AND WORK RECOMMENDATIONS........................................27 Summary of Recommendations ...................................................................................................27 Historic Preservation Objectives ..................................................................................................27 Requirements for Work .................................................................................................................28 Work Recommendations and Alternatives ..................................................................................29 Recommendations By Material & Location ................................................................................29 Expected Maintenance ...................................................................................................................34 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................35 Published Works ..............................................................................................................................35 Unpublished Works .........................................................................................................................35 Newspaper Articles .........................................................................................................................35 Public Records .................................................................................................................................35 Maps 35 APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................37 Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 iv - Table of Contents Page & Turnbull This page has been left blank intentionally. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 1 - Introduction Page & Turnbull INTRODUCTION STUDY SUMMARY PURPOSE This HSR for the White Barn at Deer Hollow Farm has been prepared at the request of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to support an anticipated repair project. Historic Structure Reports (HSR) are prepared in advance of any anticipated rehabilitation, restoration or major maintenance work on a building that has been identified as a historic resource. According to the National Park Service publication Preservation Brief 43: The Preparation and Use of Historic Structure Reports, upon which this HSR is based, The historic structure report is an optimal first phase of historic preservation efforts for a significant building, preceding design and implementation of its preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction. If work proceeds without a historic structure report as a guide, physical evidence important to understanding the history and construction of the building may be destroyed. The preparation of a report prior to initiation of work provides documentation for future researchers. Even more importantly, prior preparation of a report helps ensure that the history, significance, and condition of the property are thoroughly understood and taken into consideration in the selection of an appropriate treatment and in the development of work recommendations. A well prepared historic structure report is an invaluable preservation guide. The scope and scale of the repair project at the White Barn has not yet been determined, and is anticipated to be guided in part by the findings of this report. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The White Barn is in fair material condition overall, however, it is structurally deficient. Materials themselves are fair and functional, performing as intended, however certain integral damage, most notably insect damage to the structural timbers, present concern for continued use in its current condition. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TREATMENT AND USE Repair recommendations are directed by the objectives of bringing the building up to the current historic building code, preserving as much of the existing material as is viable, and retaining its current barn use and public use spaces. Treatment alternatives are provided in the report to accommodate some of the available options for repairs. Any repair or rehabilitation project for the White Barn should consider these treatment recommendations and guidelines through this lens of intended flexibility. PROJECT DATA LOCATION The White Barn is one of several buildings that compose Deer Hollow Farm, which is located in the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve in the hills above Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County. The property’s Assessor Parcel Number is 351-08-009, and the property is currently assigned 0 Ravensbury Avenue as the official situs address. However, 7550 St. Joseph Avenue, Los Altos and 22500 Cristo Rey Drive, Cupertino are two other addresses used for Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 2 - Introduction Page & Turnbull the property. OWNERSHIP The White Barn at Deer Hollow Farm is currently owned by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), and is jointly operated by MROSD and the City of Mountain View, with additional financial support provided by the County of Santa Clara and Friends of Deer Hollow Farm. Image 1 - Subject property highlighted blue. Location of Deer Hollow Farm and the White Barn are indicated by a red location marker. Source: Santa Clara County’s Office of the Assessor and Google Maps, edited by Page & Turnbull. Image 2 - Location of the White Barn at Deer Hollow Farm indicated by a red location marker. Source: Google Maps, edited by Page & Turnbull. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 3 - Introduction Page & Turnbull HISTORIC STATUS The White Barn and Deer Hollow Farm do not specifically appear to have been evaluated for listing in the local, state, or national register. The farm property does not appear in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database with a status code (last updated in April 2012), which means it has not formally been evaluated with findings submitted to the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (7400 St. Joseph Avenue) was given a Status Code of 3 and 3S in December 1988, which means the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, inclusive of the White Barn and Deer Hollow Farm, appears eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as an individual property through survey evaluation.1 This HSR provides a preliminary evaluation of significance for the White Barn using the criteria for the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This HSR follows guidance provided in Preservation Brief #43: The Preparation and Use of Historic Structure Reports, and recommended treatments comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Referencing the recommended format, the HSR includes two main parts: Part 1 includes historical background, significance evaluation, and a conditions assessment. Part 2 includes historic preservation objectives and treatment recommendations for the site. METHODOLOGY Completion of the HSR included the following activities: ■Kickoff site meeting and initial field survey on November 9, 2017. ■Research, including Santa Clara County’s Office of the Assessor, Department of Planning and Development, Santa Clara Public Libraries, Santa Clara County Historical & Genealogical Society, David Rumsey Map Collection, Online Archive of California, Ancestry.com, and files from Carla Dorow via MROSD. ■Conditions evaluations and related treatments were determined after the initial site visit. PROJECT TEAM Page & Turnbull - Architecture & Architectural History 417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Peter Birkholz, AIA, Principal in Charge Ruth Todd, FAIA, Consulting Principal Christina Dikas, Project Manager Maggie Smith, Architectural Historian Caitlin Turner, Conservator DCI Engineers - Structural Engineering One Post Street, Suite 1050 San Francisco, CA 94104 Jack Laws, PE, SE, Principal 1 California State Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historic Resources Inventory Directory (November 2004) 9. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 4 - Introduction Page & Turnbull J.R. Conkey & Associates - Cost Estimating 735 Sunrise Avenue, Suite 200 Roseville, CA 95661 Scott Ransdell, Senior Vice President Image 3 - Features of Deer Hollow Farm. White Barn outlined in orange. Source: MROSD and City of Mountain View Lease Agreement, July 2015. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 5 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull PART 1: DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT The area where Deer Hollow Farm is now located was initially inhabited by members of the Ohlone or Costanoan cultural group.1 While under Spanish rule, the land was owned by Mission Santa Clara. Following Mexican governance and secularization, Governor Alverado granted Rancho San Antonio to Juan Prado Mesa in 1939, including a portion of the subject property. Rancho San Antonio contained about 4,438 acres that extended from Adobe Creek (previously Purissima Concepcion Creek, San Antonio Creek, and Doby Creek) to Stevens Creek (previously Cupertino Creek). The rancho’s namesake is St. Anthony of Padua, a famous Saint of the Franciscan order.2 The Mesa family’s debt led to the division of Rancho San Antonio and the sale of 3,541.89 acres to William A. and Henry F. Dana, whose claim was filed in 1853 but was not confirmed until 1857. In 1853, brothers Theodore Franklin and George Henry Grant claimed 160 acres of public land in Fremont Township adjacent to Rancho San Antonio, as encouraged by the Legislature of California for the purpose of preempting, improving, and cultivating the land.3 The brothers hiked and camped the preempted lands, and soon decided to live permanently on the land. They occupied an existing cabin and claimed additional land. Information regarding the amount of additional land, the names of the people they bought it from, and when the sales occurred varies between research sources; however, according to historic atlas maps from 1876 and 1890, their additional purchases encompassed 190 acres, including an approximately 75-acre portion of Rancho San Antonio. According to the maps, their original claim plus the additional sales of land totaled approximately 360 acres. 1 Archives & Architecture, LLC., County of Santa Clara Historic Context Statement, County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development, Planning Office (December 2004, revised February 2012), 19. 2 Karin Bivens, “Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve,” (n.d.), 11. 3 Lois Adams, “Grant History,” (1972), 3-4. Image 4 - 1876 atlas map of Santa Clara County by Thompson & West, showing subject property. Source: David Rumsey Map Collection, edited by Page & Turnbull. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 6 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull The Grant brothers were born in the Roxbury section of Boston, Massachusetts to parents Charles and Sarah Richards Grant. George Henry Grant was born July 2, 1826 and Theodore Franklin (Frank) Grant was born on February 22, 1828. Although Frank was the younger of the two, he was the first to travel to California.4 He arrived in San Francisco in 1850 and took charge of a store ship owned by Hawley and Sterling, then became a clerk for Montgomery House. George arrived a year later and worked at the wholesale commission stire of George Shaw & Co. before going into the grocery business with S.C. Bradshaw & Co.5 The brothers experienced early failed entrepreneurial endeavors, including in the fishing industry (George alone) and drayage business (both).6 By 1851, Frank moved to Santa Clara County and held the following positions at various times into the 1860s: general merchandise clerk for Fletcher Cooper, postmaster and Treasurer of Santa Clara, stationary and periodical depot owner, Treasurer of San Jose, and Deputy Recorder of Santa Clara.7 George also joined Frank in Santa Clara County. The brothers attempted their luck with the cattle business in the early to mid-1860s as well as the silver mining business in the late 1860s, yet neither endeavor lasted. 8 They then went into the dairy business, where George tended to 20 to 30 cows and Frank raised grain and hay for feed.9 By 1873, the brothers sold the cows and spent their time cultivating grain and hay.10 While living on the subject property, called “Sleepy Hollow” by the neighbors, Frank married Irish immigrant Margaret Shaw in 1865.11 They built a house that is no longer extant, except for a small remodeled section.12 By 1870, they had three children: Isabella, Sarah, and Theodore Franklin, Jr, who all went to San Antonio School.13 Margaret helped churn 4 Ibid., 1. 5 Ibid., 2. 6 Ibid. 7 “Theo. Grant will be buried today,” San Hose Mercury Herald, May 3, 1924; Lois Adams, Grant History, (1972), 3. 8 Lois Adams, “Grant History,” (1972), 4-7. 9 Ibid., 7. 10 “Theo. Grant will be buried today,” San Hose Mercury Herald, May 3, 1924. 11 California, Pioneer and Immigrant Files, 1790-1950, Ancestry.com. 12 Lois Adams, “Grant History,” (1972), 5. 13 United States Federal Census (1880), Ancestry.com; Lois Adams, “Grant History,” (1972), 10. Image 5 - 1890 atlas map of Santa Clara County by Herrmann Bros., showing subject property. Source: Library of Congress, edited by Page & Turnbull. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 7 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull the butter for the family’s dairy business.14 George lived and farmed on the subject property, but never married. Various buildings on the property were constructed, and some were demolished over time (see Chronology of Development and Use section below). Farm laborers often lived on the property, as did a cook for a period of time.15 George died in 1889 and Frank died in April 1924. Margaret died shortly thereafter as well.16 George Sheldon (Sheldon) Perham purchased the land from the Grant family in 1937 as a country getaway for his family from their home in Hillsborough.17 He was a San Francisco dairyman who was president of Borden’s Dairy Western Division.18 He and his wife, Frances Bell, had three children: Jane, George Sheldon Jr. (George), and Arthur.19 Others living on the ranch included caretakers who had worked with the Perham family in Hillsborough. The property contained a large garden, chickens, and a small herd of Hereford cattle.20 The sons, George and Arthur, helped maintain the ranch and also formed the Perham Construction Company, headquartered at the current location of the ranger headquarters and parking lot.21 In 1975, MROSD acquired the property, causing several people to find new homes and work.22 The property, previously referred to as Perham Ranch or Grant Ranch, was renamed “Deer Hollow Farm” to avoid confusion with the Joseph D. Grant County Park in eastern Santa Clara County. Deer Hollow Farm provides a variety of environmental education programs for the region. It is jointly operated by MROSD and the City of Mountain View, with additional financial support provided by the County of Santa Clara and Friends of Deer Hollow Farm. CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE PROPERTY The following list of buildings, structures, and landscape features on the subject property, documented in the 1990s, is currently the most extensive inventory of the site provided by MROSD. Name Estimated Year Built Description & Notes Jasper’s House (Foreman’s Cabin) 1849 Two rooms, including water, electricity, toilet. Presently used in conjunction with Bar-B-Que Area. T.F. Grant Residence 1910 Two story, detached barn. Burned down. Ranch Shop (Blacksmith Shed)1938 Approximately 20’ by 30’, work benches and blacksmith forge. Guest House 1939 MROSD meeting place, not to code for residence. Equipment Shed 1946 20’ by 60’ 800 gallon underground gas storage with pump. Chicken house behind, approximately 10’ by 60’. Mrs. G.S. Perham Residence 1949 Top of hill by water tank. Ranger residence duplex. Four-Car Garage 1949 Top of hill by water tank. Ranger residence duplex. 14 Lois Adams, “Grant History,” (1972), 7. 15 United States Federal Census (1870-1910), Ancestry.com. 16 "The Remarkable Story of Mr. and Mrs. T. F. Grant, Sr.," Mountain View Register Leader (May 16, 1924), 1, 4; California, Death Index, 1905- 1939, Ancestry.com. 17 Joan Lewis, “Mid 20th Century at the Farm: The Perham Family,” FriendsNews (Winter 2017), 6. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid.; United States Federal Census (1940), Ancestry.com. 20 Joan Lewis, “Mid 20th Century at the Farm : The Perham Family,” 6. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 8 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull Name Estimated Year Built Description & Notes Foreman’s Residence (Livestock Employee’s Home) 1951 Two bedrooms, garage, and storage. A.F. Perham Residence 1957 Shop/Office 1958 Building 38’ by 72’, Office 600 square feet. Apple House Date Unknown Approximately 15’ by 25’, with water and electricity. Carriage Shed (Office)Date Unknown Presently Tack-room and ranch freezer. Hay Barn (White Barn)Date Unknown Two level hay storage, horse stalls, milk barns. Large Hay Barn (Picnic)Date Unknown Hay storage and seeding racks. Small Feed Shed Three-car Garage Water Storage Tanks Approximately 40,000 gallon supplied by California Water Service. Water Tank Owned by California Water Service Co. Corrals Two large holding areas. One working corral with roping area and three small holding pens. Powder River chute and loading chute. Fences Approximately 8 miles barbed wire or redwood picket. Roads Approximately 1.25 miles of 12’ wide rocked roadways and 1.75 miles of graded dirt roadways. Irrigated Pasture Approximately 6 acres planted to birdsfoot trefoil, tall fescue perennial rye. Hay Growing area rotated between two approximately 20-acre fields and on 5-acre field. Livestock Run approximately 3-4 horses, 23 cows, 1 bull, and 5-6 yearlings for replacement and consumption. A Cow and Calf operation. Raise and keep 100-150 laying chickens. Family Orchard Approximately 1.5 acres, walnut, peach, apple, persimmon, pear, plum, prune, apricot, and nectarine. Family Vegetable Garden One acre permanent growth of blackberries, corn, tomatoes, beans, squash, etc. WHITE BARN The construction date of the White Barn is unknown, however aerial photographs indicate the building was constructed before 1948.23 In a summary of interviews from 1995 with Louis Grant and Virginia Grant Murphy (grandchildren of Frank Grant), it is noted, “there were two barns at the same location of the present ones; however, these have been rebuilt.”24 The White Barn has been used as the hay, horse, and milk barn at various times. The only building permit application on file for the White Barn is for the recent renovation of the Milk Room in 23 Historic Aerials by NETR Online. 24 “Interviews with Louis Grant and Virginia Grant Murphy, Deer Hollow Farm,” (May 1995). Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 9 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull 2016-2017. The scope of work included removing approximately 200 square feet of existing damaged slab; removing four existing, failing masonry piers; installing approximately 200 square feet of reinforced (concrete) slab; installing approximately 58 square feet of LNLFT perimeter foundation; and installing a floor drain and an approximately 120- foot drain line to the existing vault.25 There do not appear to have been any other significant changes to the White Barn other than general wear and use as a farm support structure over the years. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The White Barn at Deer Hollow Farm is located near the center of the homestead along the Rancho San Antonio Service Road, approximately 35 feet northwest of the Apple Shed and 60 feet south of a dry creek bed. The White Barn has a northeast-southwest orientation. The wood frame building is about 30 feet wide by 58 feet long and is 25 feet tall at its highest point. There are three sections: the front-gabled center of the barn and shed-roofed extensions to the northwest and southeast from the center. All roofs are clad with corrugated, galvanized sheet metal roofing panels. It has a concrete slab foundation in the east corner and is otherwise be supported by low brick piers. The White Barn is clad with circular saw-cut wood boards placed vertically and painted white. There are a variety of openings on all facades, including: wood sliding and hinged windows and doors, two vinyl windows, and some openings that are not covered. The interior of the building is divided up into several sections, and wood is the dominant material. In the northwest shed-roofed extension there is a milk room to the south and a goat pen to the north. The center section is dedicated to hay storage, with a hay loft in the gable above (accessed by a steep wood staircase). In the southeast shed-roofed extension, there are horse stalls, which are currently used for storage. The horse stalls and goat pen have openings that are connected to the center hay storage section. There are also openings in the hay loft’s floor which provide access to various parts of the ground floor. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES Exterior: ■Spatial relationship to the land and adjacent buildings of the homestead ■General form and massing, including the roof ■Wood frame construction ■Circular saw-cut wood boards placed vertically ■Original/early wood doors and windows, including original/early metal hinges ■Brick pier foundation Interior: ■Central section with large open space ■Horse stalls ■Interconnected sections to allow for the passage of hay ■Primary use of wood 25 Building Permit Application, Permit Number 2017-61773, Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 10 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull Image 6 - (top) Northeast (left) and northwest (right) facades of the White Barn. Image 7 - (middle) Southwest (left) and southeast (right) facades of the White Barn. Image 8 - (bottom) Interior hay loft. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 11 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria. Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The following section preliminarily examines the eligibility of the White Barn for listing in the California Register. Criterion 1 (Events) The White Barn at Deer Hollow Farm is likely significant and eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 as part of a collection of buildings that are associated with the continued agricultural development of Santa Clara County. While the subject property as a whole has not been fully surveyed, it appears as though the White Barn would contribute to a larger historic district, site, or cultural landscape. The period of significance under Criterion 1 is from 1853 to 1975, while the property was in private ownership as a homestead and farm. Criterion 2 (Persons) The White Barn at Deer Hollow Farm is likely significant and eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 as part of a collection of buildings that are associated with early American pioneers to California, Theodore Franklin and George Henry Grant. While the farm as a whole has not been fully surveyed, it appears as though the White barn would contribute to a larger historic district, site., or cultural landscape. The period of significance under Criterion 2 is from 1853 to 1937, when the Grant brothers first bought the land to when they sold it. Criterion 3 (Architecture) The White Barn at Deer Hollow Farm is potentially significant and eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 as part of a collection of buildings that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction relating to its agriculture use. Additional research regarding the other buildings, structures, and landscape features would be required to make this determination. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 12 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull Criterion 4 (Information Potential) Evaluation of the White Barn under Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. This criterion is generally applied to sites which may provide archeological resources. Preliminarily, it does not appear as though the White Barn answers research questions, or is an example of a rare construction type. INTEGRITY In order to qualify for listing in any local, state, or national historic register, a property or landscape must possess significance under at least one evaluative criterion as described above and retain integrity. Integrity is defined by the California Office of Historic Preservation as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity by the survival of certain characteristics that existing during the resource’s period of significance,” or more simply defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.”26 Page & Turnbull used established integrity standards outlined by the National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Seven variables, or aspects, that define integrity are used to evaluate a resource’s integrity—location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property must stand up under most or all of these aspects in order to retain overall integrity. If a property does not retain integrity, it can no longer convey its significance and is therefore not eligible for listing in local, state, or national registers. The seven aspects that define integrity are defined as follows: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s). Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property. Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form the historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and the historic property. The White Barn retains integrity of location as it does not appear to have been moved since the period of significance. It retains integrity of setting because the surrounding area still remains agricultural and rural. The subject building retains integrity of design, materials, and workmanship as the only modification that has happened to the building since the end of the period of significance is the renovation of the Milk Room. While vinyl windows and additional new materials were inserted into the space, they do not diminish the building’s overall design, materials, or workmanship. The renovation also helps to maintain the barn as a working support structure for the homestead. The White Barn’s dominant material is still wood, and the physical evidence of craft is still highly visible. As the White Barn retains integrity of location, setting, design, materials, and workmanship, it is able to retain integrity of feeling – the building has maintained its historic and aesthetic sense of a barn from the identified period of significance of 1853 to 1975. The White Barn also retains integrity of association because the building is still in use as a barn for a working homestead. 26 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series #7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources (Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, 4 September 2001) 11. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 13 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The White Barn was visually surveyed on November 9, 2017. Weather was cloudy with an intermittent drizzle, approximately 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Visual observation took place from the ground level on the exterior and interior, and via a ladder stair on the interior into the hay loft. Photographs were taken of remaining architectural features throughout the exterior and interior of the building, and existing conditions data were recorded in field drawings and notes. No destructive testing, probing, or hazardous materials testing, including for lead paint or asbestos, was conducted. Structural observations and methodology are indicated in the “Structural Observations” section. Additional data collection regarding the state of the Electrical, Mechanical, Fire Life Safety, and other related Safety information was not conducted; however, it can be noted that lights all appeared to be in working order as was the plumbing in the milking room. CONDITIONS DEFINITIONS The building elements’ conditions are described on a good, fair, poor rating system, defined as: Good (G) The building element / feature is intact, structurally sound, and performing its intended purpose. The component needs no repair or rehabilitation, but only routine or preventative maintenance. Fair (F) The building element / feature is in fair condition if either of the following conditions is present: a. There are early signs of wear, failure, or deterioration though the component and its features are generally structurally sound and performing their intended purpose; or b. There is failure of a feature or component. Poor (P) The building element / feature is in poor condition if any of the following conditions is present: a. The features are no longer performing their intended purpose; or b. Features are missing; or c. Deterioration or damage affects more than 25% of the component; or d. The component or features show signs of imminent failure or breakdown. Unknown (U) The assembly or feature was not accessible for assessment or not enough information is available to make an evaluation. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 14 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS A summary of the existing conditions of the White Barn at Deer Hollow Farm follows. Conditions are organized by material and location, with a focus on character-defining features, which are listed in the earlier Physical Description section. Overall the barn is in fair, serviceable condition. Because it is still an actively used building, the barn enjoys regular maintenance for many of its materials. Owing to this effort, many of the conditions discussed below are not life- threatening nor deeply problematic issues for the building. Barns are by nature not weather-tight structures, and the conditions evident do not (in large part) hamper the continued use of the structure as a working barn. As will be discussed in the treatment section of this report, there are many alternatives for treatment based on the existing conditions because, for the most part, the building is currently in decent, serviceable shape. Code Deficiencies Currently the farm site is handicap accessible, but the White Barn is not. The existing wood stair in the barn that provides access from the ground to the hay loft does not meet current building code requirements. The following is a code analysis related to the stair: Per 2016 California Building Code Chapter 3 – Use and Occupancy Classifications, subsection 312, the White Barn is Classified as a Utility and Miscellaneous Group U (Group U). Per 2016 California Building Section 1011 – STAIRWAYS: subsection 1011.16 -Ladders, “Permanent ladders shall not serve as part of the means of egress from occupied spaces within a building. Permanent Ladders shall be permitted to provide access to the following areas”: Item 4 “Elevated levels in Group U not open to the general public.” And Item 6 “Ladders shall be constructed in accordance with Section 304.3 of the California Mechanical Code.” The current wood stair assembly does not comply with current building code for a stair and does not comply with the current building code for a ladder. General Conditions The barn sags toward the northwest corner. Dangerous conditions exist at the barn, notably open holes through floors, trip hazards, and fall hazards. Nails from the roofing protrude through the skip sheathing on the second level. The low ceiling height at the sides of the barn put these nails at head height. Areas of the hay loft floor are open, with insufficient or no guard rails. Some openings are covered with unattached door leafs. Irregular or unexpected steps around the barn are unmarked. Termite or post beetle galleries and tunnels were observed in wood materials throughout the site. While not unusual for California, borings can cause significant damage to wood elements if left untreated. In the extreme, buildings can become structurally unsound due to insect infestation. Most vulnerable to damage is wood that is wet, unpainted, or directly in contact with the ground; these conditions are present in the White Barn. Compounding the issue, insects are a food source for other animals that can impart damage to buildings, including woodpeckers (discussed below). Holes present in the roof structure appear to also be caused by termites or another boring pest, though some holes look to possibly be the work of woodpeckers that would be attempting to eat the insects boring into the wood. Birds nests are also evident in the roof structure. According to Deer Hollow farm staff, the nests are not always occupied, and typically house a predatory bird, which helps keep other farm pests away. Cats on the property likewise work to mitigate the rodent pest problem. While the presence of the rodents was not evident, rodents can harbor diseases dangerous to humans. Further, rodents can potentially cause extensive damage to the building, including disruption of and damage to electrical or plumbing systems. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 15 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull Material Conditions Brick Foundation Piers: Fair to Poor The common red brick used for the pier foundations are in fair to poor condition. Some show signs of minor efflorescence. Nicks, gouges or broken corners are common. Mortar is generally intact. Image 9 - (top left) Brick Piers are low and surrounded by straw and other organic material. Image 10 - (top right) Exposed edges of the bricks on the exterior piers are typically chipped or broken. Image 11 - Minor efflorescence is evident on some piers. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 16 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull Wood Exterior Siding: Fair The circular-sawn siding is in fair to poor condition. Siding that terminates at grade is in the worst condition, owing to its proximity to the ground. Breakage, rot, and damage are apparent. In some locations, boards are split and partially unanchored or bowing. In multiple locations around the exterior, boards have been patched in or modified in some manner to close up old doorways or change windows or opening sizes. The screened window opening in the north façade is in good condition, with the exception of the shake cover, which is in poor condition. The shakes are detaching from the awning roof over the window and exhibit moss growth at their edges. The replacement aluminum window in the north façade is not original and has not been assessed. Paint remains well-adhered to boards, with minimal delamination. It appears the barn has not been regularly repainted or maintained much with respect to the coating. Image 12 - (top left) Irregular sized gaps and proud boards where anchors are loose are typical. Image 13 - (top right) The north facade opening is in good condition, with the exception of its shake awning roof. Image 14 - (left) Raking sunlight highlights the loose attachment of boards. Added narrow boards and modified siding is also apparent in this image. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 17 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull Wood Frame: Fair to Poor The primary wood structure of the White Barn is largely intact, though there is much evidence of modification over time. Posts within the main barn space have been moved, which may be contributing to the sag at the northwest corner of the building. Some posts are split, requiring stabilization, and others have been cut and patched. Sill plates and posts around the building perimeter show evidence of termite damage (carpenter ants are the other possible culprit) and post beetle holes are evident in some locations. The northeast corner post is especially brittle with evidence of internal damage up to at least 7’ on the post. See the structural condition assessment for information about the structural integrity of the wood frame. Image 15 - The post at the northeast corner exhibits biological growth, wood rot, and material loss due to damage and insect infestation. Image 16 - Termite holes are visible in the northeast post above 6 feet. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 18 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull Image 17 - (top left) Insect infestation and wood rot are evident at sill plates and exterior perimeter posts throughout the structure. Image 18 - (top right) One line of interior posts has been moved from their original location; the former post holes are visible in the beams. Further, much of the structural frame has been modified in some way, have been moved, boards or reinforcement bracing added, or holes made. Image 19 - (left) Posts throughout the main barn space are notched with broken wood blocks used to shim the beams above. The date of this modification is unknown. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 19 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull Wood Floors: Fair Wood plank flooring is present in the south room (currently storage, previously horse stalls) and on the second level hay loft. Dimensions of boards and the gaps between them vary. The south room floor retains its handmade nails, though many boards are loose or can be easily moved aside (allowing animal entry according to the Farm staff). Animal droppings are evident under the south room floor. The hay loft floor through the center bay of the barn is secured only at the end points of each board. Some nails are likewise loose, missing, or insufficient to tack down the board. Wood boards themselves are worn, however, they are in serviceable condition and retain structural integrity enough to serve as a flooring material in both locations. Image 20 - (above) The hay loft floor. The cut-out section in this photo covers the hay trough for the horse stall below. Boards otherwise extend from the edge of the center bay to the opening in the floor here covered by doors. Image 21 - (top right) The doors covering the hay floor opening from below. Image 22 - (right) The tongue-and-groove plank flooring in the horse stalls. Below it, in the foreground of the photo is the plank floor which is covers the passage floor in the horse stall area. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 20 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull Wood Doors: Fair Sliding wood barn doors are in fair condition. Those that remain on the building are operable with their original hardware intact. The southeast door (into the storage area) is missing three bolts which support the door’s track. The remaining thru-bolts secure the track to the barn exterior; those lost only bolted into the exterior siding. Hay loft doors on the east façade do not align, suggesting the instability of the north leaf’s hinges. Most doors retain historic hinges or other steel hardware. Where hinges have been replaced, the new installations do not match the existing hinges. Image 23 - (clockwise, from top left) Sliding barn door into the horse stall area. The panel and operable elements are in good condition. Image 24 - (top right) Exterior view of the paired, oversize barn doors on the east facade. Image 25 - (right) Interior view of the paired oversize barn doors. Image 26 - (left, below) Hardware of the sliding barn door Image 27 - (left, above) Missing thru-bolts on the sliding door track. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 21 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull Wood Interior Features: Good to Fair The narrow, vertical stair is in fair condition. Its deficiencies are its narrow size and steep pitch; head height is a concern. Treads are worn, but not unstable. Base structural posts are settled directly in the earth, and show signs of insect infiltration (insect damage is worst at perimeter locations, and not here at the stair, but it is present). The south room’s horse stalls are in good condition. Though this area now serves as storage, the stall dividers and hay holders remain in good condition. The chutes from the hay loft and screen “windows” into the main barn area are intact and in good condition. The goat pen is in fair condition. Much of the material used to construct the pen appears to have been salvaged from other areas of the barn and farm and has been modified over time. The milking area has been recently improved, with the installation of a concrete drainage floor and solid walls to enclose the space from animal intrusion. New work sinks, associated plumbing, and refrigerators have been installed in the space. The condition of the materials in this area is good, and as such, the area has not been heavily considered with this report. The storage cage within the main barn bay likewise is in good condition and looks to be a recent installation. Image 28 - Interior stair to hay loft.Image 29 - Horse stall in south room. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 22 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull Wood Rafters: Good to Fair The wood rafters are in good to fair condition. Good condition rafters are intact with minimal visible evidence of rot or other deterioration. Rafters were not probed or tested due to access. Rafters are notched and rest on the top plate of the exterior walls. The rafters in fair condition are broken at the tail outside the exterior walls or show heavy deterioration of the tail end only. Rafter ends are most deteriorated where the gutter does not extend. Image 30 - (top left) The notch in the rafter tail at the top plate. Image 31 - (above) Deteriorated or broken ends of rafter tails are visible behind the gutter. Image 32 - (left) Close-up detail of one deteriorated rafter tail. Also visible is biological growth at the end of hte gutter indicated leaks in this gutter end. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 23 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull Wood Skip Sheathing: Good to Fair The wood purlins that form the skip sheathing under the sheet metal roof are in good to fair condition. Fair condition boards exhibit insect damage throughout the boards, but they still support the roof above without cracks or splits in the wood. Image 33 - Evidence of insect infestation in the skip sheathing. Image 34 - The pattern of sheathing in the roof known as “skip sheathing.” Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 24 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull Corrugated Sheet Metal Roofing: Fair The corrugated, galvanized sheet metal roofing panels are in fair condition. They are performing as expected with no evidence of detrimental leaks on to the skip sheathing or rafters, even with the presence of penetrating holes through the panels. The panels themselves also show some evidence of “white rust” or oxidation of the galvanic zinc coating of the sheet steel. White rust occurs where water is able to dwell on the galvanizing, causing an oxidizing reaction. Edges of sheet metal where the overlap of the panels occurs exhibits this condition, suggesting that no gap material is between the panels and each sits directly on the other; water infiltrates this seam, is unable to dry, and remains, causing the reaction. Image 35 - Oxidation of the zinc galvanizing on the sheeting. Image 36 - Nails protrude beyond the sheeting into the headspace of the rafters. Image 37 - Daylight is visible through the sheeting in some areas, however farm staff indicate that there are no leaks during rains. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 25 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS STRUCTURAL CODE CONSIDERATIONS A preliminary seismic and wind analysis of the White Barn building structure was completed based on known structural information. This analysis was based on the lateral load regulations of Section 8-706 of the 2016 California Historical Building Code including Tables 8-8-A and 8-8-B, allowable capacities for existing materials. The seismic and wind lateral force level for evaluation of historic buildings required by this code section is equivalent to approximately 75% of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) seismic and wind force levels for new buildings, including consideration of near site effects, i.e., increased seismic loads for sites located in close proximity to known active faults. Even if a full seismic or wind upgrade would not otherwise be triggered or required, our preliminary analysis indicated that there are several structural deficiencies that would be prudent to address if the building is proposed to continue to be occupied in the future. A preliminary gravity load analysis of the existing roof structure(s) was completed using the 2016 CBC design roof live loads. In addition, the existing second (loft) level framing was analyzed in order to determine its existing live load carrying capacity to assist in guiding future reuse options for the loft areas. STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT The structural deficiencies that were noted on our initial site visit of November 9, 2017 and our subsequent preliminary structural analyses outlined above, are summarized below. The preliminary proposed strengthening to address these deficiencies is covered in the Structural Recommendations section. Roof and Floor Diaphragm Capacities The existing 1x roof skip sheathing does not have adequate capacity to transfer the code required wind or seismic forces to the interior and exterior (shear) walls or to brace the walls out-of-plane. In addition, the connections of the roof and floor diaphragms to the interior and exterior (shear) walls as well as to gravity support members are deficient. Existing Shear Wall Capacities A detailed survey of the existing interior and exterior wall sheathing/vertical siding and nailing was not possible during this phase. However, based on our preliminary analysis, the existing interior and exterior wood sheathing/vertical siding, in general, does not have adequate capacity to resist the code-required wind or seismic forces, which will result in moderate to significant damage to the building in a moderate to severe earthquake in close proximity to the site. Also, the walls are not connected (bolted) to foundations to transfer the code required wind or seismic forces to the foundations/grade. Existing Foundations Based on our site observations, the assumed existing site soil conditions, and our experience with similar foundation systems, the existing interior and exterior isolated brick pier foundations, which exist primarily only under the existing interior and exterior vertical posts, appear to have performed marginally well over the life of the building. However, the brick piers do not have adequate capacity to resist their tributary dead and code-required load along with the code required lateral (wind or seismic) loads without replacement or additional strengthening. The existing interior and exterior brick pier post foundations will require replacement. In addition, new reinforced concrete stem walls and foundations under all exterior walls are recommended. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 26 - Part 1: Developmental History Page & Turnbull Second Floor Loft Live Load Capacities Based on our preliminary analysis of the live load carrying capacity of the existing loft floors in the three separate loft areas, it is estimated that the loft floors are capable of supporting live loads on the order of approximately 30 to 40 pounds per square foot (PSF), in general, but would be limited to a live load capacity of only approximately 20 PSF, based on the live load carrying capacity of the existing 6x6 support beams, and assuming that these beams are not strengthened up to the 30 to 40 PSF live load capacity of the remainder of the loft framing. This would limit the potential reuse options of the loft spaces. Additional Noted Deficiencies In addition to the deficiencies noted above, the following deficiencies and maintenance issues were noted but not documented in detail: ■Portions of the existing roof rafter tails that are exposed to weather have dry rot damage and will need to be repaired or replaced. ■No interior or edge blocking was noted to exist between roof and floor framing members at all supports including over interior and exterior wall top plates, at the intersections of the high and low roof areas, at the roof eaves, and over any interior and exterior support beams at the loft floor areas. ■Lack of appropriate wood-earth separation at most interior and exterior vertical siding and other wood vertical load carrying members (posts and wall studs) at grade level has caused dry rot damage to some areas of the exterior and interior vertical siding and horizontal blocking/sill plates near grade as well as other vertical load carrying members (post and wall studs) at the areas of wood-earth contact. This includes the areas of existing floor joists and wood decking that appear to be supported directly on grade at various interior floor locations at the ground floor that were not accessible for a more detailed review of their condition at the time of our site visit. ■Damage (appears to be primarily insect damage) and deterioration to some existing 1x roof skip sheathing boards at both the high and low roof areas. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 27 - Part 2: Treatment & Work Recommendations Page & Turnbull PART II. TREATMENT AND WORK RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS The treatment guidelines which follow offer a multi-faceted approach to the material repair of the character-defining features at the White Barn, complete with multiple alternatives. The Historic Preservation Objectives define the directive or goals of the treatments suggested. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties provide the guidelines for these treatments. The treatments themselves then follow and include alternates for different potential objectives. HISTORIC PRESERVATION OBJECTIVES Historic Preservation Objectives help define the end goals of a repair project for the White Barn structure. After conversations with the Midpeninsula Open Space District and Deer Hollow Farm staff, it is Page & Turnbull’s understanding that the White Barn is intended to retain its current uses and functions after any repair work. The goals are to first stabilize the structure (identified as “Required Stabilization Measure”) and any additional preservation- indicated solutions are considered “add-ons” or alternatives to the stabilization work (identified as “Recommended Preservation Measure”). The objectives outlined below are understood as priorities for the barn: 1. Mitigate hazardous and structurally unsound conditions. 2. Maintain the barn as a private use structure, with existing public access into ground floor to remain. 3. Stabilize materials for continued service SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are the benchmark by which Federal agencies and many local government bodies evaluate rehabilitative work on historic properties. The Standards are a useful analytic tool for understanding and describing the potential impacts of substantial changes to historic resources. Compliance with the Standards does not determine whether a project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource. Rather, projects that comply with the Standards benefit from a regulatory presumption that they would have a less-than- significant adverse impact on an historic resource. 1 The Standards provide guidelines for four treatments of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction: Preservation: Requires retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric, along with the building’s historic form, features, and detailing as they have evolved over time. Rehabilitation: Acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character. Restoration: Allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials 1 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(3). Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 28 - Part 2: Treatment & Work Recommendations Page & Turnbull from the period of significance and removing materials from other periods. Reconstruction: Establish a limited framework for re-creating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes. Guideline Indication Each of these four options has been considered with regard to the existing fabric at the White Barn. Given the defined objectives for the structure, Rehabilitation is the most appropriate guideline. Under Rehabilitation, existing materials are to be preserved as much as is feasible given the necessary upgrades required for structural and life safety needs. It should be noted that the Standards typically emphasize the relative importance of the exterior structure compared to the interior. Certain structural upgrades, for example, are required at the White Barn, which will change the appearance of the barn’s exterior and interior. In situations like this, the priority is to make the exterior appear as preserved as possible. The intention is to keep the improvements “under the hood” so to speak, and to maintain the character of the barn as much as possible. Standards for Rehabilitation The following ten standards should be used to guide any project: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 29 - Part 2: Treatment & Work Recommendations Page & Turnbull the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. REQUIREMENTS FOR WORK BUILDING CODES & JURISDICTION Any work should be evaluated with respect to conformance with applicable state and municipal codes and standards required by law. All work to the building must comply with the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) and Title 24 Part 8 of the California Code of Regulations. As a qualified historic building, the White Barn is eligible to take advantage of the 2016 California Historical Building Code (CHBC) with regard to code compliance. The CHBC is intended to be used by any agency with jurisdiction when reviewing code compliance for a qualified historic building in order to insure its preservation. As stated in the CHBC Section 8-101.2: The CHBC is intended to provide solutions for the preservation of qualified historical buildings or properties, to promote sustainability, to provide access for persons with disabilities, to provide a cost-effective approach to preservation, and to provide for reasonable safety of the occupants or users. The CHBC requires enforcing agencies to accept solutions that are reasonably equivalent to the regular code (as defined in Chapter 8-2) when dealing with qualified historical buildings or properties. The permitting authority for any proposed alterations would be the City of Mountain View, CA. ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES The National Park Service, which is directed by the Secretary of the Interior, has created a number of useful documents to assist with application of the Standards to historic preservation work. Preservation Briefs and Technical Notes are two of these types of useful tools. Applicable documents to the White Barn include: Preservation Brief 20: The Preservation of Historic Barns Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes Protecting Woodwork Against Decay Using Borate Preservatives. Ron Sheetz and Charles Fisher. 1993. WORK RECOMMENDATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES This section of the HSR presents a plan that includes a list of tasks and solutions for the repair of the historic features that remain at the White Barn at Deer Hollow Farm.2 Recommendations are categorized by scope, location and/or material. Required Stabilization Measures are listed separately from Recommended Preservation Measures for clarity. Regarding the brick piers (comprising the “foundation” of the barn), one design alternative has been presented which may be utilized as an alternative to the Required Stabilization Measure in that case. These treatments are not meant as a substitute for historic preservation-related specifications during construction or for maintenance strategies after the project is completed. Refer to the Conditions Assessment and Physical Description in Part 1 for more details about the material features identified, including which features are character-defining. 2 Structural Recommendations are given in line within this section, but are also available as a standalone report in the Appendix. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 30 - Part 2: Treatment & Work Recommendations Page & Turnbull ACCESSIBILITY & EGRESS Guideline: Life & Fire Safety egress must be considered in continued use. Accessibility pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act should likewise be evaluated in accordance with the continued use goals of the barn. Required Stabilization Measure: - Make accessible the interior ground floor spaces: lower the threshold at the main entry door. Ensure that the path of travel into milking area and other public areas is ADA accessible. - Modify the existing wood stair so that it complies with the requirements of a ladder per Section 304.3 of the California Mechanical Code. While we have not measured the distance between elements, we believe that the treads are within the requirements of Section 304.3 and that the only modifications required are to provide side railings that extend above the platform level. In addition, we recommend that a chain with a sign that indicates “NOT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS” remains at the bottom of the stair/ladder and that a guardrail is provide at the sides of the platform opening. - Provide more obvious and numerous signage for areas of hazards, including stair ladder access, floor openings, and overhead dangers in the hay loft. - Evaluate the code requirements for sprinklering or egress exits for the barn use. GENERAL SITE & ACTIVE HAZARDS Guideline: Dangerous locations should be mitigated as soon as possible; those that are not should exhibit caution signage to alert all users. The site surrounding the White Barn should actively drain away from the structure to prevent unnecessary deterioration to the wood construction. Gutters and downspouts assist in diverting water away from the building. Required Stabilization Measure: - Clean and repair existing gutters along the south façade and extend the north façade gutter and drainpipe. à Recommended Preservation Measure: Install gutters and drainpipes in new areas to direct water away from the building and livestock yards. New installations, if no evidence remains of a previous gutter in that location, should differ from the historic. -Provide overall site and foundation drainage to keep site water away from the existing or new foundations and to prevent infiltration and accumulation of surface water near the foundations. - Provide more obvious and numerous signage for areas of hazards, including stair ladder access, floor openings, and overhead dangers in the hay loft. - Verify electrical components are protected from weather and pests. Replace as necessary to mitigate fire hazards. INSECT & RODENT INFILTRATION Guideline: Boring insects damage wood by eating the cellulose fibers, leaving behind open space or brittle fibers. Insects should be killed and their reintroduction prevented after repair or replacement of the damaged wood. A borate solution impregnated in the wood is common and a typical tactic in historic structures; regular treatments for termites or post beetles is also acceptable provided the treatment does not itself damage historic wood material. Locations where wood Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 31 - Part 2: Treatment & Work Recommendations Page & Turnbull meets earth should be mitigated as these are typical points of intrusion. Rodents likewise have found a home within the barn, and certain preventative measures have already been taken by barn staff to eradicate them. Use of a cat is a preferred method among preservationists. Any access points in the storage areas can be further barred using removable materials to block entry. Required Stabilization Measure: - Fumigate the barn so as to kill all insect infiltrations within the wood members of the structure. Retain an insect removal professional to confirm the extent of the infestation throughout the building. Use a method which does not impregnate the historic wood with residual chemicals nor affect the livestock or hay stores (borate- based solutions are acceptable and typical as a long-term deterrent). - Remove rat droppings or any other pest feces. Sanitize and repair areas following required governmental regulations and best practices for historic buildings. BRICK Guideline: For the White Barn, the use of the brick piers as the foundation footings is not a structurally safe condition, though they are character-defining features. Brick piers should be replaced by alternative structural footings in accordance with the structural engineer’s recommendation. Required Stabilization Measure: - Provide new reinforced concrete stem walls and foundations under all of the exterior walls (and any interior walls, where applicable) (See Figure 4, following) as well as new reinforced concrete pad footings under all interior support posts (See Figure 5, following), except where previously improved at the perimeter of Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 32 - Part 2: Treatment & Work Recommendations Page & Turnbull the existing Milk Room. All new foundations should comply with the minimum requirements of the 2016 California Building Code. o Recommended Preservation Measure: Provide new reinforced concrete stem walls and foundations under all of the exterior walls (and any interior walls, where applicable) (See Figure 4 above), except where previously improved at the perimeter of the existing Milk Room. Step the new stem wall appropriately at the edge footings to accommodate a brick veneer using the historic bricks. Replace brick footings in the interior of the barn with a custom galvanized steel post base bracket and attach as shown in the sketch below (Figure 6). Historic brick footing pedestals should be reconstructed around the post base bracket, as the brick pedestals and footings are a character-defining feature of the structure. All new foundations should comply with the minimum requirements of the 2016 California Building Code. -Design Alternative to Required Stabilization Measure above: Install concrete slab under entire structure (except where existing) with footings and concrete stem wall as described above. Slab to be sloped to the exterior door openings to eliminate the need for interior floor drains. o Recommended Preservation Measure (for Design Alternative): Historic bricks may be used as veneer over concrete at historic footing locations along exterior and at interior, or with galvanized steel post base bracket as designed in sketch. FIGURE 6 - GALVANIZED BRACE WITH BRICK VENEER Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 33 - Part 2: Treatment & Work Recommendations Page & Turnbull WOOD Guideline: Heavily deteriorated wood that is not reusable within the scope of the anticipated projects should be replaced with wood that matches in species as the original wood, especially at locations of Dutchman repairs. Boards should match in size, finish texture, and color, emulating the circular saw marks as appropriate. Wood filler may be used where only minimal degradation is present. Unused anchors or previous attachment points should be removed and holes filled. Any new hardware to be used (nails or door hardware) should match historic if it is used on a historic item; any new installations (e.g. floorboards over previously open areas) should be differentiated. Required Stabilization Measure: AT GRADE - Provide proper, code required, wood-earth separation between the bases of the existing interior and exterior vertical wood support posts and the existing or new interior and exterior wall wooden sill plates and vertical siding and the adjacent soil grades (See Figures 4 and 5). LOW ROOF EDGE CONDITION LOFT INTERIOR CONDITION (EXTERIOR, SIMILAR) Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 34 - Part 2: Treatment & Work Recommendations Page & Turnbull STRUCTURE - Strengthen existing roof framing at the innermost higher roof area by sistering (doubling up) new 2x6 rafters to the existing 2x6 @ 30” o.c. roof rafters at all roof rafters and by improving the connections of all existing and new roof rafters to their supports. Also, provide a new 6x8 ridge beam to span between 2 new interior and 2 new exterior 6x6 vertical posts which align with the similar posts below, under the interior loft area floor (See Figure 1). o Recommended Preservation Measure: Strengthen existing roof framing at the innermost higher roof area by sistering (doubling up) new 2x6 rafters to the existing 2x6 @ 30” o.c. roof rafters at all roof rafters and by improving the connections of all existing and new roof rafters to their supports. Add crossing trusses on every third roof rafter, which eliminates the need for the new vertical posts. - Improve roof diaphragm capacity with the addition of new 19/32-inch plywood sheathing throughout over the existing 1x skip sheathing at both the high and low roof areas. This will require temporary removal and reinstallation of the existing metal roofing as well as any damaged 1x roof skip sheathing over the entire roof. Improve roof diaphragm connections to the existing interior and exterior walls, including at the intersection of the high–to-low roof offset/stepped areas in the interior, by the addition of new plywood edge nailing to new 2x blocking over the walls and between all upper and lower roof rafters at the high-to-low roof offset/step and new Simpson galvanized steel framing clips or nailing to attach the blocking to the existing interior and exterior wall top plates or support beams and ledgers (See Figures 1, 2 and 3). o Recommended Preservation Measure: Install new plywood sheathing as noted. Retain reusable skip sheathing and corrugated roofing and reinstall. - Provide additional Simpson galvanized steel framing clips or nailing to improve the connection of the existing loft floor sheathing diaphragms to new 2x blocking over interior and exterior walls and interior support beams (See Figure 3) and additional connections consisting of bolting of the new exterior wall foundation sill plates to the new foundations (see below) using 5/8” dia. x 7” embed galvanized threaded rod bolts at 48 inches on center (32 inches on center at new plywood shear walls) for the full length of the new exterior wall sill plates (See Figure 4). - Although not currently specifically triggered or required by code due to any proposed change of use or occupancy, based on our preliminary analysis, the existing exterior vertical wood siding walls would not have adequate capacity to resist the code required wind or seismic loads, even if strengthened by providing new 2x4 vertical wood studs and new 3x4 horizontal blocking throughout and renailing the vertical siding to the new vertical wood studs and horizontal blocking. Therefore, new 2x4 or 2x6 stud at 16”o.c. and 15/32” plywood shear walls (4 total, one per exterior wall at approximately 10’-0” long each) or wood braced frames (4 total), are recommended to improve overall building seismic and wind performance (See Figure 4). SIDING & INTERIOR WOODWORK, DOORS - Reattach siding to structurally improved frame. Reuse nails where possible, solidly anchoring all boards in original locations. Where replacements are required, replace boards to match wood type, texture, color, and size. - Re-secure shakes over awning at screened opening on the north façade. Remove moss growth. - Replace or Dutchman repair deteriorated edges of boards near grade, where they remain exposed at new foundation walls. - Prep, prime, and paint the wood exterior to improve weatherproofing and protection. Paint color and type should be determined by a paint color analysis, and selected in accordance with the project’s preservation goals. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 35 - Part 2: Treatment & Work Recommendations Page & Turnbull - Re-secure hay loft floor where loose. - Remove doors over hay loft floor openings and replace with wood boards (boards should differentiate from the rest of the floor in some manner). - Re-secure floor in south storage area (at former horse stalls); reuse historic nails. - Install wire mesh under floor to prevent animal intrusion through gaps in flooring (but maintain historic gaps in flooring). (Applicable only if the wood floor is selected to remain in lieu of a concrete slab) - Re-secure sliding barn doors where needed (replace missing bolts with cast bolts to match). - Clean, prep, and paint all existing door hardware to prevent any further corrosion. Tighten all anchors and add reinforcing blocking where necessary. ROOF RAFTERS - Replace missing rafter tails and repair those exhibiting deterioration; sistered ends should not extend visually beyond the top plate of the exterior wall. - Install bird netting or other mesh materials to prevent bird access and nesting in the barn rafters. SHEET METAL Guideline: The corrugated, galvanized sheet metal roof serves as the water barrier for the roof. It can develop steel rust, pinpoint holes, or “white rust.” It requires periodic inspection to evaluate for areas of corrosion, damage, or deterioration requiring replacement. The existing roof is likely not original, though the original would be been similar in form and material. Required Stabilization Measure: - Remove any existing white rust. Insert gapping material where the sheets overlap to prevent water dwelling at these points of contact causing the white rust. EXPECTED MAINTENANCE A thorough maintenance plan should be created after repair projects to safeguard the barn’s materials. These recommendations should not substitute for a complete maintenance plan. However, part of the regular upkeep of the barn should at least include the following tasks for the long-term. Regular evaluation and mitigation can further protect the barn even in its current state, but certainly after any repair work is undertaken: - Routinely inspect for signs of damage or water infiltration in the roof, especially after heavy storms or wind events. - Regularly inspect for insect infestations. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 36 - References Page & Turnbull REFERENCES PUBLISHED WORKS Archives & Architecture, LLC. County of Santa Clara Historic Context Statement. County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development, Planning Office. December 2004, revised February 2012. California Department of Transportation. A Historical Context and Archaeological Research Design for Agricultural Properties in California. Division of Environmental Analysis. California Department of Transportation. Sacramento, CA, 2007. California Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistance Series #7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources. Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, 4 September 2001. California State Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historic Resources Inventory Directory. November 2004. UNPUBLISHED WORKS Adams, Lois. “Grant History.” (1972), 3-4. Bivens, Karin. “Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve.” n.d. “Interviews with Louis Grant and Virginia Grant Murphy, Deer Hollow Farm.” May 1995. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES Lewis, Joan. “Mid 20th Century at the Farm: The Perham Family.” FriendsNews. Winter 2017. “Theo. Grant will be buried today.” San Jose Mercury Herald. May 3, 1924. PUBLIC RECORDS Building Permit Application. Permit Number 2017-61773. Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development. California, Pioneer and Immigrant Files, 1790-1950. Ancestry.com. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and City of Mountain View Lease Agreement. July 2015. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District files. Santa Clara County’s Office of the Assessor. United States Federal Census. 1870-1940. Ancestry.com MAPS David Rumsey Map Collection. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 37 - References Page & Turnbull Google Maps. Historic Aerials by NETR Online. Library of Congress. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 38 - References Page & Turnbull This page has been left blank intentionally. Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 39 - Appendix Page & Turnbull APPENDIX Structural Report, DCI Engineers Cost Estimate, JR Conkey & Associates DEER HOLLOW FARM WHITE BARN STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL REPORT White Barn Structural Code Considerations A preliminary seismic and wind analysis of the White Barn building structure was completed based on known structural information. This analysis was based on the lateral load regulations of Section 8-706 of the 2016 California Historical Building Code including Tables 8-8-A and 8-8-B, allowable capacities for existing materials. The seismic and wind lateral force level for evaluation of historic buildings required by this code section is equivalent to approximately 75% of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) seismic and wind force levels for new buildings, including consideration of near site effects, i.e., increased seismic loads for sites located in close proximity to known active faults. Even if a full seismic or wind upgrade would not otherwise be triggered or required, our preliminary analysis indicated that there are several structural deficiencies that would be prudent to address if the building is proposed to continue to be occupied in the future. A preliminary gravity load analysis of the existing roof structure(s) was completed using the 2016 CBC design roof live loads. In addition, the existing second (loft) level framing was analyzed in order to determine its existing live load carrying capacity to assist in guiding future reuse options for the loft areas. White Barn Structural Conditions Assessment The structural deficiencies noted, based on our initial site visit of November 9, 2017 and our subsequent preliminary structural analyses as outline above, are summarized below. The preliminary proposed strengthening to address these deficiencies is covered in the Structural Recommendations section. Roof and Floor Diaphragm Capacities The existing 1x roof skip sheathing does not have adequate capacity to transfer the code required wind or seismic forces to the interior and exterior (shear) walls or to brace the walls out-of-plane. In addition, the connections of the roof and floor diaphragms to the interior and exterior (shear) walls as well as to gravity support members are deficient. Existing Shear Wall Capacities A detailed survey of the existing interior and exterior wall sheathing/vertical siding and nailing was not possible during this phase. However, based on our preliminary analysis, the existing interior and exterior wood sheathing/vertical siding, in general, does not have adequate capacity to resist the code required wind or seismic forces, which will result in moderate to significant damage to the building in a moderate to severe earthquake in close proximity to the site. Also, the walls are not connected (bolted) to foundations to transfer the code required wind or seismic forces to the foundations/grade. Existing Foundations Based on our site observations, the assumed existing site soil conditions, and our experience with similar foundation systems, the existing interior and exterior isolated brick pier foundations, which exist primarily only under the existing interior and exterior vertical posts, appear to have performed marginally well over the life of the building. However, the brick piers do not have adequate capacity to resist their tributary dead and code required live along with the code required lateral (wind or seismic) loads without replacement or additional strengthening. The existing interior and exterior brick pier post foundations will require replacement. In addition, new reinforced concrete stem walls and foundations under all exterior walls are recommended. Second Floor Loft Live Load Capacities Based on our preliminary analysis of the live load carrying capacity of the existing loft floors in the three separate loft areas, it is estimated that the loft floors are capable of supporting live loads on the order of approximately 30 to 40 PSF, in general, but would be limited to a live load capacity of only approximately 20 PSF, based on the live load carrying capacity of the existing 6x6 support beams, and assuming that these beams are not strengthened up to the 30 to 40 PSF live load capacity of the remainder of the loft framing. This would limit the potential reuse options of the loft spaces. Additional Noted Deficiencies In addition to the deficiencies noted above, the following deficiencies/maintenance issues were noted but not documented in detail:  Portions of the existing roof rafter tails that are exposed to weather have dryrot damage and will need to be repaired or replaced.  No interior or edge blocking was noted to exist between roof and floor framing members at all supports including over interior and exterior wall top plates, at the intersections of the high and low roof areas, at the roof eaves, and over any interior and exterior support beams at the loft floor areas.  Lack of appropriate wood-earth separation at most interior and exterior vertical siding and other wood vertical load carrying members (posts and wall studs) at grade level has caused dryrot damage to some areas of the exterior and interior vertical siding and horizontal blocking/sill plates near grade as well as other vertical load carrying members (post and wall studs) at the areas of wood-earth contact. This includes the areas of existing floor joists and wood decking that appear to be supported directly on grade at various interior floor locations at the ground floor that were not accessible for a more detailed review of their condition at the time of our site visit.  Damage (appears to be primarily bug damage) and deterioration to some existing 1x roof skip sheathing boards at both the high and low roof areas. White Barn Structural Recommendations General Protect Foundations:  Provide proper grading to direct site water, including roof runoff, away from existing or new foundations.  Provide overall site and foundation drainage to keep site water away from the existing or new foundations and to prevent infiltration and accumulation of surface water near the foundations.  Provide proper, code required, wood-earth separation between the bases of the existing interior and exterior vertical support posts and the existing or new interior and exterior wall sill plates and vertical siding and the adjacent soil grades (See Figures 4 and 5). Structure Roof Framing Strengthening  Strengthen existing roof framing at the innermost higher roof area by sistering (doubling up) new 2x6 rafters to the existing 2x6 @ 30” o.c. roof rafters at all roof rafters and by improving the connections of all existing and new roof rafters to their supports. Also, provide a new 6x8 ridge beam to span between 2 new interior and 2 new exterior 6x6 vertical posts which align with the similar posts below, under the interior loft area floor (See Figure 1). Roof Diaphragm Strengthening:  Improve roof diaphragm capacity by the addition of new 19/32-inch plywood sheathing throughout over the existing 1x skip sheathing at both the high and low roof areas. This will require temporary removal and reinstallation of the existing metal roofing as well as any damaged 1x roof skip sheathing over the entire roof. Improve roof diaphragm connections to the existing interior and exterior walls, including at the intersection of the high–to-low roof offset/stepped areas in the interior, by the addition of new plywood edge nailing to new 2x blocking over the walls and between all upper and lower roof rafters at the high-to-low roof offset/step and new Simpson galvanized steel framing clips or nailing to attach the blocking to the existing interior and exterior wall top plates or support beams and ledgers (See Figures 1, 2 and 3). Improve Loft Floor Diaphragm Connections to Interior and Exterior Walls and Wall to Foundation Connections:  Provide additional Simpson galvanized steel framing clips or nailing to improve the connection of the existing loft floor sheathing diaphragms to new 2x blocking over interior and exterior walls and interior support beams (See Figure 3) and additional connections consisting of bolting of the new exterior wall foundation sill plates to the new foundations (see below) using 5/8” dia. x 7” embed galvanized threaded rod bolts at 48 inches on center (32 inches on center at new plywood shear walls) for the full length of the new exterior wall sill plates (See Figure 4). Improve Existing Shear Wall and Lateral Strength:  Although not currently specifically triggered or required by code due to any proposed change of use or occupancy, as we understand it, based on our preliminary analysis, the existing exterior vertical wood siding walls would not have adequate capacity to resist the code required wind or seismic loads, even if strengthened by providing new 2x4 vertical wood studs and new 3x4 horizontal blocking throughout and renailing the vertical siding to the new vertical wood studs and horizontal blocking. Therefore, new 2x4 or 2x6 stud @ 16”o.c. and 15/32” plywood shear walls (4 total, one per exterior wall at approximately 10’-0” long each) or wood braced frames (4 total), are recommended to improve overall building seismic and wind performance (See Figure 4). Provide New Interior and Exterior Foundations:  Provide new reinforced concrete stem walls and foundations under all of the exterior walls (and any interior walls, where applicable) (See Figure 4) as well as new reinforced concrete pad footings under all interior support posts (See Figure 5), except where previously improved at the perimeter of the existing Milk Room. All new foundations should comply with the minimum requirements of the 2016 California Building Code. DEER HOLLOW FARM WHITE BARN HISTORIC STRUCTURE PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS & PRICING FOR PAGE & TURNBULL BY J.R. CONKEY & ASSOCIATES FEBRUARY 28, 2018 Minimum Stabilization Measure Recommended Preservation Measure - in lieu of minimum stabilization Recommended Preservation Measure - add-on task Approximate Repair Amount Quantity Unit Unit Price Subtotal *Mark-up (see below) for breakout Minimum Stabilization Measure TOTAL Recommended Preservation Measures ONLY - in lieu of minimum stabilization Minimum Stabilization + alternative Recommended Measures TOTAL Recommended Preservation Measure - add-on task ACCESSIBLITY & EGRESS Make accessible the interior ground floor spaces: lower the threshold at the main entry door. Ensure that the path of travel into milking area and other public areas is ADA accessible. x 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500 $2,763 $6,263 $6,263 Modify the existing wood stair so that it complies with the requirements of a ladder per Section 304.3 of the California Mechanical Code. While we have not measured the distance between elements, we believe that the treads are within the requirements of Section 304.3 and that the only modifications required are to provide side railings that extend above the platform level. In addition, we recommend that a chain with a sign that indicates “NOT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS” remains at the bottom of the stair/ladder and that a guardrail is provide at the sides of the platform opening. X 1 LS $8,500.00 $8,500 $6,709 $15,209 $15,209 Evaluate the code requirements for sprinklering or egress exits for the barn use. X 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 $3,947 $8,947 $8,947 GENERAL Clean and repair existing gutters along the south façade and extend the north façade gutter and drainpipe.X 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200 $947 $2,147 $2,147 Install gutters and drainpipes to direct water away from the building and livestock yards.X 2 locations 110 LF $18.00 $1,980 $1,563 $3,543 Provide overall site and foundation drainage to keep site water away from the existing or new foundations and to prevent infiltration and accumulation of surface water near the foundations. X 3,000 SF $5.00 $15,000 $11,840 $26,840 $26,840 Provide more obvious and numerous signage for areas of hazards, including stair ladder access, floor openings, and overhead dangers in the hay loft.X 1 LS $850.00 $850 $671 $1,521 $1,521 Verify electrical components are protected from weather and pests. Replace as necessary to mitigate fire hazards.X 3,500 SF $2.00 $7,000 $5,525 $12,525 $12,525 INSECT & RODENT INFILTRATION Fumigate the barn so as to kill all insect infiltrations within the wood members of the structure. Retain an insect removal professional to confirm the extent of the infestation throughout the building. Use a method which does not impregnate the historic wood with residual chemicals nor affect the livestock or hay stores (borate-based solutions are acceptable and typical as a long-term deterrent). X 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 $3,947 $8,947 $8,947 Remove rat droppings or any other pest feces. Sanitize and repair areas following required governmental regulations and best practices for historic buildings.X 3,500 SF $1.00 $3,500 $2,763 $6,263 $6,263 FOUNDATIONS Provide new reinforced concrete stem walls and foundations under all of the exterior walls (and any interior walls, where applicable) (See Figure 4, following) as well as new reinforced concrete pad footings under all interior support posts (See Figure 5, following), except where previously improved at the perimeter of the existing Milk Room. All new foundations should comply with the minimum requirements of the 2016 California Building Code. X 28 CY $950.00 $26,169 $20,656 $46,825 Page 1 of 5 DEER HOLLOW FARM WHITE BARN HISTORIC STRUCTURE PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS & PRICING FOR PAGE & TURNBULL BY J.R. CONKEY & ASSOCIATES FEBRUARY 28, 2018 Minimum Stabilization Measure Recommended Preservation Measure - in lieu of minimum stabilization Recommended Preservation Measure - add-on task Approximate Repair Amount Quantity Unit Unit Price Subtotal *Mark-up (see below) for breakout Minimum Stabilization Measure TOTAL Recommended Preservation Measures ONLY - in lieu of minimum stabilization Minimum Stabilization + alternative Recommended Measures TOTAL Recommended Preservation Measure - add-on task Provide new reinforced concrete stem walls and foundations under all of the exterior walls (and any interior walls, where applicable) (See Figure 4 above), except where previously improved at the perimeter of the existing Milk Room. Step the new stem wall appropriately at the edge footings to accommodate a brick veneer using the historic bricks. Replace brick footings in the interior of the barn with a custom galvanized steel post base bracket and attach as shown in the sketch below (Figure 6). Historic brick footing pedestals should be reconstructed around the post base bracket, as the brick pedestals and footings are a character-defining feature of the structure. All new foundations should comply with the minimum requirements of the 2016 California Building Code. X 28 CY $1,300.00 $35,810 $28,267 $64,077 $64,077 Design Alternative to Required Stabilization Measure above: Install concrete slab under entire structure (except where existing) with footings and concrete stem wall as described above. Slab to be sloped to the exterior door openings to eliminate the need for interior floor drains. X ~1600 SF 1,600 SF $15.00 $24,000 $18,944 $42,944 Recommended Preservation Measure (for Design Alternative): Historic bricks may be used as veneer over concrete at historic footing locations along exterior and at interior, or with galvanized steel post base bracket as designed in sketch. X 1,600 SF $10.00 $16,000 $12,629 $28,629 STRUCTURE Provide proper, code required, wood-earth separation between the bases of the existing interior and exterior vertical wood support posts and the existing or new interior and exterior wall wooden sill plates and vertical siding and the adjacent soil grades (See Figures 4 and 5).X 1,600 SF $5.00 $8,000 $6,315 $14,315 $14,315 Strengthen existing roof framing at the innermost higher roof area by sistering (doubling up) new 2x6 rafters to the existing 2x6 @ 30” o.c. roof rafters at all roof rafters and by improving the connections of all existing and new roof rafters to their supports. Also, provide a new 6x8 ridge beam to span between 2 new interior and 2 new exterior 6x6 vertical posts which align with the similar posts below, under the interior loft area floor (See Figure 1). X 1,600 SF $15.00 $24,000 $18,944 $42,944 Strengthen existing roof framing at the innermost higher roof area by sistering (doubling up) new 2x6 rafters to the existing 2x6 @ 30” o.c. roof rafters at all roof rafters and by improving the connections of all existing and new roof rafters to their supports. Add crossing trusses on every third roof rafter, which eliminates the need for the new vertical posts. X 1,600 SF $16.00 $25,600 $20,207 $45,807 $45,807 Page 2 of 5 DEER HOLLOW FARM WHITE BARN HISTORIC STRUCTURE PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS & PRICING FOR PAGE & TURNBULL BY J.R. CONKEY & ASSOCIATES FEBRUARY 28, 2018 Minimum Stabilization Measure Recommended Preservation Measure - in lieu of minimum stabilization Recommended Preservation Measure - add-on task Approximate Repair Amount Quantity Unit Unit Price Subtotal *Mark-up (see below) for breakout Minimum Stabilization Measure TOTAL Recommended Preservation Measures ONLY - in lieu of minimum stabilization Minimum Stabilization + alternative Recommended Measures TOTAL Recommended Preservation Measure - add-on task Improve roof diaphragm capacity with the addition of new 19/32- inch plywood sheathing throughout over the existing 1x skip sheathing at both the high and low roof areas. This will require temporary removal and reinstallation of the existing metal roofing as well as any damaged 1x roof skip sheathing over the entire roof. Improve roof diaphragm connections to the existing interior and exterior walls, including at the intersection of the high–to-low roof offset/stepped areas in the interior, by the addition of new plywood edge nailing to new 2x blocking over the walls and between all upper and lower roof rafters at the high-to-low roof offset/step and new Simpson galvanized steel framing clips or nailing to attach the blocking to the existing interior and exterior wall top plates or support beams and ledgers (See Figures 1, 2 and 3). X 1,600 SF $15.00 $24,000 $18,944 $42,944 ALTERNATE: Install new plywood sheathing as noted. Retain reusable skip sheathing and corrugated roofing and reinstall. X 90% corrugated sheet metal and 60% of skip sheathing is reusable.1,600 SF $10.30 $16,480 $13,008 $29,488 $29,488 Provide additional Simpson galvanized steel framing clips or nailing to improve the connection of the existing loft floor sheathing diaphragms to new 2x blocking over interior and exterior walls and interior support beams (See Figure 3) and additional connections consisting of bolting of the new exterior wall foundation sill plates to the new foundations (see below) using 5/8” dia. x 7” embed galvanized threaded rod bolts at 48 inches on center (32 inches on center at new plywood shear walls) for the full length of the new exterior wall sill plates (See Figure 4). X 1,600 SF $5.00 $8,000 $6,315 $14,315 $14,315 Although not currently specifically triggered or required by code due to any proposed change of use or occupancy, based on our preliminary analysis, the existing exterior vertical wood siding walls would not have adequate capacity to resist the code required wind or seismic loads, even if strengthened by providing new 2x4 vertical wood studs and new 3x4 horizontal blocking throughout and renailing the vertical siding to the new vertical wood studs and horizontal blocking. Therefore, new 2x4 or 2x6 stud at 16”o.c. and 15/32” plywood shear walls (4 total, one per exterior wall at approximately 10’-0” long each) or wood braced frames (4 total), are recommended to improve overall building seismic and wind performance (See Figure 4). X 1,600 SF $10.00 $16,000 $12,629 $28,629 $28,629 WOOD SIDING & EXTERIOR DOORS Reattach siding to structurally improved frame. Reuse nails where possible, solidly anchoring all boards in original locations. Where replacements are required, replace boards to match wood type, texture, color, and size.X 3,500 SF $5.00 $17,500 $13,813 $31,313 $31,313 Re-secure shakes over awning at screened opening on the north façade. Remove moss growth. X 1 LS $500.00 $500 $395 $895 $895 Replace or Dutchman repair deteriorated edges of boards near grade.X 40 FT 40 LF $40.00 $1,600 $1,263 $2,863 $2,863 Page 3 of 5 DEER HOLLOW FARM WHITE BARN HISTORIC STRUCTURE PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS & PRICING FOR PAGE & TURNBULL BY J.R. CONKEY & ASSOCIATES FEBRUARY 28, 2018 Minimum Stabilization Measure Recommended Preservation Measure - in lieu of minimum stabilization Recommended Preservation Measure - add-on task Approximate Repair Amount Quantity Unit Unit Price Subtotal *Mark-up (see below) for breakout Minimum Stabilization Measure TOTAL Recommended Preservation Measures ONLY - in lieu of minimum stabilization Minimum Stabilization + alternative Recommended Measures TOTAL Recommended Preservation Measure - add-on task Prep, prime, and paint the wood exterior to improve weatherproofing and protection.X 3,500 SF $3.00 $10,500 $8,288 $18,788 $18,788 Anchor hay loft floor where loose.X 1,600 SF $1.00 $1,600 $1,263 $2,863 $2,863 Remove doors over hay loft floor openings and replace with wood boards (board should differentiate from the rest of the floor in some manner).X 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500 $1,973 $4,473 $4,473 Re-secure floor in south storage area (at former horse stalls); reuse historic nails.X 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000 $789 $1,789 $1,789 Install wire mesh under floor to prevent animal intrusion through gaps in flooring (but maintain historic gaps in flooring). (Applicable only if the wood floor is selected to remain in lieu of a concrete slab)X 1,600 SF $3.50 $5,600 $4,420 $10,020 $10,020 Re-secure sliding barn doors where needed (replace missing bolts with cast bolts to match).X 5 bolts 5 EA $50.00 $250 $197 $447 $447 Clean, prep, and paint all existing hardware to prevent any further corrosion. Tighten all anchors and add reinforcing blocking where necessary.X 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500 $1,973 $4,473 $4,473 ROOF Replace missing rafter tails and repair those exhibiting deterioration; sistered ends should not extend visually beyond the top plate of the exterior wall.X 10 TAILS 10 EA $150.00 $1,500 $1,184 $2,684 $2,684 Install bird netting or other mesh materials to prevent bird access and nesting in the barn rafters.X 1 ALLOW $3,500.00 $3,500 $2,763 $6,263 $6,263 Remove any existing white rust. Insert gapping material where the sheets overlap to prevent water dwelling at these points of contact causing the white rust. X 1 ALLOW $2,900.00 $2,900 $2,289 $5,189 $5,189 TOTAL $340,277 $210,946 $346,936 $3,543 Page 4 of 5 DEER HOLLOW FARM WHITE BARN HISTORIC STRUCTURE PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS & PRICING FOR PAGE & TURNBULL BY J.R. CONKEY & ASSOCIATES FEBRUARY 28, 2018 Minimum Stabilization Measure Recommended Preservation Measure - in lieu of minimum stabilization Recommended Preservation Measure - add-on task Approximate Repair Amount Quantity Unit Unit Price Subtotal *Mark-up (see below) for breakout Minimum Stabilization Measure TOTAL Recommended Preservation Measures ONLY - in lieu of minimum stabilization Minimum Stabilization + alternative Recommended Measures TOTAL Recommended Preservation Measure - add-on task NOTES:Per $100 of Subcontractor Cost =>$100.00 Design Contingency 15%$15.00 Subtotal $115.00 General Conditions 20%$23.00 Profit 15%$20.70 QUALFICATIONS:Insurance. & Bonds 3%$3.97 1.) ESTIMATE ASSUMES DESIGN/BID/BUILD DELIVERY METHOD Subtotal $162.67 2.) PRICING WITHIN THE ESTIMATE EXPECTS A MINUMUM OF 5 RESPONSIVE GENREAL CONTRACTOR BIDS. Escalation (5% Annual)10%$16.27 3.) THE VARIANCE OF BIDS RECEIVED CAN AFFECT THE BID RESULTS, EXPECTATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: Total Multiplied Mark-ups $178.93 1 bid +15% to +40% 2-3 bids +8% to +12%*Mark-up = >78.93% 4-5 bids -4% to +4% 6-7 bids -7% to -5% 8 or more bids -12% to -8% J.R. Conkey & Associates has been providing estimating services to public and private clients for more than 38 years. These estimating services include program, conceptual and full architectural cost planning. Historical and unique structures are a specialty we enjoy working with our architectural partners on as for many years we have provided estimating services on hundreds of these projects. Page 5 of 5 Historic Structure Report - White Barn, Deer Hollow Farm March 2018 40 - Appendix Page & Turnbull This page has been left blank intentionally. 417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 415.362.5154 / 415.362.5560 fax 2401 C Street, Suite B Sacramento, California 95816 916.930.9903 / 916.930.9904 fax 417 S. Hill Street, Suite 211 Los Angeles, California 90013 213.221.1200 / 213.221.1209 fax ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & RESEARCH BUILDING TECHNOLOGY www.page-turnbull.com