National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fort Baker, Barry and Cronkhite Historic District

Marin County, California

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker

Golden Gate National Recreation Area

Fort Baker, Barry and Cronkhite Historic District

Marin County, California

July 2005

Cultural Landscape Report 

for 

Fort Baker

Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Ric Borjes and Randy Biallas for getting this project underway.

Project Team

Pacific West Region Office - Seattle

Cathy Gilbert

Michael Hankinson

Amy Hoke

Erica Owens

Golden Gate National Recreation Area

Barbara Judy

Jessica Shors

Pacific West Region Office - Oakland

Kimball Koch

Len Warner

Acknowledgements

The following individuals contributed to this CLR:

Golden Gate National Recreation Area

Mai-Liis Bartling

Stephen Haller

Daphne Hatch

Nancy Horner

Steve Kasierski

Diane Nicholson

Nick Weeks

Melanie Wollenweber

Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy

Erin Heimbinder

John Skibbe

Betty Young

Golden Gate National Recreation Area

Leo Barker

Hans Barnaal

Kristin Baron

Alex Naar

Marin Conservation Corp 

Francis Taroc

PacificWest Region Office - Oakland

Shaun Provencher

Nelson Siefkin

Robin Wills

Presidio Trust

Peter Ehrlich

Ben Jones

Michael Lamb


 i

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

List of Figures .................................................................................................................................iii

Introduction

Management Summary .................................................................................................................. 1

Purpose of the Cultural Landscape Report ................................................................................. 1

Scope of Work and Methodology .................................................................................................2

Study Boundaries ............................................................................................................................2

Significance Statement ....................................................................................................................3

Period of Significance for Fort Baker Cultural Landscape ........................................................4

PART 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS, SITE HISTORY, ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

Site History

Pre-Contact Era: ca. 3500 BC-1775 ...............................................................................................6

The Spanish Frontier: 1776-1821 ....................................................................................................6

Rancho Sausalito: 1836-1850 ..........................................................................................................7

Establishment of Lime Point Military Reservation: 1850-1896 .................................................7

Endicott Era and Fort Maturity: 1897-1916 .................................................................................11 

The War Years: 1917-1949 ............................................................................................................. 21

Cold War to Present: 1950-2002 .................................................................................................24

Cultural Landscape Chronology .............................................................................................28

Existing Conditions 

Physical Setting ............................................................................................................................. 40

Access and Circulation ................................................................................................................ 40

Land Use ......................................................................................................................................... 41

Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................... 41

Archaeological Resources ............................................................................................................42

Small Scale Features ......................................................................................................................42

Buildings and Structures ..............................................................................................................42

Analysis and Evaluation

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................45

Natural Systems and Features ......................................................................................................45

Spatial Organization ..................................................................................................................... 49

Topography ....................................................................................................................................52

Circulation ......................................................................................................................................55

Cluster Arrangement .....................................................................................................................59

Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................62

Buildings and Structures ..............................................................................................................73

Views and Vistas ............................................................................................................................80

Small Scale Features ......................................................................................................................85

Cultural Landscape Character Areas

Batteries .......................................................................................................................................... 91

The Cantonment ........................................................................................................................... 91

The Waterfront .............................................................................................................................. 91

Quartermaster Warehouse Area ..................................................................................................92

Open Area .......................................................................................................................................92

Table of Contents
ii

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker

Open Area .......................................................................................................................................92

Access Roads ..................................................................................................................................92

PART 2: TREATMENT 

Introduction

Treatment Approach .....................................................................................................................95

Recommendations and Guidelines .............................................................................................96

Historic District Treatment Recommendations and Design Guidelines

Land Use .........................................................................................................................................97

Buildings and Structures ..............................................................................................................98

Circulation and Parking ................................................................................................................99

Vegetation .....................................................................................................................................100

Small-scale Features ....................................................................................................................102

Utilities ..........................................................................................................................................103

Other Guidance: Fire Management and Sustainability

Considerations for Fire Management .......................................................................................104

Consistency with NPS Sustainability Guidelines .................................................................... 105

Character Area Treatment Recommendations and Design Guidelines

Cantonment .................................................................................................................................106

Batteries ........................................................................................................................................ 110

Access Roads .................................................................................................................................113

Quartermaster Warehouse Area .................................................................................................115

Waterfront .................................................................................................................................... 116

Open Areas ....................................................................................................................................118

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 119

APPENDICES

A. List of Classified Structures

B. Seacoast Fortifications National Historic Nomination (pending)

C. Existing Vegetation Table 

D. Landscape Rehabilitation Guidelines

E. Arborist Report: Management of Tree Stands at East Fort Baker 
 iii

Table of Contents

List of Figures

Drawings

D-1 Reservation Boundary, Fort Baker 

D-2 Fort Baker: Endicott Era 1897 – 1916

D-3 Fort Baker: The War Years 1917 – 1949

D-4 Fort Baker: Existing Conditions 2003

D-5 Cultural Landscape Character Area 

D-6 Parade Ground Planting Plan 

Appendix D Landscape Rehabilitation Guidelines

Figures (Photographs, diagrams and maps)

Cover Aerial, 1937, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Collection

Inside Cover Parade Ground, 2003, NPS Photo

SH1 Engineer Wharf on lee side of Needles, 1868, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area Collection

SH2 Road from Engineer Wharf to Engineer Camp, 1860, Park Archives and Records Center, 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

SH3 East Gate with wood fence along East Road, 1905, Park Archives and Records Center, 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

SH4 Parade Ground and Murray Circle, c. 1904-06, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area Collection

SH5 Cannonball decorative site furnishings, c. 1905, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area Collection

SH6 Vegetative cover on filled in c. 1907-08, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area Collection

SH7 Parade ground as recreation space, 1915, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area Collection

SH8 Early view of windbreak and parade ground tree plantings, 1909, Park Archives and 

Records Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

SH9 Development of windbreak plantings after ten years, 1915, Park Archives and Records 

Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

SH10 Post Flagstaff, 1915, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area Collection

SH11 Tennis Court and firing range, 1915, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area Collection

SH12 Concrete walkways on Murray Circle, 1915, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area Collection

SH13 Aerial of Fort Baker Cantonment with quarry visible, 1925, Park Archives and Records 

Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

SH14 Construction on Concrete Seawall on Horseshoe Cove, 1929, Park Archives and Records 

Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

SH15 Aerial view of Fort Baker, 1928, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area Collection

SH16 Construction of Golden Gate Bridge, north portion, 1936, Golden Gate Bridge archive

SH17 Mine Depot structures on Horseshoe Cove, 1941, Park Archives and Records Center, 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

SH18 World War II Mobilization Hospital at Horseshoe Cove, 1942, Park Archives and Records 

Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

SH19 Aerial view of Fort Baker, 1960, U. S. Army Presidio Telephone Book cover

NS1 Overview of Fort Baker before construction of the Cantonment, 1902, Park Archives and 

Records Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection
iv

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker

NS2 Water tanks on hill above Cantonment, 1915, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area Collection

NS3 Valley setting for Cantonment, c. 1908, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area Collection

NS4 Road construction associated with the Golden Gate Bridge, 1936, Golden Gate Bridge 

archives

T1 Silhouette of Battery Cavallo, c. 1914, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area Collection

T2 Conzelman Road route to Fort Barry from Fort Baker, c. 1904-06, Park Archives and 

Records Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

T3 Murray Circle and Parade Ground, c. 1905, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area Collection

T4 Sandstone Quarry, c. 1915-20, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area Collection

T5 Overview of site with Golden Gate Bridge motor roads, c. 1955-60, Park Archives and 

Records Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

C1 Circulation Routes: Pre-Endicott

C2 Engineer’s Camp with Moore Road and Conzelman Road routes, c. 1868, Park Archives 

and Records Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

C3 Circulation Routes: Late Endicott

C4 Murray Circle and parade ground, c. 1915, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area Collection

C5 Construction of Alexander Avenue on earthen dam across valley, c. 1936, California 

Historical Society archives

C6 Circulation Routes: the War Years

C7 Circulation Routes: Existing Conditions, 2003

CA1 Battery Clusters at Fort Baker

CA2 Quartermaster Warehouse Area in 1945 and 1990, Park Archives and Records Center, 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

CA3 Engineer Camp – removed cluster of buildings, 1898, Park Archives and Records Center, 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

CA4 Gibson Drive NCO Housing – removed cluster of buildings, 1909, Park Archives and 

Records Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

VG1 Battery Cavallo with grass cover, c. 1915, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area Collection

VG2 Vegetation expansion at B. Cavallo: Intervals 1946 – 1990, Park Archives and Records 

Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

VG3 Formal Landscaping along Kober Street, c. 1905, Park Archives and Records Center, 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

VG4 Formal Landscaping at FB604, c. 1938, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area Collection

VG5 Landscaping along the east side of Murray Circle, c. 1923, Park Archives and Records 

Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

VG6 Early view of tree plantings, c. 1909, Sausalito Historical Society archives

VG7 Tree planting along Center Road, c. 1925, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area Collection

VG8 Windbreak planting of Monterey cypress, c. 1915, Park Archives and Records Center, 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

VG9 Tree Plantation along McReynolds Road, c. 1928, Park Archives and Records Center, 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

VG10 Overall windbreak and tree plantation development: Intervals from 1946 – 1990, Park 

Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Collection

VG11 Construction of Highway 101 and Alexander Avenue, 1936, Golden Gate Bridge archives
 v

Table of Contents

VG12 Formal Landscaping at FB561, c. 1938, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area Collection

BS1 Battery Cavallo earthworks, c. 1915, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area Collection

BS2 Battery Cavallo plan, 1872 – 1876, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area Collection

BS3 Battery Duncan plan, 1919, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area Collection

BS4 Battery Yates plan, 1919, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area Collection

BS5 Battery Spencer plan, 1919, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area Collection

BS6 Battery Orlando Wagner, 1919, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area Collection

BS7 Battery Kirby, 1919, Park Archives and Records Center, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area Collection

BS8 Waterfront Structures 2002

VW1 View of Parade Ground looking south, c. 1904-06, Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Collection

VW2 View of Parade Ground looking north, 1928, Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Collection

VW3 Historic View along Center Road, September 1929, National Archives and Record Center 

VW4 Historic View along East Road, c. 1910, Sausalito Public Library 

VW5 Modern View along East Road, 2005, NPS

VW6 Modern View along Bunker Road, 2005, NPS

VW7 Historic View of Golden Gate and bridge, April 1937, Golden Gate Bridge Archive

VW8 Historic View of Waterfront Approach, 1925, Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Collection

VW9 Map of Endicott Era views

VW10 Map of War Years views

VW11 Map of Existing Conditions Views, 2003

SC1 Small-scale features, extant and removed, 50 views

 1

Introduction

Several other objectives for the plan were 

identified in the context of the planning 

effort such as supporting the NPS mission 

of protecting cultural and natural resources, 

using sustainable models in new design and 

development, retention of the site’s special 

qualities (e.g., serenity, seclusion, inspiration, 

cultural and natural resources, views), promoting 

public access, minimizing environmental 

impacts, and complementing other site 

programs and sites within Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area.1

While a number of building inventories and 

condition assessments have been completed 

for the historic structures at Fort Baker, 

there has been only one report (2001) that 

described the historical development of the 

cultural landscape.2

 This document provided 

useful information on the history, condition, 

and characteristics that define the Fort Baker 

cultural landscape. This Cultural Landscape 

Report (CLR) builds on information presented 

in that document, and provides specific 

treatment recommendations for all contributing 

characteristics of the cultural landscape.

Purpose of the Cultural 

Landscape Report

This CLR was undertaken to consolidate 

existing research and to document and evaluate 

significant landscape resources. Based on the 

evaluation of resources, the CLR proposes 

treatment for rehabilitation of cultural landscape 

features in the context of approved plans, other 

resources studies, and park goals for the site. The 

CLR will provide guidance for site development 

activities scheduled to occur at Fort Baker during 

the next five years. These activities include:

1. Development of a Retreat and Conference 

Center occupying twenty-seven (27) historic 

buildings and other landscape features, new 

parking areas, and potential construction of 

up to 130,000 square feet of new structures 

around the parade ground and on the slopes 

overlooking the parade ground (Capehart 

Area).

2. Development of new institutional and 

recreational uses at the Horseshoe Cove 

Waterfront, Marina and U.S. Coast Guard 

station area, including up to 1,500 square feet 

of new construction and demolition of up to 

Management Summary

Fort Baker is located on the northern shore of 

San Francisco Bay and within the boundaries 

of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

(GOGA). Management related to treatment 

of resources and future use of Fort Baker 

was initially outlined in the 1980 General 

Management Plan (GMP) and associated 

environmental analysis for the park. The 

approved concept for the site included a range 

of uses including development of an educational 

conference center, hostel, and environmental 

study area, ferry service and short-term public 

moorage at the waterfront, construction of 

a 700-car parking lot in the Capehart area, 

establishment of an interpretative center in a 

historic building, and construction of a NPS 

maintenance facility. 

Since approval of the GMP in 1980, the 

park has completed a number of resource 

studies, condition assessments, and structural 

evaluations, and has worked in collaboration 

with a variety of new park partners to implement 

program elements from the GMP. In conjunction 

with these actions, physical and environmental 

changes at the site over the years have led to 

the recognition of additional resource values 

not adequately addressed in the management 

concepts outlined in the GMP. In order to 

address the complexity of resource values and 

user needs, the Fort Baker Plan was prepared 

as an amendment to the park GMP through the 

public planning process, a Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) approved the plan the 

following year in 1999. The purpose of the plan 

was to identify:

• The program and types of uses that would be 

accommodated in the historic buildings 

that would generate adequate revenue for 

building rehabilitation and preservation;

• Improvements to facilitate public uses, 

including new construction and removal 

of buildings, landscape treatments, trails, 

parking, circulation, and locations and 

patterns of use;

• Waterfront improvements;

• Opportunities for habitat restoration; and

• An approach to the protection, rehabilitation 

and maintenance of historic and natural 

resources.

Introduction
2

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

to 1945. The three eras within this period 

are 1850-1896 (Pre-Endicott), 1897-1916 

(Endicott), and 1917-1949 (the War Years). 

• Because there is a large volume of research 

and documentation relating to the history 

and existing conditions of Fort Baker, 

no additional historical research was 

undertaken for this project. 

• Detailed and technical information about 

specific resources is referenced in the CLR, 

but not repeated.

• The Golden Gate Bridge Historic District 

including the bridge, Highway 101 right-ofway, Alexander Road right-of-way, and Vista 

Point are not included in this study.

• The Lime Point Fog signal station was not 

included in this study.

• The history of the Coast Miwok occupancy 

of the site, the Spanish colonial era and the 

Mexican land grant era are noted in the 

History discussion, but not in the Analysis 

and Evaluation, owing to the lack of visible 

landscape features extant from these 

periods.

Historical materials from Fort Baker and the 

Presidio Archives and Record Center (PARC) 

including photographs, maps, historical reports, 

inventories, and technical manuals were used to 

compile the site history and chronology for this 

report. Historic photographs were especially 

helpful for supplementing the written histories 

and verifying information on historic base maps 

used in the analysis and evaluation section. One 

week of fieldwork was undertaken to verify 

existing conditions and supplement technical 

information required to develop treatment 

guidelines. 

The CLR for Fort Baker is divided into two 

parts. Part 1 includes the Site History, Existing 

Conditions, and the Analysis and Evaluation of 

cultural landscape characteristics. Part 2 includes 

Treatment of the cultural landscape and includes 

recommendations for vegetation management, 

rehabilitation of circulation systems, preservation 

of significant patterns and relationships for the 

parade ground and structures around Murray 

Circle, appropriate land use activities, and future 

development.

Study Boundaries 

The boundary for the Fort Baker cultural 

landscape includes all the lands historically 

defined by the Fort Baker portion of the Lime 

Point Military Reservation.3

 The division 

5,300 square feet of existing structures, and 

new parking areas.

3. Expansion of the Bay Area Discovery Museum 

by up to 25,000 square feet of new structures 

and new exterior exhibits and new parking 

areas.

4. Replacement of utility systems throughout 

the site, expansion of the water reservoir 

(FB572) and possible addition of co-located 

cell phone sites at Fort Baker.

5. Improvement of open space, roads and 

trails, and natural habitats and vegetation 

restoration on approximately 43 acres of 

Fort Baker. Vegetation management may 

include fire management projects.

Scope of Work and 

Methodology

The scope of work for the cultural landscape 

report (CLR) was developed by park and 

regional cultural resource staff in the fall of 

2001. The CLR team included a historian, 

cultural geographer, historical architect, and 

historical landscape architects with technical 

assistance from the park staff. Regional staff 

was responsible for all products associated with 

the project, and the park staff was responsible 

for coordination including providing reference 

materials to the team, site logistics, consultation 

with other park staff and park partners, and 

general project oversight.

The primary management objective guiding 

the CLR is to provide specific guidance for the 

treatment of landscape resources in the context 

of development and adaptive use of east Fort 

Baker as a retreat and conference center. In this 

regard, several assumptions have been made that 

affect the scope of this CLR. 

• The cultural landscape boundary for Fort 

Baker follows the historic boundary line 

for the historic military reservation. While 

the entire post is considered the cultural 

landscape, this CLR focuses only on the 

resources within east Fort Baker. This 

decision was made to focus treatment 

guidelines on the pending actions for 

adaptive use of the site. 

• Although the military history of Fort Baker 

spans over 150 years, documentation and 

evaluation of cultural landscape resources 

focused on one primary period of 

significance for the site, with three critical 

eras. The period of significance is 1867 
 3

Introduction

nationally-significant historic district that is listed 

on the National Register of Historic Places, with 

its significance deriving from the coastal defense 

history of the site. Fort Baker is a component of 

that district and is noteworthy for the integrity 

of its Endicott era military structures. Fort Baker 

also includes thirty-two features that contribute 

to the pending multiple-property Seacoast 

Fortifications of San Francisco Bay nomination, 

which appears eligible for listing as a National 

Historic Landmark. Finally, portions of the 

Golden Gate Bridge and associated historic 

motor roads lie within the bounds of Fort Baker. 

The Golden Gate Bridge has been determined 

eligible for listing as a National Historic 

Landmark. Study of the bridge-associated 

historic motor roads is incomplete, but may 

include identification of other historic resources 

when completed.

The importance of the site is summarized in the 

National Register Nomination Form:

This area is unique in that there are 

standing many of our earliest coastal 

defense artillery batteries, significance in 

tracing the development of the American 

coastal defense system...This land, 

strategically located in Marin County, 

commands early observation the Bay 

entrance. In 1866 Forts Baker and Barry 

were acquired by purchase to be used 

for military defense. Fort Cronkhite was 

acquired in the same manner in 1914, 

being legally considered a portion of 

Fort Barry until officially designated as 

Fort Cronkhite in 1937. The fortifications 

proposed for construction on this land 

were to augment those at the Presidio 

of San Francisco, in order to prevent 

successful passage of hostile ships through 

the Golden Gate into the San Francisco 

Bay. 

At the time of these purchases, relations 

between the United States and Spain were 

deteriorating. The American government 

believed a stronger coastal defense 

system was needed to protect U.S. ports 

from hostile attack. Growing out of the 

Endicott Board’s review of our defenses, 

a period of battery and defense building 

began on this land. The first phase of 

building, called the Endicott period, 

witnessed the expanded construction 

of batteries. These emplacements were 

constructed from the westernmost tip 

between Fort Baker and Barry is a north-south 

line running from the tip of Point Diablo due 

north where it intersected a “woven wire fence,” 

and then extended northeast where it met the 

bay south of Sausalito. The reservation boundary 

extends 300 yards out beyond low water mark 

and followed the shoreline until it returned to 

Point Diablo. Fort Baker was further divided into 

east Fort Baker and west Fort Baker when the 

Golden Gate Bridge was constructed, physically 

bisecting the historic reservation. Although this 

study looks at the entire Fort Baker Reservation, 

the primary focus of the report is east Fort 

Baker, a 335-acre bowl-shaped valley bounded 

on the west by U.S. Highway 101, on the north 

by Alexander Avenue, and on the southeast by 

San Francisco Bay. The boundary also includes 

more than one mile of relatively pristine rock bay 

shoreline, and the 10-acre Horseshoe Cove that 

is protected by breakwaters. 

Significance Statement

Forts Baker, Barry and Cronkhite, comprising 

an area of 2,279 acres in Marin County is a 

D-1
4

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

supplied with these modern installations, 

supplemented with the appropriate 

ancillary facilities, including searchlights.

From World War II until the present, 

batteries of ground to air missiles were 

provided on these three forts to defend the 

San Francisco Bay area against hostile 

aircraft. There are two of these NIKE 

Missile sites, both built in 1955, one still 

being operational today.

Of all the batteries built for coastal 

defense, only two have been destroyed. 

There remain fifteen fortifications in good 

structural condition, now all disarmed. 

These batteries span five systems of 

defense against attack. The equipment 

ranged from smoothbore muzzle-loading 

guns to rifled, breakloading guns, 

including emplacements for 155mm, antimotor torpedo boat and 90mm. antiaircraft guns.

The batteries, many built almost a 

century ago, stand in good structural 

condition, which testifies to the toughness 

of their high-quality concrete and steel 

material. These emplacements are not 

only monuments to the age of coastal 

artillery, but they stand firmly in their 

place on the broader evolution of both 

San Francisco defense and the growth of 

our national defense system.

Period of Significance for 

the Fort Baker Cultural 

Landscape

The history of military use of Fort Baker is a 

record of continuing change over time. Fort 

Baker lies within the Forts Baker, Barry and 

Cronkhite Historic District with a period 

of significance beginning in 1866 when land 

acquisition for the Lime Point Military 

Reservation (later Forts Baker and Barry) was 

concluded and continuing through 1945 when 

military activities associated with World War II 

were concluded. Individual sites within the larger 

district have been identified as having a later 

period of significance; for example, the Nike 

Missile Site SF-88 was established in 1954 and 

continued in military use until 1974. 

At Fort Baker, the preponderance of the 

site’s natural systems and features, spatial 

of the land east to the Bay, in a system 

of one battery backing up the next one, 

which offered complete protection from 

outside the Gate to inside the Bay. Upon 

completion of the main phase of battery 

building, ancillary structures were 

erected, observation posts and garrison 

buildings.

By 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt 

felt a review of all battery building 

was needed, and in 1906 Secretary of 

War William Howard Taft submitted 

his findings. The recommendations 

suggested in this report consisted mainly 

of modernizing the fortifications with 

searchlight equipment and fire control. 

With improvements in expanded 

communication techniques, the army 

was able to coordinate the batteries by 

relaying data from observation posts 

situation around the harbor mouth to the 

various battery fire control centers, each 

of which housed a primitive mechanical 

computer, in order to coordinate the 

direction and range of fire. Other than 

searchlights and fire control, little change 

was initiated in the pre-World War I 

period.

By 1914 those guns mounted in the 1880s 

and 1890s were no longer considered 

full-powered. Although dominance over 

ship was threatened by the advance of 

the modern navy and naval equipment, 

land fortifications still held the upper 

hand since they had greater steadiness 

and fire control techniques, and most 

importantly no with limitations. Yet with 

the advance of the navy, capitalized with 

the new Queen Elizabeth Class English 

ships, which could outrange many of our 

coastal weapons, drastic revision of our 

fortifications was needed.

During the period between the two World 

Wars, (1918 – 1941) the fortifications at 

Forts Baker, Barry and Cronkhite were 

continually modified to keep abreast of 

the increased range and fire power of 

naval ships.

In World War II (1941 – 1945) these 

fortifications were again modernized 

with anti-aircraft defense systems and 

defense against motor torpedo boats. 

New batteries were built at the time 
 5

Introduction

organization, topography, circulation, cluster 

arrangements, vegetation, buildings and 

structures, views and vistas, and small scale 

features have integrity relating to the period 

immediately prior to World War II, circa 1939. 

Structures such as the Regimental Chapel 

FB519, the Enlisted Men’s Barracks FB507, the 

waterfront industrial buildings and structures, 

and various site improvements are compatible 

in their relationship to the overall development 

patterns established during the Endicott era and 

retain integrity. Therefore, these structures also 

contribute to the historic significance of the site.

Endnotes

1

 Excerpted from the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement-Fort Baker, 1999. 1-2-1-4

2 Golden Gate National Park Association and 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Fort 

Baker Cultural Landscape History and Analysis, 

2001.

3 A 1912/13 map of the Lime Point Military 

Reservation indicates that the area was subdivided into three reservations: 1) Fort Baker, 

2) Fort Barry and 3) the Lighthouse at Point 

Bonita. The reservation map states that the area 

of Fort Baker above high tide included 10698.83 

acres and 395.6 acres below high tide. Source: 

“Reservation Map of Forts Baker and Barry Cal. 

Lime Point Tract”. Corrections on the map date 

it to 1912-1913, PARC.
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

6

Site History

Pre-Contact Era: circa 3500 BC - 1775

The potential for indigenous use of the site that 

became Fort Baker is described in the Draft

Phase I: Geoarchaeological Investigation of Fort 

Baker:

Indigenous occupation of the Fort Baker 

area has not been established. Although 

the first photographs of Fort Baker depict 

an uninviting setting, with barren hills 

and minimal shelter isolated by hills 

from the more bountiful bay shore at 

Sausalito, this paucity of vegetation 

may have been the result of intensive 

over-grazing during the mission years 

and early American settlement (GGNPA 

1999:12). The presence of good springs, 

which historically supported the early 

military presence at Fort Baker, satisfies 

a major requisite for human occupation; 

the sheltered terrain in the upper 

valley and the small year-round creeks 

would have supported a diverse plant 

community; and the marsh provided a 

variety of desirable plants and animals 

for food. The biggest drawback to the 

location would have been its isolation, 

cut off from all easy communication 

with Richardson Bay by very rugged, 

steep hills. Once navigation in the form 

of tule balsas was a feature of native 

technology—certainly by the Late period 

(beginning ca. A.D. 1000) and probably 

during the Middle period or earlier 

(from ca. 500 B.C.)—communication 

with both the San Francisco Peninsula 

and Richardson Bay would have been 

relatively easy. A reference to the location 

of an early mission-period village could 

refer to the Horseshoe Cove area (see 

below), suggesting that the full range of 

indigenous sites may be present at Fort 

Baker.

The first direct bay shore contact occurred 

in 1775 in Huimen territory, when the 

Ayala expedition began probing San 

Francisco Bay and the coastline to the 

north in preparation for the founding of 

California’s second mission and presidio. 

The Spanish explorers remained for a 

period of more than one month, an event 

which Milliken (1995:41-51) describes in 

some detail. During the night of 6 August 

1775, the expedition entered San Francisco 

Bay in the San Carlos, a 193-ton, twomasted brig, and anchored at the bottom 

of Richardson Bay near the Miwok 

village of Liuaneglua. The brig remained 

on the bay, just 1 mile north of today’s 

Fort Baker, until mid-September. During 

that time native people visited the vessel 

at its anchorage off Angel Island. Spanish 

crew members also visited numerous 

villages around San Francisco Bay 

during their efforts to chart it, but there 

is only one brief mention of Marin bay 

shore native residents. All interactions 

were reported by the Spanish diarists as 

friendly (Milliken 1998:23). 

The Mission San Francisco de Asis (aka 

Mission Dolores), established in 1776, 

operated for less than 60 years, but it had 

devastating and irreversible effects on the 

Coast Miwok people in less than a third 

that time. The Huimen of Sausalito were 

the first group of Marin peninsula native 

people to go to the mission, beginning in 

1783. Huimen villages documented in the 

mission records include Liuaneglua, the 

large village on Richardson Bay, and 

two others: Naique “of the Uimen family 

to the north of the Presidio across from 

Angel Island”; and Anamás “of the far 

shore from the Presidio, the port called 

Huimenes” (descriptions from the Libro 

de Bautismos cited in Milliken 1995:244). 

Liuaneglua is thought to be located in 

what is downtown Sausalito today. While 

the locations of the other two places are 

vaguely described, Naique may refer to a 

village on the tip of the Tiburon peninsula, 

while “the port Huimenes”—with its 

village of Anamás—could in fact be 

referring to Horseshoe Cove, as it is the 

shore facing the presidio.

The Spanish Frontier: 1776-1821

The Spanish colonial history of the area begins 

in 1775 when the San Carlos entered San 

Francisco Bay, dropped anchor approximately 

one mile north of Horseshoe Cove, and 

remained for more than a month. The captain 

of the ship, Juan Manuel de Ayala, noted that 

the San Francisco Bay area “ had no lack of 
Site History

 7

good drinking water and plenty of firewood and 

ballast. . . and docile natives lived there.”4

In 1776, a Spanish-led overland expedition 

from Monterey terminated at San Francisco, 

where Spain established a defensive outpost, 

the Presidio of San Francisco. In 1776, the 

Franciscan order of the Catholic Church 

founded Mission San Francisco de Asis (Mission 

Dolores) in San Francisco. After 1822, the lands 

that later became Fort Baker were a portion of 

the holdings attached to Mission San Rafael 

Arcangel, the northern-most mission established 

by the Spaniards. This land was eventually 

distributed among a number of ranches during 

the Mexican land grant era.

Rancho Sausalito: 1836-1850

In the early nineteenth century, southern Marin 

County, including the area now occupied by 

Forts Baker, Barry and Cronkhite, was part 

of a 20,000-acre Mexican land grant called 

Rancho Sausalito, owned by William Antonio 

Richardson. Richardson assumed ownership of 

the land in 1836. Although he grazed beef cattle 

on the property, which he sold for provisions to 

ships anchored at Sausalito Cove, maritime trade 

was Richardson’s principal occupation. In 1837, 

General Guadalupe Mariano Vallejo, military 

commander of northern California, appointed 

Richardson captain of the port, or harbormaster, 

of the growing settlement of Yerba Buena (soon 

to be named San Francisco). In addition to 

his duties as the official pilot of San Francisco 

Bay, Richardson operated a private maritime 

enterprise based in Sausalito Cove. Richardson 

also prospered by selling water that was collected 

from springs on his property and barged across 

the bay for sale in San Francisco. He established 

a home in Sausalito that was “prettily situated 

under a hill, with sufficient land for his . . . fields 

where vegetables were raised.” 5

Rancho Sausalito encompassed most of the lands 

south of today’s Stinson Beach. Less than ten 

years before Richardson took possession of his 

rancho, a contemporary visitor described the 

landscape of the area as “rolling countryside 

[which] supported some oak, fir, and redwood 

trees on its summits and in its narrow valleys . . . 

but all the rest was covered only with a yellowish 

and hardly living grass.”6

Another early description of the landscape 

of southern Marin County and the coastal 

headlands appears in the journal of Lt. Henry 

Wise, who was in the Bay Area on a scientific 

expedition sponsored by the United States 

government. On a trip through the rancho in 

1847, Wise traversed its hills from Sausalito to 

the ocean. He noted that “there was no timber 

to be seen, and except the stunted undergrowth 

netted together in the valleys and ravines, all was 

one rolling scene of grass, wild oats and flowers.” 

Wise and his party saw “numerous bands of 

thirty to forty deer . . . and bodies of water 

swarming with waterfowl.”7

 Richardson’s son 

recalled that in his youth, the rancho landscape 

appeared to be “entirely untouched by man and 

the wild oats grew shoulder high, in spite of 

the great herds of wild animals browsing in the 

fields.”8

By the mid-1850s, Richardson’s bay transport 

company had grown into a wide-ranging 

maritime enterprise, and he counted several 

ocean-going vessels in his fleet.9 The financial 

crash of 1855, however, and the wreck of one 

of his ships carrying uninsured cargo, caused 

Richardson to sell his land in an attempt to raise 

capital to rescue his shipping business from 

bankruptcy. Richardson sold his rancho in 1855 

to Samuel R. Throckmorton, a San Francisco 

financier and land speculator. Throckmorton 

began negotiations almost immediately to sell the 

southern portion of the property (about 2,500 

acres) to the federal government. A lengthy 

court battle ensued, and it took eleven years 

before the government finally acquired title to 

1,899 acres that comprised Lime Point Military 

Reservation.10

Establishment of Lime 

Point Military Reservation: 

1850-1896

In order to guard the sole entrance to San 

Francisco Bay from the Pacific Ocean, President 

Millard Fillmore set aside land on the north side 

of the Golden Gate straits in 1850 that would 

later become Forts Baker, Barry and Cronkhite. 

Lime Point Military Reservation, as Fort Baker 

was initially called, extended from the western 

edge of the town of Sausalito on the east, to 

Point Bonita on the west. Lime Point was a 

rocky promontory of the Marin Headlands and 

defined the northern corner of the entrance to 

San Francisco Bay. Alternating between rocky 

cliffs descending more than two hundred feet, 

and small crescent-shaped coves at the water’s 

edge, the property had been the southernmost 
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

8

extent of Richardson’s Rancho Sausalito. Inland 

from the rocky precipice, rolling hills, ravines, 

and small valleys characterized the landforms of 

the Lime Point Military Reservation.

The expanse of waterfront encompassed within 

the Lime Point Military Reservation offered 

few opportunities for shoreline development 

or building construction since the rock cliffs 

descended at a nearly ninety degree angle to 

the bay shore. The site’s overall topography, 

however, offered the Army a number of tactical, 

defensive capabilities: natural, albeit small, 

harbors to accommodate ships, and elevated 

terrain that allowed commanding views and 

created expansive sight lines across the water in 

all directions. In addition, its protected valleys 

provided relatively level spaces where troops 

could be garrisoned, mustered for maneuvers, or 

recreate on playing fields.

The original military plan for the site was 

centered on building a masonry fortification 

similar to Fort Point and the fort then under 

construction on Alcatraz Island. During the 

eleven-year period in which Throckmorton and 

the United States government negotiated the 

terms of sale of the southern extent of Rancho 

Sausalito, these early plans for Lime Point 

fortifications never materialized. By the time 

the sale was completed, innovations in military 

technology had made the original brick masonry 

fort planned at Lime Point obsolete. The use 

of modern, more powerful weapons essentially 

eliminated the need for the concentration of 

guns that were characteristic of the fortifications 

of the Fort Point type. 

When the Civil War began in 1861, Lime Point 

remained undeveloped. Fortifications at Alcatraz 

Island and Fort Point on the southern shore of 

the Golden Gate however, ensured protection of 

the straits. Only after the Civil War ended did the 

government obtain legal title to the 1,899 acres 

that comprised Lime Point Military Reservation. 

By the time the government finally purchased 

the property in 1866, Civil War experience 

had demonstrated that the masonry coastal 

fortifications were vulnerable to artillery shells 

fired by rifled cannons.11

Although the Civil War had shown that the latest 

rifled guns could destroy the prewar masonry 

forts with ease, a reorganized Board of Engineers 

for the Pacific Coast retained plans for a masonry 

fort at Lime Point. The board recommended 

that a casemented fort and a casemented battery, 

both containing 109 guns each, should be 

constructed at Lime Point. The board concluded 

their proposed fort construction plan by noting 

that

After the works now proposed shall have 

been built, the positions of Points Bonita 

and Diablo, as well as the intervening 

shores on both sides of these two points, 

will furnish locations for works to defend 

these waters, that may keep pace with the 

means of attack, and the interests to be 

protected for many generations.12

One of the first actions the Army took upon 

acquiring title to the Lime Point property was 

to construct a fence separating the military 

reservation from the rest of Rancho Sausalito. 

A post and pole fence was constructed circa 

1867 and provided a barrier to the cattle that 

grazed in great numbers on the rancho’s rolling 

hills. In addition to the fence, granite posts 

were installed at the angles of the boundary 

line, clearly describing the extent of the military 

reservation.13

In 1867, the board yet again revised its plans for 

a fortification at Lime Point, and recommended 

that only preliminary work should be undertaken 

at the site, including “construction of a wharf, 

with quarters (220 men) and mess houses for 

civilian employees, workshops and storehouses, 

and roads.”14 This group of buildings and 

structures, including the wharf, quarters, 

mess, storehouses, and workshops was called 

Engineer’s Camp. Once this infrastructure was 

completed, construction of the fort at the base of 

Lime Point could begin. 

Construction of Engineer’s Camp began in 

October 1867. The camp was located in a 

small valley on the west side of Horseshoe 

Cove (today, in the vicinity of the Golden 

Gate Bridge). Although this site was less open 

and accessible than the valleys at the head of 

Horseshoe Cove or Gravelly Beach, the project 

engineer, Lieutenant Colonel George G. Mendell 

of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, chose the 

location in order to leave the larger valley at the 

head of Horseshoe Cove available for troops 

and permanent buildings, whenever a post 

was established. Just offshore from the site of 

Engineer’s Camp, a group of tall rocks, called 

the Needles, jutted out of the water between 

Lime Point and Horseshoe Cove. Between 

the shore and these tall rocks, the engineers 

constructed a rock breakwater, which provided 
Site History

 9

some protection to the cove from the currents of 

the open bay. Within this protected area, a small 

wharf was constructed which had a sixty-foot 

front of crib work covered with plank. (Photo 

SH1) Supplies and materials were barged in from 

San Francisco and unloaded at the wharf, and a 

steamer was used to transport personnel.15 

Upon completion of the wharf, a road was built 

from its base to Engineer’s Camp. The road was 

benched into the foot of the cliff, and when it 

was completed it was “passable throughout its 

entire length by carts.” (Photo SH 2) This road 

was the origin of the current road that leads to 

the end of Lime Point, now known as Moore 

Road.16

Once Engineer’s Camp, the wharf and road were 

completed, the principal task before Mendell 

was to create a staging area for construction of 

the fort which would require a cut 230’ deep 

on the face of a 250’-high cliff. Blasting at Lime 

Point was carried out in 1868-1869. Over twentyfive tons of gunpowder was used to remove the 

immense quantity of rock, estimated by Lt. Col. 

Mendell to amount to over one million cubic 

yards.17

Mendell’s report on the blasting operations 

described the construction site: 

Lime Point rises from the sea to a height 

of 250 feet with a very steep slope, not 

always the same in different places. It is 

composed almost entirely of rock, there 

being a thin deposit of soil on the top 

and here and there on the slope, where a 

slackening in the declivity gives a resting 

place to a little accumulation of soil. 

The hill was, at the beginning of our 

operations, almost inaccessible. A boat 

could, of course, land at the point in a 

sheltered place, but none but an expert 

climber could scale its slopes, even in the 

most favorable places.18

Mendell originally planned to continue the road 

between the Engineer’s Camp and Lime Point 

westward along the shore to Gravelly Beach, 

SH1 Engineer Wharf on lee side of 

Needles breakwater, near west end 

of Horseshoe Cove, looking west. 

1868 (National Archives and Record 

Center, RG #77-F-100-140). 

SH2 Road from Engineer Wharf to 

Engineer Camp, looking east. 1860 

(National Archives and Record Center, 

RG #77-F-100-146).
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

10

but the topography of steep cliffs descending 

to the bay would have made a shoreline road 

an expensive and impractical undertaking. 

Mendell’s initial plan was soon abandoned in 

favor of an inland route. In 1870, construction 

commenced on a road from Horseshoe Cove 

over Lime Point Ridge to Gravelly Beach, known 

today as Conzelman Road.19 

Before Mendell resumed blasting to create a 

building site for the Lime Point fort, the Engineer 

Department directed the Pacific Board to take 

up the matter of barbette and mortar batteries at 

Lime Point in 1871. Instead of building the threetiered brick fort at the water’s edge after the Fort 

Point model, the Army began building a series 

of dispersed barbette batteries, which consisted 

of platforms on which guns were mounted and 

which were concealed from view by simple 

earthworks, or mounds. Batteries of this type 

were built at Point Cavallo (Battery Cavallo), 

on the ridge above Lime Point (Cliff and Ridge 

Batteries), and on Gravelly Beach (Gravelly 

Beach Battery) to the west of Lime Point. The 

gun platforms at Ridge Battery were stone, but 

no platforms were constructed at Cliff Battery. 

Because the battery site on Gravelly Beach was 

located at the foot of a small valley that sloped 

toward the bay, a large brick and concrete culvert 

was constructed to channel valley runoff under 

the battery and out to sea. Work began on the 

ridge in 1871 and the works were completed by 

the fall of 1872.20

This period of intensive construction came to a 

close in 1876, when Congress resolved to cease 

funding construction of seacoast fortifications.21

Until the 1890s, only one 15-inch Rodman 

cannon, mounted on a wooden platform at 

Gravelly Beach guarded the north shore of the 

Golden Gate, and two civilian “fort keepers” 

were the sole guards of the empty batteries 

and Engineer’s Camp buildings. The only 

construction activity at the military reservation 

for the next eighteen years was carried out at the 

base of Lime Point, on a large rock called “Sugar 

Loaf Rock,” where the U.S. Lighthouse Service 

built a fog signal station in 1883. Sugar Loaf Rock 

was leveled, and a two-family residence was 

located behind the single-story fog station; both 

buildings were built of brick.22

Several years after completion of the fog signal 

station the citizens of the neighboring town 

of Sausalito approached the Army with a 

proposal to build a road through the military 

reservation that would connect the town with 

the fog signal station. The citizens argued that 

such a road would be “a great convenience” 

to the lighthouse service. Mendell resisted 

the citizens’ efforts, anticipating that the road 

would create an “annoyance and interfere 

with public operations.” He asserted that the 

Sausalito citizens’ main objective in building the 

road was to develop a “pleasure drive to attract 

visitors.” The residents of Sausalito persisted, 

however, in their efforts to build the road, and 

in 1894, the War Department announced it had 

no objection to a non-military road through the 

reservation. In July of 1894, Congress approved 

its construction, though not its funding, which 

became the responsibility of the town of 

Sausalito.23

The citizens were unable to raise the necessary 

road construction funds, but by 1901 the 

need for an improved overland connection 

to Sausalito had become apparent. The Army 

conceded that the road was a necessity, and that 

it would provide an important alternate route 

to reach the post should high winds or rough 

seas make landing at the wharf impossible. 

Construction began in 1901 on an eighteen-footwide road, which extended for a total length 

of 5,800 feet along the east side of the military 

reservation to its terminus at Yellow Bluff. From 

Yellow Bluff, the road continued to the fog signal 

station on the road that had been built during 

construction of Battery Cavallo in 1871. This 

road, which stretched from Yellow Bluff on the 

east to the Engineer’s Wharf on the west side 

of Horseshoe Cove, would have traversed the 

territory now occupied by the parade ground. 

Between Battery Cavallo and the east entrance 

gate, a post and pole fence was built to provide 

a protective barrier between the road and the 

cliffs dropping off toward the bay.24 (Photo SH3)

East Road, as it is now known, followed the 

SH3 East Gate with wood fence 

system along East Road, looking 

southwest. 1905 (GGNRA Park 

Archives and Record Center, 

19193.001).
Site History

 11

top of the bluff forming the eastern edge of the 

military reservation. It offered expansive views 

of the Golden Gate and the greater extent of 

San Francisco Bay, and marked the beginning of 

public access to the post. 

Endicott Era and Fort 

Maturity: 1897-1916

Two major technological innovations changed 

military strategic planning in the late nineteenth 

century. One was the iron cladding on ships, 

which decreased vulnerability to bombardment 

and increased attacking capabilities in war. This 

was the first step towards building a modern 

steel navy. The second innovation was the 

armor-piercing gun, which could effectively 

disable ironclad ships. In order to keep abreast 

of this changing technology, the U.S. Congress 

established a joint Army-Navy Gun Foundry 

Board in 1883 to investigate the possibilities of 

manufacturing both armor plate for the Navy 

and armor-piercing guns for the Army. As a 

corollary to this interest in new weaponry, 

Congress established a board in 1885 under 

Secretary of War William Endicott to plan 

the modernization and restoration of coastal 

defenses for the nation’s most important harbors. 

The Endicott Board recommended a new type 

of coastal fortification, one dug into the earth, 

armed with the new armor-piercing ordnance 

(then under development), and shielded by steel 

armor-plated masonry. These defenses were 

recommended for twenty-eight harbors and the 

Canadian border at a total cost of $127 million.25 

In 1888, Congress voted an initial appropriation 

to begin implementation of the Endicott Board’s 

proposals. Military historians have characterized 

the Endicott period as the “Golden Age” of coast 

artillery in the United States.26

One of the areas chosen for these new defensive 

batteries was San Francisco Bay, and in 1890, 

plans were drawn up to build Endicott batteries, 

as they came to be known, on the Marin County 

headlands from Point Cavallo westward to Point 

Bonita. This program of coastal fortification 

created a defense system protecting San 

Francisco Bay that was exceeded in scale only 

by defensive emplacements at the harbor of 

New York. Long-range rifled artillery was 

placed in massive reinforced concrete batteries 

constructed along the entrances to the Golden 

Gate; batteries at Forts Mason, Winfield Scott, 

Baker, Barry, and on Angel Island date from the 

Endicott period.27

In 1893, construction began on this new series 

of Endicott-era batteries under the leadership 

of Colonel Mendell. Civilian laborers renovated 

the buildings at Engineer’s Camp, and the wharf 

in Horseshoe Cove was repaired. Cliff Battery 

was demolished on Lime Point Ridge and was 

replaced with Battery Spencer, which featured 

three twelve-inch rifles on non-disappearing 

carriages. Battery Spencer was completed in 

1897. In addition to the new reinforced concrete 

battery and guns, a powerhouse, guardhouse, 

officers’ room and latrine were also built on the 

site.28 

Additional Endicott-era batteries constructed at 

Lime Point Reservation included: Battery Kirby 

(completed 1900) on Gravelly Beach; Battery 

Duncan (completed 1900) north of Battery 

Cavallo on Yellow Bluff; and Battery Orlando 

Wagner, (completed 1901) on the face of a slope 

between Lime Point and Gravelly Beach. Battery 

George Yates (completed 1905) on Cavallo 

Point, south of Battery Cavallo concluded the 

armament of the military reservation under the 

Endicott era modernization program.29 While 

each of these batteries reflected the most up-todate military technology, the size of the guns and 

the configuration of the batteries differed. For 

instance, Battery Kirby, which was located near 

the shoreline, was outfitted with two twelve-inch 

rifles on disappearing carriages. Battery Orlando 

Wagner, on the other hand, was built on the side 

of a bluff, and featured two five inch guns on 

balanced-pillar mounts. 

The new fortifications demanded protection and 

maintenance, in light of the investments they 

represented. In 1896, the Adjutant General of the 

Army wrote: 

As high power guns are being erected at 

Lime Point . . . and as additional batteries 

of guns and mortars will soon be erected 

there, it is important that there should 

be a strong garrison on that side of the 

harbor, as that is really the Gibraltar of 

the Pacific Coast.30

On May 4, 1897, the Lime Point Military 

Reservation was formally named Fort Baker. 

The name honored Colonel Edward Dickinson 

Baker, a former United States Senator and 

commanding officer of the 71st Pennsylvania 
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

12

D-2
Site History

 13

Infantry Regiment who was killed in the Civil 

War battle of Balls Bluff, Virginia.31

Facilities for the beginning of a permanent 

garrison at Lime Point arrived in the fall 

of 1897, in the form of a pair of two-story 

wooden barracks that were barged from the 

Presidio to Horseshoe Cove. In addition to 

the barracks, a guardhouse, and a stable with 

corral were arranged in a north-south row, 

north of the swamp at the head of Horseshoe 

Cove.32 Brigadier General William Shafter, 

department commander, urged more substantial 

development of the site and called for permanent 

occupation of Fort Baker. In a letter to the 

Adjutant General, Shafter wrote: 

It is absolutely necessary for the proper 

care of these guns that at least one battery 

remain constantly on this point. It is 

necessary that daily attention be given 

to the guns [in Battery Spencer] and 

frequent attention be given to the four 15” 

Rodmans [in Ridge Battery].”33

As weapons technology advanced and guns 

became more accurate and had a greater range, 

coastal defensive outposts were established 

further and further away from the bay 

entrance, eventually including Fort Cronkhite, 

approximately four miles northwest of the 

Golden Gate and Fort Funston, approximately 

six and a half miles to the south. As a 

consequence to the expansion of Fort Baker, 

more Endicott batteries were constructed west 

of Fort Baker, resulting in the establishment of 

Fort Barry in 1904.34

The western portion of Lime Point Military 

Reservation extended past Point Bonita, to 

Rodeo Cove on the far southwestern shore of 

the Marin peninsula. This section of Lime Point 

Military Reservation was informally known 

as Point Bonita, after the rocky peninsula that 

formed the southernmost extent of the Marin 

Headlands. Point Bonita provided a natural 

breakwater and sheltered several small coves 

on its leeward side. The Army constructed a 

wharf and a single-track tramway at Bonita 

Cove to carry men and materials up the 250-

foot-high cliff to the first two batteries (Mendell 

and Alexander) constructed along this western 

outpost of Lime Point in 1902. By July 1903, a 

detachment of one officer and twenty-three 

enlisted men from Fort Baker arrived at Point 

Bonita, signaling the beginning of permanent 

military occupation and by 1904, the western 

portion of Lime Point Military Reservation was 

established as Fort Barry, while eastern Lime 

Point was formally designated Fort Baker. The 

true north line running from the tip of Point 

Diablo established the boundary between Forts 

Baker and Barry.35

Additional Endicott-type batteries were 

constructed at Point Bonita between 1901 and 

1905. The included batteries Edwin Guthrie, 

Samuel Rathbone, Patrick O’Rourke, Mendell, 

and Alexander which were situated so as to 

engage enemy warships outside the Golden Gate. 

Quarters and support structures, including 

storehouses and guardhouses were also built. 

The emplacements represented the latest in 

military technology, but the post infrastructure 

continued to reflect mid-nineteenth century 

systems. As the western end of the military 

reservation became more developed the 

communication between the two sides of the 

forts remained dependent upon Conzelman 

Road, a low-standard, dangerous road that 

traversed the headland ridge tops.36 Not until 

the eve of the United States’ entrance into World 

War I would this vital link in the reservation’s 

infrastructure be improved. 

As noted above, project engineer George 

Mendell had identified the large, relatively level 

valley at the head of Horseshoe Cove in the 

1860s as the most appropriate location for a 

permanent post. This site was large enough to 

accommodate mustering troops, and barracks, 

storehouses, and other support structures could 

be clustered together. Furthermore, the existing 

road (now Center Road) from Battery Cavallo to 

the Engineer’s Wharf, which passed through this 

area, formed the basis of a circulation system and 

could readily be tied in to future development. 

The new type of coastal fortification systems 

of the Endicott period affected the type of 

housing built for the garrison. In the oldstyle masonry fort, men were housed either in 

buildings constructed within the confines of the 

fort or within the walls of the fort itself. With 

the new type of batteries, which demanded 

dispersion, the housing area had to be separate. 

The result was a plan characterized by housing 

and administrative buildings grouped around a 

central parade ground. 

In 1900, the parade ground and core developed 

area was laid out in the relatively level ground 

of the valley at the head of Horseshoe Cove, 

extending southward toward the boundary 
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

14

of a marshy area at the water’s edge. Murray 

Circle formed the boundary of the parade 

ground, which was a kidney-shaped space with 

a slight slope to the southeast. Barracks, a post 

exchange and gymnasium, officers’ housing, an 

administrative building and the commanding 

officer’s residence were arranged along Murray 

Circle. Kober Street extended as a short spur 

off the northern side of Murray Circle, and the 

post hospital and non-commissioned officers 

housing were located here. At its southeastern 

edge, Murray Circle intersected with the road 

to Sausalito (later East Road) completed in 1901, 

which connected with the road constructed 

in the 1870s between Battery Cavallo and the 

Engineer’s Camp (Center Road and Moore 

Road). Warehouses, including storehouses, a 

stable and corral, a guardhouse, coal shed, and 

bakery were grouped in this area southwest of 

the parade ground. 

Construction of Murray Circle and development 

of the housing and administrative area centered 

on the parade ground called for a significant 

amount of grading in order to create level 

ground on which to build. A photograph from 

the period of initial development shows the 

extent of the cut that was required to construct 

Murray Circle and to prepare building sites.

(Photo SH4)

In 1900, invitations to bid were advertised on 

the first eleven permanent buildings for Fort 

Baker. The construction bids were too costly to 

construct brick buildings as original plans had 

indicated, so the Quartermaster Department 

re-advertised for wood-frame buildings. The 

plans used were standard plans in the Colonial 

Revival Style supplied by the Quartermaster 

General’s Office in Washington, D.C. The 

buildings included an artillery barracks for 109 

enlisted men, Plan 12E; one double set of officers’ 

quarters, Plan 90A; one set of field officers’ 

quarters, Plan 145A; and an administration 

building, Plan 122A. Construction began in 

1901 under E.J. Jones, a local San Francisco 

contractor. 

By 1902, two duplex officers’ quarters (FB605 

and FB606), one duplex non-commissioned 

officers’ quarters (FB523), and a barracks for one 

company of artillery (FB602) were completed.37

In addition to these residential facilities, other 

buildings completed the same year included 

a hospital building (FB533), Quartermaster’s 

office and storehouse (FB559), Quartermaster’s 

stable (FB619), a guard house (FB615), a bakery 

(FB557), a 250-ton capacity coal shed (FB617), 

and a pump house (FB620). With the exception 

of the pump house, the other buildings were 

frame constructions on concrete and stone 

foundations. The pump house was a particularly 

substantial building for its size (1,280 square 

feet). It was constructed of brick with a slatetiled hipped roof. Architectural details included 

concrete lintels, double hung windows with 

two-course segmental arches over the window 

openings, and three-light transoms over the 

doors. 

In 1901, the Army established the Corps of 

Artillery, which had organized separate 

detachments for coast and field artilleries. In 

November 1901, the 68th Company of Coast 

Artillery became the garrison at Fort Baker. The 

War Department announced shortly thereafter 

that two additional companies would be assigned 

to the post. In response to this expansion, the 

Secretary of War authorized the construction of 

additional buildings. 

Improvements were made to the Engineer’s 

Wharf in 1902-1903 so that construction 

equipment and building materials arriving 

at the fort via barge could be safely and 

efficiently unloaded. The Quartermaster 

Department provided funds to replace the 

wharf’s deteriorating wood pilings with iron. 

Renovations to the wharf were completed in 

February 1903.38

Between 1903 and 1904, additional housing was 

constructed in two separate areas on the post. 

Officers’ housing and the post headquarters 

building were prominently located fronting 

SH4 Parade ground and Murray 

Circle. Note extent of cut required 

for construction of the parade ground 

and preparation of building site. 

Looking south. Circa 1905 (GGNRA 

Park Archives and Record Center, 

40039.014).
Site History

 15

the parade ground; non-commissioned 

officers’ quarters were located behind the post 

headquarters on the road leading up to the 

hospital. A residence for the post commander 

(FB604) was constructed at the head of the 

parade ground, three sets of duplex officers’ 

quarters (FB607, FB629, and FB631), as well as 

a post headquarters (FB603) were also built at 

this time, and all were grouped around Murray 

Circle. The non-commissioned officers’ duplex 

quarters, (FB527 and FB529) were located less 

conspicuously along Kober Street. 

Although plans for these buildings called for 

the principal structures to be made of brick, 

only two residential buildings, an artillery 

barracks (FB636) and a non-commissioned 

officers quarters (FB531) were built of brick. 

The remaining residential buildings constructed 

during the Endicott period were wood frame 

buildings on stone foundations. Slate tiles 

were used on all the roofs, and open porches 

extended along the barracks façades fronting the 

parade ground. 

The buildings facing the parade ground, 

including the officers’ quarters as well as the 

barracks and gymnasium were evenly spaced, 

located approximately fifty feet apart from each 

other. The main façade of these buildings were 

oriented inward, toward Murray Circle to form 

a coherent architectural row. The commanding 

officer’s residence was set apart from the 

adjoining buildings by side yards that were 

roughly twice the width of the space between 

the officers’ quarters and barracks. In addition, 

the forty-foot drop in elevation created by the 

northwest-southeast slope of the valley created 

a building hierarchy. The commanding officer’s 

residence was sited in a prominent location at 

the highest point of Murray Circle, from which 

a distant view toward Horseshoe Cove, San 

Francisco Bay, and the city of San Francisco 

could be obtained. The commanding officer’s 

residence was embellished with special site 

furnishings. Stacked cannonballs flanked the 

walkway to the building’s front porch, and single 

cannonballs were aligned along the sidewalk 

between the residence and the administration 

building, providing a symbolic connection 

between the two most important buildings 

fronting the parade ground. (Photo SH5) 

In 1902, the Quartermaster Department 

began planning the post roads and sidewalks, 

devising a circulation system centered on the 

parade ground. Murray Circle was laid out 

to surround the parade ground on the north, 

east and west sides. The principal residences, 

including barracks and officers’ quarters, were 

located along the arc formed by Murray Circle. 

At the top of Murray Circle, a short spur road, 

Kober Street, led to the site of the post hospital 

and non-commissioned officer quarters. The 

SH5 Cannonballs were used as 

decorative site furnishings at the 

commanding officer’s residence and 

the administration building, looking 

north. Circa 1905 (GGNRA Park 

Archives and Record Center, 1766).
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

16

Quartermaster proposed having military 

prisoners supply the macadam for the roads 

from the Army quarries on Angel Island.39

As mentioned above, extensive grading had 

been required to create level areas on which 

to build the roads and buildings surrounding 

the parade ground. Between 1902 and 1903, 

however, the parade ground itself was subject 

to significant modification. The Quartermaster 

Department re-directed creeks underground by 

means of several culverts, spread 25,000 cubic 

yards of fill—raising the level of the parade 

ground in some areas as much as 12’—to create 

level ground, and filled in the marsh at the head 

of Horseshoe Cove.40 The post surgeon had 

recommended the marsh be filled in for health 

reasons, but Major General Robert Patterson 

Hughes of the San Francisco Presidio disagreed, 

claiming that “a steady wind from the west 

carried any malarial vapors out into the bay 

and away from the post.”41 While the perceived 

unhealthful effects of the marsh were disputed, 

Patterson’s Chief Quartermaster noted the 

practical value of filling the marsh: it would 

add over seven acres of useful ground at the 

waterfront. In 1903, work began on filling the 

marsh, which required 80,000 cubic yards of fill 

and took four months to complete.42

The grading required to create a relatively 

level space for the parade ground had left the 

area denuded of all vegetation. During wet 

weather, the site became a mud field, and in dry 

weather dust was carried through the air on 

the winds. In response to complaints from the 

post commander, the Quartermaster General 

approved the purchase in 1903 of 1,350 pounds 

of Australian rye grass seed, enough to cover 

eighteen acres. A year later, the parade ground 

was replanted with the same seed, and fifty 

pounds of blue grass lawn seed was planted 

around the new quarters constructed that 

year, which included the commanding officer’s 

quarters (FB604), the officers’ quarters (FB607), 

and the artillery barracks (FB601). A photo from 

1908 shows the completely different qualities of 

the reclaimed marsh and parade ground. A neatly 

trimmed lawn covers the parade ground and an 

undetermined mix of grass and forbs covers the 

filled-in marsh area. (Photo SH6) The lawn area 

of the parade ground was used for formal drills 

and official ceremonies, but it also was the site 

of baseball, football and other organized sports, 

as period photographs attest. (Photo SH7) In 

addition to controlling dust through a planting 

program, the dust generated by traffic on the 

main entry road to the post (East Road from the 

town of Sausalito) was ameliorated by spreading 

crude oil on the road surface.43

In 1903, the post Quartermaster oversaw 

preparation of a planting program in order to 

mitigate the discomfort caused by the winds 

that roared through the Golden Gate and into 

the site, as well as to create a more finished 

appearance to the developing landscape. The 

Quartermaster’s plan proposed using 10,000 each 

of Monterey pine, cypress and eucalyptus trees 

to form a protective windbreak in a continuous 

arc along the semicircle of hills behind the post. 

This shelterbelt also helped to prevent erosion of 

the treeless hillsides surrounding the post. The 

Quartermaster General directed that, rather than 

purchasing trees, they should be obtained from 

the Presidio, where a tree-thinning program 

was planned. Since no further documentation 

regarding the tree-planting program followed, 

it can be assumed that Fort Baker’s trees came 

from the Presidio.44 The exact quantity of trees 

acquired for the planting program is not known, 

although it is certain that the 30,000 trees 

SH6 (upper) Vegetative cover 

on filled-in marsh contrasts to 

grassy surface of parade ground, 

looking north. Circa 1903 (GGNRA 

Park Archives and Record Center, 

18478.001).

SH7 (lower) The parade ground also 

functioned as a recreation space, and 

was the site of baseball and football 

games, looking northwest. Circa 

1905-10 (GGNRA Park Archives and 

Record Center, 1766.11.C).
Site History

 17

indicated in the Quartermaster’s plan were not 

planted. Handwritten notes on a period map 

indicate general groupings of cypress and pine 

trees fully encircling the developed area. These 

notes do call out a specific number of eucalyptus 

trees; it identified 1280 eucalyptus trees in the 

area behind and to the west of Kober Street. 

This note may indicate that the pine and cypress 

were acquired without cost from the Presidio, 

while the eucalyptus trees were purchased. 

The tree planting plan also called for pepper 

and elm trees (one hundred and fifty of each) to 

ornament the perimeter of the parade ground 

as well as building lawns. By 1909, an apparent 

mixture of eucalyptus and pine trees lined 

the perimeter of the parade ground and the 

windbreak had been planted with cypress and 

possibly some pines in orderly rows. (Photo SH8) 

By 1915, the windbreak of cypress trees on the 

west side of the cantonment formed a substantial 

barrier between the central developed area and 

the treeless hillsides that surrounded the site. 

(Photo SH9)

Additional buildings constructed between 

1903 and 1906 included a mule stable, a second 

Quartermaster storehouse, and a fire apparatus 

house where two hose carts and fire ladders 

were stored. A carpenter workshop and a 

blacksmith shop were built, and an addition 

was made to the bakery. A storehouse for the 

artillery engineer’s equipment and a guardhouse 

at the Sausalito gate were also built during this 

period. By 1905, the parade ground flagstaff 

had been installed; guide wires stabilized the 

flagstaff and were secured to the ground under 

piles of cannonballs. (Photo SH10, next page) 

SH8 An early view of the windbreak 

and parade ground tree plantings, 

looking southeast. Circa 1909 

(San Francisco History Center, San 

Francisco Public Library, Negative 

6453.).

SH9 In a little over ten year’s time, 

the windbreak plantings formed 

a substantial protective and visual 

barrier between the core developed 

area and the surrounding hillsides, 

looking west. 1915 (GGNRA Park 

Archives and Record Center, 

3311.007).
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

18

The Sausalito entrance gate, which was modeled 

after the Central Avenue (today, Presidio Avenue) 

entrance gate to the Presidio, featured cast iron 

ornamental finials on brick pillars with cannons 

set in their centers. The Benicia Arsenal provided 

the cannons as well as two 10-inch cannonballs 

to adorn the gate, which was built circa 1903.45

This substantial structure replaced the wood gate 

that had been built in conjunction with the road 

to Sausalito. 

Between 1902 and 1905, the post’s water supply 

and delivery system was developed. During the 

period of initial development at Lime Point, the 

Engineer’s Camp had been supplied with water 

from small springs located on Lime Point Ridge. 

With the establishment of the post in 1897, fresh 

water was supplied via barge, as it had been 

done at Alcatraz Island for years. The water was 

then pumped from the wharf to two 30,000-

gallon water tanks located on the hill above the 

wharf.46 In response to the increased size of the 

garrison in 1902, the Quartermaster directed a 

civilian water expert to begin investigating an 

alternate source of water. Several attempts to 

locate a reliable source of potable water proved 

unsuccessful; salt water had seeped into several 

springs that were tapped in the hills behind 

the post. In 1905, the Marin County Water 

and Power Company offered a connection 

between Sausalito and the post boundary. 

The Quartermaster General accepted, and 

immediately authorized the construction of a 

six-inch main to connect to the county pipeline, 

as well as a 100,000-gallon-capacity, steel water 

storage tank.47

On May 9, 1907, the third barracks building 

(636) was completed, with a capacity for 109 

men. It was built of brick on a stone foundation 

with a slate roof, and was sited next to the 

other brick building on Murray Circle, the post 

exchange and gymnasium (FB623). In 1908, a 

transformer substation (FB502), also built of 

brick, was completed as the buildings at Fort 

Baker were electrified. A photograph from 1909 

shows the parade ground with the addition of 

the final building, (FB636), along its perimeter. 

This picture also reveals the extent of white post 

and rail fencing that had been constructed over 

the years, beginning in 1850 when fences were 

built to separate the military reservation from 

Rancho Sausalito.

In 1909, two non-commissioned officers’ duplex 

residences, FB530 and FB531, were constructed 

on the southwest side of Kober Street, opposite 

two other non-commissioned officers’ duplexes, 

FB523 and FB527, which had been built in 1902. 

In 1909, a tennis court was built in a small bowl 

between FB531 and the hospital. A photo from 

circa 1915 shows a wood fence surrounding the 

court. This photograph also shows the original 

spacing of the eucalyptus trees along the western 

boundary of the central developed area. (Photo 

SH11)

A site map dated 1909 shows that the post has 

been essentially completed, with the principal 

buildings laid out around the central parade 

ground. Service buildings, including a carpenter 

shop, paint shop, blacksmith shop, stables, a coal 

shed, and a bakery were clustered together along 

SH10 The post flagstaff was sited 

near the head of the parade ground 

with cannonballs as decorative 

furnishings. Looking north. 1915 

(GGNRA Park Archives and Record 

Center, 3311.008).

SH11 The tennis court was built 

south of the hospital on Kober 

Street, shown here enclosed by a 

plank fence with the fort firing range 

in the foreground. Note spacing 

of eucalyptus windbreak, looking 

southeast. Circa 1915 (GGNRA 

Park Archives and Record Center, 

3311.006).
Site History

 19

the road leading from Murray Circle to Battery 

Yates (Satterlee Road). McReynolds Road was 

laid out parallel to Murray Circle as a service 

road for the buildings along the perimeter of the 

parade ground and created rear boundaries to 

the yards. In addition to the roads encircling the 

parade ground, Kober Street was built as a short 

spur road leading from Murray Circle near the 

administration building to the hospital and the 

cluster of non-commissioned officers’ duplex 

quarters. The renovated Engineer’s Wharf, with 

its storehouse and waiting room was the sole 

structure on Horseshoe Cove. 

Additional spur roads off Murray Circle included 

Gibson Drive, which led to the Engineer 

and Signal Corps storehouse, and which was 

incorporated into the newly constructed Bunker 

Road between 1916 and 1918. Another short spur 

was located between the commanding officer’s 

residence and duplex officers’ quarters (FB605). 

This road terminated in a cul-de-sac at Building 

7, which was constructed as temporary noncommissioned officers’ housing. Approximately 

five temporary NCO quarters were constructed 

in 1903, but were replaced in 1909 by permanent 

quarters built on Kober Street. The temporary 

structures were located uphill from the parade 

ground area, along the east and west sides of 

Murray Circle. 

Plans for the fort’s circulation system called for 

22,000 square yards of macadam for the roads, 

while sidewalks were constructed of concrete.48 

Period photographs suggest that the principal 

road, Murray Circle, was constructed with a 

macadam surface, and McReynolds Road was 

unpaved. Concrete walkways and stairs led at 

regular intervals from the sidewalks to each 

building entry, emphasizing the formal symmetry 

of the buildings surrounding the parade ground. 

(Photo SH12)

By 1911, artillery barracks for enlisted men as 

well as single and duplex officers’ quarters 

housed the four companies of the coast Artillery 

garrisoned at Fort Baker: the 32nd, 68th, 61st and 

148th Companies.49 

In 1913, a significant alteration of the landscape 

occurred when the hill that formed the eastern 

edge of Fort Baker valley was excavated, leaving 

a deep surface scar on the hillside. More than 

75,000 cubic yards of sandstone was removed 

from the quarry and barged across the bay to 

construct roads for the 1915 Panama Pacific 

International Exposition in San Francisco. 

This was one of two quarries at Fort Baker; the 

hillside east of the hospital was also quarried for 

the red chert that was used for occasional road 

repairs at the base.50

Fort Baker’s water supply system was augmented 

in 1913, introducing another visually prominent 

feature into the site, which, like the sandstone 

quarry, can still be seen today. A group of three 

water tanks were constructed on the hillside 

above the Engineer’s Wharf. The largest of the 

SH12 Concrete walkways and 

stairs led at regular intervals from 

the Murray Circle sidewalk to each 

building, looking west. Circa 1915 

(GGNRA Park Archives and Record 

Center, 1766.0021).
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

20

D-3
Site History

 21

three tanks had a 100,000-gallon-capacity; the 

other two tanks held 30,000 gallons each. 

In 1916, a planned expansion of Fort Barry 

prompted the Army to undertake construction 

of a tunnel under the ridge west of Fort Baker 

and to construct over 8,000 feet of new roadway 

(Bunker Road) to connect Fort Baker with the 

head of Rodeo Valley in Fort Barry. This road 

offered a more direct route between the two 

forts, and alleviated the need to use the cliff 

side road above the bay that was previously the 

only connecting road between the two forts 

(Conzelman Road and McCullough Road). The 

tunnel, which cut through serpentine rock for a 

distance of approximately 2200 feet, was lined 

with 10” x 10” timbers and was completed in 

1918.51 By the end of teh Endicott period, most 

of the features that characterize the site were in 

place. (Photo SH13) 

The War Years: 1917 – 1949

By the time the United States entered World 

War I in 1917, most of the guns at Fort Baker’s 

batteries had become of secondary importance 

in San Francisco Bay’s coastal defense system. 

Two of the fort’s batteries, Duncan and Orlando 

Wagner, were disarmed and their guns were sent 

to the front. Following deactivation of the coast 

artillery garrison at Fort Baker in 1928, the post 

was maintained by a caretaker detachment until 

1937, although physical improvements continued 

to be made.52

Site development in the 1920s was concentrated 

along the waterfront at Horseshoe Cove. In 1920, 

the first of a series of improvements were made 

to the Quartermaster wharf. The first work 

involved the construction of sixteen-foot-square 

concrete piers, and the installation of a concrete 

slab under the wharf storehouse. In 1922, an 

extension to the concrete abutment at the shore 

end of the wharf was constructed. Between 1922 

and 1929, repairs were made to the structure, 

including replacing green and fender piles, as 

well as renewing ribbons and chocks.53 In 1929, 

a concrete seawall extending for 134 feet was 

constructed at the western edge of Horseshoe 

Cove. (Photo SH14)The Army also built a rock 

and concrete bulkhead across the mouth of 

Horseshoe Cove the same year. The seawall 

served to protect the road to the Quartermaster 

wharf, as well as the road across the filled in 

marsh, now called Sommerville Road. At this 

time, Sommerville Road was widened and 

improved.54 In 1932, the seawall was extended 

another 134 westward. This marked the 

beginning of a period of extensive development 

along Horseshoe Cove, which accelerated in the 

months leading up to the United States’ entry in 

World War II. 

An aerial photograph from 1928 provides a 

panoramic perspective on the historic core 

of Fort Baker, and records a fully developed 

Endicott-era military landscape. (Photo SH15, 

next page) The photograph shows Murray 

Circle, the parade ground, the Quartermaster 

stables, corral, the carpenter and blacksmith 

shops, the bakery, as well as East Road in the 

foreground and Bunker Road and the BakerBarry tunnel in the background. By this time, 

SH13 (upper) Aerial view of the site 

at the close of the Endicott period, 

with the batteries, core cantonment 

and quartermaster area extensively 

developed, prior to the intensive 

development of the Horseshoe 

Cove waterfront and road system 

that occurred in later years. Looking 

east. December 1925 (GGNRA Park 

Archives and Record Center, 32487).

SH14 (lower) The concrete seawall 

along Horseshoe Cove was built 

in two sections. The first section 

was begun in 1929 and extended 

toward the west end of the cove; 

the second section was completed in 

1934 and extended toward the east. 

1929 (National Archives and Record 

Center, Fort Baker Construction 

Completion Reports, 1917-41).
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

22

SH16 Construction of the Golden 

Gate bridge and its approach roads 

created a significant alteration to the 

site’s topography as U.S. Highway 

101 cut through the northern section 

of Fort Baker on a massive earth 

fill. Looking south. November 1936 

(Golden Gate Bridge Archives).

the trees ringing the parade ground and the trees 

that had been extended along the north side of 

the cantonment had begun to fill in. The marshy 

area near the shore that had been filled in 1903 

had created a broad, open expanse of relatively 

level land leading to a sandy beach at Horseshoe 

Cove. Trees of uniform height and even spacing 

flanked both sides of Center Road. In addition, 

the post and rail fencing along the south side of 

East Road shows the historic appearance of the 

formal entry road to the fort. 

In 1935, a new era of site development was 

initiated with the arrival of Works Progress 

Administration (WPA) laborers. In addition 

to the WPA workers, labor was provided 

by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), 

which established a camp in Fort Barry near 

the western end of the Baker-Barry tunnel. 

These laborers accomplished a number of 

infrastructure improvements, including work 

on the storm water drainage system and the 

electric and water distribution system. The 

CCC also carried out maintenance projects 

at the residences, as well as undertaking new 

construction. New roofs were added on several 

buildings, and eight garages were built along 

McReynolds Road in 1936. Although no records 

were discovered to provide construction details 

and dates, photographic documentation suggests 

that the retaining walls along McReynolds Road 

as well as the dry masonry riprap at the head of 

Kober Street and along McReynolds Road were 

constructed at this time. These features appear 

on a 1941 map of the parade ground area. In 

1935, the slopes behind the quarters and parade 

ground were graded, flattened and then planted 

with ice plant, which provides further evidence 

to suggest that the retaining walls were built in 

conjunction with the garages.55

A special project, identified as “Care and 

Improvement of Parks and Recreation Facilities, 

Fort Baker” was undertaken in 1937 to improve 

the landscape around the base, however, records 

detailing the projects undertaken as part of this 

general landscape improvement program were 

not discovered during research for this report.56

Upon its completion in 1937, the Golden Gate 

Bridge and its network of approach roads 

significantly altered the Fort Baker landscape. 

Engineers had located the pier for the bridge’s 

north tower on solid rock at the base of Lime 

Point, and Moore Road was improved to gain 

access to the pier construction site, which was 

located just west of the Lime Point Fog Station. 

In 1936, the U.S. Coast Guard took over the 

fog signal station at Lime Point, and added a 

third story to the brick residence. At this time, 

the Golden Gate Bridge Authority established 

a storage facility on the approach to the fog 

station. Bridge construction resulted in a partial 

realignment of Conzelman Road adjacent to 

Highway 101, altering the route that had long 

connected Horseshoe Cove and Gravelly Beach. 

Bridge construction also introduced an alternate 

means of vehicular access, supplementing East 

Road with the Sausalito Lateral (Alexander 

Avenue). 

The north tower of the bridge, which reached 

a height of 746 feet above the water line, 

soared above the ridgeline at Lime Point and 

was visible from most locations within the 

post; the entire span could be seen from the 

SH15 Oblique air photo showing the 

fully developed Endicott-era military 

landscape. The historic core included 

the parade ground and Murray Circle; 

East Road with the quartermaster 

stables, blacksmith shop, bakery, 

YMCA auditorium, and other service 

buildings; and Bunker Road leading 

to the Baker-Barry tunnel in the 

background. Looking northwest. 

November 1928 (GGNRA Park 

Archives and Record Center, 2051).
Site History

 23

eastern section of the post. In addition to its 

visual impact, the bridge and its approaches 

created a considerable modification to the 

post’s circulation system and construction of 

the system of bridge approach roads required 

significant topographic manipulation along Fort 

Baker’s west-northwestern boundary. At the 

head of the valley, a massive earthen dam was 

built to accommodate both Highway 101 and 

Alexander Avenue on a steady grade.57 (Photo 

SH16, previous page) 

As the 1930s drew to a close, events in Europe 

and Japan affected the nation’s policy of military 

preparedness. This resulted in a significant shift 

in coastal defense strategy and the Army began 

to update existing plans for the seacoast defenses 

in the continental United States. The impact of 

this modernization program was enormous; it 

increased the Coast Artillery Corps from 4,200 

troops in 1939 to 45,000 in 1941, and produced a 

set of seacoast fortifications at 33 locations, the 

most extensive and uniform ever undertaken, 

which proved to be the ultimate generation 

of conventional seacoast defenses before the 

ascendancy of aircraft, conventionally- and 

nuclear-armed, changed defense strategy forever.

The 1937 Project for the Harbor Defenses of 

San Francisco featured the construction of 

massive new emplacements for huge 16-inch 

guns (at Forts Funston and Cronkhite) capable 

of defending against any known surface ship, 

and a new mine depot at Fort Baker’s Horseshoe 

Cove to plant and maintain a greatly expanded 

trio of minefields in a large arc outside the 

Golden Gate which eventually consisted of 368 

electrically-detonated underwater mines. The 

Army had three large mine-planting vessels 

(USAMP Ellery W. Niles, Samuel M. Miles, and 

Horace F. Springer) berthed at Horseshoe Cove 

and at a “Dispersion Pier” located on the post’s 

eastern shore beneath Yellow Bluff (subsequently 

demolished when the waste-water treatment 

plant was built).58

The first mine depot structure was built in 1937 

and consisted of a concrete “L” shaped mine 

wharf (FB415) which formed an enclosure 

around the older wooden Quartermaster 

wharf at the western end of Horseshoe Cove. 

Between 1937 and 1941, the entire mine depot 

was constructed, which eventually consisted of a 

storehouse (FB407), cable tank building (FB670), 

power house (FB409), magazines and two 

loading rooms (FB414).59 (Photo SH17) 

By 1940, Battery K of the 6th Coast Artillery and 

detachments of the Medical and Quartermaster 

Corps were stationed at Forts Baker and Barry.

62 The first antiaircraft detachments, which were 

part of the 30th Coast Artillery Battalion, were 

assigned to Forts Baker, Barry and Cronkhite 

in May 1942. In January 1944, a detachment of 

the 22nd Cavalry Mechanized Reconnaissance 

Squadron was sent to Fort Baker in connection 

with Tactical and Beach Defense. In the fall of 

1944, the 17th Coast Artillery Battalion was split 

between Fort Scott and Fort Baker.60

In May of 1941, the War Department approved 

the construction of a large station hospital to 

serve the needs of the greatly expanding force 

of coast defense troops manning the harbor 

defenses of San Francisco. The Fort Baker 

hospital facility was authorized in order to relieve 

pressure on Letterman General Hospital in the 

Presidio. In a short three months, twenty-five 

standard, Series 700 “mobilization-type” hospital 

buildings were erected in the area between the 

cove and the foot of the parade ground. A new 

wooden bulkhead was constructed in 1942 to 

protect the hospital structures and to stabilize 

the shoreline. In addition, Moore breakwater 

(FB 632) was constructed at this time which 

extended from the concrete seawall on the west 

side of the cove eastward to the boat repair 

facilities. The Boat Repair Shop (FB 679) and 

the Satterlee breakwater (FB 630) at Point 

Cavallo protecting boats in moorage were also 

constructed during this period. By the end of the 

SH17 Mine depot structures clustered 

near the waterfront included 

storehouses, cable tank building 

and powerhouse, looking northeast. 

Circa 1941 (GGNRA Park Archives and 

Record Center, 2266-N1,02).
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

24

war, forty-five buildings of similar construction 

comprised the hospital complex.61 (Photo SH18)

During the war years, a number of the batteries 

at Fort Baker were updated. At Battery Kirby, 

which had been abandoned in 1934, the 

Ordnance Department built two new concrete 

platforms and mounted two three-inch guns, 

which they removed from Battery Yates. Battery 

Yates retained two of its three-inch guns that 

covered the antisubmarine net stretching across 

the harbor entrance from Fort Baker to the south 

shore of the Golden Gate. The guns at Battery 

Yates were dismounted in 1946. At Gravelly 

Beach, four 90-millimeter antimotor torpedo 

boat (AMTB) weapons were installed, and two 

AMTB weapons were installed at Point Cavallo.62

Although Japanese submarines did lurk outside 

the Golden Gate, no action occurred at the 

Harbor Defenses of San Francisco, and as the 

battlefront moved ever-westward, the weapons 

were gradually deactivated, and the garrisons 

combed-out for battlefield replacements. When 

peace came in September 1945, disarming of 

the harbor defenses was accelerated, the mines 

were raised, and the antiaircraft guns were put 

in storage. By 1946, all coast artillery weapons at 

Fort Baker were deactivated. The rapid-fire guns 

of Battery Yates were the last. In the wake of the 

war, the roads at Fort Baker--Conzelman Road, 

Murray Circle, etc.--were named after coast 

artillery officers who held out gallantly at Bataan 

and Corregidor, and lost their lives in the fight 

against Japan.63

Cold War to Present: 

1950—2002

In the years following World War II, the Mine 

Detachment, Seacoast Branch of the Artillery 

School operated at Fort Baker. In 1948, the Army 

turned over operation of the underwater mine 

defense mission to the Navy. When the Mine 

Detachment Artillery School left in 1949, it was 

the last coast defense function at Fort Baker.64

In the years following the Korean War, tension 

continued to grow between the Western powers 

and their former wartime ally, the Soviet Union. 

Haunted by the memory of the surprise attack at 

Pearl Harbor and cognizant of the capability of 

long-range strategic bombers and the destructive 

power of nuclear weapons, the United 

States entered a period of continual partial 

mobilization and military preparedness known 

as the Cold War. 

To defend against a possible Soviet aerial strike, 

the antiaircraft guns of the Second World War 

were supplanted by the radar-guided, longSH18 By 1940, Battery K of the 6th

Coast Artillery and detachments 

of the Medical and Quartermaster 

Corps were stationed at Fort Baker. 

The station hospital, constructed 

between 1941 and 1942, was built on 

the filled-in marsh above Horseshoe 

Cove (San Francisco History Center, 

San Francisco Public Library, Negative 

6449).
Site History

 25

SH19 Presidio telephone book 

cover, 1960, U.S. Army. Image 

courtesy Golden Gate National Parks 

Conservancy.

range antiaircraft missile system known as 

Nike. Although no Nike missiles were actually 

emplaced at Fort Baker proper, nearby Forts 

Barry and Cronkhite had Nike batteries, and 

the post buildings of Fort Baker became the site 

of the administrative headquarters of various 

antiaircraft missile units and of the 6th Regional 

Army Air Defense Command. The Radio Siren 

Tower, located immediately south of FB636, 

is an artifact of the Cold War that reflects the 

presence of the Nike defense program on the 

site. Additionally, the Headquarters of the 91st 

(Reserve) Infantry Division used the post to 

organize and conduct training and readiness 

exercises.65

In 1959, additional military family housing 

units were constructed behind the original 

crescent of buildings off Murray Circle, under 

the Department of Defense Capehart Housing 

program, due in part to the scarcity and high cost 

of housing in the Bay Area; twenty-one Capehart 

duplexes were built at Fort Baker in 1959. Fort 

Baker remained the administrative headquarters 

of the 91st (Reserve) Infantry Division and 

various antiaircraft missile units under the 6th 

Regional Army Air Defense Command for much 

of the Cold War era. (Photo SH19)

Post-war population growth during the 

Cold War years led to increasing pressure on 

valuable open space, and as the Army began 

to consider disposal of non-essential military 

land, proposals were made that would have 

filled much of the Marin Headlands with a vast 

housing development. Conservationists, open 

space advocates, and historic preservationists 

throughout the Bay Area rallied to oppose such 

development. Allying themselves with a national 

movement to create National Parks in urban 

areas, these local activists helped ensure the 

creation of the Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area in 1972, which included the lands of Fort 

Baker, and all of the former Lime Point Military 

Reservation within its authorized boundaries.

The National Park Service took over the 

management of open space throughout most of 

the Marin Headlands, while the Army continued 

to occupy and administer the developed area 

of the post of Fort Baker (which began to be 

increasingly to be referred to as east Fort Baker). 

The General Management Plan for Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area was approved in 1980, 

and envisioned increased public activities in the 

Fort Baker area to provide recreation, outdoor 

activities, conference and performing arts 

facilities.66 In 1985, 258 additional acres of open 

space at the east end of the Baker Barry Tunnel 
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

26

were transferred to Park Service administration 

by the Army. 

In 1990, the U.S. Coast Guard constructed 

new facilities for its Golden Gate Station at 

Horseshoe Cove to replace the historic, but 

exposed, station near Fort Point. The new facility 

was approved after an environmental review 

process, and designed in a manner compatible 

with the historic structures of the post. Around 

this time, the Bay Area Discovery Museum 

opened its facility in the buildings of the former 

commissary, ordnance and Quartermaster 

warehouse complex. This sensitive rehabilitation 

of historic structures has brought lively activity 

to the heart of the post.

In 1995, the Army announced its intent to 

relinquish jurisdiction of the remaining acreage 

at Fort Baker to the National Park Service, 

ending its historic tenure at the post, but 

beginning a new chapter in the saga of the scenic 

and historic military base and the dramatic 

Marin Headlands of which it is a part.

Endnotes

4 John Phillip Langelier and Daniel Bernard 

Rosen, Historic Resource Study, El Presidio 

de San Francisco: A History under Spain and 

Mexico, 1776-1846, (NPS: 1992), p. 13

5

 William Heath Davis, Seventy-Five Years in 

California, San Francisco: John Howell:1929, pp: 

12-13; Wilkes’ recollections as quoted in Lawrence 

Kinnaird, “History of the Golden Gate and Its 

Headlands.” Typescript written for the National 

Park Service, 1962, 1967, p. 170, quoted in Anna 

Coxe Toogood, A Civil History of the Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes 

National Seashore, California, (Denver: National 

Park Service, 1980), p. 55.

6

 “Du-Haut-Cilly’s Account of California in the 

Years 1827-1828,” California Historical Society 

Quarterly 8, No. 2, (June 1929), p. 136, quoted in 

Toogood,47.

7

 Lieutenant Henry A. Wise, U.S.N, Los Gringos, 

or An Inside View of Mexico and California, 

with Wanderings in Peru, Chili, and Polynesia. 

(New York: Baker and Scribner, 1849), quoted in 

Toogood, 56.

8

 James Wilks. “The Days of the Dons,” MS, 

Bancroft Library, University of California, quoted 

in Toogood, 56.

9 Toogood, 75-76.

10 Erwin N. Thompson. Historic Resource Study: 

Forts Baker, Barry Cronkhite of Golden Gate 

National Rrecreation Area, (Denver: National 

Park Service, 1979), pp. 5-17

11 Stephen Haller. “Contextual History of Fort 

Baker,” MS, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area (1998).

12 Erwin N. Thompson. Historic Resource Study: 

Sea Coast Fortifications: San Francisco Harbor, 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, (Denver: 

National Park Service, (n.d.??), p. 71

13 Thompson, Fort Baker, 18

14Ibid, 19.

15 Ibid., 20.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid., 21.

18 G.G. Mendell, Lt. Col. Of Engineers, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Report Upon the Blasting 

Operations at Lime Point California in 1968 and 

1869, Washington: GPO, 1880

19 Thompson, Fort Baker, 27.

20 Ibid., 24-25.

21 Several major trends of the late 1870s and 1880s, 

including a focus on westward expansion as well 

as the perceived lack of a serious external threat, 

contributed to the shift away from expanding 

coastal defenses. See Emanuel Raymond Lewis, 

Seacoast Fortifications of the United States, An 

Introductory History, (Missoula, MT: Pictorial 

Histories Publishing Company, 1979); Haller, 4.

22 Thompson, Fort Baker, 27-29.

23 Ibid., 30.

24 Ibid., 31.

25 Thompson, Coastal Fortifications, 131.

26 Haller, 4.

27 Thompson, Coastal Fortifications, 134.

28 Thompson, Fort Baker, 31.

29 Ibid., 32-33.

30 AG Samuel Breck to Commanding General, 

Dept. of California, 30 December 1896, NA RG 

92, OQMG General Correspondence, 1890-1914, 

quoted in Thompson, Fort Baker, 35.

31 General Orders No. 25, Headquarters of the 

Army, May 4, 1897. Thompson, Fort Baker, 37.

32 Shafter, Sept. 15, 1897 to AG; and map prepared 

between April and December, 1897, quoted in 

Thompson, Fort Baker, 38.

33 Thompson, Fort Baker, 37-38.

34 General Orders No. 194, December 27, 1904. 

Thompson, Fort Baker, 81.
Site History

 27

35 Thompson, Fort Baker, 81-84.

36 Ibid., 54.

37 Ibid., 40.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid, 47.

40 GGNPA: 25; Thompson, Fort Baker, 47.

41 Thompson, Fort Baker, 46.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid., 47-48.

44 Ibid., 48.

45 Ibid., 49.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid. 50.

48 Ibid. 47.

49 Ibid. 53.

50 GGNPA: 25, (n27, Laizure Report XXII [July 

1926] 323: for PPIE)

51 Thompson, Fort Baker, 54-55; San Francisco 

Examiner: 29 April 1916.

52 Haller, 5.

53 Thompson, Fort Baker, 59.

54Ibid.

55 Ibid., 60.

56 Ibid.

57 Ernest Cromwell Mensch. The Golden Gate 

Bridge: A Technical Description in Ordinary 

Language. (San Francisco: 1935); Draft National 

Register Nomination: Golden Gate Bridge, 1997.

58Thompson, Fort Baker, 61.

59Ibid.

60 Fran M. Roberts, “History, Fort Baker, 

California,” Directorate of Facilities Engineering, 

Presidio of San Francisco, n/d. np. Presidio 

Archives (ADPWEMR-4,bx14)

61 Thompson, Fort Baker, 62-63.

62 Ibid., 61. 

63 Haller, 10.

64 The following information was originally 

prepared by Stephen Haller, GOGA Historian: 

“Contextual History of Fort Baker,” MS, Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area, 1998.

65 Building Information Schedule, Forts Barry 

and Cronkhite California. Master Planning 

Office, Directorate of Facilities Engineering, 

Presidio of San Francisco; 1971.

66 General Master Plan/Environmental Analysis: 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area/Point 

Reyes National Seashore, California. National 

Park Service, 1980.
28

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

[Sources: Historic Resource Study, Forts Barry, Baker and Cronkhite, Erwin Thompson 1979; National Register 

Nomination Form dated March 26, 1973; LCS Data, and other newspaper articles, archival sources, maps and 

photographs.]

Ca. 3500 BC-1775 Coast Miwok Indian settlements develop throughout Marin County, from the Pacific 

Ocean to San Francisco Bay. 

1775 The Spanish vessel San Carlos, enters San Francisco Bay, drops

anchor approximately one mile north of Horseshoe Cove, and remains for more than a 

month, engaging in exchanges with the Coast Miwok. 

1776-1821 An overland expedition from Mexico into California terminates at San Francisco, where 

Spain establishes an outpost, the Presidio of San Francisco. Establishment of two nearby 

missions occur thereafter.

1821 Mexican rule in California begins. 

1838 William Richardson receives 20,000-acre land grant extending over most of southern Marin 

County, and names property Rancho Sausalito.

1846 Disaffected American settlers in Alta California kidnapped Mexican General Vallejo in what 

came to be known as the Bear Flag Rebellion and for a period of approximately one month 

California existed as an independent republic. 

1850 President Millard Fillmore issues executive order reserving Lime Point “from the southern 

 boundary of Saucilito [sic] Bay to a line parallel to the channel of entrance to the Pacific.” 

 This same year California was granted statehood.

1866 1,899 acres (a portion of Rancho Sausalito), now comprising Forts Baker and Barry is 

acquired by the U.S. government for harbor defense. 

1867 Lime Point Military Reservation is established.

1867 Fortification plans are revised, recommending construction of a wharf, quarters and mess 

houses for civilian employees, workshops and storehouses, and roads.

1867 A breakwater from the Needles to the shoreline is constructed. 

1867 Engineer’s Wharf (FB415) is constructed on the lee side of the breakwater.

1867 Road between wharf and Engineer Camp (Moore Road, FB711)

is built. 

1867 Quarters for 220 men, mess house, workshops and storehouses are built, which comprise 

Engineer’s Camp.

1868-1869 The face of the cliff at Lime Point is blasted away to create fortification building platform. 

1870 Road between Engineer’s Camp and Gravelly Beach (Conzelman Road, FB710) is built.

1870 Gravelly Beach Battery (FB701) is constructed.

Chronolog y
Chronology

29

1870 Post and rail fence separating the military reservation from the rest of Rancho Sausalito is 

 constructed.

1871-1872 Large brick and concrete culvert is constructed to channel run-off below Gravelly Beach 

 battery.

1871-1873 Gravelly Beach Battery is completed: 12 15” Rodman emplacements, constituting the first 

 fortifications undertaken on the north side of the Golden Gate. 

1871-1872 Ridge Battery (FB704), designed to house four 15” Rodman smoothbores and five mortar 

 platforms, is built. The Rodmans were not mounted until 1893 and remained in 

 service through the Spanish-American War (1898).

1871 Ridge Battery power house (FB704A) is constructed and used as a generator room for 

Battery Spencer. It is located at Battery Spencer entry gate.

1872 Portion of East Road from Engineer’s Wharf to Battery Cavallo is completed.

1872-1876 Battery Cavallo (FB575), a brick and earthwork structure, is completed.

1875 Battery Cavallo entrance gate (FB 575A) is constructed at southwest side of East Road and 

battery entrance road intersection.

1883 U.S. Lighthouse Service builds a fog signal station (LP001) on “Sugar Loaf Rock” at the foot 

of Lime Point.

1888 Center Road (FB715) is constructed as a bypass around the waterfront marsh and as 

a construction road for Battery Cavallo. Photo (SHSA, #P-81-31-1888) shows that it is 

dirt-surfaced and tree-lined. (Refer to Fort Baker/Marin Headlands Historic Road 

Characterization Study for subsequent construction chronology of Center Road.)

1890 Battery Cavallo is improved by addition of new gun bases and retaining walls.

1893 Engineer’s wharf--now called Quartermaster wharf (FB416, now removed)--is repaired.

1893 Battery Spencer powerhouse (FB705E) is constructed at battery entrance gate, as is 

Equipment Building (FB705B), Latrine (FB705C), and Sentry Station (FB705D).

1895 Mine Cable Casemate (FB508) is built as a barrel-vaulted, single room structure below 

grade, to house heavy mine control cables that extended east to Angel Island. 

1895 – 1905 Mine Cable Casemate seawall (FB509) is constructed of poured concrete (2.5’ to 3’-thick) 

and 12’ to 18’-high to protect mine cable casemate from tidal erosion. 

1896 Ridge Battery is demolished, replaced with Endicott-period Battery Spencer (FB705). 

Support structures, including a powerhouse, guardhouse, officers’ room and latrine are also 

built at Battery Spencer. 

1897 Battery Spencer entry gate (FB705F) is built as two concrete pylons, located thirteen feet 

apart, at entry road to Battery Spencer from Conzelman Road.

1897 A one-story, three-room concrete administration building (FB705A) is constructed to serve 

Battery Spencer. 

1897 Lime Point Military Reservation is formally renamed Fort Baker. 
30

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

1897 Battery Spencer is completed.

1897 Battery I, Third U.S. Artillery Regiment, move from Angel Island and set up camp north of 

 the marshy shore on what is the Parade Ground today. This is the first unit to garrison Fort 

 Baker. 

1897 A pair of two-story barracks moved via barge from the Presidio are erected at the head of 

Horseshoe Cove, north of the marsh. 

1897 A guardhouse, stable and corral are built in the approximate location of the current 

intersection of East Road and Murray Circle. 

1898 Soldiers manning guns at Fort Baker during the Spanish-American War live in tents on the 

 site of the parade ground.

1900 U.S. Census for Fort Baker indicates that 41 Army soldiers are located at Fort Baker. 

1900 Battery Kirby (FB700) is built with two, 12” gun emplacements designed for disappearing 

carriages.

1900 Battery Duncan (FB573) is built with two 8” guns on disappearing carriages, and a latrine 

structure (FB573A) is also constructed at Battery Duncan.

1900 Fire Control Station B1 Kirby (FB706) is built above Battery Orlando Wagner and above 

Kirby Road. 

1900 Army Quartermaster prepares a site plan for Fort Baker, locating barracks, gymnasium, 

 officers’ housing, commanding officer’s residence and an administration building around 

 central parade ground at head of Horseshoe Cove. 

1901 Military prisoners from Alcatraz island complete East Road (FB708) to allow Sausalito 

residents access. East Road was 5,800’ long and 18’wide. A wood post and rail fence 

extended along the cliff areas to protect travelers. (Refer to Fort Baker/Marin Headlands 

Historic Road Characterization Study for subsequent construction chronology of East 

Road.)

1901 Army begins construction of permanent buildings at Fort Baker. 

1901 Battery Orlando Wagner (FB703) is completed, with two 5” rapid fire guns.

1901 Fire Control Station B1 Wagner (FB707) is built to serve Battery Orlando Wagner. 

1902 Murray Circle (FB709) and McReynolds Road (FB712) are constructed. 

1902 Artillery Barracks (FB602) is built.

1902 Duplex Officers’ Quarters (FB605 and FB606) are built.

1902 Hospital (FB533) is constructed.

1902 Non-commissioned officer quarters (FB522) is built.

1902 Quartermaster and Subsistence Storehouse (FB559) is built.

1902 Guard house (FB615) is built of brick and completed in August.

1902 Bakery (FB557) is constructed.
Chronology

31

1902 Coal shed (FB617) (now removed) is completed.

1902 Pumphouse (FB671) is completed.

1902 Quartermaster stable, lumber storehouse, paint house are constructed as a group, located 

 south of current junction of East Road and Murray Circle. (FBT-9A, FBT-13, FB619, now 

 removed)

1903 Parade ground (FB720) is graded and planted with rye grass; trees planted along Murray 

Circle.

1903 Wagon Shed (FB561) is built.

1903 Artillery Barracks (FB601) is built.

1903 Administration Building (FB603) is built at northern end of Murray Circle.

1903 Commanding officers’ residence (FB604) is constructed on site adjacent to administration 

 building. 

1903 Officers’ quarters Duplex (FB607) is built on western side of Murray Circle.

1903 Storehouse (FB633, now removed) is built at Engineer’s Wharf. 

1903 Ornamental plantings, informal in character, planted near foundations of FB604, FB605, 

FB606, FB607, FB629, and FB631. 

1903 Temporary non-commissioned officer housing (FB60, FB61, FB64, FB65, now removed) is 

constructed.

1903 The old Engineer’s Wharf (FB416) is modified with plank decking, iron standard piles, 

spring piles, cluster piles and wooden fender piles. 

1903 Marsh at edge of cove is filled in, requiring 80,000 cubic yards of fill. 

1903-c.1915 Tree planting program established, with windbreaks of Monterey cypress and possibly some 

Monterey pine trees. A perimeter planting of eucalyptus trees is established along the north 

and east sides of the cantonment. Trees are planted for camouflage near battery Duncan 

and Gravelly beach. 

1904 Post Exchange and gymnasium (FB623) is constructed of brick on east side of Murray 

Circle. 

1904 Two duplex officers’ quarters (FB629 and FB 631) and three non-commissioned officers’ 

duplex quarters (FB523, FB527, and FB529) are constructed. The officers quarters are 

located on Murray Circle, and the non-commissioned officers’ quarters are built along 

Kober Street, north of Murray Circle.

1904 Communications cable hut (FB627) is built adjacent to Moore Road and the seawall. Serves 

to link communications cable with Fort Winfield Scott in the Presidio. 

1905 Waiting room with fireplace (FB635) is built at the Engineer’s Wharf (now removed). 

1905 The western portion of the old Lime Point Military Reservation was designated Fort Barry, 

a separate coast artillery post, and a series of powerful Endicott batteries are built. 
32

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

1905 Battery Yates (FB571), with six 3” guns on pedestal mounts is constructed, completing the 

armament of the eastern portion of Lime Point Military Reservation.

1905 A Rangefinder station (FB575B) is constructed at Battery Cavallo; location is aligned with 

center of structure and overlooking the bay. 

1905 Flagstaff (FB648) is erected on parade ground. Guide wires are secured to the ground under 

weight of decorative cannonballs, stabilizing the 75-foot-tall iron flagstaff.

1906 Grass fire that started on Fort Baker burned 1,500 acres and threatened town of Sausalito 

before being brought under control. 

1907 Artillery barracks (FB636) is constructed of brick at southeastern side of Murray Circle. 

1908 Quartermaster storehouse (FB637), constructed of brick, is completed.

c. 1909 Tennis court (FB537) is built adjacent (to the west) of the hospital. Exact date of 

construction is unknown, however, court appears on 1910 map. 

1909 Brick transformer substation (FB502) is constructed as electricity is introduced throughout 

Fort Baker.

1909 Two non-commissioned officers’ duplexes (FB530 and FB531) are constructed along Kober 

Street.

1909 Pump house (FB578) is completed at well north of Murray Circle. 

 1910 Carpenter shop is built (FB405) is built, variously used for original function engineer and 

 signal corps storehouse, recreation room, service club and NCO club. 

1910 Additional storage buildings and workshops, including a blacksmith and plumbing shop 

 (FB644), a fire apparatus house (FB643-now removed) and an artillery engineer storehouse 

 (FB645) are constructed along the eastern edge of the valley at the head of Horseshoe Cove.

1910 Pump House (FB671) is converted from pumping ground water to pumping water from the 

Marin Water District.

1911 U.S. Census records 463 soldiers and their dependents living at Fort Baker.

1913 Iron water storage tanks are erected on site; two have a capacity of 30,000 gallons (FB421 

and FB 423), one stores 100,000 gallons (FB422). They are constructed adjacent to each 

other, in a row on the hillside forming western boundary of valley at the head of Horseshoe 

Cove.

1913 A third 30,000-gallon water storage tank (FB414) is constructed, as well as a 10,000-galloncapacity oil storage tank.

1916-1918 Bunker Road (eastern alignment) and Fort Baker-Barry Tunnel (FB105 and FB268) are 

constructed to improve connections between the two posts, and provide alternate route 

to steep and winding Conzelman and Julian Roads. (Refer to Fort Baker/Marin Headlands 

Historic Road Characterization Study for subsequent construction chronology of Bunker 

Road and the tunnel.)

1917 Battery Duncan guns are dismounted.

1918 Officers’ Club and theater (FB622) [now removed] is built by the

 YMCA.
Chronology

33

 1918 Quartermaster/Ordnance storehouse (FB666) is built.

1919 Sentry station (FB272) is built near Fort Baker-Barry tunnel. 

1919 Water pump station (FB577) is built. 

1920 U.S. Census records 176 people living at Fort Baker.

1920 Construction is completed on a concrete extension to the Quartermaster Wharf (FB416) 

and pilings under the wharf storehouse (now removed). 

c.1920 Ammunition magazine (FB408) is built as a one-story stucco structure in the Mission 

Revival style. 

1920 Marine Maintenance Shop (FB633) is built for general boat repair, and is later used for mine 

operations. 

1920 Construction is completed on a concrete approach to Wharf FB415

1921 Mine Wharf (FB415) is built in Horseshoe Cove.

1921 Exchange service station (FB566) is built with a covered portico at for two gas pumps. 

1921 Grass fire originating in Fort Baker spreads into south Sausalito before Fort Baker soldiers 

 and Sausalito Fire Department contain its spread.

1922 Construction is completed on a communication cable through the Baker/Barry tunnel.

1925 Hospital ambulance garage (FB556) is built. 

1925 Construction is completed on repairs to the Baker/Barry tunnel, using creosoted cedar 

to construct 244 lineal feet of new segmental arches to replace rotted originals. Concrete 

curved wall is installed to replace rotted wood sills. 

1929 Rock and concrete bulkhead is constructed across the mouth of Horseshoe Cove.

1929 Quartermaster Dept. builds concrete seawall (FB662), varying in height from four-and-one- 

 half to fourteen feet. At this time, the road behind the seawall now called Moore Road is 

 widened and improved.

1929 Roads at Forts Baker, Barry and Cronkhite are resurfaced with bituminous macadam. East 

Road is resurfaced over 5290 lineal feet, 17 feet wide. 

1929 Construction is completed on replacement of most electric light poles at Fort Baker. 

Overhead electric poles are replaced with new wood versions, including cross arms, guy 

wires, transformers, etc. Poles are painted white to 5-feet above ground. 

1929 Repairs are completed on Baker/Barry tunnel, consisting of replacement of wood 

structural elements, installation of electric lights, trenching to divert water from tunnel, and 

installation of 1500 lineal feet of barbed wire fencing to exclude cattle from the area. 

1930 U.S. Census records 165 people living at Fort Baker in 29 structures. While far below the 

capacity of the fort, this population is consistent with the Inter-war caretaker status effective 

in 1930. 

1930-1940 Additional foundation plantings installed around FB601, FB602, FB623, FB636, FB624, 

FB647, FB644, and FB641. 
34

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

c. 1930 Perimeter planting of eucalyptus planted to the east of McReynolds Road, behind FB601, 

FB602, FB623, and FB636.

1930 Construction is completed on repairs to wharf (construction records do not indicate which 

wharf). Work includes installing new spring piles and fender piles of creosoted wood. 

1930 20 electric light poles are replaced at Fort Baker. Work includes installation of cross arms, 

transformers, street lights, fire alarm boxes, telephone wires. Poles are painted white to 5’ 

above ground. 

1931 U.S. Army grants an easement to Golden Gate Bridge Authority for 

construction of a bridge and associated roadways through Fort Baker.

1932 Construction is completed on an extension of Fort Baker seawall (FB662). Reinforced 

 concrete seawall is extended 134 feet. Rock and sand (for concrete) is obtained from post. 

 Reinforcing steel is scrap metal. 

1932 Construction is completed on repairs to wharf (construction records do not indicate which 

wharf). Select piles are replaced. 

1935-1936 Construction of the Sausalito Lateral (Alexander Avenue) (FB576) is undertaken. At least 

two construction staging areas are associated with this work: one along Drown Road below 

the Sausalito Lateral and above the post hospital (FB533); the second immediately below 

East Road near the intersection with the Sausalito Lateral (current site of the SausalitoMarin City Sanitary District.) (Refer to Fort Baker/Marin Headlands Historic Road 

Characterization Study for subsequent construction chronology Alexander Avenue.)

1935 The slopes behind the quarters and parade ground are graded, flattened and revegetated.

1935-1937 Baker-Barry Tunnel is widened and upgraded.

1936 A WPA project provides for construction of eight wood frame garage buildings on concrete 

slabs with overhead doors, with a combined total of 30 car bays. (FB534, FB538, FB541, 

FB543, FB545, FB556, FB564, and FB687 (now removed.) Stalls in each garage are separated 

by wire mesh. Work is completed in October.

1936 Work is completed on general repairs to buildings, roads, walkways and sewers at Fort 

Baker as a WPA project. Porch supports and floorboards are replaced; Conzelman Road is 

graded, curves widened, and resurfaced. McReynolds Road is resurfaced in red rock. 

1937 Bunker Road retaining wall (FB401) is constructed to support fill on short connector road 

from Bunker Road to Sausalito Lateral near Baker-Barry tunnel. The stone wall with cement 

mortar is 282 feet long, 2 feet thick, average height of 3 to 4 feet, with terra-cotta pipe drains 

of various sizes.

1937 Construction is completed on repairs to roads, highways, and drainage at Fort Baker. East 

Road is widened and straightened, and a short section is realigned to accommodate the 

Sausalito Lateral (Alexander Avenue). The section of East Road approaching FB615 is 

realigned and a slide uphill from Battery Cavallo is stabilized. Storm drains are constructed 

on Kober Street, and curbs and gutters are constructed along McReynolds Road. Road 

storm drainage is to a 24-inch pipe is completed and the pipe is extended to Horseshoe 

Cove. Work is also completed on general site landscaping, including planting of slopes with 

shrubs and flowers. All work performed as a WPA project. 
Chronology

35

1937 Work is completed on improved roads, highways and streets at Fort Baker.

East Road is graded and surfaced with asphaltic concrete, striped with a white centerline, 

and 268 guideposts are installed. A sidewalk is constructed in front of FB615. McReynolds 

Road is straightened and graded from FB615 to FB636, and curbs and gutters are also 

installed as part of this WPA project.

c. 1937-40 McReynolds Road retaining wall (FB521) is built of gray stone, 630’ long, average 4’ to 5’ 

high, with breaks for trash areas and steps along the northeast side of McReynolds Road. 

A similar stone retaining wall (FB520) is built alongside Kober Street and stone riprap is 

laid on sloping road shoulders around the post hospital (FB533) and at the extension of 

McReynolds Road near the guardhouse (FB615). 

c. 1937-40 Trees are planted adjacent to re-aligned East/McReynolds/Satterlee Road intersection. 

c. 1937-40 Tennis court retaining wall (FB538) is built of gray stone and surrounds the tennis court 

 on the northwest, northeast and southeast sides. Wall has flush mortar joints. Exact 

 construction date is unknown, however, possible that it is constructed as a WPA project. 

1937 Mine wharf (FB415) is built, forming an “L” shaped enclosure around the older wooden 

Quartermaster wharf. 

1937 Small, (8’ x 8’) one-story wood frame building (FB664) is moved to marine repair area to 

serve as a flammable storage building. Constructed circa 1918, its original use and location is 

unknown. 

1937 Mine dispersion pier is constructed on the post’s eastern shore beneath Yellow Bluff. 

1937 Refueling dock, marine railway with a boat hoist and a 37’ x 115’ wood wharf on wood pilings 

 (FB668) is constructed. 

1937-1941 Mine depot is developed, consisting of a storehouse (FB407), cable tank building (FB670), 

powerhouse (FB409), magazines (FB410 and FB411) and two loading rooms (FB414). 

c. 1937-1945 Moore breakwater (FB632) is built, 288 feet long, extending east into Horseshoe Cove from 

 Moore Road. Its exact construction date is unknown, however, it was most likely 

 constructed as part of mine depot development. The U.S. Coast Guard widens this 

 breakwater in the 1990s.

1938 Construction is completed on repairs and improvements to barracks, quarters, and 

storehouses at Forts Baker and Barry. Improvements to buildings, landscaping, storm 

water system, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, electricity, domestic water, and furnishings. A 

building-by-building summary of improvements is produced as part of these WPA projects. 

Landscaping work includes grading tees and greens for a golf course. Curbs and gutters are 

constructed on both sides of Murray Circle; sidewalks are repaired. 

1938 Construction is completed on additional repairs and improvements to barracks, quarters, 

storehouses at Forts Baker and Barry. Work includes general rehabilitation of building 

interiors, building systems, painting, roofs and drains, landscaping, and roads. A slide 

on East Road is cleared, portions of the road are resurfaced, and curbs and gutters are 

constructed. A three-course bituminous pavement is applied and curbs and gutters are 

installed on Center Road, Murray Circle and Kober Street. Grading is completed to 

constructed Sommerville Road; a one-mile section of Conzelmen Road is graded; a 150-

cubic-yard berm is constructed on Bunker Road. The baseball field and golf course are 

graded, and trees around the cantonment are topped. Oil and water lines are also repaired 

as part of this WPA project.
36

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

1939 Fort Baker hosts an open house for its civilian neighbors, with a fishing derby, an exhibition 

golf match and a beach picnic at Rodeo Lagoon. 

1939 A greenhouse (FB688) (now removed) is constructed near the hospital.

1939 Construction is completed on two new redwood water tanks (FB53A and FB53B (now 

removed)

1939 Construction is completed on a sewer line to FB522, in conjunction with interior 

 improvements. 

1940 Construction is completed on major repairs to stable (FB619) and

corral (now removed).

1939 Construction is completed on a 14-bay truck garage (FB695) (now removed).

1941 Anti-Motor Torpedo Boat Gun Plugs (FB702A, 702B, and 702C) are built on bluff 

 overlooking Kirby Cove and are the easternmost emplacement in Fort Baker; at least four 

 other AMTB Gun Plugs are built at this time as part of the seacoast fortification program. 

1941 Three NCO family housing units (FB546, FB547, FB549) are constructed as temporary NCO 

family housing. 

1941 Marine Maintenance Shop (FB633) is built for general boat repair and mining operations.

1941 Utility structure (FB404) is built adjacent to the NCO Club (FB405). Exact use unknown, 

however, may have been built as distribution transformer, listed in the Army inventory. 

1941 Detonator magazine (FB410) is built to house detonators for the TNT-powered mines. 

1941 Moore Road is paved from Murray Circle to Conzelman Road, average 20’-25’ width.

1941 Water reservoir (FB572) with a 400,000-gallon capacity is constructed on top of the ridge 

near Battery Duncan. The existing reservoir system, consisting of Pump House (FB671) and 

water tanks (FB421-423) are taken out of service as part of the potable water system, though 

they may have remained in service through the 1970s as part of the site irrigation water 

system.

1941 Ridge water tank (FB 728) is constructed as a buried concrete tank on ridge above Battery 

Spencer to supply water to Battery Spencer. 

1941 Construction is completed on a temporary housing and associated infrastructure project 

at Forts Baker, Barry and Cronkhite. Fort Baker portion of this project provides for 

construction of the Regimental Chapel (FB519).

1941 Construction is completed on a new station hospital complex using 700-series mobilization 

plans, located near Horseshoe Cove. Construction consists of hospital buildings, housing, 

and associated infrastructure. Work includes 24 buildings and covered corridors. (Buildings 

E201-E220 inclusive, and E-372, all now removed). 

1942 Construction is completed on a new 63-man barrack (FB507) and one warehouse (Building 

number is unknown, now removed). 

1942 Shoreline of Horseshoe Cove is stabilized with a wooden bulkhead. The bulkhead is 

repaired and expanded successively through the 1980s. Original length extended across 

western quarter of the cove; final length extends along entire length of the cove. 
Chronology

37

1942 Maintenance building (FB665) and Motor Repair Shop (FB689) are constructed near the 

Boat Repair Shop.

1942 Construction is completed on two new dolphins at the submarine wharf (FB415). 

1942 Construction is completed on a new 6-inch water line within Fort Baker.

1942 Construction is completed on improved electrical transmission lines for Forts Baker, Barry 

and Cronkhite. The distribution system includes lines on overhead poles and underground 

cables.

1942 Construction is completed on two new reinforced concrete 400,000-gallon water 

reservoirs, one at Fort Baker (FB572) and one at Fort Cronkhite, and associated distribution 

system including connections to 200,00 gallon reservoir at Fort Barry. New 8-inch transit 

line under East Road connects FB572 to Marin Municipal Water Company; FB572 connects 

to existing site distribution system using 6-inch line.

1942 Construction is completed on expansion of gas distribution system at Forts Baker, Barry and 

Cronkhite to serve new heating and cooking needs.

1943 Mobile searchlight storage (FB691) is built to support WWII coast searchlight program. 

1943 Battery 129 Radio/Switchboard Room is built (FB770).

1943 Satterlee breakwater (FB630) is built of stone, extending 778 feet to the west from Cavallo 

Point into Horseshoe Cove. At the same time, the Marine Repair Shop (FB699) is also 

constructed, initially consisting of seven bays of warehouse space fitted with an overhead 

rolling crane. 

1945 East Road is widened to 26’ as far as Battery Cavallo, and to 36’ to its junction with 

Alexander Avenue. Wide pullouts with benches and picnic tables are installed. 

1946 Prefabricated metal building (FB665) is constructed at the waterfront in the vicinity of the 

Boat Repair Shop (FB67) to support marine repair activities at the cove. 

1946 The Army Medical Laboratory is relocated to Fort Baker from Fort Ord. The unit includes 

78 enlisted men and 24 civilian staff. By this date, all gun emplacements at Fort Baker 

batteries are deactivated.

1947 The mission of Army personnel at Fort Baker is revised to that of training personnel and 

testing new developments. An artillery detachment of 7 officers and 178 enlisted men is 

stationed at the site, while a mine detachment of 9 officers, 9 warrant officers and 200 

enlisted men is also stationed at the site.

1948 Fort Baker World War II mobilization hospital is removed from active duty.

1949 The Mine Detachment Artillery School leaves; it was the last coastal defense function at 

 Fort Baker.

1951 Flagstaff is erected at northwest end of parade ground, near the intersection of Murray 

Circle and Kober Street, replacing earlier flagstaff.

1951-1984 Various improvements are made to the Satterlee Breakwater(FB630) including repairs to 

 water service, electrical, lighting, topography, beacon light, boat basins, etc. 

1953 The Army grants an expanded transportation right-of-way to California Department of 

Transportation (CalTrans) for Vista Point, the first hill encountered by northbound travelers 

crossing the Golden Gate Bridge. The right-of-way is fenced. 
38

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

1954 The State of California adds an additional 100’ to the Baker-Barry Tunnel (west portal).

1955 The 561st Army Engineer Company Port Construction Unit is relocated to Fort Baker from 

Camp Edwards in Massachusetts. The unit includes 200 enlisted men and 10 officers. 

1956 The U.S. Coast Guard acquires land within Fort Baker Military Reservation, including Tract 

02-114, a .27-acre portion of Yellow Bluff, and Tract 02-115, a .15-acre portion of Lime Point, 

and Tract 02-116, a 2.00-acre portion of Point Diablo. 

1956 The World War II-era mobilization hospital becomes the site of the 6th Army Medical 

Laboratory.

c. 1958 Boat Ramp (FB634) is built as a 24’-wide, 100’-long sloping concrete roadbed connecting 

Sommerville Road with the beach at Horseshoe Cove. The boat haul railway pier leading to 

FB633 is removed.

1959 Capehart housing complex is completed: twenty-one duplexes are constructed.

c. 1960 A concrete retaining wall is built from the ramp (FB634) across the front of FB633. 

1962 CalTrans constructs a paved parking lot on Vista Point.

1964 CalTrans constructs a small restroom facility on the edge of the Vista Point parking lot. 

1967 The federal government transfers portions of the Forts Baker and Barry Military 

Reservation to the State of California to create the Marin Headlands State Park. Tracts 

include 02-120 and 02-122, including portions of east Fort Baker and west Fort Baker. 

1972 Golden Gate National Recreation Area is established under Public Law 92-589, and the NPS 

takes over management of most open space throughout the Marin Headlands.

1975 CalTrans expands the Vista Point viewing area on the south side of the parking lot.

1975 The Army transfers portions of west Fort Baker to the National Park Service. Tract 02-

119 consists of 1499.56 acres including portions of west Fort Baker, Fort Barry and Fort 

Cronkhite. 

1980 The State of California transfers portions of east and west Fort Baker to the U. S. 

Government for use as the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Tract 02-122 consists 

of lands west from the Sausalito Lateral (Alexander Avenue) past Highway 101, at total of 

133.80 acres. Tract 02-120 consists of 338.00 acres in west Fort Baker and Fort Barry along the 

shoreline of the Golden Gate from approximately Battery Spencer to Black Sands Beach.

1980 FB679 is taken over for use by the Presidio Yacht Club – a military-sponsored sailing club 

- and the adjacent marina is taken over for use by pleasure craft. The Presidio Yacht Club 

departs from FB633.

1983 Most buildings that comprise the Mobilization hospital complex at waterfront are 

demolished.

1985 CalTrans constructs a larger restroom facility in the center of the Vista Point parking lot. 

1985 The U. S. Army transfers portions of east Fort Baker to the National Park Service. Tract 02-

102 consists of 5.83 acres including western portions of Horseshoe Cove.
Chronology

39

1986 The U. S. Army transfers portions of east Fort Baker to the National Park Service. Tract 2-197 

consists of 257.7 acres including the Quartermaster warehouse area, East Road and adjacent 

lands, Battery Duncan hill, and areas from the Sausalito Lateral west to Highway 101.

1988 The U. S. Coast Guard constructs Station Golden Gate (FB655) and floating docks. The 

building and adjacent lands and docks on the west side of Horseshoe Cove are included in a 

USCG right-of-way.

1989 The Loma Prieta Earthquake closes Baker Barry tunnel. It was reconstructed later that year.

1988-1990 The Bay Area Discovery Museum (BADM) improves and occupies FB557, FB559, FB561, 

FB637, FB666, FB644, FB645, FB566, FB567, portions of Satterlee Road and lands around 

these buildings. Additionally, new building FB562 is constructed.

1995 A severe winter storm damages and destroys numerous historic

trees around the fort.

1998 The National Park Service undertakes development of a comprehensive plan for east Fort 

Baker leading to the Fort Baker Plan and related Environmental Impact Statement.

1999 Building foundation repair project results in removal of some historictrees and most 

 foundation plantings from around historic structures in the cantonment.

2000 Portions of marine railway (FB668) removed by Army in order to construct deck on rear of 

FB679.

2000 The Record of Decision on the Fort Baker Plan is signed.

2002 The Lone Sailor Memorial is completed at Vista Point. 

2002 The Army transfers its last landholdings in east Fort Baker to the National Park Service. 

Tract 02-196 consists of 71.28 acres including the Fort Baker core cantonment and eastern 

portions of Horseshoe Cove. 
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

40

Physical Setting67

The Fort Baker Military Reservation is situated 

on the east shore of the Marin Headlands in 

San Francisco Bay. This area is part of the Coast 

Range geologic province of California, and 

consists of northwest-trending folds and faults, 

steep hills, and areas of exposed bedrock. Fort 

Baker is located on the more shallow portions 

of these hills, rising from the shoreline to the 

highest point on the west at about 800 feet, 

sloping down to about 200 feet on the east. The 

native vegetation surrounding east Fort Baker 

has been heavily impacted by various land uses 

including cattle ranching, quarrying, landfill, 

road construction and slope stabilization. The 

vegetation is a mixture of native and nonnative species that are well adapted to such 

coastal influences as summer fog, maritime 

temperatures, salt spray and strong winds. 

The Fort Baker developed area includes 335 acres 

situated in a bowl-shaped valley to the east of 

US Highway 101. It is bordered on the north by 

Slacker Ridge and on the south and east by San 

Francisco Bay. On the south side of the site is 

Horseshoe Cove, a shallow bay, covering about 

16 surface acres. This cove, and the associated 

beachfront extending around the shoreline 

between Point Cavallo on the east and Lime 

Point on the west is considered part of the core 

area of Fort Baker. 

Access and Circulation

General Access

Access to Fort Baker from US Highway 101 is 

accomplished via Alexander Avenue (Sausalito 

Lateral), which connects Highway 101 with the 

town of Sausalito. Direct vehicular access to 

Fort Baker from Alexander Avenue is by either 

of two roads: East Road or Danes Drive, which 

connects Alexander Avenue with Bunker Road. 

Bunker Road, a winding two-lane road, provides 

access to Fort Baker for vehicles arriving from 

either the Baker-Barry Tunnel or US Highway 

101. East Road, also a two-lane road, is used by 

motorists as well as bicyclists for access into Fort 

Baker.

Conzelman Road extends west from the 

southbound entrance to Highway 101. A segment 

of the original Conzelman Road, sometimes 

referred to as Vista Point Road, connects Vista 

Point to the Fort Baker cantonment following 

a narrow route benched into the hillside and 

ending at the waterfront near the former site 

of the Engineer’s Camp. From the westbound 

segment of Conzelman Road, Kirby Beach 

Road is a restricted, winding, one-lane dirt road 

leading to Kirby Cove. Conzelman Road also 

provides access to Bridge and Bluff roads on the 

west side of the bridge approach.

McCullough Road connects the west Capehart 

Housing/Bunker Road with Conzelman Road 

and provides connections with three dirt roads: 

Dubois, Julian, and Slacker, now used as hiking 

trails and fire roads. Lamoraux Drive and a 

portion of Smiley Street, both paved streets 

within the west Capehart housing area, are 

within the historic boundary for Fort Baker.

Internal Circulation

Roads are relatively limited within the core area 

of Fort Baker, reflecting a hierarchy of use by the 

military during the historic period. Secondary 

roads include two-lane and one-lane roads. Four 

of these roads are two-lanes wide and include 

Murray Circle (one-way), and McReynolds 

Road, both of which provide the primary 

circulation for the buildings ringing the parade 

ground. Other two-way roads include Kober 

Street, Merrill Street and Breitung Road.

The one-lane, one-way roads include Seitler 

Road and Swain Road. One-lane, two-way roads 

include Sommerville Road, Satterlee Road, Umia 

Street and Moore Road. Moore Road, portions 

of which are currently closed to public access, 

extends from Murray Circle along the western 

edge of Lime Point to a spot immediately below 

the Golden Gate Bridge. 

Partially paved and gravel roads are not open 

to public vehicle access and are often used 

by pedestrians. These roads include Battery 

Yates Road, Satterlee Road (partially paved), 

Battery Cavallo Road, Drown Road (access to 

the reservoir and Battery Duncan) and Gibson 

Drive.

Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions

 41

Parking Areas

Both paved and unpaved parking areas are 

clustered around the parade ground, along major 

roads, and on the waterfront, and accommodate 

both NPS and visitor use of the site. Parking 

areas along the outside edge of Murray Circle 

and along McReynolds Road provide the 

majority of parking for the buildings along the 

parade grounds. Three separate parking lots on 

either side of Center Road (the southern end 

of the parade ground) provide parking for the 

both the parade ground and Discovery Museum 

visitors. 

Unpaved parking pullouts along Conzelman 

and East Road are currently used primarily as 

scenic pullouts providing outstanding viewing 

opportunities of the east bay and San Francisco. 

Trails 

Approaching Fort Baker from the south, 

the surviving early 20th century segment of 

Conzelman Road has been designated the 

San Francisco Bay Trail, a route which crosses 

the Golden Gate Bridge and extends down 

to Conzelman Road, wraps under the Bridge, 

continues along Moore Road to Center Street, 

and follows East Road toward Sausalito. Other 

trails extend through west Fort Baker and 

include the American Discovery Trail, the Bay 

Area Ridge Trail and the California Coastal Trail 

which follows Conzelman Road on the west side 

of Highway 101 and connects with the historic 

traces of Slacker Road and Julian Road. The 

Kirby Beach Trail runs from Battery Spencer to 

Kirby Beach along a historic access road down 

to the beach. A new loop trail is proposed that 

would connect Drown Road at Battery Duncan 

with the chapel. Each of these trail segments use 

portions of the historic road system to make up 

their routes.

Land Use

NPS and the U.S. Army have completed the land 

transfer of all Fort Baker tracts. Accordingly, 

its historic land use as a military post has been 

completely phased out. Current uses include 

NPS administrative and maintenance facilities, 

public recreation, the Bay Area Discovery 

Museum, and a U. S. Coast Guard Station. A 

retreat and conference center is currently being 

planned for development on the site under a 

lease agreement with the NPS.

NPS Administration and Maintenance

Currently, the National Park Service 

administrative offices for Fort Baker are located 

in FB602 (the former Artillery Barracks). NPS 

maintenance staff currently occupy FB513, 

FB407, and FB691 (the garage at the far left of 

FB691 is shared with the U. S. Coast Guard and 

California Department of Fish and Game). The 

maintenance staff provides labor for the physical 

upkeep of the fort.

Public Recreation

Open space, passive recreation, and sightseeing 

opportunities in Fort Baker occur on the parade 

ground, around the waterfront area, and at 

pullouts along East Road. Recreational uses 

include jogging, bicycling, hiking, dog walking, 

camping (by reservation) and sightseeing. 

The parade ground provides opportunities 

for baseball and other field sports. A seasonal 

overnight campground with restrooms, picnic 

tables, tent pads, water sources, and a parking 

area sits immediately behind the battery at Kirby 

Cove. 

Travis Sailing Center

The Travis Sailing Center currently occupies 

four buildings on Satterlee Road in the southeast 

portion of the waterfront. The club uses the 

buildings, the marina, Refueling Dock, and 

Marine Railway. 

Bay Area Discovery Museum

The Bay Area Discovery Museum is a children’s 

museum which occupies nine buildings in the 

southeastern portion of Fort Baker. FB631 on 

Murray Circle is temporarily used for museum 

administration. 

U. S. Coast Guard Station

The U. S. Coast Guard Station currently 

utilizes FB655 and portions of FB691 at the 

southwest corner of the historic core area at the 

intersection of Murray Circle and Moore Road. 

Vegetation 

Throughout the military reservation is a mixture 

of native and non-native species reflecting over 

one hundred years of various land uses. This 

mixture of species is dynamic in nature: the 

once open character of the nineteenth century 
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

42

pasturelands has disappeared into coastal scrub, 

and originally-contained tree plantations of 

non-native eucalyptus, cypress and pines have 

vastly extended their boundaries in the century 

since planting began. Today, listed plant habitats 

include annual grasslands, native perennial 

grassland including remnants around batteries 

Yates and Cavallo, coastal scrub, ornamental/

functional plantings, estuarine, native oak 

woodlands, redwoods, and non-native stands of 

Monterey cypress, eucalyptus, and a variety of 

pine species. 

What is left today of the ornamental vegetation 

planted during the period of significance 

includes groves of cypress and eucalyptus, 

remnant foundation plantings around the 

historic buildings, and the large open expanses 

of grass in the parade ground and around the 

buildings along Murray Circle.

Additional ornamental plantings (pine and 

redwood trees) were installed after the period 

of significance around the Capehart housing 

and also on the hillsides surrounding the 

cantonment. In addition, exotic species like pine, 

cypress, eucalyptus, acacia, and numerous other 

species are spreading outside of the cantonment 

into the surrounding hills. This mixture of native 

and non-native species makes it difficult for the 

NPS to manage the site’s vegetation since both 

natural and cultural values are compromised by 

the rapid encroachment of non-native species 

throughout the military reservation. 

Archeological Resources 

Recent archaeological investigations and 

studies at Fort Baker have recorded nearly 300 

features associated with the history of the Fort 

Baker Military Reservation, of which fifty-eight 

are associated with east Fort Baker. Cultural 

landscape features were aggregated into feature 

systems such as water systems, abandoned 

roads, utility features, tree stumps, various 

types of walls, quarries, navigational features, 

building foundations, garbage dumps, and other 

miscellaneous features. 

No indigenous archeological sites have yet been 

identified.

Small-Scale Features 

Few historic small-scale features remain at 

Fort Baker. Several of these features—such 

as fire hydrants and manhole covers—were 

documented as part of the Phase One 

Archeological Investigations Survey For the Fort 

Baker Archeological Survey conducted at Fort 

Baker in 2001. However, other small-scale site 

features— such as metal pipe handrails and 

wire fence—were not documented during this 

study, and while these features appear to date to 

the historic period (The War Years), additional 

research is needed to assess their historical 

significance. Small-scale historic site features that 

do remain at Fort Baker are important remnants 

of the military use of the area and generally 

contribute to the character of the cultural 

landscape. 

Non-historic small-scale features include 

electrical poles, light standards, most fire 

hydrants, garbage cans, the parade ground 

baseball backstop and bleachers, various chain 

link fences, guardrails, picnic tables, benches, 

mailboxes, signs, banners, parade ground 

monument, and other miscellaneous site 

furnishings. 

Building and Structures 

Over a hundred historic buildings and structures 

are located at Fort Baker and represent a 

continuum of US Army use extending from the 

mid-nineteenth century until the present.

Most of the buildings at Fort Baker have recently 

been transferred to NPS management. The 

NPS, in turn, will be transitioning their use from 

military purposes to those in support of the 

site program as outlined in the Fort Baker Plan/

FEIS. Accordingly, the majority of buildings 

are presently empty but are being maintained 

until such time as they can be repaired and 

rehabilitated for compatible public use. Prior to 

their transfer to the NPS, the primary uses of 

the buildings were a combination of residential, 

utilitarian, and other buildings supporting 

administrative, recreational and religious needs 

of the fort. Non-historic buildings include both 

the east and west Capehart housing and the U.S. 

Coast Guard Station. 

Structures remaining in the waterfront area 

were originally designed and constructed in 

support of marine-associated military activities. 

Along the waterfront, the Moore and Satterlee 

breakwaters provide protection from rough seas 

for the boats and buildings at Horseshoe Cove. 

The wharves, although no longer in use for the 
Existing Conditions

 43

loading and unloading of military equipment, 

are still used by a military sailing club, local 

fishermen, boating enthusiasts, and the U.S. 

Coast Guard. Seawalls used at Horseshoe Cove 

include poured concrete casement seawalls and 

the wood timber bulkhead.

Buildings and structures dating from the Cold 

War era also exist at Fort Baker, including the 

radio siren tower, a torpedo head installed at 

the waterfront near FB627, and the Capehart 

housing development. Because these features 

were introduced to the site following the period 

of significance, they are non-contributing; 

however, subsequent analysis may identify a 

historic context and significance within the 

overall military development of the military 

reservation during the Cold War.

Endnotes

67 Portions of this section are excerpted and 

paraphrased from the Fort Baker Plan: Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Vol.I, 1999, 

chapter 3-1, Affected Environment.

Analysis and Evaluation

 45

INTRODUCTION

The analysis and evaluation of cultural landscape 

resources at Fort Baker is based on historical 

research and documentation of the existing 

conditions. For each of the nine landscape 

characteristics documented in this report, the 

analysis describes and evaluates landscape 

changes through the entire period of significance, 

highlighting changes during the three primary 

eras of development: the Endicott era, PostEndicott era, and the War years to the present. 

The purpose of the evaluation is to identify 

the landscape characteristics and features that 

contribute to the significance of the site, and 

retain integrity. Because Fort Baker is already 

listed on the National Register of Historic Places, 

findings from the evaluation will be used to 

supplement the existing documentation. 

Findings from the analysis and evaluation 

are synthesized at the end of this section. Six 

Cultural Landscape Character Areas in east Fort 

Baker are defined, illustrating the concentration 

of landscape resources in relationship to each 

other and to the fort as a whole. These character 

areas provide the framework for development 

of management zones and treatment 

recommendations, discussed in Part II of this 

report.

Analysis and Evaluation

NATURAL SYSTEMS AND 

FEATURES 

Natural systems have historically influenced the 

selection of specific sites for development by the 

military and, when Fort Baker was acquired in 

1850, it was thought of as an ideal site offering 

the Army a number of tactical and defensive 

capabilities. Certainly the most important 

natural system influencing development of 

the site was landform. Historically, the natural 

landforms present at Fort Baker—a small harbor 

to accommodate ships, elevated terrain that 

provided commanding views and extensive sight 

lines for siting batteries, and a small sheltered 

valley that provided an area for construction 

of a cantonment - defined the framework for 

development of the post. (Photo NS1)

The steep hills of the Marin Headlands on 

either side of Horseshoe Cove were ideal 

tactical locations for the siting of batteries 

providing direct views of the Golden Gate Strait 

(Battery Orlando Wagner, Battery Kirby, and 

Battery Spencer) or San Francisco Bay (Battery 

Duncan, Battery Cavallo, and Battery Yates). 

Natural landforms permitted the batteries to 

be sited further back from the shoreline while 

maintaining direct views of San Francisco Bay 

and accommodating the range limitations of the 

NS1 Historic photograph showing 

character of Fort Baker’s surrounding 

landscape during the Endicott period 

circa 1902 (GGNRA Park Archives and 

Record Center, 1766-N4,07).
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

46 

artillery. The natural grasslands and coastal scrub 

helped camouflage and blend these features into 

the landscape. 

Horseshoe Cove, a natural bay, played a vital 

role throughout the early establishment and later 

development of Fort Baker. Serving as a primary 

transportation link prior to the construction of 

any roads, it was also the locale for the delivery 

of food, water, and supplies for the fort. During 

early development of the post, fluctuating tides 

and harsh wave action within the cove made 

shipping somewhat treacherous and in 1867 

a breakwater was constructed between the 

Needles and the shore. Additional breakwaters 

were built on Horseshoe Cove during the postEndicott period, and the natural shoreline was 

significantly modified for military uses through 

World War II. 

Historically, water supply to the fort was an 

ongoing concern. During the period of initial 

development at Lime Point, the Engineer’s 

Camp was supplied with water from small 

springs located on Lime Point Ridge. As the 

camp developed, this supply became insufficient 

and in 1897, the Army began to barge water to 

Horseshoe Cove. From the landing, the water 

was pumped to storage tanks located on the hills 

above the cantonment. The gradient between 

the tanks and the garrison provided enough 

water pressure to supply Fort Baker. (Photo NS2) 

Still, as the garrison grew, supplies again became 

inadequate. Fort Baker is sited in a northwesttrending valley that drains southeastward toward 

San Francisco Bay. Because the bedrock onsite 

is relatively impermeable, nearly all of the water 

that falls in the hills surrounding the cantonment 

drained through the site and into the bay along 

NS2 Water was 

pumped to storage 

tanks located on 

the hills above the 

cantonment. The 

hills provided a 

head to build water 

pressure to supply 

Fort Baker. Circa 

1915 (GGNRA Park 

Archives and Record 

Center, 3311.007).

NS3 The valley 

north of Horseshoe 

Cove was a 

relatively flat and 

natural setting 

for buildings, 

a microclimate 

buffering the 

cantonment from 

inclement weather. 

Circa 1904-6 

(Sausalito Historical 

Society, Chambers 

Family Photo 

Collection, Negative 

9846.3).
 47

Analysis and Evaluation

the waterfront at Horseshoe Cove, leaving the 

Army without a water reserve. In 1902, the 

Quartermaster began investigating alternative 

sources of water for Fort Baker. Several attempts 

to locate a reliable source of potable water 

onsite proved unsuccessful and in 1905, an 

agreement was reached between the Army and 

Marin County Water and Power to provide 

a connection between Sausalito and the post 

boundary.

The natural marsh north of Horseshoe Cove 

was filled in by the Army in 1903, both as a result 

of the growing use of this area as a dispersion 

point for supplies and because of military 

concerns over health issues (real or imagined). 

Subsequently, natural stream flows into the 

marsh were routed through buried culverts to 

outfalls at several locations along the shoreline. 

The bowl-shaped valley located just north 

of Horseshoe Cove was a natural setting for 

siting buildings and administrative functions 

associated with Fort Baker. This sheltered valley 

buffered the cantonment from the harsh winds 

and fog, often prevalent on the ocean side of 

the headlands. The buildings were constructed 

around the edge of the slopes that created the 

valley, leaving the flat center area for the parade 

ground (Photo NS3, previous page). Behind 

these buildings and along the base of the slopes 

of the hills, trees were planted throughout the 

historic period both in stands and in single 

rows. These trees functioned as windbreaks and 

perimeter plantings and provided a boundary 

definition to the cantonment in contrast to the 

open hills that surrounded it. These plantings 

were contemporaneous with forest plantings at 

the various entries into the Presidio, which were 

meant to distinguish the post from the natural 

surroundings and provide a more formal context 

for the military encampment.

The most significant change to the natural 

systems and features occurred with the 

construction of the Golden Gate Bridge and the 

associated access routes built to support it.The 

road cuts and fills and subsequent stabilization 

efforts significantly altered the historic 

character of several natural systems within the 

fort including slopes, aspect, hydrology, and 

vegetation.68(Photo NS4).

Summary

Large-scale natural landforms—including 

the hills and bluff, protected valley, and 

Horseshoe Cove—were the dominant natural 

system influencing the early establishment and 

subsequent development of Fort Baker by the 

military. Natural landforms affected the siting 

of structures, the design and layout of the 

cantonment, and use of the waterfront. Although 

natural systems were modified by the military 

during the development of Fort Baker, these 

modifications occurred during the period of 

significance and reflect the designed adaptation 

and use of the landscape by the military. In this 

regard, natural systems, specifically large-scale 

landforms, contribute to the historic character of 

NS4 Construction of the Golden Gate 

Bridge in the early 1930s physically 

impacted Fort Baker’s natural systems 

and features. July 1936 (Golden Gate 

Bridge Archives).
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

48 

the cultural landscape. 

Endnotes

68Because the bridge and its associated features 

are important contributing elements of any 

future Golden Gate Bridge Historical District 

nomination, they would need to be assessed 

within that historic context, however, their 

physical impact on the natural systems at Fort 

Baker was extensive.
Analysis and Evaluation

 49

SPATIAL ORGANIZATION

Spatial organization at Fort Baker was 

historically shaped by two primary factors: the 

strategic needs of the military related to the 

construction of coastal fortifications in the midnineteenth century and the geomorphology of 

the Marin Headlands. Prior to acquisition by 

the Army, the Marin Headlands were pastoral in 

character with few roads and little development. 

Grazing cattle kept the vegetation low and the 

landscape generally open along the bluffs and 

in the valley north of Horseshoe Cove. Historic 

photographs show a small cluster of at least 

two structures with a fenced area sited adjacent 

to the marsh at Horseshoe Cove; however, 

no other development is known to have been 

associated with the site. By 1866, when the 

federal government purchased 1,899 acres of 

the headlands in order to establish the Lime 

Point Military Reservation, the landscape was 

characterized by rolling hills, ravines, small 

valleys, and pasturelands bounded by sheer 

cliffs and rocky beaches at the water’s edge. 

These features, combined with the relatively 

flat and protected valley north of Horseshoe 

Cove, offered the most strategic location for the 

military to protect the Golden Gate and provided 

the physical setting for the development of a 

military cantonment. 

Historically, spatial organization at Fort Baker 

focused on the shoreline and the area around 

Horseshoe Cove. In 1867 the first breakwater in 

the bay was constructed between the Needles 

and the shore, creating a protected harbor and 

allowing the transport of men and materials from 

San Francisco. The same year, construction of a 

large wharf containing two buildings, a waiting 

room, and a pump house was constructed on 

the lee side of the breakwater. North of the 

wharf, a complex of temporary structures 

including quarters for over 200 men, a mess hall, 

workshop, and storehouses were completed. 

This area, known as Engineer’s Camp, became 

the early focus for staging and housing workers 

during construction of the batteries. Following 

the establishment of Engineer’s Camp, 

development turned to the construction of 

the shoreline defenses and the infrastructure 

required to support these structures. 

Initial plans by the Army called for a single, 

massive masonry fortification to be erected 

near the water’s edge at Lime Point. Advancing 

military technology soon rendered this plan 

obsolete, and over the next several years multiple 

individual batteries were built along the shore 

and on the bluffs of the coastal hills, reflecting 

a significant shift in the organization of harbor 

defense undertakings in the United States. 

Gravelly Beach Battery, Cliff Battery, Ridge 

Battery, and Battery Cavallo as well as several 

associated support facilities were all completed 

between 1870 and 1876. Roads were sited and 

graded along the flat lands adjacent to the shore 

to transport workers, materials, and construction 

equipment from the wharf and staging areas at 

Engineer’s Camp to each of the batteries, leaving 

large tracts of the military reservation open and 

undeveloped. By 1897 when the Army began 

to construct the cantonment at Fort Baker, the 

spatial organization of the site was tied directly 

to the waterfront and bluffs surrounding the bay. 

In many ways, this general pattern would remain 

a key element of spatial organization at Fort 

Baker through World War II.

The most significant change to spatial 

organization influencing the landscape character 

of Fort Baker occurred during the Endicott 

era. While early development had been limited 

to shoreline battery construction and affiliated 

access roads, the small valley north of Horseshoe 

Cove remained undeveloped. Initially used 

to house troops in tents, this open area soon 

became the focus for more permanent housing 

and structures supporting the administrative 

functions of the fort. By 1900 a plan for 

development of the larger cantonment was in 

place which would eventually define the use and 

organization of the site. 

Typical of other design standards for military 

cantonments of the period, the principal 

buildings and roadways of the post were laid out 

around an open parade ground. At Fort Baker, 

the relatively flat valley adjacent to Horseshoe 

Cove provided the necessary open space to 

establish a parade ground. Murray Circle 

formed the boundary of the parade ground 

and created a horseshoe-shaped space with a 

slight downhill slope to the southeast. Eleven 

buildings including barracks, a post exchange 

and gymnasium, officers’ housing, the post 

headquarters building, and the commanding 

officer’s residence were evenly spaced facing 

the parade ground. Buildings were sited based 

on military hierarchy of rank and post function, 

with the commanding officer’s residence at the 

highest point on the center of the arc, officers’ 

quarters on the west side, and barracks buildings 

on the east side. It is possible that favorable 
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

50 

climactic conditions dictated the placement of 

the officers’ quarters on the west side of the 

parade ground since the hillside behind protects 

these residences from the stiff winds and 

blowing fog coming in through the Golden Gate. 

In addition, the officers’ quarters enjoy direct 

exposure to the morning sun, while the enlisted 

men’s barracks on the east side of the parade 

ground would receive less direct sun due to the 

late afternoon fog. 

Non-commissioned officers were housed in 

buildings directly north of the parade ground 

on Kober Street. Service-related structures were 

located on spur roads north and south of the 

parade ground. Trees planted approximately 

forty feet on center along the northern arc of the 

parade ground added to the formal symmetry 

of the core area. The addition of windbreaks 

planted in 1903 along McReynolds Road defined 

the western edge of this core development.

At the southeastern edge of the parade ground, 

completed in 1901, Murray Circle intersected 

the road to Sausalito [East Road]. With the 

construction of a gatehouse near the junction, 

access to the post was controlled at this point. 

Expanding the working character of the wharf 

and waterfront, this area southeast of the parade 

ground became the locus for a variety of servicerelated activities and included a storehouse, 

stable and corral, a guardhouse, coal shed, and a 

bakery. 

Although work on the batteries resumed 

during the Endicott era, the emphasis was on 

modernized military techniques that involved 

improvements to existing structures rather than 

replacement or relocation. In this regard, spatial 

organization as it related to the batteries and 

their associated support structures remained 

focused along the shoreline east, south, and west 

of the cantonment. 

By the end of the Endicott era, the spatial 

organization defining use and function at Fort 

Baker was essentially complete. Design of the 

fort was characterized by coastal fortifications 

and associated support structures sited along the 

headlands and shoreline, a working wharf and 

adjacent service buildings, and the formal and 

structured core residential and administrative 

areas laid out around the formal parade. 

Although changes to the post were made 

between 1916 and 1945, most of those changes 

occurred within the structural and spatial 

framework of the site established during the 

Endicott era. One notable exception to this 

was the changes made to the waterfront around 

Horseshoe Cove. In 1903, the marsh north of 

Horseshoe Cove had been filled in, yet left 

free from development. Beginning in 1929 

and continuing through World War II, several 

major structures were built around Horseshoe 

Cove, supporting the working character of the 

waterfront which centered on harbor defense 

and expanding the range of service-related 

functions that occurred there. Between 1920 

and 1943, a seawall and two breakwaters were 

constructed around the cove along with repair 

shops, boat ramps, and a refueling dock. The 

original wooden wharf on the west side of the 

cove was expanded and reconfigured. Mine 

depot structures including a storehouse, cable 

tank building, powerhouse, and two loading 

rooms were also built. 

In May of 1941, the War Department approved 

the construction of a large station hospital 

at Fort Baker. In three months, twenty-five 

standard hospital buildings were erected in the 

area between Horseshoe Cove and the south 

end of the parade ground. By the end of the 

war, forty-five buildings of similar construction 

comprised the station hospital complex in this 

location. While the waterfront area remained 

industrial in character through this period, the 

type and density of new facilities constructed 

at this time reinforced the use of this area as a 

working waterfront. 

The other great change to the physical layout of 

Fort Baker was the completion of the Golden 

Gate Bridge in 1937. In addition to impacting 

the visual character of the site, the bridge and 

its approaches created an operational division 

between the fort - thereafter known as East Fort 

Baker and West Fort Baker.

By 1946 all coastal artillery weapons at Fort 

Baker were deactivated; the mines were raised 

and antiaircraft guns put in storage. In 1959, 

the Army’s last major modification to the 

site involved the construction of twenty-one 

Capehart-style housing duplexes in support 

of the Nike missile defense program. Sited 

behind the crescent of buildings located on the 

upper end of Murray Circle, these residences 

were built for military families. The spatial 

layout of this development is characteristic of 

site planning standards used throughout the 

United States during this period, which the 

Army incorporated in their own site design 
Analysis and Evaluation

 51

standards and used on many of their posts. In 

1983, the hospital complex south of the parade 

ground was dismantled, significantly altering the 

historic spatial organization of the area north 

of Horseshoe Cove and south of Center Street. 

A new U.S. Coast Guard Station was added 

northwest of Horseshoe Cove in 1988. 

Summary

Three areas historically influenced and 

defined the spatial organization of Fort Baker 

—the batteries and shoreline fortifications, the 

waterfront and development around Horseshoe 

cove, and the parade ground and associated 

structural hierarchy of military design. While 

individual features and elements within 

these areas were modified over the years, all 

three retained functional and spatial integrity 

throughout the period of significance. 

For each area, the aspects that contribute to the 

character of spatial organization are as follows:

Batteries and Shoreline Fortification

• Individual complexes (battery and support 

structures, including access roads) that form 

a system of fortifications and a structural 

perimeter along the shoreline to the east, south 

and west, of the cantonment.

Waterfront

• Work-related military structural development 

around Horseshoe Cove including breakwater, 

seawalls, wharves, ramps, and ship repair 

structures defining the industrial character of the 

waterfront.

• The use and development of the area adjacent 

(north) of Horseshoe Cove for service-related 

functions and support facilities.

Parade Ground and Murray Circle 

• The shape, orientation, and open nature of 

the parade ground, defined by Murray Circle, 

the cluster of historic structures ringing the 

parade ground, McReynolds Road forming the 

outside edge of the space, and the windbreaks 

and eucalyptus perimeter plantings forming the 

boundary between the cantonment and the open 

space beyond.
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

52 

TOPOGRAPHY

Topographic modification to the landscape 

at Fort Baker began in 1868, two years after 

the federal government purchased the land 

comprising the Lime Point Military Reservation. 

The military initially focused on constructing a 

large fortification (similar to Fort Point), which 

led to the largest peacetime blasting operation 

to date as twenty-five tons of gunpowder were 

used to shave off the face of the cliff at Lime 

Point. Blasting was done to create a level building 

platform at the base of the cliff. Work on the 

fortification was never completed, due in large 

part to changes in military technology after the 

Civil War, making the structure obsolete before it 

was ever constructed. 

 In lieu of a single structure, dispersed 

smaller earthworks were built along the bluffs 

overlooking the bay. Construction of the 

batteries during this period was characterized 

by brick and stone masonry combined with 

enhanced earthworks. Gravelly Beach Battery, 

Ridge Battery, Cliff Battery, and Battery Cavallo 

were each open, earthen barbette batteries. A 

combination of excavation and mounding of 

earth was used in their construction, which 

modified the natural topography. Although 

harsh cuts and mounds were discouraged as 

potentially giving away the location of the guns, 

some of these early efforts, such as Battery 

Cavallo, were considered a complete exercise 

in earth shaping. When Battery Cavallo was 

complete, the landscape had been re-sculpted 

with a degree of symmetry and regularity that 

made it immediately distinguishable from it 

surroundings. (Photo T1)

Early roads between Engineer’s Camp and the 

batteries also required extensive cuts as road 

grades were significant between the waterfront 

and the batteries built on the bluffs along 

the shoreline. In such instances, the military 

typically avoided the use of fill slopes in road 

construction. Construction of Conzelman Road 

from Lime Point to Gravelly Beach was initiated 

in September of 1870. Originally laid-out to 

follow the rocky shoreline around the point, this 

route was abandoned in favor of an inland one 

that traversed the ridge west of Horseshoe Cove 

(Conzelman Road). The resulting alignment 

was a circuitous road cut into steep hillsides, 

which negotiated severe grade changes with 

switchbacks. (Photo T2)

Topographic modifications were undertaken 

during the Endicott era to create the parade 

ground, to align Murray Circle and Kober Road, 

and to create level building areas around the 

parade ground and the adjacent developed 

area. Although the area north of Horseshoe 

Cove was open and relatively flat, it did not 

provide the precise grade required for a military 

parade ground, and in 1902, plans were made to 

T1 The silhouette of Cavallo Battery 

against the San Francisco Bay 

illustrates the extensive use of earth 

works in early battery construction. 

Circa 1914 (GGNRA Park Archives and 

Record Center, 1766).

T2 Conzelman 

Road was 

aligned to 

negotiate steep 

grades between 

Horseshoe Cove 

and Gravelly 

Beach. Circa 

1904-06 (San 

Francisco History 

Collection, San 

Francisco Public 

Library, Negative 

6453.)
Analysis and Evaluation

 53

add 25,000 cubic yards of fill to level the area. 

Work on the parade ground included rerouting 

several creeks into culverts and filling a ravine 

that ran through the parade ground. When the 

grading project was completed, the flattened 

parade ground sloped northwest to southeast 

towards Horseshoe Cove with a 40-foot drop in 

elevation. Photographs document the cuts and 

fills required adjacent to the parade ground for 

the construction of flat building pads for both 

roads and structures surrounding the parade 

ground and the rest of the developed area.

(Photo T3)

The final major modification to the natural 

topography during this period occurred in 

1903, when 80,000 cubic yards of fill was used 

(possibly dredged from Horseshoe Cove) to fill 

in the marsh directly north of the cove, adding 

seven buildable acres to post.

The construction of each of the main access 

roads to the cantonment required the creation of 

significant cuts and fills. Conzelman Road (1870), 

East Road (1901), and Bunker Road (1916) all have 

extensive topographic features such as retaining 

walls, cut slopes, and fill areas.

In 1913, a significant alteration of the landscape 

occurred when the hill that formed the eastern 

edge of Fort Baker was excavated. More than 

75,000 cubic yards of sandstone were removed 

and barged to San Francisco for use in the 1915 

Panama Pacific International Exposition. The 

hillside east of the hospital on Kober Street was 

also quarried for the red chert that was used for 

occasional road repairs. (Photo T4)

Certainly the largest manipulation of the natural 

topography at Fort Baker occurred with the 

construction of the Golden Gate Bridge in 1937. 

A massive earthen dam was built at the head 

of the valley to accommodate Highway 101 

on a steady grade as it approached the Waldo 

Tunnel. Alexander Avenue was also constructed 

using large quantities of fill. Also known 

as the Sausalito Lateral, Alexander Avenue 

transected the northern portion of Fort Baker 

before connecting with East Road just south of 

Sausalito. The creation of Alexander Avenue 

necessitated the construction of the tunnel and 

walls for Bunker Road, which now passed under 

the road leading into the cantonment. (Photo T5, 

next page)

The development of the waterfront represents a 

period of continuous change and manipulation. 

Beginning with the filling of the marsh in 1903, 

T3 The buildings located on Murray 

Circle were constructed on a bench 

surrounding the Parade Ground. 

Circa 1905 (GGNRA Park Archives and 

Record Center, 18478.002)

T4 The sandstone quarry located 

southeast of the Parade Ground 

had significant visual impact on the 

landscape. Circa 1915-20 (GGNRA 

Park Archives and Record Center, 

3311.003).
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

54 

a series of projects transformed this area during 

the period of significance.

Following World War II few major topographic 

changes were made at the post. One significant 

change occurred when CalTrans created Vista 

Point on the top of the ridge forming the western 

edge of (East) Fort Baker north of the Golden 

Gate Bridge in the 1950s. The other topographic 

modification at the site occurred with the 

addition of Capehart housing in 1959. Grading 

was done throughout the area for building sites 

and associated roadways including the extension 

of Seitler Road and Merrill Street at the north 

end of the cantonment. 

Summary

Throughout the historic period, topographic 

modification of the cultural landscape resulted 

in several elements that contribute to the historic 

character of the cultural landscape. These 

include:

• The earthworks and manipulated landforms 

around all five of the batteries, including the 

graded access roads and associated building 

sites.

• Cuts, fills, drainage features and retaining 

structures associated with East Road (including 

the relocation of the southern segment), Bunker 

Road, Moore Road, and Conzelman Road, and 

Mc Reynolds Road

• The grading (cuts and fills) specifically 

associated with development of the cantonment 

through the period of significance including the 

parade ground (fill), Murray Circle, the building 

sites along officers’ row, and the barracks area.

• The fill that created the bulkhead and 

waterfront. 

• Cuts and fills associated with the construction 

of buildings FB511, FB513, FB507, and FB507 

(now removed). 

While other topographic modifications occurred 

for more discrete developments during the 

historic period, they do not to individually affect 

the significance or physical character of the 

cultural landscape. 

T5 The construction of 

the Golden Gate Bridge 

involved the largest 

topographic manipulation 

at Fort Baker and created 

a distinction between 

East and West Fort Baker. 

Circa 1955-60 (GGNRA 

Park Archives and Record 

Center, 2266-N1,02).
Analysis and Evaluation

 55

CIRCULATION

Circulation was an essential landscape 

component of Fort Baker, shaped by the military 

between 1868 and the end of WWII. The 

earliest circulation systems at Fort Baker were 

functional in nature and designed to transport 

men and materials to various construction sites. 

Equipment, provisions, building supplies, and 

workers arrived via barge and steamer from 

San Francisco to a wharf located in Horseshoe 

Cove, which functioned as a supply hub and 

distribution point. From the waterfront, roads 

were established linking the wharf and the 

adjacent cluster of residences, storehouses and 

workshops - known as Engineer’s Camp, to the 

discrete battery sites located along the shoreline. 

The earliest military road at the site was Moore 

Road. Built in 1868, Moore Road provided access 

to Lime Point for fort construction, and access to 

the Fog Signal Station. It remained an informal, 

unpaved road along the waterfront until 1902, 

when the bluff was cut back to widen the road. 

At this time the road was extended north, to 

connect with Center Road, improving access 

between the developing cantonment and the 

wharf. Just two years later, Conzelman Road was 

constructed (off Moore Road) to provide access 

for construction of the Gravelly Beach Battery. 

Within three years, the road was extended one 

mile west towards Point Bonita, and provided 

communication access between Fort Baker 

and Fort Barry. By the end of the Endicott 

era, portions of Conzelman were oiled while 

turnarounds at the batteries were paved. Also 

constructed in 1872, Center Road was designed 

to provide access between Moore Road and 

Battery Cavallo. The alignment wrapped around 

the north side of the swamp area and helped 

define the south edge of the cantonment. Center 

Road, between Moore Road and East Road was 

paved in oiled macadam by 1909, and was paved 

in asphaltic concrete in 1943. In 1925, the section 

of Center Road leading to the wharf was paved 

with macadam; in 1940 this stretch of Center 

Road was paved with asphaltic concrete. 

Four other early roads provided limited access 

to batteries within the fort: Drown Road, Kirby 

Beach Road, Battery Yates Road (Satterlee 

Road) and Cavallo Road. (Photo C2) These roads 

were informal in character surfaced with earth 

or gravel. Between 1890 and 1910, this simple 

network of roads was the core circulation system 

at Fort Baker and remains in place today. 

In 1900, the Quartermaster Department began 

planning the post roads and sidewalks, devising 

a circulation system that centered on the parade 

C2 The Engineers’ Camp with the 

primary components of the early 

circulation - the wharf and roads 

constructed of gravel or dirt. 1868 

(GGNRA Park Archives and Record 

Center, 4053).

C1 Pre-Endicott 1916
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

56 

ground, and strengthening the connection 

between Fort Baker and outlying areas. Three 

primary new roads were developed to improve 

access to Fort Baker from the east and west. 

Earliest among these was East Road. The 

completion of this road to Sausalito in 1903 

marked an important change in the development 

at Fort Baker as it provided the first overland 

access point into Fort Baker. Civilian hikers had 

informally visited the restricted area for some 

time, but the construction of this road into Fort 

Baker was the first accommodation made by 

the military to the citizens of Sausalito for nonmilitary access and use of the fort. The eighteenfoot wide road was laid out along a gently 

curving alignment that skirted the eastern bluffs, 

taking advantage of the views along the bay 

and entered the site at the southeast corner of 

Murray Circle. A gate and guardhouse erected 

on the Sausalito end of East Road controlled 

access into the Fort. The road was oiled and 

entrance gates marked the boundary to the 

military post. In 1905, a painted white fence was 

erected along the entire length of road for safety 

reasons. During the war years this road was the 

primary eastern entrance to Fort Baker and was 

improved with gutters, guard rails, catch basins, 

and bituminous surface. 

During the Endicott era, the connection between 

Fort Barry and Fort Baker was improved with 

construction of the Baker-Barry Tunnel between 

1916 and 1918 The wood-lined tunnel measured 

16’ X 16’. The road through the tunnel was paved 

with a macadam surface, and had cobblestone 

gutters. Bunker Road led from the tunnel down 

to the cantonment and provided an improved 

connection between Fort Baker and Fort Barry. 

Within the post, the Quartermaster plans for 

formalizing and improving circulation were also 

implemented during the Endicott era. Roads 

completed during this period include Murray 

Circle, McReynolds Road, Kober Street, Swain 

Road, and Umia Street. 

Primary among these new roads, the horseshoeshaped alignment of Murray Circle became a 

key organizational element of the cantonment 

around which a secondary circulation hierarchy 

developed. The alignment of Murray Circle 

followed the base of the hills that encircled 

the open, relatively flat parade ground in the 

center of the small valley. The sweeping arc 

of Murray Circle was distinct among roads at 

Fort Baker. Both alignment and width (26 feet) 

made the design a clear departure from the more 

utilitarian character of the early roads. The halfmile loop was constructed with six-inch concrete 

curbs on both sides and a concrete sidewalk on 

the exterior side of the loop. Like other roads 

at this time, Murray Circle appears to have been 

constructed of gravel. (Photo C4)

The Quartermaster plan for internal circulation 

also included McReynolds Road, a twelve-footwide service road that was laid out parallel to 

Murray Circle behind the buildings, providing 

access to garages. This road was designed to 

include a public sidewalk on the western side. A 

twenty-foot-wide spur road at the north end of 

the arc, Kober Street, led to the post hospital and 

non-commissioned officers’ residences. Kober 

Street, the primary road leading to these homes 

and hospital, had concrete curbs and sidewalks 

on either side of the street. Service roads for the 

buildings on Kober Road include Umia Street 

and Swain Road. Umia Street also provided 

access to the tennis court.

All of the buildings along Murray Circle and 

Kober Street had wide entry walks and stairs 

that led directly to the primary entrances of 

the buildings from the public sidewalks. The 

width of entry walks ranged from six to ten feet 

depending upon the function of the building. 

C4 Murray Circle 

circumnavigated the 

flat Parade Ground and 

formed the primary 

organizational element 

of the cantonment. 

Circa 1915 (Golden 

Gate National 

Recreation Area 

Collection)

C3 Late Endicott 1941
Analysis and Evaluation

 57

Narrower, residential-scale walkways curved 

around the perimeters of the structures. Other 

than these paved walkways, there is little 

photographic evidence of pedestrian routes in 

the cantonment except for an informal footpath 

along the edge of the parade ground and another 

trail along the western edge of the windbreak 

behind the officers’ quarters on the west side of 

the core area.

By the end of the Endicott era, the primary 

circulation system within the cantonment area 

was established. Supplies continued to arrive via 

the wharf and transportation between the local 

forts tended to happen over water, although the 

functional center of the site moved from the 

Engineers’ Camp to the administrative buildings 

along Murray Circle. 

Few major alterations within the cantonment 

were made between 1916 and 1945. The internal 

circulation system was updated and expanded 

in some areas to facilitate an increased military 

presence. Road alignments were generally 

maintained, although intermittently widened and 

paved with macadam. 

In 1937, construction of the Golden Gate 

Bridge, Highway 101, and the network of 

approach roads significantly modified the 

circulation system. Bridge construction resulted 

in a partial re-alignment of Conzelman Road 

adjacent to Highway 101, altering this battery 

road that had long connected Horseshoe 

Cove and Gravelly Beach. Bridge construction 

also introduced an alternate means of civilian 

vehicular access, supplementing East Road 

with the Sausalito Lateral (Alexander Avenue) 

connection to Bunker Road. For the first time, 

there was also a direct land connection with 

San Francisco including access to other nearby 

Army installations like the Presidio and Fort 

Mason. Bridge construction effectively split 

the Fort Baker Military Reservation in two as 

the alignment of Highway 101 cut through the 

headland landform known as Wolfback Ridge, 

creating what would become known as East and 

West Fort Baker. (Photo C5)

East Road was realigned and straightened as it 

entered the cantonment. Both East and Bunker 

Roads had contiguous concrete drainage swales 

along their uphill slopes, a typical characteristic 

of military road design. It is unknown when the 

guardrail along Bunker Road was built, and the 

guardrail post and metal on the road appears to 

date from the NPS era at Fort Baker.

Seitler Road was built around 1941 to provide 

access from Murray Circle and Kober Street 

to three new guesthouses (FB546, FB547, and 

FB549). The fill area immediately adjacent 

to Horseshoe Cove was developed as a 

military hospital complex (including covered 

walkways and vehicle access), a mine depot 

and a boat repair station. Construction 

C5 Construction of the Golden 

Gate Bridge and its approaches 

dramatically altered the Fort Baker 

landscape as well as the circulation 

system. Construction of the Sausalito 

Lateral is shown in the foreground. 

July 1936 (California Historical Society 

FN-32516)

C6 War Years 1942-1945
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

58 

focused on boat moorings for large vessels 

and affiliated breakwaters in Horseshoe Cove. 

The Quartermaster wharf was modified and 

expanded for use as a mine depot structure. 

Many of these additions reflect a renewed effort 

to protect the bay from enemy incursions. 

Few additions to the circulation were made after 

World War II and were associated primarily with 

the construction of the Capehart housing units at 

the cantonment and at its western boundary with 

Fort Barry. At the cantonment, Merrill Street was 

constructed and Seitler Road was lengthened 

to provide access to the upper housing area and 

chapel. The curvilinear roads and cul-de-sacs 

that were constructed to access the residences 

and their affiliated driveways comprise the 

largest change to the circulation system at Fort 

Baker. Other modifications include three parking 

areas on Center Road, which today primarily 

serve the Bay Area Discovery Museum. 

Summary

With the exception of the Capehart additions, 

the road system throughout the cantonment 

retains integrity as a contributing landscape 

characteristic of the historic district. 

Paved roads within the cantonment that retain 

integrity and contribute to the historic district 

include Murray Circle, McReynolds Road, 

Kober Street, portions of Seitler Road serving 

the WWII duplexes, Umia Street, Swain Road, 

Center Road, East Road, Bunker Road, Moore 

Road, Drown Road, Satterlee Road, Breitung 

Road and Sommerville Road. 69 Contributing 

roads outside the cantonment include portions 

of Conzelman Road, McCullough Road and the 

Baker-Barry Tunnel. The integrity of portions 

of Conzelman and Moore Roads have been 

diminished by modifications and closures related 

to the Golden Gate Bridge retrofit project. 

Contributing gravel roads to batteries include 

Drown Road, Battery Yates Road, Battery 

Cavallo Road, and Kirby Beach Road. Both the 

pedestrian sidewalks around the cantonment and 

the pathways around the historic buildings are 

intact and range from good to poor condition. 

The pedestrian footpath on the west side of the 

Monterey cypress windbreak also remains and 

contributes to the cultural landscape.

Other historic roads that were impacted by the 

construction of the Golden Gate Bridge are 

evaluated in a separate document. 

C7 Existing Conditions 2003

Non-contributing roads include the Capehart 

additions including Merrill Street, portions of 

Seitler Road, Smiley Street and Amoraux Drive.

Endnotes

69 The existing alignment of Sommerville Road 

is generally in its historic location along the 

edge of the seawall. However, the road that 

dates from the period of significance is below 

grade, and therefore cannot be evaluated as 

contributing structure. It may be considered 

as an archeological resource. This has yet to be 

determined.
Analysis and Evaluation

 59

CLUSTER ARRANGEMENT

Historically, six developed areas within Fort 

Baker displayed a pattern and arrangement of 

structures, roads, overall use, and topography 

that defined specific stylistic traditions in military 

site planning and landscape design principles 

during the period of significance. While these six 

areas historically had a physical and functional 

relationship to each other as part of the overall 

operation of Fort Baker, only three remain today. 

These three structural clusters are:

1. The Batteries; both as an aggregate of coastal 

fortifications and as discrete complexes 

2. The Parade Ground and structures around 

Murray Circle

3. The Quartermaster warehouse area on the 

south side of the parade ground

The three developed clusters that no longer 

remain are the Engineer’s Camp, the Gibson 

Drive NCO Housing, and the Mobilization 

Hospital formerly located at Horseshoe Cove. 

Descriptions of the remaining developed areas 

follows.

The Batteries

The construction of artillery batteries around the 

shoreline created the tactical cluster of coastal 

fortifications that functioned in relation to each 

other and other fortifications on San Francisco 

Bay. This structural system was systematic in 

design and had an obvious tactical military 

purpose. Batteries were typically sited in a long 

line—such as Battery Duncan, Battery Cavallo, 

and Battery Yates, or on a defended point, 

such as Ridge Battery high on the north side 

of the Golden Gate. In addition to the overall 

arrangement of batteries around the shoreline, 

each battery was further defined by access, 

orientation, spatial design, the use of materials, 

and the range of the artillery emplaced in the 

battery. Additional structures or “outworks” 

were sited far enough away from the batteries 

to prevent dangerous situations, but close 

enough to provide support and services. The 

cluster arrangement defined by individual 

battery developments and the aggregate 

relationship among all six battery structures 

(and two remnant structures) remain important 

components of the cultural landscape.(Map CA1)

The Parade Ground and Murray Circle

The small sheltered valley north of Horseshoe 

Cove provided the required open space and 

relatively level area to establish a parade ground 

for the rapidly expanding post. Somewhat 

unconventional in shape relative to other military 

posts, the parade ground was curvilinear in 

form and conformed more to the natural shape 

of the valley than to a contrived rectangular 

form common at other military posts. Murray 

Circle and the buildings that completed the 

cluster were also placed in relation to the parade 

ground, following the curvilinear pattern.

The cluster of residential buildings at Fort Baker 

was based on traditional military site design, 

reflecting a hierarchy of rank in the siting and 

style of buildings. All buildings sited around 

Murray Circle directly faced the parade ground 

with front entrances connected by steps and a 

sidewalk to Murray Circle. Hierarchy of rank was 

also reflected in the siting of officer quarters and 

barracks buildings for enlisted men. Quarters 

for the officers were sited near the base of a 

hill, which was relatively protected from wind, 

while the enlisted men’s barracks were located 

on the east side of Murray Circle, more prone 

to wind and inclement weather. In addition, 

both east and west sides of Murray Circle were 

lower in elevation leaving the commanding 

officer’s residence at the highest point on the 

north end of the parade ground—reinforcing 

the hierarchy of command in the arrangement of 

structures within the cluster. The commanding 

officer’s residence was further distinguished by 

the additional open space around the building, CA1 The battery clusters at East and 

West Fort Baker
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

60 

open views to the south, and ornamental plant 

materials that were used around the yard.

The Quartermaster Warehouse Area Cluster 

Historically, a complex of less than ten major 

structures, the buildings located between the 

Parade Ground and Horseshoe Cove comprised 

the core cluster of service buildings for Fort 

Baker. By end of the Endicott era there were 

three large storehouse buildings, a bakery, a large 

stable and associated corrals, a wagon shed, 

blacksmith shop, and a carpenter shop. Much 

CA2 Historic photograph (October 

1946, top) and contemporary 

photograph (March 1990, below) 

showing quartermaster warehouse 

south of East Road at Fort Baker 

(GGNRA Park Archives and Record 

Center, 4056 & Pacific Aerial Surveys 

AV-3766-0213-10).

larger than the storage provided at Engineer’s 

Camp, this area became the supply hub for the 

entire post. Orientation was toward the road 

and waterfront, with large receiving porches 

and ramps. Today, several of these historic 

structures have been rehabilitated for use by the 

Bay Area Discovery Museum, and while the use 

has changed, the cluster arrangement remains 

and contributes to the character of the cultural 

landscape. (Photo CA2)

World War II Mobilization Hospital

This cluster of buildings was distinguished by its 

orthogonal arrangement that reflected the three 

boundaries of the waterfront area.

Engineer’s Camp

This cluster of structures existed at the 

intersection of Moore Road and Conzelman 

Road from the earliest military development 

of the site in the 1860s to the 1930s. These 

structures were removed as part of the bridge 

construction. (Map CA3)

Gibson Drive Non-commissioned Officers’ Housing

This cluster of structures was constructed very 

early in the site’s history (circa 1900) and were 

removed in the 1930s concurrent with the bridge 

construction project. This cluster is noteworthy 

for its vernacular architectural style, which was 

at variance from the dominant Colonial Revival 

style of other residential buildings. (Map CA4, 

following page)

CA3 Historic map (1898) showing the 

Engineer’s Camp at the waterfront. 

(PARC Collection of Maps, “Fort Baker, 

California”).
Analysis and Evaluation

 61

Summary

Fort Baker retains integrity of cluster 

arrangement as evidenced in the siting and 

relationship among historic batteries along the 

shoreline, the Parade Ground, and quarters 

around Murray Circle, and the cluster of servicerelated buildings between the parade ground and 

waterfront. These clusters have distinct design, 

orientation, spatial organization, and relationship 

to adjacent areas and are important components 

defining the historic character of the cultural 

landscape.

CA4 Historic map (1909) showing the 

arrangement of houses along Gibson 

Drive. (PARC Collection of Maps, 

“Fort Baker, California”)
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

62 

VEGETATION 

The use of vegetation at Fort Baker through 

the period of significance is both an expression 

of the landscape character and military design 

reflected in the development of functional and 

ornamental plantings. Ornamental plantings 

can be grouped into three general categories: 

foundation plantings around major buildings 

(primarily residential buildings), landscaping 

the parade ground, and general efforts to 

embellish the grounds of the cantonment. 

Examples of functional plantings include the 

establishment of windbreaks and perimeter tree 

plantings surrounding the cantonment, as well 

as modification and enhancement of vegetation 

around the batteries for camouflage. 

The analysis and evaluation of the vegetation at 

Fort Baker is based on an aggregation of features. 

These features are organized into geographical 

areas based on design intent and functional use 

of vegetation employed throughout the period of 

significance. These areas include:

• The Batteries 

• The Cantonment, including the parade ground, 

windbreaks, and perimeter plantings of 

eucalyptus trees

• The Quartermaster Warehouse area

• Open Space

The Batteries

Modification of existing vegetation and the 

introduction non-native vegetation at Fort 

Baker was ongoing throughout the Army 

occupation of the site, beginning in 1870 with the 

construction of the coastal fortifications. While 

the development of these structures was strategic 

and based on standard military designs, the 

landscape was considered an integral component 

of the design. Writing a review of coastal 

defenses in 1888, Henry L. Abbot, a prominent 

military strategist wrote: 

 ... in the future we must sacrifice neat 

crests and beautiful slopes, so far as the 

service of the guns and protection against 

washing by storms will permit; trees and 

bushes must be planted on the parapets 

and behind the batteries to prevent a 

clear definition of the guns, the latter 

themselves must be colored to harmonize 

with their surroundings in summer 

and winter; in a word, dispersion 

and concealment, as contrasted with 

concentration and armor, is the latest 

[word]... 

Historic photographs of the site show that the 

Endicott era batteries were concealed using 

earthworks that blended well with the existing 

shrub and grass vegetation. (Photo VG1) In some 

instances the roof of the structure was planted 

over with additional low-growing shrubs and 

grasses, literally blending into the character of 

the adjacent landscape. Since it appears that 

none of the batteries at east Fort Baker had been 

planted at this time, it may be reasonable to 

assume that the plantings at Gravelly Beach had 

not yet occurred either.70

As technology related to artillery and coastal 

defense changed in the post-Endicott period, 

concealment of the batteries from the air 

assumed strategic importance. Photographs 

from this period indicate that the Army planted 

eucalyptus trees around the north, south and 

western sides of Battery Duncan, which had 

been disarmed by this time. The trees were 

placed in an informal, somewhat random 

pattern, leaving viewsheds towards the bay open 

to the east and southeast. During this period, the 

sight lines for the battery appear to have been 

maintained.71 By the end of the historic period 

in 1945, aerial photographs of Battery Duncan 

indicate that the eucalyptus trees had largely 

concealed the disarmed battery. 

Although it is unknown exactly when the 

batteries on the western side of the fort were 

planted with trees, the age of the existing trees 

at Battery Kirby and Gravelly Beach suggest 

they were also planted within the period of 

significance (1867-1945). An Army map indicates 

that Battery Kirby was planted with Monterey 

cypress on the steep hillside to the west and east 

VG1 Low-lying shrubs and grasses 

characterized vegetation around 

the earthworks comprising Battery 

Cavallo Circa 1914 (GGNRA Park 

Archives and Record Center, 1766).
Analysis and Evaluation

 63

of the battery, and planted to the north and west 

with stands of Monterey pine and eucalyptus.72

After World War II, vegetation around Battery 

Duncan was no longer maintained. Over the 

years, the original stand of eucalyptus trees have 

grown and expanded outside the extent of the 

original planting and threaten the structural 

integrity of the battery (including seedlings 

growing on the roof of the structure). (Photo 

VG2)

Battery Kirby is also surrounded with historic 

plantings of eucalyptus trees, Monterey pine, 

and Monterey Cypress, which are spreading 

beyond their original boundaries.

Batteries Yates, Battery Cavallo, Battery Orlando 

Wagner and Battery Spencer have a generally 

open character and are primarily covered with 

native and non-native grasses and shrubs. The 

area outside Battery Cavallo also supports 

a cover of lupine (Lupinus albifrons), that 

provides habitat for the (endangered) Mission 

Blue butterfly. Although the some vegetation has 

become overgrown, collectively, these batteries 

still reflect the historic qualities found in earlier 

photographs dating from the Endicott period. 

The earthworks appear as rolling hills planted 

with grasses and low-lying shrubs, and are the 

dominant landscape type in this zone. 

Summary

The grove of eucalyptus trees planted at Battery 

Duncan between 1911 and 1945 remain, however, 

the trees have spread into open space areas 

beyond the original boundary for the planting, 

obscuring historic viewsheds. In this regard, the 

grove of eucalyptus is considered contributing to 

the character of the cultural landscape, but is in 

poor condition. 

Vegetation at Battery Cavallo has changed from 

low grasses and shrubs, to primarily large shrubs 

and small trees obscuring portions of the battery 

earthworks. Although the vegetation historically 

associated with the battery was primarily 

native, the character of the mature vegetation 

is significantly different, and has altered the 

appearance of the batteries from the appearance 

during the period of significance. Batteries Yates, 

Spencer, and Orlando Wagner are located within 

grassland/coastal scrub communities that have 

also matured over time, although the difference 

is not as striking as that of Battery Cavallo. 

Overall, because of these changes, the existing 

vegetation does not contribute to the historic 

character of the cultural landscape at these 

batteries.

Battery Kirby was surrounded by plantings of 

Monterey cypress, blue-gum eucalyptus, and 

Monterey pines. These plantings have matured, 

are in fair condition, and create a large forested 

area near Gravelly Beach, Battery Kirby, and 

along the adjacent coastline. These trees have 

spread outside the original boundaries into 

VG2 Photos show the expansion of 

vegetation around Battery Duncan. 

Photo on left October 28, 1946 

(historic period); photo on right 

March 15, 1990 (GGNRA Park Archives 

and Record Center, 4056 & Pacific 

Aerial Surveys AV-3766-0213-10).
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

64 

adjacent open space areas. Like Battery Duncan, 

the vegetation remaining at the battery is 

considered contributing to the character of the 

cultural landscape, but because it has spread 

beyond the historic planting is considered in 

poor condition. 

The Cantonment 

Foundation Plantings

During the Endicott era and shortly after 

completion of the barracks buildings and 

officers’ quarters around Murray Circle and 

along Kober Street, the Army began establishing 

foundation plantings around individual buildings 

and ornamental plantings to mark entranceways 

and formal walks.73 Period photographs show 

that the overall form and character of foundation 

plantings around barracks and other community 

buildings were neat and trim and rarely exceeded 

the height of the first floor. Most materials were 

planted very close to building foundations, and 

reflected a limited plant palette. 

Period photographs also illustrate that the 

officers’ duplex residences located on the west 

side of Murray Circle had foundation plantings 

in the front and some side facades. Compared 

to the foundation plantings around the barracks 

buildings, residential plantings utilized a variety 

of materials, probably reflecting the residents’ 

tastes. This material varied in size and form, 

often accenting building entries and providing 

privacy screens in front of the homes.

In many ways, the use of foundation plantings 

by the military at Fort Baker was consistent 

with larger, contemporary national trends 

in residential design. In general, foundation 

plantings were used to “connect” homes with 

their surrounding grounds, to soften building 

foundations, to provide color and diversity in the 

landscape, to screen unwanted views, provide 

privacy, and generally improve the aesthetic 

qualities of the structure.74 (Photo VG3)

All of the officers’ quarters around Murray Circle 

were surrounded by lawn which functioned as a 

unifying element, physically and visually linking 

all of the buildings around the parade ground. 

After these plantings were established and 

extending through the subsequent historic 

period, between 1916 and 1945, plantings around 

the officers’ quarters on the west side of Murray 

Circle were supplemented. (Photo VG4)

During this period, examples of specimen trees 

that flanked walkways and entrances to the 

residences on the west side of Murray Circle 

included: Japanese redwoods (Cryptomeria), 

Araucaria, pittosporum, camphor, Canary 

Island date palms, black acacia, and cordyline. 

Beefwood (Casuarina) trees were located on 

the side of the post exchange and gymnasium, 

Monterey pine and eucalyptus around the 

barracks, and palms (Phoenix canariensis) were 

located near the hospital and around a few of the 

officers’ quarters. (Photo VG5, next page) 

In 1959, new plantings were introduced when the 

Capehart housing development was constructed 

north of Murray Circle. Over the years, some of 

VG3 (upper) Formal landscaping 

efforts along Kober Street. Wooden 

fence in foreground was typical of 

early site furnishings. Circa 1905 

(Sausalito Historical Society).

VG4 (lower) Buildings on the west 

side of Murray Circle such as the 

Commanding Officer’s Residence 

(Building FB604) were extensively 

planted. Circa 1938 (GGNRA Park 

Archives and Record Center, 32426).
Analysis and Evaluation

 65

these new plant materials made their way into 

the gardens surrounding the historic buildings in 

the core area of the cantonment. 

In 1995, hurricane-force winds toppled many of 

the large trees in the cantonment and resulted 

in the removal of many historic trees as a safety 

hazard. A few years later, in 1999, most of the 

existing foundation plantings were removed by 

the National Park Service in conjunction with 

repair of several historic buildings, leaving a mix 

of remnant historic material and non-historic 

plantings in poor to fair condition.

Summary

The foundation plantings and ornamental 

materials that remain around Murray Circle 

date to the post-Endicott era and include 

trees around buildings FB631, FB606, FB605, 

FB604, FB603, FB601, FB602, FB636 and FB615 

(see Appendices for list of remaining plants). 

Although many of the foundation plantings 

have been removed, open lawns still extend 

throughout the front yards and between the 

buildings and contribute to the character of the 

cultural landscape. 

Parade Ground

In 1903, the parade ground was leveled and 

graded with fill varying in depth from 4-feet to 

12-feet to create an even and uniform surface for 

seeding. The entire surface sloped south toward 

Horseshoe Cove. The shape of the parade 

ground conformed to the bowl of the valley, 

resulting in an elliptical shape. Immediately 

after grading the parade ground was devoid 

of vegetation and in response to complaints 

about seasonal mud and dust, plans were made 

to establish rye grass over the level area and 

plant trees around the perimeter. Planting the 

parade ground in this manner was a traditional 

treatment in military bases, allowing troops 

space for drill and review. 

The grass was seeded in 1903. There is no 

documentation that indicates this lawn was 

irrigated. 

In addition to the establishment of grass, a 

number of trees were planted around the 

perimeter of the parade ground between 1903 

and 1909. Based on analyses of historical 

photographs, period maps, and documentation 

of existing conditions, two tree species were 

used; blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) 

and black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon). Trees 

were planted in stages and in a staggered pattern, 

alternating between eucalyptus and acacia. An 

estimated forty-nine trees were planted during 

the Endicott era. Individual trees were spaced 

approximately thirty to forty feet on center. 

A 1909 photo shows a similar planting pattern 

using smaller trees on the south end of the 

parade ground. A short row of trees extended 

along Moore Road from its intersection with the 

parade ground towards the bay. (Photo VG6)

VG5 A view of plantings in front 

of buildings along the east side of 

Murray Circle which included a mix 

of specimen trees and foundation 

plantings. Circa 1923 (GGNRA Park 

Archives and Record Center, 40096).

VG6 Early photograph showing 

the trees around parade ground 

and planting of Monterey cypress 

windbreak in foreground and right. 

Circa 1909 (San Francisco History 

Center, San Francisco Public Library, 

Negative 6453).
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

66 

A gap in the spacing of trees occurred at the 

north end of the parade ground in front of 

the commanding officer’s residence, providing 

an unobstructed view of the parade ground, 

flagstaff, and more distant views of the bay, Fort 

Point, the Presidio, and the city of San Francisco. 

By 1925, a mix of tree species had been planted 

on both sides of Center Road including the 

southern edge of the parade ground. Most of 

these trees were eucalyptus, but pine and cypress 

trees were also planted. Although it is not certain 

why the trees were planted along Center Road, 

they became an effective screen between the 

industrial/ quartermaster warehouse areas south 

of Center and East Roads and the residential 

and administrative district around the Parade 

Ground. Whether intentional or not, these trees 

along Center Road and the ends of Bunker and 

East Roads created a formalized sense of entry 

for visitors arriving at Murray Circle.

The trees on Murray Circle around the southeast 

side of the parade ground and in front of 

FB615 were removed in the early 1930s and 

subsequently replanted with eucalyptus. Most 

of the trees along Center Road were cut down 

in 1941 in conjunction with construction of the 

station hospital complex. Only a few of these 

trees on the southwest side of Center Road 

(adjacent to what is today the U.S. Coast Guard 

Station) remain of the plantings along Center 

Road.75 (Photo VG7) By 1945, approximately 

thirty-nine trees remained around the parade 

ground. 

Today, a mixture of mowed grasses and weeds 

characterizes the open, ten-acre area at the 

center of the parade ground. Because the lawn 

has no irrigation system, it has gone through 

various dry and wet seasons. This has a resulted 

in the development of a mix of annual and 

perennial grass and weed species. Along the 

outside edge of the parade ground are a number 

of tree stumps indicating former locations and 

planting patterns from the historic period.76 

Many of these trees were removed after the 1995 

storm that severely damaged these plantings. 

At the southwest and southeastern corners 

are several blue gums and one acacia that date 

to the historic period. Behind FB691, at the 

southwestern end of the parade ground, are two 

blue gum seedlings and a single black acacia 

that do not date to the historic period. A young 

Douglas fir tree (Pseudotsuga menziesii) was 

planted near the top of the parade ground in 

the 1970s and is non-contributing to the historic 

character of the parade ground. 

Summary

Although the historic rye grass lawn has changed 

in terms of species, the open grassy character 

of the parade ground remains from the historic 

period, and contributes to the character of the 

cultural landscape.77 However, only about onefifth of the trees historically located around the 

parade ground remain today. These are clustered 

on the southwest and southeastern ends of the 

parade. 

Windbreaks

In 1903, the Quartermaster prepared a planting 

program in order to mitigate the discomfort 

caused by the winds that roared through 

the Golden Gate and into the site, as well as 

to create a more finished appearance to the 

developing landscape. As part of the program, 

the Quartermaster proposed that 

The semicircle of hills behind the post was 

to be planted with a windbreak consisting 

of 10,000 Monterey pines, 10,000 

Monterey cypress and 10,000 eucalyptus. 

The trees came from the Presidio, during 

a thinning out of the forest there.78

 Handwritten notes on a site map from the 

Endicott era call out a specific number of 

eucalyptus trees; identifying 1280 eucalyptus 

trees in the area behind and to the west of Kober 

Street. The notes also suggest that the pine and 

cypress may have been acquired without cost 

from the Presidio, while the eucalyptus might 

VG7 Mix of trees planted on either 

side of Center Road including the 

southern portion of the parade 

ground. Note eucalyptus trees 

planted in quartermaster warehouse 

area on right side of photograph. 

Date: December 12, 1925 (GGNRA 

Park Archives and Record Center, 

32487).
Analysis and Evaluation

 67

have been purchased. The total number of trees 

and exact quantities of each species used is still 

unknown, and based on photographic evidence, 

thirty thousand trees had not yet been planted 

by the end of the Endicott period.79

As a result of the Quartermaster’s efforts, a single 

major stand of Monterey cypress (Cupressus 

macrocarpa) was planted along the western side 

of the cantonment before the end of the Endicott 

period. Photographic evidence shows that a 

stand of Monterey cypress trees was planted, 

creating a major windbreak on the western 

side of the cantonment. The stand was located 

behind the residences and west of McReynolds 

Road, beginning about where Bunker Road 

enters the post and extending northward toward 

FB549 and south along Moore Road towards 

Horseshoe Cove. This stand was planted in a 

grid pattern that varied in width depending upon 

topography and location within the cantonment 

(Photo VG 8). The stand may have served to 

stabilize the slope above where significant 

grading had occurred for the construction of the 

parade ground and associated roads. 

Scattered groups of cypress and blue gum 

eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) were planted 

around the buildings on the upper end of the 

cantonment north of McReynolds Road, and 

near the lower switchback on Bunker Road 

where temporary structures had been built. 

These stands were more informal and did not 

appear to follow a set grid pattern. The trees 

at the upper end of McReynolds formed a 

substantial protective and visual barrier between 

these buildings and the parade ground. (Photo 

VG9)

By the end of this period, a photograph shows 

that the eucalyptus perimeter planting along 

the east side of McReynolds Road had yet to 

be planted nor had any other significant stands 

of blue gum eucalyptus been planted in the 

cantonment. 

Between 1911 and 1945, additional stands of 

blue gum eucalyptus were planted around the 

cantonment including a single row of blue gum 

eucalyptus beginning at FB636 extending north 

toward the chapel (FB519). A row of eucalyptus 

was also planted along the southern segment of 

East Road near its junction with Murray Circle. 

Small groves were planted in the vicinity of the 

intersection of Bunker and McReynolds Roads 

extending up as far as Gibson Loop. These 

perimeter plantings of eucalyptus added to the 

Monterey cypress windbreak that now formed 

a continuous arc of trees from the intersection 

of Moore and Center Roads to the south end of 

FB623. By the end of this period in 1945, these 

trees had not yet visibly expanded beyond their 

original boundaries. An Army map depicting 

vegetation also provides detailed evidence of 

the extent of these forest stands shortly after the 

period of significance.80

 After World War II, the trees planted around 

the cantonment and the batteries continued 

to mature. Numerous aerial photographs 

provide good documentation of the extent 

that these trees have spread outside of their 

original configurations, naturalizing in what had 

historically been open areas. (Photo VG10, next 

page)

VG8 (upper) Windbreak planted on 

the west side of the parade ground 

behind officer quarters. Date: May 

1915 (GGNRA Park Archives and 

Record Center).

VG9 (lower) Clusters of Monterey 

cypress and blue gum eucalyptus 

planted around the buildings on the 

upper end of the cantonment, north 

of McReynolds Road. Circa 1928 

(GGNRA Park Archives and Record 

Center, 2051).
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

68 

VG10 Aerial 

photograph from 

1946 illustrates 

mature 

vegetation 

surrounding the 

cantonment. 

A comparison 

of 1946 photo 

(upper) and 1990 

photo (lower) 

illustrates the 

expansion of 

vegetation in 

east Fort Baker 

(Pacific Aerial 

Surveys AV 9-6-2 

GS-CP & AV3766-0213-10).
Analysis and Evaluation

 69

During the late 1950, and early 1960s, additional 

stands of trees were planted along the slopes 

behind the cantonment and included a variety 

of non-historic species. Many of these plantings 

have been identified as the result of efforts 

between the Army and local community groups, 

including the Boy Scouts. The largest of these 

is a planting of Canary Island pines north of 

Gibson Loop, between Bunker Road and U.S. 

Highway 101. A row of yet another pine specie, 

identified by the park as Torrey pine (Pinus 

torreyana), is planted north of Alexander 

Road. Informal plantings of redwood (Sequoia 

sempervirens) were planted near Gibson Loop 

below the Vista Point turnout. None of these 

stands date from the period of significance and 

do not contribute to the cultural landscape.

Summary

The cypress windbreaks and eucalyptus 

perimeter plantings that encircle the parade 

ground range in condition from fair to poor, but 

as a whole, are still relatively intact and are key 

contributing features of the historic landscape. 

The Monterey cypress trees, planted in evenage stands primarily along the west side of the 

cantonment, have reached maturity. In addition 

to the age of the planting, certain sections display 

evidence of damage, including an area of blowdown near the intersection of Center Road and 

Murray Circle. 

The perimeter planting of blue gum eucalyptus 

stands behind McReynolds Road were impacted 

by the 1995 storm building but as a whole, 

remain relatively intact. Those trees whose roots 

or branches were severely impacting historic 

buildings or structures were removed in 1999 as 

part of building repair and stabilization efforts.

Open Space

From the early nineteenth century through initial 

development of the site by the military beginning 

in 1867, vegetation throughout the Marin 

Headlands was significantly affected by decades 

of cattle ranching and grazing livestock. 

Establishment of Lime Point Military 

Reservation was based on the open nature of 

the landscape providing relatively unobstructed 

views to the sole entrance of San Francisco Bay. 

While no specific document provides definitive 

evidence of the native vegetation prior to grazing, 

it is likely that most of the non-native grass and 

forb species present today were introduced as a 

result of cattle operations. By the time the Army 

assumed control of the land, the landscape was 

pastoral in character with relatively few large 

shrubs or trees. 

The earliest military era photographs of the site 

indicate that the open areas were probably a 

mixture of grass and low, woody coastal scrub 

species. The non-native stands of trees planted 

during the Endicott period were not yet mature 

enough to have spread into adjacent open space 

areas. Some native oaks are visible in photos 

along the bay shore. The Army continued 

the practice of cattle grazing on the military 

reservation through the 1930s, thus maintaining 

the open character of the cantonment setting. 

With the gradual elimination of grazing on these 

lands, the native communities have begun to 

mature and re-establish themselves.

The earliest known mapping of the native 

vegetation is taken from a 1950s-era Army 

vegetation map that distinguishes between the 

open grass areas and scrub areas. Although this 

map post-dates the period of significance, it does 

help establish the extent of forestation that has 

taken place since the mid-twentieth century. 

This map provides evidence of the extent 

of native vegetation around the reservation 

by the end of the period of significance. The 

open space areas were mapped using four 

native plant associated categories: 1) coast live 

oak, 2) arroyo willow, 3) brush (a mixture of 

California sagebrush, chaparral broom, lizard 

tail, and greasewood, with poison oak and native 

blackberry on north facing slopes), and 4) native 

perennial, grasses and herbs. The map shows 

that by the end of the period of significance, the 

pastures and scrub that had earlier been kept low 

by grazing livestock were rapidly transitioning 

into a community dominated by the larger 

chaparral and coastal scrub species. 

A major change in the character and 

configuration of the open space occurred with 

the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge. 

Although the bridge and support roads are 

not analyzed and evaluated in this report, the 

impact of these massive cut-and-fill slopes 

and their subsequent revegetation significantly 

impacted the sense of open space around the 

cantonment. The revegetation efforts associated 

with bridge construction may account for the 

extensive on-site presence of ornamental nonnative species like pampas grass, broom (Cytisus 
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

70 

monospessulanus and C. scoparius) and Prideof-Madeira (Echium fastuosum). (Photo VG11)

 After World War II, the scrub and chaparral 

communities continued to mature and expand, 

often replacing areas that had previously been 

annual or perennial grasslands. In addition, 

seedlings of non-native trees in the historic forest 

stands begin to expand into the open space areas 

around Fort Baker. Additional forest plantings 

occurred around the cantonment resulting in 

additional loss of open areas. Oak woodland 

continues to mature and develop below East 

Road along the bay shore. 

Summary

Over the past forty years, open space areas 

have been encroached upon by a variety of 

tree and shrub species. Historic stands of 

eucalyptus, Monterey cypress, Monterey pine, 

and black acacia have seeded outside of their 

original boundaries into adjacent open space 

areas, and have blocked open views from 

East Road and Bunker Road. Compounding 

this problem, non-native and non-historic 

plantings of pines, redwood, and other nonnatives have also significantly altered the open 

character of the coastal hills, particularly in areas 

between Highway 101 and Battery Road, and off 

Alexander Avenue. In addition, as the grasslands 

and coastal scrub communities mature without 

human intervention, cattle or fire to control 

their growth patterns, thickets of vegetation 

have replaced the once-open grasslands and low 

scrub vegetation that were characteristic of the 

rolling hills.

Construction of Highway 101 and Alexander 

Avenue resulted in the creation of extensive cut 

and fill slopes. These have since revegetated 

with a mixture of native and non-native species 

including invasive exotics like broom and 

Pride-of-Madeira. Their invasive tendencies 

have resulted in spreading into adjacent open 

space areas, thereby contributing to the loss of 

grasslands and low coastal scrub. 

The grasslands and low scrub communities that 

should characterize the hills and open space 

around the camp at the turn of the twentieth 

century are one of the more threatened 

vegetation types in the military reservation, and, 

as whole, are in poor condition.

Quartermaster Warehouse Area

During the pre-Endicott and Endicott periods, 

a number of buildings associated with Fort 

Baker’s support facilities were built south of 

East Road. Today, the buildings that survive 

from the period of significance include FB557 

(Bakery), FB559 (Quartermaster Office & 

Subsistence Storehouse), FB561 (Wagon Shed), 

FB637 (Commissary Storehouse; Quartermaster 

Storehouse), FB666 (Ordnance Storehouse; 

Quartermaster Storehouse), FB644 (Blacksmith 

& Plumbing Shop), and FB645 (Carpenter & 

VG11 Construction of Highway 101 

and Alexander Avenue resulted in 

the creation of extensive cut and fill 

slopes. The resulting revegetation 

efforts may have introduced invasive 

plant species to the open areas of 

Fort Baker. Date: November 9, 1936 

(Golden Gate Bridge Archives).
Analysis and Evaluation

 71

Paint Shop; Artillery Engineer Storehouse). 

Photos show that by 1909 no vegetation had yet 

been planted around these structures and that 

the area was open and industrial in nature.

By 1928, blue gum eucalyptus trees were 

planted in this area. Individual trees marked the 

intersection of East Road and Murray Circle 

and a row of eucalyptus was planted along the 

south side of East Road from the intersection 

extending west past the Quartermaster 

Storehouse (FB559). Another row of trees was 

planted extending from the East Road down the 

road embankment, creating a boundary between 

the Quartermaster Storehouse and the corral 

west of the building. 

The first planting of eucalyptus along the south 

side of East Road was subsequently removed, 

the road realigned, and an even longer row of 

eucalyptus was re-established by the end of 1945 

(see Circulation).

Sometime before 1945, foundation plantings and 

lawns had been established around the buildings. 

The designs appear to have consisted of low 

plantings and lawns as evidenced in the 1938 

Quartermaster Report photographs. In general, 

the buildings in this area were set apart in one 

of two ways: either by a service road or by open 

lawn. The buildings were typically surrounded 

by foundation plantings that included a variety 

of ornamental shrubs and low plants up to three 

feet in height. (Photo VG12)

The Quartermaster Warehouse Area buildings 

are currently used by the Bay Area Discovery 

Museum. Some trees within and around the 

complex date to the historic period. Hedges 

exist around some of the structures, and are 

consistent with the historic appearance of the 

area.

Summary 

The open character of this area is historically 

predicated on its function as a service area 

that was grid-like in character and had limited 

ornamental vegetation. The majority of 

foundation plantings and lawns are no longer 

extant. Exceptions include a grove of historic 

blue gum eucalyptus located between the 

Quartermasters Storehouse and East Road, 

and individual pine and cypress trees planted 

adjacent to the buildings. The open nature of 

the Quartermaster Warehouse Area is being 

impacted by the encroachment of non-historic 

seedlings from cypress and eucalyptus trees.

Endnotes

70 No specific information or period photographs 

exist to document that the batteries on the 

western side of the fort were planted with trees 

during the Endicott period. 

71 Although the guns at Battery Duncan were 

inactivated c. 1917, the view to the bay was open 

and appears to have been maintained such that 

by 1945, the southeast façade of the battery was 

still open. 

72 Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, San Francisco 

District, General Existing Tree Cover Map, 

Drawing Number E432, sheet 25 of 27, Dec. 1952. 

73 Although no specific documentation has been 

located to indicate if ornamental plantings at 

Fort Baker were undertaken by the Army or 

by individual occupants, it is assumed that 

the selection of plant materials and design 

concepts employed were similar to other military 

instillations of the period. In this regard, the 

procurement of materials, the design and 

specifications were based on period standards 

from the Quartermaster department. 

74 Leonard H. Johnson, Foundation Planting, 

New York: A.T. De La Mare Company, Inc., 1927. 

pg.xi 

75 Although drawn after the historic period, the 

1952 Army vegetation map identifies the rows 

of trees planted along the parade ground as a 

mix of black acacia and blue gum eucalyptus. 

Confirming information revealed through 

analysis of historic photographs, this map 

provides important substantiating written 

VG12 

Foundation 

plantings 

around many 

buildings in the 

quartermaster 

warehouse area 

consisted of low 

plantings and 

lawns. Building 

FB561 is a typical 

example. Circa 

1938 (GGNRA 

Park Archives 

and Record 

Center, 32426).
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

72 

documentation of the tree species planted during 

the Endicott period.

76 See Phase One Investigations for the Fort 

Baker Archeological Survey, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area, Marin County, 

California. 2002. Anthropological Studies Center, 

Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA

77 Since the parade ground has had several water 

regimes and varies seasonally, the variety of 

grasses and forbs that make up the grass areas 

probably varied through time. For this reason, 

the character of the parade ground as an open 

grassy space is more significant than any single 

turf grass specie to establishing its historic 

character.

78 Fort Baker Cultural Landscape History and 

Analysis, 2001, GGNPA and Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area, pg. 26: referencing E. 

Thompson HRS.

79 Other inconsistencies with the early 

documentation exist: handwritten notes on a 

period map suggest that groupings of cypress 

and pine trees fully encircled the cantonment yet 

there is no physical or photographic evidence 

for this. “Plat showing location of trees at Fort 

Baker, San Francisco Harbor. Drawn by George 

B. Hawes Jr. 2nd Lt., Artillery Corps, USA”, Fort 

Baker Map Collection, PARC.

80Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, San Francisco 

District, General Existing Tree Cover Map, 

Drawing Number E432, sheet 25 of 27, Dec. 1952. 
Analysis and Evaluation

 73

BUILDINGS AND 

STRUCTURES

More than one hundred historic structures are 

located at Fort Baker, reflecting a continuum 

of military occupation dating from the midnineteenth century to the latter half of the 

twentieth century. For a comprehensive list 

of contributing buildings and structures, 

refer to Appendix A. This building inventory 

identifies construction dates, provides physical 

descriptions including building materials and 

dimensions, and charts major modifications of 

each structure up to the present.81 Additionally, 

a number of structures at Fort Baker contribute 

to the pending Seacoast Fortifications National 

Historic Landmark nomination. For a list of 

these structures, refer to Appendix B.

Buildings

Historic buildings at Fort Baker include 

residential units (single-family and duplex 

residences as well as barracks buildings) and 

utilitarian buildings such as a hospital, post 

exchange and gymnasium, chapel, administration 

building, guardhouse, warehouses, repair shops, 

transformer substations, and garages. 

As a group, historic buildings at Fort Baker 

display architectural styles based on standardized 

plans developed by the Army and are good 

examples of military architecture widely used 

throughout the country in the early twentieth 

century. Buildings at Fort Baker reflect 

four primary stylistic influences. Buildings 

constructed during the Endicott era exhibit 

characteristics of a simplified Colonial Revival 

style with clean, uncomplicated lines, and 

minimal use of applied decoration. Most of 

the buildings erected during this period were 

constructed either of brick or were wood-frame 

with horizontal wood siding and gabled, slatetiled roofs. A limited number of structures 

built during this time can be characterized as 

vernacular bungalows. Buildings that reflected 

this style include several single-family residences 

and the East Road gate house, all of which 

have been removed. A few buildings reflect 

the Mission Revival style, which was instituted 

in the Presidio and throughout West Coast 

military installations in the late 1920s and 1930s. 

Representatives of this style include FB502 and 

FB409. Mission Revival-styled buildings featured 

stucco walls painted white and red composition 

roof shingles. As the Mission Revival style was 

applied to buildings at Fort Baker, the darkcolored buildings were repainted white and red 

composition shingles replaced the original slate 

roofs. During WW II mobilization, a fourth style 

was used at Fort Baker. These buildings took the 

form of understated residential and industrial 

structures to house troops (FB507) and carry 

out specialized tasks related to harbor defenses 

(FB407 and FB670).82

Residential Buildings

The residential buildings surrounding the parade 

ground were built between 1902 and 1909 and 

are clustered around Murray Circle, which loops 

around the parade ground. These buildings 

historically provided housing for enlisted men 

(in the barracks) and commissioned officers 

(in single-family and duplex residences), 

and collectively define a primary structural 

core of the cultural landscape. Barracks were 

constructed on the east side of Murray Circle, 

and officers’ housing was built along the west 

side. The commanding officer’s residence was 

built at the head of Murray Circle, next to the 

post administration building.

With the exception of the post exchange and 

gymnasium building (FB623) and an artillery 

barracks (FB636), the buildings on Murray Circle 

are wood-frame with horizontal siding and gable 

roofs. Although Quartermaster plans for these 

buildings had called for brick construction, 

only one barracks building (FB636) and the 

post gymnasium and exchange building were 

constructed of brick. In addition to its brick 

construction, FB636 is somewhat larger in scale 

(145’ x 77’, while FB601 and FB602 are both 54’ x 

122’). FB636 also features arched brick openings 

and lacks the palladian motifs in the gable ends 

of the wood-frame barracks.

In 1906, all of the buildings that had relied upon 

kerosene for heating were wired for electricity 

and by 1908 electricity was introduced to the 

post. Except for the removal of the barracks’ 

front porches and the changes in roofing 

material and paint color, most of the exterior and 

interior building modifications to these historic 

buildings have been minor. Collectively, these 

buildings form the structural core of the cultural 

landscape. 

Utilitarian Buildings

Buildings constructed to serve a variety of 

utilitarian functions, although usually modest in 
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

74 

scale, were also designed in a similar Colonial 

Revival or Mission Revival style. These support 

buildings often featured architectural details that 

visually connected them to the more prominent, 

substantial buildings facing the parade ground 

on Murray Circle. For example, FB502, a 

transformer substation, was constructed of 

brick with a hipped roof and was distinguished 

by concrete lintels, and segmented arch and 

transom windows. A pump house (FB671) is 

similarly constructed as a sturdy brick building 

with a hipped roof. 

The Post Hospital (FB533), Chapel (FB519), 

Administration building (FB603) and Post 

Exchange and Gymnasium (FB623) constitute 

another category of building types that also were 

designed in the Colonial Revival style. The Post 

Exchange and Gymnasium building occupies 

a prominent site on the east side of Murray 

Circle and with the administration building, 

located adjacent to the commanding officer’s 

residence, fill out the building cluster defining 

the parade ground. The hospital building at the 

end of Kober Street and the chapel on Merrill 

Street, anchor the structures located uphill and 

northeast of the core developed area around 

Murray Circle. 

The hospital is a wood-frame building, as are 

the chapel and the administration building. 

Gabled dormer windows and corbelled masonry 

chimneys add interest to the hospital’s roofline, 

and the front porch features Doric columns 

and a simple balustrade. The post exchange 

and gymnasium building, which was expanded 

with an addition in 1915, features a gable roof 

on its main section, and hipped roofs on its 

wings. Quoins and dentils add surface interest 

to the brick building. The chapel is a simple 

gable-roofed structure with a steeple, and lacks 

ornamental details while the administration 

building features details such as palladian 

windows in the gable ends, and corbelled 

chimneys which contribute to the building’s 

architectural character.

A series of eight garages were built in 1936 along 

the west side of McReynolds Road to serve the 

residences on Murray Circle. The wood- frame 

buildings with shed roofs were built into the side 

of the hill. Adjacent to the garages, concrete 

wing walls and walkways were constructed 

creating space for trash receptacles. 

In 1941, construction began on a large station 

hospital complex, consisting of twentyfive buildings, in response to detachments 

of the Medical and Quartermaster Corps 

being stationed at Forts Baker and Barry. 

The hospital buildings were standard Army 

barracks buildings, known as Series 700 

“mobilization-type” structures and were closely 

clustered together in orderly rows. Hospital 

ward buildings, storehouses, nurses’ quarters 

and the mess hall and recreation center were 

all barracks-type wood-frame buildings with 

composition roofs and were set on concrete 

piers. By the end of the war, forty-five buildings 

of similar construction comprised the station 

hospital complex. The hospital was inactivated 

after World War II and by 1989, when the Bay 

Area Discovery Museum moved in to occupy 

several service buildings located to the north 

and east of the hospital complex, most of the 

hospital buildings had been removed. The Bay 

Area Discovery Museum moved into the former 

Quartermaster and subsistence warehouse 

(FB559), the carpenter/paint shop (FB645), 

blacksmith shop (FB644), a wagon shed (FB561) 

and the exchange service station (FB566).

Structures

In addition to the residential and utilitarian 

buildings at Fort Baker, there are a number 

of significant structures that contribute to the 

cultural landscape. Structures can be grouped 

into four categories: coastal fortifications 

including associated outbuildings and support 

structures; maritime structures around 

Horseshoe Cove—the wharf, seawall, and 

breakwaters; various structures comprising the 

historic water system; and structures related to 

circulation. 

Coastal Fortifications83

The coastal fortifications constructed at 

Fort Baker represent three stages of evolving 

military technologies related to the design and 

development of coastal fortifications from the 

1870s to the 1940s.84

Batteries constructed prior to 1890 represent 

Civil War and Post-Civil War era technology. 

At Fort Baker, batteries from this era include 

Gravelly Beach Battery, Ridge Battery, and 

Battery Cavallo. The range of the armament 

determined the siting of these batteries. In 

the 1870s, when the first three batteries were 

constructed at Fort Baker, artillery range was 

short, and batteries were located close to the 

shore sited in a line or as a defensible point, as 
Analysis and Evaluation

 75

both Ridge and Cavallo Batteries were sited, with 

Ridge Battery sited very high above the point. 

Civil War and Post Civil War Era Batteries

Gravelly Beach Battery

Construction began in 1870, single gun emplaced, 

1873, with removal ca. 1898. 

Ridge Battery

Construction began in 1870, Gun emplaced, 1893, 

with removal in 1901.

Battery Cavallo

Battery Cavallo, built in 1872, is considered 

a superior example of a post-Civil War brick 

battery and earthwork (“star fort”). It is located 

on the coastal bluffs north of Point Cavallo and 

oriented east/southeast to defend entrances to 

San Francisco Bay, and anchorages leeward of 

the Point. Battery Cavallo consists of two parts: 

the battery itself, which is a triangular-shaped 

enclosed earthwork fortification containing 

positions for fifteen guns; and an outwork 

containing emplacements for an additional 

pair of cannons. Guns emplaced in 1900, with 

removal in 1905. (Photo BS1 and Diagram BS2)

Endicott era batteries—batteries Duncan, Yates, 

Spencer, Orlando Wagner, and Kirby—are 

generally characterized by poured concrete 

construction with steel reinforcements, a relative 

massive scale and armor-piercing ordnance, and 

feature multiple levels with separate gun pits and 

magazines.85 In addition to the battery structure, 

several Endicott era batteries also had a complex 

of associated support structures or “outworks” 

such as magazines, powerhouses, fire control 

stations, sentry stations, and latrines. 

The location for the Endicott era batteries often 

duplicated—or displaced—the locations chosen 

for earlier batteries, such as Battery Spencer, 

which was built on the site of Cliff Battery, and 

Battery Yates, which was built on the outworks 

for Battery Cavallo. In general, distance from 

the shore was less of a concern as the range of 

the newer guns increased significantly. Batteries 

Duncan and Yates along with other batteries at 

Fort Mason and McDowell, were also integral in 

creating an internal defense corridor overlooking 

the mine fields. 

Endicott Era Batteries

Battery Duncan

Construction of Battery Duncan began in 1898, 

and was completed the following year. The 

guns were emplaced in 1900. Located on the 

top of Yellow Bluff, the emplacements face the 

navigable channel of the bay in the direction of 

Alcatraz Island. The battery consisted of two 

eight-inch rifles mounted on non-disappearing 

barbette carriages; the guns were located 217 feet 

above the bay. Support structures historically 

included a fire control station and latrine. The 

guns were dismounted circa 1917. (Diagram BS3)

Battery Yates

Battery Yates, completed in 1903, was 

constructed on the promontory at the tip 

of Point Cavallo, seventy-six feet above the 

shoreline, and was the last of the Endicott era 

batteries constructed at Fort Baker. It consisted 

of six three-inch rapid-fire guns in barbette on 

pedestal mounts. The battery was located to 

supply rapid fire over the inner bay and only one 

of its guns was capable of firing in the direction 

of the Golden Gate. Support structures at 

Battery Yates included a fire control system, and 

in 1911, an electrical generator was added that 

supplied power to both Battery Yates and Battery 

Duncan. The guns were removed circa 1942. 

 BS1 (above) Historic 

photograph showing 

Cavallo Battery earthworks. 

Circa 1914 (GGNRA Park 

Archives and Record Center, 

1766).

BS2 (right) Cavallo Battery, 

Fort Baker, constructed 

1872-1876. Plan of 

proposed works (Golden 

Gate National Recreation 

Area collection).
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

76 

(Diagram BS4)

Battery Spencer

Construction on Battery Spencer began in 1893, 

with completion and guns emplaced in 1897. 

The battery is located at the highest elevation of 

all the batteries at Fort Baker, sited at 475 feet 

above the water on a promontory overlooking 

Lime Point. It consisted of three twelve-inch 

rifles on non-disappearing mounts in a triangular 

configuration. In 1910, it was outfitted with 

electrical light and power, replacing the earlier 

oil engine plant that had been constructed 

nearby. Battery Spencer was constructed to 

defend against entrance to the Golden Gate and 

two of its guns covered the coastline and water 

area between Point Lobos and Point Bonita. The 

siting of this battery was a disadvantage in that it 

was located above the fog line, which obscured 

views and interfered with drill and artillery 

practice. The third gun, which was oriented to 

take aim on the inner bay, was removed in 1918 

and shipped to Fort Miley. The final guns were 

removed in 1943. (Diagram BS5)

Battery Orlando Wagner

Battery Orlando Wagner was completed in 

1901, and is located 300 feet above the bay on 

the face of the slope between Lime Point and 

Gravelly Beach. It was sited in conjunction with 

Batteries Spencer and Kirby as a defensive line 

protecting the inland waters of the Golden Gate. 

It consisted of two five-inch guns mounted on 

balanced pillar mounts. Guns were removed in 

1917. (Diagram BS6)

Battery Kirby

Battery Kirby was built on the former site of 

Gravelly Beach Battery; it is located near the 

beach, thirty-seven feet above the water line 

and was completed in 1900. It was designed to 

defend San Francisco Bay from attack at midand short-range, and its field of fire was limited 

to the water between Point Lobos and the inner 

harbor lying just outside the Golden Gate. It 

consisted of two twelve-inch breech loading 

rifles mounted on disappearing carriages. Its 

power source was a gasoline-driven generator for 

supplying power and light, which was installed 

in 1911. Its original source of water was spring 

water stored in a wooden tank. A large brick 

and concrete culvert that had been constructed 

as part of Gravelly Beach Battery continued to 

protect the battery from run-off and served to 

BS3 Diagram of Battery Duncan circa 

1919 from “Report of Completed 

Works--Seacoast Fortifications.”

BS4 Diagram of Battery George Yates 

circa 1919 from “Report of Completed 

Work--Seacoast Fortifications.”

BS5 Diagram of Battery Spencer circa 

1919 from “Report of Completed 

Works--Seacoast Fortifications.”

BS6 Diagram of Battery Orlando 

Wagner circa 1919 from “Report 

of Completed Works--Seacoast 

Fortifications.”
Analysis and Evaluation

 77

channel water under the structure to the bay. 

The battery was placed in an “abandoned” status 

by the Army in 1934, and the carriages were 

removed in 1943. (Diagram BS7)

These batteries, with their more powerful, 

longer-range guns, were located so that the 

entire expanse of the entry to San Francisco Bay 

was protected from potential enemy attack. By 

1905, Fort Baker had one of the best collections 

of modern coastal defense of the time.

World War II modifications to the batteries 

included installation of new concrete gun 

platforms and anti-motor torpedo boat (AMTB) 

weapons, such as the four 90-millimeter guns 

that were installed at Gravelly Beach and at Point 

Cavallo.

Waterfront Area

Historic structures located at Horseshoe Cove—

the seawall, breakwaters, bulkheads and wharf—

were built to protect the cove shoreline from 

erosion as well as to create safe, navigable access 

to the site from the bay. In 1929, construction 

commenced on the seawall, and by 1932 it 

reached its current length. The seawall stabilized 

the shoreline along Horseshoe Cove. 

Breakwaters were constructed to buffer the tidal 

flow and the currents coming from San Francisco 

Bay. The first breakwater was built in 1867, and 

extended from the Needles to the shoreline. 

Between 1937 and 1945, Moore Breakwater was 

constructed, and in 1943 Satterlee Breakwater 

was built. These stone structures provided extra 

stabilization of the cove shoreline, protecting 

it from the open waters of the bay. They also 

served to protect the newly developed hospital 

complex built near the shoreline. In 1942, a 

new wooden bulkhead was built along part of 

the shoreline of Horseshoe Cove to protect the 

hospital structures and stabilize the shoreline. 

BS7 Diagram of 

Battery Kirby circa 

1919 from “Report 

of Completed 

Works--Seacoast 

Fortifications.”

BS8 Map of extant and removed 

buildings and structures located at 

the waterfront.
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

78 

In addition to the seawall and breakwaters, 

historic structures at Horseshoe Cove include 

the Engineer’s Wharf, which was originally 

built in 1867 and improved several times over 

the ensuing years. In 1893, extensive repairs 

were made to the wharf. It was substantially 

rehabilitated in 1903 in order to accommodate 

supplies and materials arriving via barge during 

the Endicott era. Additional repairs were made 

to the wharf in 1927, and in 1937 an L-shaped 

enclosure was constructed around it. In 1929, 

a concrete bulkhead was constructed along the 

western shoreline of Horseshoe Cove to protect 

the road to the Quartermaster wharf and in 1932, 

an additional 134 feet of seawall was constructed 

eastward along the Cove. A refueling dock with 

a boat hoist and wood wharf on wood pilings 

(FB668) was constructed in 1937. (Diagram BS8)

Water System

Historic structures associated with Fort Baker’s 

water system include reinforced concrete 

reservoirs, steel water tanks, and pump houses. 

In the nineteenth century when water was 

barged to the site, several pump houses were

constructed to house the pipes and mechanical 

systems that delivered the water to storage tanks. 

In 1913, a series of iron water tanks were built on 

the hill rising to the west of the parade ground, 

which collectively impounded 50,000 gallons 

of potable water. A 400,000-gallon reinforced 

concrete reservoir (FB572) was constructed on 

top of the ridge near Battery Duncan in 1941, 

substantially expanding the fort’s water storage 

capacity. These historic structures associated 

with the fort’s water system are generally intact, 

however, only the large reservoir remains in 

service. 

Circulation

Roads constructed at Fort Baker during the 

historic period include East Road, Center Road, 

Sommerville Road, Moore Road, Satterlee Road, 

Battery Yates Road, Battery Duncan Road, 

Murray Circle, Bunker Road, McReynolds Road, 

Seitler Road, and Conzelman Road. (For a more 

complete description of Fort Baker’s circulation 

system, refer to the Circulation section of this 

document.)

The Fort Baker-Barry tunnel was built toward 

the end of World War I and significantly 

improved access between Forts Baker and Barry, 

obviating the need to traverse Conzelman Road 

on its precipitous climbs and descents over the 

headlands. Originally constructed in conjunction 

with Bunker Road between 1916 and 1918, the 

tunnel cut through serpentine rock for a distance 

of approximately 2200 feet and was lined with 

10-foot by 10-foot timbers. It was improved 

between 1935 and 1937, when it was lined with 

board-finish concrete with adjoining abutments. 

In 1954, it was extended one hundred feet east. 

Other Structures

Additional historic structures include retaining 

walls along Bunker Road, Kober Street, and 

McReynolds Road and dry masonry riprap at 

the head of Kober Street. The Bunker Road 

retaining wall was constructed to support fill 

on a short connector road from Bunker Road 

to the Sausalito Lateral near the Baker-Barry 

tunnel. The cement-mortared stone wall extends 

for 282 feet, has an average height of between 

three and four feet, and features terra-cotta 

pipe drains of various sizes. The retaining wall 

on McReynolds Road extends for six hundred 

and thirty feet along the northeast side of 

McReynolds Road, has an average height of 

between four and five feet, and is constructed 

of gray stone with mostly flush joints. Along its 

length, wall breaks were constructed for trash 

areas and concrete steps. The wall curves where 

McReynolds Road intersects with Seitler Road. 

The exact construction date of these structures is 

unknown; however, they were mostly built in the 

1930s as WPA projects. 

An asphalt-surfaced tennis court was built 

circa 1909 to the south of the post hospital. 

Originally surrounded by a wood-plank fence, it 

is currently enclosed by masonry retaining walls 

and a modern chain link fence. In the 1930s, a 

“J” shaped gray stone retaining wall with flush 

mortar joints and reaching an average height of 

three to four feet was built to shore up the slope 

on the north side of the court. The tennis court 

exists today, although it is in poor condition and 

is not currently usable. 

Summary

The historic batteries ringing the shoreline and 

the core cluster of buildings defining the historic 

cantonment around the parade ground are 

among the most significant structures defining 

the cultural landscape of Fort Baker. These two 

groups of structures reflect both stylistic trends 

and technological advances in military design 

and strategic defense facilities between 1867 

and 1945. Of these key structures, the batteries 
Analysis and Evaluation

 79

and associated mining buildings are considered 

nationally significant in terms of military history, 

technology, construction, design, and siting. 

The buildings around Murrary Circle, as a 

collection, are remarkably intact and are also 

highly significant in the context of the cultural 

landscape. 

The structures in Horseshoe Cove such as the 

seawall, the wharf, and breakwaters define the 

historic role of this area for navigation and as 

a supply depot, as well as the general working 

character of the waterfront.

Endnotes

81 Principle Sources: “Fort Baker Physical History 

Reports, Introduction,” Kristin Baron, GOGA 

Architectural Historian; List of Classified 

Structures Data, 2001; Quartermaster Reports, 

Presidio Archives, GOGA.

82 See Kristin Baron, “Fort Baker Physical History 

Reports,” NPS.

83 Also see “Seacoast Fortifications,” Freeman, 

Haller, Hansen, Martini, and Weitze, GOGA, 

1999.

84 Circulation features are addressed in the 

Circulation Section of the document.

85 For a more complete description of the tactical 

values and structural characteristics of each 

of the Endicott period batteries at east Fort 

Baker, refer to Fort Baker Record Book in the 

Fort Baker collection at the Presidio Archives 

and Record Center, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area. 
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

80 

VIEWS AND VISTAS

Prior to the military purchase of the land 

comprising the Lime Point Military Reservation, 

the site offered uninterrupted views to San 

Francisco Bay. The abundance of grass and 

the lack of large woody vegetation provided 

excellent vantage points from the hills of the 

bay and Golden Gate. The only limitation 

to the views was the site topography, which 

included rolling hills, ravines and small valleys. 

Three designed components of Fort Baker 

were sited specifically either to take advantage 

of existing views or incorporate views as an 

element of design. These three components are 

the batteries, two entry roads, and the parade 

ground panorama.

Batteries

The first batteries were sited to maximize 

strategic views to the bay and assure the 

triangulation of sight lines created with nearby 

forts. In this regard, vantage points were as 

valuable as the designated artillery range for 

siting batteries along the shoreline. (See Photo 

BS1) In the post-Endicott era, trees were planted 

to provide camouflage from the air, while 

preserving sight lines. Over the years, some 

of these trees have begun to re-seed beyond 

the original plantings. Today, the spread of 

non-native trees throughout site continues to 

adversely effect historic views from the batteries, 

particularly around Batteries Duncan and Kirby. 

Parade Ground Panorama, Commanding 

Officer’s View, Center Road

During the Endicott era, a site plan was 

developed for Fort Baker that responded to 

the topography of the site and proximity to San 

Francisco Bay by placing its most significant 

structures in a horseshoe alignment opening to 

the bay. (Photo VW1)The resulting design created 

a panorama that is the most enduring image 

of Fort Baker. The panorama is anchored by a 

raised bench on which the buildings are placed, 

backset by windbreaks, with finished front lawns, 

varied foundation plantings and specimen tree 

plantings. 

Also during the Endicott era, trees were planted 

in a single continuous line along the edge of 

the parade ground, following Murray Circle, 

except at the top of the parade, in front of the 

commanding officer’s residence. During the 

Endicott era, this location afforded an open view 

to Horseshoe Cove, San Francisco Bay, and the 

city of San Francisco. This intentional gap in 

planting was designed and maintained through 

the historic periods. (Photo VW2) 

With construction of the mobilization hospital 

complex in 1941, the historic vista from the top 

of the parade ground to the bay was obscured by 

structures and later by overgrowth of vegetation. 

Potential for restoration of the vista exists as part 

of the waterfront rehabilitation envisioned in the 

Fort Baker Plan.

During the Endicott period, and shortly 

thereafter, trees were planted along Center Road. 

These trees shielded the views of the industrial 

waterfront area from the commanding officer’s 

residence, while providing an urbanized route 

that contrasted with the rural motor roads 

leading to the developed cantonment. (Photo 

VW3, next page) Removal of this allee occurred 

with construction of the mobilization hospital 

complex in 1941. Potential for restoration of 

the vista exists as part of the parade ground 

restoration envisioned in the Fort Baker Plan.

VW1 (right) View of Parade 

Ground ensemble opening 

to San Francisco Bay. Circa 

1906 (GGNRA Park Archives 

and Record Center, 17206).

VW2 (below) The area in 

front of the commanding 

officer’s residence was 

purposefully excluded from 

the ring of trees planted 

around the Parade Ground. 

November 1928 (GGNRA 

Park Archives and Record 

Center, 2051).
Analysis and Evaluation

 81

VW3 (right) Historic View Along 

Center Road. September 1929, 

(National Archives and Record Center, 

Fort Baker Construction Completion 

Reports 1917-41).

VW4 (below) Historic View Along East 

Road. Circa 1910, (Sausalito Public 

Roads

Historically, visitors arriving to the site using 

East Road from Sausalito were also afforded a 

sweeping view of San Francisco Bay.86 (Photo 

VW4) Pullouts along the road provided 

motorists with the opportunity to enjoy the 

expansive views. Since the historic period, oak 

woodlands along East Road have begun to 

obscure some of the open views. Eucalyptuses 

from Battery Duncan have also begun to expand 

into this area, further impacting the open views.

The south edge of East Road as it approaches 

the cantonment was planted with eucalyptus 

trees during the period of significance, creating a 

visual transition between the rustic road and the 

developed cantonment, while framing views of 

the Golden Gate. When the road was realigned 

in 1941, the earlier trees were replanted, restoring 

the historic view corridor along the entry road. 

(Photo VW5) 

Unobstructed views of the cantonment also 

historically existed along Bunker Road. As the 

trees planted for windbreaks and perimeter 

plantings matured, the open character of the 

fort changed into a more enclosed setting and 

eliminated the view of backs of buildings along 

McReynolds Road. Visitors entering the fort 

from Bunker Road are afforded the first view 

of the cantonment across the parade ground at 

the junction of Murray Circle and Bunker Road. 

(Photo VW6) Post-period forest plantings by the 

local community and Boy Scout troops above 

Bunker Road are also restricting views from the 

road into the adjacent hills. 

VW5 Modern view along East 

Road approach to cantonment, 

with intact complement of 

historic trees and pruning 

underway. February 2005 

(National Park Service).

VW6 (far right) Modern view 

along Bunker Road approach 

to cantonment, with intact 

complement of historic trees. 

February 2005 (National Park 

Service).
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

82 

Golden Gate and Golden Gate Bridge

Views of the Golden Gate were altered as a result 

of the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge 

in 1937. At 746-feet above waterline, the bridge 

was visible from almost everywhere within Fort 

Baker and dominated views from within the 

fort. (Photo VW7) Conversely, a view of the fort 

was created from the vista point on the Marin 

side of the bridge, constructed in the 1950s. 

Within the period of significance, the view of the 

Golden Gate and the bridge from Fort Baker is 

considered a contributing characteristic of the 

cultural landscape.

View from Horseshoe Cove

During the site’s period of significance, visitors 

arrived by water to the Quartermaster Wharf at 

Horseshoe Cove. This view on approach took in 

the industrial waterfront structure, inland to the 

southern alignment of structures comprising the 

quartermaster area. (Photo VW8, next page) 

This area was historically open and planar and 

used for a variety of military and recreational 

purposes. Expansion of plantings around the 

mobilization hospital has obscured this view. 

However, opportunities exist to recapture the 

view as part of the waterfront rehabilitation 

envisioned in the Fort Baker Plan.

Summary

Over the years, expansion of large scale 

vegetation and lack of active vegetation 

management of non-native species constitutes 

the greatest threat to the open character and 

VW7 Historic View of Golden Gate 

and Bridge. April 1937, (Golden Gate 

Bridge Archive) 
Analysis and Evaluation

 83

significant historic views associated with Fort 

Baker. Exotic plant expansion has impacted 

views from the historic batteries and from along 

historic roads entering the fort. Loss of historic 

trees within the parade ground has changed 

the character of the cantonment including the 

historic view from the commanding officer’s 

residence. Although many of the historic views 

throughout the fort are being encroached upon 

by non-native vegetation, views and vistas are 

still an important landscape characteristic of Fort 

Baker and contribute to the significance of the 

historic district. 

Endnotes

86 For a variety of reasons, what may have 

originally been coastal oak woodland along 

the shore before military acquisition had been 

significantly reduced in area during the Endicott 

Era.

VW 8 Historic View of Waterfront 

Approach. February 1925, (GGNRA 

Park Archives and Record Center, 

32847).
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

84 

VW 11 

VW 9 VW 10
Analysis and Evaluation

 85

SMALL SCALE FEATURES

Small scale features are ubiquitous throughout 

the site. As a single form, features range broadly 

from manhole covers to light poles. As a group, 

they reflect both the iconography and the 

utilitarian design aesthetic associated with the 

U.S. Army. The collection of small scale features 

represents a significant aspect of the character of 

the Fort Baker landscape.

Features were installed, removed, and replaced 

incrementally over more than a century of 

military occupation. Changing needs, changing 

technology, and changing aesthetics resulted 

in the replacement of fences, utility poles, 

and entrance gates with modern versions. 

Throughout the years, the military design 

standard has resulted in polished but functional 

features. Many of these surviving features 

contribute to the cultural landscape of Fort 

Baker.

Streetlight (gas), Circa 1902

Location: FB623

Removed

Streetlight (electric), 

Circa 1915

Location: Fort Baker

Removed

Streetlight (electric)

September 1929

Location: Center Road

Removed

Lamppost, Circa 1938

Location: FB615

Removed

Building mounted streetlight

February 19, 1941

Lamppost, Circa 1955

Location: FB636

Extant, Non-contributing

Lamppost, 2001

Location: FB615

Extant, Non-contributing

Lamppost, 1990

Location: Quartermaster Area

Extant, Non-contributing

L a m p p o s t s

S t r e e t l i g h t s
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

86 

 Fence, Circa 1900 

Location: East Road Entrance

 Removed

 Fence, Circa 1900 

Location: Kober Street (FB527, FB523, 

 and FB522

 Removed

 Fence, Circa 1907 

Location: Murray Circle, looking south

 Removed

F e n c e s 

 Fence, Circa 1914 

Location: Near Battery Cavallo and 

 Battery Yates 

 Removed

 Fence, Circa 1915 

Location: Tennis Court (FB537) 

 Removed

Fence, Circa 1933 

Location: Historical Site of 

 Engineer's Camp 

Removed

 Fence, Circa 1937 

Location: Waterfront, looking south 

 Removed

Fence, Circa 1938 

Location: Alexander Road behind 

 FB533 

Extant

 Fence, Circa 1939 

Location: Highway 101 and Alexander 

 Road 

 Removed

Fence, Circa 1925 

Location: East Road Entrance 

Removed

 Fence, Circa 1915 

Location: FB533, looking east 

 Removed

 Fence, 2001 

Location: Satterlee Road (FB557 and 

 FB637) looking east 

 Extant

 Fence, 2001 

Location: Tennis Court (FB537) 

 Extant
Analysis and Evaluation

 87

 Utility Pole, Circa 1907 

Location: East side of Murray Circle, 

 looking south

 Removed

Utility Pole, Circa 1915 

Location: East side of Murray Circle, 

 (FB601) looking east 

Extant

Utility Pole, Circa 1915 

Location: West side of Murray 

 Circle, looking south

Extant

I n f r a s t r u c t u r e V i s i b l e i n t h e L a n d s c a p e

R a i l i n g s 

 Railing, 2001 

Location: FB679, looking east 

Extant

 Railing, 2001 

Location: Service area 

Extant

 E n t r a n c e G a t e s 

Entrance Gate, Circa 1900 

Location: East Road Entrance 

Removed

Entrance Gate, Circa 1925 

Location: East Road Entrance (Marin 

History Museum)

Removed
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

88 

 Walkway, 2001 

Location: FB607 

Extant

 Walkway, 2001 

Location: FB631 

Extant

Road Gutter, Circa 1925

Location: FB631

Extant

C u r b s , W a l k w a y s a n d G u t t e r 

 Street Curb, 1938 

Location: FB561 

Extant

Sidewalk Curb, Circa 1938

Location: FB603

Extant

 S i g n s

Sign, Circa 1900

Location: East Road Entrance

Removed

Sign, 2001

Location: FB615

Extant
Analysis and Evaluation

 89

 S t a i r s a n d R e t a i n i n g W a l l s 

Stairs 3 and Stone Retaining Wall, Circa1938 

Location: FB523 

Extant

Stairs 4 and Stone Retaining Wall, Circa 1938 

Location: FB527 

Extant

 Stairs, Circa 1915 

Location: FB636 

Removed

 Stairs, Circa 1938 

Location: FB631 

Extant

Concrete Retaining Wall , Circa 1938 

Location: FB533 

Extant

 M i l i t a r y A r t i f a c t s a s L a n d s c a p e F e a t u r e s 

Cannonballs, Circa 1938 

Location: FB604 

Removed

Cannonballs, Circa 1925 

Location: East Road 

 Entrance 

Removed

Cannonballs, Circa 1915

Location: FB523

Removed
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

90 

F l a g p o l e a n d Tr e a t m e n t s

 Basketball Hoop, 2001 

Location: FB538 

 Extant, non-historic, incompatible 

O t h e r

Bench, 2001

Location: Satterlee Road

Extant, non-historic, incompatible

Flagpole, Circa 1915

Location: Parade Ground, looking

 northwest

Flagpole: Extant

Compass Rose treatment: Removed

Flagpole, Circa 1939

Location: Parade Ground, looking northwest

Flagpole: Extant

Guywires: Removed

 M i l i t a r y A r t i f a c t s c o n t ' d 

Missle shell casings, circa 1923

Location: FB601, FB602, and FB623

Removed

Monument, 2004

Location: Southeast Parade Ground

Existing

Missle shell casings, 2004

Location: Adjacent to FB627

Existing
Cultural Landscape Areas

 91

Cultural Landscape Areas

Introduction

Cultural landscape character areas at Fort 

Baker are defined by the physical qualities of 

the landscape (such as the shoreline, bluffs and 

slopes, the valley, or vegetation cover) and by 

the type and concentration of historic resources 

(such as historic structures and roads). In this 

regard, character areas provide a synthesis of 

existing conditions and contributing cultural 

landscape characteristics that remain at Fort 

Baker and provide a framework for defining 

management zones and treatment guidelines 

for the cultural landscape. In addition, while 

each area has a distinct landscape character, it is 

the pattern and relationship among these areas 

that enhances an understanding of the overall 

significance of the cultural landscape. Overall, 

Fort Baker is considered a designed historic 

landscape. Based on the synthesis of historic 

resources and existing conditions, six character 

areas have been identified and are described 

below.87

Batteries

There are three batteries in east Fort Baker 

– Battery Duncan, Battery Yates and Battery 

Cavallo. All are located on the eastern ridge 

above Cavallo Point. The remaining batteries are 

in west Fort Baker and include Battery Kirby, 

Battery Orlando Wagner, Battery Spencer, and 

two remnant complexes: Gravelly Beach Battery 

and Ridge Battery. As a cultural landscape 

character area, the batteries are considered 

designed landscapes at two scales. One scale 

is the structural complex itself including all 

earthworks, building components, access 

roads, and outworks. The other scale is defined 

by the relationship and proximity between 

and among individual battery units. In this 

case, the character of the cultural landscape is 

designed but appears “naturalistic” to the degree 

that both native and non-native vegetation 

was used (camouflage) and topography was 

modified (earthworks). The landscape character 

surrounding the individual batteries is generally 

open (except at Battery Duncan and Kirby). The 

batteries at Fort Baker both individually and as a 

system of coastal fortifications are key structures 

influencing the overall military design of the 

cultural landscape and retain a high level of 

historical significance and physical integrity. 

The Cantonment

The cantonment is the spatial, functional and 

structural core of Fort Baker. It includes the 

formal parade ground, Murray Circle, and twelve 

historic structures clustered around the parade 

ground. McReynolds Road and the forest/

cypress windbreak form the west boundary 

of the character area. Seitler Road forms the 

north boundary with seven historic structures 

including the hospital, hospital steward’s 

quarters, five NCO quarters, and chapel. Center 

Road forms the south boundary. The overall 

landscape is formal in design and residential in 

character with curvilinear streets, standardized 

setbacks, with a separation between the more 

public front facades of the residences and the 

more utilitarian quartermaster warehouse areas 

behind. This core area of the post has the largest 

number of cultural landscape resources and a 

high level of cultural landscape integrity. 

The Waterfront

The waterfront area includes a number of 

historic structures and cultural landscape 

resources surrounding Horseshoe Cove between 

Cavallo Point and Lime Point. Historically the 

character of this area was somewhat industrial 

with all of the supplies and materials for the 

post arriving via ship to the wharf at Engineer’s 

Camp. In the early twentieth century, this small 

cluster of work-related buildings gave way to 

improved access and the construction of the 

cantonment, and another cluster of service 

buildings were constructed north of the bay. 

The marsh was filled by 1903, and although this 

portion of the waterfront was not developed 

until 1941 when the station hospital was built, 

the new use was compatible with the functional 

nature of this area. Today there are a number 

of historic structures reflecting the working 

character of the waterfront through the entire 

period of significance. These structures include 

Moore and Satterlee breakwaters, the mine 

wharf, the seawall, the marine railway, Moore 

Road, mine deport structures and loading rooms 

along the west side of the bay, and the boat and 

ship repair shops at the east end of Sommerville 

Road. While most of the contributing resources 

are associated with the post-Endicott era, the 

character of the cultural landscape as a working 
Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part I

92 

waterfront reflects continuation of the earlier 

use, especially with regard to access (water and 

roadways), spatial organization (orientation 

and function), and land use (ship/boat supply, 

maintenance, repair). 

Quartermaster Warehouse Area

The quartermaster Warehouse Area includes 

a variety of structures that historically 

comprised the supply and warehouse area of 

the cantonment. Today this area is used by 

the Bay Area Discovery Museum (BADM). 

Of the original ten buildings clustered in this 

area during the period of significance, seven 

remain including the historic bakery, blacksmith 

shop, carpenter shop, wagon shed, and three 

storehouse buildings. Constructed between 

1902 and 1918 these buildings were utilitarian in 

character, and oriented on a tight grid between 

East Road and the waterfront. Landscaping was 

limited and developed only towards the end of 

the period of significance. Roads were informal 

(unpaved) in character. The Bay Area Discovery 

Museum currently uses these structures for 

offices and programs.88

Open Area

This character area covers the largest amount 

of landscape within the boundaries of east 

and west Fort Baker. In general, it includes all 

the lands that were historically undeveloped 

or only slightly modified for access roads and 

adjacent facilities (such as water reservoirs, 

dump sites, and munitions storage) during 

the period of significance. It also includes the 

landscape surrounding the individual batteries 

and fortifications. In east Fort Baker, during 

the period of significance the character of this 

area was open with low growing vegetation 

and sweeping views. Today large portions of 

the slope surrounding the cantonment are 

forested as a result of vegetation that has seeded 

or spread since the period of significance. In 

addition, areas of east and west Fort Baker have 

been designated as habitat zones for the Mission 

Blue butterfly. Although the undeveloped areas 

surrounding the cantonment appear “natural”, 

the dominant vegetation and character of the 

landscape is a result of use and modification over 

several hundred years. In west Fort Baker, the 

historically open character of the landscape is 

still evident. 

Access Roads

Four historic roads make up the primary arrival 

sequence for Fort Baker: Conzelman Road, East 

Road, Bunker Road, and Center Road. All of 

these roads have been modified over the years 

but generally retain a rural character from the 

historic period. 

Conzelman Road, constructed in 1870/71, was the 

original road between Forts Baker and Barry, and 

one of the earliest roads built at the site. Today 

the a portion of the road runs from Highway 101 

to McCullough Road, and down the hill to the 

waterfront. The upper portion of the road is 25-

feet in width, and the lower portion is a one-way 

section, 12-feet in width. There are 29 historic 

features remaining along the road. 

East Road, constructed in 1902 was built to 

provide access to the post from Sausalito. 

The road was designed as a touring road and 

is scenic in character, generally following the 

edge of the east bluff from Alexander Avenue 

to the intersection with Center Road. The road 

is 26-feet wide with scenic pullouts and 16 

historic features including drainage structures, 

rock walls, manhole covers, and curbing. Also 

associated with this road is the native coastal oak 

woodland. 

Center Road, built in 1872, historically functioned 

as bypass around the swamp at the south end of 

the Parade Ground and as a construction road 

for Battery Cavallo. It has a functional character 

early in development of the cantonment and 

later more formalized character after the trees 

were planted along the edges, creating an allee. 

Today the road is 28-feet wide, with 7 historic 

features. It was tree-lined during the primary 

period of significance. 

Bunker Road was built in 1916, and was 

historically rural in character, following the 

topography down into the intersection with 

Murray Circle. Several sections of the road have 

been re-paved over the past few years. Today 

the road is 22-feet wide with 40 historic features 

including stone retaining walls and numerous 

drainage structures.
Cultural Landscape Areas

 93

Endnotes

87 The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway 101 rightof-way, Alexander Road right-of-way, and Vista 

Point are not included in the description of 

character areas because they are outside the 

study boundaries.

88 Historic buildings used by BADM include 

the Quartermaster and Subsistence Warehouse 

(FB599), the Carpenter and Paint Shop (FB645), 

Blacksmith Shop (FB644), wagon shed (FB561) 

and the Exchange Service Station (FB566).

 95

Introduction

Treatment Approach

Fort Baker is a nationally significant historic site 

listed on the National Register of Historic Places 

as part of the Forts Baker, Barry, and Cronkhite 

Historic District (1973). It has a historic designed 

landscape comprised of a wide range of 

contributing resources and possesses a high level 

of physical integrity.

Three treatments are described for Fort Baker: 

rehabilitation, restoration, and preservation. 

All treatments are based on The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes (1996). 

Each treatment is derived from guidance 

contained in the Fort Baker Plan Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

(1999). The primary management goal, based 

on the plan, is rehabilitation, focusing on 

contemporary use of the cultural landscape 

and historic structures. As described in the 

FEIS, the cantonment and the waterfront areas 

are examples of two areas where new uses are 

planned and rehabilitation treatment is applied. 

This treatment approach applies broadly across 

the site. Restoration is the second management 

goal. This treatment is applied specifically to 

the parade ground. Restoration of the parade 

ground – a key character-defining feature 

of the site – will provide balance between 

contemporary change in the landscape and 

retention of integrity of the historic scene. 

The third management goal is preservation, 

an approach that is applied to the batteries 

where interpretation of the historic scene and 

structures is identified in the FEIS. These three 

treatments are considered interrelated and are 

not mutually exclusive.

The treatment recommendations within this 

CLR build from guidance provided in other 

documents, including: 

• NPS Management Policies, 2001 

• Guiding Principals of Sustainable Design, 1993

• Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between 

the National Park Service and the California 

State Historic Preservation Office Regarding 

the Fort Baker Plan, 2000

• USFWS Biological Opinion on the Fort Baker 

Plan, 1999

• NPS Park Road Standards, 1984

• Parkwide Site Furnishings Standards, GGNRA, 

2003

• Presidio Tenant Sign Policy, Presidio Project 

Office, GGNRA, 1997 

The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (excerpts)

Rehabilitation: The act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and 

additions whille preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. 

In Rehabilitation, a cultural landscape’s character defining features and materials are protected and maintained as they are in 

the treatment Preservation; however, a determination is made prior to work that a greater amount of existing historic fabric 

has become damaged or deteriorated over time and, as a result, more repair and replacement will be required. The Standards 

for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitation allow the replacement of extensively deteriorated, damaged, or missing 

features using either traditional or substitute materials. For example, Rehabilitation may include replacing a crushed 

bluestone carriage drive with a rolled aggregate finish or replacing shaded-out understory shrubs with more shade tolerant 

species. Of the four treatments, only Rehabilitation includes an opportunity to make possible an efficient contemporary 

use through alterations and additions; for example, replacing tillage with permanent grasslands to support a new system of 

livestock grazing... 

Restoration: The act or process of accurately depicting the form, features or character of a property as it appeared at a 

particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing 

features from the restoration period.

Preservation: 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 features rather than extensive replacement and new construction.

Treatment
96

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part II: Treatment

Treatment of archeological resources is not 

detailed in this Cultural Landscape Report. 

Specific treatments for these resources have 

been addressed in other park management 

documents.

Following extensive historic analysis, circa 

1939 has been designated as the historic period 

during which the preponderance of contributing 

features of the landscape were in place and 

the military’s management practices for the 

landscape had become well established. This 

date represents the most coherent and enduring 

military design for a landscape that changed 

several times over an eighty-year period. No 

attempt is made to “freeze” the Fort Baker 

landscape to a single year; rather the goal 

is to retain character-defining features that 

contribute to the integrity of the site. Treatment 

recommendations focus on the general attributes 

and appearance of the landscape. For example, 

in specifying plant materials for the cantonment, 

the shape, size, massing, texture, and form of 

historic material may be emphasized rather than 

exact genus or species. 

The Fort Baker Plan FEIS identifies alterations 

to the cultural landscape that need to be made 

for programmatic, environmental, life/safety, 

and other purposes. The NPS and its partners 

should pursue strategies that minimize impacts 

to the character-defining features of the 

landscape. Some of the proposed actions as 

called for in the Fort Baker Plan FEIS, such as 

revised parking, will have an unavoidable impact 

on the landscape. In gauging overall historic 

character and site integrity, it will be important 

to compare the intactness of character-defining 

features and landscape characteristics at the 

outset of the undertaking with the degree of 

change during the proposed rehabilitation. 

Recommendations and 

Guidelines

Treatment recommendations and design 

guidelines are often required in rehabilitation 

projects to counter-balance loss of characterdefining features or general landscape character 

caused by proposed alterations. Rehabilitation 

of Fort Baker will inherently affect many of 

its historic features; however, the treatment 

recommendations contained within this 

Cultural Landscape Report provide guidance to 

minimize overall impacts to both the individual 

features and the historic district’s character as 

a whole, while allowing for contemporary uses. 

Deficiencies that threaten life and safety or 

that are causing further deterioration must be 

corrected. The value of all other improvements 

should be weighed against the value of the 

landscape’s integrity. 

Three levels of guidance are provided through 

this Cultural Landscape Report. They are 

structured to present a hierarchy of treatment 

for the historic district. Recommendations 

range from a general preservation framework to 

specific design guidelines for new construction. 

These treatment strategies include:

• Fort Baker Historic District Treatment 

Recommendations, which address treatment 

of elements common to the entire landscape, 

and

• Character Area Treatment Recommendations, 

which contain specific guidance for the 

cantonment, the batteries, access roads, the 

waterfront, the quartermaster warehouse 

area (BADM), and open space, and 

• Design Guidelines, which address potential new 

construction within the historic district. 
 97

Historic District Treatment Recommendations and Design Guidelines

Fort Baker Historic District 

Treatment Recommendations 

and Design Guidelines

LAND USE 

1. Preserve and maintain historic land use 

patterns, where feasible. Some of these 

patterns include:

• The arrival sequence to the cantonment 

along Bunker Road and East Road

 • The shape, orientation, and open nature 

of the parade ground, defined by Murray 

Circle and Center Road, the cluster of 

historic structures ringing the parade 

ground, McReynolds Road forming 

the outside edge of the space, and the 

windbreaks and eucalyptus perimeter 

plantings forming the backdrop and 

boundary between the cantonment and 

the open space beyond.

 • Work-related industrial development 

around Horseshoe Cove including 

breakwater, seawalls, wharves, ramps, 

and ship repair structures which define 

the industrial character of the waterfront.

• The use and development of the area north 

of Horseshoe Cove, for service-related 

functions and support facilities.

 • Individual batteries and support 

structures, including access roads, which 

form a system of fortifications and a 

structural perimeter along the shoreline 

to the east, south, and west of the 

cantonment.

2. Where feasible, service areas (support 

offices, shops, and storage) should be 

located within the historic industrial 

zone, which includes the quartermaster 

warehouse area and waterfront extending 

around Horseshoe Cove. 

3. Where buildings may be removed as 

designated under the MOA, Appendix B 

“List of Buildings Proposed for Demolition 

or Other Adverse Effect”, consider the 

potential for retention and continued use 

of these structures, including potential to 

screen new development, parking areas, 

utilities, and infrastructure associated with 

the rehabilitation use of the site.

Design Guidelines

Land Use

1. Focus new uses and activities in locations that are compatible with historic land use patterns.

2. If a new facility is required, consideration should be given to siting it in a manner that is visually unobtrusive and 

compatible with the historic use, with preference given to the use of an existing developed area that is accessible by 

existing roads.
98

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part II: Treatment

BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES

Preserve, maintain and incorporate 

in rehabilitation designs the historic 

buildings and structures identified 

for retention in the List of Classified 

Structures (LCS) or the Cultural 

Landscapes Automated Information 

Management System (CLAIMS) as 

part of a cyclic preservation program.

Design Guidelines

Buildings and Structures

1. Minimize modification of existing grades throughout the site and addition of new retaining walls and structures to 

accommodate new building sites. If new retaining walls are required, they should be compatible with the character of 

existing historic versions within that character area. For example, in the core cantonment, consider use of masonry for 

new retaining walls to match the historic material (avoid faux/replica stone). For Capehart area, use of poured-in-place 

concrete for retaining walls is encouraged at the edge of the developed area for instances where retaining walls are 

necessary. In the waterfront area, new retaining walls should be poured-in-place concrete. 

2. Avoid addition of new fences within the historic district, with the exception of those required for protection of natural 

resources, designated habitat areas, or for human safety. If required, the design of new fences in the cantonment, along 

access roads, and in the service area should be compatible with the character of historic fence types (See Character 

Area Treatment Recommendations). The design or type of fences used around the batteries and in open areas should 

minimize the amount of fencing required to achieve the objective.

3. Where feasible, consideration should be given to reestablishing the horizontal 2-rail boundary fence that delineated the 

perimeter of the historic cantonment, if a perimeter fence is identified as the preferred alternative for maintaining a 

secure boundary at sensitive habitat areas.

4. Avoid introduction of incompatible new structures—such as outdoor exercise equipment, outdoor pools, putting greens, 

gazebos, arbors, sculpture, fountains, etc., to the historic setting at Fort Baker. 

5. Modification of historic structures with additions such as new wings, decks, and other features, must follow the 

guidelines in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. The preferred location for 

non-contributing modern features is on less significant facades and away from historically sensitive view corridors. 

Significant facades at Fort Baker buildings are indicated in individual Historic Building Reports. Historically sensitive view 

corridors are indicated in the Part I Analysis and Evaluation.

6. Where feasible, locate new structures on sites where buildings have been removed or were planned during the site’s 

period of significance, in order to minimize additional grading or changes to existing topography, and to reinforce the 

historic site development pattern.
 99

Historic District Treatment Recommendations and Design Guidelines

CIRCULATION AND PARKING

The following recommendations build on the 

decisions reached within the Fort Baker Plan 

FEIS with respect to scale and location of 

circulation and parking. 

1. Preserve and maintain the character of 

historic roads to Fort Baker, including the 

use, alignment, width, paving, drainage 

features, and shoulder treatments of 

historic roads. Where modification is 

required to achieve new safety or functional 

requirements, design should be compatible 

with the historic character of the road.

2. Preserve and maintain the understated 

character of less formal historic roads in 

service related areas of the district (e.g., the 

waterfront). Some of these characteristics 

include:

 • Minimal use of asphalt

 • Compacted dirt and/or gravel surfaces

 • Utilitarian drainage designs

 • Non-urban character, consistent with 

surrounding area, reinforced by design of 

sidewalks, curbs, and shoulders

 • Varying widths within a given road segment

3. Preserve and maintain road names, 

including installation of missing road signs 

at Fort Baker. Road names were designated 

in honor and memory of deceased members 

of the United States Army, many of whom 

served at Fort Baker prior to World War II. 

4. Avoid modification of historic roads for 

vehicular parking within the historic district 

(e.g., widening the roadbed). Consider reuse of abandoned building pads (e.g., along 

Seitler Road and Merrill Street) as new 

parking locations. 

5. Consistent with historic circulation 

patterns, maintain a separation between 

roadways and parking areas.

Design Guidelines

Circulation and Parking

1. Minimize the scale of new parking areas. Where feasible, separate large parking lots into two or more smaller lots.

2. Where feasible, avoid creating a primary vehicular route through a parking area.

3. Where feasible, avoid construction of new roads within the historic district. However, if new roads are required to 

facilitate new requirements such as maintenance operations or emergency access to new use areas, they should be 

designed in a manner that is compatible with the character of historic roads that contribute to the character of that 

historic zone. In general, new roads should be located and aligned in a visually unobtrusive and historically compatible 

manner, using minimal amounts of cut and fill, narrow width and historically appropriate materials and drainage 

features.

4. Design of new or realigned roads, such as along realigned Breitung Road at the waterfront zone, sidewalks, curbs, and 

road shoulders should reinforce the overall character of the surrounding zone, which ranges from the urbanized setting 

of the core cantonment to the rustic setting of the waterfront area.
100

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part II: Treatment

VEGETATION

1. Preserve and maintain historic vegetation 

throughout the cantonment as part of a 

cyclic maintenance preservation plan. 

(Historic vegetation that existed as part 

of a 1999 existing conditions assessment 

for the cantonment can be found in the 

Appendix C – Existing Vegetation List.) 

2. Remove non-historic trees within the 

cantonment as directed in Appendix D - 

Landscape Rehabilitation Guidelines.

3. Preserve and maintain the historic 

windbreaks, tree plantations, windrows, 

hedges/screens and foundation plantings 

as significant historic landscape features 

associated with the setting for historic 

buildings and events that occurred at Fort 

Baker.

4. Manage landscaped areas around 

individual historic structures to reflect 

the extent of development and materials 

used by the army through the late 1930s. 

(See individual building treatment 

recommendations in Appendix D - 

Landscape Rehabilitation Guidelines.) 

5. Remove and replace historic trees that are 

structurally unsound consistent with the 

PWR Hazard Tree Guidelines (WR-093). 

Before historic trees are removed, it will be 

necessary to:

 • Evaluate individual trees for biological and 

structural health. Remove and replant only 

historic trees that are structurally unsound 

and that cannot be stabilized through 

pruning and active management.

 • Remove trees only in conjunction with an 

NPS-approved replanting plan except in 

cases of imminent hazard conditions. In 

such instances, replanting should occur at 

the earliest feasible time. 

 • In all cases, prior to removal and in 

coordination with park GIS coordinator, 

identify genus and species, location, and 

context to any historic tree planting plan 

using GPS equipment and GIS mapping. 

If feasible, the age of the tree should be 

determined and documented at the time of 

removal.

6. Selection of restoration species at the 

Parade Ground, or replacement species 

for the historic forests, tree stands or 

windbreaks will need to be thoroughly 

evaluated for compatibility of character 

and appearance as well as suitability with 

historically planted species at the site. 

Selection of replacement vegetation should 

meet the following criteria:

 • Addition of new plant materials should follow 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes and meet guidelines established 

in the Fort Baker Plant Selection Lists 

(separate document). Closely match the 

intended form and character of historic 

vegetation.

 • Avoid invasive characteristics

 • Meet sustainability goals

 • Select for improved pest and wind resistance

 • Reduce maintenance demands

7. Undertake adequate planning for 

reforestation efforts at historic tree 

plantations and windbreaks. Planning 

should establish the desired form, 

character, and management demands of 

the restored/rehabilitated stand. Planning 

effort should enlist the professional skills 

of NPS cultural and natural resource 

staff, as well as the professional skills of 

arboriculture, horticulture and forestry. 

See discussion in Appendix E – Arborist 

Report.

 • For all tree plantations, maintain the species 

make-up of the forest stand (often, a 

monoculture) as a primary character feature.

 • For all tree plantations, maintain the footprint 

and continuous canopy of the forest stand as 

a primary character feature.

 • For the Monterey cypress windbreak, maintain 

the orthogonal rhythm of the tree plantings 

as an important character feature of the 

forest stand.

8. In all cases when selecting vegetation for 

replanting, recognize and make practical 

accommodation of the impact that wildlife 

in the area, such as deer, gophers, rabbits, 

raccoons, and gulls, will have on the plant 

materials.
 101

Historic District Treatment Recommendations and Design Guidelines

9. Minimize modification of the historic 

landscape with introduction of nonhistoric planting areas. Where new 

planting areas are introduced, designs 

should follow The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Guidelines for the Treatment 

of Cultural Landscapes. The preferred 

location for non-contributing modern 

vegetative features is away from historically 

sensitive viewsheds. Historically sensitive 

view corridors are discussed in the Part 

I Analysis and Evaluation “Views and 

Vistas”. 

10. Where feasible, restore of the characterdefining interface between the large-scale 

tree plantings at the perimeter of the 

cantonment and the open space areas. 

Fort Baker Plant Selection Lists

Plant selection lists have been developed to help ensure protection of both cultural and natural resources of the site. 

The following document contains Plant Lists for the Fort Baker Military Reservation in the Marin Headlands of Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area. The purpose of these Plant Lists is to promote responsible landscape planting to 

protect both historic and natural resources. The need for the plant selection lists arises because the Fort Baker Military 

Reservation consists of both historic ornamental designed landscapes and native plant communities - each with their 

own vegetation management needs. The purpose of the lists is to protect the values inherent in both landscape types. 

These plant lists should always be used in conjunction with general rehabilitation criteria established in The Secretary of 

Interior’s Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes 

as well as the site-specific guidance in the Fort Baker Cultural Landscape Report. 

These plant lists are intended for use by NPS park staff, the GGNPC and park partners when selecting plants for historic 

rehabilitation projects, routine maintenance or landscaping. The plant lists should be used in conjunction with any 

construction, treatment or planning projects involving the historic landscape within the Fort Baker Military Reservation.

Plant List 1: Plants for Use in Designed Landscapes

Plant List 2: Conditional-Use Plants in Designed Landscapes

Plant Lists 1 and 2 are working lists that were derived primarily from research done at the Presidio of San Francisco. 

Because of the similarity in coastal conditions and historic development of the military installations in the Marin 

Headlands under command at the Presidio, these lists are also being used for Fort Baker. These two lists have been 

augmented with historic plant material based on research specific to Fort Baker. 

Plant List 3: Prohibited-Use Plants in Designed Landscapes

Plant List 3 contains those species that are prohibited from use at Fort Baker based on either demonstrated, or reliably 

anticipated, invasive characteristics of these plants. 

Plant List 4: Native Plants Approved for Consideration on Designated Landscape Projects Within the Developed Area at 

Fort Baker 

Plant List 4 is a summary of native plants found in the east Fort Baker watershed, annotated to identify those plant 

materials that are eligible for production in the GGNPA plant nursery, for use on designed landscapes at Fort Baker.

Plant Lists are intended to provide plant selection guidance only. A plant - though it may appear on an approved list 

- may not be appropriate for a specific location; therefore, the plant may not be approved for use. Individual landscape 

rehabilitation projects will require specific species selections according to the historic character, maintenance and 

sustainable management of that particular site or building landscape.
102

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part II: Treatment

SMALL SCALE FEATURES

Preserve and maintain small scale historic 

features throughout the site. Where 

replacement of these features is required 

for safety or to accommodate upgrades, the 

design and siting of replacements should be 

compatible with the character of the historic 

version. Examples of small scale historic 

features that should be retained include: 

• Manhole covers

• Drainage system features

• Foundation pads

• Concrete bag anti-aircraft gun 

emplacements

• Road traces

• Utility access/abandoned staircases

• Remnant sidewalks 

• Military-era signs

• Utility vaults

• Seawalls

• Dolphins (freestanding anchorage for 

vessels)

• Spiderweb Entanglements

Design Guidelines

Small Scale Features

1. New site furnishings should comply with the NPS Parkwide Site Furnishings Standards, or reflect the understated character 

of furnishings described in that standard. 

2. Contemporary small scale elements and site furnishings should be designed and placed in a manner that is compatible 

with the historic site. The appropriateness and placement of new features should be evaluated in the context of the entire 

site so that the cumulative effect of additions to the cultural landscape can be assessed.

3. Design and placement of road and wayfinding signs outside the cantonment area should be based on approved NPS sign 

standards.

4. Design and placement of, wayfinding, tenant identification and other temporary and permanent signs within the 

cantonment should be consistent with the Presidio Tenant Sign Policy or the NPS successor policy. 
 103

Historic District Treatment Recommendations and Design Guidelines

UTILITES

Fort Baker has always had utilities visible 

within the landscape. During the course 

of infrastructure upgrades at the site, the 

cumulative effect of all changes should 

approximate, but not exceed, the historic 

presence of these features in the landscape. 

1. Preserve and maintain historic 

infrastructure features and retain them in 

service to the extent feasible. Avoid removal 

of historic structures that contribute to 

the integrity of the site as identified in the 

List of Classified Structures (LCS) or the 

Cultural Landscapes Automated Information 

Management System (CLAIMS). 

2. Where feasible, re-use components such 

as valve covers or manhole covers with 

distinctive period characteristics. While not 

all such components need be retained, select 

examples may be protected in place as a 

record of the site’s development over time. 

Design Guidelines

Utilities

1. Where feasible, new above ground utility structures including electrical switchgear, electrical transformers, backflow 

preventers, and gas meters should be placed in visually unobtrusive locations. For example, these new utility structures 

can be located adjacent to historic structures or in proximity to historic vegetation. Consideration should be given to 

placement of transformers in subsurface vaults, when visually compatible and unobtrusive locations for these structures 

cannot be achieved. Introduction of new fencing, large concrete pads, vegetative screens, and modification of historic 

grades to mitigate the placement of these utility features is the least preferred option for placement of new utility 

structures, as this approach will cause the greatest disruption to the historic scene.

2. When studying expansion of historic subsurface vaults, evaluate the feasibility of retaining the existing vault and using 

side-by-side expansion in lieu of removal and replacement. 

3. Preserve and maintain the condition of historic trees during subsurface infrastructure improvements. When selecting 

an alignment for subsurface utility lines, consideration should be given to the potential impact on tree plantings that 

contribute to the historic scene. The preferred alignment will avoid the root zones of trees so that removal of the tree or 

impairment of its biological and structural health does not occur. Utility alignments should also be selected to minimize 

future conflicts between subsurface utilities and trees (e.g., where trees will be restored at the parade ground, keep 

utilities away. Where other vegetation is impacted by the work, the scope of the project should include repair to suit 

historic conditions).

4. For infrastructure that has existed historically at the site, such as fire hydrants, manhole covers and vaults, new versions 

should be compatible in appearance with historic versions. For example, the CLOW 76 Fire Hydrant is visually compatible 

with the historic fire hydrants that exist at Fort Baker.

5. Where street lighting is upgraded, select a light fixture design that reflects the design established at the site in the late 

1930s with respect to street post placement, scale, and general design characteristics of the fixture. Where required, 

modify the historic design to fit NPS criteria for management of light “spillover” as well as for functionality. For other 

site lighting that may be introduced for safety and upgrades, minimize the visibility of new fixtures using a shielded 

fixture design, resulting in an understated lighting design.

3. Where feasible, minimize the visual impact 

of new above ground utility features to 

reduce the cumulative effect of these nonhistoric additions to the historic scene.
104

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part II: Treatment

Other Guidance: Fire 

Management and 

Sustainability

CONSIDERATIONS FOR FIRE 

MANAGEMENT

Development of a Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area Fire Management Plan should 

address preservation of historic vegetation 

and structures at historic districts such as Fort 

Baker. The Fire Management Plan should also 

acknowledge:

• The history of wildland fires at site.

• The presence of human ignition sources 

at roads and concentrated visitor use 

areas.

• The presence of fuel loading at the 

site, especially due to recent expansion 

of tree stands beyond their historic 

boundaries. 

A Fire Management Plan and implementation 

recommendations should include provisions 

that protect, where practical, historic vegetation 

as well as buildings, structures, and earthworks, 

including:

• Manage condition of historic trees that 

are immediately adjacent to historic 

buildings.

• Manage open grasslands and coastal 

scrub plant communities that surround 

the developed cantonment and 

contribute to the historic character of 

the site.

• Manage historic military batteries 

consistent with historic character, 

including protection of structures, 

archeological sites and historic 

earthworks from exposure to 

fire. Evaluate the potential of fire 

management practices in maintaining 

a coastal scrub vegetative character 

in historically open areas of the site. 

Evaluate the opportunity to disturb 

the forest succession process in an 

operationally feasible way so that these 

areas may remain in an open condition 

consistent with the appearance during 

the military era.

• Manage San Francisco Bay frontage oak 

woodland consistent with its historic 

character, including protection of 

structures and archeological sites from 

exposure to fire.

• Manage replanting of historic tree 

stands to minimize the creation of 

ladder fuels.
 105

Fire Management and Sustainability

CONSISTENCY WITH NPS 

SUSTAINABILITY GUIDELINES 

The following recommendations are consistent 

with the Guiding Principles of Sustainable 

Design, (1993).

1. Minimize the expenditure of energy 

resources required (e.g., use droughtresistant, low spreading grass species 

which will minimize the need for frequent 

mowing). 

2. Minimize the use of plant species that 

require frequent and/or extensive use of 

irrigation on a long term basis. Drought 

tolerant plant material is desirable as long 

as it does not change the character of the 

vegetation at the site.

3. Minimize labor-intensive practices (e.g., 

planting of species that require frequent 

pruning).

4. When selecting plant material, consider 

the longevity of the material to minimize 

frequent replacement.

5. Minimize the need for chemical 

amendments to the soil (fertilizers, lime, 

etc.) through the selection of plant species 

that are tolerant of the existing site/soil 

conditions.

6. Minimize the use of pesticides and 

herbicides, consistent with the NPS 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 

guidelines.

7. Where non-contributing specimen plantings 

are removed during the rehabilitation work, 

consideration should be given to salvage and 

re-use of the plant material elsewhere, either 

inside or outside the park.
106

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part II: Treatment

Character Area Treatment 

Recommendations and 

Design Guidelines

Although the Fort Baker Historic District 

Treatment Recommendations apply to the 

district as a whole, treatment guidelines 

have also been developed for the six cultural 

landscape character areas to address 

preservation treatment at a more detailed 

scale. Each set of recommendations for 

the character areas (cantonment, batteries, 

access roads, quartermaster warehouse 

area, waterfront, and open areas) is based 

on the historical significance and physical 

integrity of the resources within those areas. 

These recommendations are grouped by 

landscape characteristics and include Spatial 

Organization and Land Use, Buildings and 

Structures, Vegetation, Circulation, Small 

scale Features, and Views and Vistas. 

CANTONMENT

The cantonment is the spatial, functional 

and structural core of Fort Baker. The overall 

landscape is formal in design and residential 

in character, with curvilinear streets, 

standardized setbacks, and a separation 

between the more public front facades of the 

residences and the more utilitarian service 

areas behind. The cantonment consists of 

five interrelated sub-areas: 

• The Parade Ground, including the grass 

field, trees and flag pole, 

• Murray Circle, including the twelve historic 

structures clustered around the parade 

ground, the road and sidewalks, steps, 

foundation plantings, landscaped yards, 

and streetlights, 

• McReynolds Road, providing limited 

vehicular access and utility areas 

including, garages, parking areas, utility 

infrastructure (transformers, garbage 

containers) structural rock walls, and 

steps, 

• The Windbreak forming the western 

boundary of the cantonment, and 

• Kober Street and Seitler Road forming the 

northern boundary of the cantonment, 

with seven historic structures including 

the hospital, hospital steward’s quarters, 

five NCO quarters, and chapel. 

Treatment recommendations for the 

Capehart housing area on the north 

side of the cantonment are also included 

in this section. Although the buildings and 

landscape features post-date the period of 

significance, treatment recommendations 

and design guidelines are required to assure 

the redevelopment of this area is visually and 

materially compatible with the overall character 

of the historic district. 

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Spatial Organization and Land Use

1. Preserve and maintain the historic design and 

spatial organization of the cantonment, 

including the cluster of structures and 

setbacks between structures around 

Murray Circle, the open parade ground, 

the windbreak/tree plantation extent and 

edges, and the sequence of formal/public 

spaces in front of the residences and the 

more utilitarian private spaces behind the 

residences.

2. Restore the parade ground, which is a key 

character-defining feature of the cultural 

landscape. Components of a restoration 

design should include:

 • Restoration of missing perimeter tree 

plantings, using the historic planting 

locations and alternating rhythm of tree 

genus. Restore the formal planting of the 

parade ground trees and the allee of trees 

along Center Street as part of the parade 

ground rehabilitation (see Parade Ground 

Planting Plan). Replanting should replicate 

the variety of species that existed historically. 

(Determination of historic tree locations 

is important and should be done based on 

careful documentation of historic conditions 

through the use of historic photos, 

consistent with the restoration standard that 

applies to treatment of this missing feature.)

 •Where replanting of historic parade ground 

trees is undertaken, use trees that have a 

mature height of between 30- and 40- feet. 

The repeated history of tree crowning 

during the period of significance indicates 

that the intended planting design requires a 

tree height in this range. New tree plantings 

should introduce this height where evidence 

of historic period tree topping exists. 

Incrementally remove earlier plantings such 

as eucalyptus globulus, that have achieved a 

height closer to 120 feet, as feasible. 
 107

Character Area Treatment Recommendations and Design Guidelines

 •Maintain grass cover throughout the parade 

ground, consistent with the management 

decision to restore this feature. The parade 

ground turf was historically seasonal in 

nature. Restoration of the parade ground 

should use drought resistant species 

that can go dormant (golden) during dry 

periods. The turf on the parade ground 

should continue to function as it did 

historically to control dust in the area. Avoid 

selective irrigation of the parade ground, 

which would create smaller green areas 

within its larger context: this approach 

would be inconsistent with the history of 

management of the parade ground as a 

whole. Turf selection should fully consider 

all maintenance and sustainability issues 

including the use of pesticides, fertilizers, 

and drought resistance consistent while 

ensuring the overall coverage necessary 

to adequately address the dust control 

objectives of the original planting. 

 •Where feasible, remove non-historic 

recreational structures from the parade 

ground. Informal recreational activities 

are consistent with the historic use of the 

parade ground. Future use of these areas 

for recreational purposes is historically 

appropriate but should occur generally 

across the parade ground and not be fixed in 

a single location defined by structures. 

 •Where feasible, consideration should be given 

to restoration of the Army appurtenances 

that signalled the command center of 

the post, including the historic flagpole 

treatment with guy wires and cannonball 

anchors, as well as the cannonball sidewalk 

edging and cannonballs stacked in pyramidshaped piles that marked the corners on 

the route. These elements historically 

connected and identified the flagpole 

(FB648), Commanding Officer Quarters 

(FB604)and Commanding Officer's 

Administrative Quarters (FB603) as the 

center of military command at the fort.

 •Retain the commemorative Army monument 

(FB810) in an appropriate location and 

setting on the parade ground. If feasible, 

retain the modern Army commemorative 

monument in a similar setting. 

 • Where missing features of the parade ground 

setting are restored - such as streetlights - 

select restoration units that fit the form and 

character of the missing historic versions.

 • Where new features are added to the parade 

ground setting to meet modern functional 

requirements, ensure that these features are 

understated and visually compatible with 

the historic character of the parade ground 

circa 1937.

Buildings 

Preserve, rehabilitate, and maintain all historic 

structures following The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic 

Properties, the treatments established in the Fort 

Baker Plan and additional guidance provided 

in the Fort Baker Historic Building Reports 

(Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 2002).

Structures

1. Preserve and maintain historic structures 

that contribute to the integrity of the historic 

district. 

2. Stabilize the historic tennis court. 

Stabilization treatment should include 

removal of vegetation within the court, 

retention of court dimensions, stabilization 

of retaining walls and fencing, and 

resurfacing with a compatible material. 

Consideration should be given to restoration 

of the tennis court sufficient to allow for 

recreational use.

3. Preserve and repair in place dry masonry 

riprap on sloped road edges in the vicinity of 

Kober Street (FB533) and along McReynolds 

Road (FB510). Where the riprap has been 

disturbed due to site construction activities, 

remove, salvage and reset in original location 

after construction.

4. Preserve and maintain the stone curbs 

defining the edge of the parking areas in the 

vicinity of Hospital Building FB533. 

5. Remove non-historic concrete retaining 

walls on Murray Circle in front of FB636, 

in front of FB519 (Chapel), along Kober 

Street, and in the vicinity of the children’s 

playground. Where feasible, re-grade these 

areas to reestablish the contours that existed 

during the period of significance. 

Design Guidelines

Cantonment: Buildings

1. Design new buildings 

within the historic 

district to be 

compatible in scale, 

texture and continuity 

with the character 

of historic structures 

throughout the district. 

2. Where new buildings 

are proposed on 

Murray Circle, they 

should be sited 

to maintain the 

established front 

yard setback, which is 

understood to be 25-

30 feet from the curb 

at Murray Circle to the 

front façade of the 

building. In addition, 

the following apply: 

 • New buildings should 

maintain a side yard 

spacing between 

buildings which is 

compatible with the 

established setback 

pattern. 

 • New buildings should 

maintain a front yard, 

two side yards and one 

rear yard.

 •The scale of new 

structures should 

approximate the scale 

of adjacent historic 

structures. 

3. Where feasible, use 

existing disturbed 

areas for siting new 

buildings in the 

Capehart area.
108

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part II: Treatment

Circulation and Parking 

1. Preserve and if required replace in-kind 

the concrete sidewalk around the outside of 

Murray Circle and distinguish it from other 

pedestrian routes as the most prominent 

pedestrian route at the site.

2. Preserve and if required replace inkind the concrete walks providing access 

and defining planting beds surrounding 

residential buildings. Replacement with new 

curbs or walks should be avoided except as 

required for accessibility or other code/safety 

reasons. Where replacement is required 

for safety or functional requirements, new 

versions should be compatible with historic 

examples in scale, texture and detailing. 

Match the visual characteristics of the 

concrete used for these structures using 

 a compatible with matrix, aggregate and 

texture.

3. Preserve and if required replace in-kind 

deteriorated historic concrete driveways, 

stairs at retaining walls, and building 

entry stairs as needed for access. Where 

replacement is required for safety or 

functional requirements, new versions 

should be compatible with historic examples 

in scale, texture and detailing. Match the 

visual characteristics of the concrete used 

for these structures using a compatible with 

matrix, aggregate and texture.

4. Preserve and maintain the path behind the 

Monterey cypress windbreak at the western 

side of site. In considering the future of stairs 

from McReynolds Road to electrical service 

vaults, evaluate the feasibility of repair and 

extension of the existing stairs to connect 

with the historic trail behind the Monterey 

cypress windbreak.

5. Re-use existing parking areas wherever 

possible, including off-street parking areas 

behind and between historic buildings, along 

wider roads and within garages.

6. The FEIS allows for expansion of an 

existing parking lot west of FB407. The new 

design should protect the historic windbreak 

and retain its individual trees sufficient to 

ensure functional, structural and visual 

integrity of this significant feature. 

 • Consideration should be given to 

incorporating unpaved parking within these 

stands (as demonstrated by the Presidio Golf 

Course Parking Lot) if this will protect root 

zones of historic trees and contribute to 

retention of integrity of the windbreak. 

 • Avoid extending the parking lot south beyond 

the historic cement “V” drainage ditch, 

located southwest of FB405. 

Vegetation

1. Foundation plantings and turf areas 

around the buildings should be irrigated to 

maintain a green appearance in the most 

efficient water conserving manner. Seasonal 

dormancy of trees and shrubs is historically 

out of character for ornamental plantings in 

the cantonment. 

2. Drought tolerant plants are encouraged as 

part of the full complement of foundation 

plantings, particularly where they can 

replicate the diversity of color, form, texture, 

and flowering characteristics of historically 

used moisture-dependent species.

3. Renewal of the Monterey cypress 

windbreak should continue use of Monterey 

cypress as a monoculture, but may consider 

introduction of canker-resistant, windresistant and/or less invasive strains of the 

cypress. Manage individual trees to ensure 

biological and structural health while 

retaining the historic extent and canopy of 

the windbreak. 

 • Management should incrementally establish 

an uneven age stand through replanting over 

a period of years.

 • Where feasible, establish a fuel break between 

historic tree plantings and non-historic 

overgrowth or intentional plantings, in order 

to better protect the designed landscape 

from damage by wildland fire.

4. Retain and re-establish the north 

windbreak of eucalyptus trees and Monterey 

pine along McReynolds Road and behind 

Kober Street to its historic mass and 

footprint. Manage individual trees to ensure 

biological and structural health. During 

replanting, selection of exact historic tree 

locations is less important than retention 

of the historic extent and canopy of the 

windbreak. Remove incompatible, nonhistoric understory growth including 

myoporum, acacia, broom and others. 

Design Guidelines

Cantonment: Vegetation

Where feasible, within the 

Capehart outer developed 

area (north of Merrill 

Street and outside of 

Seitler Road) housing area, 

non-native/non-historic 

plant material should be 

removed and replaced 

with grassland and 

coastal scrub or visually 

similar species that are 

developed specifically for 

use around the buildings. 

Designs should be visually 

compatible with the open 

grassland/coastal scrub 

character of the area, 

yet should not attempt 

to replicate the random 

character of the coastal 

scrub. Use of tree or large 

shrub species adjacent to 

these open space areas is 

not appropriate. If used, 

native plants in this area 

should be selected with 

specific design purposes 

in mind and should 

not attempt ecological 

restoration of these 

disturbed areas. 
 109

Character Area Treatment Recommendations and Design Guidelines

5. New plantings within the Seitler Road 

loop, where select non-historic buildings are 

proposed for removal, should be compatible 

with the historic appearance, open in 

character with few large shrubs, and the 

windbreak providing the dominant vegetative 

character. 

6. Preserve and maintain the Monterey 

cypress windrow on the east side of the 

Regimental Chapel (FB519) to the degree that 

this feature retains biological and structural 

health. Where replanting is required, replant 

the entire windrow as a unit. This planting 

was originally intended to express the 

scale and density of an evergreen hedge. 

Therefore, in selecting replacement planting 

material, consideration should be given to 

replanting with a genus and species that can 

be maintained at the scale of a hedge. 

7. Remove the non-historic Douglas fir tree 

located adjacent to the monument at the 

north end the parade ground.

Views and Vistas

1. Preserve and maintain the view across 

the parade ground of the Endicott era 

panorama of buildings and setting, 

including graded approach to buildings, 

formal plantings in front of buildings 

and windbreak backdrop to buildings.

2. Preserve and maintain the opening in 

parade ground tree plantings in front 

of Commanding Officer’s Quarters 

(FB604).

Small Scale Features

 1. The FEIS calls for the relocation of the 

circa 1970 Army monument at the north end 

of the parade ground. Evaluate relocation 

options in consultation with the military 

and in conjunction with development of the 

Coastal Defense history interpretive plan 

for the site. Consideration should be given 

to consolidating the location of this modern 

monument with restoration of the Endicott 

era treatment of the Parade Ground flagpole 

and approach to the Commanding Officer’s 

residence and Headquarters (structures 

FB603, FB604 and FB648). The northern 

Design Guidelines

Cantonment: Views and 

Vistas

The FEIS allows 

construction of up to 

52,000 square feet of 

additional building area in 

the Capehart Area. (FEIS, 

table 4-10). Manage the 

visual effect of added 

structures in this area 

through compliance with 

Fort Baker Compatibility 

Criteria contained 

within the MOA for the 

Fort Baker Plan, which 

provides guidance for new 

buildings to relate in scale, 

texture and continuity 

with the historic district. 
110

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part II: Treatment

1. Preserve and maintain the historic 

structures, including all outworks, 

earthworks, and features associated with 

the batteries, following preservation 

maintenance guidance referenced in 

the Seacoast Fortifications Preservation 

Manual and The Guide to Sustainable 

Earthworks Management. 

2. Where feasible, relocate the fence at 

Battery Duncan and Battery Cavallo away 

from the battery slopes and toward the toe 

of the earthworks. 

3. Stabilize World War II-era anti-aircraft gun 

emplacements until plans are developed 

addressing long-term treatment of these 

significant structures.

Earthworks

1. Manage earthworks with full consideration 

for the potential effects of vegetation 

management, interpretation, visitor use, 

security, maintenance, and monitoring on 

the historic resource. 

2. Biannually monitor for tree saplings 

(diameter 12-inches or less) on the 

earthworks and remove. Where feasible, 

remove existing large trees from the 

earthworks because of the potential for 

damage to the historic structures (trees are 

defined as diameter greater than 12-inches).

3. Maintain sufficient vegetative or duff 

coverage so that soil erosion of the 

earthworks is prevented.

Circulation

1. Preserve and maintain historic roads leading 

to battery complexes.

2. Preserve the structural integrity of the 

earthworks by avoiding construction of new 

trails on the earthworks.

Vegetation

1. Preserve and maintain the historic character 

of the vegetation at batteries, which was 

predominately perennial grasses and low 

coastal scrub of relatively uniform height 

end of the Parade Ground has served 

historically as a focal point for the ceremonial 

life of the site, making it a potentially suitable 

permanent location for military icons.

2. Where feasible, the following non-historic 

small scale features may be removed: clothes 

lines, mailboxes, and remnants of children’s 

playground behind FB527. 

Utilities 

1. Preserve and maintain structural 

components of the existing electrical system, 

including transformer pad next to FB502, 

subsurface vaults, vaults set in embankments, 

stairs and steel pipe railings accessing select 

vaults, and buildings FB408, FB409 and 

FB502. These structures not only serve as 

part of the electrical system, but contribute 

to the cultural landscape of Fort Baker.

BATTERIES

There are three batteries in east Fort Baker 

–Battery Duncan, Battery Yates and Battery 

Cavallo. The remaining batteries are in west 

Fort Baker and include Battery Spencer, Battery 

Kirby, Battery Orlando Wagner, and two 

remnant complexes: Gravelly Beach Battery 

and Ridge Battery. The structural complex of 

the batteries includes all earthworks, building 

components, access roads and outworks. The 

landscape character surrounding the individual 

batteries is generally open (except at batteries 

Duncan and Kirby). The batteries at Fort Baker, 

both individually and as a system of coastal 

fortifications, are key structures influencing the 

overall military design of the cultural landscape, 

and have a high level of historical significance 

and physical integrity. Management focuses 

on preservation of contributing resources, 

restoration of a more historic vegetation cover, 

and enhancement of the habitat for the Mission 

Blue butterfly around Battery Cavallo. 

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Spatial Organization and Land Use

Preserve and maintain the structural complexes 

and cluster arrangement of the batteries at Fort 

Baker, and retain the historic spatial relationship 

among the battery complexes.

Structures

Design Guideline

Batteries: Structures

Avoid siting new structures 

in proximity to the historic 

batteries. If new structures 

are required for functional 

or life safety requirements, 

they should be sited in 

a manner that does not 

impair the integrity of 

the historic scene or the 

spatial patterns associated 

with individual battery 

complexes.

Design Guideline

Batteries: Circulation

Trails should utilize 

abandoned historic road 

and trail alignments.
 111

Character Area Treatment Recommendations and Design Guidelines

on the earthworks. Where overgrowth of 

larger vegetation has occurred, the historic 

vegetation should be restored, where 

feasible. Removal of larger shrubs (e.g., 

broom, toyon, etc.) and trees (e.g., oaks and 

all non-natives) will help restore historic 

vistas and reestablish historic visual linkages.

2. Maintenance on the interior sides of 

batteries should sustain a mix of primarily 

perennial grasses and forbs. Less intensive 

management of perennial grasses and low 

coastal scrub species is needed for the 

exterior sides of the earthworks. 

3. Projects that impact vegetation management 

at the batteries should be closely 

coordinated with natural, cultural, and 

fire management resource specialists to 

ensure appropriate management strategies 

for habitat and fuel loading adjacent to the 

historic forests and the open space areas. 

4. Restoration of the historic character at the 

batteries should be coordinated with and 

enhance natural resource objectives to 

protect the Threatened and Endangered 

Species, including Mission Blue butterfly 

and Monarch butterfly habitat, while 

ensuring that the historic character of the 

battery areas is retained.

5. Any trees--either historic or non-historic--

that threaten the structural integrity of the 

batteries should be assessed for removal and 

not be replaced.

6. The fence lines protecting the batteries 

should not become “de facto” zones for 

vegetation management. The vegetation 

around batteries should be managed 

to ensure the visual continuity of the 

perennial grasses and low coastal scrub that 

historically surrounded these batteries and 

extended throughout the area.

7. Where fences have become locations where 

large scale vegetation is established, cyclic 

maintenance should be undertaken to clear 

fencing of overgrowth vegetation. 

8. Historic photos indicate that Battery 

Duncan was planted with a mixture 

of eucalyptus species that were added 

at various times during the period 

of significance. Retain sufficient tree 

plantings in the vicinity of Battery Duncan 

to accomplish the military purpose of 
112

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part II: Treatment

screening the battery. All trees that are not 

essential for screening the battery can be 

considered for removal from within and 

around the historically forested areas at 

Battery Duncan. 

9. Where feasible, remove modern intrusions 

from the batteries. For example, remove 

the large “Cable Crossing” sign on Battery 

Cavallo.

Small Scale Features

1. Preserve historic archeological 

features associated with the 

batteries, including concrete 

foundations, outworks, concrete bag 

bunkers, spiderweb entanglements, 

railings, and remnant circulation 

features. 
 113

Character Area Treatment Recommendations and Design Guidelines

ACCESS ROADS 

Bunker Road and East Road are the primary 

circulation structures, historically designed 

to provide controlled access to Fort 

Baker. As described in the Historic Road 

Characterization Study for Forts Baker, Barry 

and Cronkhite, these roads were rural in nature 

and aligned to control the arrival sequence 

and speed at which vehicles approached the 

site. East Road was also designed as both an 

access route and a “touring” road along the 

shoreline, with open views to the bay along 

the route. The oak woodland on the east side 

of the road is considered part of this character 

area. Bunker Road also allowed views to the 

waterfront and cantonment as it approached 

the site. Conzelman Road and Center Road, the 

earliest access routes through the site, continue 

to route people through the site. Although the 

character of these roads has been modified 

over the years (e.g., the rerouting of portions of 

Conzelman Road), these roads are considered 

part of the historic access routes associated 

with the site. 

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Spatial Organization and Land Use

1. Preserve and maintain the historic use, 

design, materials, and spatial organization of 

the entry roads including the alignment and 

arrival sequence, speed, width, vegetated 

shoulders, windrow, tree allee, guardrails, 

concrete and masonry drainage structures, 

and associated historic features.

2. Minimize modification of historic 

entry roads to accommodate intensified 

contemporary use. Where modifications are 

required for modern functional purposes, 

the character defining features of the road 

should be preserved, including scale, form, 

character and materials historically used. 

3. Wood guardrails existed historically along 

the outboard side of East and Bunker roads 

during its period of significance. Currently, 

modern steel “W” rail is used. Retention of 

“W” rail along the outboard side of the road 

is consistent with the historic presence of a 

railing and has a visual effect consistent with 

the military history of the site. 

4. Preserve and maintain the footprint of the 

overlooks on East Road, which represent the 

original historic curvilinear road alignment 

circa 1900.

5. Preserve, maintain and improve existing 

views at overlooks through cyclic vegetation 

management.

6. Treat the scenic overlooks as a nonurban site, in character with their historic 

appearance (e.g., gravel and compacted 

earth). The road surfacing should be visually 

different from the pullouts so that the two 

surfaces are clearly discernable from the 

travelled way. 

7. Consideration should be given to 

reestablishing some form of entry marker or 

gate near the federal property line on East 

Road that is evocative of its historic gateand-guardhouse antecedents that marked 

the boundary of the military reserve.

Structures

1. Preserve, repair, reconstruct, and maintain, 

as needed, historic structural and civil 

engineering features associated with 

historic roads, such as road alignments 

and cross sections, masonry and concrete 

drainage features, retaining walls, guardrails, 

underpasses, pullouts, etc. Each road has 

a defined road cross section that provides 

scale and character to the road experience 

and reflects its unique development history.

2. Where feasible, Center Road should have 

a tight “urbanized” character, especially at 

intersections with Bunker Road and Murray 

Circle, Murray Circle and Center Road, and 

Center Road and East Road. Historically, the 

urbanized character derived from vegetation 

and structures that closely line the edge of 

the street. A number of structures existed 

historically along this road, especially at 

intersections. Surviving structures include 

FB670, FB671 and FB691. Planning and 

compliance processes have been completed 

for removal of FB691. However, if during 

implementation of the Fort Baker Plan 

an appropriate re-use proposal for FB691 

is found, then retention of this structure 

would be consistent with cultural landscape 

integrity. If removed, an appropriate 

alternative would be extension of the allee of 

trees past the former building site.
3. Where feasible, modern head-in parking 

along Bunker Road and Center Road should 

be removed and the road edge restored to its 

historic appearance.

Vegetation

1. Preserve and maintain the setting for 

historic roads by eliminating the nonhistoric invasive plants from along primary 

road corridors outside the cantonment 

zone (such as acacia, echium, valerian, 

eupatorium, eucalyptus, Monterey cypress, 

redwood, fennel, broom, etc). Removal of 

these species will significantly enhance views 

along the road corridor.

2. Preserve and maintain the historic Monterey 

cypress and eucalyptus tree plantings at the 

Bunker Road approach into the cantonment. 

3. Maintain the oak woodland below East 

Road. Where feasible, selectively manage 

vegetation (broom, eucalyptus, oaks, toyon, 

etc.) on a tree-by-tree basis from around 

designated scenic overlooks to restore, 

enhance and maintain historic views of San 

Francisco Bay and the East Bay hills. 

4. Maintain the historic windrow of eucalyptus 

trees along the south side of East Road 

(above the quartermaster warehouse area) 

at the approach to Murray Circle. Remove 

all non-historic trees, particularly those 

blocking the view to the waterfront area or 

contributing to fuel loading in the area.

Views and Vistas

1. Restore the view created through the allee

of trees along Center Street as part of the 

overall treatment of the Parade Ground to 

reestablish the historic character of the area 

to circa 1939. (See Parade Ground Planting 

Plan.)

2. Preserve, maintain and restore the 

historically open views along East Road by 

removal of non-native vegetation, and where 

feasible, the selective removal or thinning of 

native vegetation. 

3. Restore the view of the quartermaster 

warehouse area and waterfront area from 

the southern segment of East Road, which 

is currently obscured by overgrowth of 

vegetation below the historic trees planted 

along the road edge.

114
 115

Character Area Treatment Recommendations and Design Guidelines

Design Guideline

Quartermaster Warehouse 

Area: Buildings and 

Structures

Where fencing is required 

within the quartermaster 

warehouse area, it 

should be designed (in 

size, color, and type of 

material) to reflect the 

horizontal paddock rail 

fencing that historically 

existed in this area.

Design Guideline

Quartermaster Warehouse 

Area: 

Vegetation

Introduction of new 

plantings within the 

quartermaster warehouse 

area at non-historic 

buildings and sites 

should be minimal 

and compatible in 

character with plantings 

historically associated 

with the service-oriented 

structures in this area. 

Design Guideline

Quartermaster Warehouse 

Area: 

Small Scale Features

Design and placement 

of new exterior museum 

exhibits at the Bay Area 

Discovery Museum 

assigned area should 

be undertaken in 

consultation with the 

cultural resources staff, 

Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area, to 

assure the scale, material, 

color, mass, and location 

is visually and materially 

compatible with the 

historic character of the 

cultural landscape. 

QUARTERMASTER 

WAREHOUSE AREA (BADM)

The quartermaster warehouse area includes 

a variety of structures that historically 

comprised the supply and warehouse area of 

the cantonment. Today, the Bay Area Discovery 

Museum (BADM) uses this area. Of the original 

ten buildings clustered in this area during the 

period of significance, seven remain, including 

the historic bakery, blacksmith shop, carpenter 

shop, wagon shed, and three storehouse 

buildings. Constructed between 1902 and 1918, 

these buildings were utilitarian in character, and 

oriented on a tight grid between East Road and 

the waterfront. Landscaping was limited and 

developed only towards the end of the period 

of significance. Roads were informal (unpaved) 

in character. The Bay Area Discovery Museum 

currently uses five of the structures for offices 

and programs. Rehabilitation for contemporary 

use is the primary treatment applied to this area.

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Spatial Organization and Land Use

Preserve and maintain the historic design 

and spatial organization of the quartermaster 

warehouse area including the rectilinear grid 

and orientation to Satterlee Road.

Circulation and Parking

1. Preserve and maintain Satterlee Road – both 

its paved and unpaved segments – and 

incorporate the road into any modification 

to existing site circulation (pedestrian or 

vehicular). 

2. Consideration should be given to re-use 

of abandoned historic motor roads as 

pedestrian circulation. 

Vegetation

1. Preserve and maintain foundation plantings 

around historic buildings. Remove nonhistoric trees, shrubs, and other vegetation 

inconsistent with the historic character of 

the area. 

2. Avoid introduction of new site furnishings or 

structures that displace historic vegetation.
116

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part II: Treatment

Design Guidelines

Waterfront: Spatial 

Organization and Land Use

Rehabilitation of the 

waterfront area including 

the overall layout and 

design of new spaces 

and facilities should be 

compatible with the 

historic character of this 

area (circa 1939). General 

design guidelines for 

rehabilitation of the 

waterfront include:

 • Retain the open, planar 

topography of the 

waterfront.

 • Retain the industrial and 

functional character 

of this area. Hard 

edges are preferred to 

curvilinear shapes and 

soft edges created by 

berms, hills, swales, tree 

plantations, and other 

interruptions of ground 

plane.

 • Emphasize low 

vegetation and limit 

the use of shrubs for 

defining edges and 

screening service-related 

features.

 • Site new structures and 

facilities in relation to 

the waterfront and in 

an orthogonal pattern 

using Center Road, 

the quartermaster 

warehouse area, and 

Horseshoe Cove as the 

patterned form. 

 • The layout and 

orientation of the new 

“recreated” beach 

at the waterfront 

should be linear in 

character to reflect 

historic engineered 

development of the 

area. Where feasible, 

design the boundary for 

the new “recreated” 

beach use stone and 

riprap breakwaters in 

relation to Horseshoe 

Cove. 

 • If required, site new 

structures on the 

building pad of 

removed building 

FB570.

WATERFRONT

The waterfront zone includes a number of 

historic structures and cultural landscape 

resources surrounding Horseshoe Cove between 

Cavallo Point and Lime Point. The character of 

this area was historically industrial, with all of 

the supplies and materials for the post arriving 

via ship to the wharf at Engineer’s Camp. In 

the early twentieth century, this small cluster of 

work-related buildings gave way to improved 

access and the construction of the cantonment, 

and another cluster of service buildings was 

constructed north of the cove. The marsh was 

filled by 1903, and although this portion of the 

waterfront was not developed until 1941 when 

the WW II Mobilization Hospital was built, the 

new use was compatible with the functional 

nature of this area. Today there are thirty 

contributing structures in this area, as well as the 

U.S. Coast Guard Station and FB671 all of which 

reflects the working character of the waterfront 

through the entire period of significance. These 

include structures such as Moore and Satterlee 

breakwaters, the mine wharf, the seawall, 

the marine railway, Moore Road, mine depot 

structures and loading rooms along the west side 

of the bay, and the boat and ship repair shops at 

the east end of Somerville Road. (See CLR Part I 

for full listing and associated map.)

Management of the waterfront focuses on 

redevelopment for recreational use, within 

the general framework of preservation, of the 

contributing resources and character of the 

cultural landscape as a working waterfront

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Buildings and Structures 

1. Preserve and rehabilitate the contributing 

historic buildings and structures at the 

waterfront, including FB679 (Boat Repair 

Shop), FB668 (Fueling Dock and Marine 

Railway), the roads, the breakwaters, the 

seawall, and the docks. These structures 

contribute to the historic character of Fort 

Baker and Horseshoe Cove and visually 

anchor this portion of the site to the overall 

design and significance of the cultural 

landscape. 

2. Preserve and maintain the historic industrial 

character of the piers, docks and waterfront 

edge.

3. Consideration should be given to the re-use 

potential of historic small scale buildings 

FB644 and FB665, which contribute to the 

historic character of the waterfront. Re-use 

would enhance both the preservation and 

sustainability goals of the project.

4. Consideration should be given to relocating 

the historic boat shop, consisting of FB633 

(Marine Maintenance Shop), should efforts 

to establish a rehabilitation use for the 

building not be successful in its current 

location. An appropriate new location would 

retain the relationship to the water’s edge 

that characterizes the original location.

Design Guidelines

Waterfront: Circulation and Parking

 1. Preserve and maintain the historic industrial waterfront character of Moore Road.

 2. Where feasible, pedestrian circulation delineation and individual parking stalls should be 

informal in design, consistent with the rustic and industrial waterfront character.

 3. New Breitung Road, which will be constructed as part of the Fort Baker Plan, should be 

designed as a gravel road consistent with the historic scene, for that segment that extends 

east of the new south parking area to Cavallo Point. 

 4. Consideration should be given to reestablishment (realignment and repaving) and 

integration of Somerville Road in the rehabilitation of circulation systems at the 

waterfront. Not only would this retain efficient circulation at the site, but also the historic 

name would be retained in active use.
 117

Character Area Treatment Recommendations and Design Guidelines

Vegetation

1. Preserve and maintain the open minimally 

vegetated character of Lime Point.

2. Remove non-historic vegetation throughout 

the former mobilization hospital area.

3. Reestablish the historically open character 

of the waterfront circa 1939 using low plants 

or turf species. Fully consider management 

objectives for active use of vegetated area 

in carrying out selection of new plant 

material. Turf may be drought-tolerant 

types and allowed to go dormant (golden) 

during the summer, if consistent with other 

management objectives.

Small Scale Features

Preserve and maintain the FB627 eight-inch 

shell casing and other similar artifacts of the 

military era.

Design Guidelines

Waterfront: Vegetation

U. S. Coast Guard 

Station Golden Gate 

should use a minimalist 

approach to landscape 

modification patterned 

on the historic treatment 

recommendations 

established for the 

quartermaster warehouse 

area (BADM).

Design Guidelines

Waterfront: Small Scale 

Features

 1. Site furnishings, such as 

barbeques, bike racks, 

or shade structures, 

should be industrial and 

utilitarian in design to 

ensure compatibility 

with reference to the 

historic industrial/

utilitarian use of the 

site. 

 2. Avoid use of Endicottera period replica site 

furnishings, such as 

reproduction street 

lights that may be 

restored at the parade 

ground and core 

cantonment area. 
118

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker - Part II: Treatment

OPEN AREAS

The Open Areas cover the largest amount of 

landscape within the boundaries of Fort Baker. 

In general, they include all the lands that were 

historically undeveloped or only slightly modified 

for access roads and adjacent facilities (such 

as water reservoirs, dump sites, and munitions 

storage) during the period of significance. They 

also include the landscape surrounding the 

individual batteries and fortifications. In east 

Fort Baker, the character of this area during 

the period of significance was open, with low 

growing vegetation and sweeping views. Today, 

large portions of the slope surrounding the 

cantonment are forested as a result of vegetation 

that has seeded or spread since the period of 

significance. In addition, areas of east and west 

Fort Baker have been designated as habitat 

for the Mission Blue butterfly. Although the 

undeveloped areas surrounding the cantonment 

appear “natural,” the dominant vegetation and 

character of the landscape is a result of use 

and modification over several hundred years. 

During the historic period, the open character 

was maintained by cattle grazing and natural 

fire regimen through World War II.In west Fort 

Baker, the historically open character of the 

landscape is still evident. 

TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Spatial Organization and Land Use

1. Preserve and maintain the open vegetative 

character that existed during the period of 

historic military occupancy and for which 

the historic district is being managed. 

2. Where feasible, develop a management 

program that targets restoration of the 

open vegetative cover of the area for those 

areas that exhibit overgrowth of trees in the 

modern period. 

Vegetation

1. In consultation with park natural resources 

and fire management staff, manage the lands 

around the developed cantonment east of 

Highway 101 and south of Alexander Avenue 

to ensure restoration of the open character 

of the hills surrounding the cantonment in 

the early development period from 1866 

to 1939. Incrementally work to establish a 

predominant plant community consisting 

of perennial grasses and low coastal scrub 

plants. Although the natural systems are 

constantly in dynamic flux, the overall 

appearance of the hillside surrounding 

the cantonment should still ensure an 

open appearance consistent with a mix of 

perennial grasses and low scrub species. 

Shoreline areas below East Road are the 

primary areas where native trees existed 

during the period of significance and should 

be retained as oak woodland. 

2. Restore open areas where non-historic 

stands of eucalyptus, cypress, acacia or pine 

trees are to be removed. Restoration of the 

grasslands/scrub in these areas might involve 

the removal of native trees and large shrubs 

where they have established themselves as 

understory in the non-native forest stands. 

3. Groves of trees planted within the historic 

period, but after 1939, should be considered 

for removal and the sites restored with 

appropriate native grassland/scrub 

community species. These areas include the 

various pine and redwood groves adjacent to 

Bunker Road and Alexander Avenue. 

4. Manage the encroachment of large woody 

vegetation in the vicinity of historic 

archeological sites, including foundation 

ruins, road traces, and Army dumpsites, such 

that these resources are preserved.

Design Guideline

Open Areas: Structures

If trails are needed in this 

area, they should be aligned 

along historic road traces 

where feasible. New trails 

and circulation routes 

should be located in a way 

that minimizes potential 

impact to cultural resources.

120

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker 

Bibliography

Books

Brian Chin, Artillery at the Golden Gate: The Harbor Defenses of San Francisco in World War II; Pictorial Histories Publishing 

Company: Missoula, Montana, 1994.

Harold and Ann Lawrence Gilliam, Marin Headlands: Portals of Time, GGNPA, 1993.

John Haskell Kemble, San Francisco Bay: A Pictorial Maritime History, New York: Bonanza Books, 1947. 

Emanuel Raymond Lewis, Seacoast Fortifications of the U.S.: An Introductory History. Missoula: Pictorial Histories Publishing Co., 1979.

Ralph Shanks. Guardians of the Golden Gate: Lighthouses and Lifeboat Stations of San Francisco Bay. Petaluma: Costano Press, 1990.

Jack Tracy. Sausalito: Moments in Time. Sausalito: Windgate Press, 1983.

Articles

Mark Berhow, “America’s Last Seacoast Defenses: The World War II-Era Construction Programs,” Coast Defense Study Group Journal, 

8:3 (August 1994); p.32

Reports

Anderson Geotechnical Group. “Memorandum on Geotechnical Conditions at Fort Baker,” 2000.

Baron, Kristin and Barbara Judy. Fort Baker Historic Building Reports, Volumes I and II. Golden Gate National Recreation Area: 

National Park Service, July 2002.

Harlan Tait Associates. Feasibility Geotechnical Investigation: East Fort Baker, April 1998.

Laizure Report, (what is this document? It is cited in the “General Landscape History” on page 25, n. 27)

National Register of Historic Places/Nomination Forms for Forts Baker, Barry and Cronkhite, Western Regional Office, National Park 

Service, 1973.

National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Final Environmental Impact Statement – Fort Baker, 1999.

Quartermaster General Office Form #117, (1926-1941); Park Archives and Record Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San 

Francisco.

_________________. Guide to Sustainable Earthworks Management, NPS in Association with the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation, 

90% Draft, 1998.

 

_________________. Fort Baker Plan, October 1998.

_________________. Presidio Tenant Sign Policy, Presidio Project Office, September 1997.

_________________. Record of Decision, Final Environmental Impact Statement–Ft.Baker, 2000.

_________________. Seacoast Fortifications Preservation Manual, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, July 1999.

Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Services. Transportation and Management Plan for the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker—Existing 

Conditions. 2000.

Presidio Trust. DRAFT Site Furnishings Guidelines for the Presidio of San Francisco, 2000.

Thompson, Erwin N. Historic Resource Study: Forts Baker, Barry and Cronkhite of Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Denver 

Service Center: National Park Service, 1979.

___________________. Historic Resource Study: Seacoast Fortifications of San Francisco Harbor, Denver Service Center: National Park 
 121

Bibliography

Service 1979.

Toogood, Anna Coxe. Historic Resource Study: A Civil History of Golden Gate and Point Reyes, National Park Service. 1980.

Towill Engineering. Aerial topographic survey of Fort Baker, 1996.

Maps, Photographs and Plans

Fort Baker Historic Map and Drawing Collection, Park Archives and Record Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San 

Francisco.

Fort Baker Historic Photograph Collection: Park Archives and Record Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco.

Newspaper Articles

San Francisco Chronicle, 31 October 1920

San Francisco Examiner, 21 October 1920

Oral History

Fred Nau, Oral History
122

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker 

LCS ID Preferred Structure Name Structure Number

1. 010119 Fort Baker Baker-Barry Tunnel FB0268 

2. 010120 Fort Baker Sentry Station FB0272 

3. 058059 Fort Baker Bunker Road Retaining Wall and Riprap FB0401 

4. 058101 Fort Baker Utility Structure FB0404 

5. 058201 Fort Baker NCO Mess FB0405 

6. 055354 Fort Baker Mine Storehouse FB0407 

7. 058067 Fort Baker Ammunition Magazine FB0408 

8. 055355 Fort Baker Mine Depot Powerhouse FB0409 

9. 058068 Fort Baker Mines Detonator Magazine FB0410 

10. 055356 Fort Baker Mine Depot TNT Storage Magazine FB0411 

11. 055357 Fort Baker Mine Loading Rooms FB0412 

12. 370217 Fort Baker Oil Pump House FB0413 

13. 058054 Fort Baker Heating Fuel Storage Tank FB0414 

14. 055358 Fort Baker Mine Loading Wharf FB0415 

15. 370203 Fort Baker Mine Loading Wharf Dolphin - South FB0416 

16. 370207 Fort Baker Mine Loading Wharf Dolphin - North FB0417 

17. 370221 Fort Baker Water Pump House FB0418 

18. 058051 Fort Baker Water Tank FB0421 

19. 058052 Fort Baker Water Tank FB0422 

20. 058053 Fort Baker Water Tank FB0423 

21. 370228 Fort Baker Fire Control Station B111/20 Lime Point FB0427 

22. 055359 Fort Baker Fire Control Station F1 Baker FB0433 

23. 055360 Fort Baker Fire Control Station B1S1 Spencer FB0434 

24. 058215 Fort Baker Transformer Sub-station FB0502 

25. 392314 Fort Baker Enlisted Men’s Quarters FB0507

26. 058127 Fort Baker Mine Cable Casemate FB0508 

27. 058128 Fort Baker Cable Casemate Seawall FB0509 

28. 392325 Fort Baker Post Library FB0511

29. 392335 Fort Baker Maintenance Shop FB0513

30. 058214 Fort Baker Post Chapel FB0519 

31. 058120 Fort Baker Kober Street Retaining Walls FB0520 

32. 058119 Fort Baker McReynolds Road Retaining Wall FB0521 

33. 058217 Fort Baker Hospital Steward’s Quarters (Single) FB0522 

34. 058220 Fort Baker NCO Quarters (Duplex) FB0523 

35. 058046 Fort Baker Electrical Transformer Building FB0526 

36. 058221 Fort Baker NCO Quarters (Duplex) FB0527 

37. 058222 Fort Baker NCO Quarters (Duplex) FB0529 

 Appendix A

List of Contributing Structures
 123

Appendix

38. 058218 Fort Baker NCO Quarters (Duplex) FB0530 

39. 058219 Fort Baker NCO Quarters (Duplex) FB0531 

40. 058208 Fort Baker Post Hospital FB0533 

41. 397329 Fort Baker Garage at FB523-7 FB0534

42. 058216 Fort Baker Tennis Court FB0537 

43. 058121 Fort Baker Tennis Court Retaining Wall FB0537A 

44. 217434 Fort Baker Garage, Umia Street FB0538 

45. 217431 Fort Baker Garage at FB0604 FB0541 

46. 058225 Fort Baker Garage at FB0607 FB0543 

47. 058226 Fort Baker Garage at FB0631 FB0545 

48. 058071 Fort Baker NCO Family Housing FB0546 

49. 058072 Fort Baker NCO Family Housing FB0547 

50. 058073 Fort Baker NCO Family Housing FB0549 

51. 058122 Fort Baker Post Hospital Ambulance Garage FB0556 

52. 056278 Fort Baker Bakery FB0557 

53. 056289 Fort Baker Quartermaster & Subsistence Storehouse FB0559 

54. 056282 Fort Baker Wagon Shed FB0561 

55. 058224 Fort Baker Garage at FB0605 FB0564 

56. 058200 Fort Baker Exchange Service Station FB0566 

57. 055361 Fort Baker Battery George Yates FB0571 

58. 058084 Fort Baker Water Reservoir FB0572 

59. 055362 Fort Baker Battery Duncan FB0573 

60. 058085 Fort Baker Battery Duncan Latrine & Appurtenances FB0573A 

61. 370236 Fort Baker Anti-Aircraft Gun Emplacement Duncan FB0573B 

62. 055363 Fort Baker Cavallo Battery FB0575 

63. 058047 Fort Baker Cavallo Battery Entrance Gate FB0575A 

64. 058048 Fort Baker Rangefinder Station @ Cavallo Battery FB0575B 

65. 370246 Fort Baker Anti Aircraft Gun Emplacement Cavallo FB0575C 

66. 058058 Fort Baker Sausalito Lateral Overpass at Bunker Rd FB0576A 

67. 370231 Fort Baker Sausalito Lateral Overpass at East Road FB0576B 

68. 058056 Fort Baker Water Pump Station FB0577 

69. 058057 Fort Baker Water Pump Station FB0578 

70. 058209 Fort Baker Artillery Barracks FB0601 

71. 058210 Fort Baker Artillery Barracks FB0602 

72. 058211 Fort Baker Administration Building FB0603 

73. 058202 Fort Baker Commanding Officer’s Quarters FB0604 

74. 058203 Fort Baker Officers Quarters Duplex FB0605 

75. 058204 Fort Baker Officers Quarters Duplex FB0606 

76. 058205 Fort Baker Officers Quarters Duplex FB0607 

77. 056283 Fort Baker Guard House FB0615 

78. 058212 Fort Baker Post Exchange & Gymnasium FB0623 
124

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker 

79. 058069 Fort Baker Communications Cable Hut FB0627 

80. 058206 Fort Baker Officers Quarters Duplex FB0629 

81. 058079 Fort Baker Satterlee Breakwater FB0630 

82. 058207 Fort Baker Officers Quarters Duplex FB0631 

83. 058080 Fort Baker Moore Breakwater FB0632 

84. 056296 Fort Baker Marine Maintenance Shop FB0633 

85. 058213 Fort Baker Artillery Barracks FB0636 

86. 056291 Fort Baker Commissary Storehouse FB0637 

87. 056279 Fort Baker Blacksmith Shop FB0644 

88. 056280 Fort Baker Carpenter/Paint Shop FB0645 

89. 058049 Fort Baker Flagstaff FB0648 

90. 370209 Fort Baker Marine Hoist and Dock FB0657 

91. 058081 Fort Baker Seawall FB0662 

92. 058077 Fort Baker Flammable Storage Building FB0664 

93. 217443 Fort Baker Marine Repair Shop FB0665 

94. 056281 Fort Baker Ordnance Storehouse FB0666 

95. 058078 Fort Baker Refueling Dock and Marine Railway FB0668 

96. 055364 Fort Baker Mine Cable Tank Building FB0670 

97. 056295 Fort Baker Pump House FB0671 

98. 058074 Fort Baker Boat Repair Shop FB0679 

99. 056294 Fort Baker Mobile Searchlight Storage FB0691 

100. 058075 Fort Baker Ship Repair Shop FB0699 

101. 055365 Fort Baker Battery Kirby FB0700 

102. 055366 Fort Baker Gravelly Beach Battery FB0701 

103. 058040 Fort Baker AMTB Gun Plug, Kirby Cove FB702A 

104. 058041 Fort Baker AMTB Gun Plug, Kirby Cove FB702B 

105. 058042 Fort Baker AMTB Gun Plug, Kirby Cove FB702C 

106. 055367 Fort Baker Battery Orlando Wagner FB0703 

107. 055368 Fort Baker Ridge Battery FB0704 

108. 058066 Fort Baker Ridge Battery Powerhouse FB0704A 

109. 055369 Fort Baker Battery Spencer FB0705 

110. 058060 Fort Baker Battery Spencer Administration Building FB0705A 

111. 058061 Fort Baker Battery Spencer Equipment Bldg. FB0705B 

112. 058062 Fort Baker Battery Spencer Latrine FB0705C 

113. 058063 Fort Baker Battery Spencer Sentry Station FB0705D 

114. 058064 Fort Baker Battery Spencer Powerhouse FB0705E 

115. 058065 Fort Baker Battery Spencer Entry Gate FB0705F 

116. 055370 Fort Baker Fire Control Station B1 Kirby FB0706 

117. 055371 Fort Baker Fire Control Station B1 Wagner FB0707 

118. 370242 Fort Baker East Road Masonry Drainage Features FB0708A 

119. 370214 Fort Baker Moore Road Breakwater at the Needles FB0711C 
 125

Appendix

120. 058055 Fort Baker Ridge Water Tank FB0728 

121. 010121 Fort Baker Battery 129 Radio/Switchboard Rooms FB0770 

122. 370244 

Fort Baker Parade Ground Commemorative 

Monument 

FB0810 

123. 370249 Fort Baker 40MM AA AW No. 14 - Upper FB0820A 

124. 370251 Fort Baker 40MM AA AW No. 14 - Lower FB0820B 

125. 370254 Fort Baker AA St. No. 108 FB0830 

126. 370212 Fort Baker Utility Vaults FB0840 

127. 370240 Fort Baker Concrete Drainage Features FB0850 

128. 370297 Fort Baker Fences FB0860 

129. 370410 Fort Baker Trails FB0870 

130. 392351 Fort Baker Parade Ground FB0880

131. 058050 Fort Baker Bunker Road (Fort Baker to tunnel) FBR105 

132. 058045 Fort Baker McCullough Road FBR107 

133. 056293 Fort Baker McReynolds Road FBR012 

134. 056290 Fort Baker East Road FBR708 

135. 056292 Fort Baker Murray Circle FBR709 

136. 058044 Fort Baker Mountain Road (Conzelman Road 1870 

route) 

FBR710 

137. 056285 Fort Baker Moore Road FBR711 

138. 369463 Fort Baker Sausalito Lateral (Alexander Avenue) FBR715

139. 369480 Fort Baker Battery Cavallo Road FBR716

140. 369492 Fort Baker Center Road FBR717

141. 369511 Fort Baker Drown Road FBR718

142. 369523 Fort Baker Dubois Road FBR719

143. 058007 Fort Baker Julian Road FBT032

144. 369535 Fort Baker Kober Street FBR720

145. 369547 Fort Baker Swain Road FBR721

146. 369560 Fort Baker Satterlee Road FBR722

147. 369575 Fort Baker Somerville Road FBR723

148. 369584 Fort Baker Roth Road FBR724

149. 392965 Fort Baker Seitler Road FBR725
126

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker 

 Appendix A

Map of Contributing Structures
 127

Appendix

Mine Casemate

40mm AA No.14

Battery Duncan

BC Yates

Battery Cavallo

Battery Yates

Marine Railway

Boathouse

Boat Repair Shop

Mine Yawl Building

Mine Storehouse

Cable Tank Building

Generator Building

Magazine

Magazine

Mine Loading 

Room

Mine Depot Wharf

Generator Building

SRidge Battery

Ridge Battery

Ridge Battery

Battery Spencer

FC Baker

B1S1 Spencer

BIII/20

BI/21

Battery Wagner

Battery Gravelly

Magazine

Battery Kirby

Magazine

Nike Site SF 87C

Appendix B

Seacoast Fortifications National Historic Landmark (pending)

Contributing Structures - Fort Baker
128

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker 
 129

Appendix

 Appendix C

Existing Vegetation Identified in the 1999 GGNPA Survey of Fort Baker Buildings 

(Note: list field-checked and updated by CLR team and GGNPA staff in 2002)

Data provided by John Skibbe/GGNPA.

Bldg # BUILDING/

Botanical Name

Common Name # of 

Plants

Location at 

Building

Exists in 

2002?

Historic? Comments

FB405 NCO MESS

Acacia melanoxylon Black Acacia 11+ 10-Left side of 

bldg.

1- Near front 

left corner

No

Yes

No

?

Cupressus 

macrocarpa

Monterey Cypress 3 Behind bldg. Yes Yes Part of larger planting

Other Yes ? Smaller plants around structure 

include bearded iris, calla 

lilies, jade plants and aloe (Not 

inventoried in GGNPA survey) FB407 MINE 

STOREHOUSE

Acacia melanoxylon Black Acacia 3 2- In back to 

the right

1- left side

Yes

Yes

No

No

Tree on left side tree is a sprout 

from an older tree that was 

blown down.

Chamaecyparis sp. False Cypress 1 Yes No Not inventoried in GGNPA 

survey Cotoneaster sp. Cotoneaster 2 1- Left corner

1- Front and 

center

Yes

Yes

No

No

Cupressus 

macrocarpa

Monterey Cypress 2 Back, right 

corner 

Yes Yes

Juniperus sp.

(Goldthread?)

Juniper 2 Front, on either 

side of left 

concrete slab

No

Laurus nobilis Bay Laurel 2 Front and 

center

No Yes

FB507 ENLISTED MENS 

BARRACKS

Building landscape not 

inventoried in GGNPA survey Crassula argentea Jade Plant 2 1- Right front 

corner

1-Left rear 

corner

Yes

Yes

?

Eupatorium Thoroughowort 2 1-Left side

1-rear

Yes

Yes

? Highly invasive plant

Fuchsia sp. Fuchsia 1 Left side of 

building

Yes ?

Ligustrum sp. Privet Hedge either 

side of right 

entry

1-left front 

corner

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

FB519 CHAPEL (1942)

Agapanthus orientalis Lily of the Nile Bed Left side Yes ? Mixed with other perennial 

species Cupressus 

marcrocarpa

Monterey Cypress 9 1- Back right 

corner

8- right side in 

row

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Euonymus fortunuei Eunonymus ~2 Front left side 

of chapel

Yes No Not identifed in GGNPA survey

Juniperus sp. Juniper 2 clumps Front, either 

side of walk 

extending along 

side of building

Yes ?

Myoporum laetum Lollipop Tree 1 Rear, left side Yes No Stump sprout:

Identified as Pittosporum 

undulatum on GGNPA survey Platycladus sp. (?) 2 On either side 

of chapel entry

No Need confirmation of species: 

Shrub form

Unidentified Hedge 12” o.c. Left side Species unidentified

FB523 NONCOMMISIONED 

OFFICER’S 

QUARTERS

Acacia melanoxylon Black Acacia multiple Front to the left 

of the driveway

Yes No

Euryops pectinatus Euryops clump Front, to the 

right of the left 

stairway

No No

Prunus laurocerasus English Laurel 1 Right side 

towards rear

No No Wind damage to tree noted.

Other Yes ? Calla lilies, rose and spearmint 

in front of building
130

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker 

FB527 NONCOMMISIONED 

OFFICER’S 

QUARTERS

Acacia melanoxylon Black Acacia 13+ 6- Front, left of 

left entry

6- Front right 

corner and 

right side

1: right rear

No

No

No

? Several groupings of trees

Chamaecyparis 

pisifera

False Cypress 1 Front left side Yes Yes Identified as a Calocedrus 

decurrens on GGNPA plans Ligustrum sp. Privet 5 Left side 

towards front

No ? Large clump next to stairs into 

basement

Taxus baccata 

‘Stricta’

Irish Yew 1 Front entry No ?

FB529 NONCOMMISIONED 

OFFICER’S 

QUARTERS

Acacia melanoxylon Black Acacia 2+ 1-Left side 

towards front

1+ -Saplings in 

rear on left side 

of left entry.

Yes Yes

Cupressus 

macrocarpa

Monterey Cypress 1 Front, right side 

of left entry

No ?

Other Calla lilies and a rose

FB530 NONCOMMISIONED 

OFFICER’S 

QUARTERS

Cupressus 

macrocarpa

Monterey Cypress 1 Front/Left side ?

Persea americana Avocado Clump 

of 2

Back side by left 

stair

No? ? Cut down.

Listed as “unidentified” in 

GGNPA survey FB531 NONCOMMISIONED 

OFFICER’S 

QUARTERS

Calocedrus 

decurrens

Incense Cedar 1 Front, right 

of left entry 

staircase

No Yes

Cordyline australis Cordyline 1 Front, left 

of left entry 

staircase

No ? Sprouts from original plant.

Crassula argentea Jade Plant 1 Front, left 

of left entry 

staircase

No ?

FB533 POST HOSPITAL

Contoneaster lacteus Cotoneaster 3 1- Front and 

center

2- Front right 

side 

No

Yes

?

?

Hydrangea sp. Hydrangea 2 Front, center 

left 

Yes ?

Ligustrum sp. Ligustrum Row: 2’ 

oc

Front right ?

Nandina domestica Heavenly Bamboo 1 Front, center 

left 

Yes No Planted with Hydrangea

Phoenix canariensis Canary Island Date 

Palm

2 Either side of 

front entry

Yes Yes

Platycladus orientalis Arborvitae 2 Front, center 

right 

No ? (Thuja orientalis) Identified as 

being sickly Taxus baccata 

“Stricta” 

Irish Yew 2 Left side No ?

Other Yes ? Large rose shrub in back of 

structure

FB601 ARTILLERY 

BARRACKS

Cordyline australis Cordyline 2 1-Right side 

towards back 

1- Entry porch 

right corner

Yes

Stump 

sprout

?

Eriobtrya japonica Loquat 1 Right side 

towards back

Yes No

Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum 

Eucalyptus

3 Left side of 

building

Yes No Not inventoried in GGNPA 

survey
 131

Appendix

Fuchsia sp. Fuchsia1 Left side 

towards back

Yes?

Griselinia littoralis Griselinia

5 Front and right 

rear

Yes Yes Located on either side of entry 

walk in and both front corners

Hydrangea sp. Hydrangea2 Front Yes? Either side of front porch entry

Pinus radiata Monterey Pine1 Front towards 

street on right 

Yes Yes

Prunus laurocerasus English Laurel1 Left side in 

middle

Yes No Not inventoried in GGNPA 

survey Syzygium 

paniculatum

Brush Cherry1 Right side 

towards back

Yes No

FB602 ARTILLERY 

BARRACKS

Casuarina sp She Oak

1 Left side Yes Yes Identified as a pine in GGNPA 

survey Chamaecyparis sp. False cypress 1 Back left by 

road

Yes? Not inventoried in GGNPA 

survey Cordyline australis Cordyline 3 Left side 

towards back

Yes Yes Planted in group

Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum 1 Front left Yes Yes Large specimen

Juniperus sp. Juniper 1 clump Front, left of 

entry

Yes?

Picea sp. Blue Spruce

1 Front left of 

entry

No?

Myoporum laetum Lollipop Tree1 Left side Yes No Tentatively identified as 

Pittosporum in GGNPA survey. Other Yes ? Smaller plants around building 

include Montbretia, geraniums 

and four-oclocks. (Not 

inventoried in GGNPA survey) FB603 ADMINISTRATION 

BUILDING

Acacia melanoxylon Black Acacia 11 6- left side

5- In back of 

building

No 4

No

Yes

Cordyline australis Cordyline1 Back Yes Yes

Juniperus chinensis 

“torulosa”

Hollywood Juniper

2 Front left 

and back left 

corners of the 

bldg.

No No

Juniperus sp. Juniper Row Foundation 

plantings in 

front and left 

side of bldg.

No No Calla lillies noted as being 

mixed in

Pyracantha sp. Firethorn

2 Yes No Not inventoried in GGNPA 

survey FB604 COMMANDING 

OFFICER’S 

QUARTERS

Abelia grandiflora Glossy Abelia

2 Front left 

corner 

No? Pruned as part of shrub mass 

6’ tall

Acacia melanoxylon Black Acacia4 Right side 

towards back

Yes?

Cordyline australis Cordylin

4 3-Left side 

towards back

1- Right side

Yes

No

Yes GGNPA tentative identification 

as Dracaena and basal trunk 

palm Hydrangea sp. Hydrangea Right side No ? Part of perennial planting bed 

Ilex aquifolium English Holly1 Left side 

towards back

Yes Yes

Juniperus chinensis 

“torulosa”

Hollywood Juniper Front right 

corner

No?

Ligustrum ludicum Glossy Privet

1 Front left 

corner

No? Pruned as part of shrub mass 

6’ tall

Ligustrum sp. Privet 12+ for 

hedge

Right side in 

back

Yes Yes Unidentified in GGNPA survey. 

Single row edging path pruned 

3’ high Pittosporum tobira Tobira 1 Right side No ?

Pittosporum 

undulatum

Victorian Box2 Right side 

towards back

Yes Yes

Quercus agrifolia California Live Oak1 Left side rear Yes No Tentative identification in 

GGNPA survey as holly oak. Xylosma congestum Xylosma 1 Front left 

corner

No? Pruned as part of shrub mass 

6’ tall

Perennials Yes

? Notes include geraniums and 

callas in the back and mint and 

calla lilies in the front. (Not 

inventoried in GGNPA survey) FB605 DOUBLE 

CAPTAIN’S 

QUARTERS
132

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker 

Cordyline australis Cordyline 2 Front, left of 

right entry 

Yes ? Identified as Burrow palms in 

GGNPA survey. Cotoneaster sp. Cotoneaster 1 Right side 

towards front

?

Cryptomeria japonica Japanese Redwood 1 Front, left of 

left entry

Yes Yes Identified as Sequoia on 

GGNPA survey Hydrangea sp. Hydrangea 1 Right side 

towards middle

No ?

Nandina domestica Heavenly Bamboo 1 Right side 

towards middle

No ?

Pittosporum sp. Pittosporum 1 Right side 

towards front

No ?

Rhododendron sp. Rhododendron 1 Right side at 

front corner

No ?

Rosa sp. Rose 1 Right side in 

middle

Yes No Not inventoried in GGNPA 

survey FB606 DOUBLE 

LIEUTENANT’S 

QUARTERS

Acacia melanoxylon Black Acacia 4 3- Left side 

front corner

1- Left side in 

middle

No

No

?

?

Bougainvillea sp. Bougainvillea 1 Left side 

towards rear

No ?

Cotoneaster sp. Cotoneaster 4 2- Left side in 

middle

1- Left rear

1- Right side 

towards front

No

No

?

?

Cryptomeria japonica Japanese Redwood 1 Front on left 

side of right 

entry walk

Yes Yes Identified as Sequoia on 

GGNPA survey

Fuchsia sp. Fuchsia 1 Right side of 

building

? ?

Hedera canariensis English Ivy Multiple ? Yes ? Not inventoried in GGNPA 

survey Hedera helix Algerian Ivy Multiple ? Yes ? Not inventoried in GGNPA 

survey Hydrangea sp. Hydrangea 1 In front of 

building

Yes ? Not inventoried in GGNPA 

survey Metrosideros 

excelsus

New Zealand 

Christmas Tree

1 Right side in 

middle

? ? Question mark by ID: check 

Quercus sp. Live Oak 1 Right side 

toward rear

? ? Needs ID

Phoenix canariensis Front on right 

side of right 

entry walk

Yes Yes

Unidentified tree 1 Right rear ? Magnolia?

Other Impatiens and bearded iris (Not 

inventoried in GGNPA survey) 607 DOUBLE 

CAPTAIN’S 

QUARTERS

Calocedrus 

decurrens

Incense Cedar 2 1- Front left 

corner

1- Left side 

towards middle

No

No

Yes

Yes

Choisya ternata Mexican Orange Row Left side No ? To 6’ high

Cordyline australis Cordyline 1 Front left bldg. Yes No

Cryptomeria japonica Japanese Redwood 1 Left side in 

back

Yes Yes Identified as Sequoia on 

GGNPA survey Euryops pectinatus Euryops 1 Left side in 

back

No No

Pittosporum 

undulatum

Pittosporum 2 Right side No ?

Prunus laurocerasus English Laurel 2 Front, center No ?

Other Yes ? Smaller plants include 

impatiens, calla lilies, 

montbretia, amaryllis, 

nasturtium, sword fern and 

columbine(Not inventoried in 

survey) FB615 GUARD HOUSE

Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum 

Eucalyptus

3 1- Right side 

2- Back from 

building 

?

Yes

?

Yes

The two in back are 5’ wide. The 

one to the right of the building 

is 1’ wide

Hedera canariensis Algerian Ivy multiple ? Yes ? Not inventoried in GGNPA 

survey
 133

Appendix

Heteromeles 

arbutifolia

Toyon 1 Back No ?

FB623 POST EXCHANGE 

AND GYMNASIUM

Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum 2 Right side Both saplings adjacent to back 

of structure

Other Yes ? Smaller plants include amaryllis, 

geraniums and montbretia 

(Not inventoried in GGNPA 

inventory) FB629 DOUBLE 

LIEUTENANT’S 

QUARTERS

Building landscape not 

inventoried in GGNPA survey

Cinnamomum 

camphora

Camphor Tree 1 Front in lawn Yes Yes

Hydrangea sp. Hydrangea 1 Front left 

corner

Yes ?

Other Yes ? Smaller plants include spider 

plant, impatiens, montbretia, 

bear’s breach, bearded iris and 

geraniums (Not inventoried in 

GGNPA survey)

FB631 DOUBLE 

CAPTAIN’S 

QUARTERS

Acacia melanoxylon Black Acacia 3 Front and 

center

No ? The plan identifies and 

unspecified number of acacia 

and “bay” saplings along the left 

and back sides of the structure.

Cotoneaster Cotoneaster 2 1-Front

1-Left rear

No

Yes

?

Yes

Left rear plant not identified in 

GGNPA survey Cryptomeria japonica Japanese Redwood 1 Front left side Yes Yes Identified as Sequoia on 

GGNPA survey Pinus sp. 1 Front. Left of 

right entry

No Yes Identified as “2 needle” pine 

Platycladus sp. Arborvitae 1 Front on left 

side

Yes Yes Not inventoried on GGNPA 

survey Rosa sp. Rose 1 Front Yes ? Not inventoried in GGNPA 

survey Other Hedge Row 90’ 

long

Rear left 

side along 

McReynolds

No ? Species not identified in 

GGNPA survey

Other Yes ? Smaller plants include 

Vinca minor, montbretia, 

nasturtium,calla lillies and 

agapanthus (Not inventoried in 

GGNPA survey) FB636 ARTILLERY 

BARRACKS

Araucaria 

heterophyla

Norfolk Island 

Pine

1 Right side Yes Yes

Casuarina sp. Beefwood/She-oak 13 10- trees in 

front right

3- trees in left 

rear

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Spacing in front would suggest 

that they were planted as a 

hedge.

Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 2 1- Front left side

1- Front 

towards center 

right

Yes Yes

Prunus laurocerasus English Laurel 2 Front, either 

side of entry 

walk

Yes ? “Recently chopped”

Syzigium 

paniculatum

Australian Brush 

Cherry

3 Front Yes No Not inventoried in GGNPA 

survey Other Yes ? Smaller plants include calla 

lillies and amaryllis. (Not 

inventoried in GGNPA survey) FB671 PUMP HOUSE

Cupressus 

macrocarpa

Monterey Cypress 1 Next to 

concrete 

bulkhead

?

FB679 BOAT REPAIR 

SHOP

None identified
Appendix 
Appendix 
Appendix 
Appendix 
Appendix 
Appendix 
Appendix 
Appendix 
Appendix 
Appendix 
Appendix 
Appendix 
Appendix 
Appendix 
Appendix 
Appendix 
Appendix 
Appendix 
134

Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker 

be undertaken. Those tree with poor vigor or 

structural defects will be removed in order to 

increase the vigor of the remaining trees.

This management approach will create an 

uneven aged system where many age classes of 

trees will be present in the restored windbreak. 

It will prevent the simultaneous decline of the 

stand in that the aging of the components of the 

stand will take place over a much longer time 

frame. If one 1/3 to 1⁄2 acre tree replacement site 

is accomplished per year, the entire area could 

be reforested in 15 years. Removals should 

be carefully planned so that access to future 

reforestation sites is adequate and will not entail 

damaged to recently planted sites.

The perimeter planting tree plantation that is 

east of the eastern side of McReynolds consists 

of tree species are almost exclusively blue gum 

eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) and Monterey 

pine (Pinus radiata). Almost all of the larger 

eucalyptus have been topped. Their structure is 

poor due to the multiple tops that have sprouted 

due to the topping. Many of the larger eucalyptus 

on the northern end of the group have canopies 

weighted toward McReynolds Road and the rear 

of buildings 601, 602 and 623. The expense of 

the tree maintenance required to mitigate these 

structural problems may be sufficiently high that 

removal and replanting of the trees will be a more 

efficient use of funds. Stumps of all eucalyptus 

removals should be ground to a depth at least 

six inches below grade to prevent resprouting. 

Pine stumps should be ground to grade for 

aesthetic purposes. The removals should be 

followed by a replanting with smaller eucalyptus 

such as Eucalyptus polyanthemos or Eucalyptus 

globulus ‘compacta’. Irrigation systems should 

be installed before the new trees are planted. 

On the southern side of this perimeter tree 

plantation the group of seven Monterey pines 

(Pinus radiata) should also be removed due to 

their poor vigor. The trees should be replaced 

with pitch canker resistant Monterey pine or 

possibly with offspring of the Torrey pine (Pinus 

torreyana) that are growing along East Road 

that leads into Sausalito. Torrey pine is usually 

structurally superior to Monterey pine, however, 

it may not meet historical character criteria. The 

reforestation of this tree plantation can occur 

at one time as there are no limitations due to 

downwind effects of removal, i.e. altered stand 

effect or sunlight constraints. If fiscal constraints 

exist, this can also be a phased project.

The management for the Screening Planting that 

surrounds Battery Duncan is the implementation 

of a tree removal strategy that allows for the 

careful removal of all Eucalyptus that were not 

The Tree Stands of management concern 

at east Fort Baker are the West Windbreak, 

situated between Bunker Road and 

McReynolds Road, the Tree Plantation 

that circumscribes the eastern edge of the 

Cantonment east of McReynolds Road from 

Building 502 to Building 505 and the Screening 

Plantation that surrounds Battery Duncan.

Each of these stands were planted almost 

ninety years ago for different purposes. The 

management for each stand is a function of 

the stand’s original purpose and Historical 

Preservation Criteria based on the accepted 

Period of Significance for Fort Baker.

The Western Windbreak consists of almost 

exclusively of Monterey cypress (Cupressus

macrocarpa) trees that are approximately 90 

years old. They exhibit good vigor and , for 

the most part are in good health. Some trees 

on the western edge have been windthrown, 

but the interior and leeward edge of the stand 

are healthy. Some dead trees are scattered in 

throughout the stand. The leeward edge along 

McReynolds needs some remedial pruning 

due to fact that the east side of the trees along 

the latter road have become one-sided. 

Though the trees are in relatively good health 

in this stand, a well planned reforestation 

of this important group of trees should be 

undertaken soon as the life-span of these 

trees is relatively short. Monterey cypress 

live from 125 to 150 years. It is a species 

intolerant of shading. Small 1/3 acre to 1⁄2 

acre block removals should begin on the 

leeward southern edge of this stand so that the 

new Monterey cypress trees planted in this 

locations receive sufficient sunlight to grow. 

The openings should begin on the leeward 

edge of the stand to prevent windthrow 

potential increases due to altered stand effects. 

Stumps of trees removed should be ground. 

New cypress planted should be of sizes no 

larger than 1 gallon tree pots. Irrigation must be 

installed within reasonable access to planting 

sites before tree planting is undertaken. Tree 

planting should be undertaken in the Fall or 

early Winter in order to take advantage of 

winter rains for establishment. New plantings 

will be on 15 foot centers. Irrigation should 

be applied for three to four summers in 

order to permit adequate root establishment. 

Weeding must be accomplished around tree 

driplines to reduce water competition with the 

newly planted trees. Five to seven years after 

planting, when the crowns of the established 

trees begin to overlap, a thinning should 

Appendix E

Arborist Report: Management of Tree Stands at East Fort Baker
 135

part of the historic fabric of the site. Only those 

trees present during the period of significance 

will be preserved in this area. The site is mostly 

composed Blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus 

globulus), with some Red-Ironbark eucalyptus 

(Eucalyptus sideroxylon) and a small number 

of Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa). 

There is also one Manna Gum (Eucalytpus 

viminalis) present. Removal of non-historic trees 

should be done with the careful application of 

a tree harvesting system that most minimally 

impacts the residual historic trees. In some 

cases this may necessitate the need for a crane 

to harvest trees that are downslope from trees 

that are to be saved. Eucalyptus stumps should 

be ground at least six inches below grade to 

prevent resprouting. All debris and chips should 

be hauled off site if there are plans to reintroduce 

Lupinus albifrons to the area for Mission Blue 

butterfly habitat.

Some crown thinning of the residual historic 

trees should be undertaken after the tree removal 

is accomplished. This pruning would be for both 

hazard reduction of the old canopies that have 

had no maintenance for many years, and also to 

reduce the increased wind-throw potential that 

will result from the removal of the windward 

(western) side of the Battery Duncan site. Crown 

thinning and crown cleaning of the historic 

tree will result in decreasing the trees’ canopy 

density and, therefore, their propensity to be 

windthrown.

Appendix

Fort Baker

Fort Mason - Bldg 201 

San Francisco, CA 94123

415-561-4812

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior