MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL 

DISTRICT

Historic Structure Impact Report 

Prepared for 

HDR, Inc. 

Prepared by 

Garavaglia Architecture, Inc 

30 January 2013
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 

Historic Structures Impact Report 

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1 

A.1 Recommendations 

 A.2 Summary 

1. Introduction 6 

 1.1 MRL Project Summary 

 1.2 Historic Preservation Objectives and Requirements 

 1.3 Overview of Previous Studies 

 1.4 Impact Report Goals and Methodology 

2. Historical Context and Significance 14 

 2.1 History 

 2.2 Historical Significance and Status 

 

3. Physical Description and Existing Conditions 19 

3.1 District Description 

3.2 Exterior Conditions and Description 

3.3 Structural Conditions and Description 

4. Vibrations Parameters 25 

 4.1 Literature Review 

 4.2 Site Specific Conditions 

 4.3 Analysis and Anticipated Impacts 

5. Recommendations 38 

 5.1 Pre-Construction 

 5.2 During Construction 

 5.3 Post-Construction 

 5.4 Mitigations 

6. Summary 50 

7. Bibliography 51 

7.1 Reference Cited 

7.2 References Consulted 

8. Professional Qualifications 56 

Appendices 

 Appendix A: First Street Building Summaries 

 Appendix B: 1999 National Register District Nomination 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 

Historic Structures Impact Report 

ii

FIGURES

Figure 1. The project APE. The APE follows the physical extent of the levee 

around Marysville. Areas of anticipated staging are also included where 

the APE extends beyond the immediate levee confines.

7

Figure 2. Marysville Historic Commercial District Map. This map is from the 1999 

National Register nomination and shows the two, discontinuous 

sections of the district. Only the lower section is close enough to the 

levee to experience any possible construction-related impacts.

20

Figure 3. Crack at the northeast corner of 320 First Street. The sandblasted façade, 

poor mortar, and lack of maintenance have resulted in loose material at 

the second level.

22

Figure 4. Spalled brick, typical. The quality of brick varies throughout the district. 

Poor brick and improper repairs have lead to widespread failure of 

many units.

22

Figure 5a. Transient vibration guide values for cosmetic damage. Values referred 

to are at the base of the building. For line 2, at frequencies below 4 Hz, a 

maximum displacement of 0.6 mm (0.02 in) [zero to peak)] is not to be 

exceeded.

27

Figure 5b. Transient vibration guide values for cosmetic damage. Transient 

vibration guide values for cosmetic damage for the current BS 5228-2 

(2009). This diagram was originally developed for BS 7385-2 (1993) and 

was included in BS 5228-2 in 2009. Cosmetic damage is defined as 

creation of hairline cracks. The accompanying text indicates that minor 

damage is possible at vibration levels twice that shown, and major 

damage can occur at four times the listed values. For continuous 

vibrations, the guide values might need to be reduced by half. Important 

buildings that may be difficult to repair might require special 

consideration on a case-by-case basis. A historical building should not 

be assumed to be more sensitive unless it is structurally unsound. BS 

7385-2 notes that the probability of [cosmetic] damage tends towards 

zero at 12.5 mm/s (0.49 in/s) PPV.

27

Figure 6. Figure B-1 from Siskind, et al (1980). This shows their vibration limits for 

safe blasting near homes (transient vibrations). This diagram was not to 

be used for continuous vibrations.

28

Figure 7. Limiting sustained peak particle velocities. Limits as applied by the City 

of New Orleans based on studies of preconstruction vibrations and 

conditions at the LSU Medical Center in New Orleans.

29
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 

Historic Structures Impact Report 

iii

Figure 8. Swiss Association of Standardization Vibration Damage Criteria 30

Figure 9. Whiffen Vibration Criteria for Continuous Vibration 30

Figure 10. Siskind Vibration Damage Thresholds 31

Figure 11. Caltrans vibrations threshold recommendations for various types and 

conditions of buildings. Transient sources create a single isolated 

vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent 

intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, 

crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory 

compaction equipment.

31

Figure 12. Guideline values for vibration velocity to be used when evaluating the 

effects of short-term vibration on structures, DIN 4150-3 vibration 

recommendations, 1999. In Section 5.1, of DIN 4150-3 (1999) v i,max is 

defined as the maximum absolute value of the velocity signal for the 

three components (x, y, or z) measured on the building foundation. 

This parameter is referred to as Vi . This is not a vector sum value. 

Measurements can also be made on the highest floor of a building. In 

this case, the highest of the two horizontal components shall be used. 

This value is also referred to as Vi . Note that the guideline values are 

frequency dependent if vibrations at foundation level are measured, and 

not frequency dependent if vibrations are measured on the top floor.

32

Figure 13. Curves for guideline values specified in Figure 12 for velocities 

measured at the foundation DIN 4150-3 vibration recommendations, 

1999.

33
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

1 

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

A variety of reports, studies, and theoretical projections of the impacts of construction-related 

vibrations on buildings are available for consideration when analyzing potential project 

impacts. Using the Caltrans Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual

and other previously prepared MRL reports and analyses, Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. finds 

that the anticipated vibrations projections of 0.05 – 0.13 in/sec PPV as measured at the building 

foundations, are within the industry thresholds for vibrations limits near historic or fragile 

structures. This anticipated PPV is also below the level generally required to cause aesthetic or 

structural harm to historic or fragile buildings. Therefore, there is very low probability for 

aesthetic or structural damage to either the Bok Kai Temple or nearby contributors to the 

Marysville Downtown Historic District. Using a conservative approach, Garavaglia 

Architecture, Inc. recommends that the lower vibration threshold presented by Caltrans of 0.08 

in/sec PPV be used as the vibrations threshold for the MRL Phase 2b project. This represents 

the maximum recommended vibration as measured by monitoring equipment. Recommended 

placement of monitors averages approximately 90-100-feet from construction depending on 

building foundation locations and property access privileges.

A.1 RECOMMENDATIONS

A.1.1 Pre-Construction

Establishing Baseline Vibrations Conditions

Ambient vibrations conditions should be collected immediately prior to the start of 

construction. This should be compared to the empirical construction-related data gathered at 

the Phase 1 construction-site (0.01 – 0.04 in/sec typically) and the anticipated vibrations from 

construction along Phase 2b (0.05 – 0.13 in/sec). If ambient vibrations exceed the actual and 

anticipated construction-related vibrations level, the likelihood of damage from future 

construction is quite low. If ambient vibrations are lower than anticipated construction-related 

vibrations, greater sensitivity to changing building conditions, such as increased cracking, 

mortar loss, dislodged units, or changes to vertical tilt may be warranted.

Establishing Baseline Building Conditions

Understanding the difference between current conditions and those anticipated during and 

after construction is critical for sensitive historic resources like those contributing buildings to 

the National Register listed, Marysville Historic Commercial District along the south side of 

First Street. Therefore, a solid understanding of baseline conditions, with supporting 

documentation for reference, is recommend. Specific recommended actions include:

• 3D laser scans or photogrammetry

Data gathering is relatively fast (1-2 days at most) and cost effective. Processing of the 

data may be contingent on the need. If no changes are observed and no constructionrelated vibrations events exceed the recommended thresholds, it may not be necessary 

to process and analyze the point-cloud information gathered on-site. This could be a cost 

savings.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

2 

• Systematic recordation with high resolution digital photographs 

As an alternate to laser scanning, thorough recordation of all surfaces with a digital 

camera can be used to establish a visible baseline of conditions. This method requires 1-2 

days in the field and has minimal processing time. It is not as accurate as laser scanning, 

but is highly superior to regular photographic documentation.

• Installation of crack monitors 

Inexpensive and effective, crack monitors can be installed in sensitive locations with no 

impact on the historic resource and very little visual impact for tenants and building 

owners. They will require regular on-site monitoring.

Public Outreach & Education

Anticipated vibrations levels are quite low, but they are within the range detectible by humans. 

Therefore, education of the public is highly recommended. This is especially important because 

access to private property will be necessary if vibrations monitors are installed as 

recommended. Specific recommendations include:

• Public notification letters to residents, owners, and business proprietors within 200-feet 

of the construction zone, and along all proposed haul routes.

• Public meetings with dissemination of any presentations, questions, and answers 

following each meeting. 

• Dissemination of educational materials concerning specific steps owners or tenants can 

take to limit incidental impacts such as falling objects or dislodging of poorly mounted 

materials on walls, ceilings, or shelving. 

Stabilizing 226 First Street and the building behind 226 First Street 

226 First Street currently has front and rear walls that are not plumb or square, and appear to be 

separating from the rest of the structure. A free-standing brick wall with an unsupported 

masonry parapet pose risks to pedestrians on the sidewalk as well as to construction crews at 

the proposed staging area immediately east of the building. 

226 First Street should be stabilized through the following actions:

• Front facade 

The front facade needs to be anchored back into the roofline with all-thread rod or cable 

through the masonry with a positive attachment to the existing roof framing. 

• Rear wall parapet 

The rear wall needs to be anchored into the roofline with all-thread rod or cable through 

the masonry with a positive attachment to the existing main roof framing. 

The masonry shell at the rear of 226 First Street is also in very poor condition and is semicollapsed. To prevent further damage, the following stabilization method is recommended: 

• Accessory building walls
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

3 

Each of the four freestanding walls of this building should be braced through 

installation of a single standard tilt-up panel at each wall with all panels anchored to a 

central concrete deadman.

A.1.2 During Construction

The following steps to monitor the historic resource for changes during construction are 

recommended:

Implementation of a Vibrations Monitoring Plan 

• Install a minimum of 5 monitoring units at the rear (south) foundations walls of the 

buildings along First Street. One should be located outside the temple, within the rear 

section of the property at 7 D Street. A second unit is recommended at the rear wall of 

312 First Street. A third should be placed at the southwest corner of 232 First Street. A 

fourth should be placed at the southeast corner of 226 First Street. A fifth unit should be 

installed inside the building shell at the rear of the 226 First Street property. These 

locations will require owner’s permission and may pose and access issues.

• Select a qualified monitoring professional with certified equipment and trained 

personnel.

• Equipment should allow for remote monitoring and should generate immediate 

notification to responsible parties when the recommended vibrations threshold of 0.08 

in/sec has been exceeded. 

• Cease all construction within 200-feet of the monitor recording the vibrations spike 

when the threshold has been exceeded and visually inspect the subject buildings within 

the APE for damage. 

• Establish a regular maintenance and monitoring schedule to collect data and check 

equipment. 

Out of Plane Monitoring

Biaxial tilt monitors should be installed on the 226 First Street property to detect movement of 

the stabilized walls. One monitor should be placed at the top of the front wall at the northwest 

corner of the building. For the rear building, monitors should be placed at the top corners of 

each elevation. A total of nine (9) monitors are recommended.

Regular Field Inspections

Regular, quick visual inspections of the subject buildings are recommended. This is a quick 

visual survey of focused areas where the most sensitive historical resources are located. A 

standard methodology, perhaps a checklist, should be developed to guide these inspections and 

provide for consistency across the project’s duration. Inspections should occur weekly, at the 

beginning or end of the construction shift, on a regular schedule. In addition, inspections 

should be made when monitors detect PPV readings above 0.08 in/sec, when the tilt monitors 

detect movement of 1-degree or more, or when crack monitors show movement of 1/32-inch 

(0.5 mm) or more. 

Dust & Debris Control
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

4 

Barriers to prevent debris from striking the building should be put in place prior to the start of 

construction. In addition, a dust mitigation plan should be created to limit dissemination of 

airborne particles into interior spaces of the properties on First Street. 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

5 

A1.3 Post-Construction

Affirming Building Conditions

Understanding the difference between pre-construction conditions and those existing after 

construction is critical for sensitive historic resources like those contributing buildings to the 

National Register listed, Marysville Historic Commercial District along the south side of First 

Street. Therefore, a comparison of conditions, with supporting documentation for reference is 

recommend.

• 3D laser scans or photogrammetry

Any differences in the information would indicate deterioration that has occurred since 

the start of construction. A determination of the causes of the damage, and whether it is 

the result of natural occurrences or of construction activities would then be necessary. 

This may not be necessary for every building but would be recommended as a way to 

document conditions in case there is any disputed damage in the future.

• Systematic recordation with high resolution digital photographs 

This can be applied as an alternate to laser scanning. Both methods are not required.

A.1.4 Mitigations

While no construction-related impacts are anticipated as a result of the projected vibrations 

levels, certain mitigation measures may be necessary if conditions worsen at any of the subject 

buildings. Proposed mitigations range from temporary solutions to brace walls, to permanent 

solutions that improve the overall stability of the buildings. 

Masonry Repointing

Replacement mortar should match the original to the greatest degree possible. A proper mortar 

mix can be determined through testing samples of the exiting mortar according to the 

provisions of ASTM 1324. Once a proper mix is determined, the walls should be pointed by a 

skilled mason who is familiar with working with archaic masonry construction.

Unit Replacement

If units become dislodged, construction within 200-feet of the affected building should stop 

immediately. An assessment of the causes of falling material should be made immediately to 

determine if the incident was an individual occurrence or if it is part of a larger eminent failure. 

Once the causes for dislodging are determined and mitigated, replacement of the unit should be 

made with mortar that is compatible with the historic materials. Units should be of similar size, 

coloring, and strength, and should have similar surface textures and characteristics as 

surrounding units. 

Wall Bracing

If walls, wall sections, or parapets begin to tilt out-of-plane, all construction within 200-feet of 

the affected building should stop and the walls should be braced immediately. Small areas and 

parapets can be addressed with temporary bracing. Larger areas of damage will require further 

assessment to determine an appropriate repair.

A.2 SUMMARY
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

6 

There are very few anticipated impacts on the Marysville Historic Commercial District as a 

result of construction-related vibrations. Vibration will occur at levels detectable by humans but 

should remain well below the levels generally required to cause aesthetic damage. Structural 

damage is highly unlikely based on the current analysis. Provided limited pre-construction 

stabilization measures are implemented, vibrations levels remain under the recommended 

threshold of 0.08 in/sec, and the project is properly monitored to verify that levels remain 

below this threshold, impacts to the historic district are highly unlikely.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

7 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The city of Marysville is located approximately 50 miles north of Sacramento, California in Yuba 

County. Marysville is surrounded by 7.5 miles of levee that protect it from the flooding of three 

water courses: the Yuba River to the south; Jack Slough to the north; and the Feather River to 

the west. These levees vary in height from 16 to 28 feet.

The Yuba River drains out of New Bullards Bar Dam in the Sierra Nevada and runs along the 

south edge of the Marysville Ring Levee project (MRL) into the Feather River. Jack Slough runs 

a quarter mile northwest of the MRL and flows into the Feather River. The Feather River drains 

from Oroville Dam and Reservoir from the north along the western edge of the Maryville Ring 

Levee and then flows into the Sacramento River. 

MRL is a cooperative effort between the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the 

State of California Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB), and the Marysville Levee 

District (District) to protect the City of Marysville from a 200-year flood event.1

Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. has been contracted to assess the potential impacts of proposed 

levee improvements on two National Register-listed historic resources immediately adjacent to, 

but located outside of, the project Area of Potential Effect (APE, see Figure 1): the Bok Kai 

Temple (temple) and the Marysville Historic Commercial District (district). The temple property 

is currently encroached upon by the north side of the levee. The district is non-contiguous and 

approximately three blocks of the National Register district are immediately adjacent to the 

APE. The Bok Kai Temple is addressed in a separate Historic Structure Impact Report, also 

completed by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc.

1.1 MRL PROJECT SUMMARY

As authorized under the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) IDIQ Contract No. 

W91238-10-D-0003, Delivery Order No. 0009, revised June 15, 2011, HDR/Fugro WLA Joint 

Venture (JV) was tasked with preparation of the Alternative Analysis for the Marysville Ring 

Levee Phase 2B (MRL) and the geophysical and pothole exploration of levee penetrations and 

encroachments, in support of levee improvement and reconstruction. The entire Marysville ring 

levee consists of approximately 7.5 miles of the levee surrounding and protecting the City of 

Marysville, California. Planned levee improvement measures throughout the ring levee address 

underseepage, through-seepage, embankment slope stability, utility penetrations, 

constructability, settlement, and geometrical corrections to the levee embankment. The MRL 

Engineering Documentation Report (EDR) and the MRL Environmental Assessment (EA) 

addresses the engineering and environmental aspects, respectively, of the Phase 1 through 4 

levee improvements for the entire Marysville area flood protection system. The Geotechnical 

Appendix of the MRL EDR identifies Phase 2 as a critical reach requiring levee improvements. 

In particular, the reach from Stations 244+00 to 285+00, Phase 2B was identified as a critical 

reach due to past performance and past repairs as well as its close proximity to historic 

structures. Additionally, penetrations and encroachments in the levee embankment and 

foundations dating to the mid 19th century have abandoned underground construction with 

 

1 “Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California State Historic 

Preservation Officer, Regarding the Marysville Ring Levee Project, Yuba County, California,” (March 2011), 1.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

8 

Figure 1. The project APE. The APE follows the physical extent of the levee around Marysville. Areas of 

anticipated staging are also included where the APE extends beyond the immediate levee confines.2

 

potential voids that may cause instability and/or seepage. The USACE engineer’s opinion is 

that this site may have serious defects due to these conditions and requires through and 

underseepage mitigation. The MRL Phase 2B project was divided into three segments for the 

alternative analysis: Segments K1, K2 and L1. 

The mitigation measures considered for the MRL Phase 2B project are levee degradation/ 

reconstruction and cutoff wall construction. Levee degradation/reconstruction involves 

degrading (removal) of the existing levee and reconstructing a new levee. The cutoff wall 

measure involves degrading approximately the top half of the levee, constructing a cutoff wall 

to the necessary depth and reconstructing the top portion of the levee. Both mitigation measures 

only involve standard earthmoving equipment.

 

2 Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California State Historic Preservation Officer, 

Regarding the Marysville Ring Levee Project, Yuba County, California, March 2011, Attachment A.

Attachment A. Area of Potential Effects 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

9 

The through-seepage mitigation measures considered in Segment K1 are levee degradation/ 

reconstruction and a cutoff wall. Only one alignment option was considered (existing 

alignment). This is the segment in closest proximity to the Bok Kai Temple.

The underseepage and through-seepage mitigation measures considered in Segment K2 only 

included a cutoff wall. There are two alignment options considered (existing alignment and 

slightly modified alignment). The cutoff wall in this segment will be slightly deeper for 

underseepage mitigation. This is the segment in closest proximity to historic district 

contributing buildings in poor condition.

The through-seepage mitigation measures considered in Segment L1 are levee degradation/ 

reconstruction and a cutoff wall. There are four alignment options under consideration (existing 

alignment, slightly modified alignment, and two set forward alignments). For the existing and 

slightly modified alignments, levee degradation/reconstruction and cutoff wall mitigation 

measures are considered, similar to Segment K1. Similar to Segment K2, cutoff wall mitigation 

measures are assumed for the set forward alignments located approximately 100 feet to 300 feet 

east of the existing levee. Segment L1 is not located near any identified historic resources.

Phase 2B consists of several construction techniques used in combination to install a 50- to 90-

foot deep, cutoff wall through much of the length. In addition, jet grouting would occur at the 

four bridges in this section (5th Street Bridge, Highway 70 Bridge, two railroad bridges). 

Construction in the Phase 2B portion must consider impacts on the historic resources as well as 

treatment of existing utilities with through-levee placements. All work associated with Phase 2B 

is projected to use conventional construction equipment such as loaders, scrapers, graders, and 

excavators.3

 

The following descriptions represent the extent of construction methods anticipated.

1.1.1 Cutoff Wall Construction

The levee crown would be degraded down 4- to 12-feet to provide a 40- to 50-foot temporary 

work surface for construction equipment. Conventional cutoff walls are constructed using an 

excavator with a long-stick boom capable of digging a trench to a maximum depth of 

approximately 75 to 80 feet. Some excavators can reach depths of up to 90 feet. The trench width 

will vary depending on depth, but it is assumed for this report the minimum width would be 36 

inches (3 feet). A bentonite slurry is placed in the trench as it is excavated to prevent caving 

while the backfill material is mixed. The excavated soil is mixed with the appropriate slurry 

(either bentonite or cement-bentonite) to achieve the required cutoff wall strength and 

permeability, and then backfilled into the trench. The levee portion that was degraded is now 

reconstructed. All work is completed with standard earthmoving equipment.

1.1.2 Levee Reconstruction

Instead of degrading only a portion of the levee as above, with Levee Reconstruction the levee 

is completely degraded. In some cases, a cutoff wall described above is installed at the location 

of the new levee alignment. In these areas, a working platform would be constructed above the 

existing ground surface for construction of the cutoff wall. After levee degrading and cutoff 

 

3 United States Army Corps of Engineers, “Final, Marysville Ring Levee, Yuba River Basin, California, Environmental 

Assessment, Initial Study,” (April 2010), 10.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

10

wall installation, the levee is reconstructed. All work is completed with standard earthmoving 

equipment.

1.2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION OBJECTIVES AND REQUIREMENTS

1.2.1 Section 106

The preparation of this Historic Structure Impact Report is part of the mandated adherence to 

Section 106 review, 36 CFR Part 800, as amended in August 2004. Section 106 requires that 

federal agencies, and entities that they fund or license, consider the effects of their actions on 

properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or that may be 

eligible for such listing. To determine whether an undertaking could affect NRHP-eligible 

properties, cultural resources, including archaeological, historical, and architectural properties, 

must be inventoried and evaluated. Although compliance with Section 106 is the responsibility 

of the lead federal agency, others can conduct the work necessary to comply. Additionally, 

because both the Downtown Marysville Commercial District and the Bok Kai Temple are 

National Register listed historic resources, it is a statutory requirement under Section 110(f) of 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) that the agency official (Corps and CVFPB), to 

the maximum extent possible, undertake such planning and actions as may be necessary to 

minimize harm resulting from an undertaking. 

In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the Corps entered into a Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) with the California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Historic 

Preservation (SHPO) regarding treatment of both the Bok Kai Temple and Marysville 

Commercial Historic District during this project. 

The NHPA defines an effect as an alteration to the characteristics of a historic property that 

qualify it for inclusion in or eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Effects can be found adverse or not adverse. Adverse effects are defined by the Criteria of 

Adverse Effect as outlined in 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1). An adverse effect is found when an undertaking 

may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify that 

property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the integrity of that 

property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. In applying 

the criteria of adverse effect, regulations require that consideration be given to all qualifying 

characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent 

to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the NRHP. Adverse effects may 

include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, 

be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative. Examples of adverse effects on historic 

properties include, but are not limited to:

1. Physical destruction of, or damage to, all or part of the property;

2. Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, 

stabilization, hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access, that 

is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 

and applicable guidelines;

3. Removal of the property from its historic location;
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

11

4. Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the 

property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance;

5. Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of 

the property’s significant historic features;

6. Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and 

deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance 

to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization; and 

7. Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control or conditions to 

ensure long-term preservation of the property’s historic significance.4

 

1.2.2 CEQA

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Section 15064.5) requires the lead CEQA 

agency to assess the impacts of the project on cultural resources. For the MRL, the lead CEQA 

agency is the lead non-Federal agency, CVFPB.5 Historical resources are defined as “any object, 

building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or 

archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, 

economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.”6

Before the level of significance of impacts can be determined and appropriate mitigation 

measures developed, the significance of historical resources must be determined. Generally, the 

application of Section 106 is considered to adequately address the requirements of CEQA.

This report is intended to provide information to related to compliance with both Section 106 

and CEQA for the MRL Phase 2B project.

1.3 OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES 

In preparation for this project, a number of previous studies have been conducted related to the 

potential construction methods under consideration, site specific qualities such as soil and levee 

condition, identification of known and potential historic resources in the area, and possible 

impacts related to levee repairs. The conclusions in each report are consistent and form the basis 

for many of the conclusions and recommendations in this document. The following presents the 

most relevant project-related studies and their findings.

• Roger Zemba, Memorandum for Record: Structural Observations and Analysis for Historic 

Structures – Marysville Ring Levee Construction, 13 January 2010

This memo is included as Attachment A of the 14 January 2010 memo by Erik James. It 

briefly describes the condition of the Temple, as observed in October 2009, as good and 

structurally sound. Recent repairs were noted, including replacement of the tile roof 

with wood singles and replacement of the two supporting porch columns. The memo 

highlights the existence of a sheet pile wall approximately half-way between the Temple 

 

4 “Code of Federal Regulations, Section 36, Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties, Subpart B, Section 800.5(2)(ivii),” (Washington, D.C., 2004).

5 Initial Study, 117.

6 California Public Resources Code, Section 5020.1(j).
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

12

and the proposed construction location. The author states that the construction methods 

used to install the existing sheet pile wall are much more impactful and likely to have 

caused damage than the methods proposed for the MRL project. Also, the MRL project 

would be nearly twice as far away as the existing sheet pile wall, further reducing the 

likelihood of construction-related adverse impacts to the Temple. It concludes that if 

construction methods were carefully selected, no impacts were likely to the Bok Kai 

Temple.

• Erik James, Memorandum for Record: Marysville Ring Levee EDR – Bok Kai Temple 

Construction Impact Evaluation, 14 January 2010

This memo summarizes the findings of the earlier January 13, 2012 memo and adds 

calculations of anticipated vibrations based on methodology from Caltrans 

Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibrations Guidance Manual. They used a 

conservative distance of 40-feet between the Temple and proposed construction 

activities and values associated with heavy impact construction equipment such as pile 

drilling equipment and large bulldozers (0.089 in/sec PPV). Even with site-specific soils 

data, they used a more conservative n-value of 1.1 to provide as conservative an estimate 

as possible for consideration. Their result was an anticipated peak particle velocity from 

construction equipment (PPV) of 0.05 in/sec. 

The memo concludes that level of anticipated vibration is below recognized thresholds 

where damage to buildings in good repair (like the Temple) is unlikely. It recommends a 

number of measures to limit construction-related vibrations as well as monitoring of the 

historic resource during construction.

• HDR, Inc., Engineering Documentation Report, Marysville Ring Levee, Yuba River Basin, 

California, April 12, 2010

The MRL is part of the larger Yuba River Basin project. As such it is covered under the 

environmental review documents produced for that project. Modifications to the MRL 

required creation of a separate document to verify that the conditions outlined in the 

original Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) remain valid. The report concluded that 

the MRL project is consistent with the original project review. The original NEPA 

determination of a Finding of No Significant Impact and CEQA findings justifying a 

Negative Declaration remain valid.

• Environmental Assessment/Initial Study, Marysville Ring Levee, Yuba River Basin, California, 

April 2010

This document concluded with a finding of No Significant Impact (NEPA) and 

supported a Negative Declaration (CEQA) for the Marysville Ring Levee improvements. 

It discussed a number of potential and known historic resources, including the Bok Kai 

Temple and the Downtown Marysville Commercial District. Drawing primarily from 

the two January 2010 memos referenced above, it concluded the project was unlikely to 

result in impacts to these historic resource and recommended additional study and 

monitoring.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

13

• HDR/Fugro/WLA, Geotechnical Data Report, Marysville Ring Levee, Phase 2B, Marysville, 

California, December 7, 2012

This survey established areas of previous intrusions or voids in the levee as well as 

summarizing the known geologic history and categorization of soils in the Marysville 

area. Previous intrusions include a sheet pile wall near the Bok Kai Temple. The top of 

the wall will be located four-feet below the ground surface. 

• HDR/Fugro/WLA, Final Alternatives Analysis, Marysville Ring Levee Phase 2B, Yuba River 

Basin, California, July 2012 

The major problems with the Phase 2B levee segments are identified as through-seepage 

and underseepage during high water events. Three possible solutions were deemed 

viable for the three segments: shallow cutoff wall, deep cutoff walls, and levee 

reconstruction. Four different possible alignments were also considered. The result was 

eight different alternatives presented in the report ranging in cost from approximately 

$11 million to $17 million. 

1.4 IMPACT REPORT GOALS AND METHODOLOGY

The goal of this historic structure impact report is to analyze potential impacts of the proposed 

project and project alternatives on the historic resource. Based on that analysis, 

recommendations to mitigate any potential impacts have been developed. The bulk of this 

analysis centers on evaluation of the possible vibrations resulting form proposed construction 

and comparison of these anticipated values with the body of literature concerned with 

establishing construction-related vibrations thresholds for historic buildings. This report is the 

second of a two-phase evaluation process that was preceded by a Marysville Levee Preliminary 

Historic Resource Impacts memo dated July 19, 2012.

1.4.1 Literature Review

Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. reviewed relevant project and historical information including:

• Donald Napoli, Downtown Marysville Commercial Historic District National Register 

Nomination (1999)

The nomination established the boundaries of the historic district as well as the character 

defining features of the district. The period of significance includes both 19th and 20th

century building campaigns but stops prior to the redevelopment efforts of more recent 

decades. It provides a historical context for Marysville in general, and minimal 

contextual information on the Chinese community that established the Bok Kai Temple 

and occupied the buildings on First Street, closest to the MRL project.

• California Department of Transportation, Transportation- and Construction-Induced 

Vibration Guidance Manual (2004)

This document serves as the basis for evaluation of vibrations-related impacts on 

buildings in various states of repair and construction types. It presents formulas for 

evaluation of site-specific conditions and recommends vibrations thresholds for 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

14

construction-related activities. While it is not the only vibrations guideline referenced in 

this report, it is the only one specifically mentioned in the scope of work for the MRL 

project.

• Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California State 

Historic Preservation Officer, Regarding the Marysville Ring Levee Project, Yuba County, 

California (2011)

The MOA establishes documentation and methodology requirements regarding the 

historic resources near the APE for the MRL project. It represents the agreement 

between the major stakeholders and serves as the overarching guideline for this 

document.

1.4.2 Field Investigations

After review of relevant background information, a site visit was conducted on December 7, 

2011 to inspect the interior and exterior of the Bok Kai Temple for existing conditions, and to 

conduct a general exterior survey of buildings in the historic district within 200 feet of the MRL 

project. This site visit included Architectural Conservator and Historian, Becky Urbano 

(Garavaglia Architecture, Inc.), Structural Engineer, Steve Duquette (Duquette Engineering), 

and HDR team member and vibrations expert, Dr. Sandy Figuers (Norfleet Consultants). A 

second site visit was conducted on August 30, 2012 to observe and note interior conditions of 

the buildings on the south side of First Street. This memo is the result of observations made 

during those site tours as informed by the background project information and ongoing 

conversations with HDR, the Corps, and other team members.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

15

2. HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND SIGNIFICANCE 

2.1 HISTORY

“The Marysville Historic Commercial District represents the development of commerce in the 

city from the mid-nineteenth century to just after the end of the Second World War. The district 

provides the city's only sizable collection of commercial buildings constructed before 1948. It 

has strong links to early retail business as well as later commercial development.”7 This large 

area is split into two sections, with a total of fifty-nine contributing buildings, one contributing 

structure, and twenty-six non-contributing buildings when the district was nominated to the 

National Register in 1998. It represents the traditional commercial and governmental heart of 

the City and contains a number of mixed-use (commercial and residential, retail and office, etc.) 

buildings. Over 100 years of construction types, design, and retail trends are represented as 

well.

The following contextual information is quoted from portions of the Significance and 

Description sections from the district nomination form and from the Bok Kai Temple Historic 

Structure Report. Please see the original documents for more information.

2.1.1 The Founding of Marysville

The city of Marysville lies at the confluence of the Yuba and Feather Rivers in 

Yuba County on a portion of land granted to John Sutter by the Mexican rulers 

of California in 1841. Sutter leased part of his land to Theodor Cordua, who 

built a rancho on the north bank of the Yuba River, just east of its junction with 

the Feather River, and raised livestock in the surrounding area. This was the 

beginning of the settlement that would soon become Marysville. In 1848, 

Cordua sold a half interest in the land to a former employee of his, Charles 

Covillaud, and later sold his remaining interest to Michael Nye and William 

Foster. Covillaud’s partners in the land grant soon changed so that by 1849 four 

men, Covillaud, Jose Manuel Ramirez, John Simpson, and Theodore Sicard had 

become Covillaud and Company. In 1850, town lots were mapped out, parcels 

sold, and the name of Marysville chosen for the new town in honor of Mary 

Murphy, the wife of Charles Covillaud and a survivor of the infamous Donner 

Party. Marysville was incorporated as a town by the California Legislature in 

1851.8

2.1.2 Gold Rush Era

Marysville’s early history is directly linked to the discovery and exploitation of 

gold in the nearby foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Following the 

discovery of gold at Sutter’s lumber mill in Coloma in January 1848, 

Marysville’s potential as a point of transfer for goods, people, and riches was 

quickly realized. The position of Marysville at the meeting of two navigable 

rivers, and its relative proximity to San Francisco, Sacramento, and the gold 

 

7 Donald Napoli, National Register of Historic Places Nomination: Marysville Historic Commercial District, (1999), 8. 

8 Architectural Resources Group, “Bok Kai Temple Historic Structure Report, “ September 2002, 13.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

16

fields, made the site well suited to take advantage of the Gold Rush economy. 

Although gold discoveries were made just a few miles from the town, most of 

the early growth of Marysville was based on the related industries of trade, 

transportation, and financing, not directly on mining enterprises.”9

... As strikes were made in the northern foothills, miners sailed up the Feather 

and Yuba Rivers to reach the gold fields.... Other merchants moved quickly to 

exploit Marysville's advantageous location. By 1850 the town had become the

main supply point for thousands of miners upriver in the foothills. Several dozen 

businesses operated from canvas tents and other impermanent structures along 

the Yuba River. The permanent population reached about 500. 

Marysville and its commercial district grew rapidly in the 1850s. The town 

became the Yuba County seat in 1850 and incorporated in 1851. The population 

grew steadily, reaching around 4,000 by the end of the decade. Businesses grew 

in number and diversity. Many, from banks and blacksmiths to clothiers and 

saloons, appealed to miners. Capital investment increased too. Spurred by one 

flood and several major fires, businessmen replaced tents and other flimsy 

structures with larger buildings made of brick. Local kilns were kept busy, as 

nearly 140 brick commercial buildings went up between 1851 and 1855. The 

business district expanded north from the waterfront. Many local miners were 

immigrants from China, who sought goods and services from fellow 

countrymen. Part of the commercial district became their center for supplies and 

temporary housing. The permanent Chinese population in town rose to around 

1,000 by the end of the decade. Marysville became Sam Fou, the third most 

important city for Chinese in California. Mixed use typified buildings 

throughout the district. Retail stores occupied the first story and residences the 

second.10 

2.1.3 Post-Gold Rush Development (1860 – 1900)

The district did not grow much in the next four decades. The commercial zone 

stayed south of Fourth Street, even when floods and fires required buildings to 

be replaced. The last and most serious flood, in 1875, prompted the construction 

of a levee that closed off most of the district from the Yuba River. The Central 

Pacific Railroad arrived in the 1860s, establishing a link that slowly diverted 

traffic from the river. The district's clientele changed. Gold became less accessible 

to miners, forcing many of them to leave the area. Agriculture, on the other hand, 

enjoyed steady growth. More land opened to cultivation, prices rose, and the 

number of local farmers increased. Wheat became the most popular and 

profitable crop. The town grew in size and changed somewhat in character, with 

women and children replacing single men. Marysville's population reached 4,700 

in 1870, making it the eighth largest city in the state. The number of residents 

then slowly declined through the end of the century. The commercial district 

diversified, offering a wide range of goods and services in more than 200 

separate businesses. Chinese establishments, mostly in the southeast quadrant of 

the district, maintained their own clientele but shared in the prosperity. Three 

 

9 Ibid.

10 District National Register Nomination, Section 8, 36-41.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

17

benevolent associations (tongs) helped to place workers and settle business 

disputes. When in the 1880s anti-Chinese sentiments led to violence elsewhere, 

Marysville became a refuge for displaced Chinese workers. In the 1890s the local 

economic situation worsened as the international wheat market collapsed, the 

nation went into a depression, and many Chinese left the country in response to 

discriminatory state and federal laws.11 

2.1.4 Agricultural Influences (1900 – 1930)

More than other factors, changes in agriculture after the turn of the century 

generated new wealth in Marysville and surrounding areas. The district 

expanded dramatically. Irrigation was the key. Canals from local rivers made 

possible the cultivation of irrigated crops on small farms. Wheat ranchers 

subdivided their holdings into 20- to 40-acre parcels, which new settlers planted 

in a variety of crops, especially fruit orchards. Farm income shot up. Marysville, 

the main trading center for the revivified agricultural region, became the Hub 

City. Two new railroads, the Western Pacific and the Northern Electric, which 

had arrived around 1910, provided alternative shipping channels...Local 

industry expanded. The district’s stores stocked everything for the local 

consumer, from cars and farm implements to clothes and groceries. The town's 

population, reversing its previous slide, jumped 65 percent between 1900 and 

1930. 

In the eyes of Marysville's business and civic leaders, business expansion faced 

only one serious obstacle. Most commercial buildings suffered from 

obsolescence. Dating from the 1850s, many were small and dilapidated. They 

hardly fit with the modern, up-to-date city that Marysville was becoming. 

Building owners, often living elsewhere, showed no interest in making changes. 

The result was a major construction boom, primarily on the blocks between 

Fourth and Sixth Streets. Some twenty buildings, valued at well over a million 

dollars, went up during the 1920s. Many others underwent substantial 

renovations. Two buildings in particular represent this era of expansion and 

optimism. The Hart Building, designed for offices, rose seven stories and became 

what was probably the tallest commercial structure between Sacramento and 

Portland. The five-story Hotel Marysville, financed by a group of local 

businessmen, offered travelers accommodations as elegant as those found in any 

small city in California.12 

2.1.5 The Great Depression and Military Influences (1930 – 1960)

The Great Depression of the 1930s brought an end to prosperous times. As in 

much of California, downtown businesses in Marysville limped along, providing 

service to their regular customers but not expanding their operations. 

Agricultural income plummeted, but gold dredging continued to keep Yuba 

County among the state's top gold producers and cushioned the worst effects of 

the depression. The town's population increased by about 15 percent during the 

1930s, but it was not enough to generate new construction until the end of the 

 

11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

18

decade. The Second World War, especially the opening of the huge Camp Beale 

just south of the river, revived the economy. Downtown continued resurgence in 

the years directly after the war, as pent-up consumer demand kept business 

humming. A few new buildings went up, and several more were modernized. 

Commercial activity in the district maintained its postwar level into the 1960s. 

But it did not attract new customers, many of whom lived miles from downtown 

and relied on automobiles for all their travel. Business shifted to stores with 

adjacent parking lots, especially those in strip malls just over the Feather River 

Bridge in Yuba City. Just as old buildings seemed obsolete to civic leaders in the 

1920s, downtown itself began to appear outdated by the 1970s. The area south of 

Third Street, which had seen little substantial investment in over a century, 

became the target of a redevelopment project. In 1977 three blocks were cleared 

for a department store, smaller shops, and library, all surrounded by parking. 

The project did little for business activity to the north, where commerce did not 

return to its 1948 level. Chinatown was spared redevelopment. Instead, it 

continued a slow deterioration, as the local Chinese American population 

dwindled and the old buildings failed to draw new tenants.13 

2.2 HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND STATUS

2.2.1 Statement of Significance

The Marysville Historic Commercial District is significant for its association with the City’s 

early commercial development between the 1854 and the 1948. The district was nominated for 

listing on the National Register of Historical Resources in 1998 and officially listed in June 1999. 

At the time of nomination, the district had fifty-nine contributing buildings, one contributing 

structure, and twenty-six non-contributing buildings. Most of the buildings were designed for 

retail use, though many also served residential or office purposes. This is as true today as it was 

during the period of significance. 

2.2.2 Period of Significance (1854-1948)

The district's period of significance includes the time during which the most 

important events occurred in Marysville's commercial development. Resources 

remain to illustrate most of these developments. The opening date of 1854, an 

approximation, represents the construction of the district's earliest remaining 

buildings. The closing date, 1948, indicates that the important historical events in 

the development of local commerce had happened by that time. The district 

reflects the period through a collection of contributing buildings that retain their 

architectural integrity and were constructed between 1854 and 1948. 

2.2.3 Integrity Statement

The district retains historic and architectural cohesiveness in several ways. First, 

it contains a high proportion of contributing elements, with nearly more than 70 

percent of the total falling in this category. Second, as a group, contributors are 

larger and more conspicuous than non-contributors. All seven of the district's 

 

13 Ibid.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

19

buildings over two stories contribute, for example. Further, the contributors, 

although constructed during a 94- year period, usually share two important 

characteristics. They extend to the parcel lines in the front and on the sides, and 

they have storefronts with recessed entrances and flanking display windows. In 

addition, because many non-contributors share these attributes, the district 

retains an overall coherence that is greater than might be expected through an 

analysis of its components.14

2.2.4 Boundary Justification and Adjacent Resources

The boundaries of the district are quite clear. To the south is the [Marysville Ring 

Levee]. On the west and in the area separating the two sections of the district is 

new commercial construction that is set back from the street and fronted by 

parking lots. In the north newly constructed or remodeled commercial buildings 

line the 500-block of D Street. Beyond Sixth [Street] residences predominate. To 

the east is an area of mixed uses, including civic and industrial. The boundaries 

follow contiguous parcel lines. Three buildings, already listed in the National 

Register but without commercial associations, lie just outside the district. They 

are the Bok Kai Temple at the foot of D Street, the Packard Library at 301 4th

Street, and the Post Office at 407 C Street.15

The Bok Kai Temple is immediately adjacent to the MRL Phase 2B project APE and is the 

subject of a separate Historic Structure Impact Report. The other National RegisterListed resources are well beyond the project APE and are not subject to further analysis 

for this project.

 

14 Ibid. 15 Ibid.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

20

3. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 

3.1 DISTRICT DESCRIPTION

3.1.1 Boundaries

The district runs north six and a half blocks from the [Marysville Ring Levee] to 

Sixth Street. The street grid has a rectangular pattern and includes north-south 

alleys on each block. The terrain is flat. Small trees line some of the streets. The 

two sections of the district are of unequal size. The northern section contains 

about four times the area and more than twice the number of buildings as the 

southern section. The northern section centers on two blocks of D Street from 

Third to Fifth Street. Nearly half the buildings are arranged along these two 

blocks. All the rest are on crossing or parallel streets. The southern section 

extends along First Street from D Street to beyond C Street. Its contributing 

buildings face one of these three streets. Nearly all the buildings in both sections 

extend to their lot lines on each side and front the sidewalk directly with no 

intervening setbacks. Between the sections is an area of recent development, 

including new buildings, parking lots, and parcels emptied in anticipation of 

new construction [see Figure 2]. 

3.1.2 Design, Architecture, and Character

Similarity in historic function, uniformity of scale, and consistency of 

construction material help to define the visual character of the district. Retailing 

provided the original ground-floor use of nearly 90 percent of the buildings in 

the district. Their designs, aiming to attract customers on foot, feature storefronts 

with recessed entrances and flanking display windows. Most of the buildings are 

small scale. Ninety percent have fewer than three stories, with those with two 

stories slightly outnumbering those with one. Only two buildings rise above 

three stories. The use of brick adds another unifying characteristic to the district. 

About half the buildings have unfinished brick walls, and another quarter show 

elements of brick construction, especially flat parapets and recessed openings, 

even when finished with other materials. 

Within the overall uniformity of the district, the individual building vary in 

several respects. They differ in width, from less than 20 feet to as much as 160, 

and in the number of storefronts on the street elevations. Despite the 

predominance of brick, about two-dozen buildings use stucco as the primary 

surfacing material. Detailing on contributing buildings varies from profuse to 

minimal. The most common motifs on nineteenth-century buildings have 

classical inspiration and include bracketed cornices, dentil and belt courses, and 

hooded windows. Twentieth-century buildings often feature elements of the 

Mediterranean Revival [style], including ceramic tile roofs or cornices and terra 

cotta ornament.

The district has examples of several architectural styles. Buildings of the 1850s 

and 1860s display a subdued classicism sometimes labeled Greek Revival. Later 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

21

Figure 2. Marysville Historic Commercial District Map. This map is from the 1999 National 

Register nomination and shows the two, discontinuous sections of the district. Only the lower 

section is close enough to the levee to experience any possible construction-related impacts.16

 

16 National Register District Nomination, Additional Information.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

22

nineteenth-century buildings, notable for arched window and door openings, exemplify 

the Italianate style. The district also has a couple renditions of the Neo-Classical Revival 

and one of the Spanish Colonial Revival. [The] most popular twentieth-century style is 

the Mediterranean Revival, often embellished with floral Art Deco ornament. The “PWA 

Moderne” and Streamline Moderne are also represented in the district. Many buildings, 

especially those with only a single story, have completely functional designs and defy 

stylistic categorization.17

3.2 EXTERIOR CONDITIONS AND DESCRIPTION

Within the historic district, it is only the southern section that is close enough to the Phase 2B 

portion of the project to warrant further investigation. In December 2011, Garavaglia 

Architecture, Inc. toured the southern section of the historic district. Interior access to the 

structures was not possible, therefore visual inspections of exterior walls was done from the 

public right-of-way. A total of approximately 20 buildings and structures were surveyed in this 

manner. Of these, only the 10 buildings between First Street and the levee are close enough to 

the APE to potentially subjected to construction-related vibrations. All are constructed of brick 

and appear do date to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They are arranged in groups of two 

to four (2-4) buildings, separated by empty lots. 330 First Street (Silver Dollar Saloon) and 7 D 

Street are the only singleton buildings. Please see Appendix A for further information on all the 

subject properties. 

3.2.1 General

Along First Street, the buildings are constructed of unit masonry and range from two to four 

stories in height. Most have some occupancy, although the nature of occupancy could not be 

verified for this report. Generally, approximately half appear to be used for offices on a regular 

basis. A quarter appear to have periodic occupancy for events, celebrations, or commercial 

activities. Four buildings are currently unoccupied. 

For the occupied buildings, similar conditions were noticed from visual inspections of exposed 

exterior surfaces – compromised brick surface structure, deteriorating mortar, loose material, 

and improper repairs. 

Compromised brick surface structure

The front facades have been sandblasted and the protective fired surface of the bricks has been 

compromised. The pitted, uneven surface is susceptible to further degradation from water, 

impact, and efflorescence at an increased rate compared to brick in sound condition with its 

fired surfaces intact. In the best cases, the surfaces are stable and do not actively crumble with 

light contact. In the worst cases, the brick interior has turned to dust and the unit’s stability has 

been compromised. This has been exacerbated by improper repairs that force water through the 

compromised units and further accelerate damage. (See Improper Repairs for further discussion.)

 

17 National Register District Nomination, Section 7, 1-2.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

23

Deteriorating mortar

The buildings within the historic district date to 

the 19th century and early 20th century. As such, 

the mortar had a low Portland cement content 

(potentially no Portland cement) and a high lime 

content. This results in a softer mortar that 

typically used today in modern construction. Like 

all materials, mortar requires periodic 

replacement to maintain the integrity of the wall. 

Many of the buildings along First Street have 

original, or very early mortar, that is 

deteriorating because of age, impact damage 

from sandblasting, and water exposure from 

improper roof drainage. The worst locations have 

mortar that can be raked from joints by hand, 

leaving bricks ill-secured and vulnerable to small 

surface impacts, including low-level vibrations. 

Loose Material

As indicated above, loose mortar and damaged 

brick are found on several buildings. 226, 320, 

and 322 First Street are the most susceptible to 

these conditions. Material on their facades is 

already loose as a result of poor building 

maintenance or poorly executed repairs. Any 

material that can be dislodged by hand is 

susceptible to further loosening from low-level 

vibrations. 

Improper repairs

Where historic materials have 

deteriorated, modern materials have been 

used for repairs. Historic brick and 

mortar is much softer than modern 

counterparts. As water travels up the 

wall, it carries dissolved salts and other 

impurities with it. It moves to the brick 

face through the easiest means possible 

and evaporates. Generally this results in a 

surface layer of salts and other materials 

that have come out of solution. In a 

traditional system, this evaporation 

happens through the softest part of the 

wall, the mortar. Mortar is easily repaired 

and in high-lime mortars, somewhat selfrepairing. Where modern materials have 

been introduced, water is forced into the 

historic wall sections. This forces an 

increased amount of salts to crystallize at 

the face of the historic brick. 

igure 3. Crack at the northeast corner of 320 

irst Street. The sandblasted facade, poor 

mortar, and lack of maintenance have resulted 

n loose material at the second level.

Figure 4. Spalled brick, typical. The quality of brick 

varies throughout the district. Poor brick and 

improper repairs have lead to widespread failure of 

many units.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

24

Crystallization is an expansive process that ends up causing spalling of the fired brick face. The 

soft inner volume then washes away with repeated moisture exposure leaving voids in the wall, 

framed by the modern, harder, less permeable mortar.

3.3 STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS AND DESCRIPTION

3.3.1 General Conditions

The structures in general are all fairly well maintained with the exception of the buildings 

located at 226, 228, and 230 First Street. All the buildings surveyed are constructed of 

unreinforced brick masonry with some concrete block and wood frame additions. The second 

floor and roof framing is also wood. Structures constructed of unreinforced masonry have 

inherent deficiencies that make them susceptible to damage due to seismic loads or other heavy 

vibrations. The common deficiencies noted are as follows: 

• Parapet Bracing 

The parapets extend more that 12-inches above the roof plane without proper bracing. 

These parapets are unstable under seismic loading and may be unstable when subjected 

to continual, low-grade vibrations. This condition could result in collapse.

• Out-of-Plane Wall Anchorage 

There is a lack of continuity between the heavy masonry walls and the wood floor and 

roof diaphragms. This can result in separation and collapse under seismic loading.

• In-Plane Shear Transfer

There is a lack of continuity between the floor and roof diaphragms for shear transfer. 

This can result in separation and collapse under seismic loading.

• Floor and Roof Diaphragms 

The floor and roof diaphragms typically are not adequate to support the lateral seismic 

loads imposed by the heavy masonry walls without strengthening or additional interior 

shear walls or frames.

• Store Front Shear Deficiency 

This is a common deficiency. The open store front does not provide adequate shear 

resistance at the front elevation. This condition may result in collapse.

• Quality of Brick and Mortar 

In this particular case it is apparent that there are issues regarding the quality of the 

construction materials. This is described in Section 3.2. These issues will impact the 

performance of the structure.

These deficiencies are most critical when the building is subjected to seismic loading. The 

anticipated construction-related vibrations are much smaller but can cause architectural 

cracking and minor separations when the structure has these major structural discontinuities. 

Adequate monitoring as described in the recommendations section is imperative.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

25

3.3.2 Specific Conditions

There are exceptions to the general structural conditions described above:

226 First Street

The main building at 226 First Street is extremely deteriorated. There is a section of the front 

facade that is already separating and is very unstable, and the rear wall of the original building 

appears to be leaning at the top. These areas of the building are unstable and should be braced.

Secondary Building at 226 First Street

The accessory building at the rear of 226 First Street is extremely deteriorated. There is no roof 

and the walls are currently leaning. These walls are unstable and should be braced.

320 First Street

The building at 320 First Street was retrofitted in the 1980s. This retrofit appears to have 

addressed all the major deficiencies except parapet bracing.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

26 

4. VIBRATIONS PARAMETERS 

Potential impacts on the Marysville Commercial Historic District due to the MRL project are 

likely to be the result of vibrations caused by construction nearby. Vibrations are caused by 

construction activities themselves, such as blasting, drilling, compacting, etc. as well as by 

everyday activities related to construction such as material transport, material movement on 

adjacent streets, construction activities on staging sites, etc. In the K1 and K2 sections of Phase 

2B, a small staging site is proposed for an empty lot immediately adjacent to the southeast 

corner of the historic district, adjacent to the Levee District office. Construction activities range 

from 10-100+ feet from the closest historical resources to the APE. How buildings react to these 

increased events is as much a function of condition, construction, and location as it is of the 

project-related activities themselves. Therefore, a determination of impacts must establish a 

baseline threshold for construction-related events then analyze the individual buildings’ ability 

to tolerate those vibrations. 

4.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

To place modern understanding of the impacts of construction-related vibrations on buildings 

into context, it is important to consider the international body of work on the subject. Generally, 

the British and German standards are most heavily referenced, although Swiss standards play 

an important role in studies done by Caltrans. In the United States, the body of work is a 

mixture of data from large construction projects, such as Boston’s Big Dig project, and data 

collected by the federal government agencies such as the Bureau of Mines. Each study 

references earlier studies and each is based on particular sets of criteria that are not necessarily 

translatable across situations, or across applications. Therefore, while there is relative 

consistency in the findings, the methodologies can differ. 

For the purposes of this analysis, information is primarily presented from the most widely 

referenced international standards and compared with the common domestic standards. 

Differences to keep in mind include nuances of language. Many of the German studies are not 

translated into English. Those that are available as translated documents are provided by the 

German government only. Therefore, slight nuances of translation are lost because the 

translation is from a single source.

4.1.1 Overview - German Standards

Internationally, the German standards are generally considered to be the most restrictive when 

considering impacts from vibrations on structures. In actuality, there are three building-related 

vibration German standards: DIN 4150-1, DIN 4150-2, and DIN 4150-3. DIN 4150-1 discusses 

the mathematical evaluation of vibration parameters, such as creating attenuation curves. DIN 

4150-2 describes how to evaluate human exposure to vibrations from construction activities. 

DIN 4150-3 discusses measuring and evaluating the effects of vibrations on structures (nonearthquake loading). Of these, only DIN 4150-2 and DIN 4150-3 have been translated into 

English and made widely available to the international engineering community. For the 

purposes of this analysis, DIN 4150-3 is the most applicable to the immediate goals of 

establishing vibration thresholds for the historic resources near the MRL project. It includes 

evaluation of vibrations on pipelines, non-cohesive soil settlement, vibrations in floors and 

walls, as well as generalized methods for reducing vibrations from construction activities.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

27

The German standards are integrated and broad. The DIN 4150-3 incorporates by reference six 

other German standards. Most have not been translated into English. DIN 4150-3 includes 

evaluation of vibrations on pipelines, non-cohesive soil settlement, vibrations in floors and 

walls, as well as generalized methods for reducing vibrations from construction activities.

One concern with referencing the German standard for an international audience is that the 

German authorities have never provided any information on how the standard was set. Further 

complicating comparisons is the differences in definitions of what constitutes a short-term 

vibration versus a long-term vibration. Section 3.4 of DIN 4150-3 defines a short-term vibration 

as: “vibration which does not occur often enough to cause structural fatigue and which does not 

produce resonance in the structure being evaluated.” Section 3.5 defines a long-term vibration 

as: “all types of vibration not covered by the definition of ‘short-term vibration’ in subclause 

3.4” (i.e. dynamic/harmonic vibrations). 

In DIN 4150-3 the definitions for short- and long-term vibrations are based on the ability of 

those vibrations to cause damage. A short-term vibration can cause damage, but not structural 

fatigue. A long-term vibration causes structural fatigue and building resonance. DIN 4150-3 

occasionally refers to long-term vibrations as harmonic. A weak impulse or continuous 

vibration that does not cause structural fatigue (but causes cosmetic cracking) would be called a 

short-term vibration while a vibration (impulse or continuous) strong enough to cause 

structural fatigue or building resonance would be classified as a long-term vibration.

4.1.2 Overview – British Standards

The British have two vibration standards, BS 5228-2 (2009) and BS 7385-2 (1993) (see Figures 5a 

and 5b). BS 5228-2 covers vibration control on construction and open sites and BS 7385-2 covers 

evaluation and measurement of vibrations in buildings. These standards have evolved over the 

years and sometimes the recommendations between the two publications have differed. They 

currently are consistent. Vibration level recommendations in both standards are judged to give 

a minimal risk of direct vibration-related cosmetic damage (threshold values- formation of 

hairline cracks). The PPV values are frequency dependent.

BS 5228-2 (2009) provides recommendations for retaining walls (no lateral support). For walls in 

good condition, the threshold limit for transient vibrations is 0.4 in/sec (10 mm/s) (PPV) at the 

base of the wall and 1.6 in/sec (40 mm/s) at the top. For continuous vibrations, the recommend 

limits should be reduced by a factor of 1.5 to 2.5 depending on circumstances and external 

supports may be needed.

4.1.3 Overview – United States Studies

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) provides a vibration damage threshold criterion of 

0.5 in/sec (12.7mm/s) for fragile buildings and 0.12 in/sec (3 mm/s) for extremely fragile 

historic buildings from typical construction equipment.18 These criteria were taken from Swiss 

standards. The FRA report provided typical vibration levels for construction equipment, and

defined frequent events as more than 70 events per day.

 

18 United States Department of Transportation, “High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment, Report 293630-1,” (1998).
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

28

Line 

[see Figure 

9b]

Type of Building Peak Component Particle Velocity in 

Frequency Rage of Predominant Pulse

4 Hz to 15 Hz 15 Hz and above

1 Reinforced or framed structures 50 mm/s [1.97 in/s] 

at 4 Hz and above

50 mm/s [1.97 in/s] 

at 4 Hz and above

Industrial and heavy 

commercial buildings

2 Unreinforced or light framed 

structures

15 mm/s [0.59 in/s] 

at 4 Hz increasing to 

20 mm/s [0.79 in/s] 

at 15 Hz

20 mm/s [0.79 in/s] 

at 15 Hz increasing to 

50 mm/s [1.97 in/s] 

at 40 Hz and above Residential or light commercial 

buildings

Figure 5a. Transient vibration guide values for cosmetic damage. Values referred to are at the base of 

the building. For line 2, at frequencies below 4 Hz, a maximum displacement of 0.6 mm (0.02 in) [zero to 

peak)] is not to be exceeded.

Figure 5b. Transient vibration guide values for cosmetic damage. Transient vibration guide values for 

cosmetic damage for the current BS 5228-2 (2009). This diagram was originally developed for BS 7385-2 

(1993) and was included in BS 5228-2 in 2009. Cosmetic damage is defined as creation of hairline cracks. 

The accompanying text indicates that minor damage is possible at vibration levels twice that shown, and 

major damage can occur at four times the listed values. For continuous vibrations, the guide values might 

need to be reduced by half. Important buildings that may be difficult to repair might require special 

consideration on a case-by-case basis. A historical building should not be assumed to be more sensitive 

unless it is structurally unsound. BS 7385-2 notes that the probability of [cosmetic] damage tends towards 

zero at 12.5 mm/s (0.49 in/s) PPV.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

29

Findings in report RI-8507 by the U. S. Bureau of Mines are commonly used to define minimum 

ground vibration levels for structural and cosmetic damage to buildings from blasting.

19 These 

recommendations are based upon detailed monitoring of one- and two-story wood framed 

houses in good condition that were built to 1980’s construction standards. The vibration limits 

were set at a 95 percent confidence level with a 5 percent chance that damage could occur below 

the proposed limits (Figure 6). The authors noted that no damage had been recorded occurring 

below 0.5 in/s (12.7 mm/s). They indicated that their vibration limits should not be applied to 

steady state sources such as traffic because of the different nature of those vibrations.

RI 8507 also provides safe blasting vibration criteria for residential structures. The data upon 

which this criteria is based is well documented, widely available, and was the result of many 

years of full-scale testing and monitoring. The criteria are frequency based and are taken from 

ground measurements adjacent to the foundation. The criteria are expressed as probabilities. It 

was noted that the probability of cosmetic damage from PPV values below 0.5 in/s is small (5 

percent for the worst case) and decreases rapidly.20 However, this study only evaluated blast 

vibration effects on buildings. 

Figure 6. Figure B-1 from Siskind, et al (1980). This shows their vibration limits for safe blasting near 

homes (transient vibrations). This diagram was not to be used for continuous vibrations.

 

19 D.E. Siskind, M.S. Skagg, J.W. Kopp and C.H. Dowding, Structure Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration 

From Surface Mine Blasting, (United States Bureau of Mines, 1989). The term vibrations will refer to ground vibrations 

unless otherwise indicated. Vibration values refer to the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) of the full waveform.

20 Siskind et al., 1989, 68.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

30

The Federal Transit Authority (FTA) set a vibration limit of 0.12 in/s for fragile historic 

structures.21 Many projects use this value for historic buildings. The FTA analysis are 

commonly used for low-level, continuous vibrations, such as trains and light rail projects. 

For construction projects within the City of New Orleans, the City Government set the 

following vibration limits.22 

Structure and Condition in/sec

Historic structures

Residential structures

New residential structures

Industrial building

bridges

0.25

0.25

0.5

1.0

1.0

Figure 7. Limiting sustained peak particle velocities. Limits as applied by the City of New Orleans 

based on studies of preconstruction vibrations and conditions at the LSU Medical Center in New Orleans.

The PPV is the largest along any of a 3-axis geophone and the PPV values are for sustained 

(continuous) vibrations.

4.1.4 Caltrans Vibrations Standards

As required by the MOA, Caltrans Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance 

Manual is the guiding document for this project in terms of determining appropriate vibrations 

levels within the APE where historic resources may be impacted. In this manual, Caltrans 

references standards developed by various parties over the last 30 years for various types of 

buildings, including many of the studies noted in the preceding sections as well as other 

supporting analysis, including those conducted by Yong Chae and the Swiss Association of 

Standardization.

The Chae Building Vibrations Criteria state a range for single-events of 0.5-1 in/sec PPV for old 

buildings in “poor to very poor” condition and a repeated-events threshold of 0.5 in/sec PPV.23 

(It does not provide a repeated-events threshold for those buildings in the “very poor” 

category.) The Swiss Association of Standardization notes single-event vibration ranges from 0.3 

– 1.2 in/sec PPV and continuous-source ranges from 0.12 – 0.5 in/sec PPV for a variety of 

building classes (see Figure 8.)24 The Swiss Association of Standardization recommendations 

(SN640312a, April 1992) have become a standard classification used by Caltrans and other 

entities as a guideline for both continuous and single-event vibration sources.25

 

21 Carl E. Hanson, David A. Towers and Lance D. Meister, Transit Noise and Vibrations Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-

1003-06, (Federal Transit Administration, 2006), 12-13. 22 Professional Service Industries, Inc., Report of Preconstruction Survey and Vibration Monitoring Services, LSU Medical 

Center, New Orleans, Louisiana, (Stanley Group, January 13, 2010), Table 2, 6. 23 Yong S. Chae, “Design of Excavation Blasts to Prevent Damage,” Civil Engineering, ASCE, (Vol. 48, No. 4, 1978) as 

presented in Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, Caltrans, 2004, 16. 24 “Swiss Association of Standardization Vibration Damage Criteria Building Class,” as presented in Transportation 

and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, Caltrans, 2004, 16. 25 Ibid.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

31

Building Class Continuous 

Source PPV 

(in/sec) 

Single-Event 

Source PPV 

(in/sec)

Class I: buildings in steel or reinforced concrete, such as 

factories, retaining walls, bridges, steel towers, open 

channels, underground chambers, and tunnels with and 

without concrete alignment

0.5 1.2

Class II: buildings with foundation walls and floors in 

concrete, walls in concrete or masonry, stone masonry 

retaining walls, underground chambers, and tunnels with 

masonry alignments, conduits in loose material

0.3 0.7

Class III: buildings as mentioned above but with wooden 

ceilings and walls in masonry

0.2 0.5

Class IV: construction very sensitive to vibration; objects 

of historic interest 

0.12 0.3

Figure 8. Swiss Association of Standardization Vibration Damage Criteria

In addition to recommended vibrations thresholds, the Swiss study established a structural 

categorization system based on construction types. This information is paraphrased in Figure 8. 

While it lists historic buildings as a category IV type of construction, the conditions of the 

subject historic district buildings would more accurately categorize them between Categories III 

and IV. This corresponds to a continuous source vibrations range of 0.12 – 0.2 in/sec. However, 

even the buildings in the best condition do not appear to have full modern seismic 

strengthening; although approximately 75% do show elements of limited structural 

enhancements such as floor-level thru-bolts.

Like the Bureau of Mines report, RI 8507, more recent studies cited in the Caltrans report 

discussed vibrations in term of the probability of certain types of damage occurring at different 

levels of vibrations exposure. For each type of damage they provide a range of exposure that 

has a certain likelihood causing an impact. For instance, the report draws upon the Whiffen 

Vibrations Criteria for continuous events to illustrate the types of damage that can be expected 

at various sustained vibrations levels (see Figure 9).26

PPV (in/sec) Effect on Buildings

0.4 - 0.6 Architectural damage and possible minor structural damage

0.2 Threshold at which there is a risk of architectural damage to houses with 

plastered walls and ceilings

0.1 Virtually no risk of architectural damage to normal buildings

0.08 Recommended upper limit of vibrations to which ruins and ancient 

monuments should be subjected

0.006 – 0.019 Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type

Figure 9. Whiffen Vibration Criteria for Continuous Vibration

 

26 A. C. Whiffen, “A Survey of Traffic-Induced Vibrations,” (Crowthorne, Berkshire, England: United Kingdom 

Department of Environment, Road Research Laboratory, 1971,) as presented in Transportation and Construction Induced 

Vibration Guidance Manual, Caltrans, 2004, 17.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

32

PPV (in/sec)

Damage Type 5% 

probability

10% 

probability

50% 

probability

90% 

probability

Threshold damage: loosening of 

paint, small plaster cracks at joints 

between construction elements

0.5 0.7 2.5 9.0

Minor damage: loosening and falling 

of plaster, cracks in masonry around 

openings near partitions, hairline to 

3mm (1/8-inch) cracks, fall of loose 

mortar

1.8 2.2 5.0 16.0

Major damage: cracks of several mm 

in walls, rupture of opening vaults, 

structural weakening, fall of 

masonry, load support ability 

affected

2.5 3.0 6.0 17.0 

Figure 10. Siskind Vibration Damage Thresholds

The Caltrans manual goes on to reference the likelihood of certain types of damage from the 

same 1980 Siskind et. al study referenced by the Bureau of Mines in RI 8507 (see Figure 10).27

The combination of these and other relevant studies became the basis for the threshold limits 

recommended in the 2004 report and subsequently used by Caltrans for construction project 

near historic buildings. These recommendations are summarized in Figure 11.28

Maximum PPV (in/sec)

Structure and Condition Transient 

Sources

Continuous/Frequent 

Intermittent Sources

Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient 

monuments 

0.12 0.08

Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1

Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25

Older residential structures 0.5 0.3

New residential structures 1.0 0.5

Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5

Figure 11. Caltrans vibrations threshold recommendations for various types and conditions of 

buildings. Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. 

Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-andseat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

4.1.5 Analysis of Caltrans Vibrations Threshold Recommendations

In the U.S., the terms short- and long-term vibrations are generic terms that describe the 

duration of a vibration, while the terms impulse, semi-continuous, and continuous are 

 

27 Siskind et al., as presented in Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, Caltrans, 2004, 17. 28 Table 19, Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, Caltrans, 2004, 26.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

33

descriptors used to describe the nature/style of a vibration. The terms are not related to the 

ability of vibrations to cause damage. This is how the definitions are applied in the Caltrans 

manual – they are time dependent and not related to ability to cause damage even though they 

are based on studies that equate values to capacity to cause damage.

This is contrasted with the German DIN 4150-3 standard. The German standard defines 

duration as the time until damage occurs. Caltrans does not adopt these definitions and instead 

discusses vibrations in terms of their duration of use. The two sets of definitions are therefore 

not directly interchangeable. Figures 12 and 13 provide a summary of the vibrations limits 

presented in DIN 4150-3 for short-term vibrations, or for vibrations exposure that is not great 

enough to cause damage. Because the goal of this Historic Structure Impact Report is to 

establish initial parameters for avoiding potential damage, the German definition of “shortterm” vibrations is most applicable (and is most closely represented by Caltrans’ analysis.) 

Caltrans lists recommended PPV limits for continuous vibrations that have PPV values based 

on the peak vertical axis velocity in the ground adjacent to a building. The values were taken 

from Whiffen and Leonard who assembled it from an earlier German DIN standard that has 

since changed. 29 Since then, the long-term (i.e. continuous) DIN vibration guideline for ancient 

Line Type of structure

Guideline values for velocity, vi, in mm/s

Vibration at the foundation at a frequency of Vibration at 

horizontal plane 

of highest floor at 

all frequencies

1 Hz to 10 

Hz

10 Hz to 50 

Hz

50 Hz to 100 

Hz*

1 

Buildings used for 

commercial purposes, 

industrial buildings, and 

buildings of similar design

20 20 to 40 40 to 50 40

2 

Dwellings and buildings of 

similar design and/or 

occupancy

5 5 to 15 15 to 20 15

3 

Structures that, because of 

their particular sensitivity 

to vibration, cannot be 

classified under lines 1 and 

2 and are of great intrinsic

value (e.g. listed buildings 

under preservation order)

3 3 to 8 8 to 10 8 

* At frequencies above 100 Hz, the values given in this column may be used as minimum values.

Figure 12. Guideline values for vibration velocity to be used when evaluating the effects of short-term 

vibration on structures, DIN 4150-3 vibration recommendations, 1999. In Section 5.1, of DIN 4150-3 

(1999) !v! i,max is defined as the maximum absolute value of the velocity signal for the three components 

(x, y, or z) measured on the building foundation. This parameter is referred to as Vi . This is not a vector 

sum value. Measurements can also be made on the highest floor of a building. In this case, the highest of 

the two horizontal components shall be used. This value is also referred to as Vi . Note that the guideline 

values are frequency dependent if vibrations at foundation level are measured, and not frequency 

dependent if vibrations are measured on the top floor.

 

29 Whiffin and Leonard, 1971.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

34

Figure 13. Curves for guideline values specified in Figure 12 for velocities measured at the foundation 

DIN 4150-3 vibration recommendations, 1999.

monuments has increased from 0.08 to 0.1 in/sec. The current short-term (i.e. non-continuous) 

DIN vibration guideline for ancient monuments is 0.1 in/sec, and the method on how the 

vibrations are measured has since changed as well.

The current DIN guidelines for short-term (non-continuous) vibrations are .012 - 0.31 in/sec for 

old buildings, depending on the frequency. For continuous vibrations (long-term vibrations as 

defined by Caltrans) the guidelines would be 0.1 in/sec, measured on the top floor.

The main differences between the current DIN standard and the one used by Caltrans are:

• The structure types have been renamed/condensed into three types: industrial, houses, 

and sensitive structures.

• The current DIN uses the vector sum to calculate velocity instead of just the vertical axis. 

This likely caused the increase in the vibration limit for sensitive structures from 0.08 to 

0.1 in/sec. The PPV values are not frequency dependent.

• The method for measuring vibrations has changed between the DIN 4150-3 version 

references in the Caltrans manual and that currently in use today. The sensor is placed 

on the top floor of the structure, not on the ground adjacent to the foundation. Seismic 

amplification is now included, making the vibration limit even more restrictive. An 

equivalent ground-level velocity could be as low as 0.04 in/sec. This is well in the range 

of background traffic vibrations.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

35

The Alternatives Analysis does not contain any proposed construction methods that involve 

pile driving or other types of quasi-continuous vibration producing machinery. This suggests 

that the use of either long-term vibration guidelines (DIN 4150-3) or continuous (long-term) 

vibration guides from the Caltrans manual may too conservative. To put this in perspective, the 

Swiss non-blasting vibration standard for historic buildings is 0.12 to 0.2 in/sec (Figure 8).30 

4.2 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

Preliminary evaluations completed in January 2010 looked at the proposed construction 

methods and site specific conditions to develop anticipated construction-generated vibrations 

levels for the MRL Phase 2B project. It assumed high-impact equipment, such as vibratory 

rollers would not be allowed and adopted a very conservative approach to estimating 

vibrations levels based on the use of bulldozers and other earthmoving construction equipment. 

As the project has developed, limited use of vibratory rollers is likely. Therefore, the following 

discusses potential vibrations from both earthmoving equipment and vibratory rollers. 

According to Table 18 in the Caltrans study, earthmoving equipment would generate vibrations 

of 0.089 in/s at a distance of 25 feet. Vibratory rollers would generate vibrations of 0.210 in/s at 

the same distance.

This value was calculated using Equation 10 of the Caltrans study:

PPVEquipment = PPVRef(25/D)n

 (in/s)

In this equation, D is the distance from the vibration source and n is a coefficient based on soil 

type. Gathering information from boring 2F-08-61 taken at the levee crown near the steps at the 

Bok Kai Temple, project engineers classified the soils in the area as “low-plastic, stiff to hard 

Sandy Silts (ML) and medium dense to dense Silty Sands (SM) with Standard Penetration test 

blow N60 values ranging from 10 to 50 with a median value of 33.”31 From this, a value for n of 

1.1 was selected, as it was the value used by Caltrans to obtain the 0.089 in/s and 0.210 in/s 

values and it was more conservative than the coefficient corresponding to site specific 

conditions.

Caltrans used a distance of 25 feet, but with an average construction distance of 75 feet or more, 

a median distance of 40 feet was used by project engineers to assess potential vibrations.

Looking at a distance of 40 feet and using a n coefficient of 1.1, project engineers calculated the 

following as a very conservative estimate of anticipated continuous vibrations from heavy 

equipment for the project:

PPVEquipment = PPVRef(25/D=40)1.1 (in/s)

PPVEquipment = 0.05 (in/s)

Using this same formula, and a reference PPV of 0.210 in/s for vibratory rollers, the anticipated 

vibrations from these rollers at a distance of 40 feet is 0.13 in/s. To reiterate, this value assumes 

 

30 Skipp (1998) contains good review of the framework of European vibrations standards. 31 “Memorandum for Record: Marysville Ring Levee EDR – Bok Kai Temple Construction Impact Evaluation,” 

(January 14, 2010), 2.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

36

large, heavy construction equipment within 40 feet of the Bok Kai Temple. In reality, anticipated 

construction methods generally utilize equipment that generate vibrations levels well below 

that of a large bulldozer, and operation would be primarily limited to distances greater than 40-

feet from the buildings on the south side of First Street. Limited use of vibratory rollers is 

anticipated. However, the soils at the site have steeper attenuation curves, thereby reducing 

vibrations at a faster rate as distance from the source is increased. They are classified as Class II 

soils with a n value of 1.3 and would therefore result in even lower anticipated PPV values than 

that presented above.

4.3 ANALYSIS AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS

4.3.1 Application of Theoretical Data

In widely applied studies, the recommended thresholds for vibration levels range from 0.04 to 

0.5 in/sec. The core level range is 0.08 to 0.2 in/sec. Based on the information presented in 

Figures 9, 10 and 11, the data suggests that even at the average upper threshold of 0.2 in/sec, 

there is a less than 5% chance of damage to loose plaster and paint, of falling plaster and 

dislodging of loose mortar, and of major damage. Caltrans recommendations of 0.08 – 0.12 

in/sec for the most fragile resources, fall within this average range and are more conservative 

than many of the recommendations in other studies. This suggests that at the maximum 

vibrations threshold recommended by Caltrans has a less than 5% probably of causing further 

damage to loose plaster and paint, or causing falling plaster and dislodging of loose materials.

Using a conservative average distance of 40 feet, project engineers calculated an anticipated 

continuous-source vibrations level of 0.05 in/s for bulldozers and earthmoving equipment. 

Using their parameters, an anticipated continuous-source vibrations level of 0.13 in/s is 

anticipated for vibratory rollers at 40 feet.. This is consistent with the vibrations threshold 

recommended by Caltrans, and is still lower than the values expected to cause even minor 

aesthetic damage.

4.3.2 Comparison with Ambient Vibrations and Phase 1 Vibrations

For many subject buildings, everyday vibrations from street traffic, passing trains, and minor 

seismic events often produce vibrations in excess of those recommended in the charts 

presented. Therefore, the proposed construction methods are anticipated to generate vibrations 

well below the conservative ranges of value needed to cause architectural damage. The level is 

so low that structural damage is highly unlikely.32 

For comparison of actual construction-generated vibrations, readings taken from Phase 1 of the 

Marysville Ring Levee project generally ranged from 0.01 in/sec to 0.04 in/sec. Monitors were 

placed at the toe of the levee, measuring vibrations at a distance much closer to construction 

activities than is anticipated for the Marysville Historic Commercial District contributing 

buildings along First Street. Soils at the Phase 1 locations are comparable to those within the 

Phase 2b APE and the construction methods are similar to those proposed for the Phase 2b 

work. This average range of vibrations from the Phase 1 APE is below those levels anticipated 

for Phase 2b and demonstrates the capability of the proposed methods to comply with the 

Caltrans recommended long-term, or continuous, vibration levels of 0.08-0.12 in/sec for fragile 

structures. 

 

32 Ibid., 3.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

37

4.3.3 Vibrations-Related Settlement

Within the fields of geophysics and engineering that deal with vibrations analysis, there are two 

general views on low-level vibrations (such as those generated by the proposed construction 

methods) and soil settlement. The common view is that there are vibration limits 

(approximately 0.1 in/sec) and shear strain limits (approximately 0.01%) below which ground

settlement (compaction/strain accumulation) in granular soils does not occur.33 The other view 

is that any level of ground vibration (no matter how small) over a sufficient length of time will 

cause strain accumulation, and thereby deformation, in granular soils.34 

Within the last decade a series of German Doctoral theses and papers studied the relationship 

between long-term, low-level ground vibrations and settlement in granular soils.35 These studies 

combined cyclic loaded, triaxial tests over a range of frequencies and up to 100,000 cycles with 

2-D numerical models. The key findings of these studies are: 

The cyclic loading follows Miner's rule. This was experimentally checked with multiple 

triaxial tests with over 100,000 cycles. Miner's rule (also called Miner's cumulative 

fatigue damage ratio) is based on the idea that every stress cycle (large or small) uses up 

a proportional part of the fatigue life of a structure. In granular soils, shear stresses 

(cyclic load) cause compaction until the void ratio for that particular stress level is 

reached. That stress can continue to be applied, but no additional compaction will occur. 

In a loading sequence, the peak stresses cause most of the settlement and are the most 

important. The average stress is unimportant. Also, the order or frequency that large or 

small stresses are applied does not alter the end result.36

In summary, the soil type, soil conditions, and peak vibration levels control the amount of 

settlement/compaction that can occur. No additional settlement will occur unless the vibration 

levels are increased.

In this analysis, we assume that the minimum shear strain to cause a soil volume change 

(settlement/compaction) is 0.01%.

 

33 Roy H. Borden, Lisheng Shao and Ayushman Gupta, Construction Related Vibrations, FHWA/NC/94-007, (Federal 

Highway Administration/North Carolina Division Study, 1994); S. Drabkin, H. Lacy and D.S. Kim, “Estimating 

Settlement of Sand Caused By Construction Vibration,” American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Geotechnical 

Engineering, (November, 1996), 920-928; K.R. Massarsch, “Settlements and Damage Caused by Construction-Induced 

Vibrations,” Proceedings from the International Workshop Wave (2000), 299-315; A.S. Suiker, “The Mechanical 

Behaviour of Ballasted Railway Tracks,” (Germany: Delft University: PhD thesis, 2002); C.C. Hsu and M. Vucetic, 

“Volumetric Threshold Shear Strain for Cyclic Settlement,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental 

Engineering (Vol. 130, No.1, 2004), 58-70. 34 T. Wichtmann, “Explicit Accumulation Model for Non-Cohesive Soils Under Cyclic Loading,” (Germany: 

University of Bochum: PhD thesis, 2005).

35 Suiker, 2002; S. Werkmeister, “Permanent Deformation Behaviour of Unbound Granular Materials in Pavement 

Constructions,” (Germany: Dresden University: PhD thesis, 2003);, Wichtmann, 2005; T. Wichtmann, A. Niemunis 

and T. Triantafyllidis, “Strain Accumulation in Sand Due to Drained Cyclic Loading,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake 

Engineering (Vol.30, No.8, 2010), 736-745. 36 C. Karg, “Modeling of Strain Accumulation Due to Low Level Vibrations in Granular Soils,” (Belgium: University 

of Gent, PhD thesis, 2007).
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

38

Within the Marysville Historic Commercial District, the near surface site soils are loose sands 

and likely have a relatively high void ratio. We assume that the shear velocity is in the 500 

ft/sec range.37 Using the recommended vibrations threshold of 0.08 in/sec maximum PPV:

Shear Strain = PPV/shear velocity

= [0.08 in/sec]/[(500 ft/sec)*(12 in/ft) 

= 0.000014 

= 0.0014% strain

This strain value is much less than the minimum strain (0.01%) needed for settlement to 

develop. It would require a PPV greater than 0.5 in/sec before settlement is likely to present a 

problem.

4.3.4 Conclusions

The overall conditions of the historic district contributing buildings range from poor to good. 

The concern is not necessarily with structural failure, but minor damage to materials already 

compromised by their current conditions or damage from loose decorative materials within the 

buildings. These include loose bricks, unsupported parapets, materials on unsecured shelves, 

and items not firmly attached to the walls.

Based on the proposed construction methods it appears the anticipated 0.05 in/sec levels are 

well below internationally recognized damage thresholds. The relatively good condition of 

most of the historic district buildings is another factor for consideration. Following the Caltrans 

manual and information in the general body of work on the subject, Garavaglia Architecture, 

Inc. recommends a conservative upper vibrations limit of 0.08 in/sec PPV. This value has a low 

probability of causing vibrations-related damage and is well within the anticipated range of 

vibrations induced by construction activities. 

 

37 B.O. Hardin and F.E. Richart Jr., “Elastic Wave Velocities in Granular Soils,” Proceedings of the American Society 

of Civil Engineers (Vol.89, No. SM1, 1963), Figures 6-7, 33-65.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

39

5. RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 PRE-CONSTRUCTION

Prior to beginning construction, it is important to establish the baseline conditions under 

normal circumstances. This provides a reference point for comparison of altered conditions both 

during and after construction. During this time, it is also highly recommended that public 

outreach be increased to prepare the residents and business-owners for the possible disruptions 

caused by construction activities. This is also an opportunity to educate the public on what they 

can do to minimize potential indirect damage of their property and to establish reasonable 

expectations for construction, communication, and project scope.

5.1.1 Establishing Baseline Vibrations Conditions

Ambient conditions along First Street and adjacent to the K1, K2, and L1 segments of the MRL 

project already include vibrations from heavy traffic, large vehicles, and regular freight train 

service. On top of this, these areas have been subjected to other intense development and 

construction project within the last 50 years, including major work on the Levee in the early 

1960s. In general, all buildings near the APE experience vibrations of some sort on a daily basis. 

It is possible that these ambient levels are below the anticipated construction-generated 

vibrations thresholds. However, only systematic testing of current, pre-construction conditions 

can establish the difference between the norm and the proposed. Therefore, the following tests 

are recommended:

• Proposed construction equipment and methods

Some of the construction methodologies being considered for the Phase 2b work are 

currently being implemented on another segment of the levee as part of Phase 1 work. 

Soil conditions are similar as well. Therefore, measurement of the vibrations generated 

by both equipment and methods in Phase 1 is directly applicable to work associated in 

Phase 2b. Measurements taken between June 21, 2011 and October 11, 2011 showed a 

vibrations range of 0.01 – 0.04 on average, as measured at the toe of levee. Comparing 

the theoretical and limited empirical data from the recommendations in this study with 

real-world conditions demonstrates the validity of the proposed construction methods 

to limit damages to historic resources from construction-related vibrations.

• Ambient vibrations levels from traffic and trains

The amount and types of traffic in the area generate surface vibrations do not yet appear 

to have caused aesthetic or structural damage to the historic district buildings. A 

comparison between the existing, daily vibrations levels to those anticipated for 

construction activities will provide for more detailed outreach and preparedness 

planning.

5.1.2 Establishing Baseline Building Conditions

Understanding the difference between current conditions and those anticipated during and 

after construction is even more critical for individual buildings. A reference point is necessary 

for comparison of condition changes during construction, and possibly for use in determining 

the cause of any conditions changes. As a means to protect the project sponsors from 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

40

unsubstantiated claims of damage, a baseline of existing building conditions should be recorded 

prior to starting construction. Depending on the resource and access to the various elevations 

and spaces for each building, different methodologies can be employed. Specific 

recommendations are as follows:

• 3D laser scans or photogrammetry

These methods are most appropriate for building exteriors or for spaces that are large 

enough to allow for entire walls to fit within a single view. Laser scans are the most 

common method for this type of recordation. It is fast and relatively cost effective. 

Multiple scans can be done in a single day with processing of the raw data completed 

over a period of several weeks. It is possible to collect the data and process it at a later 

date on an as-needed basis. In general, resolution and accuracy vary. Determination of 

the most appropriate equipment should be done in consultation with a trained operator 

who is experienced with scanning architectural subjects in the field. 

This method is recommended for relatively flat building surfaces where the view is 

straight on. For the most of the buildings on the south side of First Street, this 

technology can be used for the primary elevation at a minimum. Because of the number 

of empty lots, some buildings will be able to have up to three sides recorded in this 

manner.

• Systematic recordation with high resolution digital photographs 

As an alternate to laser scanning, thorough recordation of all surfaces with a digital 

camera can be used to establish a visible baseline of conditions. This method is relatively 

quick and inexpensive although it won’t be able to record hairline cracks with much 

precision and differences in rough surfaces, such as a sandblasted brick wall, may be 

difficult to discern. This method is best used in combination with a hand-recorded 

survey on interior elevation drawings. For all of the subject buildings in the historic 

district, interior and exterior elevation drawings would need to be created to enable 

accurate recordation of surface cracks and other existing conditions.

Photographs should be organized according to room and surface orientation. The 

organization system should be consistent throughout the project to enable comparison 

between before and after images.

• Installation of crack monitors 

Where cracks currently exist and appear to be actively moving, installation of crack 

monitors during pre-construction is recommended as a means to establish trends in 

movement prior to any construction activity. Once a baseline has been established, the 

monitors should be left in place and recorded at regular intervals over the course of 

construction. The relatively low cost and disposable nature of crack monitors makes 

them an economical way to track building movement over time.

5.1.3 Public Outreach & Education

One of the most important pre-construction recommendations is community outreach and 

education. The vibrations levels needed to cause aesthetic damage are higher than those 

commonly detected by people. Therefore, people are going to be well aware of the constructiongenerated vibrations, making them hyper-vigilant about any changes to their building. 

Communication regarding what types of construction are proposed, what levels of vibrations 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

41

they will likely experience, and for how long is important when striving to maintain positive 

pubic perception. The City of Marysville has earned a reputation for good public outreach. This 

should be used to the project sponsor’s advantage through the following actions:

• Public notification letters

All residents, owners, and business proprietors within 200-feet of the construction zone, 

and along all proposed haul routes, should be sent a letter that outlines the nature of the 

proposed construction, the approximate dates of construction, anticipated vibrations 

and other impacts (increased traffic, dirt and debris hauling, etc.) that may be 

experienced by these residents. Clearly communicated methods to report damage, file 

complaints, get more information, or otherwise engage the project sponsor should be 

provided. At a minimum, Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. recommends a dedicated hotline 

and monitored website to allow for two-way communication regarding construction 

activities. 

• Public meetings

A series of public forums should be scheduled to allow for direct dissemination of 

project-related information prior to the start of any construction in the area. At a 

minimum, the information in the notification letter should be presented and expanded 

upon. Adequate time for questions and answers should be accommodated. All questions 

and answers should then be posted online, or sent to interested parties.

• Dissemination of educational materials

As an added measure of good will and preparedness, the project sponsor should 

prepare a set of guidelines for residents to follow lessen chances of indirect damage, 

from falling items, improperly braced furniture, or other conditions that are outside the 

control of the project sponsor. At a minimum horizontal storage of fragile items should 

be encouraged. These recommendations would include movement of fragile items from 

high shelves to low, of attaching shelving to the wall, securely anchoring items hung on 

walls, and other methods to address decorating choices that could be impacted by 

construction vibration.

At a minimum, information should be readily available in print form at the public 

library, at City Hall and the local Post Office. If possible, a website should be established 

with public information such as these guidelines, project updates, photos, and a 

monitored method for registering comments or complaints.

5.1.4 Stabilizing 226 First Street

Even though the anticipated vibrations levels are below levels that are likely to cause damage, 

pre-construction installation of bracing to support the front facade, rear parapet, and the walls 

of the accessory building shell at the rear of 226 First Street is recommended.

• Front facade 

The front facade needs to be anchored back into the roofline to prevent complete 

separation. This can be accomplished using all-thread rod or cable through the masonry 

with a positive attachment to the existing roof framing. The attachment should be 

located approximately 8'-0" into the roof, behind the wall. Work should be detailed by a 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

42

structural engineer familiar with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and qualified 

to work with archaic masonry construction.

• Rear wall parapet 

The rear wall needs to be anchored into the roofline to prevent complete separation. This 

can be accomplished using all-thread rod or cable through the masonry with a positive 

attachment to the existing main roof framing. The attachment should be located 

approximately 8'-0" into the roof, in front of the wall. Work should be detailed by a 

structural engineer familiar with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and qualified 

to work with archaic masonry construction.

• Accessory building walls

Each of the four freestanding walls of this building should be braced. The simplest way 

would be to place a single concrete deadman in the middle of the four walls and attach a 

single standard tilt-up panel brace to each wall at the centerline and down to the 

deadman.

Each of these temporary bracing elements should be designed to be reversible with minimal 

attachments and be designed to be compliant with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

5.2 DURING CONSTRUCTION

5.2.1 Monitoring Plan

The anticipated vibrations levels for the proposed construction methods within the APE are 

below the generally accepted thresholds above which damage would be likely. Therefore, the 

construction methodology is unlikely to cause damage within the historic district. The 

recommendation is to monitor vibrations levels at the buildings and regularly inspect the 

buildings for damage during periods of construction in the immediate vicinity.

Buildings of concern and vibration limits

The listed properties are historic, fragile structures and the specified vibration limits are lower 

than those typically specified on similar construction projects. The information from vibration 

monitoring is used to help control the level of construction vibrations the properties will 

experience during construction activities. Most of the buildings are in fair to good condition, are 

occupied on a daily basis, and have some level of seismic strengthening. However because there 

are several buildings that are in poor condition, a worst-case approach is recommended to 

establish a baseline vibrations threshold for the entire district. Therefore, for the buildings in 

question, a vibrations limit of 0.08 in/sec is recommended. This level is the minimum vibrations 

level recommended by Caltrans, and is still below many international vibrations standards. This 

value is also below that generally required to cause damage to finishes in historic buildings.

Instrument and operator specifications

Monitoring equipment can be very helpful, but only if installed and used by qualified and 

trained personnel. These qualifications and specifications will be further developed during the 

design phase along with specific installation and monitoring guidelines. Base recommended 

requirements are:
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

43

• The vibration monitoring equipment should conform to the Performance Specifications For 

Blasting Seismographs, 2011 edition, issued by the International Society of Explosive 

Engineers (ISEE).38

• The installation of the monitoring equipment should conform to Part II, Sections A and 

B of the Field Practice Guidelines For Blasting Seismographs, 2009 edition, issued by the 

International Society of Explosive Engineers (ISEE).39

• Integral, three-axis geophones are recommended for project. All three axes should be 

monitored. Noise monitoring may be desired, but is not needed as part of the vibrations 

monitoring protocols. Microphones do not have to be installed.

• The vibration data should be recorded, stored, and analyzed digitally. Analog (paper) 

on-site printouts are not recommended because of their fragility and lack of reliable 

backup recordation systems.

• Waveform recording mode is acceptable. Cell modem instrument communications are 

also viable solutions. The operator would be responsible for confirmation of adequate 

cell coverage. On-site, 110-volt power may not be available at all lots and arrangements 

may be necessary to draw power from adjacent lots. 

• At the time of measurement the vibration monitoring equipment should have a current, 

valid calibration certificate.

• The operator should responsible for the maintenance and security of their equipment. 

The project Contractor should not be responsible for damaged or stolen instruments 

unless an instrument is directly damaged by Contractor activities. The operator should 

inform the Contractor and project sponsor of the location of the instruments via written 

documentation.

• The installation, operation, and analysis of the vibration monitoring instruments should 

be performed under the supervision of a Registered Civil Engineer, Geophysicist, or 

Geologist in the State of California who has at least five (5) years of experience and who 

has expertise in the field of vibration monitoring that includes instrument set up, data 

processing, and data interpretation (hereinafter referred to as the Instrumentation 

Professional). A technician under the supervision of the Instrumentation Professional 

may conduct the actual measurements. Further definition of “expertise” will be included 

in the specifications developed during the design phase for the project.

• Vibration-monitoring personnel, which include those persons, firms, or entities 

providing vibration monitoring, recording, documentation and the production of 

reports, should also have the qualifications specified above. The selected vibrationsmonitoring contractor should be independent and should be neither employed nor 

compensated by subcontractors, or by persons or entities hired by subcontractors, who 

 

38 International Society of Explosive Engineers, “Performance Specifications For Blasting Seismograph,” (ISEE, 2011). 39 International Society of Explosive Engineers, “Field Practice Guidelines For Blasting Seismographs,” (ISEE, 2009), 2-4; 

The referenced documents are for blasting, but the same instruments are used to monitor construction vibrations. The 

installation methodologies are the same regardless of the vibration-generation source.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

44

will provide other services or material for the Project. Monitoring personnel must be 

impartial to the outcomes of the monitoring and this neutrality should be readily 

verifiable.

 

Monitoring operations

Implementation of monitoring activities should follow a clear, logical plan. All parties involved 

should be aware of the plan including location of monitoring equipment and frequency of onsite monitoring equipment inspections or readings. To this end, the following are 

recommendations to guide development and implementation of such a plan:

• Prior to performing any vibration monitoring, including baseline vibration monitoring, 

the Contractor shall submit to the Engineer a written plan detailing the procedures for 

vibration monitoring. The plan shall include (but not be limited to) the following:

o The name of the firm providing the vibration monitoring services.

o Description of the instrumentation and equipment to be used.

o The proposed location(s) for the instruments.

o Methods for fixing the geophones to the ground or building.

o Data collection/analysis methods and procedures.

o The number of vibration monitors to be used on this project.

o Means and methods for providing warning when particle velocity exceeds 

specified limits.

o Name of the responsible person(s) designated by the Contractor that can stop 

vibration-producing work (as necessary).

o A contingency plan for alternative construction methods if the particle velocity 

exceeds the specified vibration limits.

• Pre-construction vibration levels (baseline monitoring) shall be monitored for three (3) 

weeks prior to construction activity occurring within 500-feet of the subject properties. 

Monitoring shall occur from 6 am to 9 pm, seven days a week during this time period. 

Monitoring equipment should be placed to monitor street traffic vibration levels. After 

completion of the baseline monitoring, the Contractor shall submit a report of findings 

to the Engineer in a timely manner.

Based on the results of this baseline monitoring, additional pre-construction stabilization 

measures may be considered.

• If possible, monitoring equipment should be placed within 2-feet of the building 

foundations on the side facing the Contractor's work site (south or rear for most 

buildings). Monitoring equipment can be placed either outside the perimeter foundation 

or in a crawlspace/ basement. For buildings whose construction-site frontage exceeds 

200-feet, at least 2 monitors shall be utilized at that location. If construction within the 

200-foot area occurs for one year or longer, provisions should be made to allow 

switching out individual instruments for yearly calibration without loss of monitoring 

coverage. Inoperative, damaged, and/or stolen instruments shall be replaced in a timely 

manner.

• The vibration monitoring equipment shall be in place and functioning properly prior to 

any construction activity within 200-feet of the listed properties or for work at greater 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

45

distances as determined by the Engineer. No construction activity shall occur within this 

200-foot zone unless the vibration monitoring equipment is active and functioning 

properly. The instruments should be on and recording between the hours of 7 am to 5 

pm, or at least 30-minutes before and after daily construction hours, whenever 

construction activities occur within the 200-foot zone.

• During construction monitoring, the Contractor should submit daily reports within 1-

hour of cessation of construction activities to the Engineer documenting the results of 

the vibration monitoring.

• All vibration monitoring reports should be reviewed and signed by the Instrumentation 

Professional. At a minimum, these reports should include:

o Project identification, location, project name, date, name of individual 

responsible for monitoring, name of individual who prepared report, and 

monitoring results with conclusions.

o Location of monitoring equipment, including the address of the monitored 

building or facility.

o Description and location of vibration source(s).

o If thresholds are exceeded, a description of any resulting damage and the actions 

taken to address the cause and damage, should also be included in the 

monitoring report.

• The vibration monitoring equipment shall be set up in a manner such that an immediate 

warning is given when a vertical peak velocity equal to or exceeding 0.08 in/sec is 

produced. The warning emitted by the vibration monitoring equipment should be 

instantaneously transmitted to the responsible person designated by the Contractor by 

means of warning lights, audible sounds, or electronic transmission. Notification to a 

cell phone, beeper, or other personal communication device is recommended. The 

responsible person shall have the authority to stop the work causing the vibrations. The 

Contractor should notify the Engineer every time the vibration exceeds the vibration 

limit.

• Further development of security procedures and qualifications for personnel will be 

included during the design phase for the project.

Out of Plane Monitoring

226 First Street has two areas of concern that require additional monitoring. The front wall of 

this building has noticeable separation from the sidewalls. In addition to preliminary bracing of 

this wall during pre-construction activities, biaxial tilt monitoring is recommended. The 

monitoring equipment should be installed at the top of the wall, at the northeast corner where 

maximum displacement is likely. It should be monitored continuously and should use a 

warning system similar to the vibration monitors. Warnings should be sent when displacement 

exceeds 1-degree from existing. This should be accompanied by cessation of all construction 

activities until the wall is supported with supplemental bracing, or repaired in a manner to limit 

further displacement.

At the rear of this property is a brick building shell. In addition to pre-construction bracing, 

biaxial tilt monitors should be installed at the top corners of each wall, for a total of eight (8) 

monitors. It should be monitored continuously and should use a warning system similar to the 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

46

vibration monitors. Warnings should be sent when displacement exceeds 1-degree from 

existing. This should be accompanied by cessation of all construction activities until the wall is 

supported with supplemental bracing, or repaired in a manner to limit further displacement.

Access and Security Considerations

The above guidelines assume that monitoring equipment can be placed next to the buildings 

foundations. If the owners refuse to provide access to their properties, the instruments may 

have to be set at the property line. Depending on the distance between the property line and the 

building foundation, this could have a significant effect on Contractor operations. Vibrations 

readings of 0.1 in/sec at 50-feet from construction activities imply a potentially different set of 

circumstances than 0.1 in/sec at a building foundation located 100-feet from construction 

activities. Because the property lines along First Street are much closer to the construction-site

than the building foundations, monitors at the property line could potentially record higher 

vibrations levels than what is actually experienced by the buildings themselves. Outreach to 

building owners in critical, early in the pre-construction phases, to educate them on the 

monitors, access frequency, and its impact on safety for their properties. Most buildings are 

businesses and are occupied during normal work hours. This should enable regular 

maintenance of the monitors with advanced notification to building tenants and owners.

Locations

For the historic district, monitors should be placed along the rear elevations of the buildings 

along the south side of First Street. To reiterate, these locations are:

• 226 First Street

• 228 First Street

• 230 First Street

• 232 First Street

• 310/310 1⁄2 First Street

• 312/312 1⁄2 First Street

• 320 First Street

• 322 First Street

• 324 First Street

• 330 First Street

• 7 D Street

One instrument should be placed immediately north of the Bok Kai Temple, within the rear of 

the 7 D Street property to monitor vibrations for the temple as well as for 7 D Street, 330, 324, 

322, and 320 First Street. If permissible by the owner, this monitor would also serve to record 

conditions relevant to the Bok Kai Temple. A second monitor should be placed at the rear of 312 

First Street to monitor vibrations near 310 and 312 First Street. At the far eastern end of the 

district, a vibrations monitor should be placed inside the burned brick shell behind 226 First 

Street. Two more monitors should be placed at the southwest corner of 232 First Street and at 

the southeast corner of 226 First Street.

For the Historic District, that is a recommended total of five monitors. Depending on how 

construction activities are organized, some of the instruments at the east end of the site could be 

shifted west as construction progresses

Maintenance
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

47

Remote access to the monitoring equipment is recommended. This is most cost effective if 110-

volt power can be provided on a continuous basis. If a live power feed is not available, there is a 

reliance on battery-supplied power. Typically, an instrument can stay in the field for six (6) days 

before it has to be recharged. Depending on the installation, this would require replacement of 

the external batteries or removal for overnight recharging an average of once a week. This 

would require site visits at a minimum frequency of once a week. If a direct power source is 

available, the number of site visits can be reduced to once every four (4) to six (6) weeks. 

Batteries can be recharged with solar cells, but this greatly complicates secure installation and 

makes the units greater targets for theft. Secure installations can be done, but the associated 

costs are higher. An alternative to regular site visits to maintain the equipment is to train a 

Contractor technician to download the data from the instruments and change the batteries or 

charge the instruments as needed.

5.2.2 Regular Field Inspections

Remote monitoring of vibrations levels will not necessarily indicate the existing conditions at 

the site. To avoid causing unnecessary damage, a regular inspection routine is recommended. 

This is a quick visual survey of focused areas where the most sensitive historical resources are 

located. A standard methodology, perhaps a checklist, should be developed to guide these 

inspections and provide for consistency across the project’s duration.

• The contributing historic district buildings on the south side of First Street should be 

inspected weekly, either at the end of the construction shift, or just before it, during 

construction on the Phase 2B segment. Any changes in condition should be immediately 

reported. Depending on the nature of damage, steps should be taken to temporarily halt 

any ongoing construction until a remedy is implemented.

• When a monitoring station in the area records a PPV above the recommended vibrations 

threshold of 0.08 in/sec, a complete visual inspection of the subject buildings should be 

completed. The pre-construction documentation should be used as a base to record any 

additional conditions discovered during this inspection.

• If a crack monitor on a building registers movement of 1/32-inch or 1⁄2-millimeter, a 

complete visual inspection the interior and exteriors of that building should be 

completed. The pre-construction documentation should be used as a base to record any 

additional conditions discovered during this inspection.

5.2.3 Equipment Protections

The southern section of the Downtown Marysville Historic Commercial District located 

immediately adjacent to the portions of existing levee. The proposed staging site is immediately 

adjacent to the most fragile of these buildings. Currently, chain link fence surrounds these 

buildings. Additional measures should be installed to prevent errant materials and equipment 

from contacting the buildings near the staging site. Any fencing or barricades should be 

reversible and temporary while still providing adequate protection for the resources nearby. 

5.2.4 Dust & Debris Control

Barriers to prevent debris from striking the buildings should be put in place prior to the start of 

construction. In addition, a dust mitigation plan should be created to limit dissemination of 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

48

airborne particles into interior spaces of the businesses and offices housed within the buildings

The nature of the barriers should be determined once the exact scope of construction activities 

and methodologies in the area has been finalized since barrier protection should be based on 

potential hazards. No barriers should be directly attached to the buildings or situated as to 

cause damage to the building.

5.3 POST-CONSTRUCTION 

5.3.1 Establishing Baseline Building Conditions

Understanding the difference between current conditions and those recorded prior to the start 

of construction is necessary to understanding the nature of any potential construction-related 

deterioration. As a means to protect the project sponsors from unsubstantiated claims of 

damage, a post-construction existing building conditions should be recorded after completion 

of construction. Depending on the resource and access to the various elevations and spaces for 

each building, different methodologies can be employed.

• 3D laser scans or photogrammetry

These methods are most appropriate for building exteriors or for spaces that are large 

enough to allow for entire walls to fit within a single view. Laser scans are the most 

common method for this type of recordation. It is fast and relatively cost effective. 

Multiple scans can be done in a single day with processing of the raw data completed 

over a period of several weeks. It is possible to collect the data and process it at a later 

date on an as-needed basis. In general, resolution and accuracy vary. Determination of 

the most appropriate equipment should be done in consultation with a trained operator 

who is experienced with scanning architectural subjects in the field. 

This method is recommended for relatively flat building surfaces where the view is 

straight on. For the most of the buildings on the south side of First Street, this 

technology can be used for the primary elevation at a minimum. Because of the number 

of empty lots, some buildings will be able to have up to three sides recorded in this 

manner.

• Systematic recordation with high resolution digital photographs 

As an alternate to laser scanning, thorough recordation of all surfaces with a digital 

camera can be used to establish a visible baseline of conditions. This method is relatively 

quick and inexpensive although it won’t be able to record hairline cracks with much 

precision and differences in rough surfaces, such as a sandblasted brick wall, may be 

difficult to discern. This method is best used in combination with a hand-recorded 

survey on interior elevation drawings. For all of the subject buildings in the historic 

district, interior and exterior elevation drawings would need to be created to enable 

accurate recordation of surface cracks and other existing conditions.

Photographs should be organized according to room and surface orientation. The 

organization system should be consistent throughout the project to enable comparison 

between before and after images.

• Installation of crack monitors 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

49

Inexpensive and effective, crack monitors can be installed in sensitive locations with no 

impact on the historic resource and very little visual impact for tenants and building 

owners. They will require regular on-site monitoring. This will provide for quantitative 

measurement of building movement but may not necessarily indicate movement from 

construction. Comparison with construction activities and other signs of potential 

damage should be made to more accurately determine the cause for movement of 

measured cracks.

The collected information can then be directly compared to the pre-construction conditions 

records to determine any changes since the start of construction activities. Any changes must 

then be evaluated to more precisely determine the cause of damage and to establish if damage 

can be directly attributed to construction, or if it is the result of inevitable wear from poor 

conditions already present prior to construction.

5.4 MITIGATIONS

While no construction-related impacts are anticipated as a result of the projected vibrations 

levels, certain mitigation measures may be necessary if conditions worsen at any of the subject 

buildings. Proposed mitigations range from temporary solutions to brace walls, to permanent 

solutions that improve the overall stability of the buildings. 

5.4.1 Masonry Repointing

Mortar joints throughout the historic district are relatively soft and deteriorated. This weakens 

the overall wall matrix through a lack of bond between the individual masonry units. 

Prolonged exposure to vibrations may dislodge poor mortar. This will be indicated along the 

base of masonry walls by visible quantities of sand, or red-tinted dust. While some dust is 

frequent in most of the building interiors, the condition could be made worse through 

construction-related vibrations. Where building interiors are sealed or covered, or where

building exteriors are covered with stucco, these conditions may not be readily visible or 

detectable even through non-destructive means. 

The only repair for this condition is to repoint the wall. Replacement mortar should match the 

original to the greatest degree possible. This may mean using a mortar mix that has a high lime 

content and little-to-no cement. Using a mortar that is too hard will further weaken the wall by 

destroying the brick units. A proper mortar mix can be determined through testing samples of 

the exiting mortar according to the provisions of ASTM 1324. Once a proper mix is determined, 

the walls should be pointed by a skilled mason who is familiar with working with archaic 

masonry construction.

Construction can continue during this process provided no brick units are dislodging and no 

additional cracking of the walls is observed.

5.4.2 Unit Replacement

As noted elsewhere in this report, the quality of masonry throughout the district varies widely. 

In most exterior walls, sound units are next to failed and the poor units are randomly 

distributed throughout the wall. Some deterioration is the result of poorly executed previous 

repairs. Some is the result of moisture trapped in the wall from non-functioning site and 

building drainage systems. As a result of poor materials, and missing mortar, there are areas 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

50

where individual units are quite loose and may become dislodged as a result of prolonged 

exposure to low-level vibrations. 

If units become dislodged, construction within 200-feet of the affected building should stop 

immediately. An assessment of the causes of falling material should be made immediately to 

determine if the incident was an individual occurrence or if it is part of a larger eminent failure. 

If the wall is unstable, measures to stabilize the wall should be made prior to repair of the 

missing unit.

Once the causes for dislodging are determined and mitigated, replacement of the unit should be 

made with mortar that is compatible with the historic materials. Units should be of similar size, 

coloring, and strength, and should have similar surface textures and characteristics as 

surrounding units. Use of salvaged brick is acceptable if it is still in serviceable condition and 

meets the aforementioned criteria.

5.4.3 Wall Bracing

If walls, wall sections, or parapets begin to tilt out-of-plane, all construction within 200-feet of 

the affected building should stop and the walls should be braced immediately. A temporary 

solution for bracing small areas such as parapets is to install 2x6 or larger lumber across the area 

to distribute the load of the failing area throughout a larger region. Diagonal braces should then 

be installed against the horizontal members at regular intervals. The spacing and number of 

braces should be determined by a structural engineer and should be based on the degree of 

failure and condition of the surrounding walls.

For larger areas, immediate installation of positive connections to roof or floor diaphragms may 

be needed. In these cases, a qualified structural engineer should be consulted immediately to 

prevent catastrophic damage. All wall bracing should be designed to be compliant with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

51

6. SUMMARY 

The Marysville Historic Commercial District is significant as a representative of the success and 

importance of the area during the California Gold Rush and throughout the next century. As a 

hub of regional commerce well into the 20th century, it has a wealth of architectural styles that 

span the built history of modern California. Those buildings along First Street are particularly 

significant for their association with one of the state’s earliest and largest 19th century Chinese 

communities. Sensitivity to these features is a critical part of designing a project that complies 

with Section 106 and CEQA. 

As proposed, the construction methods anticipated for completion of the Phase 2B section of the 

Marysville Ring Levee project will not pose a significant risk to the Marysville Historic 

Commercial District or to other historic resources in the area. To help limit any potential 

impacts, limited recommendations for documentation and monitoring should be implemented. 

These include:

• Bracing of 226 First Street and the accessory structure on this property

• Establishing baseline conditions through laser scanning or digital photogrammetry

• Implementation of a comprehensive vibrations monitoring plan

• Installation and monitoring of crack monitors 

• Installation of debris, equipment, and dust barriers

• Public outreach

• Post-construction affirmation of building conditions through re-surveying (laser 

scanning or digital photogrammetry)

Vibration will occur at levels detectable by humans but should remain well below the levels 

generally required to cause aesthetic damage. Structural damage is highly unlikely based on the 

current analysis. Provided limited pre-construction stabilization measures are implemented, 

vibrations levels remain under the recommended threshold of 0.08 in/sec, and the project is 

properly monitored to verify that levels remain below this threshold, impacts to the historic 

resources are highly unlikely.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

52

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

7.1 REFERENCE CITED

Borden, Shao and Gupta. “Construction Related Vibrations,” Federal Highway 

Administration/North Carolina Division Study, FHWA/NC/94-007 (1994).

Caltrans. Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. State of California 

Department of Transportation, 2004.

Chae, Yong S., “Design of Excavation Blasts to Prevent Damage.” Civil Engineering, Vol. 48, No. 

4, 1978. 

Chung, Dr. Sue Fawn and Ross Nelson. National Register of Historic Places Nomination: Bok Kai 

Temple, Marysville, California. 2001.

Code of Federal Regulations, Section 36, Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties, Subpart B, Section 

800.5(2)(i-vii). Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 2004.

Drabkin, S., Lacy, H, and Kim, D.S. “Estimating Settlement of Sand Caused By Construction 

Vibration,” American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (November, 

1996).

Hanson, Carl E., Towers, David A., and Lance D. Meister. Transit Noise and Vibrations Impact 

Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Federal Transit Administration, 2006.

Hardin, B.O. and Richart Jr., F.E. “Elastic Wave Velocities in Granular Soils,” Proceedings of the 

American Society of Civil Engineers (1963), 89, no. SM1.

Hsu, C.C., and Vucetic, M. “Volumetric Threshold Shear Strain for Cyclic Settlement,” Journal of 

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (2004), 130, no.1

International Society of Explosive Engineers. Performance Specifications For Blasting Seismographs.

ISEE, 2011.

---- Field Practice Guidelines For Blasting Seismographs. ISEE, 2009.

Karg, C. 2007; Modeling of Strain Accumulation Due to Low Level Vibrations in Granular Soils. 

Belgium: University of Ghent: PhD thesis (2007).

Massarsch, K.R. “Settlements and Damage Caused by Construction-Induced Vibrations,” 

Proceedings from the International Workshop Wave (2000)

Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California State 

Historic Preservation Officer, Regarding the Marysville Ring Levee Project, Yuba County, California. 

March 2011.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

53

Memorandum for Record: Marysville Ring Levee EDR – Bok Kai Temple Construction Impact 

Evaluation. January 14, 2010.

Napoli, Donald. National Register of Historic Places Nomination: Marysville Historic Commercial 

District. 1999. 

Professional Service Industries, Inc. Report of Preconstruction Survey and Vibration Monitoring 

Services, LSU Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana. Stanley Group. January 13, 2010.

Siskind, D.E., Skagg, M.S., Kopp, J.W. and C.H. Dowding. Structure Response and Damage 

Produced by Ground Vibration From Surface Mine Blasting. United States Bureau of Mines, 1989.

Suiker, A.S. The Mechanical Behaviour of Ballasted Railway Tracks. Germany: Delft University: PhD 

thesis (2002).

United States Army Corps of Engineers. Final, Marysville Ring Levee, Yuba River Basin, California, 

Environmental Assessment, Initial Study. April 2010.

United States Department of Transportation. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment, Report 293630-1. USDOT, 1998.

Werkmeister, S. Permanent Deformation Behaviour of Unbound Granular Materials in Pavement 

Constructions. Germany: Dresden University: PhD thesis (2003).

Whiffen, A. C., A Survey of Traffic-Induced Vibrations. Crowthorne, Berkshire, England: United 

Kingdom Department of Environment, Road Research Laboratory, 1971. 

Wichtmann,T. Explicit Accumulation Model for Non-Cohesive Soils Under Cyclic Loading. Germany: 

University of Bochum: PhD thesis (2005).

Wichtmann, T. Niemunis, A, and Triantafyllidis, T. “Strain Accumulation in Sand Due to 

Drained Cyclic Loading,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (2010), 30, no.8.

7.2 REFERENCES CONSULTED 

Amick, H. and Gendreau, M. “Construction Vibrations and Their Impact On Vibration-Sensitive 

Facilities,” American Society of Civil Engineers Construction Congress (2000).

Anderson, T.L. Fracture Mechanics, Fundamentals and Applications, New York: CRC Press, 1995.

Boone, S.J., Westland, J., and Nusink, R. “Comparative Evaluation of Building

Responses to an Adjacent Braced Excavation,” Canadian Geotech Journal (1999), v. 36.

Brandenberg, S.J., Coe, J., Nigbor, R.L. and Tanksley, K. “Different Approaches For Estimating 

Ground Strains From Pile Driving Vibrations At a Buried Archeological Site,” Journal of 

Geotechncial and Geoenvironmental Engineering (2009), 135, no.8.

BSI Group. BS 5228-2: Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open 

Sites. 2009.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

54

BSI Group. BS 7385-2: Evaluation and Measurement for Vibration in Buildings, Guide to Damage 

Levels From Groundborne Vibration. 1993

CalTrans. “Survey of Earth-Borne Vibrations Due to Highway Construction and Highway 

Traffic,” Report CA-DOT-TL-6391-1-76-20 (1976).

---- “Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations,” Technical Advisory, Vibration TAV-02-

01-R9601 (2002).

---- “Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations,” Technical Advisory, TAV-04-01-R0201

(2004).

Cardno, C. “Monitoring Vibrations in the Interests of Archaeology,” Civil Engineering 

(February, 2008).

Chiostrini, S., Marradi, A., and Vignoli, A. “Evaluation of Traffic-Induced Vibrations in Historic 

Buildings: The case of the 'Galleria Varariana' in Florence,” Transactions on the Built Environment 

(1995), 55.

Clemente, P. and Rinaldis, D. “Protection of a Monumental Building Against Traffic-Induced 

Vibrations,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (1998), 17

DIN 4150-1, Erschütterungen im Bauwesen; Vorermittlung und Messung von Schwingungsgrössen.

(Vibrations in Building; Principles, Predetermination and Measurement of the Amplitude of 

Oscillations). Vornorm DIN 4150 Teil 1, Deutsches Institut für Normung, Beuth Verlag GmbH, 

Berlin, 2001.

DIN 4150-2, Erschütterungen im Bauwesen; Einwirkungen auf Menschen in Gebäuden. (Vibrations in 

Building; Influence on Persons in Buildings). Vornorm DIN 4150 Teil 2 bzw. Entwurf Norm DIN 

4150 Teil 2, Deutsches Institut für Normung, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, 1975 bzw. 1999.

DIN 4150-3, Vibrations in Building; Effects on Structures. (available also in German). Norm DIN 

4150 Teil 3, Deutsches Institut für Normung, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, 1999.

Dowding, Charles. Construction Vibrations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall International, 

1996.

---- Micrometer Crack Response to Vibration and Weather. Cleveland: International Society of 

Explosives Engineers, 2008.

Friedman, D. “Ambiguity in Building Investigation: A study of sampling and decision-making 

with field data,” Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology (2000), 31, no. 2/3.

Hassan, Obama A.B. Train-Induced Groundborne Vibration and Noise in Buildings. Essex, United 

Kingdom: Multi-Science Publishing Company Ltd., 2006.

Henwood, J.T. and Haramy, K.Y. 2002; Vibrations Induced by Construction Traffic: A historic case 

study. Federal Highway Administration, available at 

www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/geotech/geo_support/geophysics_geology/documents/geophysics

2002/043henwood_construction_vibrations.pdf
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

55

Hiller D.M. and Crabb G.I. “Groundborne Vibration Caused By Mechanized Construction 

Works,” Transport and Road Research Laboratory 429 (2000).

Jackson, M.W. “Thresholds of Damage Due to Ground Motion,” Proceedings of the International 

Symposium on Wave Propagation (1967): 961-969.

Jackson, N.M., Hammons, M.I., Walker, R. and H. Von Quintus. “Use of Nondestructive 

Techniques to Estimate the Allowable Vibratory Compaction Level During Construction,” State 

of Florida Research Report FL/DOT/SMO/07-BDB-11 (2007).

Korkmaz, K.A., Ay, Z, Keskin, S.S., and Ceditoulu, D. 2010; “Investigation of Traffic-Induced 

Vibrations on Masonry Buildings in Turkey and Countermeasures,” Journal of Vibration and 

Control (2010) 17, no.1.

Martin, D.J. “Ground Vibrations Caused By Road Construction Operations,” Transport and Road 

Research Laboratory 328 (1977).

---- “Ground Vibrations From Impact Pile Driving,” Transport and Road Research Laboratory

544 (1980).

Melkumyan, M.; 2001; “Proposal on Movement of the Church” Transactions on the Built 

Environment (2001), 55

Oriard, L.L. “The Effects of Vibrations and Environmental Forces,” International Society of 

Explosive Engineers (1999).

Rainer, J.H. “Effects of Vibrations on Historic Buildings, an Overview,” Bulletin of the Association 

for Preservation Technology 11, no.1 (1982): 2-10.

Sedovic, W. “Assessing the Effect of Vibration On Historic Buildings.” Bulletin of the Association 

for Preservation Technology 16, no. 3/4 (1984): 52-61.

Skipp, B.O. “Ground Dynamics and Man-Made Processes: Prediction, Design and 

Management,” Ground Engineering Board (1998): 29-38.

Walter, E.J. “Long Term Vibration and Damage Effects,” Proceedings of the Second Conference of 

Explosives and Blasting Techniques (1976): 249-252.

Walter, E.J. and Walter Jr. E.J. “Low Level Continuous Vibration and Potential Damage,”

Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of Explosives and Blasting Techniques (1979): 206-219.

Watts, G.R. “Traffic-Induced Ground-Borne Vibrations in Dwellings,” Transport and Road 

Research Laboratory 102 (1987).

---- “Case Studies of Effects of Traffic Induced Vibrations on Heritage Buildings,” Transport 

and Road Research Laboratory 156 (1988).

---- “Traffic Induced Vibrations In Buildings,” Transport and Road Research Laboratory 246 

(1990).
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

56

Wiss, J.F. “Construction Vibrations: State of the Art,” Journal of Soil Mechanics Division, ASCE 107 

(1981): 167-181.
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

57

8. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 

Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. is a full service architecture firm located in San Francisco, 

specializing in providing historic preservation architecture and planning services. Founded in 

1986, we have worked with Federal, State and local clients for over 25 years. We have a wide 

range of professional experience with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties, NEPA, CEQA, and Section 106 compliance, and 

application of the California Building Code, California Historical Building Code, energy codes, 

and accessibility regulations (including ADA) to a variety of building and structure types. The 

firm has an in-house staff of architects, historians, and building conservation professionals who

exceed the Professional Qualifications Standards used by the National Park Service, previously 

published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61 in either Historic Architecture or 

Architectural History. 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

A 

APPENDIX A: FIRST STREET BUILDING SUMMARIES 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 

Historic Structures Impact Report 

A3

228 FIRST STREET

Date of Construction: 

1858/1913 

Historic Name/Use: 

n/a 

Current Name/Use: 

Kim Wing 

Building/Vacant 

Historical Notes: 

The National Register 

nomination indicates 

the second floor was 

added and the façade 

remodeled in 1913. 

Observed Construction: 

• Walls 

o Exposed brick (front) 

o Stuccoed brick (east and 

south) 

• Floors 

o Wood framed 

• Roof 

o n/a 

• Foundation 

o n/a 

• Seismic or other strengthening 

o No seismic retrofit work 

apparent. 

• Other 

o Tall parapet is not braced 

o Appears to share a party wall 

with 230 First Street 

Observed Conditions: The building has been vacant for some time. A second story rear porch 

and a first floor shed-roof addition have been removed. Cracks are visible in the stucco on the 

east elevation Most windows are missing and/or boarded up. The wood storefront is heavily 

damaged. 

Recommendations: 

• Install crack monitors on west elevation 

• Visually monitor façade for falling materials 

• Electronically monitor for vibration levels 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 

Historic Structures Impact Report 

A4

230 FIRST STREET

Date of Construction: 

1860 

Historic Name/Use: 

n/a 

Current Name/Use: 

Vacant 

Historical Notes: 

The National Register 

nomination indicates 

the second floor was 

added at an unknown 

date. 

Observed Construction: 

• Walls 

o Exposed brick 

• Floors 

o Wood framed 

• Roof 

o n/a 

• Foundation 

o n/a 

• Seismic or other strengthening 

o No seismic retrofit work 

apparent. 

• Other 

o Parapet is not braced 

Observed Conditions: The building has been vacant for some time. Water damage is evident on 

the interior as viewed through the damaged storefront. Partial collapse of the second floor has 

occurred and the storefront windows are falling inward. Window openings at the rear are 

covered with corrugated metal sheeting. All this damage suggests the roof is severely damaged 

as well. 

Recommendations: 

• Visually monitor building for additional falling materials 

• Electronically monitor for vibration levels 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 

Historic Structures Impact Report 

A5

232 FIRST STREET 

Date of Construction: 

1858 

Historic Name/Use: 

n/a 

Current Name/Use: 

Chinese American 

Museum 

Historical Notes: 

National Register 

nomination indicates 

second floor added 

c.1925. C St. façade had 

additional windows, all 

topped with arched 

headers. A central door 

or window appears to 

have been removed on 

the 2nd floor front 

elevation.

Observed Construction: 

• Walls 

o Stuccoed brick with murals 

o Wood and exposed brick 

strorefront 

• Floors 

o Wood framed 

• Roof 

o n/a 

• Foundation 

o n/a 

• Seismic or other strengthening 

o Minimal bolting (note stars 

in the above image) at the 

second floor level noted 

• Other 

o 1st floor museum, 2nd fl 

apartment and meeting room 

o settlement noted on 2nd floor 

at NW corner 

Observed Conditions: This building originally fronted both First and C Streets. It has a first 

floor with a number of tall, arched openings along the first floor facing C Street. Cracks are 

visible in the stucco where these arched openings have been filled in. This building is reportedly 

open on a limited basis. The stucco on the rear elevation is failing at the ground floor level. A 

large blue tarp is covering the rear of the east wall where a second floor addition to the 

neighboring building has been removed. The parapet appears to be unbraced. Numerous items 

are loosely attached to the walls on the 1st fl. 

Recommendations: 

• Install crack monitors on west elevation 

• Visually monitor façade for falling materials 

• Electronically monitor for vibration levels 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 

Historic Structures Impact Report 

A6

310-312 FIRST STREET 

Date of Construction: 

c.1860 

Historic Name/Use: 

n/a 

Current Name/Use: 

Offices 

Historical Notes: 

These two separate 

buildings were 

constructed about the 

same time. They have 

been altered to their 

current appearance at 

an unknown date. 

Observed Construction: 

• Walls 

o Exposed brick walls (front 

and west) 

o Sanded stucco finish on brick 

walls (east) 

• Floors 

o Wood framed (suspected) 

• Roof 

o n/a 

• Foundation 

o n/a 

• Seismic or other strengthening 

o No seismic retrofit work 

apparent. 

• Other 

o Parapet bracing is unknown. 

o Interior brick sealed 

o Thru-wall crack on west wall 

Observed Conditions: These buildings were originally flanked by other brick structures and 

shared a party wall. Brick ledgers to support second floor joists are visible. The east side of the 

pair has been stuccoed. This stucco is delaminated along the entire eastern façade. The west side 

has had multiple repairs executed with modern infill brick units. Failure of the historic brick 

surrounds these repairs. Bricks are severely damaged. A full height crack is located along the 

northern 1/3 of the west elevation. Brick dust noted on interior. 210 1⁄2 used as private residence. 

Recommendations: 

• Install crack monitors on west elevation 

• Visually monitor façade for falling materials 

• Electronically monitor for vibration levels 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 

Historic Structures Impact Report 

A7

320 FIRST STREET 

Date of Construction: 

1860 

Historic Name/Use: 

Davis Hotel 

Current Name/Use: 

Retail/Offices 

Historical Notes: 

Originally housed retail 

and residential uses. 

Became an infamous 

brothel that operated 

up to the 1960s. 

National Register 

nomination notes the 

storefront was first 

altered c.1900. The 

current storefront is 

much more recent. 

Observed Construction: 

• Walls 

o Exposed brick walls (front) 

o Rough stucco finish on brick 

walls (side) 

• Floors 

o Wood framed (suspected) 

• Roof 

o n/a 

• Foundation 

o n/a 

• Seismic or other strengthening 

o Minimal bolting at the 

second floor level noted 

o Does not meet current codes 

• Other 

o No parapet bracing 

o Seismic retrofit in 1980s 

o Back section is 8-10” below 

grade 

o Openings in party wall 

infilled – former exterior wall 

o Floor slopes toward rear 

o Roof drains may not be 

functioning 

Observed Conditions: The exterior walls have been heavily sandblasted and are in poor 

condition. In some location the former stucco façade appears to have been manually chipped off 

the brick surface. The mortar is deteriorated and loose brick units were observed, especially at 

the parapet. First floor largely vacant. 

Recommendations: 

• Visually monitor façade for falling materials 

• Electronically monitor for vibration levels 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 

Historic Structures Impact Report 

A8

322 FIRST STREET 

Date of Construction: 

Post-1860 

Historic Name: 

n/a 

Current Name/Use: 

Offices 

Historical Notes: 

The National Register 

nominations notes this 

building originally 

contained a mix of 

retail and residential 

uses. It also functioned 

as an annex to a brothel 

located next door at 320 

First Street. 

Observed Construction: 

• Walls 

o Exterior brick walls 

• Floors 

o Wood framed (suspected) 

• Roof 

o n/a 

• Foundation 

o n/a 

• Seismic or other strengthening 

o No seismic retrofit work 

apparent. 

• Other 

o Parapet bracing is unknown 

o Arched windows filled in 

o CMU rear wall 

o 2 party walls – appears 

building was an infill 

between neighboring 

structures

Observed Conditions: The brick is heavily sandblasted. Remnants of previous signage are 

embedded in the walls. Water staining noted at ceiling on interior. Brick dust on interior 

Recommendations: 

• Electronically monitor for vibrations levels 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 

Historic Structures Impact Report 

A9

324 FIRST STREET 

Date of Construction: 

1858 

Historic Name: 

Senator Hotel 

Current Name/Use: 

Offices 

Historical Notes: 

Building altered in 1980 

to its current 

appearance. The 1999 

district National 

Register nomination 

lists the building as too 

altered and designated 

it a non-contributing 

structure within the 

historic district. 

Observed Construction: 

• Walls 

o Exterior brick walls furred 

out 

o Finished with modern brick 

o Central masonry partition 

wall 

• Floors 

o Wood frame 

o Partial mezzanine level 

• Roof 

o n/a 

• Foundation 

o n/a 

• Seismic or other strengthening 

o No seismic retrofit work 

apparent. 

• Other 

o Original first floor was cast 

iron storefront 

o Only columns remain 

o Front elevation finished in 

stucco c.1920s, likely 

sandblasted since 

Observed Conditions: Exterior surfaces incorporate a limited number of original elements – 

terra cotta cornice panels and cast iron storefront columns. The arches were an original design 

element that has been recreated in the new, c.1980 façade. No material or structural problems 

were noted on the exposed exterior surfaces. 2nd fl. unfinished and under construction. 

Recommendations: 

• Electronically monitor for vibrations levels 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 

Historic Structures Impact Report 

A10

330 FIRST STREET 

Date of Construction: 

c.1854 

Historic Name: 

n/a 

Current Name/Use: 

Silver Dollar Saloon 

Historical Notes: 

The Silver Dollar 

Saloon was established 

by Robert Nicoletti in 

1979. The current 

owner could provide 

no further historical or 

construction related 

information. Façade 

unchanged since 1999. 

Observed Construction: 

• Walls 

o Interior and exterior walls 

furred out 

o Finished with modern 

materials 

o Brick construction 

• Floors 

o Wood finish on wood 

framing 

• Roof 

o Hip 

o Wood framed 

• Foundation 

o No basement (according to 

owner information). Access 

was allowed to the first floor 

dining area only. 

• Seismic or other strengthening 

o No seismic retrofit work 

apparent. 

• Other 

o n/a 

Observed Conditions: Walls covered and conditions could not be directly observed. No 

obvious signs of material or structural failure were apparent. The interior space is heavily 

decorated with items hanging on the walls and from the ceiling. Falling materials may be of 

concern. Water damage apparent at southeast corner of 2nd fl. Minor plaster delamination and 

cracking on 2nd fl. 

Recommendations: 

• Secure loose items to the walls 

• Electronically monitor for vibrations levels 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 

Historic Structures Impact Report 

A11

7 D STREET 

Date of Construction: 

c.1856 

Historic Name: 

Private residence 

Current Name/Use: 

Private residence 

Historical Notes: 

Reportedly built for a 

Chinese doctor. Been in 

current owner’s family 

c.40 years 

Observed Construction: 

• Walls 

o Brick masonry 

o Plaster finish on interior 

• Floors 

o Wood finish on wood 

framing, carpet 

• Roof 

o Replaced c.2005 

• Foundation 

o none observed 

• Seismic or other strengthening 

o No seismic retrofit work 

apparent. 

• Other 

o Minor interior plaster 

cracking, mostly original 

trim and details 

o Brick sandblasted 

Observed Conditions: Excellent condition given age and location. It has been well maintained 

with no apparent conditions issues apart from minor cracking and a previous leak in the 

stacked bathroom areas. 

Recommendations: 

• Electronically monitor for vibrations levels 
MARYSVILLE HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Historic Structures Impact Report 

B 

APPENDIX B: 1999 NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT NOMINATION