SS Red Oak Victory

 

There are many good reasons the proposed relocation of the SS Red Oak Victory is a bad idea, and they have been discussed in detail in previous E-FORUMs. I want to elaborate on just two: laydown
area and parking.

 

Currently, the pier serving the SS Red Oak Victory has a laydown area approximately 346 feet by 60 feet equaling 20,760 SF, nearly half an acre. Much of it is used to store material and equipment
essential to the maintenance and operation of the ship, including, a boom lift, forklift, dumpsters, temporary lighting and spare parts.

 

 

Figure 1 – Current location of SS Red Oak Victory

Figure 2 – Equipment north of bow

Figure 3 – Dumpsters

Figure 4 – Fork lift, boom lift in background

Figure 5 – Stored materials and spare parts

Figure 6 – Pallets and paint storage

Figure 7 – Temporary lighting and spare parts

At the proposed relocation destination, the distance from the edge of the parking lot to the top of bank at the shore is about 40 feet. Within that 40 feet is the Bay Trail, which has a 12-foot
width plus 3 feet of shoulder each side. That leaves about

20 feet to the top of bank, which is occupied by a row of trees and grass. There is no room at all for a paved laydown and storage area.

 

Figure 8 – Bay trail looking north at proposed SS red Oak Victory relocation

Figure 9 – Bay trail looking south at proposed SS Red Oak Victory relocation

 

Figure 10 – Bay Trail specifications

There is no chance that BCDC will allow construction over the water of a sufficient laydown and storage area at the relocation site, especially since one already exists at the current SS Red
Oak Victory location. In fact, I suspect that BCDC, the USACOE and the SFBAWQCB will even consider skeptically any new over the water construction at the proposed relocations site since the SS Red Oak Vicory already has sufficient berthing. The only justification
for the move is a quest for increased visitation, which is not based on any credible basis.

 

There is plenty of parking at the existing SS Red Oak Victory location, but at the proposed relocation, existing parking is generally at capacity from ferry patrons. There would be no place to
park for SS Red Oak Victory visitors at the proposed relocation.

 

Figure 11 – Proposed SS Red Oak Victory relocation. Note ferry parking lot at capacity.

Figure 12 – Ferry parking Monday, August 24, 2026

Figure 13 – Ferry parking Monday August 24, 2026

There is no feasible way to provide parking for the anticipated level of visitation that is the principal basis for the move.

 

Whirley Crane

 

The Liftech assessment and report on the Whirley Crane has been cited by the Port staff as a basis for considering its removal. The report, however, is replete with
errors and flaws. Maybe it did not seem pertinent to whoever prepared the Whirley Crane report, but there are good reasons that it is where it is.

 

Figure 1 – 
The Whirley Crane (National Park Service)

• The Liftech assessment erred in describing the Whirley Crane as owned by the Richmond Museum Association.  The report began by stating, “the Richmond Museum Association
  owns a wheeled revolver Crane, commonly known as the Whirley Crane,” when, in fact, the Whirley Crane is owned by the City of Richmond, not the Richmond Museum Association.

 

In 2003, the City Council authorized acquisition of the Whirley Crane.

 

WHEREAS, the Richmond City Council on June 17, 2003, unanimously adopted item M-3, a resolution  “authorizing the City Manager to facilitate acquisition, transportation and relocation of Whirley
Crane #2 for interpretive use in the Rosie the Riveter World War II Home Front National Historical Park, as recorded in the Minutes:”

 

In the matter to consider the feasibility and costs associated with moving, housing, preserving, and issuing relocation and preservation of Whirley Crane #2 from the
Levin-Richmond Terminal. There was no discussion from the audience. On motion Councilmember Belcher, seconded by Councilmember Griffin approved the feasibility and costs by the unanimous vote of the Council.

 

In 2005 the City Council concluded the authorization.

 

WHEREAS, on November 2, 2005, Whirley Crane CW-3205 was successfully relocated to the historic area of former Shipyard #3 and conveyed to the City of Richmond for permanent exhibit as a part of the
Rosie the Riveter World War II Home Front National Historical Park, using approximately $150,000 in donated cash and in-kind services.

 

A proposed resolution to adopt the following: (1) authorizing the City Manager to accept the donation of the Whirley Crane No. 2 from Levin-Richmond Terminal Corporation upon its delivery to its
new foundation to be constructed in the southeast corner of the easternmost former dry dock of Point Potrero Marine Terminal pursuant to the attached Site Plan, (2) approving the relocation of Whirley Crane No. 2 to Point Potrero Marine Terminal for use as
an interpretive exhibit in the Rosie the Riveter World War II Home Front National Historical Park, and (3) directing the City Manager to facilitate an agreement between the City, National Park Service, and the Richmond Museum Association regarding the creation
of a comprehensive safety program prior to permitting the general public to visit the area in Point Potrero Marine Terminal where the Whirley Crane is to be located and where the Red Oak Victory Ship is currently located. The Interim City Attorney noted the
following changes to the resolution: Page 2 should read… “Therefore Be It Further Resolved that the City Council accept the donation of Whirley Crane No. 2 from Levin Richmond Terminal Corporation upon its departure from LevinRichmond Terminal Corporation
to be delivered to its new foundation to be constructed in the southeast corner of the easternmost former dry dock of Point Potrero Marine Terminal pursuant to the attached site plan and directs the City Manager to sign the appropriate documents to affect
the donation and acceptance of Whirley Crane No. 2.” Paragraph 3 … “Therefore Be It Further Resolved that the City Council direct and authorize the City Manager to determine that appropriate insurance is in place during the construction of the new foundation
and the transfer of the Whirley Crane from existing to the new location and to facilitate an agreement between the City, National Park Service, and Richmond Museum Association regarding the creation of a comprehensive safety program prior to permitting the
general public to visit the area in Point Potrero Marine Terminal where the Whirley Crane No. 2 is to be relocated and where the Red Oak Victory Ship is located.” Following discussion, on motion of Councilmember Griffin, seconded by Councilmember Viramontes,
adopted Resolution No. 96-05 by the unanimous vote of the Council.

 

• Two of three alternatives were for removal. The fact that the “Condition Assessment of the Whirley Crane” performed by Liftech for Moffatt and Nichol considered
  two of three alternatives that involved demolition or removal indicates that the City ether requested them to study demolition and removal or at least did not inform them that such actions would be contrary to existing public policy.

 

It is clear that Liftech was either were unfamiliar with the history and purpose of locating the Whirley Crane in Shipyard 3 or that they simply ignored it. It is also
possible that they were directed to ignore it.

 

• The Liftech assessment made no mention that Shipyard 3, including the Whirley Crane, is part of Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National Historical Park, is
  listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is a California Historic Landmark, all of which should be recognized as both opportunities and constraints. Inclusion of the Whirley Crane is documented as part of part of part of Rosie the Riveter WWII
  Home Front National Historical Park Public Law 116-195 of December 3, 2020.

 

• The assessment concludes by acknowledging that it did not include an engineering assessment but only recommends one, (“perform an engineering assessment to determine
  the adequacy of the structure"). The assessment makes unsupported or irrelevant allegations about the condition of the Crane, the risks it poses, and making an economic case for demolition in lieu of preservation.  A useful assessment should include a discussion
  of its purpose and context. The assessment stated,  “The purpose of this investigation is to determine whether the Crane poses a hazard to life or property and to provide recommendations for future action.” The question about a hazard was never really answered.
  It states, “The assessment did not include a review of original design calculations for a full structural analysis.”
  

 

• The fact that it included two options that involve demolition or partial demolition of the Crane is especially troubling. This shows that the City is considering
  demolition without going through any public process and is consistent with rumors and innuendo. The third option, which is quite expensive, has no basis and no cost breakdown to evaluate what is actually being considered.

 

• The assessment recommends restricting access (“Do not allow people access on or under any part of the Crane.” This has already been done and is current status
  quo.

 

• The assessment noted, “The wire rope supporting the boom appeared to have only minor corrosion, with no signs of external wire breaks. Since the boom is at a
  storage position with no live load, the rope load is small compared to its design operating load.” However, the assessment goes on to recommend a “boom rope inspection, which has not been done.

 

• The assessment states, “The Crane has been inoperable for decades and parts are no longer available. From an economic perspective, the Crane is obsolete and has
  negative value. It would not make economic sense to restore the Crane for any use.” No one is considering restoring the Crane for any use. This should not have even been considered.”
  

 

• The assessment states, “If the Crane needs to be preserved, the Crane should be retrofitted so it is safe for public viewing, access, or both as desired.  If
  public access on the Crane is desired, significant effort and cost will be required to retrofit the Crane to bring it to standards required by today’s regulatory agencies such as Cal/OSHA, ADA, etc.” There has never been any consideration of public access
  on the Crane. Why was this even considered?

 

• The assessment, which was based largely on observations from afar and photos provided by the City of Richmond tells us little more than we already knew, that
  the Crane has a lot of corrosion.

 

• A little over 10 years ago, there was much more useful and accurate assessment of the Whirley Crane in the “Historic Structures Report Richmond Shipyard Number
  3,” (December 31, 2015, by WJE). It is significant that the Moffat & Nichol study did not acknowledge the WJE study.  Unlike Liftech, WJE accurately acknowledged the context of the Whirley Crane, including the excess capacity as a mitigation for corrosion:

 

When performing this condition assessment of the Crane it is understood that the Crane is intended to be preserved as
a cultural resource and not used as a functional Crane. This distinction is very important because the recommendations needed to restore the fully functionality of the Crane as it was used during World War II would be more significant and costly than
those needed to restore it as a cultural object only to be viewed and enjoyed by the visitors.
Additionally, as a Crane designed to lift heavy objects the steel framing members have inherent excess capacity that is untapped when the Crane is not loaded.

 

Rather than wandering into discussions of potential operation, public access, and irrelevant risks and dangers, WJE stuck to the actual intent of the
Whirley Crane as simply an exhibit.

 

Recommendations for treatment given here are developed for the Crane as it now exists as a static cultural resource rather than as a moving functioning
Crane. Considering that it is a machine designed to lift heavy objects, there is considerable reserve capacity that is inherently present and the corrosion that has taken place does not yet appear to be significant enough to impair the integrity of the Whirly
Crane.

 

While corrosion is present on all steel components of the Crane and gantry tower, overall the structure is in fair condition.  surface preparation and coating of the steel to deter
corrosion will allow the whirly Crane to be experienced for decades to come.”

 

The WJE assessment accurately stated, “The goal of the treatment program should be to preserve it as it exists at this time”

 

While corrosion is present on all steel components of the Crane and gantry tower overall the structure is in fair condition surface preparation and coating of the steel to deter
corrosion we’ll allow the Whirley Crane to be experienced for decades to come.

 

 

 

 

Want to receive TOM BUTT E-FORUM delivered to your email address?
Click
here to sign-up to receive the E-Forum. Tom Butt is the former mayor of Richmond, CA, having served 27+ years until January of 2023, eight of those as elected mayor. Tom Butt is an architect
and founder of the 50-year old Richmond architecture-engineering firm Interactive Resources.
He serves on the board of two Richmond nonprofits, Rosie the Riveter Trust
and East Brother Light Station, Inc. Visit the
Tom
Butt website
for additional information about Tom Butt’s activities and a digest of past E-FORUMS going back to 2000,
http://www.tombutt.com. Subscription
to this service is at the personal discretion of the recipient and may be terminated by selecting “unsubscribe from this list” at the bottom of this email. This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized
by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.