Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1996-09-16 City Council (33)
City of Palo Alto Manager’s Rep r 5 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: September 16, 1996 CMR:395:96 SUBJECT:351 Homer Street: Use of the Williams Property by the MuSeum of American Heritage. REQUEST In compliance with the Option to Lease, Condition 4, Council is requested to review the development plans proposed by the Museum of American Heritage to preserve the Williams property and add an education building in order to use the property for a museum, education center and public park. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission and staffrecommend that City Council approve, with the attached conditions, the proposed development plans for preservation/restoration of the house, garage and gardens; construction of a new education building; and the Historic Garden Preservation Plan dated April 1, 1996. This action ’ will fulfill Condition 4 of the Option to Lease the property to the Museum of American Heritage. BACKGROUND In November 1994, the ’City Council selected the Museum of American Heritage as the preferred applicant for use of the Williams property. On December 4, 1995, Council approved a concept plan proposed by the Museum that preserved the house, garage and gardens and added a new education building. Council further directed staffto work with the applicant on a variance application for on-site parking requirements, to assist the applicant in exploring long-term off-site parking arrangements, and to complete negotiations for an Option to Lease with the Museum. On June 10, 1996, the City Council approved the Option to Lease with the Museum of American Heritage, approved the negative declaration of no significant environmental impact, and adopted the resolution of intent to dedicate the property as parkland. CMR:395:96 Page 1 of 5 In compliance with conditions of the Lease Option, the Museum’s proposed development plans for the site have been recommended by the Historic Resources Board (HRB), approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and recommended by the Planning Commission. A Use Permit and a Variance to parking requirements have been approved by the Zoning Administrator. For more detailed information about the HRB, ARB, Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission approvals, see the Public Participation section of this report. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This project raises the policy-related issue of using alternatives to on-site parking on designated historic property, in order to protect the historic qualities of the site. Providing required parking on the site would cause removal of landscape elements and changes to the site layout that are significant historic characteristics of the site. The project is in conformance with the policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan, in that a private organization is being encouraged to re-use the property in a way that preserves the significant historical characteristics of the house and site; and the city’s design review procedure is being used to understand and protect the historic values of the property in its modification for re-use. DISCUSSION Issues and Analysis Parking. Following a public heating on July 18, 1996, the Zoning Administrator approved a Use Permit and a Variance to on-site parking requirements for this project. The parking requirement for the proposed use is 22 spaces. In order to avoid impacts on the gardens and preserve the significant historic qualities of the site, the plan provides only four on-site parking spaces -- two accessible parking spaces and two standard spaces located in the existing parking area at the rear of the site to serve mobility-impaired visitors, staff and scheduled vanpool and carpool vehicles. A condition of the parking Variance requires the Museum to operate a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, encouraging employees of the museum and visitors to access the site by bus, train, car or van pools, and providing information to employees and visitors about the locations of four nearby City- owned parking lots, access to public transportation, and the availability of parking in the Palo Alto Medical Foundation lot across the street from the Museum after regular business hours. For a more detailed discussion of the parking issue, refer to the Negative Declaration attached to this report. This Negative Declaration was certified by the Council on June 10, 1996, at the time the Option to Lease was approved. Historic Preservation. This project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. While the change in use from a single family residence to a CMR:395:96 Page 2 of 5 museum open to the general public requires some changes to be made to the property, this proposal strives to make only those changes that are necessary and to minimize impacts on the significant historic features of the house, garage and gardens. Changes to the house are limited to minor modifications required for seismic strengthening, fire sprinklers and handicap accessibility. The Historic Building Code is being used to make these upgrades in the least intrusive way. The existing garage is being restored and seismically strengthened for use as a shop. The gardens and grounds are being preserved and restored according to a Historic Garden Preservation Plan. A new education building of approximately 1,476 square feet will be added at the rear of the site. Accessible restrooms will be attached to the education building, thereby avoiding impacts on the interior of the house. A more detailed description of the proposed project and the historic preservation issues is provided on pages 2-6 of the attached Planning Commission staff report. Public Participation Action by the HRB and ARB. The HRB and ARB reviewed the project on July 17 and July 18, respectively. Both Boards unanimously approved the project and commended the applicant for the extraordinary progress that had been made since the original proposal, particularly with regard to efforts to preserve the gardens and to reduce impacts on the historic character of the house. The HRB conditions of approval are: 1) parking to be approved as shown on the plan; 2) the ramp to be relocated so that it is not in the view through the garden gate; and 3) continue to look at design issues related to the tower. Conditions of ARB approval are: 1) materials, colors and signage are to return to the Board for review. The ARB minutes of the July 18, 1996 meeting are attached to this report. Action by the Zoning Administrator. A Use Permit and a Variance to parking requirements were approved by the Zoning Administrator after a public hearing on July 18, 1996. More detailed information about the parking Variance is provided on page 2 of this report, and the Use Permit and Variance decisions are attached. Action by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended approval of this project on August 28, 1996, and the minutes of that meeting are included in the Council packet of September 12, 1996. CMR:395:96 Page 3 of 5 ALTERNATIVES The altematives available to the Council are to approve the development plan as proposed, or to direct the applicant to make modifications to the proposed plan. FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts to the City related to this item. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project that determined the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration should be prepared. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review from May 20 through June 10, 1996 and was adopted by City Council on June 10, 1996. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL The two-year option period began when City Council adopted the Option to Lease on June .10, 1996. A summary of the conditions of the Option to Lease is attached to this report. When all conditions of the Option have been met, including approval of the proposed development plans by HRB, ARB, Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council will adopt a park dedication ordinance and execute the lease. At that time, construction of the approved rehabilitation and improvements and operation of the approved museum/park facility will commence; and a $40,000 grant from Santa Clara County will be made available for rehabilitation of the Williams property. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Findings of Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and with the ARB Ordinance Attachment 2: Conditions of HRB and ARB Approval Attachment 3: Staff Report to the Planning Commission, dated August 28, 1996, without attachments. Attachment 4: Summary of Option to Lease Attachment 5: Letter from applicant dated June 26, 1996 Attachment 6: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings Attachment 7: Minutes of the July 18, 1996 ARB meeting Attachment 8: Environmental Impact Assessment/Negative Declaration Attachment 9: Use Permit decision by the Zoning Administrator Attachment 10: Variance Permit decision by the Zoning Administrator Historic Garden Preservation Plan (Council Members only) Plans (Council Members only) CMR:395:96 Page 4 of 5 CC:Cody Anderson. Wasney, Inc., 941 Emerson Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 Museum of American Heritage, c/o Roxy Rapp, 375 University Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 Museum of American Heritage, c/o George Zimmerman, 507 Alhambra Road, San Mateo CA 94402 Museum of American Heritage, Garden Preservation Oversight Team, c/o Kathleen Craig, 405 E1 Camino Real, Suite #355, Menlo Park CA 94025 Lucy Tolmach, Filoli Estate, Canada Road, Woodside CA 94062 Susan Edleman, 744 Waverley Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 Dan Miley, 734 Waverley Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 James Finch, 2626 Hanover Street, Palo Alto CA 94306 PREPARED BY: Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:395:96 Page 5 of 5 Attachment 1 FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS AND WITH THE ARB ORDINANCE The project has been reviewed for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings that have been adopted by City Council for designated historic properties and the ARB Ordinance, Section 16.48.120 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). A summary of the project’s compliance follows: Secretary. of the Interior’s Standards Standards #3,4, 7 and 8 do not apply to this project. The property is being placed in a new use that requires minimal change to its defining characteristics (Standard #1), and the historic character of the property is being preserved (Standard #2) in that the museum use will require few changes to the house and garage, and the most significant portions of the gardens and grounds are being preserved. Distinctive features and construction techniques that characterize the property are being preserved (Standard #5) in that an assembly area and accessible bathrooms that are necessary for the new use are being provided in a detached structure in order to leave the interior of the house essentially unchanged. Deteriorated historic features are being repaired rather than replaced and missing elements are being substantiated by documentary evidence (Standard #6), specifically the garden restoration plan will keep and restore all significant elements in the garden, including propagation of existing plant material, and a thorough search has been made to locate photographic records as well as other documents to guide authentic restoration of the garden and grounds. The new proposed addi’tion will be differentiated from the old and yet will be compatible (Standard #9), and is undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property would be unimpaired (Standard #1 O) in that the new education building is separate from the existing house, connected only by a covered deck that could be removed in the future without impacting the original architecture of the house, and the architectural style of the new building is Craftsman in character to relate to the existing garage. ARB Ordinance Goals, Purposes and Standards for Review PAMC Section 16.48.010 (a) and (c): The project promotes orderly and harmonious development of the city, and attains the most desirable use of land and improvements, in that it re-uses this historic residence in a way that requires only minor changes to the existing buildings and the site. PAMC Section 16.48.010 (b): The project enhances the desirability of residence or investment in the city, in that it pro.vides the city with a valuable new cultural resource by making the restored house, garage and gardens and a new historical museum available to the public. PAMC Section 16.48.010 (d) and (e): The project enhances the desirability of living conditions in adjacent areas and promotes visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety, in that the attractive features of the site that contribute to the neighborhood, including the well-designed house and mature trees and shrubs, are being preserved. Standards #13, 14 and 15 are not applicable since they pertain to design and siting options that are not relevant for historic preservation projects. Standard #12 is not applicable at this time since details are not being provided with this submittal, but will be .presented for review prior to submittal fo~: a building permit. As outlined on page 4 of this staff report, the proposed project is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the City’s comprehensive Plan (Standard #1). *The design is compatible with the immediate environment and with improvements both on and off the site, and promotes harmonious transitions in scale and charaeter and open space is appropriate to the design (Standards #2, 5, 6 and 8) in that the new education building is being located at the rear of the site away from adjacent single- family residences and in a location where it has the least impact on the historic character of the house and gardens. *The design is appropriate to the function of the site, the planning and siting of various functions and buildings on the site provide a desirable environment for occupants and visitors, and sufficient ancillary functions are provided and are compatible with the project’s design concept (Standards #3, 7 and 9) in that accessible bathrooms are being provided as an addition to the education building thereby avoiding the need for major alterations to the interior of the house, and are being located convenient to the main activity center on the site and to visitors using the gardens and outdoor areas. The primary access to the house is being located at the rear of the building so that accessible ramps can be provided there, which is more compatible with the historic character of the building than locating a ramp on the front porch. Parking for mobility impaired visitors, for car and van pools and for staff are provided in the existing parking area at the rear of the site. The site is accessible from public transportation and many of it’s visitors arrive by car and/or van pools, bus or train. Visitor parking is available in four City-owned parking lots, and there is an existing agreement with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation allowing the museum to use parking across the street on the Foundation property after regular business hours. *The design is appropr&tefor a designated historic site (Standard #4), as described on page 8 of this staff report. Access and circulation are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles (Standard #10) in that on site vehicular access is limited to two accessible parking spaces and two spaces for staff or for visitors’ car and/or van pools, providing safe on- site circulation for pedestrians and bicyclists. The site is close to public transit and parking is available on the street and in nearby public parking garages. The adequacy of off-site parking will be determined by the Zoning Administrator through the Conditional Use Permit and Variance process. Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project (Standard #11) in that nearly all significant plant materials are being preserved and the gardens are being restored in an historically appropriate way. Three large Eucalyptus trees that must be removed for safety reasons are being propagated so that this plant material can continue to be represented in the garden. Attachment 2 CONDITIONS OF HRB AND ARB APPROVAL All work in the gardens and grounds shall be carried out according to the Historic Garden Preservation Plan and under the direction of the Garden Preservation Oversight Team. Prior to issuance of demolition permit: Utilities Electric The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert @ (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. A plan for protection of the gardens during construction shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. Prior to submittal for building permit: The applicant shall evaluate possible changes to the handicap ramp at the Doctor’s Office to minimize intrusion into the view through the arched opening in the garden wall, and shall continue to study the design of the tower element and its openings. The applicant’s preferred alternatives shall be presented for review by the HRB and ARB. Building details, colors, materials and signage and any modifications to the approved plan shall be reviewed by the HRB and the ARB. A plan showing location of bicycle parking spaces shall be approved by the Transportation and Planning Divisions. A final landscape plan showing all proposed changes or new installation of plant materials, irrigation, utilities infrastructure, paving and ground surface treatments, walls and gates, signage and other landscape features shall be approved by the Planning Division. Fire Department 8.Fire sprinklers required per PANIC Section 15.04.170 (dd) shall be provided, or an equivalent level of protection as approved by the Fire Chief. Public Works Engineering The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for the proposed construction that will impact the use of the sidewalk, street, alley or on property in which the City holds an interest [PAMC Section 12.12.010]. 10.A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City ofPalo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Pato Alto. Utilities Electric 11.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements [PANIC Section 16.48.120(a)(13) and (c); and PAMC Section 16.82.060(c)]. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 12. 13. The applicant shall submit a completed Water-Gas-Wastewater Service Connection Application - Load Sheet for the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utilify service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.). The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right-of-way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts, and any other required utilities. 14.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well or auxiliary water supply. Prior to issuance of building permit: Public Works Engineering 15.The applicant shall obtain a "Permit for Construction in a Public Street" from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way [PAMC Section 12.08.010]. 16.An underlying lot line exists on the property. The developer/applicant is required to apply for a Certificate of Compliance to remove the underlying lot line from this parcel. 17.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk during construction. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 18.The approved relocation of service, meters, hydrants or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person requesting the relocation. 19.A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the account. During ~construction: Public Works Engineering 20.The Contractor must contact the Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way [PAMC Section 12.08.060]. 21.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 22.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’~s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in 23. conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains (re Federal Clean Water Act). All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utilities Departments [PAMC Section 12.08.060]. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 24.The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new water service(s) to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. 25. 26. 27. The applicant shall provide meter protection for gas meters subject to vehicle damage. Utility service connections will be installed between 30 to 45 days following receipt of full payment. Large developments must allow sufficient lead time (6 w~eks minimum) for utility construction performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. The applicant shall pay all costs associated with required improvements to on- and off-site gas mains and services. All improvements to the gas system will be by the City of Palo Alto or their contractor. Prior to finalization: Public Works Engineering 28.The Public Works Inspector shall sign offthe building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. 4 Attachment 3 BOARD/COMMISSION Staff Report TO:Planning Commission FROM:Virginia Warheit DEPARTMENT: Planning Division AGENDA DATE: August 28, 1996 SUBJECT:351 HOMER AVENUE: HRB and PC Recommendation to City Council and ARB Approval of Developmem Plans for Use of Williams Property by the American Heritage Museum (File Nos: 96-ARB-88; 96-HRB-19; 96-UP-24; 96-Vo12; 96-EIA-17 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed plans for preservation/restoration of the house and garage and construction of the new education building, as well as the Historic Garden Preservation Plan dated April 1, 1996. The applicant’s option to lease the property requires approval of their develo.pment plans for the entire project from the Historic Resources Board (HRB), the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Planning Commission and the City Council. In addition, the HRB and ARB have purview over the project under the authority of their respective ordinances. The project also requires a Conditional Use Permit and Variance. At the conclusion of a second Request For Proposal (RFP) process for use of the historic Williams property, in November 1995, the City Council selected the Museum of American Heritage as the preferred applicant for use of the property. During the lease option process, the HRB reviewed draft plans presented by the Museum on May 5 and on July 5, 1995. The HRB recommended changes to the plans to better protect the historic qualities of the property, particularly limiting on-site parking to the existing parking area in order to preserve the gardens. The applicant revised their plan in response to theHRB recommendations, and on November 1, 1995 the HRB approved a motion which endorsed the Museum’s revised concept plan, dated October 4, 1995; supported the construction of a new education building and disabled accessible P:WCSR\351homer.828 08-28-96 Page 1 restrooms, totaling approximately 1565 square feet, located at the rear of the site; supported a variance to parking requirements and off-site parking arrangements; supported the Museum’s request that the city enter into an agreement with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) to retain or acquire parking for the Williams property on PAMF’s existing nearby property; and recommended that City Council direct staff to complete negotiations with the Museum for an option to lease the property, based on the revised plans. On December 4, 1995, City Council supported the HRB’s recommendation and approved the revised concept plan. Council further directed staff to work with the applicant on a variance application for on-site parking requirements, to assist the applicant in exploring long-term off-site parking arrangements, and to complete negotiations for an option to lease with the Museum. On June 10, 1996 the City Council approved the Option Agreement to Lease with the Museum of American Heritage; approved the negative declaration of no significant environmental impact; and, adopted the resolution of intent to dedicate the property as parkland. Conditions of the Lease Option require that the development plans be approved by the HRB, the ARB and the Planning Commission. (See attached Summary of Option to Lease for additional conditions of the option.) This proposal by the Museum of American Heritage is to use the Williams property for its primary public exhibition space, educational programs, administrative offices, and support space, and to provide office space to other non-profit community organizations. The grounds will be preserved as a public garden and park. (See the attached letter from the applicant dated June 26, 1996 for a more complete description of the Museum’s programs and activities.) The development plan proposes the following changes to the site: Residence. The existing residence will be restored and seismically strengthened. Building systems will be upgraded and fu’e sprinklers will be added. The floor plan layout will remain intact, except where small changes are required to accommodate disabled access. Small permanent displays will be installed in the ground floor rooms. Displays in some of the rooms will reference the original use, such as a period doctor’s office in Dr. Williams" old office. To convert the maid’s room to the primary entry point "for visitors, closets ,;viii be removed and a window converted to a door. A covered deck with disabled lift will be added to provide access to this door and to connect the main house with the education center, providing a covered route to the accessible restrooms located in the education center. P:WI2SR\351 homer. 828 08-28-96 Page 2 Garage and Carport. The existing garage will be architecturally restored, seismically braced and adapted for use as a small workshop and storage area. The gardener’s room at the west end of ¯ the garage will be used as an office by the Garden Committee. The carport is proposed to be enclosed and treated architecturally as an extension of the existing garage. Education building. A building of approximately 1476 square feet will be added to the rear of the site to house the Education Center and accessible restrooms. This structure is a rectangle with a pitched roof, a tower element at the entrance, and a clerestory window on the east side of the building. The restrooms are attached at the rear of the building and have a lower roof line. The structure has wood siding, with lap siding at the base of the building and board and batten on the upper part of the walls, and Craftsman style windows and details. Garden and grounds. The Museum has organized a Garden Preservation Oversight Team and a Garden Committee to be responsible for the restoration as well as ongoing maintenance of the gardens and grounds. The Oversight Team is a multi-disciplinary group of professionals specializing in landscape design, horticulture, arboriculture, garden maintenance, and historic garden preservation. The Garden Committee is composed of members of the community with a variety Of backgrounds and interests. All activities in the garden are to be done to the specifications developed by-the Oversight Team and under the supervision of an on-site horticulturalist. A Historic Garden Preservation Plan has been developed that describes activities and responsibilities for identifying and stabilizing garden materials, for protection of the garden through construction and for on-going maintenance and future restoration of the garden in a manner consistent with guidelines of the Department of Interior regarding historic landscapes. (See attached copy of the Historic Garden Preservation Plan.) Three trees of the same type of pink flowering Eucalyptus are located in or near the area where the new education building is proposed. One tree will be removed to make room for the new building. The other two trees are located at the rear property line and may have to be removed because they are in such poor condition that they may pose a danger to people and to structures on this site as well as on the adjacent property. The G~d~n Oversight Corrtthittee is propagating these trees so that if all three are removed, new trees of the same type could be planted on the site in a better location. It should be noted that although the plans show the hedge along the east side of the driveway moved to widen the driveway, the applicant intends to leave the hedge in place to protect the historic characteristics of the entry to the site. The Transportation Division has determined that with only four on-site parking spaces, the width of the existing driveway will provide safe access to the site. P:\PCSR\351homer.828 08-28-96 Page 3 POLICY IMPL~ The Museum’s proposed project raises the policy-related issue of using off-site parking, parking mitigation measures, and a variance for parking, in lieu of on-site parking in order to maintain the historic value of the site. The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Historic Preservation policies and programs and with the HRB Ordinance. The most relevant policies and programs are Policy 2 and Programs 6, 7, 10, and 11. ~:"Encourage private preservation of buildings which have historic or architectural merit or both "; Program 6: "Develop incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of houses with architectural or historic merit in all zones"; Program 7: "Allow non-conforming use for buildings of architectural or historic merit for the life of the building; Program 11: "Maintain and strengthen the City’s design review procedure for historic buildings proposed for exterior remodeling or threatened by demolition. " This proposal is in conformance with these policies and programs, since a private organization is being encouraged to re-use the property in a way which preserves the significant historical merits of the house and site; and, the city’s design review procedure is being used to understand and protect the historic values of the property in its m6di’fication for re-use; Parking. For a discussion of parking issues, see Action by the Zoning Administrator on page 6. Historic Preservation. The proposed change in use of the property from a single-family home to a museum that will be used by the general public requires certain changes to be made. In accommodating the new use, the aim of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards is to minimize changes in order to keep intact the character and feeling of the original structure and its setting. In particular, Standard #1 calls for a property to be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and site; Standard #2 for removal or alterations Of features and spaces that characterize a property to be avoided; Standard #5 for distinctive construction techniques or examples of. craftsmanship that characterize a historic P:WCSR\351homer.828 08-28-96 Page 4 property to be preserved; Standard #6 for deteriorated historic features to be repaired rather than replaced; and Standard #9 for new work to be differentiated from the old as well as being compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property. In general, the proposed project is consistent with the Standards and strives to make only those changes that are needed to serve the new use of the site. However, some of the changes that are being proposed may not be essential, or could possibly be made in a different way that results in less alteration of the original historic material, thereby achieving a higher level of compliance with the Standards. Staff has identified these proposed changes for consideration by the HRB, ARB and Planning Commission: The design of the new education center includes two elements that penetrate the roof, an entry tower and a large window, and is generally more complex in form and de.tail than the existing house and garage. In accordance with Standard #9, simplification of this structure may make it more compatible with the existing buildings and the site. 2. Both of the rear service entry doors to the house are proposed to be removed or replaced. A.The outside door to the back porch is being replaced with a new door, and the steps are being removed and replaced with a stoop and new steps. In accordance with Standards 2, 5 and 6, it would be preferable to repair and retain the existing door and steps. If a stoop must be added for safety reasons, perhaps the original steps could be left in place under the new stoop. (Sheet A.2.1, keynotes 26, 27, and 42) The outside door on the rear east elevation is proposed to be replaced .with a window, and the steps are being removed. In accordance with Standards #2, 5 and 6, if this door is not to be used, it could be simply kept locked, leaving intact .the original historic material and evidence of the original circulation system of the house. (Sheet A.2.1, keynotes 12 and 26) The handicap ramp that is being added on the east side of the Doctor’s office extends past the front of the Doctor’s office and into the line of sight through the arched garden gate, and requires the paths in this area to be reconfigured in order to provide circulation around the ramp. Since the ramp has to be placed in this approximate location to provide egress from the building, a design that minimizes its visual impact would be desirable and in.accordance with Standard #9. (Sheet A. 1.2) P:\PCSRL35 lhomer.828 08-28-96 Page 5 The plaster walls and ceiling in the Doctor’s reception room and operating room are proposed to be replaced with textured gypsum board. Given the importance of these rooms, it would be preferable to repair the plaster, or if that is not possible to replace it in kind, in accordance with Standards #2, 5 and 6. (Sheet A.2.1, keynote 34) The carport is being enclosed, giving the appearance of a four ear garage. Leaving the carport open would be preferable, because it would leave intact the size and massing of the garage, in accordance with Standards #1, 2 and 9. (Sheet A.’l.2) Public Partic(oation Action by the HRB and ARB. The HRB reviewed the project on July 17 and the ARB reviewed the project on July 18, 1996. Both Boards were very supportive of the proposal and commended the applicant for the extraordinary progress that had been made since the original proposal, particularly with regard to efforts to preserve the gardens and to reduce impacts on the historic character of the house. (See ARB minutes of the July 18, 1996 meeting attached to this report.) Both Boards voted to recommend approval of the project and support for the Variance and Use Permit. Conditions of HRB approval are: 1) continue to investigate the possibility of adjusting the location of the handicap ramp near the Doctor’s Office so that it does not extend into the view seen through the archway in the garden wall; 2) continue working on the tower element and its opening. Conditions of ARB approval are: 1) materials, colors and signage are to return to the Board for review. Action by the Zoning Administrator. Following a public hearing on July 18, 1996, the Zoning Administrator approved a Use Permit and a Variance to on-site parking requirements for this project. A condition of the Variance requires the Museum to operate a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, encouraging employees of the museum and visitors to access the site by bus, train, car or van pools, and providing information to employees, and visitors about the locations of four nearby city-owned parking lots, access to public transportation, and the availability of parking in the Palo Alto Medical Foundation lot across the street from the Museum after regular business hours. The parking ordinance requirement for a Museum use in the Williams house is 17 spaces and an additional 5 spaces for the proposed new education room, for a total of 22 spaces. The proposed plan provides four on-site spaces - two accessible parking spaces and two standard spaces in the existing parking area at the rear of the site to serve mobility impaired visitors, staff and scheduled van or car pool vehicles. P:WCSR\351 homer. 828 08-28-96 Page 6 When City Council authorized negotiations with the Museum for the lease option at their December 4, 1995 meeting, they directed staff to work with the applicant on a variance application for parking and to assist the applicant in exploring long-term off-site parking arrangements, in order to avoid damage to the historic qualities of the site that would result by the addition of on-site car parking. The city currently has a development agreement with PAMF that provides that not less than 35 spaces will be made available on PAMF lots for use by activities on the Williams property in late afternoon, evenings and weekends. However, this provision of the development agreement will no longer be effective at such time as PAMF relocates its facilities to the New Urban Lane campus. If PAMF facilities are relocated, continuing access to shared spaces can be considered during the planning process for the new future use of the PAMF property. (See the attached negative declaration and Zoning Administrator’s Variance and Use Permit decisions for more specific information about the parking issue.) FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS AND WITH THE ARB ORDINANCI~ The project has been reviewed for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings that have been adopted by City Council for designated historic properties and the ARB Ordinance, Section 16.48.120 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (pAMC). A summary of the project’s compliance follows: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Standards #3, 4, 7 and 8 do not apply to this project. The property is being placed in a new use that requires minimal change to its defining characteristics (Standard #1), and the historic character of the property is being preserved (Standard #2) in that the museum use will require few changes to the house and garage, and the most significant portions of the gardens and grounds are being preserved. *Distinctive features and construction techniques that characterize the property are being preserved (Standard #5) in.that an assembly area and a.ccessible bathrooms that are necessary for the new use are being provided in a detached structure in order to leave the interior of the house essentially unchanged. *Deteriorated historic features are being repaired rather than replaced and missing elements are being substantiated by documentary evidence (Standard #6), specifically the garden restoration P:\PCSRL35 lhomer.828 08-28-96 Page 7 plan will keep and restore all significant elements "in" the garden, inclutting propagation of existing plant material, and a thorough search has been made to locate photographic records as well as other documents to guide authentic restoration of the garden and grounds. The new proposed addition will be differentiated from the old and yet will be compatible (Standard #9), and is undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property would be unimpaired (Standard #10) in that the new education building is separate from the existing house, connected only by a covered deck that could be removed in the future without impacting the original architecture of the house, and the architectural style of the new building is Craftsman in c ’haracter to relate to the existing garage. ARB Ordinance Goals. Purposes and Standards for Review PAMC Section 16.48.010 (a) and (c): The project promotes orderly and harmonious development of the city, and attains the most desirable use of land and improvements, in that it re-uses this historic residence in a way that requires only minor changes to the existing buildings and the site. PAMC Section 16.48.010 (b): The project enhances’th~ desirability of residence or investment in the city, in that it provides the city with a valuable new cultural resource by making the restored house, garage and gardens and a new historical museum available to the public. PAMC Section 16.48.010 (d) and (e): The project enhances the desirability of living conditions in adjacent areas and promotes visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety, in that the attractive features of the site that contribute to the neighborhood, including the well-designed house and mature trees and shrubs, are being preserved. Standards #13, 14 and 15 are not applicable since they pertain to design and siting options that are not relevant for historic preservation projects. Standard #12 is not applicable at this time since details are not being provided with this submittal, but will be presented for review prior to submittal for a building permit. *As outlined on page 4 of this staff report, the proposed project is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the City’s comprehensive Plan (Standard #1). The design is compatible with the immediate environment and with improvements both on and off the site, and promotes, harmonious transitions in scale and character and open space is appropriate to the design (Standards #2,5,6 and 8) in that the new education building is being located at the rear of the site away from adjacent single-family residences and in a location where it has the least impact on the historic character of the house and gardens. P’: WCSR\351 homer. 828 08-28-96 Page 8 The design is appropriate to the function of the site, the planning and siting of various functions and buildings on the site provide a desirable environment for occupants and visitors, and su~cient ancillary functions are provided and are compatible with the project’s design concept (Standards #3, 7 and 9) in that accessible bathrooms are being provided as an addition to the education building thereby avoiding the need for major alterations to the interior of the house, and are being located convenient to the main activity center on the site and to visitors using the gardens and outdoor areas.. The primary access to the house is being located at the rear of the building so that accessible ramps can be provided there, which is .more compatible with the historic character of the building than locating a ramp on the front porch. Parking for mobility impaired visitors, for car and van pools and for staff are provided in the existing parking area at the rear of the site. The site is accessible from public transportation and many of it’s visitors arrive by car and/or van pools, bus or train. Visitor parking is available in four City-owned parking lots, and there is an existing agreement with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation allowing the museum to use parking across the street on the Foundation property after regular business hours. The design is appropriate for a designated historic site (Standard #4), as described on page 8 of this staff report. Access and circulation are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles (Standard #10) in that on site vehicular access .is limited to two accessible parking spaces and two spaces for staff or for visitors’ car and/or van pools, providing safe on-site circulation for pedestrians and bicyclists. The site is close to public transit and parking is available on the street and in nearby public parking garages. The adequacy of off-site parking will be determined by the Zoning Administrator through the Conditional Use Permit and Variance process. Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project (Standard #11) in that nearly all significant plant materials are being preserved and the gardens are being restored in an historically appropriate way. Three large Eucalyptus trees that must be removed for safety reasons are being propagated so that this plant material can continue to be represented in the garden. There are no fiscal impacts to the City related to this item. ESSMENT The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project, which P:WCSR\351homer.828 08-28-96 Page 9 determined that the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration should be prepared. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review from May 20 through June 10, 1996, and was adopted by City Council on June 10, 1996. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL The two-year option period began when City Council adopted the Option to Lease on June 10, 1996. A summary of the conditions of the Option to Lease is attached to this report. When all conditions of the Option have been met, including approval of the proposed development plans by HRB, ARB, Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council will adopt a park dedication ordinance and execute the lease. At that time, construction of the approved rehabilitation and improvements and operation of the approved museum/park facility will commence, and a $40,000 grant from Santa Clara County will be made available for rehabilitation of the Williams property. 1.All work in the gardens and grounds shall be carried out according to the Historic Garden Preservation Plan and under the direction of the Garden Preservation Oversight Team. Prior to issuance of demolition permit: The Permittee shall be responsibie for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert @ (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 3.A plan for protection of the gardens during construction shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. Prior to submittal for building permit: The applicant shall evaluate possible changes to the handicap ramp at the Doctor’s Office to minimize intrusion into the view through the arched opening in the garden wall, and shall continue to study the design of the tower element and its openings. The applicant’s preferred alternatives shall be presented for review by the HR~ and ARB. P:\PCSR\351homer.828 08-28-96 Page 10 5.Building details, colors, materials and signage and any modifications to the approved plan shall be reviewed by the HRB and the ARB. 6.A plan showing location of bicycle parking spaces shall be approved by the Transportation and Planning Divisions. A final landscape plan showing all proposed changes or new installation of plant materials, irrigation, utilities infrastructure, paving and ground surface treatments, walls and gates, signage and other landscape features shall be approved by the Planning Division. 8.Fire sprinklers required per PAMC Section 15.04.170 (dd) shall be provided, or an equivalent level of protection as approved by the Fire Chief. Public Works Engiaggriag o The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for the proposed construction that will impact the use of the sidewalk, street, alley or on pr.operty in which the City holds an interest [PAMC Section 12.12.010]. 10.A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. 11.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a .re,garner which respects the building design and setback requirements [PAMC Section .16.48.120(a)(13) and (c); and PAMC Section 16.82.060(c)]. Utilities/Watei’-Gas-Wastewater 12.The applicant shall submit a completed Water-Gas-Wastewater Service Connection Application - Load Sheet for the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.). P: \PCSR\351 homer. 828 0~-28-96 Page 11 13.The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development .and the public right- of-way including meters, backflow preventers, fire ~ervice requirements, sewer cleanouts, and any other required utilities. 14.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well or auxiliary water supply. Prior to issuance of building permit: 15.The applicant shall obtain a "Permitfor Construction in a Public Street" from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way [PAMC Section 12.08.010]. 16.An underlying lot line exists on the property. The developer/applicant is required to apply for a Certificate of Compliance to remove the underlying lot line from this parcel. 17.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk during construction. 18. 19. The approved relocation of service, meters, hydrants or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person requesting the relocation. A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the account. During construction: 20.The Contractor must contact the Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way [PAMC Section 12.08.060]. 21.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. P:\PCSR\35 lhomer.828 08-28-96 Page 12 22.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction actlv~tles on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains (re Federal Clean Water Act). 23.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utilities Departments [PAMC Section 12.08.060]. 24.The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new water service(s) to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. 25. The applicant shall provide meter protection for gas meters subject to vehicle damage. 26.Utility service connections will be iiastalled between 30 to 45 days following receipt of full pay ~ment. Large developments must allow sufficient lead time (6 weeks minimum) for utility construction performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. 27.The applicant shall pay all costs associated with required improvements to on- and off-site gas mains and services. All improvements to the gas system will be by the City of Palo Alto or their contractor. Prior to f’malization: 28.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit.prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be f’mished prior to this sign-off. P:WCSR\351homero828 08-28-96 Page 13 ATTAC : Summary of Option to Lease Letter from applicant dated June 26, 1996 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings Minutes of the July 18, 1996 ARB meeting Environmental Impact Assessment/Negative Declaration Use Permit decision by the Zoning Administrator Variance Permit decision by the Zoning Administrator Historic Garden Preservation Plan (Planning Commission members only) Plans (Planning Commission members only) COURTESY COPIES: Cody Anderson Wasney, Inc., 941 Emerson Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 Museum of American Heritage, c/o Roxy Rapp, 375 University Avenue, P~lo Alto CA 94301 Museum of American Heritage, c/o George Zimmerman, 507 Alhambra Road, San Mateo CA 94402 Museum of American Heritage, Garden Preservation Oversight Team, c/o Kathleen Craig, 405 El Camino Real, Suite #355, Menlo Park CA 94025 Lucy Tolmach, Filoli Estate, Canada Road, Woodside CA 94062 Susan Edleman, 744 Waverley Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 Dan Miley, 734 Waverley Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 James Finch, 2626 Hanover Street, Palo Alto CA 94306 Prepared by: Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner Division/Department Head Approval:~~le. Chief Planning Official P :\PC SRL351 homer. 828 08-28-96 Page 14 Attachment 4 ~$UMMARY OF OPTION TO LEASE between the City of Palo Alto and the Museum of American Heritage for the Williams property located at 351 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto onditions of the tion Prior to exercising its option to lease the property, the Museum of American Heritage must satisfy the following conditions: 1.Pay the option purchase price ($5,000) o Submit schematic plans for the project within six (6) months of the commencement of the option. o Comply with all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Receive approval of its development plans for the entire project from the Historic Resources Board (HRB), Architectural Review Board (ARB), Planning Commission and City Council. Receive approvals from the City Engineer and Chief Building Official of construction drawings, including the construction contract form and proposed construction schedule. If property is phased, this requirement shall apply only to Phase I improvements. Receive approval from the City Manager of a long term maintenance plan and schedule for the buildings and landscaping on the property during the lease term. To ensure the continued historic preservation of the property, this maintenance plan and schedule will be made an exhibit to the lease, and the tenant will be required to adhere to this plan during the term of the lease. °Receive approval of any necessary changes in land use zoning or Comprehensive Plan designation and any other land use permits or approval required to implement the project and development plans. The necessary change of the zoning and land use designation to Public Facility (PF) was approved by the City Council on September 19, 1992. However, the proposed use is a conditional use in the PF zone district, and therefore, the Museum must receive a conditional use permit for its operation from the City’s Zoning Administrator. The proposed improvements will also require a variance for parking. c: museumsum 10. 11. Comply with the conditions of the State Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to the extent applicable to the project. Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and a11 related City procedures for implementing CEQA. Provide evidence to the Property Manager that any and all permits from any agencies having pre-construction jurisdiction over the proposed development have been authorized and are available. Satisfy the Director of Administrative Services that the Museum has sufficient finances or financial commitments to implement the project as approved by the City and furnish to the Director of Administrative Services evidence that sufficient financial security will be available to construct the project. Terms of the Lease City of Palo Alto. The Museum of American Heritage, a non-profit benefit corporation. 351 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, commonly known as the Williams property. The purpose of the lease is to allow the Museum to perform the project as described in Exhibit C to the lease by developing and operating a park and museum, open to the public, according to the terms and conditions of the lease. T.E_R : The term of the lease is 20 years. c: museumsum 2 REQUIRED: Throughout the term of the lease, the tenant shall provide the following services and activities: Restoration of the house, doctor’s office and preservation of the garden, with the house, doctor’s office and garden to be open to the public; Displays and exhibits of mechanical and electrical artifacts and local history; Docent-led and self-guided tours of the displays and exhibits and of the restored house, garden, kitchen and doctor’s office; 4.Workshops, classes and lectures associated with Museum purposes; and All required activities shall be open to the public. Bo PERMITTED: In addition to the required uses, the following uses shall also be permitted, but only as incidental to the required uses: Administrative offices and storage space to support the required services, activities and uses above; Fund raising activities only to support the required services, activities and uses, including but not limited to sales of goods and gifts related to the museum use and the hosting of benefits and social activities; and Co o Periodic rental of rooms and other portions of the premises by community groups and individuals, but in no event shall such rental be for commercial purposes and in no event shall such rental interfere with or limit the required services, activities and uses as set forth above. OPTIONAL: Subject to the prior written approval of the City Manger, the tenant may provide additional service and uses which are ancillary to and compatible with the required uses above. D. PROHIBITED: Any use not authorized herein or in Rhona Williams’ will. CONSIDEKATIONSLENT: MONETARY: One Dollar ($1.00) per year, payable upon execution of the lease and thereafter on each anniversary date of the lease. c: museumsum B.NON-MONETARY: Development and operation of a park and museum consistent with the purpose and causes of the lease, at no cost to the City. SECURITY DEPOSIT: A $10,000 security deposit is required which can be cash, assignment of savings account, certificate of deposit or letter of credit. REO_UIRED IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE BY TENANT: Required improvements are fihose improvements which are identified and shown in the plans approved by the City during the option period. CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION BY TENANT: Tenant may not make any changes to the property without prior City review and ~pproval. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS: Tenant shall be responsible of all maintenance and repairs in accordance with the City-approved maintenance program to preserve the historic features of the house and garden. AS SIQNMENT/SUBLETTING: Any assignment or encumbrance of the lease (with the exception of subletting in accordance with the proposal) must receive prior City approval. TAXES. ASSESSMENTS AND UTILITIES: Tenant shall be responsible for all costs for utilities and taxes and assessments for the property. The tenant shall maintain insurance meeting the City’s standard requirements for insurance protection. c: museumsum 4 ARCHITEL ,5 Attachment 5 June 26, 1996 Ms. Lisa Grote Zoning Administrator Members of the Historic Resources Board City of Palo Alto Department of Planning Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Museum of American Heritage / Williams House: HRB Review Dear Ms. Grote and Board Members: We are submitting for your review plans to allow the Museum of American Heritage to occupy the city-owned property at 351 Homer Avenue, commonly known as the Williams House. The museum will use the site for its primary public exhibition space, administrative offices, and support space. In addition, it will provide office space to other non-profit community organizations. The grounds are being preserved as a public garden and park. Back_mound The Williams House is located at 351 Homer Avenue, and was constructed in 1907. It was designed by Ernest Coxhead, a noted Bay Area architect. The structures on the property include the house, the attached doctor’s office and a detached garage. According to the Historic Resources Report, the property’s historic significance is three-fold: first, it is the work of an important architect; second, the garage is one of the first in Palo Alto, and representative of the early years of the automotive age; finally, the site is largely intact .with house, garage, trees, gardens and landscape improvements, and as such, is a rare" example of a turn-of-the-century professional suburban homestead. In 1989, the City of Palo Alto was notified that Rhona Williams had bequeathed the property to the City, and in 1992, the City Council accepted the property. A condition of the will was that the property was to be used for cultural or park purposes. After several RFP processes, the City Council awarded the option to lease the property to the Museum of American Heritage in November 1994. The Museum brought Schematic Site Plans showing the proposed uses to the Historic Resources Board for review in Summer and Fall of 1995. At the request of the HRB, the Site Plan was revised. Foremost among these revisions was the elimination of virtually all public parking on site and the "loop" driveway in order to preserve the gardens. On site parking will be provided for Museum staff and for disabled visitors. The HRB unanimously approved the revised plan in November, and the City Council followed suit in December. After Council approval, the plans were brought up to a "design development" level, incorporating annotated floor plans and exterior elevations for all existing and proposed structures. An Environmental Impact Assessment has been prepared by City staff based upon these drawings. Cody Anderson Wasney Architects Inc. o 941 Emerson Street o Palo Alto, CA 94301 ¯ Tel 415. 328.1818 ¯ Fax 415. 328.1888 ¯ Email cawarch@aol.com Ms. Lisa Grote & HRB Members June 26, 1996 Page Two The City Council approved the final lease agreement at their June 17 session. In addition to this use application, the museum is also currently seeking a variance to allow off site parking and a conditional use permit to allow its use in a PF zone. Museum Progr0m Statement The Museum of American Heritage collects, preserves, and exhibits electrical and mechanical artifacts, primarily those which predate solid state electronics; it sponsors lectures open to the public on subjects related to its exhibitions; and it presents educational workshops of practical applications of scientific theory. The Museum, therefore, plans to use the Williams property for exhibitions, lectures, and classes and workshops for children and adults, all of which are open to the public. The Museum is open every week of the year on Friday, Saturday and Sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. They are considering being open a fourth day of the week when they occupy the Williams House. In 1994, approximately 14,000 people visited the museum’s exhibitions. (Data for 1995 is unavailable because the Museum lost their lease and had to vacate their former home on Alma Street). This averages about 105 visitors per day, although the majority of these visitors came on Saturdays and Sundays, and a large number were families and hence arrived in a single vehicle. Also, historically, about 37 percent of the visitors come from Palo Alto and Stanford, meaning that pedestrian and bicycle access to the museum is viable for a large percentage of the visitors. Special group tours, including school and senior citizen groups, comprised another 800 visitors. Over half of these special group tours occurred at times when the museum was not normally open. Visitors in these group tours arrive predominately by bus or van pool. In addition, the Museum held an evening lectures series attended by 800 people (approximately 80 people per lecture), and occasional Saturday morning workshops for 10 to 15 children each. Architectural Improvements In order to accommodate these uses, the Museum plans to improve ~e existing facilities of the Williams Estate in four major ways: ¯ First, the existing residence will be restored and seismically strengthened. The building’s systems will be upgraded and fire sprinklers will be added. The floor plan layout will remain intact, except where small changes are required to accommodate disabled access. Small permanent displays will be installed in the ground floor rooms, some of which will reference the previous use of the rooms (i.e. a period doctor’s office in Dr. Williams’ old office). The second floor will be used as offices for .the Museum other non-profit community groups. .Second, the existing garage will be architecturally restored, seismically braced and adapted to use as a small workshop and storage area. ¯ Third, a building of approximately 1,476 square feet will be added to the rear of the site, housing the Education Center and accessible restrooms. The Education Center will host lectures, workshops and the traveling exhibitions that the Museum hosts three to.four time per year. .Fourth, the Museum will r~habilitate and preserve the gardens as outlined the Historic Resour~s Report, creating a public parL The Museum has organized a Garden Preservation Committee to take on the long-term car~ and maintenance of the grounds. The Museum will provide, a small office in the Garage to this organization. In summary, the museum’s proposal will transform a blighted property into a valuable cultural and educational resource for both the neighborhood and the entire city. In so doing, the museum meets both the spirit and the letter of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Accordingly, it is entirely appropriate for the HRB to approve this application. Montgomery Anderson, AIA P~n~p~ Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, Inc. Christopher Wasney AIA Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, Inc.t Attachment 6_ THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION The following Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. (1) A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. (2) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. (3) Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. (4) Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. (5) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. (6) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. (7) Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of struc- tures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. (8) Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation meas- ures shall be undertaken. (9) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. (10) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if r~moved in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. ARCF YECTURAL REVIEW! July 18, 1996 Excerpt ARD Attachment 7 351 Homer Avenue Museum of American Heritage 96-ARB-88 96-HRB-19 96-UP-24 96-V-12 96-EIA- 17 Review of the proposed development plans for modifications to the Williams Property for its use as a museum by the Museum of American Heritage and the dedication of the property as park land. The plans include historic preservation/restoration of the house, garage and gardens and minor modifications for compliance with life safety and accessibility requirements, and construction of a 1,565-square-foot education building with accessible restrooms. ~: Is anyone present from the HRB to speak to this item? (No one) Ms. Grote: I would like to introduce Virginia Warheit, the staff person who prepared this report. Ms. Maser: Are there any additional staff comments? _M..L_.R_9~: I must announce a conflict of interest, as my fLrrn is involved in this project. ~: There was some action by the Historic Resources Board yesterday. They voted unanimously to support the project. They thought that the ramp should probably be pulled back and a door added at the end of the existing building to minimize intrusion of the ramp into the garden area. They felt that making the new building consistent architecturally with the garage was a much better way to go than the plan that was originally proposed= They felt very favorably toward the project with the changes that had been made over the past twoyears. Mr. McFall: I would like to note for the record that I have met with the applicant. ~: Any further comments? Seeing none, we will have a 1.0-minute presentation by the applicant. Clads Wasnev. Cody. Anderson. Wasnev Architects. 941 Emerson Street, Palo Alto: Monty Anderson and Kathleen Craig are present with me today. Kathleen is team leader of the Garden Preservation Oversigtht Team from the Museum of American Heritage. We are here to present plans for the development of the Williams property. We have been through the HRB four times, and finally, yesterday, culminating in a unanimous approval of our plans for the site. I believe this is the first time you have had a chance to look at it, so I will very quickly walk you through the site and our plans for it. This structure is the existing Williams House and doctor’s office wing designed by Ernest Coxshead and doctors’s office wing. This is an existing garden which is in the process of being preserved by Kathieen’s group. This is an existing g~age, which was among the first in Palo Alto, if not the very first. Dr. Williams was one of the first people to own an automobile in Palo Alto ::his structure is an intervention we are y "oosing for the museum to house an education center, at,d it will also fulfill a variety of functior,_. It is essentially a very large multi-purpose room which will be used for lectures, traveling exhibitions and hands-on workshops that they hold frequently on Saturday mornings. This is an existing wisteria arbor. Another function that this building fulfills is that we have managed to insert all of the accessible restrooms in this new addition. There is a provision in the state historical building code that allows the restrooms for this facility to be placed in a remote location, providing there is a covered route of travel to it, i.e., a dry route. That is very important since it allows us not to do wholesale interventions into the Williams House itself to gain accessible restrooms. I will now go through each building, and start with the site. Through our reviews with the HRB and negotiations with the city and the museum, one of the key items at this project was removal of on-site parking from the project. When we first came to the HRB, the requirements of the zoning ordinance, were 17 or 18 parking spaces. That resulted in a big, long driveway with parking here. There was a justifiable and loud outcry about the loss of the gardens. Subsequently, the museum and the city have reached an agreement not to provide parking on site. In so doing, we were able to preserve the gardens as a public park, and Kathleen will talk more about that later. We are only providing four parking spaces back here. Two are accessible spaces and two are for staff. This driveway will not be used very much by automobiles. It will constitute the primary public entrance to the museum. The front door of the museum will be used as the basic pedestrian entrance. However, we did have to find an accessible entrance to the house. The front entrance would not be feasible, because a ramp would be very invasive, so we have developed a rear entrance to the house here and to the education center, and we have provided a lift here. That is also under this covered trellis to link the two buildings for the path of travel. In so doing, this becomes a pretty important entrance to the site and to both buildings, as well, and, we think, an important gateway to the gardens. Both entrances to the house converge into a single lobby, so in a sense, we are not bringing disabled people in through the back door. One of the comments in the staff report that we would like to address is this comer and this building, in general. Having said that, just walking you through the interventions we are doing in the buildings, in the Williams House itself, we are doing a very minor relocation of interior walls, almost entirely to provide accessibility. In the basement, it will be reinforcing the cripple walls. We will be inserting new electrical systems, new lighting, and we have been mandated to include an automatic fire sprinkler system. On the upper floors, that will be recessed. On the lower floors, we will run the pipes exposed, as that will be the least intrusive way to insert them into the building. The other main intervention we are doing is adding an accessible exit ramp. Again, that has been mandated by the building department. There was considerable discussion yesterday at HRB about the fact that the ramp intrudes into this vista through this little arch opening in the gardens. The HRB and Kathleen Craig, and ourselves, are concerned that we possibly should move this back so that it does not intrude into this pathway. The tradeoff is that we would have to add another opening. In this ease., we were using an existing window and turning it into a door. Clearly, that needs a little additional study. This building back here is an existing garage and is in remarkably good shape, considering that it has no foundation, but it has old growth redwood set directly as mud sills. We have managed to convince the Building Department that we can retrofit it and reuse it without putting in a foundation. The museum is going to use it as a light workshop in preparation for their exhibition 2 materials. We are showin, .-!ling in this last bay which is currently, ind of covered carport. The museum has asked f0i _,at space since they feel they need it for additional shop and storage space. Finally, the education center is certainly the most major intervention on the site. It is located largely in an area that is identified in the Historic Resources Report as an area for expansion. It does displace what is now considered the historic clothes drying area, which will be relocated on the site by the garden preservation team. We did feel that by pulling the new addition away from the house, it allows that building, both in size and massing and in material palettes, to relate more carefully to the garage than to the house itself. That is an important distinction we are making in that we are very much considering the Williams House itself to be the primary structure, with both of these to be secondary structures. Having said that, we do not consider it to be an important structure primarily because of its programmatic function. It is an important space because it is an exhibition space, a meeting hall, a lecture hall, and we did not think it should be a shed. We felt that it needed to have a little more presence than that, all the while clearly remaining secondary to the Williams House. So the form of this building has taken its cues from this building, with the low sloped roof versus the high sloped roof, the board and batten siding, the ship lap siding, and the cross gable forms. The staff report calls into question the entry tower and the clerestory window as perhaps being a little too assertive. We feel very strongly about both of them. The window is probably best explained that we are going through the care and trouble to reclaim these gardens, and this element opens this building into the gardens, and vice versa. So we feel very strongly that it is important to tie those two aspects of the project together. The entry piece is something we studied exhaustively in study models. Because of the size of this building and its location and our setback requirements, we had a pretty close intersection with the house and we have a lot of functions happening here. We have the entrances to these buildings and the covered walkway, and we have what we consider to be the gateway into the gardens, which we think are now an extremely important part of this project. By pulling this up, we allowed ourselves to hollow it out so that from here to here, there is a real transparency and a natural gateway. Furthermore, this form, this sort of hollowed out entry, repeats the form of the entry of the Willliams House. Even though they are very different architectural statements, we feel that it creates an architectural mnemonic device. This is reading as an entrance. Because we aredeveloping this as the accessible entrance, we want it to be an important one, not a back door. Formerly, we thought if we did not have a pop-up here and let the roof slope down, the eaves got very tight here, and you got a very pinched feel, so this acts as an architectural punctuation mark to anchor this structure and alleviate some of the tightness of this comer and provide a natural entry piece. So it was not simply a’ formal gesture, but was grounded in the program. I will now turn this over to Kathleen who will talk about their efforts in preserving the gardens. Kathleen rai_ rai Design Associat : I am here today as Director of Historic Landscapes for the Museum of American Heritage. The Williams garden has presented us with a unique and challenging project. The ultimate preservation and restoration of this garden will involve the expertise of a number of various professions within the landscaping field. The first thing that we did, to thisend, was to form a preservation oversight team for the garden. I believe that in your packets, you have a copy of the preservation guidelines report that was prepared by this team for the preservation of the gardens. The initial steps that we have taken in the preservation of the gardens involve the inventory, protection, maintenance and propagation of the existing plant materials. We have developed the preservation plan, and we have been researching and documenting the garden, ~ "r development, their use and their histr .’. To this end, I would like to show you the site plan u,at we have developed. The first one is x. o.,1 the specimen plant material that is on the site. This graphic basically displays the large specimen material that is there. There are some lovely and very unique plant features in this garden that would not normally have remained in a residential garden because of their size and the small nature of the lot. Some of the special features are the taxus piccata, the English yew that is in the doctor’s office garden, and there is also a small comus capitata which is the Himalayan dogwood, very much a period plant at the time this garden was developed. One cannot overlook the redwood grove at the comer of the front lawn garden. It is not only a feature that is dominant in this garden but is a feature that becomes dominan~ in the whole neighborhood as it reads from the street. Also, we have developed a site plan of some of the character-defining features of the property. We feel really fortunate to have the opportunity to preserve a garden that is so rich in history and one that has not been victimized by fad or fashion, having been occupied by the Williams family until it was given over to the City of Palo Alto. Keeping in mind that this is a residential garden, although it is going to public use, the preservation project of the garden is to keep it within the context of the residential nature of the garden. There are some character- defining features that would only be seen in a residential garden. One is the path treatments throughout the garden which are composed of something called soil cement. It was a technique that was used in these turn-of-the-century residential gardens. We have been able to find documentation on how to replace the soil cement as the surface deteriorates so that we can stay true to the nature of the garden. The other feature that will come up today is something that is very important to the landscape. That is, in this bed there is a sundial. The sundial was a very important addition of the family’s personal property. Just recently, we have gotten some pictures taken in the 1930s of the garden, taken by the family. I would like to show you several of them in order to illustrate how important these features were to the Williams family. The f’trst photo is a view of the sundial off in the distance. The person taking the picture was looking through the arch in the stone wall and beyond the end of the building to the sundial, so you can see that they felt it was a very important vista point in the garden. As a landscape gardener, that is a vista point that one would normally want to take advantage of. So the intrusion of the handicap ramp across that ’vista point is a serious consideration for the preservation of the garden. This was obviously a garden that these people cherished. It was a part of their living in the house and developing the property for their use. This is a picture of Rhona Williams, the daughter who gave the property to the city, along with a picture of her dog, Rufus. Also a picture of the original laundry drying yard, a very important feature in a residential landscape. People did not have dryers then. That is an element we want to preserve. Ms. Maser: Have you relocated the drying area yet? Ms. Craig: It will be relocated in the rear area. We had originally felt it could go in the back comer, but we since found that that was the location of the original hothouse and potting area. Since horticulture was very important to the Williams family, important enough that they had their own hothouse, we would hope someday to be able to return that portion of the garden to a hothouse use. So we cannot put the laundry drying yard there unless it is done temporarily. Ms. Maser: How will the street elevation of this property change as a result o~’what you are doing? Unlike what you can see now, I think what you will be able to see is that the hedges 4 will be lowered to a heighl ~" ,.t represents the height we believe it w ~ept at, which was about four feet. The house will b,._ Jme much more visible. Our feeling is pretty strong that the entrance to the doctor’s office garden needs to remain as a very low key kind of rustic entrance, as it was always kept during the family’s time in the house. We would like that entrance to pretty much look the way it looks now. We do not see there being any drastic changes to that. As Chris mentioned, the front door of the house was always accessed by the family and their visitors down the driveway, so we feel that that access to the museum fits with the way in which the family had always used the property. There won’t be gates? (No) Will there be any signage? ~: The garden preservation group feels very strongly that if there is any signage, it really needs to be at the driveway. We understand the need for signage for the museum, but we feel it would be inappropriate to have it at the doctor’s office gate, so we think that since the driveway is the area that we would want to encourage pedestrian and a little vehicular movement through, the driveway is the obvious location for signage. Ms. Maser: There is no proposal here for that. Ms. Craig: We have indicated a sign on our plan. Ms. Maser: That will come back to us later. If there are no further questions on landscaping, I would like Carol to fill us in on what went on at the HRB meeting. ]~.~£L~: The HRB, as Shirley said, did approve the plans and felt that this was a good use fitting the building into the property. There was a lot of discussion about the ramp, as mentioned, for the reasons that Kathleen gave. As you look through the arch, you see the ramp coming out. The feeling was that, if possible, the ramp should be moved back. That may mean putting a door in between the present window and the back comer of the building in order to get the ramp in, unless some other solution can be found. That did not seem too likely. There was a little discussion about the entranceway into the education building. People felt that that was acceptable. There was also some discussion about the window on the other side, and again, people felt that since it did not face the front of the house, it was not a noticeable element unless you went around the side of the garden. They found that to be acceptable, as well. There were no questions about the gardens. They were fine. It was mainly a question of the ramp. Ms. Maser: Thank you. Are there board member questions of the architect? Mr. McFall: ’The board’s purview is for both the interior and exterior? (Yes) Regarding the ramp, since that was the lead topic of discussion in yesterday’s meeting, do you see a way to move it so that it will not conflict with the circulation and the views along the front edge of the doctor’s suite? Montv Anderson. Cody, Anderson, X~Vasney. Architects: We are coming out of what used to be the doctor’s operating room. In this area of the house, perhaps you should see what the functions are. The old laboratory will become an apothecary display area. The museum has commitments from someone with a lot of turn-of-the-century doctor’s instruments to recreate the idea of the operating room. We have -- :gotten into the actual physical layout - : what objects are going where, so it is a little hard to defme the circulation. These areas are ~,,mg to be the library, and they need someone on staff from the museum to be on duty when the library is open. We want to be able to close that off when there is no volunteer available and still be able to meet our second means of egress. So we chose the operating room and we chose an existing window, changing it to a door to minimize the intervention. There obviously are about four feet of wall right here. If we were to put the door over here in the comer, the net effect is to slide the whole thing back. We do not want the ramp coming out at the back because there is a nice relationship between the existing wisteria arbor and the end of the house. Going out this way interferes with the yew tree, so we are left with coming out front. We can minimize this intrusion somewhat by pulling it back to that back comer, but it does mean cutting a new door where no door existed before. Ms. Mas~: What about the interference with the trellis? Mr. Anderson: You cannot pull it all the way back to the comer, because with anything that you build, you want to give this a little breathing room. If it has to have a landing, you do not want to just come straight out and be nearly touching the wisteria arbor, so what we told the HRB was that we are willing to study this, but at the moment, I cannot say that putting this back here is the answer to the whole thing. ]~l,~_~L~lg~9~: Again, there is garden material we are trying to save virtually everywhere, so the straight run minimizes the amount of intrusion. There is an existing pathway along here where there were no foundation plantings, so the ramp sort of mimics where the path was. Pulling it out into this region brings it through planting areas. Again, it is an area we are willing to study, but there are a lot of factors involved, and pulling it back here is not going to solve everything. We will have to look at it very carefully, and we will have to work with the landscape preservation team. Mr. McFall: There is a cover over the trellis area connecting the education center and the house? Correct. What is the material? r.~L~5,~igr~E0~: What we wanted to use is a clear Lexan and detail this covered entryway so that it reads as a trellis, perhaps exposing the ends and basically taking our clues from the wisteria arbor. The only requirement that we actually have to have is a requirement for covered travel, but the cover is not defined, so we would like to use a clear Lexan and detail it in a way that it did appear to be more of an open, trellis-type structure. Mr. McFall: Another item that was.discussed with the HRB had to do with the window shape at the entry to the education center. There were some concerns about the more contemporary feel of a square window versus the shapes on the house, as well as the new window shapes on the education building. Can you respond to those comments? Mr. Anderson: Yes, we feel very strongly that while we are taking our clues for this building from the material palette and forms and roof shapes-of the garage, what we do not want to do is to create a building where you have to scratch your head as to whether this was built in 1880 or 6 atthetumofthe_centuryc "a 1996. We want something that spea~ ~ourtime. There are square shapes in some oft,.~ windows here in the garage. The house itself has more of a vertical, rectangular shape window, although there is a variety if you walk around the house. You will f’md one of everything. You have to think, too, in terms of how is this building being used. A lot of the lectures are being done at night. The museum is not necessarily open during some of those events. People will be arriving here, and we are trying to create a beacon that signals the entrance and where the activity is. This building, because it also houses a lot of display type areas, has minimal windows because we need more wall space for displays. What we don’t want is a dark hall, so we have made this one gesture here to open it out to the garden and get nice north light into the area. This serves more as a signal. We think there are forms like that in and around the garage that do not necessarily make this foreign to the property. They also display themselves in a way that is more contemporary than any of the other buildings. That is the effect we are trying to achieve. Ms.Maser: Do you have a material sample board? Mr.Anderson: No, we do not. Ms.Maser: Are you going to have one? Mr.._M._~.~erson: We will. Because this has never been reviewed by a public body at this point, what we are trying to do is to make sure that the concept of what we have here is palatable to everyone. We are happy to come back with material palettes and signage. ~: Is this a preliminary review? Mr. Anderson: No, it is not. We do want approval on the concept, because we want to get going on this project. Can you describe the materials that you are thinking of for the new building? Mr. Anderson: Yes. The new building has a wainscot around it of lap siding that would be similar to the garage. We cannot get the exact same material that they had in the garage, which is beautiful heart redwood, 1" x 12" lap siding. Our idea is that we are repeating that material, and above the wainscot, we are. using a plywood board and batten. That is basically to add interest to the building and also for a certain aspect of economy. MsMaser: And the windows? Mr. Anderson: They are painted wood. Ms. Maser: With true divided lights? Mr. Anderson: Yes. Ms. Maser: And the roof?. Mr. Anderson:The roof will probably be a composition shingle throughout. All the roofs have 7 to be replaced on the entir ~ "e. The last four roofs that were put or ~, garage were composition shingle. You can tell because they are all still there. T~_ house is composition shingle, and its previous two roofings were also composition shingle. Those are still there also. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak? Herb Borock. 2731 Byron Street. Palo Alto: My only concern is about the hedge that borders the property. From the time I have been in Palo Alto, in my memory, which sometimes fails me, is that it has always been a tall hedge. I heard the applicant indicate that she believes that historically, it is four feet. When an advocate says they "believe" something, it is always a signal to me to wonder if there is any evidence to support that. I realize that as design professionals, you might want as many people as possible to get a good view of the architecture of the house, but that is different from the standards of historic preservation. It seems to me that a residential garden is one that has been secluded from the surrounding area to maintain the residential character of the garden. So I believe that the hedge should maintain its height in situations where the report indicates that it is going to be lowered, and with proper fertilizing and watering, it will grow, but there is no indication of what height it should be brought back up to or how fast that would occur. I also notice in the staff report that in the driveway entrance, it indicates that there is no need to widen the width of the driveway either. I am going to be looking for evidence of what the hedge height was historically. Certainly there are documents of various historic houses in Palo Alto that should contain photographs. As this proceeds further along, I would encourage the applicant to look for the historic nature as well, and not substitute a desire for people to see a particular building from the standard of historic preservation of the property. ~ff~L~dKr.d.~: This is a picture and you can see the inscription on the back. They have identified it as Mrs. Dora Williams’ handwriting. There is a clear view of the hedge in August of 1931. In this series of pictures that were loaned to us, there are quite a few pictures of the front yard and you can see the hedge. Ms. Maser: It is hard to tell how high it is. ~: Yes, it is hard to tell how high it is. You are trying to relate it to other features in the garden. The archway in this view is completely covered with foliage, but I think you can see the interior of the arch, and relate the hedge height to the interior of the arch. Ms. Maser: Is that at about six feet? Ms. Murden: I think that is at about five feet, because the hedge is considerably lower than the interior of the archway. Ms. Maser: Seeing no one who wishes to speak, I will return this item to the board for board comments. Ms. Piha: I think it is a beautiful project. I am really excited to see the progress you have made. The team has worked with a lot of constraints and has given things a lot of careful consideration. I think it is going to be very exciting. I am really pleased to see that with the education center, you made some decisions to not try and replicate the house, letting the house stand on its own. You have replicated some of the other features of the property. I do think it is important to rethink the ramp situation r ~ try to keep that important vista point,I _ ich is important to the garden preservation. It is a._.~ important to the architecture of the ho~e. There probably is not an obvious solution, but I am sure you can come up with something that will work. I think it is in the right location. It is just a matter of reworking a few issues. The other thing I would like to see return is the signage, your solutions and the final color palette with actual material samples and solutions. I think the direction in which you are going with the finished material selection is appropriate, and it will create a nice solution. The one other area of a little concern to me is the exclamation point, the entry, I believe those are some of the words that you used to describe it, a punctuation mark. I don’t think it needs to be raised to the height that you have raised it. I think you could still define a successful entry without raising that element. I think the style and character of making the new additio separate feature, all of those things are fme. Probably of most concern is the height. I think you can have the definition without the height. Mr. McFall: As most of us here today know, this property has had a rather long and sordid history over the short time that it has been under the city’s stewardship. I am pleased to see that it has come full circle from where it first started when the city got the property. I am very pleased with where it is today, particularly in terms of the gardens and the fact that they are going to be preserved and restored. That is a function of the variance that is necessary to eliminate the parking, which I support fully. I fred that the project conforms with the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. Regarding the hedge, I would consider that to also comply in that even if it is a change from what has been there historically, it can be easily undone by not trimming the hedge. So I would encourage the hedge to be lowered. Since the use is changing, it is important to open up the visual access from the street and sidewalk. I definitely support that. In terms of the new building, I support the approach which is subservient to the house and compatible with the other outbuilding, that being the garage. I think the approach to those is well thought out, and I would support that as well, including the materials selection on that. One minor item that we did not discuss. There was some discussion as to the materials used in repairing the surgical room. The applicant had suggested gypsum board, and the HRB, as I recall, was more supportive of plaster, on which I would concur. I would like to see plaster to match the remainder of the house. My fmal comment would be that I see this more as a restoration than a rehabilitation. I think the applicant and the architects have gone the extra step to preserve this house, changing the use but still maintaining both the interior and the exterior. That is vitally important. The interiors are wonderful, and the museum’s approach to preserving the interiors is well thought out and very sensitive. I strongly support everything. One minor comment regarding the ramp. I would echo the comments you have heard today and yesterday regarding attempting to minimize the impact of the ramp. Moving it back will help it a little. One thing to think about is that if it is possible to transition to a one and twenty ramp for the lower section, I believe you can avoid a hand rail. So perhaps by raising the grade at the adjacent path where it empties onto, you maybe able to get it up high enough to include a one in twenty ramp. That way, if it does extend out beyond the comer of the house, the visual impact would be minimized. 9 MOTION: Mr. McFall: ~ ke a motion to approve the project de" ,, as well as the variance request for elimination of ~e parking requirement. ~aser: Would you include in there that they are to bring back signage and materials and color samples? would so include. Ms. Maser: I have nothing to add. I think it is wonderful what you have done. I agree with what my colleagues have said. I, too, would support your lowering the hedge, because I think this needs to be more visually accessible now, as long as we are not violating any guidelines or standards. Your point is well taken that it can always be allowed to grow higher. I would like to see more detail regarding materials and colors, also the signage. You have done a beautiful job of your presentations. Congratulations on getting this far. I think you are well down the road. When do you expect to start building? Mr. Anderson:. They expect us to get fight to work. MOTION PASSES: Ms. Maser: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 3-0-1-1. 10 Attachment 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1.Project Title: Museum of American Heritage proposal for preservation and use of the Williams Property. 2.Lead Agency Name and Address: Pal0 Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: Virginia Warheit, (415) 329-2364 4.Project Location: 351 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 5.Application Number(s): 96-EIA-17 6.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Museum of American Heritage, c/o CodyAndersonWasney Architects, 941 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 7. General Plan Designation: Major Institution/Special Facility 8. Zoning: PF, Public Facility 9.Description of the Project: The Museum of American Heritage is requesting an Option to Lease the city-owned historic Williams Property in order to preserve the existing house, garage and gardens, with .minor modifications for compliance with life safety and accessibility requirements, and to construct a 1565 square foot education room with accessible restrooms. The property will be used as a museum of American material culture with an education program. Under current zoning, a conditional use permit is required for this use. The applicants are requesting a parking Variance, since 22 spaces are required and only 4 spaces are provided on site. A condition of the Lease will require that all proposed interior and exterior alterations to the site and the preservation and maintenance plan for the gardens and grounds be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Board, the Architectural Review Board, the Planning Commission and the City Council. P: \ei aS Ei a351homer ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOlOd 10. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The property is located in downtown Palo Alto three blocks south of University Avenue. The Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) is located south across Homer Avenue from the site. PAMF medical facilities are also adjacent to the site on the east and west. Also to the west, the site is adjacent to three single family residential properties. An apartment building is on the property adjacent to the north, rear boundary of the site. 1 1. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation and Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance None P’\eia\ Ei a351homer DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,X and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Date Director of Planning & Community Environment P: \ei a\ Ei a351homer Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOUrCeS Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significent act Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would,the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?1,2 b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 3,4 "X adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?6,7,8 X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact 2,7,8 X to soiis or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 6,7,8 established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or Iocalpopulation 1,2,3 X projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or 1,2,3 X indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable 3,7,8 X housing? 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture?9,10 X b) Seismic ground shaking?9,10 X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?9,10 X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?9,10 X e) Landslides or mudflows?9,10 X f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 9,10 X conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land?9,10 X h) Expansive soils?9,10 X I) Unique geologic or physical features?9,10 X P:\ela\ Ei a351homer Issues and Supporting information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 7,1 1 rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 8,9, such as flooding?12 6,7,8c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and debris from construction, hydrocarbons and metals from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from landscape maintenance? d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water 6,7 body or wetland? e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 6,7 movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands? f)9Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h)Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public wate~ supplies? j) Alteration of wetlands in any way? 9 9 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? 8,13 13 7,11 X X X X X X X P:\eia\ Ei a351homer Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOUrCeS Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Lass Then Significant Impact d) Create objectionable odors?7,11 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp c) curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g, farm equipment))? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 8,14 14 7,11 1,11, 14 7,11 15,16 7,15 X X X X X X X 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result reduction or interferenm in: a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 17,19 23,26 17,19 23,26 8,17, 19,23 26 X X X X X 8o a) b) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 18 18 P:\eia\ Eia351homer Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigetion Incorporated Less ThenSignificant Impact c)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 18 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous. substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b)Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) EXposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? *(see Explanation, Section 19.) e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass of trees? 8 7,19 X X X ~X X 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels?8,20, 21 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?8,20, 21 X X 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or storm drain facilities? e) Other governmental services? 22 22 22 22 22 X X X X X 12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? P’\eia\ Ei a351homer Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Lass Than Significant Impact b) Communications systems? c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect. a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) 15isturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 22 22 22 22 22 22 4 6,7, 11 11 5,8, 17,19 23,25 8 8 X X X X X X X. X X X X X X X 24 X 8 X P:\eia\ Ei a351homer Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 27 X b)Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, 27 to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) 27 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will 27 cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project.. P:\eia\ Ei a351homer Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issuos Potentially Significant UnlessMitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). P: \ei a\ Ei a351homer Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 Palo Alto Municipal Code - Title 18 (Zoning), Zoning Map, Chapters 18.32 (PF District) & 18.83 (Off- Street Parking); 1992 2 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1980-1995 Land Use Map; 1981-1995 3 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1980-1995, Housing Element; 1990 4 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1980-1995, Urban Design Element, 1981 5 Palo Alto Historic Inventory, 1987 6 Aerial Photography of subject property and surrounding community; 1995 7 Field investigation of subject property and surrounding community to survey existing conditions and land uses: 1994, 1995 & 1996, 8 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Existing Setting Summary Memorandum, Maps B-l, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-9, B-12, B-13 & B-14; 1994 9 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Environmental Resources Element, Pages 65-72; 1981 10 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Geology and Seismic Technical Report; 1994 11 Museum of American Heritage Preliminary Development Plans (site plan, building elevations, cross- sections, landscape plan, tree survey); 1995/1996 12 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Geology & Seismic Technical Report, Figures +7 & 6; 1994 13 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Air Quality Technical background Report, Pages 15-30; 1994 14 Carl Stoffel, Transportation Division, City of Palo Alto; 1993, 1994, 1995 15 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Transportation Element; 1981 16 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study - A Summary, City of Palo ~klto; 1990 17 Historic Garden Preservation Plan for the Williams Property, Craig Design Associates; 1996 18 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Environmental Resources Element, Pages 50-60; 1981 19 Williams Residence Historic Resources Report, Gil Sanchez, FAIA, Santa Cruz,; 1992 20 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Environmental Resources element, Pages 60-63; 1981 21 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Noise Technical Background Report; 1994 P:\eia\ Ei a351homer 22 Comments by City Departments on the proposed project 23 Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Landscapes, Draft, May 1992, National Park Service. 24 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Schools and Parks Element, Pages 37-41; 1981 25 Preservation Briefs, #36, protecting Cultural Landscapes, Planning, Treatment and Mange of Historic Landscapes, National Park Service 26 Lucy Tolmach, Garden Superintendent, Filoli, Woodside, CA 27 Answer is substantiated through the responses provided for items 1-15 19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES 1 .c) 3.b) 6.a) Allowing the Museum, as a Conditional Use in the PF zone, could be incompatible with surrounding land uses in that the project could create additional parking need that can not be provided on-site; however, available parking in the area and programs proposed by the Museum as outlined in Section 6, Transportation/Circulation result in less than significant impacts. The subject property is fairly level with the existing residence and a garage structure. The project is located in a seismic area of moderate risk subject to very strong shaking in the event of an earthquake. The City of Palo Alto construction regulations require compliance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards. Application of UBC standards results in measures that minimize seismic risk. Vehicle trips to the site will increase, since the use is changing from a single family residence to a public use. Based on the Museum’s past operation at their former site, the number of visitors to the site is expected to be approximately 105 visitors per day with some visitors arriving by foot or bicycle, or in groups by bus, van or carpool. Currently the Museum is only open three days per week (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) and has no plans for additional open days. At a worst case scenario of all visitors arriving by individual automobile, the resulting 210 trips per day is small enough not to be perceived compared to the approximately 5,000 average vehicles per day on the adjacent streets. This amount of traffic is less than significant. P:\eia\ Ei a351homer 6.d) 7.a) There is not sufficient parking on the site to meet parking ordinance requirements. However, the actual anticipated parking needs of the Museum can be met in the immediate vicinity without causing a hardship to other properties in the area. At their former location where a large parking lot was available for their use, only 6 to 10 spaces were being used at any one time. The parking ordinance requirement for the proposed Museum is 17 spaces and an additional 5 spaces for the proposed new education room, for a total of 22 spaces. Four spaces are being provided on site, 2 of which are handicap accessible, to be used by Museum staff, mobility impaired visitors and visitors coming by carpool. These spaces are being provided in the sites’s existing parking area. It is not possible to provide additional parking on site without expanding into the garden areas of the site that have historic importance, thereby adversely impacting the historic qualities of the site. The Garden is an intact example of a small home landscape of the early 20th century. It has the potential to be interpreted and preserved as a unique family physician garden. The historic integrity of this old California home landscape is significant in that it contains all the landscape components typical of this period garden. There are several off-site parking and transit options for visitors. Four public parking lots providing free parking are located within three blocks of the site. Two bus stops served by Santa Clara County Transit are one-half block from the site. The Palo Alto CalTrain station is within walking distance, approximately eight blocks away. Actions which the Museum can take to offset the small amount of on-site parking include: inform visitors of locations of the four nearby public parking lots; encourage groups to arrive by carpool, van or bus that can be parked on-site; apply for a temporary parking permit to reserve a curbside space for visitors’ buses; encourage visitors to arrive by public transit; and schedule events that may attract more than the usual number of visitors to occur on week-ends when there is less demand for downtown parking. These alternatives will be reviewed in the public process for the Conditional Use Permit and Variance and appropriate conditions incorporated into the Use Permit. To meet parking needs, if they arise in the long term, another off-site parking option that can be pursued is shared use of existing nearby parking lots, particularly those of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). The city currently has a development agreement with PAMF0 executed in November, 1991, that provides that not less than 35 spaces will be made available on PAMF lots across Homer Avenue from the Williams property for use by activities on the Williams property in late afternoon, evenings and weekends. A May, 1996 amendment to the development agreement provides that if the PAMF facilities are relocated from their present location to the Urban Lane site, the properties where they are presently located cannot be redeveloped until a community planning process has taken place. Through this planning process, continued access to shared parking can be pursued. A likely opportunity for future shared parking to be pursued during this planning process is with the historic Roth building across Homer Avenue from the Williams property. This designated historic building (Category II is expected to be preserved and to remain in use. It includes approximately 10,000 square feet of usable space, generating a parking requirement of 40 spaces. There is no assurance that parking on the current PAMF site will be available in the long term. However, while this parking would be desirable, the parking shortage described above is not considered to be a significant impact. The family of Dr. Thomas Williams was in continuous residence at this site from 1906-1989 and there was no substantial change to the property during those years, including to the gardens and grounds. Consequently, there are plant materials on the site that are no longer commercially available and may have horticultural value as rare species. The Museum’s proposal for the site includes a Garden Preservation and Maintenance Plan that follows the guidelines developed by the National Park Service for the treatment of historic landscapes. Surveys of the site will be conducted over several seasons by horticulturalists knowledgeable about historic plant material. All plants on the site will be identified and the site will be rehabilitated to its historic character. In particular, plants no longer commercially available will be propagated thus maintaining the species. P:\eia\ Ei a351homer 9.d) lO.a) 14.c) When the City obtained the site, an above ground furnace fuel tank was located on the site. The tank had no apparent leakage. An underground automobile gas refueling tank was found below grade. A November 14, 1991 soils investigation by Waller Associates found that the above ground tank had not leaked or resulted in ground contamination, and that the underground tank apparently had no leakage. Both tanks were removed by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department in 1993. Oversight of the removal was done by the Palo Alto Fire Department. The soil in the vicinity of the tanks was further tested and found to be free of contaminants. No clean-up or additional review is required. Noise levels will increase slightly since the property is changing from a private residence to public use. The only noise sources will be occasional vehicles arriving and leaving the site and visitors in the outdoor spaces on the site. This will not be a significant change to existing ambient noise levels. The most sensitive adjacent uses are three single family homes whose backyards are separated from the Williams property by a six foot wooden fence and tall shrubs and trees. The parking area and the proposed new education room are located on the portion of the site farthest from the adjacent single family homes. The apartment building adjacent to the north has a. pool house and garden separating it by about 100 feet from the Williams property. With the on-site parking spaces and the driveway activities located at the point most removed from the residential structures, the impact to the residents will be less than significant. Use of the gardens for parties and events may create some noise and nuisance impacts that can be minimized through the Conditional Use Permit process. The Williams property is a designated historic site (Category II) on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. The house, constructed in 1906,’was designed by Ernest Coxhead, an English architect with an office in San Francisco from 1890-1933 and an important designer in the First Bay Area Tradition. The only outbuilding on the property is a garage constructed about 1915, possibly the first garage for automobiles in Palo Alto. The grounds, approximately 213 of an acre, are carefully laid out with sandstone bordered planting beds and paths, stone walls and a wisteria arbor. An Historic Resources Report commissioned by the city in March, 1992, identified the site intact with house, garage, trees, planting beds, arbors, and garden wall as historically significant as a representative example of the upper-middle class suburban homestead in the first decade of the twentieth century. The State Office of Historic Preservation has identified the site as potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation have been adopted by the City Council for the treatment of designated historic properties in Palo Alto, and the Museum’s proposal is in compliance with those standards. The garage is being restored, and the only changes proposed to the house are those required to meet accessibility and safety standards. The State Historic Building Code is being used to meet necessary standards with minimal impact to the historic fabric. The proposed new education room and accessible restrooms are being constructed at the rear of the site where they will have the least impact on the historic qualities of the site. As described in 7.a. above, the project includes preservation and maintenance of the gardens and grounds according to National Park Service standards for the treatment of historic landscapes. A garden oversight committee of highly skilled horticulturalists has been formed and authorized by the Museum Board to carry out these preservation activities. The detailed development plans for minor modifications to the house and garage, construction of the new education facility, and preservation and maintenance of the garden and grounds will be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Board. P:\eia\ Ei a351homer City Palo Alto ~-tment ofPlanning and unity Environment Attachment 9 Application No. 96-UP-24:351 Homer Avenue Use Permit 96-UP-24 is approved to allow the use of the historic Williams Property as a Museum, Educational Facility, public park and related support services, and the construction of a new 1,565 square foot building, per approved plans, at 351 Home Avenue, PF (Public Facilities) Zone District, Palo Alto, California. This Use Permit accompanies Variance 96-V- 12. The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with plans received May 20, 1996, on file in the office of the Palo Alto Planning Division. 6 LISA GROTE Zoning Administrator All conditions of Variance 96-V-12 also apply to this project. August 13, 1996 This Use Permit is granted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.90 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. In any case in which the conditions to the granting of a Use Permit have not been complied with, the Zoning Administrator shall give notice to the permittee of intention to revoke such permit at least ten (10) days prior to a hearing thereon. Following such hearing and if good cause exists therefore, the Zoning Administrator may revoke the Use Permit. a:\96.1 \351 homer.fin 250 HamiltonAvenue P.O. Box 10250 PaloAI~o, CA 94303 415.329.2441 415.329. 2240 Fax August 13, 1996 Page 1 of 2 A Use Permit which has not been used within one (1) year after the date of granting becomes void, although the Zoning Adminisla’ator may, without a heating, extend the time for an additional year if an application to this effect is filed with him before the expiration of the first year. APPLICANT:Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, Inc. 941 Emerson Street Palo Alto CA 94301 PROPERTY OWNER:City of Palo Alto Atm: Bill Fellman 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301 a:\96.1 \351 homer.fin August 13, 1996 Page 2 of 2 City " Palo Alto Department of P lcm nin g and Community Environment Attachment 10 Application No. 96-V- 12:351 Homer Avenue Variance 96-V-12 is hereby issued to allow four on-site parking spaces where 22 would normally be required to facilitate the rehabilitation of the historic Williams house and surrounding gardens, as per approved plans, at 351 Homer Avenue, PF (Public Facilities) Zone District, Palo Alto, California. Use Permit 96-UP-24 is associated with this variance. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with plans received May 20, 1996, on file in the office of the Palo Alto Planning Division. °The museum operator shall develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, which includes policies encouraging employees of the museum and visitors to the museum to access the site by bus, train or carpools. The policy shall also explain where city-owned parking lots are located and how to access the lots from the museum. The existing parking arrangement with the Palo Alto Medical allow parking in the lot across the street in the evening hours shall be explained in the TDM program and if a new arrangement is developed after the Foundations vacates the site across the street, any new arrangement shall be explained in the program. A copy of the TDM program shall be made available as part of the general information distributed about the museum and shall be provided to the City of Palo Alto Zoning Administrator. LISA GROTE Zoning Administrator August 13, 1996 a:\96.1\351 hmvr.fin 250 HamiltonAvenue P.O.Box10250 PaloAlto, CA94303 415. 329. 2441 415. 329.2240 Fax August 13, 1996 Page 1 of 2 This Variance is granted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.90 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. Any Variance is transferable unless otherwise provided at the time of granting. In any case in which the conditions to the granting of a Variance have not been complied with, the Zoning Administrator shall give notice to the permittee of intention to revoke such Variance at least ten (10) days prior to a hearing thereon. Following such hearing and if good cause exists therefore, the Zoning Administrator may revoke the Variance. A Variance which has not been used within one (1) year after the date of granting becomes void, although the Zoning Administrator may, without a hearing, extend the time for an additional year if an application to this effect is filed with him before the expiration of the first year. APPLICANT:Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, Inc. 941 Emerson Street Palo Alto CA 94301 PROPERTY OWNER:City of Palo Alto Attn: Bill Fellman 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301 a:\96.1\351 hmvr.fin August 13, 1996 Page 2 of 2