Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-15 City Council (8)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 6 FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: DECEMBER 15, 2003 CMR:557:03 REQUEST TO APPROVE LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN FOR WILLIAMS HOUSE (351 HOMER AVENUE) AS PART OF LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO, OWNER, AND MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HERITAGE, TENANT RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Historic Resources Board recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Landscape Master Plan for the Williams House Garden. BACKGROUND In late 2001, the Museum of American Heritage submitted a proposal for a Garden Preservation Master Plan for the Williams House garden, revising the site plan which had been approved by the City Council in 1996 as part of the Museum’s lease agreement with the City for the site. The proposed plan included the closure of the historic driveway to pedestrians and the development of a new, centrally located entry gate and path to the Museum entrance using a portion of the existing "doctor’s path" in the front of the structure. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) held a study session on the proposed Landscape Master Plan on January 16, 2002. The majority of the Board generally expressed support for the Museum’s proposals for the site but requested a redesign of the entry gate, the driveway gate and the fence facing Homer Avenue, to be more in keeping with the existing house and garden. As a result of the study session, the Museum modified its plan for the garden and resubmitted the plan for review by the Board. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The HRB reviewed the revised Landscape Master Plan at its March 6, 2002 meeting, to determine the plan’s conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, as required by the lease agreement (see HRB staff report,-Attachment A). CMR:557:03 Page 1 of 4 The Landscape Master Plan submitted by the Museum included the following proposed changes to the site: ¯A wood and metal rail no higher than 4 feet that would replace the existing wood post and wire fence and a wooden front entry similar to the wood "doctor’s entrance" gate it would replace ¯A new wider flagstone path at the location of the existing "Doctor’s Entrance" path on Homer Avenue including a bench bulb-out ¯A new flagstone path veering to the left off the proposed flagstone "doctor’s entrance" path. This new path would follow the garden wall to its left and lead to an existing path parallel to the front of the house ¯Two new vehicle gates on the historic driveway entrance to the Williams property, similar to the existing "doctor’s entrance" gate ¯New brick paving for the event area at the rear of the house ¯An awning structure over the event area; ¯Relocation of a bay tree and a small redwood tree in the front garden (facing Homer Avenue) to a location at the rear of the property ¯Replacement of the front garden lawn with new sod The primary change to the site proposed in the Landscape Master Plan reviewed by the HRB occurred at the "doctor’s entrance" and path; the path was to be widened by 18 inches and the surface changed from soil cement to flagstone extending from the garden entrance to the beginning of the garden wall. Whereas the existing path is now straight for the majority of its length, the proposed path had a bulb-out to accommodate a bench and veered to the left at the garden wall in an 8-foot wide opening in the hedge. The existing front gate was proposed to be changed to a wider gate of similar appearance. Several speakers provided comments at the meeting regarding the proposed plan (Attachment B). Three opposed the changes, particularly within the front pathway area, stating that these changes destroyed significant elements of the garden and reduced the historic integrity of the site. Three speakers supported the changes proposed by the Museum, considering them necessary for the successful adaptive reuse of the site. After listening to the testimony and questioning staff and the Museum consultants, the HRB recommended approval (4-1-0-1, Murden opposed and Mario absent) of the proposed Garden Preservation Master Plan with the following conditions: 1) The proposed new flagstone entry path inside the replacement new entry gate should be limited to 5.5 feet; 2) The historic portion of the front wire fence and the existing entry gate should be stored by the Palo Alto Historical Association; CMR:557:03 Page 2 of 4 3)The bench bulb-out should be removed; 4)The stone pillars proposed at the front fence should be eliminated; 5)The wood and iron fence should be simplified; and 6) The proposed new stone entry walk abutting the existing stone wall should be reconfigured and the plans reviewed by a HRB subcommittee. Following the March 6, 2002 HRB meeting, the Museum revised the proposed Landscape Master Plan based on the HRB direction (Attachment C). The plan was modified and submitted to the City in early 2003. The revised plan limited the width of the entry way to 5 feet, eliminated the bench bulb-out, replaced the front fence with a similar pattern fence and created a new entry walk to the front garden. The only recommendation by the Board that was not incorporated in the revised Plan was the removal of the stone pillars next to the front fence. The modifications were reviewed by the Chair of the HRB who determined that the plan was generally consistent with the HRB direction. ATTACHMENTS A.Historic Resources Board staff report of March 6, 2002, with attachments D through I B.Minutes of March 6, 2002 Historic Resources Board meeting C.Letter from Montgomery Anderson, dated January 27, 2003, regarding Williams House Garden Renovation Plan, with enclosure D.Site Plan: Landscape Master Plan, lVJ~.seum of American Heritage (Council Members only) PREPARED BY: ~ Ju~ap~)rgnoAdvance Planning M~ DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ~EVE~MSS~ " Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL?-~,I" kJ_~" EMIL~r HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:557:03 Page 3 of 4 COURTESY COPIES Historic Resources Board Montgomery Anderson, Cody Anderson Wasney Architects Ron Benoit Associates, Landscape Architects David Bubenik A1 Chin, Museum of American Heritage Kathleen Craig, Craig Design Associates Elizabeth C. Garbett Glenda M. Jones Cathy Garrett, Pattillo & Barrett Assiciates, Landscape Architects Ellen Harrington, Museum of American Heritage Pria Graves Lucy Tolmach CMR:557:03 Page 4 of 4 Attachment A Historic Resources Board Staff Report Date:March 6, 2002 To:Historic Resources Board From: Subject: Dennis Backlund, Historic Preservation Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 351 Homer Avenue: Historic Resources Board review and recommendation to the City Council of a Garden Preservation Master Plan for the historic Williams House garden as recommended by the Garden Preservation Oversight Team. The Williams House is listed as a Category 2 property on the City ofPalo Alto’s Historic Inventory. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board review the proposed Garden Preservation Master Plan for conformance to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and provide a recommendation to the City Council subject to the condition that all proposed signage for the site be reviewed by the Board. Staff recommends that the Board focus on the proposed modifications to the Doctor’s Path in front of the garden wall where the principal change to the Williams Garden site would occur. Staff recommends that the proposed new flagstone entry path inside the replacement Doctor’s Gate be limited to 5 1/2 feet in width from the Doctor’s Gate to the point where it joins the historic flagstone area to the left of the garden wall. Staffalso recommends that the surfacing under the proposed bench be soil cement rather than an extension of the flagstone path. BACKGROUND The existing site plan for the Williams House Garden was approved by the City Council in September 1996 as part of the Lease Agreement in order to adapt the site to the new use by the Museum of American Heritage. The site plan was ADA compliant, provided for restricted automobile access to the property, and was determined to have a less than significant impact on the historic property. A Negative Declaration for the project was s:\plan\plandivkhrb\staffreport\HRB staffrep, template Page 1 prepared in May 1996 (see Attachment A) based on the fact that future development on the site would conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. The Museum now proposes a Garden Preservation Master Plan that revises the approved site plan including the closure of the historic driveway to pedestrians and the development of a new centrally located entry gate and path to the Museum entrance that makes use of and alters a portion of the existing "Doctor’s Path" (see Attachment B). The Historic Resources Board (HRB) held a study session on the proposed Garden Preservation Master Plan, and the Cultural Landscape Report on which it was based, on January 16, 2002. The majority of the Board generally expressed support for the Museum’s proposals but requested that the designs for the entry gate, the driveway gate, and the fence facing Homer Avenue return to the Board with a simpler design more in keeping with the existing house and garden (see Attachment C). Staff informed the Board that the project would be developed further in light of the Board’s comments after review by the Museum’s Garden Preservation Oversight Team, as required by the Lease Agreement. The revised Garden Preservation Master Plan would then return to the Board for review and recommendation to the City Council. On February 25, 2002 the City received a letter from the Museum announcing the expansion of the Garden Preservation Oversight Team from two members (a horticulturist, and the Executive Director of the Museum, who is the Chair of the Oversight Team) to four members. One of the new members is an arboriculture consultant and the other is the Historian of the Palo Alto Historical Association (see Attachment D). On February 26, 2002 a letter addressed to the Chairman of the Board of the Museum of American Heritage was forwarded to the City from the Oversight Team stating that the Oversight Team reviewed the revised Garden Preservation Master Plan and recommends it to the HRB and the City Council as compliant with the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation (see Attachment E). In January and February 2002 the City received letters from three members of the public, one a historic garden volunteer and the other two garden professionals and former members of the Oversight Team. The three letters expressed concerns about perceived impacts of the proposed Garden Preservation Master Plan on the historic site (see Attachments F, G, and H). On February 8 the Museum’s historic garden consultant and author of the Williams Garden Cultural Landscape Report submitted a letter to the City that responded to the concerns of two of the letters and concluded that the proposed Master Plan, while including changes to the Garden, was compliant with the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation (see Attachment I). s:\plan\plandivkhrb\staffreportkHRB staffrep, template Page 2 The Lease Agreement requires that recommendations by the Oversight Team for a Garden Preservation Master Plan be in conformance with the Museum’s Council- approved "Historic Garden Preservation Plan for the Williams House and Garden" dated April 1, 1996. The Preservation Plan (which is part of the Lease Agreement) was approved by the City Council in June 1996 and is based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for historic landscapes (see Attachment J). Due to the high level of garden preservation and the minimal impact on historic features presented in the Historic Garden Preservation Plan, the City Council awarded the Option to Lease to the Museum. THE SECRETARY’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION The HRB is requested to determine the conformance of the proposed Garden Preservation Master Plan with the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation as required by the Lease Agreement, and staff has attached the Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Historic Sites to this report (see Attachment K). The "Introduction to the Standards" emphasizes that "The intent of the Standards is to assist the long-term preservation of a property’s significance through the preservation of historic materials and features." According to Standard # 1,a new use, while encouraged by the Standards, should undertake "minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment." Standard # 2 states that "The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided," and Standard # 9 requires that "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property." Staff has also attached to this report an authoritative essay entitled "Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes" (see Attachment L). This essay, based on the Secretary’s Standards, may assist the Board in evaluating the Cultural Landscape Report and the Garden Preservation Master Plan for conformance with the Secretary’s Standards. In order to indicate the international stature that historic gardens have acquired in the last twenty years, staff has also provided "The Florence Charter" drawn up in Florence, Italy in 1982 by the ICOMOS-IFLA International Committee for Historic Gardens (see Attachment M). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Garden Preservation Master Plan submitted by Ron Benoit Associates for the HRB Study Session on January 16, 2002 included the following proposed changes to the site: A new stone and metal rail fence and front entry gate facing Homer Avenue that would replace the existing wood post and wire fence and wood Doctor’s Entrance gate; s:\plan\plandiv~rb\staffreportkHRB staffrep, template Page 3 ¯A new wider flagstone path at the location of the current Doctor’s Entrance path on Homer Avenue; A new flagstone path veering left off the proposed flagstone Doctor’s Entrance path. This new path will follow the garden wall to its left and will lead to an existing path parallel to the front of the house; Two new vehicle gates on the historic driveway-entrance to the Williams property. The rear gate is proposed to be a reconstruction based on historic photo- documentation. New brick paving for the "Event Area" at the rear of the house; An awning structure over the "Event Area," whose design is derived from photographs of the clothesline structure in the historic "drying area"; ¯The concept of new Museum signage on Homer Avenue; ¯Removal of a bay tree and a small redwood tree in the "Front Garden"; Relocation of a multi-trunk olive tree at the front of"Dora’s Garden" (facing Homer Avenue) to a spot at the left of the "Working Garden" at the rear of the property; ¯Replacement of the "Front Garden" lawn with new sod. The revised Garden Preservation Master Plan submitted by Ron Benoit Associates for the Board’s recommendation to the City Council at the Board meeting of March 6, 2002 addresses the Board’s comments at the January 16 meeting by proposing a simple wood and metal fence that will be no higher than 4 feet, and revised gates at the new main entry and driveway that will be closely similar to the existing "Doctor’s Gate" (see Attachment N). The other proposals remain essentially as they were presented to the Board on January 16. Staff has determined that the proposed flagstone paving extending across the public sidewalk to the curb of Homer Avenue would not be permitted by the City’s Public Works Department and the Master Plan will be modified accordingly. ALTERNATIVES FOR THE MUSEUM MAIN ENTRY The generally accepted planning process for developing a historic rehabilitation project Master Plan includes the following stages: s:\plan\plandivkhrb\staffreport~IRB staffrep, template Page 4 ¯Research (historic development of the site and data on existing conditions). ¯Data synthesis and analysis (including analysis of the constraints the site poses to viable adaptive re-use). ¯Consideration of available options within required historic treatment standards. ¯Formal evaluation of alternatives. ¯Selection of the plan concept that enhances the selected adaptive re-use while maintaining overall historic integrity. ¯Development of the Master Plan. The first two stages were completed by the Williams Garden Cultural Landscape Report prepared by Pattillo & Garrett Associates in January 2002. The report did not include a full inventory of existing plant conditions, but this will be provided by the Museum’s Garden Preservation Oversight Team and the Garden Committee before restorative activities begin. The formal evaluation of alternatives for development in the Williams Garden is the stage in the process currently under consideration. The Board, therefore, is requested to consider the following three alternative approaches for an entry to the Museum of American Heritage and make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Garden Preservation Master Plan at the March 6, 2002 Board meeting. The State Office of Historic Preservation has identified the Williams House and Garden as potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (see Attachment A), and the Board may wish to consider the potential effect of proposed changes to the garden on the site’s eligibility for the National Register. Staff has concluded that the primary change to the site proposed in the Master Plan will occur at the Doctor’s Entry and Path where the path will be widened by 18 inches, and the surface will be changed from soil cement to flagstone extending from the entry to the beginning of the garden wall (beyond that point soil cement will remain). The path, therefore, will have two forms of surfacing instead of one and also two different widths instead of one. Also, the path that is now straight for the majority of its length will have a bulb-out to accommodate a bench and will veer to the left in a Y-pattern at the garden wall. In addition, the bench area will have the character of a patio rather than a path due to the bench bulb-out and due to the approximately 8-foot wide opening in the hedge where the path will turn to the left of the garden wall. Finally, the existing Doctor’s Entry Gate will be changed to a new wider gate of similar appearance. s:\plan\plandiv~hrb\staffreportkHRB staffrep, template Page 5 Alternative 1: The Entry as Proposed by Ron Benoit Associates in Behalf of the Museum of American Heritage Advantages ¯The alternative meets the Museum’s goal of increasing the strength of the Museum’s presence on Homer Avenue. ¯The alternative will provide an easily understood route between Homer Avenue and the Museum’s entrance at the left side of the house. The alternative will use the existing flagstone path that meets the hedge at the Lion Fountain thus minimizing change to the existing paving and circulation system of the Front Garden. Concerns The alternative will introduce an approximately 8-foot wide opening in the Doctor’s Path hedge thus altering part of one of the enclosing features of the Front Garden "room". Staff observes that this opening could be reduced in width by providing an entry path that is 5 1/2 feet wide for the whole of its length rather than widening it at the garden wall to provide a patio area for the proposed bench. This approach could allow the retention of some of the hedge in front of the garden wall, and would strengthen the sense of enclosure in the Front Garden "room." ¯The meeting place at the garden wall of two different path widths and,two different surfacing materials may be difficult to design in a harmonious manner. Alternative 2: An Entry Employing the Arched Gate at the End of the Doctor’s Path Advantages The altemative would preserve the existing layout of the Doctor’s Path and its spatial and circulation relationships to the surrounding garden "rooms" even if the path were paved with stone and widened. ¯The Front Garden "room" would remain completely enclosed except for the two historic arched stone gates. s:\plan\plandivkhrb\staffreportkHRB staffrep, template Page 6 Concerns ¯The route between Homer Avenue and the Museum entrance would be less clear and direct, but effective signage in front of the Doctor’s Office could orient the visitor. The long straight path to the Doctor’s Office door which is not the Museum entry and the rather abrupt left turn through the arched gate in front of the Doctor’s Office could weaken the Museum’s sense of presence on Homer Avenue. The route to the Museum entrance would be longer than the ronte proposed in the Master Plan. The alternative, if flagstone paving were included, would introduce paving up to the Doctor’s Office which is adjacent to a character-defining circular planting bed. This would produce the problem of how to provide a harmonious transition between the flagstone and the adjoining circular soil cement garden paths. Alternative 3: Retention of An Entry Employing the Driveway Advantages ¯The existing layout of the garden would remain unchanged. ¯The historic main path (the driveway) to the front door would continue to be used by pedestrians. Concerns The alternative does not meet the Museum’s goal of a pedestrian-only main entry on Homer Avenue. The Museum has raised strong safety concerns about automobiles and pedestrians sharing the same route, especially when an automobile leaves the parking area at the rear and rounds the blind corner into the driveway. The Museum has stated that this alternative would raise a serious liability issue at all times, even though vehicular access to the driveway would be limited. When the surface of the driveway is changed later this year from asphalt to a more historically appropriate surfacing there is the potential that particles from the surface will incur additional maintenance of the flooring in the Williams House. s:\plan\plandiv~hrb\staffreportkHRB staffrep, template Page 7 PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC MATERLkLS PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL Wire Fence Existing conditions on the site include a fence composed of wire and wood or steel posts along the width of the property on Homer Avenue. Portions of the wire. fence are utilitarian in character, but to the right of the Doctor’s Gate there is a section of decorative wire fence that appears to date from the early 20th century. If this historic.fence is not retained behind the proposed new wood and metal fence, staff recommends that it be stored by the Palo Alto Historical Association to provide documentary evidence of the early fencing and to enable its repair for possible reinstallation at the site in the future. The Museum has expressed concern that if the wire fence were retained behind the new fence, it could create a liability by attracting children to climb its criss-cross wire pattern and risk injury. Doctor’s Gate The wood Doctor’s Gate appears to be historic and is proposed to be replaced by a wider gate of similar appearance. Staff recommends that it also be stored by the Palo Alto Historical Association so that it will be available to be repaired and returned to the site if the Doctor’s Path is restored to its historic condition in the future. PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY:~ Dennis Backlund Historic Preservation Planner ? iager ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Environmental Impact Assessment and Negative Declaration dated May 17, 1996. Attachment B: Project Description included with the Proposed Garden Preservation Master Plan as Presented to the Historic Resources Board on January 16, 2002. Attachment C: Excerpt of the Historic Resources Board Minutes of January 16, 2002. s:\plan\plaudiv~arbkstaffreportkHRB staffrep, template Page 8 Attachment D: Letter to the City from the Museum of American Heritage dated February 21, 2002. Attachment E: Letter to the Chairman of the Board, Museum of American Heritage from the Garden Preservation Oversight Team dated February 26, 2002. Attachment F: Letter to the City from Glenda Jones dated January 18, 2002. Attachment G: Letter to the City from Elizabeth Garbett dated January 21, 2002. Attachment H: Letter to the City from Kathleen Craig dated February 12, 2002 and the journal Pacific Horticulture dated Spring 1999. (Journal--Board Members only) Attachment I: Letter from Pattillo & Garrett Associates dated February 8, 2002. Attachment J: "Historic Garden Preservation Plan for the Williams House" prepared by the Museum of American Heritage’s Garden Preservation Oversight Team and April 1, 1996. Attachment K: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Historic Sites. Attachment L: Preservation Brief 36 from the National Park Service "Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes" by Charles A. Birnbaum, ASLA. Attachment M: "The Florence Charter" adopted by ICOMOS. Attachment N: Revised Project Description and Revised Garden Preservation Master Plan dated February 12, 2002 (Master Plan--Board Members only). COURTESY COPIES Montgomery Anderson Cody Anderson Wasney Architects 941 Emerson Street, Palo Alto 94301 Ron Benoit Associates, Landscape Architects 223 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto 94301 David Bubenik 420 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto 94301 A1 Chin Museum of American Heritage 351 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto 94301 Kathleen Craig Craig Design Associates PO Box 959, Palo Alto 94302-0959 s:\plan\plandivXhrb\staffreportkHRB staffrep, template Page 9 Elizabeth C. Garbett 13906 Page Mill Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Glenda M. Jones 1074 Moreno Avenue Palo Alto 94303 Cathy Garrett Pattillo & Garrett Associates, Landscape Architects 337 17th Street, Suite 214 Oakland, CA 94612-3356 Ellen Harrington Museum of American Heritage 351 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto 94301 s:\plan\plandiv~hrb\staffreporthLIRB staffrep, template Page l 0 February 21, 2002 Attachment D THE MUSEUM of AMERICAN HERITAGE FOUNDER Frank Livermore BOARD OF DIRECTORS Allan Chin Ch a irm a n/Preside n t Joseph Ehrlich Vic~,-cltairman Charles L. Pack Thcodnra Nelson Vice-~re~./Rcs~arch Charles M. Gillis Vicc-prex./Faclities Montgomery Anderson Roger D. gronssal l,ennnrd W. Ely Crystal I). Gama~e Loretta Green I.arry R. ttasgett Robert It. Katzive Kenneth Kormanak Mzrsl~alt Mathews Carl B- Moerdyke Reverly J. Nelson John II. Tilton 1V COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD Crystal Gamage Chairmaa James L. Adams Mark Anderson Robert E. Bond David Bubenik Beth Bnnnenbcrg Carolle Carter Marybelle C~dy Wailat-e V Cunneen M ar!ze Gratint Carrnll llarriagto. Ralph Iglcr David M. Kelley l.eo Kenshiari. Jacques Littleliehl James M. MeClenahan Jeanne McDonnell Sieve Monre Barl)ara Newlon Peter HoMer Roxy Rapp William E. Relier flick R~senl)anm Rixford K. Snyder Steve Staiger Fernandn Ves¢ia. M.D. Eleanor j..Watanabe Susan B. Winn Gail Woolley Janet Freeland, Senior Financial Analyst Real Estate Division City of Palo Alto P. O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94302-10250 Dear Janet, The Board of Directors of the Museum of American Heritage has approved the appointment of two new members to its Garden Preservation Oversight Team, GPOT. We are pleased to announce the re-appointment of Barrie Coate, of Barrie D. Coate and Associates Horticultural Consultants. Barrie’s involvement with this project dates back to March of 1996 wh~re he has prepared nan ex.tensive report supplying an opinion about the condition of plants in the garden towi~rd the goals of assisting in decisions about retention, pruning or other maintenance procedures. Steve Staiger; the second appointment, is Historian for the Palo Alto Historical Association, a member of the Museum’s Community Advisory Board and its Garden Committee. Steve’s interest in being involved in the Museum has always been attributed to his passion for the Williams Gardens. An avid gardener and member of Western Horticulture, Steve has degrees in history and anthropology. These members bring this advisory committee to a total of four, which we feel is adequate. This GPOT will review the Cultural Landscape Report prepared by Cathy Garrett, ASLA of Pattillo and Gan’ett Associates and the Master Plan for the garden developed by Ron Benoit, ASLA of Ron Benoit Associates. We at the Museum look forward to the development of the Williams Gardens and enhancing this gift to the City of Palo Alto. /Ellen B. Harrington Executive Director G.P.O.T. Chair cc: Julie Caporno Dennis Backlund EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Ellen B. Harrington A (ah,hratinn of m.nlrind’s technical ingmwity in tho p,tm .. ett~ i.spir.tim~.f!~r tho fitt.ro 3R1 Ilomer Aventte ¯P.O. I{ox 1731 ¯Pain Alto, California 94302-1731 ¯Pltone (f;50) 321-1004 ¯Fax (fRO) 473-6950 Attachment E February 26, 2002 Mr. Allan Chin President/Chairman of the Board Museum of American Heritage 351 Homer Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mr. Chin, The members of the Garden Preservation Oversight Team of the Museum of American Heritage have reviewed the Cultural Landscape Report prepared for the Williams Gardens by Cathy Garrett of Pattillo and Garrett Associates and recommend its acceptance and presentation to the Historic Resources Board of the City of Palo Alto for approval. The GPOT has also reviewed the Garden Master Plan prepared for the Williams Gardens by Ron Benoit of Ron Benoit Associates. Recognizing that this application is an adaptive re-use of an historic property, the Rehabilitation Guidelines of the Secretary of Interior for Historic Landscapes were used to determine the suitability of any changes proposed for the garden. All of the proposed changes were carefully evaluated mad found to be in compliance with the Secretary’s Guidelines. Specifically, it was determined that all of the changes could be reversed, so that if it were ever decided in the future to return the property to its original state, it could be done. We recon~nend acceptance of the Garden Master Plan, and its presentation to the Historic Resources Board for approval. Respectfully submitted, B. HarringtonQ) Team Leader, Garden Chair Don Ellis Don Ellis & Associates Barrie D. Coate Barrie D. Coate & Associates Steve Staiger Historian, Palo Alto Historical Assoc. Chairperson Historic Resources Board City of Palo Alto Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 1074 Moreno Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 Jan. 18, 2002 Attachment F Dear Historic Resources Board: I attended the January 16, 2002, HRB meeting, when representatives of the Museum of American Heritage presented the Williams Garden Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan Concepts. My interest is as a Palo Alto citizen and as a former member of the Williams Garden Preservation Oversight Team, Chair of the Garden Committee and leader of the volunteer garden crew. I have concerns about the direction the Museum is proposing to go in adapting the garden to its more public function. As Kathy Gar-rett explained in her Cultural Landscape Report, the concept of garden rooms is very significant historically. It is important locally, is within a national context, and derives.from European origins. The Williams garden design reflects this concept with its several garden rooms and desire for privacy. While the Museum wishes to open up the grounds and building to public view, with a dramatic, wide, open public entrance at the doctor’s entrance, it is exactly at this location that the rooms and privacy will be destroyed. The public will no longer be able to experience what the garden was like during the 1930’s up to the present time. If the path veers off to the left, requiring that protective hedge plants be removed, and if it is widened, the entire experience once you are inside the garden will be altered. Having worked in the garden when the front hedge was at it former height and the garden rooms were intact, I could feel the quietness and privacy and seclusion that the Williams family worked so hard to achieve. Although the Pittosporum hedge was not raised as an issue in the presentation, its present height compared to the recommendations of the Preservation Oversight Team is in violation of the recommendation. The Garden Preservation Oversight Team report of Feb. 2, 1999, recommended a minimum of 5 feet. The drastic shortening of the front hedge has already diminished the sense of rooms and privacy. I believe it is possible to address the visibility from the driveway without shortening the hedge across the entire front. I do believe that signage and use of the driveway for pedestrians on days the Museum is open (only 3 days per week) will go a long way to aid the public in experiencing the gardens as they were in the 1930’s, with the rooms intact, and in compliance with the National Park Guidelines. Another major issue that concerns me is the current status of the Garden Preservation Oversight Team. When it was first brought together by then Director of Landscape Preservation, Kathleen Craig, members were professionals specializing in landscape design, horticulture, arboriculture, garden maintenance and historical garden preservation. I understand that the current Preservation Oversight Team has no members with these qualifications, and in fact, may not have any members at all. Yet the project is to be forwarded to the Garden Preservation Oversight Team, which will develop the Final Garden Master Plan to be submitted to the City for review and approval. As a citizen, I would like to know who will be on the team to develop the Final Garden Master Plan. I hope that there is professional oversight over the developers of the first stage of the plan. S’.mcerely, Glenda M~ cc: Frank Benest, City Manager Janet Freeland, Real Estate Division Dennis Bacldund, Historic Preservation Planner Virginia Warheit, Planning Department Attachment G 13906 Page Mill Rck Los Altos Hills, CA94022 January 21, 2002 Dennis Backlund, Historic Preservation Planner Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA94301 Dear Mr. Baeklund I attended the session of the Historic Review Board on Wed., Jan |~, 2002 when the plan for changes in the Williams Garden at the MOAH was presented. I have been associated with the Williams Garden as a volunteer gardener from the time it was declared an historic garden. My motivation was to try to help maintain and preserve the garden until a master plan was developed and I am, therefore, very concerned about its fate. My chief concern is with the plan to open the walled "lawn" garden in an effort to improve access for foot traffic to the museum by removing the hedge beside the "Doctor’s Office" path. It seems to me that this would destroy one of the garden integral design features, one that is central to the unique quality of the site: a design that addresses the need for conducting a medical practice in a private home while preserving the family’s privacy. Thus the garden is historically valuable not only as a record of domestic garden architecture of the time but also as a record of a particular (and historically significant) family’s solution to a problem common to the period.. There already exist two different means of access to the museum for foot traffic. Opening up this private family space will, in my view, seriously compromise the preservation of the historic character of the garden to which the museum is pledged and to which it is legally required to adhere. I ask the Board to seriously consider the implications of this plan before coming to a decision. Yours truly, Elizabeth C. Garbett CCQ Chairman, Historic Resources Board Janet Freeland r a-ig D e s i gn A s s o c i a Attachment H tes February ]2, 2002 Honorable members of the Historic Review Board, As the former director of landscape.preservation and member of the board of directors of the Museum of American Heritage (MoAH) from 1995 until 1999, I would like the oppommity to respond to some of ¯ the changes to the Williams Garden that are being proposed by Mr. Ron Benoit, representing MoAH, and which were presented at the January 16, 2002 meeting of the HistOric Resources Board. I ~vas recently privileged to attend a lecttire to a small group of landscape architects by Charles Birnbaum, the director of the National Park Service Historic Landscape Initiative and the author of the National Park Service Guidelines for the Preservation of Historic Landscapes, the very guidelines to which MoAH pledged to adhere when they bid for the opportunity to lease the Thomas and Dora Williams property at 315 Homer Avenue in Palo Alto from the city of Palo Alto. In his discussion of the works of the pioneers of American landscape design, Mr. Birnbaun repeatedly asked the question; "How much change can a site tolerate before it has lost the very’ qualities that made it historic in the first place?" After my many hours of discussion with recognized authorities in the field of historic landscape preservation and my years of research, and work on the Williams propert3,, I feel that the treatments of this proper~" of the city of Palo Alto by MoAH may already have brought the site precariously close to that point. For example: at one point in the development of the site by MoAH, their arc~tects proposed constructing a handicap ramp from the doctor’s office wing of the house that would have extended .under the canopy of the Ginkgo tree in the area lovingly referred to as "Dora’s garden." The justification made by MoAH, which seemed unopposable at the time, was a health and safety, issue resulting from a "change in use", the change from a private residence to a publicly accessed building. It was only after many difficult months of discussion with the MoAH Board of Directors that they were persuaded to consider the option that was developed by members of the museum’s Garden Preservation Oversight Team (GPOT). This solution was subsequently constructed, leaving "Dora’s garden" intact and unchanged by the museum’s development. I mentidn the above only as a reminder of how close we came to losing the integrity of that portion of the site. My first concem is for the proposed changes to the integrity, of the site as it is first viewed from Homer Avenue. In his presentation to the HRB, Mr. Benoit stated that the new gate and expanded entry" will "enhance that (entry’) without having to do any damage to the garden except for the possibility of moving the stone curbing over about 18 inches." In my professional opinion, both the expansion of the Doctor’s Office gate and the reduction in the height of the propem2 line hedge totally obliterate the " former sense of entering an elegantly simple and intimate ~pace. (I say "formerly" because of the ¯ reduction of the height of the perimeter hedges that was done by a MoAH board member without the concurrence of the GPOT and not following the pruning recommendations of Barrie Coate referred to by Mr. Benoit.) One must use his/her imagination to understand what one would have perceived upon entering this garden gate in the 1920s and 1930s. They would have been entering Dora’s most favorite part of the gardens. During interviews with family ;friends I was told how Dora would spend hours in this part of the garden, watching over her collection of Iris that she worked on hybridizing. Thenow missing sundia!, a gift to her from her husband, Dr. Williams, s3~boiized his constan~ presence in the garden even during his long absences that took him away from the family. There were several benches (which Dr. Williams- had purchased at the 1915 Pan Pacific Exposition) placed throughout this garden room so that at different times of the day Dora cbuld rest (she had a serious ctironic illness that often lef~ her weakened and 6ut of breath) in the serenity of this space that she loved so much. She was said to have loved the view of the steeple at St. Thomas Aquinas church on Waverle3; Street and would keep Ka{h[een Craig, APLD PO Box c,S& Pa[o ALto cn ~ .~:- ." ,=-..__bro,,,:-_ 94302-0959 650.324.2360 vo~.ce!,~. trees and shrubs pruned so that she could see that view from one of the benches in the shade of the Ta.~¢s bacata, Yew tree. This was clearly not designed a; a space with a grand entrance and public Visual access. This image brings me to the discussion of the proposed breach of the wall bet~veen the "lawn g~rden" and "Dora’s garden." In this garden, the wall element is composed of a stone component and a solid, high hedge component. The contact of the stone and hedge forms a continuous barrier separating the two garden rooms. Again, an understanding 0fthe context in which this garden was laid out helps one appreciate the significance of the individual elements. Upon entering the simple gate one becomes immediately a~vare of the intimacy of the spaces. Ones view was directed to the Doctor’s office door and its adjacent flower beds. One had li~ted glimpses through the shrubs into "Dora’s garden." There was no visual access into the "lawn garden".., what existed beyond the wall would be a complete mystery. In. my opinion, developed after hundreds of hours of research into the lives of the Williamses, the "wall" bet’ween the "lawn" and "Dora’s" g~trdens was more than the wall that separated the t~vo front rooms of the gardens. The wall is syrnbolic of many of the attributes of the Williamses lives: the public vs. the private, the formal vs. the informal, the refined vs. the rustic, the gregarious vs. the reclusive. Opening this wall will totally destroy the feel of a %valled garden." More importantly, breaching the wall would c.learly destroy one of the most significant elements 0fthis historic garden. I was told in many interviews with fanaily friends that Rhona and Betty frequently told the story of how, as little girls, when the family would entertain other families, they would have their visits on the lawn and Dora would quietly invite individual quests to stroll with her, beyond the closed door of the lawn garden, in her special garden. One rarely has the oppommity to explore a truly walled garden in the conte.mporary suburban setting. Maintaining this historic garden intact will not only offer visitors-a glimpse back into another landscape era, it will provide a public park which offers a unique venue for citizens to stroll in the footsteps of these early Palo Altans. The proposed addition of a new paving element with the creation of a brick terrace is another change that_is being driven by "change of use" that I feel risks compromising the integrity of the site to the point of loosing the historic fabric. I find the justification for using brick to be unsupportable. The trashcan enclosure that is made of red brick is not known to be part of the landscape during the period of significance. In fact, during interviews, there were numerous individuals who reported that the trash enclosure was added during Rhona and Betty’s adult lives. Again, one only needs to hear the reminiscents of family friends to understand the sense of the landscaping in the back yard. Thzit area was the "worl, ling" part of the garden. The clotheslines were just a few paces out the back door. Just beyond the clotheslines was the heating oil tank. The garden beds were used for a variety of flower and food crops. The green house was filled ~vith Dora’s latest hybridizin~ project as well as seedlings for the upcoming garden season. The beds near the house functioned as herb beds for quick access by the cook. The back door stoop was where family and friends gathered after long days at the family ranch west of Skyline Boulevard for.the preparation of"hobo stew". Each person was given a coffee can (tin with lid, rememberthose?) and then chose their own combination of ingredients from communal bowls. The prepared stews were then cooked over an open fire while the tired ranch hands recalled the activities of the day. This was a ve~° informal and functional area, exemplified by. the location of the trash cans themselves and the use of soil cement paths. Our photographic archive contains photos of this area before the changes that were made by MoAH, including removing the Eucalyptus grove, k is those photos that should be revie~;ed before any change in pavement is proposed. I feel that one should avoid making changes to the historic fabric of a site based on existing uses that are themselves changes. The existing fence and original hedge across the front the property is another element of this historic site that I feel sets the standard for interpretation. One must remember that Rhona lived her entire life on this property, outliving the quiet and slower paced town where she was born. For the last decades of Rhona’s life, Homer was a busy street from which the hedge provided a barrier and privacy screen. It was not due to deferred maintenance that the hedge was as high as it was whe.n the city of Palo Alto received the propert3,. Rhona and Betty wished to maintain the sense of privacy that their mother had designed into the landscape by planting the hedge in the first instance. The wire fence within the hedge started out as a way to enclose Rhona and Betty’s pet ducks When theywere little girls. In later years the wire was fortified and became the fence for the W~lch Corgi dogs that lived with Rhona and Bett3?. The fence was never intended to be visible, but rather tO create the invisible enclosure that it provided. Similar fence/hedges can be seen throughout the neighborhbods on all side of the Williamses property, providing privacy and security for the property owners’. The visible iron fence and ston.e "curb," propos0,d by Mr_ Benoit, is a contemporary landscape element and is not an acceptable transformation even if driven by the "change of use"-argument. His defense of lowering the hedge to four feet to provide safer access to and from the driveway is meaningless. A fdur,foo~ tall hedge d6es not allow increased visibility either for the driver qf a car in the driveway or for cars or pedestrians on Homer Avenue. The hedge would have to be below three feet to provide that kind of visibility. MoAH ente~:ed into the lease agreement with the city fully knowledgeable of the importance of the hedge to the integrity of the site. I pers6nally participated in numerous board meeting where I explained the significance of the hedge as a character defining featur6 of this landscape to my fellow board members. Lastly, I would like to caution the members of the HRB to proceed carefully with the suggested usage of signage. One must remember that this is a relatively small and intimate home garden. It would be very easy to destroy the ambience of the landscape and home with the excessive use of directional and interpretive signs.. Rather than posting signs at every oppommity, I would .implore the HRB to advise MoAH to explore creative ways to provide their visitors th~ information that ttiey need. MoAH’s current use of signage demonstrates their lack of understan ,ding of this issue. It is startling to me that Mr. Benoit’s plan has been developed, to this:point, without review b,y the Garden Preservation Oversight Team. The GPOT is defined in the Garden Pr,eservation Plan (see attached) and has been nonexistent for numerous years. The willingness of MoAH to move fo~vard with such extreme, and extensive changes to the landscape without having the professional oversight that the GPOT provides, brings into question their intent to abide by the agreement that they made with the city of Pa.lo Alto as acondition of their lease of the city’s property.. I have included for background information an article about the Williams garden featured in the spring 1999 issue of Pacific Horticulture, and a copy of the Garden Preservation Plan that was accepted by the City as part of the lease agreement tc; insure the compliance of MoAH to maintain the garden as an historic site. The above should not be construed to be a comprehensive list of proposed changes that would erode the integrity of this historic site. There are many others that deserve the same depth of review. ¯I urge the HRB to be protective of our historic garden by not permitting, alterations that threaten its integrity. Recall Mr. Bimbaum’s question, "How much change can a site tolerate before it has lost the veD" qualities that made it historic in the first place" before approving changes to the Willianas garden. Respectively submitted, . CC: Julie Cap0~no, Advance Planning Manager, City of Pa!o Alto Dennis Bac "klund, Historic Preservation Specialist, City of Pa!o Alto Janet Freeland, Senior Financial Analyst, City of Palo Alto PATT I L L O &G A R R E TT A S S O C IAT E S Attachment February 8, 2002 Dennis Backlund Historic Preservation Planner Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mr. Backlund: I understand you have received responses to the proposed Landscape Plan for the William Residence/Museum of American Heritage as described at the January 16, 2002 Historic Resources Board meeting. I am pleased to offer some additional discussion regarding the comments raised as they relate to the history of the site and its new use as a museum. To accommodate the new use as a museum open to the public, several changes are required. Increased access by pedestrians and the need for parking in the rear (including parking for the disabled) has caused there to be a conflict that did not exist when one family lived there. The risk of injury to a pedestrian walking down the driveway encountering a car coming from the rear is a threat to public safety and welfare. A list of times when pedestrians arrive and depart from the site illustrates the increased pedestrian usage of the property;~ there are at least 2000 pedestrian visits per year excluding any associated with the Museum Office, Gallery, or staff trips. The increased usage of the site by pedestrians has necessitated seeking an enhanced point of pedestrian entry that is separate from the vehicular entry. The proposed Landscape Plan utilizes the existing "Doctor’s Office Entry". (While it was built to be the entry to the Doctor’s Office, Dr. Williams (at most) temporarily practiced out of the house. Instead it became a secondary pedestrian entry.) The goal is to provide a clear and accessible route to the front door of the house, the ramped access in the rear, and the Livermore Learning Center. Access from the "Doctor’s Office Entry" is centrally located and allows access to each of these locations. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes is the nationally recognized standard for cultural landscapes. It has guided the preparation of the Cultural Landscape Report for the Williams Garden. In relation to "rehabilitation" (the primary treatment for the Williams Garden), the Secretary’s Standards states: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 337 17TH STREET, SUITE 214 OAKLAND, CA 94612-3356 TEL 510/465 1284 FAX 510/465 1256 LandArch@PGADesign.com "A properly will.., be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive material, features, spaces, and spatial relationships." (p. 49) And: "New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired." (p.49) The Williams Garden Landscape Plan is in compliance with these two requirements. Given that the new use requires a separate pedestrian entry, the proposed path has a light impact on the layout of the site whi~e providing effective access. Further, it will be detailed to be reversible should the use change again in the future. The "Garden Room" concept, intrinsic to this garden, remains dominant. The stone garden wall is not being disturbed or altered and no new penetration has been made along the Homer Avenue frontage. A small length of planting, immediately inside the gate, will have its width reduced when the path is widened. This will have minimal impact on the enclosure of the Front Lawn Garden since the primary enclosing elements in this location are the Redwood trees that are to remain. The Landscape Plan shows the boundary hedge reduced to four feet high, (12 inches lower than a previous Garden Preservation Oversight Team suggested). The intention is to subtly increase the visibility into the site while maintaining the key garden elements. Should the use change the hedge could be pruned to a different height. I trust that the City staff and the members of the Historic Resources Board will find that the changes to the Williams Garden have been kept to a minimum and satisfy the requirements of rehabilitation in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Yours cordially, Cathy Garrett, ASLA Cc: Ron Benoit Allan Chin Ellen Harrington Monty Anderson The Museum Gallery is open 3 days per week (11am - 4pm). The Museum office is open 5 days per week (approximately 9:30 - 5:30). Lectures are held at the Museum once each month, with approximately 50 people attending (Spin - 7pm). Special events (e.g. Train Train Train! event held last December 8) are usually held once per year. This recent event attracted 500 visitors. Main Exhibits are held three times per year and for each there is a Members Exhibit Opening party where 50 people attend (Spm -7pm). A Benefactor’s Dinner for 60+ people is held annually. An Incoming/Outgoing City Council Members’ Reception is held annually. Facilities rentals of the Museum for private parties or meetings have just begun. The first meeting has been held, two more are booked. It is possible that this function could increase significantly in the future. Renters have unlimited access to the Learning Center and garden and may have guided tours of the house. Up to 50 guests are allowed. (4pro onwards Friday through Sunday, anytime other days) Education classes are held throughout the year including: Technical Classes held at least 5 times per year and Home-schoolers C~asses held 5 times per year. Each class is one visit per week for four consecutive weeks and is attended by 12 to 24 students and professional and volunteer instructors. Attachment B MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26 Wednesday, March 06, 2002 REGULAR MEETING - 8:00 AM City Council Chambers Civic Center, First Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ROLL CALL: Board members: Susan Haviland, Chair Martin Bernstein, Vice-Chair - absent Roger Kohler Michael Makinen Carol Murden Mildred Mario - absent Beth Bunnenberg City Council Liaison: Jim Burch Staff: Julie Caporg~lo, Advance Planning Manager Dennis Backlund, Historic Preservation Planner Diana Tamale, Office Specialist PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows: ¯Announce agenda item ¯Openpublic hearing ¯Staffrecommendation ¯Applicantpresentation - Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board. ¯Historic Resources Board questions of the applicant/staff ¯Public comment - Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3) minutes depending on large number of speakers per item. ¯Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes ¯ClosepubIic hearing ¯Motions/recommendations by the Board ¯Final vote ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. None. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. None. Page APPROVAL OFMINUTES. Approval of minutes of Historic Resources Board meetings held on September 26, 2001 and February 20, 2002. Historic Resources Board Action: Boardmember Murden moved, seconded by Boardmember Kohler, to approve the minutes of September 26, 2002 as presented to the Board. Vote: 4-0-1-2 (Bunnenberg abstained, Bernstein and Mario were absent) Historic Resources Board Action: Boardmember Burmenberg moved, seconded by Boardmember Murden, to approve the minutes of February 20, 2002 as presented to the Board. Vote: 5-0-0-2 (Bemstein and Mario were absent) PUBLIC HEARINGS: 364 Kingsley Avenue [01-HRB-09]: Request by Marina Zago for Historic Resources Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment pursuant to Municipal Code 16.49.050 regarding design compatibility with a historic district of a proposed 3,190 square-foot, two-story single-family residence located in the Professorville National Register Historic District and in the R-1 (929) Zone District. (This item was continued from the February 20, 2002 Board meeting). Staff Backlund presented the staff report to the Board and indicated that the proposed project would be subject to review under the City’s R-1 Individual Review program in addition to review by the Historic Resources Board. He stated that the Individual Review process had not yet taken place. BM Bunnenberg commented that the chimney near the front of the proposed house appeared low, and that the project would benefit aesthetically if the chinmey were higher. BM Makinen commented that the project appeared compatible with the Professorville Historic District. BM Kohler believed that the Board review would have benefited if the R-1 Individual Review package had been submitted to the Board. BM Murden said that the style, massing, and materials of the house appeared compatible with Professorville. BM Bunnenberg agreed that the project did appear compatible with the District. BM Kohler commented that the house, under the provisions of the Individual Review program, would need to be set further back on the site than presented to meet the average block setback. BM Murden commented that the existing setbacks on the block were very erratic. Historic Resources Board Action: Boardmember Makinen moved, seconded by BM Bunnenberg, to recommend approval of the project as presented subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report. Vote: 4-0-2-1 (Bemstein and Haviland abstaining and Mario absent) Page 2 351 Homer Avenue: Historic Resources Board review of a Garden Preservation Master Plan for the historic Williams House garden and recommendation to the City Council. The Williams House is listed as a Category 2 property on the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory. Chair Haviland: The next item on the agenda is 351 Homer Avenue. Historic Resources Board review of a Garden Preservation Master Plan for the historic Williams House Garden and recommendation to the City Council. The Williams House is listed as a Category 2 property on the City of Palo Altos Historic Inventory. Is there a staff report on this item? Staff Caporgno: Madam Chair, before I turn this over to Dennis, I just wanted to make a couple of comments. First of all, I wanted to bring to the Board’s attention that Dennis has spent an incredible amount of time analyzing this Master Plan. And that this has been a very difficult project for staff to analyze. The City recognizes the need to preserve the Garden as much as possible in its original state. Yet, staff realizes that the City’s a~eement with the Museum of American Heritage recognizes that adaptive reuse of the site will occur. What staff is focused on is compliance of the Plan with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. And I want to commend Dennis for his indefatigable efforts in researching and analyzing the Master Plan. A couple of other items in relationship to the Master Plan: yesterday we received two letters of comment on the Preservation Master Plan, one from Pria Graves and one from Lucy Tolmach, and both of those have been distributed to the Board. We faxed the letters to the Board members that had faxes last evening, and the letters have also been placed at your places on the table this morning. In addition, we have also given to the Board a couple of pages that were missing from a letter that was included in your packet from Kathleen Craig. When she had given us her documents, pages 2 and 3 of the attachment were not included and we have gotten those pages and made copies for the Board. And the final thing that I wanted to say: it came to our attention yesterday that, I guess, there were a couple of people who had come to the study session on January 6th on this item, and they wanted to speak on the item but didn’t realize that they would have been able to have spoken and we apologize that there was any miscommunication, but it’s up to the Board, the Board’s discretion, for study sessions whether or not they will take comments. And I don’t think it was, I think it was just, we were unaware that there was anybody here in the audience that wished to speak on that item. And with that, I’ll turn it over to Dennis to get the staff report. Staff Backlund: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, members of the Board. As the Advanced Planning Manager has said, it is a difficult project to evaluate because it is both complex and to a certain degree, unfamiliar to those who are on the staff and perhaps to certain Board Members, in that our review for years and years has been the review of built structures, houses, accessory buildings, fences, walls, garages, things like that. We have not worked, to my knowledge, heretofore with the Secretary’s Guidelines for Cultural and Historic Landscapes. We certainly have looked at landscaping before. We reviewed the landscaping at the Tower Well, for example. And I think that that was a very professional review. In a case like the Page 3 Williams Garden, it is different in that the Tower Well was a new garden compatible with the historic site, where there had not been such a garden in the past. This one is a true historic garden and so as one reviews the Standards and Guidelines for Historic Landscapes, there are a number of items that really don’t come to the fore when one is reviewing structures. For instance, the character-defining elements of circulation and layout and the relation of outdoor spaces and natural features with each other combining into a whole that becomes the historic resource. And it’s a very difficult kind of review to learn quickly; one benefits from several years of study on the subject. And, therefore, that is one of the reasons that we provided the Board with the rather extensive photo survey that we did. This morning, partially in response to the dialogue and comment that has been occurring in the last few weeks in the community, we prepared what we left at your places this morning and provided for the public table at the entry to the chambers, what we call the second color photo survey. You have had the first survey for several days and most of the photos in that first survey do show areas of change. There were other photographs as we indicated that are areas not of proposed change but give one a sense of the overall character of the Garden. What we focused on in the first photo survey was the area of the doctor’s path, the garden wall, and the hedge that runs into it and along the Doctor’s Path. Because as we interpreted the Master Plan, that is where the greatest change is going to occur, along the Doctor’s Path. It would change in dimensions and in materials and in its circulation system. And in short, it will change under several headings that would be in the Guidelin(s for Historic Landscapes. And change by itself, as we well know from the Standards of Rehabilitation does not necessarily undo the integrity of a property. And that is where the difficulty comes in, in evaluating a cultural landscape for those decision-makers that are new to the field, like I am myself. Because how we evaluate is not just the changes occurring and, therefore, something automatically negative. It may not be. It is knowing under the Standads just that point where the integrity of the whole begins to be lost. It’s been recommended to us in a class that we had here a couple of years ago where the consultant said that the holistic view of the Standards was recommended by the State Office of Historic Preservation, not just to say that features are being removed, and, therefore, that the whole is lost. But rather to always be looking at the entire resource and the cumulative changes that are occurring to it and knowing just that point where integrity becomes endangered and then actually begins to be lost. And that is a very difficult discretionary decision. And so, as the Board comments this morning, we wanted to have the photos in front of you so that all of us, including the members of the public who can see the photos on the wall and pick up the smaller format at the table, that we all are walking together through this site as we discuss the changes. If I can refer to the second color photo survey because that is new to you, occurring only this morning: in the first photo, we took a picture of the Doctor’s Gate and on the cover memo, we said that it is residentially scaled and rustic in character. We think that the photograph shows that. And so, if there is a change occurring, it is best if the overall character is still maintained. The second photo shows a measurement of 51/z feet, exactly how wide that the Doctor’s Path is going to be and it ends at the left hand edge of the measurement box. And the sandstone edgers would be moved back to that point and any plants in the way would be carefully shifted behind Page 4 the sandstone. And then, there is a kind of a stone curbing in from where the new fence would be and we’ve shown you some pictures of the current stones in the third photograph. The fourth photograph is a picture of the bench by the Garden wall (and I have been advised that this may be the bench that would be used in the proposed "bulb out" on the Doctor’s Path) to give you an idea of what the style of this bench might be. And then thirdly, or lastly, two photographs of the wire fence. That is not part of the project except in so far it’s not proposed to be retained at that location. The staff report transmitted to you the Museum’s concern that children, and there would be quite a number that would visit the site in the course of the year as the Museum anticipates given the events they are planning, that children could be attracted to this and climb around or work the wire with their hands risking injury and so the Museum would prefer not to have that on the site. The section offence to the right of the Doctor’s Gate is what we believed is probably the original. In any case, it is an early 20th century decorative wire fence. The other wire fence is, though old, much more utilitarian. And so we recommended that the Palo Alto Historical Association or interested organization would save a couple of posts and the wire for archiving, so that the site could be returned to an original fencing in the future which would assist reversibility. (Reversibility actually applies to new additions being removed without damaging historic fabric. That is what reversibility means.) So, it’s an interpretation beyond the usual to say that the reversibility would be the archiving and possibility of bringing back this fence. But, it could happen in the furore. And the same with the Doctor’s Gate: it is very old. We don’t know exactly how old but it is old. And that that should be conserved for documentary evidence of what was there. And then, lastly, moving into what the staff recommendation was, it would have been more detailed if staff was expert in cultural landscapes. That is not acquired in a week or a month. It is acquired in a period of years. And, therefore, we were somewhat general in our recommendation in asking the Board to do all that they could with a recommendation under the Secretary Standards knowing that some of you do have experience in gardens more than staff does. We did make one definite recommendation and you will have looked at that and looked at the plans where at the bench area, the proposed flagstone widens out along the path. There is an approximately 14 foot opening. It’s not an opening in the hedge because the hedge would curve around with the path to the left, but it is an opening that is parallel with the Doctor’s Path of around 14 feet. And that whole flagstone area, one can see in the plans, is not actually a path. It is an interruption of the path to provide a kind of patio area. And the sense of the patio is enhanced by the flagstone continuing underneath the proposed bench. And so we suggested that since the Doctor’s Path has a path character, most definitely that that path character be maintained by having the flagstone remain at a maximum of the proposed 5 ½ feet or less throughout its entire length. And that what was not flagstone would be the soil cement. The soil cement would curve around into the bench area and go under the bench. And another thing that would do is, since that is the ADA access along the soil path, the width of the soil path and its presence has a sense of equality with the flagstone, which we think is a good thing to do for our visitors who are handicapped. And it would convey a sense of equality of paths, we thought. Page 5 And also, by narrowing the path it would narrow the opening going to the left of the garden wall a little and we said that that could allow some portion of the hedge to still survive in front of the garden wall, if the curving path was set back far enough. I think it is the applicant’s plan to not have a hedge against the garden wall. You can simply look at the pictures that we provided. We thought that the garden wall kind of disappearing into a hedge, has this kind of rustic stone structure embedded in the natural world, which is part of an overall character of the Garden. And we thought that would be nice to conserve if it is feasible and may be, if the opening is narrower than what is shown on the plans. And the applicant has also spoken to us on these matters and may have things to say on these matters in the presentation. So that was our overall recommendation. In the other areas of the Garden, most of what’s there would be conserved, not in the matter of height that we will no doubt hear about from the historic landscape consultant who will be speaking to us. The height of the hedge is proposed to be lowered to 4 feet. And as one of the letters indicated, the original Garden Oversight Team’s recommendation has been 5 feet as providing a more realistic sense of enclosure. But we would also like to hear other information on that subject this morning, and I’m sure that we will. We did ask whether the Garden Room character would be conserved. I think we’ll also hear more about that this morning. Staff simply noted that in some form or some height that the hedges on 3 sides of the house form an enclosure of the Front Lawn Room, as we’ve come to know it. And if the hedge was opened in the way we recommend, that over 95% of what goes around that enclosure would still be remaining. And so we felt that it would probably be enclosed, but height is another factor that the Board will no doubt discuss the height of hedges and we’ll hear about that. The other matters were covered by the Board in the previous review. We referred to all that. We provided the minutes for the public and the earlier plans. And we have provided all of the plans to all of the members of the public that have asked for them and all those that were on the Courtesy Copy list. We originally thought it would be just for the Board Member, but this is an important project so we have provided the plans to everyone. So, with that, I will defer to the Board and thank you very much. Chair Haviland: Thank you, Dennis. Since there are a number of people who would like to-- members of the public who would like to--speak on this item, I just want to make it clear how we’re going to proceed after the staff recommendation. We will have a presentation by the applicant and then the Board will ask questions of the staff and the applicant. And after that, we will have public comments and then there will be an oppommity for the applicant to make a final closing comment. And then after that, we will close the public hearing and the Board will deliberate on the item and come up with a recommendation. So, at this point, I’d like the applicant to make their presentation, please. Ellen Harrin~on. Executive Director of Museum of American Heritage: Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Board. I’m Ellen Harrington. I’m the Executive Director of Museum of American Heritage. Prior to that, I was assigned as the Garden Chairman and the leader of the Preservation Oversight Team. I currently hold those positions as well. This morning, I just want to comment that at the study session on January 16th, the one item that the Board has asked us to respond to is the fence along the Homer Avenue section of the property. And we have redesigned that and have a presentation on that this morning. Ron Benoit will make that presentation for us. Cathy Garrett will make any comments on any other Page 6 subjects that we want to discuss this morning. Let me tell you how I got Cathy Garrett. I originally had called the State Historic Preservation Office in Sacramento who referred me to the Department of Interior National Parks Service at Fort Mason, at which they very highly recommended Cathy Garrett with Pattillo & Garrett in Oakland. And with this, I will turn the program over to our landscape architects. Ron? Ron Benoit: Okay, Ellen briefly described the issues since we’re here in January, I’m going to just touch again on them. It was the entry gate that was of concern. We had originally proposed an ornamental iron gate and fence and there was concern regarding that, which was also proposed for the driveway gate, and we are addressing that also. The fencing along Homer had an ornamental iron with a low stone wall and pre-cast concrete coping, and I believe it was felt that that was a bit much, a bit ornate for the project and we’ve revisited that also. And then as the staff report has so well described the pathway to the Doctor’s Doorway is of issue. Again, I’d like to state that this is quite a knotty design issue here for us in the design community in that we are trying to make this facility work, going from a completely private residence to a public facility, essentially a City Park and that is what is driving some of the decisions that we made in terms of the design and it’s a knotty issue. So, there are trade-offs here. I had written a letter in response in February to the first comments here and I’ll use it as a guide to just walk through it because I’ve addressed each of these. I believe it’s in your packet in the last two pages of the big fat packet here. Doctor’s Entry and curb-side drop-off, what we had, let me back up here so you can see. This board is addressing essentially the elevation from across the street. This is a close-up of the Doctor’s Gate that we are now, or the entry gate at the Doctor’s Entrance, we are now proposing. And what we have is you can see today is the wood gate with the reverse arch on the top and we’re quite comfortable in repeating that, possibly even the width may be able to stay that width, essentially it’s going to come down to access for wheelchairs. And I think today that’s slightly !ess than about 31/2 feet whic~ when it’s open maybe slightly inadequate. But we are proposing that we will keep that same style in working with wood and wood posts adjacent to it. The gate at the driveway, which we are intending again to have closed off and only accessible, meaning for vehicular traffic would be, therefore, closed almost all the time. So, we are proposing at this point to pick up on the same theme that we have with the wood Doctor’s Gate, keep it very simple, could be bi-parting so it wouldn’t be a huge wide gate. It’s just a simple opening, closing wood gate. There would be a second gate that is actually a refurbishment of the existing gate but that would be at the rear of the property, essentially at this location rather than along the street. This was where Dr. Williams had an archway over the top wood lintel and there are remnants of it there today, but we feel that this essentially at this point is a separate issue from what we’re discussing here. What we’re discussing along the front are essentially security and being able to close the facility down and have it be not easily penetrated by kids, animals, etc. So the issues of the gates, that’s how we dealt with those. In dealing with the actual fencing along the front, one of the comments was that the ornamental iron that we’re proposing really was again too ornate and there might have been too much of it. The stone wall, the low stone wall, that we have proposed with the pre-cast cap was too much. We’ve deleted all of that and used the existing wood posts that are there as a guide to how we would propose to provide this fencing along the front of Homer for our security. Page 7 What we’re looking at today with this design would be to have 6x6 wood posts at about 42 to 48 inches high with a simple metal tube rail fence. And a model for that would be the Squire residence. The Squire House on University has something very similar with the hedge directly behind it and you can see how the hedge material grows right through it and into it, practically invisible. We wouldn’t be doing any embellishment or anything omate at the top and I’m showing this elevation in that. I wanted you to understand that what you would be seeing would essentially be a hedge with the character of what is there today, which is the existing wood posts forming the fence post along Homer. So, everything has been toned down. We’re respecting your comments from the January meeting. Now, regarding the walk as it runs down through, the public walk as it runs down along Homer, we’ve gotten some response from the Public Works people, they do not wish to see the sidewalk interrupted or using a different material. We’re respecting that and assuming that we’ll follow through. However, we still want to connect to the proposal that we had originally which would be for a drop-off at what we’re considering to be the front door for our pedestrian entrance of the facility. There may be some discussion about this but I chose to show that we would pick up on the same type of sandstone paving and use that to in fill the planter strips so that one could step out of the car. And I think this is evident in many places in town where people have done that, added brick, let’s say if they have brick walkways on the opposite side of the City sidewalk. Again, we’re allowing this to flow through. Our original concept of indenting slightly the Doctor’s Gate, we are still retaining. Now, at this point, the pathway into the entry that we’re proposing here becomes of issue. This is the photograph here as it is today. I’m sorry, I did forget one thing. The curbing that is along Homer today, it’s pretty much been covered by the duff and dander from the redwoods and it’s practically buried but we would be retaining that. That would form our hedge and in places where the missing teeth are, we would endeavor to replace those so that we would have better original character back with the fence just behind it, then the hedge. In terms of the walkway along the Garden area, what we have today is approximately 4 feet. And the issue that we felt from the design perspective was that it was a little bit tight for public access, especially when you would like to stroll into it and have people walking side by side. Five feet to 5½ is much more comfortable for that. When we were analyzing this, it became apparent that with the redwood trees here and the grading that would be required on this side and the potential for doing more damage to the hedges that we’re proposing to remain, and then looking at the opposite side, we felt we could easily move this side of the curbing back 12 to 18 inches to get a little bit wider width, a little bit more comfortable, more gracious as the front enh-’y. That would require relocation, obviously of these lights which are after, I’m not sure when they were installed but they’re 12-volt Home Depot type of things, and possibly relocating an iris. That is the extent of the impact on the Garden. There’s approximately 58 feet from this phase to the fence today and, therefore, we’d be taking about a foot to 18 inches from that to turn it into a bit more gracious entry coming in. And again, the design concept here is trying to get us from a public separate pedestrian entry into the front door of the Museum without having to walk along the driveway and have a conflict with cars. We had studied earlier potential penetrations at other points in the Garden. Each one Page of those other points were much, much more destructive than what we’re proposing to do today. We feel, as a matter of fact, this is not very destructive at all. And as we said, it’s easily reversible, if in fact there would come a time that that would be necessary. So, this walkway is still proposed to be widened by approximately a foot I believe, is, after our last look at the dimension here, to get the width we would like. Now, in response to the comments from January and the most recent comments that we saw on the staff report, which we just recently got, we are now proposing to incorporate that concept of allowing the soil cement to be as far forward on along this walkway as possible. So, therefore, what we’re proposing is that the sandstone flags that we would carry would narrow and follow just the curvature of the proposed, we’re calling it the doorway into the front Gardens to allow that flow to occur into the front door of the Museum. That will reduce the amount of flagstone there. It will be a newer material, of course, because we have the existing flagstone that’s been in place for some of it since 1908 and much of it has been added and repaired over the years, but that quality and that specific look of that existing sandstone walk, we are proposing to have a similar stone. It’d be a bit smoother, of course, for handicap access. And all that Cathy will discuss this later if it’s an issue and that is that we’re not trying to duplicate it exactly. We would be saying by allowing the stone to be slightly different that this is a new presentation to the Garden and not of the original historic character. So, that said, the issues of the hedge along the side. Right now, we have, I believe one hedge about 3 feet from the end of the wall, a second one at about another 6 feet down, a third one another 6 feet from that. And then a series of smaller hedges that are present today and I think you can see these are the smaller hedges here that are tailing out and the hedge is gone adjacent to the redwoods, possibly because of the deep shade that is there, they’ve been shaded out over the years. However, we’re not proposing to delete the hedges. We’re proposing to replace the hedges and provide an opening here to allow one to have access through into the front Garden, as the experience of entry to the Museum, so that you can enjoy the Gardens as you come into it. So, that said, what we’re proposing then is to replace the hedge with exactly the same material, Pittosporum eugenoides. At this area that bulbs out, the bench I believe, maybe Dennis was assuming that we were thinking of using the bench that, I believe, is in the recent photographic package there. However, I’m not sure whether that would be the appropriate bench or there’s another bench that I believe was rebuilt that maybe was the original bench on the porch. It might be more appropriate to use that bench in this particular location. We thought the bench there was a good place for it so one could enjoy the Garden. Also, since it is a public facility and this would be a pedestrian entrance with the drop-off, it provides an opportunity for someone to have a place to sit and wait to get picked up. That’s relatively close to this drop-offarea or just sit and enjoy the Garden. We feel benches in public parks are good things to have. I think I might have covered everything here. The only thing that I wanted to do was just to quickly, in the report packet starting on page 3, where there is the project description, the bulleted items as we look down through here, I just want to quickly review those to recap this. The first item was the new stone and metal rail. We are deleting that and the pre-cast coping rather and replacing it with what I’m showing you today. The second bulleted item was the Page wider flagstone path. We’re adjusting it as we’re showing it today. The new flagstone path veering off the proposed Doctor’s entrance, we’re retaining that concept. Two new vehicle gates at the historic driveway. We’ve adjusted those. The new brick paving for the event area, which we had shown originally back here which we feel is necessary for the use of the facility, we’re retaining that. The awning structure over the event area, we are retaining that. Removal of the bay tree, the small redwood tree in the front Garden, we are still proposing to do that. We feel there’s a conflict between the bay tree and the redwoods there. It is causing some significant gardening issues and we feel that the Garden would benefit, would be able to be brought back to the period of significance in the ’30s without the conflict of the bay tree. Relocation of the multi- trunk olive, I just saw in a letter this morning that, I believe, Lucy Tolmach from Filoli is saying, and Barry Coate also, I spoke with him regarding this tree in particular, that it is in pretty poor shape and probably wouldn’t be a candidate to replace or relocate. So, at this point, we’re assuming that that tree would go away. Replacement of the Front Garden lawn with new sod, I also saw in Lucy’s letter that she was concerned that sod is kind of like a concept of commercial aspect, rather than using a seeded lawn which may allow some bulbs and flowers to happen in it, I think it’s a wonderful idea. Some of these particulars will be addressed when we do any specific detailing and drawings for execution of any of the Master Plan elements here, and comments such as that are certainly welcome and we will be paying attention to those. I believe that about covers the issues in terms of what we had changed from our last presentation. And I’m going to turn it over to Cathy now to speak further on the historic elements. Cathy Garrett: Good morning. I’m Cathy Garrett, I’m delighted to be here. I’m pleased to see - Chair Haviland: Good morning, Cathy. I just want to make a comment. Normally, these presentations are limited to 10 minutes but since this is an extremely important item with a lot of people here, I’m going to extend that period for 20 minutes. I’m going to give you all an additional 10 minutes. Thank you. Cathy Garrett: Thank you for the warning and I will be brief. I’d be happy to answer questions later on, too, if there are items that come up. First of all, I’d like to acknowledge that there’s a great deal of interest in this site. And I think that is indicative of not only the Board’s interest and the Museum’s interest but this community-wide interest as well. And I think there is a great deal of common ground, while there are some differences of opinions, too, I think there’s a great deal of common ground and everybody wanting this Garden to be improved on its current condition. The other thing I’d like to preface this with is that the agreement between the City and the Museum requires the Museum to "rehabilitate the Gardens." And that is one of 4 treatments from the Secretary of Interior Standards and I’d like to, if I may, briefly just read the definition of rehabilitation according to the Secretary of Interior Standards. And it is, "The process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historical architectural and cultural values." And I think it’s useful because there’s two parts to that. One is, contemporary use and making it usable and the other is respecting what’s there. And that’s what this Master Plan is all about. And it’s always what rehabilitation is all about. There are many sites which I’ve personally worked on where that’s been an issue. It’s always where the rubber hits the road. Page ~. 0 So in the case here that we have an intervention which is a very light touch, it acknowledges the concept of Garden rooms. It acknowledges the features which are intrinsic to the site and which are character-defining elements of the Garden. The original concept, though altered, remains intact. The other item that’s very important to acknowledge is that it’s reversible. I think there are two or three items in particular interest. One is the hedge location in height, both along Homer and along the new entry there. And the issue with that is that in adaptive reuse or in rehabilitation to use the Secretary’s Standard term, the issue is we have a new use and we’d like to do the minimalist thing we can to accommodate the new use without significantly altering the long-term prospect of it being reversed. Take the front hedge, for example. There’s a desire by the Museum to increase visibility of the Museum and the grounds of the building itself. To do that, they’ve lowered the hedge several feet from its original height, but in fact it’s never been one height. That’s the way with hedges, it’s very hard to keep it at one height. And they’ve lowered it to an intended height of 4 feet. A previous Garden Site Committee have identified 5 feet as the limit, but the issue here is that should the use change, it would not be difficult for that hedge height to be altered. In fact, all you need to do would be stand back and watch it grow. There’s another important issue and that is the entry which I think, Ron has addressed handsomely. I’ll just point you to my letter to the Board, and that is how many people come in and out of this property, now that it’s a Museum. It’s vastly different from when it was a residence. And the last small item is that there was some comment about the accessibility of bike racks in the rear. There are bike racks in the rear, that’s where they’re intended to stay and the intention is that bikes will be wheeled through the side just as they would be wheeled through any residential garden. So they remain in the rear, and the access to the bike racks will be the same as the access for pedestrians. I think with that, I’ve hit on the key points. I’d be happy to answer questions. But it’s important to know that this is tried very hard to be a light touch. Many solutions were considered and to achieve the goals of the museum and to recognize and respect the Garden, this is the Master Plan that we propose. Thank you. Chair Haviland: Thank you very much. If there is no further presentation from the applicant, we now will move to Historic Resources Board’s questions of the applicant and questions for the Staff. Are there any? BM Murden: I had a question regarding the pathway at the Doctor’s office and its relation to the ADA requirements. Does this pathway have to be ADA accessible? I know there is an entrance at the rear for, and I don’t know whether that or in itself meets the ADA requirements or does there have to be another path that also meets them? And if so, how wide does that have to be? Staff Capor~no: In talking to the Building Division, we are under the impression that if, in fact, the entryway now which is the driveway is closed, which the ADA compliant entryway, then the front path is the main entrance, then that would have to be ADA compliant. And the Building Division would have to evaluate that prior to actual development and design to ensure that that was the case. Page BM Murden: Thank you. And how wide does that have to be? I know there is a minimum width to accommodate wheelchairs, I think. StaffBacklund: The minimum is 4 feet wide. BM Murden: Thank you. Chair Haviland: Beth? BM Bunnenberg: And one of my wonderings along the same line of questioning would be something about, if I’m understanding correctly, there is the sandstone path that would curve into the pedestrian entry of the Museum. But then it would continue for ADA into the soil cement path to go back around to the ADA. A little bit about how the transition might be from that stone path to the soil? Staff Backlund: This would be regulated through an inspection system of the Building Department. There has to be an exact match between the two surfaces that must be maintained so that there is no possibility of tripping hazard or discomfort to those passing. BM Bunnenberg: Thank you. And another question would be around the gate that is there at the front sidewalk. My memory and I checked with at least two people who were working with the Museum when the Museum went into the Williams House site, was that that particular gate was funded by the Garden Club and was made for that opening of the Museum. I do not have information, my sort of vague memory was that it was a replication of something that was there earlier but I do not know that. Is there someone today who has information about that existing gate? Staff Backlund: This is the Doctor’s Gate? What we call the Doctor’s Gate? BM Bunnenberg: Yes, yes, right by the sidewalk. StaffBacklund: Yes, we did not know what the age of that was. And we did not find a reference to the age in the cultural landscape report on that particular element. And so, it seemed to have weathered elements but can be deceptive. It can be modem and we just don’t know. BM Bunnenberg: Thank you. Chair Haviland: Any other questions? Roger? BM Kohler: Since this is a change of use in a historic site all of the same package, is there any problem with adding more benches? Dennis, I mean, is there any, from a historic standpoint, can we add more benches? Staff Backlund: From a historic integrity standpoint? BM Kohler: Yes, I mean, here we have a new project that’s going to be used by a greater number of people and we have one bench. And I think it’s a garden where you want to sit and contemplate this great garden and there’s one bench. I would suggest that there be at least, 3, 4 or 5 benches for the enjoyment by the public of this garden. So, I just wanted to, from a historic standpoint, is that a problem? Page 12 Cathy Garrett: There were several benches in the Garden. And in fact, there’s every oppommity to have more seating opportunities there fight now. In the front lawn Garden, there was a glider, there were movable furnishings. At various periods, there were two full sets of furnishings over the life of the Garden. The area that we’re calling Dora’s Garden, there was at least one fixed bench and there’s some reference to there being two although I don’t have photographic documentation of that. There’s also, since it is a rehabilitation there’s no reason why further benches could be added. They’re highly reversible, and for a new use like this, if there are additional people who might want to sit in the Garden - BM Kohler: I think, yes, I guess my point is, at this point I’m not worried about reversibility in the current use of the project. I mean, it’s going to be a neighborhood that there’s going to be a lot of, I don’t want to call them elderly folks because I’m approaching that range, too, but people would like to sit on a bench. So, I would propose, hopefully they can add that. And since there’s no historic issues, I would suggest we do that. Chair Haviland: And further questions? Carol? BM Murden: I just have one. What is the width of the archway where the door is, well, the path is 4 feet but where you go from the Doctor’s Office to the path that goes along in front of the house, there’s an archway there and door. Do you know what the width of that is? Ron: It’s approximately 42 inches. BM Murden: Right, thank you. Ron: Which I believe is similar to the opposite side, they’re both approximately the same. Chair Haviland: Michael? BM Makinen: Just one question. I previously had asked a question about signage to tell the story of the Garden to the public that would come there so they can interpret it properly. I didn’t see anything in here, a list of things to do, that included signage. Ron: We haven’t dealt with the specifics of the signage at this time for the project, other than some generalized concepts that we wanted to announce the entry point to the Garden with a sign. Things like interpretive signage for the Garden or the specifics of the sign design itself are not part of our presentation at this time. They would come along and be presented in the future. BM Makinen: I think that should be part of your proposal right here. I think that’s an integral part of the whole package. Cathy_i: I think with the historic aspect of the Garden, you’ve got to be careful not to litter it up with signs. There are a lot of different ways of interpreting historic sites and very often, the leaflets you pick up and walk around with you, so it’s not something that’s permanently installed or altering the way you view the Garden. So, there are a lot of oppommities there but, as Ron says, that’s not primarily our submittal today. Page Chair Haviland: Any further questions? I have a few. I’ll just start with superficial one. There’s a photograph of what was described as an existing garden bench that was presented to us. It’s a bench with metal scroll work and what looked like wood slats. It looks like a very new reproduction of an older style bench. Can you tell me if this bench is a reproduction of a bench that existed on the site? Does it have any historic significance? Ron: The bench that is adjacent to the Doctor’s entrance fight now, I believe, that bench. I don’t have the specifics on that bench being a bench that was in the Garden historically from a period of significance, let’s say the ’30s. That looks to me like it’s a reproduction bench of a Victorian era and it may have come along later. I think there’s a bench that is of the era that is now sitting on the rear porch, which, unfortunately, I don’t have a photo, much simpler, simple slat, green- painted wood bench. Chair Haviland: And staff, since you provided us with these photograph, can you tell us how, what is the relationship of this bench to the Garden? Is this a bench that’s being proposed to be used in the location that is indicated for the new bench? Staff Backlund: We told you in the cover memo exactly what we knew, which is number 4, an existing garden bench. And then the photograph can raise these questions that you are raising. We don’t have the answer to that. Chair Haviland: I see the applicant’s standing here. Cathy: [not miked] Chair Haviland: Okay, thank you very much. And the bench that you’re proposing in this new design, you haven’t selected it yet, you don’t have any information about it? BM Murden: I believe there is a bench on the property ~at is a copy of a bench that was there and which somebody in the Museum actually borrowed and replicated. But the Museum could confirm that. Ron: I believe that’s correct. And obviously, we would select a bench that would be appropriate to the era and I believe that bench, that was what I was alluding to earlier would be more appropriate than the bench that you have in front of you on that photograph. Chair Haviland: You’ve captured my concern exactly. I’m looking at this bench and I’m thinking .... Ron: I had the same concern when I saw it this morning. Chair Haviland: Okay, good. I’m glad we got that cleared up. Then, the lighting. Do we know when the existing lighting was added? This is something that is presumably going to be replaced in the new Garden design. Is there any, do you have any suggestions about how the Garden, this redesign is going to be lit at night and what kind of fixtures are going to be used? Ron: Is this for me or for staff?. Chair Haviland: For you. Page 3.4 Ron: Okay. We didn’t address lighting specifically. Those lights were added recently since the Museum took the facility over for events so that you could have some lighting, I believe it’s like a Home Depot selection. Obviously, we would pay a lot of attention to the specifics on the lighting. Path lighting, I think would be necessary. Obviously, at the entry leading to the front door and around the side. At this point though, we did not propose anything specifically. Again, those are issues that are yet to be settled. Chair Haviland: Thank you. Then this one other general question for staff. I mean, this Garden redesign seems to have provoked a lot of response from numerous people. And we talked a lot about how in rehabilitation of garden design, it’s important to retain character defining features. And a number of people have come forward with sort of their own interpretation of what the character defining features are of this Garden. Has the staff prepared a document that actually lists what these features are? Or is there a document that we could use in going forward? I think it would be very helpful to us if there was such a document. Or have we just been kind of relying on the notion that we would automatically recognize what these features are? Staff Backlund: We have the Cultural Landscape Report. The Cultural Landscape Report, in general, was prepared according to standards that we were able to reference independently, and we provided those to the Board in the Bimbaum article on protecting cultural landscapes that discusses cultural landscape reports. And in the Cultural Landscape Report, character-defining features are listed and assessed beginning with large items like the concept of the Garden Rooms down to details. What the staff did not do was to prepare an independent staff critique to see if conceivably any character-defining features were not fully covered in the report. The report in general appeared to meet standards for this kind of report. Chair Haviland: Can you tell me what page of the staff report that appears on? Staff Backlund: The article on cultural landscape reports and such, that’s an attachment. Chair Haviland: Okay, I understand. That’s a very general document and what I’m suggesting should be prepared for this Garden is perhaps, using a methodology in the Birnbaum report, a listing of the important defining features of this particular Garden. Staff Backlund: What I would like to do now as a beginning to the answer of that question is to perhaps defer this to Cathy Garrett to respond on her approach to character-defining features which has been released publicly in the Cultural Landscape Report, and we could begin there. Does that seem like a logical procedure? Chair Haviland: No, I don’t want to take up further time with this. It just seems that we, that what would be very helpful, is a very short and succinct document that lists these things that then could be provided to the Board when we deliberate on the Garden in the future. That has just indicated that this document here that was prepared by Craig Design Associates that was available at the front, it was not at our desks. Oh, at the front desk of the Museum for the public? But this was not presented to us. And it seems like there may be another listing, so there are several different listings. And I think what we need is one list that has been, the one that we all agree upon and that is used by the City in going forward in dealing with this Garden--as I have found it very, very difficult to grapple with all these different issues. That was just one question, whether there was such a list, and apparently there isn’t. Staff Backlund: Your point is very well taken, we appreciate that, thank you. Page ~. 5 Chair Haviland: That would be helpful. We’ll now proceed to the public comment portion, unless there are any further questions from the Board. And these are completely out of order so I’m just going to read them in the order that I have the stack here. So, the first speaker will be Glenda Jones. Glenda Jones. 1074 Moreno Avenue. Palo Alto: Madam Chair and Members of the Board. My name is Glenda Jones. Less than 24 hours ago, I received a packet of information from the City which included this moming’s agenda, which informed me I would be able to comment this morning for 3 minutes. Since my letter to the HRB, dated January 18th, is included in the packet ofinformation, you already know my position on the proposed new entrance, the hedge height, and my concerns about the Garden Preservation Oversight Team or the G-POT. So, I asked myself, what can I add, now that I have had a brief chance to look at the revised Master Plan that will be meaningful to this process. One of the enclosures in this packet is a copy of the Williams Garden Preservation Plan, dated April 1, 1996. I noticed that two significant pages were missing from the copy in our packets and had intended to provide them, but I’m glad to hear that that error has been corrected, since they described the make-up and duties of the G-POT. The G-POT was designed to be a multi- disciplinary group of professionals specializing in landscape design, horticulture, arboriculture, garden maintenance, and historic garden preservation. While two of the current members cover arboriculture, garden maintenance, and horticulture, the other categories remain unfilled. What is most significantly missing is a person with historic landscape preservation knowledge and background. While there is now an historian, this is not the same discipline that is required and needed for the preservation of a historic garden. The other issue I want to address concerns the height of the hedge as it affects the privacy and preservation of the Garden Rooms. Unless you had been in the Garden in 1995 and 1996, you could not begin to appreciate the change that exist today. If you look at photograph 4 in the first photo survey provided in the packet, you can look beyond the Yew tree and barely notice the Pittosporum hedge. But what you will see is the traffic on Homer and cars in the parking lot across the street. This is the 4-foot hedge that is 12 inches lower than previously maintained, but more like 3 to 4 feet lower than the Williams maintained it. If you look at photograph 1, you will see a Garden Room that is no longer a room. I have provided you with copies of photographs taken in 1995 and 1996. These were just handed to you, which show the same hedge locations when the Garden was still as the Williams kept it. I hope these photographs will demonstrate the contrast between enclosed and open, private and public. Four foot hedges do not provide a sense of enclosure. The proposed Pittosporum hedge along the new curved walk would also be 4 feet. This hedge and a 5 ½ foot walk with its stone post and bulb-out for a bench, which creates a patio-like area, totally destroys the essence of these gardens. Just look at the photographs in the packet which show the path to and from the Doctor’s Gate and imagine a patio and bench mid-way. Do we really need to do this? Thank you. Chair Haviland: Thank you. The next speaker is Bev Nelson. Bey Nelson. 3030 Country Club Court. Palo Alto: Madam Chairman and Members of the Board, I apologize for my voice but I feel it’s very important, I hadn’t planned to say anything, but I’m just going to speak from the heart today. Most importantly is, I have been with the Museum Page 3.6 since we opened the doors, 11 years ago. I started over 11 years ago and I wanted to say I was the Director at one time and presently I’m on the Board. And I’m proud to be on the Board and I want you to know that my commitment is here today as much as it was 11 years ago. And the reason being is because I feel the governance of this Museum has been fantastic and it is now when I look at the Executive Director, the Board, and so I want to say that what we have done, yes, we have made some improvements, but I honestly feel that we followed the Secretary’s recommendations. What we need to be doing we are doing and we will continue to do. I think there is an element of trust that has to be here, that we have to trust, you need to trust us. This Museum is of the community and for the community. We’d never waver down that end. I am, indeed, proud of the exhibits that we have done, what we are presenting to the community. And to me, the most heart-warming, exciting thing is the fact that we are in the current facility. It’s a beautifully restored home, enhanced by beautiful historic gardens, and I think that we took the money, we raised the money, to bring it up to a standard to do what we’re doing, and the visibility is an issue. Safety is an issue and I think that if we follow the Secretary’s recommendations, we can overcome this. It’s a matter of interpretation and I think that I trust in you, as I hope you will trust in us, that the right thing is going to happen. And I don’t want to say much more other than that. I feel the museum is a jewel in the Palo Alto treasure box, and let’s let that jewel shine. Let’s get the Museum open more than 3 days a week. Let’s make it 5 days a week and that can only happen with visibility. And I think this Master Plan is wonderful. I think that we’ve had excellent advice and people from the beginning and we still do, and I thank you for the time, and I hope that the plan does get approved. Chair Haviland: Thank you. The next speaker is Joe Ehrlich. Joe Ehrlich. 850 Webster Street. Palo Alto: My name is Joe Ehrlich and I’m a retired architect, the last two years. A couple of comments I wanted to make. Those photographs are beautiful. There’ve been no photographs taken from the street. The pedestrians, they walk by, or, God forbid in an automobile going by, so the visibility issue is essential. Actually, just some history: when the original history preservationists versus developers happened all over the country, the historical preservationists wanted to preserve buildings totally intact. The developers wanted to get rid of them so they can use a more economic use of it. The National American Institute of Architects took a major lead role in working with the Department of Interior many years ago to find in some way of combining the two so that the properties could be preserved and could be put to adaptive reuse, rather than just continue this conflict between destruction and perfect preservation. And that’s what we’ve been doing here. I hired two professionals that I have a lot of confidence in. We have had numerous meetings, explored numerous approaches to it and we feel that this was in the best interest, not only the Museum and the public, but for the effective adaptive reuse of the entire property. Thank you. Chair Haviland: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Kathleen Craig. Kathleen Craig, 191 Waverly Street. Palo Alto: Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to speak on this application. There are several points that I’d like to make. The driveway represents two issues. First is the health and safety issue, which I believe is a non-issue because the City has already approved the Master Site Plan for the development of the Livermore Learning Center. And both Building and Transportation Departments here in the City, have determined it to be safe and satisfactory. In dealing with the City over this issue, Fred Herman’s concerns were not, I repeat, not for the mix of cars and pedestrians on the driveway. Though I have great respect for the City Staff and want to commend them on the amount of information they prepared for this public review, their analysis in alternative 3 of the Museum’s concern for Page liability seems overstated. There are many driveways at public buildings in town, including this very City Hall, where huge numbers of vehicles and pedestrians share access. I think that the Museum could come up with a notification system for the few times that there are cars entering and exiting the handicap spots. This solution would not result in such a huge impact on the rest of the Garden. This feels too much like the handicap ramp under the Gingko tree all over again. The second issue is what draws us to this debate in reality. The Museum clearly wants a new entry to give curb appeal to the site, whose landscape design turns its back on the street. A compromise position could be created with a new entry at the driveway. Doing this does not require any changes to the rest of the Garden, leaving it intact. A new element would be reversible, if another tenant were to occupy the City’s property and wanted to return to the historically appropriate entry. I believe it was Mrs. Mario who offered the perfect solution at your last Board meeting. That was to have a two-part gate. The pedestrian portion can be opened when the facility is open and the car portion can be left closed with an electronic notification system for the occasional person who wished to access the rear parking spots. The next point regards the changes to the Doctor’s office path, the opening in the Garden walls. It is my professional opinion that the proposed changes go far beyond anything that can be justified by the change of use argument. What is being proposed removes and destroys significant elements and destroys the integrity of the site. It is a very contemporary element that is being imposed on a sensitive portion of the landscape. My position is that the Museum can create curb appeal for the site at the driveway and leave the Doctor’s Office Path alone. In her February 8th letter to Dennis Backlund, Ms. Garrett quotes the National Parks Service Guidelines on page 49. "A property will be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive material, features, spaces and spatial relationships." I guess we’re talking about semantics here but in my opinion, the changes to the Doctor’s Office Gate, Path, circulation system and wall garden elements are by no means minimal. Lastly, I’d like to encourage all of you to visit the Garden soon and see the annual display of Friscia’s in the lawn because this would probably be your last opportunity to view this, if you agree to the plan that the Museum is proposing to pave over this area. This is an important element of the Garden that was not addressed in Ms. Garrett’s cultural landscape report. Planting bulbs in the grass is a tradition that goes back in landscape design to some of the great designers. Ms. Garrett referenced Ms. Gertrude [Gichol] as one of these designers. Here are Ms. [Gichol’s] own words on that subject that I’m going to read to you out of her book called, "Wood and Garden." "What a charm there is about the common dogwood violet (which by the way is a bulb). It is pretty everywhere and borders in the rock gardens and in all sorts of corners. But where it looks best with me is in a grassy place, strewn with dead leaves under young oak trees." This is a garden tradition that Dora Williams, no doubt, brought with her to Califomia from her East Coast garden tradition. It is rarely done here on the West Coast and is even less frequently seen in contemporary gardens. Again, I encourage you to go see it before it’s destroyed. I also have some copies of enlargements of some of the historic photos that you got as small copies of in your packets. I think some of you have already seen these photos, but those of you who are newer to the HRB might not have had an opportunity to see them. You’ll notice in the very first photo, right below Dora Williams’ right foot, is the profile of the bench that was being discussed earlier. And there are other photos that I didn’t bring, blow-ups that clearly show the garden Page benches. If you would like to look at these this morning, I’d be happy to share them with you but I would like to take them back. Chair Haviland: Thank you, we’ll have those passed around. Kathleen Craig;. Thank you. Chair Haviland: The next speaker is Monte Anderson. Monte Anderson. 941 Emerson Street. Palo Alto: Good morning, Monte Anderson, I’m principal of Cody Anderson Wasney Architects. We were the architects that did the renovation of the Williams House and I’ve been involved out here for quite a long time. Currently, I sit on the Board of Directors and I sit on the design committee that’s been overseeing the development of this Garden design. Just to be very brief, I think one of the hardest things that we always wrestle with in historic preservation is change of use. And, oftentimes, it’s a change of use that is actually required to keep a historic resource viable. Here, at the Williams House, what a wonderful use this is for a former residence. It’s the Museum that connects people with their past and they do it in an historic environment. They’ve always known that the Gardens were an important element of this. They’ve always known that the Gardens are a series of rooms. I think that’s why the approach to the Garden design has been 5 years in the making. It’s been a very careful approach and I think that the bringing on of Cathy Garrett and the development of her report really helped us on the design committee and in the Museum to understand really for the first time without always having to rely on stories that you hear. And for the last 8 years of my involvement at the Museum, I’ve heard any number of stories about all the Gardens, and Cathy’s plan for the first time sort of really gave me the ability to look at it objectively and to understand the component pieces. It wasn’t until after her report was done that the Master Plan was developed. We had started to go down that path and we pulled back and we used the r~port as a guide to evaluate different options. There is conflict here. This is a change of use. This is a public facility. It’s not a residence anymore. The rear parking does need to be used. It needs to be used for handicap parking. It also is a primary tool for the staging and bringing in of the new exhibits. Vehicles go up and down that driveway in order to bring materials and supplies in so that the revolving exhibits can happen. So, there is conflict. The driveway is used more than in a residence where you would go up and down it a couple of times a day. And as nice as it might be to just eliminate that parking in the back, it really can’t be. Handicap parking needs to be there, that’s right where the handicap ramp was designed in, after very careful consideration and looking at any number of options for where it could occur. There was also, it came about as a negotiation with the City because basically if you applied ADA laws to it, every single entrance to this building needs to be handicap accessibility. That’s what the ADA says. We got some benefit here because of the California State Historic Building Code which gives the building official, the ability to go back and take a look at that and say, look, we want to balance the preservation of this resource with what needs to happen which is not a code, it’s a federal law. So, we do have conflicts here and we worry about that as a Museum because we are a public facility. We want to separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It’s very important. I wholly concur that signage and lighting are a part of this whole package that will need to come forward to you. As a Board Member, I’m really pushing for that to happen because I think that is kind of a final step that needs to be involved here, and interpretation of this Garden for visitors would be Page a very important aspect of that. So, anyway, I just hope and encourage you to give our plans, our well-thought out plans your blessing and help us move forward with this project. Thank you. Chair Haviland: Thank you. And the last speaker is Elizabeth Garbett. Elizabeth Garbett. 13906 Page Mill Road. Los Altos Hills: Members of the Board, my name is Elizabeth Garbett and my connection with the Garden is that I have been a Garden volunteer almost continuously since it was started, and I’m now in charge of the Garden Volunteers. I would like to go on record as opposing some of the changes put forth in this plan. In particular, I object to the re-routing of the path to the Doctor’s Office. Opening up this private space does irreparable harm to the character of a garden design to serve a historically significant domestic function, that is, the separation of the private family space from the public access for the Doctor’s patients. This dual use of a home was very much a way of life for families in that era, and it’s central to the historic value of the site. I find it ironic that an organization devoted to the preservation of our American heritage can so callously disregard the historic significance of this uniquely American garden. I believe that the issue of access can be adequately handled by the present facilities, if the Museum restricts the use of the driveway, which is the original access to the front door, to the very, very few occasions when disabled persons come to the Museum. The danger to pedestrians is minimal. The Museum would have to accept the fact that even their own staff would not use that back parking lot when the Museum is open. The path to the Doctor’s Office is perfectly straightforward. And if proper signage was used, there are only two ways you can go. One way to the Museum, the other way out to the back. You could get that way to the Education Facility. I don’t think it takes a lot of inteiligence to follow a sign that says, "This way to the Museum." And then if that Wall garden is kept intact, visitor will enter through that arched walkway into a garden so that he can experience a beautiful example of our American Heritage. I wonder if the problem of invisibility can be solved by a new grand entrance. How invisible was the Museum when it attracted 500 visitors to its Toy Train event? I suggest that content, not accessibility, is the issue the Museum needs to address. Thank you. Chair Haviland: Thank you. Are there any concluding remarks by the applicant? [pause] Alan Chin. President and Chairman of the Board of Museum of American Heritage: Madam Chair, Members of the Board, I’m Alan Chin, President and Chairman of the Board of the Museum of American Heritage. And I have held these positions for over two years. During this period, no changes have been allowed to the grounds without an approved Master Plan. A major portion of my time has been dedicated to developing a plan which would meet the needs of the Museum and also meet the conditions of the needs of the City of Palo Alto. Throughout this period, the grounds have been maintained for the public’s enjoyment by a small dedicated group of volunteers, under the guidance and supervision of Elizabeth Garbett, our previous speaker. The Museum and public owe her a large debt of gratitude. I’m not a noted horticulturist, arborist, historian, or even a collector. But I’m a community volunteer interested only in providing the citizens of this area with a viable resource. Now, Rhona Williams’ will simply stated that she desired to bequeath the property at 351 Homer Avenue to the City of Palo Alto, under the conditions that at the use for cultural purposes and a public park. It is very clear Page 2 0 that she did not wish the property to be retained as a historic, private residence and secluded garden. The City accepted the property under these conditions in January 1992. In May 1997, the City leased the property to the Museum of American Heritage with the full knowledge that changes would be made to the premises to accommodate the needs of a public museum and a public park. The City of Palo Alto required that any changes would comply with the Secretary of Interior Guidelines for Rehabilitation. MOAH, the Museum, raised over $500,000 to incorporate a number of building changes which were approved by the City and the HRB. These included the construction of the Frank Livermore Learning Center and handicap accesses required by the ADA. These major changes were approved because they complied with the Rehabilitation Guidelines. There were some that objected to these changes, however, we held the ribbon-cutting ceremony in May 1998 and the Museum opened shortly thereafter to the public. We are now requesting approval of our Garden Master Plan, which outlines changes to the garden, which will enhance and facilitate the public’s usage of a Museum, and also in the enjoyment of the Gardens. The Museum has worked closely with the City Staff to develop this plan. And we have spent hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars in its preparation. All of the changes to both the house and Gardens have been carefully undertaken to preserve the historical significance and to comply with the Secretary of Interior Guidelines for Rehabilitation. And to summarize, we’ve said that the Guidelines do encourage changes which will facilitate the contemporary use. Also, I see the major condition of the Rehabilitation Guidelines is that any changes that are made should be reversible in the event that the prior use would like to be returned to. Now, guidelines provide boundaries within which there are considerable latitude for choice. For instance, the guidelines for football are the sidelines, and the coach can choose to advance the ball up and down the field within these guidelines by either passing it or running it or kicking it. Spectators on the sidelines may not agree with the decisions of the coach but it is the coach who is responsible to call the plays and he does it with the team’s best interest in mind. Within the guidelines, there are many possible decisions which may be made. And all of these are allowed. And who is to say which decision is better? In this case, the Museum is the responsible party for the care and upkeep of the property. And all of the changes we are proposing are permitted under the specified guidelines. Others may feel their approach is better, but they do not have the physical responsibility for the property. It is clear that the changes recommended in this Garden plan are reversible, which would permit the property to be returned to its original state, as a private, family residence at some later date or so decided. We must accept the fact that the property is now meant to function as a public museum and a public park and is no longer a private, secluded residence. Our proposed Master Plan for the Williams property is in compliance with Rhona Williams’ will, the City’s lease and the Secretary of Interior Guidelines for Rehabilitation. The only question before us today is, do the changes proposed by the Museum comply with the Secretary of Interior Guidelines for Rehabilitation? If the answer is yes, this plan should be approved. Thank you. Chair Haviland: Thank you. I am now going to close the public hearing. We have a request for clarification, Carol? Page BM Murden: Ron, you mentioned, one of the speakers mentioned and I know you mentioned and I apologize, I don’t remember quite what you said about the crocuses in the lawn. I know you made a comment about it and I apologize. Ron: [inaudible - comment not miked] BM Murden: Thank you, I thought that was what you said. I wasn’t sure, thank you very much. Staff Caporgno: I just wanted to add one thing regarding what will happen subsequent to the eventual approval of a Master Plan concept. The Museum will be required to identify a planting program which will address the issue that you are referring to regarding the lawn, as well as a maintenance program so the planning program would look at the plants that are on the site and what could be removed, what can’t be removed, and identify how everything would be maintained on the site once that planning program is identified. And then at that time, also there will be an irrigation plan that will be developed and the signage program will be developed. BM Murden: Thank you. It was just one of the issues that had come up and I thought it had actually been resolved, I wasn’t sure. Chair Haviland: Beth? BM Bunnenber~: I had a question and maybe I was not understanding correctly when Kathleen was talking about paving over, I think I heard lawn area. Kathleen Craig: [inaudible - comment not miked] BM Bunnenberg: Thank you very much. Chair Haviland: Any other questions or requests for clarification? [pause] The public hearing is now closed. We have comments from the Board. Who would like to start? Beth? BM Bunnenber~: Well, it certainly is very complex kind of issue and I’m well aware of quite a bit of the history because, among other things, I am a docent at the Museum and I also serve on the Exhibits Committee. So that in that respect, I have experience some of the real safety issues that occur with, and this is during the week even when the general public is not coming in, but there is enough activity occurring around the Museum that the Exhibits Committee needs to bring in heavy objects, things I certainly cannot carry without some help, and it is absolutely necessary that those be brought into the driveway, and then you began to have times when people need to back up and turn around and, meanwhile, other people involved in both the Exhibit and other activities that go on at the Museum are using the driveway so that there is a great deal more traffic on the driveway than maybe even when the Museum was initially established. It’s getting to be a very busy place during the week so that I do experience some of the safety issues that happen, and it also is extremely difficult to drive out of that driveway and approach the sidewalk particularly when the hedge was higher. It was just impossible to see whether there was a pedestrian there as you’re driving out. So that I see some real issues that are there. I hear the concerns and feel some of the concerns about changing the Doctor’s path. It certainly is something that we have become accustomed to but there is some need to balance it with contemporary use. And I see the need for privacy and the rooms; it is a little place of quiet and Page 22 contemplation in the middle of a very busy urban setting. But I’m not convinced that lowering the hedge or even facilitating this path would completely destroy that image. So, these are some thoughts at this point. Chair Haviland: Carol? BM Murden: Yes. I understand why people feel that the driveway should continue to be used as an entrance. However, like Beth, I have done some work at the Museum, doing research and using the PAST-PAHA Room there. And I do think that it is a problem where pedestrians and cars are using the same entrance. I know in theory it should work. There should be very few cars coming in there and they should be coming in when people are not but that doesn’t seem to work out. There just does seem to be this clash between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. So, and I feel that even though using a different entrance is going to change the circulation pattern there, you’re no longer going to be coming in the traditional entrance. Nevertheless, I think this is the case where contemporary use simply dictates that it makes sense at least to me to change the driveway entrance for pedestrians. What this plan has done is look at the plan--what the cultural work has done--is to look at other means of accessing the Museum. And they have suggested using the Doctor’s Office Entrance which is an entrance that is there. It does not mean adding an entrance that has not been there. So, I feel that using the Doctor’s Office Entrance for pedestrian traffic to me is acceptable, makes a lot of sense. I feel that it is complying with the Standards and that the Standards do say that you can make this kind of, can make a change for contemporary use where it’s necessary. Certainly, what is being suggested is all reversible. And this is Criterion 10 of the Standards and I feel that what is being suggested is very reversible. But, and it’s a major but: another one of the criteria, Criterion 2 does require that the historic character of the property shall be retained. And I went over to the Museum yesterday, I walked around, looked at where the breakthrough in the hedge is being suggested, and I do feel that this breakthrough is going to impact this historic Garden Room of the front lawn. The path is going to come in, it’s going to go through what was a sitting area and we do have many photographs, but the photograph which is in the original report showing, this is very much an enclosed area. When you look across at where the breakthrough would be, when you look from the archway near the driveway, or when you stand in this area, to me, I just feel that it is going to lose this sense of a Garden Room. I would like to see the Doctor’s entrance be used but have the pathway come all the way down to the Doctor’s office and access the Museum that way. I appreciate that’s not as an attractive way to do it. It’s a little harder to figure out where you’re going, but I think those are both concerns that could be overcome when the Gardens to the left are revived and they will be very attractive. I think it will be pleasant walking in there. And I think through signage, you could be directed pleasantly into the Museum. And in actual fact, I think there’s a certain mystery of coming in that way which, to me, I fred somewhat appealing actually. Chair Haviland: Any other comments? Roger? BM Kohler: It’s taken me a while to kind of catch up because I missed the last meeting. And as I’m looking at this, and the photographs provided by staff of the walkway and having been out there in the past on several occasions. I mean, I’m struggling as well with everybody about how this is working. I guess as I’m thinking, there may be some compromises here that might work and hopefully would help alleviate everyone’s concerns. After having made my statement about Page 2 3 the benches, I then looking, I was studying the photographs and, I think the benches is a good idea. I’m not sure this large bulbous pop out for this particular bench makes sense because if you look at the one photograph, you can really sense the pathway from the sidewalk to this one on page, whatever it is, that shows that the walkway is very straight and continuous and the shrubbery there is defining that walkway. I would say, Carol, I would, in the best of worlds, that would be the best thing to do is to have people come through and come through the little opening at the gate and the wall there. In reality though, I’m not sure that’s the best way, however, I’m suggesting a possibility of a modest change in the plan where the number 10 is on site plan. I’m suggesting that the walkway come straight down to where the 10 is and then go back in up to where there’s a pillar which I’m suggesting we take out. So that the direct straight line effect of the Doctor’s Walkway is somewhat maintained, and that there’d be an opening, that’ll be slightly more perpendicular at the end of the wall and I would go straight up right in the middle of the 10 there, up to where there’s a pillar shown that you would then come around, have that option going that way or you could come along the wall. I think that would be a modest correction. You’d have more of the feel of the walkway and you could still have 5 to 6 feet to walk around between 9 and 10 there to get into the main Museum. That would be my suggestion to the Plan, to delete the large bulbous bench and maybe find some other places to put, may be a simpler bench and may be even a modem bench because then it would be clear that they weren’t original benches. And kind of let the new entry walkway assimilate the old walkway and not be so kind of swooping, curvilineal, but come down to the 10 and make a turn there. That’s what I’m suggesting. I mean, it’s taken me a while to absorb the significance of the Garden and I’m finally catching on to it but I do absorb the fact that bringing people in and out of a building of this type is very critical and I have been taking my mother around in the wheelchair in various places and it’s really very critical to be able to get folks in and out of public facilities like this. And one of the things even in residential design that you try not to do is to bring people down the driveway to the front door of a house. You try to have it so on separate walkways so even in the lower end of residential design, it’s very common to have a front entry walk. But I think my suggested modifications, which I think are fairly minimal, but I think in the end will bring back some of these division between the two sides would be my suggestion. Chair Haviland: Any other comments? Michael? BM Makinen: I support Carol’s comments. I think that the preservation of the Gardens Rooms are character defining and that effort should be made to make sure that we do maintain that feature. And I generally agree with Roger’s comments also of the possible approaches he suggested. Chair Haviland: Any other further comments? I have a few comments. I think you can see we’re all really struggling hard with this because it’s a difficult, difficult problem. And as I see it, essentially what we’re trying to do here is in as much as possible preserve the character-defining features of this Garden, while allowing for a new use and for new patterns of movement through the side. And there’s inevitably going to be some conflict between how the Garden was and how the Garden needs to be as a public park and as an entry to a public facility. And I think the issue here is what is an acceptable change and what is non-acceptable change. As I mentioned earlier, we don’t have a single list that this would have been identified by the City. I mean, various individuals have identified lists of character-defining features but we don’t Page 2 4 have anything that the City has identified and then put into a contract with the Museum. And so we’re sort of dealing with this kind of nebulous situation here. Three major character defining issues that keep coming up over and over again, however, and I think we can agree on, is this notion of the Garden Rooms. That this is a Garden that has been divided into separate and discreet areas with a great deal of enclosure; that the Garden has a rustic character in both materials and design; and the character of the plantings. I don’t think there’s been much controversy or discussion about the character of the plantings beyond this issue of allowing bulbs to grow in the lawn and I think everybody has agreed that that can be accommodated, that a sod lawn is not essential, that we could do a seeded lawn and allow for this more residential character for the turf areas. So, it appears to me that the two issues come down to the Garden Rooms and whether the Master Plan provides sufficient enclosure of the existing Garden Rooms. And the two issues there is whether the height of the enclosure is appropriate--is the height of the hedge going to be sufficient?--and have we made too many openings in the Garden Rooms so that it no longer reads as a room? My feeling about this is that in both cases, what we’re talking about is the presence or the removal of hedges, and the hedges are as tall as you let them grow and that reducing the height of the hedge along the street absolutely is going to change the character of the Garden. But I think, given the change of use of the site, it’s an acceptable change and it is, indeed, entirely reversible by allowing the hedge to grow. The issue of whether the section of hedge should be removed and paving should be introduced to allow you to move around the wall, rather than going down to use the existing arch opening, I think it’s very difficult. I agree with Carol that there’s something wonderful and mysterious about bringing people all the way down the path and into the arched opening. I just don’t think it’s going to work as a public facility. I think it’s just going to be very, very difficult. It’s going to be very difficult for someone in a wheelchair to make that turn. It looks very cramped, and I think it’s a wonderful and poetic idea but I just don’t see it as being practical. So, with reluctance, I support the notion of removing a section of hedge and allowing the flagstone path to continue. In terms of the rustic character of the Garden, in terms of its materials and design, I personally still have problems with the fence at the front. And I particularly have problems with the stone pillars. I just don’t find them in keeping with the original Garden design and I still have problems with the metal in-fill with posts. I wonder why we can’t keep a fence design that is more similar to what was there before, essentially wooden posts with wire fabric stretched between them that eventually gets completely covered up by the growth of the hedge. And I think that that kind of fence simply punctuated with these gates--and I think that the replication of the design of the original gate is a wonderful idea--I think if you’re going to have a gate at the driveway, that’s a very elegant gate that fits well with the project. And I personally also don’t have a problem with widening the entry gate in order to accommodate wheelchair access, provided that the original gate is stored. But I do have a problem with the character of the proposed fence. I do find it still too grand. I think the Museum has very legitimate concerns in terms of visibility, security, accessibility, not just for ADA but for the general public. And the issue of liability, ! think it’s extremely important and although it may have been approved that the driveway could share between Page 2 5 pedestrians and vehicles, I think it probably puts the Museum in a fairly compromised position as regards liability that should some accident happen there that, if they allowed this to happen it would be quite difficult to defend. It just doesn’t seem, again, an appropriate way to run a public facility. So, again, I think the notion of in keeping the access the way it was where pedestrians walk down the driveway, it’s a nice idea but it’s simply is not one that is functional, in terms of the Museum’s use of the site. And so I do support the notion of using the Doctor’s Entry as the entry into the site and I support widening it. I do agree with Roger a bit about the poke out for the bench. I’m not sure that that is an intervention that is entirely successful, and what I would prefer to see on the site would be benches that are movable, that could be located in different parts of the site, and maybe more of them than this single one. But I’d like to see the side of that entry down into the Doctor’s Entry remain the straight edge that it currently is. Are there any other comments by other members of the Board? Are we ready for a motion? I believe Staff is expecting a motion today, is that correct? Staff Caporgno: I believe that the Museum would like for the HRB to make a recommendation to the City Council so this can move forward. Chair Haviland: Do we have a motion? [pause] Roger? BM Kohler: Well, I’ll try. I move that we accept staffs recommendations with the (where are the recommendations?), I would amend the recommendations to state that we recommend that the bench pop-out be deleted; that the stone pillars be deleted; that the, if it was acceptable to other people, that the shape of the entryway around Item 10 be looked at; and I would tend to agree that the wood fence in front be simplified. I can see why they want to use the iron because it’s long-lasting and secure. So, I guess I would suggest that the iron and the wood would be okay, although a wire mesh might be more acceptable. But I know it’d have to be a smaller mesh so you can’t climb on it. I don’t know, to me, it’s kind of a small point. I mean, I think the iron is secure and will last longer although wood posts will eventually rot out before the iron does. So, that’s my motion. BM Murden: There were also some suggestions by the staff that if the gate was changed that that be kept by PAHA, and also the older wire mesh, that piece be kept by PAHA. BM Kohler: Oh, I would think that would be a good thing to do. I mean, you could keep the wire mesh and store it. Chair Haviland: Do you want to include it in your motion? BM Kohler: Sure. Yes. I guess it seems kind of a common sense thing to do. Chair Haviland: Okay. Is there any discussion of the motion or a second? BM Bunnenberg: I would second that motion of I would simply put in one word of caution about PAHA storing these because I also have the key to PAHA storage locker and it’s very small. But given the importance of these materials, I would support the motion. Chair Haviland: So, that’s a second? Page 2 6 BM Bunnenberg: That’s a second. Chair Haviland: That’s a second, okay. I’m going to attempt to recast the motion. Roger, you tell me if I’m leaving anything out. The motion is to accept the staff recommendation with the addition that the bench pop-out be deleted, and that the stone pillars at the front fence be removed from the design. And further, that the shape of the new stone entry walk, where it intersects with the existing stone wall, be re-examined and, Roger, did you want that to be re- presented to the Board? BM Kohler: Maybe just one or two of us could just look at it. I don’t think we have to come to the Board with it. It seems to be a process that the ARB uses. Chair Haviland: And reviewed by the Board? BM Kohler: Yes. Board Members. I mean, in the SOFA project, that’s what we did. We had sort of a sub-committee so we looked at suggested alternatives. Chair Haviland: And that’s acceptable? This is asking staff, to have that reviewed by just a couple members of the Board? Staff Caporgno: If the Board desires and that’s part of the motion you vote upon then that would be fine. Chair Haviland: Fine. Further, that the original entry gate at the Doctor’s Entrance and a portion of the existing decorative wire mesh be appropriately stored. [pause] The existing gate and the existing wire mesh be appropriately stored. And that our understanding, I guess, is that we’re going to have the applicant come back with a sign program, a lighting program, a planting program, maintenance program, and irrigation program. That doesn’t need, I don’t think, to be part of the motion. Staff Caporgno: That’s true because those are elements that the Museum will be required to prepare subsequent to approval of the Master Plan concept. Chair Haviland: Michael? BM Makinen: Susan, could you put some words in there about the character-defining Garden Rooms? Chair Haviland: This is actually Roger’s motion so if Roger approves. BM Kohler: I’m not sure what you’re asking. BM Makinen: Well, we had several comments, I think, Carol started off with that thing about the retention of the character-defining Garden Rooms. BM Kohler: Well, I think, yes, okay. I think my suggestion on the walkway that it wouldn’t flare out, that essentially it would be relatively straight, that as you walked in there you would sense a difference of the two rooms, and then suddenly there’d be this opening at the end of the wall, you could realize that there’s another Garden Room on the other side. That’s why I’m suggesting that it be that design rather than the open flare, which as you come along there’s no Page 2 7 surprise, you can see it’s winding off to its side. That’s why I’m saying if it ran straight and then suddenly there’s an opening there, you will say, oh, gosh, there’s another room on the other side. That’s why I think that’s helping to defme the character of the rooms and that’s why I’m suggesting it. But in terms of the hedges, I think it’s already been stated that--I don’t know what the motion has to say; I want to make a comment, that’s all. BM Makinen: The thing I would say is that the objective to these changes is to maintain the Garden Room character-defining features. [fade out] BM Kohler: Yes, I guess the intent of the motion is to enhance the character-defining outdoor Garden Rooms and the existing fence look but we’re aware--I don’t know if the motion has to say this--but we’re aware of the fact that the hedge height is lower than it was, but for this use of this building as it is now, the 4 feet is the preferred height. Chair Haviland: So, I would suggest a preface to the motion which says, the Board recognizes that the use of the site by the Museum necessitates changes to the original Garden design. However, it is important to retain the Garden Room character of the existing Garden and the rustic character of the enclosing fence. Therefore, we recommend, we adopt the staff recommendation with the addition, and then that follows the deletion of the pop-out and the pillars and that the shape of the entry is to be looked at. And the storage of the materials. Is that now clear enough? BM Bunnenberg: And I accept those. Chair Haviland: And our second accepts the changes that have been made?, okay. I think we’re ready to vote. Oh, Carol wants to make a comment. BM Murden: I will not be supporting the motion because but I would like to make it, have it made, clear in the minutes that the only reason I am not supporting it is because I do feel that the breakthrough does impact this feeling of a Garden Room. I certainly support the change to the Doctor’s Entrance and everything else that has been said. Thank you. Chair Haviland: All those in favor? BM Haviland, BM Bunnenber~, BM Kohler, BM Makinen: Aye. Chair Haviland: All those opposed? BM Murden: No. Chair Haviland: The motion passes. Historic Resources Board Action: Kohler moved, seconded by Bunnenberg, the following prefatory statement and recommendations: "The Board recognizes that the use of the site by the Museum necessitates changes to the original Garden design; however, it is important to retain the Garden Room character of the existing Garden and the rustic character of the enclosing fence." Therefore, the Board moved the following two staff recommendations: (1) that the proposed new flagstone entry path inside the replacement Doctor’s Gate be limited to 5 ½ feet in width from the Doctor’s Gate to the point where it joins the historic flagstone area to the left of the Garden wall, and (2) that the early 20th-century portion of the front wire fence and the existing Doctor’s Page 2 8 Gate be stored by the Palo Alto Historical Association. The Board also adopted the following four amendments to the staff recommendations: (1) that the bench pop-out be deleted, (2) that the stone pillars at the front fence be deleted, (3) that the wood and iron front fence be simplified, and (4) that the shape of the new stone entry walk, where it intersects with the existing stone wall, be re-examined by a sub-committee of the Board. Vote: 4-1-0-1 (Maria absent) STATUS REPORTS ON HISTORIC PROJECTS/SITES. BM Bunnenberg commented on the securing of the Roth Building. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. None. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS. None. BOARD ITEMS. None. BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. The Board inquired about the California Preservation Foundation Conference in May. ORRESPONDENCE. None. *Historic Resources Board representative at City Council meetings: Pro’e2~Meeting date Representative None. STAFF APPROVALS: None. Agenda changes, additions and deletions. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Questions. If interested parties have any questions regarding the above applications, please contact the Planning Division at (650) 329-2441. The files relating to these items are available for inspection weekdays between the hours of 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM and 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM and staff reports will be available for inspection on 2:00 PM the Friday proceeding the hearing. ADA. Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or progams or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (voice) or (650)328-1199 (TDD) Page 2 9 Attachment C January 27, 2003 Julie Caporgno Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Williams House Garden Renovation Plan Dear Julie, We would like to thank you and Steve Emslie for meeting with A1 Chin and myself to discuss moving our project forward to City Council. We have put a great deal of time into our proposal and our efforts to provide for pedestrian safety at the Museum while balancing the sensitive historical context of the garden. As you know our submittal to the Historic Resource Board was approved with minor conditions at our last heating. Since that time we have revised the plan to incorporate the HRB’s comments and have subsequently met and reviewed the modifications with Martin Bemstein, Chair of the HRB. He was very receptive of the changes we made and has endorsed our revised plan, which incorporated nearly all of the HRB’s comments. There was some public concern expressed at the heating and in a letter from Lucy Tolmach, Garden Curator of Filoli Gardens. After the meeting both Cathy Garrett, the historic landscape consultant and myself met with Lucy Tolmach, Kathleen Craig and Pria Graves to discuss their concerns. We suggested utilizing a pedestrian path at the current driveway location by widening the existing driveway but this would have required losing the Quince hedge or moving the Privet hedge bordering the front garden. Neither Ms. Tolmach nor Ms. Craig felt this was an acceptable solution. Finding a way to create a clear distinctive pedestrian path to the front door was the Museum’s primary goal. The current driveway access creates conflicts between automobiles and pedestrians and safety of people arriving at the Museum has long been a serious concern. Our goal through the Master Plan has been to solve this conflict and create a safe and inviting entrance to visitors. The William’s House is no longer a private residence, it is a public facility and the driveway provides access to the handicap parking in the rear as well as parking for key staff and other vehicles vital to the Museum’s function. Vehicular traffic is no longer a single car entering and exiting the site a couple of times a day and it is no longer acceptable to also have visitors share the driveway with vehicles. Cathy Garret has assisted us in developing a plan that balances the Museums safety concerns with the desire to preserve the key elements of the Garden. Her letter is attached to our application and explains how the new entry meets the Secretary of the Interior’ s Standards for Landscape Rehabilitation. While our approach may still not satisfy all interested parties, we believe we have found a very good way of solving safety and preservation concerns and we look forward to presenting our project to the City Council. Sincerely, Montgomery Andersc Principal Cody Anderson Was: Board of Director’s Museum of American Heritage Inc. Encl. Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, Inc. ¯ 941 Emerson Street ¯ Palo Alto, CA 94301 ¯ Tel 650.328,1818 - Fax 650.328.1888 ¯ caw~gcawarchitects.com PATT I L L O &G A R R E TT A S S O C I AT E S October 8, 2002 Mr. Ron Benoit Ron Benoit Associates 225 Forest Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mr. Benoit: Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised plan of the Doctor’s Office Gate for the Williams Garden. I have reviewed the proposed changes and feel they respond to most of the comments made by the Historic Resources Board at their March 6, 2002 meeting. Achieving a new use for a historic site is often a test of balance between respecting historic defining character and accommodating a new use. While some historic elements are compromised by this design solution, I Believe that it represents an appropriate balance between these needs and is an acceptable interpretation of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for cultural landscapes. The proposed wood entry gate is in keeping with the design of the Doctor’s office gate, as it existed historically. The new gate reflects the character of the site in its simple detailing and use of natural materials, as does the woven wire fence with wood fence posts. The indentation of the entry is a new element that did not occur during the Williams’ time. I understand that the Museum prefers the indentation to place emphasis on this location at the primary pedestrian entry to the site and sees this as a reversible change. The simplification of the walk by removing the bench, and associated bump-out, is more in keeping with the historic character of the garden as it was when owned by the Williams. The widening of the path and its proposed stone surfacing are moves that accommodate the needs of the Museum. If the stone paving were laid in sand rather than mortared in place it would be both distinguishable from the historic paving and more readily reversible. Given that there is a new opening into the Front Lawn Garden, the scaled-down approach to the doorway between the hedge plants will have a lesser impact than previously shown. This new doorway into the garden room provides for hiding the room from view until the threshold is crossed, at which point the room is fully open to view just as occurs at the original two openings. In this fashion it is in keeping with the original concept of the garden room. Yours sincerely, Cc. AI Chin, Monty Anderson, Joe Ehrlich, MOAH Design Committee LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 337 17TH STREEt, SurrE 214 OAK[AND~ CA 94612-3356 TEt 510/465 1284 F~,x 510/465 1256 CA L~C~NS~ NO. 1925 Land Arch@PGADesign.corn