Submitted By:  The Woodstock Preservation Alliance

www.thewoodstockspirit.org

"Dedicated to the Historic Preservation of the Site of the 1969 Woodstock Festival"

April 6, 2004

Table of Contents

Preservation Goal   ………………………………………………………………….…                1

Introduction   ……………………………………………………………………………               1

Identifying the Historic Woodstock Site Boundaries   …………………………                        4

Bethel Woods Phase 1 Site Plans:  Issues of Concern in Best

Practices for Historic Preservation   …………………………………………………                7

            a. Guidelines for Preservation and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Farmsteads

     and Agricultural Landscapes within Urban Areas   ……………………………             10

b.  Issues of Concern and Inadequate Preservation Planning According to

     Standards of Preservation Planning set out through the Secretary of the

     Interior   ………………………………………………….…………………….            11

c.  The Standards for Preservation Planning   …………………………………….             11

d.  Issues of Compromise   ………………………………………………………..            16

Current and Proposed Revisions to Placement of Buildings   ………………                           17

Mitigating Concerns with Current Site Plans (Phase 1) and

Suggested Revisions   …………………………………………………………………                  19

            a. Conclusions   ……………………………………………………………………              20

Appendix 1:  Section 106 Criteria of Adverse Effect   ……………….…………                       22           

Appendix 2:  Letters of Request for Owner Support

   re: Application To The National Register of Historic Places

May 10, 2001   …………………………………………………………………….           25

February 6, 2003 (w/certified receipt)   ……………………………………………         26

April 6, 2003 (w/certified receipt)   ……………………………………………….          27

Appendix 3: Statements

            Statement from Michael Wm. Doyle, Ph.D.   …………………………………….               29

Appendix 4:  Site Maps and Comparisons

Image 1.   Aeriel View (USGS)   ………………………………………………….           33

               Image 2.   Yasgur's Farm 1969 Festival Site Map   ……………………………….            33

               Image 1a.  Same as Image 1   ……………………………………………………..            34

               Image 2a.  Same as Image 2   ..……………………………………………………           35

               Image 3.    Bethel Woods - Revised Site Plans, Mar. 2004   ………………………         36

               Image 4.    Suggested Alternate Placement of Permanent Structures    …………..           37

Fig. 1 -     Areas of Historic and Pre-historic Sensitivity   ………………………..          38

Fig. 2 -     Potential Historic Resources   …..………………………………………       39

               Fig. 3 -     Site Plans for Bethel Woods   ….…………………………………………     40

               Fig. 4 -     Environmental Conditions of PAC District   …………………………..           41

Fig. 5 -     Suggested Relocation of CBC and Farmer's Market   …………………           42

Fig. 6 -     Suggested Relocation  - re: Environmental Conditions   ………………          43

               Fig. 7 -     Suggested Relocation - re: Wetlands    …………………………………         44

               Fig. 8 -     Historically and Archeologically Sensitive Areas   ……………………           45

               Fig. 9 -     Proposed Security Fencing   ……………………………………………         46

Preservation Goal:

The case file addresses historic preservation issues arising from the submitted site plans for Phase 1 of the Bethel Woods Center for the Arts as they pertain to the historic site of the 1969 Woodstock Music and Art Fair.  In keeping with the principles articulated in the New York State Historic Preservation Plan, 2002-2006, we of the Woodstock Preservation Alliance (WPA) are acting to counter an imminent threat to the site’s historical integrity through insensitive commercial development proposed by the property owner, the Gerry Foundation, Inc. (GF).  We believe the GF’s current plan fails to safeguard the inherent value of the Woodstock Festival site.  The goal of the WPA is to mitigate the intrusion into the defined boundaries of the historic site through the GF’s placement of the Phase 1 Core Building Complex (CBC) and Farmers Market by showing how these may feasibly be relocated to an alternative location nearby, which is already owned by the GF but is outside of the historical viewshed of the Festival Stage Area and adjacent plateau.

Introduction

The Woodstock Preservation Alliance remains concerned about the historic preservation of the property known worldwide as the site of the 1969 Woodstock Music and Arts Fair. This property, leased in 1969 by local farmer Max Yasgur to Woodstock Ventures, Inc., the Festival promoters, has been identified as being of national cultural and historical significance by the authors of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that was commissioned in 2001 by the Gerry Foundation. It includes the original Festival Stage Area field to the south and the adjacent upper plateau stretching north towards highway 17B. This property was later purchased by the GF and is included in the proposed 634-acre Performing Arts Center (PAC) Development District in the Town of Bethel, Sullivan County, New York, to be known as the Bethel Woods Center for the Performing Arts.  Few would dispute that the events, which took place on 15-17 August 1969 on this site, are of national historical significance. While some regard this site as constituting “sacred ground,” such an interpretation is highly subjective and not likely to merit protection under that status by the U.S. National Park Service’s criteria for the preservation of historic places. However, as defined within the DEIS, the Woodstock Festival site meets the criteria that render it eligible for adding to both the New York State Register of

Historic Places and the National Register of Historic Places. Some of the evidence to support this determination has been compiled by the Gerry Foundation itself and may be found within its own documentation. These sources include:

1. The Draft EIS and SEQRA document prepared for the Gerry Foundation
2. Statements from Michael Wm. Doyle, Ph.D., a public historian on the faculty of Ball State University, Muncie, Ind., who was hired by the environmental planning firm that was retained by the GF to prepare the “Statement on the Historical and Cultural Significance of the1969 Woodstock Festival Site” section of the DEIS

3. The National Park Service’s Technical Preservation Brief entitled Protecting Cultural Landscapes <http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/briefs/brief36.htm#PRESERVATION%20PLANNING%20FOR%20CULTURAL%

4. 20LANDSCAPES>

5. The Draft Principles of Preservation Planning from the National Park Service’s Office of Heritage Preservation Services, (a publication that attempts to identify best practices in historic preservation planning) <http://www2.cr.nps.gov/pad/PlngPrinc.html>

6. The Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for Rehabilitation” (36 CFR Part 67), published by the National Park Service (which includes ten basic principles designed to help preserve the distinctive character of historic buildings and their associated sites, while allowing for compatible modifications to meet new needs <http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/tax/rehabstandards.htm>

7. Section 106 provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR PART 800—PROTECTION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES) from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation <http://www.achp.gov/106summary.html>

8. “Guidelines for Preservation and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Farmsteads and Agricultural Landscapes within Urban Areas” by Rheba Massey, HFCDC Advisory Board <http://www.fortnet.org/HFCDC/ag_standards.html>

9. New York State Historic Preservation Plan, 2002-2006 (Revised) <http://www2.cr.nps.gov/pad/stateplans/nyork.htm>

10. Several recent articles in the regional news media, including the Sullivan County Democrat, The Towne Crier, and The River Reporter

We recognize that the architectural firm contracted by the GF for this project, Westlake Reed Leskosky of Cleveland, is known not only for its excellence in designing performing arts centers, but also for its specialization in “adaptive reuse” -- the rehabilitation of historic structures to serve contemporary purposes while maintaining their historical and aesthetic integrity. The WPA congratulates the Gerry Foundation on its selection of this firm because we believe that its architects have the requisite training, experience, and sensitivity to design a world-class PAC in such a way that would preserve the historic viewshed of the Festival Stage area and adjacent plateau site.  In this document, the WPA wishes to address its concern about remedying one primary threat to the preservation of this historic site: the placement of permanent structures encompassing approximately 35,000 to 38,000 square feet within a Core Building

Complex which is proposed for the plateau immediately above the Festival Stage Area.  We believe this part of the GF’s plan for Phase 1 of the PACDD contravenes best practices in historic preservation. These proposed structures include an interpretive center, a theatre, visitor amenities and Farmers Market shelters.  In a letter addressed to the Town of Bethel Planning Board and dated 8 March 2004, Dr. Michael William Doyle, a historian with thirty years of experience in historic preservation who was hired to author part of the Draft Environment Impact Statement,

concluded that “the site [is] of major significance on the local, state, national, and even international levels. With the owner's consent, the site would certainly be eligible for listing on both the New York State and the National Register of Historic Places.” His statement continues, “One of the reasons for the site’s eligibility, besides its signal importance in the history of American popular music, is that it remains in much the same state as it was found when the Festival organizers leased it from Max Yasgur in summer 1969. This is all the more remarkable given the site’s location, a mere two hour drive from the heart of Manhattan and in a scenic area that has for generations been a destination for vacationers. Miraculously, neither residential nor commercial sprawl has adversely affected the site over the subsequent thirty-five years” [emphasis added].  The entirety of the original Woodstock Festival site was included within the scope of this significance statement. At Woodstock in 1969, a crowd estimated at between 300,000 to 500,000 people attended at least a portion of the three-day festival, during which time its members spilled out of the 38-acre natural amphitheater (i.e., the Festival Stage Area) and adjoining plateau along Hurd Road, and strolled and camped over an area well outside what had been leased by the promoters. The Gerry Foundation currently owns much of this area. Given the defined area of historical concern and its eligibility for

placement on the National Register of Historic Places, the placement of new structures on the site will intrude into its historic viewshed and thus compromise one of the major

principles of historic preservation practice.

IDENTIFYING THE HISTORIC WOODSTOCK FESTIVAL SITE BOUNDARIES

Dr. Doyle’s statement also addresses the process used by members of the Allee King Rosen & Fleming (the New York environmental planning firm hired by the GF to compile the DEIS) team to ascertain the proper boundaries of this historical site:

For guidance, we turned to the publications prepared by the National Park Service for nominating battlefields, since these sites pose similar problems in determining the boundaries of military conflicts that were often territorially extensive and temporally fluid. In the end, the AKRF team focused on the so-called Festival Stage Area, the 38-acre field and adjoining plateau which witnessed the music that was at the heart of the Festival itself and attracted the greatest attention by the throngs in attendance, not to mention the reporters, photographers, and filmmakers who brought images of the Festival to the awareness of the wider world. This, it was decided, was the most significant part of the 1700 acres under consideration for the proposed Performing Arts Center Development District (PACDD).

The boundaries of the Festival site (i.e., the property on which most of the Festival activities centered) are shown on the original site map of Yasgur’s Farm. The property line runs from the northwest intersection of Hurd and West Shore Roads (where the Woodstock monument now sits), south to the boundary line that transverses across the field as Hurd Road approaches Highway 17B. That part of the leased Festival property is outlined in Figure 1 from the Gerry Foundation’s DEIS. The leased property extended northeast from Hurd Road and south of Filipini Pond where the performers’ pavilion stood in 1969 and now is occupied by permanent structures that are used by the GF’s

grounds maintenance staff. Although the property subsequently acquired by the GF for the Performing Arts Center District does not include all of the original leased area, it is nonetheless represented in the DEIS as historically relevant (Figure 2). The total area of the Woodstock Festival site that has been recognized as historically significant is

Contrary to the findings of its own consultants, the Gerry Foundation has decided to consider only the Festival Stage Area and adjoining ridge (about one quarter of the historically sensitive Woodstock Festival property it possesses) as historically significant, evidently to justify developing part of the property – namely, the plateau adjacent to the Festival Stage Area -- despite its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places and the New York State Register of Historic Places. We disagree with the Gerry Foundation’s contention that the only area of historical significance worthy of preservation is that which can be seen from the monument looking toward the south in

the direction of the Festival Stage in 1969. Following accepted historic preservation practices, we maintain that the viewshed from any part of the Festival Stage Area (which includes a 360 degree view when standing atop of the festival stage hill) should be left in as undeveloped a state as is practicable.

            Image 1a. Aerial View of Site                                                            Image 2a. Yasgur's Farm Festival

           Figure 1. Areas of Historic and Pre-Historic                                   Figure 2. Potential Historic Resources

As can be seen in the illustration immediately above (Image 3), submitted by the Gerry Foundation and depicting Phase 1 of the Bethel Woods Center for the Arts, the Central Core Complex (Numbers 2 and 5) and the Farmer’s Market (Number 4), represent new permanent structures that encroach upon the area designated as most historically

significant (the Festival Stage Area and adjacent plateau). The space to the north of the largest parking lot (on west side of Hurd Road) and directly across the road from the proposed CBC and Farmers Market sites is vacant and represents one viable alternative to the current proposed locations. In conformance to best practices in historic preservation

planning, the WPA believes strongly that this alternative location should be given serious consideration by the Town of Bethel Planning Board prior to the issuing of any permits for development.

The Woodstock Preservation Alliance remains concerned about the disregard for best practices in historic preservation planning exhibited by the Gerry Foundation in its current plans for the Bethel Woods Arts Center PACDD. In reviewing the standards issued by the National Park Service, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and other recognized authorities in historic preservation, it is our opinion that the Gerry Foundation has ignored these guiding principles. To support this contention, we again quote from Dr. Michael William Doyle’s letter of 8 March 2004 to the Town of Bethel Planning Board:

"Now the GF has seen fit to reduce the footprint of the Core Building Complex (CBC) to approximately 35,000 to 38,000 square feet, less than 90% of its earlier size, and to relocate a water tower that had been proposed for erection nearby. While this is certainly a welcome change, the fact remains that the CBC will still intrude into the viewshed from the Festival Stage Area. I urge the GF to reconsider its plan and remove the CBC from this vicinity. It is a staple of good preservation planning that no new permanent structures should be erected within unaided eyesight of a historic site where alternate locations may be found within a reasonable distance. Ideally, the site itself should preserve the perspective a visitor would have had during the time period of the site’s primary historical importance. Because relatively few historic sites remain in a geographical context evocative of the period of their primary importance, this is typically achieved by mitigating to the degree practicable any intrusions that would detract from such a perspective.

The Woodstock site is truly fortunate because it can avert these intrusions ahead of time simply by constructing the CBC in a different location on the property out of the Festival Stage Area viewshed."

"GF Executive Director Jonathan Drapkin, during his presentation before the Planning Board last month to discuss the application for the Special Use Permit, acknowledged that officials with the New York State Department of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSDPRHP) had recommended against situating the larger CBC “retail element” on the plateau where the downsized version is still planned. He asserted that “the Interpretative Center element which they [the NYSDPRHP] do recognize from battlefields and other things, has a real purpose to be on the historic site in order to tell a story.” I would think it appropriate for this Board to request a finding from the New York State Historic Preservation Officer

(SHPO) as to whether the GF’s revised plan satisfies the Department’s criteria for such buildings in situ prior to issuing a Special Use Permit. I am inclined to think that the SHPO would continue to disagree with the way Mr. Drapkin’s assertion has been interpreted in this revised plan, because it does not conform to best practices for historic preservation."

The Gerry Foundation has stated publicly that its rationale for placement of permanent structures on the upper plateau are in keeping with the fact that there were concession booths and other related structures in that same location during the 1969 Festival (see photo immediately below). In the WPA’s opinion, the small-scale temporary structures

that were set up on the plateau adjacent to the Festival Stage Area differ markedly from and thus do not justify the much larger and permanent structures the GF proposes to erect there today.

Furthermore, the WPA maintains that the proposal to erect large new structures nearby and permanent security fencing around the Festival Stage Area, despite its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places, contravenes the following criteria set out through the Section 106 regulations, 36 CFR Part 800 (“Protection of Historic

     (1) Criteria of adverse effect (see Appendix 1). An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials,

workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative.

     (2) Examples of adverse effects. Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to:

          (ii) Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for the treatment of historic properties (36 CFR part 68) and applicable guidelines;

(2) The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will

(3) Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible,

identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research.

(4) Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved

     (iii) Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance;

     (iv) Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features.

Furthermore, the WPA recognizes that the current GF proposal compromises some of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR Part 67) as they pertain to historic landscape features and the environment. These consist of ten basic principles created to help preserve the distinctive character of a historic building and its

The Standards apply to historic buildings of all periods, styles, types, materials, and sizes. They apply to both the exterior and the interior of historic buildings. The Standards also encompass related landscape features and the building’s site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. Among these standards are two that pertain especially to the GF’s proposed development:

     1. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

     2. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.

Finally, a review of the following guidelines regarding historic farmsteads would seem to pertain to that portion of the GF’s current property holdings that include the former Yasgur Farm. The guidelines refer to Urban Areas, which are defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census as consisting of any political-territorial unit (e.g., a township, village, etc.)

that features a population of 2500 persons or more. The application of these guidelines to the Festival Stage Area and adjacent plateau would prevent the proposed GF site plans from being approved by any public body that was charged with the responsibility for preserving historic landscapes within its jurisdiction:

a.) Guidelines for Preservation and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Farmsteads and Agricultural Landscapes within Urban Areas, by Rheba Massey, HFCDC Advisory Board Member:

A farmstead is a historic landscape that contains irrigation ditches, structures, gardens, roads, and fields, ponds, fences, buildings and farm equipment. Historic agricultural landscapes can be preserved intact in rural areas and the original use of the farm buildings can continue. However, in urban areas preservation is a challenge. The ideal solution is to preserve the farm property intact as an open space/natural area within the urban growth area.

     1. Do not build new buildings within the historic farmstead complex. Preserve the historic integrity of the site

     2. Create a buffer zone to provide a visual screen between the historic complex and new development. This buffer should be at least 1000 ft. around the building complex site. This allows the farmstead to still have a feeling of openness and avoids immediate visual intrusion of modern buildings into the landscape.

     3. Preserve the view corridors from the farm site -- these can include views of mountains, rivers, and other natural landmarks that have been a part of the farmstead's history. The natural setting and historically oriented view from these properties is recognized as important to the interpretation of historic properties. Construction within that line of

view, or view corridor, forever cuts the property off from any remnant of the historic environment.

b.) Issues of Concern Related to the Conduct of Preservation Planning According to Standards Issued by the Secretary of the Interior

Since its inception, the WPA has sought to involve the widest possible public participation in its effort to preserve the Woodstock Festival site in its natural historic state, i.e., to maintain its appearance as closely as possible to how it appeared at the time of its association with the event that conferred on it historic significance. The Gerry Foundation, on the other hand, has sought to minimize public participation in the process of developing the Bethel Woods complex. The GF has, for instance, declined to return phone calls or answer correspondence from or meet with WPA board members to discuss issues of mutual concern. Similarly, the Town of Bethel Planning Board has acted to minimize public commentary at its most recent public meeting which considered the GF’s application for a Special Use Permit, the next step in the GF’s PACD development.  We believe these actions also violate the following standards of best practices in preservation planning as promulgated by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior:

c.) The Standards for Preservation Planning outline a process for determining when a property should be surveyed for the presence of potentially historic sites, whether an identified historic site is significant, and how a historically significant site should be treated once it has been identified. This process is based on the following principles:

Important historic properties cannot be replaced if they are destroyed. Preservation planning provides for conservative use of these properties, preserving them in place and avoiding harm when possible and altering or destroying properties only when necessary.

Preservation planning includes public participation. The planning process should provide a forum for open discussion of preservation issues. Public involvement is most meaningful when it is used to assist in defining values of properties and preservation planning issues, rather than when it is limited to review of decisions already made. Early

and continuing public participation is essential to the broad acceptance of preservation planning decisions.

To reiterate, the WPA contends that the Gerry Foundation and the Town of Bethel Planning Board has acted to limit public participation in the matter of the preservation of the Woodstock Festival site. Quoting again from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards:

1. The success of the preservation planning process depends on how well it solicits and integrates the views of various groups. The planning process is directed first toward resolving conflicts in goals for historic preservation, and second toward resolving conflicts between historic preservation goals and other land use planning goals. Public participation is integral to this approach and includes at least the following actions:

   2.  Involving historians, architectural historians, archeologists, folklorists and persons from related      disciplines to define, review and revise the historic contexts, goals and priorities;

    3.  Involving interested individuals, organizations and communities in the planning area in identifying the kinds of historic properties that may exist and suitable protective measures;

   4.  Involving prospective users of the preservation plan in defining issues, goals and priorities;

   6.  Creating mechanisms for identifying and resolving conflicts about historic preservation issues. The development of historic contexts, for example, should be based on the professional input of all disciplines involved in preservation and not be limited to a single discipline. For prehistoric archeology, for example, data from fields such as geology, geomorphology and geography may also be needed. The individuals and organizations to be involved will depend, in part, on those present or interested in the planning area.

Contrary to these accepted standards, the WPA argues that the Gerry Foundation has done the bare minimum of what is legally required of it through submission of the SEQRA and DEIS reports. Although these reports provide thorough examinations of the significance of the property and the potential environmental impact of its proposed development, the site plans that have followed from these reports have not been produced in accordance with the standards of effective preservation planning.

Documented deviations from these standards include:

Throughout the course of the planning process for Bethel Woods, the only call for public comments has been related to a statutory public comments period pertaining to issues of zoning for the Performing Arts Center District, and applications for the Special Use Permit for the property at the municipal level. The Gerry Foundation has not held a

public forum to discuss issues pertaining to the preservation of the Woodstock Festival site. This has not been done despite the GF’s having acquired state and federal funds for the project ($15 million in state assistance and another $180,000 in federal funding from HUD.

2. The GF has deliberately ignored comments from the general public as well as from persons who were instrumental in the promotion of the original Woodstock Festival.

• Excerpt from the WPA’s statement read in part at the Town of Bethel Planning Board Public Hearing held on 9 March 2004: 

“Unfortunately, it has been a struggle to be taken seriously by the very group that holds the fate of the Woodstock site and the future of the Town of Bethel. [It is] A struggle from which we have not backed down

and instead has made our convictions even stronger. We want to build bridges for communication, if you will let us. We, preservationists, do not want to scold or alienate the Gerry Foundation; however, with letters of desire to list the site as an Historic Landmark not responded to; with emails and calls for a meeting with the Gerry Foundation to give input to make this venture successful ignored; with correspondence to Alan Gerry himself from Woodstock co-creator Artie Kornfeld not answered, we have faced discouragement…

• Excerpt from article published in the Sullivan County Democrat (12 March 2004) regarding the Town of Bethel Planning Board meeting of 9 March 2004:

“In calling for limited public comments, town planning board chairman Herman Bressler