Community Development Department Planning Division 1600 First Street + P.O. Box 660 Napa, CA (707)

Transcription

1 Community Development Department Planning Division 1600 First Street + P.O. Box 660 Napa, CA (707) CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MARCH 26, 2015 AGENDA ITEM # 7.C. PL JARMAN RENOVATION I. GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for earthquake repair SUMMARY: and renovation of a historic home. LOCATION OF 1052 Caymus Street PROPERTY: APN GENERAL PLAN: ZONING: TRI-143, Traditional Residential RT-4, Traditional Residential Infill HISTORIC INVENTORY: HRI-3; Historic Inventory Property APPLICANT/ Kent and Ashley Jarman Phone: (707) OWNER: 4607 Dry Creek Road Napa, CA STAFF PLANNER: Emi Thériault, Assistant Planner Phone: (707) LOCATION MAP SITE 1

2 1052 Caymus Street Certificate of Appropriateness # II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The Applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the remodel of an existing historic home (HRI-3) to relocate the building footprint, demolish a rear porch/deck, lift and add a new first floor including a new side and front wrap-around porch. The remodel would include a repair/reconstruction of the fireplace fire box and chimney, installation of new windows, siding and a comprehensive interior remodel. Proposed plans are attached (see Attachment 3). Figure 1: Pre-earthquake Street View; 1052 Caymus Street at Caymus Figure 2: Pre-earthquake Street View; 1052 Caymus Street at Brown 2

3 1052 Caymus Street Certificate of Appropriateness # III. ANALYSIS The Commission is being asked to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for proposed modifications to the historic structure. An analysis of the consistency of the proposed modifications is provided as follows: A. General Plan and Zoning The project site is located at the north-easterly corner of Caymus and Brown Streets within a transitional area between a traditional residential area and the Main Street commercial district. The property is surrounded by single family residential development and is located within the St. John s potential historic district. The proposed addition is consistent with General Plan and Zoning requirements. No modifications are proposed to site use or density. The property is currently used as a private residence. The proposed remodel would result in a floor area increase of 900 square feet but would not increase the number of bedrooms. Building subfloor would decrease from 3 feet 6 inches to 3 feet, 1 inch while the overall height, with addition, would change from 20.5 feet to 29.5 feet from grade. Lot coverage would increase slightly but would be within the maximum of 50% allowed in the RT-4 district. The proposed improvements meet standard building envelope requirements for the RT-4 Traditional Residential zone, including the increase of lot coverage to 34%. Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan 3

4 1052 Caymus Street Certificate of Appropriateness # B. Historic Status Review Staff consulted materials prepared by Page and Turnbull for the City s 2009 City-Wide Context Statement. According to the survey report and recommendations, the subject property is located in the St. John s study area, which is identified as a potential district. Figure 3: St. John s Potential District The Department of Parks and Recreation form ( DPR form ) prepared for the individual residential property notes it was developed as a simple cottage with no distinct architectural style. The foundation was constructed to raise the understory height to 3 to 4 feet above grade; both the stem wall and the entry stairs were constructed with unfinished bricks. Since the original construction, the entry stair supports and foundation bricks were painted several times and a small addition was constructed to the rear of the residence. With an estimated construction date of 1895, the home would have been constructed in Napa s Victorian Era. One- and two-story working-class single family homes were common in this time period. According to Page & Turnbull, many of the residences built during this boom period were designed by local contractors using pattern books. More ornate homes, which comprise the City s Victorian era landmarks, would have been designed by more formally trained architects. 4

5 1052 Caymus Street Certificate of Appropriateness # The City-Wide Context Statement notes the following features as character-defining during the Victorian period: Single-family home (or duplex) Location in residential neighborhood developed during Victorian era Victorian-era architectural style and form Set back from lot line One to three stories Wood-frame construction Gable or hipped roof Wood cladding (shingles or horizontal siding) Wood ornamentation (simple or elaborate) Wood-sash windows (typically double-hung) Wood door (glazed or paneled) Associated ancillary buildings (e.g. water towers, storage sheds) Those characteristic features which this simple residence displays are primarily the wood cladding, hip roof, double-hung/wood-sash windows, and wood doors/simple ornamentation. Figure 4: DPR form photo of historic residence 5

6 1052 Caymus Street Certificate of Appropriateness # C. Proposed Plan The proposed plan is enclosed as Attachment 3. Existing and proposed elevations for the south and west elevations (rear and interior side yard respectively) are illustrated on Sheet A4. Existing elevations for the north and east elevations (the front and street side elevations respectively) are illustrated on Sheet A5 (existing). All new (proposed) elevations, including those for the front and street facing elevations, are illustrated on Sheet A3. The proposal includes the following alterations: (1) Replacement of the 3.5 to 4.5 foot high brick stem wall with a lower profile concrete foundation and stem wall of a simple grey color, for the first 24 to 26 inches of the area visible above grade with horizontal siding for the remainder of the elevation; (2) Repair/replacement of the brick chimney with a brick-faced chimney of same size and color; (3) Removal of a post-era rear porch/deck addition and removal of three windows at the rear of the existing first floor structure; (4) Relocation of the building footprint to meet current Zoning standards and minimize the impact of the building lift on the adjacent property; (5) Lift and retention of the original first floor as a new second story with an overall increase in building height of 9.0 feet; (6) New construction of a 900 square foot addition as a new first floor (referred to in the Initial Study as an elevated understory ; only one foot currently exists below grade however); (7) Replacement of the entry porch with a new wrap-around porch on the front and street side yard elevations; (8) Replacement of the brick stair supports (destroyed by the earthquake) with wood supports; (9) Removal of an aluminum (post era) window at the east (street side) elevation and removal of window-mounted air conditioning units throughout the residence; and (10) Replacement of the original first floor front and rear entry doors with double hung windows. Architectural Modifications: The remodel to the exterior would respect the original siding materials and appearance in general. Modifications to existing fenestration on the original first story are primarily associated with the lift/need for new front and rear entries and to remove post-era window types and HVAC equipment. The new first floor would repeat the look of the historic double-hung windows in size, treatment and locations as well as the same type and height siding. A water table feature would provide some visual relief to the bulk associated with the height increase. Where the proposed plans call for retention of existing windows, they fall short of confirming that the windows, if damaged by the earthquake or during the lift, would be replaced with like window type and with retention of the original window details (e.g. the decorative tail or ogee lug at the bottom edge of historic double hung windows; see Figure 5, below). 6

7 1052 Caymus Street Certificate of Appropriateness # Figure 5: Existing window detail example ogee lug The 3.5 to 4.5 foot brick base shown associated with the existing residence and mentioned specifically in the DPR form for the site, is not shown as being reincorporated in the new elevations. Existing: Figure 6: Partial Existing and Proposed Front Elevation Proposed: 7

8 1052 Caymus Street Certificate of Appropriateness # D. Historic Review Overview The following review is based on the Commission s adoption of the following recommended conditions of approval to bring the proposed plans into conformance with the City s Historic Preservation and Neighborhood Conservation Ordinance and Secretary of Interior Standards: Issue: The brick stem wall is noted on the DPR form as a notable characteristic of the otherwise unremarkable cottage style house. Recommended conditions of approval: Replace appearance of original brick base with red brick veneer facing of different size (to differentiate from original but bring back variation) to a height no less than 3-4 feet from grade; and Replace appearance of original red brick entry stair supports with other material faced with brick veer facing of different size; and Require existing unpainted bricks to be used elsewhere on site where possible e.g. incorporate into adjacent planter boxes, low perimeter fence walls or base, or walkway materials. Issue: The proposed understory would have the same exact siding type and width and the same window type and therefore does not provide sufficient differentiation between historic and new construction. Recommended conditions of approval: Require siding widths or shape for the new first floor to be slightly different size or shape; and Require existing window surround features including but not limited to the ogee lug to be maintained/repaired where existing windows are shown on plans to be retained or relocated; and Require new windows facing the street (both Caymus and Brown) to be of wood or wood clad material; and Require new window installations on the new first floor and the new window installed at the rear elevation of the original structure to not incorporate the ogee lug and to provide slightly different trim (although the same color treatments may be applied). Issue: The proposed understory would be the same ceiling height as the existing story i.e. 9 feet, 8 inches to meet the cottage remodel subordinate proportionality test. Recommended conditions of approval: After discussing the matter with the City s historic consultant, Naomi Miroglio of ARG consulting (see Attachment 4), Staff has determined that the suggested subordination requirement only applies to circumstances in which the foundation is subterranean and a partial basement understory exists. A two-story proposal is more appropriately reviewed as to its appropriateness within the context of other historic development in the area a standard which the subject proposal meets. Consequently, no condition related to reducing the proposed first floor ceiling height is necessary. 8

9 1052 Caymus Street Certificate of Appropriateness # E. Resource Inventory Properties Staff has reviewed the project for consistency with the City s Historic Ordinance requirements for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a partial demolition/remodel to a property listed on the History Resource Inventory but not otherwise identified as a Neighborhood Conservation property or a landmark property. Staff believes the project, as amended per recommended conditions of approval previously mentioned, would be consistent with the Ordinance. The following findings of the Ordinance are applicable to this project: The architectural significance/design of the building or structure. The dwelling is a simple cottage with no specific architectural style. The proposed addition would use the same type of siding materials and provide complementary styles of windows/doors consistent with the existing Victorian-era architecture. The historic significance of the building or structure. There is no known association of the subject property with a historical person or event important to Napa, to California or to national history. However, it is located within a potential local historic (landmark) district and so is subject to review. As conditioned to include modifications to the elevation and fenestration treatments, the renovations will not significantly impact or alter the integrity of the resource. The structural integrity of the building or structure. The existing structure is severely earthquake damaged and has been red tagged since shortly after the August 2014 South Napa Earthquake. The residential property owners have been displaced since that time. The seismic repair would preserve the more character-defining features of the building. The location of the building or structure within or in close proximity to a landmark or landmark district. The property is located within a potential local landmark district (St. John s). The economic feasibility of rehabilitating the building or structure including the economic return on the property after rehabilitation has been completed. The Applicant is adding to the dwelling, rather than demolishing or significantly changing the original historic structure. This approach would help preserve the existing character defining features of the structure in conjunction with the proposed renovation plans. The Applicant s plans for the property if the Certificate of Appropriateness is approved. The project involves updating the dwelling to add additional living area but fundamentally to preserve a historic structure that, unless seismic repairs are undertaken, will continue to deteriorate and not be able to continue in its historic residential use. The renovation, as conditioned, will not significantly impact or alter the historic integrity of the resource. 9

10 1052 Caymus Street Certificate of Appropriateness # Project Context. The project shall be compatible with those neighborhood characteristics that result from common ways of building. This sense of setting shall be preserved. The addition would be consistent with existing historic development in the area in that its architectural details and overall proportions, as conditioned, would be consistent with other two story buildings in the neighborhood. F. Rehabilitation Guidelines Staff has reviewed the project for consistency with the City s Rehabilitation Guidelines for Historic Properties, and believes the project, as conditioned, is generally consistent with the applicable guidelines. Historic materials. Primary historic building materials should be preserved in place whenever feasible. When the material is damaged, then limited replacement, matching the original, should be considered. Primary historic building materials should never be covered or subjected to harsh cleaning treatments. Where needed, the Applicant is proposing to repair/replace using the same materials and design as existing. New construction would include matching materials, such as the shiplap siding, or complementary materials, such as double-hung windows. Windows. Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on side and rear walls. The number of windows proposed maintains the basic proportions of existing fenestration where visible from the street. Although greater variation is proposed for the rear and interior side walls, this approach is acceptable according to the design guidelines, which allows remodels to have non-era specific styles of windows in the side yard. Architectural details. Architectural details help establish a historic building's distinct visual character; thus, they should be preserved whenever feasible. If architectural details are damaged beyond repair, their replacement, matching the original detailing, is recommended. Plans, as conditioned, for the existing character-defining architectural features such as the wood siding, brick accents and double-hung wood windows would preserve the historic building s distinct visual character. Where features are significantly damaged by the 2014 South Napa Earthquake, the Applicant will be required to construct features of similar materials and style. New Construction; Mass and Scale... Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the block. 10

11 1052 Caymus Street Certificate of Appropriateness # The addition of the new first story and the wrap-around front porch, while slightly lower than the original entry porch, would meet the intent of this requirement in that it would it address the need to include a one-story element and does not appear to be taller than those of typical historic structures on the block. F. Findings for Secretary of Interior s Standards for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings The following findings are also provided in the Initial Study (see Exhibit A to Attachment 2). It should be noted that the understory referenced in the Initial Study is actually a new first story; no basement exists on site. Consequently, requirements for subordination of understory height previously referenced in this analysis do not apply. According to the National Park Service Rehabilitation projects must meet the following Standards to qualify as certified rehabilitations eligible for the rehabilitation tax credit (in the event the Applicant wishes to apply for same in the future). The Standards are applied to projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. The property will continue to be used for residential use. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. The project will create an understory addition which will change the appearance of the building but not substantively change its historic character or value. A small porch addition and wrap-around porch would also be built to the interior side and rear of the residence. As conditioned, the understory addition will be designed to complement but provide distinction between historic and new construction in its design. Consequently, the addition would not affect the historic character. Retention of other character-defining features such as the wood siding, building width as seen from the street, and fenestration, as conditioned, would also preserve the historic integrity of the structure. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. According to Page & Turnbull s Citywide Historic Context Statement, the St. Johns Survey suggested several potential historic districts in the area. While not a national or local landmark district, the area or subareas within the St. John s survey area may be eligible for nomination for a district in the future. 11

12 1052 Caymus Street Certificate of Appropriateness # Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. Existing alterations to the historic building include modifications to the rear of the building to include a small addition to the rear of the building and modification to the front entry stairs to add a wood railing and synthetic steps. These features have not acquired historic significance. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. As conditioned, distinctive characteristics of the building will be retained or restored, including the wood siding, cast-iron understory vents, and era-appropriate window design and materials. The DPR form on the property notes that the understory is built with bricks; no replacement brick veneer is proposed with the remodel. The applicant is proposing, instead, to create a concrete stem wall with no facing and color to be of the original concrete grey color. The proposed understory would have the same materials and fenestration as the existing residence. Consequently, the project, as conditioned, would require use of brick veneer at the base of the residence or use of original bricks, where possible, for entry walkways, planters or low perimeter fencing as part of the renovation plans. In addition, in order to meet proportionality requirements to preserve the predominance of the original building and thereby retain the essential historic integrity of the structure, the proposed understory, as conditioned, will be the minimum height required for living area per current Building Code. The existing residence s siding would be repaired where possible or replaced in kind. Proposed new understory siding, as conditioned, would further preserve the distinction of the original structure by providing a different width or style than the existing first floor. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. The construction project would include restoration of deteriorated siding as needed while matching existing design and materials. Replacement of elevation appearance, which currently includes a brick understory support, with brick veneer, if required, would be of a different style or brick size to provide physical evidence of the change. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. No chemical treatments such as sandblasting that could damage historic materials are proposed. 12

13 1052 Caymus Street Certificate of Appropriateness # archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. No excavation is proposed; therefore, archeological resources would not be affected by a project in that the existing site would not be disturbed through new excavation. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The proposed construction plan attempts to provide differentiation in that the new construction removes the original brick base for the residence. However, the brick base is considered part of the defining characteristics of the residence per the historic record. In addition, the proposed siding is of similar materials and width, as would also be the fenestration elements. Consequently, the project, as conditioned to meet this standard, would include 1) modification to the wood window surrounds on the new understory to provide physical differentiation between the old wood windows (with ornamental trim retained) and the new understory windows (with no additional ornamental trim beyond the wood trim surround) and 2) modification to the siding to include either brick veneer of a notably different size than the original for the first 3-4 feet of each elevation (at a minimumthose visible from Caymus and Brown Streets) - or modification to the siding width for the understory to help differentiate the new construction from the old while providing a compatible architectural approach. The overall mass of the building will be increased but the first story would be subordinate in height to the existing first story. As conditioned, the remodel would therefore be in keeping with the overall architectural features and retain the historic integrity of the property. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall 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. The lift of the house would likely not be reversed in the future. However, in the event that a future owner elected to remove the understory, the retention of the existing architectural features associated with the original building would ensure that the essential form and integrity of the historic property would be preserved. F. Environmental Review The project is subject to environmental review under CEQA, and Staff has prepared the attached Initial Study to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project (Attachment 2). The Initial Study includes a review of project compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (see Exhibit A of Attachment 2). The attached Resolution finds that the project has no impacts with the adoption of the project plans as modified per conditions. As such, Staff is recommending that the Commission adopt a Negative Declaration for the project. 13

14 1052 Caymus Street Certificate of Appropriateness # G. Public Notice Notice of the public hearing was provided by US Postal Service on March 13, 2015 to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property. Notice of the public hearing was also published in the Napa Valley Register on March 13, 2014 and provided to people previously requesting notice on the matter at the same time notice was provided to the newspaper for publication. Legal notice included a general explanation of the matter to be considered and any related permits, identification of the location of the property involved where site specific, a description of the date, time and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, and a statement consistent with the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the time limit to commence any legal challenge and matters that may be raised by such challenge. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings above, Staff recommends the following: 1) Adopt a Negative Declaration; and 2) Approve the requested Certificate of Appropriateness as conditioned. V. ALTERNATIVE TO RECOMMENDATION 1) Continue the application with specific direction for plan modifications. 2) Deny the proposed remodel project in its entirety. VI. REQUIRED ACTIONS Final Action by the Cultural Heritage Commission to: 1. Adopt a resolution adopting a Negative Declaration and approving a Certificate of Appropriateness for renovations to an existing historic residence located at 1052 Caymus Street. DOCUMENTS ATTACHED 1. Draft Resolution 2. Negative Declaration and Initial Study 3. Site Plan and Elevations 4. Letter, dated March 17, 2015, from ARB Consulting Prepared by: Emi Thériault, Assistant Planner 14

15 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. CHC2015A RESOLUTION OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR RENOVATIONS TO AN EISTING HISTORIC RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1052 CAYMUS STREET. APN ( ) (PL# ) WHEREAS, Kent and Ashley Jarman submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to conduct earthquake repairs and allow a building lift associated with construction of a new first floor and including relocation of the building footprint, demolition of a rear porch/deck, construction of a new front wrap-around porch and a comprehensive interior remodel for the residence located at 1052 Caymus Street, a property listed on the City s Historic Resources Inventory and located within a potential local landmark district (St. John s); and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, Section et seq. ( CEQA ), requires that the City consider the potential environmental impacts of the Project prior to approving any entitlements for the Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Napa Community Development Department prepared an Initial Study which concludes that the Project as modified per conditions of approval, will not have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, Code of California Regulations, Title IV, Section et seq., and the City of Napa CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2015 the City of Napa posted a Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration, which identified the review period from March 6, 2015 to March 26, 2015, for review and comment by the public and public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project; and, WHEREAS, on March 26, 2015 the Cultural Heritage Commission considered the Negative Declaration, and all written and oral testimony submitted to them at a noticed public hearing on the Design Review permit at which the Planning Commission heard a presentation by staff and took public testimony, and thereafter closed the public hearing and subsequently adopted a Negative Declaration and approved a Certificate of Appropriateness; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cultural Heritage Commission of the City of Napa as follows: Resolution No. CHC2015Page 1 of 10 15

16 ATTACHMENT 1 Section 1. The Cultural Heritage Commission hereby finds that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the Cultural Heritage Commission, that the Project, as analyzed in the Initial Study prepared for the Jarman Renovation, File #PL , including plans dated as received February 18, 2015, and amended per conditions of approval, will have a significant effect on the environment, and that this conclusion reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Cultural Heritage Commission, and the Cultural Heritage Commission adopts a Negative Declaration for this project based upon the Applicant s compliance with all conditions of approval identified in this Resolution. Section 2. The Cultural Heritage Commission makes the following findings with respect to consistency with the City s Historic Preservation and Neighborhood Conservation Ordinance requirements for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, consistency with the City s Rehabilitation Guidelines for Historic Properties, and compliance with Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings as they pertain to the requested certificate of appropriateness: A. Historic Resource Inventory Properties The architectural significance/design of the building or structure. The dwelling is a simple cottage with no specific architectural style. The proposed addition would use the same type of siding materials and provide complementary styles of windows/doors consistent with the existing Victorian-era architecture. The historic significance of the building or structure. There is no known association of the subject property with a historical person or event important to Napa, to California or to national history. However, it is located within a potential local historic (landmark) district and so is subject to review. As conditioned to include modifications to the elevation and fenestration treatments, the renovations will not significantly impact or alter the integrity of the resource. The structural integrity of the building or structure. The existing structure is severely earthquake damaged and has been red tagged since shortly after the August 2014 South Napa Earthquake. The residential property owners have been displaced since that time. The seismic repair would preserve the more character-defining features of the building. The location of the building or structure within or in close proximity to a landmark or landmark district. The property is located within a potential local landmark district (St. John s). The economic feasibility of rehabilitating the building or structure including the economic return on the property after rehabilitation has been completed. Resolution No. CHC2015- Page 2 of 9 16

17 ATTACHMENT 1 The Applicant is adding to the dwelling, rather than demolishing or significantly changing the original historic structure. This approach would help preserve the existing character defining features of the structure in conjunction with the proposed renovation plans. The Applicant s plans for the property if the Certificate of Appropriateness is approved. The project involves updating the dwelling to add additional living area but fundamentally to preserve a historic structure that, unless seismic repairs are undertaken, will continue to deteriorate and not be able to continue in its historic residential use. The renovation, as conditioned, will not significantly impact or alter the historic integrity of the resource. Project Context. The project shall be compatible with those neighborhood characteristics that result from common ways of building. This sense of setting shall be preserved. The addition would be consistent with existing historic development in the area in that its architectural details and overall proportions, as conditioned, would be consistent with other two story buildings in the neighborhood. B. Rehabilitation Guidelines Staff has reviewed the project for consistency with the City s Rehabilitation Guidelines for Historic Properties, and believes the project, as conditioned, is generally consistent with the applicable guidelines. Historic materials. Primary historic building materials should be preserved in place whenever feasible. When the material is damaged, then limited replacement, matching the original, should be considered. Primary historic building materials should never be covered or subjected to harsh cleaning treatments. Where needed, the Applicant is proposing to repair/replace using the same materials and design as existing. New construction would include matching materials, such as the shiplap siding, or complementary materials, such as double-hung windows. Windows. Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on side and rear walls. The number of windows proposed maintains the basic proportions of existing fenestration where visible from the street. Although greater variation is proposed for the rear and interior side walls, this approach is acceptable according to the design Resolution No. CHC2015- Page 3 of 9 17

18 ATTACHMENT 1 guidelines, which allows remodels to have non-era specific styles of windows in the side yard. Architectural details. Architectural details help establish a historic building's distinct visual character; thus, they should be preserved whenever feasible. If architectural details are damaged beyond repair, their replacement, matching the original detailing, is recommended. Plans, as conditioned, for the existing character-defining architectural features such as the wood siding, brick accents and double-hung wood windows would preserve the historic building s distinct visual character. Where features are significantly damaged by the 2014 South Napa Earthquake, the Applicant will be required to construct features of similar materials and style. New Construction; Mass and Scale... Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the block. The addition of the new first story and the wrap-around front porch, while slightly lower than the original entry porch, would meet the intent of this requirement in that it would it address the need to include a one-story element and does not appear to be taller than those of typical historic structures on the block. C. Findings for Secretary of Interior s Standards for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings Rehabilitation projects must meet the following Standards to qualify as certified rehabilitations eligible for the rehabilitation tax credit (in the event the Applicant wishes to apply for same in the future). The Standards are applied to projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. The property will continue to be used for residential use. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. The project will create an understory addition which will change the appearance of the building but not substantively change its historic character or value. A small porch addition and wrap-around porch would also be built to the interior side and rear of the residence. As conditioned, the understory addition will be designed to complement but provide distinction between historic and new construction in its design. Consequently, the addition would not affect the historic character. Retention of other character-defining Resolution No. CHC2015- Page 4 of 9 18

19 ATTACHMENT 1 features such as the wood siding, building width as seen from the street, and fenestration, as conditioned, would also preserve the historic integrity of the structure. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. According to Page & Turnbull s Citywide Historic Context Statement, the St. Johns Survey suggested several potential historic districts in the area. While not a national or local landmark district, the area or subareas within the St. John s survey area may be eligible for nomination for a district in the future. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. Existing alterations to the historic building include modifications to the rear of the building to include a small addition to the rear of the building and modification to the front entry stairs to add a wood railing and synthetic steps. These features have not acquired historic significance. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. As conditioned, distinctive characteristics of the building will be retained or restored, including the wood siding, cast-iron understory vents, and era-appropriate window design and materials. The DPR form on the property notes that the existing elevations elevated foundation base are built with bricks; no replacement brick veneer is proposed with the remodel. The applicant is proposing, instead, to create a concrete stem wall with no facing and color to be of the original concrete grey color. The proposed understory would have the same materials and fenestration as the existing residence. Consequently, the project, as conditioned, would require use of brick veneer at the base of the residence and use of original bricks, where possible, for entry walkways, planters or low perimeter fencing as part of the renovation plans. The existing residence s siding would be repaired where possible or replaced in kind. Proposed new first story siding, as conditioned, would further preserve the distinction of the original structure by providing a different width or style than the existing first floor. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. Resolution No. CHC2015- Page 5 of 9 19

20 ATTACHMENT 1 The construction project would include restoration of deteriorated siding as needed while matching existing design and materials. Replacement of elevation appearance, which currently includes a brick understory support, with brick veneer, if required, would be of a different style or brick size to provide physical evidence of the change. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. No chemical treatments such as sandblasting that could damage historic materials are proposed. 8. archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. No excavation is proposed; therefore, archeological resources would not be affected by a project in that the existing site would not be disturbed through new excavation. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The proposed construction plan attempts to provide differentiation in that the new construction removes the original brick base for the residence. However, the brick base is considered part of the defining characteristics of the residence per the historic record. In addition, the proposed siding is of similar materials and width, as would also be the fenestration elements. Consequently, the project, as conditioned to meet this standard, would include 1) modification to the wood window surrounds on the new understory to provide physical differentiation between the old wood windows (with ornamental trim retained) and the new understory windows (with no additional ornamental trim beyond the wood trim surround) and 2) modification to the siding to include either brick veneer of a notably different size than the original for the first 3-4 feet of each elevation (at a minimum-those visible from Caymus and Brown Streets) - or modification to the siding width for the understory to help differentiate the new construction from the old while providing a compatible architectural approach. The overall mass of the building will be increased but would be in keeping with the overall character of architecture found within the historic area and retain the historic integrity of the property. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall 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. Resolution No. CHC2015- Page 6 of 9 20

21 ATTACHMENT 1 The lift of the house would likely not be reversed in the future. However, in the event that a future owner elected to remove the understory, the retention of the existing architectural features associated with the original building would ensure that the essential form and integrity of the historic property would be preserved. Section 3. The Cultural Heritage Commission hereby adopts a Negative Declaration and approves a Certificate of Appropriateness for renovations to an existing historic residence located at 1052 Caymus Street, subject to compliance with the following conditions: SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Community Development Department - Planning Division: 1) This entitlement pertains to proposed plans submitted February 18, 2015, and shall be valid for a period of two years following the expiration of the appeal period on the Cultural Heritage Commission action. In order to avoid expiration of the entitlements, the applicant shall complete the remodel prior to the expiration date. The applicant may apply for the discretionary approval of an extension of the entitlements prior to the initial two year expiration. 2) The height of the addition structure may be up to 29 feet, 6 inches. 3) The following conditions related to retention of historic characteristics shall be incorporated into the required building permit construction plans: a) Replace appearance of original brick base with red brick veneer facing of different size (to differentiate from original but bring back variation) to a height no less than 3-4 feet from grade; and b) Replace appearance of original red brick entry stair supports with other material faced with brick veer facing of different size; and c) Submit reuse plan for review by the Community Development Director or his designee. Reuse plan to illustrate proposed use of existing unpainted bricks salvaged from the stem wall demolition for use elsewhere on site where possible e.g. incorporated into adjacent planter boxes, low perimeter fence walls or base, or walkway materials. 4) The following conditions related to building elevations shall be incorporated into the required building permit construction plans: a) siding widths or shape for the new first floor to be slightly different size or shape; and b) existing window surround features including but not limited to the ogee lug to be maintained/repaired where existing windows are shown on plans to be retained or relocated; and Resolution No. CHC2015- Page 7 of 9 21

22 ATTACHMENT 1 c) new windows facing the street (both Caymus and Brown) shall be constructed of wood or wood clad material; and d) new window installations on the new first floor and the new window installed at the rear elevation of the original structure to not incorporate the ogee lug and to provide slightly different trim (although the same color treatments may be applied). Fire Department 5) Fire Department plan review shall be based on the information submitted at the time of permit application. 6) Automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout the new and existing portions of the building in accordance with provisions set forth in the California Fire Code as amended by the City of Napa and the National Fire Protection Association Standard 13D. 7) Plans and calculations for all fire protection systems and features shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8) New buildings and additions to existing buildings shall conform to requirements set forth in the currently adopted editions of the California Building Code; California Fire Code, California Residential Code, adopted City Standards and nationally recognized standards. Public Works Department Prior to approval of the building permit: 9) Contact the City of Napa Fire Department to determine fire sprinkler requirements. 10) Submit a site plan outlining certain water features more specifically described as follows: a) Size and location of the water service b) Size and location of the backflow device Prior to final building permit sign-off: 11) Submit any remaining meter set and/or hot-tap fees to the Water Division office at 1340 Clay Street, Napa. 12) Install an approved backflow prevention device if one is not currently existing. 13) Submit certification that the backflow device has been installed and tested by an AWWA certified tester (a list of testers is provided by the City of Napa) to the Water Division. Resolution No. CHC2015- Page 8 of 9 22

23 ATTACHMENT 1 Napa Sanitation District 14) The owner shall pay to the District the prevailing fees and charges in effect as established by Resolutions and Ordinances before the issuance of a City Building Permit, and shall adhere to the rules and regulations as they apply to the application. 15) A plan showing the required sanitary sewer improvements conforming to NSD standards shall be submitted to the District for approval. 16) The proposed development would be subject to the following fees, based on the rates in effect at the time they are paid: a) Plan Check Fees (presently $40.00) b) Inspection Fees (presently $35 per each 4" private lateral) 17) The District has updated sanitary sewer and recycled water standard specifications and details. The updated specifications and details are available online at the District's website ( The District may revise the standard specifications and details at any time. It is the responsibility of the engineer, contractor, and developer to verify that they are in possession of the current version of the standards prior to design and construction of sanitary sewer and recycled water improvements. The capacity charge for a single family dwelling or commercial unit / tenant space currently is $8,723 and will increase by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) annually in July. Projects with plans that have been deemed complete by the engineering staff shall pay the capacity charge in effect at the time the plans were deemed complete. This program expires on December 31, Contact District Staff for additional information regarding capacity charges. City General Conditions: 18) Applicant shall pay all applicable fees and charges at the required time and at the rate in effect at time of payment (in accordance with the City s Master Fee Schedule; see individual departments regarding the timing of fee payment requirements). 19) The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City is governed by Section of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitations period is specified by any other provision. Under Section , any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasiadjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred. Resolution No. CHC2015- Page 9 of 9 23

24 ATTACHMENT 1 20) To the full extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify, defend, release and hold City, its agents, officers, and employees from and against any claims, suits, liabilities, actions, damages, penalties or causes of action by any person, including Applicant, for any injury (including death) or damage to person or property or to set aside, attack, void or annul any actions of City, its agents, officers and employees, from any cause whatsoever in whole or in part arising out of or in connection with (1) the processing, conditioning or approval of the subject property; (2) any failure to comply with all applicable laws and regulations; or (3) the design, installation or operation of project improvements and regardless whether the actions or omissions are alleged to be caused by City or Applicant so long as City promptly notifies Applicant of any such claim, etc., and the City cooperates in the defense of same. 21) The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these conditions (and mitigations) constitute written notice of the statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby notified that the 90-day period in which you may protest those fees, the amount of which has been identified herein, dedications, reservations and other exactions have begun. If you fail to file a protest complying with all the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction. 22) Violation of any term, condition, mitigation measure or project description relating to this approval is unlawful, prohibited and a violation of the Napa Municipal Code and can result in revocation or modification of this approval and/or the institution of civil and/or criminal enforcement and/or abatement proceedings. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the Cultural Heritage Commission of the City of Napa at a regular meeting of said Commission held on the 26th day of March 2015 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Secretary of the Cultural Heritage Commission Resolution No. CHC2015- Page 10 of 9 24

25 ATTACHMENT 2 City Of Napa Community Development Department 1600 First Street P.O. Box 660 Napa, CA (707) INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NAME: Jarmen Renovation FILE NUMBER: SITE ADDRESS: 1052 Caymus Street in Napa, California APN(s): GENERAL PLAN: TRI-143, Single Family Residential ZONING: RT-4, Single-Family Residential base zone; FP, Flood Plain overlay zone PHONE: (707) APPLICANT/OWNER: Kent and Ashley Jarman 3954 Jefferson Street Napa, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the remodel of an existing historic home (HRI-3) to relocate the building footprint, demolish a rear elevation porch/deck, lift and add a new first floor including a new side and rear elevation wrap-around porch. The proposed remodel would include repairs associated with significant earthquake damage associated with the 2014 South Napa Earthquake and would also result in a floor area increase of 900 square feet but would not increase the number of bedrooms. Building subfloor would decrease from 3 feet 6 inches to 3 feet, 1 inch while the overall height, with addition, would change from 20.5 feet to 29.5 feet from grade. The remodel would include a repair/reconstruction of the fireplace fire box and chimney, installation of new windows, siding and a comprehensive interior remodel. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project site is located at the north-easterly corner of Caymus and Brown Streets within a transitional area between a traditional residential area and the Main Street commercial district. The property is surrounded by single family residential development and is located within the St. John s potential historic district. CITY APPROVALS REQUIRED: Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a Historic Resource Inventory property located within a potential Historic District and Design Review Permit. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES: None. 25

26 ATTACHMENT 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a Potentially Impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. This initial study prescribes mitigation measures to reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology & Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use & Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population & Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation & Traffic Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance CEQA DETERMINATION: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. PREPARED BY: Emi Thériault, Assistant Planner Date For: Rick Tooker Community Development Director Initial Study: Jarman Renovation # Page 2 26

27 ATTACHMENT 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: Environmental Issue Area Potentially Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Impact, Mitigated Less Than Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: The addition of a second story of living area to the existing residence will be visible from the public street but will retain the same types of materials and architectural treatments as existing. The addition to the building, as conditioned, would be less-than-significant in terms of proportionality, impact to the overall neighborhood, which has a mixture of one- and two-story residential buildings, and will not have a significant effect on aesthetics of the area. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: Less-than-significant impact to aesthetics. II. AGRICULTURAL & FOREST RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Discussion: The small lot is in a transitional residential neighborhood, and has no existing or potential use for agricultural or forest land. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No impact to agricultural and forest resources. III. AIR QUALITY. [Significance criteria established by the BAAQMD may be relied upon to make the following determinations] Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Initial Study: Jarman Renovation # Page 3 27

28 ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Issue Area Potentially Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Impact, Mitigated Less Than Impact No Impact c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion: With the exception of temporary construction-related air quality impacts, the project has no potential to obstruct the implementation of BAAQMD plans, nor will it violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project may generate temporary construction-related dust or particulate impacts but is not located adjacent to a sensitive receptor and best management practices will be required as part of the building permit. Odors would be generated from vehicles and/or equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the proposed project. Odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment and architectural coatings. Such odors are temporary and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Construction-related odors would not be significant. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No air quality impacts. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion: The project site is currently fully developed and contains no biological resources. As such, the project will not have any effect on biological resources. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No impact to biological resources. Initial Study: Jarman Renovation # Page 4 28

29 ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Issue Area Potentially Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Impact, Mitigated Less Than Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Sec ? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Sec ? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion: Section (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines state that Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource. Staff has evaluated the project against these standards, and determined that the project design, as amended, is consistent with the Secretary s standards (see attached evaluation labeled Exhibit A). Based upon this evaluation, staff has determined the project would not result in significant impacts to the cultural resource. In terms of archaeological resources, the remodel proposed does not propose excavation of the site thereby avoiding potential for disturbance to archaeological or human remains. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No impact to cultural resources VI. GEOLOGY & SOILS. Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Pub. 42 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse)? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Discussion: There are no geologic hazards associated with the remodeling of the dwelling. The remodel proposed avoids excavation of the site thereby avoiding potential for adverse effects to site geology or soils. Initial Study: Jarman Renovation # Page 5 29

30 ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Issue Area Potentially Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Impact, Mitigated Less Than Impact No Impact Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No impact to geology and soils. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion: The alteration of the existing dwelling will not cause an increase in cumulative greenhouse gas emissions nor will it conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing greenhouse gases. No new uses or traffic patterns resulting in potential emission of greenhouse gases would result. Mitigation Measures: None Conclusion: No impact to greenhouse gas emissions. VIII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? Discussion: The alteration of the existing dwelling will not involve hazardous materials and the site is not identified as a hazardous material location. The project site is not within the boundaries of an airport land use plan or within a wild land area. The project will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plan. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No impacts to hazards or hazardous materials. Initial Study: Jarman Renovation # Page 6 30

31 ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Issue Area Potentially Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Impact, Mitigated Less Than Impact No Impact I. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Discussion: The remodeling of the existing dwelling has no potential to have any impacts on hydrology or water quality. Drainage patterns will not be changed on the site. The project is specifically designed to avoid excavation and associated intrusion into ground water or natural drainage patterns. j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No impacts to hydrology and water quality.. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or resolution of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion: The remodeling of the existing dwelling will not divide an established community, nor will it affect wildlife habitat given its urban setting. Initial Study: Jarman Renovation # Page 7 31

32 ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Issue Area Potentially Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Impact, Mitigated Less Than Impact No Impact Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No impacts to land use and planning. I. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Discussion: There are no known mineral resources on this property. The size and urban setting of this property would preclude any mineral exploration or extraction. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No impact to mineral resources. II. NOISE. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion: The very short term construction noise impacts associated with the remodeling of the existing dwelling would be considered less-than-significant. Construction related noise is regulated by the Napa Municipal Code, so that it will not result in an adverse impact on the environment. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: Less-than-significant impact to noise. III. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads and other infrastructure)? b. Displacing substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Initial Study: Jarman Renovation # Page 8 32

33 ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Issue Area Potentially Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Impact, Mitigated Less Than Impact No Impact Discussion: The remodeling of the existing dwelling and site improvements would not affect population density. The number of bedrooms would remain the same and would not impact area density or related housing demand. Mitigation Measures: None Conclusion: No impacts to population and housing. IV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services including: i) Fire Protection? ii) Police Protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other Public Facilities? Discussion: The project site already has complete public services, and the remodeling of the existing dwelling has no impact on these existing services. The addition of two off-street parking spaces will increase the availability of on-street parking. Mitigation Measures: None Conclusion: No impact to public services. V. RECREATION. Would the project: a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that a substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion or recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: The remodeling of the existing dwelling has no potential to increase impacts on recreational services. If the construction project inadvertently results in damage to street trees and/or median strip landscaping the regulations of the Napa Municipal Code would require repair/replacement, so that the project will not result in an adverse impact on the environment. Mitigation Measures: None Conclusion: No impact to recreation. VI. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard Initial Study: Jarman Renovation # Page 9 33

34 ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Issue Area Potentially Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Impact, Mitigated Less Than Impact No Impact established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion: The remodeling of the existing dwelling has the potential to create temporary construction-related traffic impacts. Parking demand for the site will not change due to the proposed remodel and will not therefore impact on-street parking or traffic patterns. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: Less-than-significant traffic impacts. VII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion: The project site already has all utility services, and the remodeling of the existing dwelling has no impact on these existing services. If the construction project inadvertently results in damage to public utility meters or facilities, the regulations of the Napa Municipal Code would require repair/replacement, so that the project will not result in an adverse impact on the environment. Mitigation Measures: None Conclusion: No impact to utilities and service systems. VIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Initial Study: Jarman Renovation # Page 10 34

35 ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Issue Area Potentially Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Impact, Mitigated Less Than Impact No Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No b. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in conjunction with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) No c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Discussion: (a) The project with mitigation, would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal nor eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory. (b) Based on the findings of this Initial Study, the impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study and, when viewed in conjunction with other closely related past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not be significant. (c) Based on the findings of the Initial Study, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the construction related activity at the project site would have substantial adverse effect on human beings that have not been effectively mitigated to a level of less than significant through the implementation of the Standard Mitigation Measures. The project has been modified to include the Standard Mitigation Measures contained in Policy Resolution 27; the overall effect is that no significant impacts would occur as a result of this project. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE: As permitted by Section of the State CEQA Guidelines, this initial study incorporates several documents by reference. The reference documents identified below were utilized during the preparation of the Initial Study. The relevant information and/or analysis that has been incorporated by reference into this initial study has been summarized. Each of the documents identified below, which have been incorporated by reference, are available for review at the City of Napa Community Development Department, located at 1600 First Street, Napa, California City of Napa; General Plan Policy Document, Adopted December, City of Napa; General Plan Background Report, Adopted December, City of Napa; General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Adopted December, City of Napa; Zoning Ordinance, City of Napa; Resolution Establishing a Street Improvement Fee for all new Development within the City and subsequent Resolutions Amending this Resolution: Resolution City of Napa, Water System Optimization and Master Plan, 1997; West Yost & Associates City of Napa; Water System Optimization and Master Plan; Final EIR; 1997 County of Napa; Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, April, 1991 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Guidelines, 1996 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area 97 Clean Air Plan, December, 1997 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Napa River/Napa Creek Flood Protection Project General Design Manual and Supplemental EIR/EIR, December, City-Wide Historic Context Statement, Final Draft; September, 2009 Design Guidelines for the Napa Abajo/Fuller Park Historic District; April 1998 State of California, Resources Agency, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Initial Study: Jarman Renovation # Page 11 35

36 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Secretary of Interior Standards. Exhibit B Project Plans Initial Study: Jarman Renovation # Page 12 36

37 ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to Initial Study Jarman Renovation #PL Caymus Street, Napa California Secretary of the Interior's Standards 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. The property will continue to be used for residential use. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. The project will create an understory addition which will change the appearance of the building but not substantively change its historic character or value. A small porch addition and wraparound porch would also be built to the interior side and rear of the residence. As conditioned, the understory addition will be designed to complement but provide distinction between historic and new construction in its design. Consequently, the addition would not affect the historic character. Retention of other character-defining features such as the wood siding, building width as seen from the street, and fenestration, as conditioned, would also preserve the historic integrity of the structure. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. According to Page & Turnbull s Citywide Historic Context Statement, the St. Johns Survey suggested several potential historic districts in the area. While not a national or local district, the area or subareas within the St. John s survey area may be eligible for nomination for a district in the future. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. Existing alterations to the historic building include modifications to the rear of the building to include a small addition to the rear of the building and modification to the front entry stairs to add a wood railing and synthetic steps. These features have not acquired historic significance. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. As conditioned, distinctive characteristics of the building will be retained or restored, including the wood siding, cast-iron understory vents, and era-appropriate window design and materials. 37

38 ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to Initial Study Jarman Residence # Caymus, Napa California Secretary of the Interior's Standards The DPR form on the property notes that the understory is built with bricks; no replacement brick veneer is proposed with the remodel. The applicant is proposing, instead, to create a concrete stem wall with no facing and color to be of the original concrete grey color. The proposed understory would have the same materials and fenestration as the existing residence. Consequently, the project, as conditioned, would require use of brick veneer at the base of the residence or use of original bricks, where possible, for entry walkways, planters or low perimeter fencing as part of the renovation plans. In addition, in order to meet proportionality requirements to preserve the predominance of the original building and thereby retain the essential historic integrity of the structure, the proposed understory, as conditioned, will be the minimum height required for living area per current Building Code. The existing residence s siding would be repaired where possible or replaced in kind. Proposed new understory siding, as conditioned, would further preserve the distinction of the original structure by providing a different width or style than the existing first floor. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. The construction project would include restoration of deteriorated siding as needed while matching existing design and materials. Replacement of elevation appearance, which currently includes a brick understory support, with brick veneer, if required, would be of a different style or brick size to provide physical evidence of the change. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. No chemical treatments such as sandblasting that could damage historic materials are proposed. 8. archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. No excavation is proposed; therefore, archeological resources would not be affected by a project in that the existing site would not be disturbed through new excavation. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The proposed construction plan attempts to provide differentiation in that the new construction removes the original brick base for the residence. However, the brick base is considered part of 38

39 ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to Initial Study Jarman Residence # Caymus, Napa California Secretary of the Interior's Standards the defining characteristics of the residence per the historic record. In addition, the proposed siding is of similar materials and width, as would also be the fenestration elements. Consequently, the project, as conditioned to meet this standard, would include 1) modification to the wood window surrounds on the new understory to provide physical differentiation between the old wood windows (with ornamental trim retained) and the new understory windows (with no additional ornamental trim beyond the wood trim surround) and 2) modification to the siding to include either brick veneer of a notably different size than the original for the first 3-4 feet of each elevation (at a minimum-those visible from Caymus and Brown Streets) - or modification to the siding width for the understory to help differentiate the new construction from the old while providing a compatible architectural approach. The overall mass of the building will be increased but the first story would be subordinate in height to the existing first story. As conditioned, the remodel would therefore be in keeping with the overall architectural features and retain the historic integrity of the property. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall 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. The lift of the house would likely not be reversed in the future. However, in the event that a future owner elected to remove the understory, the retention of the existing architectural features associated with the original building would ensure that the essential form and integrity of the historic property would be preserved. 39

40 40

41 Attachment 3 - (Exhibit B to Initial Study) 41

42 Attachment 3 - (Exhibit B to Initial Study) 42

43 Attachment 3 - (Exhibit B to Initial Study) 43

44 Attachment 3 - (Exhibit B to Initial Study) 44

45 Attachment 3 - (Exhibit B to Initial Study) 45

46 46

47 ATTACHMENT 4 March 17, 2015 Ken MacNab, Planning Manager City of Napa Community Development Department Planning Division 1600 First Street Napa, CA Re: Request for Historic Review Services; Review of proposed seismic retrofit and building lift/understory addition to the residence located at 1052 Caymus Street (#PL ) Dear Ken, As requested, we have reviewed your memo dated March 5, 2015 for the subject property, reviewed the Initial Study-Exhibit A by Emi Theriault, and also made a site visit on Wednesday, March 11, The following are our comments on the proposed project and evaluation: 1. While I concur with end result of the evaluation, I would characterize the project as creating a two story structure (adding a full height ground floor level) instead of adding an understory. The term understory typically implies a partial height story, and the subordinate height comments would not apply to a new first floor level. 2. The existing cottage is in a context where other two-story buildings are common, so adding a full story below the existing story is consistent with the proportions and detailing of other two story buildings in the neighborhood. It should be noted that typically, the first floor has a taller or equal ceiling height compared to the second floor. Based on this, I don t think it the Condition to reduce the height of the new first floor level to code minimum is appropriate. The Golden Rule typically relates to a single story building with a raised first floor level, as opposed to a two story structure. 3. The front entry, porch and steps have been relocated to the new first floor of the raised building, which is consistent with the character of the original structure and the surrounding historic buildings. Although the new porch is not as high as the existing porch, the proposed height is still consistent with the character of surrounding buildings. 47