Napa City Council
July 21, 2026

ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10

3. Covenant
Holder
,
which
has
the
willingness
,
expertise
and
financial
resources
to
monitor
and
enforce
these
preservation
conditions,
and
will
use
qualified
personnel
meeting
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior's
Profe
ss
ional
Qua
l
ifications
Standards
for
oversight
to
provide
consistent
app
lication
of
the
Standards
and
the
Secretary
of
the
Inter
i
or's
Standards
and
Guidelines
,
has
accepted
the
re
s
pons
i
bility
of
this
Preservation
Covenant
as
its
enforcement
entity
as
indicated
by
its
signat
ure
be
l
ow.

4. No
construction,
alteration
,
or
rehabi
litation
shall
be
undertaken
or
permitted
to
be
undertaken
that
would
affect
the
s
ignificant
Historic
Character
Defining
Features
of
the
Property
without
consu
l
tation
with,
and
the
express
permi
ssion
of
,
Covenant
Holder
or
a
fully
authorized
representative
thereof.

No
demolition
of
the
Propert
y
may
be
done
without
the
express
approval
of
the
Covenant
Holder
and
the
City
of
Napa,
a
California
Certified
Local
Government.

In
order
to
document
the
interior
and
exterior
significant
historic
Character
Definin
g
Features
of
the
Property
,
reference
i
s
made
to
Exhibit
A
,
which
is
the
2015
NRHP
nomination
amendment
#85000133
that
documents
the
significant
Historic
Character
Defining
Features
of
the
exterior
and
interior
of
the
Property
and
its
s
ite.
a.

The
significant
Historic
Character
Defining
Features
of
the
exterior
of
the
Property
sp
ec
i
fied
i
n
Exhibit
A
are
as
follows:
•
Projected
central
area
flanked
by
two
recessed
wings
•
Simple
geometry
of
the
building
's
massing
•
Seven
piers
topped
b
y
a
terracotta
"capital"
in
a
stylized
floral
motif
•
Cornice
extending
from
the
roofline
formed
of
terracotta
rams
and
cows
heads
•
Ornament
that
consists
of
decorative
brickwork
and
terracotta
panels
in
a
geometric
motif
•
Bronze
and
milk
g
la
ss
urn-shaped
li
ght
fixtures
adjacent
to
the
entryways
•
Large
terracotta
panel
containing
an
Art
Deco
eagle
above
each
door
b.

The
sign
ificant
Hi
storic
Character
Defining
Features
of
the
interior
of
the
P
roperty
located
in
th
e
main
lobb
y
of
the
Prop
erty
specified
in
Exhibit
A
are
as
follows:
•
Decorative
l
obby
•
Original
cast
bronze
drop
light
s
and
raised-plaster
ceiling
•
Decorative
terrazzo
floor
•
Marble
wainscoting
•
Raised
bas
relief
gilt
and
painted
plaster
wall
s
and
ceiling
•
Terracotta
panel
with
geometricized
floral
pattern
at
each
end
of
the
central
frieze

5. Authorized
representative
s
of
Covena
nt
Holder
shall
be
permitted
at
all
reasonable
time
s
to
in
s
pe
ct
the
Property
in
order
to
ascertain
if
the
conditions
s
pe
cified
in
paragraphs
2 and
4 are
being
met.

The
ent
ity
requesting
.
the
inspection
shall
provide
reasonable
advance
written
notifi
cation
to
Grantee
of
the
date
and
time
that
s
uch
entity
wishes
to
inspect
the
Property.

6. In
the
event
of
a
violation
of
this
Covenant
,
and
in
addition
to
any
remedy
now
or
hereafter
provided
by
l
aw
,
Covenant
Holder
may,
following
reasonable
notice
to
Grantee,
in
st
itute
suit
to
enjoin
the
violation
or
to
require
the
re
storat
ion
of
the
s
ignificant
Historic
Character
Defining
Features
of
the
Property.

ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10

EXHIBIT
A
2015

NATIONAL

REGISTER
OF

HISTORIC
PLACES

NOMINATION

AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10
NPS
Foim
10-900-a
(Rev
.
8/2002)
0MB
No
.
1024--0018
United
States
Department
of
the
Interior
National
Park
Service
~
·
Franklin
station
Name
of
Property
Napa
County
,
Catlfpmia
County
and
State
National
Register
of
Historic
Places
Continuation
Sheet
Name
of
multiple
-
listing
.
(if
_
applicable)
Sectron
number
Additional
Documentation
Page
Signature

3. State/Federal
Agency
Certification
As
the
designated
auth,ority
under
the
National
Historic
Preservation
Act,
as
amended
,
l
hereby
certify
that
this
..X.
nomination
·.,
""'--
request
for
detenuj:q~tio,i
M
eligibility
meets
the
docurt1ent:ation
standards
for
registering
properties_.in
the
Natk,µal
·
Register
of
Hi-s_tQric
Piaces
and
meets
the
procedural
and
professionaFrequirements
set
forth
in
3 6
CFR
Patt
•

60. 'i-.

In
my
opinion
,
the
property
-2(
meets
_
_
·
_does
not
meet
the
Natiqna1
Register'Criteria
-
.
l
recommend
that
this
property
be
considered
significant
at
the
foUowjng
•
'
••
•
level(s)
of
significance:
-~
national
_statewide
LiocaJ
Applicable
National
Register
Criteria:
_A
_B
Xe
_D
.2-0
.
~
\
.t..'t
ZO
!
Dat~
'"
'.

State
or
·
Federal
agency/bureau
or
Tribal
Government
(n
ot
-
m
~
t:th
e-
Nat
i
ona.l
.Regi$t
e
r
c
ri
teria
.
.
.
,
5-i-
.1
.

State
Historic
PreservatioTl
Officer
9alifomia
~e
Pffi~
.e
o
f.

Hi
~
m
'i
c
)>.reservation
Title
8tate
or
Federal
agehc.y/burea
'
u
or
'tribal
Government

4. National
Park
Service
Certification
I
hereby
certify
that
this
property
i
s;
_
entered
in
the
National
Register
_
determjned
eligible
for
the
National
·
Rtigi'ster
_
determined
not
eligible
for
the
National
Register
_
removed
from
the
Nation-al
Register
_
other
(explain
:
)
_
_
_
__
__
_
_
Signature
of
the
Keeper
Date
of
Acti
o
n
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10
City
of
Napa-Franklin
Post
Office
Project
Addendum

EXHIBIT
B

ATTACHMENT
11 Appendix
A:

Historic
Resource
Summary
and
Project
Evaluation
FirstCarbon
Solutions
Y\Pubhc.JU0111\Cllen
t
(
PN•JN)\4'J22\49210004\Addendum\4922000,J
fr,1nkhn
Pott
Ot1ke
Addendum
dao:

ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT
11 EXHIBIT
B
THIS
PAGE

INTENTIONALLY
LEFT
BLANK
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10
August
17 ,
2018
Napa
Franklin
Station
1351
Second
Street

ATTACHMENT
11 EXHIBIT
B
Napa,
Napa
County,
CA
94559-9991
(the
"Property")
National
Register
Information
System
#85000133
OHP
Ref.

USPS_2015_0629_001
Historic
Resource
Summary
and
Project
Evaluation

INTRODUCTION
This
Report
addresses
historic
resource
issues
associated
with
a
property
and
project
at
the
above
address.

Included
in
this
Report
is
a
summary
of
the
subject
historical
resources
,
including
iden
tification
of
the
specific
resource
on
the
project
site,
the
subject
project
summary
and
project
eva
luation.

The
project
evaluation
analyzes
the
project
in
its
regulatory
con
text
,
including
the
City's
Historic
Resource
Design
Guide
l
ines
and
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior
's
Standards
for
Rehabilitation,
as
required
under
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA).

Following
the
analysis,
the
Report
concludes
that
,
with
inclusion
of
the
measures
recommended
in
this
report,
the
project
meets
the
City
'
s
Historic
Resour
ce
Design
Guidelines
and
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior
'
s
Standards
for
Rehabi
l
itat
i
on.

Thi
s
author
's
qualifications
for
this
evaluation
include
more
than
thirty-five
years
of
professional
experience
in
the
historical
architecture
and
cu
l
tural
resources
field
;
qualifications
in
excess
of
th
e
Secretary
of
the
Interior
'
s
Professional
Qualifications
Standards
in
the
fields
of
Historic
Architecture
and
Architecture
;
listing
by
the
State
of
Ca
li
fornia
Historical
Resources
Information
System
(C
H
RIS)
as
a
qualified
historical
architect
and
historic
preservation
consultant
;
a
Certificate
in
Architectural
Conservation
from
UNESCO
'
s
International
Centre
for
the
Conservation
and
Restoration
of
Cultural
Property
(ICCROM)
in
Rome
,
Italy
;
and
licensure
as
a
California
Architect
since
1989.

I
also
have
extensive
technical
rehabilitation
and
restoration
experience
,
with
a
specific
expertise
on
large
and
complex
properties
and
projects
,
including
numerous
federal
building
rehabilitation
projects
and
hotel
adaptive
reuse
projects.

I
n
addition
to
my
qualifications,
this
evaluation
is
also
based
on
several
re
cent
site
visits
as
well
as
the
review
of
all
previous
r
esource
documentation
,
including
:
•
NRHP
Nomination
record,
Napa
Franklin
Station
,
April
1984
•
NRHP
Additional
Documentat
io
n
record
,
Napa
Franklin
Station
,
May
2016
•
Correspondence
re:

Section
106
consu
lt
ation
from
USPS
to
SOHP,
Feb.
2016
•
City
of
Napa
Downtown
Historic
Design
Guidelines
•
His
toric
Resource
Design
Guidelines
•
Design
Guidelines
for
Franklin
Station
•
Site
plan
,
scale
and
massing
exhibits

PROJECT

SUMMARY
The
project
proposes
a
Gene
r
a
l
Plan
Amendment
,
Specific
Plan
Amendment
,
Certificate
of
Appropriateness
and
Zoning
Amendments
to
rezone
the
Post
Office
Parcel
from
DP
to
DMU
/
PD
(
Planned
Development
Overlay)
("
P
roject
"
).

Concurrently
wit
h
the
zo
ning
amendment
a
ppli
catio
n
s,
Developer
submitted
to
the
City
a
development
agreement
application
for
approval
of
this
Agreement.

The
proposed
rezoning
and
development
agreement
wi
ll
allow
ne
w
additions
and
re
lated
construction
on
the
overall
site
of
th
e
historic
building
subjec
t
to
De
sign
Review
and
a
Certificate
of
Appropriateness.
446
17th
Street
#302
Oakland
CA
94612
510.418.0285
mhulbert@earrhl
in
k.net
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT
1 1

EXHIBIT
B
The
Planned
Development
Over
l
ay
w
ill
p
ro
pose
n
ew
Historic
S
t
andards
that
are
i
nt
ended
to
meet
the
intent
and
g
o
als
of
the
City
of
Na
p
a
Downtown
Historic
Design
Guidelines
,
but
app
l
y
specifi
c
req
u
i
r
ements
r
elated
to
protection
of
the
bu
il
ding
'
s
Sign
ifi
cant
Hi
stor
i
c
(i.e
.,
charac
t
er
defining)
Features
and
to
the
additions
and
a
l
terations
for
the
adapt
i
ve
reuse.

The
P
D
H
istoric
Standards
wou
l
d
rep
l
ace
the
recomme
n
da
t
ions
in
the
Guide
l
ines
,
which
did
not
contemplate
t
he
r
ehabi
l
itat
i
on
that
is
now
required
to
preserve
the
bu
il
ding
after
t
he
2014
earthquake.

See
attac
h
ed
p
roposed
Gui
d
e
l
ines
.

The
enti
r
e
s
tru
c
ture
is
in
deteriorated
condition
due
to
the
2014
South
Napa
Earthquake.

T
h
e
Franklin
Street
Statio
n
Post
Off
i
ce
experienced
sig
nifi
cant
damage
as
a
r
esu
l
t
of
the
South
Napa
Earthquake
.

The
United
S
t
ates
Pos
t
al
Serv
i
ce
estimated
that
the
damage
to
t
h
e
buildi
n
g
wou
l
d
cost
$8
m
ill
ion
in
repairs
to
make
t
he
bui
l
d
i
ng
functional
again
fo
r
Post
Office
purposes.

Direct
l
y
r
e
l
ative
to
the
histo
ri
c
st
r
u
c
ture,
t
he
Project
wou
l
d
a
ll
ow
remova
l
of
t
he
damaged
she
ll
of
the
bui
l
ding,
r
etain
and
rehabi
lit
ate
i
ts
h
isto
r
ic
fr
o
nt
(north)
and
par
t
ia
l
east
and
wes
t
s
i
de
f
acades
.

T
he
proposa
l
a
l
so
includes
what
constitute
s
an
addition
abo
v
e
and
behind
,
along
with
related
new
co
n
st
r
uction
a
t
the
west
side
o
f
t
he
h
i
s
t
or
i
c
st
r
uctu
r
e
that
wraps
around
the
r
ear
of
the
overa
ll
site
to
the
east
side
o
f
the
b
l
ock
.

T
he
Project
would
a
ll
ow,
with
a
f
u
ture
Certificate
of
Ap
p
rop
r
iateness
and
sub
j
ect
to
de
t
ai
l
ed
comp
li
ance
with
the
Secretary
of
the
I
nte
r
io
r
'
s
Standa
r
ds
fo
r
Re
h
abilitation
,
the
r
e
mova
l
of
approximate
l
y
4 /
5ths
o
f
the
st
r
uctu
r
e
from
t
h
e
site
,
l
eavin
g
t
h
e
ide
nt
ified
h
i
stor
i
c
features
of
the
b
u
i
l
ding
front
to
a
dep
th
equa
l
to
and
inclusive
of
the
depth
of
the
ex
i
sting
interior
lobby
.

The
adaptive
r
euse
and
rehab
ilit
at
i
on
wo
ul
d
in
c
l
ude
an
add
i
tion
to
the
retained
portion
o
f
the
b
u
i
l
ding
l
oc
ated
be
h
ind
the
st
r
u
c
tu
r
e.

T
he
add
i
tion
wou
l
d
be
allowed
to
be
ta
ll
er
tha
n
and
wider
than
the
r
e
source
,
up
to
the
C
i
ty
Height
l
imi
t
s
an
d
prope
rt
y
setbacks.

The
re
q
uired
remova
l
of
a
signifi
c
an
t
portion
of
the
stru
c
ture
was
not
contemp
l
ated
in
t
h
e
pre-earth
q
uake
guide
l
ines.

The
proposed
proje
c
t
additiona
ll
y
relates
to
separate
his
t
o
r
ic
st
ru
ctu
r
es
on
the
subje
c
t
b
l
ock
and
an
adjacent
b
l
ock
,
The
Uptown
T
hea
t
re
and
the
F
irst
Presbyterian
Church
.

T
he
ex
i
sting
Historic
Guidelines
address
those
s
t
r
u
ctu
r
es,
wh
i
c
h
m
ust
be
me
t
in
the
f
u
t
u
re
D
es
i
g
n
R
eview
.

SUMMARY
OF

HISTORIC

RESOURCES
•
T
he
P
ost
Office
was
added
to
the
Nationa
l
Regi
s
t
e
r
of
Hi
s
tor
i
c
Places
on
January
1 1
,
1985
.

B
ecause
the
F
rank
li
n
S
tr
eet
Station
P
o
s
t
Offi
c
e
experien
c
e
d
significant
damage
as
a
resu
l
t
of
the
South
Napa
Earthquake
,
in
May
,
20 1
5 ,
the
United
S
t
a
t
es
P
ostal
Serv
i
ce
in
consu
l
ta
ti
on
with
the
California
State
H
i
storic
P
res
e
rvation
Offi
c
er
s
ubm
i
tted
to
the
Nat
i
ona
l
Reg
i
ster
of
H
istor
i
c
P
laces
n
o
mi
nation
ame
n
d
m
ent
#85000133
,
which
doc
um
ents
the
post
-
e
arthq
u
ake
"S
i
g
n
i
ficant
Hi
s
to
r
ic
Features
"
of
the
exte
r
ior
and
interio
r
of
the
Property
.
•
T
he
N
apa
Fr
ank
li
n
Sta
ti
o
n
was
or
i
g
i
na
ll
y
l
i
s
t
ed
o
n
t
h
e
NR
HP
i
n
1985
,
in
part
fo
r
its
strong
identificat
i
on
wi
t
h
the
use
of
the
Art
Deco
moveme
n
t
i
n
the
W
P
A
Post
Office
s
of
the
1930s.

I
t
was
de
t
e
r
mi
n
ed
t
o
be
s
i
g
n
ificant
at
th
e
s
t
ate
a
n
d
l
oca
l
l
eve
l
s
under
N
RHP
C
r
iterion
C
(
D
esign
/
Constru
c
tion
).

F
i
gu
r
e
1 i
s
a
h
i
storic
photograp
h
of
t
he
b
u
ildi
n
g
,
pres
u
mab
l
y
short
l
y
after
its
construct
i
o
n
.
•
The
nominat
i
on
sta
t
ed
tha
t
t
h
e
N
apa
Fran
kli
n
Station
was
considered
"
un
u
sua
ll
y
we
ll
preserved.
"
It
r
etained
in
t
egr
i
ty
of
l
o
c
ation
,
design
,
s
etting
,
materia
l
s
,
w
orkmanship
,
fee
l
ing
,
a
nd
association.

It
was
described
as
"
a
n
important
examp
l
e
of
th
e
trans
i
t
i
on
to
t
h
e
Starved
C
l
assicism
characteri
s
tic
of
federal
design
i
n
the
mid
-
t
o
-
late
thirties
,
and
makes
p
l
ain
the
d
e
bt
Starved
C
l
ass
i
c
i
sm
owed
to
Art
D
eco
s
t
y
li
stic
c
oncepts.
"
I
n
ad
d
i
t
io
n
to
this
broader
significance
,
it
was
found
t
o
possess
"c
onsiderab
l
e
aesthetic
value
in
its
own
right.
"
•
Th
e
1 985
nom
i
nation
d
etai
l
ed
t
h
e
histo
r
ic
building
'
s
character
defining
featu
r
es
and
which
r
e
ndered
it
e
l
ig
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
li
st
in
g
on
t
h
e
NH
R
P.

Significan
t
exterior
f
e
atures
speci
fi
ed
in
the
1 985
nomina
t
ion
include
:

FRANKLI
N

STATION
.

NA
P
A
MHPA
-
HIST.EVALS
-
081718
-
P2
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT
11 EXHIBIT
B
•
Projected
central
area
flanked
by
two
recessed
wings
•
Simp
l
e
geometry
of
the
building
'
s
massing
•
Seven
piers
topped
by
a
terracotta
"capital"
in
a
styliz
e
d
floral
mot
i
f
•
Cornice
extending
from
the
roofline
formed
of
terracotta
rams
'
and
cows
'
head
s
•
Ornament
that
consists
of
decorative
brickwork
and
terracotta
panels
in
a
geometric
motif
•
Bronze
and
milk
glass
urn-shaped
light
fixtures
adjacent
to
the
entryways
•
L
arge
terracotta
pane
l
containing
an
Art
Deco
eagle
above
each
door
Significant
interior
features
specified
in
the
1985
nomination
include
:
•
Decorative
post
office
lobby
•
Original
cast
bronze
drop
l
ights
and
raised-plaster
ceiling
•
Decorative
terrazzo
floor
in
l
obby
•
Raised
bas
relief
gilt
and
painted
plaster
on
the
ceiling
•
Terracotta
panel
with
geometricized
floral
pattern
at
each
end
of
the
central
frieze
•
Additionally
,
per
the
NRHP
Additional
Documentation
record
,
a
site
visit
condu
c
ted
on
January
27 ,
2015
confirmed
that
the
property
had
undergone
few
exterior
alterat
i
ons
since
the
building
was
listed.

United
States
Posta
l
Service
(USPS)
maintena
n
ce
records
indicate
that
the
roof
was
replaced
in
2013.

The
new
roof
appears
to
be
in-kind
and
in
similar
style
to
the
original
roof;
gates
were
added
to
the
outside
staircases
that
lead
to
the
basement
in
2014.

Neither
of
thes
e
alterations
compromised
the
historic
character
of
the
property.

A

6.0 earthquake
early
in
the
morning
on
August
24 ,
2014
caused
both
interior
and
exterior
d
a
mage
to
the
building
.

The
earthquake
damaged
some
of
the
building
'
s
significant
decorat
i
ve
features
,
while
leaving
others
undamaged
.

Elements
of
the
property
that
were
seriously
damaged
in
the
earthquake
include:
•
Brickwork
•
Plaster
wa
ll
s
and
ceiling
•
Tongue
-
in-groove
wood
workroom
floor
•
Decorative
exterior
terracotta
•
I
nterior
plaster
and
brickwork
,
especially
at
north
interior
wall
of
lobby
and
east
and
west
vestibu
l
es
•
Windows
and
damaged
sashes
including
many
on
the
main
fac;:ade
•
Marb
l
e
wainscoting
in
the
l
obby
Some
condition
prob
l
ems
with
te
rr
acotta
on
other
portions
of
the
bui
l
ding
,
(
for
example
the
beltcourse
on
the
rear
fac;:ade
)
,
are
consistent
with
weathering
rather
than
earthquake
damage
.

Elements
of
the
overall
design
that
sustained
v
isibl
y
minor
or
no
damag
e
include
:
•
Strong
identification
with
Art
De
c
o
movement
•
Symmetrica
l
fac;:ade
with
projected
centra
l
area
f
l
anked
by
two
recessed
wings
•
Simple
geometry
of
the
bu
i
lding
'
s
massing
•
Terracotta
pane
l
s
in
geometric
motifs
•
Terracotta
cornice
with
decorat
iv
e
rams
'
and
cows
'
heads
and
oval
shields
•
Terracotta
"capitals
"
and
window
moldings
•
Terracotta
eagle
panels
abo
v
e
doors
•
Recessed
,
rectangular
fenestration
pattern
separated
by
fluted
pilasters
•
Bas
relief
guilt
plaster
lobby
ce
i
ling
o
v
er
retail
counter
spa
c
e
•
Original
hanging
l
obby
l
amps
•
Origin
a
l
brass-framed
bulletin
boards
F
RANK
LI
N
S
TATION
.

NAPA
M
H
PA
-
HI
S
T
.EVA
L
S
-
081718
-
P3
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10
•
•
•

EXHIBIT
B
Original
interior
layout
Carved
Art
Deco
wood
ornaments
over
the
service
counter
Terrazzo
flooring
in
lobby

ATTACHMENT
11 The
basement
level
has
no
public
spaces
a
n
d
no
historic
character
defin
i
ng
features.

I
n
addition
to
elements
of
the
bui
l
ding
that
are
clear
l
y
damaged
or
undamaged
,
some
elements
are
not
v
isible
due
to
stabilization
work
on
the
east
and
west
sides
of
the
lobby
'
s
interior
,
or
building
materials
have
fallen
away
or
been
removed.

Photographs
of
these
areas
taken
before
and
during
the
stabilization
work
have
been
included
in
the
2015
NRHP
amendment.

These
areas
include:
•
Bronze
and
milk
glass
urn-shaped
light
fixtures
adjacent
to
entryways.

Two
are
undamaged
or
l
ight
l
y
damaged,
but
two
are
covered
with
p
l
astic
sheeting
at
the
time
of
the
field
visit
and
therefore
were
not
v
isible
for
inspection.
•
Deco
r
ative
terrazzo
floor
in
much
of
the
l
obby
appears
undamaged
,
although
some
sections
are
not
visible
due
to
pa
ll
ets
and
bu
il
ding
materia
l
s
that
cover
them.
•
Damaged
plaster
ceiling
on
east
and
west
sides
of
lobby.

The
2015
NRHP
amendment
determined
that
t
he
2014
earthquake
damage
affected
the
property
's
interior
historic
integrity
with
regard
to
the
aspect
of
architectural
materials.

The
materials
of
the
interior
at
the
east
and
west
side
lobbies
have
been
severely
compromised.

Mater
ia
ls
such
as
terracotta
,
marble
,
and
brick
we
re
damaged
,
broken,
and
dislodged
at
the
inte
r
i
o
r
ends
of
the
building.

The
central
areas
of
the
lobby
'
s
interior
have
le
ss
damage
to
the
historic
character
defining
features
than
the
east
and
west
sides
of
the
bui
l
ding.

The
identified
loss
of
interior
material
integrity
is
insufficient
to
result
in
the
overall
loss
of
historic
integrity.

Thus
,
this
amendment
determines
that
the
2014
earthquake
damage
did
not
significantly
affect
the
property
's
exterior
architectural
integr
ity
of
design,
workmanship
,
materia
l
s,
and
location.

Consequently
,
the
resource
continues
to
meet
NRHP
Criterion
C
because
the
primary
exterior
characteristics
and
qualities
which
caused
it
to
be
origina
ll
y
l
isted
and
with
which
its
ident
i
fied
significance
is
conveyed
are
still
present.

Based
on
the
information
in
the
amendment,
the
Napa
Landmarks
and
the
United
States
Postal
Service,
with
consultation
with
the
California
State
Historic
Preservation
Officer
,
developed
a
Preservation
Covenant.

That
document
was
completed
in
consu
l
tation
with
Ke
ll
er
prior
to
the
building
's
sa
l
e
,
and
the
Preservation
Covenant
recorded
with
the
quitclaim
deed
on
March
6 ,
2017.

In
addition
to
providing
guidance
,
process
and
r
estrictions
on
the
building's
rehabil
i
tation
,
the
Preservation
Covenant
is
intended
to
mitigate
impacts
to
the
identified
Significant
Historic
Features
of
the
Historic
Building
,
as
it
exists
after
the
earthquake
and
remo
v
a
l
of
the
post
office
use
.

Paragraph
4 of
the
Preservation
Covenant
contains
the
Significant
Historic
Features
of
the
building
as
described
in
the
National
Registe
r
of
Historic
Places
nomination
amendment.

They
are
:

The
Significant
Historic
Features
of
the
exterior
of
the
Building:
•
Projected
central
area
flanked
by
two
re
cessed
wings
•
Simple
geometry
of
the
building
's
massing
•
Seven
piers
topped
by
a
terracotta
"capital"
in
a
stylized
floral
motif
•
Cornice
extending
from
the
roofline
formed
of
terracotta
rams
and
cows
heads
•
Ornament
that
consists
of
decorative
brickwork
and
terracotta
panels
in
a
geometri
c
motif
•
Bronze
and
mi
l
k
glass
urn-shaped
light
fix
t
ures
adjacent
to
the
entryways
•
Large
terracotta
panel
containing
an
Art
Deco
eagle
above
each
door
•
Mono
l
ithic
windows
on
the
main
fac;ade
FRANK
LI
N
STAT
I
ON
.

NAPA
MHPA
-
H
I
ST.EVALS
-
081718
-
P4
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT
11 EXHIBIT
B
The
Significant
Historic
Features
of
the
interior
of
the
Building
:
•
Original
cast
bronze
drop
lights
and
raised-plaster
ceiling
•
Decorative
terrazzo
floor
•
Marble
wainscoting
•
Raised
bas
relief
gilt
and
painted
p
l
aster
walls
and
ceiling
•
Terracotta
panel
with
geometricized
floral
pattern
at
each
end
of
the
central
frieze
•
Carved
Art
Deco
wood
ornaments
over
the
service
counter
•
Original
hanging
lobby
lamps
•
Original
brass-framed
bulletin
boards
In
addition
,
a
lt
erations
and
add
iti
ons
for
the
proposed
reuse
are
contemplated
in
the
Preservation
Covenant
,
which
is
contained
in
Paragraph

2. It
provides
that
the
project
will
develop
an
adaptive
reuse
of
the
Property.

In
this
case,
the
reuse
is
the
proposed
hotel.

And
,
it
provides
that
such
reuse
will
include
alterations
and
additions
,
including
to
the
side
,
rear
and
rooftop
.

PROJECT

EVALUATION
A.

Regulatory
Context
CEQA
,
as
codified
in
PRC
Sections
21000
et
seq.
,
is
the
principal
statute
governing
the
environmental
review
of
projects
in
the
state.

CEQA
requires
lead
agencies
to
determine
if
a
proposed
project
wou
ld
have
a
significant
effect
on
historic
resources.

Under
CEQA
,
the
City
of
Napa
,
as
Lead
Agency
,
must
determine
"
whether
the
proposed
project
results
in
a
substantial
adverse
change
such
that
the
qualities
that
make
the
resource
significant
are
impaired
or
lost
"
.

In
conjunction
with
the
Downtown
Napa
Specific
Plan
,
the
City
certified
an
Environmental
Impact
Report
(E
I
R)
,
which
determined
that
development
envisioned
in
the
plan
cou
l
d
potentially
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
historic
resources
in
downtown.

The
City
of
Napa
,
in
the
DNSP
process
,
evaluated
the
impacts
of
development
under
the
Specific
Plan
on
historic
resour
c
es
in
the
DSP
EIR.

Specifica
ll
y
,
the
EIR
discussed
the
potential
for
development
a
ll
owable
by
the
DNSP
,
such
as
the
Project
,
to
alter
the
integrity
of
historic
resources
through
demolition
or
incompatible
new
construct
i
on.

Because
of
this,
the
EIR
concluded
that
impacts
to
historic
resourc
e
s
were
potentially
significant.

Based
on
this
,
the
EIR
recommended
Mitigation
Measure

4.0 -
1 ,
which
states
:

The
City
sha
ll
req
u
ire
that
any
future
development
u
nde
r
the
S
p
ec
i
fic
P
l
an
meets
th
e
intent
and
goa
l
s
of
the
City
of
Napa
Downtown
Historic
Design
Guide
li
nes.

T
hi
s
in
cl
udes
any
project
that
wou
l
d
alter
historic
resources
o
r
wou
l
d
be
constructe
d
a
dj
acent
to
a
histo
ri
c
resource.

The
Downtown
Napa
Historic
Resources
Design
Guidelines
direct
the
project
proponent
to
follow
,
where
feasible
,
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior's
Standards
for
Rehabilitation
.

The
purpose
of
this
mitigation
measure
is
to
reduce
impacts
from
development
projects
in
the
DSP
on
historic
archi
t
ectural
resources
to
a
l
ess-than-s
i
gnificant
level
,
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
CEQA.

In
addition
to
the
General
Guide
l
ines
,
a
set
of
specific
guidelines
was
prepared
(U
.

S
.

Post
Office
,
Franklin
Station
,
See
Guidelines
pages
116
-1
17)
.

With
respect
to
additions
and
related
new
construction
,
the
current
Guide
l
ines
additionally
recommend
:
•
That
alterations
should
be
minor
and
should
meet
the
Standards
;
•
That
rooftop
or
horizontal
additions
are
not
recommended
to
preserve
th
e
building
'
s
iconi
c
massing
and
horizontality.

These
Guidelines
were
ba
s
ed
on
information
available
from
1998
through
2011
,
published
in
2011
FRANK
LIN
STAT
I
ON
,
NA
P
A
MHP
A
-
HI
S
T.

EV
A
LS
-
08 17
18 -
PS
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT
11 EXHIBIT
B
and
20 1
2,
and
adopted
in
2012
,
prio
r
to
the
earthquake.

B
ecause
the
Guidelines
were
es
t
ablished
prior
to
the
2014
Earthquake
and
damage
to
the
bui
l
ding
,
the
PD
proposes
replacing
the
Guidelines
to
a
ll
ow
the
adapt
i
ve
reuse
of
the
damaged
b
uil
ding.
8 .

Proposed
Historic
Resource
Design
Guidelines
Following
the
earthquake
,
new
and
better
information
about
the
P
ost
Office
became
available
that
was
not
present
in
the
context
of
the
Guidelines.

That
information
includes:
•
The
significant
damage
to
the
bui
l
ding
caused
by
the
earthquake.
•
The
Postal
Serv
i
ce
planned
to
demolish
the
building
beca
u
se
it
would
cost
$8
m
illi
on
to
repair
quake
damage
,
while
i
t
would
cost
on
l
y
$5
00 ,
000
f
o
r
demo
l
i
ti
o
n.
•
Th
e
Postal
Service
wou
ld
not
continue
use
o
f
t
h
e
bui
l
ding
as
a
post
office.
•
The
P
osta
l
Service
wou
ld
se
ll
the
bu
ildi
ng
.
•
Th
e
20 15
National
Register
of
Historic
Pla
ces
nomin
a
t
ion
amendment
that
documents
the
post-earthquake
"
Significant
Historic
Features
"
of
the
exte
r
ior
a
nd
interior
of
the
Property
that
differ
from
the
Guidelines.
•
Th
e
2017
Preservation
Covenant
that
con
t
emp
l
ates
addi
t
ions
and
alterations
,
and
provides
for
protection
of
the
building
'
s
identified
Significant
Historic
Features.
•
The
State
Historic
Preservation
Officer
'
s
consu
lt
ation
o
n
and
review
of
the
items
above.

T
he
proposed
PD
Historic
Standards
that
would
replace
the
Gu
i
delines
include
th
e
following
:
•
Adaptive
r
euse
as
a
ho
tel
w
ith
rooftop,
si
d
e
and
r
ear
addi
tion
s,
consis
t
ent
with
the
site
p
lan
,
sca
l
e
a
nd
massing
exhibits
,
is
a
p
p
r
op
riat
e
in
order
to
r
e
h
abi
l
itate
the
earthquake
damaged
historic
resource.
•
Retain
those
Significant
H
isto
ri
c
F
ea
tur
es
of
th
e
exterior
and
interior
o
f
the
building
as
defined
i
n
the
Preservation
Covenant
consistent
with
the
site
plan
,
scale
and
massing
exhib
it
s
.
•
I
ncorpo
r
ation
of
the
Secre
t
ary
of
the
Interior
Standards
for
Rehabilitation
for
the
rehabilitation
of
the
Significant
H
istoric
F
ea
tur
es.

C.

Standards
for
Rehabilitation
This
effort
co
ncl
udes
with
evaluation
of
a
proposed
project
in
order
to
confi
rm
i
f
t
h
e
proposed
work
would
be
in
confo
rm
ance
with
the
U.S
.

Secretary
of
the
Interior
'
s
Standards
for
the
Tr
e
atment
of
Historic
Properties.

As
the
project
wi
ll
a
ll
ow
t
h
e
alteration
and
add
to
Th
e
Franklin
Street
Station
Post
Office,
the
appropriate
treatment
and
eva
lu
ation
Standard
is
that
of
Rehabilitation
,
which
i
s
defined
as
fo
ll
ows
:
"
When
repair
and
replacement
of
deteriorated
features
are
necessary
;
when
alterat
i
ons
or
add
i
tions
to
the
property
are
planned
for
a
new
or
conti
n
ued
use
;
and
when
its
depiction
at
a
particular
period
of
time
is
not
appropriate
,
Rehabilitation
may
be
considered
as
a
treatment."
As
summarized
above
,
the
proposed
project
wi
ll
adaptively
reuse
the
currently
ident
i
fied
significant
portions
of
the
historic
building
a
l
ong
w
i
t
h
the
addition
of
rearward
,
sideward
and
u
pward
new
construction.

Reh
ab
ilitat
ion
treatments
specific
t
o
the
reta
ined
h
ist
oric
bui
ld
i
n
g
are
out
li
ned
in
the
current
H
istoric
Resource
Design
Guidelines
whi
l
e
programmatic
guide
lin
es
for
th
e
related
new
construction
are
outlined
in
the
proposed
Design
Guidelines
for
Franklin
Station.

The
fo
ll
owi
n
g
l
ists
the
ten
Standards
for
Rehabilitation
and
ana
l
yzes
the
proposed
alterations
and
associated
project
with
respect
t
o
each
.

FR
A
NK
LI
N
ST
A
T
I
ON
,
N
A
P
A
M
H
PA
-
H
I
S
T.E
VALS
-
081718
-
P
6 ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT
11 EXHIBIT
B
1 .

A
property
will
be
used
as
it
was
historically
or
be
given
a
new
use
that
requires
minimal
change
to
its
distinctive
materials,
features
,
spaces
,
and
spatial
relationships
.

Th
e
historic
structu
r
e
was
historically
used
as
a
post
office
,
including
commercial
and
retail
postal
service
uses.

Yet
,
th
e
historic
post
office
has
been
vacant
s
in
ce
2014
and
the
pos
t
al
uses
have
been
abandoned
.

The
proposed
new
uses
associated
with
the
historic
structure
wi
ll
be
commerc
i
a
l
and,
specifica
ll
y
,
a
hotel
use,
which
wi
ll
include
publ
i
c
use
areas
.

Per
the
P
D
Histori
c
Standards,
the
project
intent
is
to
:
•
Retain
and
rehabilitate
fill
o
f
the
ide
ntifi
ed,
historically
sign
ifi
ca
nt
a
r
eas,
spaces
and
features
of
the
historic
building;
•
Add
re
l
ated
n
ew
co
n
st
ru
ct
i
o
n
behind
,
alongside
and
above
the
historic
building
and
with
which
to
adaptively
reuse
the
property
while
continuing
and
reinforcing
its
identified
histori
c
characte
r
.

Based
on
the
c
u
rre
nt
sets
of
guidelines,
the
ide
n
tified
distinction
and
distinct
i
ve
(i.e.
,
cha
racter­
defining)
exte
r
ior
and
inte
r
ior
materials
,
features,
spaces
and
spatia
l
relationsh
ips
of
the
hist
oric
building
wi
ll
be
minimally
c
h
anged.

2. The
historic
character
of
a
property
will
be
retained
and
preserved
.

The
removal
of
distinctive
materials
or
alteration
of
features
,
spaces
,
and
spatial
relationships
that
characterize
a
property
will
be
avoided.

The
identified
historic
character
and
cha
r
acteristics
of
the
property
consists
of
:

Exterior
•
Pro
jected
central
area
flanked
by
two
r
ecessed
wings
•
S
im
p
l
e
geometry
of
the
bu
ildi
ng's
massing
•
Seven
piers
topped
by
a
terracotta
"capital"
in
a
sty
l
ized
floral
motif
•
Cornice
extending
from
the
roof
l
ine
formed
of
terracotta
rams
a
n
d
cows
heads
•
Ornament
that
consis
t
s
of
d
ecora
t
ive
brickwork
and
terracotta
panels
in
a
geomet
ri
c
motif
•
Bronze
and
milk
g
l
ass
urn-s
ha
ped
light
fixtures
adjacent
to
the
entryways
•
Lar
ge
terracotta
panel
con
tai
n
ing
an
Art
D
eco
eagle
above
each
door
•
Monolithic
windows
on
the
main
fa~ade
•
Origina
l
cas
t
b
r
onze
drop
lights
and
raised-p
l
aster
cei
ling
In
terior
•
Decorative
terrazzo
fl
oo
r
•
Marbl
e
wainsco
t
ing
•
Raised
bas
re
li
ef
gilt
and
painted
p
l
aster
walls
and
ceiling
•
Terra
cotta
panel
w
i
th
geometricized
fl
o
r
a
l
pattern
at
each
e
n
d
of
the
centra
l
f
r
ieze
•
Carved
Art
Deco
wood
ornaments
over
the
service
counter
•
O
r
iginal
h
ang
ing
l
obby
l
amps
•
Orig
i
nal
brass-framed
bu
ll
etin
boards
Relative
to
the
identified
extent
o
f
the
historic
building
,
which
consists
of
the
identified
exterior
and
interior
forms,
features
and
materials
of
the
bui
l
ding
front
to
a
depth
equal
to
and
inclusive
of
the
depth
of
the
exist
in
g
interior
lobby,
the
proposed
project
will
,
without
exception
,
retain
the
historic
bui
l
ding's
iden
tified
characte
r-d
efi
nin
g
forms,
features
,
materials
,
a
n
d
spatial
relationships
,
so
wi
ll
retain
and
preserve
the
identified
histo
r
ic
c
hara
cter
and
characteris
ti
cs
o
f
the
building
and
i
t
s
property
.

Further
,
wh
il
e
the
id
entified
hi
storic
building
consists
of
its
frontward
portion
,
the
c
haracter
­
de
finin
g
co
rnice
extends
around
the
ex
i
sting
centra
l
building
mass.

Though
the
sideward
and
FRANK
LIN
STAT
I
ON
,
NA
P
A
MHPA-
HI
S
T
.EV
AL
S
-
081718
-
P7
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT
11 EXHIBIT
B
re
arw
a
r
d
portio
n
s
of
th
a
t
co
rn
ice
a
re
not
i
d
e
ntif
ied
as
c
h
a
r
ac
t
e
r-
defi
n
ing,
t
h
ey
are
e
l
emen
t
s
of
histo
r
ic
ar
c
h
itect
ur
a
l
inter
es
t
so
ma
y
b
e
a
dd
it
i
o
n
a
lly
r
eco
mm
e
nd
e
d
fo
r
a
r
c
hit
ect
u
ra
l
sa
l
va
g
e
a
n
d
pot
e
nti
al
re
u
se
as
par
t
of
the
Pr
oject.
3 .

Each
property
will
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
elements
from
other
historic
properties,
will
not
be
undertaken.

T
h
e
ide
n
ti
fi
e
d
h
istoric
bui
ld
i
n
g
sta
n
ds
on
th
e
fro
nt
po
rt
ion
o
f
t
h
e
project
site.

As
su
m
marized
abov
e
,
t
he
p
ro
j
ec
t
w
ill
d
eve
l
o
p
the
ove
r
a
ll
si
t
e,
whil
e
r
e
t
ai
n
i
n
g
an
d
r
eh
abili
tat
i
n
g
a
ll
cha
r
ac
t
e
r­
def
i
ning
fo
r
ms
,
e
l
eme
nt
s,
a
n
d
materia
l
s
of
t
h
e
hist
o
r
i
c
b
u
i
ld
i
n
g.

P
e
r
the
projec
t
g
u
i
de
lin
es
,
pro
pose
d
new
co
n
str
u
c
t
io
n
is
in
te
n
ded
t
o
spe
cifi
c
all
y
avo
id
i
m
itatio
n
t
hat
wou
l
d
res
ult
in
a
co
ntr
ived
appea
r
ance
or
wou
ld
otherwise
detrac
t
from
or
co
m
pe
t
e
wi
th
the
r
etained
h
is
t
o
ri
c
b
u
i
ld
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
conjec
t
u
r
a
l
f
ea
t
u
r
es
a
r
e
to
li
kewise
b
e
av
oid
ed.

B
ased
on
th
is
d
ir
ection,
th
e
p
ro
ject
wi
ll
n
ot
c
r
eate
a
n
y
fa
l
se
sense
of
h
i
sto
r
ica
l
deve
l
o
pm
e
n
t.

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

T
he
i
den
tifi
e
d
c
h
a
r
ac
t
e
r
a
nd
charac
t
erist
i
cs
of
th
e
histo
ri
c
bu
i
ld
ing
are
o
r
igi
n
a
l.

No
s
u
bsequen
t
c
h
anges
a
r
e
ide
nt
ifie
d
as
h
is
t
o
r
ica
ll
y
si
gn
i
fi
ca
nt
,
s
o
n
o
n
e
a
r
e
i
de
n
tified
as
c
h
a
r
ac
t
e
r-
de
fin
i
ng
n
or
are
any
proposed
to
be
r
e
t
a
in
ed
a
n
d
p
r
eserved.

5. Distinctive
materials
,
features,
finishes
,
and
construction
techniques
or
examples
of
craftsmanship
that
characterize
a
property
will
be
preserved.

As
d
i
scussed
u
n
der
Standard
2,
the
p
r
oposed
work
w
ill
re
t
ain
an
d
r
ehabi
li
tate
a
ll
dist
in
c
t
ive
s
p
aces
,
m
a
t
e
r
ia
l
s,
fea
tur
es
and
fini
shes
,
a
l
o
n
g
wi
t
h
th
e
co
n
s
tr
uc
ti
o
n
tec
hni
q
u
es
and
craftsmanship
embo
d
ie
d
the
r
ei
n
.

A
d
di
ti
o
n
a
ll
y
,
w
hil
e
t
h
e
sidewa
rd
and
r
earward
p
ort
i
o
n
s
of
t
h
at
co
rn
ice
are
n
ot
ide
nt
i
fi
e
d
as
cha
r
ac
t
e
r-d
e
fi
n
i
ng
,
t
hey
a
r
e
e
l
eme
nt
s
of
hi
s
t
or
i
c
a
r
c
h
i
t
ec
t
ura
l
interest
so
may
be
additio
n
ally
recommended
fo
r
a
r
chitec
tur
a
l
sa
l
vage
a
n
d
pote
nt
ia
l
re
u
se
as
pa
rt
of
the
Project.

6. Deteriorated
historic
fea
t
ures
will
be
repaired
rather
than
replaced
.

Where
the
severity
of
deterioration
requires
replacement
of
a
distinctive
feature
,
the
new
feature
will
match
the
old
in
design
,
color
,
texture
,
and
,
where
possible
,
materials
.

Replacement
of
missing
features
will
be
substantiated
by
documentary
and
physical
evidence
.

Per
the
curren
t
gu
i
delines
a
n
d
Preservation
Covenant
and
co
n
sis
t
en
t
wit
h
t
he
site
p
l
a
n
,
sca
l
e
a
nd
massi
n
g
ex
h
i
b
i
t
s
,
the
project
pro
p
oses
t
o
rehab
il
i
t
ate
th
e
h
is
t
o
ri
c
bu
il
d
i
ng
w
it
hout
rep
l
acement
of
h
i
sto
r
ic
featu
r
es
a
n
d
m
a
t
eria
l
s
-
except
where
m
i
ss
i
n
g
o
r
s
e
vere
l
y
de
t
er
i
o
r
ated
e
l
e
m
ents
pre
cl
u
d
e
r
epa
ir
,
t
h
e
n
r
ep
l
ace
m
e
nt
wi
ll
b
e
base
d
o
n
exis
t
ing
m
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
exa
m
p
l
es
(as
the
r
e
a
r
e
no
seve
r
e
l
y
damaged
or
miss
i
ng
f
ea
t
u
r
es
or
ma
t
e
ri
a
l
s
t
h
at
do
not
h
ave
an
existing
counterpa
rt
).

7. Chemical
or
physical
treatments
,
if
appropri
a
te
,
will
be
undertaken
using
th
e
gentl
e
st
means
possible
.

Treatments
that
cau
s
e
damage
to
historic
material
s
will
not
be
used.

T
he
genera
l
app
r
oac
h
to
th
is
work
wi
ll
be
t
o
clea
n
,
r
epai
r
and
r
efi
ni
sh
histo
ri
c
e
l
ements
a
n
d
mate
ri
a
l
s
to
resto
r
e
their
a
r
c
hit
ectu
r
a
l
an
d
mate
r
ia
l
in
teg
r
i
t
y
,
a
n
d
w
h
en
r
epa
i
r
is
in
feas
i
b
l
e
to
rep
l
ace
severe
l
y
d
amage
d
and
m
i
ss
i
ng
e
l
emen
t
s
i
n
-
ki
n
d
or
with
a
compa
t
ib
l
e
s
u
bs
t
it
u
te
m
ateria
l
(ex:
cas
t
o
rn
ame
n
tation)
based
on
eq
ui
va
l
en
t
ex
i
s
ti
ng
e
l
eme
nt
s.

FRANKLIN
STAT
I
ON
.

NAPA
MHPA
-
H
I
S
T
.EVALS
-
0817
1 8
-
PS
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT
11 EXHIBIT
B
Thus
,
at
this
programmatic
design
stage,
foreseeable
tr
eatments
of
h
istoric
e
l
ements
and
materials
include
cleaning
,
patching
/
repairing
,
refinishing
,
and
i
n-kind
replacement.

Ea
ch
is
an
ap
pr
opr
iate
re
h
ab
ilitation
treatment.
8 .

Archeological
resources
will
be
protected
and
preserved
in
place.

If
such
resources
must
be
disturbed,
mitigation
measures
will
be
undertaken.

N
o
disturbance
o
f
archeological
resources
ha
ve
been
identified
and
any
s
u
ch
is
beyond
th
e
scope
of
this
historic
architec
tural
report.
9 .

New
additions
,
exterior
alterations,
or
related
new
construction
will
not
destroy
historic
materials
,
features
,
and
spatial
relationships
that
characterize
the
property
.

The
new
work
shall
be
differentiated
from
the
old
and
will
be
compatible
with
the
historic
materials
,
features
,
size,
scale
and
proportion
,
and
massing
to
protect
the
integrity
of
the
property
and
its
environment.

Th
e
proposed
work
include
s:
•
R
eten
tion
a
nd
rehabilitation
of
the
identified
hi
s
to
ric
bui
ldin
g;
•
A
new
,
mul
ti-s
tory
add
ition
b
e
h
i
nd
,
a
l
ongs
ide
and
above
the
retained
hi
stor
i
c
building
.

At
thi
s
project
stage,
the
design
of
future
additions
and
r
e
lated
new
co
n
st
ru
c
tion
are
programma
ti
c.

Yet
,
based
on
the
s
ite
plan,
scale
and
mass
ing
exhi
bits
,
th
e
placement
a
nd
design
of
t
he
add
i
t
ion
,
spec
ifically
where
it
wi
ll
stand
alongs
ide
and
above
the
historic
building
,
is
intended
to
be
effectively
set
back
from
the
retained
historic
building
,
wi
th
the
placement
of
the
addition
located
be
hind
th
e
plane
of
the
front
fa
r;:ade
and
t
h
e
retained
building
vo
lu
me
dir
ectly
behind
the
f
acade.

A
s
the
g
uidel
i
n
es
a
l
so
indicate
,
additions
and
new
construction
must
give
deference
to
the
hi
sto
ri
c
str
u
c
tur
e
rath
e
r
t
h
a
n
compete
with
it
fo
r
attention
and
interest
so
that
th
e
hi
stor
i
c
building
stands
out
independent
and
in
th
e
for
egrou
nd
of
the
a
dditi
o
n
,
with
the
ad
diti
on
clearly
in
t
he
background
.

Overall,
at
this
juncture
,
p
e
r
the
g
uid
e
line
s
and
based
on
the
s
it
e
plan,
sca
le
and
massing
exhibits,
the
proposed
new
additions,
exterior
alterations
and
new
construct
ion
directly
associated
with
the
historic
building
w
ill
retain
id
entified,
c
h
a
ra
cter-defin
i
ng
historic
materials
,
f
ea
ture
s
a
nd
spatial
relationships.

Als
o
p
er
the
guidelines
,
the
futu
r
e
design
will
be
i
nd
ependen
t
of
and
differentiated
yet
wit
h
design
charac
t
e
ri
st
i
cs
that
will
comp
l
eme
nt
the
historic
building
in
order
to
protect
the
present
historic
ar
ch
i
tectura
l
integ
r
ity.
10 .

New
additions
and
adjacent
or
related
new
construction
will
be
undertaken
in
such
a
manner
that
,
if
removed
in
the
future,
the
essential
form
and
integrity
of
the
historic
property
and
its
environment
would
be
unimpaired.

W
hil
e
there
is
l
it
tl
e
likelihood
that
t
he
p
ro
posed
new
addition
and
a
n
y
related
new
constr
u
ction
would
be
removed
in
the
futur
e,
if
so,
th
e
essent
i
a
l
form
,
e
lem
ents,
mater
i
als
and
spat
ial
r
e
lati
onship
of
th
e
identif
ied
historic
building
would
remain
.

D.

Conclusions
In
conc
lu
s
ion
,
as
demonstrated
in
the
above
eva
l
uation
and
based
on
the
curren
tl
y
proposed
proje
c
t
related
documentation,
at
this
programmatic
design
stage,
the
proposed
proje
ct
meets
each
of
t
h
e
Stan
dard
s
for
Rehabilitation.

In
order
t
o
ens
ur
e
comp
lian
ce
,
the
specific
designs
of
the
ex
teri
or
alteratio
n
s
,
new
addition
and
a
n
y
re
l
ated
new
co
n
s
tru
c
tion
wi
ll
be
fully
r
ev
i
ewed
for
comp
li
ance
w
ith
the
Standards
at
the
future
design
review
s
tage
,
when
the
effects
of
the
proposed
project
on
adjacent
resources
will
also
be
fully
a
dd
ressed.