February
10 , 2026
Michael Clark
PO Box 4050
Yountville
, CA 945
9 9
Subject
:
Historic Impact Analysis
and Parking Exception Request, Proposed “The Jefferson” Project, 845 Jefferson St., Napa, Napa
County, California.
Dear
Michael
,
I.
INTRODUCTION
T
he letter
report that follows
analyzes a proposed project for
potential negative impacts to the
historic
Henry J. Manasse house at 845 Jefferson Street in Napa
(the subject property)
.
This study
reviews
the proposed project’s
compatibility
with
the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
(SOI
Standards
)
and describes why a parking exception is needed
for conformance
.
This letter report also
provides a detailed description of why a Design Exception is needed for
successful implementation of the proposed project. T
his
study has been undertaken at
the request of
the City of
Napa
on behalf of the current property owner
.
The
purpose
of
study is to
ensure that the proposed project avoids negative impacts to the historical resource
pursuant to
t
he
California Environmental Quality Act (
CEQA
)
; the property
is a contributor to a
historic district
that is eligible to the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
and is individually eligible to the
NRHP. It
thus
qualifies as a historical resource
.
The property
is
not re
-
eval
uated for historic
eligibility
in this study
.
Methodology
Brunzell Historical personnel carefully reviewed
previous documentation of the subject property
in
order to become familiar with its architectural and historical significance and character -
defining
features. Documentation reviewed included a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 form prepared for the City of
Napa
in
2010
for the
First & Jefferson Streets h
istoric District, which
includes the subject property
as one of
29 contributing
resources. The district was found eligible
under NRHP/California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Criterion A /1 as an important
example of a streetcar suburb and under Criterion C/3 for its concentrated grouping of architecturally significant residential buildings. It is eligible as a Napa
Historic Resource Inventory
Landmark District under Criteria A, B, C, E, & F. In addition to
contributing to
the
eligible historic
district, the subject property was found individually eligible for the NRHP , CRHR, and locally
for its
distinguished architecture
.
Additional research was undertaken in an attempt to document the ori
ginal architecture of the building; research did not reveal any plans, elevations, or photographs created before 1978.
ATTACHMENT 5
2 Brunzell Historical Principal Kara Brunzell visited the subject
property
twice during the second half
of
2025
. She
photographed the
exterior and interior of the
building
as well as the
site
and
setting
.
Kara
m
et with the property owner
/project proponent
to develop an understanding of the purpose
and details of
the proposed project
.
She
reviewed as
-
built elevations and project plans
to assess
the
current condition and historic integrity of the subject property
as we
ll as the need for a Design
Exception
. T
he
SOI
Standards
were then utilized to assess whether the proposed project appropriately preserves character
-
defining features of the
historical resource and avoids negative
impacts
.
Summary of Findings
The
Henry J. Manasse house at 845 Jefferson Street
is a
n
architecturally significant building that
is
individually eligible for local, NRHP, and CRHR listing. It is also a contributor to a historically and architecturally significant historic district. The property has not been significantly altered since it was studied in 2010; it r
etains historic integrity
and thus continues to qualify as a historical resource
pursuant to CEQA
. The proposed project
has designed
conforms to the SOI Standards
w
ill not
resul
t in a
negative
impact
to
the historical resource
. Thus, the proposed project will not result in a
negative impact under
CEQA
.
II.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
California Environmental Quality Act
Lead agencies (local governments with permit approval) are required by CEQA to carry out environmental impact analysis. Historical resources are considered part of the environment and are subject to review under CEQA. Historical resources are defined by CE QA Guidelines (California
Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Chapter 3, 15064.5) as follows:
1. A resource listed in,
or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resource Code [PRC] 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources C ode, shall be presumed
to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, mi litary, or cultural annals of
California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agenc
y to be “historically significant” if the resource
meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR)
.
California Register of Historical Resources
ATTACHMENT 5
3 The State Historical Resources Commission has designed this program for use by state and local agencies, private groups and citizens to identify, evaluate, register and protect California ’
s historical
resources. The CRHR is the authoritative guide to the state’s significant historical and archeological resources.
The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility f
or state historic preservation grant funding and
affords certain protections under CEQA.
The CRHR
Criteria for Designation
(which are based on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria
:
1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history.
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the CRHR requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852
[d][2]). Fifty years is normally considered
sufficient time for a potential historical resource, and in order that the evaluation remain valid for a minimum of five years after the date of this report, all resources older than 45 years will
typically
be
ev
aluated. The CRHR also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
National Register of Historic Places
A site may be considered eligible to the NRHP if it retains historic
integrity and it:
A.
is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B.
is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
C.
embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant or distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;
D.
yields, or may be likely to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the area/region.
III.
PROPERTY
HISTORY AND
CURRENT CONDITIONS
Chronology of Development
The subject property was designed by Luther M. Turton for Henry J. Manasse and constructed in 1917.
Henry John Manasse (1867
-
1942) was born in San Francisco to German Jewish immigrants ATTACHMENT 5
4 Emmanuel and Anna Manasse. His family moved to Napa in 1871 when his father was hired to manage the Sawyer Tannery (eventually became a co
-
owner). Henry Manasse
was
in
tannery
management for most of his working life
; he
also
operated
his own shoe store in Napa
for a few
years as a young man
. He married Isabelle Stumpf in 1893
; four of the couple’s five children would
survive to adulthood. Manasse
was a volunteer firefighter and, like most men of his era, was a committed lodge member. He served as vice president of Sawyer Tanning Company until his retirement at the age of 70.
Luther M. Turton was one of Napa’s
most important
architects
of
the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century
, and was responsible for landmark commercial, institutional, and residential designs
. According to the West Napa Historic Context Statement & Survey Report prepared for the City of Napa by Page & Turnbull in 2010:
Turton was born in Nebraska and moved to Napa with his family at the age of fourteen. After working briefly for G. McDougall & Sons in San Francisco, Turton opened his own office in Napa in 1887. Turton’s work was concentrated in the city of Napa, and he d esigned buildings in
all the architectural styles popular in his time
—
Queen Anne, Classical Revival, Craftsman,
Prairie, Shingle, Mission Revival, and Gothic Revival, among others. Since Turton was so versatile and his designs inspired other local contract ors and architects, his
work is hard to
categorize and his buildings are sometimes difficult to identify. Although Turton is not widely known today outside Napa, he was recognized at the time of his death as one of Napa Valley’s foremost architects, and would be considered a mast
er under National Register Criterion C.
According to Page & Turnbull’s 2009
City
-
Wide Historic Context Statement
, highlights of Turton’s
long and varied career include
the
:
•
Semorile Building at 975 First Street (1888)
,
•
Winship Building at 948 Main Street (1888),
•
Gifford House
(1890),
•
Noyes
-
York House at 1005 Jefferson Street (1892),
•
Behlow Building (1900, demolished 1977),
•
Goodman Library at
1219 First Street (1901),
•
Migliavacca Building at
1116 First Street (1904, demolished 1973),
•
Squier House at 1801 Oak Street (1905),
•
Turton’s own
residence at 1767 Laurel Street (1915),
•
First United Methodist Church at 601 Randolph (1916),
•
Henry J. Manasse House at 845 Jefferson Street (1917),
•
and nearly a dozen residences along First
Street (1890s
-
1910s).
Although no photographs of the original house have been discovered, historic maps and the existing architecture of the building revealed that few alterations have been performed. In the 1950s, it was converted from a residence to use as a dentist office. T he projecting front porch on the north façade
as well as a small porch at the northwest corner of the house were probably enclosed at that time.
The small windows on the east end of the main façade are also likely to have been installed as part of this pro
ject. The original chimney (which was located on the exterior wall between these ATTACHMENT 5
5 windows) was removed after it was damaged in the 2015 earthquake. No other exterior alterations have been documented.
Figure
1:
845 Jefferson Street
,
August 1977, Diane Christman, Napa County Historic Resources Inventory ,
(
Napa County Historical Society
)
.
Figure
2 :
845 Jefferson Street
,
1924
(
Sanborn Insurance Maps
)
.
ATTACHMENT 5
6 Property Description
The subject property
is located in the heart of Napa, just west of Downtown and the NRHP -
listed
Napa Abajo
-
Fuller Park Historic District.
The neighborhood was subdivided for residential
development in the late nineteenth century and was
then
known as West Napa; prominent local
residents began commissioning substantial architect
-
designed houses in the vicinity in 1890s. When
the subject property was constructed in 1917, the neighborhood was strongly
residential in character
,
even though
both Second Street and Jefferson Street were
already
major thoroughfares. As traffic
increased during the second half of the twentieth century, many houses in the neighborhood (including the subject property) were converted into professional offices or other commercial uses.
Many of the larger and more elab
orate mansions were converted to use as inns beginning in the 1990s
, and over time, hospitality uses have become as common as commercial uses .
However,
although uses have changed, most historic
-
era houses in the neighborhood have been preserved, and it retains a strongly residential character. Although some back yards have been converted into parking, front lawns and mature street trees remain ub
iquitous. The two houses south of the subject
property are used as offices and most of their parcels are paved. The property to the west (1831 Second Street) is used as a residence, as are most of the other buildings on the block that face Second
Street
and Third
Street
.
The subject parcel is at the southwest corner of the intersection of Second Street and Jefferson Street. The two
-
story house is
set back only about
12 feet from both Second Street and Jefferson
Street sidewalks,
with a single
-
car garage adjacent to the western property boundary.
A
small front
yard in front of the
street
-
facing
(north
and east
) façade
s
features
one
mature palm. There is a
narrow driveway that leads to the garage, and the area between the driveway and house is paved.
The paved area adjacent to the sidewalk is separated from the back yard by a low wooden fence. Tall board fences enclose the back yard.
There are tall
overgrown
privets in the small back yard, most of
which is hardscape.
The house is a strong example of Prairie architecture, a style developed by Frank Lloyd Wright. It has a flat roof with wide eaves at the first and second floor; the second floor is slightly smaller than the ground floor. Wide eaves at both levels of the h
ouse feature decorative geometric patterns and
dentil molding. The building is clad in wood shingles painted brown. Primary fenestration consists
of double
-
hung wood sash with multi
-
light upper sashes and single
-
light lower sashes. A large single
-
story por
ch projects from the center of the primary (north) façade. Its flat roof replicates the decorative features found on the
roof
of the house
and
also
serves as a second
-
floor veranda, which
is accessed via a French door. The porch is supported by heavy columns and has been enclosed with multiple
-
light fixed wood windows, which are not original to the house . A wide set of steps leads to
a fully glazed contemporary wood frame door; the original partially glazed
wood entrance door is
within the porch. The house originally had a large chimney adjacent to the porch entrance on the main façade. It was removed after the 2015 earthquake.
O
riginal porch
es
at the west end of the
house
have
been fully enclosed
and incorporated into the house
.
The small garage is set back about 25 feet from Second Street. It has a flat roof and is clad in the same brown shingles as the house. Its north
-
facing vehicle opening is fitted with a contemporary
metal roll
-
up door
ATTACHMENT 5
7 Character
-
Defining Features
The Henry J. Manasse house is eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, and the local HRI for its architecture. It is a rare local example of Prairie architecture and one of the last works of
preeminent
Napa architect
Luther Turton. T
he period of significance
for the Henry J. Manasse house as an
individually eligible historical resource is 1917, the year of its construction .
The West Napa Historic
District
is also significant for its architecture and eligible to the NRHP, CRHR, and the local HRI.
Its period of significance is 1875
-
1925. T
he c
haracter
-
defining features
of the subject property
include:
•
Prominent location at the intersection of two major streets ,
•
Spatial arrangement of the site with the house near the intersection and the garage set back from the street near the property line
,
•
Two
-
story
massing
of the house
,
•
F
lat roof
with wide decorative eaves and dentil moldings
,
•
Wood shingle cladding,
•
Multiple
-
light wood sash windows,
•
Large projecting main façade porch with flat roof and heavy columns,
•
Original wood entrance door.
IV.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The current project proposes to
repurpose the existing building (which is currently vacant) for use as an inn
. The project proposes to preserve all character
-
defining exterior architectural features as well
as the
decorative
interior
features
that
are original to the building. No substantial alterations are proposed to the building exterior. The current project proposes to:
•
Reconstruct
the chimney that was removed after earthquake damage
,
•
Restore the front porch to original condition by removing non -
original windows
,
•
Restore original exterior trim and decorative features
,
•
Replace non
-
original windows with windows that are compatible with the original architecture of the house,
•
Install
railing atop porch roof to restore second
-
floor veranda use
,
•
Reconfigure interior spaces to create guest suites
,
•
Restore interior character
-
defining decorative features
,
•
Create a new landscape plan with attractive plantings and vegetation screening along property lines
,
•
Repair and restore original garage
,
ATTACHMENT 5
8 •
Rehabilitate the original driveway and adjacent paved area to create a total of five on -
site
parking
spaces
.
Secretary of
the
Interior
’s
S
tandards
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties provides guidelines for the preservation and rehabilitation of historic resources. Adherence to these standards is accepted as a method of avoiding significant adverse effec ts to historic buildings while allowing
their continued use. The main purpose
s
of the current project
are
to
rehabilitate original character
-
defining
of the residence
and to convert the building to use as an in
n
.
The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation state:
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.
The property was originally used
as a
house and later as office space
. Its new use
as an
inn is more
compatible with the original
use as a resid
ence and with its historic
architecture.
The new use
will
require no alterations to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, or spatial relationships .
Therefore, the proposed project conforms to Standard 1.
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 current project will not
have a negative impact on
the historic character of the property.
The
property’s c
haracter
-
defining features
,
including
its
plan, form, massing, style, materials
,
decorative
features
,
and
spatial relationships
will be preserved
.
Therefore, the proposed project conforms to Standard 2.
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.
The proposed project will not substantially impact the existing building. Conjectural features such as historicist architectural details
and conjectural features from other buildings
will not be utilized in
new construction in order to avoid creating a false sense of historical development.
Therefore, the proposed project conforms to Standard 3.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
There are no changes to the property that have acquired historic significance in their own right ;
therefore Standard 4 does not apply to the proposed project .
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
T
he distinctive materials, features, finishes
, and examples of craftsmanship
that characterize the
building
as described in detail above
will be preserved
; no historic fabric will be removed from the
exterior façades
.
ATTACHMENT 5
9 Therefore, the proposed project conforms to Standard 5.
6. Deteriorated historic features 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. Replace
ment of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
Most h
istoric features
of the building
appear to be in good condition.
The chimney has been lost
and will be replaced by a brick chimney of the same height and dimensions as the original chimney.
T
he project does not propose replacement of
other
distinctive features.
T
herefore, the proposed project conforms to Standard 6.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
No chemical treatments will be utilized. If physical treatments (such as cleaning of exterior surfaces)
are required, the gentlest means possible will be used.
No sandblasting or other treatments that
cause damage to historic materials will be used.
Therefore, the proposed project conforms to Standard 7.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
T
he project does not include excavation of previously undisturbed areas . I
f archaeological resources
are encountered during excavation, appropriate mitigation measures will be developed.
Therefore, the proposed project conforms to Standard 8.
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 will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the hi
storic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
The project
does not propose
additions
or exterior alterations; therefore Standard
9 does not apply
to the proposed project
.
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.
Reversal of the proposed project will not impair the essential form and integrity of the historic property.
Therefore, the proposed project conforms to Standard 10.
Overall, the project will benefit the historic
al resource. It will provide
a new use for
the
vacant
property
, allowing
the owner to restore historic features and improve the aesthetics of a property in a visible location at the heart of Napa
. Utilization of the property as an
inn
will provide a financial
incentive for its ongoing maintenance, repair, and restoration.
Restoration of the house will also
contribute to the ongoing integrity of the eligible historic district to which it is a contributor. T he
project therefore conforms to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment
of Historic
Properties.
ATTACHMENT 5
10 V.
DESIGN EXCEPTION
REQUEST
The project as described above would require a
Design Exception
from the City of Napa Public
Works Department. The maximum allowable driveway
width is 20 feet; the existing
legal
nonconforming
driveway is 26 feet wide. The proposed project would widen the curb cut to 40
feet
,
which is the only practical solution
that would achieve project objectives while preserving the historical resource and maintaining neighborhood character. The widened curb
cut
would allow five
cars to be parked on site (including one car inside the garage) without losing any existing landscaped areas.
It would maintain
the s
etback
of the house
behind the landscaped lawn
at the corner
near the
prominent intersection
,
preserving the
long
-
standing residential character of the neighborhood.
It
would allow the in
n
to seamlessly integrate
guest traffic
into
a busy
residential/commercial
neighborhood without
impacting
limited street parking.
The Design Exception would also allow
preservation of the original single
-
car garage. The house was constructed in 1917, when cars were becoming popular among
the type of
prosperous
Napa citizens
who could afford to hire an architect
to design a new home. A map from 1920 shows that
the
small garage was part of the original design
of the property. Removal of the garage would alter the original site layout and spatial relationships of the property and destroy
a feature that represents the
development of the subject property at a time
when
t
he personal automobile
was becoming
increasingly popular as
a
status symbol.
In addition to
de
grading historic integrity of the property, removal of the garage would have a negative effect on the quality of life for the neighbors
immediately
to the
west of 845 Jefferson
Street
. 1831
Second Street
is
used as a full
-
time residence.
This house is separated from the
subject
property garage
only
by
a
12 -
foot
-
wide driveway
. The house has windows that face the garage and
an entrance roughly 15 feet from the garage.
Its
removal
would destroy a valuable sound
barrier
and
privacy
sc
reen
between the private residence and the proposed in
n
.
For these reasons, the Design Exception allowing a wider curb
cut
would preserve the historic
integrity of the subject property and allow the project proponent to integrate a hospitality business into the neighborhood with minimal disruption to quality of life.
VI.
PREPARER
QUALIFICATIONS
I meet the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications for both History and Architectural History. I hold
a Master
’
s degree in Public History and
have
worked
in multiple facets of historic
preservation and cultural resource evaluation since 2007 .
My experience includes municipal
preservation planning and working as the lead staff member of a non -
profit preservation
organization. Since 2012, I have worked full
-
time as a historical consultant, completing dozens of
evaluations for CEQA and Section 10
6 compliance. Additionally, I have completed local and
N
ational
R
egister nominations, historic context statements, and
Historic American Engineering
Record
recordation. The North Bay is the center of my practice, but I frequently work in the greater Sacramento area and other parts of the Bay Area, and have also completed projects in Southern California,
Nevada,
Oregon, New York
, and Puerto Rico
. In addition to my work with historic
-
period domestic, agricultural, and commercial properties for private clients, I have
prepared reports
on
post offices, military bases, university campuses, hospitals, church properties, national parks,
and
ATTACHMENT 5
11 a NASA site. I am listed as a Historian and Architectural H istorian on the California Office of
Historic Preservation’s roster of qualified consultants
for every county in California
.
Please contact me by phone at 707/290
-
2918 or email at
kara.brunzell@
brunzellhistorical
.com
with
any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Kara Brunzell, M.A.
Brunzell Historica
l
ATTACHMENT 5