APPENDIX D
CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT
This page is intentionally left blank.
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources
Inventory and Evaluation Report
for the
Yountville Commons Project
Napa County, California
Prepared For:
Town of Yountville
6550 Yount Street
Yountville, CA 94599
Prepared By:
2525 Warren Drive
Rocklin, CA 95677
August 2025
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
i August 2025
2025-106
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
PlaceWorks, Inc. retained ECORP Consulting, Inc. in 2025 to conduct an archaeological and built environment resources inventory and evaluation for the Yountville Commons Project in Napa County, California. The Town of Yountville proposes improvements and modifications to the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities at 6554 Yount Street.
The inventory included a records search, literature review, and field survey. Research revealed that the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities are more than 50 years old, and the records search results indicated that it had not been previously recorded or evaluated for historic significance in accordance with any state or federal criteria. Therefore, the Project required an architectural history evaluation of these structures.
The field survey yielded YOU-1-I, a pre-contact isolated find consisting of two lithic flakes. Isolated finds are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Properties or the California Register of Historic Resources.
ECORP evaluated the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities and found it not eligible for the National Register of Historic Properties or the California Register of Historic Resources under any criteria, either individually or as part of an existing historic district. Therefore, no known Historic Properties under Section 106 or Historical Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act would be affected by the proposed Project. Until the Lead Agencies concur with the identification and evaluation of eligibility of cultural resources, no Project-related activities should occur.
This report also provides recommendations for the management of unanticipated discoveries.
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
ii August 2025
2025-106
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Location................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Project Description.......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Area of Potential Effects ................................................................................................................................ 4
1.3.1 Regulatory Context......................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 National Environmental Policy Act............................................................................................ 4
1.3.3 National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................................................ 5
1.3.4 California Environmental Quality Act ....................................................................................... 6
1.4 Report Organization ....................................................................................................................................... 7
2.0 SETTING ............................................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Environmental Setting.................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................................ 8
2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife................................................................................................................................. 9
3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Regional Pre-Contact History...................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Local Pre-Contact History ...........................................................................................................................10
3.2.1 Early Period (5,500 to 2,450 BP) ...............................................................................................10
3.2.2 Lower Middle Period (2,450 to 1,520 BP)..............................................................................10
3.2.3 Upper Middle Archaic Period (1,520 to 900 BP)................................................................. 11
3.2.4 Initial Late Period (900 to AD 1776)........................................................................................11
3.3 Ethnohistory.....................................................................................................................................................11
3.4 Regional History .............................................................................................................................................12
3.5 History of the Town of Yountville ............................................................................................................13
3.6 History of Yountville Elementary School ...............................................................................................14
3.7 Architectural Style: Midcentury Modern (1940-1975)......................................................................15
3.8 Architectural Style: Postmodernism (1970-2010)...............................................................................16
3.9 Development History of the Former Yountville Elementary School............................................17
4.0 METHODS .........................................................................................................................................................................17
4.1 Personnel Qualifications..............................................................................................................................17
4.2 Records Search Methods ............................................................................................................................18
4.3 Sacred Lands File Coordination Methods .............................................................................................19
4.4 Research Methods .........................................................................................................................................19
4.4.1 Town of Yountville City Clerk ....................................................................................................19
4.4.2 Historical Newspaper Review....................................................................................................20 Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
iii August 2025
2025-106
4.4.3 Napa County Assessor.................................................................................................................20
4.5 Other Interested Party Consultation Methods ....................................................................................20
4.6 Field Methods..................................................................................................................................................20
5.0 RESULTS.............................................................................................................................................................................22
5.1 Records Search ...............................................................................................................................................22
5.1.1 Previous Research..........................................................................................................................22
5.1.2 Records..............................................................................................................................................23
5.1.3 Map Review and Aerial Photographs.....................................................................................24
5.2 Sacred Lands File Results ............................................................................................................................25
5.3 Other Interested Party Consultation Results........................................................................................25
5.4 Field Survey Results.......................................................................................................................................25
5.4.1 Cultural Resources.........................................................................................................................25
6.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................................................................34
6.1 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................34
6.2 Likelihood for Subsurface Cultural Resources .....................................................................................35
6.3 Recommendations.........................................................................................................................................35
6.3.1 Contractor Awareness Training ................................................................................................35
6.3.2 Archaeological Monitoring ........................................................................................................35
6.3.3 Post-Review Discoveries .............................................................................................................36
7.0 REFERENCES CITED........................................................................................................................................................38
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity...................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Project Aerial Overview................................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3. Survey Coverage...........................................................................................................................................................21 Figure 5. Overview of the Former Yountville Elementary School Facilities (facing east; June 5, 2025). ..........28 Figure 6. View of the Administration Building (facing southwest; June 5, 2025). ...................................................28 Figure 7. View of the Library Building (facing east; June 5, 2025).................................................................................29 Figure 8. View of Schmitt Hall (facing east; June 5, 2025). ..............................................................................................29 Figure 9. The Snack Shack (facing north; June 5, 2025)....................................................................................................31 Figure 10. Dugout on the Southern End of the Project Area (facing southwest; June 5, 2025). ......................31 Figure 11. Northwestern Shed (facing east; June 5, 2025)...............................................................................................32 Figure 12. Overview of the Western Shade Structure (facing south; June 5, 2025)................................................32 Figure 13. Oak Tree and Plaque Just East of the Library Building (facing west; June 5, 2025)...........................33 Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
iv August 2025
2025-106
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations within the Project Area ...........................................................22 Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area .......................................22
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Records Search Confirmation and Historical Society Coordination Appendix B – Sacred Lands File Coordination
Appendix C – Project Area Photographs
Appendix D – Confidential Cultural Resource Site Locations and Site Records
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
AB Assembly Bill
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
APE Area of Potential Effects
APN Assessor's Parcel Number
BERD Built Environment Resource Directory
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BP years before present
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHL California Historical Landmarks
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation
ECORP ECORP Consulting, Inc.
GLO General Land Office
MLD Most Likely Descendant
N/A Not Available
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project v August 20252025-106
Term Definition
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NPS National Park Service
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OHP California Office of Historic Preservation
PRC Public Resources Code
Project Yountville Commons Project
RPA Registered Professional Archaeologist
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SLF Sacred Lands File
TCR tribal cultural resource
U.S.C. U.S. Code
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
1 August 2025
2025-106
1.0 INTRODUCTION
PlaceWorks, Inc. retained ECORP Consulting, Inc. in 2025 to conduct an archaeological and built environment resources inventory and evaluation for the Yountville Commons Project (Project) in Napa County, California. A survey of the proposed Project Area was required to identify potentially eligible cultural resources (i.e., archaeological sites and historic buildings, structures, and objects) that could be affected by the Project.
1.1 Project Location
The Project Area comprises the 6.83-acre former Yountville Elementary School Facilities. The Project Area is located in the unsectioned Rancho Napa Land Grant, Township 6 North, Range 5 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as depicted on the 2021 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Yountville, California 7.5- minute topographic quadrangle (Figures 1 and 2). The Project Area comprises one parcel: Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 036-070-026-000. The Project Area is located in the Town of Yountville on the eastern side of Yount Street to the north of Finnel Road.
1.2 Project Description
The proposed Project entails various modifications and improvements to the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities consisting of:
• demolition of the former school administration building; • development of a civic promenade along Yount Street;
• creation of a mixed-use “locals hub” with retail space and residential units; • construction of up to a total of 150 units of short- and long-term housing; • relocation of the existing dog park to the southeastern corner of the Project Area; • retention of and new landscaping for a portion of a baseball diamond to create an informal park area;
• construction of a three-lane exercise pool along with locker rooms; and • replacement of the existing parking lot with 125 parking spaces in two lots.
The Project Area currently is occupied by a parking lot at the western end, a cluster of former school buildings at the center, and a large grass lawn and accompanying blacktop at the eastern end. The cluster features three main buildings: the c. 1951 Administration Building, the c. 1976 Library Building, and the c. 2003 Schmitt Hall and additional ancillary structures.
Map Date: 7/2/2025
Sources: ESRI, USGS
Location: N:\2025\2025-106 Yountville Commons\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\Yountville Commons LnV\Yountville Commons LnV.aprx - Yountville Commons LnV 20250714 (lgalvez - 7/15/2025) Yountville, CA (1951, p.r. 1968, NAD 27)
CA 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle
US Geological Survey.
Napa County, California
§, T.6N, R.5W, MDBM
Latitude (NAD83): 38.40452°
Longitude (NAD83): -122.361045°
Watershed: San Pablo Bay (18050002)
I
0 1,000 2,000
Scale in Feet
2025-106 Yountville Commons
Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity
Project Boundary - 6.79 ac.
Washington St
Saint Helena Hwy
Yountville
Cemetery
Yountville Park
Dominus Estate
Winery
Finnell Rd
Champagne Dr
California Dr
Yount St
J
Finnell Rd
efferson St
Mulberry St
Land Ln
Vista Dr
Mission St
San Antonio
Washington St
Solano Ave
Saint Helena Hwy
Yountville
Elementary
Domaine
Chandon
Yountville
Map Date: 7/2/2025
Sources: Esri, Maxar (2024)
Location: N:\2025\2025-106 Yountville Commons\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\Yountville Commons LnV\Yountville Commons LnV.aprx - Yountville Commons Aerial Overview 20250630 (lgalvez - 7/2/2025) Map Contents
Project Boundary - 6.79 ac.
I
0 850
Feet
2025-106 Yountville Commons
Figure 2. Aerial Overview
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
4 August 2025
2025-106
1.3 Area of Potential Effects
The Area of Potential Effects (APE) consists of the horizontal and vertical limits of a project and includes the area within which significant impacts or adverse effects to Historical Resources or Historic Properties could occur as a result of a project. The APE is defined for projects subject to regulations implementing Section 106 (federal law and regulations). For projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, the term Project Area is used rather than APE. The terms Project Area, school, and APE are, therefore, interchangeable for the purpose of this document.
The horizontal APE consists of all areas where activities associated with a project are proposed and, in the case of this Project, equals the Project Area subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and CEQA; this includes areas proposed for construction, vegetation removal, grading, trenching, stockpiling, staging, paving, and other elements in the official Project description. Figure 2 illustrates the horizontal APE, which represents the survey coverage area.
The vertical APE is described as the maximum depth below the surface to which excavations for project foundations and facilities will extend. Therefore, the vertical APE for this Project includes all subsurface areas where archaeological deposits could be affected. The subsurface vertical APE varies across the Project Area but could extend as deep as 20 feet below the current surface; therefore, a review of geologic and soils maps was necessary to determine the potential for buried archaeological sites that cannot be seen on the surface.
The vertical APE also is described as the maximum height of structures that could affect the physical integrity and integrity of setting of cultural resources, including districts and traditional cultural properties.
For the current Project, the above-surface vertical APE will vary, but is anticipated to be up to 50 feet above the current surface.
1.3.1 Regulatory Context
The CEQA Lead Agency for this Project is the Town of Yountville. There is currently no NEPA or Section 106 lead agency for this Project.
A review of the regulatory context is provided below; however, the inclusion of any of these laws and regulations in this report does not make a law or regulation apply when it otherwise would not. Similarly, the omission of any other laws and regulations from this section does not mean that they do not apply.
Rather, the purpose of this section is to provide context in explaining why the study was carried out in the manner documented herein.
1.3.2 National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 4321 et seq.) establishes national policy for the protection and enhancement of the environment. Per NEPA, part of the responsibility of the federal government is to “use all practicable means…to improve and coordinate federal plans, functions programs, and resources” to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage” (42 U.S.C. 4331[b]).
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
5 August 2025
2025-106
NEPA requires that federal agencies consider “reasonably foreseeable environmental effects” of major federal actions (42 U.S.C. 4332[C][i]). When determining the level of NEPA review, federal agencies must analyze and disclose whether the major federal action does or does not have a “reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment,” including “important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage” (42 U.S.C. 4336[b] and 42 U.S.C. 4331[b]). NEPA does not limit consideration of impacts to cultural resources to only those resources that have been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) through the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended). NEPA also requires that the federal lead agency consult with and obtain the comments of any federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to a particular environmental resource (42 U.S.C. 4332[C]).
1.3.3 National Historic Preservation Act
The federal law that covers cultural resources that could be affected by federal undertakings is the NHPA of 1966, as amended. Section 106 of the NHPA requires that federal agencies consider the effects of a federal undertaking on properties listed in or eligible for the NRHP. The agencies must afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking. A federal undertaking is defined in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800.16(y):
A federal undertaking means a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit, license, or approval.
The regulations that stipulate the procedures for complying with NHPA Section 106 are in 36 CFR 800. The NHPA Section 106 regulations require:
definition of the APE;
identification of cultural resources within the APE;
evaluation of the identified resources within the APE using NRHP eligibility criteria; determination of whether the effects of the undertaking or project on eligible resources will be adverse; and
agreement on and implementation of efforts to resolve adverse effects, if necessary.
The federal agency must seek comment from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and, in some cases, the ACHP, for its determinations of eligibility, effects, and proposed mitigation measures. NHPA Section 106 procedures for a specific project can be modified by negotiation of a Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement between the federal agency, the SHPO, and, in some cases, the project proponent.
Effects to a cultural resource are potentially adverse if the lead federal agency, with the SHPO’s concurrence, determines that the resource is eligible for the NRHP, making it a Historic Property, and if application of the Criteria of Adverse Effects (36 CFR 800.5[a][2] et seq.) results in the conclusion that the effects will be adverse. The NRHP eligibility criteria, contained in 36 CFR 60.4, are as follows:
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
6 August 2025
2025-106
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess aspects of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, and:
A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory.
In addition, the resource must be at least 50 years old, barring exceptional circumstances (36 CFR 60.4).
Resources that are eligible for or listed on the NRHP are Historic Properties.
Regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR 800.5) require that the federal agency, in consultation with the SHPO, apply the Criteria of Adverse Effect to Historic Properties within the APE.
According to 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1), an adverse effect is defined as when an undertaking may:
…alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a Historic Property that qualify the property for inclusion in the [NRHP] in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.
1.3.4 California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is the state law that applies to a project’s impacts on cultural resources. A project is an activity that may cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and that is undertaken or funded by a state or local agency, or that requires a permit, license, or lease from a state or local agency. CEQA requires that impacts to Historical Resources be identified and, if the impacts would be significant, then apply mitigation measures to reduce the impacts.
Per CEQA, a Historical Resource is a resource that:
1. is listed in or is eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) by the State Historical Resources Commission, or has been determined historically significant by the CEQA lead agency because it meets the eligibility criteria for the CRHR;
2. is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) 5020.1(k); or
3. has been identified as significant in a historical resources survey, as defined in PRC 5024.1(g) (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Section 15064.5[a]).
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
7 August 2025
2025-106
The eligibility criteria for the CRHR are as follows (CCR Title 14, Section 4852[b]):
1. The resource is 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. The resource is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.
3. The resource 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. The resource 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, the resource must retain integrity, which is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (CCR Title 14, Section 4852[c]). Resources that have been determined eligible for the NRHP are automatically eligible for the CRHR.
Impacts to a Historical Resource, as defined by CEQA (listed in an official historic inventory or survey or eligible for the CRHR), are significant if the resource is demolished or destroyed, or if the characteristics that made the resource eligible are materially impaired (CCR Title 14, Section 15064.5[b]). Demolition or alteration of eligible buildings, structures, and features such that they would no longer be eligible would result in a significant impact. Whole or partial destruction of eligible archaeological sites would also result in a significant impact. In addition to impacts from construction resulting in destruction or physical alteration of an eligible resource, impacts to the integrity of setting (sometimes termed visual impacts) of physical features within a project area could also result in significant impacts.
Tribal cultural resources (TCRs) are defined in Section 21074 of the California PRC as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either listed in or eligible for the CRHR, or are included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1, or are a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. Section 1(b)(4) of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 established that only California Native American tribes, as defined in Section 21073 of the California PRC, are experts in the identification of TCRs and impacts thereto. Because ECORP does not meet the definition of a California Native American tribe, it only addresses information in this report for which it is qualified to identify and evaluate, and that which is needed to inform the cultural resources section of CEQA documents. This report, therefore, does not identify or evaluate TCRs. If any California Native American tribe ascribes additional importance or interpretation to archaeological resources described herein, or if the tribe provides information about non-archeological TCRs, such information would be documented separately in the AB 52 tribal consultation record between the tribe and lead agency and summarized in the TCRs section of the CEQA document, if applicable.
1.4 Report Organization
This report documents the study and its findings. ECORP prepared this report in conformance with the California Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP’s) Archaeological Resource Management Reports:
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
8 August 2025
2025-106
Recommended Contents and Format. Appendix A includes a confirmation of the records search with the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and historical society coordination. Appendix B contains documentation of a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF). Appendix C presents photographs of the Project Area. Appendix D contains confidential cultural resource site locations and site records.
2.0 SETTING
2.1 Environmental Setting
The Project Area is located within the town limits of Yountville in western Napa County. The Project Area is located along Hopper Creek and 1 mile west of the Napa River. Before the arrival of European-American settlement and the development of the Town of Yountville, the Project Area would have been a floodplain and basin for the Napa River. Today, the Project Area and its surrounding area comprise an urban landscape consisting of commercial, business, and residential buildings as well as roadway infrastructure.
Elevations within the Project Area range from 100 to 120 feet above mean sea level.
2.2 Geology and Soils
The Project Area is located in the California Coast Range geological region, to the north of the San Francisco Bay. According to the Napa County Watershed Information and Conservation Council (2021), the geomorphic province is characterized by valleys and various mountain ranges that are parallel to fault lines. Several active fault zones traverse the area, including the San Andreas, Green Valley, and the Healdsburg-Rodgers fault zones. According to geologic maps of California, Napa Valley, which contains the APE, is located within a geologic region composed of quaternary alluvial fan and valley fill deposits (California Department of Conservation 2015). The uplands of this region comprise Jurassic- to Tertiaryaged volcanic and sedimentary rocks. The Napa Valley watershed basin is underlain by Jurassic and Cretaceous Franciscan rocks and Cretaceous marine sediments in the western, northeastern, and southeastern portions of the watershed. Other portions of bedrock in Napa Valley comprise Tertiary pyroclastic and volcanic mudflow deposits.
The Geologic Map of California (California Department of Conservation 2015) identifies the underlying geology of the Project Area as comprising marine and nonmarine (continental) sedimentary rocks that date back to the Pleistocene and Holocene. The underlying geology comprises unconsolidated and semiconsolidated alluvium, with the addition of lake, playa, and terrace deposits. These deposits primarily composed of nonmarine sedimentary rock but include marine deposits near the coast.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2025), the Project Area contains two mapped soil units:
Clear Lake clay, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 14 (116) originates from basin alluvium derived from igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock and is a poorly drained soil type. This soil type has a depth to water table that ranges from 36 to 72 inches. This soil type is situated in the southeast corner of the Project Area, near Hopper Creek. Coombs gravelly loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (122) originates from alluvium derived from sedimentary rocks and/or alluvium derived from igneous rock and is a well-drained soil type. The Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
9 August 2025
2025-106
soil type has a depth to water table of more than 80 inches. This soil type encompasses the majority of the Project Area.
The soils and hydrology data indicate a high potential for buried pre-contact archaeological sites within the Project Area; however, soil composition and proximity to waterways are not the only factors in determining potential for buried resources. Section 6.2 further discusses the likelihood for subsurface cultural resources to occur within the Project Area.
2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife
Prior to the beginning of European-American farming activities, the Project Area would have been a valley oak savanna, characterized by a bunchgrass community covering the ground surface, surrounded by deciduous and evergreen trees. These plants often increased in density when merging with riparian forests near waterways. The dominant plant species within the Project Area at this time would have been Valley Oak trees (Küchler 1977).
Prior to the arrival of European-Americans, wildlife within the Project Area would have included deer, bears, foxes, wolves, mountain lions, rabbits, gray ground squirrels, raccoons, and wood rats. Avifauna in the vicinity of the Project Area would have included geese, ducks, woodpeckers, yellowhammers, cranes, robins, owls, hawks, and mountain quails. Hopper Creek and the Napa River would have contained lamprey eels, turtles, sucks, clams, mussels, and a variety of salmons and trout (Driver 1936).
3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT
3.1 Regional Pre-Contact History
It is generally believed that human occupation of California began at least 10,000 years before present (BP). The archaeological record indicates that between approximately 10,000 and 8,000 BP, a predominantly hunting economy existed, characterized by archaeological sites containing numerous projectile points and butchered large animal bones. Animals that were hunted probably consisted mostly of large species still alive today. Bones of extinct species have been found but cannot definitively be associated with human artifacts. Although small animal bones and plant grinding tools are rarely found within archaeological sites of this period, small game and floral foods were probably exploited on a limited basis. A lack of deep cultural deposits from this period suggests that groups included only small numbers of individuals who did not often stay in one place for extended periods (Wallace 1978).
Around 8,000 BP, there was a shift in focus from hunting toward a greater reliance on plant resources.
Archaeological evidence of this trend consists of a much greater number of milling tools (e.g., metates and manos) for processing seeds and other vegetable matter. This period, which extended until around 5,000 BP, is sometimes referred to as the Millingstone Horizon (Wallace 1978). Projectile points are found in archaeological sites from this period, but they are far fewer in number than from sites dating to 8,000 BP. An increase in the size of groups and the stability of settlements is indicated by deep, extensive middens at some sites from this period (Wallace 1978).
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
10 August 2025
2025-106
Archaeological evidence indicates that reliance on both plant gathering and hunting continued as in the previous period, with more specialized adaptation to particular environments in sites dating to after about 5,000 BP. Mortars and pestles were added to metates and manos for grinding seeds and other vegetable material. Flaked-stone tools became more refined and specialized, and bone tools were more common.
New peoples from the Great Basin began entering Southern California during this period. These immigrants, who spoke a language of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock, seem to have displaced or absorbed the earlier population of Hokan-speaking peoples. During this period, known as the Late Horizon, population densities were higher than before, and settlement became concentrated in villages and communities along the coast and interior valleys (Erlandson 1994; McCawley 1996). Regional subcultures also started to develop, each with its own geographical territory and language or dialect (Kroeber 1925; McCawley 1996; Moratto 1984). These were most likely the basis for the groups that the first Europeans encountered during the 18th century (Wallace 1978). Despite the regional differences, many material culture traits were shared among groups, indicating a great deal of interaction (Erlandson 1994). The presence of small projectile points indicates the introduction of the bow and arrow into the region sometime around 2,000 BP (Moratto 1984; Wallace 1978).
3.2 Local Pre-Contact History
This section provides a regional overview with contextual elements drawn from California’s Bay Area region and slightly north and inland. Although there is great archaeological potential in the northern Bay Area, relatively little work has been accomplished. As mentioned above, around 8,000 BP, there was a shift in focus from hunting toward a greater reliance on plant resources, with a slight reduction in mobility.
Archaeological evidence of this trend consists of a much greater number of milling tools (e.g., metates and manos) for processing seeds and other vegetable matter. This period, which extended until around 5,500 BP, is referred to as the Early Holocene (Lower Archaic; Milliken et al. 2007). Sites associated with this time period, such as the Metcalf Creek Site (CA-SCL-178), Duncan's Landing Site (CA-SON-348/H), and a burial at CA-CCO-63, indicate the presence of millingslabs and handstones, along with a variety of wide-stemmed and leaf-shaped projectile points, characteristic of a diverse and mobile forager economic pattern (Fredrickson 1989 as cited in Milliken et al. 2007).
3.2.1 Early Period (5,500 to 2,450 BP)
The Early Period (Middle Archaic), between about 5,500 BP and 2,450 BP showed the first signs of increased sedentism and regional trade networks (Milliken et al. 2007). Olivella and Haliotis shell beads, sometimes associated with red ochre, began to appear in burials dating to this period, such that rectangular Haliotis and Olivella beads are the markers of the Early Period bead horizon until 2,800 years ago (Gerow 1968; Milliken et al. 2007; Wallace and Lathrop 1975). Obsidian trade, particularly that which originated from the obsidian sources of Clear Lake and Napa, was also prevalent during this period.
3.2.2 Lower Middle Period (2,450 to 1,520 BP)
The Lower Middle Period (Initial Upper Archaic) between 2,450 and 1,520 BP was signaled by the virtual disappearance of the rectangular shell beads, which had been in use for the previous three millennia. They were replaced by split-beveled and tiny saucer Olivella beads, which have been interpreted as decorative Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
11 August 2025
2025-106
and religious in function. The sedentism that had begun in the Early Period continued during the Lower Middle Period, by which time thick, rich, black midden soils had accumulated at habitation sites. Bone, shell tools and ornaments began to appear as well (Milliken et al. 2007).
3.2.3 Upper Middle Archaic Period (1,520 to 900 BP)
The Upper Middle Period (Late Upper Archaic) between 1,520 BP and 900 BP) was marked by a dramatic cultural disruption. The Olivella saucer bead network completely collapsed, and half of the sites were abandoned. The shell bead assemblages and burial patterns of this time period reflect a new cultural tradition emerging in the Bay Area, referred to as the Megaños complex. The new cultural expressions that accompanied the Megaños complex suggest having been brought by a new group of people, one that preferred sea otter pelts for cloaks or vests and dorsal extended burials (Milliken et al. 2007).
3.2.4 Initial Late Period (900 to AD 1776)
The Initial Late Period (Lower Emergent) and Terminal Late Period (Protohistoric) occurred between 900 and 400 BP and between AD 1550 and 1776, respectively. Due to the arrival of European-Americans in the region, cultural traditions of prehistoric humans were affected as well. It included fully shaped show mortars, new Olivella and Haliotis bead types and ornaments, effigies, arrow-sized projectile points, and social elite control of obsidian, which indicate an increase in social stratification. The Terminal Late Period was characterized by the emergence of clam shell disk beads, which abruptly replaced the signature Olivella bead types. Some suggest that the change in shell bead types, mortuary wealth distribution, and technology shifts was a result of populations exceeding the environment's carrying capacity and forced migrations due to conflict (Milliken et al. 2007).
3.3 Ethnohistory
The Project Area is predominantly located within the traditional territory inhabited by the Wappo. The Wappo language appears to have undergone significant language drift compared to the other Yukispeaking groups, likely due to their isolation from other Yuki-derived groups and the vastly overlapping territories, cultural contacts, and extensive trade with other groups in Lake and Napa Counties (Sawyer 1978). Wappo contains many borrowed terms from the Lake and Coast Miwok, Pomo, Wintun, and Spanish languages. The term "Wappo" itself is likely derived from the Spanish word "guapo," meaning "brave" (Kroeber 1925). Kroeber (1925) identified five distinct dialects of the Wappo language; however, Sawyer (1978) could find no clear record of grammatical differences between them. The different dialects likely consisted of minor, localized differences in vocabulary (Sawyer 1978).
Wappo people were likely among the first to inhabit the territories north of the San Francisco Bay.
Evidence for this lies in existing place-names, material culture, and glottochronological estimations of language drift between Wappo and other Yuki languages. Most estimates of Wappo isolation from Yuki place the separation around 3,000 years ago, while material culture indicates the first settlements in Napa Valley at about 2,000 to 4,000 years ago (Sawyer 1978). Likewise, the name of the current City of Sonoma is likely derived from the Wappo language; the Wappo word Chonóma translates to "abandoned camp" (Sawyer 1978).
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
12 August 2025
2025-106
Like many Northwestern California peoples, Wappo groups were semi-sedentary hunter-gatherers who made seasonal migrations to the coast and Clear Lake to access various resources (Sawyer 1978). Due to these migrations, there is considerable overlap between the territories of different Northern California tribes. The Wappo territory has typically been drawn as a large area roughly between Napa and Middletown, and a much smaller area along the southern edge of Clear Lake. Little is known about this Clear Lake settlement, but it is likely that the inhabitants arrived as part of the seasonal migrations and chose to remain (Kroeber 1925).
The Wappo political system was somewhat fluid and led by semi-temporary chiefs. Chiefs could be elected, appointed, or chosen because they were already doing the duties of the chief (Sawyer 1978).
Chiefs were responsible for one or more of the four major chiefly duties: relations with other villages and war, logistics and support for the internal functioning of the village, dance ceremonies and health, and relaying news to the rest of the village. More than one chief could hold office at any given time, and potential successors could assume the role of chief by obtaining a larger following than the one they would replace. Women could be chiefs; however, female chiefs had significantly less authority and responsibilities than male chiefs.
Wappo sustenance patterns were typical of other Lake and Napa County groups, except for the large variety of Mexican dishes incorporated after first contact with the Spanish. The main foods consumed were roots, clovers, buckeye, acorns, mammals (e.g., deer and rabbits), birds and waterfowl (e.g., ducks, geese, and quail), and a variety of marine life such as turtles, bullheads, chub, salmon, mussels, clams, abalone, and eels. Dried seaweed, salt, sweet pitch, and honey were used for flavorings (Sawyer 1978).
Wappo religious beliefs were essentially indistinguishable from those of the Pomo at the time of the earliest recordings, but they may not have always been similar (Sawyer 1978). By the time Europeans recorded the Wappo groups, many of their major cultural institutions had become similar to those of their Pomo neighbors. Like the vast majority of other northwestern California Native American groups, Wappo participated in the bead money economy. Wappo baskets largely followed the Pomo style, but were lavishly embellished and crafted with great care and skill. According to Sawyer, Wappo baskets could be rated among “the best of the world’s basketwork” (Sawyer 1978).
Wappo groups were considered peaceful, although a few documented skirmishes and wars occurred with neighboring groups, particularly the Pomo. The Spanish invasion was particularly devastating to the Wappo. Those who survived the initial invasion were taken to the Mendocino Reservation and forced to work as laborers. According to Sawyer, 240 Wappo from the Russian River Valley were taken to the Mendocino Reservation in 1856. By 1858, only 722 Wappo were there, despite more than 1,500 people having arrived during the previous two years (Sawyer 1978).
3.4 Regional History
The first significant European settlement of California began during the Spanish Period (1769 to 1821) when 21 missions and 4 presidios were established between San Diego and Sonoma. Although located primarily along the coast, the missions dominated the majority of the California region during this period.
The purpose of the missions and presidios was to establish Spanish economic, military, political, and religious control over the Alta California territory. This included the forced conversion of the Native Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
13 August 2025
2025-106
population to Spanish colonial society and Catholicism, which often consisted of subjugating Indians into a life of servitude to Spanish citizens (Castillo 1978; Cleland 1941). The nearest mission to Yountville was Mission San Francisco Solano, approximately 9 miles to the southwest. Founded in 1823, this was the last mission to be established in Alta California and the only one to be established under the Mexican Empire rather than the Spanish Empire (Kyle 2002).
The Mexican Period (1821 to 1848) began with the success of the Mexican Revolution in 1821, but changes to the mission system were slow to follow. When secularization of the missions occurred in the 1830s, the vast land holdings of the missions in California were divided into large land grants called ranchos. The Mexican government granted ranchos throughout California to Spanish and Hispanic soldiers and settlers (Castillo 1978).
In 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American War and marked the beginning of the American Period (1848 to present). The discovery of gold the same year initiated the 1849 California Gold Rush, bringing thousands of miners and settlers to California.
3.5 History of the Town of Yountville
The Town of Yountville, located in central Napa County, traces its origins to George Calvert Yount, a frontiersman and trapper who became the first permanent Euro-American settler in Napa Valley. The first permanent settlement in the area began in 1836 when Mexican Governor Nicolás Gutiérrez gave Yount the 11,814-acre Rancho Caymus land grant. Yount laid the agricultural foundation that would later define the area by building a log cabin, a gristmill, a sawmill, and some of Napa Valley's first vineyards on his property (Napa County Historical Society 2025). Yount's early efforts established the region’s agricultural potential for viticulture, even though the commercial wine industry would not flourish until decades later.
Yount's descendants divided and sold the land after his death in 1865. Judge E. H. Sawyer, who purchased a portion of land, laid out a formal town site in 1867, and the settlement was named Yountville after its founder (Holt 2015). Early civic activities included the opening of a public school by the early 1870s, a post office in 1869, and several small enterprises that catered to the expanding farming community. The Napa Valley Railroad's arrival in 1868 resulted in new buildings along Washington Street and linked Yountville to larger commercial networks, allowing the transportation of agricultural products to Napa and San Francisco (Holt 2015). Yountville was a self-sufficient rural town by the 1880s, with churches, general stores, a hotel, and artisan shops.
Yountville's development was significantly and permanently affected by the Veterans Home of California, which was founded in 1884 just north of the town center. As a state-run facility for elderly veterans, the Veterans Home drew hundreds of residents, brought in infrastructure, and grew to become the biggest employer in the town. Medical facilities, recreational facilities, and agricultural operations were added to the Veterans Home over time; many of these were incorporated into Yountville’s economic activities and community gatherings (Town of Yountville 2025). The Veterans Home also made a substantial contribution to Yountville’s social fabric because its residents took part in local government, school visits, and parades.
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
14 August 2025
2025-106
Despite these developments, small farms, family-run vineyards, and low-density housing helped Yountville retain its modest and rural character throughout the early 20th century. Yountville did not have the authority to exercise local governance and coordinate long-term planning until February 4, 1965, when it was formally incorporated as a municipality (Town of Yountville 2025). Over the latter half of the 20th century, Yountville gradually came to be known for its fine dining and wine tourism. Yountville’s adaptive reuse of historic buildings as lodging facilities, dining establishments, and public buildings best demonstrated its approach to conserving its history while promoting economic revival.
Yountville is now known for its function as a center of Napa Valley culture and cuisine. Civic landmarks like the Veterans Home grounds, Groezinger Winery (now V Marketplace), and the Former Yountville Elementary School (now Town Hall) provide everyday reminders of Yountville’s complex and changing past (Holt 2015; Town of Yountville 2025).
3.6 History of Yountville Elementary School
Public education has existed in Yountville since its founding as a small agricultural community on George Yount's former Rancho Caymus property in the late 19th century. Although records are uncertain, the region's first school is thought to have been founded sometime in the 1860s in a modest building on property owned by local printer and educator Richard T. Montgomery (Holt 2015). Over time, this building developed into a more formal one-room schoolhouse, which by 1881 had grown to meet the educational requirements of local farming and ranching families (Holt 2015).
The original wooden schoolhouse was replaced in the 1920s by a larger structure designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style that featured red clay roof tiles and stucco walls, which were common features of California civic architecture at the time. Originally called Yountville Grammar School, it was later known as Yountville Elementary School. In addition to housing a public library starting in the 1950s, this structure served as Yountville’s primary educational facility for many years (Town of Yountville 2024). Despite an increase in enrollment, the elementary school’s location on its corner lot remained constant until the middle of the 20th century.
The school expanded northward in the early 1950s when it acquired what would become the modern school campus and a new classroom building: the Administration Building (Town of Yountville 2024).
Although the original 1920s era Yountville Elementary School building and the Administration Building may have been used simultaneously at first, it was officially decommissioned in 1977 due to safety code violations and seismic vulnerability (OHP 2017). In the same year, the Yountville Elementary School officially established its campus within the Project Area. The Library Building and a multipurpose structure, which would eventually be known as Schmitt Hall, were features the midcentury area campus. In contrast, the decommissioned 1920s-era Yountville Elementary School was converted into Yountville Town Hall, retaining its architectural characteristics while changing to a civic function (OHP 2017).
For more than 40 years, the Yountville Elementary School remained open at the 6554 Yount Street parcel, but enrollment drastically decreased by the 2010s. Due to declining enrollment and financial strains, the Napa Valley Unified School District decided to close the school in 2020 as part of a broader district-wide reorganization. Less than 130 pupils were enrolled at the Yountville Elementary School at the time of its closure (Town of Yountville 2024).
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
15 August 2025
2025-106
3.7 Architectural Style: Midcentury Modern (1940-1975)
The c. 1951 Administration Building is a modest example of the post-war Midcentury Modern architectural style.
The Midcentury Modern style (1940–1975) draws from the International and Bauhaus movements popular in Europe in the early 20th century. Early Modernists such as Frank Lloyd Wright, Richard Neutra, and Rudolph Schindler introduced many aspects of these design aesthetics and material innovations to Southern California in the 1920s. World War II played a major role in the development of the Midcentury Modern style in the United States, during which prominent European practitioners of the International and Bauhaus styles—including architects Walter Gropius and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe—emigrated to the United States, which was rising to prominence in industry and manufacturing (Architectural Resources Group 2016; Gebhard and Winter 2003; Moruzzi 2013).
The ability to mass-produce standardized, reasonably priced, and replicable designs that could satisfy a wide range of programmatic needs and site requirements made Midcentury Modern design appealing.
The demand for mass construction of various property types, such as homes, offices, and schools required a style that could express the modern sensibility of a time that valued economic efficiency, middle-class expansion, breaking with tradition, and new material technology. Midcentury Modern style practitioners focused on the most innovative materials and methods (Architectural Resources Group 2016; Gebhard and Winter 2003; Moruzzi 2013).
The building boom that followed World War II involved a widespread adoption of the Midcentury Modern style, especially in the newly expansive developments that radiated out from Southern California's major urban centers. The Case Study House program made Los Angeles a hub for Midcentury Modern style experimentation; the impact of the new designs spread to neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles County, where the features of Midcentury Modern architecture could be adapted for large-scale production. Midcentury Modern architecture was ideal for expanding suburban cities because it made use of mass-produced materials like concrete, steel, wood, and glass (Architectural Resources Group 2016; Gebhard and Winter 2003; Moruzzi 2013).
In contrast to the International style, which is typified by expansive planes of steel and glass, Midcentury Modern style is distinguished by more substantial wall surfaces. Midcentury Modern commercial and institutional (mainly educational) buildings frequently have stacked bond brick walls. Despite the use of geometric shapes and industrial materials, Midcentury Modern architecture frequently draws inspiration from regional vernacular traditions, especially when it comes to the use of wood and the division of indoor and outdoor areas. Post-and-beam construction with exposed wooden structural systems is a typical design feature in Midcentury Modern residential buildings. Flat roofs, deep overhangs, open floor plans, large expanses of glass, indoor/outdoor flow, and concrete slab foundations are characteristics of Midcentury Modern residential and small business buildings. Applied ornamentation and historical style references are uncommon in Midcentury Modern designs; as a result, many industrial buildings in this style are often described as “decorated boxes," which are simple structures with ornamentation applied to fit the period and appear more contemporary without accurately representing the activities taking place inside. The Midcentury Modern style incorporated innovative features into commercial buildings, such as Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
16 August 2025
2025-106
sleek modern signage, aluminum awnings and canopies, deeply recessed and/or angled vestibules, floorto-ceiling window walls, integrated planters, and projecting vertical elements. Though not all Midcentury Modern designs are noteworthy examples of the style, many property types display the traits of the style (Morgan 2004; McAlester 2015).
Characteristics of the Midcentury Modern style for commercial properties include:
heights of one to two stories;
low, boxy, horizontal proportions;
simple geometric forms with a lack of exterior decoration; asymmetry;
flat roofs without coping at roofline;
flat roofs hidden behind parapets or cantilevered canopies; expressed post-and-beam construction in wood or steel; stucco, brick, or concrete exterior wall materials;
mass-produced materials;
simple windows (metal or wood) flush-mounted and clerestory; industrially plain doors;
floor-to-ceiling window walls;
extensive use of sheltered exterior corridors, with flat or slightly sloped roofs supported by posts, piers, or pipe columns;
modern signage;
deeply recessed and or angled vestibules;
integrated planters; and
projecting vertical elements.
3.8 Architectural Style: Postmodernism (1970-2010)
Schmitt Hall features an angled primary façade with a subtle Postmodern architectural influence.
Postmodernism developed in the late 1960s following the popularity of Modernist architecture, which typically ignored the use of traditional architectural language in its designs. Postmodernism’s varied approach to stylistic representation aims to blend the vocabulary of classical forms—drawn from the Italian High Renaissance, Baroque architecture, and 18th-century French, German, and English Rationalism—with the Modernist language of the early 20th century. This blend includes both historical references and contemporary abstraction. Conventional symmetry and proportions associated with classical forms are rarely at the center of the Postmodern aesthetic, although classical elements like the column, arch, and entablature are frequently applied paradoxically to the overall design. Due to the Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
17 August 2025
2025-106
inherently eclectic and often contradictory nature of Postmodernism’s theoretical foundations, examples of such architecture come in a wide variety of styles. Like Modernism, Postmodernism encompasses other disciplines such as philosophy, painting, and photography in addition to architecture (Getty 2004; Gebhard et al. 1985; Docomomo US 2020).
Characteristics of the Postmodern style include:
architectural reference to classical forms on modern, playful architectural forms; lack of traditional, classical symmetry and proportions; pronounced entablatures and projecting cornices;
use of columns, usually the Tuscan order;
use of arches, typically with overly defined voussoirs and keystones; use of lunette and circular windows; and
defined entrances demarcated by columns, piers, arches, and entablatures.
3.9 Development History of the Former Yountville Elementary School Prior to the late 1950s, the 6.83-acre property at 6554 Yount Street consisted of a residential dwelling and detached garage. A 1958 aerial image shows that both buildings had been removed and were replaced by the Administration Building currently present in the Project Area. The Administration Building was an addition to the 1920s-era Yountville Elementary School campus (now the Yountville Town Hall, sometimes referred to as City Hall) south of the Project Area. A 1982 aerial image first shows the Library Building to the north of the Administration Building. In a 1993 aerial image, two attached modular classroom buildings are now present on the far northern end of the Project Area, both of which were removed in 2025. By 2002, the school added a rectangular black top to the eastern end of the Project Area, and then added the multipurpose room, called Schmitt Hall, c. 2003. The school constructed a shade structure to the west of the blacktop c. 2017 and was the last addition to the school before it closed in 2020 (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC 2025).
4.0 METHODS
4.1 Personnel Qualifications
Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) Brian Marks, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historical archaeology, conducted this archaeological resources investigation. Eric Fries, RPA and Daisy Chisholm conducted the fieldwork and prepared this technical report. Andrew Bursan prepared the built environment evaluation and Lisa Westwood, RPA provided technical report review and quality assurance.
Dr. Marks is the Principal Investigator and has been an archaeologist since 1997. He has been working in cultural resources management in California since 2010 following eight years of archaeological work in the southeast United States. Dr. Marks holds a Ph.D. and an M.S. in Anthropology. He has participated in Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
18 August 2025
2025-106
or supervised more than 200 survey, testing, and data recovery excavations and has recorded and mapped a multitude of pre-contact and historical sites, including Civil War battlefields, Gold Rush boom towns, submerged pre-contact sites, and others. He has conducted evaluations of cultural resources for eligibility to the NRHP and CRHR and is well versed in impact assessment and development of mitigation measures for CEQA and Section 106 (NHPA) projects. Dr. Marks is the Northern California Cultural Resources Group Manager for ECORP.
Eric C. Fries, RPA is a Senior Archaeologist with 28 years of experience across private, federal and academic archaeological work throughout the western United States. He holds a B.A. and M.A. in Anthropology and meets the Secretary of Interior's Standard for both prehistoric and historic archaeology.
He is experienced in archaeological monitoring, survey and excavation, geographic information systems including aerial and satellite imagery analysis, artifact recovery and collection management, and human osteological analysis. He has conducted numerous evaluations of cultural resources for eligibility to the NRHP.
Andrew Bursan is a Senior Architectural Historian with 17 years of experience in historic preservation and land planning. He has worked on a variety of projects with organizations like the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Los Angeles County Metro, and several city governments, including those of Pasadena, Santa Monica, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Andrew's expertise covers project management, architectural surveys, historical assessments, and extensive historical research. He has contributed to historic context statements, technical reports, and impact analyses for cultural resources.
Daisy M. Chisholm is a Cultural Resources Technician with 1 year of experience. Mrs. Chisholm has experience conducting field surveys and site recording in California. She has completed an intensive field school with the Kalispel Tribe of Indians. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Biological Anthropology and Archaeology.
Lisa Westwood, RPA has 30 years of experience and meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historical archaeology. She holds a B.A. in Anthropology and an M.A. in Anthropology (Archaeology). She is the Director of Cultural Resources for ECORP.
4.2 Records Search Methods
ECORP requested a records search for the Project Area at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the CHRIS at California State University, Sonoma on May 15, 2025 (NWIC File No. 24-1823). The purpose of the records search was to determine the extent of previous surveys within a 0.25-mile (0.4-kilometer) radius of the Proposed Project Area and whether previously documented pre-contact or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, or traditional cultural properties exist within this area. NWIC staff completed and returned the records search to ECORP on May 29, 2025.
In addition to the official records and maps for archaeological sites and surveys in Napa County, ECORP reviewed the following historical references: Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for Napa County (OHP 2022); the National Register Information System (National Park Service [NPS] 2025); Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Landmarks (CHL) (OHP 1996, 2025); California Points of Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
19 August 2025
2025-106
Historical Interest (OHP 1992 and updates); Caltrans Local Bridges Database (Caltrans 2025a); Caltrans State Highway Bridges Database (Caltrans 2025b); and Historic Spots in California (Kyle 2002).
ECORP also reviewed other references, including a RealQuest Property Search and historic General Land Office (GLO) land patent records (Bureau of Land Management [BLM] 2025). ECORP reviewed the following historical maps:
1868 BLM GLO Survey for Caymus Rancho;
1891 BLM GLO Survey for Township 6 North, Range 5 East; 1902 USGS Yountville, California topographic quadrangle (1:125,000 scale); 1942 USGS Sonoma, California topographic quadrangle (1:62,500 scale); 1951 USGS Yountville, California topographic quadrangle (1:24,000 scale); 1968 (photorevised edition of the 1951) USGS Yountville, California topographic quadrangle (1:24,000 scale); and
1979 photoinspected edition 1968 photorevised edition of the1951 USGS Yountville, California topographic quadrangle (1:24,000 scale).
ECORP reviewed historical aerial photographs from 1948, 1958, 1968, 1982, 1993, 2002, 2005, 2006, every 2 years from 2010 to 2024, and 2025 for any indications of Project Area usage and built environment.
ECORP conducted a search for a local historical registry, which revealed that the Napa County Historical Society is the nearest local historical registry to the Project Area. It is located in the City of Napa, approximately 10 miles southeast of the Project Area.
4.3 Sacred Lands File Coordination Methods
In addition to the records search, ECORP contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on May 16, 2025 to request a search of the SLF for the Project Area. This search determines whether the California Native American tribes within the Project Area have recorded Sacred Lands in the SLF, which is populated by members of the Native American community with knowledge about the locations of TCRs. In requesting a search of the SLF, ECORP solicited information from the Native American community regarding TCRs; however, the responsibility to formally consult with the Native American community lies exclusively with the federal and local agencies under applicable state and federal laws. The lead agencies do not delegate government-to-government authority to any private entity to conduct tribal consultation.
4.4 Research Methods
4.4.1 Town of Yountville City Clerk
ECORP requested digital copies of building permits for the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities from the Yountville City Clerk’s office via email on June 6, 2025. No original building permits were located for the former school. The City of Yountville provided the following building permit via email:
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
20 August 2025
2025-106
Permit # YB-24-92 from 6/26/2024 for demolition of various structures at a cost of $40,000
4.4.2 Historical Newspaper Review
ECORP reviewed historical newspapers from Yountville and surrounding cities to understand the development of the Town of Yountville and the Project Area. ECORP used these documents to prepare the historic context and significance evaluations for this study.
4.4.3 Napa County Assessor
ECORP obtained assessor data for the school’s APN on May 29, 2025. This assessor’s data provided information about construction dates for and the current owners of the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities.
4.5 Other Interested Party Consultation Methods
ECORP contacted the Napa County Historical Society on May 15, 2025 to solicit comments or obtain historical information that the repository might have regarding events, people, or resources of historical significance within the Project Area (Appendix A). ECORP did not identify any other local parties with potential interest within the Project Area.
4.6 Field Methods
ECORP conducted an intensive pedestrian survey covering the entire Project Area using 15-meter transects on June 5, 2025 (Figure 3). ECORP conducted this survey under the guidance of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Identification of Historic Properties (NPS 1983). During the survey, ECORP archaeologists examined the ground surface for indications of surface or subsurface cultural resources and inspected the general morphological characteristics of the ground surface for indications of subsurface deposits that may be manifested on the surface, such as circular depressions or ditches.
Whenever possible, the archaeologists examined the locations of subsurface exposures caused by such factors as rodent activity, water or soil erosion, or vegetation disturbances for artifacts or for indications of buried deposits. ECORP did not conduct subsurface investigations or artifact collections during the pedestrian survey.
ECORP archaeologists photographed all standing structures and elements of the built environment within the Project Area. The archaeologists photographed each structure or element from multiple angles and took additional photographs of architectural details such as gables, moldings, and window and door treatments.
Standard professional practice requires that all cultural resources encountered during the survey be recorded using California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523-series forms approved by the OHP. The resources are usually photographed, mapped using a handheld global positioning system receiver, and sketched, as necessary, to document their presence using appropriate DPR forms.
Jefferson St
Madison St
Washington St
Yountville
Cemetery
Hopper Creek
29 Vineyard
Cir
Yount
St
Finnell Rd
Jefferson
St
Vista Dr
Stags View Ln
Forrester Ln
Mount Ave
Lande Way
Adams St
Oak Cir
Yountville Cross Rd
Washington St
Forrester Park
Toyon Terrace
Tot Lot
Yountville
Elementary
Hop
per Creek
29 Oak Cir
Mission St
Washington St
Saint Helena Hwy
Yountville
Map Date: 5/16/2025
Sources: Esri, Maxar (2024)
Location: N:\2025\2025-106 Yountville Commons\MAPS\YountvilleCommons_Cultural.aprx - YountvilleCommon_SurveyCoverage20250630 (lgalvez - 7/2/2025) Map Contents
Project Boundary - 6.79 ac.
Survey Coverage - 100%
I
0 500
Feet
2025-106 Yountville Commons
Figure 3. Survey Coverage
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
22 August 2025
2025-106
5.0 RESULTS
5.1 Records Search
The records search comprised a review of previous research and literature, records on file with the NWIC for previously recorded resources, and aerial photographs and maps of the vicinity.
5.1.1 Previous Research
Nineteen previous cultural resources investigations have been conducted within 0.25 mile of the Project Area, covering 89 percent of the total records search area (Appendix A). These investigations revealed the presence of numerous historic resources and covered 100 percent of the Project Area. Three previous cultural resources investigations have been conducted within the Project Area (Table 1).
Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations within the Project Area Report No. (S-) Author(s) Report Title Year
1970 M. Holman and S.
Slater
A Preliminary Reconnaissance of the Cultural Resources of the Section 205 AE&D Study, City of Yountville (Hopper Creek), California, for the San Francisco Corps of Engineers
1979
5032 D. Chavez Yountville Condominiums on Hopper Creek 1982 34983 C. Chattan A Cultural Resources Evaluation of Ghirardi Place, 1904 Finnell Road, Yountville, Napa County, CA. 2008
The records search results indicate that the Project Area has been previously surveyed; however, the structures that are part of the current Project have not previously inventoried or recorded. Additionally, the most recent survey to overlap the Project Area took place in 2008. Therefore, a pedestrian survey of the Project Area was warranted to record the structures and update the survey coverage.
The records search also determined that five previously recorded historic-era cultural resources, one multi-component resource, and one historic district are located within 0.25 mile of the Project Area (Table 2). The five historic-era resources are residences and railroad infrastructure. The multi-component site is an artifact scatter containing both pre-contact and historic artifacts. The historic district contains historic-era railroad infrastructure.
Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area Primary No. (P-28-) Recorder and Year Age/Period Site Description 511 N. Thompson 1980 Pre-Contact; Historic Artifact Scatter 964 Eastman and Sriro 1998 Historic Building
965 Eastman and Sriro 1998 Historic Building
966 Eastman and Sriro 1998 Historic Railroad Tracks
1547 Germano 2006 Historic Historic District: Railroad Infrastructure 1807 Brunzell 2012 Historic Building
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
23 August 2025
2025-106
Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area Primary No. (P-28-) Recorder and Year Age/Period Site Description 2594 Brunzell 2018 Historic Building
5.1.2 Records
The BERD for Napa County (dated August 8, 2022) lists 15 resources within 0.25 mile of the Project Area (OHP 2022) (Table 3). All of these resources are historic structures that are either residences, commercial buildings, or railroad infrastructure. The Yountville Elementary School/Yountville City Hall is located immediately adjacent to the Project Area to the south. The school/City Hall is listed as eligible for the NRHP (1S, 06/14/2016, NRHP_2015_Yountville_Gram_0027 | 3S, 4599-0026-0000). No resources are listed within the Project Area.
The National Register Information System (NPS 2025) contains five eligible or listed properties within a
0.25 mile radius of the Project Area, all of which are also listed on the BERD: l. The nearest National Register property is the Yountville Grammar School (known as Yountville Elementary School/Yountville City Hall), located at 6550 Yount Street, immediately south of the Project Area.
ECORP reviewed resources listed as CHLs by the OHP (2025) on May 17, 2025. The nearest listed landmark is CHL No. 828 (Veterans Home of California located 0.54 mile south of the Project Area.
Historic Spots in California (Kyle 2002) mentions that Napa County is one of the original 27 California counties established in 1850. The exact source of the name Napa is unknown, but it is assumed to be of Northern Patwin origin. Yountville is named for George C. Yount, the first person to receive a land grant in Napa Valley, in 1836 (Kyle 2002). Yountville is not located within Yount’s Rancho Caymus land grant, but it is located just south of the southern tip of Rancho Caymus, within the adjacent Rancho Napa land grant.
Historic GLO land patent records from the BLM’s patent information database (BLM 2025) revealed no historic patents within the Project Area. The Project Area is located within the Rancho Napa land grant, which was created in 1838, and is not assigned to a section. Two surveys dating to 1868 and 1891 show the Project Area as being within the Rancho Napa land grant but show no additional details. The GLO database does not contain any records that indicate how the Rancho Napa land was subdivided and transferred to other ownership.
A RealQuest online property search for APN 036-070-026-000 revealed that the Project Area comprises
6.83 acres of unzoned public land owned by the Town of Yountville. No other Project Area history information was on record with RealQuest.
The Caltrans Local Bridges Database (Caltrans 2025a) or State-Highway Bridges Database (Caltrans 2025b) do not list any bridges within or adjacent to the Project Area.
Kroeber (1932) recorded a Native American village called Kaimus at the current approximate location of Yountville. George C. Yount named his land grant Rancho Caymus after this village, and the name Caymus was subsequently applied to various features in the area such as streets and wineries. Both Kroeber (1932) and Bennyhoff (1977) describe Napa Valley as the territory of the Wappo group of Native Americans.
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
24 August 2025
2025-106
ECORP’s review of the Napa local historical registry did not reveal any resources within the Project Area; however, this review revealed four resources in the immediate vicinity of the Project Area. The former Yountville Elementary School (Town Hall) at 6550 Yount Street is adjacent to the Project Area. Historic residences at 6581 Yount Street and 6627 Yount Street, and the Yountville Community Church at 6617 Yount Street, are immediately across Yount Street to the southwest of the Project Area.
5.1.3 Map Review and Aerial Photographs
The review of aerial photographs and maps of the Project Area provides information on the past land uses of the Project Area and potential for buried archaeological sites. As summarized below, this information shows that the Project Area was open countryside within a land grant at least as early as 1863, and, since at least 1948, was developed within the Town of Yountville:
The 1868 and 1891 BLM GLO survey maps for Township 6 North, Range 5 West depict the Project Area as unsurveyed land within the Rancho Napa land grant. The 1902 USGS Napa, California topographic quadrangle (1:125,000 scale) depicts the Project Area without structures.
The 1942 USGS Sonoma, California topographic quadrangle (1:62,500 scale) depicts the Project Area within the Town of Yountville at the end of a short road and a structure near or within the Project Area.
An aerial photograph from 1948 shows the Project Area as an open area with a single small structure, possibly a house, near the center. In this photograph, the present-day southern baseball diamond appears to be a farm or garden plot with planted rows.
The 1951 USGS Yountville, California topographic quadrangle (1:24,000 scale) depicts the Project Area as having a single small structure in its center. The present-day Yountville Town Hall building to the south of the Project Area is marked as a public building. An aerial photograph from 1958 shows that the southern structure of the present-day Project Area, the Administration Building, had been built adjacent to Yountville Town Hall. Some trails or footpaths are visible crossing the northwest quadrant of the Project Area. The rest of the land is clear and there is no sign of the structure visible in the 1948 aerial photograph. S. An aerial photograph from 1968 shows that an addition has been made to the Administration Building. An area in the northeastern quadrant of the Project Area has been cleared, possibly to prepare for further construction.
The 1968 photorevised edition of the 1951 and the 1979 photoinspected edition of the 1968 photorevised edition of the 1951 USGS Yountville, California topographic quadrangle (1:24,000 scale) depicts the Administration Building constructed just north of the Yountville Town Hall. This quadrangle shows a small structure in the center of the Project Area that is absent from aerial photographs starting in 1958.
An aerial photograph from 1982 shows that the Library Building and Schmitt Hall have been constructed and the built environment of the school facility is largely similar to that in 2025. This image also shows that the southern baseball diamond has been constructed.
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
25 August 2025
2025-106
An aerial photograph from 1993 shows several outbuildings along the northwestern boundary of the Project Area.
An aerial photograph from 2002 shows that the play area to the north of the main school buildings was paved and the northeastern baseball diamond was added. An aerial photograph from 2006 shows some modifications to the roof of the Library Building that possibly involved the addition of equipment for ventilation and air circulation. Aerial photographs from 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022 and 2023 show no changes to the Project Area.
An aerial photograph from 2025 shows the removal of the structures along the northwestern boundary of the Project Area that appeared in the 1993 aerial photograph. An aerial photograph from 2018 shows the addition of several portable structures or storage containers to the east of the Library Building; these structures were absent during the 2025 field work.
In sum, the Project Area was an open field until at least 1902. A single structure stood in the Project Area from at least 1942 until no later than 1958, when the Project Area was first used as a school. The Project Area continued to be used as a school up until 2020, with structures being added, modified and removed until the current state was reached in 2025.
5.2 Sacred Lands File Results
A search of the SLF by the NAHC returned a positive result indicating that there is a Native American cultural resource in the vicinity of the Project Area.. Appendix B provides a record of all correspondence to date.
5.3 Other Interested Party Consultation Results
ECORP has not received responses to the letters sent to the Napa County Historical Society as of the date of the preparation of this document.
5.4 Field Survey Results
ECORP surveyed the entire Project Area for cultural resources on June 5, 2025. Ground surface visibility throughout most of the Project Area was 100 percent. Ground cover within the Project Area consists of either paved surfaces, maintained grass fields, or landscaped areas.
5.4.1 Cultural Resources
As a result of previous investigations by other firms, no resources were recorded within the Project Area.
ECORP identified two new cultural resources within the Project Area: YOU-1-I, a pre-contact isolated find, and the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities The following sections provide descriptions of each resource, and Appendix D provides the corresponding confidential DPR site records.
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
26 August 2025
2025-106
5.4.1.1 Isolate YOU-1-I
Isolated find YOU-1-I comprises one worked obsidian flake and one worked andesite flake, located approximately 30 meters apart in an open area of the baseball diamond near the northern corner of the Project Area (Figure 4). The obsidian flake is located within a fenced dog run adjacent to the baseball dugouts in the northeastern corner of the Project Area. The andesite flake is located just outside the fenced dog run, south-southeast of the obsidian flake.
Figure 4. Overview of Isolate YOU-1-I; Arrow on the Ground Points to Lithic (facing north; June 5, 2025).
The ground surface in the vicinity of isolated find YOU-1-I is disturbed; it has been used as a school field since at least 1958, and a baseball diamond was constructed and maintained in the area of the isolated find between 1968 and 2020. Aerial imagery analysis shows that the baseball diamond was allowed to grow over and then was refurbished multiple times; as such, the isolated find area has undergone multiple episodes of deposition and disturbance. It is entirely possible that the material was brought in from an outside source during one of the refurbishments of the field, especially because obsidian and volcanic stone is naturally occurring in much of Napa County.
Isolates are unassociated artifacts or minor features that represent either accidental inclusion or are otherwise disconnected from the human activity that produced it. Isolates typically do not individually contribute to the broad patterns of history because they cannot be connected to a particular event (NRHP Criterion A / CRHR Criterion 1). Isolates are similarly difficult to associate with specific individuals due to their lack of association with archaeological or historical sites, and generally no information exists in the archival record to associate isolates with important individuals in history (NRHP Criterion B / CRHR Criterion 2). Isolates do not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
27 August 2025
2025-106
construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values (NRHP Criterion C / CRHR Criterion 3). Finally, isolates do not provide important information in history or prehistory (NRHP Criterion D / CRHR Criterion 4). Therefore, isolate YOU-1-I does not meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR as an individual resource. The isolate does not contribute to any known or suspected historic districts; and is neither considered to be a Historic Property for the purpose of Section 106 NHPA, nor a Historical Resource under CEQA.
5.4.1.2 Former Yountville Elementary School Facilities
The former Yountville Elementary School Facilities is in central Yountville that once served as the town’s elementary school (Figure 5). The school consists of a parking lot at the western end, a cluster of former school buildings at the center, and a large grass lawn and accompanying blacktop at the eastern end. The cluster features three main buildings: the c. 1951 Administration Building, the c. 1976 Library Building, and the c. 2003 Schmitt Hall and additional ancillary structures. A neighborhood of single-family residential homes surrounds the Project Area on all sides.
5.4.1.3 Administration Building
The c. 1951 Administration Building is the oldest building in the school and located at the southernmost end of the Project Area just north of the City Hall (which once served as the Yountville Elementary School) (Figure 6). The Administration Building is a one-story classroom building that features a mono-pitched roof with overhanging eaves and a rectangular plan typical of the Midcentury Modern architectural style.
Smooth-textured stucco finishes all exterior elevations. The primary northern façade contains a long wood-framed ribbon window that spans almost the entire elevation and is divided by evenly spaced mullions (window pane dividers). Rectangular and louvered clerestory windows along the top of the ribbon provide ventilation. The façade also has three evenly spaced flat-panel metal entrance doors and a recessed entrance at the center of the elevation with an additional entrance door. Additional fenestration occurs on the south elevation with similarly styled ribbon windows but without entrance doors.
5.4.1.4 Library Building
The c. 1976 Library Building, located just north of the Administration Building, is a one-story building topped by a metal-clad mansard roof with a centered monitor feature marked by clerestory windows (Figure 7). The building is irregular in plan and rough-textured stucco covers all its exterior surfaces.
Fenestration consists of metal-frame fixed-pane windows, including rectangular floor-to-ceiling windows flanking the entrance doors and sporadically placed square windows. Two wooden flat-panel doors on the primary west façade provide access along with the three recessed entrances on the north and south elevations. On the south elevation, a breezeway connects the Library Building to both the Administration Building to the south and a shade structure to the west. A row of mature pine trees and a square metal canopy structure are at the front of the building, and mature trees line the rear east elevation.
5.4.1.5 Schmitt Hall
Schmitt Hall is a one-story, front-gabled building with smooth-textured stucco cladding and an irregular plan (Figure 8). The roof features overhanging eaves and clerestory glazing on the primary west elevation.
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
28 August 2025
2025-106
Schmitt Hall’s most distinctive feature is its angled entrance volume, which is typical of Postmodern architecture. The building projects diagonally from the primary façade, which is framed by a series of slender metal support posts that uphold a flat canopy. The entrance itself is recessed beneath this canopy, creating a sheltered section. Secondary flat-panel metal-door entrances punctuate the east, north, and south elevations. The rear east elevation features five evenly spaced metal doors. Fenestration is limited to small square-punched windows arranged in an abstract, grid-like composition on the primary façade.
Figure 5. Overview of the Former Yountville Elementary School Facilities (facing east; June 5, 2025).
Figure 6. View of the Administration Building (facing southwest; June 5, 2025).
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
29 August 2025
2025-106
Figure 7. View of the Library Building (facing east; June 5, 2025).
Figure 8. View of Schmitt Hall (facing east; June 5, 2025).
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
30 August 2025
2025-106
5.4.1.6 Ancillary Structures
Snack Shack
The c. 1976 snack shack is located on the southern end of the Project Area and connected to the backstop of a baseball diamond known as Kaneshiro Field (Figure 9). A flat roof with a cantilever feature over the primary façade tops the one-story building, which is rectangular in plan and of cinder block construction.
Two square service openings on the primary south façade punctuate the building, and a single metal door on the east elevation provides entrance to the building. A metal canopy supported by narrow metal posts extends from the east elevation. A plaque reading “Kaneshiro Field” dated May 12, 1976 is affixed to the building and dedicated to community member Richard “Dick” Kaneshiro.
Baseball Dugouts
The Project Area contains a total of five c. 1976 baseball dugouts with three located along the southern baseball diamond and two located along the northern baseball diamond. All five dugouts have a similar appearance with low, mono-pitched roofs, cinder block construction, and a rectangular plan. Each dugout has an open side facing the baseball diamond with rectangular openings along the front, protected by chain-link fencing. Figure 10 shows a dugout at the southern end of the Project Area.
Sheds
Two c. 1976 storage sheds are located on the northwestern and northeastern corners of the Project Area.
The northwestern shed is one-story, square in plan, and topped by a mono-pitched roof (Figure 11).
Horizontal wood board siding clads the exterior elevations of the northwestern shed, and a wood board entrance door on the south elevation provides entrance.
The additional one-story shed in the northeast corner of the Project Area has a rectangular plan and a low, mono-pitched roof. Vertical wood board siding clads its exterior elevations, and a wood board entrance door on the east elevation provides entrance.
Shade Structures
The former Yountville Elementary School Facilities contains eastern and western utilitarian shade structures. The c. 1976 western shade structure is located 15 feet west of the Library Building and consists of four metal posts supporting a hipped, corrugated metal roof on a square plan (Figure 12).
The larger c. 2017 eastern shade structure is located 35 feet east of the Library Building; this shade structure is rectangular in plan, topped by a low-pitched, side-gabled corrugated metal roof, and supported by narrow metal columns.
Landscaping
Landscaping consists of mature trees set around the perimeter of the Project Area and the buildings within it. A mature oak sits just south of the Library Building with a plaque dated May 22, 1976 and dedicated to the school by the Native Sons of the Golden West, a fraternal organization (Figure 13). The eastern end of the Project Area includes a 3-acre grass field with two baseball diamonds.
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
31 August 2025
2025-106
Figure 9. The Snack Shack (facing north; June 5, 2025).
Figure 10. Dugout on the Southern End of the Project Area (facing southwest; June 5, 2025).
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
32 August 2025
2025-106
Figure 11. Northwestern Shed (facing east; June 5, 2025).
Figure 12. Overview of the Western Shade Structure (facing south; June 5, 2025).
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
33 August 2025
2025-106
Figure 13. Oak Tree and Plaque Just East of the Library Building (facing west; June 5, 2025).
5.4.1.7 Evaluation of the Former Yountville Elementary School Facilities The former Yountville Elementary School Facilities do not meet any of the criteria for listing in the NRHP and CRHR, either individually or as part of an existing historic district, as demonstrated in the following sections.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1
The former Yountville Elementary School Facilities were first developed in the early 1950s to provide for the expansion of Yountville Elementary School and provide extra classroom space. Although Yountville Elementary School’s history in the community goes back to the late 1800s, the Project Area was the third location of the school and the previous 1920s-era Yountville Elementary School campus to the south is currently used as the town hall. Although the current Project Area has an association with the school’s expansion and later relocation, the campus alone was not a primary component of the school’s early development and did not mark a significant event associated with Yountville. The school represents a common trend of postwar public school growth in California. Furthermore, research did not indicate that the school is associated with more specific events or patterns of development that have historical significance at the local, state, or national level. For these reasons, the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion A/1.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2
Archival research failed to indicate any such direct association between the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities and individuals that are known to be historic figures at the national, state, or local level.
The school’s staff and students changed multiple times through the years and did not include an Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
34 August 2025
2025-106
individual of notable historical significance; therefore, the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities is not associated with the lives of persons significant in the past and is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion B/2.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3
The former Yountville Elementary School Facilities features three school buildings and associated structures from different decades. The school’s buildings exhibit minimal architectural ornamentation and does not reflect a cohesive or intentional planning concept. Although the c. 1951 Administration Building has minor association with Midcentury Modern architecture and the c. 2003 Schmitt Hall has a minor association with Postmodern architecture, neither building is a fully realized example of their respective architectural style and both lack high-style features. The Library Building (c. 1976), Snack Bar (c. 1976), and other built structures at the school lack any discernible architectural style. Designed with utility in mind, all campus buildings are modest in scale and detailing, which is consistent with budget-conscious public school construction during the postwar period. For these reasons, the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion C/3.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4
The information potential of the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities is expressed through its built form and in the historical record. The buildings for the school have not yielded, nor are it likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory; therefore, the school is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion D/4.
Integrity
Since first being developed in the early 1950s, the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities has not been relocated; therefore, it retains integrity of location. The overall appearance of the school has evolved since the first building was constructed in the 1950s due to continued expansion and building additions throughout its development; therefore, the school has diminished integrity of setting, feeling, and association. The buildings at the school retain aspects of workmanship, materials, and design because its primary buildings have experienced few alterations.
Regardless of integrity, the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities are not eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR.
6.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Conclusions
The records search did not identify any previously recorded cultural resources within the Project Area. The field survey yielded one new cultural resource within the Project Area: Isolated Find YOU-1-I (two lithic flakes). ECORP evaluated the isolate as not eligible for the NRHP and CRHR.
ECORP also evaluated the Former Yountville Elementary School Facilities and found them to be not eligible for the NRHP or CRHR under any criteria, either individually or as part of an existing historic Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
35 August 2025
2025-106
district. Therefore, no known Historic Properties under Section 106 of the NHPA or Historical Resources under CEQA would be affected by the proposed Project. Until the Lead Agencies concur with this identification and evaluation of eligibility of cultural resources, no Project-related activities should occur.
6.2 Likelihood for Subsurface Cultural Resources
Due to the presence of alluvium along the eastern portion of the Project Area, the documentation of a pre-contact isolate within the Project Area, the likelihood for pre-contact archaeological sites to be located along perennial waterways, and the recorded presence of a Native American village in the vicinity, the Project Area has a high potential for buried pre-contact archaeological sites. The potential for intact, buried pre-contact sites, however, is low because the Project Area has been subject to ground disturbance at multiple instances since at least 1948 and the original construction of the school facilities would have impacted or removed any prior existing resources. The potential for intact and disturbed buried historicera resources is low because the Project Area has no documented activity prior to 1948, and has been used as a school consistently from at least 1958 up to 2020.
6.3 Recommendations
6.3.1 Contractor Awareness Training
The Lead Agency shall ensure that a Contractor Awareness Training Program is delivered to train equipment operators about cultural resources. The program shall be designed to inform construction personnel about: federal and state regulations pertaining to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources; the subsurface indicators of resources that shall require a work stoppage; procedures for notifying the lead agency of any occurrences; Project-specific requirements and mitigation measures; and enforcement of penalties and repercussions for non-compliance with the program.
The training shall be prepared by a qualified professional archaeologist and may be provided either through a brochure, video, or in-person tailgate meeting, as determined appropriate by the qualified archaeologist. The training shall be provided to all construction supervisors, forepersons, and operators of ground-disturbing equipment. All personnel shall be required to sign a training roster. The construction manager shall be responsible for ensuring that all required personnel receive the training. The Construction Manager shall provide a copy of the signed training roster to the lead agency as proof of compliance.
6.3.2 Archaeological Monitoring
The original ground surface was previously disturbed due to the construction of elementary school facilities in the Project Area; however, the discovery of an isolated pre-contact resource, with two flakes located approximately 30 feet apart within the field adjacent to the dog run, increases the potential for buried pre-contact archaeological sites closest to the creek. Therefore, ECORP recommends archaeological monitoring for any ground-disturbing activities near the existing dog park and within 100 feet of Hooper Creek.
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
36 August 2025
2025-106
Prior to the start of construction, the Project Proponent shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist to monitor all ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction within 100 feet of Hooper Creek. Monitoring is not required for the placement of equipment or fill inside excavations that were monitored, above-ground construction activities, or the redistribution of soils that were previously monitored (such as the return of stockpiles to use in backfilling).
The qualified monitoring archaeologist shall meet with or work under the direct supervision of someone meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology. The qualified monitoring archaeologist and tribal monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt ground-disturbing or construction-related work within 100 feet of any discovery of potential historical or archaeological resources in order to address unanticipated discoveries.
6.3.3 Post-Review Discoveries
There always remains the potential for ground-disturbing activities to expose previously unrecorded cultural resources. Both CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA require the lead agency to address any unanticipated cultural resource discoveries during Project construction. Therefore, ECORP recommends the following procedures.
If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology, shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find, and shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The following notifications shall apply, depending on the nature of the find:
• If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource, work may resume immediately, and no agency notifications are required. • If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does represent a cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, the archaeologist shall immediately notify the lead agencies. The agencies shall consult on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined by CEQA or a historic property under Section 106 NHPA, if applicable. Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the lead agencies, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA or a Historic Property under Section 106; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.
• If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, they shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (AB 2641). The archaeologist shall notify the Napa County Coroner (per § 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, § 5097.98 of the California PRC, and AB 2641 will be implemented. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the coroner will notify the NAHC, Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
37 August 2025
2025-106
which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the Project (§ 5097.98 of the PRC). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (§ 5097.94 of the PRC). If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (§ 5097.98 of the PRC). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work may not resume within the nowork radius until the lead agencies, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
38 August 2025
2025-106
7.0 REFERENCES CITED
Architectural Resources Group. 2016. City of Arcadia: Citywide Historic Context Statement. Prepared for the City of Arcadia, Development Services, Planning Division. January 11. https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/historic%20pres ervation/Arcadia%20HCS_11-16_FINAL.pdf. Accessed June 2, 2025.
Bennyhoff, James A.. 1977. Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, pub. No. 5.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2025. The Official Federal Land Records Site. https://glorecords.blm.gov/default.aspx. Accessed May 15, 2025.
California Department of Conservation. 2015. Geologic Map of California. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/. Accessed May 16, 2025.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2025a. Local Bridges Database.
Accessed June 30, 2025.
_____. 2025b. State Highway Bridges Database. Accessed June 30, 2025.
Castillo, Edward D. 1978. The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and Settlement. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 99-127. Smithsonian Institution.
Washington D.C.
Cleland, Robert G. 1941. The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern California, 1850-1870. Huntington Library. San Marino, California.
Docomomo US. 2020. Post-Modern. United States Chapter of the International Committee for Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites, and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement. https://www.docomomo-us.org/style/post-modern. Accessed November 12, 2021 Driver, Harold E. 1936. Wappo Ethnography. In University of California Publication in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 179-220. University of California Press. Berkeley.
Erlandson, J. M. 1994. Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press. New York.
Gebhard, David, Eric Sandweiss, and Robert Winter. 1985. Architecture in San Francisco and Northern California. Gibbs M. Smith, Inc./Peregrine Smith Books. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Gebhard, David, and Robert Winter. 2003. An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles. Gibbs Smith Publishing. Layton, Utah.
Gerow, B.A. 1968. An Analysis of the University Village Copmlex with a Reapraisal of central California Archaeology. Stanford University Press. With R. Force.
Getty. 2004. Postmodern. Art & Architecture Thesaurus Online Full Record Display. The Paul J. Getty Trust. http://vocab.getty.edu/page/aat/300022208. Accessed July 2, 2025 Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
39 August 2025
2025-106
Holt, John. 2015. Yountville: The Beginnings. Napa County Historical Society. https://napahistory.org/yountville-the-beginnings-by-john-holt/. Accessed June 2, 2025.
Kroeber, A. L. 1932. The Patwin and their Neighbors. University of California Publications in Archaeology and Ethnology. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Vol 29, no. 4, pp. 253-423. _____. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington.
Küchler, A. W. 1977. The Map of the Natural Vegetation of California. University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Kyle, Douglas. 2002. Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California.
McAlester, Virginia Savage. 2015. A Field Guide to American Houses (Revised): The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America's Domestic Architecture. Alfred A. Knopf. New York, New York.
McCawley, William. 1996. The First Angelinos: the Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press, Ballena Press. Banning, California.
Milliken, Randall, Richard T. Fitzgerald, Mark G. Hylkema, Randy Groza, Tom Origer, David G. Bieling, Alan Leventhal, Randy S. Wiberg, Andrew Gottsfield, Donna Gillette, Viviana Bellifemine, Eric Strother, Robert Cartier, and David A. Fredrickson.2007. Punctuated Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area in California Prehistory Colonization, Culture and Complexity. Edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar. Pp. 99-124.
Moratto, M. J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press. Orlando.
Morgan, William. 2004. The Abrams Guide to American House Styles. Harry N. Abrams, Inc. New York, New York.
Moruzzi, Peter. 2013. National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form: The Case Study House Program: 1945–1966. National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination Form. Los Angeles Conservancy Modern Committee. Los Angeles, California. https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/fe481c26-3e5d-4429-844fc347505af983/TheCaseStudyHouseProgram_1945-1966.pdf. Accessed June 2, 2025.
Napa County Historical Society. 2025. George Yount. https://napahistory.org/george-yount/.
Accessed June 2, 2025.
Napa County Watershed Information and Conservation Council. 2021. https://www.napawatersheds.org/geology. Accessed July 23, 2025.
National Park Service (NPS). 2025. National Register of Historic Places, NPGallery Digital Asset Search. https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/. Accessed May 16, 2025. _____. 1983. Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. 48 Federal Register 44716-68.
Archaeological and Built Environment Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Yountville Commons Project
40 August 2025
2025-106
Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. 2025. Historic Aerials. www.historicaerials.com.
Accessed May 28, 2025.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2025. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed June 27, 2025.
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2025. California Historical Landmarks By County. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21387. Accessed May 14, 2025. _____. 2022. Office of Historic Preservation’s Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), dated September 26, 2022 for Napa County. On file at Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University.
_____.2017. 2016–2017 Annual Report to the State Historic Resources Commission, 18. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1067/files/2016-2017_SHRC_AnnualReport_web.pdf.
Accessed June 2, 2025.
_____. 1996. California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation. Sacramento. _____. 1992. California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation.
Sacramento.
Sawyer, Jesse O. 1978. Wappo. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by R. F.
Heizer, pp. 256-263. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Town of Yountville. 2025. Town History. https://www.townofyountville.com/399/Town-History.
Accessed June 2, 2025.
_____. 2024. 2023–2031 Housing Element (Adopted June 4, 2024). https://www.townofyountville.com/DocumentCenter/View/2840/2023-2031-Housing-Element--- Adopted-June-4-2024---Final?bidId=. Accessed June 2, 2025.
Wallace, William J. 1978."Post-Pleistocene Archeology, 9000 to 2000 BC." In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 25-36. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Wallace, William and D. W. Lathrop 1975. West Berkely (CA-ALA-307): A Culturally Stratified Shellmound on the East Shore of San Francisco Bay. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility. 29.
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Records Search Confirmation and Historical Society Coordination Appendix B – Sacred Lands File Coordination
Appendix C – Project Area Photographs
Appendix D – Confidential Cultural Resource Site Locations and Site Records
APPENDIX A
Records Search Confirmation and Historical Society Coordination
_________________________________________________________________________________________ California Historical Resources Information System
CHRIS Data Request Form
ACCESS AND USE AGREEMENT NO.:_______________ IC FILE NO.:________________________ To: ___________________________________________________________________ Information Center Print Name: ____________________________________________________ Date: _____________________ Affiliation: ________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________________________________ City: _________________________________________ State: ________________ Zip: __________________ Phone: __________________ Fax: __________________ Email: ____________________________________ Billing Address (if different than above): _________________________________________________________ Billing Email: _______________________________________________ Billing Phone: ___________________ Project Name / Reference: ___________________________________________________________________ Project Street Address: ______________________________________________________________________ County or Counties: ________________________________________________________________________ Township/Range/UTMs: _____________________________________________________________________ USGS 7.5’ Quad(s): ________________________________________________________________________ PRIORITY RESPONSE (Additional Fee): yes / no
TOTAL FEE NOT TO EXCEED: $___________________________
(If blank, the Information Center will contact you if the fee is expected to exceed $1,000.00) Special Instructions:
Information Center Use Only
Date of CHRIS Data Provided for this Request: ___________________________________________________ Confidential Data Included in Response: yes / no
Notes: ___________________________________________________________________________________ 1 of 3
2-29-2020 Version
34.00 Northwest Eric Fries 05/15/2025 ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2525 Warren Drive Rocklin CA 95677 (916) 660-2996 [email protected] [email protected] (916) 660-2996 Yountville Commons 6554 Yount St., Yountville, CA 94599 NapaT6N R5W, UTM 555706 E, 4250889 N, Zone 10 Yountville, CA, 2021 ■ 2,000.00
Please don't spend time making maps look pretty. Also, please don't include copies of prior ECORP reports, but be sure they are added to the report PDF and Excel list. Please include any shapefiles in *.shp or *gdb format.
Thanks!
California Historical Resources Information System
CHRIS Data Request Form
Mark the request form as needed. Attach a PDF of your project area (with the radius if applicable) mapped on a
7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle to scale 1:24000 ratio 1:1 neither enlarged nor reduced and include a shapefile of your project area, if available. Shapefiles are the current CHRIS standard for submitting digital spatial data for your project area or radius. Check with the appropriate IC for current availability of digital data products.
• Documents will be provided in PDF format. Paper copies will only be provided if PDFs are not available at the time of the request or under specially arranged circumstances. • Location information will be provided as a digital map product (Custom Maps or GIS data) unless the area has not yet been digitized. In such circumstances, the IC may provide hand drawn maps. • In addition to the $150/hr. staff time fee, client will be charged the Custom Map fee when GIS is required to complete the request [e.g., a map printout or map image/PDF is requested and no GIS Data is requested, or an electronic product is requested (derived from GIS data) but no mapping is requested].
For product fees, see the CHRIS IC Fee Structure on the OHP website.
1. Map Format Choice:
Select One: Custom GIS Maps GIS Data Custom GIS Maps and GIS Data No Maps Any selection below left unmarked will be considered a "no. " Location Information:
Within project area Within ______ radius
ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Locations1 yes / no yes / no
NON-ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Locations yes / no yes / no Report Locations1 yes / no yes / no
“Other” Report Locations2 yes / no yes / no
3. Database Information:
(contact the IC for product examples, or visit the SSJVIC website for examples) Within project area Within radius ______ ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Database1 List (PDF format) yes / no yes / no
Detail (PDF format) yes / no yes / no
Excel Spreadsheet yes / no yes / no
NON-ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Database
List (PDF format) yes / no yes / no
Detail (PDF format) yes / no yes / no
Excel Spreadsheet yes / no yes / no
Report Database1
List (PDF format) yes / no yes / no
Detail (PDF format) yes / no yes / no
Excel Spreadsheet yes / no yes / no
Include “Other” Reports 2 yes / no yes / no
4. Document PDFs (paper copy only upon request):
Within project area Within radius ______
ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Records1 yes / no yes / no
NON-ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Records yes / no yes / no
Reports1 yes / no yes / no
“Other” Reports2 yes / no yes / no
2 of 3
2-29-2020 Version
0.25 0.25 0.25 ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
mi. mi. mi. ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
California Historical Resources Information System
CHRIS Data Request Form
5. Eligibility Listings and Documentation:
Within project area Within radius ______
OHP Built Environment Resources Directory3:
Directory listing only (Excel format) yes / no yes / no Associated documentation4 yes / no yes / no
OHP Archaeological Resources Directory1,5:
Directory listing only (Excel format) yes / no yes / no Associated documentation4 yes / no yes / no
California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976):
Directory listing only (PDF format) yes / no yes / no
Associated documentation4 yes / no yes / no
6. Additional Information:
The following sources of information may be available through the Information Center. However, several of these sources are now available on the OHP website and can be accessed directly. The Office of Historic Preservation makes no guarantees about the availability, completeness, or accuracy of the information provided through these sources. Indicate below if the Information Center should review and provide documentation (if available) of any of the following sources as part of this request.
Caltrans Bridge Survey yes / no
Ethnographic Information yes / no
Historical Literature yes / no
Historical Maps yes / no
Local Inventories yes / no
GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps yes / no
Shipwreck Inventory yes / no
Soil Survey Maps yes / no
1 In order to receive archaeological information, requestor must meet qualifications as specified in Section III of the current version of the California Historical Resources Information System Information Center Rules of Operation Manual and be identified as an Authorized User or Conditional User under an active CHRIS Access and Use Agreement. 2 “Other” Reports GIS layer consists of report study areas for which the report content is almost entirely non-fieldwork related (e.g., local/regional history, or overview) and/or for which the presentation of the study area boundary may or may not add value to a record search.
3 Provided as Excel spreadsheets with no cost for the rows; the only cost for this component is IC staff time. Includes, but not limited to, information regarding National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and historic building surveys. Previously known as the HRI and then as the HPD, it is now known as the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD). The Office of Historic Preservation compiles this documentation and it is the source of the official status codes for evaluated resources. 4 Associated documentation will vary by resource. Contact the IC for further details. 5 Provided as Excel spreadsheets with no cost for the rows; the only cost for this component is IC staff time. Previously known as the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, now it is known as the Archaeological Resources Directory (ARD).
The Office of Historic Preservation compiles this documentation and it is the source of the official status codes for evaluated resources.
3 of 3
2-29-2020 Version
0.25 mi. ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
5/29/2025 NWIC File No.: 24-1823
Eric Fries
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
2525 Warren Drive
Rocklin, CA 95677
Re: Yountville Commons
The Northwest Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Yountville USGS 7.5’ quad(s). The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and a ¼ mile radius:
Resources within project area: None
Resources within ¼ mile radius: [7: See list below]
Reports within project area: S-001970; S-005032; S-034983 “Other” Reports w/in project area: [14: See list below] Reports within ¼ mile radius: [16: See list below]
Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed OHP Built Environment Resources Directory: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed OHP Archaeological Resources Directory: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Caltrans Bridge Survey: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Ethnographic Information: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Literature: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Local Inventories: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Resources
Outside Project
Location
28 511
28 964
28 965
28 966
28 1547
28 1807
28 2594 “Other” Reports In
Project Location S- 848 S- 2458 S- 7888 S- 8226 S- 9462 S- 9795 S- 12492 S- 18217 S- 30204 S- 32596 S- 33600 S- 51414 S- 54338 S- 56662 Reports Outside
Project Location S- 40 S- 5801 S- 11250 S- 19832 S- 20115 S- 21260 S- 33573 S- 34122 S- 35276 S- 36559 S- 37781 S- 39006 S- 45703 S- 51215 S- 53201 GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Shipwreck Inventory: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Soil Survey Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution.
If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.
The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.
Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.
Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice.
Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).
Sincerely,
Justin Murazzo
Justin Murazzo, Researcher
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources 24-1823 :: Yountville Commons
S-000040 1974 Report of the Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Modification to the City of
Yountville Wastewater System, Napa County,
California.
Archaeological Consulting
and Research Services
28-000040, 28-000286, 28-000287,
28-000288, 28-000289, 28-000823
S-001970 1979 A Preliminary Reconnaissance of the Cultural Resources of the Section 205 AE&D Study,
City of Yountville (Hopper Creek), California,
for the San Francisco Corps of Engineers
Miley Paul Holman and Holman & Associates
Sarah Slater
28-000019, 28-000020, 28-000025,
28-000026, 28-000268, 28-000288,
28-000289, 28-000331, 28-000334,
28-000335, 28-000441, 28-000442
S-005032 1982 Yountville Condominiums on Hopper Creek
(letter report)
David Chavez Consulting
Archaeologist
David Chavez
S-005801 1983 An Archaeological Study for the Vintage Inn EIR, Yountville, Napa County, California
Cultural Resources Facility,
Sonoma State University
Allan G. Bramlette and
Kim Tremaine
S-011250 1989 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Yountville Post Office Site, Napa County, California
Eleanor H. Derr
S-019832 1997 A Cultural Resources Study of the Lande
Property, 6775 Yount Street, Yountville, Napa
County, California
Vicki R. Beard and Tom Origer & Associates
Thomas M. Origer
Voided - S-20250
S-019832a 1997 Addendum to a Cultural Resource Study of the Lande Property, 6775 Yount Street,
Yountville, Napa County, California
Vicki R. Beard Tom Origer & Associates
S-020115 1998 A Cultural Resources Study of the Piazza Dei Cotta Development Project, Yountville, Napa
County, California
Anthropological Studies
Center, Sonoma State
University
Submitter - Project Adam Sriro 28-000964, 28-000965, 28-000966 50001 - 27/98
S-021260 1998 Rock Fences of Napa County: A Pilot Study Tremaine & Associates, Archaeological Consultants
Kim J. Tremaine and
John A. Lopez
28-000359, 28-000457, 28-000499,
28-000551, 28-000614, 28-000616,
28-000617, 28-000637, 28-000687,
28-000712, 28-000957, 28-000968,
28-000997, 28-001196, 28-001212,
28-001213, 28-001214, 28-001215,
28-001216, 28-001217, 28-001218,
28-001219, 28-001220, 28-001221,
28-001222
S-033573 2007 A Cultural Resources Survey of APN 036-330- 001, 2200 and 2210 Webber Avenue,
Yountville, Napa County, California
Thomas M. Origer Tom Origer & Associates 28-000964, 28-000965, 28-000966 S-034122 2007 A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the
Finnell Road Family Housing Project, 1911
Finnell Road, Yountville, Napa County, CA.
Archaeological Resource
Service
Cassandra Chattan and
Sally Evans
Submitter - A.R.S.
Project 07-041
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources 24-1823 :: Yountville Commons
S-034983 2008 A Cultural Resources Evaluation of Ghirardi Place, 1904 Finnell Road, Yountville, Napa
County, CA.
Archaeological Resource
Service
Submitter - A.R.S. Cassandra Chattan
Project 08-027
S-035276 2008 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the
Proposed Vineyard Oaks of the Napa Valley
Project, Yountville, Napa County, CA. (APN
036-042-001)
Archaeological Resource
Service
Submitter - A.R.S. Sally Evans
Project 08-048
S-036559 2009 Historic Property and Archaeological Survey Reports, proposed bike path between post
miles 04-NAP-29 19.0 and 19.8, ESPL-5395
(001)/965100
Caltrans - ESPL- Frances L. Sherlock Caltrans, District 4 28-000511, 28-000966 5395 (001)/965100;
Other - ST-03-FS;
Voided - S-36261
S-036559a 2009 Archaeological Survey Report for the
Highway 29 Class I Bike Path Project (ST-3-
FS), Yountville, Napa County, California, PM:
19.0/19.8, Federal ID#: ESPL-5395 (001),
EA: 965100
Caltrans District 04; Tom
Origer & Associates
Carie Montero and Vicki
Beard
S-036559b 2009 A Cultural Resources Survey for the Highway 29 Class I Bike Path Project (ST-03-FS),
Yountville, Napa County, California
Vicki Beard Tom Origer & Associates
S-037781 2009 Historic Property Survey Report, Proposed Installation of an approximately 0.80 mile long
bike path, 04-NAP-29 Post Miles 19.9/19.84,
170, ESPL-5395 (001)/965100
California Department of
Transportation
Caltrans - ESPL- Frances Schierenbeck 28-000511
5395 (001)/965100
S-037781a 2009 Archaeological Survey Report for the
Highway 29 Class I Bike Path Project (ST-03-
FS) Yountville, Napa County, California,
PM:19.0/19.8, Federal ID# ESPL-5395 (001),
EA: 965100
California Department of
Transportation; Tom Origer
& Associates
Carie Montero and Vickie
Beard
S-039006 2012 Historic Property and Archaeological Survey Report for the Yountville Bike Route and
Extension Project, Yountville, Napa County,
California, Federal Project No. RPSTLPE5395(002)
Submitter - LSA Neal Kaptain LSA Associates, Inc. 28-001873 Project #RSA1101
S-039006a 2012 Archaeological Survey Report for the
Yountville Bike Route and Extension Project,
Yountville, Napa County, California, Federal
Project No. RPSTLPE-5395(002), Caltrans
District 4
Neal Kaptain LSA Associates Inc,
S-045703 2012 Historical Resources Evaluation, 6702
Washington Street, Yountville, Napa County,
California
Submitter - Project Kara Brunzell BCR Consulting 28-001807 No. MLH1201
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources 24-1823 :: Yountville Commons
S-051215 2017 Historic Resource Evaluation, 1960 Mount
Avenue, Yountville, Napa County, California
(APN 036-010-003)
Alice P. Duffee APD Preservation LLC
S-053201 2018 Historical Evaluation and Project Review
Report for the proposed renovation project at
2040 Humboldt Street, Yountville, Napa
County, California (letter report)
Kara Brunzell Brunzell Historical 28-002594
2525 Warren Drive ● Rocklin, CA 95677 ● Tel: (916) 782-9100 ● Fax: (909) 307-0056 ● www.ecorpconsulting.com May 15, 2025
Napa County Historical Society
1219 First Street
Napa, CA 94559
Sent via email: [email protected]
RE: Cultural Resources Identification Effort for the Yountville Commons Project, Napa County, California (ECORP Project No. 2025-106)
Dear Napa County Historical Society,
ECORP Consulting, Inc. has been retained to assist in the planning of the development of the project indicated above. As part of the identification effort, we are seeking information from all parties that may have knowledge of or concerns with historic properties or cultural resources in the area of potential effect.
Included is a map showing the project area outlined. We would appreciate input on this undertaking from the Historical Society with concerns about possible cultural properties or potential impacts within or adjacent to the area of potential effect. If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 660-2996 or [email protected].
Thank you in advance for your assistance in our cultural resource management study.
Sincerely,
Eric C. Fries, M.A., RPA
Senior Archaeologist
Attachment:
Project Location and Vicinity Map
APPENDIX B
Sacred Lands File Coordination
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
916-373-3710
916-373-5471 – Fax
[email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Project: Yountville Commons (2025-106)
County: Napa
USGS Quadrangle Name: Yountville, CA (2021)
Township: 6 North Range: 5 West Section: no section; PLSA Napa Land Grant Company/Firm/Agency: ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Contact Person: Eric C. Fries
Street Address: 2525 Warren Drive
City: Rocklin Zip: 95677
Phone: 916-660-2996
Fax: 916-782-9134
Email: [email protected]
Project Description:
See attached Project location map.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
May 16, 2025
Eric C. Fries
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Yountville Commons (2025-106) Project, Napa County
To Whom It May Concern:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information submitted for the above referenced project. The results were positive. Please contact the Mishewal-Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley on the attached list for information. Please note that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the SLF, nor are they required to do so. A SLF search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with a project’s geographic area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites, such as the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) archaeological Information Center for the presence of recorded archaeological sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. Please contact all of those listed; if they cannot supply information, they may recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected]
Sincerely,
Melina Carlos
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla
COMMISSIONER
Bennae Calac
Pauma-Yuima Band of
Luiseño Indians
COMMISSIONER
Vacant
ACTING EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY
STEVEN QUINN
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
County Tribe Name Fed (F)
Non-Fed (N)
Contact Person Contact Address Phone # Fax # Email Address Cultural Affiliation Guidiville Rancheria of California F Michael Derry, Historian PO Box 339 Talmage, CA, 95481
(707) 391-1665 Pomo
Guidiville Rancheria of California F Bunny Tarin, Tribal Administrator PO Box 339 Talmage, CA, 95481
(707) 462-3682 [email protected] Pomo
Mishewal-Wappo Tribe of Alexander
Valley
N Scott Gabaldon, Chairperson 2275 Silk Road
Windsor, CA, 95492
(707) 494-9159 [email protected] Wappo
Mishewal-Wappo Tribe of Alexander
Valley
N Christi Gabaldon, Tribal Monitor 7095 Saint Helena Rd Santa Rosa, CA, 95404
(707) 889-1423 [email protected] Wappo
Pinoleville Pomo Nation F Leona Willams, Chairperson 500 B Pinoleville Drive Ukiah, CA, 95482
(707) 463-1454 (707) 463-6601 Pomo
Pinoleville Pomo Nation F Erica Carson, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
500 B Pinoleville Drive
Ukiah, CA, 95482
(707) 463-1454 (707) 463-6601 Pomo Lake,Mendocino,Napa,So noma
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Yountville Commons (2025-106) Project, Napa County.
Record: PROJ-2025-
002704
Report Type: List of
Tribes
Counties: Napa
NAHC Group: All
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Napa County
5/16/2025
Counties Last Updated
Napa Alameda,Contra
Costa,Lake,Marin,Mendoci
no,Napa,Sacramento,San
6/21/2023
Alameda,Contra
Costa,Lake,Marin,Mendoci
no,Napa,Sacramento,San
6/21/2023
Lake,Napa,Sonoma 1/31/2024
Lake,Napa,Sonoma 1/31/2024
Lake,Mendocino,Napa,So
noma
05/16/2025 02:48 PM
1 of 1
APPENDIX C
Project Area Photographs
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
PHOTOGRAPH RECORD Trinomial
Camera: Samsung S21 FE 5G Lens Size:
Film Type and Speed: Digital Negatives Kept at: ECORP Consulting, Inc.
DPR 523I (1/95)
Mo. Day Time Subject/Description View
Toward Accession #
6 5 1039 Schmitt Hall E 20250605_103944
6 5 1040 Schmitt Hall roofline E 20250605_104003
6 5 1040 Schmitt Hall front entry E 20250605_104016
6 5 1040 Schmitt Hall northwest corner SE 20250605_104051 6 5 1041 Schmitt Hall detail S 20250605_104131
6 5 1043 Schmitt Hall northeast corner SW 20250605_104314 6 5 1043 Schmitt Hall east side W 20250605_104348
6 5 1044 Schmitt Hall east side W 20250605_104426
6 5 1044 Schmitt Hall door details W 20250605_104454
6 5 1045 Schmitt Hall wall treatment n/a 20250605_104549 6 5 1046 Schmitt Hall southeast corner NW 20250605_104629 6 5 1047 Schmitt Hall south side N 20250605_104709
6 5 1047 Schmitt Hall south side entrance N 20250605_104726 6 5 1048 Schmitt Hall southwest corner NE 20250605_104814 6 5 1051 West shade canopy overview SE 20250605_105109
6 5 1051 West shade canopy overview S 20250605_105141
6 5 1052 West shade canopy ceiling interior n/a 20250605_105202 6 5 1052 West shade canopy articulation to walkway awning SE 20250605_105251 6 5 1053 Admin building, north face S 20250605_105342
6 5 1054 Admin building, northwest corner SE 20250605_105432 6 5 1055 Admin building window treatment S 20250605_105513 6 5 1056 Admin building window detail E 20250605_105618 6 5 1056 Admin building west side NE 20250605_105646
6 5 1057 Admin building southwest corner NE 20250605_105744 6 5 1058 Admin building southwest corner E 20250605_105809 6 5 1058 Admin building south face, lateral view N 20250605_105855 6 5 1059 Admin building, window and roofline N 20250605_105925 6 5 1100 Admin building, central breezeway 20250605_110023 State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
PHOTOGRAPH RECORD Trinomial
Camera: Samsung S21 FE 5G Lens Size:
Film Type and Speed: Digital Negatives Kept at: ECORP Consulting, Inc.
DPR 523I (1/95)
Mo. Day Time Subject/Description View
Toward Accession #
6 5 1101 Admin building, west wing, south face N 20250605_110153 6 5 1102 Admin building, removed awning linking to Town Hall N 20250605_110219 6 5 1102 Town Hall, removed awning W 20250605_110243
6 5 1103 Admin building, southeast corner NW 20250605_110351 6 5 1104 Admin building,articulation with Town Hall NW 20250605_110434 6 5 1105 Admin building, northeast corner SW 20250605_110553 6 5 1106 Admin building, east wing, north face S 20250605_110642 6 5 1107 Admin building, door to roofline view in north face S 20250605_110724 6 5 1107 Admin building, door in north face S 20250605_110739 6 5 1108 Admin building, north face, drinking fountain S 20250605_110803 6 5 1108 Admin building, breezeway windows S 20250605_110834 6 5 1109 Admin building, articulation via awning to library N 20250605_110934 6 5 1110 Plaque in dedicatory corner SW 20250605_111041 6 5 1111 Dedicatory corner at northeast corner of library SW 20250605_111101 6 5 1111 Dedicatory corner at northeast corner of library SW 20250605_111127 6 5 1112 East shade canopy S 20250605_111203
6 5 1112 East shade canopy SE 20250605_111214
6 5 1112 East shade canopy E 20250605_111234
6 5 1112 East shade canopy, roof interior n/a 20250605_111252 6 5 1113 Library northeast corner SW 20250605_111346
6 5 1114 Library north face S 20250605_111422
6 5 1115 Library northwest corner SE 20250605_111518
6 5 1115 Library west side E 20250605_111559
6 5 1117 Library southwest corner NE 20250605_111704
6 5 1117 Library south side N 20250605_111740
6 5 1118 Library exterior light fixture E 20250605_111826 6 5 1119 Admin building wall treatment N 20250605_111901 6 5 1119 Library southeast corner NW 20250605_111941
6 5 1120 Library east side W 20250605_112047
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
PHOTOGRAPH RECORD Trinomial
Camera: Samsung S21 FE 5G Lens Size:
Film Type and Speed: Digital Negatives Kept at: ECORP Consulting, Inc.
DPR 523I (1/95)
Mo. Day Time Subject/Description View
Toward Accession #
6 5 1123 Southeast dugout #2, southwest corner NE 20250605_112333 6 5 1123 Southeast dugout #2, northwest corner SE 20250605_112355 6 5 1124 Southeast dugout #1, northeast corner SW 20250605_112417 6 5 1124 Southeast dugout #1, interior E 20250605_112440 6 5 1125 Southeast dugout #1 N 20250605_112500
6 5 1125 Snack shack N 20250605_112543
6 5 1126 Snack shack N 20250605_112606
6 5 1126 Snack shack, detail shot of brick step n/a 20250605_112626 6 5 1127 Snack shack, south façade N 20250605_112704
6 5 1127 Snack shack, west façade E 20250605_112730
6 5 1127 Northwest dugout NE 20250605_112758
6 5 1128 Northwest dugout SW 20250605_112828
6 5 1128 Snack shack, rear NE 20250605_112854
6 5 1131 Northwest corner garden shed (probably a Tuff Shed or similar) E 20250605_113124 6 5 1131 Overview S 20250605_113151
6 5 1132 Overview S 20250605_113203
6 5 1132 Overview E 20250605_113256
6 5 1133 Overview E 20250605_113310
6 5 1134 Overview along property line between school and town hall NE 20250605_113421 6 5 1135 Overview from south corner N 20250605_113522
6 5 1142 Dedicatory plaque on snack shack n/a 20250605_114218 6 5 1142 Dedicatory plaque on snack shack n/a 20250605_114247 6 5 1212 Scoreboard and dugouts by snack shack SE 20250605_121253 6 5 1215 Overview SE 20250605_121541
6 5 1239 School overview W 20250605_123909
6 5 1239 Northeast dugout W 20250605_123939
6 5 1239 Northeast dugout SW 20250605_123953
6 5 1240 North shed NW 20250605_124038
6 5 1241 North dugout SW 20250605_124112
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
PHOTOGRAPH RECORD Trinomial
Camera: Samsung S21 FE 5G Lens Size:
Film Type and Speed: Digital Negatives Kept at: ECORP Consulting, Inc.
DPR 523I (1/95)
Mo. Day Time Subject/Description View
Toward Accession #
6 5 1243 North dugout NE 20250605_124308
6 5 1237 Isolate YOU-1-I, Lithic flake #1, dorsal view n/a 20250605_123718 6 5 1238 Isolate YOU-1-I, Lithic flake #1 location N 20250605_123830 6 5 1256 Isolate YOU-1-I, Flake #2, obsidian, ventral view n/a 20250605_125650 6 5 1257 Isolate YOU-1-I, Flake #2, obsidian, dorsal view n/a 20250605_125705 6 5 1258 Isolate YOU-1-I, Flake #2 location W 20250605_125831
20250605_103944 20250605_104003
20250605_104016 20250605_104051
20250605_104131 20250605_104314
20250605_104348 20250605_104426
20250605_104454 20250605_104549
20250605_104629 20250605_104709
20250605_104726 20250605_104814
20250605_105109 20250605_105141
20250605_105202 20250605_105251
20250605_105342 20250605_105432
20250605_105513
20250605_105618
20250605_105646 20250605_105744
20250605_105809 20250605_105855
20250605_105925 20250605_110023
20250605_110153 20250605_110219
20250605_110243 20250605_110351
20250605_110434 20250605_110553
20250605_110642 20250605_110724
20250605_110739 20250605_110803
20250605_110834 20250605_110934
20250605_111041 20250605_111101
20250605_111127 20250605_111203
20250605_111214 20250605_111234
20250605_111252 20250605_111346
20250605_111422 20250605_111518
20250605_111559 20250605_111704
20250605_111740 20250605_111826
20250605_111901 20250605_111941
20250605_112047 20250605_112333
20250605_112355 20250605_112417
20250605_112440 20250605_112500
20250605_112543 20250605_112606
20250605_112626 20250605_112704
20250605_112730 20250605_112758
20250605_112828 20250605_112854
20250605_113124 20250605_113151
20250605_113203 20250605_113256
20250605_113310 20250605_113421
20250605_113522 20250605_114218
20250605_114247 20250605_121253
20250605_121541 20250605_123621
20250605_123718 20250605_123830
20250605_123909 20250605_123939
20250605_123953 20250605_124038
20250605_124112 20250605_124308
20250605_125650 20250605_125705
20250605_125831 20250605_125955
20250605_130349
APPENDIX D
Confidential Cultural Resource Site Locations and Site Records This appendix contains information on the specific location of cultural resources. This information is not for publication or release to the general public. It is for planning, management, and research purposes only. Information on the specific location of pre-contact and historic sites is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and California Public Records Act.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: X Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: Napa and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Yountville Date: 2021 T; R Napa Land Grant, unsectioned ; M.D. B.M. c. Address: 6554 Yount St. City: Yountville, CA Zip: 94599 d. UTM: Zone: 10; (NAD 83): mE 555706 mN 4250889
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation:
In open field; at time of recording, isolate was bisected by a low chainlink fence forming the southern boundary of a dog run. *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
Isolate consist of two lithic flakes. Flake #1 is a secondary flake measuring 2 cm x 2 cm x 0.5 cm, made on andesite or other igneous rock, with prominent bulb of percussion and multiple tertiary flakes removed from the dorsal face. Flake #2 is a tertiary flake of obsidian measuring 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x 0.25 cm.
The two flakes were found in separate patches of disturbed bare soil approximately 45 meters apart. Since they are on the same landform and in the same depositional context, they were recorded as a single isolate.
The vicinity is disturbed; it has been used as a school field since 1958, and a baseball diamond was constructed and maintained in the area of the isolate from 1968 until 2020. Aerial imagery analysis shows that the baseball diamond was allowed to grow over and then refurbished multiple times, so the isolate area has had multiple episodes of deposition and disturbance.
Also found in the area were three fragments of clam shell measuring less than 1 cm x 1 cm, in an exposed area of bare earth 10 meters west of the lithic flakes, where a vehicle had driven onto the grass field. However, freshly deposited soil near the isolate also had flecks of mussel and clam shell on the surface, indicating that these materials may be a constituent of soil brought in from other contexts. Therefore the shell fragments were not included in the recording of the isolate. *P3b. Resource Attributes: AP2
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District X Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date,
accession #) Overview of isolate area facing
north; flake #1 at arrow in foreground, flake #2
is on other side of fence. June 5, 2025.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
Historic
X Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
Town of Yountville, 6554 Yount St., Yountville,
CA 94599
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address)
Eric C. Fries
Daisy Chisholm
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
2525 Warren Drive
Rocklin, CA 95677
*P9. Date Recorded: 6/5/2025
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive pedestrian survey, 15 meter transects.
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Archaeological Resources Inventory and Built Environment Evaluation Report for the Yountville Commons Project. 2025, ECORP Consulting, Inc. *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
P5a. Photo or Drawing
(Photo
required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
YOU-1-I
ECORP: N:\2025\2025-106 Yountville Commons\MAPS\Cultural_Resources\YountvilleCommons_Cultural.aprx/Yountville DPR Location YOU-1-I 20250701-kedwards 7/1/2025 DPR 523J (1/95) *Required Information
0 250 500 1,000 Meters
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet
I
*Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1951 p.r. 1968
*Map Name: Yountville, CA
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
LOCATION MAP
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: ☐ Not for Publication ☒ Unrestricted *a. County: Napa and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Napa Date: 1968 PLSA Land Grant: Napa T N/A; RN/A; S.B.B.M. c. Address: 6554 Yount Street City: Yountville Zip: 94599 d. UTM: 10 S 555711 mE 4250813 mN
e. Other Locational Data: APN: 036-070-026-000
*P3a. Description:
The former Yountville Elementary School Facilities is in central Yountville that once served as the town’s elementary school. The school consists of a parking lot at the western end, a cluster of former school buildings at the center, and a large grass lawn and accompanying blacktop at the eastern end. The cluster features three main buildings: the c. 1951 Administration Building, the c. 1976 Library Building, and the c. 2003 Schmitt Hall and additional ancillary structures. A neighborhood of single-family residential homes surrounds the Project Area on all sides. See Continuation Sheet. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP15. Educational building
*P4. Resources Present: ☐ Building ☒ Structure ☐ Object ☐ Site ☐ District ☐ Element of District ☒ Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo:
View of Former Yountville
Elementary School Facilities
View east, June 5, 2025
*P6. Date Constructed/Age:
Circa 1951
Sources:
☒ Historic ☐ Prehistoric ☐ Both
Historical Research
*P7. Owner and Address:
Town of Yountville
2425 Jefferson Street,
Yountville, CA 94558
*P8. Recorded by:
Andrew Buran
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
111 Academy Way
Irvine, CA 92617
*P9. Date Recorded:
June 5, 2025
*P10. Survey Type:
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation:
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2025. Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Yountville Commons Project. Napa County, California. Prepared for the Town of Yountville.
*Attachments: ☐ NONE ☒ Location Map ☒ Sketch Map ☐ Continuation Sheet ☒ Building, Structure, and Object Record ☐ Archaeological Record ☐ District Record ☐ Linear Feature Record ☐ Milling Station Record ☐ Rock Art Record ☐ Artifact Record ☐ Photograph Record ☐ Other (List):
P5a. Photo or Drawing
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
B1. Historic Name: Yountville Elementary School
B2. Common Name: Yountville Elementary School
B3. Original Use: Elementary School B4. Present Use: Civic Buildings *B5. Architectural Style: Mid-Centrury Modern, Post-Modern *B6. Construction History:
No original building permits were located for the former school. The City of Yountville provided the following building permit via email:
Permit # YB-24-92 from 6/26/2024 for demolition of various structures at a cost of $40,000 *B7. Moved? ☒ No ☐ Yes ☐ Unknown Date: N/A Original Location: N/A *B8. Related Features: N/A
B9a. Architect: N/A b. Builder: Town of Yountville
*B10. Significance: Theme: Education Area: Yountville
Period of Significance: 1951 Property Type: Institiutional Applicable Criteria: N/A The following Significance Statement provides historic contexts to support an evaluation of the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities using National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) criteria. (See continuation sheet)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A
*B12. References:
(See continuation sheet)
B13. Remarks: None
*B14. Evaluator:
Andrew Buran
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
111 Academy Way
Irvine, CA 92617
*Date of Evaluation: June 5, 2025
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: May 8, 2025 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
*P3a. Description (continued):
Administration Building
The c. 1951 Administration Building is the oldest building in the school and located at the southernmost end of the Project Area just north of the City Hall (which once served as the Yountville Elementary School) (Figure 2). The Administration Building is a one-story classroom building that features a mono-pitched roof with overhanging eaves and a rectangular plan typical of the Midcentury Modern architectural style. Smooth-textured stucco finishes all exterior elevations. The primary northern façade contains a long wood-framed ribbon window that spans almost the entire elevation and is divided by evenly spaced mullions (window pane dividers). Rectangular and louvered clerestory windows along the top of the ribbon provide ventilation. The façade also has three evenly spaced flat panel metal entrance doors and a recessed entrance at the center of the elevation with an additional entrance door.
Additional fenestration occurs on the south elevation with similarly styled ribbon windows but without entrance doors.
Library Building
The c. 1976 Library Building, located just north of the Administration Building, is a one-story building topped by a metal-clad mansard roof with a centered monitor feature marked by clerestory windows (Figure 3). The building is irregular in plan and rough-textured stucco covers all its exterior surfaces. Fenestration consists of metal-frame fixedpane windows, including rectangular floor-to-ceiling windows flanking the entrance doors and sporadically placed square windows. Two wooden flat-panel doors on the primary west façade provide access along with the three recessed entrances on the north and south elevations. On the south elevation, a breezeway connects the Library Building to both the Administration Building to the south and a shade structure to the west. A row of mature pine trees and a square metal canopy structure are at the front of the building, and mature trees line the rear east elevation.
Schmitt Hall
Schmitt Hall is a one-story, front-gabled building with smooth-textured stucco cladding and an irregular plan (Figure 4). The roof features overhanging eaves and clerestory glazing on the primary west elevation. Schmitt Hall’s most distinctive feature is its angled entrance volume, which is typical of Postmodern architecture. The building projects diagonally from the primary façade, which is framed by a series of slender metal support posts that uphold a flat canopy. The entrance itself is recessed beneath this canopy, creating a sheltered section. Secondary flat-panel metal-door entrances punctuate the east, north, and south elevations. The rear east elevation features five evenly spaced metal doors. Fenestration is limited to small square-punched windows arranged in an abstract, grid-like composition on the primary façade.
Ancillary Structures
Snack Shack
The c. 1976 snack shack is located on the southern end of the Project Area and connected to the backstop of a baseball diamond known as Kaneshiro Field (Figure 5). A flat roof with a cantilever feature over the primary façade tops the one-story building, which is rectangular in plan and of cinder block construction. Two square service openings on the primary south façade punctuate the building, and a single metal door on the east elevation provides entrance to the building. A metal canopy supported by narrow metal posts extends from the east elevation. A plaque reading “Kaneshiro Field” dated May 12, 1976 is affixed to the building and dedicated to community member Richard “Dick” Kaneshiro.
Baseball Dugouts
The Project Area contains a total of five c. 1976 baseball dugouts with three located along the southern baseball diamond and two located along the northern baseball diamond. All five dugouts have a similar appearance with low, mono-pitched roofs, cinder block construction, and a rectangular plan. Each dugout has an open side facing the baseball diamond with rectangular openings along the front, protected by chain-link fencing. Figure 6 shows a dugout at the southern end of the Project Area.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: May 8, 2025 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Sheds
Two c. 1976 storage sheds are located on the northwestern and northeastern corners of the Project Area. The northwestern shed is one-story, square in plan, and topped by a mono-pitched roof (Figure 7). Horizontal wood board siding clads the exterior elevations of the northwestern shed, and a wood board entrance door on the south elevation provides entrance.
The additional one-story shed in the northeast corner of the Project Area has a rectangular plan and a low, monopitched roof. Vertical wood board siding clads its exterior elevations, and a wood board entrance door on the east elevation provides entrance.
Shade Structures
The former Yountville Elementary School Facilities contains eastern and western utilitarian shade structures. The c. 1976 western shade structure is located 15 feet west of the Library Building and consists of four metal posts supporting a hipped, corrugated metal roof on a square plan (Figure 8).
The larger c. 2017 eastern shade structure is located 35 feet east of the Library Building; this shade structure is rectangular in plan, topped by a low-pitched, side-gabled corrugated metal roof, and supported by narrow metal columns.
Landscaping
Landscaping consists of mature trees set around the perimeter of the Project Area and the buildings within it. A mature oak sits just south of the Library Building with a plaque dated May 22, 1976 and dedicated to the school by the Native Sons of the Golden West, a fraternal organization (Figure 9). The eastern end of the Project Area includes a 3-acre grass field with two baseball diamonds.
B10. Significance (continued):
History of the Town of Yountville
The Town of Yountville, located in central Napa County, traces its origins to George Calvert Yount, a frontiersman and trapper who became the first permanent Euro-American settler in Napa Valley. The first permanent settlement in the area began in 1836 when Mexican Governor Nicolás Gutiérrez gave Yount the 11,814-acre Rancho Caymus land grant. Yount laid the agricultural foundation that would later define the area by building a log cabin, a gristmill, a sawmill, and some of Napa Valley's first vineyards on his property (Napa County Historical Society 2025). Yount's early efforts established the region’s agricultural potential for viticulture, even though the commercial wine industry would not flourish until decades later.
Yount's descendants divided and sold the land after his death in 1865. Judge E. H. Sawyer, who purchased a portion of land, laid out a formal town site in 1867, and the settlement was named Yountville after its founder (Holt 2015).
Early civic activities included the opening of a public school by the early 1870s, a post office in 1869, and several small enterprises that catered to the expanding farming community. The Napa Valley Railroad's arrival in 1868 resulted in new buildings along Washington Street and linked Yountville to larger commercial networks, allowing the transportation of agricultural products to Napa and San Francisco (Holt 2015). Yountville was a self-sufficient rural town by the 1880s, with churches, general stores, a hotel, and artisan shops.
Yountville's development was significantly and permanently affected by the Veterans Home of California, which was founded in 1884 just north of the town center. As a state-run facility for elderly veterans, the Veterans Home drew hundreds of residents, brought in infrastructure, and grew to become the biggest employer in the town. Medical facilities, recreational facilities, and agricultural operations were added to the Veterans Home over time; many of these were incorporated into Yountville’s economic activities and community gatherings (Town of Yountville 2025).
The Veterans Home also made a substantial contribution to Yountville’s social fabric because its residents took part in local government, school visits, and parades.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: May 8, 2025 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Despite these developments, small farms, family-run vineyards, and low-density housing helped Yountville retain its modest and rural character throughout the early 20th century. Yountville did not have the authority to exercise local governance and coordinate long-term planning until February 4, 1965, when it was formally incorporated as a municipality (Town of Yountville 2025). Over the latter half of the 20th century, Yountville gradually came to be known for its fine dining and wine tourism. Yountville’s adaptive reuse of historic buildings as lodging facilities, dining establishments, and public buildings best demonstrated its approach to conserving its history while promoting economic revival.
Yountville is now known for its function as a center of Napa Valley culture and cuisine. Civic landmarks like the Veterans Home grounds, Groezinger Winery (now V Marketplace), and the Former Yountville Elementary School (now Town Hall) provide everyday reminders of Yountville’s complex and changing past (Holt 2015; Town of Yountville 2025).
History of Yountville Elementary School
Public education has existed in Yountville since its founding as a small agricultural community on George Yount's former Rancho Caymus property in the late 19th century. Although records are uncertain, the region's first school is thought to have been founded sometime in the 1860s in a modest building on property owned by local printer and educator Richard T. Montgomery (Holt 2015). Over time, this building developed into a more formal one-room schoolhouse, which by 1881 had grown to meet the educational requirements of local farming and ranching families (Holt 2015).
The original wooden schoolhouse was replaced in the 1920s by a larger structure designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style that featured red clay roof tiles and stucco walls, which were common features of California civic architecture at the time. Originally called Yountville Grammar School, it was later known as Yountville Elementary School. In addition to housing a public library starting in the 1950s, this structure served as Yountville’s primary educational facility for many years (Town of Yountville 2024). Despite an increase in enrollment, the elementary school’s location on its corner lot remained constant until the middle of the 20th century.
The school expanded northward in the early 1950s when it acquired what would become the modern school campus and a new classroom building: the Administration Building (Town of Yountville 2024). Although the original 1920s era Yountville Elementary School building and the Administration Building may have been used simultaneously at first, it was officially decommissioned in 1977 due to safety code violations and seismic vulnerability (OHP 2017). In the same year, the Yountville Elementary School officially established its campus within the Project Area. The Library Building and a multipurpose structure, which would eventually be known as Schmitt Hall, were features the midcentury area campus. In contrast, the decommissioned 1920s-era Yountville Elementary School was converted into Yountville Town Hall, retaining its architectural characteristics while changing to a civic function (OHP 2017).
For more than 40 years, the Yountville Elementary School remained open at the 6554 Yount Street parcel, but enrollment drastically decreased by the 2010s. Due to declining enrollment and financial strains, the Napa Valley Unified School District decided to close the school in 2020 as part of a broader district-wide reorganization. Less than 130 pupils were enrolled at the Yountville Elementary School at the time of its closure (Town of Yountville 2024).
Architectural Style: Midcentury Modern (1940-1975)
The c. 1951 Administration Building is a modest example of the post-war Midcentury Modern architectural style.
The Midcentury Modern style (1940–1975) draws from the International and Bauhaus movements popular in Europe in the early 20th century. Early Modernists such as Frank Lloyd Wright, Richard Neutra, and Rudolph Schindler introduced many aspects of these design aesthetics and material innovations to Southern California in the 1920s.
World War II played a major role in the development of the Midcentury Modern style in the United States, during which prominent European practitioners of the International and Bauhaus styles—including architects Walter Gropius and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe—emigrated to the United States, which was rising to prominence in industry and manufacturing (Architectural Resources Group 2016; Gebhard and Winter 2003; Moruzzi 2013).
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: May 8, 2025 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
The ability to mass-produce standardized, reasonably priced, and replicable designs that could satisfy a wide range of programmatic needs and site requirements made Midcentury Modern design appealing. The demand for mass construction of various property types, such as homes, offices, and schools required a style that could express the modern sensibility of a time that valued economic efficiency, middle-class expansion, breaking with tradition, and new material technology. Midcentury Modern style practitioners focused on the most innovative materials and methods (Architectural Resources Group 2016; Gebhard and Winter 2003; Moruzzi 2013).
The building boom that followed World War II involved a widespread adoption of the Midcentury Modern style, especially in the newly expansive developments that radiated out from Southern California's major urban centers. The Case Study House program made Los Angeles a hub for Midcentury Modern style experimentation; the impact of the new designs spread to neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles County, where the features of Midcentury Modern architecture could be adapted for large-scale production. Midcentury Modern architecture was ideal for expanding suburban cities because it made use of mass-produced materials like concrete, steel, wood, and glass (Architectural Resources Group 2016; Gebhard and Winter 2003; Moruzzi 2013).
In contrast to the International style, which is typified by expansive planes of steel and glass, Midcentury Modern style is distinguished by more substantial wall surfaces. Midcentury Modern commercial and institutional (mainly educational) buildings frequently have stacked bond brick walls. Despite the use of geometric shapes and industrial materials, Midcentury Modern architecture frequently draws inspiration from regional vernacular traditions, especially when it comes to the use of wood and the division of indoor and outdoor areas. Post-and-beam construction with exposed wooden structural systems is a typical design feature in Midcentury Modern residential buildings. Flat roofs, deep overhangs, open floor plans, large expanses of glass, indoor/outdoor flow, and concrete slab foundations are characteristics of Midcentury Modern residential and small business buildings. Applied ornamentation and historical style references are uncommon in Midcentury Modern designs; as a result, many industrial buildings in this style are often described as “decorated boxes," which are simple structures with ornamentation applied to fit the period and appear more contemporary without accurately representing the activities taking place inside. The Midcentury Modern style incorporated innovative features into commercial buildings, such as sleek modern signage, aluminum awnings and canopies, deeply recessed and/or angled vestibules, floor-to-ceiling window walls, integrated planters, and projecting vertical elements. Though not all Midcentury Modern designs are noteworthy examples of the style, many property types display the traits of the style (Morgan 2004; McAlester 2015).
Characteristics of the Midcentury Modern style for commercial properties include:
heights of one to two stories;
low, boxy, horizontal proportions;
simple geometric forms with a lack of exterior decoration; asymmetry;
flat roofs without coping at roofline;
flat roofs hidden behind parapets or cantilevered canopies; expressed post-and-beam construction in wood or steel; stucco, brick, or concrete exterior wall materials;
mass-produced materials;
simple windows (metal or wood) flush-mounted and clerestory; industrially plain doors;
floor-to-ceiling window walls;
extensive use of sheltered exterior corridors, with flat or slightly sloped roofs supported by posts, piers, or pipe columns;
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: May 8, 2025 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
modern signage;
deeply recessed and or angled vestibules;
integrated planters; and
projecting vertical elements.
Architectural Style: Postmodernism (1970-2010)
Schmitt Hall features an angled primary façade with a subtle Postmodern architectural influence.
Postmodernism developed in the late 1960s following the popularity of Modernist architecture, which typically ignored the use of traditional architectural language in its designs. Postmodernism’s varied approach to stylistic representation aims to blend the vocabulary of classical forms—drawn from the Italian High Renaissance, Baroque architecture, and 18th-century French, German, and English Rationalism—with the Modernist language of the early 20th century. This blend includes both historical references and contemporary abstraction. Conventional symmetry and proportions associated with classical forms are rarely at the center of the Postmodern aesthetic, although classical elements like the column, arch, and entablature are frequently applied paradoxically to the overall design.
Due to the inherently eclectic and often contradictory nature of Postmodernism’s theoretical foundations, examples of such architecture come in a wide variety of styles. Like Modernism, Postmodernism encompasses other disciplines such as philosophy, painting, and photography in addition to architecture (Getty 2004; Gebhard et al. 1985; Docomomo US 2020).
Characteristics of the Postmodern style include:
architectural reference to classical forms on modern, playful architectural forms; lack of traditional, classical symmetry and proportions; pronounced entablatures and projecting cornices;
use of columns, usually the Tuscan order;
use of arches, typically with overly defined voussoirs and keystones; use of lunette and circular windows; and
defined entrances demarcated by columns, piers, arches, and entablatures.
Development History of the Former Yountville Elementary School Prior to the late 1950s, the 6.83-acre property at 6554 Yount Street consisted of a residential dwelling and detached garage. A 1958 aerial image shows that both buildings had been removed and were replaced by the Administration Building currently present in the Project Area. The Administration Building was an addition to the 1920s-era Yountville Elementary School campus (now the Yountville Town Hall, sometimes referred to as City Hall) south of the Project Area. A 1982 aerial image first shows the Library Building to the north of the Administration Building. In a 1993 aerial image, two attached modular classroom buildings are now present on the far northern end of the Project Area, both of which were removed in 2025. By 2002, the school added a rectangular black top to the eastern end of the Project Area, and then added the multipurpose room, called Schmitt Hall, c. 2003. The school constructed a shade structure to the west of the blacktop c. 2017 and was the last addition to the school before it closed in 2020 (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC 2025).
Evaluation
The former Yountville Elementary School Facilities do not meet any of the criteria for listing in the NRHP and CRHR, either individually or as part of an existing historic district, as demonstrated in the following sections.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: May 8, 2025 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1
The former Yountville Elementary School Facilities were first developed in the early 1950s to provide for the expansion of Yountville Elementary School and provide extra classroom space. Although Yountville Elementary School’s history in the community goes back to the late 1800s, the Project Area was the third location of the school and the previous 1920s-era Yountville Elementary School campus to the south is currently used as the town hall.
Although the current Project Area has an association with the school’s expansion and later relocation, the campus alone was not a primary component of the school’s early development and did not mark a significant event associated with Yountville. The school represents a common trend of postwar public school growth in California.
Furthermore, research did not indicate that the school is associated with more specific events or patterns of development that have historical significance at the local, state, or national level. For these reasons, the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion A/1.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2
Archival research failed to indicate any such direct association between the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities and individuals that are known to be historic figures at the national, state, or local level. The school’s staff and students changed multiple times through the years and did not include an individual of notable historical significance; therefore, the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities is not associated with the lives of persons significant in the past and is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion B/2.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3
The former Yountville Elementary School Facilities features three school buildings and associated structures from different decades. The school’s buildings exhibit minimal architectural ornamentation and does not reflect a cohesive or intentional planning concept. Although the c. 1951 Administration Building has minor association with Midcentury Modern architecture and the c. 2003 Schmitt Hall has a minor association with Postmodern architecture, neither building is a fully realized example of their respective architectural style and both lack high-style features. The Library Building (c. 1976), Snack Bar (c. 1976), and other built structures at the school lack any discernible architectural style. Designed with utility in mind, all campus buildings are modest in scale and detailing, which is consistent with budget-conscious public school construction during the postwar period. For these reasons, the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion C/3.
NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4
The information potential of the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities is expressed through its built form and in the historical record. The buildings for the school have not yielded, nor are it likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory; therefore, the school is not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion D/4.
Integrity
Since first being developed in the early 1950s, the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities has not been relocated; therefore, it retains integrity of location. The overall appearance of the school has evolved since the first building was constructed in the 1950s due to continued expansion and building additions throughout its development; therefore, the school has diminished integrity of setting, feeling, and association. The buildings at the school retain aspects of workmanship, materials, and design because its primary buildings have experienced few alterations.
Regardless of integrity, the former Yountville Elementary School Facilities are not eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: May 8, 2025 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Figure 1. Overview of the Former Yountville Elementary School Facilities (facing east; June 5, 2025).
Figure 2. View of the Administration Building (facing southwest; June 5, 2025).
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: May 8, 2025 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Figure 3. View of the Library Building (facing east; June 5, 2025).
Figure 4. View of Schmitt Hall (facing east; June 5, 2025).
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: May 8, 2025 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Figure 5. The Snack Shack (facing north; June 5, 2025).
Figure 6. Dugout on the Southern End of the Project Area (facing southwest; June 5, 2025).
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: May 8, 2025 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Figure 7. Northwestern Shed (facing east; June 5, 2025).
Figure 8. Overview of the Western Shade Structure (facing south; June 5, 2025).
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: May 8, 2025 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Figure 9. Oak Tree and Plaque Just East of the Library Building (facing west; June 5, 2025).
B12. References (continued):
ARG (Architectural Resources Group). 2016. City of Arcadia: Citywide Historic Context Statement. Prepared for the City of Arcadia, Development Services, Planning Division. January 11, 2016. Accessed June 2, 2025. https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/historic%20preservation/ Arcadia%20HCS_11-16_FINAL.pdf.
Docomomo_US (United States Chapter of the International Committee for Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement). 2020. “Post-Modern.” Accessed November 12, 2021. https://www.docomomo-us.org/style/post-modern.
Gebhard, David, Eric Sandweiss, and Robert Winter. 1985. Architecture in San Francisco and Northern California.
Salt Lake City, UT: Gibbs M. Smith, Inc. /Peregrine Smith Books.
Gebhard, David, and Robert Winter. 2003. An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles. Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith Publishing.
Getty (The Paul J. Getty Trust). 2004. “Postmodern.” Art & Architecture Thesaurus Online. Accessed November 12, 2021. http://vocab.getty.edu/page/aat/300022208.
Holt, John. 2015. “Yountville: The Beginnings.” Napa County Historical Society. Accessed June 2, 2025. https://napahistory.org/yountville-the-beginnings-by-john-holt/.
McAlester, Virginia Savage. 2015. A Field Guide to American Houses (Revised): The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America's Domestic Architecture. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Morgan, William. 2004. The Abrams Guide to American House Styles. New York, NY: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: Andrew Bursan *Date: May 8, 2025 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Moruzzi, Peter. 2013. National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form: The Case Study House Program: 1945–1966. National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination Form. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Conservancy Modern Committee. Accessed June 2, 2025. https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/fe481c26-3e5d-4429-844fc347505af983/TheCaseStudyHouseProgram_1945-1966.pdf.
Napa County Historical Society. 2025. “George Yount.” Accessed June 2, 2025. https://napahistory.org/georgeyount/.
NETROnline. 2025. Historic Aerials. www.historicaerials.com. Accessed May 28, 2025.
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2017. 2016–2017 Annual Report to the State Historic Resources Commission,
18. Accessed June 2, 2025. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1067/files/2016- 2017_SHRC_AnnualReport_web.pdf.
Press Democrat. 2024. “Sale of Former Elementary School to Yountville Finalized.” The Press Democrat, April 12.
Accessed June 2, 2025. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/napa/yountville-napa-school-sale/.
Town of Yountville. 2025. “Town History.” Accessed June 2, 2025. https://www.townofyountville.com/399/TownHistory.
Town of Yountville. 2024. 2023–2031 Housing Element (Adopted June 4, 2024), 102, 131–133. Accessed June 2, 2025. https://www.townofyountville.com/DocumentCenter/View/2840/2023-2031-Housing-Element--- Adopted-June-4-2024---Final?bidId=.
*Scale: *Date of Map: 1951, 1951 (p.r. 1968)
Yountville
Commons
ECORP: N:\2025\2025-106 Yountville Commons\MAPS\Cultural_Resources\YountvilleCommons_Cultural.aprx/YountvilleCommon_DPR_Location 20250512-jcorbridge 5/27/2025 DPR 523J (1/95) *Required Information
0 250 500 1,000 Meters
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet
I
1:24,000
*Map Name: Rutherford, Yountville
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
LOCATION MAP