[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:35] Good evening. Welcome to the June 30th, 2026 City of Napa, special meeting for the planning
[0:40] Commission. I would like to call this meeting to order and ask my request to please conduct a roll call.
[0:46] Commissioner E-Bock, President, Commissioner Massaro, President, Commissioner Shantwell, Vice Chair Mayors,
[0:55] Chair O'Neill and Chair Owen, President. We will now rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
[1:10] One nation that you are in need of the vote with liberty and justice for all.
[1:19] The Planning Commission conducts all meetings in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown act and pursuant to the city's rules of order for planning commission meetings policy resolution 10.
[1:30] Staff, are there any changes to this evening's agenda or any supplemental reports?
[1:34] No changes, but there are three supplemental reports that were afforded to the Commission and available on the back.
[1:41] Thank you.
[1:42] Commissioners, are there any proposed changes to this evening's agenda?
[1:48] Public comment. Public comment provides an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the planning commission on items of interest
[1:56] not otherwise noted on the agenda. Each speaker's comments will be limited to three minutes and will comply with the rules of order for planning commission meetings.
[2:05] Do we have any members of the public who wish to provide public comments on non-agenda items?
[2:13] Public hearings and appeals. These are items that are formally presented to the planning
[2:17] commission and provide an opportunity for members of the public to comment. Applicants
[2:22] or Appellants are allowed 10 minutes to present testimony at the beginning of the public
[2:26] hearing, and if needed 5 minutes to present rebuttal at the end of the public hearing.
[2:31] All other speakers will be limited to 3 minutes. Tonight we have the following item, item 7A,
[2:37] Franklin Station 2 redevelopment project and development agreement.
[2:42] We'll start with Commissioner Disclosures, Commissioner E-Bog.
[2:47] I met with the applicant and spoke with staff.
[2:53] I also met with the applicant and spoke with staff.
[2:56] I, too, met with the applicant and spoke with staff.
[3:00] I also met with the applicant and spoke with staff.
[3:03] I served on the CHC when the Cultural Heritage Commission.
[3:07] When we approve the Original Franklin Station Development Project.
[3:11] I toured the site in 2018 inside and out with Jim Keller and his team.
[3:17] For the record, the city's website is showing the incorrect CHC member roster during that
[3:22] time, but I know for sure that the city is working on it.
[3:27] I recently met with the applicant and have met with staff and read through all of the supplemental
[3:33] correspondence.
[3:34] Thank you.
[3:36] And we will now hear a report from staff.
[3:39] Good evening, Chair Owen, commissioners, Molly Radigan.
[3:44] It's a community resources and development director.
[3:46] I for some reason don't have a name, Tykes.
[3:47] I hope you can remember my name through this process.
[3:51] We are going to get started with our presentation.
[3:53] And I'm just going to kick it off by saying thank you to the applicant team
[3:57] for participating with us in the discussions.
[4:00] A huge thank you to writer who had a heavy lifts last week
[4:03] to get this here to you this week.
[4:05] And then just kick it off with what is a development agreement
[4:08] overview.
[4:10] So California government code section 65864 and beyond
[4:15] governed the use of development agreements and the purpose
[4:17] is really to create certain teeth on the terms of a development
[4:21] between the developer and the city or the developer
[4:24] and the county depending on what jurisdiction is using it.
[4:27] In the city of Napa, we typically use the entitlement process
[4:31] but we will use the development agreement process
[4:33] when there is usually a special reason why and usually that is we're looking for something
[4:41] that's outside of the regular entitlement process of the developers looking for something
[4:44] outside of the regular development process or in most situations both there's benefits
[4:49] on each side to that agreement.
[4:52] So for history purposes we have used development agreements to some examples of other projects
[4:57] we've used development agreements on the past.
[4:59] The certainly the most big one is the NapaPyte project that was also part of an annexation
[5:06] and it included 945 housing units that with a significant amount of affordable housing
[5:11] dedicated to it and the city also receives some open space commitments to the dedication
[5:20] of those affordable housing lands and some community facilities.
[5:23] Another example is what we call this to Tula K, which is really the GASER project
[5:30] We're able to build 500 units under a development agreement and in exchange they also did the gasser bridge and the extension, as well as provided an in lieu opportunity for affordable housing.
[5:42] And then the one that your commission will remember from just I think about a year ago from the time that we're sitting here is the first street project where, you know, they got some parking, we got some public improvements, et cetera.
[5:54] So in the case of what you're going to see tonight, you know, the identified benefit, significant benefit to the city of Napa is really the preservation of the post office and historical resource in our community.
[6:08] And while there is a covenant on the property, we just wanted to start out by making sure that, you know, we have, we shared that, you know, there is a sentiment in the city and amongst staff and city council that preserving historic resources is important.
[6:23] So, you'll see that this development agreement looks a little bit different than other development
[6:27] agreements as writer goes through the process, but really that is what we see as the significant
[6:32] benefit of what the applicant team has come forth to offer.
[6:36] There are other things, there's TOT, there's property tax revenue, there's sales tax revenue,
[6:42] there is an additional contribution to the affordable housing fund proposed.
[6:45] But just wanted to say that not every development agreement is going to look alike
[6:50] and not every development agreement is going to have the same terms, and because it's all
[6:55] because there's different, there's different gives and takes to get to your end goal.
[6:59] So what we're proposing to you tonight is I think what is our end goal from the city's
[7:03] perspective, and you'll hear from the developer as well.
[7:08] Thank you, Molly, and thank you chair members of the Commission.
[7:11] So Franklin Station is an application consisting of multiple entitlements, some related to the
[7:21] cultural heritage commission and their recommendation ultimately to City Council.
[7:25] Tonight, the application you're considering recommendation of is for multiple entitlements,
[7:31] including a development agreement, a zoning amendment, a mending the plan development overlay,
[7:36] PD37 district, a tentative parcel map, and a design review permit,
[7:41] and related approvals to provide for the redevelopment of an approximately 1.44 acre property,
[7:46] with two five story buildings consisting of up to 120 hotel rooms, up to 44 cell hotel units and other amenities,
[7:54] and the preservation of Franklin Station post office.
[7:58] The applicant is James Keller.
[8:00] The project is located at 1251-1351.
[8:02] Second Street, 820 Randolph Street, 801-89 Comstery, Unit A, B, C, and D.
[8:09] The project location is located generally on the southeast side of Second Street,
[8:14] generally divided by Randolph Street.
[8:17] The primary parcel generally referred to as the post office redevelopment
[8:22] consists of the post office and the hotel.
[8:25] And we'll get into more details regarding that.
[8:28] The mixed use development and whenever
[8:29] refer to mixed use development, it's going to be the redevelopment
[8:33] of the parking lot parcel with the inclusion of the three units
[8:37] that exist within the young building.
[8:39] So they're primarily the parcels are located
[8:43] along second street with frontages along Franklin and Randolph as well.
[8:49] The request to entitlements include the Plan Development Overlay PD-37 amendment,
[8:54] generally consists of different land use provisions, development standards, design guidelines
[8:59] to help facilitate redevelopment of this.
[9:03] But in this, what you'll notice in this development agreement, we relied a lot on the Plan
[9:13] a mending specific processes that have been established
[9:15] by ordinance, part of that, and just to paint the picture
[9:20] of the difference in the approvals, the plan development
[9:24] overlay will kind of establish the up to amount,
[9:27] kind of the maximum development that could be constructed
[9:32] upon the property, the design review permit
[9:34] and we'll get into more detail of that,
[9:36] and the tenant of parcel map, generally are facilitating
[9:40] in the design that you see in front of you.
[9:43] What the planned development overlay consists of the five-story hotel building, including
[9:47] basement rooftop structures in space with up to 120 rooms within that post office redevelopment,
[9:53] with some other food and beverages of spa event fitness amenities.
[9:57] Five-story mixed use building, including rooftop space for 37-4-cell hotel units, such units
[10:04] in the past were generally referred to as branded residential, but as part of that joint
[10:07] session of Planning Commission City Council, both Planning Commission and City Council generally
[10:13] saw due to the transient nature of these units that they were more so commercial uses
[10:19] in their eyes.
[10:21] With that when you get into the minutia of the details that even ties the impact fees that
[10:25] are generally applied to the project for hotel uses, that makes use building, consists of
[10:32] those 374 cell hotel units with the inclusion of the three condo units within the existing
[10:37] and young building for a total of up to 44 cell hotel units.
[10:42] You're considering the development agreement
[10:43] between the city of Napa and the developer tonight.
[10:46] And that DA, as Molly has suggested,
[10:49] address certain conditions, procedures,
[10:51] and implementations among vesting certain rights
[10:55] for the developer.
[10:57] The design review permit and consideration
[10:59] of a recommending adoption to city council
[11:02] will consist of a five-store upper upscale hotel
[11:05] with 94 hotel rooms, the same amenities that I've outlined and then redevelopment of that parking
[11:12] lot parcel that mixed use development with 25 4 cell hotel units, ground floor parking,
[11:18] the inclusion of the three young building condo units.
[11:23] The tenet of parcel map generally, and it's part of the confusing ask is that there are existing
[11:30] condo parcels that exist within that young building, but generally what's happened is the
[11:35] and the Wine Valley Box Unit Parsler being merged to facilitate larger construction and then a connection point in through to the young building.
[11:46] Not under your purview tonight, but part of the entire development application also the Cultural Heritage Commission will consider a certificate of appropriateness for alterations to the post office specifically and they'll get into the minutia of the historic resources.
[12:05] But for context, you were provided with the certificate of appropriateness plans because I think
[12:11] understanding the big picture of how it all ties together is important in this context.
[12:18] We're considering the redevelopment of the Franklin Station post office.
[12:23] In other words, it was renamed to the Thomas Kong Squad post office.
[12:27] In 2010, the action by US Congress and then they had a ceremony in 2011 prior to the earthquake
[12:36] that damaged the building. Thomas Kong's guard was in Napa Superior Court Judge serving
[12:42] for a substantial amount of time within the community. And so U.S. Congress, I think
[12:46] there might Thompson did it in his honor.
[12:51] Jeremy, the post office time was important to understand context was built in 1933. Architects
[12:56] William Wilco Coralette and Walter Reed of the Oakland Farm Read and Coralette design the
[13:00] office. January 11th, 1985, it was added to the National Register of Historic Places, which
[13:09] had identified certain historic features within that, and then generally the Art Deco
[13:15] style of the post office that you see even in its damaged form. In 2010, it was renamed to
[13:22] that Thomas Kong's guard post office, but people generally still understand it as the Franklin
[13:27] station post office.
[13:31] August 24th, 2014 that South Napa earthquake substantially damaged the post office and shortly
[13:41] afterwards the U.S. Postal Service was considering demolishing it due to the substantial
[13:45] cost that it would take to rehabilitate the structure.
[13:49] But going through 2014, primarily into 2015, there were a lot of local efforts in saving
[13:55] the post office, kind of spearheaded through many community leaders in the congressman Mike
[14:00] Thompson and the Postal Service did agree and will get into the preservation covenant
[14:06] here in a little bit to halt the demolition plans for the Franklin Station Post Office
[14:10] and consider pursuing a sale for the Franklin Station Post Office.
[14:16] Generally, the US Postal Service initiated drafts for what a preservation covenant would
[14:21] like expectation to save that, not to get too far into detail, but there were inspections of the
[14:28] property that occurred in through 2014-2015 that really demonstrated to the US Park Service that
[14:39] the building was still significant. There were still historical significance to it.
[14:45] And so, in through 2015, up to 2017, when that purchased by the applicant and later executed
[14:51] the preservation covenant,
[14:55] the post office was willing to consider that primarily because of
[15:00] The intent to preserve it. So with the applicant's interest in purchasing the property and the interest in the community as a member of the community to re-evaluate, they took on the obligation with the third party to the city's not party to the preservation covenant with the Napa County landmarks, including the supplemental memo was the sport Napa County landmarks generally, but just understanding the context that there is a legal covenant, but the city is not party to that covenant.
[15:30] In February 14th, 2017, there was an initial purchase and salary agreement of the Park-and-Lot
[15:36] parcel to help facilitate redevelopment of the post office building in 2018.
[15:43] Well, through 2017, really going into effect of 2018 is when the initial entitlements were approved
[15:50] by City Council for the redevelopment of that post office, consisting of upper upstory hotel,
[15:55] up to 163 hotel rooms and a mechanized parking garage on the parking lot parcel.
[16:05] Through 2018-2019, up through 2025, you'll see there were amendments to the
[16:12] Purchasella Agreement, further amendments extending the development agreement and
[16:17] then an application submitted by the applicant in July of 2025 for the project
[16:24] being considered in front of you today.
[16:30] Already went into the preservation covenant a little bit,
[16:32] but it outlined specific historic and significant features
[16:36] within the post office, not necessarily under the purview
[16:41] of the planning commission, still important for context.
[16:45] He project components, include the rehabilitation,
[16:47] depth of reuse of the structure in the five-story hotel
[16:50] up to 120 hotel rooms, the redevelopment
[16:53] of the parking lot parcel for the up to 40 units,
[16:58] 37 and the three inclusive of the young building.
[17:01] On-site parking facilities, the ground level
[17:03] and some retail ground level of that,
[17:05] the hotel building generally has many different amenities,
[17:08] food beverage facilities, basement, bar, rooftop bar,
[17:14] event space, and other spa space.
[17:18] To get into the meet of the request in front of you tonight, a lot of detail went into the
[17:27] plan development overlay amendment.
[17:30] The term for cell hotel units based off a feedback received from both planning commission
[17:35] city council is what was generally referred to as those branded residential units.
[17:39] Further defined those is individually owned units that are developed conveyed operators
[17:43] part of the hotel that rely upon the hotel's management services staff and
[17:47] amenities for their use and operation.
[17:50] It's important to understand owners may occupy these units.
[17:53] They may live their full time.
[17:55] But if they choose to only live their part of the time, they may
[17:58] rent it back through the hotel for periods of shorter than 30 days.
[18:02] In the eyes of the city, transient nature, all subject to transient
[18:07] occupancy taxes.
[18:10] Then another term is lock off.
[18:12] So hotel room hotel unit, four cell hotel unit that is designed and constructed with a local internal door or connection that permits a portion of the hotel room or that four cell hotel unit to be separated and occupied independently as a separate hotel room.
[18:28] So in the eyes of how we define a lock-off,
[18:32] typical hotels where you have a shared door
[18:34] between your hotel room and another hotel room,
[18:37] maybe rented separately, but sometimes if you have a bigger
[18:41] party, you can have a room where you can open up doors
[18:45] in between, same concept here.
[18:47] In RIs, when it gets into the parking standards
[18:50] required, in generally that cap of the 120 hotel rooms,
[18:55] lock-offs are considered hotel rooms under that analysis.
[19:01] The PD overlay also defines joint incidental entertainment uses consistently the downtown specific plan.
[19:07] If it's incidental to the hotel, it's permitted between hours of 10am and 12am.
[19:14] Should there be other considerations?
[19:16] Should there be requests deviations from that in the future?
[19:20] They would have to generally conform to the downtown specific plan table
[19:23] and processes for that. Outdoor entertainment specifically, because of how new wants outdoor
[19:30] entertainment is still subject to an administrative permit through the director's
[19:34] level, as long as it complies with the other standards of the downtown specific plan,
[19:40] if it exceeds those standards, it would generally conform to the use permit process,
[19:46] which would be seen in front of the planning commission. But if it conform to those standards,
[19:49] it would be in through the director's level.
[19:53] That plan development overlay all of those establishes design guidelines for the materials
[19:57] use, the step back considerations, the new addition and the context and the juxtaposition
[20:05] with the old building that's being preserved.
[20:10] The plan development overlay also establishes parking standards and or refers to the downtown
[20:16] specific land for parking standards.
[20:19] So project parking, specifically for the 4 cell hotel units and the lock-off units, shall
[20:25] be provided on-site or via recorded irrevocable license or easement, that license or easement
[20:33] would be for a non-city property with a minimum term of 30 years from the hotel building
[20:39] certificate of occupancy, it incorporates with the standards outlined above you, which is the
[20:44] parking space per each four cell hotel unit, and the 0.8 spaces per lock-off unit that's
[20:50] rounded up to the nearest one. Payment of parking development impact fees, also applied to
[20:56] the hotel room generally at 0.8 spaces per hotel room rounded up to the nearest one, and
[21:03] then all other uses generally parked per the downtown specific plan. And parking for other
[21:09] uses me also be satisfied either on site through recorded irrevocable license or easement for
[21:15] a minimum of 30 years, non-city property or the applicant may secure approval by the city
[21:21] council on a parking license agreement on city owned property.
[21:25] The project amendments and this overlay authorize many approvals through the community resources
[21:30] and development director up to that cap of the 120 hotel rooms, the massing that it's
[21:37] be considered in front of you tonight, and the 44 cell hotel units.
[21:45] So that applies to maps that applies to use permits applies to the design review permit.
[21:51] And then project phasing when we refer to phase one will generally be referring to the post office
[21:57] redevelopment phase two.
[21:59] If it, and this is if it was to be phase, it would be the mixed use development.
[22:02] There are also sunset provisions for obligations that the developer must meet in terms of
[22:09] receiving a building permit to be issued and then substantially constructing, meaning receiving
[22:15] another TCO or certificate of occupancy, so a temporary certificate of occupancy or
[22:20] certificate of occupancy for the construction of those buildings. Generally, if they were to
[22:24] be phase the hotel building, so post office redevelopment will need to be completed first.
[22:31] the priority is the preservation of the post office.
[22:36] The table in front of you and in that attachment also goes over the building form standards,
[22:41] so up to 40 floor area ratio, which is consistent with the downtown specific plan, but it
[22:48] excludes those subterranean areas.
[22:51] Building height max 60 feet, but there are allowances for up to 75 feet for the rooftop
[22:57] features that are further defined front setback is generally max of 15, but because of the historic
[23:06] significant features of the post office, the building and the massing of the building on both sides
[23:12] have been set back a little bit further to emphasize the historical significance of that kind of front
[23:20] third of the post office building.
[23:23] So in instances where that massian is intended
[23:25] to be for that purpose, the setback may be greater.
[23:31] But it's also understood that space isn't underutilized.
[23:35] It would also be activated as part of that frontage.
[23:38] It's although the buildings back,
[23:40] it's still generally like a restaurant on one side event
[23:44] space on the other that call attention to the space behind it.
[23:49] The plan development overlay district map boundaries in the action, if taken by City Council,
[23:58] if recommended by the Planning Commission, would actually be revoking the current boundaries
[24:03] of the PD37 overlay map, which includes that A's hardware parcel to kind of the southeast
[24:10] adjoining the property and including the young building as part of it.
[24:18] As far as the development agreement, the key benefit of the development agreement really is
[24:24] the rehabilitation of the Frank Nostation Post Office, the rehabilitation comes out of substantial
[24:28] costs, but there are also other benefits of the Transi occupancy tax revenue, and during
[24:33] those initial five years, it's estimated the project is expected to generate over 18 million
[24:38] in city allocated tax revenues. The applicant is also agreed to paying the hotel motel rate
[24:45] six dollars per square foot for the entirety of the project plus an additional dollar per square
[24:50] foot upon clothes of each four-cell hotel unit.
[24:56] Site plan generally shown here so parcels generally divided by Randolph Street post office
[25:01] redevelopment to the left to the west and then makes use development to the right.
[25:09] Showing here kind of bird's eye view from up above post office redevelopment called out here
[25:16] Located along Franklin Street, second street in Randolph Street.
[25:21] Access to certain trash facilities will be located along Franklin Street.
[25:25] Access to the main entrances of the building will be off of second street.
[25:30] Same thing with the mixed use development.
[25:36] A lot of the entrances will focus on second street with certain service doors and
[25:41] through ways for trash collection such located along Randolph Street,
[25:46] ingress to the garage will be located along Second Street and then certain retail facilities on the ground floor.
[25:57] I won't get too far into the details of the architecture and the materials,
[26:01] because that's kind of the intention of the applicant's presentation tonight,
[26:05] so I'll let their team generally go into the nuances of the materials.
[26:09] But substantial consideration and re-looking at how the new additions can fit in the context of the historic preservation of the post office.
[26:22] There were a lot of key considerations reflected, especially in that certificate of appropriateness document, but also in the project plans generally.
[26:29] This is a view from the north side, main off of the second street facing post office redevelopment.
[26:36] It's outside, so like angled from third street back towards the, so it'd be facing north,
[26:44] put it to the south elevation, post office redevelopment, west elevation and east elevation.
[26:54] You may be the post office redevelopment floor plan.
[26:56] speak easy on the bottom and in a lot of back of house space in the basement of the building.
[27:04] The first floor plan generally includes lobby, ballroom event space, back of house,
[27:09] for that restaurant and other facilities, and then a three-mill restaurant and fine dining.
[27:15] It's understand as part of their outreach to different brands,
[27:20] that there will be some fluctuation in the floor plan just to facilitate that.
[27:25] But the intent is to still stay within the confines of what you see in the footprint of what you see and the overall massing.
[27:33] Getting to the second floor, more event space, rooms for the hotel, spa facilities, rooms, third-level, fourth-level, fifth-level, and then rooftop,
[27:46] which includes a pool terrace and rooftop bar, and then different gathering opportunities.
[27:51] It makes use development in elevations from second street, facing south, the north elevation.
[27:59] You'll see access to the garage down below.
[28:03] The south elevation to this facing north just want to understand that there were considerations in discussion,
[28:09] and there isn't general interest to discuss this facade here tonight in other considerations.
[28:16] If you have any questions, add some discussions to the chief building official,
[28:20] but the applicants team also provide response to that.
[28:24] There's a zero lot line here, so there are certain limitations to
[28:28] both how you can build limitations on openings generally
[28:31] because of fire rated construction, but understanding that there's an interest to
[28:37] maybe elevate or some variation to these walls.
[28:41] So the west elevation, the general screening to the parking facilities
[28:46] used for right here in a living wall, and the east elevation, makes used development
[28:53] entry to the ground level parking facilities. You'll get into that second level, getting
[29:01] to some of those 4 cell hotel units, and access to the young building, which I'll show you
[29:06] in just a moment. A third level, fourth level, fifth level, and then the rooftop, because
[29:13] and other gathering space opportunities. Young buildings showing here from that second
[29:19] level showing access of how you get to those three condo units that will be converted
[29:24] to the 4 cell hotel units. An alternative parcel map generally merging the parcels that
[29:30] you see between the parking lot parcel and the wine valley box unit parcel.
[29:36] With the
[29:36] consideration that is the sequence of staff recommends planning commission recommends that
[29:41] City Council finds the project would not have an environmental impacts, and that those
[29:47] effects were not examined in the downtown NAPA specific plan in environmental impact report
[29:51] and that the project is within the scope of the development program analyzed in the downtown
[29:55] NAPA specific plan EIR, and that no subsequent EIR is required for the...
[30:00] Project as document in attachment 9. And that there's a project mitigation monitoring report as exhibit A of that, and alternatively that the project is exempt from SQL under SQL guidelines section 15332 class 32 exemption.
[30:18] In consideration of your recommendation to city council, these are the findings you must make for a zoning amendment.
[30:24] for any amendments to the Plan Development Overlay must make these findings for the
[30:29] Zoning Amendment, in addition to these Plan Development Overlay findings to amend that
[30:34] PD overlay.
[30:36] Further considering and retouching on Molly referred to, they have opportunity to pursue
[30:42] development agreement, consistent with both the Government Code Section and NAPA Municipal Code
[30:47] section 175 to 150 in considering the design review permit for those 94 and the the 25 and
[30:55] eight and other amenity space and your recommendation to city council shall establish these
[31:02] findings and then for the tenet of parcel map you shall establish these findings and not
[31:08] make or have the ability to make these findings which would require you to consider denying it.
[31:16] With that that concludes my presentation, staff recommends that the Planning Commission for the recommendation to City Council as outlined in the staff report.
[31:25] City staffs here tonight, members of the applicant's team here tonight, to facilitate any questions you have.
[31:32] We have legal team both on teams and in front of you, a Dan de Porto.
[31:36] On teams and in Dan de Porto here tonight.
[31:41] Thank you.
[31:42] Thank you, writer.
[31:43] Any commissioners have any questions for staff at this time?
[31:48] I just need clarification on one item.
[31:51] Right, or thank you, that was outstanding.
[31:54] So incredibly thorough.
[31:56] I just wanted to get the actual sunset provisions for the phase one.
[32:04] You mentioned it, but not the timeline.
[32:07] Yes.
[32:08] So sunset provisions are as follows.
[32:10] So overlay shall remain in effect until October 1st, 2029, unless phase 1 has obtained complete building permits.
[32:19] October 1st, 2030, unless phase 2 has obtained complete building permits.
[32:25] October 1st, 2032, unless phase 1 has obtained a certificate of occupancy,
[32:30] and October 1st, 2033, unless phase 2 is obtained a certificate of occupancy.
[32:36] So if both phase one and phase two have obtained all certificates of occupancies, this overlay shall remain valid until emitted by city council.
[32:47] Thank you.
[32:50] Sure, go ahead.
[32:51] Sorry, I didn't mean to cut your off.
[32:52] I did not mean to cut your off.
[32:53] No, go ahead.
[32:54] I have a couple of questions, Raider.
[32:57] Can you pull up your parking slide?
[33:13] A big part of this is the parking, because this isn't a major change.
[33:17] Kind of maybe only major change from the last.
[33:22] development agreement, and your slide says that the park is to be provided on-site
[33:30] or via an irrevocable license or agreement, shall provide parking on-site through an irrevocable
[33:39] license or easement.
[33:44] That is a little different than what the development agreement
[33:48] says which kind of talks about an agreement to agree. And I'm just concerned if is the presentation
[33:59] in consistent with the development agreement or is the development agreement maybe talking
[34:07] about more contingent scenarios than the presentation is talking about because it's unusual
[34:16] will not necessarily wrong by any means, but unusual to not have the parking figured out
[34:24] necessarily, and I'm just kind of just going right for it here, because this is the
[34:28] biggest shoot me.
[34:31] So I just was hoping you could clarify what's in in maybe lay language for my benefit.
[34:42] What's the real plan?
[34:43] Sure.
[34:44] I can take that question, Commissioner Myers.
[34:48] I think it's the latter of the two things that you said that this presentation doesn't necessarily reflect everything that is included in the DEI.
[34:54] So if there's something that's not fully there in one of the two, it's probably more of this presentation than the DEI.
[35:01] So there's a couple of components to the parking.
[35:05] And I mean, if you since you just called it out, the parking is not fully resolved at this moment.
[35:11] time there are options to resolve the parking on the table or discussions still going to
[35:16] resolve the parking. So the developer has to provide on site or via the irrevocable
[35:24] license or easement and and those words are very important to us at the city of Napa just
[35:29] side note we have several projects that have come in with short term agreements for parking
[35:34] and then the person who owns the parking wants to do something different five years later and it
[35:40] the parking for the projects that got approved at Jeopardy. We're dealing with a situation
[35:44] about that right now. So the irrevocable term of 30 years comes consistent with what if the
[35:49] city were to do a license agreement, the minimum number of years we would do would be 30 years.
[35:54] So just for that purpose of that. So there are kind of three parts to the parking. The first is
[36:01] the developer has to provide one parking spot per for sale hotel unit on site or via some agreement
[36:09] with a private property owner. It can be off-site, but it won't be a city owned parcel. They also
[36:15] have to provide 0.8 rounded up for either onsite or on some private agreement not involving the
[36:22] city of Napa for each lock-off unit. So that's part one. So if you think about how, if they did
[36:29] 40 units for a sale and five lock-offs, they'd have to do 45 parking spaces through either their
[36:37] provision on site or through some sort of private agreement that the city is not involved in.
[36:42] Then you have the hotel rooms, and you have the staffing, and you have the ballrooms in the
[36:46] rest of it. So take out, you're not talking about the four sale unit, but you're talking about
[36:51] the post office building. The way that the DA is written right now is they will simply pay the impact
[36:56] fee and not have access to parking. They will have access to city parking, like anybody else has
[37:03] access to city parking.
[37:07] The city is also agreeing to continue discussing the possibility of leasing spaces to the developer
[37:15] to have leased spaces for those hotel rooms and for that site on the post office.
[37:21] But at this time we cannot commit to providing parking based on our current parking studies
[37:26] and what we're going through.
[37:27] We are working through a project to look at potentially acquiring more land or developing
[37:33] and or developing a parking garage, but at this moment in time we cannot commit to providing
[37:37] parking because of where we are in our parking counts down to.
[37:40] If you want to dive into that a little bit more, we do have our parking manager, or should
[37:45] say our co-compliance manager, who runs our parking programs here in the audience.
[37:49] It's not really part of the approvals tonight, but I do think to your point or your question,
[37:55] if I'm answering it correctly, is at this point the only parking there, or they are required
[38:01] to provide relates to the one for one for the four sale and point eight rounded up for each
[38:07] lock-off.
[38:08] Otherwise, the parking is non-exclusive through the impact fee, and less between now and the opening
[38:17] of the hotel, the city, and the developer reach some sort of licensing agreement, or
[38:22] or, or I guess the alternative was they find it through a private operator as well, too,
[38:27] and then they would not have to pay the inluffie, they would just go private or build it
[38:31] around somewhere else. Yeah. What's the in Luffy? It is currently, I think it's $23,000.
[38:37] First base. First base. How much does it cost to build a parking space?
[38:42] That's what we don't know yet. So that we are in the middle of doing a study
[38:48] with in a parking garage analysis, at which point we will likely change the impact fee,
[38:54] or recommend that the city gets you to recommend that the city council change the impact
[38:57] at that time. We know of cities that it's cost anywhere from 50,000. That includes the land.
[39:05] So if you assume it's a city owned parcel, you know, the cost to build is a little bit less too.
[39:09] You know, depending on what the cost of acquisition is up to 120,000. But that's that's
[39:14] the information the city doesn't have now. And that is the reason one of the reasons why
[39:19] the city cannot commit at this moment to providing exclusive use parking for the site.
[39:25] If the impact fee is subsequently increased, would that apply to this project?
[39:33] The way that it is written right now, the development agreement locks in the current impact fees, all of them, not just the parking impact.
[39:41] It locks in housing, at its current rate, it locks in the paramedic and fire fee, it locks in the street and utilities fees, and then it locks in the parking impact fee.
[39:54] But if at least, so I should just say that's if they choose if there's no exclusive use agreement and exclusive use agreement is completely subject to negotiation on what the term will be for the number of years and what the amount per year presumably would be for that so it doesn't have to be the same amount as the as the impact fee the impact fee at this moment in time is simply if they chose to pay the impact fee rather than provide parking.
[40:22] on site, or we didn't come up with a lease, an alternate lease agreement.
[40:28] Is the impact fee option, they're right to elect, or is that an negotiated part of this set of terms?
[40:39] That is an negotiated part of that.
[40:41] So, it's not that any applicant could say, I'm not building park and I'm just going to pay the 23 per spot.
[40:48] It's just that that is an option in this deal.
[40:50] So no, let me let me clarify what I said, the $23,000 rate in locking into a place is an option
[40:56] in the negotiation in this. If someone came in tomorrow through the regular entitlement process,
[41:01] let's say they wanted to build a restaurant downtown. And they're in certain streets,
[41:07] which is where this flies and I think I think Redder's going to pull up the picture for you.
[41:11] But if you're in the downtown parking exempt district, you do not have to provide parking
[41:16] on site because you are saying you're going to instead use the public facilities that are available.
[41:20] So, if a restaurant came in tomorrow with an application and they were just going to the regular entitlement process,
[41:26] they would pay the $23,000 for each parking spot that they didn't provide.
[41:31] That they are required to provide based on whatever the square footage calculation that applies to their,
[41:36] and the staffing that applies to their situation.
[41:39] So, does that answer your question?
[41:41] You look...
[41:42] they restaurant analogy through me a little bit because usually they would
[41:46] lease that spot. So I do people that does a whole set of times.
[41:49] If anyone came in, let's just say, let's just say someone bought
[41:54] Carothers because Carothers is something the market tomorrow. Let's use that as like
[41:57] an example. And they were going to change the use of Carothers. And they have a
[42:02] parking requirement. They would have to pay the impact fee of $23,000 as part
[42:07] of their building permit process as well. Regardless of whether or not they
[42:12] development agreement. So the impact fee does not is not specific to the development agreement.
[42:18] And I add to that. I won't go into the map just yet until I have a visual that's just
[42:26] easier for people to understand the boundaries of the park in exempt overlay district.
[42:32] But we have a chapter within the title 17 of the Napha Municipal Code that speaks to
[42:37] If you're within the boundaries of the parking exam district, when you shall provide
[42:43] on-site parking and you always typically have the ability to provide on-site parking
[42:48] through a use permit or in other circumstances of residential development and then
[42:54] transit uses where you're required to provide on-site parking for that development.
[43:01] So there's a section that speaks to when it's required and then when an impact
[43:06] fee would generally be paid.
[43:08] What does it say about transient uses on site usually is the standard?
[43:15] Yeah, so that's a good point.
[43:16] Thank you, right?
[43:16] That we are, we're kind of putting a pin in the parking at this point in time.
[43:21] Well, I'm just concerned that the pin is not a very robust one.
[43:27] If the option is get a lease for parking for 30 years or pay half the price of building parking
[43:35] or negotiate something else, to me, you're going to go with the most economically efficient one.
[43:42] Sure, so that it's sort of in order of preference, right?
[43:45] Lease, pay, or negotiate and build.
[43:50] But if hotels ought not to have the in-loop fee,
[43:59] because that's a lot of parking on accountant for,
[44:05] Then
[44:08] why is that an option?
[44:12] I think that that might be a question we want to ask the applicant team in a few minutes
[44:17] or now if you'd like because I think that they need to explain to you how parking and the project
[44:25] kind of all come together.
[44:26] If they've just paid the in Luffy, they would not have exclusive use fees, which means they
[44:30] would have spaces, which mean Valle would be pretty impossible and all of those things and it
[44:34] potentially could have, I want them to speak to their operations.
[44:37] I don't know the hotel operators, so I want them to speak to their, how it impacts their operations.
[44:42] I don't know that the question, I don't know that just paying the Luffy is a viable option.
[44:49] Well, it doesn't seem to be one, but it seems to be the second most enticing ones.
[44:53] I guess we'll let them speak to that one instead of turning it.
[44:55] I think that it would be better for them to go to it from the operational perspective.
[44:58] We can come back, like happy to see.
[45:00] We come back to it with questions, but I think that it's okay. That part of the story is not over our
[45:03] skis on something, but not that a, not that of parking arrangement that is not perfectly
[45:12] dialed in advances in okay. I mean, I think it's fine to have options in the alternative,
[45:18] but I thought that maybe it would be a little more definite. It is certainly within the
[45:27] review of your commission to remove that sort of second middle option and leave it as you
[45:33] have to figure out your parking, which is either you enter into a lease with the city of
[45:37] Napa, or you enter into a private use lease on another site. You could strike that from your
[45:44] recommendation if you like. Okay, and then changing gears entirely then. The south facade of
[45:52] building, the big wall. Usually when you see that sort of a big blank wall, it is in the context
[46:00] of either a building which used to have a neighbor or a building which was contemplating
[46:05] a neighbor.
[46:07] So in the case of this south wall is there, obviously it didn't use to have
[46:14] a 60 foot tall neighbor. So is there an intent in the downtown specific plan and the city's
[46:24] view that the buildings adjacent to that south elevation are going to be getting taller?
[46:35] I think it would be speculation a little bit, but downtown specific plan would allow for it.
[46:42] The way it would be designed would require to conform to California building code requirements,
[46:48] which is how a fire rated construction requirements for zero-lot line.
[46:52] So there are considerations I think that applicants team have to make for both egress,
[46:59] and then the form of construction use to maximize the amount of space within the confines of the property.
[47:06] So, if for some reason they were to recess portions and I'll let them speak to why they
[47:13] designed it the way they designed it, it could assume that there could be construction
[47:19] up to 60 feet because the downtown is a specific plan I'll allow for it.
[47:23] But as of right now, we don't have an application for that.
[47:26] Okay.
[47:26] And then last question for me is to verify and just to this is for a recommendation to
[47:33] the City Council.
[47:35] This is not a final determination.
[47:37] It is not a final determination.
[47:39] It is not a final determination.
[47:41] And dependent also on a recommendation from
[47:44] Cultural Heritage Commission.
[47:47] Okay, I'm done.
[47:50] Do any other commissioners have any additional questions for staff?
[47:54] I do as well.
[47:55] So I'll wait.
[47:56] Go ahead, commissioner.
[48:00] Right, when you were mentioning the south, the south of the buildings and what is and is not permissible in terms of the building code and fire rating.
[48:10] What are some types of architectural features or articulation that would be permitted?
[48:16] And if that's a question for the the product architect that's fine too.
[48:21] Well, it's on my mind I want to ask.
[48:25] What I will say is, as to not miss quote, there are certain fire-rated construction requirements
[48:32] within three feet of that property line to assume that if the building next door to them
[48:40] burns down for any reason that there are certain ratings that prevent it from going to the
[48:45] next building. But if it's beyond the three feet, there are other allowances that they could
[48:50] have certain openings that they could have, and it really depends on how they program the occupancy
[48:58] of the space behind it, as well, of whether it needs egress or not. But to not go too far into
[49:04] the details, they're all let the architect and the applicant team understand their considerations
[49:08] of why they designed it the way they designed it. But there are theoretically options. We're not entirely
[49:14] Yeah, they could, they could effectively step back in certain areas, recess certain areas to give them the ability to have other openings.
[49:23] They're probably other material considerations, paint variation considerations, yeah.
[49:29] And then I'd like to move back to impact fees real quick.
[49:33] If you don't mind, it was mentioned that you're currently undergoing or the cities and currently undergoing a study of impact fees, is that correct?
[49:43] for all impacts, or is that all impacts fees?
[49:46] All impacts fees.
[49:47] And as the developers agreement is written now as proposed,
[49:53] those impact fees would lock in.
[49:56] And so should there be a change?
[49:57] Should we decide that there's a, or should,
[50:00] that there's a nexus to increase that amount?
[50:04] That would not be reflected.
[50:07] In terms of the way that the development agreement is written, yes, it locks,
[50:10] or proposed tonight. It locks the impact fees today. In place, I don't have unfortunately
[50:17] an estimated time. In fact, fees are, you know, from working in a significant undertaking
[50:25] and it's better to bring them all together. In the case, the city is opted to bring them
[50:29] all together. So everybody's working through their pieces. Maybe by the end of the year, but
[50:34] that's ambitious, I think, at the same point.
[50:36] Okay, and I understand where this six dollars per square foot number comes from, but would you
[50:42] mind speaking to where the $1 per square foot for the ownership units? I realize not all
[50:50] development agreements are alike, but when we have seasonal projects, they have another rate of
[50:54] $2. Could you speak to that? Yeah, so the required impact fee is at the $6 rate for
[51:01] and then we, as we talked about with the Planning Commission and the City Council and the joint
[51:05] session that we apply the hotel motel rate to even the for sale because which is it
[51:10] residential and so the hotel motel rate gets applied to the entirety of both buildings
[51:14] in this case because we pick one use.
[51:19] The addition of one dollar is what was discussed between city staff and the applicant.
[51:26] The like development of the two last like development agreements for hotel projects it was
[51:31] a digital rate. It doesn't come from anywhere. It was offered originally by the Stanley Ranch
[51:37] Development, and then I believe it was actually at the city council meeting when for first
[51:44] street the city council asked them to add, asked them both to go to the full, to go to the six
[51:50] dollar rate for the condos, which we've now applied sort of as a general standard for the fore sale,
[51:55] and then asked them to match that $2 and they agreed that the dias at that point. So it was an originally
[52:01] written into the first data agreement.
[52:04] OK, thank you.
[52:11] Sorry, one more question.
[52:14] Writer, you were speaking to some of the changes
[52:16] that could be made at the community development
[52:18] director's discretion.
[52:21] Do those include minor design changes as well?
[52:24] Yeah, as the way it's written, if the design
[52:28] substantially conforms to the design in front of you tonight.
[52:34] So, massings really important here, there's overlap into the CHE's consideration and their recommendation to city council,
[52:42] of why the massing was the way the massing was.
[52:45] So, it's important to understand expectation is that the massing would effectively stay the same.
[52:54] There may be some shifting in and around access to the service dock for the waste facilities,
[53:03] so there may be some shifting there, that flexibility was written into the draft conditions
[53:07] to allow for staff to understand if it is specifically ties to accessing trash facilities.
[53:14] If there is a shift in the building, but generally the floor plan, there is a lot that
[53:23] that can occur in in minor shifts within the the boundaries of the footprint, but the space is
[53:28] will still have to be programmed as envisioned. It's just to the up to amount. So, if for some
[53:33] reason it changes from 94 hotel rooms up to 120, that's within the authority of the director,
[53:41] as is drafted. And what about if the when there is a hotel partner selected, they have,
[53:48] like a similar case we had before requirement for a different type of balcony or window or
[53:53] something like that, is that able to be made that change at
[53:57] staff level?
[53:59] Yeah, so if it's like number of balconies because of the number of hotel rooms
[54:03] that are changing generally, the materials are the same projections in the space
[54:08] or generally pretty similar, yes, certain findings like that could be made at the staff level as well.
[54:15] Thank you.
[54:18] Commissioner Shawa,
[54:23] you won't like my question, Molly, where are we with the
[54:28] a Raj feasibility study when do you anticipate having that in the books?
[54:34] I'm going to see if Tony, about it as our Code Compliance Manager, can give you.
[54:39] And then I'll go with then what, but he can tell you about the study.
[54:53] Sorry.
[54:54] Tony Valid is compliance manager.
[54:57] So we're currently working on the feasibility study.
[55:00] We just completed our public outreach just two, three weeks ago.
[55:04] we plan to go to city council in August and then again in October the plan is to make a
[55:11] termination on which site is most feasible so that's kind of where we are with the study.
[55:17] Do you want to since it came up and we said if we come up we'd have you do it would you want
[55:21] to talk about where we are kind of in parking right now in the downtown area based on our demand
[55:25] counts? Yeah we did a parking demand study last year. Our consultant basically came to the determination
[55:32] and that once the first street face to project comes to completion, during peak weekdays around
[55:38] 12 o'clock when a clock we're hitting about 85% threshold of the available parking spaces being
[55:44] utilized. Industry standard is once you hit about 85% threshold you start getting to the point where
[55:51] people feel that they cannot find any more parking spaces. You don't typically want to go all the way
[55:57] to 100% capacity, because that means you have absolutely nothing left.
[56:02] So that is assuming the full completion of the first street phase two project of the coronavirus
[56:07] first and main.
[56:08] That basically means any additional parking spaces taken offline if we're looking at more
[56:13] than 100 parking spaces somewhere in the vicinity of about 115, 120 total parking spaces
[56:18] taken out of, out of commission, public parking spaces taken out of commission, we're probably
[56:24] getting very close to that 100% threshold during peak times during the week.
[56:30] So, you know, that's assuming all other conditions remain the same, but that's basically
[56:35] the termination from our consultant.
[56:39] And just, if the bill goes a lot, like, a lot be, you know, is converted to condos that takes
[56:47] an additional 55 off before you replace the parking, I mean, it adds 44 to the buildings,
[56:52] those in that loss of 10.
[56:54] It's a, not loss of 55 parking public parking spaces,
[56:57] but a total loss of 10 ish depending on what they can fit
[57:01] on site parking spaces periods.
[57:04] So we're looking at not only the spaces that are needed,
[57:07] but the loss of lot be.
[57:09] What I would just add is, the city at this point
[57:12] is considering whether or not to purchase additional land
[57:17] or where to potentially look at building a new parking garage.
[57:20] I'll give you a little spoiler alert.
[57:22] It's not likely we're going to be able to build economic in an in a feasible way on anything
[57:28] that the city owns currently, so we're looking and having to acquire a property and where
[57:33] that is yet, we don't know, so that will be something that the city council will discuss.
[57:37] But then we have to finance the parking garage structure, and that is where the applicant
[57:41] and the developer may become part of the solution is similar to a tax share agreement or
[57:47] similar to some sort of public private partnership,
[57:49] like the first street hotel, there could be an option in there.
[57:53] So we kind of at the steps are comes in August.
[57:56] At that point, we get some direction as to what to do
[57:58] in terms of potentially acquiring new spots.
[58:00] Then we go into what is building look like,
[58:03] although the study will show options on each of the lots
[58:06] that we can potentially purchase in how many parking spaces
[58:09] and what the anticipated costs would be,
[58:11] then we would have to go into figuring out the financing of that.
[58:15] I, we do not have the cash in the bank at this moment in time for a complete, a complete
[58:21] build of a parking garage, but we do know that we've got some revenue coming in from various
[58:27] lease agreements. We might have some bonding capacity because of our infrastructure, EIFD, that
[58:33] we have, so those are all the things that were still working out, which is kind of why we can't
[58:39] today's say, we have this to provide you at this point in time.
[58:44] I'm sorry, Tony, could you restate the scenario where we're approaching 100% parking capacity?
[58:54] Sure. So again, this is assuming multiple different variables, but assuming nothing changes
[58:59] with parking demand, assuming that during peak periods, 12 o'clock, when a clock during the week,
[59:05] If we lose an additional, say 115 to 120 total parking spaces, we're getting pretty close to the threshold of
[59:13] demand meeting the actual inventory that we have available for public parking.
[59:16] And what's the condition in which we would lose those spots?
[59:20] If we were to lease, if we were to agree to lease them now, we would be at 100%.
[59:26] Oh, I see.
[59:27] So today we are at 85, 85% depending on the parking garage.
[59:33] And so when you get to that, that's sort of considered full parking standards.
[59:37] If we were to lease an additional 100 now, let's just say we're getting close.
[59:43] That would tap.
[59:45] Then it would be yes.
[59:49] I was going to say something.
[59:51] What was it?
[59:53] I'll think of it.
[59:53] It had to do with parking.
[59:55] I'll think of it.
[1:00:01] I think this is just another great opportunity for me to recommend to anyone who's interested in the subject to read paved paradise, it's fascinating.
[1:00:14] It will change the way you think about parking in the future and how much we actually might need.
[1:00:20] or not. I remembered what I was going to say if you don't mind share. If something were to change
[1:00:26] like driverless autonomous vehicles came to Napa, you know, wemo has does have the authority
[1:00:32] to do it. If they decided tomorrow that they were going to implement in Napa, that could change
[1:00:35] our parking demand. So it's not just about looking at what could be potentially provided through
[1:00:40] a parking for through acquisition through the city and what the city might be able to build.
[1:00:45] There are situations that could change our demand and change our parking management at that point.
[1:00:49] Just throwing that out there, that the only option isn't necessarily building a parking garage.
[1:00:54] There are options that could be considered, should there be something like that that changes our parking demand to on time?
[1:01:02] Commissioner Missara?
[1:01:04] All right, just one clarification on the parking.
[1:01:10] Where we talk about getting to that 100% threshold, we're talking about if we release them today.
[1:01:15] But we're actually not going to be losing those spaces if we lease them for a few more years.
[1:01:21] So we're not exactly at our 100% capacity yet with this decision.
[1:01:32] Assuming, yes.
[1:01:33] So we're assuming that the demand stays the same into the future.
[1:01:38] I do not feel a staff that we can comfortably recommend sitting here today that we lease.
[1:01:48] anything more than like 10, you know, marking spaces at this point, but certainly the
[1:01:53] and Mount related, if we're talking about this project, they might related to this project.
[1:01:58] What I am saying is, as we look at increasing supply or changing demand, the opportunity
[1:02:04] potentially presents itself depending on what can be worked out and what they counsel would
[1:02:10] recommend.
[1:02:10] But if we recommended it today, yes, it wouldn't be an instant impact because the lease wouldn't actually start until the hotel units were occupied, but it's nothing more to change.
[1:02:25] So, a gamble, I guess, in a little bit of a sense that, and why from a staff perspective, we're saying the conversation is very relevant, remains on the table, certainly something we would like to try to do, but we have our pieces to still figure out.
[1:02:43] Any additional questions from a commissioner?
[1:02:46] Just one more, sorry.
[1:02:49] In the DA, in the parking section, it references the parking would be planned in accordance
[1:02:56] with Exhibit F. And there's no Exhibit F, but Exhibit F is the project description.
[1:03:04] That's somewhere else. I'm looking at section 4.4,
[1:03:13] and it refers down to Exhibit F, and
[1:03:15] I didn't know if I just missed.
[1:03:16] We removed, no, we removed the parking exhibits
[1:03:19] because we stated what the language so that
[1:03:21] must just be,
[1:03:25] I'm going to Kylie, if you can hear,
[1:03:27] I think that would that's just a language cleanup
[1:03:29] we're going to have to make.
[1:03:31] Which part?
[1:03:32] Yeah, that was a section four.
[1:03:34] We were, hi, this is Kylie Auto.
[1:03:37] I worked on the development agreement with staff.
[1:03:40] That is a error, it was supposed to be removed.
[1:03:44] the topic that is below a section 4.4.1 was contained in the exhibit F we simply rolled it into the
[1:03:51] agreement text itself. So we will make a note take that out. So thank you for catching that.
[1:03:56] Didn't mean to point out a scrivener's error. No, we appreciate it. It was a last minute change. Yes,
[1:04:04] I think we're correcting that.
[1:04:07] Other misunderstandings a bit.
[1:04:08] Thank you.
[1:04:12] Anything else?
[1:04:14] No.
[1:04:15] For real now.
[1:04:17] All right.
[1:04:18] Right.
[1:04:19] All
[1:04:23] right.
[1:04:23] This is the time where I ask if the applicant would like to speak.
[1:04:27] But I know we will be receiving an application.
[1:04:29] I did receive some correspondence from the applicant requesting a 12 minute time limit.
[1:04:34] And I do think that is fair given the volume of information we are hearing tonight.
[1:04:59] Testing testing.
[1:05:00] Thank you.
[1:05:02] Good evening, Chair.
[1:05:04] I'd really quickly thank you for the time that the 12 minute acknowledging that.
[1:05:09] I'm wondering if it would be helpful, maybe to reserve a little time and address that
[1:05:12] parking question a little bit right now, just to touch on it informally, we could say that
[1:05:17] for later, or could quickly judge.
[1:05:19] Sure, we could touch on that right now.
[1:05:22] So I think taking a quick step back, and my name is Jeff Dodd, I'm here on behalf of the
[1:05:30] and David Oliver in our architecture team from Bar Architects and Mark Holbert for
[1:05:38] preservation architecture architecture. But take us to the back on the parking
[1:05:43] issue. The downtown NAPA specific plan has a parking plan and the main
[1:05:48] principles take us to the back and looking at the land use policies behind it. Maybe a
[1:05:52] little bit talking about a paved paradise conceptual alignment there is initially the
[1:05:58] is we don't want to have individual lots of their own parking. We don't want each business to have
[1:06:05] their own parking. We want to centralize parking and really maximize the space and do so through
[1:06:11] public parking garages. And through that as part of that we're going to incorporate this parking
[1:06:16] exemplary and we're going to have business owners pay into that fee and ultimately utilize those
[1:06:20] parking garages. Molly had acknowledged that there certainly is a lot of, I wouldn't say a lot of
[1:06:28] there's there's there's there's funds there available maybe not to build an entire
[1:06:32] entire part a entire parking a new parking garage but there are a lot of things in
[1:06:38] motion right now I think they could make that whole to realize that new parking
[1:06:42] garage. I mentioned that point because from a practical reality with respect to
[1:06:49] this project there's no realistic possibility where this the hotel would be
[1:06:55] solely reliant on a parking impact fee.
[1:06:58] Any sort of hotel operator will need to have parking spaces.
[1:07:03] And we're talking about an upper upscale operation.
[1:07:06] So the idea that you would have an upper upscale operator
[1:07:09] have their guests go spin around the block
[1:07:11] or have their valet park in the middle of the street.
[1:07:14] It's just not feasible.
[1:07:15] It's not the type of operation
[1:07:16] that we're contemplating for this project.
[1:07:19] So while it is an option, and it's called out as an option,
[1:07:25] It's not really a realistic or practical one from the developers perspective, maybe to fill in a couple of back spaces where the parking demand requirements require certain amount for retail or spa or restaurant or whatever, but generally there's we have an idea, at least it could be up to 100 spaces that the project would need.
[1:07:46] And so we're, it's up to us, we've talked about,
[1:07:49] we've always talked about a gamble.
[1:07:50] It's not the city's gamble.
[1:07:51] It's the developers' gamble, just to be quite frank.
[1:07:55] But it's coming at this awkward time, unusual time
[1:07:59] in a sense where you have a project
[1:08:02] that is really ready to get going.
[1:08:04] There's some urgency there.
[1:08:05] Right, we want to try to avoid a total loss.
[1:08:07] A total disaster for the next earthquake.
[1:08:09] So we're trying to move forward.
[1:08:11] The city is moving in good faith with us,
[1:08:13] realizing the possibility of that,
[1:08:15] and trying to take advantage of this opportunity while we have it.
[1:08:22] So, yeah, again, I think it's a bit of a developer's gamble,
[1:08:24] but there is no aspect of, or there's no possibility where,
[1:08:28] and I don't know, maybe that idea or hypothetical is spinning in your mind
[1:08:33] where it would totally be relying on parking impact fees,
[1:08:36] and that's just not going to happen.
[1:08:38] So, we're also with this unique time in a sense where there's a lot of opportunities.
[1:08:42] There's a lot of properties on the downtown that will be coming up for sale.
[1:08:46] You might have read about them in the newspaper.
[1:08:49] So it's a lot of moving parts in the city.
[1:08:51] I think is being very thoughtful.
[1:08:54] Staff Tony, Neil in particular, let's not ration and jump into any sort of major decisions
[1:08:59] like that.
[1:09:00] Let's see how this plays out.
[1:09:01] Let's do a feasibility study.
[1:09:03] Let's try to get the most optimum spot where it's going to serve the most people.
[1:09:07] we're going to be the best serving location for our local businesses and let's get the best
[1:09:13] bank for our buck for each parking spot. Thank you. If I could just add to that quickly because
[1:09:20] I think Jeff brought up a good point that I should have shared. There are situations with past hotels
[1:09:27] particularly the archer and the on-daas wasn't called the on-daas at the time. Where there were a certain
[1:09:35] The number of uses that the impact fee was paid so like maybe staff for example.
[1:09:42] The parking spaces for staff the impact fee was paid but then the parking license agreement was related to the rooms.
[1:09:48] So there is sort of that middle of the road possibility that I think Jeff mentioned is that we have a number of what
[1:09:54] Parking would be required under the impact fee but there could be a split like there's 70 license spaces and 30
[1:10:01] impact fee spaces depending on the use and what the hotel needs.
[1:10:05] So there's, there's no real hard number at this moment in time it will ultimately depend
[1:10:09] on what is built and then how we up to split that up.
[1:10:14] He also referenced the ability to do a parking feasibility study.
[1:10:18] You will recall first straight to the parking feasibility study and as part of it, we dropped
[1:10:22] the requirement from one space per hotel room to 0.8 spaces per hotel room because we determined
[1:10:30] based on trends, visitor trends, you know, who is bringing cars and who weren't, so there's
[1:10:36] always that option to do a parking feasibility study to determine the actual demand that
[1:10:41] the project will generate in terms of needing reserved spaces versus the impact of these
[1:10:46] spaces.
[1:10:48] Thank you, Molly.
[1:10:49] And ultimately this will be dictated by the hotel partner that's brought in for this project
[1:10:53] that needs to meet that upper-up scale criteria and they're going to, again, they're going
[1:10:57] have their own needs, their own desires, but we all with our, you know, in-house hotel expert
[1:11:03] expertise with David and communications and talking with these potential partners, they're
[1:11:09] just as in any sort of scenario where the project would be solely reliant on the parking
[1:11:13] impact fee.
[1:11:14] It's just not realistic.
[1:11:15] Even at, even at a lower rate, it's just, it's not feasible for, to have this project
[1:11:20] pencil and suit the operators that we want to bring in.
[1:11:25] Thank you.
[1:11:26] Okay.
[1:11:28] So, jumping into it, I'd be very appreciative of all the time that staff has spent on this.
[1:11:37] It's been an incredible effort.
[1:11:38] Like I mentioned, we've kind of been go-go for the past year,
[1:11:42] and in particular the past month with a lot of late nights.
[1:11:45] I know right are working in particular, so thank you right are very, very much.
[1:11:49] I appreciate that.
[1:11:50] And I'd also be remiss if I didn't thank you commissioners.
[1:11:53] We're at a special meeting.
[1:11:56] This is your first of two meetings this week.
[1:11:59] And we're grateful for your time.
[1:12:01] You didn't need to do this.
[1:12:02] You probably could have come up with a pretty good excuse
[1:12:04] over the summer.
[1:12:05] So I do want to acknowledge that commitment.
[1:12:07] Irrespective of what happens here tonight,
[1:12:09] I just want to say thank you.
[1:12:10] That means a lot to us.
[1:12:13] At its core, this project is about saving the historic post office.
[1:12:17] It's a local landmark.
[1:12:18] It's on the National Register of Historic Places.
[1:12:21] And it's a legacy that this community is wanted to protect since the U.S. Postal Service talked about demolishing it after the earthquake.
[1:12:30] And but thankfully the Keller family stepped up and you do acknowledge that I'm not sure if Jim regrets that right now.
[1:12:38] But we're very appreciative I am appreciative particularly. I'll be very blunt.
[1:12:44] This is a difficult project to make work when you consider the significant cost of construction and labor, which continue to rise.
[1:12:51] You're after you hear this all the time from developers who are here in front of you.
[1:12:56] So if that's not a secret, it's also no secret to high cost of financing.
[1:13:01] What makes this project particularly unique is that before you even get to financing new construction,
[1:13:06] the developers starting off in approximately $10 to $13 million whole just to preserve the building,
[1:13:13] and make it seismically safe.
[1:13:15] That's a very difficult hole to start in.
[1:13:19] But that's the reality if we want to save a building like this.
[1:13:23] However, with this new design, new and improved design
[1:13:26] and residential component with this four-scale hotel units
[1:13:29] that Ryder had mentioned alongside the Franklin Station hotel,
[1:13:33] we really believe that there is a pathway to reach the goal
[1:13:36] that we started with, restoring the post office
[1:13:39] and bringing you life to this block of second street.
[1:13:44] There has been a lot to get here, working through, again,
[1:13:48] as Wright, I mentioned, the preservation
[1:13:49] covenant of 50 page DA, PD overlay amendments,
[1:13:53] parking affordable housing, sequa,
[1:13:56] I can go on and on and on.
[1:13:59] But you guys did a great job.
[1:14:00] Thank you very much again, Wright,
[1:14:01] for putting together those details in the report
[1:14:03] and in presentation.
[1:14:05] So I think I'll just step aside and let the star of the show
[1:14:08] be the design, and I'll head over to our design team, Earl, from Bar Architects, and then Mark
[1:14:15] is going to touch in on the preservation aspects.
[1:14:18] Thank you.
[1:14:19] Thank you, dear.
[1:14:22] Thank you, Chair.
[1:14:23] Thank you, Commissioner, and thank you staff very much for your excellent presentation.
[1:14:30] I'm Earl Wilson, principal with BAAR Architects, and I'm really honored to be here for this
[1:14:35] particular project.
[1:14:37] It's a wonderful project.
[1:14:38] I want to thank Christine French from, in the stakeholders from that Napa County landmarks
[1:14:46] for meeting with us on this project and our preservation architect Mark Holberg.
[1:14:54] We're about a 70 person firm in San Francisco and we've been...
[1:15:00] In here for a long time, working in NAP of Alley and working in NAP itself.
[1:15:06] But this project is really a proposition, as Jeff said, to preserve a wonderful resource at
[1:15:14] the heart of NAP and this south of first district.
[1:15:21] And this building has been vacant since 2014, as Jeff mentioned, almost 12 years, and
[1:15:30] we have a great opportunity in front of us right now to restore this post office and to
[1:15:35] revitalize this area around the building, south of first street and it really is in
[1:15:42] bad shape right now. There is a lot of structural damage and it's really at risk of further
[1:15:49] damage and risk of being potentially in another earthquake loss forever.
[1:15:59] And that would really be a shame because it is a tremendous resource as an architect
[1:16:06] and having toured this building all over and really looked at it.
[1:16:11] There are wonderful details all over it that are irreplaceable from the terracotta panels
[1:16:17] to the bronze urns, the windows, it's a beautiful building, the brick work, and it's really
[1:16:28] would be irreplaceable.
[1:16:32] Our process really starts with research.
[1:16:38] It starts with a lot of research into the place, and really understanding the building, my
[1:16:45] passion in particular is about place making and how to enhance the sense of place that's
[1:16:52] already there and working with Jim and David was a wonderful process spending time up here
[1:17:00] talking to them really getting into what it means to be downtown Napa and what it means to
[1:17:07] to the Post Office, and we came up with these three pillars, which were really intended to be the DNA of the project that it'd be authentically napa, authentically downtown napa,
[1:17:21] Revere and respect the historic post office and that ultimately this is about revitalization and a place to gather a place of experience.
[1:17:34] And, you know, the with those pillars, a Revere and respect was really to take direct inspiration from the historic post office in the materials in the symmetry and the form.
[1:17:51] We have a list at the end of the slides, but the post office is really intended to be the centerpiece, the jewel box at the heart.
[1:18:01] We want to enter through the building and really make it the centerpiece and also to harmonize the architectural character with the post office.
[1:18:13] Ultimately too, this is relating to the post office, but it's relating to downtown Napa and needs to become a part of the fabric of downtown.
[1:18:24] And we're intentionally showing this back side to show that there is modulation of the form of the building.
[1:18:31] We were thinking about it, but as Raider mentioned, he was right on spot on, this is a party wall condition on the south side here.
[1:18:40] And there are things we can do, and we're certainly going to listen and want to listen to comments.
[1:18:49] But, you know, it's about really activating the streets, and that's creating vibrant street life.
[1:19:01] You know, we were looking at differentiating the new building from the post office,
[1:19:05] But one of the things from really studying the Secretary of Interior standards, we've worked in the
[1:19:11] Presidio, we've worked in other historic districts and San Francisco with historic buildings.
[1:19:18] And it's not just differentiation, but it's about creating this continuity over time.
[1:19:24] And again, that's part of the Revere and Respect.
[1:19:30] And pulling the post office back, it's something that we wanted to do specifically to allow the post office to continue to be the dual box that it is.
[1:19:46] You know, preserving the character of that building and really renovating it.
[1:19:52] this project is really about that, it's about restoring this building back to its glory
[1:19:58] and it is a beautiful building. We've tried to differentiate the new addition from the
[1:20:04] historic, but again you'll see that these attempts with the proportion, with the materials,
[1:20:11] with the brick, to harmonize the architectural character.
[1:20:19] And really activating the streets on both
[1:20:22] sides of the building not only on Randolph, but also on Franklin, was paramount, and
[1:20:31] thinking about the scale of the building that it was important to activate the street to
[1:20:39] maybe not bring our building down and have it be as monumental on the street, but to have
[1:20:47] finer grain, so that the post office, which really has these monumental pillars coming down
[1:20:54] to the ground, that that really maintained its monumentality, and it's kind of iconic
[1:21:00] character.
[1:21:03] Now, it's about indoor outdoor living, we have this wonderful climate, and so connecting
[1:21:08] to the outdoors, connecting to the city and nature, and bringing in well detailed materials.
[1:21:19] Similarly, with the residences or the mixed-use building, we wanted to have that relate, have
[1:21:27] the relate to the post office and the respect, but also have it really contributing to
[1:21:35] the street life.
[1:21:39] And, you know, the great thing about the hotel use is that it's a use that actually invites
[1:21:44] the public in, and the historic building can be used. Not only used, but really the centerpiece
[1:21:52] of this project, and preserving this landmark for future generations, both locals and visitors
[1:22:00] to enjoy. And, you know, I put this slide in. It was part of our historic conformance
[1:22:10] certificate of appropriateness, but it's really I won't read through them, but it has all
[1:22:15] of these measures that we went through to really review and respect this historic post-war
[1:22:20] office.
[1:22:22] And so I want to do it also allow Mark to speak our preservation arts attack.
[1:22:27] Thank you.
[1:22:29] Thank you.
[1:22:30] Thank you.
[1:22:30] Thank you.
[1:22:31] Indeed.
[1:22:31] Thank you again.
[1:22:32] Well, written and well said, and I'll only speak very briefly.
[1:22:35] It just hope you'll join me in supporting this project.
[1:22:40] It has been a very long process.
[1:22:43] It's gone on for a planning and design process.
[1:22:45] It's gone on for nearly a decade at this point in time.
[1:22:49] I believe the benefits are in evidence.
[1:22:53] There's a very high quality project.
[1:22:56] Both as rehabilitation and as an addition to a rehabilitated building
[1:23:01] is more than a facade.
[1:23:03] It's per the covenant.
[1:23:04] it's that old front end of the building that will be very public and that is another huge benefit
[1:23:12] to it, that there is public benefit. As a real point it out, hotels are ideal historic buildings
[1:23:19] because people walk into them many, many people over the years can use them so they have tremendous
[1:23:25] public benefits. So again, I hope you'll support this this very high quality project. Thank you.
[1:23:38] Good evening, commissioners and staff.
[1:23:42] I'll echo what Jeff said.
[1:23:43] Thanks for the special meeting.
[1:23:44] We appreciate it.
[1:23:47] I just want to come up here and express my thanks to my great team.
[1:23:54] It's been a long journey with this project.
[1:23:57] One of the first conversations that we had when we restarted here was with some council members,
[1:24:05] but it was also with landmarks.
[1:24:07] Christina, I think she's going to get up here and say a few things too, but her and Terry
[1:24:12] Wonderlick have been a pleasure to work with, and it takes a lot of people to get a project
[1:24:21] like this through and approved and on track, which is what we're really trying to do here.
[1:24:28] We're trying to get design review behind us.
[1:24:31] I've watched this project from the front row for the last 10 years and you know, we
[1:24:37] know what needs to happen to get this thing done, and we've got to clear all this, but I did
[1:24:43] bring the 18-man here to help, and I hope you guys can help us with a nice recommendation
[1:24:50] of City Council, and we're here to answer any questions we're here to listen. And again, Molly
[1:24:57] Ryder, thank you guys for the last, especially month, but through the process. So thank you
[1:25:04] everyone. We're here to answer any questions. Thank you.
[1:25:11] Okay. Are there any questions?
[1:25:13] Who wants to start with questions for the applicant? Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Myers.
[1:25:19] I guess this question is, I don't know if it's more for for writer or for the architecture
[1:25:31] How certain are these renderings to be accurate to what is built?
[1:25:37] Has it gone through structural?
[1:25:40] I mean, because the question comes from a recent hotel we had at First and Oxbow,
[1:25:49] where they came back for a new design review because after it had been approved,
[1:25:55] Then they went to structural engineering and realized, well, we can't put all these windows on the first floor.
[1:26:02] The building all fell down, so they had to kind of redesign the facade and just port it and it was still a nice looking project.
[1:26:10] Don't get me wrong, but because particularly because this is going into development agreement where once that happens the public participation process kind of goes away,
[1:26:22] I just want to get a better sense of confidence in how true life is this likely to be.
[1:26:34] The applicant may respond.
[1:26:36] Yeah, the city has not done a structural review on it.
[1:26:40] So that would be an applicant question.
[1:26:43] We have not submitted structural.
[1:26:46] So we've not done a complete structural design at this point.
[1:26:52] We're 50% into our schematic design process if that means anything to you.
[1:26:59] So, I think you can see from all the drawings that we've submitted.
[1:27:03] It's substantial.
[1:27:06] We have been working with the structural engineer.
[1:27:09] In fact, I think he's even here tonight.
[1:27:13] So, there's been coordination with structure,
[1:27:17] But it's not fully designed, and so I don't, you know, and that's fair.
[1:27:26] That's the way it is, so that does to that extent. Yes, thank you. I guess I would have a follow-up if I could ask of writer.
[1:27:34] So that answered my question. Thank you. So then in the development agreement, if there does need to be a change to the design,
[1:27:44] do to, you know, they need a beam here. What's that process like? So that the
[1:27:55] amendment language is actually in the plan development overlay where it speaks to
[1:27:59] that up to amount and it speaks to subsequent approvals, generally referred to in
[1:28:04] the development agreement, but the plan development overlay modifies the
[1:28:09] ordinance, because otherwise the ordinance for hotels generally, back through
[1:28:14] Council unless it's a minor modification.
[1:28:17] But the plan development overlay outlines the types
[1:28:21] of so-use permit design review permit and such.
[1:28:25] And as long as it, the grayers that
[1:28:27] substantial conformance, right?
[1:28:29] So they're going to be notable features
[1:28:31] about the way that this is designed, the expant,
[1:28:37] the kind of massive facades of glass balconies
[1:28:41] where they're directed.
[1:28:42] Those will all generally have to be the same, that the projections and the stepbacks will all have to be consistent with what City Council ultimately considers and whether they adopt it a resolution to approve it or not.
[1:28:59] But what I was, it makes it easy about this one is that there are pretty distinguishing features that staff we would expect to carry over.
[1:29:08] So that there could be little things as far as,
[1:29:15] oh, and Stank corrected there,
[1:29:17] there are certain subsequent improvements
[1:29:18] that are subject to city manager discretion.
[1:29:22] But what you could see in terms of structural changes
[1:29:25] and what we've seen is sometimes the windows
[1:29:27] get slightly smaller because they need to be
[1:29:30] able to be structurally supported.
[1:29:33] But where you're looking at large portions of wall
[1:29:35] that are generally glass,
[1:29:37] our expectation would be that that would be consistent.
[1:29:41] So, where there are these distinguishing features,
[1:29:44] and maybe commission moves into the verbal record of identifying certain features,
[1:29:51] as part of their recommendation that they would like to definitely be maintained.
[1:29:56] Staff would look at the elevations, find the distinguishing feature.