Good evening.

Welcome to the June 30th, 2026 City of Napa special meeting for the Planning Commission.

I would like to call this meeting to order and ask Myra to please conduct a roll call.

Commissioner Ebach.

Present.

Commissioner Masaro.

Present.

Commissioner Shotwell present.

Vice Chair Myers.

Here.

And Chair Owen.

Present.

We will now rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under a individual liberty and justice for all.

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.

Staff, are there any changes to this evening's agenda or any supplemental reports?

No changes, but there are three supplemental reports that were forwarded to the commission and available on the back.

Thank you.

Commissioners, are there any proposed changes to this evening's agenda?

Public comment.

Public comment provides an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the planning commission on items of interest 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.

Do we have any members of the public who wish to provide public comments on non-agenda items?

Public hearings and appeals.

These are items that are formally presented to the planning commission and provide an opportunity for members of the public to comment.

Applicants or appellants are allowed 10 minutes to present testimony at the beginning of the public hearing, and if needed, five minutes to present rebuttal at the end of the public hearing.

All other speakers will be limited to three minutes.

Tonight we have the following item.

I met with the applicant and spoke with staff.

I also met with the applicant and spoke with staff.

I too met with the applicant and spoke with staff.

I also met with the applicant at the project site.

For the record, the city's website is showing the incorrect uh CHC member roster during that time and uh but I know for sure that the city is working on it.

Um I recently met with the applicant and have met with staff and read through all of the supplemental correspondence.

Thank you.

And we will now hear a report from staff.

Good evening, uh Chair Owen, Commissioners.

Uh Molly Radigan, the community resources and development director.

I for some reason don't have a name tag, so I hope you can remember my name through this process.

Um we are going to get started with our presentation and I'm just gonna kick it off by saying um a a thank you to the applicant team um for participating with us in the discussions.

Um a huge thank you to Ryder who had a heavy lift last week to get this here to you uh this week and then just kick it off with uh what is a development agreement overview.

Um so California Government Code section six five eight six four and uh beyond govern the use of development agreements and the purpose is really to create certainty um on the terms of a development between the developer and the city um or the developer and the county, depending on what jurisdiction is using it.

Um in the city of Napa, it's um we typically use the entitlement process, but we will use the development agreement process when there is usually a special reason why, and usually that is we're looking for um something that's outside of the regular entitlement process, or the developer is looking for something outside of the regular development process, or uh in most situations both.

There's benefits on each side to that um agreement.

So for history purposes, um, we have used development agreements.

Just some examples of other projects we've used development agreements on the past.

Um the certainly the most big one uh is the Napa Pipe project uh that was uh also part of an annexation and it included 945 housing units that and with a significant amount of affordable housing dedicated to it, and um the city uh also um received some open space commitments to the dedication of those affordable housing lands and some community facilities.

Another example is what we call Vista Tulica, which is really the Gassar project, Braden apartments, um, where they were able to build 500 units under a development agreement, and in exchange, they also did the Gasar Bridge and the extension, as well as provided um an in lieu opportunity for affordable housing.

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 uh where you know they got some parking, uh, we got some public improvements, etc.

So, in the case of what you're gonna see tonight, uh, you know, the identified benefit, significant benefit to the city of Napa is really the preservation of the post office and uh a historical resource in our community.

And while there is a covenant on the property, uh we just wanted to start out by making sure that you know we have, we shared that, you know, there is um a sentiment in the city and in amongst staff and and at city council uh that preserving historic resources is important.

So you'll see that this development agreement looks a little bit different than other development agreements as writer goes through the process, but really that is what we see as the significant benefit of what the applicant team has come forth to offer.

There are other things, um, you know, there's TOT, there's uh property tax revenue, there's sales tax revenue.

Uh, there is an additional contribution to the affordable housing fund proposed.

But just wanted to say that not every development agreement is going to look alike, um, and not every development agreement is going to have the same terms, uh, and because it's all because there's a different, there's different gives and takes to get to your end goal.

So, what we're proposing you to you tonight is I think what is our end goal from the city's perspective, and you'll hear from the developer as well.

Thank you, Molly, and thank you, Chair, members of the commission.

So, Franklin Station is an application consisting of multiple entitlements, some related to the purview of the planning commission in their recommendation to city council, some relative to the Cultural Heritage Commission and their recommendation ultimately to City Council.

Tonight, the application you're considering recommendation of is for multiple entitlements, including a development agreement, a zoning amendment, amending the plan development overlay, PD 37 district, a tentative parcel map, and a design review permit and related approvals to provide for the redevelopment of an approximately 1.44 acre property with two five-story buildings consisting of up to 120 hotel rooms, up to 44 cell hotel units and other amenities, and the preservation of Franklin Station post office.

The applicant is James Keller.

The project is located at 1251 1351 2nd Street, 820 Randolph Street, 801 809 Coombe Street, Unit A, B, C, and D.

The project location is located generally on the southeast side of 2nd Street, generally divided by Randolph Street.

The primary parcel, generally referred to as the post office redevelopment consists of the post office and the hotel, and we'll get into more details regarding that.

The mixed use development, and when I refer to mixed use development, it's going to be the redevelopment of the parking lot parcel with the inclusion of the three units that exist within the young building.

So they're primarily the parcels are located along 2nd Street with frontages along Franklin and Randolph as well.

Requested entitlement include the plan development overlay PD 37 amendment.

Generally consists of different land use provisions, development standards, design guidelines to help facilitate redevelopment of this.

But the in this, what you'll notice in this development agreement, we relied a lot on the planned development overlay as kind of the teeth and setting the standard for amending specific processes that have been established by ordinance.

Part of that, and just to paint the picture of the difference in the approvals, the planned development overlay will kind of establish the up to amount, kind of the maximum development that could be constructed upon the property.

The design review permit, and we'll get into more detail of that and the tentative parcel map.

Generally are facilitating the design that you see in front of you.

What the planned development overlay consists of is five-story hotel building, including basement rooftop structures and space with up to 120 rooms within that post office redevelopment with some other food and beverage uses spa event fitness amenities, a five-story mixed-use building, including rooftop space for 37 for sale hotel units.

Such units in the past were generally referred to as branded residential, but as part of that joint session of planning commission city council, um, both planning commission and city council generally saw due to the transient nature of these units that they were more so commercial uses in their eyes.

With that, when you get into the minutiae of the details, that even ties to impact fees that are generally applied to the project for hotel uses.

That mixed use building consists of those 37 four-cell hotel units with the inclusion of the three condo units within the existing young building for a total of up to 40 four-cell hotel units.

You're considering the development agreement between the city of Napa and the developer tonight, and those that DA, as Molly had suggested, addressed certain conditions, procedures, and implementation among vesting certain rights for the developer.

The design review permit in consideration of a recommending adoption to city council will consist of a five-story upper-up scale hotel with 94 hotel rooms.

The same amenities that I've outlined, and then redevelopment of that parking lot parcel, that mixed-use development with 25 four-cell hotel units, ground floor parking, the inclusion of the three young building condo units.

The tentative parcel map generally, and it's it's part of the confusing ask is that there are existing condo parcels that exist within that young building.

But generally, what's happening is the parking lot parcel and the wine valley box unit parcel are being merged to facilitate larger construction and then a connection point in through to the young building.

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 minutiae of the historic resources.

But for context, you were provided with the certificate of appropriateness plans because I think understanding the big picture of how it all ties together is important in this context.

We're considering the redevelopment of the Franklin Station post office.

In other words, it was renamed to the Thomas Congsguard Post Office.

I think in 2010, the action by US Congress, and then they had a ceremony in 2011 prior to the earthquake that damaged the building.

Thomas Kongs are the Napa Superior Court judge serving for a substantial amount of time within the community, and so US Congress, I think through Mike Thompson did it in his honor.

Generally, the post office timeline is important to understand context, was built in 1933.

Architects William Wilk Corlett and Walter Reed of the Oakland firm Reed and Corlette designed the post office.

January 11th of 1985, it was added to the National Register of Historic Places, which had identified certain historic features within that, and then generally the Art Deco style of the post office that you see even in its damaged form.

In 2010, it was renamed to that Thomas Congsguard post office, but people generally still understand it as the Franklin Station post office.

August 24th, 2014, the South Napa earthquake substantially damaged the post office, and then shortly afterwards, the U.S.

Postal Service was considering demolishing it due to the substantial cost that it would take to rehabilitate the structure.

But going through 2014, primarily into 2015, there were a lot of local efforts in saving the post office, kind of spearheaded through many community leaders into Congressman Mike Thompson and the Postal Service did agree, and we'll get into the preservation covenant here in a little bit to halt the demolition plans for the Franklin Station Post Office and consider pursuing a sale for the Franklin Station Post Office.

Generally, the US Postal Service initiated drafts for what a preservation covenant would look like, the expectation to save that, not to get too far into detail, but there were inspections of the property that occurred in through 2014 2015 that really demonstrated to the U.S.

Park Service that the building was still significant.

And so in through 2015 up to 2017, when that purchase by the applicant and later executed the preservation covenant, the the post office was willing to consider that primarily because of 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 to rehabilitate, they took on the obligation with the third party.

So the city is not party to the preservation covenant with the Napa County landmarks.

Included as a 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.

In February 14, 2017, there was an initial purchase and sale agreement of the parking lot parcel to help facilitate redevelopment of the post office building in 2018.

Well, through 2017, really going into effect to 2018 is when the initial entitlements were approved by city council for the redevelopment of that post office, consisting of an upper upstory hotel, up to 163 hotel rooms, and a mechanized parking garage on the parking lot parcel.

Through 2018, 2019 up through 2025, you'll see there were amendments to the purchase cell agreement, further amendments extending the development agreement, and then an application submitted by the applicant in July of 2025 for the project being considered in front of you today.

Already went into the preservation covenant a little bit, but there it outlines specific historic and significant features within the post office, not necessarily under the purview of the planning commission, still important for context.

Key project components include the rehabilitation adaptive reuse of the structure in the five-story hotel with up to 120 hotel rooms, the redevelopment of the parking lot parcel for the up to 40 units, 37 and the three inclusive the young building, on-site parking facilities, the ground level, and some retail ground level of that.

The hotel building generally has many different amenities, food beverage facilities, uh basement bar, rooftop bar, um event space, and other spa space.

To get into kind of the meat of the um request in front of you tonight, a lot of detail went into the plan development overlay amendments.

The term for sale hotel units based off of feedback received from both planning commission city council is what was generally referred to as those branded residential units.

Further define those as individually owned units that are developed, conveyed, operated as part of the hotel that rely upon the hotel's management services, staffing, and amenities for their use and operation.

But if they choose to only live there part of the time, they may rent it back through the hotel for periods of shorter than 30 days.

In the eyes of the city, Transient and Nature, all subject to transient occupancy taxes.

Then another term is lockoff.

So hotel room, hotel unit, four cell hotel unit that is designed and constructed with a lockable 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.

So in the eyes of how the we define a lockoff, a typical hotel is where you have a shared door between your hotel room and another hotel room, maybe rented separately, but sometimes if you have a bigger party, you can have a room where you can open up doors in between.

Same concept here.

In our eyes, when it gets into the parking standards required, and generally that cap of the 120 hotel rooms, lockoffs are considered hotel rooms under that analysis.

The PD overlay also defines joint incidental entertainment uses consistent with the downtown specific plan.

But if it's incidental to the hotel, it's permitted between the hours of 10 a.m.

and 12 a.m.

Should there be other considerations should they request deviations from that in the future?

They would have to generally conform to the downtown specific plan table and processes for that.

Outdoor entertainment specifically, because of how nuanced outdoor entertainment is still subject to an administrative permit through the director's level, as long as it complies with the other standards of the downtown specific plan.

If it exceeds those standards, it would generally conform to the use permit process, which would be seen in front of the planning commission.

But if it conformed to those standards, it would be in through the director's level.

That plan development overlay also establishes design guidelines for the materials use, the step back considerations, the new addition, and the context and the juxtaposition with the old building that's being preserved.

The plan development overlay also establishes parking standards and/or refers to the downtown specific land for parking standards.

So project parking, specifically for the four-cell hotel units and the lock-off units, shall be provided on-site or via recorded irrevocable license or easement.

That license or easement would be for a non-city property with a minimum term of 30 years from the hotel building certificate of occupancy in accordance with the standards outlined above you, which is the one parking space per each four-cell hotel unit and the 0.8 spaces per lockoff unit that's rounded up to the nearest one.

Payment of parking development impact fees also apply to the hotel rooms generally at 0.8 spaces per hotel room, rounded up to the nearest one.

And then all other uses generally parked per the downtown specific plan.

And parking for other uses may also be satisfied either on site through recorded irrevocable license or easement for a minimum of 30 years, non-city property, or the applicant may secure approval by the city council on a parking license agreement on city owned property.

The project amendments in this overlay authorize many approvals through the community resources and development director up to that cap of the 120 hotel rooms, the massing that you is being considered in front of you tonight, and the 40 four cell hotel units.

So that applies to maps, that applies to use permits, applies to the design review permit.

And then project phasing, when we refer to phase one, we'll generally be referring to the post office redevelopment phase two.

If it and this is if it was to be phased, would be the mixed use development.

There are also sunset provisions for obligations that the developer must meet in terms of receiving a building permit to be issued, and then substantially constructing, meaning receiving either TCO or certificate of occupancy.

So temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy for the construction of those buildings.

Generally, if they were to be phase the hotel building, so the post office redevelopment will need to be completed first.

So the priority is the preservation of the post office.

The table in front of you, and in that attachment also goes over the building form standards.

So up to 4.0 floor area ratio, which is consistent with the downtown specific plan, but it excludes those subterranean areas.

Building height, max 60 feet, but there are allowances for up to 75 feet for the rooftop features that are further defined.

Front setback is generally max of 15, but because of the historic significant features of the post office, the building and the massing of the building on both sides have been set back a little bit further to emphasize the historical significance of that kind of front third of the post office building.

So in instances where that massing is intended to be for that purpose, the setback may be greater.

But it's also understood like that space isn't underutilized, it would also be activated as part of that frontage.

So although the buildings back, it's still generally like a restaurant on one side, event space on the other that call attention to the space behind it.

The plan development overlay district map boundaries in the in the action, if taken by city council, if recommended by the planning commission, would actually be revoking the current boundaries of the PD 37 overlay map, which includes that ace hardware parcel to kind of the southeast adjoining the property and including the the young building as part of it.

As far as the development agreement, the the key benefit of the development agreement really is the rehabilitation of the Franklin Station Post Office.

The rehabilitation comes at a substantial cost.

But there are also other benefits of the transient occupancy tax revenue, and during those initial five years, it's estimated that the project is expected to generate over 18 million in city allocated tax revenues.

The applicant is also agreed to paying the hotel motel rate of six dollars per square foot for the entirety of the project, plus an additional dollar per square foot upon close of each four cell hotel unit.

Site plan generally shown here, so parcels generally divided by Randolph Street, post office redevelopment to the left to the west, and the mixed use development to the right.

Shown here, kind of bird's eye view from up above.

Post office redevelopment called out here, located along Franklin Street, Second Street, and Randolph Street.

Access to certain trash facilities will be located along Franklin Street.

Access to the main entrances of the building will be off of 2nd Street.

Same thing with the mixed use development.

A lot of the entrances will will focus on 2nd Street with certain service doors and entryways for trash collection and such located along Randolph Street.

Ingress to the garage will be located along 2nd Street and then certain retail facilities on the ground floor.

I won't get too far into the details of the architecture and the materials because that's kind of the intention of the applicant's present presentation tonight.

So I'll let their team generally go into the nuances of the materials.

But substantial consideration and re-looking at how the new additions can fit in the context of the historic preservation of the post office.

Generally, this is a view from the north side, main office second street facing post office redevelopment.

South side, so like angle from third street back towards the facing north, but it's the south elevation post office redevelopment, west elevation and east elevation.

You know, the post office redevelopment floor plan.

There's speakeasy on the bottom and a lot of back of house space in the basement of the building.

The first floor plan generally included a lobby, ballroom event space, back of house for that restaurant and other facilities, and then a three mil restaurant and fine dining.

Just understand as part of their outreach to different brands that there will be some fluctuation in the floor plan just to facilitate that.

But the intent is to still stay within the confines of what you see and the footprint of what you see and the overall massing.

Get into the second floor, more event space, rooms for the hotel, spa facilities, rooms, third level, fourth level, fifth level, and then rooftop, which includes a pool terrace and rooftop bar, and then different um gathering opportunities.

Mixed use development in elevations from second street facing south, the north elevation.

You'll see access to the garage down below.

The south elevation, so it's facing north.

Just want to understand that there were considerations and discussion, and there isn't general interest to discuss this facade here tonight and other considerations.

If you have any questions, I had some discussions with the chief building official, but the applicants team also provide response to that.

There's a zero lot line here, so there are certain limitations to both how you can build limitations on openings generally because of fire-rated construction, but understanding that there's an interest to maybe elevate or some variation to these walls.

So the waste the west elevation, some general screening to the parking facilities, threaded here and a living wall, and the east elevation, mixed use development, entry to the ground level parking facilities.

Get into some of those four cell hotel units and access to the young building, which I'll show you in just a moment.

The third level, fourth level, fifth level, and then the rooftop because penthouse and other gathering space opportunities.

Young building shown here from that second level showing access of how you get to those three condo units that will be converted to the four cell hotel units.

Staff recommends planning commission recommends that the city council finds the project would not have an environmental impacts, and that those effects were not examined in the downtown Napa specific plan environmental impact report, and that the project is within the scope of the development program analyzed in the downtown Napa specific plan EIR, and that no subsequent EIR is required for the project as documented in attachment nine, and that there's a project mitigation monitoring report as exhibit A of that, and then alternatively that the project is exempt from SQL under SQL guidelines section 15332 class 32 exemption.

In consideration of your recommendation to city council, these are the findings you must make for a zoning amendment for any amendments to the plan development overlay, must make these findings for the zoning amendment, in addition to these planned development overlay findings to amend that PD overlay.

Further considering and retouching on what Molly had referred to.

They have opportunity to pursue a development agreement consistent with both the government code section and Napa municipal code section 1752150 in considering the design review permit for those 94 and then the 25 and the 8 and other amenity space, and your recommendation to city council shall establish these findings.

Then for the tentative parcel map, you'll shall establish these findings and not make or have the ability to make these findings, which would require you to consider denying it.

With that, that concludes my presentation.

Staff recommends that the planning commission forward a recommendation to city council as outlined in the staff report.

City staffs here tonight, members of the applicants team here tonight, to facilitate any questions you have.

We have our legal team both on Teams and in front of you with Dan Deporto, so Kylie Otto on Teams, and then Dan Deporto here tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, writer.

Do any commissioners have any questions for staff at this time?

I just need clarification on one item.

Writer, thank you.

That was outstanding.

So incredibly thorough.

Uh just wanted to get the actual sunset provisions for the phase one.

You mentioned it, but not the timeline.

Yes.

Um so sunset provisions are as follows.

Overlay shall remain in effect until October 1st, 2029, unless phase one has obtained complete building permits.

October 1st, 2030, unless phase two has obtained complete building permits.

October 1st, 2032, unless phase one has obtained a certificate of occupancy, and October 1st, 2033, unless phase two has obtained a certificate of occupancy.

So if both phase one and phase two have obtained all certificate of occupancies, this overlay shall remain valid until omitted by city council.

Thank you.

Sure, go ahead.

Sorry, didn't you cut you off?

I didn't know if I was.

No, go ahead.

I have a couple of questions, Ryder.

Can you pull up your um parking slide?

So a big part of this is the parking, because this isn't that's a major change, kind of maybe maybe the only major change from the last um development agreement.

And your slide says that the parking is to be provided on site or via an irrevocable license or agreement, shall provide parking on site through a irrevocable license or easement.

Um that is a little different than what the development agreement says, which kind of talks about an agreement to agree, and I'm I'm just concerned if is the presentation inconsistent with the development agreement, or is the development agreement maybe talking about more contingent scenarios than then the presentation is talking about because it's unusual, not necessarily wrong by any means, but unusual to not have the parking figured out necessarily.

And I'm just kind of just going right for it here, because this is the big issue to me.

Um so I just was hoping you could clarify what's in in maybe lay language for my benefit.

What's the real plan?

Sure.

I can take that question.

Um Commissioner Myers.

Um 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 DA.

So if if there's something that's not fully there in one of the two, it's it's probably more this presentation than the DM.

So there's a couple of components to the parking.

Um I mean, if you since you just called it out, the parking is not fully resolved at this moment in time.

There are options to resolve the parking um on the table or discussions still going to resolve the parking.

So the developer has to provide on site or via the irrevocable license or easement.

And and those words are very important to us at the city of Napa.

Just side note, we have several projects that have come in with short-term agreements for parking, and then the pro person who owns the parking wants to do something different five years later, and it puts the parking for the project that got approved at jeopardy.

We're dealing with a situation about that right now.

So the irrevocable term of 30 years comes consistent with what if the city were to do a license agreement, then the minimum number of years we would do uh would be 30 years.

So just for that purpose of that.

So there are kind of three parts to the parking.

The first is the developer has to provide one parking spot per for sale hotel unit on site or via some agreement with a private property owner.

It can be off-site, but it won't be in a city owned parcel.

They also have to provide 0.8 rounded up for either on site or in some private agreement not involving the city of Napa for each lockoff unit.

So that's sort of part one.

So if you think about how if they did 40 units uh for sale and five lockoffs, they'd have to do 45 parking spaces through either their own provision on site or through some sort of private agreement that the city is not involved in.

Then you have the hotel rooms and you have the staffing and you have the ballrooms and the rest of that.

So take out you're now not talking about the for sale unit, but you're talking about the post office building.

The way that the DA is written right now is they will simply pay the impact fee and not have access to parking.

They will have access to city parking like anybody else has access to city parking.

The city is also agreeing to continue discussing the possibility of leasing spaces to the developer to have leased spaces for those hotel rooms and for that site on the post office.

But at this time, we cannot commit to providing parking based on our current parking studies and what we're going through.

We are working through a project uh to look at potentially acquiring more land or developing and or developing a parking garage, but at this moment in time we cannot commit to providing parking because of where we are in our parking counts downtown.

If you um want to dive into that a little bit more, we do have our parking manager, um, or I should say our co-compliance manager who runs our parking programs here in the audience.

It's not really part of the approvals tonight, but I do think to your point or your question if I'm answering it correctly, is at this point the only parking they are they are required to provide relates to the one-for-one for the foresale and.8 rounded up for each lock off.

Otherwise, the parking is um non-exclusive through the uh impact fee, unless between now and the opening of the hotel, the city and the developer reach some sort of licensing agreement, or or I guess the alternative was they find it through a private operator as well, too.

Then they would not have to pay the in loo fee.

They would just go private or build it on their own somewhere else, yeah.

What's the in LU fee?

Uh it is currently, I think it's $23,000.

Per space?

Per space.

How much does it cost to build a parking space?

That's what we don't know yet.

Um, so that we are in the middle of doing a study with in a parking garage analysis, um, at which point we will likely change the impact fee or recommend that the city, I should say recommend that the city council change the impact fee at that time.

Um, we know of cities that it's cost anywhere from 50,000, that includes the land.

So if you assume it's a city owned parcel, you know, the the cost to build is a little bit less, too.

Um, you know, depending on what the cost of acquisition is up to 120,000, but that's that's the information the city doesn't have now, and that is the reason one of the reasons why the city cannot commit at this moment to providing exclusive use parking for the site.

If the impact fee is subsequently increased, would that apply to this project?

Uh, the way that it is written right now, the current the development agreement locks in the current impact fees, all of them, not just parking impact.

It locks in housing at its current rate, it locks in uh the paramedic and fire fee, it locks in the street and utilities fees, and then it locks in the parking impact fee.

But if a lease, so I should just say that's if they choose if there's no exclusive use agreement.

An 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 uh as the um 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 on site, or we didn't come up with a lease, an alternate lease agreement.

Is the impact fee option their right to elect, or is that a negotiated part of this set of terms?

That is a negotiated part of that.

So it's not that any applicant could say I'm I'm not building parking, I'm just gonna pay the 23 per spot.

It's just that that is an option in this deal.

So no, let me let me clarify what I said.

The $23,000 dollar rate in locking into a place is an option in the negotiation in this.

If someone came in tomorrow through the regular entitlement process, let's say they wanted to build a restaurant downtown.

Um they're in certain streets, which is where this flies, and and I think um, I think writer's gonna pull up this the picture for you.

But if you're in the downtown parking exempt district, you do not have to provide parking on site because you are saying you're going to instead use the public facilities that are available.

So if a restaurant came in tomorrow with an application and they were just going through the regular entitlement process, they would pay the 23,000 dollars for each parking spot that they didn't provide um that they are required to provide based on whatever the square footage calculation that applies to their and the staffing that applies to their situation.

So I does that answer your question.

You look I am the restaurant analogy through me a little bit because usually they would lease that spot.

So do the do people that that's a whole cyber thing.

Does it if anyone came in?

So let's just say, um, let's just say someone bought Carrithers because Carruthers is on the market tomorrow.

Let's use that as a good example.

And they were gonna change the use of Carithers.

Um, and they have a parking requirement.

They would have to put they'd have to pay the impact fee of $23,000 as part of their building permit process as well, regardless of whether or not they had a development agreement.

So the impact fee does not is not specific to the development agreement.

Okay, and I to add to that, uh I won't go into the the map just yet until I have a visual that's just easier for people to understand the boundaries of the down uh the parking exempt overlay district, but we have a chapter within the Title 17 of the Napa Municipal Code that speaks to if you're within the boundaries of the parking exempt district when you shall provide on-site parking, and you always typically have the ability to provide on-site parking through a use permit, or in other circumstances of residential development and then transit uses where you're required to provide on-site parking for that development.

So there's a section that speaks to when it's required and then when an impact fee would generally be paid.

Well, what does it say about transient uses on site?

Usually is the the standard.

Yeah, so that's a good point.

Thank you, Rider, for that we are we're kind of putting a pin in the parking at this point in time.

Well, I'm just concerned that the pin is not a very robust one.

If if the option is get a lease for parking for 30 years or pay half the price of building parking or negotiate something else, to me, you're gonna go with the most economically efficient one, sure, so that it's sort of in order of preference, right?

Lease pay or negotiate and build.

But if hotels ought not to have the in loo fee, because that's a lot of parking unaccounted for, then why is that an option?

I think that that might be a question we want to ask um the applicant team in a few minutes or now if you'd like, because I think that they need to explain to you how parking um and the project kind of all come together.

If they've just paid the inlou fee, they would not have exclusive use fees, which means they would spaces, which mean valet would be pretty impossible and all of those things, and it potentially could have I want them to speak to their operations.

I I'm not a hotel operator, so I want them to speak to their how it impacts their operations.

I don't know that the question I don't know that just paying the in loo fee is a viable option.

Well, it doesn't seem to be one, but it seems to be the second most enticing one.

So I guess we'll let them speak to that when it's their turn.

I think that it would be better for them to speak to it from the operational perspective.

We can come back, like happy to come back to it with questions, but I think that it's that part of the story is better.

But and not that uh not that a parking arrangement that is not perfectly dialed in advance isn't okay.

I mean, I think it's fine to have options in the alternative, but um I thought that maybe it would be a little more a little more definite.

It is certainly within the purview of your commission to remove that sort of second middle option and leave it as you have to figure out your parking, which is either you enter into a lease with the city of Napa or you enter into a private use lease on another site.

You you could strike that from your the recommendation if you'd like.

Okay.

And then um changing gears entirely then.

The south facade of the building, the big wall.

Um, usually when you see that sort of a big blank wall, it is in the context of either a building which used to have a neighbor or a building which was contemplating a neighbor.

So, um, in the case of this south wall, is there obviously it didn't used to have a sixty foot tall neighbor?

So is there an intent in the in the downtown specific plan and the city's view that the uh buildings adjacent to that south elevation are are going to be getting taller?

I think it would be speculation a little bit, but downtown specific plan would allow for it.

The way it would be designed would require to conform to California building code requirements, which is have fire rated construction requirements for zero lot line.

So there are considerations I think that the applicant's team have to make for um both egress and then the form of construction used to maximize the amount of space within the confines of the property.

Um if for some reason they were to recess portions and I'll let them speak to why they designed it the way they designed it.

Um it could assume that there could be construction up to 60 feet because the downtown specific plan allows for it.

But as of right now, we don't have an application for that.

Okay.

And then last question for me is to verify and just to this is for a recommendation to the city council.

This is not a final determination.

It is not a final determination, the city council has the final determination.

And dependent also on a recommendation from Cultural Heritage Commission too.

Okay, I'm done.

Thanks.

Do any other commissioners have any additional questions for staff?

No.

I you do I do as well.

So I'll I'll wait.

Okay.

Go ahead, Commissioner Epoch.

Ryder, when you were mentioning the south facade of the buildings and um what is and um is not permissible in terms of the building code and fire rating, what are some types of architectural features or articulation that would be permitted?

Um if that's a question for the the project architect, that's fine too.

Um while it's on my mind I want to ask.

Um what I will say is as to not misquote, um, there are certain fire-rated construction requirements um within three feet of that property line to assume that if the building next door to them burns down for any reason that there are certain ratings that prevent it from going to the next building.

But if it's beyond the three feet, there are other allowances that they could have certain openings that they could have.

Um it really depends on how they program the occupancy of the space behind it as well of whether it needs egress or not.

But to not go too far into the details there, I'll let the architect and the applicant team understand their considerations of why they designed it the way they designed it.

But there are theoretically options.

We're not entirely concrete.

Yeah, they could they could effectively step back in certain areas, recess certain areas to give them the ability to have other openings.

There are probably other material considerations, paint variation considerations, yeah.

Thank you.

And then um I'd like to move back to impact fees real quick, if you don't mind.

Um it was mentioned that you're currently undergoing or cities and currently undergoing a study of impact fees, is that correct?

For all impact, or is that all impact fees?

All impact.

And um, as the development is agreement is written now as proposed, those impact fees would lock in, correct.

And so should there be a change, should we decide that there's a or should um that there's a nexus to increase that amount, that would not be reflected.

Um in terms of the way that the d development agreement is written, yes, it locks um or proposed tonight, it locks the uh impact fees today in place.

I don't have unfortunately an estimated time.

Um impact fees are um you uh you know from working in a significant undertaking, and uh it's better to bring them all together in the case the city has opted to bring them all together, so everybody's working through their pieces maybe by the end of the year, but that's that's ambitious, I think at this point.

Okay, and um, I understand where this six dollars per square foot number comes from, but would you mind speaking to where the one dollar per um square foot for the uh ownership units?

I realize not all development agreements are alike, but when we have CNCW projects, they have another rate of $2.

Could you speak to that please?

Uh yeah, so the um required impact fee is at the $6 rate for um, and then we as we talked about with the planning commission and the city council in the joint session that we apply the hotel motel rate to even the for sale because which is it residential and so the hotel motel rate gets applied to the entirety of both buildings in this case, um, because we pick one use.

Um the um addition of one dollar is what was discussed between city staff and um the applicant.

Um, the like development the two last like development agreements for hotel projects, it was a two dollar additional rate.

It's not it doesn't come from anywhere.

Um it was offered originally uh by the Stanley Ranch development, and then uh I believe it was actually at the city council meeting uh when for first street, the city council asked them to add asked them both to go to the full um to go to the six dollar rate for the condos, which we've now applied sort of as a general standard uh for the foresale, and then um asked them to match that two dollars and they agreed at the dais at that point.

So it wasn't originally written into the um first street agreement.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry, one more question.

Um Ryder, you were speaking to some of the changes that could be made at the community development director's discretion.

Um do those include minor design changes as well.

Yeah, as the the way it's written, if the design substantially conforms to um the design in front of you tonight, so massing's really important here.

There's overlap into CHC's considerations and their recommendation to city council of why the massing was the way the massing was.

So it's important to understand the expectation is that the massing will would effectively stay the same.

Um there there may be some shifting in and around access to the service stock for the waste facilities, so there may be some shifting there.

That flexibility was written into the draft conditions to allow for staff to understand if it is specifically ties to accessing trash facilities if there's a shift in the building.

Um but generally the the floor plan, um there's a lot that that can occur in in minor shifts within the boundaries of the footprint, but the spaces will still have to be programmed as envisioned.

It's just to the up to amount.

So if for some reason it changes from 94 hotel rooms up to 120, that's within the authority of the director, as is drafted.

Um and what about if the when there is a hotel partner selected, they have um like a similar case we had before requirement for a different type of balcony or window or something like that.

Um is that able to be made that change at staff level?

Um, yeah.

So if it's like number of balconies because of the number of hotel rooms that are changing.

Generally the materials are the same, uh projections and the space are generally pretty similar.

Um yes, the certain findings like that could be made at the staff level as well.

Great, thank you.

Commissioner Shotwell.

Thank you.

You're you won't like my question, Molly.

Um where are we with the garage feasibility study?

When do you anticipate having that in the books?

I'm gonna see if Tony of Aladez, our code compliance manager can give you.

And then I'll go with the then what?

But he can tell you about the study.

Yeah.

Tony Valida's compliance manager.

Sorry, Tony Validez compliance manager.

So we're we're currently working on the uh feasibility study.

We just completed our public outreach just two, three weeks ago.

We plan to go to City Council in August, and then again in October, the plan is to make a determination on which site is most feasible.

So that that's kind of where we are with the study.

Do you want to, since it came up and we said if you come up, we'd have you do it.

Would you want to talk about where we are kind of in parking right now in the downtown area based on our demand counts?

Yeah, we did a parking demand study last year.

Um our consultant basically came to the determination that once the first street phase two project comes to completion during peak weekdays around 12 o'clock, one o'clock, we're hitting about 85% threshold of the available like parking spaces being utilized.

Um industry standard is once you hit about an 85% threshold, you start getting to the point where people feel that they cannot find any more parking spaces.

Um you don't typically want to go all the way to 100% capacity because that means you have absolutely nothing left.

Um so that that is assuming the full completion of the first street phase two project with the corner of first and main.

Um that basically means any additional parking spaces taken offline.

If we're looking at more than 100 parking spaces somewhere in the vicinity of about 115, 120 total parking spaces taken out of um out of commission, public parking spaces taken out of commission, we're probably getting very close to that 100% threshold during peak times during the week.

Um, so you know that's assuming all other conditions remain the same, but um that that's basically the termination from our our consultant.

And and just um if if the Bilco's lot, let lot B, you know, is converted to condos, that takes an additional 55 off before you replace the parking.

I mean, it adds 44 to the building.

So it's a net loss of you know 10.

It's a net loss of 55 parking public parking spaces, but a total loss of 10-ish, depending on what they can fit on site parking spaces, period.

So we're looking at not only the spaces that are needed, but the lot of the loss of lot B.

What I would just add is, you know, the city at this point is considering whether or not to purchase additional um land or where to potentially look at building a new parking garage.

Um I'll give you a little spoiler alert.

It's it's not likely we're gonna be able to build um economically, you know, and in a feasible way on uh anything that the city owns currently.

So we're looking at having to acquire um a property and where that is yet, we don't know.

So that will be something that the city council will discuss.

But then we have to finance a parking garage structure, and that is where the applicant and the developer may become part of the solution is you know, similar to a tax share agreement or similar to some sort of public-private partnership, like the First Street Hotel.

There could be an option in there.

So we kind of the steps are comes in August.

At that point, we get some direction as to what to do in terms of potentially acquiring new spots, then we go into what is building look like, although the study will show options on each of the lots that we can potentially purchase and how many parking spaces and what the anticipated cost would be.

Then we would have to go into figuring out the financing of that.

Um we do not have the cash in the bank at this moment in time for a complete um a complete build of a parking garage, but we do know that we've got some revenue coming in from various lease agreements.

Um we might have some bonding capacity because of our infrastructure EIFT that we have.

So those are all of the things that that we're still working out, which is kind of why we can't today say we have this to provide you at this point in time.

I'm sorry, Tony, could you restate the scenario where we're approaching 100% parking capacity?

Sure.

So um again, this is assuming multiple different variables, but assuming nothing changes with parking demand, assuming that during peak periods 12 o'clock, one o'clock during the week.

If we lose an additional, say 115 to 120 total parking spaces, we're getting pretty close to the threshold of demand meeting the actual inventory that we have available for public parking.

And what's the condition in which we would lose those spots?

If we were to lease, if we were to agree to lease them now, we would be at 100%.

Oh, I see.

So today we are at 850 to 85%, depending on the parking garage.

And so when you get to that, that's sort of considered full parking standards.

If we were to lease an additional hundred now, let's just say we're getting close.

That would tap.

Yeah.

Then it would be, yes.

Um I was going to say something.

What was it?

I'll think of it.

It had to do with parking.

Um, I'll take a bit.

I think this is a this is just another great opportunity for me to um recommend to anyone who's interested in this subject to read paved paradise, it's fascinating.

It will change the way you think about parking in the future and how much we actually might need or not.

I remembered what I was going to say, if you don't mind, Chair.

Um if something were to change, like driverless autonomous vehicles came to Napa, um, you know, Waymo has does have the authority to do it.

If they decided tomorrow that they were gonna implement in Snappa, that could change our parking demand.

So it's not just about looking at what could be potentially provided through a parking for through acquisition through the city and what the city might be able to build.

There are situations that could change our demand and change our parking management at that point.

Just throwing that out there that that the only option isn't necessarily building a parking garage.

There are options that could be considered should there be something like that that changes our our parking demand downtown.

Commissioner Masaro.

All right, just one clarification on the parking.

Where we talk about getting to that 100% threshold, we're talking about if we were to lease them today.

But we're actually not going to be losing those spaces if we lease them for a few more years.

So we're not exactly at our 100% capacity yet with this decision, right?

Assuming, yes.

So we're assuming that the demand stays the same into the future.

I cannot I don't feel as staff that we can comfortably recommend sitting here today that uh we lease anything more than like 10, you know, parking spaces at this point, but certainly the the amount related to, so we're talking about this project, the amount related to this project.

What I am saying is as we look at increasing supply or changing demand, the opportunity potentially pretend presents itself depending on you know what can be worked out and what the council would recommend.

But if we recommended it today, yes, it wouldn't be an in an instant impact because the lease wouldn't actually start until the the hotel units were occupied.

Uh but if nothing were to change.

So a gamble, I guess, in a little bit of a sense that of and why from a staff perspective.

We're saying the conversation is very relevant, um, remains on the table.

Certainly something we would like to try to do, but we have our pieces to still figure out.

Any additional questions from a commissioner?

Just one more, sorry.

In the DA in the parking section, it references uh that parking would be planned in accordance with exhibit F.

And there is no exhibit F, but exhibit F is the project description.

Is that somewhere else?

I'm looking at section four point four.

And it refers down to exhibit F.

And I didn't know if I just missed it.

We removed, no, we removed the parking exhibit um because we stated what the language, so that must just be um I'm gonna Kylie, if you can hear, I think that that's just a an uh language cleanup we're gonna have to make.

Which part?

Yeah, that was a change.

Section four.

We rolled.

Hi, this is Kylie Otto.

I worked on the development agreement with staff.

The that is a error.

It was supposed to be removed.

The topic that is below is section four point four point one was contained in exhibit F.

We simply rolled it into the agreement text itself.

So we will make a note, take that out.

So thank you for catching that.

Didn't mean to point out a scrivener's error.

No, we appreciate it.

It was a last minute change.

So yes, thank you for correcting.

Okay.

I thought I missed an exhibit.

Thank you.

Anything else, Myers?

No.

No, for real, no.

Okay.

All right, writer.

All right.

This is the time where I ask if the applicant would like to speak, but I know we will be receiving an application.

I did receive some correspondence from the applicant requesting a 12-minute time limit, and I do think that is fair given the volume of information we are hearing tonight.

Testing, testing.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair.

Uh really quickly, I thank you for the time, uh the 12 minute acknowledging that.

I'm wondering if it would be helpful just maybe to reserve a little time and address that parking question a little bit right now.

Just to touch on it informally, we could save that for later or could quickly jump in.

Sure, we can touch on that right now.

So uh I think taking a quick step back, and uh my name is Jeff Dodd.

I'm here on behalf of the Franklin Station team, just along with uh Jim Keller and David Oliver and our architecture team from uh Bar Architects, um Earl Wilson and Mark Hulbert for uh preservation our architecture architecture.

Um but taking a step back on the parking issue.

The downtown Napa specific plan has a you know parking plan, and the main principle is taking a step back and looking at the land use policies behind it.

Maybe a little bit talking about uh, you know, paved paradise some conceptual um alignment there is you know initially the point is we don't want to have individual lots have their own parking.

We don't want the each uh business to have their own parking.

We want a centralized parking and really uh maximize the space and do so through public parking garages.

And through that, as part of that, we're gonna incorporate this uh parking exempt fee, and we're gonna have business owners pay into that fee and ultimately you utilize those parking garages.

Um Molly had you know acknowledged that you know there certainly is a a lot of money, I wouldn't say a lot of money, but there's there's money or there's funds there available, maybe not to build an entire project uh entire parking, the new parking garage, um, but uh there are a lot of uh things in motion right now, I think that could make that whole to realize that new parking garage.

I mentioned that point, um, because in from a practical reality with respect to this project, there's no realistic possibility where this uh the hotel would be solely reliant on a parking impact fee.

Any sort of hotel operator will need to have parking spaces.

Uh and we're talking about an upper upscale operation.

So the idea that you would have an upper upscale operator have their guests go spin around the block or have their valet park in the middle of the street, it's just not feasible.

It's not the type of operation that we're contemplating for this this project.

So while it is an option and it's called out as an option, um it's it's not really a realistic or practical one from the developer's perspective.

Maybe to fill in a couple of uh back spaces where you know the parking demand requirements uh require a certain amount for retail or or uh spa or restaurant or whatever, but generally there's we have an idea of yeah, at least it could be up to a hundred spaces that the the project would need.

And so we're it's up to us.

We talked about it.

Molly talked about a gamble.

It's not the city's gamble, it's it's the developer's gamble, just to be quite frank.

Um, but it's it's coming at this awkward time, uh unusual time in a sense where you have a project that is really ready to get going.

There's some urgency there, right?

We want to try to avoid a total loss, a total disaster for the next earthquake.

So we're trying to move forward.

The city is is moving in good faith with us, realizing the possibility of that and trying to take advantage of this opportunity while we have it.

Um so yeah, again, I think it's it's a bit of a developer's gamble, but there is no aspect of uh or there's no possibility where and I don't know maybe that that uh idea or hypothetical is is spinning in your mind um where it would totally be relying on parking impact fees, and that's just that's just not gonna happen.

So we're also at this this unique time in a sense where there's a lot of opportunities.

Uh there's a lot of properties in downtown that are will be coming up for sale.

You might have read about them in the newspaper.

Um so it's it's it's a lot of moving parts, and the city I think is is being very thoughtful.

Staff Tony it and Neil in particular.

Let's not r rash and jump into any sort of major decisions like that.

Let's see how this plays out.

Let's do a feasibility study.

Let's try to get the the most optimum spot where it's gonna serve the most people, where it's gonna be the best uh serving uh location for our local businesses, and let's get the best bang for our buck for each parking spot.

Thank you.

If I could just add to that quickly, because I think Jeff brought up a good point that I should have um shared.

There are situations with past hotels, particularly Archer and the Ondaz, wasn't called the ONDOS at the time, um, where a certain number of uh uses that that the impact fee was paid, so like maybe staff, for example.

Um the parking spaces for staff, the impact fee was paid, but then the the parking license agreement was related to the rooms.

So there is sort of that middle of the road possibility that I think Jeff mentioned is that we have a number of what parking would be required under the impact fee, but there could be a split, like there's 70 licensed spaces and 30 um impact fee spaces depending on the use and what the hotel needs.

So there's there's no real hard number at this moment in time.

It will ultimately depend on what um is built and then how we opt to split that up.

He also referenced the ability to do a parking feasibility study.

Um you'll recall First Street did a parking feasibility study, and as part of it, we dropped the requirement um from one space per hotel room to 0.8 spaces per hotel room, uh, because we determined based on on trends, visitor trends, you know, who was bringing cars and who weren't.

Um so there's always that option too to do a parking feasibility study to determine the actual demand that the project will generate in terms of needing reserve spaces versus the impact fee spaces.

Thank you, Molly.

And ultimately this will be dictated by the the hotel partner that's brought in for this project that needs to meet that upper up scale criteria.

And they're gonna again, they're gonna have their own needs or own desires.

Uh but we all with our you know in-house hot hotel expert expertise with David uh and and communications and talking with these potential partners.

There just isn't any sort of scenario where the project would be solely reliant on on the parking impact fee.

It's just not realistic.

Even at even at even at a lower rate, um, it's just it's not feasible for to have this project pencil and and suit the operators that we want to bring in.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um so uh jumping into it.

I I you know I'd be very appreciative of all this the time that uh that staff has is spent on this.

It's been an incredible effort.

Um, like I mentioned, we've kind of been go go go for the past year and in particular the past month with a lot of late nights uh I know right writer working in particular, so thank you, writer, very very much.

I appreciate that.

Um, and I'd also be remiss if I didn't thank you, commissioners.

We're at a special uh meeting.

This is uh your first of two meetings uh this week.

And um, you know, we're grateful for your time.

You didn't need to do this.

You probably could have come up with a pretty good excuse over the summer.

Um so I I do want to acknowledge that commitment.

Irrespective of what happens here tonight, I just want to say thank you.

That means a lot to us.

Um at its core, this project is about saving the historic post office.

It's a local landmark.

It's on the national register of Historic Places, and it's a legacy um that this community has wanted to protect since the U.S.

Postal Service talked about demolishing it after the earthquake.

And but thankfully the Keller family stepped up and need to acknowledge that.

I'm not sure if if Jim regrets that right now.

But we're very appreciative.

I am appreciative particularly.

You hear this all the time from developers who are here in front of you.

So if that's not a secret, it's also no secret, the high cost of financing.

What makes this project particularly unique is that before you even get to financing new construction, the developer is starting off in you know approximately 10 to 13 million dollar hole just to preserve the building and make it seismically safe.

That's a very difficult hole to start in.

But that's the reality if we want to save a building like this.

However, with this this new design, uh new and improved design and residential component with this uh for sale hotel units that the writer had mentioned alongside the Franklin Station Hotel.

We really believe that there is a pathway to reach the goal um that we started with restoring the post office and and bringing new life uh to this uh block of second street.

Uh there has been a lot to get here working through again as his writer mentioned the preservation covenant, a 50 page DA, PD overlay amendments, parking, affordable housing, uh CEQA, it can go on and on and on.

Um, but you guys did a great job.

Thank you very much again, Ryder, for putting together those details in the report and the presentation.

Um so I think I'll just step aside and let the star of the show um be the design.

Um, and I'll hand it over to our design team, Earl from Bar Architects, and then uh Mark is going to touch in on the preservation aspects.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jeff.

Thank you, Chair, thank you, Commissioner.

Um, and thank you, staff very much for your excellent presentation.

Um I'm Earl Wilson, uh principal with BAR Architects, and I'm really honored to be here for this particular project.

It's it's a wonderful project.

Um I want to thank um Christine French from and the stakeholders from Napa County Landmarks for meeting with us on this project and and our preservation architect uh Mark Holbert.

Um we're about a 70 person firm in San Francisco uh and we we've been here for a long time working in Napa Valley and and working in Napa itself.

Um but uh this project is really uh a proposition, as Jeff said, uh uh to preserve a wonderful resource at the heart of Napa and this um south of First District.

And uh the uh you know, this building has been vacant since 2014, as Jeff mentioned, almost 12 years, and and we have a great opportunity in front of us right now to restore this post office and to revitalize this area right around the building south of First Street.

And it really is in bad shape right now.

Um there's a lot of structural damage, um, and it's really at risk of of further damage and and risk of being potentially in another earthquake lost forever.

And oh, right past uh, and and that would really be a shame because it is a tremendous resource as an architect uh uh and having toured this building all over and and really looked at it.

Um there are wonderful details all over it that are irreplaceable from the terracotta panels to the uh uh the bronze urns, uh the windows, um it's it's it's it's a beautiful building, the brickwork, um, and and it's really would be irreplaceable.

Um our process um uh really starts with research.

It starts with a lot of research into the place and and really understanding um the building.

Uh my passion in particular is about place making and and how to enhance the sense of place that's already there.

And uh working with Jim and David, uh, it was a wonderful process, spending time up here talking to them, really getting into what it means to be downtown Napa and what it means to add 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, revere and respect the historic post office, and that ultimately this was about revitalization and a place to gather, a place of experience.

In the materials, in the symmetry and the form.

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.

Ultimately, too, this is 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.

And you know, we're intentionally showing this backside to show that there is a modulation of the form of the building.

We were thinking about it.

But as Ryder mentioned, he was right on spot on.

This is a party wall condition on the south side here.

And there are things we can do, and we're we're certainly going to listen and want to listen to comments.

But you know, it's about really activating the streets, and that's that's uh and creating vibrant street life.

Um, you know, we were looking at differentiating the the new building from the post office, but one of the things from really studying the secretary of interior standards, we've worked in the Presidio, we've worked in other historic districts in San Francisco with historic buildings, and it's not just differentiation, but it's about creating this continuity over time.

And and and again, that's part of the revere and respect.

Um and pulling the the post office back.

It's something that we we wanted to do specifically to allow the post office to continue to be the jewel box um that it is.

You know, preserving the character of that building and and really renovating it, this project is really about that.

It's about um restoring this building back to its glory, and and it is a beautiful building.

Um we've tried to differentiate the new addition from the historic.

Um, but again, you see that these attempts with the proportion, with the materials, with the brick, um, to harmonize the architectural character.

Um and really activating the streets on both sides uh of the building, not only on uh Randolph, but also on Franklin was paramount.

And and thinking about the scale of the building, that it was important to activate the street, um, to maybe not uh bring our building down and and and have it be as monumental on the street, but to have a finer grain, um, so that the post office, which really has these monumental pillars coming down to the ground, um, that that really maintained its monumentality and its its kind of iconic character.

Um is about indoor outdoor living.

We have this wonderful climate, and so connecting to the outdoors, um, connect connecting to the city and nature, and bringing in well-detailed materials.

Umilarly with the residences or the mixed-use building, we wanted to um have that relate, um, have it have the uh relate to the post office in the respect, but also uh have it really contributing to the street life.

And and you know, the great thing about the hotel use is that it's a use that actually invites the public in and uh and the the historic building can be used, not only used but really the centerpiece of this project and preserving this landmark for future generations, both locals and visitors to enjoy and you know I put this slide in um it was part of our uh historic conformance certificate of appropriateness, but it it's really I won't read through them, but it has all these um measures that we went through to really revere and respect this historic post office.

Um and so I wanted to also allow Mark to speak uh our preservation architect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ron.

Thank you, indeed.

Thank you again.

Well written and well said, and I'll only speak very briefly.

I just hope you'll join me in supporting this project.

It has been a very long process.

It's gone on for a planning and design process that's gone on for nearly a decade at this point in time.

Um I believe the benefits are are in evidence.

It's a very high quality project both as rehabilitation and as an addition to a rehabilitated building.

It's more than a facade.

It's per the covenant, it's that whole front end of the building that will be very public, and and that is is another um huge benefit to it that there is public benefit.

As Earl pointed out, hotels are ideal historic buildings because people walk into a many, many people over the years can use them.

So they have tremendous public benefits.

So again, I hope you'll support this this very high quality project.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners and staff.

Uh I'll echo what Jeff said.

Thanks for the special meeting.

We we appreciate it.

Um I just want to come up here and and express my thanks to my great team.

Um it's been a long been a long journey with this project.

Uh one of the first conversations that we had when we restarted here was with some council members, but it was also with landmarks.

Uh Christine, I think she's gonna get up here and say a few things too, but um her and Terry Wonderlich have been a pleasure to work with, and um, you know, it takes it takes a lot of people um to to get a project like this um through and uh and approved and and on track, um, which is what we're really trying to do here.

We're trying to get design review behind us.

Uh I I've watched this project uh from the front row for the last 10 years, and and um you know I w we know what needs to happen to get this thing done, and we we've got it, we've got to clear all this, and and uh, but I did bring the A team in here to help and and you know I hope you guys um can help us uh with it with a nice recommendation of city council and and uh we're here to answer any questions, we're here to listen.

Um and again, Molly Ryder, thank you guys for for the last um especially month, but but through the process.

So thank you everyone.

Um we're here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are there any questions?

Who wants to start with questions for the applicant?

I have a question.

Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Myers.

Um, I guess.

This question is I don't know if it's more for for writer or for the architectural team.

How certain are these renderings to be accurate to what is built?

Has it gone through structural?

I mean, because the question comes from a recent hotel we had at um first in Oxbow, where they came back for a new design review because after it had been approved, then they went to structural engineering and realized, well, we can't put all these windows on the first floor, the building will fall down.

So they had to kind of re redesign the facade and to support it, and it it was still a nice looking project, don't get me wrong, but because particularly because this is going into a development agreement where once that happens the public participation process kind of goes away.

I just want to get a better sense of confidence in how true life is this likely to be.

Yeah, the city has not done a structural review on it.

So that would be an applicant question.

You can go ahead.

We we we have not submitted structural, um, so we've not done a complete structural design at this point.

Um we're we're 50% into our schematic design process, if that means anything to you.

So uh it's I I think you can see from all the drawings that we've submitted, it's substantial.

Um we have been working with the structural engineer.

In fact, I think he's even here tonight.

Um, so uh there's there's been coordination with structure, but it's not fully designed.

And so I don't, you know, and and that's fair.

That answers for well, it's that's the the way it is.

Um, so that does to that extent, yes.

Thank you.

I guess my I would have a follow-up if I could ask of writer.

So that answers my question.

Thank you.

So then in the development agreement, if there does need to be a change to the design due to, you know, it's they need a beam here.

Um what's that process like?

So the the amendment language is actually in the planned development overlay where it speaks to the up to amount and speaks to subsequent approvals, generally referred to in the development agreement, but the plan development overlay modifies the ordinance because otherwise the ordinance for hotels generally back through council unless it's a minor modification.

But the plan development overlay outlines the types of so use permit design review permit and such.

Um as long as it the gray areas that substantial conformance, right?

So there are going to be notable features about the way that this is designed, the m the expansion the kind of massive facades of glass balconies where they're directed, those will all generally have to be the same.

The the projections and the stepbacks will all have to be consistent with what um city council ultimately considers on whether they adopt it a resolution to approve it or not.

Um but what I was it what makes it easy about this one is that there are pretty distinguishing features that staff we would expect to carry over.

So that there could be little things as far as um and stain corrected.

There are certain subsequent improvements that are subject to city manager discretion.

Um but what you could see in terms of structural changes and what we've seen is sometimes the windows get slightly smaller because they need to be able to be structurally supported, but where you're looking at large portions of wall that are generally glass, our expectation would be that that would be consistent.

So where there are these distinguishing features and and maybe commission moves into the verbal record of identify identifying certain features as part of their recommendation that they would like to definitely be maintained, staff would look at the elevations, find the distinguishing features, find the materials that have been identified in the plans and make sure those are consistent amongst any other considerations.

So where how do you draw the line then?

Where is that decision made as to so section nine of the agreement talks about the city manager or their designee have the authority to determine whether or not an amendment is major or minor?

And then the processes for each of those.

So that is up to Mr.

Potter or his designee, or successor or whatever, depending on when that happens.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

That adds clarity to what happens in that circumstance.

Do you have any additional questions at this time?

Well I did ask before about the southern um exposure of the condo building.

You know, I noted that the southern exposure, the hotel building certainly looked different.

Um, I don't know how to articulate the question.

Sure.

Um, well, you know, we I I will say we treated it as a as a party wall.

So um anticipating a future building on either the Vilco um building side or at the Zeller hardware parcel.

Um so and I think you you you said it very well.

Uh it's very typical.

There's either a building that was there or a building that's anticipated to be there, and that's why we end up with these things.

Um but that said we did think about it, and you can see returns of the facade on the ends um flanking uh Franklin and Randolph Streets where we we we did some articulation of materials to give it some further scale and proportion.

Um the center of the the hotel building, um that we we did set it back so we could get windows in that area um and guest rooms, and then on the mixed-use building, uh we're using not only two different materials uh there, but we've also got a uh a stair tower that's giving that that facade some articulation.

So um, but that said, we can continue to look at that.

If that is a if that is a comment and a concern, we can continue to look at uh at these walls and continue to evaluate them.

And we've you know, we've been discussing it internally since since this came up.

Uh so uh yeah, uh, you know, there's uh, you know, there's further articulation, um sometimes these walls get painted, uh, there's murals, uh you know, we'd be happy to work with city staff uh um and to come up with the right solution there.

Okay.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions at this time?

No.

No.

Commissioner Masaro?

Thank you.

All right, just um to clarify on this picture that we're looking at up here.

Um the post office building has the windows in it in this picture, correct?

I want to say, uh well to so it it's not the post office, but it's generally referred to as the post office redevelopment.

So I'm sorry.

So the uh Franklin Station hotel building.

Right, where the where the post office rehabilitation is.

So as of right now, the way you've designed it, it does have these windows?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you do you have rights to the airspace over the Zeller building?

No.

So if the Zeller building were to develop at some point, you would lose the window capacity, potentially.

There's yeah, those those windows are set back, the code required.

Um, um and they have balconies.

Uh so there is a little bit of depth.

But yes, those those would go suddenly from rooms that are facing out over an empty parcel to now looking at a building adjacent.

And we would hope that that building would be um how should I say um it's likely to form a similar uh follow similar requirements we hope so.

Where we want to be open at the center, uh for for its own sake.

So um it's not entirely unusual um to do something like this, but yes, it would change.

Essentially not a concern for you at this point, um, but the way that you designed it.

No.

Okay.

In talking about the housing structure the the next structure um where the branded residential is, I do appreciate the fact that that is a party wall there because I for me knowing what our downtown specific plan it says and um the approach that we want to take to downtown having more housing available, having that party wall there gives more opportunity for whatever may happen on that corner.

So for me, the the blank wall there doesn't bother me as much because I'm thinking about future, you know, possibilities in that area.

Um so that's my only comments about that one, but I do have a couple other comments.

Um talking about sustainability, and I know that you are only halfway into your schematic design at this point.

Um what sustainable features are you planning within the branded residential and the hotel?

I know that um looking at our climate goals for Napa County and also the city and all of that.

We're not mandating any solar on any of these um buildings, but it doesn't look like there's any opportunity for solar on these buildings, maybe a future solar on these buildings.

Oh no, we would we would be thinking about solar for sure.

Okay.

Okay, good.

Um, you know, it's it's very important to us as well, and and I think it's becoming increasingly important in the hotel market, uh, this notion of wellness, um and so, you know, light and air, uh indoor-outdoor connections, um, uh, you know, these pillars that we have, they they really are meaningful DNA to us, because projects do change throughout their life, and um, you know, but hopefully not in dramatic ways, that the design intent is baked into these pillars and um and we use these pillars um to to start to set a framework for design excellence and a framework for incorporating sustainability features into the design and it's part of our offices process, and I it's probably too much for tonight, but I could I could walk you through um our whole methodology within our office, and which we start to incorporate sustainability features into every aspect of of the project and the specifications we would work with David and Jim and the development team.

That's really that's really great to hear.

I appreciate that.

Um things when I met with the developer, we talked a little bit about the features in the kitchen of uh the branded residential units, and we talked about um uh appliances and and gas appliances and you know those types of things.

I would prefer you to not have any gas appliances in the branded residential only because of um for a couple reasons.

One is they're just in my view, toxic things to put into your house, but that's just my view, and and in climate sustainability and all of that is it's it's just important.

Um but I do want to just mention the fact that if you don't put gas in the building, you actually will save dollars in your construction to to not put gas in the building and to do something different.

And I think that you know, just as we might have Waymo cars driving down the streets, there are a lot of really good innovative kitchen materials that are just streamlined, really good looking into your kitchen that doesn't have to be gas.

So that's just my.

Please don't put gas in the building.

Hey Earl, before you answer, could you talk a little bit closer to the microphone that the people watching online are having difficulty hearing you?

Okay, yeah, thank you.

Yeah, thanks.

So that's my uh my two cents on gas.

So please don't do that.

Not something I can mandate to you, but just I'm trying to just trying to put the idea in your ear that there is a there's a savings to you not um going forward with a PGE contract to do gas in the building.

Um how do you feel about that?

We uh um yeah, we're uh I think we're at a point now where uh yeah, elect going electric is making sense on a lot of levels and and we see it with not only the heating and ventilation systems, we see it with the uh cooking appliances, um, and yeah, it you know not having to put in all those pipes, um it saves it it definitely saves.

So there's savings involved with uh um going electric.

Yes, um, talking a little bit about the articulation in the front of the building, we were um touch a little bit on what Alex said about the design features that you have on the post office um Franklin Station building.

What I really appreciate and what I like about your design is the way that you've stepped back the architecture of the structure to really showcase the post office.

But I really love the um side features of the floor to ceiling glass that you've got going all the way up and down the building, and then marrying that into the um balconies that you've got and you're picking up the stone features from the from the post office.

Those are the features I personally don't want to see change at all.

And um those are the things I'd love to be able to carry forward into into this discussion and into um the city council.

It's so if you ever had to come back for a minor to minor amendment just because you had to make something structurally fit, I really don't want that look to change because I think it's it's excellent, it's very well done, and it fits within the community of what we have.

Those are you know my suggestions on that.

And then my last question, and I think I asked this before, um, when my was when in with the developer, um, but I asked about the the um sidewalks and the curb and gutter that kind of bulb out into the um drive into the street, essentially.

And I don't know, I don't know if I if those are standard ways to do that, but it looks like it just impedes too much on the cars, and then it doesn't give that um uh it gives the chance for a car to cut a curb, essentially.

Um it's it's nice that you noted that because I think by design it's intentionally supposed to slow down the cars, give more visibility, bring the pedestrian connection points closer to one another.

Um and it's very common downtown where they had to recognize existing footprints of buildings to give visibility to traffic and then make a um the pedestrian environment a little safer.

So I think by design that there's an inconvenience to to vehicles that that that's true, and it is um typical.

Yes, and I know that we've added those white lines, you know, that are around the curb areas downtown.

However, it is still increasingly difficult the way that we're parking vehicles downtown to to pull out into those streets and see.

So those are just it's just a concern, and I know it's all part of our public works and our slowing down cars and you know trying to make things a little bit more safe, but it just seems to be a little bit excessive on this rendering.

And I think that that is something during the during the um building permit process that in the civil process that our public works department would look at um in terms of of that and if changes needed to be made.

Okay, and I just have one more question for you.

Okay, and I have a I actually have a question for you as well.

Could you repeat exactly what you stated um for uh so that our attorney can think about it under it?

You mean on the visual as elements that you so there's a visual element, um we'll look at each side of the building, the immediate um left and right side of the front of the building.

There's a full glass um, and I don't know the technical term, the architect probably knows that better.

But there's a full glass structure.

Yeah.

You're welcome to explain it for them.

Yeah, the floor to ceiling glass.

Yes.

And we we did that exactly as you described to offset or set off the the post office building and and make a clear separation.

Yes.

Um while also being able to bring in the brick um next to it, but show that it's clearly separated.

Yes, and bring in this this notion of how should I say continuity over time or or harmonizing our building, the new building with the the post office?

Not mimicking it, but but relating to it.

Is that good?

Yes, okay.

I think that that's great.

Thank you.

Okay, your question for the mic last question for you is having to do with the housing impact fees.

I believe in the development agreement it says that the housing impact piece would be payable at the time of sale.

Did I read that correctly?

Only the additional one dollar at the rest of the fees would be paid at the time of issuance of building permit or unless and in lieu proposal was was brought to the city council to consider.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

That's my question.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ebach.

Okay.

Um, first I um actually want to say thank you, Commissioner Masaro, for pointing out the ability of having the party wall and having housing there because I did not think of that before.

Um I was gonna have some comments about the the back wall of the condo property, but um, so perspective I didn't think of, so appreciate that.

Um moving from there, I'm curious.

There was a comment that we received, um a late comment from um Mr.

Kelly suggesting that the um northwest parking stalls in the condo or not condo building, I'm sorry, in the ownership building, be converted to an additional retail space to further activate Randall Street.

Um is that something that the project team considered?

Is that something you'd be interested in entertaining or willing to entertain?

Um I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

Sorry.

Um Ryder, would you mind pulling up the the there in the back?

We'll grab you the letter.

Yeah.

Um, it was conveyed as part of the supplemental memorandum.

Yeah.

Sorry, it was a late public comment we received today.

Um but effectively, yeah, okay.

Yeah, I I I've got it now.

Um, you know, I think um as we continue to um finalize the residential counts in that building, that's gonna give us um some more certainty on on what can be done on level one.

Uh in fact, uh David and I talked about that today.

Um what I would say is that um the less parking we need to park the residential units, the more opportunities that gives us along Randolph to um create monetizable amenitizable um space for the for the hotel, which you know, as you guys can see there's a dense project, so we we would like to be able to to do that and and yes, that's in our in our vision to accomplish if if the opportunity presents itself.

Um follow up question for staff on that.

Is that something that can be changed?

I mean, I'm assuming that's gonna have to come back to design review if there's an additional retail unit added.

Um there could there could be a motion as part of the recommendation to consider an expansion, um, but understanding there's gonna be a push-pull relationship between their obligation for on-site parking as well as having to fall under the envelope and umbrella of um what's been analyzed under CEQA.

Okay.

So um not looking to expand upon that that too much, but there's probably some wiggle room there if it if commission was so moved to make a recommendation to city council for those considerations as long as the overall um retail consideration still fell under what was analyzed and they still met their parking obligations for on site parking.

Um I think it generally could be considered.

Okay.

So if they were for some reason to reduce the number of um for sale units and subsequently add a retail space if it was under that threshold and of what was um analyzed, that could be a possibility.

Okay, and I yeah, I this was curious.

Um we're talking about like 2500 feet is probably the most we could ever get in that kind of space.

I know that um the the staff report says that the I believe that the official lighting plan will be um submitted for staff review at the time of building permits.

Um but I did just want to mention that in the renderings provided to us that um demonstrate the lighting, there's no um view of the south facade, and um I imagine just from a safety perspective that you will want to put some type of lighting uh where the back of that um ownership building meets um the adjacent site where you have the alley.

Um wanted to point that out.

Um hope to see that there.

I think to to maybe clarify for the the verbal record um between the Bilkos patio and the proposed building for the mixed use development because it creates a tighter space is the lighting considerations for safety.

Absolutely, yeah.

Yeah, so if that wasn't in there though, then it should be.

Um to add to add to this, just to give maybe more comfort to the planning commission, staff actually does have an associate planner on staff that has credentials for crime prevention through environmental design.

So through consultation um other considerations can be made.

That's fantastic.

That's we're lucky to have that.

I didn't realize that.

That's great.

Um I think my last question um for the applicant team is um, would you be willing to consider matching oh sorry, lead back up actually.

Um the point eight for parking squash for staff, um, that was that's not in code that came from the development agreement from the first street project.

Uh correct, it is not in the code, it's one per hotel unit.

We've allowed them to apply the first street parking study, which was specific to hotel room use, yes.

Um so with that in mind, we know we borrowed from this other DA um to get this benefit to have this lower parking number.

I would like to ask the applicant team if you'd be willing to also then match that two dollars per square foot of the ownership units for the um affordable housing for consideration.

You can think about that, you don't have to answer right now.

But um when we get into deliberation, that's something I'm thinking about.

Thank you.

Commissioner Shotwell.

So um I've grown attached to the materials that they have proposed on this project.

I am in awe of how great they will look.

They are they will pay homage to the original to the post office.

Um meaning the wood screens, the champagne bronze with the panelized facades, I like the concrete board.

I'm absolutely obsessed with the bronze elements.

Um so I mentioned it in in the meeting with the applicant and uh David Oliver that um I do hope that this is something that would not change.

Apologies, we were slightly distracted by the garden across the street.

But I heard what you said, which is the materials for the project would not change.

So I think that it in as you get into your deliberation, I think that I hear two things from commissioners that maybe would be considered major modifications and would need to come back, which potentially are the um left and right side full glass uh floor to ceiling um that enhances the post the former post office building and then the materials is demonstrated in the presentation here today is is for that'll be something that you collectively will have to add to your motion if you'd like us to to add that language in somehow.

And um, I did ping our attorney to ask how if there is a best way to do that.

So we'll maybe figure that out on a break if that's something that the commission wants to do.

But thank yes, so the materials in general is what I I for the entirety of the buildings.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

Okay, and then um, let's see.

Perfect writer just reminded me that we have it in the design guidelines that are attached to so those would not change.

Great, and let's see.

I um I will be that squeaky wheel on the mixed use building, the south elevation that wall.

Um I think that it's an opportunity for a mural or a really cool, like it could be signage done in a mural type of format, or it could be a mural of the original post office, which would be pretty awesome.

Um, so that you're looking at what the post office, you know, looks like the facade of the original post office on that building, um, as a nod, uh, or something of that sort.

I think that, you know, because we it is undetermined what will eventually happen to the Sullivan lot in the event that that becomes housing, you know, with parking, then let's say it's two or three stories or four stories high, and the Bilco's you know building stays the same, people on their terraces looking out, are going to be looking at a blank wall.

So we have to think about the future of that, what is now a parking lot, but that could very well be uh housing in the future.

So I would like to see something more aesthetically pleasing on that wall.

So I'll add that for this at this time for when you discuss um a question for again for our attorney when we when we break um incorporating some sort of I I heard you say art mural or um decor of some sort on the wall.

Um and is that something that the planning commission just you don't have to answer this now, just something that would come back as sort of a design review permit like a public art installation would.

So just think about that, right?

Something of the sort, anything but a blank it to me, it's a canvas, it's a palette.

So let's get creative.

I mean, these we are dealing with a very creative um firm.

I it's been it's that's crystal clear.

Okay, um, I decade in the planning.

I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

I don't really have an additional question to ask of you guys, and I echo already the requests we have, so we can add to that during our deliberation.

Um I do want to request before we go to public comment if we can have a five minute bathroom break.

All right, you are the chair.

Okay, yes.

Can we have a five-minute bathroom break starting now?

Thank you.

I'm gonna lie, I can't wait till this part is the wire.

All right, can everybody please take your seats?

All right.

All right, I'm going to open public comment now.

Myra, do we have any public comment cards?

Yes, I received one from Christine French.

Hello, I'm Christine French.

I'm the executive director of Napa County Landmarks.

I want to thank the city, Jim Keller, David Oliver, and all the design team for your perseverance in this project.

They were instrumental in the stewardship change from the postal service to a private owner.

As submitted to the city of Napa, including the proposed partial demolition of the building and the restoration and the reconstruction of the primary facade, exterior lanterns, interior lobby spaces, and adjacent walls.

As the project advances, Landmarks is committed to working collaboratively collaboratively with the property owner and project team to support the thoughtful restoration and reconstruction of the building's historic features, consistent with both the preservation approach endorsed by the board and the Secretary of Interior Standards for the treatment of historic properties.

At its opening in 1933, the local news called this the most beautiful building in Napa.

And we support bringing the structure back for productive use for the public under this plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then I received two more.

Jerry Hanson and then Jerry McCulloch.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.

Jerry Hanson, Napa Chamber of Commerce.

From time to time, projects are coming before you that represent more than a single building, and they represent an opportunity to advance several community priorities at once.

We believe Franklin Station is one of those projects.

As a chamber, we spend a lot of time focusing on economic development.

Sometimes people picture new businesses or large employers, but economic development also means taking one of Napa's most recognizable historic buildings, sitting vacant for 12 years, and bringing it back to life in a way that allows it to evolve and that benefits the community.

This project offers a path to restore and reactivate that landmark while preserving an important piece of our community's history.

That in itself is meaningful.

But from the chamber's perspective, this project is more than about preservation.

It represents significant private investment in our downtown.

It brings construction activity, permanent jobs, spending by both visitors and locals, and new gathering spaces that can serve our community.

It helps activate a highly visible corner that has remained quiet and dormant for far too long.

We also appreciate that this proposal is not asking the community to choose between preservation and progress.

Instead, it seeks to accomplish both.

The historic character of the building is retained while creating an economically viable future for the property, something that has proven challenging for many years.

The project team has also worked with preservation experts as you just heard from Christine, Napa County Landmarks throughout the design process, which really reflects their thoughtful approach.

We realize that this is a first step, and like any project of this significance, there are details that deserve careful review, and we appreciate the commission's work in evaluating those issues.

More broadly, though, the chamber believes Franklin Station aligns with many of the priorities we share as a community, preserving historic assets, strengthening our downtown, encouraging investment, and supporting a vibrant local economy.

We encourage your support and recommendation to the City Council.

Thank you.

Thank you, do we have any other cards, Myra?

Um I did receive one more, Jerry McCulloch.

Hello.

I haven't done this before.

My name is Jerry McCulloch, and I own Bill Coast Beers along with my family.

My husband and I came to Napa in 1975 and opened Paris Delhi.

In 1995, we opened Bill Coast Billiards and Darts.

For merely for nearly 50 years, our businesses were our life's work.

We were not just places of business to us.

They were part of the community that we love.

I objected this project because it eliminates a parking lot that my customers rely on, rely on adequate parking.

It's essential for small businesses own small businesses, and the loss of these spaces will negatively impact our ability to serve our clientele and may cause financial hardships for our business.

In addition, the project would dramatically change the environment of my business.

My patio, which um which currently looks, which will currently look, I'm sorry, which currently looks on an open area, will instead be facing a concrete wall, which everybody kind of saw in there.

Um this is a significant and undesirable change that diminishes the experience for my customers.

My clientele is basically local residents, neighbors, friends, and families who have supported us for for generations.

Napa has quite a few hotels, but what it really cannot afford to lose are the locally owned businesses that give this town its heart and soul.

Uh thank you for considering my perspective as a longtime local business owner and community member.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jerry.

Seeing there are no more requests to speak, is there a motion to close public comment?

I make a motion to close public comment.

And a second.

Second, all those in favor?

Aye.

All right, I guess we'll just bring it back to deliberation now.

Unless does anybody have any additional questions for the applicant before?

Okay.

Does anybody want to do we want to start, Commissioner Masaro with maybe what we want to see written as far as what would trigger coming back to the commission?

Sure.

Uh the floor to ceiling glass.

Yes.

No, we're interested.

Um sorry.

That's okay.

Um I first of all, I just want to say thank you for your time and effort uh in the project and the design and the thoughtfulness of our um post office.

And I do appreciate um the other business owner and her comments.

Um our our town and our our town is evolving in many, many, many ways.

Um, but to to reiterate what I would like to see uh to be preserved preserved in their design is the floor to ceiling windows that are in the left and right of the side of the post office, um the restorative part of the post office.

And then Karen, and then I think we already have in our design review the materials.

So I we did check in with our attorney um in the break, and just to make sure that the motion is clear and what needs to be um happen for all of the pieces that were brought up.

So I'm gonna bring up the three things, not just by so the first um in regard to the mural um PC could planning commission could recommend that the city council add a condition to the conditions of approval requiring that a mural um would be approved by fill in the blank before the installation or an art piece, however you want to say it, state who you would like that to be approved by, um, as well as the plan for maintenance of um any said art piece would be recommended as well, just because once you put it up, someone's got to make an end to be clear on that.

Um in terms of um design features, um, suggestion of adding to zoning that those features would be considered a major amendment requiring approval of the planning commission, not the director.

So that would cover the floor to ceiling windows, and we would probably make recommendations or we probably refer to the um attachment six in today's for the uh 6 30 hearing for the materials.

I've seen that done in some documents before, so we would make a very clear reference in the zoning to the both of those things would be the recommendation.

Um I I Jeff just heard that for the first time, so he might want to opine on that as well, but that is what our attorney recommends.

Okay.

I would add for the purpose of the art mural is to specify the extent of the facade to specify what the expectation is.

Maybe that's a it would be horrible if a building were built, you know, right in front of it in let's say ten 10 years, you put up this beautiful mural and then a four-story building is built, and n and no one is able to enjoy the mural.

So I'm not quite sure how you s put those restrictions on the art.

I yeah.

I might recommend that we talk about an alternative solution because I I had that same exact thought of what happens in a few years when that site wants to develop and then uh does that become an impediment to developing housing or something else um that we would like to see so I might suggest that we talk about um adding some type of architectural features or change of materials or something else as opposed to a mural could I think oh I would prefer um a mural that I just wouldn't want the architects to go through the expense and the pain of putting of changing the buildings actual architectural elements because the those are residences that they don't need windows there right I mean what is what is your point I'm I'm so they could change the materials or do something that doesn't actually change the footprint I'm not necessarily asking for like a step back or something like that.

I just would like to have a larger discussion about maybe staying away from a mural simply because it could get covered up I don't know.

What um what about if uh what about if this space could be something that could be utilized by the art walk on a temporary basis or something like that.

The lighted art festival is what you're referring to lighted art or the or even the does the city still have an art walk program where they bring in um yes I I don't know that they've attached so I I was gonna say a couple things.

Carithers which is going through a sale process that Mariol is removable and can be replaced somewhere else.

So that could be an option um as well it's just on these panels that can come off of the building so that it takes care of the issue of not building over it eventually um I mean I would say sure we would be open to using it as part of the art walk but I am not a parks and recreation expert so I don't know that we could put it in as a I don't we didn't put it in as a condition of approval just because I don't know that the city of Napa can necessarily use that space it they would have to evaluate that.

Well what is very interesting is that you did mention that the Crithers building so that has the um actually the chamber of commerce has um purview over that art piece right correct so they could actually help facilitate maybe moving that to this building on a temporary basis as it goes through I didn't I will have to I don't know what the plan is I mean I will I can fortunately we have the chamber in the room so we can grab an answer to that question.

Again I don't know about the sizing and and all of that and and how that would exactly work and carriers may sell prior to that so where the mural goes in the middle is a is a good question.

So yes please thank you.

Yeah we um I I did discuss this with the with the team at at break and and between four or five of us we had three different ideas on on what we could do there but but I think the point is well well heard and um I I think we're gonna make um make some some moves and modifications or or add something to that um what I would ask of you guys is something that kind of is broad because you know uh whether it's signage whether it's some sort of painted art mural or or something like that I'd I I'd rather not commit but I I definitely want to um want to do something there.

Um but I I don't want to commit to exactly what it what it might be because i you know it's it will affect the marketability of the project I want to make sure everything's cohesive tasteful all that kind of thing but but we are committed to to doing something in that in that area.

Deal.

So do we want to do that written in as a condition is that's that's something that the planning commission will have to answer.

And then also Chair Owen viewing the yes and then who's reviewing that proposal and the proposal.

So yes that would be we also did receive one additional public comment card I don't it's up to it's a discretion of of the board if you want to take it you don't have to but um just letting you know that it came in.

I am okay taking another public comment card.

Thank you.

Do we need a motion to open the public comment or I would recommend well that I'm not the attorney here.

What do you say, Dan?

Sorry, I'm just allowing one additional public comment card, and that is it.

Okay, we I received one, Susan.

Apologize for being tardy with my uh my comment.

But um I own a building at 817 Franklin Street.

So it would be right across.

Could you come a little closer to the microphone, Susan?

Just because we're having a I own a building at 817 Franklin Street, and where you're proposing the garbage collection is right across from residential units.

So in addition, um the uptown has their bands roll up right there on Franklin Street, you know, Tuesday nights, Wednesday nights over the weekend.

So how is that going to work when these banned um buses are buying for position as well?

So I think it needs to be considered moving where garbage collection happens.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Does anybody from the applicant team want to respond to that comment?

No.

Okay.

And maybe generally ask if there's any other public comment that then.

Well now I'll close it.

I allowed one more public comment.

Uh I I think can I get a motion to close public comment?

So thank you.

Aye.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

Now back.

So about that recommendation on those south-facing walls.

How do we make it open-ended?

So I was thinking about some sort of large format art as a as a preference.

You know, another building goes up there, so be it.

It'll get preserved as a time capsule behind that wall.

But alternatively, uh an architectural change and put those out broadly as recommendations to council that they can choose to refine, adopt, ignore, or whatever.

So on the side, I mean, yes, you have the option to make a recommendation to city council.

Um it can presumably be as narrow or as broad as you would like to recommend.

It doesn't mean that city council will accept it in its entirety and that they could talk about it.

Um, you know, I think um what you just heard from the applicant is they're willing to do something, but they're not sure what yet.

So there's options of that could be refined before city council after they have a chance to look at it architecturally.

Um it could be open ended that something needs to come back and be presented to as the recommendation could be open-ended that something needs to be done differently with that, and they can bring back options to the planning commission or a recommendation to the planning commission for approval as a separate design review or something like that.

So it sort of depends on how narrow or broad in your discussions you want to make it.

But what I what I heard from the applicant was um more broad at this point would be I think preferred is is as they look at what's possible.

And I'm okay with broad, but it is such a highly visible spot in our downtown that I think that recommendation has to come back to the commission, in my opinion.

I'm I'm I'm uh opposed to it coming back to us because I feel that 10 years in the making is torture enough and that we really don't want to stall this anymore, so I think we can come up with something reasonable where they don't have to come back because if they come back to us, they have to pay a fee to come back, right?

And then it takes time to get on the agenda and um I would prefer that we have some just what is it, sensitivity to and also belief and trust in the applicant and their team because I've seen their projects, you know, in San Francisco.

I'm a huge fan of the Presidio, but I I I I believe in them and we can shame them into and that's actually that's not true.

Um, but that's where I'm going.

I would prefer that they not have to come back to us.

Okay, so then I would recommend at that point if that's the desire of the planning commission is to someone has to approve it.

Um so that could be the city manager, that could be the community resources and development director.

Um tip I I will say um typically although it's most it's more in the the spirit of an in loo proposal for the public art fee which is not part of of this so this isn't an in loo proposal.

It has come back to the planning commission.

I think just a couple weeks ago you had one brought back to you.

So if it's not going to be you perfectly fine for your recommendation but we need you to specify who needs to approve it.

The community development director is that a new title though resources.

We no longer Yeah the new title is community resources and development because we now have the housing and homeless services divisions with us.

Yeah.

Um I mean from a timing standpoint does this need to be figured out maybe this is a question for the applicant team.

Does this need to be figured out before it gets to council or just before it becomes uh financed or just before it gets built are you I'm sorry are you asking about figured out what is going there?

Correct.

That does not need to be done before the city council um what what is actually physically potentially going there does not need to be it would be a condition of approval of what the process would look like um to approve something between presumably the day that it becomes effective and the day of certificate of occupancy is usually what we look to for completion.

Well so would it it wouldn't necessarily hold things up if it were for example if it were going to be art and wanted to come back for a sort of normal public art design review would it hold things up on the project end?

I would say it would depend on when it was submitted um so the timing would have to be aligned with their certificate of occupancy or seeking a certificate of occupancy to generally is the metric that we use that is the last piece that we can withhold before all the standards and and conditions are approved.

So I mean I think that that that's more of a question for the applicant in terms of if they came back in three months versus two and a half years is is the question for them.

I would greatly appreciate if we could um have it approved at city council can we put something together to show it at council by this the by the July 21st city council?

Yeah.

I'm looking at my team but we'll yeah I pressure's on I think that is there's no reason that this body couldn't reprove that as a piece of that.

Well well then how would we feel about just making a recommendation to council that the South facing um you know walls of the of the hotel next to the Zeller building and of the uh residential hotel units be presented with some form of large format aesthetic improvement.

I like it.

So to clarify for yours you'd be the expectations for both buildings.

Well I think the Zeller building is far more visible even than the than the residential hotel building which is set back by Bill because the Zeller building is right there on on the street.

It has articulation.

It has windows and articulation in it though.

The the white one do you want to put this pull it up and make sure we're all talking about that.

I mean there is a there is a piece of it that's pretty big it is blank but there is also other visual maybe I remember it wrong.

Yeah I'm okay with that when it expresses the building right there.

Yeah you don't mind that I don't mind I don't mind it either because as um e I spoke with uh a member of the applicant's team and even the architect mentioned that if you put too much, if there's too much going on, like people who have art on every single wall of ever in their home, you're where where is your eye going, right?

You're not focusing on the beauty of the of what is happening there in the center with the living, you know, wall and the windows and everything like that.

So I think it looks really white right now, but that's not necessarily the actual white is not the actual color of the walls.

It's the it's what we're seeing from this image, and it's not reflecting the actual depth of the real color.

So it looks like a big white two white walls flanking that um center area, but I think it will it looks to me as big as the the back wall of the um the native sons building that gets that big you know projection on it during the lighted art festival.

I mean, I think it's pretty big, but I don't care that much.

I mean, you guys are the design professionals, I'll defer to that expertise.

Yeah, that building does not bother me.

It's it tells the what's happening with that building and the articulation.

It emphasizes what what they've done in the center to have it flanked, it's almost like framing that the the beauty of what they've created in the center.

So if I am hearing consensus for potentially a future motion, it's a large format aesthetic improvements on the mixed-use building only.

That's how we've defined it in the DA.

Um to be presented and approved by city council um upon review of the project.

That sounds good to me.

That's at least five people voting on that.

Okay.

Um does anyone else have any thoughts on on asking for the two dollars as opposed to the one?

Can you um reiterate your position on that?

Just what the basis for it.

So the there are portions of this development agreement that borrow from others, one of which is the um parking ratio.

So then instead of pre having to provide one space per unit or uh room as they would under the code, they have asked to provide.8, which is borrowed from the first street DA.

Okay.

Um so we've kind of cherry-picked that piece, but then have um only a one dollar per square foot um affordable housing fee for the ownership units, or that DA had a two dollar per square foot.

So this would be a discussion about potentially increasing that so that we're consistent with we we've given a little here and we're gonna take a little here.

And if I may add on, it's um first street paid for a parking study, which reduced their number to 0.8.

So they're benefiting, like this project benefits from that precedent from that agreement in one area, but then can deviate in another, is my first question.

Where does the two dollars come from?

At the time of the sale of the ownership unit.

So I imagine it would be rolled into the cost.

Um, but that would be a question for the authority.

I'm sorry, I was vague in my I just meant where does that number originate from?

How do you do to get to two?

It originated originally in the Stanley Ranch development agreement.

I don't know how it originated.

I was not on I was not here at the city at that time, and then it came up as a discussion at City Council on the first street.

Would you add the two dollars to match what Stanley Ranch did?

And I believe that what commissioner Ebach is asking at this point is will you match what the last two similar DAs have done.

So the two dollar is not a real it's not a number that comes from any fee schedule.

Yeah.

I want I do want to bring to everyone's attention that they are rehabilitating a historic treasure, and that they have already they will be providing parking because it's already been made clear that they will they will not be able to sell rooms if you can't have if you can't find parking.

They'll go out of business, you know, within a within two years just because they will provide the parking.

We have to remember that they have been working on this for ten years and that um Jim Keller purchased this with this good faith you know uh vision that he would restore and preserve this historic gem and so I don't and I I I know that we need affordable housing I know that we need workforce housing and I know that we um could use those funds but ultimately I feel that they have they're taking a big risk and they're already going to be spending up to let's say twelve to thirteen million dollars just saving the post office.

I think the Stanley Ranch did not save this type of a historic structure um nor did the first street phase two and um we we just need to also remember what they've been through they this is not their first rodeo this is the second design this is something that we have to as a city be very clear and in that we're setting a precedent of what it takes to develop here.

And we want to be respectful and we want to honor what people have already done to get to this point and they have spent a lot of money to get to this point and a lot of blood sweat and tears and a lot of time it's taken 10 years.

I I am opposed to an additional one dollar for the housing fund.

And I do believe that we need that money but I think that we will find that money elsewhere.

I um I'm I'm conflicted here because we were just dis discussing asking the developer to spend more money to develop a something to go on this facade of the south side of the building.

And to me it's like well I'd rather have you not spend the money on the south side of that building and put the dollar in for the affordable housing because I think that's more important than the south side of the building.

And I I would agree with that as well to me the the impact fee um is is more important in my opinion and something to note is that so this is a development agreement that's locking in what they're paying now and we've heard this evening that the city is actively studying reevaluating their impact fees and so they likely will go up.

I mean I did some comparisons today and not to say that we have to do whatever community does but I did a rough calculations and should this project be developed in other towns in the county of Napa they would be paying two to three times the amount in their affordable housing fee.

That is not at all to diminish the thankfulness that I have for uh Jim for taking on the financial um kind of stewardship and preservation of this property.

But I do think we have to be just acknowledge that this is a negotiation, the development agreement it's locking them in at a lower rate than likely what they're gonna pay in the future and that's my defense I guess.

I have some concern about the direction of this conversation only because um so I reviewed Chuck Shineman's uh Napa Housing Coalition letter and and even their letter says they're not in a position as a housing coalition to have the expertise to determine a fee.

I have really a substantial concern about just ad hoc doubling the fee that is that is proposed just off the cuff.

But, you know, we are making a recommendation to council I I wouldn't feel confident setting a number on that because this is really a land use advisory body and not a taxing body.

Um, but we could tell them as the council, pay attention to this number and consider if it is appropriate, and and perhaps in the meantime, that would give Ryder and Molly and the applicant team a chance to say, well, do you are we are we doing anything with this?

Do you want to look at what they're doing in Sonoma County?

Are you confident in this number?

Because I just feel like that's that's that's a change that is awfully I mean to me, it seems like a reach of what we should be doing.

Um I respect that.

Um I guess I would be open to leaving that up to council.

I do want to clarify that I'm not necessarily saying that we would have an answer in terms of impact fee going forward.

Molly stated that would take a year minimum.

That's gonna require a study probably with some type of housing economist.

Um this would just be a suggestion to match what was previously done, not to recommend any other number, but um if this group wants to leave that up to council, I'm comfortable with that.

Do we want to make it a recommendation for council to take a second look at it?

I hate to like say, hey, we're the body that you've um appointed to give you recommendations, and our recommendation is that you think about it.

But but I in this circumstance, I think that might be appropriate.

I feel better saying that than increasing it ad hoc up here.

I I just don't feel that we have the authority.

Okay, yeah.

So maybe we'll just suggest the is that okay.

I mean, I don't want to shut you down.

Do you think it's okay that I can shut me down?

That's right.

That's the point of this conversation.

All right.

I think it's wonderful that we are all so very concerned about housing, workforce housing, affordable housing, and we're just all of us are trying desperately to to fix it.

It's so complicated.

So I so appreciate your take on it, and I am and it's just a challenging situation.

It's not as challenging as parking.

Yeah, about that.

Um, you know, my suggestion would just be to strike the language regarding the in loo fee, and I'm sure that the council people are probably gonna watch a lot of this and they'll see our discussion of it, and if they disagree with that change or think that, um, you know, maybe a percentage of spots should be eligible for the INLU fee based on um Jeff Dodd's statement that it's effectively impossible for the project to go forward with that in LU fee as the primary parking solution.

I don't think that's particularly prejudicial to the application.

And then, you know, I just I can't in good conscience recommend a project that says you don't provide parking, and if you choose to, you could maybe pay for half the cost of a parking spot per spot.

Um so if we just took the in loo fee out of our recommendation, and then that could be either what they think is appropriate.

I mean, I I think that the intention of the applicant, as far as I understood it, is to is to come up with a resolution.

Um, but rather than keep it wildly open-ended, I would prefer to close the loop on that so that at least there is a backstop against the outcome of not providing parking.

And you want to take a hundred percent away.

Well, it's uh how's it written?

It's uh written that uh the project may satisfy the city's land use regulations for parking by utilizing the parking spaces on the property or paying the city's development impact fee or a combination of those options consistent well with 4.4.1 and and its subsections down below.

Exhibit F is errant.

In the event the developer cannot provide all required parking for the project on the property, the parties may negotiate a parking agreement in good faith.

So I mean, my suggestion would be the project may satisfy the city's land use regulations for parking by utilizing the parking spaces on the property or by negotiating in good faith.

Um, and then go from there and just kind of omit the the in loo fee as the full open-ended.

You know, we could put a number on it, not to exceed 30% of the INLU fee, but again, we would be throwing darts in the dark.

I don't know what that number is supposed to be.

Typically you'd you'd do some sort of study specific to the project that would tell you what could be the IN LU fee, or you could say um the hotel uses need to have some sort of contract at a certain rate.

Um I would recommend.8 because that's what we've said for the others.

Um and then the other uses could be subject to the inLU fee only.

That would be pretty typical to what we've applied in other similar projects.

That makes sense.

Did I so the inluffy can only apply could apply to certain uses?

Well, maybe we keep it open-ended, but not as a built-in alternative.

Maybe we go into section 4.4.1.4, make up a new section and say topics of negotiation may not include but are not limited to paying the city's parking development impact fee for some or any parking uses required by the project, something to that effect.

I mean, so that it's on the table as part of the conversation, but I really am strongly opposed to leaving it as the safety net for the community to bear the brunt without some sort of backstop.

Um so it it is typical for the other uses, as Molly said, to to be able to pay the inLU fee in the parking exempt overlay district, but if my understanding maybe it's striking specifically the the hotels ability, the 0.8 spaces per hotel room rounded up to the nearest one space from that language.

So they'd be able to pay in LU fee for the non-transient uses.

I think that's reasonable.

I mean, people who work downtown get that benefit, but it's primarily the hotel guests that is the concern, yeah.

Okay, so and I'm gonna look to the developer just or the applicant team, just to make sure that I'm understanding what you're saying, is that the in LU fee, and it really is an update to the zoning, not so much the DA, but we'll cover that with your motion.

So updating a recommendation to the zoning that the in LU fee can be paid for the non-transient non-residential uses.

I'm writing this down as I say it.

Um and some sort of parking arrangement, whether it be private or with the city of Napa, needs to be secured by time of occupancy or building permit.

That's a question for you.

Um for that any it would really only be the transient uses because the other uses are covered, the housing uses are or the residential is covered already.

Um, and are we applying the point eight rate?

Are you not eight parking spaces, or are you not subject to the I mean I think that's probably okay.

A lot of people, so many people are using different transitions.

And I would suggest certificate of occupancy.

Just certificate of occupation.

Okay, negotiate with the city.

Okay.

I have a follow up question for staff on that.

I one of the proposed options um was partnering on the development of a garage or or using I guess do staff have any concerns about not receiving the impact fee funds, and would that potentially hinder like a?

No, no, that wouldn't be no, no, no.

It for the hotel uses the transient uses, no.

Um that would not be a consideration at that point because even if we entered into a license agreement and had revenue, it would be the same as being able to demonstrate what we could bond for.

So yeah, I don't have concern about that.

Okay, thank you.

Any other additional I I this may be a question for the Cultural Heritage Commission, but um I think that this should be submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation to win awards.

So reach out now before you get any further and see maybe there's a grant, maybe there's a MILSAC contract or something of that sort.

Um that was the only other thing that I wanted to mention.

I do have one more thing regarding the timing of the determination of the in LU fee for the parking.

Um should probably be made at the time that the parking determination is made as of.

So for example, if the fee goes up in the next whenever, but they haven't figured out the parking, I think it I mean we don't want to make it a point where people are hedging uh a bet or or effectively taking a uh a low cost loan uh from the from the public in terms of banking uh artificially reduced fee compared to what the market cost of the fee ought to be at the time of the parking.

Does that make sense?

Just follow off to that.

Yes, it does, but that's the same argument I'm making in terms of the housing impact fee.

I'm just saying we shouldn't lock it in as low.

But I'm not trying to put a number on it.

So all of the so in the agreement as it's written right now, all of the impact fees are locked in and they're listed specifically in their rates by um the type of the impact development impact fee or in loop fee um and the rate that it is currently.

So you'd have to specify what rate you're proposing to change to whatever or remove it from the lock.

Right.

It that's exhibit H.

So you'll see exhibit H lists them all affordable housing, street improvement, utility underground fire, paramedic impact fee, parking development, and it it's a it's a locked list.

So it's it's a list that essentially locks them into places to what they are today.

Again, in the per in your purview to change it, but um you'd have to specify which ones you wanted to change.

I say since we're removing a lot of them, it's the same argument of how do you unlock one.

I don't know.

If you guys don't want to do it, then we don't have to do it.

So body.

I think if our if our rationale for why we uh can't make a recommendation in terms of housing is that it's not the role of this body to set impact fees, then that would also apply to parking.

Okay.

Just in terms of consistency with that logic.

Well, we've talked about it, and so maybe you know they'll think about it if they want to make a change at the ultimate time of decision.

I I also know that with this with these entitlements, they have three years, right?

I mean, to actually in terms of their sunsetting.

Yeah, they will sunset, so it's an it isn't as if we are going to be looking at impact fees that are going to change dramatically, perhaps.

Perhaps I don't know.

Um but if it's this three-year window of opportunity, hopefully, and I know that they want to build this, and so let's be optimistic and hope that it the impact fees don't increase dramatically to what they may be paying now.

All right.

Well, we don't have to open Pandora's box then, in my opinion.

I agree.

Can I just can I go back to the um payment of the NLU fee and the determining of that?

Um my attorney just pointed out to me that typically the inLU fees are paid at the time of building permit.

Um so it doesn't mean that the net that the agreement necessarily has to be solidified by the time of the building permit fee, but that the number of parking spaces that would be provided via the fee versus an agreement um should be determined by the time, and then the agreement would be effective essentially on the date that the s of certificate of occupancy.

I just I I bring that up and we were just corresponding about how to get the motion right to still make the city council meeting, and so we're trying not to to mess up the timing for that, which is what we're what we're having in mind.

So potentially moving that up to permit permit um would be a easier metric for us to place.

Like I said, the agreement doesn't have to be effective until certificate of occupancy, but presumably worked out by building permit issuance, so not application issuance.

Okay.

Does anybody else have anything else to add?

Yeah, final comments.

Design is beautiful.

I'm really excited.

Um, looks great, and um, I can't wait to I was it here when the post office was open, so I'm very excited for this to move forward and hopefully get to go inside and look around.

So great job with the design and appreciate you bringing us something that's so high quality.

Uh oh, I will say thank you again for your investment in our city.

Um I echo all of them.

I want to thank you for your stewardship and person or shall I say your revering and your respecting of the post office and it being a place that the community can enjoy, a building that will be open to the public.

Um and ever and I am a fan of BAR.

I worked in the city at an architecture firm for many many years.

Um so I'm happy to have you guys here in my city.

Thank you.

Well, you know, I feel like I owe your team a little bit of an apology because I've sat here and poked holes in your um application for the last two uh three hours.

And I don't mean to blindside you with those things.

This project should be recognized as a remarkable preservation effort, and really uh nobody in their right mind would have to do that if they didn't really care about the community.

And uh, you know, it's a beautiful project.

It really is, and and compared to what we have now, which is uh fenced off, you know, broken building and a parking lot, uh although the notion of hotels is a little bit controversial right now, this would be uh an immense dramatic improvement to that.

And so the project in principle is phenomenal.

And these are just little nitpicky things that need to get worked out, but they're they're they're solvable things, and and so uh really thank you guys for a really beautiful project.

Really look forward to you getting it completed and uh thanks for being here tonight.

There's nothing more I can uh say to add to what I've already said.

I'm very grateful, and it's been a monumental effort on Jim Keller's part and everyone on the team, and I'm I'm so appreciative and I look forward to stepping foot in it and getting the mail that I'm still waiting for because I had a post office box there during the earthquake.

Who would like to make a motion for recommendation?

Just real quick, I just want to clarify because what was not discussed or just assuming the five head nods, um, are we or is the commission in agreement um adding to the zoning the maintaining or that any changes to the full glass structure, floor to ceiling glass enhancing the post office building is a major modification, and then the same with the materials as an attachment six, any changes to the materials is a major modification.

So we would we I we'll just meet and I can help you read into what the changes are, but I just wanted to make sure that all five of you were in agreement on that before we made the motion on that, and if we had to do them separately.

Any changes to the materials seems like that might be a booby trap.

I would say specifically the bronze urns, the brick work.

No, the what I mean is the new building, the materials need to match what they've already presented, that pay homage to the the bronze urns and the melt glass and the I mentioned the champagne bronze colors, not you know the bronze.

Do I have to go through this one?

If it's if it's any if it's going to be specific materials that can change, or if it's going to be color, like we do need that specificity as to whether it's a major or yeah, I mean, I went through the materials at my initial meeting with the applicant, and they confirmed that those would be the colors and the materials, and then I looked at it again in the packet, and they are indeed the materials that I feel really do reflect the historic integrity of the uh original post office.

So, can we say anything that's in substantial deviation from the materials board or consistent with these materials?

No, Kylie, I if you want no vinyl trim.

I mean, yes, like products could change because something could become unavailable.

But if I mean that's that's giving discretion to staff to determine if it's in substantial conformant.

So I mean, I think which is what it sounds like you're driving at because someone's going to have to make the determination at some point whether the change that's proposed is substantial or significant.

Um the baseline that you're talking about is what the materials that you reviewed.

Yes, that are reflected in the packet.

And it's it's the material I mean it is pretty specific.

Attachment six.

Like it says, peripherated metal screen honeycomb MT2.

So in practice, there's the sheet.

Um, we don't have the construction details yet that know where it's going to be sourced from, and maybe that's the flexibility that's still there is where they source it, the exact specifications.

But generally, if you made a motion to be consistent with these materials, I know what that means, and I know what the expectation is.

That's what the expectation is.

It's much like in kind when you're dealing with historic preservation, and you'll match siding that's in kind to the original structure.

If it's so with colors and texture, I don't I would like to not see any vinyl or aluminum, but perhaps bronze actual, you know, bronze elements in trim and awnings and things of that sort, or at least make it look as if it's you know, I mean it's real, it's metal, not vinyl.

So basically color and material type is materials.

So any change in materials that is inconsistent with exhibitment six attachment six would be considered a mere material change.

Sheet A4.

Sheet A4, lines one through 30.

Not that part.

I mean, the lighting design is also lovely, so I would hope that doesn't change either.

Right?

That's uh the the concepts generally show that the the style of lighting, but we don't have the source and manufacture of the lighting yet.

Right, the style is what I'm talking about.

I mean, it's so it's lovely how it's it's so it's it's so conducive to like welcoming people but not being stark and everything that they mentioned, even in the packet with their with how they've created the lighting design.

So this is part of the design review.

We are here to review the design.

If it turns out that it's built and it's looks nothing like what we've approved, yes, that would not be kosher, in my humble opinion.

I would recommend that we rely on staff's expertise to ensure substantial conformance with what we're looking at today, whether it's the materials and the lighting plan.

I trust their professional expertise to make sure that what we're talking about is reflected.

So substantially conforms with the design color and materials shown in attachment six.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

So I would recommend we do the motions individually, and then we'll all read into the record anything that needs to be added as a recommendation to city council.

Does that make sense, Chair?

Sure.

So individually we'll read starting with one, yeah.

Then two.

Okay.

Who would like to make the motion?

Okay.

Can we just get a clarification on the other thing that we discussed?

The public art piece of it.

I have it written down.

This is how I have it written down.

And it would go.

I think with number one.

What number two?

Bar.

Okay.

We'll figure out where it number two.

Okay, excuse me, because with number two.

Um go ahead, Kylie.

Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt.

Please.

Just for clarification, you could easily do the staff recommendation as one motion.

It sounds like there might be a couple of items that the commission would like to make as additional recommendations.

Might I suggest that you do those as individual recommendations.

And then assuming that the commission is all in agreement on staff's recommendation, that could be as one motion.

But I've been hearing both for and against on a couple of topics.

So perhaps if someone made a motion on one of those items, such as the material change that has just been discussed, those could be taken first, and then those would then be rolled up into the meeting the entirety of the staff recommendation, if that makes sense.

So I could chair, if if you so desire, I can read what I have written down, and then if somebody wants to so move and second it, and then you vote individually on those, and I can read them one by one, and you can we can amend them as well with and then we'll go with the full staff recommendations.

So the motion.

So the first one um is the zoning um be updated to include that the left and right side full glass floor-to-ceiling panels that enhance the post office building, be considered a major amendment if changed.

I will make that motion.

And the second aye.

All those in favor, aye.

Do you have to call it?

Motion passes.

Okay, thank you.

Did everybody vote?

Okay.

Um sorry, I wasn't looking at mouths.

Um the second one is that um any substantial change to the design color and um design style and color of the materials presented in attachment six, planning commission report on June 30th, 2026, uh return to the planning commission uh for review.

So moved.

Second, all those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Third one uh would be a large format uh that the city council consider changes to um the mixed use building wall, south wall, south wall, south wall.

Um, with some sort of large format aesthetic approvement uh when they consider this on 721.

So moved.

Second, all those in favor.

I think uh and then so that's a do you want to call that one motion passes for one?

Okay, thank you.

Um and then the last one is that language be struck from zoning and DA documents um regarding paying the in LU fee uh for how am I gonna put this for the hotel uses?

So for the transient uses, yes.

But that and I'll just clarify that the it's for the record that the in LU fee could be paid for the non-transient uses in the hotel post office rehabbed building.

Did I capture that correctly?

Yes.

Okay.

Oh, uh so move.

Second, second.

All those in favor.

Uh, no.

Motion passes 4-1.

Now I believe you're on.

Okay.

Staff remote.

I will do this one real quick.

Staff Planning Commission recommends to move forward to the city council number one, adopt a resolution approving pursuant to section 15168 analysis and addendum to the downtown Napa specific plan, programmatic environmental impact report, and alternatively to the CEQA guidelines section 15332 categorical exemption, and two adopt an ordinance approving amendments to a plan development overlay.

Three, adopt an ordinance approving a development agreement, and four adopt a resolution approving a design review permit and tentative parcel map and determine that the potential environmental effects of the project were adequately analyzed and addressed by a prior California Environmental Quality Act action as documented in the addendum for the Franklin Station 2 project.

Seconding all those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Congratulations.

Let's see where we are now.

There are no administrative reports unless it's changed since this.

Okay.

Lastly, any final comments by commissioners or staff this evening.

Yes, I have a pretty substantial update.

Hopefully, those in the audience, those at home watching.

We have the public draft of the zoning ordinance document that was published end of not last week but the week prior.

Public comment review period extending to July 24th.

Obviously, opportunity for public comment in through when both Planning Commission and City Council consider the public draft of the comprehensive zoning ordinance update.

But we have a workshop for the general public at the Napa County Library in the community room at 5 30 on July 14th.

Dan including.

But there is an executive memo, and it's funny to say an executive memo is seven pages, but it is seven pages, and it at a high level summarizes what that consists of.

So I encourage everybody from the general public, all the stakeholders that are interested, Planning Commission, any other members of the commissions and boards within the city of Napa participate through the process in the in the ways appropriate to them.

Um should they have any questions?

We have an email dedicated to zoning ordinance update, zoning update at city of Napa.org.

I'd prefer if emails are sent to that email as a central location, but we are logging all comments received um through the public comment period, and we will consider the feedback that's been conveyed among the feedback that's already been conveyed in this effort.

So encourage everyone to participate.

Um lastly, we will be having another planner join in August.

More details to follow, and then hopefully an introduction on the horizon.

Great.

Does anybody else have any comments?

No?

It's been a long evening.

All right.

Well, the next regularly scheduled meeting for the planning commission of the city of Napa is in two days this Thursday, July 2nd.

We'll see you guys soon.