Napa Planning Commission Special Meeting - June 30, 2026: Franklin Station Project
Napa Planning Commission Special Meeting - June 30, 2026: Franklin Station Project
The Napa Planning Commission held a special meeting on June 30, 2026, to consider a recommendation to the City Council for the Franklin Station project. The proposal includes a development agreement, zoning amendment, design review, and tentative parcel map for the rehabilitation of the historic Franklin Station post office and construction of a five-story hotel (up to 120 rooms) and a mixed-use building with up to 44 for-sale hotel units on a 1.44-acre site.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Christine French (Napa County Landmarks) expressed support, noting the organization's commitment to working collaboratively on the restoration and reconstruction of historic features consistent with preservation standards.
- Jerry Hanson (Napa Chamber of Commerce) voiced support, stating the project represents significant private investment, activates a dormant corner, and aligns with community priorities for historic preservation and economic development.
- Jerry McCulloch (owner of Bilco's Beers) objected, citing the loss of a parking lot relied upon by customers and that the project would replace an open view with a blank concrete wall, negatively impacting his business.
- Susan (Franklin Street resident) raised concern about the proposed garbage collection location on Franklin Street being across from residential units and conflicting with event bus activity.
Discussion Items
- Staff Presentation: Community Resources and Development Director Molly Radigan and Planner Ryder presented the project overview, including the history of the post office, parking requirements, and the development agreement's key benefit—preservation of the historic building. Staff noted that parking for the for-sale hotel units must be provided on-site or via a 30-year private easement, while hotel room parking can be satisfied through an impact fee ($23,000 per space) or a future lease agreement with the city.
- Parking Debate: Commissioners extensively discussed the parking plan. Commissioner Myers questioned the viability of relying on the in-lieu fee for hotel operations, as hotel operators require dedicated spaces. Applicant representative Jeff Dodd clarified that the project would not be feasible without a parking agreement, making the in-lieu fee option unrealistic for hotel uses. City parking manager Tony Valdez noted current downtown parking is at ~85% capacity during peak times, and losing 115–120 public spaces would approach 100% utilization. The city is conducting a feasibility study for a new parking garage, with results expected in October 2026.
- Design and Materials: Commissioners praised the design, particularly the floor-to-ceiling glass panels flanking the post office and the proposed materials (bronze elements, metal screens, brick). They discussed requiring that any future changes to these key design features be considered major amendments requiring Planning Commission approval.
- South Blank Wall: Commissioner Shotwell raised concerns about the large blank wall on the south elevation of the mixed-use building, suggesting a mural or large-format art. The applicant agreed to address it but asked for flexibility. The commission settled on a recommendation to City Council to consider a large-format aesthetic improvement.
- Affordable Housing Fee: Commissioner Ebach proposed increasing the affordable housing fee from the proposed $1 per square foot to $2 per square foot for the for-sale units, citing precedent from the First Street and Stanley Ranch projects. After debate, the commission declined to set the number, instead recommending City Council review the fee.
Key Outcomes
- Motion 1 (passed unanimously): Amend the zoning to classify any changes to the floor-to-ceiling glass panels that enhance the post office building as a major amendment requiring Planning Commission approval.
- Motion 2 (passed unanimously): Require that any substantial change to the design, color, or materials shown in Attachment 6 (June 30, 2026 staff report) be returned to the Planning Commission for review.
- Motion 3 (passed unanimously): Recommend City Council consider requiring large-format aesthetic improvement on the south wall of the mixed-use building.
- Motion 4 (passed 4-1): Strike language from the zoning and development agreement that allows paying in-lieu fees for parking for hotel (transient) uses; in-lieu fees remain available for non-transient uses. Parking for hotel uses must be secured via a lease or agreement by certificate of occupancy.
- Main Motion (passed unanimously): The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council (1) adopt a resolution approving an addendum to the Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR (or alternative CEQA exemption), (2) adopt an ordinance approving the Planned Development Overlay amendment, (3) adopt an ordinance approving the Development Agreement, and (4) adopt a resolution approving the Design Review Permit and Tentative Parcel Map.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com