Community Development Department – Planning Division
1600 First Street + P.O. Box 660
Napa, CA 94559-0660
(707) 257-9530
________________________________________________________________________________
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
JULY 7, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 6.A: PL22-0045 – NAPA CREEK CONDOS TENTATIVE MAP EXTENSION III
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
PROJECT
SUMMARY:
Request for a third and final, two -year extension of a previously approved Tentative Subdivision Map, Use Permit, Variance, and Design Review Permit
LOCATION OF
PROPERTY:
1701 D Street Alley
APN: 002-071-010, 011
GENERAL PLAN:
MFR-142, Multi-Family Residential
ZONING:
RM:AH:FP, Multi-Family Residential: Affordable Housing overlay :
Floodplain Management overlay zoning district
APPLICANT /
PROPERTY
OWNER:
Mani Brothers
9200 W. Sunset Blvd. #555
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Phone: (310) 977-5000
STAFF
PLANNER:
Michael Allen,
Acting Planning Manager
Phone: (707) 257-9530
LOCATION MAP
ATTACHMENT 2
PL22-0045 – Napa Creek Condominiums Extension III 2
II. TENTATIVE MAP EXTENSION REQUEST
The Applicant, Mani Brothers LLC, requests a third and final extension of the previously approved Napa Creek Condominiums Tentative Map for a period of two years. The project was originally approved on February 1, 2011 with an initial expiration date of February 1, 2013. The project was given two extensions through State mandate, including Assembly Bill (AB) 208 to February 1, 2015 and (AB) 116 to February 1, 2017. The Project was granted a two-year discretionary extension by the City Council on May 2, 2017 (Resolution R2017-050) which extended the expiration date of the project entitlements to February 1, 2019. A second two-year discretionary extension was granted by the City Council on May 7, 2019 (Resolution R2019 -040) extending the expiration date to February 1, 2021. On September 28, 2020, in response to the Covid pandemic, the State adopted (AB) No. 1561 which extended the Project’s expiration for 18 months, to August 1, 2022. Approval of the requested extension will extend the Tentative Map and its ass ociated entitlements until August 1, 2024.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The previously approved project proposed to construct a 48-unit residential condominium project at 1701 D Street Alley. The project included 18 two-bedroom units; 6 two-bedroom plus den units; and 24 three-bedroom units. Each unit has a two-car garage. Additionally, the project will have 3 guest parking spaces on site and will create a total of 25 new public street parking spaces along Califor nia Boulevard and D Street A lley. The project also included a paved bicycle and pedestrian path adjacent to Napa Creek consistent with the City of Napa’s master bicycle trail plan.
FIGURE 1 - TENTATIVE MAP
ATTACHMENT 2
PL22-0045 – Napa Creek Condominiums Extension III 3
IV. ANALYSIS
A. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION MAP ACT
In accordance with Section 16.20.09 0 of the City’s Subdivi sion Ordinance and Section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act, approved tentative subdivision maps shall expire 24 months after they are approved. Tentative maps must be filed and recorded as a Final Map prior to this deadline before grading and building permits can be issued for project construction. Section 16.20.100 of the City’s Subdivision Or dinance (Extensions) states that “[u]pon application of the subdivider filed with the Community Development Director prior to the expiration of the tentative map, such map may be extended by the Council as provided for in section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act”. Section 66452.6 (e) of the Subdivision Map Act provides for an extension of a tentative parcel map for a period not to exceed six years. However, the State enacted legislation on four occasions between 2008 and 2013 which automatically extended the life of all subdivision maps, depending on their original expiration dates , by up to a possible total of seven years. Recently the State enacted legislation extending the life of all housing projects by eighteen months . Napa Creek Condominiums Tentative Map has been extended five and a half years by the State Extensions.
The Applicant has requested a third and final, two year extension and since there have been no substantial changes in City policies regarding subdivis ions nor changes to the findings that were made in support of the subdivision’s approval, Staff believes that a two year time extension would be acceptable.
The following is the original analysis of the project for reference:
B. GENERAL PLAN
The project site has a General Plan designation of MFR -142, Multi-Family Residential, which allows for multi-family development at a density range of 12.5 to 16 units per acre.
Because the property is within the AH, Affordable Housing overla y zoning district, it is required to have a minimum densit y at 75% of the density range. As such, the required density range (adjusted for the Affordable Housing overlay) is 15.125 to 16 units per acre.
At this minimum density of 15.125 units per acre, the project would be required to provide a minimum of 58 units on the 3.84 acre parcel. The previously approved project has 48 units and a density of 12.5 units per acre, which is below the minimum requirement specified by the General Plan with the Affordable Housing overlay.
Zoning Ordinance Section 17.08.050.A allows for approval of densities below the minimum requirement of the General Plan to protect environmental resources through the use permit process. In this case, a significant amount of the property (1.7 acres) is comprised of Napa Creek and its associated riparian growth providing the grounds for some reduction in density. This leaves approximately 2.14 acres of t he project site as developable. When calculated on the 2.14 -acre developable portion of the property, the project density is 22.4 units per acre. Given the significant undevelopable portion of the property and the relatively high density that the project achieves on the remaining developable portion of the property, staff supported and the Council approved the findings for the reduction in density.
ATTACHMENT 2
PL22-0045 – Napa Creek Condominiums Extension III 4
C. ZONING
The project site is zoned RM:AH:FP, Multi-Family Residential: Affordable Housing overlay:
Floodplain Management overlay zoning district. The project meets or exceeds all applicable development standards of the Multi-family Residential zoning district, with the exception of setbacks from D Street Alley and California Boulevard. The applicant previously requested a variance to these setback requirements which are addressed in the Setback Variance discussion below. A variance was approved to accommodate this discrepancy.
The project falls within two overlay zoning districts: the Floodplain overlay and the Affordable Housing overlay. The portion of the property within the 100-year floodplain is limited to the top of bank of Napa Creek, and therefore has no impacts on the previously approved buildings.
All multi-family projects in the City (including those without the Affordable Housing overlay) are required to provide 10 percent of the units affordable to low income households. The Affordable Housing overlay requires that an additional 10 percent of the units be sold at prices affordable to very low income households. The 48-unit project will be required to provide 4 units affordable to low income households and 4 units affordable to very low income households.
As stated, t he project was previously determined to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance with approval of the Variance, and there have been no subsequent changes to the Zoning Ordinance which would conflict with the original findings.
D. PARKING
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.54 sets forth the following parking requirements for condominium developments:
(24) 3 bedroom units @ 2.5 spaces per unit = 60 spaces (24) 2 bedroom units @ 2 spaces per unit = 48 spaces
Guest parking @ 1 space per 4 units = 12 spaces
TOTAL ON-SITE REQUIRED = 120 spaces
TOTAL ON-SITE PROVIDED = 99 spaces
Additionally, Chapter 17.54 requires each unit to have a garage space, and the project provides two garage spaces for each unit.
The total proposed 99 spaces falls 21 spaces sh ort of the 108 spaces required. The applicant previously requested a modification of the parking standards pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 17.54.040.B, which allows for a modification to parking standards with a use permit “in order to provide parking which is fair, equitable, logical and consistent with the intent of the Chapter.” Staff determined that the following facts supported the applicant’s request for a modification of the parking standards which was approved by the City Council.
The fifteen Plan 2 units employ a two car tandem garage (one car is parked in front of the other inside the garage) rather than the standard two car side-by-side garage used in the ATTACHMENT 2
PL22-0045 – Napa Creek Condominiums Extension III 5
majority of the project. Section 17.54.110 of the Zoning Ordinance allows tandem parking in multi-family residential developments with the approval of a use permit.
E. BUILDING AND PARKING VARIANCES (VA-1)
The following variances were previously approved:
• a 10-foot front setback for buildings along D Street Alley where the Code requires a 20-foot setback
• an 8 foot minimum side setback for buildings along California Boulevard where the Code requires a 15 foot minimum setback
• a 3-foot minimum parking setback along D Street Alley where the Code requires a 20-foot setback
• a 6.5-foot front setback for steps and landings along D Street Alley where the Code requires a 14-foot setback
Staff previously determined that these variances are appropriate for the following reasons:
• Almost half of the 3.8-acre project site is undevelopable due to the existence of Napa Creek
• The buildings have been laid out as efficiently as possible on the site.
• The property has an Affordable Housing zoning overlay which requires a higher minimum density.
• The proposed encroachment into the setback along California Boulevard is mitigated by the fact that there is an excessive landscape strip along this stree t adjacent to the project site. The standard City right -of-way improvement for California Boulevard would include a 4 -foot sidewalk with 6 -foot landscape strip, whereas the project will provide a 4-foot sidewalk with 12-foot landscape strip.
• The buildings are designed to step down in height to both California Boulevard and D Street Alley with one-story building elements adjacent to California Boulevard and one and two story elements adjacent to D Street Alley.
• The referenced 3-foot parking setback along D Street refers to a handicap loading area which would not contain a vehicle. The actual closest vehicle parking space is 10 feet back from the street.
Without these variances, there would almost certainly have to be a reduction in the number of units. The applicant, who is an experienced developer, has indicated that the project would simply be financially infeasible with fewer units on top of the required 20 percent affordability. The findings for of this variance were approved by the City Council.
ATTACHMENT 2
PL22-0045 – Napa Creek Condominiums Extension III 6
F. FENCE VARIANCE (VA-2)
The necessary improvements to D Street require a dedication of 10 feet of property from the adjacent owners to the north. In exchange for providing her written intent to dedicate 10 feet of her property, the owner of 1720 D Street requested the applicant to install a 6- foot fence in her front yard to block headlights from vehicles exiting the Building C motor court (see proposed fence location shown on site plan). Because her existing house is located so close to the expanded D Street, the fence location will be 2 feet back from the curb on the north side of D Street. The Code requires that fences within the 20 foot front setback of a residence be limited to 3½ feet in height. The length of this proposed fence is only 10 feet, and includes two short wing s perpendicular to the street. Staff believes the visual effects of this limited amount of fence are insignificant, and that it will mitigate potential adverse headlight effects for this property owner. The findings for of this variance was approved by the City Council.
G. DESIGN REVIEW
Site Plan
The location of Napa Creek dictates that the development must occur on the north half of the property. Additionally, it is the desire of the City to preclude access from California Boulevard because of its arterial status. As such, the buildings have been laid out with access along D Street. The building configuration consists of three U-shaped complexes.
Each has an interior motor cour t to provide access to garages. This creates an ideal situation where there are no garage doors visible from Cal ifornia Boulevard or D Street.
Paving within the motor court areas includes a band of permeable pavers to soften the appearance of th e hardscape within these areas. Between each of the three building complexes are landscaped paseos within common areas and walkways. Access through these paseos extends f rom D Street to Napa Creek and the proposed p ublic pedestrian/bicycle path. All of the units facing California Boulevard and D Street have front doors facing these streets. Additionally, the back units fronting Napa Creek are designed to take advantage of the visual amenity of the creek with doors and upper story balconies facing the creek.
Architecture
The architecture is contemporary, and is composed of block -shaped elements with flat roofs. Exterior materials include a mix of glass, stucco, cementitious smooth siding, metal and wood. The use and juxtaposition of these materials is appropriate for the contemporary design. The wall planes of all the buildings are well articulated, both in the horizontal and vertical planes. Although the buildings are predominantly three stories, they are designed to step down to the street frontages with two story living areas and large single story porch elements whose flat rooftops function as second story bal conies. In keeping with the contemporary design of the building, windows are recessed with ample sashes and minimal dividers. Many of the windows have wood trellis -style awnings which match the vertical wood elements used on the balcony rails. All units have their own balcony area, some with wood rails and some with cable rails. A variety of exterior colors in complementary earth tone hues are used to add interest, distinguish individual units, and reduce the perceived building height. Overall, the architecture presents a high level of uniqueness.
ATTACHMENT 2
PL22-0045 – Napa Creek Condominiums Extension III 7
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The potential environmental effects of the map extension were adequately analyzed by the Mitigated Negative Declaration that was adopted on February 1, 2011 in conjunction with the approval of the Napa Creek Condominiums Tentative Subdivision Map by Resolution R2011 26, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
VI. REQUIRED FINDINGS
Since the circumstances upon which the original Tentative Map approvals were based on have not substantially changed, the project remains in compliance with the required findings in NMC 17.60.070; Use Permits, NMC 17.64.060; Variances, NMC 17.62.080; Design Review, and NMC 16.20.070; Tentative Maps. These findings are provided in the attached Resolution R2011 27 as adopted by the City Council on February 1st, 2011 (Attachment 2).
VII. PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of the public hearing was provided by US Postal Service on June 2 4, 2022 to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property. Notice of the public hearing was also published in the Napa Valley Register on June 24, 2022 and provided to people previously requesting notice on the matter at the same time notice was provided to the newspaper for publication. The Applicant was also provided a copy of this report and the associated attachments in advance of the public hearing on the project.
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council recommending approval of the two year ext ension of the previously approved Napa Creek Condominiums Tentative Subdivision Map.
IX. ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION
1. Direct Staff to return to the Planning Commission with a resolution documenting findings from the hearing record to support a recommendation of denial of the project extension.
X. DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
ATCH 1 – Draft Resolution
ATCH 2 – Original Approving Resolution (R2011-27)
ATCH 3 – Approved Negative Declaration (R2011-26)
ATCH 4 – 1ST Extension Resolution (R2017-050)
ATCH 5 – 2ND Extension Resolution (R2019-040)
ATCH 6 – Approved Tentative Map & Plans
ATTACHMENT 2