Table E-2-3: Summary of Development Standards for Base Zoning Districts Zoning District
Min. Lot Size/
Max. Lot
Coverage
Max. Height/
Max. No. of
Stories
Min. Setbacks & Yards
Density
(du/ac)
Front
Setback
Side
Setback
Side
Yard
Rear Yard/
Setback
Residential
RT 4 Traditional Residential
Infill
4,000 sqft / 50% 30 ft / 2.5 20 ft 15 ft 5-10 ft 15 ft See GP RT 5 Traditional Residential
Infill
5,000 sqft / 45% 30 ft / 2.5 20 ft 15 ft 5-10 ft 20 ft See GP RT 7 Traditional Residential
Infill
7,000 sqft / 45% 30 ft / 2.5 20 ft 15 ft 5-10 ft 20 ft See GP RS 4 Single Family Residential 4,000 sqft / 50% 30 ft / 2.5 20 ft 15 ft 5-10 ft 15 ft See GP RS 5 Single Family Residential 5,000 sqft / 45% 30 ft / 2.5 20 ft 15 ft 5-10 ft 20 ft See GP RS 7 Single Family Residential 7,000 sqft / 45% 30 ft / 2.5 20 ft 15 ft 5-10 ft 20 ft See GP RS 10 Single Family Residential 10,000 sqft / 40% 30 ft / 2.5 20 ft 20 ft 10-15 ft 30 ft See GP RS 20 Single Family Residential 20,000 sqft / 25% 30 ft / 2.5 30 ft 30 ft 10-15 ft 30 ft See GP RS 40 Single Family Residential 40,000 sqft / 20% 30 ft / 2.5 30 ft 30 ft 10-15 ft 30 ft See GP RI 4 Single Family Infill 4,000 sqft / 50% 30 ft / 2.5 20 ft 15 ft 5-10 ft 15 ft See GP RI 5 Single Family Infill 5,000 sqft / 45% 30 ft / 2.5 20 ft 15 ft 5-10 ft 20 ft See GP RI 7 Single Family Infill 7,000 sqft / 45% 30 ft / 2.5 20 ft 15 ft 5-10 ft 20 ft See GP RI 10 Single Family Infill 10,000 sqft / 40% 30 ft / 2.5 20 ft 20 ft 10-15 ft 30 ft See GP RI 20 Single Family Infill 20,000 sqft / 25% 30 ft / 2.5 30 ft 30 ft 10-15 ft 30 ft See GP RM Multi Family Residential 5,000 sqft / 50% 35 ft / 3.0 20 ft 15 ft 5-15 ft 15-20 ft See GP Residential-Office / Office
RO Residential Office 5,000 sqft / - 35 ft / 3.0 20 ft 15 ft 5-15 ft 15-20 ft See GP OC Commercial Office 5,000 sqft / - 40 ft / - 15-30 ft 15-30 ft - - See GP Mixed Use
*MU-G Gateway Mixed Use 10,000 sqft / - 40 ft / - 15-30 ft 15-30 ft - - See GP *MU-T Tannery Bend Mixed Use - 30-50 ft /
2.0-4.0
15-25 ft - - - See GP
Commercial
CC Community Commercial 10,000 sqft / - 40 ft / - 15-30 ft 15-30 ft - - See GP CL Local Commercial 5,000 sqft / - 30 ft / - 15-30 ft 15-30 ft - - See GP CT Tourist Commercial 10,000 sqft / - 40 ft / - 15-30 ft 15-30 ft - - See GP *DCC Downtown 0-10,000 sqft / - 35-75 ft / - 0-15 ft 0-10 ft - 0-15 ft 10-60 *DMU Downtown Mixed Use 0-10,000 sqft / - 35-75 ft / - 0-15 ft 0-10 ft - 0-15 ft 10-60 *DN Downtown Neighborhood 0-10,000 sqft / - 35-75 ft / - 0-15 ft 0-10 ft - 0-15 ft 10-60 *OBC Oxbow Commercial 0-10,000 sqft / - 35-75 ft / - 0-15 ft 0-10 ft - 0-15 ft 10-60 Master Plan
Zoning District
Min. Lot Size/
Max. Lot
Coverage
Max. Height/
Max. No. of
Stories
Min. Setbacks & Yards
Density
(du/ac)
Front
Setback
Side
Setback
Side
Yard
Rear Yard/
Setback
*MP-G1 South River Place 10,000 sqft / - 57 ft / - - - - - 10-40 *MP-G2 Creekside 10,000 sqft / - 40 ft / - - - - - 10-40 *MP-G3 Tulocay Place - 40-50 ft / - - - 0-5 ft 0-15 ft 10-40 *MP-G4 Tulocay Village - 45 ft / - - - 5 ft 15 ft 25 min. *MP-NP-IL Napa Pipe Light
Industrial
10,000 sqft / - 40 ft / - 15-30 ft 15-30 ft - - See GP
*MP-NP-MUR-W Napa Pipe
Mixed Use Residential
Waterfront
2.7 ac max. / - 55 ft / - - - - - 20 max.
*MP-S Stanly Ranch Resort - 35 ft / - 0-80 ft 0-80 ft 0-80 ft 0-80 ft ^70 total
Public / Quasi-Public
AR Agricultural Resource 20 ac / - 30 ft / 2.5 50 ft 50 ft 20 ft 35 ft See GP Industrial
IL Light Industrial 10,000 sqft / - 40 ft / - 15-30 ft 15-30 ft - - See GP Notes: Density is provided in dwelling units (du) per acre (ac). *Residential density and development standards are in accordance with an approved and adopted area-specific plan. ^Total number of whole ownership dwelling units allowed under the adopted Stanley Ranch Resort Master Plan.
Source: City of Napa Municipal Code, Title 17 Zoning (2022) and City of Napa Downtown Specific Plan (2012) Development standards for overlay zoning districts can impact housing affordability by limiting where and how new housing can be constructed and at what densities. In general, overlay districts have no direct impact on housing unit density or may decrease unit density to protect public or environmental health, safety, or welfare, although the Affordable Housing Overlay District is specifically intended to increase minimum density.
Table E-2-4: Summary of Development Standards for Overlay Zoning Districts Overlay District Purpose
Impact on Residential
Density
Additional Development
Standards
AH Affordable
Housing
The AH overlay is intended to increase the
number of housing units attainable for low- and
very low-income households in residential,
mixed use, and master plan zoning districts.
Increase – Sets a higher
minimum density in RS, RI,
RT, RM, MU, and MP zoning
districts.
Prohibits age-restricted
development. Must comply
with requirements in Chapter
15.94, Affordable Housing
Impact Fees.
AC Airport
Compatibility
The purpose of the AC overlay is to protect
public health, safety, and welfare within the
land use compatibility zones established
through the Napa County Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).
Decrease – Discourages or
prohibits residential uses
depending on the
compatibility zone.
Applies restrictions on lot
coverage, structure height,
lighting, glare, and electronic
interference.
BF Building Form The BF overlay regulates structure height and massing (or bulk) within the Downtown Specific
Plan area.
No Direct Impact Must comply with
requirements in Chapter 4,
Section 4.7.2, Building Form
Zones, of the Downtown
Specific Plan.
ED Entertainment The purpose of the ED overlay is to provide opportunities for the establishment of
entertainment uses in the Downtown Specific
Plan area.
No Direct Impact Must comply with
requirements in Chapter 4,
Section 4.6, Entertainment
District Overlay, of the
Downtown Specific Plan.
FP Floodplain
Management
The FP overlay is established to protect public
health, safety, and welfare within all special
flood hazard areas in the city, including
preventing loss of life and property, health and
safety hazards, disruption of commerce and
governmental services, extraordinary public
expenditures for flood protection and relief, and
impairment of the tax base.
Decrease – Minimum
densities in the GP do not
apply to development of
five or more dwelling units
located within the flood
evacuation area.
Must comply with flood
protection and evacuation
planning requirements in
Chapter 17.38. Where there is a
conflict or overlap with other
regulations, whichever
imposes the more stringent
restrictions prevails.
HS Hillside The purpose of the HS overlay is to minimize water runoff, soil erosion, removal of vegetation,
susceptibility to geological hazards, and visual
scarring that can result from development in
areas with slopes of 15% or greater.
Decrease – Limits
maximum density in areas
with slopes 15% to 30% to
one dwelling unit per lot or
per acre and removes
density from areas with
slopes greater than 30%.
Requires design review and
user permit approval for new
development. Applies
alternative development
standards to minimize
impacts, including height
limits and reductions for
setbacks and yards.
PE Parking
Exempt
The PE overlay is intended to provide a
pedestrian-friendly environment in the
Downtown Specific Plan area by altering on-site
parking requirements and establishing public
parking facilities.
No Direct Impact On-site parking for residential
uses must comply with
requirements in Chapter 6,
Circulation and Parking, of the
Downtown Specific Plan.
PD Planned
Development
The PD overlay is established to encourage high
quality, innovative development design for
mixed uses through increased flexibility of
development standards, consistent with the GP.
No Direct Impact Provides for variations in the
development standards of the
underlying zoning district,
excluding density and FAR,
through discretionary design
review.
Overlay District Purpose
Impact on Residential
Density
Additional Development
Standards
SC Soscol Corridor The purpose of the SC overlay is to encourage land uses and high quality, creative
development designs that improve the physical
character and image of the Soscol Avenue
gateway corridor, consistent with the goals,
objectives, concepts, and intent of the adopted
Soscol Guidelines.
Potential Decrease –
Requires use permit
approval for uses not listed
as “desired” in the Soscol
Guidelines, which do not
list residential uses.
Requires design review and
approval for new
development, additions, and
exterior remodels. Applies
exceptions to height and
setback regulations.
TI Traffic Impact The TI overlay is intended to minimize traffic conflicts and congestion along sections of
crucial corridor streets, including Imola Avenue
West (State Route 121), Trancas Street, Lincoln
Avenue, Jefferson Street, Soscol Avenue, and
Solverado Trail.
Potential Decrease –
Prohibits high traffic
generating uses (defined as
520 or more traffic trips per
day per acre) unless the
transportation benefits of
the project clearly outweigh
its adverse effects.
Requires review and approval
from the Public Works
Department Director prior to
establishment of any use to
minimize traffic conflicts
through site design and offsite improvements, consistent with GP policies.
WS Water Setback The purpose of the WS overlay is to preserve the aesthetic and natural resource values of
waterfront areas adjacent to the Napa River by
minimizing the encroachment of future
development on open spaces, view corridors,
and water access points.
No Direct Impact –
However, prohibits the
location of an ADU or
detached rental unit
between the top of bank
and existing dwelling,
unless approved through a
use permit.
Allows one single-family
dwelling per parcel to be
located within minimum
setbacks and yards in any
residential zoning district.
Notes: Regulations of these overlay districts are in addition to, or in lieu of, those in the underlying zoning district. Generally, in the event of a conflict between regulations of an overlay and underlying district, the provisions of the overlay prevail.
Source: City of Napa Municipal Code, Title 17 Zoning (2022) In addition to the development standards listed in Table E-2-3 and Table E-2-4, the Zoning Ordinance contains minimum requirements related to lot creation (i.e., subdivision), separation of uses, and preservation of open space. The below list also identifies several more nuanced provisions for site development that account for unique circumstances and constraints. ▪ Lot Width and Frontage: Most districts include minimum required lot widths and lot street frontages that are measured at the front setback line or property line adjoining a street, respectively. Minimum lot widths and frontages may be reduced for configurations with divergent lot lines, such as those abutting cul-de-sac bulbs. ▪ Outdoor Area: In addition to the maximum lot coverage allowed for structures, residential districts with minimum lot areas of 7,000 square feet or less and two of the Gasser Master Plan districts (MP-G3 and G4) also require a minimum amount of usable outdoor area per dwelling unit, whether provided as private yard or common open space. The amount of outdoor space varies from 200 to 600 square feet per unit.
▪ Variable Yards and Setbacks: In several zoning districts, yards and building setbacks vary based on structure height, adjacent development, or road classification, providing larger buffer areas for separation of land uses and, sometimes, increased flexibility. These variabilities include the choice of a decreased yard setback on one side for smaller residential lots (7,000 square feet or less) and increased front and side setbacks adjacent to streets classified as Arterials or Collectors, where traffic volumes are higher.
▪ Building Stepbacks: There are also numerous zoning districts that require upper floors of buildings to be “stepped back” several additional feet beyond the minimum setback or yard distance. For example, in the RM Multifamily Residential district the second and third stories must be stepped back a minimum of 10 or 15 feet from the property boundary, respectively. ▪ Street Frontage: Specific street frontage treatments are required in the Gasser Master Plan districts MP-G1 through G4 depending on location and use, including separated sidewalks, landscaping and visual buffers, entrance locations, and building setbacks along Soscol Avenue, Gasser Drive, Hartle Court, Entry Street, and North Drive. ▪ Master Plans and Area-Specific Plans: Development standards for certain zoning districts must be in accordance with previously approved development, master, or other area-specific plans.
For example, residential density and development standards in the DCC, DMU, DN, and OBC zoning districts must be in accordance with the city’s adopted Downtown Specific Plan. Other districts have been established based on a “Master Plan” for the particular geographical area (e.g., MP-S Stanley Ranch Resort). Provisions in these plans are intended to achieve General Plan goals and policies, from resource preservation to affordable housing, through cohesive, wholesite designs that accommodate complex and innovative mixed-use development. ▪ Site and Use Regulations: Chapter 17.52, Site and Use Regulations, contains additional requirements pertaining to use-specific standards (S), agricultural buffers, creeks and watercourses, historic preservation, noise, outdoor storage, recycling areas, wetlands, and other site development standards.
Cumulative Impact of Development Standards
The cumulative impacts of development standards can unreasonably increase housing development costs and impede construction of new housing if not appropriately balanced among housing priorities, maintaining and enhancing community character, and protecting public health, safety, and welfare.
To provide increased flexibility, the City of Napa Zoning Ordinance includes multiple mechanisms to modify development standards. Section 17.52.470, Small Lot Development, provides relief specifically for development on unusually small lots with approval of a Use Permit, and Chapter 17.56, Administrative Exceptions, authorizes the Community Development Director to approve minor adjustments to zoning development standards. There are also provisions under Section 17.52.130, Density Bonus, to allow waivers, reductions, or other modifications to development standards for qualifying projects. In addition, the Housing Program H2-2.1 directs the city to update the Zoning Ordinance provisions for density bonuses and affordable housing project concessions, in accordance with state law. Such updates may include waiving or modifying certain development standards, such as maximum height or lot coverage, where they are found to negatively impact the feasibility of an affordable housing project.
Allowed densities in residential zoning districts are, for the most part, determined by the General Plan designation associated with the specific property and range from two to 12 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) for low density, eight to 18 du/ac for medium density, and 16 to 40 du/ac for high density and mixed use areas. The Affordable Housing Overlay District, which is applied to multi-family, mixed use, and other residential zoning districts, is specifically intended to increase the number of housing units affordable to low- and very low-income households by setting a higher minimum density requirement.
In addition, the multi-family zoning districts are designed to accommodate high-density residential projects, including the RM district with one of the smallest minimum lot sizes (5,000 square feet), the highest maximum lot coverage limit (50 percent), and a higher height limit (35 feet or three stories).
The city rarely receives requests to develop sites below minimum densities and, in those cases, such a proposed project would not meet the requirement to comply with the General Plan unless it was found that a lower density was necessary for the protection environmental resources or to mitigate known hazard risks. In the previous planning period, no sites identified to accommodate the lower-income RHNA in the site inventory were developed with less than the minimum allowable density, and about a third of multi-family projects located within multi-family residential zoning districts over the past two decades have developed at the upper end of the allowed density range.
Many projects in more recent years have developed at the maximum density allowed and taken advantage of density bonuses, demonstrating that higher densities can be achieved under the city’s development standards without the use of exceptions. Further, as density allowances have increased through General Plan and zoning updates, the City has accommodated the development of additional units for ongoing projects located on sites subject to such updates. Various types of projects in the pipeline are developing at or above the maximum density range, further demonstrating this more recent trend. Examples of recent projects developing at or above the maximum density allowed include those listed in Table 2-5.
Table 2-5: Examples of Development Density Achieved by Recent Projects Project Name
Dwelling Units /
Site Acreage Density Achieved Additional Information
Wilkins Townhomes 10 DU / 0.6 ac Max density Infill site; access to existing utilities and services; relatively flat topography
Vista Grove 27 DU / 4.9 ac Max density Infill site; access to existing utilities and services; relatively flat topography
Caritas 20 DU / 0.7 ac Above max via density
bonus
Infill site; access to existing utilities and services; relatively flat topography
Pietro Place (SoCo) 171 DU / 6.4 ac Above max via density bonus
Infill site; access to existing utilities and services; relatively flat topography
Monarch Landing 77 DU / 3.3 ac Above max via density
bonus
Infill site; access to existing utilities and services; relatively flat topography
With the Zoning Ordinance’s promotion of higher-density development and built-in flexibility, the city’s development standards are not considered a constraint on affordable housing. Additionally, recent projects have trended toward developing at or above the maximum densities allowed without the use of exceptions, demonstrating that the cumulative impact of the city’s development standards are not a hindrance to housing development, in general, or higher-density housing development, specifically. Even so, to further promote development at the upper end of allowed density, the Housing Element includes programs (H2-2.1, H3-1.2, and H3-2.2) which call for the city to update the Zoning Ordinance for greater ease-of-use and to ensure that standards are objective, which will guarantee that development standards do not impose a burden on housing development. Density Bonus Section 17.52.130 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies how density bonuses and other incentives, concessions, or waivers are provided for certain housing projects to implement requirements of the State Density Bonus Law (Cal. Gov. Code Sections 65915 through 65918). Such projects include moderate income for sale housing, residential development projects that include childcare facilities, student housing, senior housing, and rental or for sale housing affordable to low- or very low-income households. In 2023, state law will also cover group residential under Assembly Bill 682; thus, the Housing Element includes a program (H2-2.1) to update density bonus provisions in city code.
A density bonus is defined in state law as a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan.
Local governments must grant a density bonus and other incentives or concessions to developers who agree to provide a specified percentage of housing units at a rate affordable to lower income households as part of an approved development. Other incentives or concessions may include height increases, parking reductions, and waivers, reductions, or other modifications to development standards. The magnitude of the incentive depends on the total share of development that is designated affordable. Additionally, state law provides density bonuses to projects that donate land for residential use if that land satisfies certain criteria.
Assembly Bill 2334, adopted by the Legislature in 2022, allows for maximum heights and unlimited densities for qualifying housing projects located in an urbanized very low vehicle travel area in Napa County. A program (H2-2.1) to amend Section 17.52.130 and incorporate the requirements of Assembly Bill 2334 is included in the Housing Element.
Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots
Nonconforming development is that which was legally established but does not currently conform to the regulations of the zoning district in which it is located. Section 17.52.320 of the Zoning Ordinance provides for the continued operation of nonconforming uses, structures, or lots while controlling, reducing, or eliminating conflicts that may arise from the presence of such development and affording for the gradual elimination of incompatible or nuisance uses. Nonconforming uses, structures, and lots may be continued indefinitely subject to certain provisions. Mainly, nonconforming development is limited in the ways it can be altered that increase the degree of nonconformity.
For nonconforming uses, there are allowances for expansion or changes through administrative review or Planning Commission approval of a use permit, so long as the use will not be detrimental to any existing or potential permitted use in the surrounding area. A residential use that exceeds the maximum permitted density is considered a nonconforming use and may not increase in density but may be replaced or expanded upon approval of a use permit. For nonconforming lots, specifically, variances may be granted when the strict application of current development standards on new structures or uses would substantially interfere with the minimal economically viable use of the property.
Nonconforming structure regulations are not seen as a constraint to affordable housing given the flexibility of these provisions for continued existence, expansion, or rehabilitation.
An essential principle is that developers pay for the direct costs associated with a given residential project so that existing and future residents and property owners do not have to subsidize or provide costly improvements at a later date either directly or via city general fund expenditures. On- and offsite improvement standards establish infrastructure or site requirements to support new residential development. Requirements for these improvements vary with the project and the site. On-site improvements typically include grading, parking, storm drainage infrastructure, and landscaping. Offsite improvements can include street widening or construction, traffic light installation, and construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalk. A primary mechanism that implements on- and off-site improvements is the City of Napa Subdivision Ordinance, which regulates the division of land. Chapter
16.36 of the Subdivision Ordinance contains standards for subdivisions and design of public infrastructure improvements that are applied in conjunction with the city’s adopted Standard Specifications.
While these improvements are necessary to ensure that new housing is adequately served and does not constrain existing infrastructure, the cost of these requirements can represent a significant share of the cost of producing new housing. Such requirements can reasonably be considered regulatory barriers to affordable housing if the jurisdiction-determined requirements are greater – and thus, more costly – than those necessary to achieve health, safety, and welfare requirements in the community.
Streets and Transportation Network
Street and other transportation network infrastructure standards can have a direct impact on housing construction costs, including on subdivision design. The City of Napa’s standard street widths were established through interdepartmental discussions and input from the Development Advisory Committee; the standards are comparable to those of neighboring communities and are not viewed as a constraint to housing development.
Standards for new local, two-lane streets, which typically serve single-family residential development, vary in width curb-to-curb from 20 feet without on-street parking to 36 feet with parking on both sides.
For new collector streets through residential and mixed use neighborhoods, the standard is 40 feet or 50 feet where bike lanes are included. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk are typically required as part of street construction and must be provided in compliance with the city standards. In addition, pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle paths may be required to provide interconnectivity among community amenities, such as parks and schools, in conformance with General Plan goals and policies.
Utility Infrastructure
Installation of utility and fire protection infrastructure can impact housing construction costs, especially for larger development projects that require extending water and sewer lines, potentially including the construction of pumps or lift stations for adequate pressure and flow. City standards require most new utilities to be placed underground, but overhead utilities to existing structures may be allowed in some cases. If not accommodated within city road right-of-way, developers must also dedicate easements for construction and maintenance of utilities.
On-Site Parking
Providing sufficient parking for vehicles is an essential part of good planning to prevent negative transportation network and infrastructure impacts, as well as impacts on surrounding properties. At the same time, however, excessive parking requirements can be a barrier to new residential development at a range of densities necessary to facilitate affordable housing. The Zoning Ordinance establishes residential parking standards for properties located outside the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan area. For properties located within the Downtown Specific Plan area, parking requirements are set forth in Chapter 6, Circulation and Parking, of the Downtown Specific Plan. All current parking requirements for residential uses are summarized in Table E-2-6.
The City has found these requirements to be sufficient but not excessive. Napa’s parking standards are well within the typical range imposed by cities throughout California and, therefore, do not represent an unreasonable development constraint. In addition, the Housing Element includes a program (H3-
2.2) to update parking standards in compliance with Assembly Bill 2097 to significantly reduce and even eliminate parking minimums for residential uses near transit or within neighborhoods with low single-occupancy vehicle usage.
Where multiple structures or uses are involved, the aggregate total number of spaces must be provided.
For single-family attached or detached units and for apartment units, at least one parking space must be provided in a garage or carport, and tandem parking (one car behind another) may be allowed for garages or driveways serving a single household in single-family attached or detached units. All guest parking must be marked and distributed throughout a development. Up to 30 percent of required residential parking spaces may be designed as compact spaces.
Table E-2-6: Residential Parking Standards
Use Classification On-Site Parking Spaces Required
For Residents For Guests For Employees
Outside Downtown Specific Plan Area
Single-Family Detached 2 per unit minimum; plus 1 space for each bedroom in excess of 2
1 per unit, typically on-street
or in a commonly available
location for public use
Small Lot Single-Family
Detached (RM district
only)
1.5 for studio or 1-bedroom units; plus 0.5
space for each bedroom in excess of 1
1 per unit, typically on-street
or in a commonly available
location for public use
Single-Family Attached
(incl. condominiums)
1.5 for studio or 1-bedroom units; plus 0.5
space for each bedroom in excess of 1
1 per 4 units; or 1 per 2 units if
access is from arterials or
collectors where on-street
parking is prohibited
Apartments of 2 or more
units, dwelling group
units, and rental units in
vertical mixed use
1-3 units: 1.5 for studio or 1-bedroom units;
1.75 for 2-bedroom; 2 for 3-bedroom; plus 0.5
space for each bedroom in excess of 3
4-49 units: 1.4 for studio or 1-bedroom units;
1.6 for 2-bedroom; 1.8 for 3-bedroom; plus 0.5
space for each bedroom in excess of 3
50+ units: 1.25 for studio or 1-bedroom units;
1.5 for 2-bedroom; 1.75 for 3-bedroom; plus 0.5
space for each bedroom in excess of 3
1 per 4 units; or 1 per 2 units if
access is from arterials or
collectors where on-street
parking is prohibited
Housing for Senior or
Disabled Persons
1 per unit; plus 0.5 space for each bedroom in
excess of 2
1 per 4 units, marked and
distributed throughout the
development
1 for any full-time
employee and 0.5 space
for any part time
employee
Residential or
Intermediate Care
Facilities (or similar)
1 per 4 beds
Group Residential (incl.
SROs)
1 per sleeping room
ADU/JADU (or living
quarters)
1 per unit or quarter
Within Downtown Specific Plan Area
Single-Family Attached,
Condominiums, or
Apartments of 2 or more
units
1 for studio or 1-bedroom units; 1.2 for 2-
bedroom units; 1.3 for 3-bedroom units
*1 per 5 units; or 1 per 3 units
if access is from arterials or
collectors where on-street
parking is prohibited
Notes: *Guest parking is not required unless within 200 feet of a residential district Source: City of Napa Municipal Code, Title 17 Zoning (2022); City of Napa Downtown Specific Plan (2012) For any uses not listed in Table E-2-6 where another similar use is also not identified, parking is determined by the Planning Commission based on a parking study provided by the applicant or developer that is acceptable to the city. The parking standards for any specific use may be modified with a use permit, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission, in order to provide adequate and well-designed parking, which is fair, equitable, logical, and consistent with the intent of Chapter 17.54. Additional parking waivers or exceptions provided include:
▪ Senior or Disabled Persons Housing: Under certain circumstances, the Planning Commission may reduce the number of parking spaces required for these uses to 0.5 spaces per unit, plus one guest space per 12 units (with a minimum 1), and plus employee parking. To qualify for this exception, the housing development must be located conveniently to shopping, services, and public transportation (or a private shuttle must be provided); some or all units must be available long-term to low-income households; the number of resident vehicles must be limited to the number of non-guest parking spaces; and a development agreement must be provided. ▪ Group Residential and SROs: The Planning Commission may reduce the number of required parking spaces to 0.5 spaces per unit when the housing development is located within a quarter mile of a food market and a regularly scheduled public transit stop. In addition, some or all of the units must be available long-term to low-income households, or the number of resident vehicles must be limited to the number of non-guest parking spaces provided. A development agreement is also required.
▪ ADUs, JADUs, or Living Quarters: The parking requirement of one space per unit is waived for these types of residential uses if located within one-half mile walking distance of a public transit stop; located in a designated historic district; constructed within a principal dwelling unit or an existing accessory structure; located in an area requiring on-street parking permits where a permit is not offered to the ADU occupant; or located within one block of a car-share pick-up and drop-off.
Grading, Drainage, and Landscaping
Site grading, erosion and sediment control, stormwater drainage, and landscaping requirements can add costs to housing development, but are necessary improvements to protect public health, safety, and welfare and to provide the type of environment that residents desire.
The city has design and construction standards for site grading and drainage that must be met for new development to ensure soil stability and prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties or infrastructure. To accommodate increases in impervious surfaces from buildings, parking areas, and other site enhancements, drainage improvements may include engineered solutions like drainage swales, detention or retention ponds, or check dams to reduce off-site peak stormwater flows generated by development. Design features must also include reseeding exposed slopes and must minimize the use of artificial slopes (e.g., riprap).
In addition to providing an aesthetically pleasing and more heat resilient environment for residents, landscaping also helps stabilize sites after grading occurs, slows stormwater runoff, and prevents erosion. For this reason, city code requires preservation of existing trees and vegetation, when feasible, and may require landscaping plans depending on the type, scope, and location of development. City landscaping requirements also provide for efficient water use in new and rehabilitated landscaping through soil preparation, drought-tolerant plant selection, and irrigation system design.
Other Dedications and Exactions
In addition to road right-of-way and easement dedications to the city, developers are occasionally also required to dedicate land for, construct, or set aside funds for community facilities or amenities, which can add significant cost to a project and impact housing affordability. Such exactions are usually required for large residential subdivisions that increase demand on existing facilities, services, and amenities. When dedications, offers of dedication, or deferred on- or off-site improvements are required for a development, they must be secured through a separate instrument, such as an improvements agreement, which is recorded concurrently with, or prior to, the associated subdivision map.
Park land development is one of the most common exactions. Pursuant to the authority granted by the state under the Subdivision Map Act, the city requires dedication of land, payment of a fee in lieu of dedication, or both in proportion to the scope of development being proposed and in accordance with open space goals and policies in the General Plan. To that effect, two and one-half acres of land for park or recreational use, or its equal value plus 20 percent, is required for every 1,000 persons residing in a new housing development based on the average number of persons per dwelling unit and the maximum density allowed in the zoning district. Similarly, but less commonly, construction or financial contribution towards the construction of other public facilities, such as a fire station or library, may be required where the need for one is identified in the General Plan or the applicable area-specific plan.
Cumulative Impact of On- and Off-Site Improvement Requirements Considering the obvious benefits to overall community welfare and the necessity for reasonable regulations to protect public health and safety, the City of Napa’s on- and off-site improvement requirements are not considered a constraint to housing development. With code updates through various policies and programs in the Housing Element, city regulations strike a balance among costs to housing developers, maintaining adequate services and infrastructure capacities to support a thriving community, and enhancing the built and natural environments for the wellbeing of residents.
State housing element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites to be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of various types of housing for all economic segments of the population. This includes single-family housing, multi-family housing, manufactured housing, employee housing, emergency shelters, and transitional housing, among others.
Accessory Dwelling Units, Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, and Accessory Living Quarters Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), which are small living units that generally include cooking, bathing, and sleeping facilities and are accessory to a single-family home or multi-family building on the same lot, have a number of nicknames: granny flats, in-law units, backyard cottages, secondary units, and more. ADUs have the potential to meet a variety of housing needs because they provide affordable housing options for family members, friends, students, seniors, in-home health care providers, persons with disabilities, and others. (American Planning Association, 2021) In the City of Napa, ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) are exempt from General Plan density requirements and lot coverage percentages. When accessory to a single-family dwelling, only one ADU is permitted per lot, plus a JADU is also permitted provided the ADU is less than 800 SQFT. When accessory to multi-family dwellings, ADUs may be constructed in accordance with Cal. Gov. Code Section 65852.2(e).
ADUs and JADUs are allowed in all zoning districts where residential uses are allowed and can be rented but must not be sold as a separate unit or used for transient occupancy. ADUs are approved by issuance of a building permit unless the proposed ADU exceeds certain height requirements or is located on a lot containing a principal dwelling unit listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI), in which case an administrative permit is required. Parking for ADUs can be waived under certain circumstances. Additional development standards for these types of residential uses are set forth in Section 17.52.015. The City of Napa plans to amend Section 17.52.015 as part of a Housing Element program (H2-2.1) to address new state requirements, including for maximum height and front setback allowances.
In addition to information resources provided by the City of Napa, the Napa Sanoma ADU Center assists homeowners in navigating the development of new ADUs. The Center offers an online information hub that includes locally pre-approved ADU designs and construction plans but does not provide financial assistance. However, the City of Napa has an ongoing program to provide forgivable loans for the construction of JADUs and ADUs that are created by converting an existing accessory structure (e.g., a garage), provided that the owner rents the accessory unit to a low-income household for at least 20 years.
Manufactured Housing and Mobile Home Parks
Manufactured housing serves as an alternative form of affordable housing in places where the development of higher density multi-family residential units is not allowed or not feasible. Under Cal.
Gov. Code Sections 65852.3 through 65852.5, jurisdictions must allow certified manufactured homes on all lots zoned for conventional, stick-built single-family dwellings, and the only difference in regulation between manufactured homes and conventional single-family dwellings may be with respect to architectural requirements. In addition, Cal. Gov. Code Section 65852.7 specifies that mobile home parks shall be allowed on “all land planned and zoned for residential land use.” However, local jurisdictions are allowed to require use permits for mobile home parks.
The City of Napa Zoning Ordinance allows manufactured homes and mobile homes on a permanent foundation the same as any other single-family dwelling. However, mobile home parks are currently not allowed by right in any zoning districts and are not allowed at all in several districts and General Plan land use designations that allow other residential land uses. Compliance with state code regarding allowances for mobile home parks will be addressed through a Housing Element program (H2-2.1) along with an amendment to the definition of mobile home in the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
Employee and Agricultural Employee Housing
The Employee Housing Act (Cal. Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5) established standards for the construction, maintenance, use, and occupancy of living quarters called employee housing. Employee housing is defined by the Act as privately-owned housing provided in connection with any work, whether or not rent is involved.
Employee housing is defined in the City of Napa Zoning Ordinance to include housing for agricultural workers. Such housing where six or fewer individuals reside together as a household, identified as “small” employee housing in the code, is regulated the same as the type of housing it most closely resembles (i.e., a single-family home, typically) and is permitted in any zoning district where the comparable housing type is allowed. Cal. Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6 also requires employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in group quarters or up to 12 individual units designed for use by a single household, identified as “large” employee housing in the code, to be treated the same as an agricultural use. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance can be required for small or large employee housing that is not also required of a land use of the same type in the same zoning district.
Section 17.52.505 of the Zoning Ordinance generally allows employee and agricultural employee housing in accordance with state law; however, the Housing Element includes a program (H2-2.1) to update the Zoning Ordinance to comply with Cal. Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6 and allow large employee housing, up to 36 beds or 12 dwelling units, under the same provisions as any other agricultural use.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Consistent with state and federal Fair Housing Laws, the City of Napa adopted reasonable accommodation regulations and procedures in 2010 under Chapter 17.65 to eliminate obstacles and provide equitable access to housing opportunities for persons with disabilities. A reasonable accommodation may include such things as yard area modifications for ramps, handrails, or other accessibility improvements; widened driveways, parking areas, or walkways; building additions or interior modifications for accessibility; tree removal; reduced off-street parking; or development application fee waivers when warranted by financial circumstances directly resulting from a disability.
Requests for reasonable accommodation are reviewed administratively by the Community Development Director or their designee and are not subject to a fee or public hearing procedures. Once a complete application is received, a decision is made within 45 days which can be appealed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1.26. Such requests can be approved, with or without conditions, upon making the following findings:
▪ The subject property will be used by a disabled person; ▪ The requested accommodation is necessary to make the subject property available to a disabled person;
▪ The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city; and
▪ The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program or law, including land use and zoning.
The City of Napa follows state and federal regulations requiring any new residential construction that consists of three or more apartment units or four or more condominium units to be accessible or adaptable to meet the needs of persons with disabilities. The City has also adopted the California Building Standards Code, which includes universal design standards for new multi-family residential developments. No local amendments to the Code have been adopted that may diminish the ability to accommodate housing development for persons with disabilities.
Universal design is an inclusive design approach that integrates basic accessibility features into newly constructed residential units and make more structures accessible to persons with disabilities who are not necessarily residing there currently. Napa implements universal design standards in residential construction, including through mandating designs that follow Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for multi-family development and housing projects that use state or federal funding.
The definition of a household or family in the Napa Zoning Ordinance is a person or group of people who live together in a single dwelling unit, not including the renting of individual rooms. By not limiting the number or relation of people occupying a single unit, the definition does not impede the ability of persons with disabilities to locate housing. In addition, the definition of household does not constrain the use of a single-family dwelling unit as a community care facility, emergency or transitional housing, residential care facility, group home, or other special needs housing. In compliance with Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583, supportive housing for persons with disabilities is allowed in any residential zoning district that permits residential uses of a similar type in the same zone.
Residential and Intermediate Care Facilities
Cal. Health and Safety Code Sections 1267.8, 1566.3, and 1568.08 require local governments to treat licensed group homes and residential care facilities with six or fewer residents no differently than other by-right single-family housing uses. “Six or fewer persons” does not include the operator, the operator’s family, or persons employed as staff. Local agencies must allow these licensed residential care facilities in any area zoned for residential use and may not require licensed care facilities for six or fewer persons to obtain conditional use permits or variances that are not required of other family dwellings.
In accordance with state requirements, the Napa Zoning Ordinance allows residential care facilities, as well as intermediate care facilities, with up to six residents by right in all residential zoning districts.
Larger care facilities with more than six residents are allowed conditionally with a Use Permit in several zoning districts and are subject to the same restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same district.
Extremely Low-Income, Supportive, and Transitional Housing Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583 requires the quantification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs of extremely low-income households, which typically consist of persons with special housing needs, including persons experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness, persons dealing with substance abuse or other mental health issues, and farmworkers. General plan housing elements must also identify zoning to encourage and facilitate supportive, transitional, and single-room occupancy (SRO) unit types of housing.
The city’s Zoning Ordinance defines an SRO unit as a type of group residential use where five or more single rooms are intended for combined living and dining purposes for no more than two occupants per room. SRO units must comply with the provisions in Section 17.52.460 and are included in the definition of group residential where more than two rooms are offered for rent in multi-family districts or more than five rooms in single-family districts. Group residential is allowed conditionally through a Use Permit in multiple residential, mixed use, and office zoning districts. Single room occupancies that contain fewer than five single rooms in single-family districts are treated the same as similar types of residential uses in the same zone. The Housing Element includes a program (H2-2.1) to update the definitions of SRO and group residential uses in the City of Napa’s Zoning Ordinance and more clearly align with state requirements.
Section 17.52.505 of the Zoning Ordinance provides for transitional and supportive housing pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(5), where these uses are allowed in the same zoning districts and treated the same as the type of housing they most closely resemble. Supportive housing is housing with no limit on the length of stay that is occupied by a target population as defined in Cal. Health and Safety Code Section 53260(d) and is linked to on- or off-site services that assist residents in retaining housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. Pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code Section 65651, supportive housing is also allowed by-right in zoning districts where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted; however, Housing Element Program H2-2.1 includes an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to further clarify this.
Transitional housing is the next step in assisting persons with special housing needs to move towards permanent housing and, unlike supportive housing, has a limit on length of stay. Transitional units are rented and operated under a program that requires the termination of assistance and recirculation of the rental unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, but no less than six months from initial occupancy. This type of housing can take many structural forms, such as group housing or multi-family dwelling units, and may include supportive services to allow individuals to gain necessary life skills in support of independent living. Transitional housing for more than six persons where on-site supervision is provided is considered a large residential facility or community care facility. Such uses are allowed conditionally throughout the residential zoning districts. Approval of these facilities requires that the City make the same findings as for any conditional Use Permit.
Emergency Shelters and Low-Barrier Navigation Centers
The City of Napa has a history of supporting emergency housing and similar social-serving facilities.
Development standards in the Zoning Ordinance facilitate such uses by regulating them based on operational characteristics rather than singling them out.
Cal. Health and Safety Code Section 50801 defines an emergency shelter as housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less. In addition, no individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. Cal. Gov.
Code Sections 65582 and 65583 require jurisdictions to allow emergency shelters by right in certain zoning designations and where there is in fact land available and appropriate to accommodate a shelter. Only objective development and management standards may be applied to by right emergency shelters, given that they are designed to encourage and facilitate the development of or conversion to an emergency shelter.
Emergency shelters are specifically listed and allowed as a by-right permitted use within the Public, Quasi-Public (PQ-P) zoning district, and the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies more than 1,105 acres of Public/Institutional land within the city’s planning area available for emergency housing purposes; of that, approximately 743 acres are within current city limits and approximately 363 acres are within the city’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). More than 90 percent of the 1,105 acres available is fit for human habitation and not constrained by extreme topography, natural or humanmade hazards, or sensitive environmental resources. The PQ-P district is the best suited zone to accommodate emergency shelters by right, since transit and convenience services such as groceries and pharmacies are likely to be located nearby. Outside of the PQ-P district, emergency shelters are conditionally allowed with a Use Permit in all residential zoning districts and many nonresidential districts as community care facilities. However, the definitions of emergency shelter and community care facility within the Napa Zoning Ordinance differ from the state definitions, and recent changes in state law under AB 2339, which apply to the City of Napa as of January 1, 2023, expanded the types of zoning designations where shelters must be allowed by right. The Housing Element contains a program (H2-2.1) to amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance to update the definitions and identify shelters as a separate and distinct land use that is allowed pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4).
It is important to note that those emergency shelters owned and operated by Napa County, such as the South Napa Shelter, are exempt from city regulations. When development standards are applied to emergency shelters and community care facilities, they are the same standards as those imposed on other similar uses. Further, Section 17.16.040(M) states that development standards for emergency shelters in the PQ-P district shall be established in accordance with state law and there are no additional use-specific standards applied, such as bed limitations, lighting, or spacing requirements.
However, Housing Element Program H2-2.1 includes an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify development standards, including parking requirements, for emergency shelters in accordance with state law.
Cal. Gov. Code Section 65660 et. seq. requires local jurisdictions to allow qualifying low-barrier navigation centers by right in zones where mixed uses are allowed and in nonresidential zones where multi-family residential uses are allowed. A low-barrier navigation center is housing or a shelter in which a resident who is homeless, or at risk of homelessness, may live temporarily while waiting to move into permanent housing. These centers offer more services than a typical emergency shelter and may be combined with recuperative or respite care, navigation centers, and transitional housing used as an interim intervention. For a navigation center to be considered “low-barrier,” its operation should incorporate best practices to reduce barriers to entry, which may include:
▪ Permitting families and the presence of partners when not a population-specific site, such as for women, youth, or survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault; ▪ Providing privacy, such as private rooms or partitions around beds; ▪ Providing storage for private possessions; and
▪ Allowing pets.
Low-barrier navigation centers are not currently defined in the Napa Zoning Ordinance. A new program in the Housing Element (H2-2.1) will amend the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with state requirements and provide for these centers in the City of Napa. In addition, there are currently three emergency shelters and a women’s shelter currently located in Napa, as well as several transitional and permanent supportive housing developments and numerous small facilities (with six or fewer persons) located throughout the city that serve children, adults, and elderly. As evidenced by these existing facilities, the Zoning Ordinance does not constitute a constraint on emergency, supportive, or transitional housing. There are also Housing Element programs that will clarify and better align the Zoning Ordinance with state law, further reducing barriers to providing a variety of housing that serves all segments of the population.
Generally, land use controls in the City of Napa do not serve as a constraint to the development of affordable housing, or to the development of multi-family rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for employees and agricultural workers, supportive and transitional housing, SRO units, emergency shelters, and housing for persons with disabilities. While individual requirements in the Zoning Ordinance are not constraints on their own, the cumulative impacts may be considered a constraint due to complexity of the standards and processes. For this reason, the Housing Element includes a program (H2-2.1) to amend the Zoning Ordinance to comply with current state law and also to increase accessibility and ease-of-use for the general public through multiple techniques as outlined and recommended in the Zoning Ordinance Diagnosis Report (Appendix K).
Importantly, the 2040 General Plan’s goals and policies call for medium- and high-density residential areas to be developed and incentivizing the development of affordable housing. The 2023-2031 Housing Element also includes various policies and programs to address recent state regulatory changes and to further eliminate constraints on housing production. More specifically, Housing Element programs H2-
2.8 and H3-2.2 address development guidelines, processes, and fees for residential uses and for 100 percent affordable housing projects, in particular. An update to the Zoning Ordinance is anticipated to occur in short order following adoption of the new element and well before the next update cycle.
Building and fire codes can have a significant effect on housing affordability. They can also act as barriers to achieving designated densities or have unintentional impacts on community design and character. Inflexible standards may inhibit innovative housing types and design. The City of Napa enforces the 2022 edition of the California Building Standards Code for all structures subject to the code, including the construction and rehabilitation of housing.
State law offers local governments the option of amending the state standards based on geographical, topological, or climatic considerations. The City of Napa has adopted local amendments and appendices to the various codes primarily related to fire sprinkler systems and increased energy efficiency. While the amended sprinkler requirements add to development costs, they do not constrain the development of new housing except potentially for small accessory dwelling units, for which exceptions are provided. However, increased energy efficiency to meet state greenhouse gas emission goals must be balanced against increases in housing costs.
No local code amendments have been adopted by the City of Napa to the California Energy Code (Part 6 of Title 24), California Electrical Code (Part 3 of Title 24 based on the 2020 National Electrical Code), California Historical Building Code (Part 8 of Title 24), California Existing Building Code (Part 10 of Title 24 based on the 2021 International Existing Building Code), or California Referenced Standards Code (Part 12 of Title 24). Local amendments that have been adopted by the city include:
▪ California Building Code (Part 2 of Title 24 based on the 2021 International Building Code of the International Code Council): Appendix G, Flood-Resistant Construction; Appendix I, Patio Covers; Appendix J, Grading; and amendments as set forth in Napa Municipal Code Section
15.04.030.
▪ California Residential Code (Part 2.5 of Title 24 based on 20218 International Residential Code of the International Code Council): Appendix H, Patio Covers; Appendix K, Sound Transmission; and amendments as set forth in Napa Municipal Code Section 15.04.040. ▪ California Fire Code (Part 9 of Title 24 based on the 2021 International Fire Code): Appendix Chapter 4, Special Detailed Requirements Based on Use and Occupancy with changes under B, C, F, H, and K; and amendments as set forth in the Napa Municipal Code Section 15.04.080. ▪ California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24): Amendments as set forth in Napa Municipal Code Section 15.04.090.
▪ California Mechanical Code (Part 4 of Title 24 based on the 2021 Uniform Mechanical Code):
Amendments as set forth in Napa Municipal Code Section 15.04.060. ▪ California Plumbing Code (Part 5 of Title 24 based on the 2021 Uniform Plumbing Code):
Amendments as set forth in Napa Municipal Code Section 15.04.070.
None of the local amendments create a constraint or add significant additional costs to the development of affordable housing. In addition, most amendments are typical for the surrounding areas and are unlikely to deter residential development in Napa.
City of Napa code enforcement staff are responsible for identifying and resolving violations of the City Building Code, generally on a complaint-driven basis or in association with an active permit. Staff are responsive to complaints that focus on health and safety issues and are mostly involved in abating illegal construction activities that pose risks to people, property, infrastructure, or the environment.
When appropriate, city staff connect residents to resources, such as a grant program for owneroccupied unit rehabilitation, or through referrals to other assistance programs. As such, code enforcement does not constitute a constraint to the provision of safe and healthy affordable housing.
Some of the most common code complaints received by the city include:
▪ Unpermitted structures, and construction without permits ▪ Unpermitted ADUs and vacation rentals
▪ Keeping of roosters
▪ Outdoor accumulation of rubbish
▪ Home occupations
▪ Vision triangle obstructions, fence heights, and parking in setbacks ▪ Occupied RV, trailer, or vehicle
▪ Abandoned properties in a state of disrepair
Onerous or time-consuming application processing and permit procedures can contribute to housing costs. As such, improving multiple aspects of the development review process, including increasing accountability and improving project review time, has been a major focus for the City of Napa over the past decade.
In 2002, the City completed an assessment of the development review process that resulted in recommendations for process improvements, many of which have since been implemented. These recommendations included reorganizing and empowering development review staff; acquiring and implementing a permit tracking system; improving application submittal checklists; increasing the number of administrative approvals and express building permits; clarifying and unifying design standards; increasing building permit fees to support and expand building permit processing; providing priority processing for affordable housing projects; expanding early process outreach to neighbors; expanding development of area-specific plans; and improving customer service.
In many ways, Napa’s development review process is similar to other jurisdictions. Napa does not have any unusual permits, such as growth pacing programs, that occur at the development review stage, which can add months to a project prior to a decision. Also, the majority of development applications are relatively small infill projects that can be processed as categorical exemptions under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); few projects require environmental impact reports, which may add a year or more to the processing time for a project. Subdivisions, in particular, are subject to environmental review in accordance with CEQA. In addition, all discretionary permits for a project are handled concurrently.
The city does not have a separate design review board making recommendations to the Planning Commission which can add several months to the process. The city does have an appointed Cultural Heritage Commission to make recommendations on projects involving certain historic properties.
While this review adds time, it also reinforces the city’s priority for historic preservation.
Generally, development applications for smaller residential projects are reviewed and approved for construction within six months of the initial submittal date. Larger residential projects, such as major subdivisions, may take longer but typically less than one year for review and final approval. In most cases where a project takes more than six months or one year to complete, respective to its scope, the cause is external to the city process (e.g., incomplete or inadequate application materials and market pressures).
Certain land uses in the city, including residential, may be suitable only in specific locations in a zoning district or require special consideration in their design, operation, or layout to ensure compatibility with surrounding use; these conditional uses are subject to discretionary review under a Use Permit and are identified with a “C” in Table E-2-2. In addition, a Design Review Permit is generally required for the design of physical project improvements, and various levels of subdivision map review are required when dividing property to create additional lots or units. A number of these improvements or subdivisions can be administratively reviewed and approved while others require Planning Commission or City Council approval. For example, in compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 9, lot splits and development creating four or fewer new units in single-family zoning districts are currently reviewed administratively; although, Housing Program H2-2.1 will specifically clarify this allowance within the code and remove any inconsistencies. When discretionary approval for a Use Permit, Design Review Permit, or subdivision map is required, the decision-making body must make certain findings.
To approve a Use Permit, the decision maker must find that the proposed use:
▪ Is in accord with the General Plan, applicable specific plans, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the district and overlay district in which the site is located; ▪ Together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the city; and
▪ Complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance (i.e., also meets criteria for a concurrent requests).
To approve a Design Review Permit, the decision maker must find that the proposed project design aligns with certain guidelines that are intended to keep new development compatible with existing neighborhood characteristics. Architectural design guidelines for residential projects include standards related to site planning, common space integration, placement of additions, structure massing and bulk, locations and ratios of windows, and exterior building materials. Housing Program H3-1.2 will also ensure that the city’s design guidelines are objective, promote certainty for review outcomes, and support the development of diverse and well-designed housing options to meet the community’s needs. In addition, the following findings must be made for approval of a Design Review Permit:
▪ Is consistent with General Plan design policies and specific plan design policies; ▪ Is consistent with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council; and ▪ Is in accord with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety or general welfare.
To approve a Tentative Map for a subdivision that creates five or more lots or units, the decision maker must find that the proposed project:
▪ Is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; and ▪ Provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as described in the State Subdivision Map Act.
Most of the City of Napa’s property development standards are objective; however, findings required for discretionary approval are more subjective in nature. Consistent with state law, the Housing Element includes a program (H3-2.2) to convert subjective standards and criteria to objective throughout the Zoning Ordinance.
Much of the permit processing time frame is dictated by state-mandated noticing and processing procedures in the Permit Streamlining Act designed to ensure timely review of projects. Once a Use Permit, non-administrative Design Review Permit, or other discretionary review application is submitted, it is subject to the following steps:
Step 1. Completeness Review (30 days): City staff has maximum of 30 days to conduct an initial review of the proposed development project and determine whether the application is “complete”, or whether additional information is needed to evaluate the project. This timeframe includes referring the application to different city departments and external agencies, such as Napa County, involved in reviewing the project and consolidating comments received. During this time, staff anticipates what analyses will be needed for the project, if any, for environmental review and analysis or during the public hearing process, such as tree or riparian studies. If the project does not meet various city standards, it may need revision. Improved application submittal checklists have helped applicants identify what information is required for an application to be deemed complete with enough information and detail for evaluation.
Step 2. Applicant Response (no time limit): After staff provides comments from Step 1 to the applicant regarding any missing information in the application materials or necessary revisions to the project, the applicant is responsible for addressing deficiencies. Applicants may take several months to respond. When a revised project is submitted, the application will typically repeat Steps 1 and 2 until deemed complete. The number of applications needing multiple resubmittals has significantly decreased in recent years thanks to process improvements that have been implemented.
Step 3. Environmental Determination (30 days): Within 30 days of receiving a complete application, city staff must determine whether the project requires a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report under CEQA, or whether it can be categorically exempt. If not categorically exempt, staff prepares an Initial Study.
Step 4. Environmental Review Period (20-30 days, if required): If a Negative Declaration is prepared, the state-required public review period is 20 to 30 days, depending on whether a state agency is involved in the review.
Step 5. Public Notice of Planning Commission Review (10 days, if required): Staff must provide notice to the public at least 10 days prior to the project being reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing; however, this timeframe is typically combined with the longer environmental review notice in Step 4. During this time, staff also prepares a report detailing findings from the review.
Step 6. Planning Commission Review and Action (1 day, unless continued): The Planning Commission may act to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a project unless the project also requires City Council review, or the Commission may act to continue the public hearing to a later date if additional research or revisions are needed to alleviate concerns. When hearings for projects are continued, it is usually for a month or more to allow adequate time for applicant revisions and staff work. In those cases where the City Council is the decisionmaking body on a project, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to Council.
Members of the public may also appeal Planning Commission actions to the City Council within the allotted 10-day appeal period following an action.
Step 7. City Council Review and Action (2-10 weeks, if required): The City Council must act at a public hearing on amendments to the General Plan and rezoning requests, per state law. In Napa, specifically, Council also makes decisions on subdivisions creating five or more lots and multi-family or mixed use developments with more than 30 dwelling units. The timeframe associated with this additional public hearing for certain projects is an average of four weeks, but as little as two, from the date of the Planning Commission hearing for scheduling and to meet public notice requirements. In addition, rezonings are required by state law to go through a first and second reading for adoption, which adds another 30 days before the ordinance is final.
Step 8. Final Plan Submittal (no time limit): Once any discretionary approvals are secured, the applicant prepares and submits final site improvement (i.e., construction) or subdivision improvement plans when they are ready to proceed.
Step 9. Final Plan Review (3-4 months): Upon receipt of final site improvement or subdivision improvement plans, the Public Works Engineer routes the plans to various departments, as appropriate, for review against previous approvals. The Engineer then compiles any review comments and sends feedback to the project’s engineer if any revisions are necessary, generally within five weeks of plan submittal. It is then up to the applicant to revise the plans and resubmit. The subsequent reviews, when necessary, typically take less than five weeks.
Compliant final site improvement plans may be approved, or for final subdivision improvement plans, the final map is scheduled for City Council action.
Step 10. Building Permit Review (2-4 weeks): Building construction documents can be processed and approved concurrently with other site improvement plans under Step 9, but if not, applicants submit when they are ready. The typical timeline observed by city staff between discretionary approval and Building Permit application for affordable housing developments is 15 to 18 months. The first round of permit review typically takes two to three weeks and the need for revisions is common. Applicants then revise the plans and resubmit on their own timeline. Subsequent reviews typically take less time than the initial review. When plans are acceptable, a Building Permit is issued for construction.
Altogether, in Napa, a Use Permit or non-administrative Design Review Permit application may take three to six months for discretionary approval then another three to five months for approval of site or subdivision improvement plans and issuance of any Building Permits, or up to 11 months total.
Rezonings and larger projects, such as subdivisions creating five or more lots and mixed use or multifamily developments with more than 30 units, take longer. Table E-2-7 summarizes the review and approval process for several example market rate and other housing projects ranging from procedurally simple to complex. The eight example projects are:
1. By-right single-family detached residence
2. By-right small farm labor housing unit (with six residents or fewer)
3. Conditional use duplex (i.e., two single-family attached residences)
4. Conditional use emergency shelter with 30 beds
5. Conditional use 16-unit supportive and transitional housing facility with on-site services
6. Conditional use group residential/SRO building with eight rooms
7. 12-lot subdivision for by-right single- and multi-family residences
8. Conditional use 50-unit apartment building
Table E-2-7: Example Project Procedures and Processing Times Procedure Steps Typical Processing Time Approval Authority Example Project No. 1
Single-Family Detached Residence in RS Zoning District
2 to 3 Months Total – No Public Hearings
Design Review Permit (Steps 1-3) 2 months Community Development Director Building Permit (Steps 8 & 10) 2-4 weeks Building Division Example Project No. 2
Small Farm Labor Housing Unit in AR Zoning District
2 to 3 Months Total – No Public Hearings
Design Review Permit (Steps 1-3) 2 months Community Development Director Building Permit (Steps 8 & 10) 2-4 weeks Building Division Example Project No. 3
Duplex in RI Zoning District
6 to 9 Months Total – One Public Hearing
Use Permit & Design Review Permit
(Steps 1-6)
3-4 months Planning Commission
Site Improvement Plan Review (Steps
8-9)
3-4 months Public Works
Building Permit (Step 10) 2-4 weeks Building Division
Example Project No. 4
30-Bed Emergency Shelter in CC Zoning District
6 to 9 Months Total – One Public Hearing
Use Permit & Design Review Permit
(Steps 1-6)
3-4 months Planning Commission
Site Improvement Plan Review (Steps
8-9)
3-4 months Public Works
Building Permit (Step 10) 2-4 weeks Building Division
Example Project No. 5
16-Unit Supportive/Transitional Housing Facility with On-Site Services in CL Zoning District 6 to 9 Months Total – One Public Hearing
Use Permit & Design Review Permit
(Steps 1-6)
3-4 months Planning Commission
Site Improvement Plan Review (Steps
8-9)
3-4 months Public Works
Building Permit (Step 10) 2-4 weeks Building Division
Example Project No. 6
Eight-Room Group Residential/SRO Building in RO Zoning District 6 to 9 Months Total – One Public Hearing
Use Permit & Design Review Permit
(Steps 1-6)
3-4 months Planning Commission
Site Improvement Plan Review (Steps
8-9)
3-4 months Public Works
Building Permit (Step 10) 2-4 weeks Building Division
Procedure Steps Typical Processing Time Approval Authority Example Project No. 7
12-Lot Multi- and Single-Family Residential Subdivision in RT 5 Zoning District 11 to 16 Months Total – Two Public Hearings
Tentative Map Review & Approval
(Steps 1-7)
4-6 months City Council
Tentative Map Checkprint (Steps 8-9) 3-4 months Public Works Final Map Review & Approval (Steps 1-2
& 5-7)
2-3 months City Council
Design Review Permits for Individual
Lot Development (Steps 1-3)
2 months Community Development Director
Building Permits for Individual Lot
Development (Steps 8 & 10)
2-4 weeks Building Division
Example Project No. 8
50-Unit Apartment Building in OC Zoning District
7 to 11 Months Total – One Public Hearing
Use Permit & Design Review Permit
(Steps 1-7)
4-6 months City Council
Site Improvement Plan Review (Steps
8-9)
3-4 months Public Works
Building Permit (Step 10) 2-4 weeks Building Division
Notes: Typical processing times only include those timeframes controlled by the City and assume complete applications upon first submittal.
Source: City of Napa Municipal Code, Title 17 Zoning (2022) Project review and approval timelines are often impacted by the level of environmental review required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Before any development permit is granted, environmental analysis is required to assess project impacts and to determine whether public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed development.
Early in the process, once a complete application submittal is received, city staff determines whether the project is exempt from CEQA or requires preparation of a Negative Declaration (ND), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). CEQA determinations are made at the time of initial application processing so that environmental review can be conducted concurrently and, often, completed by the time a project is ripe for final approval and entitlements. All CEQA determinations and required noticing is done within the timelines required by state law and in a manner consistent with the Permit Streamlining Act.
Many smaller and infill projects are categorically exempt from CEQA, meaning no environmental review is necessary. MNDs and EIRs are most commonly associated with development projects on sites that require rezoning or amendments to the General Plan, or sites that are located in identified natural hazard areas, in wetland or riparian areas, or near important historic and/or archaeological resources.
CEQA mitigation requirements can add time and cost to the development process, such as incorporating special construction procedures or mitigation techniques to avoid negative impacts on special status species. Development fees for the preparation of EIRs may be substantial, as they typically exceed the minimum $2,500 deposit for major permits and cover the city’s costs for contracting out the service.
Examples of recently approved projects and the required level of environmental analysis include:
▪ Health and Human Services (HHS) Site: 15183 Community Plan Exemption (based on General Plan Compliance)
▪ Caritas Affordable Apartments: 15332 Infill Exemption ▪ Monarch Landing Affordable: 15332 Infill Exemption
Additional details about these projects in the pipeline are provided in Appendix B, Land Inventory.
Consistent with state law, the City has implemented an expedited planning review process for those housing projects that are 100 percent affordable. Regardless of the number of units proposed, discretionary review and approval authority for these affordable projects lies with the Planning Commission; approval from City Council is not required. Although there is no codified process for expedited Building Permit review of affordable housing projects, the typical timeline for initial review of most projects is two or three weeks, which is consistent with review timelines in other Bay Area communities and does not constitute a constraint on housing production.
Senate Bill 35 (2017)
SB 35 approved in 2017 requires jurisdictions that have failed to meet their housing needs allocation for certain income categories to provide a streamlined, ministerial entitlement process for housing developments that incorporate affordable housing. The city’s established procedures have aided in minimizing the review time required for development processes and, in turn, helped reduce costs to affordable housing developers, which may increase housing production in Napa.
The City of Napa was not subject to SB 35 streamlining until 2022; however, there have not been any qualifying housing developments that have applied under the process so far.
Assembly Bill 2011 and Senate Bill 6 (2022)
Assembly Bill (AB) 2011 and SB 6 enacted in 2022 both authorize housing development that meets specified objective standards and affordability and site criteria to be considered a use by right within zoning districts where office, retail, or parking uses are principally permitted. In addition, AB 2011 makes such development subject to a streamlined, ministerial review process and requires the project to comply with certain wage and labor standards. The specified conditions for housing development to be considered a by right use under SB 6 include requirements relating to density; public notice, comment, hearing, or other procedures; site location and size; consistency with sustainable community strategy or alternative plans; prevailing wage; and a skilled and trained workforce. The City of Napa Housing Element includes a program to address changes in state law under these two bills approved in 2022.
The City of Napa has a variety of tools in place to manage growth. The City’s General Plan identifies potential estimated growth by area and the major infrastructure improvements needed to serve that growth. Zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, and capital improvement programming is also used to implement the General Plan. In addition, new development is required to pay impact fees or otherwise assist in the construction of planned and needed transportation, parks, and water improvements.
Since 1975, the City of Napa’s Rural Urban Limit (RUL) line has established a maximum boundary for the city’s urban development. The RUL line is legally distinct from the city limits and Sphere of Influence (SOI). The RUL was first adopted in the General Plan and later incorporated into the City Charter, Section 180, through a ballot measure in 1999. As part of the City Charter, the RUL can only be amended with approval of the city’s voters except under limited circumstances, such as when necessary to comply with state or federal law.
The 2040 General Plan contains goals and policies to maintain a compact urban form and promote infill development. This includes focusing urban development within the voter-approved RUL to protect surrounding open space and agricultural uses and promoting efficient land use patterns to accommodate projected housing growth. In addition, the General Plan estimates likely development resulting from application of the land use classifications summarized in Table E-2-1 to vacant and underutilized properties within the city’s RUL and SOI growth boundaries (referred to as “buildout”).
Although there is no way to accurately predict when buildout will occur, the General Plan is expected to result in approximately 7,800 new housing units by its 2040 horizon.
The projected buildout in the 2040 General Plan estimates an average of 433 new housing units per year, outpacing the projected housing needs allocation of approximately 334 new units per year through 2031. Further, historic growth trends show that the average number of units constructed annually is around 300 units. As such, it is clear that projected housing needs can be accommodated within the growth management limitations of the General Plan and RUL. A slowing in the number of new housing units built annually as a result of market conditions may be a greater factor in meeting housing needs, as discussed in Section SECTION E.3, Potential Non-Governmental Constraints.
Development impact fees are intended to offset proportionate shares of impacts of new development on the community, and permit review fees help offset staffing and other administrative costs. While development fees can add substantially to the cost of housing, Napa’s fees are comparable to those of many other Bay Area cities. Development fees in Napa are directly related to the costs of permit processing and review and to the costs of providing schools, parks, streets and utilities, emergency response, and other services and infrastructure to service new development. Under Housing Element Programs H2-2.7, H2-2.8, and H3-2.2, impact and other city-imposed development fees will be analyzed and adjusted to balance the needs to fund public improvements and reduce project impacts with current market feasibility trends and affordable housing needs.
Affordable housing impact fees are also collected for all new development, except for affordable units and emergency housing owned and operated by a non-profit organization, to assist in providing new affordable housing. In addition, for each affordable or workforce housing unit, as defined by R2021-119, the Building Permit fee is reduced to 50 percent of what is charged for the market-rate equivalent.
Table E-2-8 provides a summary of fees (as of January 1, 2023) and other exactions that may be imposed on new development using several example market rate and other housing projects ranging from simple to complex. The eight example projects are:
1. 2,500-square-foot by-right single-family detached residence
2. 3,500-square-foot by-right small farm labor housing unit (with six residents or fewer)
3. 4,000-square-foot conditional use duplex (i.e., two 2,000-square-foot single-family attached residences)
4. 7,000-square-foot conditional use emergency shelter with 30 beds owned and operated by a non-profit organization
5. 16,000-square-foot conditional use supportive and transitional housing facility with 16 units at 800 square feet each and on-site services owned and operated by a non-profit organization
6. 5,000-square-foot conditional use group residential/SRO building with eight 500-square-foot rooms
7. 12-lot subdivision on a 3.1-acre infill site for six by-right detached single-family residences, four by-right duplexes (i.e., eight attached single-family residences), and two by-right triplexes (i.e., six attached single-family residences) at 2,000 square feet per residence
8. 52,000-square-foot conditional use 50-unit apartment building at 1,000 square feet per unit Table E-2-8: Example Project Fees and Other Exactions
Description Fee Calculation Total Fee Notes
Example Project No. 1
Single-Family Detached Residence in RS Zoning District
$68,313 in Total Initial Development Fees for
1 Dwelling Unit at 2,500 sqft
Design Review Permit Full cost per application
($1,500 min. deposit)
$1,500 min.
deposit
Building Permit $4,533 base fee + $1.87 / sqft
over 1,001 sqft
$7,336.13 CBC Group R-3
Description Fee Calculation Total Fee Notes
Automatic Fire Extinguishing
System Permit
$375 / dwelling unit $375 NFPA 13D system
Strong Motion Instrumentation
Program (SMIP) Tax
$0.13 / $1,000 of Building
Permit valuation
$0.95 Residential
Land Development Excise Tax $125 / dwelling unit $125 Residential Street Improvement Fee $4,723 / dwelling unit $4,723 General area Park Development Fee $1,003 / dwelling unit $1,003
Fire and Paramedic Development
Impact Fee
$656 / dwelling unit $656
Affordable Housing Impact Fee $4.75 / sqft $11,875
Napa Valley Unified School District
Developer Fee
$4.79 / sqft $11,975
Water Capacity Fee $6,296 flat fee $6,296 For 1-inch tap Water Tap & Meter Fees $1,070 / meter
$9,959 / pipe & tap
$11,029 For 1-inch tap
Napa Sanitation District Plan
Check & Inspection Fees
Plan check: $120 / lot
Inspection: $212 / lateral
$332 Residential
Sewer Tap Fee $11,087 / dwelling unit $11,087
Example Project No. 2
Small Farm Labor Housing Unit in AR Zoning District
$79,828 in Total Initial Development Fees for
1 Dwelling Unit at 3,500 sqft
Design Review Permit Full cost per application
($1,500 min. deposit)
$1,500 min.
deposit
Building Permit $7,343 base fee + $1.97 / sqft
over 2,501 sqft
$9,311.03 CBC Group R-3
Automatic Fire Extinguishing
System Permit
$375 / dwelling unit $375 NFPA 13D system
Strong Motion Instrumentation
Program (SMIP) Tax
$0.13 / $1,000 of Building
Permit valuation
$1.21 Residential
Land Development Excise Tax $125 / dwelling unit $125 Residential Street Improvement Fee $4,723 / dwelling unit $4,723 General area Park Development Fee $1,003 / dwelling unit $1,003
Fire and Paramedic Development
Impact Fee
$656 / dwelling unit $656
Affordable Housing Impact Fee $4.75 / sqft $16,625
Napa Valley Unified School District
Developer Fee
$4.79 / sqft $16,765
Water Capacity Fee $6,296 flat fee $6,296 For 1-inch tap Description Fee Calculation Total Fee Notes
Water Tap & Meter Fees $1,070 / meter
$9,959 / pipe & tap
$11,029 For 1-inch tap
Napa Sanitation District Plan
Check & Inspection Fees
Plan check: $120 / lot
Inspection: $212 / lateral
$332 Residential
Sewer Tap Fee $11,087 / dwelling unit $11,087
Example Project No. 3
Duplex in RI Zoning District
$120,809 in Total Initial Development Fees ($60,405 per Unit) for 2 Dwelling Units at 2,000 sqft Each
Use Permit Full cost per application
($2,500 min. deposit)
$2,500 min.
deposit
Design Review Permit Full cost per application
($2,500 min. deposit)
$2,500 min.
deposit
Building Permit $7,343 base fee + $1.97 / sqft
over 2,501 sqft
$10,296.03 CBC Group R-3
Automatic Fire Extinguishing
System Permit
$375 / dwelling unit $750 NFPA 13D system
Strong Motion Instrumentation
Program (SMIP) Tax
$0.13 / $1,000 of Building
Permit valuation
$1.34 Residential
Land Development Excise Tax $125 / dwelling unit $250 Residential Street Improvement Fee $3,198 / dwelling unit $6,396 General area Park Development Fee $744 / dwelling unit $1,488
Fire and Paramedic Development
Impact Fee
$656 / dwelling unit $1,312
Affordable Housing Impact Fee $4.75 / sqft $19,000
Napa Valley Unified School District
Developer Fee
$4.79 / sqft $19,160
Water Capacity Fee $6,296 flat fee / tap $12,592 For 1-inch taps Water Tap & Meter Fees $1,070 / meter
$9,959 / pipe & tap
$22,058 For 1-inch taps
Napa Sanitation District Plan
Check & Inspection Fees
Plan check: $120 / lot
Inspection: $212 / lateral
$332 Residential
Sewer Tap Fee $11,087 / dwelling unit $22,174
Example Project No. 4
30-Bed Emergency Shelter in CC Zoning District
$221,238 in Total Initial Development Fees for
1 Facility at 7,000 sqft
Use Permit Full cost per application
($2,500 min. deposit)
$2,500 min.
deposit
Description Fee Calculation Total Fee Notes
Design Review Permit Full cost per application
($2,500 min. deposit)
$2,500 min.
deposit
Building Permit $12,342 base fee + $2.06 / sqft
over 5,001 sqft
$16,459.94 CBC Group I
Automatic Fire Extinguishing
System Permit
Per system: $483 for first 50
heads + $136 for each
additional 25 heads
$619 NFPA 13/13R system; assuming
8 heads / 1,000 sqft = 56 total
Water Efficient Landscape Review
Fee
Per project $225 Based on landscape area 500 to
2,499 sqft
Strong Motion Instrumentation
Program (SMIP) Tax
$0.28 / $1,000 of Building
Permit valuation
$4.61 Commercial
Land Development Excise Tax $0.01 / sqft of gross floor area $70 Commercial Street Improvement Fee $1,083 / dwelling unit $16,245 General area; for congregate care facility based on 30 beds =
15 units
Fire and Paramedic Development
Impact Fee
$0.51 / sqft of commercial $3,570 Commercial
Affordable Housing Impact Fee Exempt Exempt Facilities owned and operated by a non-profit are exempt
Napa Valley Unified School District
Developer Fee
$0.78 / sqft $5,460
Water Capacity Fee $20,792 flat fee $20,792 For 1½-inch tap Water Tap & Meter Fees $1,582 / meter
$12,688 / pipe & tap
$14,270 For 1½-inch tap
Fire Service Pipe & Tap Fees $12,901 / pipe & tap $12,901 For 2-inch tap Napa Sanitation District Plan
Check & Inspection Fees
Plan check: $473 / building
Inspection: $420 / lateral
$893 Commercial
Sewer Tap Fee $11,087 / 0.75 of equivalent
dwelling unit
$124,728.75 Assuming 30 beds = 15
equivalent dwelling units
Example Project No. 5
16-Unit Supportive/Transitional Housing Facility with On-Site Services in CL Zoning District $404,605 in Total Initial Development Fees ($25,288 per Unit) for 16 Dwelling Units at 800 sqft Each + 3,200 sqft of Office (16,000 sqft Total) Use Permit Full cost per application
($2,500 min. deposit)
$2,500 min.
deposit
Design Review Permit Full cost per application
($2,500 min. deposit)
$2,500 min.
deposit
Building Permit $22,624 base fee + $1.20 / sqft
over 10,001 sqft
$29,822.80 CBC Group I
Description Fee Calculation Total Fee Notes
Automatic Fire Extinguishing
System Permit
Per system: $483 for first 50
heads + $136 for each
additional 25 heads
$1,027 NFPA 13/13R system; assuming
8 heads / 1,000 sqft = 128 total
Water Efficient Landscape Review
Fee
Per project $225 Based on landscape area 500 to
2,499 sqft
Strong Motion Instrumentation
Program (SMIP) Tax
$0.28 / $1,000 of Building
Permit valuation
$8.35 Commercial
Land Development Excise Tax $0.01 / sqft of gross floor area $160 Commercial Street Improvement Fee $3,198 / dwelling unit +
$5,391 / 1,000 sqft of office
$68,419.20 General area
Fire and Paramedic Development
Impact Fee
$589 / dwelling unit +
$0.32 / sqft of office
$10,448
Affordable Housing Impact Fee Exempt Exempt Facilities owned and operated by a non-profit are exempt
Napa Valley Unified School District
Developer Fee
$4.79 / sqft of residential +
$0.78 / sqft of commercial
$63,808
Water Capacity Fee $20,792 flat fee $20,792 For 1½-inch tap Water Tap & Meter Fees $1,582 / meter
$12,688 / pipe & tap
$14,270 For 1½-inch tap
Fire Service Pipe & Tap Fees $12,901 / pipe & tap $12,901 For 2-inch tap Napa Sanitation District Plan
Check & Inspection Fees
Plan check: $120 / lot
Inspection: $212 / lateral
$332
Sewer Tap Fee $11,087 / dwelling unit $177,392
Example Project No. 6
Eight-Room Group Residential/SRO Building in RO Zoning District $122,523 in Total Initial Development Fees ($15,315 per Room) for 8 Single-Occupancy Rooms at 500 sqft Each (4,250 sqftTotal) Use Permit Full cost per application
($2,500 min. deposit)
$2,500 min.
deposit
Design Review Permit Full cost per application
($2,500 min. deposit)
$2,500 min.
deposit
Building Permit $6,762 base fee + $2.46 / sqft
over 1,001 sqft = $14,754.54
(50% reduction applied)
$7,377.27 CBC Group R (except R-3); units
meet definition of affordable
under R2021-119
Automatic Fire Extinguishing
System Permit
Per system: $483 for first 50
heads + $136 for each
additional 25 heads
$483 NFPA 13/13R system; assuming
8 heads / 1,000 sqft = 34 total
Water Efficient Landscape Review
Fee
Per project $225 Based on landscape area 500 to
2,499 sqft
Description Fee Calculation Total Fee Notes
Strong Motion Instrumentation
Program (SMIP) Tax
$0.13 / $1,000 of Building
Permit valuation
$1.92 Residential
Land Development Excise Tax $125 / dwelling unit1 $500 Residential Street Improvement Fee $3,198 / dwelling unit1 $12,792 General area Park Development Fee $639 / dwelling unit1 $2,556
Fire and Paramedic Development
Impact Fee
$589 / dwelling unit1 $2,356
Affordable Housing Impact Fee Exempt Exempt Units 500 sqft or less are exempt
Napa Valley Unified School District
Developer Fee
$4.79 / sqft $20,357.50
Water Capacity Fee $6,296 flat fee $6,296 For 1-inch tap Water Tap & Meter Fees $1,070 / meter
$9,959 / pipe & tap
$11,029 For 1-inch tap
Napa Sanitation District Plan
Check & Inspection Fees
Plan check: $120 / lot
Inspection: $212 / lateral
$332
Sewer Tap Fee $11,087 / 0.6 of equivalent
dwelling unit
$53,217
Example Project No. 7
12-Lot Multi- and Single-Family Residential Subdivision in RT 5 Zoning District $1,314,608 in Total Initial Development Fees ($109,551 per Lot; $65,730 per Unit) for 12 Lots from 3.1 Acres (135,000 sqft) Total and 20 Dwelling Units at 2,000 sqft Each Subdivision
Subtotal of $28,319 + Infrastructure Costs ($2,360 per Lot) for 12 Lots at 5,000 to 15,000 sqft
Tentative Map Review Full cost per application
($2,500 min. deposit)
$2,500 min.
deposit
Final Map Review Full cost per application
($2,500 min. deposit)
$2,500 min.
deposit
Public Road Right-of-Way &
Easement Dedication
N/A N/A Exaction; assuming 20% of
total land area = 27,000 sqft of
dedication
Public Street Construction Full cost Varies 475 ft of street; includes curb, gutter, and sidewalk
Sewer Main Extension Full cost Varies 475 ft of main
Plan Check & Inspection for Sewer
Main Extension
Plan check: $120 / lot
Inspection: $420 / 100 ft
$3,435 475 ft of main
Water Line Extension Full cost Varies 475 ft of line
Fire Hydrant Meter & Backflow
Device Set Fee + Deposit
Set fee: $140 / meter
Deposit: $1,750 / meter
$1,890 For 1 new hydrant
Description Fee Calculation Total Fee Notes
Fire Hydrant, Lateral & Valves $16,821 / hydrant $16,821 For 1 new hydrant Fire Hydrant Flush & Flow Test $233 / hydrant $233 For 1 new hydrant Engineering Plan Check Review Full cost Varies
Engineering Permit Fee $540 per application $540 For excavation and encroachment, with basic
inspection and traffic control
Water Efficient Landscape Review
Fee
Per project $400 Based on landscape area
greater than 2,500 sqft
Six Detached Single-Family Residences on Six 5,000 sqft Lots Subtotal of $409,116 ($68,186 per Lot/Unit) for
6 Dwelling Units at 2,000 sqft Each
Design Review Permit Full cost per application
($1,500 min. deposit)
$9,000 min.
deposit
Building Permit $4,533 base fee + $1.87 / sqft
over 1,001 sqft
$38,406.78 CBC Group R-3
Automatic Fire Extinguishing
System Permit
$375 / dwelling unit $2,250 NFPA 13D system
Strong Motion Instrumentation
Program (SMIP) Tax
$0.13 / $1,000 of Building
Permit valuation
$4.99 Residential
Land Development Excise Tax $125 / dwelling unit $750 Residential Street Improvement Fee $4,723 / dwelling unit $28,338 General area Park Dedication Fee $6,581 / dwelling unit $39,486
Fire and Paramedic Development
Impact Fee
$656 / dwelling unit $3,936
Affordable Housing Impact Fee $4.75 / sqft $57,000
Napa Valley Unified School District
Developer Fee
$4.79 / sqft $57,480
Water Capacity Fee $6,296 flat fee / tap $37,776 For 1-inch taps Water Tap & Meter Fees $1,070 / meter
$9,959 / pipe & tap
$66,174 For 1-inch taps
Napa Sanitation District Plan
Check & Inspection Fees
Plan check: $120 / lot
Inspection: $212 / lateral
$1,992
Sewer Tap Fee $11,087 / dwelling unit $66,522
Four Duplexes on Four 10,000 sqft Lots
Subtotal of $502,357 ($125,589 per Lot; $62,795 per Unit) for 8 Dwelling Units at 2,000 sqft Each
Design Review Permit Full cost per application
($1,500 min. deposit)
$6,000 min.
deposit
Description Fee Calculation Total Fee Notes
Building Permit $7,343 base fee + $1.97 / sqft
over 2,501 sqft
$41,184.12 CBC Group R-3
Automatic Fire Extinguishing
System Permit
$375 / dwelling unit $3,000 NFPA 13D system
Strong Motion Instrumentation
Program (SMIP) Tax
$0.13 / $1,000 of Building
Permit valuation
$5.35 Residential
Land Development Excise Tax $125 / dwelling unit $1,000 Residential Street Improvement Fee $3,198 / dwelling unit $25,584 General area Park Dedication Fee $4,884 / dwelling unit $39,072
Fire and Paramedic Development
Impact Fee
$656 / dwelling unit $5,248
Affordable Housing Impact Fee $4.75 / sqft $76,000
Napa Valley Unified School District
Developer Fee
$4.79 / sqft $76,640
Water Capacity Fee $6,296 flat fee / tap $50,368 For 1-inch taps Water Tap & Meter Fees $1,070 / meter
$9,959 / pipe & tap
$88,232 For 1-inch taps
Napa Sanitation District Plan
Check & Inspection Fees
Plan check: $120 / lot
Inspection: $212 / lateral
$1,328
Sewer Tap Fee $11,087 / dwelling unit $88,696
Two Triplexes on Two 15,000 sqft Lots
Subtotal of $374,816 ($187,408 per Lot; $62,469 per Unit) for 6 Dwelling Units at 2,000 sqft Each
Design Review Permit Full cost per application
($1,500 min. deposit)
$3,000 min.
deposit
Building Permit $16,606 base fee + $5.89 / sqft
over 5,001 sqft
$44,980.22 CBC Group R (except R-3)
Automatic Fire Extinguishing
System Permit
Per system: $483 for first 50
heads + $136 for each
additional 25 heads
$966 NFPA 13/13R system; 1 system /
structure; assuming 8 heads /
1,000 sqft = 96 total
Strong Motion Instrumentation
Program (SMIP) Tax
$0.13 / $1,000 of Building
Permit valuation
$5.85 Residential
Land Development Excise Tax $125 / dwelling unit $750 Residential Street Improvement Fee $3,198 / dwelling unit $19,188 General area Park Dedication Fee $4,196 / dwelling unit $25,176
Fire and Paramedic Development
Impact Fee
$589 / dwelling unit $3,534
Affordable Housing Impact Fee $4.05 / sqft $48,600
Description Fee Calculation Total Fee Notes
Napa Valley Unified School District
Developer Fee
$4.79 / sqft $57,480
Water Capacity Fee $6,296 flat fee / tap $37,776 For 1-inch taps Water Tap & Meter Fees $1,070 / meter
$9,959 / pipe & tap
$66,174 For 1-inch taps
Napa Sanitation District Plan
Check & Inspection Fees
Plan check: $120 / lot
Inspection: $212 / lateral
$664
Sewer Tap Fee $11,087 / dwelling unit $66,522
Example Project No. 8
50-Unit Apartment Building in OC Zoning District
$1,446,753 + Infrastructure Costs in Total Initial Development Fees ($28,935 per Unit) for 50 Dwelling Units at 1,000 sqft Each (52,000 sqft Total) Use Permit Full cost per application
($2,500 min. deposit)
$2,500 min.
deposit
Design Review Permit Full cost per application
($2,500 min. deposit)
$2,500 min.
deposit
Public Road Right-of-Way &
Easement Dedication
N/A N/A Exaction; 3,000 sqft of land
dedication for future road
widening
Street Improvements Full cost Varies 200 ft of curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements
Engineering Plan Check Review Full cost Varies
Engineering Permit Fee $540 per application $540 For excavation and encroachment, with basic
inspection and traffic control
Building Permit $80,616 base fee + $0.64 / sqft
over 50,001 sqft
$81,895.36 CBC Group R (except R-3)
Automatic Fire Extinguishing
System Permit
Per system: $483 for first 50
heads + $136 for each
additional 25 heads
$2,523 NFPA 13/13R system; assuming
8 heads per 1,000 sqft (total 416
heads)
Water Efficient Landscape Review
Fee
Per project $400 Based on landscape area
greater than 2,500 sqft
Strong Motion Instrumentation
Program (SMIP) Tax
$0.13 / $1,000 of Building
Permit valuation
$10.65 Residential
Land Development Excise Tax $125 / dwelling unit $6,250 Residential Street Improvement Fee $3,198 / dwelling unit $159,900 General area Park Development Fee $639 / dwelling unit $31,950
Fire and Paramedic Development
Impact Fee
$589 / dwelling unit $29,450
Affordable Housing Impact Fee $4.05 / sqft $210,600
Description Fee Calculation Total Fee Notes
Napa Valley Unified School District
Developer Fee
$4.79 / sqft $249,080
Water Capacity Fee $62,207 flat fee $62,207 For 3-inch tap Water Tap & Meter Fees $3,854 / meter
$24,550 / pipe & tap
$28,404 For 3-inch tap
Fire Service Pipe & Tap Fees $12,914 / pipe & tap $12,914 For 4-inch tap Fire Hydrant Meter & Backflow
Device Set Fee + Deposit
Set fee: $140 / meter
Deposit: $1,750 / meter
$1,890 For 1 new hydrant
Fire Hydrant & Valves Full cost / hydrant $8,000 For 1 new hydrant (cost estimated)
Fire Hydrant Flush & Flow Test $233 / hydrant $233 For 1 new hydrant Napa Sanitation District Plan
Check & Inspection Fees
Plan check: $944 / building
Inspection: $212 / lateral
$1,156
Sewer Tap Fee $11,087 / dwelling unit $554,350
Notes: Building Permit fees include engineering review, planning review, building plan review, fire clearance except automatic extinguishing systems, and inspections. Full cost is the fully burdened rate for staff or consultant time in addition to equipment and materials costs (e.g., vehicle, meter) incurred by the city in performing a service. 1Dwelling unit equivalent for SRO rooms is 1 unit for every 2 rooms, per Section 17.52.460.B.1.
Source: City of Napa Master Fee Schedule (2022); Napa Sanitation District Fees and Charges (2022); Napa Valley Unified School District Developer Fees (2022)
City of Napa, Napa Valley Unified School District, and Napa Sanitation District fees cover costs of development review, permit processing, and mitigation of impacts on service and infrastructure capacities among others. In addition, the City has taken steps to defer fees for affordable housing projects; however, it is difficult to entirely waive impact fees related to new development as some entity, usually the city, must make up the difference.
Overall, city fees are relatively low, mimicking Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation rates, and do not constitute an impediment to new residential development in general. Development impact fees were adopted following nexus studies completed in accordance with state law. Fees are indexed regularly and can increase or decrease based on construction cost indices. In addition, Housing Element Programs H2-2.7, H2-2.8, and H3-2.2 direct the city to analyze and adjust its fees to better align with current market trends and affordable housing needs. Impact fees are typically collected at the time of permit issuance unless otherwise deferred, such as to the time of building occupancy for affordable housing projects.
The current development fees for a new 2,500-square-foot single-family home amount to about 10 percent of the total development cost, including hard construction costs (e.g., materials, labor) but not the costs of land or site improvements, as discussed in Section E.3.1. Similarly, fees amount to around 10 percent of the total development cost for a 50-unit apartment building with 1,000-square-foot units.
If land and site improvement costs are also included, the percentage of cost attributable to impact and permitting fees decreases. Though development fees represent a significant portion of residential construction costs, the city finds that these fees are necessary to provide adequate public facilities, infrastructure, and services, and Napa’s fees are generally comparable to, or less than, the fees of other Bay Area communities.
Affordable Housing Impact Fees
To promote the achievement of policy goals identified in the Housing Element of the Napa General Plan, and to mitigate the impacts that development projects have on the need for affordable housing, the city imposes an Affordable Housing Impact Fee on every development project whether residential or nonresidential except that fees are not imposed for “affordable units” as defined in NMC Section
15.94.020. In general, each development project creates a need for additional employees to provide goods and services to residents and businesses. Since a portion of those additional employees are lower wage earners (generally at 80 percent or less of area median income), a demand is created for affordable housing units for those employees. The impact fees collected from development projects, along with other available revenue sources, provide direct funding, subsidies, and incentives to increase, improve, or preserve the supply of housing units in Napa that are affordable to extremely low, very low, and low income households. Developers also have the option to satisfy the affordable housing impact fee obligation through alternative means, such as the construction of affordable units, in accordance with Section 15.94.070 of the Municipal Code.
Chapter 15.94 of the Municipal Code contains regulations implementing the Affordable Housing Impact Fee, including the method of fee calculation; procedures for application, reduction, or waiver of the fee; alternative options to paying the fee; allowed uses for the fees collected; and enforcement. Revenue collected under this chapter may be used, directly or indirectly, to construct new affordable units, acquire real property for development of affordable units, convert existing market rate units to affordable units, preserve existing affordable units, or subsidize the private development of rental or ownership affordable units.
Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(6) requires general plan housing elements to contain an analysis of non-governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction.
Potential non-governmental constraints are largely determined by market conditions over which local jurisdictions have little control.
In the City of Napa, the price of housing has generally risen since the late 1970s at a faster rate than household income. Contributing factors include increased costs of land, construction labor and materials, financing, and fees associated with real estate sales commissions and profits. Another factor has been the increasing perception of housing as a commodity for speculation. Although these trends reversed in 2008 with the recession, housing values and rents have been rising once again since 2012 with significant increases in more recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic also impacted housing trends as significant numbers of people left urban centers seeking larger living spaces with the ability to work remotely rather than physically commuting to an office.
Recognizing the high cost of housing and the large gap between affordable housing costs and the level of housing expenses that lower-income households can afford, the City of Napa’s primary efforts to address non-governmental constraints to housing production is the use of Affordable Housing Impact Fees to assist in the development of affordable housing units. The impact fees collected from development projects, provide direct funding, subsidies, and incentives to increase, improve, or preserve the supply of housing units in Napa that are affordable to extremely low, very low, and, low income households.
Land and construction costs represent two of the most significant components of the overall cost of new housing. Both components fluctuate with market conditions. Factors affecting land costs include overall availability in a given subregion; environmental site conditions and constraints; public service and infrastructure availability; aesthetic considerations such as views, terrain, and vegetation; proximity to urban areas; and parcel size. Construction costs depend primarily on the costs of materials and labor, referred to as hard construction costs, which are influenced by market demand but also depend on the type and quality of housing unit being built. Cost of labor is based on a number of factors, including housing demand, the number of contractors in the area, and the unionization of workers.
Rising land and construction costs in the City of Napa present a potential constraint on housing development and directly impact housing costs.
Land Costs
In Napa, vacant land for all types of housing is limited and the price of land remains high, but costs can vary depending on location, lot size and configuration, and zoning. While land costs are generally lower in greenfield areas on the city edges, these areas often require a greater amount of investment in backbone infrastructure and site improvements before construction can begin. Conversely, infill areas in developed portions of the city can take advantage of existing improvements and better access to services and amenities so costs are correspondingly higher. However, aging infrastructure in infill areas may require repairs or upgrades, the costs of which are typically borne by the developer.
Construction Costs
The hard costs of construction comprise more than 60 percent of total development costs. The greatest determinant of hard costs is the type of building. Single-story, wood-framed structures like singlefamily homes are the least costly to build, whereas multi-story steel-reinforced, poured-in-place concrete structures (type I construction) are the most expensive, such as high-rise apartment buildings. Therefore, type I high-rise buildings are more likely to be financially feasible in markets with high rents. (Terner Center for Housing Innovation, 2020) On average, construction costs in California were about $222 per square foot in 2018 compared to $177 in 2008 to 2009, representing a 25 percent increase over the decade, and costs have continued to increase since 2018. (Id.) According to the California Construction Cost Index (CCI), which is published by the California Department of General Services (DGS) based on Building Cost Index (BCI) average cost indices for San Francisco and Los Angeles, construction trade labor and materials costs in California have increased more than 26 percent from 2020 to 2022. However, it is important to note that the BCI reports do not reflect the current market bidding environment. See Figure 3-1 for CCI trends from 2016 to 2022. (DGS, 2023)
Several factors have caused the increased cost of materials, including global trade patterns and federal policy decisions, such as tariffs, as well as state and local regulations, such as building codes. Costs in the region have also been impacted by the loss of residential units to wildfires in the past several years.
More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the cost and availability of construction materials, with supply chain disruptions resulting in project delays and increased costs due to a shortage of materials and equipment. Further, average hard costs in the Bay Area are significantly higher compared to the rest of the state even when controlling for project characteristics. For projects in the Bay Area, costs rose 119 percent over the 2008 to 2018 period, reaching more than $380 per square foot in 2018. (Terner Center for Housing Innovation, 2020)
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000
8,500
9,000
9,500
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
CCI
California Construction Cost Index (CCI), 2016 - 2022
Figure 3-1: California Construction Cost Index (CCI), 2016-2020 Source: California Department of General Services Real Estate Services Division (dgs.ca.gov/RESD), 2023 Labor costs have also increased in recent years, as the labor pool has not kept pace with the increase in development demand. Since the recession, California has seen a severe tightening in the construction labor market, especially for workers trained in specific trades. The lack of an available labor force drives up the cost of labor and leads to project delays as workers are either unavailable or lost to more profitable projects. Although wages for construction workers are higher in the Bay Area than elsewhere in the state, reflecting higher costs of living, when adjusted for inflation using the local CPI, wages have failed to keep pace with local increases. This may be contributing to challenges and delays in attracting employees reported by developers. (Id.) According to HomeGuide.com, the current average cost to build a 2,000-square-foot single-family home in the United States is $201,000 to $310,000, or $101 to $155 per square foot, depending on location, design, and finishes. The average nationwide cost of building a three-bedroom house is between $248,000 and $310,000, while the cost to build a four-bedroom house about $388,000 to $465,000. The cost to build a small two-bedroom house is as low as $93,000.
According to construction cost data published by RS Means, the per square foot cost of single-family construction in Napa County is likely to be approximately $253 per square foot, not including land, site improvement costs, or soft costs such as permit fees. For multi-family development, RS Means indicates that per square foot construction costs in Napa County could be approximately $232 per square foot. Site improvement costs may be approximately $50,000 per lot or more for a single-family home, but per unit site improvement costs are generally lower for multi-family development. However, this can vary substantially due to contributing factors such as the size of the lot, availability of water and sewer service, environmental constraints, and other conditions that could drive up costs.
Consequently, hard construction costs for a new 2,500-square-foot single-family home are likely around $632,500 and hard costs for a 1,000-square-foot unit that is part of a multi-family development around $232,000.
Construction costs can be reduced in several ways. A reduction in amenities and the quality of building materials in new homes that still meet minimum acceptability for health, safety, and adequate performance, may result in lower sales prices. In this regard, state housing law provides that local building departments can authorize the use of alternative materials and construction methods if the proposed design is found to be satisfactory and the materials are at least equivalent to what is prescribed by the applicable code. In addition, prefabricated, factory-built housing may provide lowerpriced products by reducing labor and material costs with greater economies of scale. As the number of units built at one time and in one place increases, savings in construction costs over the entire development are generally realized.
The availability of financing is a critical factor that can influence the cost and supply of housing. There are generally two types of financing used in the housing market: capital used for initial site preparation and construction and capital used to finance the purchase of units by homeowners and investors.
Interest rates substantially impact home construction, purchase, and improvement costs. There is little that local governments can do to affect these rates, which are determined by national policies and economic conditions, and a small fluctuation in rates can make a dramatic difference in the annual income needed to qualify for a loan. In addition, economic variability due to COVID-19 has made lenders more cautious, reviewing applicants more closely than in the past, and could have lasting effects on the availability of financing.
In recent years, financing for both construction and long-term mortgages has generally been available in Napa at reasonable rates, subject to normal underwriting standards. However, rates can change significantly and suddenly, impacting the affordability of housing stock. If interest rates rise, not only does it make new construction more costly, since construction period loans are short-term and bear a higher interest rate than amortized mortgages, but it can also lower the sales price that buyers can afford to pay. When interest rates rise, the market typically compensates by decreasing housing prices.
Similarly, when interest rates decrease, housing prices begin to rise. There is often a lag in the market, causing housing prices to remain high when interest rates rise until the market catches up, and lowerincome households often find it most difficult to purchase a home during this lag period.
First-time homebuyers are the group most impacted by financing requirements. As of June 2022, the current mortgage interest rate for new home purchases is approximately 4.87 percent for a fixed-rate 30-year loan; however, rates increased significantly in the last several months of 2022 and the lending market continues to be volatile, slowing the real estate market in general. Lower initial rates are available with graduated payment mortgages, adjustable-rate mortgages, and buy-down mortgages; however, the subprime crisis has affected the availability of dollars for home mortgages. Variable interest rate mortgages on affordable homes may increase to the point where the interest rate exceeds the cost-of-living adjustments, which is a constraint on affordability. Fluctuating interest rates can eliminate many potential homebuyers from the housing market or render a housing project infeasible that could have been successfully developed or marketed at lower interest rates.
Interest rates at the present time, especially considering the volatility of the lending market, can be considered a constraint to affordable housing; although, a more critical impediment to homeownership involves both the affordability of the housing stock and the ability of potential buyers to fulfill downpayment requirements. Conventional home loans typically require five to 20 percent of the sales price as a down payment, which is the largest constraint to first-time homebuyers. This indicates a need for flexible loan programs and a method to bridge the gap between the down payment and a potential homeowner’s available funds. The availability of financing for developers under current economic conditions may also pose a constraint on development that is outside of the city’s control.
Developers of affordable housing face challenges in securing financing. Due to the limited possible return from rents or sales prices of affordable units, many private lenders distrust the financial returns for these types of projects. Additional financing and subsidy for affordable projects is necessary and is generally available from local sources, such as the City’s Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund and Transient Occupancy Special Tax for Affordable and Workforce Housing, as well as state and federal programs.
Growth and infrastructure management is a very dynamic process. Development rates vary over time depending on economic conditions, changes to the regulatory setting, and environmental conditions.
The City uses a variety of plans and programs to manage infrastructure expansion with new development, including the General Plan and area-specific plans, fee programs, capital improvement plans, utility master plans, and project-specific mitigation measures and conditions of approval. Napa is a largely developed community where most vacant and underdeveloped sites are infill sites that can be served by nearby water, sewer, streets, storm drainage, electricity, and other dry utilities. Capacities of both wet and dry utilities are not expected to constrain housing development during the Housing Element planning period, and the sites identified in the Housing Element sites inventory can all be served by existing utilities and infrastructure.
Water service is provided by the City of Napa and wastewater treatment, reuse, and disposal are provided by Napa Sanitation District. Dry utilities, including cable, electricity, and telephone service, are available to all areas in the city and there is sufficient capacity to meet current needs as well as future needs and buildout of the RHNA. Service providers for these dry utilities are:
▪ Electricity: Pacific Gas & Electric
▪ Telephone: AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and more
▪ Internet: Viasat, AT&T, Sonic, Xfinity, and more
Potable Water Supply
The Water Division of the Utilities Department is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of the municipal drinking water system serving all residents and businesses within the city, as well as a few users in areas just outside the city limits. The city supplies potable water through approximately 360 miles of transmission mains and distribution piping to almost 25,700 service connections. Napa has an expected 30,902 acre-feet per year (AFY) average under normal yield derived from three sources: Lake Hennessey, Milliken Reservoir, and through the State Water Project (SWP).
Potable water demand projections include new development associated with buildout of the RHNA and the 2040 General Plan. Between 2020 and 2045, water demand is expected to grow approximately 10 percent.
The city’s water supplies can meet projected demands during normal years through 2045; however, small supply shortfalls can be expected as a result of various year-to-year drought scenarios. To match projected dry year supplies during these shortfall situations, Napa will reduce demands by up to 11 percent. The City has determined that it can implement adequate water conservation efforts and public awareness campaigns to achieve the necessary demand reductions, which are supported as part of the goals and policies in the General Plan. There are also numerous system improvements planned for the next 20 years to achieve water security beyond 2045.
In conclusion, the City of Napa has, and will continue to have, adequate potable water supplies to serve the existing and future housing needs of the community.
In accordance with Cal. Gov. Code Section 65589.7, a copy of the Housing Element will be delivered, following certification and adoption, to the Water Division with a cover memorandum summarizing the city’s regional housing allocation and needs, as documented in Appendix H.
Wastewater Collection and Sewer Capacity
The Napa Sanitation District (NapaSan) provides customers within its 21-square-mile service area with wastewater disposal services and strives to maintain a system that will meet Napa’s long-term urban growth needs. NapaSan owns and operates the sanitary sewer collection system, including 270 miles of sewer mains, and the wastewater treatment plant that serves the city, treating 10 million gallons of wastewater per day and producing 700 million gallons of recycled water annually. In addition to the City of Napa, NapaSan serves the Silverado Country Club, the Napa County Airport, and several adjacent unincorporated Napa County areas.
NapaSan does not have the authority to regulate growth, but rather responds to it by planning its system to accommodate anticipated future needs in coordination with the city. Information about planned improvements and changes to both the sewer collection system and the wastewater treatment plant is covered in NapaSan’s Collection System Master Plan (CSMP) and the Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan (WWTPMP) (see napasan.com for details). As more housing units are added in Napa, capacity improvements will be implemented in accordance with these two planning documents. Consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, city staff will coordinate with NapaSan on updates to the planning documents to ensure that the sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant capacities are sufficient to accommodate future growth, including current and future housing needs.
In conclusion, the City of Napa has, and will continue to have, adequate wastewater collection and sewer treatment capacity to serve the existing and future housing needs of the community.
In accordance with Cal. Gov. Code Section 65589.7, the City of Napa will deliver a copy of the Housing Element following certification and adoption to NapaSan with a cover memorandum summarizing the city’s regional housing allocation and needs, as documented in Appendix H.
Recycled Water
Treated wastewater from NapaSan’s service area is recycled and provided for primarily landscape irrigation and industrial use. Recycled water is not provided as part of the potable water supply.
Recycled water is sold to customers both inside and outside the General Plan Planning Area, and the city and NapaSan have an agreement that permits NapaSan to solicit customers and provide recycled water within a specified portion of the General Plan Planning Area. With increased future wastewater flows and facilities expansions, including construction of two several mile long pipelines completed in 2015, the maximum quantity of recycled water that NapaSan can produce is approximately 4,500 AFY.
Furthering opportunities to use recycled water for non-potable water needs can help offset water demands, help preserve the city's potable water supply, and help make Napa more water and drought resilient.
Potential opposition to affordable housing exists in many communities throughout the Bay Area.
Specific project concerns can also relate to potential environmental impacts, quality of design, and the quality of long-term management of the project. The Housing Element includes policies and programs (H2-4, H3-2.2, H2-3.2, H2-4.4, and H2-4.5) to address these issues, including focuses on good site and structural design and early neighborhood outreach and participation to assist in achieving project acceptability.
Environmental considerations, such as natural hazards and resources, can impact the cost of housing development by requiring site or structural mitigation measures or prohibiting development altogether in high-risk areas. The city and its surrounding growth and influence areas in the RUL and SOI contain several areas of environmental concern where the density of housing development is necessarily constrained to what is safe to build. The main environmental considerations within the Napa city limits are earthquake, steep hillsides, and areas prone to flooding including from dam failure. Wildfires can also be a major concern, especially on the outskirts of the city where urban development interfaces with wildland areas of Napa County.
The Building Code is the primary mechanism to address earthquake impacts by regulating construction type and quality for resistance to ground shaking. Locations with higher elevations and steeper slopes have a higher potential for geologic hazards and soil erosion. These areas are regulated under the Hillside Overlay District (HS) to protect public health, safety, and welfare. In the HS overlay, density is limited to one dwelling unit per lot or per acre where slopes exceed 15 percent but are less than 30 percent. Where slopes exceed 30 percent, the HS overlay removes density. Additional mitigation requirements for soil stabilization may also apply.
Similarly, the Floodplain Management Overlay District (FP) is established to protect public health, safety, and welfare within all special flood hazard areas in the city, as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The primary goals of the FP overlay are preventing loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base. In areas regulated under the FP overlay, structural flood protection and flood evacuation provisions apply, and the minimum densities stipulated in the General Plan do not apply for development of five or more dwelling units when located within a flood evacuation area.
The City of Napa and its greater surroundings are characterized by a slender valley floor interspersed with steep, wooded terrain with areas susceptible to wildfires. The hilly and mountainous terrain on the east and west sides of the Napa Valley strongly influences both wildfire behavior and the suppression capabilities of firefighters; this area is most susceptible to wildfire impacts. Within the city limits, there is a moderate fire severity risk, but there are nearby areas of high and very high wildfire risk in the surrounding county. (City of Napa, 2021)
Provisions in the City of Napa Municipal Code aid in reducing wildfire risks by ensuring the installation of protection features, like hydrants, and sufficient emergency access and water capacity. In addition, new development must comply with the city’s Building Code, which references the state standards and are some of the strongest standards in the nation.
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
American Planning Association. (2021). Accessory Dwelling Units. Retrieved 04 08, 2021, from https://www.planning.org/knowledgebase/accessorydwellings/ City of Napa. (2021). Hazard Mitigation Plan Update.
DGS. (2023). DGS California Construction Cost Index CCCI. Retrieved from California Department of General Services: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-EstateServices-Division-Resources-List-Folder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI Terner Center for Housing Innovation. (2020). The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California. UC Berkeley, Terner Center for Housing Innovation. Retrieved from https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-andpolicy/hard-construction-costs-apartments-california/
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
Appendix F
Energy Conservation
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Napa | General Plan Housing Element 6th Cycle Update 2023-2031 Cover Image: Karsten Wurth, Unsplash, 2022
SECTION F.1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................F-1 SECTION F.2. Energy Conservation Opportunties ..............................................................................................................F-2 F.2.1 Local Energy Use Trends............................................................................................................................................ F-2 F.2.2 Framework for Conserving Energy Resources..................................................................................................F-3 F.2.2.1 City of Napa Sustainability Plan............................................................................................................................................. F-3 F.2.2.2 2040 General Plan Update ........................................................................................................................................................ F-3 F.2.2.3 Regional Climate Action and Adaptation Plans & Partnerships .............................................................................. F-3 F.2.2.4 Energy Efficient Building Requirements & Infrastructure Resiliency ...................................................................F-4 F.2.3 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Programs & Resources......................................................................F-5 F.2.3.1 Green Energy Financing and PACE Programs ................................................................................................................. F-5 F.2.3.2 Home Energy Conservation Programs................................................................................................................................ F-5 F.2.3.3 Local Utility Programs................................................................................................................................................................F-6 F.2.3.4 Federal and State Energy Assistance Programs.............................................................................................................F-6
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
State law (Government Code Section 65583[a][7]) requires Housing Elements to contain an analysis of opportunities for residential energy conservation. According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the energy conservation section of a Housing Element must inventory and analyze the opportunities to encourage energy saving features, energy saving materials, and energy efficient systems and design for residential development.
The term “residential energy” refers to the total energy used in residential buildings, including heating, cooling, and “plug load” from appliances, lights, and electrical devices. “Energy conservation” refers to reducing energy use through using less of an energy service, such as lowering the thermostat in the winter.
Residential energy efficiency can be improved by sealing the building envelope and HVAC ducts; insulating the attic or ceiling, walls, and floor; installing efficient heating and cooling systems; and energy efficient lighting and appliances. Passive heating, cooling, and lighting can also be employed when designing new buildings. Housing type also makes a difference in building energy consumption, with the average multi-unit housing unit using half the energy of an average single-unit detached home. Multi-unit homes tend to be more energy efficient because they tend to be smaller than singleunit detached homes and the shared walls amongst units have a self-insulating effect.
In addition to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and conserving limited energy resources, reducing residential energy consumption also has economic benefits. Energy conservation measures can result in lower monthly housing costs and contribute to greater long-term housing affordability.
This appendix chapter describes the ways the City is currently addressing the conservation of energy resources as part of larger climate action and adaptation processes In Napa, electricity and natural gas are used to
light, heat, and cool structures, public buildings,
and home appliances. Fossil fuels are used to
move people and products along the city’s
transportation corridors. Most of the energy
consumed in Napa is produced from traditional
sources and delivered to the city through
established distribution networks. Pacific Gas
and Electric Company (PG&E) provides
electrical services and natural gas in the city.
PG&E has limited renewable energy
opportunities; only 15.9% of their total electric
power distribution are eligible renewable
resources. [https://findenergy.com/ca/napacounty-electricity/] There is one power producing plant in Napa. The city emits 1,406.29 kilograms of CO2 pollution per citizen in the city due to electricity consumption, which makes it the 71st highest polluting city out of 1617 cities in California based on emissions per capita. A total of 111,442,882.58 kilograms of CO2 emissions are emitted from the city each year. [id.] In Napa, Natural Gas makes up 100.00% of the fuel types used in electricity generation. [id.]
The City has made strides in reducing greenhouse gases and utilizing green energy sources. In 2007, the City Council passed a resolution in support of the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement (“Agreement”), which sought to meet or beat Kyoto Protocol targets through the implementation of 12 suggested actions. The Agreement provides broad suggestions for cities, many of which are included as recommended actions in the City Plan. Two years later, the City received Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funds, which provided the financial resources to complete facility and streetlight retrofit projects and implement a fluorescent recycling program, which reduced energy consumption and encouraged the use of energy-saving technologies.
Since 2005, the City received funding through the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program which has enabled the completion of energy retrofit projects in City facilities and streetlights. Additionally, the City has benefited from the PG&E-sponsored program, Napa County Energy Watch. Locally, Sustainable Napa County (SNC) has the Napa County Solar Panel Install, Bill Mead Unsplash, 2022
Energy Watch contract, and through this program, SNC provided invaluable support to the City conducting audits and providing recommendations regarding retrofits and other energy-saving measures. From 2005 to 2010, the City decreased its kWh of electricity by 11 percent, and initiatives implemented in 2011 contributed to another reduction in electricity use of nearly 3 percent.
In April of 2022, the City of Napa passed R2022-030, a resolution declaring a climate emergency, furthering the City’s commitment to combating Climate Change. This resolution added the City of Napa to a growing list of communities committed to a goal of Net Zero Climate pollution by 2030 and demonstrates the City’s commitment to implementing goals and policies in the General Plan through actionable tasks and projects. Additionally, the resolution calls upon the City to evaluate all planning and policy decisions with the lens of this commitment to climate change initiatives.
The Napa City Council adopted the City's first Sustainability Plan on July 24, 2012, which outlined voluntary mechanisms to promote sustainability, to clearly articulate new citywide goals and actions, and center sustainability and climate change as community priorities. The Plan was funded by a block grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, and represents input collected from City staff and the community through interviews, a bilingual online survey, and a series of 16 public meetings. There are 95 initiatives in the Sustainability Plan (link to PDF).
The City approved the 2040 General Plan Update in October 2022. The 2040 General Plan includes a Climate Change and Sustainability Element (CCS) which builds upon the initial efforts of the 2012 City of Napa Sustainability Plan. The CCS Element most closely furthers the following Napa Community Vision and Guiding Principles:
• Guiding Principle 3: Balance local and tourism needs. • Guiding Principle 5: Foster connections to nature and open space. • Guiding Principle 6: Emphasize environmental sustainability.
The City participates in cross-jurisdictional collaboration to address climate change from a regional perspective by working with Napa County on a combined Climate Action Plan (CAP). Napa County’s CAP calls for taking action towards fighting climate change by reducing emissions from local sources.
It also prioritizes helping the community adapt to climate change and its effects. In June 2019, the six jurisdictions in Napa County took action regarding the countywide commitment to address climate change and in 2020 formed the Napa County Climate Action Committee (CAC). The CAC consists of two elected officials from each of the six jurisdictions. The CAC is administered and staffed by Napa County.
Napa is also part of the MCE Community Choice Aggregation program, which offers an opportunity for Bay Area communities to choose renewable electricity options. Property owners in Napa, Marin, Solano, and Contra Costa counties can sign up through MCE to receive sustainably produced electricity from renewable resources, like solar, wind, bioenergy, small hydroelectric, and geothermal heat.
Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) contains California’s building standards for energy efficiency. These regulations respond to California's energy crisis and need to reduce energy bills, increase energy delivery system reliability, and contribute to an improved economic condition for the state. Each city and county must enforce these standards as part of its review of building plans and issuance of building permits. The standards, prepared by the California Energy Commission, were established in 1978 in response to a State legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to consider and incorporate new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
The 2022 California Building Code (including Title 24, Part 6, described above) went into effect in the City on December 15th, 2022, see Chapter 15.04.030 of the City’s Code. All new construction must comply with the standards in effect on the date a building-permit application is submitted. The City of Napa has adopted high performance building regulations for new development that address planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality (Chapter 15.30 of the City’s Code). While based on the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), these regulations also include some more stringent local amendments as summarized in Napa Municipal Code Chapter 15.04.
The California Building Code also includes green building regulations, referred to as CALGreen, to encourage more sustainable and environmentally friendly building practices, require low pollution emitting substances that can cause harm to the environment, conserve natural resources, and promote the use of energy efficient materials and equipment. There are mandatory measures, which apply statewide, and voluntary measures, which can be adopted locally. Voluntary measures are organized into 2 tiers with their own respective prerequisites and elective measures: Tier 1 prerequisites set a higher baseline than CALGreen mandatory measures while Tier 2 prerequisites include all of Tier 1 prerequisites plus some enhanced or additional measures. Via City Ordinance O2022-013, the City made the following voluntary residential measures identified in “Appendix A4, Residential Voluntary Measures” mandatory: Sections A4. 203.1 ("Energy Efficiency"), A4.203. 1.1 ("Hourly Source Energy Design Rating (EDR1)", A4. 303.1 ("Kitchen Faucets"), A4.303.3 ("Appliances"), A4. 306.1 Innovative Concepts and Local Environmental Conditions"), A4. 504.1 ("Compliance with Formaldehyde Limits"), and A4. 504.3 Thermal Insulation (Tier 1 only).
This Section briefly describes some of the potential ways to achieve energy savings through the regulations and programs of the City, the State, local utility providers, BayREN, and MCE.
The City of Napa provides options to property owners for financing eligible renewable and efficiency improvement projects. Eligible improvements vary by provider but can include energy efficiency, water conservation, and renewable energy improvements. The California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA), Golden State Finance Authority (formerly California Home Finance Authority), and Western Riverside Council of Governments can offer their financing products to Napa property owners. To foster greater competition and provide more alternatives for property owners seeking financing options, the City Council may consider approving additional PACE providers in the coming years.
The Bay Area Regional Energy
Network (BayREN) is a coalition of
the Bay Area’s nine counties — a
network of local governments
partnering to promote resource
efficiency at the regional level,
focusing on energy, water, and
greenhouse gas reduction.
BayREN’s programs provide the Bay
Area with rebates, funding,
technical assistance, education and
more. Single and multi-family
homeowners in Napa can access
rebates and Home Energy Advisor
services through BayREN.
The MCE Community Choice Aggregation program operates the Low Income Families & Tenants (LIFT) Program, providing rebates, free comprehensive assessments, and technical assistance for energy and water saving measures, as well as recommendations for electrification such as replacing existing gas appliances with energy-efficient electric models for multifamily property owners. Properties with 5 or more units offering affordable housing or deed-restricted units are eligible for additional rebates for electrification measures and other energy conservation upgrades.
Residential Irrigation, Jordan Hopkins, Unsplash, 2022
Additionally, PG&E offers the Energy Savings Assistance Program to provide qualified customers with energy-saving improvements at no charge.
The City of Napa participates in the California Water Efficiency Partnership (CalWEP) to offer rebates for water-saving products and appliances. The City also offers water customers an incentive to replace their lawns with water-efficient landscaping, paying $1.00-2.00 per square foot for eligible areas transitioned from turf to low-water plants or permeable hardscape. (Cash for Grass) Currently, the City of Napa receives its power from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Napa is also part of the MCE Community Choice Aggregation program, which offers an opportunity for property to receive sustainably produced electricity from renewable resources, like solar, wind, bioenergy, small hydroelectric, and geothermal heat. Participants can select from plans that offer 60- 100% of electricity service from renewable sources, including locally-produced solar.
In addition to the local programs described above, the California Department of Community Services and Development (CSD) administers the Federally funded Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). This program provides two types of assistance: Home Energy Assistance and Energy Crisis Intervention. The first type of assistance is a direct payment to utility bills for qualified low-income households. The second type of assistance is available to low-income households that are in a crisis. CSD also offers free weatherization assistance, such as attic insulation, caulking, water heater blankets, and heating and cooling system repairs to low-income households. A list of resources supported by CSD in Napa County is available online.
Appendix G
Evaluation of Past Programs
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Napa | General Plan Housing Element 6
th Cycle Update 2023-2031
Cover Image: Brendan Hurley, City of Napa, 2021
SECTION G.1 Evaluation of Previous Programs ................................................................................................................... G-1 H1.A - Adequate Sites..............................................................................................................................................................G-1 H1.B - Future Land Use Planning .......................................................................................................................................G-1 H1.C - Local Housing Need....................................................................................................................................................G-1 H1.D - Jobs-Housing Analysis .............................................................................................................................................G-1 H1.E - Job Impact Analysis...................................................................................................................................................G-1 H1.F - Housing Sites Study of Surplus Institutional Lands.....................................................................................G-2 H2.A - Adequate Sites for Multifamily Use ...................................................................................................................G-2 H2.B - New Rental Units .......................................................................................................................................................G-2 H2.C - New Ownership Units..............................................................................................................................................G-3 H2.D - First Time Buyer Programs....................................................................................................................................G-3 H2.E - Identify Potential Acquisition Sites....................................................................................................................G-3 H2.F - Affordable Housing Overlay Zones.....................................................................................................................G-4 H2.G - Long-Term Affordability Agreements and Monitoring..............................................................................G-4 H2.H - Sustainable Development and Practices .........................................................................................................G-4 H2.I - Preferences in Affordable Housing......................................................................................................................G-5 H2.J - Duplex and Triplexes in Other Areas .................................................................................................................G-5 H3.A - Design Review.............................................................................................................................................................G-5 H3.B - Use of Planned Development Zoning ................................................................................................................G-5 H3.C - Housing Mix.................................................................................................................................................................G-5 H3.D - New Second Units .....................................................................................................................................................G-6 H3.E - Second Unit Standards and Fees.........................................................................................................................G-6 H3.F - Amnesty Program......................................................................................................................................................G-6 H3.G - Rental and Owner Rehabilitation Programs...................................................................................................G-7 H3.H - Code Enforcement ....................................................................................................................................................G-7 H3.I - Targeted Neighborhood Improvement...............................................................................................................G-8 H3.J - Historic Area Process ...............................................................................................................................................G-8 H3.K - Transportation Element Amendments.............................................................................................................G-8 H3.L - Capital Improvement Programs for Neighborhood Improvement.........................................................G-8 H3.M - Parks & Recreation Element Update .................................................................................................................G-8 H3.N - Retain Federal, State, and Locally Subsidized Affordable Units.............................................................G-9 H3.O - Rental Acquisition and Maintenance................................................................................................................G-9 H3.P - Mixed-Use Livability.................................................................................................................................................G-9 H4.A - Emergency Shelters ...............................................................................................................................................G-10 H4.B - Permanent Supportive/Transitional Housing..............................................................................................G-10 H4.C - Support Services ......................................................................................................................................................G-10 H4.D - Rental Assistance for Special Needs ................................................................................................................G-11 H4.E - Capital Improvements for Non-Profit Facilities...........................................................................................G-11 H4.F - Encourage Well Managed New SRO Permanent Housing........................................................................G-11 H4.G - Rehabilitate Existing Facilities for SROs ....................................................................................................... G-12 H4.H - Coordination with Napa County and Other Actions to address Farmworker Housing .............. G-12 H4.I - Housing for Developmentally Disabled Persons .......................................................................................... G-13 H5.A - Universal Design...................................................................................................................................................... G-13 H5.B - Traffic Impact Overlay ........................................................................................................................................... G-13 H5.C - Priority Processing.................................................................................................................................................. G-13 H5.D - Affordable Housing Fees.......................................................................................................................................G-14 H5.E - Fair Housing...............................................................................................................................................................G-14 H5.F - Database Monitoring...............................................................................................................................................G-14 H5.G - Legislation..................................................................................................................................................................G-14 H5.H - Housing Transfer Agreements........................................................................................................................... G-15 H5.I - Cities/Counties Coordination............................................................................................................................... G-15 H5.J - Community Outreach Efforts .............................................................................................................................. G-15 H5.K - Use of Funds .............................................................................................................................................................. G-16 H5.L - Maximize Rental Subsidies.................................................................................................................................. G-16 H5.M - Public/Private Partnerships................................................................................................................................ G-16 H5.N - Water and Sewer Service Provider Coordination ....................................................................................... G-16 Program Objective Timeline Progress during Period Responsibility Financing Status for HE Update The City shall continue to provide and maintain adequate sites consistent with State law.
Maintain Adequate
Sites
Ongoing;
2015-23 Ongoing Planning Division Staff time Ongoing; Retain The City shall address long-term housing needs in
collaboration with the community through future Specific Plans or other Land Use plan updates, targeting major
transportation corridors near services, large sites over 20 acres where services and transit can potentially be
incorporated, and sites identified for potential future change in this Housing Element. All such plans shall
specifically consider appropriateness of sites for multifamily use.
Adopt a General Plan
Update 2016-18 General Plan Update Adopted October 2022 Planning Division Staff and
consultant
time to
develop
Specific Plans
Completed
To adequately provide housing for a variety of household types, including families and lower income households,
and ensure the wise use of land resources, the City may require an applicant for development of land designated for higher density development (15 units per acre or more) to demonstrate how their project addresses local housing needs. The City may then consider actions or conditions to discourage development that is not responsive to local needs or other measures as appropriate.
Prioritize land
resources for
population groups with
the highest need.
Evaluate local housing
needs for special
population groups,
given limited land
supply.
Ongoing as
projects are
submitted
2021: As part of the General Plan Update, an inventory of underutilized sites (high opportunity redevelopment sites) has been created for potential rezoning into Housing Sites. No barriers have been identified that may inhibit the eventual completion of this goal.
Planning Division
Private
sources as
part of
development
review
Ongoing; Retain
During Specific Plans and major General Plan updates, the City shall analyze anticipated housing and job types,
numbers and incomes and develop strategies to further
address housing and jobs linkages.
Improve linkages
between housing and
employment
development
As plans are
developed
Successfully conducted for several planning processes; studied citywide in 2021 as part of the General Plan Update City Manager and
Economic
Development
General Fund Ongoing; Retain
The City shall require analysis of the impact of major
non-residential development proposals (over 100
employees) on increased housing demand and may
require mitigation measures (above housing impact fee
requirements) to provide better housing and jobs balance in the City of Napa. If an impact is identified, appropriate mitigation may be required, including, but not limited to the provision of new housing units, payment of in lieu
fees, or an alternative equivalent action.
Heightened link
between jobs and
housing
As major
projects are
proposed
and
reviewed
2021: Studied in the General Plan Update Planning Division Staff time;
private
impact
analysis
Ongoing; Retain
Program Objective Timeline Progress during Period Responsibility Financing Status for HE Update As part of the next General Plan update, the City shall initiate a Housing Sites study to review whether any
surplus or potentially surplus institutional lands are
appropriate for residential/non-residential mixed-use
development and/or affordable housing, and follow-up
actions, such as prioritizing sites for purchase. As part of the study, the City will consider the application of the Affordable Housing Overlay zoning district to City-owned surplus lands.
Completion of Housing
Sites analysis for
surplus or potentially
surplus institutional
lands and follow-up
actions
2016-18 2021: Underway
Housing Division,
Planning Division,
Economic
Development
Staff time;
General
Funds
Ongoing
Before the next Housing Element update, the City shall
analyze multi-family and mixed-use sites capacities and identify potential sites for multi-family use or where
increased multi-family densities may be appropriate.
Criteria shall include proximity to transit, services and jobs, environmental site constraints, and neighborhood
“fair share.” Additionally, during the next comprehensive update of the General Plan, the City will consider
designating major commercial corridors, such as the
Soscol Gateway and Tannery Bend areas for higher
density housing and mixed use development. This
program was designated as a priority by the Housing
Element Advisory Committee.
Completion of Sites
study for further
Housing Element
2020-23 2021: Underway Housing Division,
Planning Division
Staff time;
General
Funds; and
other state
and federal
planning
funds as
available
Ongoing
The Housing Division and the Housing Authority shall
assist with the construction of new, affordable rental
units for very low- and low-income renter households
(including but not limited to service workers,
farmworkers, developmentally disabled, seniors, etc.) by prioritizing applications of others for tax credits and other federal/state funding, providing loans from the local
Housing Trust fund and land banking sites. This program was designated as a priority by the Housing Element
Advisory Committee.
220 Units Ongoing;
2015-23
2015-17: 40 units under construction by Napa Valley Community Housing
2018: 76 affordable rental units for low and very low-income households were under construction: 8 at Napa Creek Village, 49 at Stoddard West, and 19 at Napa Courtyards. The city approved a density bonus for Bridgeview Apartments which would provide 11 affordable units as part of the project
2019: 68 new affordable rental units were developed and occupied, including 49 at Stoddard West and 19 at Napa Courtyards. 42 affordable units were under construction, including 8 at Napa Creek Village (continued from 2018) and 34 additional units at Redwood Grove.
2020: 50 affordable units at Manzanita Family Apartments started construction. 42 affordable units that started construction in 2019 remain under construction.
2021: 30 additional rental affordable units started construction (19 at Caritas & 11 at SoCo). 8 affordable units that started construction in 2019 remained under construction. 50 affordable rental units that started construction in 2020 completed construction.
Housing
Division/Housing
Authority, private
developers, and
non-profit
agencies such as
Napa Valley
Community
Housing and
BRIDGE Housing
Possible
sources of
funding
include local
Housing Trust
Fund, Low
Income
Housing Tax
Credit
Program,
HOME Rental
Construction
Program;
Mortgage
Revenue
Bonds
Ongoing; progress will
be continually
monitored through
consolidation into H2-
1.1 – Development
Incentive Program
Program Objective Timeline Progress during Period Responsibility Financing Status for HE Update The Housing Division and Housing Authority shall assist construction of new affordable ownership units for first time low- and moderate-income homebuyers. Types may
include but are not limited to Self-Help (where the future owner/resident provides labor toward the development of the units and/or assists in sharing the cost of building the units) and Community-Help new housing, such as Habitat
for Humanity. City actions may include but are not
limited to supporting applications by affordable housing providers for federal/state funding, providing loans from the local Housing Trust fund, land-banking sites, funding assistance, priority processing, fee deferrals, and granting incentives under the density bonus ordinance.
15 ownership housing
units
Ongoing;
2015-23
2015: Working with Habitat for Humanity on a 1-unit project 2016: Finalized Habitat For Humanity 1-unit project
2017: CDBG funds were utilized to fund off-site improvements for the Habitat for Humanity home constructed through Habitat’s sweat equity program on land made available from excess City ROW. City made a loan from its Affordable Housing Impact Fee fund to Burbank Housing for Redwood Grove, a 34-unit affordable homeownership project.
2018: Habitat for Humanity completed one home for a low-income homebuyer on property that was previously excess ROW. The project utilized CDBG funds.
2019: the City increased its loan by $650K for the 34-unit Redwood Grove affordable homeownership project.
2020: Redwood Grove continued construction.
2021: Redwood Grove completed construction. This development received funding from the State, County & City. Of the 34 units, 14 are restricted to low-income, 10 to median income & 20 to moderateincome.
Housing Division
/ Housing
Authority
Local
Housing trust
funds, HOME
Ongoing methods of
implementation of this
goal include continuing
to expeditiously
process applications for
Affordable Housing
development projects,
as well as continued
robust permitting of
Affordable Units (43% of
all permitted units in
2021 were affordable).
No barriers have been
identified that may
inhibit the eventual
completion of this goal.
The City Housing Division shall continue to assist
provision of home ownership opportunities for low and/or moderate-income first-time home buyers through
financing assistance, public/private partnerships, and
outreach and counseling programs
Assist 80 low-income
households to become
first time homebuyers
Ongoing;
2015-23
CY 2015: assisted 8 low-income & 1 very-low-income households CY 2016: assisted 8 low-income households
CY 2017: assisted 7 low-income households
CY 2018: assisted 8 low-income households
CY 2019: assisted 6 low-income households
CY 2020: assisted 10 low-income households
Housing Division;
private/nonprofit
Staff time;
CalHome,
HOME and
other down
payment
assistance
programs,
Ongoing
The City shall locate sites for possible acquisition by the City Housing Authority, and/or an affordable housing
developer for affordable projects. The City may determine that it is appropriate to lease land, rather than sell it.
Identify and acquire 1-2
sites
Ongoing;
2015-23 Housing Sites analysis underway
Housing
Authority,
Planning Division
City funding
for Staff time;
acquisition
funds from
City General
funds,
Housing Trust
Fund, or other
State/federal
program
sources
Ongoing; consolidated
into H2-2.6 - Land
Banking Program
Program Objective Timeline Progress during Period Responsibility Financing Status for HE Update The City shall amend the ordinance governing the
“Affordable Housing Overlay Zones” as set forth under
Napa Municipal Code Chapter 17.36 in order to bring its provisions into compliance with the requirements of the holding in Palmer/ Sixth Street Properties L.P. v City of Los Angeles, 175 Cal.App.4th 1396 (2009) to clarify that any inclusionary requirements imposed under the Chapter
shall not apply to rental developments, in order that the overlay may be used as a zoning tool to increase
affordability of owner-occupied housing on an expanded
number of sites. As a part of this review, the City shall review the minimum site size criteria and review the
zoning map to identify potential additional sites for
rezoning under the AH Overlay designation. The City
shall consider options to maximize its benefit; for
example — on Low Density sites —would current second
unit provisions, or other options such as requiring small homes on some percentage of the lots, provide a greater affordable housing benefit?
Modify Zoning Overlay
District 2016-18 Following General Plan Update (2022) Planning Division, City Attorney Staff time Ongoing based on 2022
General Plan Update
The City shall continue to implement long-term
agreements and/or deed restrictions with developers of
affordable units that: govern unit affordability, monitor the continuing affordability of such units, and provide incentives for renewal of affordability agreements where feasible. Units currently restricted under City and other agreements are listed in Section 5 of this Housing
Element. The City’s list of units for monitoring includes those multi-family rental units funded and restricted
under Federal, State and/or local housing programs.
Approve long term
agreements for new
affordable units and
provide monitoring of
these agreements and
projects funded under
Federal, State, or local
housing programs
Agreements
as projects
occur,
Monitoring
in an
ongoing
activity
2015-21: Monitoring conducted annually Housing Division, City Attorney Staff time Ongoing
In addition to continuing sustainable development
patterns, the City shall continue to update its energy
efficiency building, recycling, and similar standards to continue to meet State standards. When appropriate, the City will require projects to exceed, rather than meet, State standards for energy efficiency, water conservation, and recycling.
Review and update
every two years to
continue to meet State
standards
Ongoing;
2015-23 Ongoing
Building and
Planning
Divisions, Public
Works
Department
Staff time Ongoing
Program Objective Timeline Progress during Period Responsibility Financing Status for HE Update The City will study the possibility of establishing
eligibility preferences for people who live and work in Napa, consistent with State and Federal fair housing laws.
Study the possible
development of
administrative
regulations to provide
eligibility preferences
for people who live
and/or work in Napa for
affordable housing
programs
2016-18 2015-21: The City is researching feasibility under Fair Housing laws.
The County is also exploring legislation to allow employee housing.
Housing Division,
City Attorney Staff time Ongoing
The City shall consider a Zoning Amendment to allow
duplexes and/or triplexes, as a conditionally permitted use, in the Single-Family Residential zoning district,
when the proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
Zoning amendment 2016-17 Following General Plan Update (2022) Planning Division, City Attorney Staff time
Modify - developing
design standards to
implement SB 9.
The City shall continue to use and will periodically review the residential design review guidelines and process to assure higher quality infill multi- family housing. The City encourages project designers to meet with neighbors during the early design stages of larger projects and will establish procedures defining when early meetings are
mandatory.
Implement design
guidelines and meeting
process
Ongoing;
2015-23 Design Review requirements amended in 2017
Planning Division;
Planning
Commission and
City Council
Staff time
Schedule another
review during the
upcoming Housing
Element cycle with
updated considerations
(fee schedule, ADUs,
etc.)
The City shall continue to use Planned Development
regulations to promote design flexibility for residential developments, particularly for those located in unique
settings.
Promote design
flexibility
Ongoing;
2015-23
2015-2021: Planned Development zoning used to accommodate Harvest Village, a cottage home development Planning Division Development review Focus on amending
ordinances to reduce
the need for PD zoning;
streamline the
processes.
The City shall establish baseline housing mix information by neighborhood, and evaluate progress in achieving
second units, residential care facilities, shared housing (to the extent it is regulated) and multi-family uses in all residential and mixed-use areas of the City. Based on
results of the review and community workshops,
additional strategies may be formulated to increase the “fair share” mix.
Monitor and potentially
increase mix of housing
throughout the City of
Napa
Incorporate
such
research as
review as
part of next
overall
General Plan
Update
2017: Review during General Plan Update – kickoff CY2018 2018-2021: Reviewing as part of the General Plan Update. Planning Division Staff time 2022 General Plan has
new designations that
allow mix of housing.
Completed.
Program Objective Timeline Progress during Period Responsibility Financing Status for HE Update The City shall continue to encourage new subdivisions to include second units and to encourage other second
units.
36 units/14 very lowincome; 13 low-income;
9 moderate income
Ongoing;
2015-23
2015: 2 ADUs provided in Harvest Village project
2016: 2 ADUs provided in Harvest Village project; 18 ADUs approved 2017: 2 ADUs provided in Harvest Village project; 34 ADUs approved 2018: 44 ADUs approved
2019: The City continued its Junior Unit initiative pilot program which provides financing and technical assistance to homeowners to create junior accessory dwelling units which are rented to lowincome tenants. Two deed-restricted junior units were created through the program in 2019.
2020: 45 ADUs approved in 2020, including three deed-restricted units through the City Junior Unit initiative program.
2021: 60 ADUs approved, including four deed-restricted units through the City Junior Unit initiative program.
Planning Division Private Ongoing
To encourage additional second units, the City will
consider revisions to its second unit standards and fees — including eliminating owner occupancy requirements;
modifying parking standards; eliminating whole house
sprinkler requirements for attached second units; and,
given their small sizes, moderating the disincentive of higher fees by using non-fee revenue derived from other sources to subsidize the costs of second units – and
encourage other service agencies to do the same. The City will also evaluate possible use of the Housing Trust Fund to write-down some fees/costs, such as sewer/water
hook-ups, as an incentive to creating second units.
Further, the City will consider a more comprehensive
second unit strategy that could, for example, provide
prototypes, construction documents and financing
assistance.
Revise Ordinance
including work with
service providers
2016
2015: Finalizing ADU development standards; presented options to Planning Commission and City Council regarding long-term goals 2016-17: Finalized Update to Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance and initiated further amendments in response to new state laws. 2018: the City adopted an ordinance amendment to exclude any dwelling unit 500 square feet or less from being charged affordable housing impact fees. Additionally, Napa Sanitation District and Napa Valley USD changed their fee structures to exclude ADUs under 500 square feet from impact fees.
Planning Division
in consultation
with affected
divisions,
agencies, such as
Fire, Building,
Water, Housing,
Napa Sanitation
District
Staff time Completed.
The City shall consider an amnesty program for illegal
second units.
Consider and potential
development of
Amnesty Program
2020
2015-17: Presented options to Planning Commission and City Council 2018-21: Amnesty of un-permitted units is taking place organically with changes to the ADU Ordinance.
Building,
Planning,
Housing Division,
Code
Enforcement
General Fund Completed.
Program Objective Timeline Progress during Period Responsibility Financing Status for HE Update The City shall continue to rehabilitate substandard
residential units for extremely low, very low- and lowincome renters and owners using available subsidies in addition to code enforcement. Such rehabilitation
programs focus on health and safety improvements
including improved energy conservation. The City also
encourages public-private partnership rehabilitation
programs such as “Rebuilding Together.”
Rehabilitate 40
substandard rental
units for extremely low,
very low-, and lowincome renters. Assist
rehabilitation of 168
units of substandard
owner-occupied
housing for very lowand low-income
households
Ongoing;
2015-23
2015: Rehabilitated 1 rental unit for a very low-income household, 34 owner-occupied units for 23 very low-income, and 11 low-income households.
2016: Rehabilitated 23 owner-occupied units for low-income and very low-income households.
2017: Rehabilitated 31 owner-occupied units for low-income and very low-income households: eight units through Owner Occupied Rehab Program and 31 through the Emergency Grant Program
2018: Rehabilitated 23 owner-occupied units for low and very-low income homeowners: 9 through the Owner Occupied Rehab Loan Program and 14 through the Emergency Repair Grant Program. The Housing Authority also approved: a $160,000 loan for improvements to Pueblo Orchard, a 14-unit affordable rental project; CDBG funds for improvements to Mayacamas Village, a 51-unit apartment project which includes 50 affordable units and 1 manager's unit; and a new regulatory agreement to allow a tax credit rescindment for the Vintage Senior Apartments which would allow approximately $3.4M in improvements to the 115-unit affordable senior rental complex 2019: Rehabilitated 10 owner-occupied units for low and very-low income homeowners: 5 through the Owner Occupied Rehab Loan Program and 5 through the Emergency Repair Grant Program. The Housing Authority provided funding previously authorized. The City provided CDBG funds for improvements to Mayacamas Village and authorized the bond issuance for the acquisition and rehab of River Park Manor, a 105-unit market rate apartment complex with 104 units and 1 manager's unit. The City authorized a bond issue for the rehab of Charter Oaks, a 75-unit affordable rental project, increasing the project's number of very-low-income units from 15 to 31 units. In addition to 1 manager's unit, there will be 43 low-income units. 2020: 19 owner-occupied units for low and very-low-income homeowners were rehabilitated: 7 through the Owner-Occupied Rehab Loan Program and 12 through the Emergency Repair Grant Program. River Park Manor was renovated, and Charter Oaks began renovations.
2021: 11 owner-occupied units for low and very-low-income homeowners were rehabilitated: five through the Owner-Occupied Rehab Loan Program and six through the Emergency Repair Grant Program. Charter Oaks completed renovations. Minor rehabilitation work was completed on Oran Court, a 12-unit affordable rental project and substantial rehabilitation was completed at Catholic Charities' Red House, a five-unit rental project.
Housing Division,
Code
Enforcement
Community
Development
Block Grant
Rehabilitation
Revolving
Loan
Program,
HOME
Rehabilitation
Program and
code
enforcement
program
enforcing
existing
codes and
health and
safety
regulations;
private
sources
In 2019, City
implemented a 1%
Transit Occupancy Tax
TOT for Workforce and
Affordable Housing
which has provided a
semi-permanent source
of funding for
development of units at
any range below 120%
AMI.
In FY19, FY20, and FY21,
15, 16, and 29
(respectively) units
were rehabilitated.
Additionally, OwnerOccupied Rehab Loan
Program and
Emergency Grant
Program funding has
been allocated for the
rehabilitation of 11
owner-occupied units.
No barriers have been
identified that may
inhibit the eventual
completion of this goal.
The City shall continue to strengthen code enforcement
by appropriate City departments. Code enforcement
efforts should be proactive, as well as reactive, in
targeting specific problem sites or areas.
Improve community
health and safety
Ongoing;
2015-23 Ongoing
Building Division,
Code
Enforcement
City general
funds
Ongoing, with updates.
Program Objective Timeline Progress during Period Responsibility Financing Status for HE Update As the need arises and funding permits, the City should initiate use of a multi-agency resource team working with neighborhood groups to improve and clean up areas of
the City.
"Cleanup" of
neighborhoods
experiencing
deterioration
Ongoing;
2015-23 Ongoing Interdepartmental Substantial staff time Ongoing, with updates.
The City shall continue to encourage maintenance and
preservation of historic homes and structures through
Historic Preservation policies, ordinances, and design
guidelines.
Provide information to
public on appropriate
historic remodel
techniques; Cultural
Heritage Commission
Certificates of
Appropriateness;
Historic Survey update
Ongoing;
2015-23
2015: Updated Historic Preservation Ordinance and Inventory 2016: Implementation of new Historic Preservation Ordinance and Inventory
2017-21: Ongoing
Planning Division,
Cultural Heritage
Commission
City funds,
State Historic
Preservation
grants
Ongoing, with updates.
The City shall propose a stronger General Plan policy or policies and implementation program(s) to strengthen
concurrency of development with infrastructure,
especially streets and public transportation.
General Plan
Amendment
Address as
part of
overall
General Plan
Update
2017: Began General Plan Amendment Update
2018-21: General Plan Update underway
Public Works
Department,
Planning Division
Staff time
Ongoing, based on 2022
General Plan.
The City shall continue to use Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) funds, and Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds to a limited extent, to assist in
neighborhood improvement efforts.
Improvement of
neighborhood quality
through specific
improvements as
outlined in CIP and
CDBG Consolidated
Plan
CIP during
budget
review; and
CDBG 5-year
plan and
annual
reviews
2015: CDBG Funds were utilized in 2015 to fund ADA improvements to sidewalks in low-income neighborhoods
2016: CDBG Funds were utilized in 2016 to fund ADA improvements to sidewalks in low-income neighborhoods and for rehab of Rainbow House
2019-21: Ongoing
CIP: City Manager,
Public Works,
Planning Division;
CDBG: Housing
Division
Capital
Improvement
Funds from
General Fund
and grant
sources;
Community
Development
Block Grant
funds
Ongoing.
The City shall, during the next General Plan Update,
consider establishing a high priority for City park and recreation improvements near underserved, higher
density residential and mixed-use areas and follow Parks Master Plan recommendations regarding including
community gardens and community buildings in existing
or planned parks.
Assure adequate parks
to serve higher density
areas
2016-18 2017: Began General Plan Update process
General Plan Update underway
Parks and
Recreation
Department
General Fund
Completed in 2022
General Plan Update.
Program Objective Timeline Progress during Period Responsibility Financing Status for HE Update The City shall, when feasible, continue to make it a
priority to assist in retention of Federal, State, and locally subsidized affordable housing when such units are
threatened.
None at present; no
units are at risk
Ongoing;
2015-23 2015-20: No units threatened
Housing
Authority,
Housing Division
HOME
Acquisition
Program,
HOME and
CDBG
Rehabilitation
Program,
Federal
HOME Loan
Affordable
Housing
Program, Low
Income
Housing
Preservation
Program, and
other sources
of funds
Ongoing.
The City shall acquire or assist acquisition of existing market rate substandard rental housing to rehabilitate
and restrict it as rentals for extremely low, very low- and low-income households. This program shall include
development of requirements for high quality ongoing
property management and maintenance. This program
was designated as a priority by the Housing Element
Advisory Committee.
Acquire or assist 15
units at Riverside and
31 added units of
existing rental housing
= 46 units; maintain
them as affordable.
Develop standards for
high quality ongoing
property management
and maintenance.
Ongoing;
2015-23;
property
management
and
maintenance
standards
shall be
developed by
the time first
units are
ready for
occupancy
2015-17: None (Riverside was determined to be financially infeasible in 2014)
2018: the City began an environmental review for the proposed Heritage House/Valle Verde project which would include the reuse of an abandoned assisted living facility which would be converted into affordable rental housing (33 very-low and 33 permanent supportive housing units)
2019: the City drafted an environmental review for the Heritage House/Valle Verde project.
2020: the City completed environmental review and entitlements for the Heritage House/Valle Verde project.
2021: the City allocated CDBG-DR funding for the Heritage House/Valle Verde project and the Valley Lodge Apartments, which would convert a motel into 55 units of permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness.
Housing
Authority,
Housing Division
HOME, CDBG
Rehabilitation
Program,
Federal Home
Loan Bank
Affordable
Housing
Program,
State and
federal Tax
Credit
Program,
local Housing
Trust Fund
Ongoing; consolidated
into H2-1.3 –
Acquisition and
Rehabilitation
The City shall develop guidelines or standards for
residential mixed-use developments that address gaps in other City guidelines or standards to provide a quality living environment.
Mixed-Use review: new
standards, guidelines as
needed
2018-20 Following General Plan Update (2022) Planning Division General Fund Completed.
Program Objective Timeline Progress during Period Responsibility Financing Status for HE Update The City shall continue to assist in funding existing
emergency shelter operations, including the winter
shelter, and assist in acquisition of shelters for domestic violence victims and their children and other unmet
emergency shelter needs and — through the Continuum
of Care (COC) — assist coordination of available social services to address special needs. As needed, prepare
written operation standards consistent with State Law.
Emergency Shelters to
meet Continuum of
Care to address unmet
needs
Ongoing;
2015-23
2015-21: City funded existing emergency shelter Operations and participated in the COC. City & County also contracted with national experts to redesign homeless system to be a housing-first system in accordance with HUD requirements & national best practices. 2018: City approved CDBG funding to Catholic Charities for improvements to a building at Rainbow House which was being converted to family emergency shelter.
2019: Rainbow House opened; improvements are still in the design phase.
2021: The City also provided CDBG funding for improvements at Catholic Charities' Yellow House, which was converted into a family shelter
Housing
Authority,
Housing Division,
City Manager and
County of Napa
working with
non-profits
Shelter
Acquisition
Programs,
CDBG,
General Fund,
County
Housing Trust
funds
Ongoing.
The City will assist in meeting needs for additional
permanent supportive and transitional housing for
previously homeless.
Rehabilitate 8-bedroom
home for new
transitional housing for
homeless families
2015
2018-19: See Program H3.O.
2020: See Program H3.O - City approved the environmental review and approved entitlements for Heritage House/Valle Verde. 2021: the City reserved $2.7M in CDBG Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds for Heritage House/Valle Verde. The City also reserved $387K in CDBG-DR funding for Valley Lodge Apartments, a motel conversion which would create 54 units of permanent housing for formerly homeless, including transitional aged foster youth. Both allocations are pending State approval. The City also jointly applied with Burbank Housing for Project Homekey funding for the Valley Lodge Apartments project.
Housing
Authority and
County of Napa in
coordination with
Gasser
Foundation, and
other non-profits
Continuum of
Care federal
funds with
local match,
City and
County Trust
Funds
Ongoing, with updates.
The City shall continue to proactively promote, support, and implement additional support facilities and services to homeless persons and non-homeless persons with
special needs. A major intent of the program is to reduce barriers that hinder clients’ ability to obtain and retain housing and increase the success of shelter/transitional programs.
Retain existing and
support and assist
implementation of
added support facilities
and services
Day Services
Center
continuation
in the
community;
other
services are
ongoing
contingent
on funding
Ongoing
Housing
Authority,
Housing Division
and County of
Napa Health and
Human Services
Agency working
with Continuum
of Care and other
community-based
organizations
that provide
housing
assistance and
supportive
services for
homeless and
special needs
groups
CDBG Funds
for Shelter
Operations;
State
Emergency
Shelter
Grants to
improve
services of
existing
shelters and
expand
capacity for
services;
Housing
Opportunities
for persons
with AIDS
Ongoing, with updates.
Program Objective Timeline Progress during Period Responsibility Financing Status for HE Update The City Housing Authority shall continue to provide
rental assistance for homeless persons and persons with special needs to the extent federal funding is available.
Maintain 10 shelter Plus
Care vouchers/year, 30
Mainstream vouchers
for disabled/year and
100 non-elderly
Disabled (NED)
Vouchers
Ongoing;
2015-23
2015-21: SPC vouchers were maintained
2018: the Housing Authority was awarded 11 new Mainstream Vouchers for homeless or at-risk of homeless households with at least one disabled household member bringing the Housing Authority's total Mainstream vouchers to 41.
2019: the Housing Authority was awarded 17 project-based vouchers for homeless veterans and four project-based vouchers (in two different developments) for chronically homeless referred through the County's Coordinated Entry System.
2020: the Housing Authority was awarded 30 new Mainstream Vouchers for non-elderly disabled households, bringing the Housing Authority's total Mainstream vouchers to 71. The Housing Authority continued its Landlord Mitigation and Incentive Program, launched in 2017, to help house homeless and at-risk of homeless persons.
The Housing Authority reserved 39 project-based vouchers (in two different developments) for chronically homeless referred through the County's Coordinated Entry System.
2021: 71 Mainstream vouchers and 100 NED vouchers were
maintained. The Housing Authority was awarded 45 new
Emergency Housing Vouchers for special needs populations, including homeless and survivors of domestic violence. The Housing Authority continued its Landlord Mitigation and Incentive Program. The Housing Authority made 10 project-based vouchers of the 20 PBVs in Manzanita Family Apartments available to homeless (4 units) and to families at-risk of losing their children due to lack of housing (6 units).
Housing
Authority
Shelter Plus
Care,
Mainstream
and other
federal
programs
Ongoing.
The City shall continue to support the rehabilitation of non-profit facilities per the CDBG Consolidated Plan and its annual plans.
Provide funds to assist
in maintenance of nonprofit facilities serving
low income and special
needs groups
CDBG
allocations
2015: NEWS received CDBG funding to make improvements to its safe house
2016: Rainbow House received CDBG funding to make improvements to its shelter for young mothers and their children
2017: NEWS received CDBG funding to make improvements to its safe house which serves battered spouses and their children 2018-20: the City approved CDBG funds to Catholic Charities to make ADA improvements to Rainbow House to convert one of the buildings to a family homeless shelter.
2021: Due to increased construction costs, additional funding was allocated to the Rainbow House.
Housing Division CDBG Ongoing.
The City shall amend the SRO Ordinance to assure
excellent management of new single room occupancy
permanent housing for lower income households and the
City will encourage new SRO developments that meet
standards.
Revise SRO Ordinance;
20 units for extremely
low and low income
Ordinance
revision by
2016; units by
2023
Under Review Planning Division,
City Attorney Staff time Ongoing, with updates.
Program Objective Timeline Progress during Period Responsibility Financing Status for HE Update The City Housing Authority shall support efforts to
rehabilitate existing facilities to provide SRO housing for special needs persons and groups. There is a lack of SRO units in the City for individuals with support service
needs related to mental illness, alcohol and drug abuse, AIDS and other related diseases and disabilities, as well as for other very low income persons (including but not
limited to service workers, farmworkers, developmentally disabled, etc.).
Rehabilitate 20 units of
housing to SRO units
Ongoing;
2015-23
2019: The City reviewed a proposal to convert an abandoned assisted living facility into a 66-unit affordable housing project. Sixty of these units would be SROs.
2020: The City completed environmental and entitlement review for Heritage House/Valle Verde. Sixty of these units would be SROs.
Housing
Authority
working with
County social
service and
Mental Health
Agency
CDBG and
HOME
Rehabilitation
Programs and
other federal
funds
Ongoing, with updates.
The City shall continue to work with the County to
address the housing needs of farmworkers. Seasonal
farmworker housing is typically located in vineyard areas while the City has been a source of permanent rental
housing. The City shall assist farmworkers in finding
available housing by:
a. Distributing bilingual information through
organizations, agencies and at public locations.
b. Implementing related lower income housing programs
(such as H2.B, 2.E, 4.D, 4.F, 4.G).
c. At least annually, and more often as needed,
coordinating (through emails, phone calls or meetings)
with Napa County and non-profits, such as Napa Valley
Community Housing, California Human Development
Corporation, the Continuum of Care Committee and
Housing Committee of the Napa Valley Coalition of NonProfit Agencies that provide, or may provide services or housing for farmworkers when new funding
opportunities arise, in response to potential project
applications or during periodic meetings to discuss joint housing strategies.
d. When developers meet with Staff, assisting developers seeking to provide a portion of their units for farmworkers through such means as identifying appropriate sites,
providing funding or technical assistance for outside
funds, and permit streamlining through the entitlement
process (as was done with Magnolia Apartments, which
provides 14 units of farmworker housing).
e. At least bi-annually, or more often as funding is
available, considering incentives such as added “points” during an RFP process for inclusion of farmworker units when City funding is involved in lower income
development applications.
Promote access to new
permanent housing in
the City by distributing
bilingual information
when new affordable
rental opportunities are
available, implementing
related programs, and
coordinate with and
assist County and nonprofit agencies and
developers. Facilitate
development of 25 units
(accomplished as part
of programs H2.B, H4.F
or other programs
providing new lower
income housing) for
farmworkers and
equivalent income
households during
planning period
Ongoing;
2015-23 or as
specifically
noted in
program
2015: Napa Valley Community Housing marketed its new 40-unit project to farmworkers.
2019, 2020: Ongoing
2021: as described in H.4.B, the City reserved CDBG-DR funding for an affordable housing project, Heritage House/Valle Verde, that includes the conversion of an abandoned assisted living facility into a 66-unit affordable housing project. Sixty of these units would be SROs.
Housing Division Staff time
Evaluate new
requirements to create
a more specific goal.
Partner with agencies
best suited for this
housing.
Program Objective Timeline Progress during Period Responsibility Financing Status for HE Update The housing needs of persons with disabilities, in
addition to basic affordability, range from slightly
modifying existing units to requiring a varying range of supportive housing facilities. To facilitate the
development of units to accommodate persons with
developmental disabilities, the City shall reach out to developers of supportive housing to encourage
development of projects targeted for persons with
developmental disabilities. The City will also continue to support North Bay Housing Coalition to provide funding
and technical assistance, when feasible, to complete
repairs and improvements to two of their shared housing projects in Napa. The City will also work with the North Bay Housing Coalition to administer the Section 8
Mainstream Program.
Help developers apply
for available State and
Federal monies in
support of housing
construction and
rehabilitation targeted
for persons with
disabilities, including
developmental
disabilities. Initiate a
cooperative outreach
program with the North
Bay Regional Center.
Establish a
partnership
with the
Regional
Center by
2016; Assist
developers
as funding is
available
2015-18: Housing Division provided ADA Improvements as part of its Emergency grant/rehab programs
2019: Housing Division provided ADA Improvements to 1 unit as part of its Emergency grant/rehab programs
2020: Housing Division provided ADA Improvements to 4 units as part of its Emergency grant/rehab programs
2021: Housing Division provided ADA Improvements to 5 units as part of its Emergency grant/rehab programs
Housing Division
and Planning
Division
Staff time Ongoing, with updates.
The City shall continue to ensure incorporation of
California Title 24 Accessibility Regulations in new and rehabilitation projects and consider adoption of a
Universal Design ordinance extending these benefits to
more housing types by, for example, requiring some
percentage of units to contain universal design features (utilizing the State HCD model ordinance) and/or require developers to offer some accessible design features to
buyers.
Add Universal Design
provisions to zoning
ordinance
2016 Under Review
Planning and
Building
Divisions, City
Attorney
Staff time Under Review
The City shall monitor “traffic impact” (TI) overlay district” requirements when new residential mixed-use
developments are proposed to identify whether they are
creating significant obstacles to residential mixed-use development and, if so, pursue modifications to the TI
Overlay.
Monitor as new
developments are
proposed. Pursue
modifications to the TI
Overlay as needed
Ongoing;
2015-23 Ongoing
Public Works
Department,
Planning and
Building
Divisions, City
Attorney
Staff time
Addressed in other
programs.
The City shall adopt a policy, applicable to all
departments, giving priority both before and after
discretionary approvals, to 100% affordable projects or projects providing affordable housing onsite over other applications received earlier and potentially over City projects not involving immediate health or safety
matters.
Develop administrative
policy for project
processing during and
after approvals
2017 Completed 2017
City Manager’s
Office,
Interdepartmental
Staff time Completed.
Program Objective Timeline Progress during Period Responsibility Financing Status for HE Update The City shall continue to permit deferral of fees for
affordable housing until project occupancy.
Retain ability to defer
fees
Ongoing;
2015-23
Ongoing - amendments in 2018/19 to eliminate Affordable Housing fees for dwelling units under 500 sq ft.
City Manager’s
Office, City
Attorney,
Interdepartmental
Staff time Completed.
The City shall continue to assist funding of fair housing programs operated by Fair Housing Napa Valley (FHNV)
or other agencies, such as rent mediation, counseling
tenants/landlords, property owners and real estate
professionals in reaching voluntary conciliation; assisting tenants in filing official fair housing complaints with state and federal enforcement agencies; providing
information on fair housing laws at general public,
housing provider, tenant, social service organizations, other workshop trainings, and during individual
counseling; and dispersing informational brochures at the foregoing places as well as at many locations throughout the County. Fair Housing specifically provides fair
housing education, training and counseling to low
income limited English proficiency persons (for example, at ESL Adult School classes); City funding assistance will continue to require such efforts.
Retain Fair Housing
Agency
Ongoing;
2015-23 2015-22: City continued to fund Fair Housing
City Manager’s
Office; Housing
Division
CDBG Funds
and/ or other
local funds
Ongoing activity.
The Planning Division of the City Community
Development Department shall continue to update land
use and other planning-related databases annually and
integrate this in the City’s GIS system in order to be able to:
a. Monitor conversions/loss of units to other uses;
b. Monitor housing development and needs achievements
on an ongoing, rather than a periodic basis;
c. Monitor the supply of vacant and underutilized land
(residential and non-residential) on an ongoing, rather than a periodic basis.
Incorporate permit
tracking and land use
databases into GIS
system
Ongoing;
2015-23 Under Review Planning Division General Fund Ongoing activity.
City and Housing Authority Staff shall continue to review and take positions, as needed, on pending legislation
affecting housing and planning.
Monitor and support
key legislation
Ongoing;
2015-23
2015-17: Continued to review legislation & took action as appropriate 2019-20: City continued to support key legislation
2021: City increased legislative efforts this year by assigning a staff person to track and analyze information and engage with other stakeholder groups like the League of California Cities. City began work to formalize a legislative platform which would allow it to better monitor and weigh in on housing legislation.
Housing Division,
Planning Division,
City Attorney
Staff time Completed.
Program Objective Timeline Progress during Period Responsibility Financing Status for HE Update The City shall, as needed and as mutually agreeable,
continue to negotiate housing transfer agreements with
Napa County to meet common goals — particularly
agricultural protection, revenue neutrality, impact
mitigation and voter acceptance.
Assist County in
meeting Housing Needs
Ongoing;
2015-23
2015-16: No new transfer agreements
2017: Transfer Agreement for the Redwood Grove Housing Project 2018-19: Transfer Agreement for Napa Courtyard, Stoddard West, Oak Creek Terrace, and Redwood Grove Housing Project
2020, 2021: Napa Pipe Agreement includes the City of Napa taking 80% of the County's RHNA in the Sixth Housing Cycle
City Manager’s
Office, Planning
Division, Housing
Division, City
Attorney
Staff time Ongoing, with updates.
The City shall continue to work collaboratively with the County and other cities on Countywide housing and other planning issues.
Improve coordination
on City/County housing
issues
Ongoing;
2015-23
2015-19: Continued to work with County & other cities on housing issues.
2020, 2021: Continued to work with County & other cities on housing issues including updating joint underwriting guidelines.
City Manager’s
Office, Planning
and Housing
Divisions, Napa
County
Transportation
and Planning
Agency
Staff time Ongoing, with updates.
The City shall increase Community outreach and
educational efforts, including use of the City’s website, by:
a. Continue to assist residents through a “neighborhood resources” section on the City’s website.
b. Adopting clear Neighborhood Notice and Meeting
Procedures for housing development applications.
c. Using Specific Plan processes to create broad
community-based visions that include opportunities for
housing.
d. Expanding user friendly materials and information on the Planning process, timelines and guidelines.
e. Providing Staff outreach/education/referrals about
affordable and special needs housing, housing design and density, fair housing, available housing assistance
programs.
f. Expanding outreach and materials/handouts to nonEnglish speaking sectors of the population. g. Researching and informing the non-profit community
of new funding sources and programs when they come
up.
Outreach and education
Ongoing and
as Specific
Plans are
developed
2015: Amended Planning Division procedures to include Notice of Application for all project applications
2016-21: Provide Notice of Application to property owners within 500 feet for all project applications
a) Planning
Division;
Community
Outreach
Coordinator
b) Planning
Division
c-d) Planning
Division primary
e) Housing
Division primary
f) Housing,
Planning
Divisions
g) Housing
Division primary
Staff time and
materials
Ongoing, with updates.
Program Objective Timeline Progress during Period Responsibility Financing Status for HE Update The City shall continue to utilize existing and future housing impact fees, and other sources such as local revenue bonds, and continue to apply for State and federal funds to be used for the development of housing that is affordable to very low, low and moderate income households, special needs housing and
support services, first time homebuyer programs, retention of existing subsidized units as affordable, assisting very low and low income renters, rehabilitation of existing very low and low income units. When the City issues a Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA) projects that meet the following criteria will be prioritized:
•Incorporate cost efficient methods for home construction and operation, including value engineering;
•Address State requirements for minimum unit sizes unless applicant can justify alternative sizes;
•Include energy/water efficient and sustainable building methods and materials; and
•Locate within close proximity to transit, employment, and services.
Implementation of
Housing Programs
Ongoing;
2015-23
2017: City approved $1,025,000 from its Affordable Housing Impact Fee fund for Redwood Grove, a 34-unit affordable ownership project.
In an effort to generate additional revenue for housing programs, the City presented a ballot measure that authorizes a 1% increase in TOT to be used for workforce and affordable housing. Approved by the voters by over a 2/3 margin, it will provide approximately $2M per year in new housing program funding.
2018: Provided Burbank Housing an additional $500K in funding from the City's Affordable Housing Impact Fee for Stoddard West, a 50-unit rental development (which includes 49 affordable units and 1 manager's unit).
Housing
Authority,
Housing Division
Local, State,
and federal
sources
including
HOME funds,
Mortgage
Credit
Certificate
allocations,
Low Income
Housing Tax
Credits, etc.
Ongoing, with updates.
The City shall continue to use, to the fullest extent possible, available Federal subsidies to residents through the Section 8 or other rental assistance programs. The Housing Authority will provide information to local residents on the use of any new housing assistance programs which become available.
Maintain existing
allocation of up to 1,378
Section 8 Rental
Vouchers Countywide
(including Program 4.D
special needs vouchers)
Ongoing;
2015-23
2015: Utilized 100% of Section 8 allocation
2016: Utilized 100% of Section 8 allocation
2017: Utilized 97.4% of Section 8 allocation
2018: Utilized 101% of Section 8 allocation
2019: Utilized 102% of Section 8 allocation
2020: Utilized 98% of Section 8 allocation
2021: Utilized 93.6% of Section 8 allocation
Housing
Authority,
Housing Division
Section 8
voucher
program
Ongoing.
The City shall continue to encourage use of private resources as available to help meet identified housing needs and will actively pursue partnerships and ongoing communication with housing agencies/service providers.
Use of private resources
to achieve housing
element goals
Ongoing;
2015-23
2015-21: Continued to encourage private resources for affordable housing, especially through use of Housing Density Bonus program.
Participated in Non-Profit Coalition Housing Subcommittee 2018-21: Partnered with the County through an MOU for the homeless system
2021: Worked with Napa Valley Community Foundation and the City of Calistoga on the Napa Sonoma ADU Center.
Housing Division Private
sources
Ongoing, with updates.
In accordance with Government Code Section 65589.7, as
revised in 2005, immediately following City Council adoption, the City will deliver a copy of the 2015-2023 Housing Element to all public agencies or private entities that provide water or sewer services to properties within the City of Napa.
Ensure that water and
sewer providers are
aware of the City's
plans for residential
development
throughout the City.
By January
31, 2016
2015: Distributed June 18, 2015
[completed] Planning Division Staff time Completed.
Appendix H
Public and Stakeholder Engagement
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Napa | General Plan Housing Element 6th Cycle Update 2023-2031 Cover Image: DP+S, 2022
SECTION H.1. Public & Stakeholder Outreach and Collaboration....................................................................................H-1 SECTION H.2. Plan Development Phase ............................................................................................................................... H-2 H.2.1 Online Content and Outreach..................................................................................................................................H-2 H.2.2 Public Events .................................................................................................................................................................H-4 Public Information Booths .................................................................................................................................................................... H-4 Housing Week............................................................................................................................................................................................. H-4 Presentation to Community Groups ..................................................................................................................................................H-9 H.2.3 Housing Policy Working Groups ..........................................................................................................................H-10 Napa Recovery Center Workshop......................................................................................................................................................H-10 Housing Collaborators............................................................................................................................................................................ H-11 Sonoma/Napa Collaborative Equity Working Group .................................................................................................................H-12 SECTION H.3. Plan Review Phase .........................................................................................................................................H-14 H.3.1 Draft Public Review....................................................................................................................................................H-14 H.3.1.1 Input Mechanisms .....................................................................................................................................................................H-15 H.3.1.2 Addressing & Incorporating Comments ...........................................................................................................................H-15 H.3.2 HCD Review..................................................................................................................................................................H-16 H.3.3 City Council & Planning Commission Review................................................................................................H-18 SECTION H.4. Outreach Documentation..............................................................................................................................H-19 H.4.1 Balancing Act Survey Response Summary .....................................................................................................H-19 H.4.2 Dot Map Survey...........................................................................................................................................................H-21 H.4.3 Comment Card Submissions.................................................................................................................................H-22 H.4.4 Meeting Sign-In Sheets ...........................................................................................................................................H-25 Recovery Center Staff Focus Group................................................................................................................................................. H-25 Housing Collaborators Meeting.........................................................................................................................................................H-27 Kiwanis Club .............................................................................................................................................................................................H-29 H.4.5 Notice of Priority Water & Sewer Service ........................................................................................................ H-30 Figure H-1: Napahousingelement.com .................................................................................................................................................H-2 Figure H-2: Balancing Act..........................................................................................................................................................................H-3 Figure H-3. Sample Housing Week Outreach in English and Spanish....................................................................................H-9 Figure H-4: Latinx Outreach Meeting ................................................................................................................................................. H-11 Figure H-5: Documents Page at Project Website ............................................................................................................................H-15
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
As part of the Housing Element Update process, the City implemented the State’s public participation requirements, set forth in Cal. Gov’t. Code § 65583(c)(7), that jurisdictions “…shall make a diligent effort to achieve participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element.” The diligent effort required means that local jurisdictions must do more than issue the customary public notices and conduct standard public hearings prior to adopting a Housing Element.
State law requires cities and counties to take active steps to inform, involve, and solicit input from the public, particularly low-income and racial and ethnic households that might otherwise not participate in the process.
The City encouraged all members of the community to participate in the preparation of the Housing Element through a combination of general public notices (e.g., flyers, website posts, social media posts, and email listserv) and direct contacts with community organizations inviting them to attend the public workshop and the opportunity to review and comment on the document.
Public and stakeholder engagement is a critical component to understanding existing and future housing needs in the City of Napa. Public outreach is also a required component of the City of Napa’s Housing Element update. As such, it’s vital that early and continued engagement is facilitated through a diverse range of mediums to ensure residents, community members, neighboring jurisdictions, and other stakeholders have adequate opportunity to provide input.
There are two main phases of public and stakeholder outreach and engagement and key components within each as outlined below:
PHASE 1 – Plan Development Phase PHASE 2 – Plan Review Phase Online Outreach Public Draft Release
Public Events Summarizing & Addressing Comments
Housing Policy Working Groups HCD Submittal & Plan Revisions City Council & Planning Commission Meetings City Council & Planning Commission Meetings
NAPA HOUSING ELEMENT WEBSITE
Napahousingelement.com is a project website that provides information on the 2023-2031 City of Napa Housing Element, including background information on the requirements of a housing element, a project overview, news & events, frequently asked questions (FAQs), resources, and access to the Balancing Act application. The website is designed to communicate project information to community members of Napa. Additionally, users can sign up for a newsletter and contact the project team directly.
Figure H-1 illustrates the design and features of the website1.
Figure H-1: Napahousingelement.com
1 https://napahousingelement.com
BALANCING ACT
Balancing Act2is a simulation that allows users within the City of Napa community to provide input on where they would like to see new housing in the city. The underlying goal of the application is to receive community feedback on preferences for the location of new housing units in the city through a user-created housing plan that achieves the city’s required regional housing needs assessment (RHNA)3. Balancing Act has been assembled with preliminary analysis similar to the Housing Element Site Inventory analysis.
The planning area within city limits is broken into 12 neighborhoods. Each neighborhood is presented to the user with pipeline units and various additional housing unit options by development type (ADU, single family, etc.). The user completes a housing plan by adding units in each neighborhood across various development types until they reach the RHNA unit goal, then submits their plan to the city.
Figure H-2 illustrates some of the user interface features of Balancing Act.
Figure H-2: Balancing Act
Summary results are detailed in Section H.4.1.
2 https://napahousingelement.com/balancing-act/
3 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/regional-housing-needs-allocation
OTHER ONLINE OUTREACH
The Project Team leveraged the City’s Facebook page, Instagram page, and Twitter Account to promote the project website, share updates, and highlight upcoming opportunities for involvement, including Housing Week.
On July 26, 29, and 30, 2022, the City of Napa hosted information booths at three community events to provide an overview of the Housing Element process and solicit input from stakeholders and the public regarding housing needs and opportunities in specific locations across the City. An analog version of Balancing Act was provided in posterboard form; the board depicted neighborhoods and members of the public were invited to affix stickers to areas they believed were well-suited to additional housing developments. Members of the public were also invited to participate in a visioning exercise using penny jars to indicate their agreement with visioning statements (see inset) about their community.
Spanish-speaking residents who attended the July 26 event were invited to participate in the Latinx working group help on July 27. A Spanish translator was present at the community event on July 30, however the City did not receive any comments or oral input in Spanish at that event.
On July 25-31, 2022, the City hosted Housing Week, which included activities to solicit public input on Housing Element policies and priorities. Housing Week included many types of events, such as:
The City hosted in-person public outreach events to gather feedback about the Housing Element Update in July of 2022. These events included:
• Two tabling sessions at the Napa Farmers Market
• A focus group with Latinx residents of the City of Napa • A working session with housing collaborators
• An informational presentation to the Napa Kiwanis Club • A booth at Oxbow Market during the summer concert series Each public event offered residents the following mechanisms to share their opinions about housing in the City of Napa:
One-page, hardcopy versions of a simplified Balancing Act survey on clip boards were provided for attendees to quickly respond. Each attendee received a take-home card with the website address to participate later, if they do not have time to take the survey in person, and to spread the word.
A quarter-page long-answer comment card could be offered for attendees to write down their general thoughts on the Housing Element and housing in the City of Napa, in lieu of or in addition to the hardcopy survey.
All comment cards are available in Section H.4.3.
A large hardcopy map of opportunity zones was set up at all locations to allow attendees to place stickers on the map to visualize housing development opportunities in the City.
The final map is presented in Section H.4.2
These hardcopy handouts included basic information on what a General Plan and Housing Element are and why the Housing Element is important for the City of Napa.
All attendees received a card with the website address and basic information to take with them and help spread the word around town.
This exercise verified and strengthened visioning already done for the General Plan Update. Attendees were provided with a bag of pennies to distribute however they wished among several jars labeled with housing-related value statements such as “I want to live near transit” or “I want to be able to save for the future.” Jars are weighed to tally results at the conclusion of each event.
Each event included a prize provided jointly by the City and DP+S to encourage participation. If an attendee completes a Balancing Act survey, they received a raffle ticket and were entered to win a prize at the end of the event or for the grand prize at the end of the Housing Element Update project.
On July 28, staff attended a meeting of the Kiwanis Club of Napa to provide an overview of the Housing Element and RHNA process and solicit input from stakeholders and the public regarding housing needs and opportunities. Approximately 30 Kiwanis members attended and were given an opportunity to ask questions about the Housing Element process as well as participate in the analog version of Balancing Act and the penny jar visioning exercise.
The City provided Spanish translations of its invitation to Housing Week and had translation services available at the Saturday Farmers Market on July 30. See Figure H-3. The City will continue outreach on housing and affordability issues in Spanish to the greatest extent possible.
Figure H-3. Sample Housing Week Outreach in English and Spanish Housing Element 101 Handout
English & Spanish
Housing Week Social Media Graphic
napahousingelement.com English & Spanish
Balancing Act Social Media
Graphic
On July 27, 2022, the City held a Community Workshop for Spanish-speaking residents of Napa that was attended by 10 staff members from the Napa Recovery Center as well as 3 members of the public.
Spanish translation was offered at the workshop. The intent of the workshop was to provide an overview of the Housing Element and RHNA process and solicit input from stakeholders and the public regarding housing needs and opportunities. After a brief presentation, staff asked participants for their opinions about the City’s shortcomings, accomplishments, types of housing needs and where this housing can be developed, as well as other barriers aside from income preventing residents from accessing housing. Feedback included several topics related to the series of questions asked, including how the City can increase housing stock for all affordability levels, especially those in the “missing middle” who do not qualify for assistance but who cannot afford housing in Napa. Participants also discussed the difficulty in accessing programs created to address fair housing practices and indicated a need for increased participation through community outreach.
Figure H-4: Latinx Outreach Meeting
(L) Latinx residents consider policies and key questions related to the Housing Element at the July 27 Working Session. (R) Attendees of the July 27 Working Session participate in a penny jar visioning activity. Photo Credit: Dynamic Planning + Science
Also on July 27, the City held a meeting with housing collaborators The intent of the workshop was to solicit input from stakeholders regarding development needs and opportunities. Feedback included several topics related to the series of questions asked, including:
• Need clarity around permit fees, review times, etc. for housing projects that change land use designation and zoning;
• More public education about the benefits and importance of affordable housing, as well as the different levels of affordability;
• Integration of affordable housing into other projects; • Mechanisms for reducing or waiving impact fees;
• Revising guest parking requirements;
• Expedite planning review for mixed-affordability housing projects; and • Include developers in review of potential sites to determine feasibility.
Table H-1: Housing Collaborators Workshop Attendees
Name Affiliation
Larry Florin, CEO;
Jocelyn Lin Burbank Housing
Mariann Lim EAH Housing
Cass Walker Gasser
Erica Sklar;
Karina O'Briain Napa Valley Community Housing
Adam Kuperman;
James Conlon Satellite Affordable Housing Assoc.
Trent Sanson Yellow Roof Foundation
Charles E. Loveman, Jr. Heritage House Partners
Dev Goetschius Housing Land Trust of Sonoma Co.
Pablo Zatarain Fair Housing Napa Valley
The Equity Working Group (EWG) was convened by the Napa Sonoma Collaborative to engage community members in the Housing Element Update process within the Napa Sonoma region. The EWG also had the secondary purpose of exposing jurisdictions to community members outside of the formal public participation process. Over the course of six sessions the EWG discussed barriers, obstacles, and constraints to providing affordable housing within the Napa Sonoma region as well as developed recommendations for how to address these issues. The EWG members were nominated by members of the Napa Sonoma Collaborative due to their work within the community, including those who directly engage vulnerable populations, provide housing for vulnerable populations, or are a member of a vulnerable population. Full EWG Report Link.
EWG Key Findings
• The current approach to housing policies throughout the region is ad hoc and piecemeal and what is needed is a holistic approach to housing and homelessness issues:
o Affordable homeownership is missing from the conversation o Transitional and supportive housing as a more integrated part of the whole conversation is missing
o The traditional paradigm of designing affordable housing should be changed; design professionals should be educated to think holistically about designing communities and integrating affordable housing patterns into community design. • A lack of community trust leads to a lack of honest and transparent communication and engagement between local governments, partner agencies, and community members. • Additional housing costs are not factored into the affordable housing definition:
o The official definition of affordable housing does not include all related housing costs:
▪ Those who live in deed-restricted affordable housing face food shortages, high insurance rates, and rising utility costs, to name a few, which are not factored into the official definition of affordable housing. Yet these are costs that must be included in an already strained budget.
o Super-commuting leads to higher gas costs and more wear and tear on cars, but it is necessary to find and maintain affordable housing.
o The housing situation within the region leads to students working to support their families, creating an unintended consequence of students dropping out of their educational careers and leaving the community after they matriculate from High School since they cannot afford housing.
o Onerous regulation leads to displacement.
• Affordable homeownership is missing from the conversation. Renting is not a sustainable approach, and it prevents people from accessing the “American Dream.” • The lack of affordable and safe housing due to high development costs, loss of units due to disasters, and gentrification (the EWG specifically called out investors renovating potentially naturally occurring affordable housing into higher-end units) are some of the contributing factors to the housing crisis within the region.
• Discrimination is both subtle and overt:
o Tenants are susceptible to landlords taking advantage of them due to a particular set of issues, including but not limited to:
▪ Language barriers
▪ Cultural Barriers
▪ Stereotypes
▪ Disabilities
▪ Income
o Discrimination is a multilayered situation:
▪ Tenants in substandard/unhealthy housing live in precarious conditions and are afraid to complain due to the fear of being evicted
▪ There is a genuine fear that rents will increase if tenants complain about substandard situations
o Stereotypes associated with low-income tenants and voucher holders are a barrier to obtaining housing:
▪ Criminal backgrounds and subsidies contribute to stereotypes that make landlords leery of renting
▪ SB 329 makes it illegal to reject housing vouchers; however, it still occurs o Discrimination is difficult to determine since there aren’t enough vacancies to even apply for housing
• The lack of available land, regulations, and high impact fees contribute to astronomical development costs.
The second phase of public and stakeholder engagement is the document review phase. The draft Housing Element was circulated for public review on the project website, on the city website, via newsletter, and on city social media.
The public draft of the Housing Element was initially released on December 22, 2022, and open for a period of 30 days until January 21, 2023.
Napa Recovery Center Meeting
Continuing the city’s targeted outreach to Spanish-speaking residents in Napa, on January 10, 2023, the City held an online meeting for Napa Recovery Center staff members and others who attended the original workshop on July 27, 2022. During the meeting, project staff presented an overview of the draft Housing Element, discussed key topics of interest identified in the July workshop, and requested feedback from attendees, including initial reactions during the meeting and more detailed comments before the end of the review period if possible.
Planning Commission Public Meeting
The Planning Commission held a public meeting on January 5, 2023, to introduce the draft Housing Element and kick-off the public draft review period. During the meeting, city staff presented a report on the draft Housing Element and requested the Commission’s feedback; no formal action was requested.
Discussion was facilitated by city staff and focused on state requirements, the update process, the depth of analysis provided by the document, community engagement efforts, and housing inventory sites selection. Staff answered questions from the Planning Commissioners, including about data sources, demographic changes, pipeline projects, income assessment and categories, the analysis of impediments to fair housing, allocating units for local residents, and penalties for noncompliance.
Website Posting
As shown in Figure H-5, the draft housing element was
hosted at www.napahousingelement.com/documents.
Accompanying the link to the draft housing element is
a description of the document structure and
instructions on how to comment.
Review Mechanism
The documents page, along with every page of the
website, includes a translate button to change the
rendered language of the web page. The comments are
captured via three options. Option 1 is to launch the
“Review PDF” which is a collaborative platform where
the user can open the document, comment, and see all
other comments in the draft. All comments are then
compiled into a single copy of the housing element.
The second option is a Google-based comment form
that collects the reviewer’s feedback in text format and submits directly to the project team.
The final option is a direct email link to the project
team.
The public review draft of the Housing Element was posted for review and comment by members of the public and stakeholder groups for a 30-day period, from December 22, 2022, to January 21, 2023. A total of 35 comments were received from 14 individuals, some representing entities such as the Napa County Progressive Alliance and Systems Change Advocate Disability Services and Legal Center (DSLC). Comments ranged from general feedback and minor grammatical edits to requests for more indepth analysis of specific topics. Examples of comments received include: revisions to Housing Element programs to more specifically address challenges for people with disabilities, funding mechanisms, and implementation; agreement with preserving community character while addressing housing for all community members; and questions and concerns about specific housing sites included in the land inventory.
Figure H-5: Documents Page at Project Website
Upon completion of the 30-day public review period, the City considered public comments received and made necessary revisions to the draft Housing Element prior to submitting the updated draft to HCD for review on February 16, 2023. Summaries of comments and responses are provided in Appendix J, Comment Tracking.
After incorporating revisions based on public comment, the draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD for review on February 16, 2023. The city received a total of 35 formal comments back from HCD on May 17, 2023. In order to efficiently address the comments received, the city met with representatives of HCD on June 2, 2023, and July 20, 2023, and additional informal comments were received from HCD on August 7, 2023.
City staff engaged with HCD to identify revisions and additions to the draft Housing Element in response to HCD’s written findings. Specific responses to HCD comments and references to where in the Housing Element revisions have been incorporated are detailed in the HCD Comment Tracking Sheet (Appendix J). Summaries of key changes made to the Housing Element in response to HCD review comments include, for example, the following:
▪ HCD Comment No. 13: Accessory Dwelling Units – The element projects 366 ADUs to be constructed over the planning period, averaging approximately 46 units per year. This projection was based on annual permit data from 2018-2021. 2023-2031 City of Napa Housing Element 10 However, Annual Progress Reports submitted by the City indicated building permit figures of 20, 34, 45, and 60 for 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively. The element should reconcile these figures and adjust assumptions as appropriate. o City Response: To complete the housing sites inventory analysis, clarification was added that ADU projection is based on the adoption of loosened regulations in 2019, allowing the City to use permit numbers from 2019 to 2021 as the baseline average, consistent with accepted projection methodology. (Appendix B, Section B.4, pg. B-37) ▪ HCD Comment No. 24: Land Use Controls – While the element lists some development standards for each zone, it should also list lot coverage requirements for each zone. In addition, the element should independently and cumulatively evaluate the impact of development standards on housing supply (number of units), cost, feasibility, and ability to achieve maximum densities. For example, the analysis should address the combination of floor area ratios, setbacks, heights, lot coverage, and other bulk standards for impacts on achieving maximum densities. The element may utilize input from the development community and past projects to address these requirements.
o City Response: Added lot coverage to Table E-3: Summary of Development Standards.
Additional narrative has been added under Section E.1.1.1.2.1 regarding cumulative impacts of development standards (pg. E-13), including discussion of recent trends seen in Napa to develop sites at the maximum density, use density bonuses, and add units to ongoing projects where GP updates have increased the maximum density. A list of Pipeline Projects developing at or above the maximum density allowed is also provided in this section as evidence of recent trends.
o HCD Follow-Up Comment: Needs stronger analysis… would be helpful to include table with sample project(s) over prior planning period and can use trends from pipeline projects. Compare site characteristics between projects (size, zone, density, actual number of units constructed).
o City Follow-Up Response: To complete the analysis of potential governmental constraints on housing development, lot coverage was added for all districts where it applies, and additional discussion was provided describing the cumulative impacts of the City’s development standards. Discussion includes recent trends seen in Napa to develop sites at the maximum density, use density bonuses, and add units to ongoing projects where recent General Plan updates have increased the maximum density allowed, as evidenced by several current projects developing at or above the maximum density. (Appendix E, Section E.1.1.2.1, pp. E-9 to 10, Table E-3, and pp. E-13 to 14) ▪ HCD Comment No. 25: Local Processing and Permit Procedures – While the element includes some information about permit processing procedures and processing times (pp E28-33), it should also describe approval procedures including the number of public hearings, approval findings, and any other relevant information for a typical single-family and multi-family development. In addition, the element should address public comments on this draft submittal and discuss compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act and intersections with CEQA and timing requirements, including streamlining determinations and add or modify Programs H3-
1.2 (Design Standards) and H3-2.2 (Design Review Guidelines) as appropriate. Finally, the element should discuss whether procedures and provision comply with Senate Bill 9 (SB9) (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) which generally, among other provisions, requires ministerial approval of a subdivision of a parcel in a single-family zone into two parcels. o City Response: To complete the analysis of potential governmental constraints on housing development: Additional details were added about development review procedures and processing times, approval findings, and the City’s Design Guidelines; Program H3-1.2 calls for the Design Guidelines to be updated by 2025 to ensure they are objective, support review outcome certainty, and support the community’s housing needs; additional details were added about Senate Bill 35 (SB 35), including that the City was only subject to SB 35 starting in 2022 and has not seen any qualifying applications since; it was clarified that Napa currently complies with SB 9 and Program H202.1 will codify existing procedure; and a new section regarding CEQA requirements was added, including timing, costs, and examples of required environmental review for recent projects. (Appendix E, Section E.1.3.1, pgs. E-29 to 34; Table E-6 and Section E.1.3.2, pg. E35; Section E.1.3.3, pg. E-36; and Housing Element, Section 5, pgs. 53 and 62, Programs H2-
2.1 and H3-1.2)
A redline version of the draft Housing Element showing the revisions made in response to HCD’s comments was published to the project website on August 11, 2023, and remained posted through the minimum ten-day review period. With the revisions summarized here and detailed in Appendix J, the draft Housing Element is in substantial compliance with state Housing Element Law.
Resubmittal to HCD is anticipated mid-September 2023 – this section will be completed based on subsequent review and comment.
As part of the plan review phase, the draft Housing Element was submitted to the City of Napa Planning Commission and City Council for review in September and October of 2023.
Planning Commission Review & Recommendation
A duly noticed public hearing in front of the Planning Commission was held on September 7, 2023. The scheduled hearing was published in a local newspaper of record, the Napa Valley Register, on August 26, 2023. In addition, staff provided direct notice to persons who previously requesting updates on the project. Prior to the hearing, staff received two comments from members of the public regarding the draft. In summary, one of the comments suggested stronger language be incorporated into the Housing Element reinforcing “no net loss” and to make it more difficult to modify a housing site’s land use or density allowance. The second comment received was a re-submittal of a comment provided during the initial 30-day review period between December 2022 and January 2023, which requested acceptance of the Greenbelt designation for the Foster Road Mixed Use area; however, this revision would be outside the scope of the Housing Element.
At the September 7, 2023, public hearing, city staff presented a summary of the draft element, its policies and programs, and the public and HCD comments received and resulting revisions to date.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a resolution amending the 2040 General Plan to adopt the 6th Cycle Housing Element for the 2023 to 2031 planning period. In addition, staff recommended a determination that the actions authorized by the resolution are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Public comment was taken by the Planning Commission during the hearing, which consisted of questions about new housing construction and builder’s remedy.
After addressing questions and providing additional information about the draft, the Commission closed the hearing and made a motion to forward a recommendation to City Council to adopt the Housing Element with one minor revision and determine the authorized actions are exempt from CEQA. The minor revision recommended was to move up the timeline for Housing Element Program H4-1.1, Sustainability Standards, from a deadline of 2030 to 2025.
City Council Review & Certification
This section will be updated following the City Council public hearing scheduled for October 17, 2023.
The following memorandum will be sent to the City of Napa Utilities Department, Water Division, and the Napa Sanitation District (NapaSan) following certification and adoption of the element to provide notice of priority sites for water and sewer service.
To: Water and Sewer Service Providers
From: City of Napa Community Development Department
Date: TBD
Subject: Notice of Priority Water and Sewer Service
To whom it may concern,
Per Chapter 727, Statues of 2004 (Senate Bill 1087), upon completion of a housing element, the local government is responsible for immediately distributing a copy of the element to area water and sewer providers. In addition, water and sewer providers must grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include housing units affordable to lower-income households. Chapter 727 was enacted to improve the effectiveness of the law in facilitating housing development for lower-income families and workers.
To ensure adequate water and sewer capacity is available to accommodate the City of Napa’s housing needs, local water and sewer providers must adopt written policies and procedures that grant a priority for service hook-ups to developments that help meet the community’s share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for lower-income households. In addition, state law prohibits water and sewer providers from denying service, conditioning service approval, or reducing service for an application for development that includes housing affordable to lower-income households, unless specific written findings are made.
A copy of the full state-certified and adopted City of Napa 2023-2031 Housing Element is attached and also available on the city website at cityofnapa.org/262/Housing-Element. Below are summaries of the city’s RHNA and the Housing Element site inventory.
City of Napa 2023-2031 Housing Element Regional Housing Needs Allocation Income Group RHNA
Extremely Low- and Very Low-Income 770
Low-Income 444
Moderate-Income 405
Above Moderate-Income 1,050
Total 2,669
City of Napa 2023-2031 Housing Element Site Inventory Summary Lower-Income
Units
Moderate-Income
Units
Above ModerateIncome Units Total Units
RHNA 1,214 405 1,050 2,669
Pipeline Residential
Development 337 135 1,412 1,884
Capacity on Vacant Sites 579 74 147 800
Capacity on Underutilized
Sites 202 137 128 467
ADU Projection 220 110 36 366
Total Capacity 1,338 456 1,723 3,517
Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) +124 +51 +673 +848
Surplus % 10.2% 12.6% 64.1% 31.8%
Note: Lower-Income Units includes those housing units affordable to households categorized as low-, very low-, and extremely low-income.
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
Appendix I
Glossary
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Napa | General Plan Housing Element 6th Cycle Update 2023-2031 Cover Image: Dmitry, source: Adobe Express
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG): The regional government agency authorized by the Federal and State Government to address regional transportation, housing, and other planning issues in the Bay Area. ABAG membership is voluntary and represents the cities, towns and counties of the Bay Area with a population of more than 7 million people. We offer members research and analysis, education and outreach, regional coalition coordination, and cost-effective member service programs.
Accessible Housing: The construction or modification of housing to enable independent living for individuals with disabilities.
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): A self-contained living unit, either attached to or detached from, and in addition to, the primary residential unit on a single lot. Sometimes known as “granny flat” or “second unit.”
Acre: a unit of land measure equal to 43,560 square feet. Net acreage refers to the portion of a site exclusive of existing or planned public or private road rights-of-way.
Access to Opportunity: Geographic access to goods, resources, and services (including employment, education, and transportation) that offer individuals, particularly low-income households and individuals, the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health. Low-income communities and communities of color often have disproportionate access to opportunity. Access to opportunity is generally expressed as “high resource” or “low resource”
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH): A state mandated requirement for government agencies and grantees to take meaningful actions to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to strengthen fair access to housing and more inclusive communities.
Affordable Housing: Under State and federal statutes, housing which costs no more than 30 percent of gross household income. Housing costs include rent or mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, insurance, homeowner association fees, and related costs.
Age-in-Place: The ability to live in one’s own home and community safely, independently, and comfortably, regardless of age, income, or ability level.
Assisted Housing: Housing that has received subsidies (such as low interest loans, density bonuses, direct financial assistance, etc.) by federal, state, or local housing programs in exchange for restrictions requiring a certain number of housing units to be affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.
At-Risk Housing: Assisted rental housing that is at risk of losing its status as housing affordable for extremely low, very low-, low-, and moderate-income residents due to the expiration of federal, state or local agreements.
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD): The State Department responsible for administering State-sponsored housing programs and for reviewing housing elements to determine compliance with State housing law.
Census: The official United States decennial enumeration of the population conducted by the federal government.
Chronic Homelessness: A chronically homeless individual is a homeless individual with a disability who lives either in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven or in an emergency shelter, or in an institutional care facility.
Collective Ownership Models: Ownership by a group for the benefit of members of that group.
Examples of collective ownership models include housing cooperatives or "co-ops," and community land trusts.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): A grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for entitlement communities and by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for non-entitled jurisdictions. This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development, including public facilities and economic development.
Condominium: A building or group of buildings in which units are owned individually, but the structure, common areas and facilities are owned by all owners on a proportional, undivided basis.
Continuum of Care: A community plan to organize and deliver housing and services to meet the specific needs of people who are homeless as they move to stable housing and maximum selfsufficiency. It includes action steps to end homelessness and prevent a return to homelessness.
Covenant: A property title agreement which places resale or rental restrictions on a housing unit.
Density: The number of dwelling units per unit of land. Density usually is expressed “per acre,” (e.g., a development with 100 units located on 20 acres has density of 5.0 units per acre).
Density Bonus: The allowance of additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is otherwise permitted usually in exchange for the provision or preservation of affordable housing units at the same site or at another location.
Development Impact Fees: Fees required by City code, ordinance, resolution or other City law to be paid as a condition of, or prerequisite to, issuance of a building permit for the development of residential uses, as those fees may be amended from time to time.
Development Pipeline: Refers to projects at all stages of the development process after having applied for a land use or building permit through a local planning department.
Displacement: Occurs when certain groups of individuals or households (often low-income) are forced to move from neighborhoods as a result of rising housing costs and neighborhood conditions associated with new investments in those neighborhoods.
Diversity: The practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.
Dwelling Unit: means one or more rooms that include permanent provision for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation that are occupied for residential purposes by one or more persons living as a single housekeeping unit.
Energy Conservation: Reducing the consumption of energy through using less of an energy service.
This can be achieved either by using energy more efficiently or by reducing the amount of service used.
Emergency Shelter: Emergency shelter is defined as housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. (See Government Code, § 65582, subd. (d) and Health and Safety Code, § 50801, subd. (e).) Fair Market Rent (FMR): Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are freely set rental rates defined by HUD as the median gross rents charged for available standard units in a county or metropolitan area. Fair Market Rents are used for the Section 8 Rental Program and other HUD programs.
First-Time Home Buyer: Defined by HUD as an individual or family who has not owned a home during the three- year period preceding the HUD-assisted purchase of a home. Jurisdictions may adopt local definitions for first-time home buyer programs which differ from non-federally funded programs.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The ratio of gross building area (GBA) of development divided by the total net lot area (NLA). For example, a one-story building covering its entire lot would have a FAR of 1.0. A twostory building covering half its lot would also have an FAR of 1.0. The formula for calculating FAR is GBA/NLA = FAR.
General Plan: The General Plan is a legal document, adopted by the legislative body of a City or County, setting forth policies regarding long-term development. California law requires the preparation of seven elements or chapters in the General Plan: Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. Additional elements are permitted to address local needs.
Gentrification: The process by which higher income households displace lower income residents of a neighborhood, changing the essential character of that neighborhood.
Group Quarters: A facility which houses groups of unrelated persons not living in households (U.S.
Census definition). Examples of group quarters include institutions, dormitories, shelters, military quarters, assisted living facilities and other quarters, including single-room occupancy (SRO) housing, where 10 or more unrelated individuals are housed.
High Resource Area(s): Area(s) identified by HCD and the Tax Credit Allocation Committee’s Opportunity Area Mapping Tool that offer low-income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health.
HOME Program: The HOME Investment Partnership Act, Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990. HOME is a Federal program administered by HUD which provides formula grants to States and localities to fund activities that build, buy, and/or rehabilitate affordable housing for rent or home ownership or provide direct rental assistance to low-income people.
Homelessness: As defined in the HEARTH act, homeless means: (1) an individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, such as those living in an emergency shelter, transitional housing, or places not meant for habitation; (2) an individual or family who will imminently lose their primary nighttime residence (within 14 days), provided that no subsequent housing has been identified and the individual/family lacks support networks or resources needed to obtain housing; (3) unaccompanied youth under 25 years of age, or families with children and youth, who qualify under other Federal statutes, such as the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, have not had a lease or ownership interest in a housing unit in the last 60 or more days, have had two or more moves in the last 60 days, and who are likely to continue to be unstably housed; (4) an individual or family who is fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, has no other residence, and lacks the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing.
Household: The U.S. Census Bureau defines a household as all persons living in a housing unit whether or not they are related. A single person living in an apartment as well as a family living in a house is considered a household. Household does not include individuals living in dormitories, prisons, convalescent homes, or other group quarters.
Household Income: The total income of all the persons living in a household. Household income is commonly grouped into income categories based upon household size, and income, relative to the regional median family income. The following categories are used in the Housing Element:
Extremely Low: Households earning less than 30 percent of County median family income; Very low: Households earning less than 50 percent of County median family income; Low: Households earning 51 percent to 80 percent of the County median family income; Moderate: Households earning 81 percent to 120 percent of County median family income; and Above- Moderate: Households earning above 120 percent of County median family income.
Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly Section 8 vouchers): A tenant-based rental assistance program that subsidizes a family’s rent in a privately owned house or apartment. The program is administered by local public housing authorities. Assistance payments are based on 30 percent of household annual income. Households with incomes of 50 percent or below the area median income are eligible to participate in the program.
Housing First: A homeless assistance approach or policy that prioritizes providing permanent housing to people experiencing homelessness as quickly as possible, and other supportive services afterward.
Housing Problems: Defined by HUD as a household which: (1) occupies a unit with physical defects (lacks complete kitchen or bathroom); (2) meets the definition of overcrowded; or (3) spends more than 30 percent of income on housing cost.
Housing Subsidy: Housing subsidies refer to government assistance aimed at reducing housing sales or rent prices to more affordable levels. Two general types of housing subsidy exist. Where a housing subsidy is linked to a particular house or apartment, housing subsidy is “project” or “unit” based. In Section 8 rental assistance programs the subsidy is provided to the family (called “tenant-based”) who can then use the assistance to find suitable housing in the housing unit of their choice.
Housing Unit: A room or group of rooms used by one or more individuals living separately from others in the structure, with direct access to the outside or to a public hall and containing separate toilet and kitchen facilities.
Inclusion: This is an active state of being valued, respected and supported. Inclusion focuses on the needs of every individual and ensures the right conditions are in place for each person to achieve his or her full potential. An inclusive environment ensures equitable access to resources and opportunities for all. It also enables individuals and groups to feel safe, respected, engaged, motivated, and valued for who they are and for their contributions toward organizational and societal goals.
Inclusive Economic Development Investment(s): Investments that expand economic opportunities that benefit underserved and underrepresented communities, thereby reducing social, racial, health, and economic disparities in these communities. Through public and private actions that are responsive to community need and build on resident assets, these investments foster small business growth, increase quality jobs, stabilize people in safe and affordable homes, prepare residents of all ages to fill jobs, improve neighborhoods, and increase household wealth.
Infill: The process of developing vacant or under-utilized parcels within existing developed areas.
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU): An additional, independent living unit created through the conversion of an existing legally permitted bedroom in a single-family dwelling. (See definition of Accessory Dwelling Unit)
Large Household: A household with five or more members.
Low Barrier Navigation Center(s): A “Housing First”, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. For emergency shelters, creating a “low barrier” environment means removing as many pre- conditions to entry as possible and responding to the needs and concerns of people seeking shelter.
Manufactured Housing: Housing that is constructed of manufactured components, assembled partly at the site rather than totally at the site. Also referred to as modular housing.
Market-Rate Housing: Housing which is available on the open market without any subsidy. The price for housing is determined by the market forces of supply and demand and varies by location.
Median Income: The annual income for each household size within a region which is defined annually by HUD. Half of the households in the region have incomes above the median and half have incomes below the median.
Mobile Home: A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is at least 8 feet in width and 32 feet in length, is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling unit when connected to the required utilities, either with or without a permanent foundation.
Mortgage Revenue Bond: A state, county or city program providing financing for the development of housing through the sale of tax-exempt bonds.
Older Adult: (Another word for “senior” or “elderly” person). The Census Bureau defines an older adult or senior as a person who is 65 years or older, and this definition is used in the Housing Element document unless otherwise noted. For persons of social security eligibility, a senior is defined as a person age 62 and older. Other age limits may be used for eligibility for housing assistance or retired communities.
Overcrowding: As defined by the U.S. Census, a household with greater than 1.01 persons per room, excluding bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and porches. Severe overcrowding is defined as households with greater than 1.51 persons per room.
Overpayment: The extent to which gross housing costs, including utility costs, exceed 30 percent of gross household income, based on data published by the U.S. Census Bureau. Severe overpayment exists if gross housing costs exceed 50 percent of gross income.
Parcel: The basic unit of land entitlement. A designated area of land established by plat, subdivision, or otherwise legally defined and permitted to be used, or built upon.
Public Housing: A project-based low-rent housing program operated by independent local public housing authorities. A low-income family applies to the local public housing authority in the area in which they want to live.
Racial Equity: A core value in which race does not affect life outcomes. Regardless of one’s identity, equity is when all people have just treatment, access to opportunities necessary to satisfy their essential needs, advance their well- being and achieve their full potential while identifying and eliminating barriers that have prevented the full participation of some groups.
Redlining: A discriminatory practice in which services or goods by federal government agencies were denied or restricted in certain areas of a community, often based on race or ethnicity.
Reasonable Accommodations: Amendments to a City’s standard procedures for processing permits or application in order to enable people with disabilities to participate fully in the process.
Regional Housing Needs Plan: A quantification by a Council of Government or by the State Department of Housing and Community Development of existing and projected housing need, by household income group, for all localities within a region.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): Each city and county in the Regional Housing Needs Plan receives a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of a total number of housing units that it must plan through their General Plan Housing Elements within a specified time period (October 31, 2021 to October 31,-2029 for this Housing Element period). Allocations are also distributed within four economic income categories; these four categories must add up to the total overall number a jurisdiction is allocated. The City’s total RHNA from the 2021-2029 Housing Element is 45,580 housing units distributed in the following way: 10,463 should be affordable to extremely low- and very lowincome households, 6,306 to low-income households, 8,545 to moderate-income households, and 20,266 to above moderate-income households.
Rehabilitation: The upgrading of a building previously in a dilapidated or substandard condition for human habitation or use.
Residential Energy: The total energy used in residential buildings, including heating, cooling, and “plug load” from appliances, lights, and electrical devices.
Service Needs: The particular services required by special populations, typically including needs such as transportation, personal care, housekeeping, counseling, meals, case management, personal emergency response, and other services preventing premature institutionalization and assisting individuals to continue living independently.
Single Room Occupancy (SRO): A SRO is a cluster of residential units of a smaller size than normally found in multiple dwellings within a residential hotel, motel, or facility providing sleeping or living facilities in which sanitary facilities may be provided within the unit and/or shared, and kitchen or cooking facilities may be provided within the unit or shared within the housing project.
Special Needs Groups: Those segments of the population which have a more difficult time finding decent affordable housing due to special circumstances. Under California Housing Element statutes, these special needs groups include older adults, people with disabilities, large families with five or more members, female-headed households, farmworkers, extremely low- income households, and the homeless. A jurisdiction may also choose to consider additional special needs groups in the Housing Element, such as students, military households, other groups present in their community.
Subdivision: The division of a lot, tract or parcel of land in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.).
Substandard Housing: Housing which does not meet the minimum standards in the State Housing Code. Jurisdictions may adopt more stringent local definitions of substandard housing. Substandard units which are structurally sound and for which the cost of rehabilitation is economically warranted are considered suitable for rehabilitation. Substandard units which are structurally unsound and for which the cost of rehabilitation is considered infeasible are considered in need of replacement.
Supportive Housing: Housing with a supporting environment, such as group homes or Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing and other housing that includes a supportive service component such as those defined below.
Supportive Services: Services provided to residents of supportive housing for the purpose of facilitating the independence of residents. Some examples are case management, medical or psychological counseling and supervision, child care, transportation, and job training.
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC): TCAC allocates federal and state tax credits to the developers of affordable rental housing projects. TCAC verifies that the developers have met all the requirements of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program and ensures the continued affordability and habitability of the developments for the succeeding 55 years.
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance: A form of rental assistance in which the assisted tenant may move from a dwelling unit with a right to continued assistance. The assistance is provided for the tenant, not for the project.
Transitional Housing: Transitional housing is temporary (often six months to two years) housing for a homeless individual or family who is transitioning to permanent housing. Transitional housing often includes a supportive services component (e.g., job skills training, rehabilitation counseling) to allow individuals to gain necessary life skills in support of independent living.
Underutilized Site: Non-vacant sites that have structures or other site improvements, but are capable of being redeveloped with residential uses at a higher density under the zoning and General Plan land use designations. Examples include sites with vacant or abandoned buildings, surface parking lots in the Central City, and large sites that are only partially-developed.
Universal Design: The design of buildings, products, and environments that make them accessible and safe to all people regardless of age, size, ability, or disability.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): The cabinet level department of the federal government responsible for housing, housing assistance, and urban development at the national level. Housing programs administered through HUD include Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME and Housing Choice Vouchers, among others.
Vacant Site: A vacant site is a site without any houses, offices, buildings, or other significant improvements on it. Improvements are generally defined as development of the land (such as a paved parking lot, or income production improvements such as crops, high voltage power lines, etc.) or structures on a property that are permanent and add significantly to the value of the property.
Workforce Housing: Housing that is affordable to households earning between 60 and 120 percent of area median income (AMI). Workforce housing targets middle-income families and workers including teachers, health care workers, retail clerks, young professionals, and more.
Zoning: Local codes regulating the use and development of property. A zoning ordinance divides the city or county into land use districts or “zones”, represented on zoning maps, and specifies the allowable uses within each of those zones. It establishes development standards for each zone, such as minimum lot size, maximum height of structures, building setbacks, and yard size.
Zoning Ordinance: Known as the “Title 17 ZONING of CITY OF NAPA MUNICIPAL CODE” and its purpose is to implement the City’s General Plan through the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations.
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
Appendix J
Public Comment Tracking
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Napa | General Plan Housing Element 6
th Cycle Update 2023-2031
SECTION J.1. Responses to Comments Received.................................................................................................................J-1 SECTION J.2. Responses to HCD Findings Letter (May 17, 2023).....................................................................................J-4 Table J-1: Response to Public Comment (Public Review Draft - Rev 01) 12/22/2022 – 1/23/2023..................................J-1 Table 2: HCD Findings Letter Response Tracking (Received May 17, 2023) .......................................................................... J-4
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
Table J-1: Response to Public Comment (Public Review Draft - Rev 01) 12/22/2022 – 1/23/2023 Date Section Page Affiliation Comment Response
1/3/2023 Fair Housing Napa County Progressive Alliance
California Government Code section 65302.10 requires the city prior to adoption of its next housing element to collect data and analyze each island or fringe community within the city’s sphere of influence that is a disadvantaged unincorporated community, with (1) a description of each community and a map designating its location, (2) an analysis of water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, and structural fire protection needs or deficiencies, (3) an analysis, based on then existing available data, of benefit assessment districts or other financing alternatives that could make the extension of services to identified communities financially feasible.
Subsection (c) of Government Code section 65302.10 requires that before adopting a housing element the city is required to review, and if necessary, amend, its general plan to update the analysis required by this section.
REQUEST IS HEREBY MADE to provide the data and analysis required, as set forth in the statutes identified herein, related to the disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs), both within the city and its spheres of influence regarding the needs, deficiencies, and feasible service extensions.
We are particularly interested in the city’s conformance to Government Code, section 65302.10, which requires the city to use data to determine whether the annual median household income (MHI) of each of its inhabited islands (10 dwellings or more) is less than 80 percent of the statewide average.
The State defines a DUC as an area of inhabited territory located within an unincorporated area of a County in which the annual median income household is less than 80 percent of the statewide median income.
Recognizing this issue, in 2011 Senate Bill 244 required cities and counties to address the infrastructure needs of DUCs in land use and municipal service plans. The bill required all LAFCOs to identify and map DUCs within their respective County. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=4319a8066745442cbe7de6af1d13f98a The DAC mapping tool images provided are for a different state initiative. DUC and DAC mapping are too different state driven initiatives.
The City has established an island annexation program with the intent of annexing 18 unincorporated Napa County (County) islands into the City. As part of this program a condition assessment of the existing water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage and street infrastructure was conducted. The condition assessment information has been used to determine the need and cost associated with improving the existing infrastructure to current City and Napa Sanitation District (NSD) standards.
1/3/2023 Fair Housing Napa County Progressive Alliance
California Government Code section 65583 requires the housing element to identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, including adequate sites for housing and to make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. The element shall contain all of the following:
(1) An analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality’s existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, including extremely low income households
(2) An analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including overcrowding and housing stock condition, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. 1) Goals, Policies and Quantified Objectives can be found in the Policy document starting on page
35. The goals and policies are inclusive of all income levels. 2) An analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality’s existing and projected housing needs for all income levels can be found on in Appendix A.
3) An analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including overcrowding and housing stock condition can be found in Appendix C.
An analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C. 12/24/2022 Fair Housing C-86 Golden Gate Sotheby's
International Realty
tables C-26+27 please provide a breakdown on type of employment that is occupying the existing affordable housing For example -hospitality -10% wine 12% healthcare 8% we need to know what industries are causing this affordable housing crisis- get from housing director Also, there is no mention on what is the cost per unit that local affordable housing trust funds are needed to provide a subsidized unit, not Federal nor state just local funding for example is it $150,000 per rental unit and $200,000 for “for sale” units? The City currently does not have employment data on those accepting assistance by industry as mentioned. Job sector composition can be found in Appendix A, Page A-13.
Land and Construction Costs are provided in Appendix E, starting on page E-37. 12/24/2022 Land Inventory B-7
Golden Gate Sotheby's
International Realty
table B-5 add another column to show what type of product is being constructed. For example ID 6 vista Grove is SFR. ID 13 heritage house are apartments (affordable) Under housing program resources. How about following the County on their job proximity program this is a win/win and the home buyer is not restricted on resale.
A column indicating housing product type has been added to Table B-5.
The Proximity Housing Program is available to all residents of Napa County including those who live in the City of Napa.
Please note program number H5-2.2 – Matching Jobs to Housing on page 68 of the policy document. This job is similar to job proximity program but will evaluate contributing to county program for future drafts.
12/24/2022 Fair Housing C-67 Golden Gate Sotheby's
International Realty
table C-20 does this number take into account the Valley Lodge and the Heritage house project thus reducing this number considerably?
Table C-20 represents a point in time survey data to understand the homeless sheltering needs.
Planned and constructed facilities like Valley Lodge and Heritage House will help meet this housing need. Point In Time surveys are taken at least every two years to determine needs on a regular basis, and future surveys will show what progress, if any, has been made to meet this need as new resources become available. .
Date Section Page Affiliation Comment Response
12/24/2022 Housing Program
Resources D-16 Golden Gate Sotheby's International Realty Local sources of funding should show over the last 10 years what the impact fees have generated per year and what the TOT tax has generated. Then show how much is left in the trust fund ( not earmarked) and during these 10 years how many units have been developed Financial data will not be provided for each program listed. This section’s purpose is to outline each program available in the city.
12/24/2022 Constraints E-33 Golden Gate Sotheby's
International Realty Chart E-33 should show as of 12/22/22? And that all these fees may change Table E-7 shows fees drawn from the City’s 2022 Master Fee Schedule, effective as of the date of this Housing Element’s preparation and release. New text has been added on Page E-33 to reference the Housing Element Programs related to conducting further analysis on fees prior to making future adjustments.
12/24/2022 Evaluation of Past
Programs G-2
Golden Gate Sotheby's
International Realty
G-2 table sectionG H2 B both paragraphs of 2018 +2019 are almost identical so it gives the perception more units are being, or have been, constructed. Edits to the explanatory text on page G2 were made to clarify progress for each year. 12/31/2022 Land Inventory Gasser Foundation
The draft identifies 187 low income units and 49 moderate income units in the "Soscol" neighborhood. The maps depict a portion of those units (e.g. Figure B-1) in red/purple circles fronting on Soscol Avenue.
We, at the Gasser Foundation, are interested in whether any of these vacant/underutilized sites in the "Soscol" neighborhood - that are located on Soscol Avenue - are on the west side of Soscol Avenue.
The City provided the commenter with an email with link to the site inventory interactive map to provide further information on site.
1/11/2023 Housing Program
Resources Individual Page 26, Just want to say that almost 2,000 units in the works is great for the high demand on housing in Napa. Thank you so much! Comment noted, no edit/response required. 1/12/2023 Housing Program
Resources Individual
Please work on making affordable housing more available to middle class families. My husband and I, we both work in Napa, and we cannot afford to live in the town that we both love.
He has worked for the City of Napa for the last 20 years (supervisor for the last 8 years) and unable to keep up with inflation and high housing prices and unmeetable requirements.
At some point, we really tried to meet the required criteria. But it was just impossible, since we are a medium family of 4, and our yearly income was not too low. (required) Looking forward to see this project finalized and the results.
Thank you!
Comment noted, no edit/response required.
1/22/2023 Community
Profile Individual A-30 Remove "a" in second paragraph "saw a 33% decrease in chronic homelessness..." Note taken, language edited 1/22/2023 Fair Housing Individual C-25 Paragraph 5 needs an "s" at the end of "choice" in the first sentence ("housing choices") Note taken, language edited 1/22/2023 Housing Program
Resources Individual D.3.1.3 Why is the final sentence in the paragraph "Public Works Department"? I believe this is an error.
Note taken, language edited
1/22/2023 Policy Doc 53 Individual Page 53 H2 2-5 Second paragraph needs "to" in the first sentence "This web-based inventory will assist the city "to" maintain... Note taken, language edited 1/23/2023 Policy Doc Individual
Listen to the people of Napa. We don't want to be all cramped together in a very small space.
Compromise concerning the growth proposals has ays seemed possible from the very start of this controversy. Instead the Napa government has pretended to listen and then proceeded to do what they had originally intended, You don't seem to care what we say.
Stop what you're doing and work to keep Napa naturally beautiful and find a way to keep Napa naturally beautiful and home to people of all incomes. It won't be an easy task --p but Napa is worth the efforts of all of us
Comment noted, no edit/response required.
1/23/2023 Policy Doc Individual
Having served on the Housing Element Steering Committee from 2013 to 2015, and now having read through the majority of this current draft, I am so appreciative of all of the hard work that went into this draft. So well done! The website, document and accessibility to the content is quite impressive.
Thank you to our city staff and the team behind this effort.
Comment noted, no edit/response required.
1/23/2023 General Keep Napa's Gateways Green See letter: Foster Road Mixed Use, etc. See responses to the comments in the attached letter. 1/20/2023 Fair Housing
Systems Change Advocate
Disability Services and Legal
Center (DSLC)
See letter: My following comments are to address the many challenges and barriers that people with disabilities face while looking for housing.
Persons with disabilities are included in many programs either specifically or under the umbrella of populations with special housing needs, and the language used for Housing Element Programs is purposefully broad to provide flexibility during implementation. For example, Program H2-2.8 fast-tracks 100% affordable projects, which would include those for very and extremely low-income housing. Programs H5-1.3 and H5-1.4 direct the City to track and preserve existing low- and moderate-income housing stock. The reuse of commercial sites for affordable housing is included in Program H4-2.2. In addition, several programs have been updated to more specifically address accessibility concerns.
1/20/2023 Land Inventory Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP See letter: Oxbow Holdings Property Details in Site Inventory The City updated the site inventory to reflect unit counts stipulated in the SB 330 Application, which includes 13 moderate-income households and 117 above-moderate income units.
Date Section Page Affiliation Comment Response
1/23/2023 General Old Sonoma Road See letter: Foster Road Mixed Use, etc.
The Foster Road Mixed Use properties are not included in the site inventory for this cycle's Draft Housing Element. The Housing Element of the 2040 General Plan does not supersede nor changes land uses identified in the Land Use Element and zoning designations in the zoning code. "Foster Road Mixed Use" is not mentioned in the housing element as the parcels are not included in the inventory of lands available for housing as it is outside the city boundaries and is not considered, contemplated or analyzed as a future housing site. 1/23/2023 Land Inventory 1 Individual
I am extremely concerned about the number of units proposed for the Health and Human resources property on Old Sonoma road. the area can't handle the traffic The charm of driving to Sonoma that way is very important for residents to experience. We need to preserve this community from looking like a typical American city. I live here because I love it and the community Note taken. Since this is a concern regarding impacts from a specific project and not the Draft Housing Element, no revisions made. Please contact City staff directly to submit a comment on an active proposal.
1/15/2023 Policy Doc 1 Napa City Planning Commission
elements, the Housing Element is required to be updated every five years and is subject. Is the requirement 5 or 8 years for updating?
language edited
1/17/2023 Policy Doc 14 Individual
Location of Beverly's comment: may have the incorrect number of years: Unlike the other mandatory general plan elements, the Housing Element is required to be updated every five years and is subject Is the requirement 5 or 8 years for updating? language edited
1/17/2023 Policy Doc 39 Individual Yes! So important to preserve the charm and character that exists in Napa! Comment noted, no edit/response required. 1/23/2023 Policy Doc 43 Individual
Implementation: It is time for the City to adopt a local preference ordinance that provides a percentage of new "affordable" housing with preferences to folks who work and/or live here already.
If we are using local monies, etc., to build this housing, locals should be the ones who have preference for a reasonable percentage of those units. Clearly, the ordinance needs to be balanced to ensure it does not run afoul of anti-discrimination laws.
Program H5-1.2 will establish eligibility preferences for affordable housing programs that prioritize people who live in, work in, or were recently displaced from the city, to the extent consistent with state and federal laws.
1/23/2023 Policy Doc 59 Individual
How do we assess existing multi-family units and work to make them more energy efficient? This would be of value to the owners, to the residents of the units, and to the community as there would be lower energy usage and lower emissions. Yes, there are some programs out there but how do we make them more accessible and more universally available? Program H4-3.1 directs the city to apply for funding to assist residents, especially low-income households, with energy efficiency and water conservation retrofits and weatherization. 1/17/2023 Policy Doc 62 Individual
We already know that complicated California regulations is adding to building costs and thus discouraging the development of housing. We need less cost not more! The state already has significant regulations in place, no need to create more, especially as it pertains to housing. For commercial development, however, I support this move especially as it pertains to water.
There are several programs aimed at removing regulatory barriers (H2-2.1, H2-2.7, H2-2.8, H3-1.2), updating code enforcement policies (H3-3.1), and providing resources and incentives for developers (H2-1.1, H2-2.3, H2-4.1).
1/17/2023 Policy Doc 65 Individual
Regarding H5-1.1... establishing 'minimum lease terms' is an unnecessary burden on landlords. I know several people who rent to traveling nurses and others that need shorter-term housing -- those people need housing too. If restrictions continue to increase on landlords many will get out of the business and those rentals will go away, further hurting renters.
Note taken. Potential actions listed under this program will only be implemented as part of an anti-displacement strategy if they are first determined to be appropriate for the City of Napa. 1/17/2023 Policy Doc 67 Individual
The city needs to prioritize this now, and I argue that they haven't prioritized 'balancing'. Hotel projects always win and this needs to be changed. Developers need to be rewarded for building HOUSING, which is less profitable than hotels. We can't expect them to do it out of the goodness of their hearts, the city needs to offer $$$
There are several programs aimed at removing regulatory barriers (H2-2.1, H2-2.7, H2-2.8, H3-1.2) and providing resources and incentives for developers (H2-1.1, H2-2.3, H2-4.1). Program H5-2.2 will also require an analysis and subsequent mitigation measures on new commercial projects that increase housing demand.
1/17/2023 Policy Doc 68 Individual Yes please, love this! We can't keep on building hotels with nowhere for employees to live. That said, not sure 100 employees is the right number. Comment noted, no edit/response required. 1/23/2023 Policy Doc 68 Individual Fully agree. Per the City's own studies, approximately half of hotel employees, qualify for affordable housing at 80% or below of area mean income. Comment noted, no edit/response required. 1/23/2023 Land Inventory B-11 / 139 Individual Page B-11. The unit designations on the Caritas project don't make sense and need to be redone. The graphic included in the Draft Housing Element was incorrect. The current draft includes an updated Caritas project image that corresponds with the narrative description of the project. 1/23/2023 Land Inventory B-27 / 155 Individual
Pg. B-27. The title implies that the featured sites would provide availability of lower-income units.
Based on the most recent application by the owners, ten percent of the units might be affordable to those earning area median income. As such, highlighting the South Copia site doesn't seem appropriate.
The lower-income designation is based on HCD guidance. These are approximations based on the land use density the site falls within and the site of the site. The unit capacity estimate presented in the site inventory is not a development plan or suggestion. If a project is proposed that includes a smaller percentage of affordable housing than assumed in the Housing Element, the City has an obligation to ensure that adequate sites remain available to accommodate any unmet portion of its RHNA concurrently with its approval of the project. 1/23/2023 Land Inventory B-36 / 164 Individual
003-242-007-000 Oxbow Commercial 10 Downtown II 40 oxbow commercial Buildout 3.6 Page B-36 Implies that there might be 113 units of low income housing on Copia South. Am I reading this wrong?
The affordability assumptions for this project have been updated based on the development preliminary application. The potential developer is planning on 117 above-moderate units and 13 moderate income units. The site inventory has been adjusted to reflect these details.
Table 2: HCD Findings Letter Response Tracking (Received May 17, 2023) Topic Subtopic 05.17.2023
HCD Review Letter Comments
08.07.2023
HCD Informal Review Comments Response / Edits To Date
Appendix / Section / Page
No.
Note: Page numbers may be different
between clean draft and redlined draft.
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Housing Needs;
Disproportionate
Housing Needs
The element includes some general information on persons experiencing homelessness and housing conditions but should also evaluate those needs, impacts and patterns within the City, such as areas of higher need. For homelessness, the element should examine patterns of need or areas with higher concentrations of persons experiencing homelessness, including access to transportation and services.
For housing conditions, the element should discuss any areas of potentially higher needs of rehabilitation and replacement. The element should utilize local data and knowledge such as service providers and code enforcement officials to assist this analysis.
None To adequately assess fair housing in the City of Napa, more details have been added about the patterns of homelessness and areas with higher concentrations of homeless persons.
More details were also added about areas of higher
concentrations of older/poorer condition housing stock with higher need for rehabilitation or replacement.
Appendix A, Sections A.4.1 and
A.5.5, pgs A-21, 22, 30, and 31,
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Housing Nees;
Identified Sites and
Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing (AFFH)
The element includes some discussion of the number of sites by concentrations of socio-economic characteristics. However, this approach to whether identified sites AFFH should account for where the sites are located. The analysis should address the number of units by all income groups, and location (e.g., neighborhood, planning area, census tract), discuss any isolation of the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) by income group and evaluate the magnitude of the impact on existing concentrations of socio-economic characteristics by area. The analysis should be supported by local data and knowledge and other relevant factors and address overlapping fair housing issues with other components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity).
None
To adequately assess fair housing in the City of Napa, new maps and a summary table were created to identify fair housing issues across four main geographic areas of the city. Narrative summaries of the findings from new mapping analysis are also provided. A new program was created in reasponse to the complete analysis to increase investment in areas of greatest need, including the South East Quadrant, with specific actions and timeline (see New Program H4-4.2).
Appendix C, Sections C.7 and C.8,
pgs C-83 to C-102; and Housing
Element, Section 5, pg 67,
Program H4-4.2
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Housing Needs;
Contributing
Factors to Fair
Housing Issues
Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element should re-assess and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues
None Based on the complete assessment of fair housing in the City of Napa, including a more detailed geographic breakdown of fair housing issues, the previously identified contributing factors and proposed actions/housing programs to address them are still valid with no need for significant revision; however, more emphasis was added on geographic locations and a new
program was created to increase investment in areas of
greatest need, including the South East Quadrant, with specific actions and timeline (see New Program H4-4.2).
Appendix C, Sections C.7 and C.8,
pgs C-83 to C-102; and Housing
Element, Section 5, pg 67,
Program H4-4.2
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Housing Needs;
Extremely LowIncome (ELI)
Households
While the element quantifies existing and projected ELI households, it must also analyze their housing needs. The analysis of ELI housing needs could consider tenure, overpayment, overcrowding, resources and the effectiveness of strategies and the magnitude of housing need.
None To complete the analysis of population characteristics, trends, and special housing needs, additional analysis and discussion of housing currently available and suitable in Napa for extremely low-income households was added, including
discussion of existing zoning allowances for such housing types.
Appendix A, Section A.3.7, pg A15; and Appendix E, Section E.1.1.2.3, pg E-20 to 27
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Housing Needs;
Overpayment
While the element identifies the total number of households overpaying for housing, it must quantify and analyze the number of lower-income households overpaying for housing by tenure (i.e., renter and owner) and add or modify policies and programs as appropriate.
None To complete the analysis of population characteristics, trends, and special housing needs, additional analysis and discussion of cost burden for lower-income households in Napa was added.
Appendix A, Section A.5.11, Table
A-5-6, pg A-43 and 44
Topic Subtopic 05.17.2023
HCD Review Letter Comments
08.07.2023
HCD Informal Review Comments Response / Edits To Date
Appendix / Section / Page
No.
Note: Page numbers may be different
between clean draft and redlined draft.
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Housing Needs;
Special Housing
Needs
The element reports data on households and persons with special housing needs.
However, for persons with disabilities, female-headed households and large households, it must also describe the resources available and effectiveness of strategies to these special housing needs groups, then determine the magnitude of housing needs to better formulate policies and programs.
In addition, given the importance of the viticulture industry and the disproportionate housing needs of farmworkers, the element should closely examine the housing needs of farmworkers. For example, the analysis could address household characteristics, income, challenges faced by the population, the existing resources to meet those needs, an assessment of any gaps in resources, and the effectiveness of past policies, programs, and funding to help address those gaps.
The analysis may utilize past farmworker housing studies and other studies generally applicable to their special housing needs. For example, the element could utilize a recent study conducted by University of California at Merced that is available at: See link in "Link Column"
Based on the outcomes of the analysis, the element should add or modify programs to address this significant special housing need in the region.
None To complete the analysis of population characteristics, trends, and special housing needs, additional discussion of
characteristics, available resources, and Housing Element programs addressing special housing needs populations in Napa was added, including more details regarding Large
Households, Female-Headed Households, People with
Disabilities, and Farmworkers.
Appendix A, Section A.5.1, pg A26; Section A.5.2, pg A-28; Section A.5.4, pg A-33; and
Section A.5.6, pg A-37
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Site Inventory;
Progress in
Meeting the RHNA
The element indicates that 337 units affordable to lower- income households and 135 units affordable to moderate-income households have been built or are under construction or approved (p. B-6) but provides minimal information documenting how affordability of the units was determined. The element must describe the City’s methodology for assigning these units to the various income groups based on actual sales price or rent level of the units and demonstrate their availability in the planning period. Availability should address the status, anticipated completion, any barriers to development, and other relevant factors such as build-out horizons, phasing, and dropout rates to demonstrate the availability or likelihood of development in the planning period.
Status of each project must detail timing, any phasing
requirements or other barriers to securing entitlements. CL to send sample.
To complete the housing sites inventory analysis, a new section was added to discuss affordability ratings of the pipeline project units, including summarizing the methodology for determining affordability and providing additional details on affordability of specific projects. Details were also added for each pipeline project regarding timing, phasing, and barriers to securing entitlements, if any.
Appendix B, Section B.2.2.1, pg B7; and Section B.2.3, pg B-11 to B18 Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Site Inventory;
Parcel Listing
The element lists parcels by various factors such as size, zoning, and general plan designation. However, the element must also include a sufficient description of existing uses to facilitate an analysis of the potential for additional development on non- vacant sites. For example, the inventory could describe the use as offices, structure(s) older than 50 years in poor condition, vacancies present, existing floor area of 0.1 versus allowable floor area. Alternatively, the inventory could utilize various data layers with similar information.
Existing uses in Table B-16 (for underutilized parcels) must be explicit. Roll your descriptions from the non-vacant sites analysis into the actual inventory itself. I need to know what is on that site (hopefully not a Whole Foods). ;) To complete the housing sites inventory analysis, the
Assessor's land use codes and additional property-specific information about existing uses were added for each
nonvacant/underutilized parcel included in the inventory.
Appendix B, Section B.7, pgs B47 to 51, Table B-16
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Site Inventory;
Zoning for LowerIncome
Households
The element must demonstrate densities appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households. The element notes that its zones or General Plan designations allow for development at the default density of 20 units per acre or higher (p. B-19). However, Table B-15 only specifies GPLU maximum densities allowed and some General Plan designations in Table E-1, notably Medium and High Density Residential and Residential Mixed Use appear to have minimum densities between 8-18 units per acre. The element should address this inconsistency. Otherwise, an analysis must demonstrate appropriate densities based on factors such as market demand, financial feasibility and development experience within identified zones.
None This was a misunderstanding of the information presented.
Additional clarification was added about affordability
assumptions based on state law and assumed densities of inventory sites based on zoning and General Plan designations.
Appendix B, Section B.3.2, pg B21
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Site Inventory;
Small and Large
Sites
The element currently discusses how development might occur on small and large sites, but it must still provide analysis of past trends or present other evidence to demonstrate the suitability of these sites. For example, the analysis could describe the City’s role or track record in consolidating or subdividing parcels and identify policies or incentives offered or proposed to ensure parcels are suitable and ready for residential development or intensification.
None To complete the housing inventory sites analysis, examples of recently approved and/or constructed projects on small sites were added. It was also further clarified that only 10% of the
26.69-acre Harvest Middle School site is counted toward the inventory (2.65 acres counted at 20 du/ac), which aligns with recent trends for infill site development.
Appendix B, Sections B.3.8 and
B.3.9 (formerly B.3.7 and 8), pgs
B-31 and 32
Topic Subtopic 05.17.2023
HCD Review Letter Comments
08.07.2023
HCD Informal Review Comments Response / Edits To Date
Appendix / Section / Page
No.
Note: Page numbers may be different
between clean draft and redlined draft.
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Site Inventory;
Suitability of
Nonvacant Sites
While the element identifies the methodology used to screen parcels for inclusion and describes its realistic capacity assumptions for nonvacant sites (pp. B-17-22), it provides minimal description of their potential for redevelopment.
The element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant sites. To address this requirement, the element should analyze the existing uses of nonvacant sites to demonstrate the potential for redevelopment in the planning period. The description of existing uses should be sufficiently detailed to facilitate an analysis demonstrating the potential for additional development in the planning period. In addition, the element needs to also analyze the extent that existing uses may impede additional residential development. The element can summarize past experiences converting existing uses to higher density residential development, include current market demand for the existing use, provide analysis of existing leases or contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent additional residential development and include current information on development trends and market conditions in the City and relate those trends to the sites identified. The element could also consider indicators such as age and condition of the existing structure expressed developer interest, low improvement to land value ratio, and other factors.
None To complete the housing sites inventory, more details were added regarding the methods and assumptions for including non-vacant, underutilized sites in the inventory.
Appendix B, Sections B.3.1 to
B.3.4, pgs B-19 to B-30
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Site Inventory;
Adequate Sites
Alternative
The City is crediting 142 units affordable to lower-income households towards its RHNA through Project Homekey and rehabilitation. To credit these units toward the City’s housing need, the element must demonstrate compliance with all the statutory requirements (Gov. Code, § 65583.1, subd. (c)(2)(D)). For example, the element must demonstrate that the affordability for the units determined will be maintained for at least 55 years, units be made available for people experiencing homelessness as defined in Section 578.3 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations and will be affordable to very-low and low-income households at the time the units were identified for preservation, among other things. For additional information and an Alternative Sites Checklist, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/building-blocks/site-inventoryanalysis/adequate-sites- alternatives/docs/adequate_site_alt_checklist.pdf.
If you have not already done so, please attach completed checklist to HE and as part of the record.
To complete the housing sites inventory analysis, more details were added regarding the executed affordability agreements for the Project Homekey and rehabilitation pipeline projects, Heritage House/Valle Verde and Valley Lodge. Alternative Sites Checklists will be included in the final HCD review draft.
Appendix B, Section B.2.3, pg B-11
and
pg B-17
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Site Inventory;
Accessory
Dwelling Units
(ADU)
The element projects 366 ADUs to be constructed over the planning period, averaging approximately 46 units per year. This projection was based on annual permit data from 2018-2021 (p. 30). However, Annual Progress Reports submitted by the City indicate building permit figures of 20, 34, 45, and 60 for 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively. The element should reconcile these figures and adjust assumptions as appropriate.
None To complete the housing sites inventory anaysis, clarification was added that ADU projection is based on the adoption of loosened regulations in 2019, allowing the City to use permit numbers from 2019 to 2021 as the baseline average, consistent with accepted projection methodology.
Appendix B, Section B.4, pg B-37
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Site Inventory;
Availability of
Infrastructure
The element includes discussion on water, sewer, and dry utilities capacity. However, it also describes potential limitations to sewer infrastructure that will require capacity improvements (pp. B-30-31). The element must clarify whether there is sufficient total sewer capacity (existing and planned) to accommodate the RHNA and identify programs to address needed improvements and capacity, as necessary.
Enough capacity or not? Dry utilities capacity? To complete the housing sites inventory anaysis as it relates to public facilities and services, explicit statements about capacities were added for dry utilities, water, and sewer. All utilities are available to serve all areas of the City chosen for candidate housing sites at sufficient capacities to serve existing and future housing development, during both normal and dry years.
Appendix E, E.2.3, pg E-54 to E-55
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Site Inventory;
Water/Sewer
Priority
For your information, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. HCD recommends including a cover memo describing the City’s housing element, including the City’s housing needs and regional housing need. For additional information and sample cover memo, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housingelements/building- blocks/priority-water-and-sewer.
None To complete the housing sites inventory analysis, a memorandum to NapaSan and the City of Napa Utilities
Department, Water Division, was added. The memo will be delivered to utility providers following certification and adoption of the element.
Appendix H, Section H.4.5, pg H27
Topic Subtopic 05.17.2023
HCD Review Letter Comments
08.07.2023
HCD Informal Review Comments Response / Edits To Date
Appendix / Section / Page
No.
Note: Page numbers may be different
between clean draft and redlined draft.
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Site Inventory;
Environmental
Constraints
The element notes that identified sites are not constrained by any known environmental factors (p. B-18) but should also discuss any other known conditions that preclude development in the planning period. Examples include parcel shape, easements, property conditions, contamination and airport compatibility.
None To complete the housing sites inventory analysis, clarification was provided that any sites with environmental constraints or other unusual conditions were disqualified from inclusion in the inventory; therefore, none of the sites in the inventory have known conditions that would preclude development in the planning period.
Appendix B, Section B.3.1, pg B20
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Site Inventory;
Zoning for a
Variety of Housing
Types; Emergency
Shelters
The element discusses zoning and capacity for emergency shelters (pp. E-25-26) but must also identify and analyze any development standards (e.g., spacing, parking, concentration requirements) and other requirements imposed on emergency shelters. Secondly, the element must include analysis that describes whether areas within the district may be unfit for human habitation. The element may need to add or modify programs based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Thirdly, the element must describe compliance with Government Code section 65583, subdivision a)(4)(A) or modify Program H2-2.1 (Zoning Ordinance Updates) to comply with this requirement. For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A), parking requirements should be limited to allowing sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. Lastly, for your information, while the City allows emergency shelters by-right in the PQ-P district, subsequent draft submissions must comply with the requirements of Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022 (AB 2339). Please note, these requirements became effective on January 1, 2023 and apply to any housing element submitted after January 1, 2023 if a jurisdiction failed to submit the initial draft before the due date of the housing element. As the City’s initial draft was submitted on February 16, 2023, after the January 31, 2023 due date, these provisions will apply. Among other changes, these amendments to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4) expand the definition of “emergency shelters,” specifies the type of zoning designations that must be identified to allow emergency shelters as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit and demonstrate the appropriateness of sites to accommodate emergency shelters. For more information and applicable timing, see HCD’s AB 2993 memorandum at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/ab2339- notice.pdf.
No shelters within city? I couldn't find your operating standards in the Municipal Ordinance but please add
analysis if present (bed limitations, lighting, spacing requirements more than 300 ft.) It not, state in analysis.
Please clarify whether AB 2339 requirements apply in the analysis. Also, I am not seeing emergency shelters as a carve-ou in App. K. Need to clarify program compliance
with AB 139.
To provide a complete inventory that meets the Napa
community's housing needs, additional details were added about the percentage of available public/institutional land within the planning area that is fit for human habitation (>90% of 1,105 acres), as well as current development standards for shelters and community care facilities. Program H2-2.1 also now includes updates to the definition, development standards (e.g., parking), and zoning districts where shelters are allowed by right, pursuant to recent changes in state law.
More specific analysis of emergency shelters and requirements effective as of Jan. 1, 2023, will be included in Appendix K, Zoning Diagnosis Report, for the final HCD review draft.
Appendix E, Section E.1.1.2.3, pg
E-25; Housing Element, Section
5, Program H2-2.1
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Site Inventory;
Zoning for a
Variety of Housing
Types; Transitional
and Supportive
Housing
The element states supportive and transitional housing are permitted throughout its residential zones. Additionally, the element included Table E-2 listing allowable uses per zoning district. However, this table did not reflect whether supportive housing is a permitted use in all zones allowing residential uses. The element should reconcile this information and specifically clarify whether the City permits transitional and supportive housing as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone pursuant to Government Code section 65583 (a)(5).
Additionally, supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651. The element must demonstrate compliance with these requirements and modify Program H2-2.1 (Zoning Ordinance Updates) as appropriate.
Didn't locate in App. K. Program language either through App. K or H2-2.1 should be explicit and use the GC Section 65651 language re: by-right in zones where MF and MU are permitted, including non-residential zones allowing MF
uses.
To complete the housing sites inventory analysis, it was clarified that transitional, supportive, and small employee (6 or fewer residents) housing projects are currently allowed in the same zoning districts and under the same provisions as the type of housing they most closely resemble. Program H2-2.1 will further clarify compliance with state law through updates to the Zoning Ordinance, including that supportive housing is allowed wherever multi-family housing is allowed. Program H2-2.1 was updated to explicity describe changes in the Zoning Ordinance for compliance with state law.
Appendix E, Section E.1.1.2, pg E7, Table E-2 and Section E.1.1.2.3, pg E-24; Housing Element,
Section 5, Program H2-2.1
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Site Inventory;
Zoning for a
Variety of Housing
Types; Low-Barrier
Navigation Centers
(LBNCs)
Low-Barrier Navigation Centers shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65660. Program H2-2.1 (Zoning Ordinance Updates) should be modified to explicitly identify program commitments to meet these statutory requirements.
None To provide a complete inventory that meets the Napa community's housing needs, Program H2-2.1 was updated with more details about Low-Barrier Navigation Centers in
compliance with state law and a timeline to complete the program by the end of 2023.
Housing Element, Section 5,
Program H2-2.1, pg 51
Topic Subtopic 05.17.2023
HCD Review Letter Comments
08.07.2023
HCD Informal Review Comments Response / Edits To Date
Appendix / Section / Page
No.
Note: Page numbers may be different
between clean draft and redlined draft.
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Site Inventory;
Zoning for a
Variety of Housing
Types; Housing for
Agricultural
Employees
The element must demonstrate zoning is consistent with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.), specifically, sections 17021.5 and 17021.6.
Section 17021.5 requires employee housing for six or fewer employees to be treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. In addition, 17021.6 requires employee housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36 beds to be permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses in the same zone. To address this, the element includes Program H2-2.1 (Zoning Ordinance Updates) but must explicitly identify program commitments to meet these statutory requirements.
Missing 17021.5 reference. To provide a complete inventory that meets the Napa community's housing needs, Program H2-2.1 was updated with more detail, to reference state law where applicable, and a timeline to complete the program by the end of 2023.
Housing Element, Section 5,
Program H2-2.1, pg 51
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Site Inventory;
Zoning for a
Variety of Housing
Types; Accessory
Dwelling Units
(ADUs)
A cursory review of the City’s last submitted ADU ordinance submitted to HCD in 2017 identified areas which appear to be inconsistent with State ADU Law. In addition, ADUs appear to be restricted in several nonresidential zones that allow residential uses, as identified in Table E-2. The element should address these inconsistencies and add or modify a program to update the City’s ADU ordinance in order to comply with state law. For more information, please consult HCD’s ADU Guidebook, updated in July 2022, which provides detailed information on new state requirements surrounding ADU development.
None To provide a complete inventory that meets the Napa community's housing needs, Program H2-2.1 was updated with more detail and a timeline to complete the program by the end of 2023.
Housing Element, Section 5,
Program H2-2.1, pg 51
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Site Inventory;
Zoning for a
Variety of Housing
Types;
Manufactured
Homes
The element identifies notes that mobilehomes are currently prohibited in several residential districts and undefined in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. As such, Program H2-2.1 (Zoning Ordinance Updates) should be modified to explicitly identify program commitments to meet statutory requirements to permit manufactured homes similar to single family uses.
Program also needs an action to define
mobilehomes/manufactured housing in the ZO. App. K -
didn't see any of the zones referenced other than RT (what about RO, MU-G, CL, DMU, DN, AR, other MU zones where
appears mobilehomes are prohibited)?
To provide a complete inventory that meets the Napa
community's housing needs, it was clarified that manufactured and mobile homes are currently allowed the same as any other single-family dwelling. Mobile home parks are currently not allowed in all districts or General Plan designations allowing residential uses, so Program H2-2.1 was updated with more detail regarding revisions for compliance with state law, including updating the definition of mobile/manufactured home. Commitment is to complete the program by the end of 2023.
Housing Element, Section 5,
Program H2-2.1, pg 51 and
Appendix E, Section E.1.1.2.3, pg
E-21
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Site Inventory;
Electronic Sites
Inventory
Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-elements-hcd for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected]. for technical assistance. Please note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to [email protected].
None The site inventory will be submitted in the required digital format with the final HCD review draft.
Appendix B, Section B.7, pgs B47 to 51, Table B-16
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Contraints; Land
Use Controls
While the element lists some development standards for each zone, it should also list lot coverage requirements for each zone. In addition, the element should independently and cumulatively evaluate the impact of development standards on housing supply (number of units), cost, feasibility and ability to achieve maximum densities. For example, the analysis should address the combination of floor area ratios, setbacks, heights, lot coverage and other bulk standards for impacts on achieving maximum densities. The element may utilize input from the development community and past projects to address these requirements.
Needs stronger analysis. Reference to 1/3 of multi-family projects have developed at upper-range of densities. What about the 2/3? Would be helpful to include table with
sample project(s) over prior planning pd. and can use
trends from pipeline projects. Compare site characteristics between the projects (size, zone, density, actual number of units constructed).
To complete the analysis of potential governmental constraints on housing development, lot coverage was added for all districts where it applies and additional discussion was provided describing the cumulative impacts of the City's development standards. Discussion includes recent trends seen in Napa to develop sites at the maximum density, use density bonuses, and add units to ongoing projects where recent General Plan updates have increased the maximum density allowed, as
evidenced by several current projects developing at or above the maximum density. Additional discussion of specific site characteristics for the example projects will be included in the final HCD review draft.
Appendix E, Section E.1.1.2.1, pgs
E-9 to 10, Table E-3, and pg E-13
to 14
Topic Subtopic 05.17.2023
HCD Review Letter Comments
08.07.2023
HCD Informal Review Comments Response / Edits To Date
Appendix / Section / Page
No.
Note: Page numbers may be different
between clean draft and redlined draft.
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Contraints; Local
Processing and
Permit Procedures
While the element includes some information about permit processing procedures and processing times (pp. E-28-33), it should also describe approval procedures including the number of public hearings, approval findings, and any other relevant information for a typical single-family and multifamily development.
In addition, the element should address public comments on this draft submittal and discuss compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act and intersections with CEQA and timing requirements, including streamlining determinations and add or modify Programs H3-1.2 (Design Standards) and H3-2.2 (Design Review Guidelines) as appropriate.
Finally, the element should discuss whether procedures and provisions comply with Senate Bill (SB) 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) which generally, among other provisions, requires ministerial approval of a subdivision of a parcel in a singlefamily zone into two parcels.
The CEQA revisions need some work. CL to send sample
analysis. Timeframe for Program H3-1.2 should be revised to move up earlier in planning pd. to implement objective design requirements, given the City acknowledges
subjective design criteria is a constraint.
To complete the analysis of potential governmental constraints on housing development:
- Additional details were added about development review procedures and processing times, approval findings, and the City's design guidelines. Program H3-1.2 calls for the design guidelines to be updated by 2025 to ensure they are objective, support review outcome certainty, and support the
community's housing needs.
- Additional details were added about SB 35, including that the City was only subject to SB 35 starting in 2022 and has not seen any qualifying applications since. It was also clarified that Napa currently complies with SB 9 and Program H2-2.1 will codify existing procedure.
- A new section regarding CEQA requirements was added,
including timing, costs, and examples of required
environmental review for recent projects.
Appendix E, Section E.1.3.1, pgs
E-29 to 34; Table E-6 and Section
E.1.3.2, pg E-35; Section E.1.3.3, pg
E-36; and Housing Element,
Section 5, pgs 53 and 62,
Programs H2-2.1 and H3-1.2
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Contraints; Code
Enforcement
The element includes a discussion of the City’s code enforcement procedures (p. E27) but could also describe resources provided to residents and typical citations and complaints received.
Typical citations received? To provide a more complete analysis of potential governmental constraints on housing development, examples of common
code enforcement citations and available resources were added.
Appendix E, Section E.1.2.1, pgs
E-28
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Contraints; Zoning
and Fees
Transparency
The element references compliance with new transparency requirements for the posting of all zoning and development standards on its website (p. E-5), but it must also clarify its compliance with the posting of all fees.
None To complete the analysis of potential governmental constraints on housing development, a sentence was added stating that all current development fees are also available to the public on the city's website.
Appendix E, Section E.1.1.2, pg E5
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Contraints;
Housing for
Persons with
Disabilities
While the element included some information on the City’s reasonable accommodation procedures (pp. C-79-80), it must also analyze the approval findings in Chapter 17.65 of the Napa Municipal Code for potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. As an example, the analysis should identify who approves requests, identify any fees charged by the City in processing requests, and indicate whether there is an appeals process. The element may need to add or modify programs as appropriate based on the outcomes of this analysis.
None To complete the analysis of potential governmental constraints on housing development, more details about the City's
reasonable accommodation procedure, fee (there is none), and appeal process were added.
Appendix E, Section E.1.1.2.3, pg
E-22 to 23
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Contraints;
Approval Time and
Requests Lesser
Densities
The element must include analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those identified and identify the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that potentially. The element must address any hinderance on the development of housing and include programs as appropriate.
None To complete the analysis of potential nongovernmental constraints on housing development, more detail was added regarding requests to develop at lower densities than the minimum allowed, which are rare and would conflict with the General Plan. The typical timeline observed by staff between discretionary approval and building permit application was also added (15-18 months for affordable housing developments, though concurrent review and next day submittal are both options).
Appendix E, Section E.1.1.2.1, pg
E-13 to 14, and Section E.1.3.1, pg
E-32
Housing Needs,
Resources, and
Constraints
Development as
being at-risk of
conversion
The element identifies the Napa Creek Manor development as being at-risk of conversion during the next ten years. Given this observation, the element must include an analysis such as a comparison of costs for replacement versus preservation of the at-risk units. For more information and a sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-communitydevelopment/housing-elements/building- blocks/assisted-housing-developmentsrisk-conversion.
This comment is calling for a specific cost analysis - CL to send sample.
To provide a complete analysis of existing assisted housing developments, details were added about actions the City will take to prevent the conversion of Napa Creek Manor and other affordable units to market-rate (see Program H5-1.5). A new section containing a specific cost analysis comparing options for addressing the potential conversion of the Napa Creek Manor units was also added, including analysis of
preserving/rehabiliting the units, replacing the units with new construction, or providing tenant-based rental assistance.
Appendix A, Section A.5.8, pg A40, Section A.5.8.1, pg A-41; and Housing Element, Section 5, pg
71, Program H5-1.5
Topic Subtopic 05.17.2023
HCD Review Letter Comments
08.07.2023
HCD Informal Review Comments Response / Edits To Date
Appendix / Section / Page
No.
Note: Page numbers may be different
between clean draft and redlined draft.
Housing
Programs
Programs must
have specific
commitment and
discrete timelines
To have a beneficial impact and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element, programs must have specific commitment and discrete timelines (e.g., at least annually or by 2025), as follows:
• Program H1-1.1 (Housing to Populations with Special Needs): The Program should commit to annual outreach to identify development opportunities. • Program H2-2.4 (Infill Housing Prototypes): The Program should commit to how often the City will work with developers.
• Program H2-3.1 (Low Income and Special Needs Funding): The Program should commit to how often the City will utilize funding.
• Programs H2-4.4 and H5-1.1 (Anti-displacement): The Program should commit to a timeline earlier in the planning period and consider potential options for addressing displacement risk.
• Program H3-3.1 (Code Enforcement): The Program should commit to a timeline earlier in the planning period.
• Program H4-2.3 (Transportation Options): The Program should commit to how often the City will work with the transportation authority.
All programs with exception to H2-4.4 and H5-1.1 look good.
As part of the AFFH requirements and stronger AFFH
programs, I recommend the City commit to some or all of the strategies identified from anti-displacement
engagement in 2026 by [Month] XXXX, You may need to
move up the outreach date, because implementation of
actions after 2026 seems pretty late in the planning period to produce actions that will address the AFFH issues. And after revewing the analysis, displacement is one of the City's priority issues to address.
To better achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element, program timelines were updated as follows:
- Program H1-1.1 (Housing to Populations with Special Needs):
Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), conduct outreach
annually, produce an annual report to track progress.
- Program H2-2.4 (Infill Housing Prototypes): Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), monitoring conducted annually. Establish initial timeline with developers and stakeholders for ongoing collaboration (e.g., annual meeting) by 2025. Reported with APRs.
- Program H2-3.1 (Low Income and Special Needs Funding):
Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), Notice of Funding Availability issued annually.
- Programs H2-4.4 and H5-1.1 (Anti-displacement): By July 2026 and Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), initial outreach by 2025.
- Program H3-3.1 (Code Enforcement): By 2026, possibly in tandem with Zoning Ordinance updates.
- Program H4-2.3 (Transportation Options): Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), monitoring and at least one meeting
conducted annually.
Housing Element, Section 5, pgs
48 to 72, Programs H1-1.1, H2-2.4,
H2-3.1, H2-4.4, H3-3.1, H4-2.3, and
H5-1.1
Housing
Programs
Programs to
Rezone if
necessary
As noted in Finding A3, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
•Publicly Owned Sites: If the element identifies City-owned sites to accommodate a portion of the RHNA, the element must include a program or modify Program H2-
2.2 (Conversion of Publicly Owned Lands for Housing) that ensures compliance with the Surplus Lands Act. The program should also include numerical objectives and provide incentives and actions, along with a schedule, to facilitate development of City-owned sites. Actions could include outreach with developers, financial assistance and incentives, issuing requests for proposals, final entitlements, building permits issues and alternative actions, including rezoning other sites, if developments do not progress as anticipated.
•Sites Identified in Prior Planning Periods: Sites identified in prior planning period(s) are generally deemed inadequate unless a program rezones prior identified sites. If necessary, the Program must commit to permit development with 20 percent affordability by right at appropriate densities (e.g., 20 units per acre). If, that are currently identified to accommodate housing for lower income. •Replacement Housing Requirements: Absent a replacement housing program, sites with existing residential uses meeting specified requirements are not adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households. The replacement housing program should commit to the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c)(3). The housing element must be revised to include such analysis and a program, if necessary.
Program level of detail needs work. Still includes language to consider...CL to send sample.
To ensure housing sites in the inventory will be available and to facilitate and encourage housing development:
- Program H2-2.2 was updated to include compliance with the Surplus Lands Act, quantified objectives, and actions the City will take following review of publicly and institutionally owned lands for housing development.
- Further discussion and clarification was added about how the 9 inventory sites from the 5th Cycle Housing Element that were carried over are still appropriate to accomodate lower-income housing (by-right densities have increased to 40 units per acre under the new 2040 General Plan designations for these sites). - Program H2-2.1 was also updated to include implementation of a replacement housing program in compliance with 65915(c)(3).
Housing Element, Section 5, pg
54, Program H2-2.2; Appendix B,
Section B.3.6, pg B-29, Table B-11;
and Housing Element, Section 5,
pg 53, Program H2-2.1
Housing
Programs
Programs must
have specific
commitment and
discrete timelines
As noted in Findings A4 and A5, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.
None With the updates to Appendix E and Housing Programs based on comments recieved, constraints on housing development have been addressed.
Appendix E and Housing
Element
Topic Subtopic 05.17.2023
HCD Review Letter Comments
08.07.2023
HCD Informal Review Comments Response / Edits To Date
Appendix / Section / Page
No.
Note: Page numbers may be different
between clean draft and redlined draft.
Housing
Programs
Programs must
have specific
commitment and
discrete timelines
As noted in Finding A1, the element requires a complete AFFH analysis. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the element may need to revise or add programs.
Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, milestones, geographic targeting and metrics or numerical targets and, as appropriate, address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity or higher income areas, place-based strategies for community revitalization and displacement protection.
Specific programs to address farmworkers? Large
households? I'm still seeing programs, including Porgram H4-4.2 that includes exploratory language. Let's talk - at minimum here, we should be thinking community
revitalization strategies considering most tracts in the City are low-resourced, tranforming low-resourced
opportunities into higher areas of opportunity, strong antidisplacement protection measures. Here we can tie in actions that the City might be purusing through and
Environmental Justice element, Safety, infrastructure, etc.
Quantified metrics need to be early in the planning period, and ideally captured across your programs. For a list of sample program actions: see pg. 73 of HCD's AFFH
Guidance Memo.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/docs/AFFH_Document_Final_4-27- 2021.pdf
Based on additional mapping and analysis of fair housing issues across geographic areas of the City, it was found that all four quadrants are, and will continue to be, good locations for future affordable housing units. To promote and affirmatively further fair housing in Napa, a new program was created to increase investment in areas of greatest need, including the South East Quadrant, with specific actions and timeline (see Program H4-4.2).
Appendix C, Section C.8, pg C-99
to C-102; and Housing Element,
Section 5, pg 67, Program H4-4.2
Quantified
Objectives
Quantified
Objectives
The element includes quantified objectives in Section 5, but it did not consistently identify objectives by all income groups. This requirement could be addressed by utilizing a matrix like the one illustrated below:
Mod. income objectives? Roll program H3-1.1 objectives
into table.
To confirm the established number of units that can be
constructed, rehabilitated, or conserved over the planning period, a table was added that summarizes the quantified objectives identified in various Housing Element Programs by income group. It should be noted that the Moderate Income quantified objectives in the element exceed the RHNA of 405 for that income group.
Housing Element, Section 5, pg
44, Table 5-1
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
Appendix K
Zoning Diagnosis Report
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Napa | General Plan Housing Element 6th Cycle Update 2023-2031 Cover Dynamic Planning + Science
Document Prepared by: Mintier Harnish
SECTION K.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ K-1 K.1.1 Background.......................................................................................................................................................................K-1 K.1.2 Purpose...............................................................................................................................................................................K-1 K.1.3 Report Organization.....................................................................................................................................................K-2 SECTION K.2. Zoning 101............................................................................................................................................................K-3 K.2.1 What is Zoning? .............................................................................................................................................................K-3 K.2.2 What Can Zoning Do? .................................................................................................................................................K-3 K.2.3 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency..........................................................................................K-4 SECTION K.3. Targeted Diagnosis of Housing Regulations ..............................................................................................K-5 K.3.1 Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units ............................................................ K-5 K.3.1.1 Relevant Legislation: ADUs and JADUs...............................................................................................................................K-6 K.3.1.2 Findings and Recommendations: ADUs and JADUs.....................................................................................................K-8 K.3.2 Mobile Home Parks......................................................................................................................................................K-9 K.3.2.1 Relevant Legislation: Mobile Home Parks..........................................................................................................................K-9 K.3.2.2 Findings and Recommendations: Mobile Home Parks..............................................................................................K-10 K.3.3 Density Bonuses and Affordable Housing Concessions............................................................................. K-10 K.3.3.1 Relevant Legislation: Density Bonuses and Affordable Housing Concessions .................................................K-11 K.3.3.2 Findings and Recommendations: Density Bonuses and Affordable Housing Concessions ......................K-13 K.3.4 Low Barrier Navigation Centers ........................................................................................................................... K-14 K.3.4.1 Relevant Legislation: Low Barrier Navigation Centers...............................................................................................K-14 K.3.4.2 Findings and Recommendations: Low Barrier Navigation Centers ..................................................................... K-15 K.3.5 Employee Housing..................................................................................................................................................... K-15 K.3.5.1 Relevant Legislation: Employee Housing......................................................................................................................... K-15 K.3.5.2 Findings and Recommendations: Employee Housing ...............................................................................................K-16 K.3.6 Emergency Shelters .................................................................................................................................................. K-16 K.3.6.1 Relevant Legislation: Emergency Shelters ......................................................................................................................K-16 K.3.6.2 Findings and Recommendations: Emergency Shelters ............................................................................................K-17 K.3.6.3 Sheltering Gap Analysis..........................................................................................................................................................K-18 SECTION K.4. Recommendations for Better Zoning Standards.................................................................................... K-20 K.4.1 Visual Aids.....................................................................................................................................................................K-20 K.4.2 Organization and Structure ................................................................................................................................... K-21 SECTION K.5. Zoning Ordinance Diagnosis Matrix ..........................................................................................................K-23 Figure K-1: General Plan and Zoning Consistency ..........................................................................................................................K-4 Table K-1: Zoning Ordinance Diagnosis Matrix ..............................................................................................................................K-23
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
In October 2022, the Napa City Council unanimously adopted the City of Napa 2040 General Plan. The 2040 General Plan is the culmination of a multi-year community wide effort to articulate a shared vision for the future:
“Napa is a signature Bay Area city, at once both a small town and a global destination at the heart of Napa Valley’s wine tourism. The City is endowed with a scenic setting in the valley with views extending to vineyards and proximate hills, a connected open space system integrated with the Napa River, and an identifiable downtown resplendent with historic resources. As Napa Valley’s largest city and a booming center of visitation and economic diversity, the City needs to make concerted efforts to balance the needs of local residents and businesses, maintain and enhance the City’s defining characteristics and quality of life, and ensure that the community remains attainable and inclusive, family-friendly, and appealing to an increasingly diverse population of residents, workers, and visitors.” Organized around this shared vision, each of the General Plan elements addresses different aspects of the community and identifies goals and policies to guide residents, decision makers, businesses, and city staff.
In addition to updating its General Plan, the City of Napa embarked on a comprehensive update of its Housing Element. As an integral part of the 2040 General Plan, the 2023-2031 Housing Element will serve as the city’s housing plan for the next eight years. The updated Housing Element will guide future decisions on housing preservation, protection, and production, and it will reflect the community’s vision of equity and inclusion established in the 2040 General Plan. As part of the Housing Element update process, the City of Napa will analyze current and future housing trends, including changes in state housing law.
To assist in implementing many of the goals and policies adopted in the 2040 General Plan and those that will be developed from the Housing Element update, the City is also making strategic amendments to its Zoning Ordinance set forth in Napa Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance). These amendments will provide internal consistency with the updated General Plan and Housing Element and ensure compliance with state housing law.
The City, along with assistance from its consultant team, conducted a thorough analysis of the existing Zoning Ordinance to locate areas inconsistent with recent changes in housing law. This Zoning Ordinance Diagnosis Report documents these findings. This report not only summarizes recent housing laws with which the Zoning Ordinance is not in compliance, but also provides recommendations and strategies the city can implement to ensure compliance. Additionally, the report provides general observations on the useability of the existing Zoning Ordinance and offers best practices for consideration. This report is intended to serve as a starting point for the discussion to support the City of Napa’s efforts to modernize the Zoning Ordinance, comply with state housing law, and streamline current housing development procedures.
This Zoning Ordinance Diagnosis Report is organized as follows:
Section 1 – Introduction
This section provides an overview of the Zoning Ordinance update and the purpose for this report, as well as an overview of its organization and the basis for its analysis.
Section 2 – Zoning 101
Before offering recommendations to update the City of Napa Zoning Ordinance it is important to establish a baselevel knowledge of zoning. This section provides an overview of what zoning can do, how zoning is implemented, and discusses the important role zoning plays in implementing the General Plan.
Section 3 – Targeted Diagnosis of Housing Regulations
This section is the core of the Report. In addition to summarizing new state housing laws, this section identifies components of the existing Zoning Ordinance that conflict with or do not fully address housing law changes. This section also provides recommendations and strategies to address these inconsistencies. This section is further summarized and supplemented by the Zoning Ordinance Diagnosis Matrix in SECTION K.5 of this report.
Section 4 – Recommendations for Better Zoning Standards The need to make zoning and development regulations more user-friendly and concise is an essential responsibility for all jurisdictions. In addition to the recommendations for addressing housing law inconsistencies, a variety of other opportunities to improve the Zoning Ordinance were identified in preparing this report. This section contains these general observations and strategies for their implementation.
Section 5 – Zoning Ordinance Diagnosis Matrix
This section provides the Zoning Ordinance Diagnosis Matrix. This matrix supplements the discussion in SECTION K.3 by listing, by Zoning Ordinance section, the amendments necessary to implement changes required by state law.
While a general plan sets forth a wide-ranging and long-term vision for a local jurisdiction, zoning regulations specify how each individual property can be used, consistent with that vision. Zoning is one of the primary tools used for implementing a general plan by translating policies and land use designations into parcel-specific regulations. Zoning is the body of rules and regulations that control what is built on the ground, as well as what uses may occupy structures and sites. Zoning determines the form and character of development, such as the size and height of structures, and includes provisions to ensure that new development and uses will fit into existing neighborhoods. In general, zoning regulations deal with two basic concerns:
▪ How to minimize the adverse impacts that the use of one property can have on a neighboring property; and
▪ How to encourage optimal development patterns and activities within a community, as expressed in planning policies and standards.
Zoning is used to implement the community goals expressed in a general plan and other land use planning documents. Zoning can do the following:
Set Use Regulations. Zoning specifies what uses are allowed by right, what uses are allowed with special permissions, and what uses are prohibited. In this way, zoning determines the appropriate mix of compatible uses, as well as how intense those uses can be.
Apply Development Standards. Zoning reflects the desired physical characteristics of the community in a set of development standards that control design components such as the height and bulk of buildings, street front and architectural character, location of parking and driveways, “buffering” of uses, and landscaping.
Apply Performance Standards. Zoning often includes standards that control the “performance” of uses to ensure land use compatibility between new and existing neighborhoods or uses. Performance standards address items such as noise, glare, vibration, and stormwater runoff.
Provide Predictability. The use regulations and development standards established in zoning provide community members with assurance of what land uses are allowed, where they are allowed, and to what scale they may be developed. Subsequently, applicants benefit from knowing exactly what can be done. City staff also benefit since the need for case-by-case discretionary review of development applications is reduced.
Under state law, all planning documents maintained, prepared, or approved by a community must be consistent with that community’s adopted general plan. For land use decisions, zoning is the key tool used to implement a general plan. Zoning supports implementation of the general plan and, therefore, must be consistent with the general plan vision, goals, polices, and implementation programs. Upon adoption of an updated general plan, a community may need to amend the existing zoning regulations and zoning map to ensure consistency. Development projects must not only meet the specific requirements of the zoning regulations, but also the broader policies set forth in the general plan.
Figure K-1: General Plan and Zoning Consistency
Note: General plans are general, long-term policy documents that guide ministerial and discretionary documents and processes (i.e., zoning regulations, subdivision standards, building permits) Source: Mintier Harnish, 2022
In general, federal and state laws allow cities to regulate local land use and development decisions.
These decisions include establishment of zoning districts, development standards, allowed uses, permit requirements, application processing, and administration and enforcement. However, there are exceptions. If local regulations (e.g., a Zoning Ordinance) conflict with federal or state law, then local laws and regulations are preempted. In some cases, both the U.S. Congress and the California State Legislature have identified matters of critical concern that limit the authority of local governments.
Some of these matters include affordable housing, permit processing procedures, environmental justice, water conservation, and other topics deemed vital to the state (e.g., reducing homelessness).
In recent years, California has enacted numerous laws aimed at increasing affordable housing stock, streamlining approvals for housing projects, and reducing barriers to housing development. This section identifies provisions of the existing Zoning Ordinance that are out of compliance with new housing laws, provides a summary of each law, and identifies the actions the City of Napa should take to ensure compliance.
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are defined as
attached or detached dwelling units that
provide independent living facilities on the
same parcel as a legal single-family or multifamily dwelling, and which include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking,
and sanitation. Junior accessory dwelling units
(JADUs) are a specific type of ADU that is
contained entirely within an existing or
proposed residential structure. Based on the
lower costs of construction and reduced
environmental impacts, the state has approved
many laws aimed at incentivizing the
development of ADUs and JADUs to help
combat the worsening housing crisis.
The California Legislature found and declared
that, among other things, allowing ADUs and
JADUs in zones that allow single-family and
multi-family uses provides additional rental housing, and is an essential component in addressing Source: SB 9 & ADU Law: The Toilsome Twosome, American
Planning Association, California Chapter, 2022,
https://www.apacalifornia.org/webinar-sb-9-adu-law-the-toilsometwosome/?doing_wp_cron=1671749591.2801380157470703125000 California’s housing needs. Since the adoption of the first state ADU and JADU laws, the State has passed additional laws aimed at improving the effectiveness of the legislation. These additional laws and clarifications streamline approval processes, further reduce barriers, and expand capacity to accommodate the development of ADUs and JADUs. Below is a summary of recent state ADU and JADU legislation.
Assembly Bill 2221 (2022)
Assembly Bill (AB) 2221, which becomes effective January 1, 2023, makes clarifying changes to existing ADU law to close procedural and permitting loopholes for approving ADUs at the local level. Existing state law requires local agencies to “act on” an ADU application within 60 days. AB 2221 eliminates the ambiguity of this requirement by clarifying that local agencies shall approve or deny an ADU application within 60 days of application submittal. Under AB 2221, if an application for an ADU is denied, the local agency shall provide a full set of comments to the applicant that include how the application can be remedied. Additionally, AB 2221 prohibits local agencies from imposing front setback requirements if doing so would preclude development of an ADU that is at least 800 square feet in size.
Senate Bill 897 (2022)
Senate Bill (SB) 897, which becomes effective
January 1, 2023, amends the existing height limit
requirement for attached and detached ADUs.
Currently, the state ADU law requires local agencies
to allow ADUs that do not exceed 16 –feet in height.
Under SB 897, local agencies must allow ADUs taller
than 16 feet in the following circumstances:
▪ If located within a half-mile of a major transit
stop or high-quality transit corridor, a
detached ADU that is on a parcel with a
single-family or multi-family dwelling may
be up to 18 feet in height by-right, and the
ADU may be up to two feet taller (for a
maximum of 20 feet) if necessary to match
the roof pitch of the ADU to that of the
primary dwelling structure.
▪ If a detached ADU is on a parcel with an
existing or proposed multi-story multifamily dwelling, the ADU may be up to 18 feet in height by right, regardless of how close it
is to transit.
Source: Types of ADUs, Let’s Talk Bloomington, 2022,
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-uscalifornia/e429b7b2e75c63318683812684d383f6f6c5d8bd/origin al/1646864067/3bf62fe5fa77d302d752705b51625302_OregonLive .jpg?1646864067
▪ An attached ADU may now be up to 25 feet high, or as high as is allowed for a primary dwelling in the underlying zoning district, whichever is lower. However, a local agency may still limit the ADU to two stories.
Assembly Bill 345 (2021)
AB 345 requires the allowance of the separate conveyance of ADUs from the primary dwelling in certain circumstances, including those listed below:
▪ The property is held in a recorded tenancy in common agreement that meets certain requirements.
▪ There is an enforceable restriction on the use of the property between the low-income buyer and nonprofit that complies with the requirements of the Revenue and Taxation Code. ▪ The ADU or primary dwelling was built or developed by a qualified nonprofit. ▪ The entire property is subject to affordability restrictions to assure that the ADU and primary dwelling are preserved for owner-occupied, low-income housing for 45 years and are sold or resold only to a qualified buyer.
It is important to note that AB 345 does not apply to JADUs, and local ordinances must continue to prohibit JADUs from being sold separately from the primary residence.
Assembly Bill 3182 (2020)
AB 3182 further address barriers to the development and use of ADUs and JADUs. This legislation, among other changes, addresses the following:
▪ Applications for ADUs or JADUs shall be deemed approved (not just subject to ministerial approval) if the local agency has not acted on the completed application within 60 days. ▪ Provides for the rental or leasing of a separate interest ADU or JADU in a common interest development. However, not less than 25 percent of the separate interest units within a common interest development must be allowed as rental or leasable units. ▪ Requires ministerial approval of an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create one ADU and one JADU per parcel (not one or the other), within the proposed or existing single-family dwelling if certain conditions are met. 2019 Senate Bill 13 and Assembly Bills 68, 881, 587, 670, and 671 SB 13 and ABs 68, 881, 587, 679, and 671 were part of the state’s first ADU and JADU legislation. Among other things, these laws address and require the following:
▪ Prohibit local jurisdictions from establishing minimum parcel sizes for ADUs. ▪ Clarify that areas designated by local agencies for ADUs may be based on the adequacy of water and sewer services, as well as impacts on traffic flow and public safety. ▪ Prohibit local jurisdictions from requiring replacement off-street parking for ADUs created through the conversion of a garage, carport, or covered parking structure. ▪ Reduce the maximum ADU and JADU application review time from 120 days to 60 days. ▪ Clarify that “public transit” includes various means of transportation that charge set fees, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.
▪ Establishes impact fee exemptions and limitations based on the size of the ADU. ADUs less than 750 square feet are exempt from impact fees, and ADUs that are 750 square feet or larger may be charged impact fees but only such fees that are proportional in size (i.e., by square foot) to those for the primary dwelling unit.
▪ Allows the construction of JADUs even where a local agency has not adopted an ordinance expressly authorizing them.
▪ Allows a permitted JADU to be constructed within the walls of the proposed or existing single-family residence and eliminates the required inclusion of an existing bedroom and an interior entry into the single-family residence.
The City of Napa currently addresses ADU and JADU development standards in Section 17.52.015 (Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)) of the City of Napa Municipal Code. The City adopted its first ADU and JADU provisions in 2019 and subsequently updated the provisions in 2020. Since 2020, the State has passed additional ADU and JADU laws that the current regulations fail to address. These laws include AB 2221, AB 897, and AB 345.
Assembly Bill 2221. The city’s existing setback requirements for ADUs do not address the requirements established in AB 2221. Currently, Subparagraph 17.52.015.A.5 (Setback and Yard Requirements) establishes that an attached ADU must comply with the setback requirements of the underlying zoning district for the principal dwelling unit, except that:
▪ Each detached ADU shall have a rear and side setback of four feet. ▪ No setback shall be required for an existing accessory structure that is converted to an ADU or an ADU that is constructed within the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing accessory structure.
Per AB 2221, front setbacks can no longer be enforced by local jurisdictions if the establishment and enforcement of a front setback prevents the construction of an attached or detached ADU that is at least 800 square feet. To comply with this new legislation, the city should add an additional exception to Subparagraph 17.52.015.A.5 (Setback and Yard Requirements) that allows both attached and detached ADUs to be constructed in the front setback if doing so is necessary to accommodate an ADU that is 800 square feet in size.
Senate Bill 897. The existing Zoning Ordinance establishes a 16-foot maximum height for ADU’s (see Subparagraph 17.52.015.A.4 (Height)). The Ordinance allows an applicant to propose a height greater than the established 16-foot maximum through the approval of an Administrative Use Permit. Under the provisions of SB 897, ADUs can now be a maximum of 18 feet in height by-right and 25 feet in height under certain circumstances. For compliance with the new state law, the city should amend Subparagraph 17.52.015.A.4 (Height) to allow for a maximum height of 18 feet for detached ADUs and create an exception that allows a 20-foot tall attached ADU if necessary to match the roof pitch of the ADU to that of the primary dwelling. Additionally, Subparagraph 17.52.015.A.4 (Height) should be amended to include a provision that allows attached ADUs to be up to 25 feet high or as high as a primary dwelling allowed in the underlying zone, whichever is lower.
Assembly Bill 345. The city’s existing zoning regulations do not specify the allowance of a separate conveyance of ADUs from the primary dwelling. To address this, the city should add language to Subsection 17.52.015.A (General Standards for ADUs) that specifies a separate conveyance for an ADU is allowed in compliance with AB 345. As a part of this addition, language should be added clarifying the applicability of this law and the City should create a checklist that provides staff and the public with a straightforward method for determining whether a property satisfies the requirements of AB 345. Namely, the property is to be held in a recorded tenancy in common agreement, a deed restriction between the low-income buyer and nonprofit shall be recorded, and the ADU or primary dwelling be developed by a qualifying nonprofit agency. The city's existing regulations prohibiting the separate conveyance of JADU’s (Subparagraph 17.52.015.E.8.a) should be retained in compliance with state law.
Mobile homes and mobile home parks have long been considered forms of “affordable by design” housing. Due to their land use efficiency and low construction/assembly costs, California has enacted legislation aimed at preserving and encouraging mobile homes as a way of addressing the housing shortage. California law establishes zoning regulations for mobile home parks in the California Government Code (GC).
Mobile Home Park Zoning
Government Code Section 65852.7 establishes land use and zoning requirements for mobile home parks. According to this Section, mobile home parks (as defined by Section 18214 of the Health and Safety Code), shall be an allowed land use on any property zoned for a residential. This includes both single- and multi-family zoning districts. However, the State does not preclude a local agency from requiring a discretionary permit (i.e., Administrative Use Permit, Conditional Use Permit).
The City of Napa currently establishes allowed land uses for the residential zoning districts in Chapter
17.08 (Residential Districts (RS, RI, RT, RM)) of the Napa Municipal Code. According to Section 17.08.020 (Land Use Regulations), mobile home parks are not allowed in every residential zoning district.
Specifically, mobile home parks are only listed as an allowed us (with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit) in the Single-Family Residential, Single-Family Infill, and Multi-Family Residential zoning districts. Mobile homes are currently not allowed, either by-right or with a Conditional Use Permit, in the Traditional Residential Infill zoning district.
To ensure compliance with California land use legislation and Government Code Section 65852.7, the City of Napa should amend Section 17.08.020 (Land Use Regulations) to list “mobile home parks” as an allowed use in the Traditional Residential Infill (RT) zoning district. The city may still require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a mobile home park—like the other residential zoning districts—but cannot preclude the use in its entirety in the RT district.
California’s first density bonus law was initially enacted in 1979 with the intent of encouraging and incentivizing lowerincome and transit-oriented housing. The density bonus law achieves this objective by allowing developers to exceed the normal density limits of local zoning if a certain percentage of the housing units are affordable as defined by the statute. In addition to increased housing units, the law provides for “incentives or concessions” that allow qualifying
developments to deviate from development standards, such as height and setback restrictions, and modify other regulatory requirements to result in actual, identifiable cost reductions for the project. Density bonus law also allows developers to apply for “waivers or reductions” of any development standards that would physically preclude the construction of a qualifying project as designed. Further, the law provides for significantly reduced parking ratios under certain circumstances.
Over the years, the California Legislature has continued to refine the density bonus law, providing additional flexibility to developers in meeting requirements for a density bonus. A summary of the recent state law changes is provided below.
Source: Stoddard West Apartments, DAHLIN
Group, 2021,
https://www.dahlingroup.com/projects/Stoddar
d-West-Apartments
Assembly Bill 682 (2022)
AB 682 expands the existing density bonus law to include “shared housing buildings” as a housing development eligible for a density bonus and/or concession. The law defines a “shared housing building” as a residential mixed-use structure with five or more shared housing units and one or more common kitchens and dining areas designed for permanent residence by its tenants. The law does not allow a local agency to require any minimum unit size requirements or minimum bedroom requirements for a shared housing building.
Assembly Bill 1551 (2022)
AB 1551 reinstates a previous law that sunset on January 1, 2022, which granted commercial density bonuses to commercial developers. To be eligible for one of the six commercial density bonuses, the developer must partner with an affordable housing developer to build affordable housing where at least 30 percent of the units are affordable to low-income households or 15 percent of the units are affordable to very low-income households. The affordable units can either be built on the commercial site, or the developer can donate land or a cash payment to the affordable housing developer to construct affordable housing units elsewhere in the jurisdiction. This law becomes effective January 1, 2023, and sunsets January 1, 2028.
Assembly Bill 2334 (2022)
AB 2334, which becomes effective January 1, 2023, encourages higher densities in urban, infill development areas. Existing state law grants enhanced density bonuses for affordable housing developments located near transit. AB 2334 expands on this law by allowing unlimited density and height increases of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet, for 100 percent affordable housing developments located in “very low vehicle travel areas.” The bill defines “very low vehicle travel areas” as an urbanized area where existing residential development generates less than 85 percent of either regional or city vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita. This new definition differs from existing law in that it does not require projects to be within a certain distance of a transit stop to be eligible for the maximum density bonus. It is important to note that this law applies in only 17 qualifying counties, including Napa County and City of Napa.
Additionally, AB 2334 affects how density bonuses are calculated by updating the definition of “maximum allowable density.” The law focuses on the number of units allowed by the base density and makes the “dwelling units per acre” standard the default method for calculating density bonuses. If a local government does not have a “dwelling unit per acre” standard, then an estimate of the realistic development capacity of a site, based on objective standards, should be used. The existing density bonus law specifies that in cases where applicable general plan or specific plan densities are inconsistent with the base zone density the general plan or specific plan prevails. AB 2334 modifies this law by requiring the higher of the densities to prevail.
Assembly Bill 571 (2021)
AB 571 places additional limits on the impact fees qualifying projects can be charged. Specifically, the law prohibits local agencies from charging affordable housing impact fees, including inclusionary zoning fees and in-lieu fees, against affordable units in density bonus housing developments.
Assembly Bill 634 (2021)
AB 634 allows local jurisdictions to require longer affordability periods for qualifying projects. The law allows a local government to adopt provisions requiring an affordability period of more than 55 years in inclusionary housing ordinances that also apply to density bonus projects. However, the local ordinances cannot impose affordability periods of more than 55 years in developments financed with low-income housing tax credits.
Senate Bill 290 (2021)
SB 290 makes several changes to the density bonus law, including:
▪ Provides one incentive or concession for density bonus projects that include at least 20 percent of the units for lower-income students in a student housing development. ▪ Provides parking standards of one-half space per bedroom for housing developments which include at least 40 percent moderate income units and are located within a half mile of a major transit stop.
▪ Eliminates the requirement that for-sale units for moderate income households must be in a “common interest development” to qualify for a density bonus. ▪ Clarifies that for purposes of qualifying for a density bonus, the “total units” in a housing development include affordable units that are designated to satisfy local inclusionary housing requirements.
▪ Clarifies that for purposes of qualifying for a density bonus, affordable units for very low- or lower-income households can be either rental or for-sale units. Affordable units for moderate income households still must be for-sale units and may not be rental units.
Source: Stoddard West Apartments, DAHLIN Group, 2021, https://www.dahlingroup.com/projects/Stoddard-West-Apartments The City of Napa currently establishes density bonus provisions in Section 17.52.130 (Density Bonus) of the City of Napa Municipal Code. The City adopted its first density bonus provisions in 2010 and subsequently updated the provisions in 2011. Since the last amendment in 2011, the state has passed additional density bonus laws that the current Zoning Ordinance fails to address. These laws include AB 682, AB 1551, AB 2334, AB 571, and SB 290.
Assembly Bill 682. AB 682 expands the existing
density bonus law to include “shared housing
buildings” as a housing development eligible for a
density bonus and/or concession. The city’s
existing density bonus provisions do not provide
bonuses or incentives for these types of housing
units. To comply with AB 682, the City of Napa
should include “shared housing buildings” as a
residential building type that is eligible for a
density bonus and/or concession and adopt a
definition of “shared housing building” that is
compliant with the state’s definition. This
definition should be included in Section 17.52.130
(Density Bonus) or in Section 17.06.030
(Definitions) of the City of Napa Municipal Code.
Assembly Bill 1551. Under AB 1551, local agencies
are required to provide density bonuses to
commercial developers that partner with an
affordable housing developer. The city’s existing
density bonus provisions do not address this
requirement, failing to mention commercial
density bonuses altogether. For compliance
purposes, the city should include commercial
development to the list of qualifying density bonus
projects. As part of this process, the city should also adopt applicability provisions for commercial
density bonuses that require commercial
developers who partner with an affordable housing
developer to build affordable housing in
compliance with AB 1551.
Source: The Braydon Apartments, Apartment Finder, 2021, https://image1.apartmentfinder.com/i2/I3e_kNCpAxZBMzjvMn 6xtMXF1ocQ4-cf499emKXCgaY/110/the-braydon-apartmentsnapa-ca-building-photo.jpg Source: Montrachet Apartment Homes, RentCafe, 2020,
https://cdngeneral.rentcafe.com/dmslivecafe/2/92369/SRGNapa-Montrachet-2019-1002-EditWEB.jpg?width=850&mode=pad&bgcolor=333333&quality=80 Assembly Bill 2334. AB 2334 allows unlimited density and height increases of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet, for 100 percent affordable housing developments located in Napa County, including those incorporated cities within the county (e.g., City of Napa, American Canyon). The law also requires local agencies to adopt “dwelling unit per acre” as the standard for determining maximum density in a qualifying project. To comply with the provisions of AB 2334, the city should adopt a provision that establishes dwelling units per acre as the standard for determining residential density in Section
17.52.130 (Density Bonus). Additionally, the city should include provisions allowing 100 percent affordable projects unlimited density and height increases up to three stories, or 33 feet. As part of this process, the city should also adopt a definition of “very low vehicle travel areas” that is compliant with the state’s definition. This definition should be included in Section 17.52.130 (Density Bonus) or in Section 17.06.030 (Definitions) of the City of Napa Municipal Code.
Assembly Bill 571. Subparagraph 17.52.130.C.4 of the existing Zoning Ordinance establishes the fees a developer shall pay to the city as part of a density bonus project. To ensure this provision is not misconstrued, the city should adopt additional language in this provision stating affordable housing impact fees (including inclusionary zoning fees and in-lieu fees) shall not be collected for affordable units in a qualifying affordable housing project. Additionally, a cross-reference to Chapter 15.94 (Affordable Housing Impact Fees) of the Napa Municipal Code should be included.
Assembly Bill 290. AB 290 made several changes to the state density bonus law. Most notably, the law adds student housing developments that provide at least 20 percent of the units for lower income students as a qualifying density bonus project. Additionally, the law allows reduced parking standards for moderate income units that are located near transit stops. To ensure compliance with AB 290, the city should consider making multiple changes to its existing density bonus provisions. Namely, the city should include student housing as a qualifying project, include reduced parking standards for moderate income units, and update the qualifications in density bonus amounts for qualifying projects.
Low barrier navigation centers are facilities that focus on moving people into permanent housing and connecting temporary residents with opportunities for income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. Like emergency shelters, these facilities are intended to accommodate people with disabilities, pets and their owners, partners (if not a gender-specific site), the storage of possessions, and survivors of domestic violence. These centers provide private and comfortable shelter for groups who otherwise struggle to find traditional housing.
Assembly Bill 101 (2019)
In AB 101, the California Legislature declared that low barrier navigation center developments are essential tools for alleviating the homeless crisis in the state and are a matter of statewide concern. As such, the law mandates that low barrier navigation centers be allowed by-right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family dwellings. In addition, local agencies may not impose parking requirements on low barrier navigation centers.
Assembly Bill 101. The City of Napa does not currently allow low barrier navigation centers. For compliance with AB 101, the city should allow low barrier navigation centers as a by-right use in all zones where mixed-use is permitted and nonresidential zones where multi-family uses are permitted.
This includes the following zoning districts:
Additionally, the city should adopt a definition of “low barrier navigation center” that is compliant with the state’s definition. This definition should be included in Section 17.06.030 (Definitions) of the City of Napa Municipal Code.
Employee housing is private housing provided by an employer, to house employees in rural and residential areas. The State has declared that employee housing and other employer provided housing (i.e., agricultural worker housing) is a land use reduces the percentage of California’s deemed as “unhoused.” To achieve this goal, the State precludes local agencies from treating employee houses differently than other residential and agriculture uses allowed in the same zoning district.
Section 17021.6 of the California Health and Resource Code states that Large Employee Housing land uses (36 beds in group quarters or 12 dwelling units), shall be treated and allowed the same as any agricultural use in any zoning district. Furthermore, State legislation states that large employee housing units shall be deemed an agricultural land use and shall not be treated any differently than an agricultural land use. State law requires that no local agency require the approval of a conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other discretionary zoning clearance for employee housing, if such discretionary permit is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zoning district. • CL – Local Commercial • OBC – Oxbow Commercial
• CC – Community Commercial • RO – Residential Office
• DCC – Downtown Core Commercial • OC – Commercial Office • DMU – Downtown Mixed Use • MU-T – Tannery Bend Mixed Use District • DN – Downtown Neighborhood • MU-G – Gateway Mixed Use District The City of Napa currently establishes allowed agricultural and employee housing land uses in Chapter
17.16 (Public, Quasi-Public Schools and Health Facilities (PQ), Public, Quasi-Public (PQ-P), Parks And Open Space (POS), Agricultural Resource (AR) Districts) of the Napa Municipal Code. According to Section 17.16.020 (Land Use Regulations), agriculture related uses (i.e., processing, farming, raising of cattle) are only allowed in two zoning districts: Parks and Open Space (POS) and Agriculture Resources (AR). Despite allowing agricultural related uses in the POS and AR zoning districts, large employee housing is only listed as an allowed land use in the AR zoning district. The POS zoning district does not currently list large employee housing as an allowed use. As such, the City’s regulations are inconsistent with established State law.
To ensure compliance with California land use legislation and Government Code Section 17021.6, the City of Napa should amend Section 17.16.020 (Land Use Regulations) to list “large employee housing” as an allowed by-right use in the Parks and Open Space (POS) zoning district. Because agricultural uses are allowed in the POS zoning district, large employee housing uses shall also be an allowed use and shall be treated no differently than agricultural. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other discretionary zoning clearance shall be required of employee housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone. The permitted occupancy in employee housing in a zone allowing agricultural uses shall include agricultural employees who do not work on the property where the employee housing is located.
Emergency shelters are facilities that provide temporary housing with at least minimal supportive services for persons experiencing homelessness. Such services may include connecting temporary residents with opportunities for income, public benefits, health services, or supportive, transitional, or permanent housing. Occupancy in an emergency shelter is limited to six months or less, and no individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.
Assembly Bill 2339
Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022 (AB 2339), adds additional specificity on how cities and counties plan for emergency shelters and ensure sufficient capacity for low-income housing in their housing elements.
As of January 1, 2023, AB 2339 amends state Housing Element Law regarding identification of zones and sites for emergency shelters and transitional and supportive housing. Amendments to Government Code Section 65583(a)(4), generally, are as follows:
▪ Expands the definition of “emergency shelters” to include other interim interventions, including but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care. ▪ Requires that zoning designations where residential uses are allowed, including mixed-use residential, also allow emergency shelters as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit.
▪ The local government must demonstrate the adequacy of sites identified to accommodate emergency shelters. Specifically, if a vacant site is zoned for a nonresidential use but allows residential development, the site must be located near amenities and services that serve people experiencing homelessness. If the site is nonvacant, the analysis must provide substantial evidence that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period. ▪ Sites owned by the local government can be included if the analysis demonstrates that the sites will be made available for emergency shelters during the planning period, are suitable for residential use, and are located near amenities that serve people experiencing homelessness. ▪ Provides a calculation methodology for determining the sufficiency of sites available to accommodate emergency shelters in the identified zoning designation. ▪ Requires analysis of any adopted written objective standards for potential governmental constraints1.
The City of Napa allows emergency shelters as a by-right use in the Public, Quasi-Public (PQ-P) zoning district. Outside of the PQ-P district, emergency shelters are conditionally allowed with a Use Permit in all residential zoning districts and many nonresidential districts as community care facilities. To align with new requirements under AB 2339, the City of Napa Zoning Ordinance should be amended to update the definition of emergency shelter and to identify shelters as a separate and distinct land use that is allowed pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4).
State law allows local governments to apply select objective development and management standards to emergency shelters beyond the development standards for the base zone. The City of Napa Zoning Ordinance applies the same development standards to emergency shelters and community care facilities as those imposed on other similar uses. Further, Section 17.16.040(M) of the Zoning Ordinance states that development standards for emergency shelters in the PQ-P district shall be established in accordance with state law and there are no additional use-specific standards applied, such as bed limitations, lighting, or spacing requirements. However, the Zoning Ordinance should be amended to clarify development standards, including parking requirements, for emergency shelters in accordance with state law.
1 California Department of Housing and Community Development, AB 2339 – Legislation Effective January 1, 2023, Housing Element: Emergency Shelters. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/ab2339-notice.pdf.
Accessed May 2023.
Based upon the overviews provided in the Napa City-County Continuum of Care (Napa COC) 2022 Strategic Plan, 759 unique individuals were served by the Napa CoC homeless system of care during fiscal year (FY) 2021, including in shelter and housing projects. This included a combined total of 618 households, which received care through a combination of emergency shelter, Transitional Housing (TH), and Supportive Housing (SH) programs. Of the households served, 84% (518 households) accessed an emergency shelter during FY 2021. Overall, 69% of households were served only by an emergency shelter and did not access other housing programs available, such as TH or SH. Notably, 28% of households exited from emergency shelter and went on to permanent housing destinations,2 which includes those which obtained permanent housing without the assistance of SH programs. Permanent housing destinations can include unsubsidized locations, like moving back with family or renting on their own, or a connection to subsidized, non-supportive housing programs like Emergency Housing Vouchers or Housing Choice Vouchers. Table K-1 shows the number of enrollments by shelter and supportive housing project type in the reporting period of FY 2019 through FY 2021.
Table K -1: Households Served by Napa CoC
Housing Type FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Emergency Shelter 402 448 518
Transitional Housing 66 58 51
Rapid Re-Housing 58 69 128
Permanent Supportive Housing 14 13 18
Total Households Served 475 532 618
The households served with sheltering and housing within the Napa CoC exceeds the Homeless Pointin-Time (PIT) count during the same period. According to the 2022 PIT conducted by Napa COC, there were 494 people experiencing homelessness and potentially in need of emergency shelter in the City of Napa. Of the 494 individuals experiencing homelessness, 362 were unsheltered.
There are four existing emergency shelters located within city limits with a total bed capacity of 202 at any given time, as identified in Table K-2. There are also four existing SH and TH developments with a total bed capacity of 188, bringing the total existing capacity in Napa to 390 beds for the 494 persons counted as homeless in 2022. However, the number of homeless persons surveyed for the 2022 PIT who indicated they did not want housing was 7%, meaning an estimated 340 individuals desired and were in need of housing out of the 494 total counted. In addition, new SH and TH capacity is anticipated during the planning period for a total added capacity of 80 beds. As a result, the total existing and 2 According to HUD’s HMIS data standards, permanent destinations is defined as permanent supportive housing (PSH), permanent housing with a rental or temporary subsidy, renting or owning with or without a subsidy, or living with friends or family on a permanent basis.
planned capacity is 470 beds, which exceeds the sheltering need for 340 individuals as reported by the 2022 PIT.
Table K-2: Gap Analysis
Existing Emergency Shelter Capacity No. of Beds
South Napa 102
North Napa Center 56
Rainbow Family House 24
Napa Emergency Womens Services (NEWS) 20
Total Existing Emergency Shelter Capacity 202
Existing SH / TH Capacity No. of Beds
Transitional Housing Units (2022 HUD SPM) 39
Scattered Site PSH Units (2022 HUD SPM) 51
Heritage House / Valle Verde (Supportive Housing) (Opening December 2023) 44 Valley Lodge (Supportive Housing) (Fully Occupied as of September 2023) 54 Total Existing SH / TH Capacity 188
New Planned SH / TH Capacity No. of Beds
Monarch Landing 16
515 Silverado 44
Sand Piper Cove (Napa Pipe Phase 1) 20
Total New Planned SH / TH Capacity 80
Total Capacity (All Types) 470
Sheltering Need
PIT Count (-7% Housing Unwanted) 459
Total Capacity (All Types) 470
+Surplus / -Deficiency +11
Source: Napa CoC 2022 Strategic Plan and 2022 HUD PIT
Zoning is a tool comprised of land use and development regulations designed to help decision makers and community members guide future growth and development. The effectiveness of a zoning ordinance heavily depends on how easy the regulations are to use and implement from both a user’s and a regulator’s standpoint. Land use and zoning regulations that are too complex, unorganized, or subjective, often lead to confusion and discourage development applications. Alternatively, regulations that are well organized, rely on graphics and tables, and are concise, tend to be easier to use and implement. This section contains general observations about the existing organization, format, and useability of the City of Napa Zoning Ordinance, as well as best practice strategies for the city to consider.
Photographs, tables, flowcharts, illustrations,
and other graphics are helpful in conveying
information concisely. The city’s current
Zoning Ordinance includes few figures and
illustrations and uses tables sparingly. Except
for a few Sections (e.g., Section 17.55 (Sign
Ordinance)), the regulatory requirements and
development standards are in paragraph form.
The use of graphics and illustrations can
clearly depict standards for measuring
complex development standards and
provisions (e.g., setbacks, structure heights),
while paragraph equivalents can be prone to
misinterpretation and uncertainty. Clarifying
visual examples of measurement standards,
development standards, and other complex
provisions, could help with understanding and
enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance.
Source: Mintier Harnish, 2022
When updating the Zoning Ordinance, the city should make use of visual aids to help explain standards.
There are many areas in the Zoning Ordinance that would lend themselves well to graphic representation. This would include:
Chapter 17.54 (Parking) – To illustrate dimensional standards for parking space and driveway width.
Section 17.52.170 (Fences, Walls, and Hedges) – To illustrate fence and wall height limits and better illustrate the “50 percent open” exception in Subsection 17.52.170.C (Vision Triangle at Driveways and Intersections).
Section 17.52.360 (Pedestrian-Friendly Street Standards) – To illustrate dimensional standards for both street design (17.52.360.C) and setbacks (17.52.360.D).
Section 17.52.440 (Setback and Yard Projections) – To illustrate design and development standards related to porches, carports, shade structures, shade returns in rear yards, and open floor space areas.
Source: Mintier Harnish, 2022
The City of Napa Zoning Ordinance has an underlying organizational structure that generally follows a flow from introductory provisions, to zone and citywide standards, and ending with administrative and permit processing procedures. While the underlying structure can be recognized by those with ordinance-using experience (e.g., builders, architects), the structure is not intuitive or obvious to the average user. Because standards are dispersed, users can be left with a nagging fear that a “hidden” regulation might affect the viability of a project. Uncertainty regarding development possibilities can be a significant barrier when attempting to attract development.
Take Chapter 17.52 (Site and Use Regulations) for example. This chapter has become a “catch-all” for various site and use regulations. The chapter is comprised of 61 sections that are organized alphabetically. While this is certainly a legitimate way to structure a chapter, it is not user-friendly.
Sections that should be grouped together are often separated by unrelated topics. For example, parking and sign standards, which are both site and use regulations, should be in Chapter 17.52 (Site and Use Regulations). However, these regulations have their own stand-alone chapters (Chapter 17.54 (Parking) and Chapter 17.55 (Sign Ordinance)). The Height Limit Exclusions, Noise Standards, and Setback and Yard Projection sections contain standards that are applicable to all zoning districts. However, they are located far apart from each other within Chapter 17.52 (Site and Use Regulations).
To ease administration and readability for all users, the City of Napa should consider restructuring the Zoning Ordinance to include articles, chapters, and sections. The general ground rule in organizing ordinances is to group similar standards, both to minimize repetition and the need to flip between multiple chapters and sections to find related provisions. For example, all administration-related provisions should be grouped together, ideally in the same article or chapter. The consolidation of all procedures into one chapter can make a substantial difference in the user-friendliness and readability of the Ordinance. For the most part this is already the case, as most administrative procedures are found at the backend of the Ordinance (Chapters 17.56 through 17.72). However, other additional procedures are scattered through other parts of the Ordinance, like the procedures for approval of Vacation Rental Permits (Section 17.52.515) and Condominium Conversion Use Permits (Section
17.52.080).
Below is a proposed Ordinance structure that is systematic, consistent, and concise. This proposed structure groups the existing 40 chapters into articles that contain similar regulations. This structure would result in an Ordinance that is easy to navigate and amend. ▪ Article 1: Introductory Provisions (Chapters 17.02 and 17.04) ▪ Article 2: Zoning District Regulations (Chapters 17.08 through 17.50) ▪ Article 3: Citywide Standards (e.g., Agricultural Buffers; Setback and Yard Projects; Fences, Walls, and Hedges)
▪ Article 4: Standards for Specific Uses (e.g., Cottage Food Operations; Home Occupations; Time Shares)
▪ Article 5: Permit Processing Procedures (Chapters 17.58 through 17.62) ▪ Article 6: Zoning Ordinance Administration (Chapters 17.64 through 17.72) ▪ Article 7: Zoning Ordinance Definitions (Chapter 17.06) With this organization, the Ordinance would progress from the most often referenced to the least, with basic provisions in the beginning followed by regulations of specific zones, citywide standards, and then administrative chapters.
This section contains the Zoning Ordinance Diagnosis Matrix. This matrix supplements the discussion in SECTION K.3 by listing, by Zoning Ordinance section, the amendments necessary to implement changes required by state law.
Table K-Error! No text of specified style in document.-1: Zoning Ordinance Diagnosis Matrix Zoning Ordinance Diagnosis Matrix
Chapter/Section Recommendation Applicable
Law(s)
Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
17.52.015.A
(General Standards
for ADUs)
Add an additional subsection establishing the allowance of separate conveyances of ADUs. This new subsection should establish the applicability of this provision (i.e., does not apply to JADUs) and clarify the conditions required for separate sale or conveyance. These conditions include, but are not limited to:
▪ The property is to be developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation. ▪ A “tenancy in common” agreement shall be recorded with the city and county.
▪ The delineation of all areas of the property that are for the exclusive use of a cotenant.
▪ The delineation of each cotenant's responsibility for the costs of taxes, insurance, utilities, and general maintenance and repair. ▪ Any improvements associated with the property.
▪ Establishment of procedures for dispute resolution among cotenants before resorting to legal action.
AB 345
17.52.015.A.4
(Height)
Amend the section to include the allowance of ADUs taller than 16 feet in the following circumstances:
a) Proximity to Transit. If located within a half-mile of a major transit stop or “high-quality” transit corridor, a detached ADU that is on a parcel with a single-family or multi-family dwelling may be up to 18 feet in height by-right. b) Additional Height to Match Roof Pitch. An applicant may request an increase in detached ADU height to match the roof pitch of the detached ADU to that of the primary dwelling. Maximum allowed height not to exceed 20 feet. c) Detached ADUs on Multi-Family Parcels. Detached ADUs on parcels with an existing or proposed multistory multi-family dwelling, may be up to 18 feet in height, by right, regardless of how close it is to transit. d) Attached ADU Maximum Height. Attached ADUs are allowed a maximum height of 25 feet high or as high as the primary structure is allowed to be under the underlying zoning district standards (whichever is lower).
SB 897
17.52.015.A.5
(Setback and Yard
Requirements)
Include a new provision specifying that attached and detached ADUs which are 800 square feet or smaller in size are allowed to be constructed in an established front setback area.
AB 2221
Zoning Ordinance Diagnosis Matrix
Chapter/Section Recommendation Applicable
Law(s)
17.52.015.C.1
(ADUs Requiring an
Administrative
Permit.)
Amend the subparagraph to remove reference to “…ADU exceeding 16 feet in height.” Replace with a provision that states: “A detached or attached ADU that exceeds the maximum height limits established in this Section.” SB 897
Mobile/Manufactured Homes and Mobile Home Parks
17.06.030
(Definitions)
17.08.020 (Land Use
Regulations)
Amend Chapters 17.06 and 17.08 to define mobile/manufactured homes in line with state law and to list “mobile home parks” as an allowed use in all zoning districts where residential uses are allowed. The city may still require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a mobile home park, but cannot preclude the use in its entirety.
California
Government
Code Section
65852.3 thru
65852.7
Density Bonuses and Affordable Housing Concessions
17.52.130
(Density Bonus)
Create an additional subsection or paragraph that adds “shared housing projects” to the list of projects that qualify for a density bonus and/or concession. The new provision should specify that eligible “shared housing projects” include those which contain:
▪ At least 10 percent of the total units for lower income households; ▪ At least five percent of the total units for very low-income households; ▪ Is a senior housing development; or
▪ 100 percent of all the units are for lower income households.
AB 682
Create an additional subsection or paragraph that adds commercial/nonresidential developments to the list of projects that qualify for a density bonus and/or concession. The new provision would allow a commercial developer to obtain a commercial density bonus by partnering with a housing developer to provide affordable housing through either:
▪ Directly building affordable housing units;
▪ Donating land for affordable housing units; or
▪ Providing direct funding to an affordable housing developer for development of an affordable housing project.
AB 1551
Create an additional subsection or paragraph that adds student housing developments to the list of projects that qualify for a density bonus and/or concession. AB 290
Create an additional subsection or paragraph that allows reduced parking standards to the list of allowed concessions/waivers that an eligible project may request.
Adopt a new subsection acknowledging the state mandated provisions established in AB 2334 (i.e., height increases of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet, and unlimited density for qualifying projects). For ease of amendment, the city could simply refer out to state law and include language acknowledging the implications and applicability of the legislation (i.e., applies to projects in Napa County).
AB 2334
Zoning Ordinance Diagnosis Matrix
Chapter/Section Recommendation Applicable
Law(s)
Adopt a new standard which establishes “dwelling units per acre” (DU/ac) as the standard for determining maximum density for qualifying density bonus projects.
17.52.130.B
(Definitions)
17.06.030
(Definitions)
▪ Define the term “shared housing projects” as: residential or mixed-use structures with five or more shared units designed for permanent residential use of more than 30 days, that share one or more common kitchens and dining areas.
▪ Define “very low vehicle travel area” as: an urbanized area where the existing residential development generates vehicle miles traveled per capita that is below 85 percent of either regional vehicle miles traveled per capita, or city vehicle miles traveled per capita.
AB 682, AB
2334
17.52.130.C.4
Adopt a clarifying statement specifying that affordable housing impact fees (including inclusionary zoning fees and in-lieu fees) shall not be collected for affordable units in a qualifying project.
AB 571
Low Barrier Navigation Centers
17.06.030
(Definitions)
Define “low barrier navigation center” as: a shelter focused on temporarily housing persons and connecting them with income opportunities, public benefits, and health services prior to moving to permanent housing, in compliance with Government Code Section 65660. Low barrier navigation centers must meet the diverse needs of the population by allowing and accommodating people with disabilities, pets and pet owners, partners, the storage of possessions, and for survivors of domestic violence.
AB 101 17.10.020 (Land Use
Regulations)
17.12.020 (Land Use
Regulations)
17.18.020 (Land Use
Regulations)
17.20.020 (Land Use
Regulations)
Allow low barrier navigation centers as a by-right use in all zones where mixeduse is permitted and nonresidential zones where multi-family uses are permitted.
Employee Housing
17.16.020 (Land Use
Regulations)
Amend Section 17.16.020 (Land Use Regulations) to list “large employee housing” as an allowed by-right use in the Parks and Open Space (POS) zoning district..
California
Government
Code Section
17021.6
Emergency Shelters
17.08.020 (Land Use
Regulations)
17.10.020 (Land Use
Regulations)
Allow emergency shelters as a by-right use in all zones where residential and mixed-use residential uses are permitted. AB 2339
Zoning Ordinance Diagnosis Matrix
Chapter/Section Recommendation Applicable
Law(s)
17.12.020 (Land Use
Regulations)
17.14.020 (Land Use
Regulations)
17.16.020 (Land Use
Regulations)
17.18.020 (Land Use
Regulations)
17.20.020 (Land Use
Regulations)
17.28.030 (Land Use
Regulations)
17.30.040 (Land Use
Regulations)
17.06.030
(Definitions)
Define emergency shelters as a distinct land use, separate from community care facilities, and in accordance with state law.
17.52 (Site and Use
Regulations)
Clarify development and operational standards for emergency shelters in accordance with state law, including any requirements for sufficient parking, exterior lighting, spacing of facilities, or bed limitations.