Community Development Department – Planning Division
1600 First Street + P.O. Box 660
Napa, CA 94559-0660
(707) 257-9530
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
MAY 17, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 7.C File No. PL16-0054 – TRINITAS MIXED USE PROJECT
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
PROJECT
SUMMARY:
Consideration of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a Statement of Overriding Considerations, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zoning, Use Permit, and Design Review applications for a mixed use project consisting of: 1) a four story 253 room “dual branded” hotel building consisting of a 100 room Marriott Residence Inn and a 153 room AC Hotel; 2) a single story 26,214 square foot winery building; and 3) a two story 29,878 square foot office building, along with associated parking (441 parking spaces) on a 11.55 acre site
LOCATION OF
PROPERTY:
2650 Napa Valley Corporate Drive
APNs 046-610-009, 019, 020
GENERAL PLAN:
CP-720, Corporate Park
ZONING:
Industrial Park – Area A (IP-A); Industrial Park – Area B (IP-B); Airport Compatibility (AC) Overlay
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER:
Pacific Hospitality Group
Kory Kramer
2532 Dupont Drive
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (949) 474-7368
STAFF
PLANNER:
Victor Carniglia, Contract
Planner
Phone: (707) 257-9530
ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 2
LOCATION MAP
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. ENTITLEMENT REQUESTS
The Applicant requests a Planned Development Overlay Zoning, Use Permit, and Design Review Permit for a mixed-use project consisting of: (1) a four -story 253 -room “dual branded” hotel building consisting of a 100-room Marriott Residence Inn and a 153-room AC Hotel; (2) a single-story 26,214 square foot winery building; and (3) a two-story 29,878 square foot office building, along with associated parking (441 parking spaces) on a
11.55-acre site.
The project approvals requested as part of this application include:
Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) Certification: This development proposal and the actions listed are subject to preparation and circulation of an EIR ( provided separately and included by reference in the Attachments section of this report below) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Prior to taking action on the project entitlements, the City Council must adopt a resolution certifying the Trinitas Mixed Use Project Final EIR, adopting certain findings of fact, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
1. Rezone the property to Planned Development (PD) Overlay District: A PD Overlay District is proposed to allow for flexibility in development standards to allow a slight reduction in required parking and a small incre ase in the height limit for areas of the site, which requires adoption of an Ordinance by the City Council.
2. Use Permit: The proposed hotel use requires the approval of a Use Permit in the “Industrial Park A & B” (IP) zoning designation. Based on a recent change to the ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 3
City’s Municipal Code, a Use Permit for a hotel requires a recommendation by the Planning Commission and final action by the City Council.
3. Design Review Permit: Approval of the site layout, landscaping, and proposed hotel, winery, and office buildings requires Design Review Permit approval. Design Review is also needed for the hotel building to exceed 50 feet and 3 stories in height in the IP -A Zone. The proposed signage, which is consistent with the previously approved sign program for the Business Park, is subject to Staff review and approval.
The project site is located within the Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Study Area, which evaluates property using a scale of “A” to “E”, with land ran ked “A” having the most restrictions and land with a “E” ranking having the fewest restrictions. While the majority of the Trinitas site has a lower “E” ranking, a portion of the southern end of the Trinitas site has a combination of the more restrictive “C” and “D” rankings. The hotel building itself is split between the “C” and “E” Zones, with a 12,400 square foot section of the hotel (representing approximately 8% of the total hotel building square footage) located within the more restrictive “C” Zone. A small area of the hotel parking lot is within Zone “D”.
Sheet A0 -03 of the drawings submitted depicts the location of the three ALUC compatibility zones for the project site, as do drawings in the Draft EIR (Exhibit 5.7 -4).
Any project, or portion of a project, that is proposed within compatibility zones “A” through “D” triggers the review of the ALUC. The City Zoning Ordinance stipulates that the ALUC review shall occur after action by the Planning Commission but before action by the City Council. The A LUC is tentatively scheduled to review the Trinitas project on June 20, 2018. ALUC consistency is discussed in more detail in the “Analysis” section of this report.
B. PROJECT COMPONENTS
The Trinitas Mixed Use Project consists of three primary components, a four story 57- foot-high, “dual branded” hotel with a total of 253 guest rooms, a 26,214 square foot single story winery building, and a two story 29,878 sq. ft. office building. The project includes 441 spaces of surface parking to serve this proposed mix of uses. The project site, which consists of 11.55 acres, is visually prominent due to its extensive frontage along State Route (SR) 221. The property consists of three separate parcels all under common ownership. The location of the parcel lines, which are generally consistent with the location of the three proposed structures, can be seen in a number of the drawings included in the Commission packet, including Sheet A0-03.
ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 4
FIGURE 1: SITE PLAN
Hotel Building and Use:
The 253-room hotel building contains two separate but related hotel operations, consisting of a Marriott “AC Hotel” with 153 rooms and a Marriott “Residence Inn” with 100 rooms. The four-story hotel has an overall height of 57 feet, and contains 155,557 square feet of total floor area. The hotel’s four-story height combined with the fact that the hotel building will be located closer to SR 221 (approximately 140 feet from the travel way of SR 221) than either the single-story winery or the two-story office building, will ensure that the hotel is the most prominent structure on the site . While the two hotels will have separate entries and lobbies, the “dual branding” allows the hotel operations to share facilities, including a shared swimming pool, lounge, and fitness room, and shared administrative office space.
Aside from shared facilities and services, the AC Hotel will include an approximately 1,000 square foot meeting room, a small shop serving hotel guests, a bar/lounge, a breakfast area, and a library /media room. The Residence Inn will have its own meeting room of approximately 1,500 square feet, a small shop, a breakfast area, and a hearth/study area.
A bar/lounge is proposed to be located within the AC Hotel, which will serve alcoholic beverages and appetizers to guests from both hotels. While the two hotels will provide breakfast to guests, a restaurant is not proposed as part of the Trinitas project. The Applicant chose not to include on -site dining to help ensure that Trinitas will support existing and planned restaurants in Downtown Napa and elsewhere in the City.
ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 5
The hotel component of the Trinitas project will also function in a synergistic way with the existing hotel/resort located nearby within the same business park, namely the Meritage Resort and the Meritage Commons project which is under construction. Both of these facilities are located nearby on Bordeaux Way. All three properties, Trinitas, Meritage Resort, and Meritage Commons, are under common ownership. This common ownership and close proximity provides an opportunity for shared facilities and efficiencies between the existing and under construction hotels and Trinitas, including back of house services such as laundry , as well as guest-serving components that include the shuttle to downtown Napa that currently serves the Meritage Resort.
Winery:
The project includes a 26,214 -square-foot single story winery, that includes wine production, storage facilities, a conference room, a tasting area, a sales offic e, administrative offices, a wine lab, rest rooms, and an outdoor lawn/plaza. The winery is anticipated to be either a single-tenant or a custom crush operation. The winery building is positioned in close physical proximity to the hotel, with the proposed lawn/plaza linking the winery and the hotel building. This lawn/plaza will allow for convenient pedestrian access between the winery and the hotel that will be uninterrupted by vehicular traffic. It is anticipated that tasting and other winery related events will occur within this lawn/plaza area.
Office:
The third component of the Trinitas project is a two-story, 29,878 -square-foot office building, which includes an outdoor courtyard and lunch area on the westerly portion of the site. The office building is expected to be utilized as office space for Meritage and Trinitas administrative staff, including administrative employees currently working at the Meritage Resort, as well as employees that will be working at the Meritage Commons project.
Project Access:
Primary access to the project site will be from an existing driveway located at the southwest corner of the site at the intersection of Bordeaux Way and Napa Valley Corporate Way. This access also serves the adjacent single story office /light industrial buildings located just west of the s ite. Secondary access is planned at the northwest corner of the site at a new driveway that connects to Napa Valley Corporate Drive. This access point will be limited to right in and right out traffic. No vehicular access is permitted directly from SR 221 into the site. The EIR includes a detailed traffic study that analyzes the project’s traffic impacts as well as required traffic mitigation (see Chapter 5.13 of the DEIR). This traffic analysis, and the circulation improvements needed to mitigate traffic impacts created by the Trinitas project, are discussed in detail later in this report under the heading of “Environmental Analysis.”
Project Parking:
A total of 441 parking spaces are proposed to serve the project, all of which are surface parking. Applying the City’s zoning code requirements to the proposed uses, including the hotel, winery, and office , results in a parking requirement of 444 spaces, 3 spaces ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 6
more than proposed. This small shortfall in parking is being addressed through the use of a PD overlay district, which is discussed later in the “Analysis” section of this report.
The majority of the proposed parking would be located within a large parking lot between the hotel and winery buildings and the project’s SR 221 frontage. This arrangement , coupled with the fact that the project site lies five to 10 feet below the road surface of SR 221, makes the large parking area potentially visually prominent as seen by motorists traveling on SR 221.
Floor Area Ratio:
A Zoning Consistency Determinatio n needs to be made in relation to the project’s proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR). While such a determination is not a separate entitlement action, it is necessary as a result of the FAR proposed for the project. More information is provided on this issue of zoning consistency in the “Analysis” section of this report.
C. PROJECT CONTEXT
Location:
The site is located within the Napa Valley Commons Corporate Park, and is bordered by SR 221 on the east, Napa Valley Corporate Way to the south , two existing offi ce/light industrial buildings and Napa Valley Corporate Drive to the west, and a vacant parcel currently owned by Kaiser Corporation to the north. The site is highly visible due to its location along SR 221 with approximately 750 lineal feet of SR 221 frontage. The surrounding area is largely built-out with low-rise office and light industrial development.
The site of the proposed Napa Pipe Project is located immediately to the west of the Napa Valley Commons Corporate Park. The Napa County Airport and the Airport Industrial Park are located approximately four miles to the south.
History:
The Trinitas Project is part of a series of hospitality entitlements within the Napa Valley Commons Corporate Park that were previously granted to the same property owner, the Pacific Hospitality Group. The entitlement process of these related developments began almost twenty years ago in 2000 when the Planning Commission approved a 200-room resort hotel with meeting facilities, restaurant, spa, and related improvements known as the Meritage Resort and Spa on an approximately 21-acre site located near Trinitas on Bordeaux Way. Subsequent approvals by the Commission expanded Meritage Resort and Spa to a total of 322 rooms. On December 3, 2015, the Planning Commission approved plans for a project adjacent to the Meritage Resort known as “Meritage Commons,” consisting of 145 hotel rooms, exhibition hall, and related facilities, on a site adjacent to the Meritage Resort and Spa. The 145-room Meritage Commons project is currently under construction.
The Meritage Resort and Spa and Meritage Commons are both located near the Trinitas Project site and are all owned by the same business entity. The two earlier projects contain just over 30 acres of land devoted to hotel uses, with those 30 acres accommodating a total of 4 67 hotel rooms (322 rooms Meritage Resort plus 145 rooms ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 7
Meritage Commons). The proposed Trinitas project would add approximately 6.5 acres of land dedicated to hotel uses along with 253 additional hotel rooms (the winery, office building, and related parking account for the remaining five acres of the site). Based on these figures, Trinitas would bring the amount of acreage in the business park dedicated to hotel uses to 36.5 acres consisting of a total of 720 hotel rooms. Trinitas accounts for about 20% of this total acreage and 36% of the 720 total hotel rooms.
Previous Commission Review:
A Preliminary Review was held by the Planning Commission on June 1, 2017. At this Preliminary Review, the Commission provided the Applicant with direction on a number of topics. The following is a brief summary of the Commission’s direction:
• Several Commissioners commented that the architecture of the proposed hotel building did not meet the level of quality expected for such a prominent location.
Concerns were also expressed about the quality of the building materials proposed, and the need to enhance materials.
• The Commission felt the design/architecture of the two hotels were not sufficiently distinct.
• Concerns were expressed that the site’s orientation, with the location of the main entry/ exit toward the rear of the hotel and winery buildings, required improved “way finding,” and that architectural detailing and landscaping along the rear of the buildings needed to be enhanced.
• The Commission requested photo simulations to depict the view of the project from key off site views, in particular the view from SR 221 looking toward the hotel building and the winery.
• The Commission offered to convene a subcommittee to work iteratively with the Applicant on the hotel architecture. The A pplicant declined this offer as they felt they sufficiently understood the Commission’s concerns.
Environmental Review Process:
After the Preliminary Review, an Initial Study was prepared that determined an EIR was needed to address the environmental impacts of the project. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) stating that an EIR was being prepared was published for public review on June 30, 2017. A scoping hearing was held in July 2017 to receive comments from interested parties on environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR. During this time period, revised plans were prepared by the Applicant in response to issues raised at the June 1, 2017 Planning Commission Preliminary Review. Work on the Draft EIR (DEIR) began in earnest once the 30-day NOP comment period closed on July 30, 2017. The DEIR was completed and published by the City for a 45-day public review period beginning on January 14, 2018. The 45-day public review period ended on February 28, 2018, with a number of comments received on the DEIR.
ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 8
The Final EIR (FEIR) was completed on April 27, 2018 . Copies of the FEIR, which consists of the DEIR , and includes the comments received on the DEIR plus the City ’s responses to the comments rece ived, was distributed to the Planning Commission on April 27, 2018 as was a copy of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP).
Copies of the DEIR were previously distributed to the Planning Commission in January 2018.
II. ANALYSIS
A. GENERAL PLAN
The General Plan Designation for the Trinitas project site is CP-720, Corporate Park.
The number “720” is used solely to identify the site, and has no regulatory function. The General Plan describes the “CP” designation as follows:
“This designation provides for manufacturing, warehousing, and office, public and quasi-public uses and similar compatible uses in a campus like setting. Intensive industrial uses may be located in CP designated areas subject to special design considerations and other crit eria that apply to a specific corporate park.
Development in this designation shall have integrated design requirements, including extensive landscaping and unifying design features. The FAR may not exceed 0.40.”
The Trinitas office and winery uses are cl early consistent with this description, while the proposed hotel use is addressed under the umbrella of “similar compatible uses in a campus like setting”. The determination of hotel uses being consistent with the General Plan CP designation was previously made with the approval of the “Meritage Commons” project by the Planning Commission in December 2016, as was just noted in the “Project History” section of this Staff R eport. Similar consistency decisions involving hotel uses occurred in the context of the initial approvals for the Meritage Resort project in 2000, and with subsequent approvals that followed to enlarge that project. While the Meritage Resort and related Commons project are oriented to vacationers seeking a resort setting, the type of hotels proposed with the Trinitas project, and in particular the Marriott Residence Inn, is a business oriented hotel that is typical for a corporate park setting. The AC Hotel is somewhere between the Residence Inn and the Meritage Resort in terms of its business orientation.
The Planning Commission will need to determine whether the Trinitas Project, and specifically whether the proposed dual branded hotel is consistent with the “CP” General Plan designation of the City’s General Plan. Given the past precedent of the City allowing hotel uses within the same business park as Trinitas and the fact that the type of hotels being proposed with Trinitas have more of a business orientation when compared to the Meritage Resort and Commons , a land use determination of General Plan consistency could be made.
Applicable General Plan Policies : A number of General Plan goals and policies are directly relevant to the Trinitas Project. Key relevant goals/policies are discussed below.
It should be noted that Table 5.9-1 of the Trinitas DEIR contains a detailed analysis that further addresses this question of General Plan consistency.
ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 9
• Community Character , LU-1.6 (pg. 1-9): This policy addresses scenic corridors and identifies SR 221 as a road “to be designated” as a scenic corridor. This policy identifies the need for extensive landscaping along these corridors, including tree planting, as well as undergrounding utilities. While the Trinitas project is proposing a significant amount of landscaping internal to the project, the landscaping along SR 221 is much less extensive. This is because that the Applicant initially believed that the City would not permit any landscaping within th is 45 to 50 foot wide area along SR 221 due to the presence of a City water line. Based on follo w up discussions, it has been determined that landscaping is allowed within this highway frontage area, although trees are limited to specific types and may not be planted within the immediate vicinity of a pipe. This issue of SR 221 landscaping is discussed in more detail in the Design Review portion of this report. In summary, however, while Staff does not believe it is reasonable to require landscaping off - premises in the Caltrans right-of-way, and because of underground utility issues in this area, ther e are opportunities to increase landscaping on the Applicant’s property in the parking area.
Concerning the issue of utility undergrounding which is specifically raised in General Plan Policy LU-1.6, a condition has been added requiring that the highly visible existing PG&E utility poles on the Trinitas SR 221 frontage be placed underground (see Condition #33h). Since these existing poles are located within the SR 221 right of way, approval of the undergrounding must be granted by Caltrans as well as PG&E.
• Non-Residential Development, LU-5.6 (pg. 1-17): This policy, which address free standing or clustered tourist oriented commercial uses, including hotels, states that such uses should be located in areas where the traffic generated by such uses is oriented toward major arterials and highways, away from residential uses and commercial uses that serve residential development. The Trinitas project, given its location on SR 221 and roads that serve the corporate park, is consistent with this policy.
• Tourism/Hospitality, ED 4.4 (pg . 9-7): This policy discusses the importance of promoting and facilitating hotel development within the City limits. The policy also emphasizes the importance of locating hotel uses in the Downtown, but also states that the City’s hotel strategy “shall encompass a variety of lodging types to meet the needs of the diverse visitor market attracted to the Napa Valley.” This policy concludes with language that states, “The City should specifically promote hotel development that includes meeting facilities for small conferences .” While the proposed hotel use is located a significant distance from the City’s downtown, Trinitas contains a hotel product with a price point that will likely not compete directly with a hotel in downtown Napa, where large parcels of vacant land are scarce and expensive, and where construction costs are significantly higher due in part to the need to build structured parking. Both hotel types being proposed (Residence Inn and AC Hotel) include small conference fac ilities consistent with this General Plan policy. Notwithstanding these issues, Staff is concerned that the loss of industrially zoned parcels to hospitality uses (this represents the third and fourth major hotels by the Applicant totaling 902 rooms, of which 182 are timeshare units). Land for large -scale business offices and light industrial use is growing increasingly difficult to find in Napa and in the corporate park forcing business ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 10
interests outward to the Airport industrial area and further south whi ch introduces fundamental community-wide land use issues.
• Health and Safety, HS -6.1 to HS -6.8 (pg. 8-27, 28): A number of General Plan policies address the need to avoid hazards created by aircraft using the Napa County Airport. As noted in the Project Description section of this report, the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) prepared by the ALUC establishes standards in locating uses within the airport compatibility zones rated A to E, with “A” being the most restrictive and “ E” the least restric tive. The ALUCP also establishes the maximum intensity typically allowed in terms of persons per acre for uses located within Zones “C” and “D”, but there is no such numerical restriction in Zone “E”.
The majority of the Trinitas site lies within Zone “E ”. However, approximately 12,400 square feet of the proposed Residence Inn portion of the hotel building is located within ALUC Zone C. While the City’s General Plan states (pg. 8-27) that hotel uses are “Not Normally Acceptable” within Zone “C”, the ALUCP establishes a threshold of 50 persons per acre maximum for structures within Zone “C”. Based on calculations prepared by the City’s environmental consultant (pg. 5.7-22 of the DEIR) the projected density for the portion of the Residence Inn located within Zone “C” is 46.5 persons per acre, just below the 50 persons per acre maximum .
This assumption is based on 80% room occupancy, with the threshold of 50 persons per acre being exceeded at 86% occupancy. For additional context, the average occupancy for hotels in the region is 75%.
In the case of Zone “D”, the ALUCP threshold is higher at 100 persons per acre in structures and 150 persons per acre outside structures. The small parking area of the hotel that is located in Zone “D” does not reach this level of intensity. It should be noted that the City’s Zoning Ordinance has specific review criteria for considering uses proposed within ALUCP Zones “A” to “E”. These review criteria for Zones “C”, “D”, and “E” are discussed in the following “Zoning Consistency” section of this report.
B. ZONING
The Project site is split by two zoning districts, IPA-A, Industrial Park – Area A and IP-B, Industrial Park – Area B. The IP-A District allows a wider range of uses and less restrictive development standards. The proposed Hotel building is located within the IP -A District, while the Winery and the Office Building are located within IP -B District. As mentioned previously in this report, the Applicant is requesting the establishment of a PD, that would allow for flexibility in relation to specific development standards.
Table 1 compares the heights of the buildings in the project with the relevant zoning requirements, and shows where flexibility is desired under the proposed PD to allow for increased height. Table 2 below refers to landscape setbacks, not building setbacks. The landscape setbacks require that the entire setback area be landscaped. No structures or parking are allowed within the landscape setbacks. Table 3 summarizes building setbacks. Given the size of th e site, in all instances the proposed Trinitas building setbacks greatly exceed the minimum requirement
ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 11
TABLE 1: BUILDING HEIGHTS
Zoning Designation Hotel Winery Office
IP-A 50 or 60* feet - -
IP-B - 30 feet 30 feet
Proposed 57 feet 38 feet** 32 feet**
*4 stories and 60 feet height allowed subject to Planning Commission Design Review approval.
**PD overlay is being proposed to allow increased height.
TABLE 2: LANDSCAPE SETBACKS
Roadway Zoning Code
IP-A/IP-B
Hotel (IP-A)
proposed
Winery (IP-B)
proposed
Office (IP-B)
proposed
SR 221
50 ft./35 ft. 50 ft. 45 ft. No frontage
Napa Valley
Corporate Way 35 ft. 50 ft. No frontage No frontage
Napa Valley
Corporate Drive 35 ft. No frontage No frontage 35 ft.
TABLE 3: BUILDING SETBACKS
Roadway Zoning Code
IP-A/IP-B
Hotel (IP-A)
proposed
Winery (IP-B)
proposed
Office (IP-B)
proposed
SR 221
50 ft./35 ft. 115 ft. 280 ft. No frontage
Napa Valley
Corporate Way 35 ft. 135 ft. No frontage No frontage
Napa Valley
Corporate Drive 35 ft. No frontage No frontage 180 ft.
Proposed Land Uses: Under the Zoning Designations (IP-A, B) applicable to the project site, the proposed winery and office building are considered to be permitted uses. The hotel, on the other hand, requires approval of a Use Permit.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a measure of the amount or intensity of development on a given site, and is calculated based on the total square footage of a project divided by the size of the site in question. The maximum permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the IP-A, B Zoning Districts is 0.40 , which is typical for industrial and research and development uses where a typical structure may be a single story industrial building with surface parking. While winery and two-story office structures typically have an FAR below the 0.40 FAR maximum, hotel uses tend to have higher FAR’s. The FAR for the Trinitas Project as a whole is 0.42, which is slightly above the 0.40 maximum.
Specifically, the Trinitas project exceeds the 0.40 FAR maximum by just over 8,000 sq. ft. of building area. Early in the development review, this issue was discussed and Staff recommended the Applicant reduce the FAR to within the FAR allowance in the City’s ordinance. However, the Applicant believed it was important to the projec t to retain the floor area as proposed.
ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 12
In cases where a project site encompasses several buildings on several lots, the Municipal Code allows the FAR to be calculated based on averaging the combined acreage and building square footage (Code 17.52.120.C) for the larger project . The Trinitas Project and nearby Meritage Resort Project and the Meritage Commons Project are all under common ownership, and therefore, Staff recommends they be considered one “project site” for purposes of FAR averaging under Section 17.52.120.C. The average FAR for the combined properties comes to 0.38, which falls within the 0.40 FAR permitted by the ordinance. This calculation can be seen in Table 4:
TABLE 4: FAR FOR “LARGER” PROJECT
Project Acreage Building Square
Footage
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Meritage Resort 20.63 ac. 317,367 sf .35 FAR
Meritage Commons 9.3 ac. 160,300 sf .40 FAR
Trinitas Project 11.55 ac. 211,649 sf .42 FAR
TOTAL 41.48 ac. 689,316 sf .38 FAR
In order to ensure that the average FAR for the combined properties does not exceed the maximum FAR in the future, a deed restriction would be placed on the Meritage Resort and Meritage Commons properties to limit further development of these properties in the future. Given the small amount of transfer to the Trin itas property, Staff has expressed support for this approach. A condition of approval has been added to address this issue (see Condition #20). If, however, the Trinitas Project is not eligible for FAR averaging as provided for by Section 17.52.120.C, the size of the Trinitas project would have to be reduced by approximately 8,000 square feet.
Project Parking: The project proposes a total of 441 parking spaces where 444 spaces are required by the Zoning Code. This small reduction in proposed parking is addressed in the following section of this report concerning the proposed PD Zoning . Table 5 illustrates the calculations to determine required parking. Table 6 provides a breakout of the 441 parking spaces provided by type of space.
In terms of bike parkin g, a total of 24 bicycle spaces are required and 28 spaces are provided. The bike parking is dispersed between the hotel, the winery, and the office building.
TABLE 5: TRINITAS PARKING SUMMARY
Size of Use Proposed Code Requirement Parking Required
Hotel: 253 rooms, 28
employees/shift
1 space per room + 1
space per 2
employees/shift
267 spaces
Winery: 21,500 sq. ft.
process/storage, 4,900 sq. ft.
admin, sales
1 space per 500 sq. ft.
+ 1 space/350 sq. ft. for
sales/admin
57 spaces
Office: 30,000 sq. ft. 1 space/250 sq. ft. 120 spaces
TOTAL REQUIRED 444 spaces
ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 13
TABLE 6: PARKING BY TYPE OF SPACE
Type Parking Provided
Standard 261
Compact 112 (25% of total)
ADA 15
Clean Air 53
TOTAL PROVIDED 441
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Regulations : The City’s Zoning Ordinance contains specific requirements to consider in evaluating buildings and uses proposed within the various ALUCP Zones. Copies of these requirements from the Zoning Code are included as Attachment A. This section of the Zoning Code contains a total of four “Use Review Criteria” to consider for any development being considered in Zones “C” and “D”. These criteria address: (1) the density/intensity of development ; (2) the clustering of uses to avoid their placement in more restrictive zones, such as Zones “C” and “D”; (3) the issue of noise generated by aircraft overflights and how that noise may impact uses located below; and (4) the location and height of the proposed structures. These four criteria and their applicability to the Trinitas Project are discussed in detail, on pages 5.7-23, 24 of the DEIR.
It is important to note that the ALUC review , which will occur between the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the City Council’s action, will consider these same criteria.
C. PD OVERLAY DISTRICT
A PD Overlay District is being proposed to provide flexibility in relation to two specific zoning provisions. The geographic boundaries of the proposed Trinitas PD District Overlay zoning would be coterminous with the boundaries of the Trinitas site. The specific provisions being requested as part of the Trinitas “PD” overlay is identified and discussed briefly below:
Parking Provision: As noted above, t he amount of parking proposed with the Trinitas Project (441 parking spaces) is three parking spaces less than the 444 spaces required.
This minor difference, which is less than 1% of the total parking required, is reasonable given the significant differences in peak parking demand between the uses involved, with the office and winery experiencing peak parking demand during the day, while the hotel use peaks in the evening , during the night, and in the early morning. The net result of applying the proposed PD overlay to Trinitas is that the total parking required becomes 441 parking spaces. All other provisions of the City’s zoning code would still be applicable to the site.
Maximum Building Height : The PD Overlay District proposes to increase the maximum height permitted for the portion of the site designated IP-B, which includes the winery and the office building but not the hotel. The proposed height of the winery building is 38 feet, with the office building proposed at 32 feet in height. Both of these heights exceed t he maximum height of 30 feet allowed in the IP-B District . This proposed increase in maximum allowed height from the current 30 feet to a proposed new maximum height of 38 feet is being requested under the terms of the proposed PD Overlay . The minor increase in maximum height appears to be reasonable, given the size of the Trinitas site ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 14
which allows for a significant distance between buildings , combined with the extensive building setbacks from surrounding roads and properties . For example, t he winery building is setback approximately 300 feet from SR 221 and is 95 feet fr om the Kaiser Permanente property to the north, while the office building is 180 feet from Napa Valley Corporate Drive and 70 feet from the Kaiser Permanente property line. In addition, the site’s elevation below the grade of SR 221 reduces the perceived height of the winery and office buildings as seen from the highway. Lastly, the majority of the roof forms of both the winery and the office comply with the 30-foot height requirement, with on ly a portion of the roof exceeding 30 feet.
Required Findings : In order to adopt a Planned Development District Overlay, Napa Municipal Code Section (NMC) 17.42.050 requires a total of seven findings that are listed from “A” through “G”. These findings are discussed briefly below, along with the applicability to the project:
A. The development is superior overall to a similar project designed to meet the standards of this title and of the underlying district in which it is located.
The increased height allows for the office and winery buildings to be built at a height that better suits the large scale and scope of the site , and the significant building setbacks the site allows . The slight reduction in parking proposed is a better fit for the mix of uses proposed as compared to the standards in the City’s Parking Code.
B. Any variations from the standards of this title and the district in which the development is located are justified by the high-quality design of the proposed development when taken together as a whole.
The increased height allowed under the PD overlay for the winery and office enhances the appearance of those buildings. This finding is not relevant to the modified parking standard.
C. Each phase (if any) of the development, as well as the development as a whole, can exist as an independent unit capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability.
The Trinitas Project is proposed with a single phase, so this finding is not relevant to the project.
D. The proposed development is planned in coordination and compatible with the existing and planned uses in the surrounding area.
While the surrounding area is largely built out, the Trinitas project as planned is compatible with surrounding uses and any development planned north of the project on the Kaiser Permanente property.
E. The proposed structure(s) and/or use(s) are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan or other adopted plan.
ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 15
The Trinitas Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan as discussed previously in this report.
F. Any conditions stipulated as necessary in the public interest have been imposed.
The resolution of approval included with this report contains appropriate conditions to fully address the public interest. In addition, the mitigation measures contained in the Trinitas Project EIR will ensure environmental impacts are addressed to the extent feasible.
G. The proposed structure(s) and/or use(s) will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the community.
The Trinitas EIR documents that the Trinitas Project will not be det rimental to the public health safety and welfare of the City.
D. USE PERMIT
The hotel is proposed on property located within the IP -A District, and a Use Permit is required for a hotel use within th at zoning designation. In December 2017, the City Council approved a modification to the City’s Zoning O rdinance that requires the City Council to approve Use Permits for any new or expanded hotel use, upon consideration of a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
General Plan/Zoning Consistency: The required findings for a Use Permit relevant to the hotel involve, in part , the issue of General Plan and Zoning consistency. These consistency issues were discussed in the preceding section of this report that addressed General Plan and Zoning consistency.
Health and Safety: Another relevant finding that must be made in order to approve a Use Permit involves protecting the public health, safety, and welfare . The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for this project fully explores public health safety issues, as well as any potential project impacts involving the proposed hotel and other uses . The EIR analysis concludes that with the exception of specific greenhouse gas requirements, all project impacts can be fully mitigated.
Impacts on Other Uses: The proposed hotel is located in the southern portion of the site well removed from surrounding uses. The City receive d a letter from the Kaiser Corporation (see Attachment B), the owner of the property bordering the Trinitas site on the north. In the letter, Kaiser Corporation expressed an interest that the Trinitas project not impact their existing or planned facilities. The Kaiser letter goes on to state that they support the location of the hotel use on the southern portion of the Trinitas property where it is located a significant distance from their property.
Based on the preceding conclusions, and on the extensive and detailed information contained in the Project EIR , it appears that the required Use Permit findings for the proposed hotel use can be made.
ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 16
E. DESIGN REVIEW
The City’s Zoning Ordinance ( Section 17.62.050) requires a Design Review Permit for new nonresidential structures that addresses the architecture of the proposed structures, as well as the site plan, including arrangement of the proposed buildin gs, associated parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and landscaping. The following analysis begins with a discussion of the site plan, followed by a comparative analysis of the architecture of the proposed hotel, winery, and office buildings.
Site Plan/Building Arrangement: At the Planning Commission Preliminary Review in June 2017, the Commission discussed that the primary site entry places visitors and hotel guests toward the rear of the project , raising wayfinding and design concerns. The Applicant has worked to address these issues by enhancing the “wayfinding” signage, by adding decorative paving at the main vehicular entry to lead guests in the direction of the hotel lobby entries (see Sheet A0 -03), and by adding architectural details to the rear (west) elevation. While Staff supports the proposed use of decorative pav ing to assist in wayfinding, Staff recommends the use of additional decorative paving to assist in guiding patrons to the AC Hotel entry. A condition has been added to this effect (see Condition #18). The building arrangement has the benefit of allowing for a strong p edestrian connection between the hotel building and the winery, which was noted at the Preliminary hearing. A drawback of this site layout is that there is a significant amount of project parking between SR 221 and the proposed hotel and winery buildings, where it is potentially highly visible from SR 221. The screening of this parking is addressed in the landscaping discussion that follows in this report.
FIGURE 2: VIEW FROM SR 221 TOWARDS SOUTHWEST
ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 17
Site Grades: While the Trinitas site is largely level with little topography, it is important to be aware of the existing and proposed grade differentials between the site and surrounding streets, particularly SR 221. The Trinitas site lies below SR 221, with the grade difference becoming much more pronounced further north along SR 221. At the southeast corner of the site near the SR 221/Napa Valley Corporate Way intersection , the Trinitas site lies approximately 3 to 4 feet below the road surface of SR 221 . This grade difference gradually increases, with the result that , at the northeast corner of the site near the adjacent Kaiser property, the Trinitas site is as much as 14 to 15 feet below the SR 221 road surface. This significant grade difference creates a challenge to introduce landscaping that will be sufficiently high so as to screen the majority of parked cars from the view of motorists traveling on SR 221. A low (two-foot to four-foot high) retaining wall is proposed running along the project’s SR 221 frontage. This low retaining wall, which will not be visible from SR 221 because it is below the SR 221 travel way, will provide some screening of automobiles parking immediately adjacent to the wall, but not for cars located away from the wall.
The visual analysis in the DEIR (see in particular Exhibits 5.1 -22, 23) provides a visual simulation of what the site will look like as viewed from SR 221 based on the landscaping proposed on the project plans. Based on these visual simulations, Staff determined that a sizable portion of the parking lot in front of the winery and the hotel will be visible from SR 221. This situation will be more problematic when the site is first developed because the visual simulations assume relatively mature parking lot trees. In order to address this issue, Staff is recommending the addition of landscaping within the 45 to 50 foot wide utility easement located between the project site and the SR 221 right of way. This added landscaping within the utility easement is discussed in the following section of this report under the heading “Landscaping /Screening”.
Vehicular Circulation: The primary project vehicular point of entry/exit is located off Napa Valley Corporate Park Way. This is an existing access point and will be shared with the light industrial/office development adjacent to and just west of the project site. The secondary access point is located at the northwest corner of the site , which allow s for right in and out turning movements. Upon entering the site at the main entry, hotel guests and winery patrons will need to make a quick right turn leading into the site and from there to the two separate hotel lobbies and the winery. The need for patrons to quickly make a decision to turn right upon entering the site is why wayfinding is so important. Access to the office building from the main project entry is provided by traveling north along the common driveway that extends pa st the rear of the hotel and winery buildin gs, and intersects the long driveway that parallels the north property line. At the June Preliminary Review meeting , concerns were expressed by the Commission about the length (approximately 800 lineal feet) and “straightness” of this driveway. I nstead of reconfiguring this driveway, the A pplicant has chosen to control speeding by installing speed bumps.
The Project EIR contains a detailed traffic analysis that evaluates the proposed project circulation, as well as impacts on surrounding roadways. While t his traffic analysis is discussed in detail later in this report in the context of the EIR, it should be noted that the traffic analysis concluded that a traffic signal will be needed at the project’s main entry at Napa Valley Corporate Park Way, although the timing of the construction of the signal can be deferred until it is warranted. This timing will be determined through periodic traffic counts conducted by the City. Once it is determined that the intersection meets signal ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 18
warrants, then the traffic si gnal will be installed at the project entry o n Napa Valley Corporate Drive. The entire cost of this signal will be funded by the Applicant utilizing a bond or other form of financial security acceptable to the City.
Pedestrian Circulation: The Applicant is proposing to install sidewalks on the project’s Napa Valley Corporate Drive and Napa Valley Corporate Way frontage to enhance pedestrian access around the site. This will also serve to increase pedestrian access between Trinitas and the Meritage Resort. In addition to the added sidewalks, enhanced pedestrian connectivity is required between the project site and the adjacent frontage sidewalks. A condition has been added to address this issue (see Condition #19). It should be noted that the Corporate Park Association is in the process of installing sidewalks within the Corporate Park, with the goal of ensuring all streets within the park have sidewalks.
Project Landscaping/Screening: A significant amount of project landscaping is proposed, consisting of over 430 trees and shrubs, along with groundcover, as depicted on Sheets L1 and L4. The application package contains cross sections (see Sheet L-3) that illustrate the relationship between the landscaping and the hotel and winery buildings. In terms of existing vegetation, there are four existing oak trees internal to the project site, which are located just east of the main drive aisle leading into the property . These trees are protected under City regulations and are proposed to be preserved and protected. The location of these oaks can be seen on Sheet L -4. Aside from the oak trees there are approximately 454 existing trees located on the perimeter of the site, primarily at the property’s southeast corner near the SR 221/Napa Valley Corporate Way intersect ion.
Based on an arborist’s report, the majority of these trees are in good condition, with only 3 of the 46 trees needing to be removed.
A significant amount of the tree planting is proposed within the parking area to provide shade and some screening. T he plaza area located between the hotel and winery is proposed to have more formal planting arrangements, including a border of approximately 20 decorative evergreen shrubs (laurus nobilis) with oaks planted at each corner of the plaza. Extensive planting with plane trees is also proposed to screen the back of the winery building.
While Staff is satisfied with the majority of the conceptual landscape plan provided, the exception is the need for additional landscape screening between SR 221 and the parking that parallels the highway. A pproximately 40% of this parking frontage area is currently screened by existing vegetation located within the 50 foot wide landscape easement area that extends north along the project frontage from the SR 221/Napa Valley Corpo rate Drive intersection. However, as mentioned previously in this report, no new landscaping is proposed in the remaining 60% of the SR 221 frontage area. A condition has been added (see Condition s #12, #13 ) to address this situation by adding landscaping, including trees and shrub planting.
As previously noted in the discussion concerning General Plan consistency, the existing PG&E powerlines that run along the site’s SR 221 frontage are required to be placed underground.
Project Architecture Overview: The Applicant has stated that Trinitas Project architecture draws its architectural theme from the agrarian/winery architecture common in the Napa ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 19
Valley. The proposed materials for all three buildings draw on this theme, and consist of a combination of woo d, reclaimed wood, stucco, and colored block, along with more contemporary materials of concrete, steel, and glass. All three buildings utilize corrugated metal and standing seam metal roofs. The individual structures are discussed below:
Hotel Architecture: The hotel building, given its four -story height and placement nearest to SR 221, will be the most visible structure on the site , which adds to the importance of ensuring the hotel is a success architecturally. This challenge is increased by the fact that the hotel building will contain two separate hotels operations, each with a distinct image and “look” . As noted previously in this report, the Planning Commission expressed concerns about the quality of the project materials and architecture, with the h otel architecture as the primary concern. Since the June 1, 2017 Preliminary Review on the Trinitas Project, the Applicant has made some refinements to the architecture of the hotel building, as summarized below:
• The primary change was to incorporate wood into the façade of the Residence Inn and to a lesser extent to the AC Hotel.
• The roof forms on the AC Hotel were modified to include a combination of shed and flat roofs.
• The contrast in colors used for Residence Inn was softened.
• Copper metal detailing was added around the windows of both hotel brands.
The following six images provide visual simulation s of the hotel building, with the visual simulation titled “Previous Design” reflecting the building design that was previously presented to the Commi ssion, and the graphic titled “Current Design” representing the revised elevations prepared in response to the Commission’s concerns. The first two images presented below represent visual simulations of the hotel buildings east, SR 221 elevation. Next is a visual simulation of the Residence Inn lobby entry, which is followed by a visual simulation of the AC Hotel lobby entry. These three visual simulations of the proposed hotel provide a useful tool to ma ke a determination whether the A pplicant has sufficiently addressed the Commission’s earlier architectural concerns. From S taff’s perspective, the minor changes enhance the architecture of the hotel but are not substantive.
Winery Architecture: The winery building will be much less visible than the hotel given its single-story height and 480-foot setback from the travel way of SR 221. The east building elevation facing SR 221 is attractive, and utilizes multiple shed roof forms, with extensive use of plaster, reclaimed wood, corrugated metal, and standing s eam metal roof, with aluminum storefronts in the middle of the structure. Although single story, the height to the parapet is just over 28 feet, with the peak of the shed roof having a maximum elevation of just under 37 feet. The rear of the winery buildin g includes three vertical elements to add visual interest to this rear elevation.
Office Architecture: The two-story office building is tucked tow ard the back of the site , with the winery building obstructing direct views of the office building from SR 221. The office building elevations consist primarily of glazing and corrugated metal, along with some painted plaster. Architectural detailing in the form of shed roof elements help to tie ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 20
the office’s architecture to the winery and hotel buildings. The parapet of the office is 32 feet high, with an overall building height including the shed roof elements of 37 feet.
Public Art: The Applicant indicated early in p roject conceptual development that their interest was not to install public art, but to inst ead pay the public art fee. However, it is uncertain if this remains the Applicant’s intent as the project has taken shape. Give the prominence of the Trinitas site on SR 221 at a location that functions as a gateway into the City, combined with the fact that the outdoor plaza located between the hotel and the winery buildings appears to be an ideal location in which to place a public art piece, the installation of pub lic art would enhance the project. While the Applicant cannot be compelled to install art onsite as part of the project, the Commission may wish to explore further with the Applicant the possibility of installing public art on the site.
Project Signage: Project signage is regulated by the Napa Valley Corporate Park Master Sign Program. All of the signage proposed is consistent with the adopted sign program, and as a result is subject to Staff review and approval. Details of the proposed signage are depicted in exhibits contained in the project’s DEIR.
ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 21
FIGURE 3: COMPARISON OF POOL COURTYARD
ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 22
FIGURE 4: COMPARISON OF RESIDENCE INN ENTRY
ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 23
FIGURE 5: COMPARISON OF AC HOTEL ENTRY
ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 24
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Commission was previously distributed copies of the Trinitas DEIR that was prepared in January 2018. During the 45-day public review period a number of comments were received on the DEIR. These comments, along with responses, are included in the FEIR which was distributed to the Commission on April 27, 2018.
Because the DEIR includes an extensive summary, the following section of this report contains an overview of the EIR and additional details regarding traffic and biological impacts. An overview of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and its role in the CEQA process is also detailed below , along with a summa ry of the comments received on the DEIR and the responses to those comments.
The best overview of the DEIR is provided in the “Executive Summary” chapter of the DEIR (see DEIR, Chapter 2, pgs. 2-1 to 2-29). This chapter contains a concise summary of each DEIR chapter. In addition, the summary contains a useful multi -page matrix that includes all of the project impacts and proposed mitigation measures which are compiled in Section 2.5 (pg. 2-12 of the DEIR) under the title “Matrix of Mitigation Measures .” In addition to identifying impacts and mitigations measures, this matrix answers the key question of whether the project impacts can be mitigated. In the case of the Trinitas project, the EIR concludes that the only impact that cannot be fully mitigated in volves greenhouse gas emissions. This specific impact is identified and discussed in Section 5.6 on pgs. 5.6.1 to 5.6.15.
Traffic Analysis: Chapter 5-13 (pgs. 5.13-1 to 5.13 -46) of the DEIR contains the traffic analysis of the project. This analysis encompassed a wide geographic scope, with a total of 16 studied intersections. The study intersection s can be seen on Exhibit 5.13 -1 (pg.
5.13-3) of the DEIR. The analysis looked at Existing Plus Project as well as Cumulative development to 2035 Plus Project.
The results of these two levels of analysis can be seen on Table 5.13-6 (pg. 5.13-23) and Table 5.13 -8 ( pg. 5,13-32). In both conditions, it can be seen that a number of the intersections fail, particularly at the cumulative plus project level where the majority of the 16 intersections studied are at “F” level of service. The traffic analysis determines whether the impacts created by the project are significant based on established thresholds. A summary of this analysis can be seen on pg. 5.13-30, 31, which shows that the project’s impacts are significant on 8 of the 16 study intersections. Project mitigation is then determined in the tables on pg. 5.13-43, with the level of mitigation based on the amount of traffic attributable to the project.
The EIR identifies a “fair share” contribution required of the project for a given intersection in Table 5.13-10 (pg. 5.13-42). The actual mitigation cost is calculated based on this fair share percentage (2.12%) times the cost of the project. The only impact where 100% of the fair share contribution is attributable to the project is located at the project’s main point of entry/exit (Napa Valley Corporate Way and Bordeaux Way). The most costly traffic mitigation that the project will fund is the SR 12/SR 221 /29 inter section/interchange improvements. While Trinitas’ fair share is only 2.12%, the project’s contribution may be over $1 million due to the overall cost of the interchange improvements.
ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 25
Response to Comments / FEIR: A number of comments were received on the D EIR during the 45-day comment period, with the bulk of the comments coming from the law firm of Adams Broadwell representing Napa Residents for Responsible Development. All of these comments as well as the responses can be seen in the Response to Comments document, also referred to as the Final EIR. Technically, the Draft EIR combined with the Response to Comments Documents and any related documentation and appendices constitutes the Final EIR.
MMRP: The MMRP is a tool that is utilized in the CEQA process to help ensure that the various mitigation measures identified in a EIR are implemented. The MMRP consist of a compilation of the mitigation measures contained in the EIR, along with information identifying which party will be responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. Also included is identification of the procedural “trigger points” (such as issuance of building permits) that will be utilized to ensure a specific mitigation measure will be implemented.
In order to link action on the MMRP to action on the project, compliance with the mitigation measures is included as a condition of approval for the project.
V. REQUIRED FINDINGS
The Planning Commission’s decision regarding this project is subject to the required findings established in NMC Section 17.60.070 relating to Use Permits and NMC Section
17.62.080 relating to the Design Review Permits. These findings are provided in the draft resolution attached to this Report. These findings relate to consistency of the project with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinances, and avoiding impacts of the project related to architectural design, life safety access, construction noise and dust, and public utilities.
Staff believes that the proposed project complies with these findings and the attached Resolutions contain the basis for this recommendation.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of the public hearing was provided by US Postal Service on May 4, 2018 to all property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject property. Notice of the public hearing was also published in the Napa Valley Register on May 5, 2018 and provided to people previously requesting notice on this matter, at the same time notice was provided to the newspaper for publication. Legal notice included a general explanation of the matter to be c onsidered and any related permits, identification of the location of the property involved where site specific, a description of the date, time and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, and a statement consistent with the Code of C ivil Procedure regarding the time limit to commence any legal challenge and matters that may be raised by such challenge. Additionally, notice was provided to all persons requesting information relating to this project on the Final Environmental Impact Rep ort (including together the Draft EIR and Final EIR), including all persons providing comments on the Draft EIR.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to: (1) certify the FEIR, adopt findings of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a ATTACHMENT 7
PL16-0054 Trinitas Mixed Use 26
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); (2) adopt an ordinance to rezone the property Planned Development Overlay District; and (3) approve a Use Permit and Design Review Permit.
VIII. ALTERNATIVE TO RECOMMENDATION
1. Continue the application with direction for modifications and allow the Applicant an opportunity to prepare a revised proposal.
2. Direct Staff to return to the Planning Commission with a resolution document ing findings from the record of the hearing to support denial of the proposed project.
IX. REQUIRED ACTIONS
Final action by the Planning Commission to forward a recommendation to the City Council to:
1. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Trinitas Project, adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Ov erriding Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Impacts and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2. Adopt an Ordinance approving the requested Planned Development (PD) Overlay.
3. Adopt a Resolution approving the Use Permit and Design Review Permit with conditions for the Trinitas project.
X. DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
1. Trinitas Mixed Use Project Final EIR: http://www.cityofnapa.org/716/Projects
2. ALUC - Related Requirements from the City’s Zoning Ordinance
3. Draft Resolutions: Trinitas EIR Certification/MMRP, Use Permit/Design Review Permit
4. Draft Ordinance: Planned Development Overlay District
5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
ATTACHMENT 7