SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS — Napa City Council, June 24, 2025

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
Office of the City Clerk

City Council of the City of Napa
Special Meeting
June 24th, 2025

FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA

AFTERNOON SESSION:

SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

5. A. First Street Napa Phase II
• Presentation from City Staff received on June 24, 2025. • Presentation from Kevin Teague received on June 24, 2025. • Memo from City Staff received June 24, 2025.

1. Email received from Chris d Craiker on June 6, 2025.

2. Email received from Mike DeSimoni Jr on June 18, 2025.

3. Email received from Joy Barger on June 20, 2025.

4. Email received from John Anthony Truchard on June 20, 2025.

5. Email received from Carrie Gorospe on June 20, 2025

6. Email received from Gary Neal on June 21, 2025.

7. Email received from Michael Prichett on June 21, 2025.

8. Email received from Justin Linkner on June 22, 2025.

9. Email received from Dave Whitmer on June 22, 2025.

10. Email received from Ken Ehrman on June 22, 2025.

11. Email received from Lara Young on June 23, 2025.

12. Email received from Michael & Christina Gyetvan on June 23, 2025.

13. Email received from Michael Pozzan on June 23, 2025.

14. Email received from Wendy Messman on June 23, 2025.

15. Email received from Alicia Mora on June 23, 2025.

16. Email received from Connie Brennan on June 23, 2025.

17. Email received from Jenny Gass on June 23, 2025.

18. Email received from Napa County Bike Coalition on June 24, 2025.

19. Email received from Michael Lee Holcomb on June 24, 2025.

20. Email received from Debra Dommen on June 24, 2025.

21. Email received from Ristorante Allegria on June 24, 2025.

22. Email received from Mike Gonzales on June 24, 2025.

23. Email received from Chris d Craiker on June 24, 2025.

24. Email received from Chuck Shinnamon on June 24, 2025.

25. Email received from Katie Migliavacca on June 24, 2025.

26. Email received from Adam Ghisletta on June 24, 2025.

27. Email received from Katy Kabbe on June 24, 2025.

28. Email received from Aaron Knapp on June 24, 2025.

29. Email received from Shawndra McCrorey on June 24, 2025.

30. Email received from Ryan Stetins on June 24, 2025.

First Street Napa Phase II
(PL20-0135)
June 24, 2025
Item 5.A.

Agenda Item 5.A:

First Street Napa Phase II (PL20-0135)
An application for a Development Agreement, Specific Plan/Zoning Amendment, Planned Development Overlay, and Tentative Parcel Map, to facilitate redevelopment of downtown at the former Kohl’s Department store and Dwight Murray Plaza site for development of up to 161 hotel rooms with ancillary retail and amenities, up to 78 residential condominium units, and approximately 30, 000 square feet of non-residential uses, referred to as the First Street Napa Phase II redevelopment.

Applicant: Coombs Street LLC
Authorized Agent: Kevin Teaque, HTRA LLP

PROJECT LOCATION
= Project Site
= Public Improvements
Pearl Street
First Street
Main Street
Coombs Street
General Plan
Downtown Napa
Specific Plan
(2012)
Focus Areas
Town
Center
Focus Area
“Phase II”
• City enters into agreements to sale/transfer surface
parking lot (Pearl Street) & Dwight Murray Plaza to
applicant for development in 2020 and 2024, respectively.

Project
We are here

PLANNING CONTEXT
Downtown Napa Specific Plan
Project Location

DOWNTOWN NAPA SPECIFIC PLAN
(Chapter 3: Vision)
“RESTORED HISTORIC

BUILDINGS AND NEW

BUILDINGS EMBODY THE

BEST OF SUSTAINABLE

DESIGN AND
ARCHITECTURE.”
[DNSP PG. 48]
“A WIDE RANGE OF

HIGH-QUALITY HOUSING

CHOICES MAKE

DOWNTOWN AN

INVITING PLACE TO
LIVE”
[DNSP PG. 48]
“AN INTERCONNECTED

NETWORK OF TRAILS

AND PATHWAYS AREA

USED BY BICYCLISTS

AND PEDESTRIANS OF
ALL AGES.”
[DNSP PG. 48]
“A PROSPEROUS HUB OF

HOTELS, RESTAURANTS,

SHOPPING, OFFICES,

AND MUNICIPAL

SERVICES DRAW A WIDE
RANGE OF EMPLOYEES.”
[DNSP PG. 48]
“LUXURIOUS HOTELS

AND INTIMATE B&B

INNS, THE WINE TRAIN,

WORLD CLASS

ENTERTAINMENT

VENUES AND

ACCESSIBILITY TO THE

OUTDOORS DRAW

VISITORS FROM
AROUND THE WORLD.”
[DNSP PG. 49]

DOWNTOWN NAPA SPECIFIC PLAN
(Chapter 4: Land Use Designations & Zoning
Districts)
“WHILE THESE FOCUS AREAS

DIFFER FROM EACH OTHER IN

TERMS OF CHARACTER, LAND

USES, VACANCIES, POTENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT SITES AND

LOCATION WITHIN

DOWNTOWN, TAKEN

TOGETHER THEY REPRESENT

THE HIGHEST

CONCENTRATION OF

OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHANGE

WITHIN THE PLANNING
AREA.”
[DNSP PG. 80]
“THE ULTIMATE

DEVELOPMENT OF THESE

AREAS SHOULD BE SHAPED

THROUGH SPECIFIC PROJECT

DESIGN AND REFINED DURING

THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL
PROCESS.”
[DNSP PG. 80]
“IT IS THE COMMERCIAL
“HEART” OF THE CITY…”
[DNSP PG. 82]
“PROMOTE MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT…”
[DNSP PG. 82]

DOWNTOWN NAPA SPECIFIC PLAN
(Chapter 4: Land Use Designations & Zoning
Districts)
“THIS SITE [TOWN CENTER FOCUS AREA]

REPRESENTS THE BEST OPPORTUNITY

FOR DENSITY AND HEIGHT IN
DOWNTOWN.”
[DNSP PG. 82]
“ENCOURAGE GATHERING PLACES SUCH

AS PLAZAS AND OUTDOOR SEATING

AREAS IN PUBLIC SPACES AS WELL AS
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.”
[DNSP PG. 82]
“REDESIGN AND REACTIVATE DWIGHT

MURRAY PLAZA WITH AN OPEN AND
INVITING “TOWN SQUARE” QUALITY.”
[DNSP PG. 82]

KEY PROJECT COMPONENTS
•Including 110 parking spaces (replaces 51 surface spaces) Up to 78 residential market-rate condominium units
•Approximately 200,000 square feet
•Includes approximately 10,000 square feet in event space •Includes approximately 1,900 square feet of an outdoor terrace serving the event space
•Includes approximately 2,000 square feet of fitness studio area •Other amenities would include a restaurant on the ground floor, rooftop patio and bar, and retail
•Including 129 parking spaces (subject to future parking agreement) Up to 161 hotel rooms
•Approximately 30,000 square feet
•Includes uses that would serve/support the hotel (i.e. food & beverage, spa, incidental retail uses, etc.)
•Includes traditional commercial space distributed throughout the ground floor of both buildings
Non-Residential
•Redesigned and constructed Brown Street Corridor
•New pedestrian paseo between the buildings
•New drop-off area (parking lot behind Allegria)
•Improvements to the 9/11 Memorial Garden
•Mid-block crossing at Main Street providing safer access between the west and east side of Main Street
•$2,037,000 provided for previously approved affordable housing (SB4) project in downtown, and $2.00 square foot per residential unit sold Public Benefits

REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS
Development
Agreement (DA)
• Consideration of a
Development
Agreement between
the City of Napa and
Applicant to carry
out the proposed
Project
• DA addresses
components such as
timeline,
performance
measures,
milestones, public
benefits, financing of
public improvements
with reimbursement
to developer, etc.

Planned
Development Overlay
(PD Overlay)
• Consideration of a
PD Overlay to
establish site specific
development and
use standards, such
as maximum height,
floor area, intensity
and density, along
with Project specific
design guidelines.

Specific Plan/Zoning
Amendment
• Consideration of a
Specific Plan/Zoning
Amendment to
amend the
entertainment zone
district boundary of
the Downtown Napa
Specific Plan.

Tentative Parcel Map
• Consideration of a
Tentative Parcel Map
to consolidate seven
(7) existing parcels
into three (3) fee
parcels, one (1)
condominium parcel,
and one (1) airspace
parcel

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(Key Components)
Affordable Housing Alternative Equivalent
• $2,037,000 to existing/previously approved affordable housing project • In addition to the one-time payment, Applicant will pay $2.00 per square foot of each condo unit sold Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Share
• City to reimburse up to $33 million over 10 years for construction of new public spaces Public Art
• $500,000 for public art, including enhancements to existing 9/11 Memorial Garden Pedestrian Drop-Off Zone
• New pedestrian drop-off near public art (behind Allegria) Relocation and Revitalization of Dwight Murray Plaza & New Pedestrian Walkway • New high quality public spaces providing better connectivity Parking
• On-site parking for residents, and future parking agreement with City to utilize Pearl Street garage and/or other agreed upon location near the Project site
Decision-Making Authority
• City Manager (i.e. staff level) review of future design review entitlement, and other discretionary entitlements (future use permits)
Development Agreement (cont.)
If approved, and for purposes of procedural efficiency, the Development Agreement would delegate City Manager specific authority for executing the following:

Affordable Housing Agreement;
Parking Agreement;
TOT Sharing Agreement;
Maintenance and Use Agreement for Public Improvements; and Any other agreements that may be necessary for the completion and operation of the Development

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
(Key Components)
Downtown I Downtown II Proposed
Floor Area Ratio Up to 5.0 Up to 4.0 Up to 5.0
Density 20 (min) to 60 (max) 20 (min) to 40 (max) 78 units [Note: 78 units / 1.4 acres = 55
DU/AC]
Building Height 75’ (max) 60’ (max) 75’ plus additional for rooftop patio
Front Setback No requirement 15’ (max) No requirement
Side Setback No requirement No requirement No requirement Rear Setback No requirement No requirement No requirement Stepbacks No requirement Min 5’ at third story and above when adjacent to residential
Per project guidelines
Min. Lot Area No requirement 5,000 sq. ft. (west of Soscol) 10,000 sq. ft. (east of Soscol)
No requirement
Lot Width No requirement 50 feet No requirement
Lot Frontage No requirement 50 feet No requirement

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
(Key Components)
Land Uses modified for the PD Overlay District per
Attachment 2 of the staff report (see use table)
Intended to provide a broader range of uses within the
PD Overlay District to attract and retain uses
complimentary to a downtown area

SPECIFIC PLAN/ZONING AMENDMENT
(Entertainment District)
• Entertainment District Boundary in the DNSP would be modified/squared off to include the entirety of the Project site.

Existing Proposed
= Project Site (approx. limits)
= Downtown= Entertainment
District

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
• Tentative Parcel Map would consolidate 7 existing parcels into 3 parcels, plus 1 airspace parcel and 1 condominium parcel
Existing Proposed
Parcel 1
Parcel 2
Parcel 3
Parcel 4
Parcel 5
Parcel 6
Parcel 7
Parcel 1
Parcel 2
Parcel 3

FINDINGS
Findings for the entitlements can be
found in Attachments 1, 2, 3, and 4 of
the staff report.

Findings could be made for each of
the entitlements.

Project would implement many
General Plan, and Downtown Napa
Specific Plan goals and policies
Planning Commission
• Planning Commission recommended approval of
the
Project in a 4 – 1 vote on June 5, 2025
• Commission suggested the following for Council
consider
ation:
– City Manager to assemble an advisory committee for
desi
gn feedback during the design review process with at
least one design review professional and one non design review professional from the Planning Commission
– Reducing the time frame from 18 months to 12 months
for
applications to be filed for the benefit of City Manager approval authority as a mechanism to incentivize
timeliness of entitlement processing.

Recommendation
(1) Approve the first reading and introduction of an ordinance approving, pursuant to a Section 15168 analysis and addendum to the Downtown Napa Specific Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010042043), and alternatively, to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 categorical exemption, a Development Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et seq. by and between the City of Napa and Coombs Street LLC, and authorizing the City Manager to execute and the City Clerk to record the Agreement; (2) Approve the first reading and introduction of an ordinance approving, pursuant to a Section 15168 analysis and addendum to the Downtown Napa Specific Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010042043), and alternatively, to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 categorical exemption, a Planned Development Overlay (PD-39) to establish use provisions, development standards, and design guidelines for First Street Napa Phase II Project located at 1106, 1116, 1118 First Street (APNs: 003-166-010, 003-166-013, 003-166-015, and 003-166-016) and 1151 and 1199 Pearl Street (APNs: 003-166-008, and 003-166-011) (PL20-0135), and Dwight Murray Plaza (APN: 003-166-017) (PL20-0135);
(3) Approve the first reading and introduction of an ordinance extending, pursuant to a Section 15168 analysis and addendum to the Downtown Napa Specific Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010042043), and alternatively, to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 categorical exemption, the Entertainment Overlay District described in Chapter 17.37 of the Napa Municipal Code and amending the Downtown Napa Specific Plan pertaining to the property located at 1106, 1116, 1118 First Street (APNs: 003-166-010, 003-166-013, 003-166-015, and 003- 166-016) and 1151 and 1199 Pearl Street (APNs: 003-166-008, and 003-166-011) and Dwight Murray Plaza (APN:
003-166-017); and
(4) Adopt a resolution approving, pursuant to a Section 15168 analysis and addendum to the Downtown Napa Specific Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010042043), and alternatively, to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 categorical exemption, a Tentative Parcel Map to reconfigure seven existing (7) parcels totaling approximately 2.85 cumulative acres and located at 1106, 1116, 1118 First Street (APNs: 003-166-010, 003- 166-013, 003-166-015, and 003-166-016) and 1151 and 1199 Pearl Street (APNs: 003-166-008, and 003-166-011) and Dwight Murray Plaza (APN: 003-166-017) into 3 fee parcels, one (1) condominium parcel, and one (1) airspace parcel for a total of five (5) new parcels for financing, ownership, and condominium property division purposes (PL20 - 0135).

End of Presentation – Thank you!

First Street
!"#$%&'(&)*)++)$,-&(.&/'$0)1$.#23(&1"#.$&/$
4567$.-8&/'$.30/930/$:);)<1$8#.#*#(3;2#/9=
!"#$%$&'(()'!!
!"##$%&'($)$*#++,#((
*+#),-).
-"".%$%/0123
/-0-(
42#5$)$*5267/
!1+2/12+#(

89.$:,62,##5(
3'"
;-:$93,(0+/2,6$:,62,##5(
#+/4-1'/1 (#),!/#"'
-)1'+-5+!
451'($5"'+#15+
,'0'(5"'+
(-.41-).
%#',$<=93,,35$"267/2,6
6-1/4')
953>?#++$93,(0+/2,6
(07-17!'/2+-18
;-:$93,(0+/2,6$:,62,##5(
"+'9/5)!1+2/1-5)
@02+1$A530&
Item 5.A.
2012 Specific Plan
Creation of Focus Areas
Town Center Focus Area

FINAL DOWNTOWN NAPA SPECIFIC PLAN

LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING DISTRICTS
83 FIGURE 4.5: Town Center Focus Area
Retail
Retail
and
services
Retail
Retail
Retail
Avia
Hotel
Residential/
ofﬁce/PG&E
Residential/
Retail
Retail/
PG&E
Gordon
Building
Residential
Neighborhoods
Sushi Mambo
historic Napa
Register Building
Retail/
Services/
Opera
House
Historic
Courthouse
Heritage
Park
Parking
Lot Parking
Lot
Retail
Napa River
Napa Creek

FIRST ST

SECOND ST

THIRD ST

SOSCOL AVE

CLAY ST

ARROYO DR

PEARL ST

POLK ST

CLINTON ST WEST ST

CALISTOGA AVE

BROWN ST

RANDOLPH ST

COOMBS ST

MAIN ST

FRANKLIN ST
Napa Town Center
Potential
Development
Site
Kohl’s
Potential
Development
Site
Transit Center
(to be relocated)
Merrill’s
Building
Facade
Redesigned
Dwight Murray
Plaza
9/11
Memorial
Garden
Ristorante
Allegria
historic First
National Bank
Downtown Area
Focus Area
Auto/Bicycle/Pedestrian Connection
Pedestrian/Bicycle Trails
Gateway
Proposed/Planned
Downtown Core Commercial
Downtown Mixed-Use
Gathering Space
Historic Resource
Public Restroom
N
0 250ft 500ft125ft
!"#$%&'$!'(%)"&*+%,(',
)"&*+%,(',%+-'&.).&%"/0'&!.1'+
2&34456789:%;596<%3=%>3?@<3?@A
: +;<=;>?@AB$4@<?CD@>$*E@FG@AB<
: -H=DCI@AB$=;G;<?D@JA$>@D>EFJ?@CA
: "DCHC?@AB$3@K;G92<;$,;I;FC=H;A?
: 'A>CEDJB@AB$BJ?L;D@AB$=FJ>;<
: +;J>?@IJ?@AB$*DCMA$!?D;;?
: ,M@BL?$3EDDJN$"FJOJ$+;G;<@BA
: P9QQ$3;HCD@JF$
: &@G;$DJAB;$CR$L@BL9SEJF@?N$LCE<@AB
: )J=J$/D;;T$RC>E<
: -A?;D>CAA;>?;G$A;?MCDT$CR$=J?LMJN<$
: (EKED@CE<$4C?;F<
: .J?;MJN$J?$U@D<?$JAG$3J@A

WEST ST

MAIN ST

COOMBS ST

RANDOLPH ST

FRANKLIN ST

BROWN ST

BROWN STREET CORRIDOR

HERITAGE
PARK
FIRST
STREET
NAPA
MALL
NAPA
CREEK
NAPA
CREEK
DWIGHT

MURRA Y
PLAZA

PROJECT
SITE
PUBLIC
REALM
OPERA
HOUSE
PLAZA

RIVERFRONT

PROMENADE
NAPA
COUNTY
COURT

VETERANS

MEMORIAL PARK

CLINTON ST
3RD ST
2ND ST

PEARL ST
1ST ST

CLA Y ST

CANYON ST
OXBOW

RIVERSTAGE
OXBOW
PUBLIC
MARKET

PHASE II

PHASE I

TOWN CENTER FOCUS AREA
LEGEND

PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS
/*.B>.$C%/B"&D+%")%+*&&'++
,&&"E-B.+;E'$!+
: UFCCG$/CA?DCF$=DCV;>?
: 5KWCM$>CHHCA<
: X9MJN$<?D;;?<
: +@I;DMJFT
: U@D<?$!?D;;?$!LC=
: #D>L;D$4C?;F
: +@>L$RJWD@>$CR$?L;$;K@<?@AB$FC>JF$WE<@A;<<;<$JAG$
D;<?JEDJA?<$
: P9QQ$3;HCD@JF

M IGL I AVAC C A

PRE-GORDON

BUILDING
F('+-'&!%;.+!"(.&%
/*.B>.$C+%,$>%-,!!'($+
F'E/(,&.$C%$,-,G+%-,+!
F('>'1'B"-.$C%!;'%
E.+!,D'+%")%!;'%
('>'1'B"-E'$!%,C'$&H
First Street Gateway
Conservatory
Semipublic Places
Encouraging Gathering Places
Rooftop Terrace
Semipublic Places
Rooftop Outdoor Seating
First & Main Gateway
• Improving pedestrian, bicycle and auto circulation
• Mixed-Use
• 9-11 Memorial
Dwight
Murray Plaza-("0'&!
+.!'
-;,+'%.
-;,+'%..
-*/B.&%
(',BE
!"#$%&'("))(&*#""+,#"
B'C'$>
-5L5M<689@%&3668L36M
!"#$%&'()*'+,,-)*".%*/
!)-01&*'!"#$%&'213$4'56*1.*7
!)-01&*'8".919
:-*1$';'
21*3%$'<'=1)>%&17
Existing Allegria
Restaurant
Existing Gordon
Building
Existing
Retail
Existing City
Parking Lot
217%91.&17';
21*3%$'<'=1)>%&17
-.//&
Memorial
New Approximate
Main Street Crossing
Napa Creek
!"#$%&'()*'?3$$
V alet Station
Improvements to the Downtown Corridors:

Creating a Pedestrian First Experience
: "J?LMJN<$F@AT@AB$U@D<?$!?D;;?$WE<@A;<<;<$?C$?L;$
P9QQ$3;HCD@JF$7$?C$3J@A$!?D;;?$7$?C$?L;$5KWCM$3JDT;?
: ,M@BL?$3EDDJN$"FJOJ$D;=FJ>;H;A?$M@?L$>;A?DJF$=J<;C$
=EWF@>$<=J>;Y$;K=JA<@CA$CR$*DCMA$!?D;;?$JAG$=EWF@>$JD?
: 3J@A$!?D;;?$,DC=95RR$RCD$IJF;?$JAG$D@G;$<LJD;<
!"#$%&'("))(&*#""+,#"
2%917@3)1'<'
A3$1*'B)-,'+CC
Arrival at Brown Street
• Main Street Drop-Off
• Auto Circulation
• Public Art & 9-11 Memorial
The Project is years in the making
13 Y ears of Planning
6 years in City Process
Help us open in 2027!
Thank You
RESERVED FOR Q&A

NOT PART OF PRESENT ATION

GORDON BLDG HISTORIC MIGLIAVACCA BLDG MASSING

M IGL I AVACC A

PRE-GORDON

BUILDING
First Street

STEP TOWER BACK FROM HISTORIC

REINFORCED STREET FRONTAGE

GORDON BLDG
PODIUM
TOWER

ALIGN FACADE ELEMENTS TO RESPOND TO THE

GORDON BUILDING HISTORIC CHARACTER

ROOFTOP ACTIVATION

CONTINUE A RYTHM OF COLUMNS ALONG

THE FIRST STREET FRONTAGE, EXTENING THE
“URBAN BLOCK FACE”
The Archer ScaleBrown Street Scale
('+-'&!%+&,B'%,$>%-,!!'($+%")%
;.+!"(.&%/*.B>.$C+
/zero.up "/five.up /five.up/zero.up /one.up/zero.up/zero.up’ /one.up" /equal.up /five.up/zero.up'
!"#"!$%&
Arrival & Lobby
!"#$%$
&'(()'**
+,'#-$./
0$1'#($
23456') 7"')$23456')
8!29
:;#<3)=
:3)')
>6'/
?')@$!4;,'
1#3)4$
A)=,
9(B/C3)=
D3,'$9B/"
E,#)*F@
?')
D>$./
A('51#3)$
A('5
A)=,$
7F5
197A

8. A('5
234 !'5
9G.
>#)$
&#*6
.'F$
E,#*6
.'5@
H)3@
1=,*
1=,
I3,$
82 J>
>6'F
.'*3<')43#(
:;CCK
1#3(
8;4'($:;CCK
:;CCK$:;B)='
?,#C$G$?;
0$1'#(
.'*4#B,#)4
8;4'(
.'4#3(
>;)*',L#4;,K +,''M'N#K
?,#)<
!4#3,
>6'5-OP)
E')#)4$
.'4#3(
E')#)4$
.'*4#B,#)4
>(BC$%$
:;B)='
!4;,#='
!4;, 197AA('5 I;=
&#*6 &> &>
E,#*6
PID
9(B/C
A('5
A('5
!"#$
1A9
A('5 PID
:3)')
&>
&>
&>
&>
9#)4,K
I3,
>:!4;,
!4;,
˂ffice
+#=*
E,#*6 D3,'$
9B/"
?')
E,#)*F;,/',
˂ffice
?Q
?R
AS
!Q
.!R
.Q
.!T
.0
!"#
A('L
!"'"()
!"#$%&''(
!"#$%&''()*$"+%#,
-./#0&''()"1+%

2./#0&''()"1+%

3./#0&''()"1+%
4#1%5'"$#)"1+%)*'61#&,
7'5)8)4"/9+:)8)9'//;
&#%<+9
7''0)=)/#>#&<!#
7"1:%+'1
$4<)8)7+%1#$$
&#$%&''($
/'5
4"/9+:):+&:"9<%+'1
/'5):+&:"9<%+'1
>#&%+:<9):+&:"9<%+'1
>#&%+:<9):+&:"9<%+'1)*4"/9+:,
'"%0''&)*:'>#&#0,
'"%0''&)*"1:'>#&#0,
4<&?+1!
(#4)"1:'10+%+'1#0
6<%#&

Lobby Bar
Brown Street Corridor
• Activate Brown Street
• Outside Seating
• Embracing Napa Creek
• Flexible Programming Opportunities
Central Paseo Interconnected trails and pathways
Dwight Murray Redesign
/zero.up "/five.up /five.up/zero.up /one.up/zero.up/zero.up’ /one.up" /equal.up /five.up/zero.up'
!"#"!$%&$*"++,(-("
Spa Treatment
& Support
!"#$E,'#4/')4
!4;,#='
!4;, !4;,#='
+78 E,#*6
U55
AV'5
!4;,
!#('*
>;)F%
>#4',
1A9
I3,
DG+
!4;,
+78
I7!1
?1
7F5
.AW
I7.7
I7D
9;;($
AX"4
9#,-3)= 7"')$4;$
+'(;N
7"')$4;$
+'(;N
!Q
.!T
.0
.!R
.Q
!"'"()
!"#$%&''(
!"#$%&''()*$"+%#,
-./#0&''()"1+%

2./#0&''()"1+%

Spa Reception
/zero.up "/five.up /five.up/zero.up /one.up/zero.up/zero.up’ /one.up" /equal.up /five.up/zero.up'
!"#"!$%.

Function & Amenities
.'*3<')5'
D34)'**
.'*3<')5'$
U/')34K
>(BC$%$:;B)='
.'*3<')43#($9;;(!"#
:;5-',*
9#)4,K
&>
&>
U/')34K$
I'5-
?,#)<$+#((,;;/
1''43)=
.;;/
1''43)=$
.;;/
+;#,<
.;;/
JB)3;,$
+#((,;;/
9,3L#4'$
I3)3)=$%$
AL')4
>;)F$!',L
9,'ODB)543;)
9,'ODB)543;)
1''43)=
.;;/D34)'**
&>O&
&>
&>O1
&>O1
J> &> A('5
E',,#5'
PID
&>O&
R$+<$H)34
R$+<$H)34
R$+<$H)34
R$+<$H)34
Q$+<$H)34
0$+<$H)34
Q$+<$H)34R$+<$H)34
R$+<$H)34 R$+<$H)34 R$+<$H)34Q$+<$H)34
Q$+<$H)34 Q$+<$H)34
DB)5$!4;,
DB)5$!4;,
+#)X$!',L
DB)5$23456')
?Q
?R
AS
!Q
.!T
.0
.!R
.Q
?,#)<
!4#3,
7"')$4;$
+'(;N
7"')$4;$
+'(;N
!"'"()
!"#$%&''(
!"#$%&''()*$"+%#,
-./#0&''()"1+%

2./#0&''()"1+%

Ballroom
/zero.up "/five.up /five.up/zero.up /one.up/zero.up/zero.up’ /one.up" /equal.up /five.up/zero.up'
!"#"!/$%01%2
T ypical Guest Rooms
?Q
?R
AS
!Q
.!T
.0
.!R
.Q
R$+<$H)34
R$+<$H)34
R$+<$H)34
R$+<$H)34
R$+<$H)34
R$+<$H)34
Q$+<$H)34
R$+<$H)34
Q$+<$H)34
0$+<$H)34
Q$+<$H)34
R$+<$H)34
R$+<$H)34
R$+<$H)34 R$+<$H)34 0$+<$H)34Q$+<$H)34
R$+<$H)34 R$+<$H)34.!R
.Q
Q$+<$!B34' 2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
YY
YY
2YY
YY YY
YY
YY
YY
YY
2 22
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 Q$+<$!B34' Q$+<$!B34'
Q$+<$!B34'
Q$+<$!B34'
Q$+<$!B34'
J,$!B34'
2 2
2 2
!"'"()
!"#$%&''(
!"#$%&''()*$"+%#,
-./#0&''()"1+%

2./#0&''()"1+%

Guest Room
Residential Living Room
/zero.up "/five.up /five.up/zero.up /one.up/zero.up/zero.up’ /one.up" /equal.up /five.up/zero.up'
3445647
Terraces & Hotel Pool
&#4',$>63((',
1'56$9B/"$
.;;/
.'*3<')5'$
.;;F4;"$:;B)='
.;;F4;"$E',,#5'9')46;B*'$
E',,#5'
.;;F4;"
?,3(( .;;F4;"$:;B)='
.;;F4;"
23456')
&> &>
&> &>
.;;F4;"$
9;;($E',,#5' 9;;(
8;4$EBCI7U!$H)34
I7U!$H)34
A('5 !4;,
9#)4,K
!4;,
.;;F4;"
E',,#5'
1A9
&>
&>
1A9
>;;(3)=$
E;N',
9(B/C$
&8$
AX"4$
./
9(B/C$&8$
AX"4$./
+78
J>
+78
A('5
?Q
?R
AS
!Q
.!T
.0
.!R
.Q
!"'"()
!"#$%&''(
!"#$%&''()*$"+%#,
-./#0&''()"1+%

2./#0&''()"1+%

To: City Council

From: Molly Rattigan, Interim Community Development Director

Date: June 24, 2025

Re: June 24, 2025 Agenda Item 5. A- First Street Phase II

An incorrect version of Exhibit K (Attachment 17) was inadvertently submitted as part of the June 24, 2025 Agenda Item 5.A- First Street Phase II.

Please accept the corrected version of Exhibit K (Attachment 17) per this memorandum.

Exhibit K

Design Review Submittal Requirements

Applicants shall submit electronically (PDF) for review by the Manager the following, including any other supporting materials as determined by the Manger:

Application Form and Fee(s). A City of Napa application form shall be completed with owner(s) signature, along with payment of applicable fees for design review.

Preliminary Title Report. A preliminary title report not more than 90 days old shall be submitted.

Project Description. A project description accurately describing key project components including proposed uses, square footages categorized by use type, number of rooms and/or units, lot size, parking requirements, and other pertinent information determined by the Director.

Site Plan. A site plan showing all property boundary lines with dimensions, location of all existing and/or proposed structures and features, dimension and distances to nearest property lines, existing and proposed adjacent circulation path of travel and street network, existing and proposed pedestrian improvements (curbs, sidewalks, edge of paving, etc.), ingress and egress locations, off-street parking location(s), trash enclosures, public art location(s), and areas of outdoor space such as plazas. Site plan shall be prepared to industry standard using appropriate scale, notations, etc. Site plan shall include appropriate turning templates for circulation.

Utilities Plan (Extending 100+ feet beyond site boundaries for public utilities or to adjacent exterior building footprint for private services) Location and size of existing and proposed: water-related facilities including but not limited to water mains with valve locations, water services to each parcel, water meter locations, fire sprinkler risers, backflow devices, fire hydrants within 300 feet, blow-offs and water wells; sewers; existing and proposed overhead utilities and poles; and all existing and proposed easements for these facilities. For sewer systems, top of structures and invert elevations shall be shown along with sewer laterals pipe size, slope and tie-in elevations at the existing downstream system. Slopes and elevations of proposed sewers and storm drains shall be indicated. The plan will need to identify all utility poles that will be removed and the line segments to be undergrounded. Existing gas mains, fiber optic lines, electrical lines, and other utilities shall be shown on plan.

Landscape and Lighting Plan. A landscape and lighting plan shall be prepared showing proposed landscape and lighting features in compliance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance in effect at the time of submittal. The landscape plan shall include a detailed plant palette identifying species, water use requirements, size, and location. The lighting plan shall clearly show proposed locations of pedestrian, street, and structure lighting, including type of lighting fixture(s).

Existing and Proposed Elevations. Existing and proposed elevations shall be prepared showing all structures adequately dimensioned as they will appear upon completion of construction, indicating materials, exterior surface treatment, color(s), and details, including signage.

Floor Plan. Floor plans shall be provided indicating dimensions of each space.

Waste Management Plan. A waste management plan shall be submitted for the entirely of the Project and with respect to the Main Street Drop-Off consistent with Development Agreement Section 6.1.1(iii).

Color Renderings. Color renderings shall be prepared and submitted depicting the structures at full buildout. Renderings shall clearly indicate color and materials.

Traffic Safety and Operations Report. A traffic safety and operations report shall be submitted consistent with Development Agreement Section 6.1.4.

From: Steve Potter
To: Clerk
Subject: FW: Architex Angle: Firsrt Street Deleveopment Date: Saturday, June 7, 2025 11:33:38 AM
Attachments: Goodbye Downtown Napa.docx
ClkTwr After.jpg
All Councilmembers were copied on the email.

From: Chris Craiker <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 9:59 PM
To: Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>; Narvaez, Bernie <[email protected]>; Beth Painter <[email protected]>; Beth painter <[email protected]>; Mary luros <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Sedgley, Scott (External) <[email protected]>; Steve Potter <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Architex Angle: Firsrt Street Deleveopment

[EXTERNAL]
A councilperson asked me for my opinion. Just my
humble thoughts.

Chris d Craiker, ALA/NCARB
President/Architect
Craiker Architects & Planners
(CA13566) (HA11694)
[email protected]
www.craiker.com
t. 707.224.5060
m 415.828.0304

Read the
"Architex Angle"
https://www.craiker.com/architex-angle

Goodbye Downtown Napa,
Hello Manhattan-ized Napa
Chris d Craiker ALA/NCARB
We've all been waiting for decades to see Napa’s downtown Dwight Murray Plaza revitalized along with the redevelopment of what used to be called Mervin's department store-now Kohl’s. Attached is my 30-year-old recommendation to save the clock tower…..Remember it? That was a lost cause. And now, it looks like saving Murray Plaza is also a lost cause. Say goodbye to Napa Downtown as we once knew it.

Last week the Planning Commission and the public reviewed for the first time- and apparently the last- a poorly detailed proposal for a significant reconstruction of Downtown Napa. The applicants, PC 3VG and Coombs Street LLC, released for the first time their proposed First Street Napa Phase II for redeveloping 2.85 acres of the city’s core, if not it’s soul, stretching between First, Coombs, Brown and Pearl Streets.

The Applicant owns approximately 1.94-acres that includes the former Kohl’s and other users along First Street. Five years ago, the city made a deal with the applicant to purchase the city owned parking lots, followed last year with an agreement to exchange real estate, allowing the applicant to take over Dwight Murray Plaza. Their proposal is to create a mixed-use project consisting of 78 high-end condominiums, 161 room luxury hotel and 30,000 square feet of commercial space. Dwight Murray Plaza will be “relocated” and turned into a pedestrian alleyway. The proposed includes the elimination of two surface parking lots and the redesign area around the 9/11 Memorial, the largest memorial in the West to the tragic event.

In the Thursday public hearing, the Commissioners made comments and recommendations. As Commissioner Alex Myers pointed out, multiple issues needed clarification and noted the planning commission only had one shot at this massive proposal. The City Attorney Dan Deporto complained that Mr. Myers questions were inappropriate. The final Commission vote was four in-favor of the massive stack of documents and one vote, Mr. Myers, against.

This cannot be the last time the Planning Commission and the public get a chance to look, comment and seek modifications, if not denial, of this project.

Let's talk about the process. The Development Agreement is going to be assigned to the City Planning staff for their review only. For such a large project, this is inappropriate. I reviewed the attachments and only found one rendering of the First Street six-story hotel. It is mammoth. I know the Planning Department was forced to accept this skeleton but the number of elevations, plans and details shown are well below the city's requirements, for even a simple garage conversion. There are multiple interior renderings of lobbies and multi-story spaces, but they could be New York or Omaha, Nebraska. They lack any relationship to a Napa vernacular.

Not only will Dwight Murray Plaza to be removed, but multiple stores around the Plaza will be closing soon. As noted by the applicant, it took 13 years to get to this point, of which six years were in the planning with vaguely detailed exhibits just now being circulated. It will be another six years before they break ground, let alone get a building permit. In the meantime, multiple shops will sit vacant, unused. That's all the city needs is to have visitors see closed doors, well into the 2030’s. One restaurant, Allegria will remain but will be overwhelmed by the gigantic adjacent buildings. They will lose their outdoor patio.

One important question is: do we need another hotel in downtown Napa? While the revenue to the city for TOT sales and real estate taxes could be significant, hotel occupancies have been dropping as visitors fail to return as fast as the pre-COVID era.

Already a number of hotels have been approved but not broken ground. I've been a major supporter of providing more B&B's in the city and I know from experience that their occupancies are down as well as their revenues.

I've discussed with Chuck Shinnamon the housing issue and it's noted that the developers have helped fund the Methodist Church affordable housing project significantly but what happens if it doesn't go forward or is stalled. If the developers were to pay in-lieu fees based on 161 room hotel and a 68 high end condominiums, the fees would probably be significantly higher, but it's all hocus pocus at this time. Mr.

Shinnamon points out that studies have shown that up to 50% of hotel employees may qualify for affordable housing. With two-bedroom rental apartments hovering at over $2000 a month, shouldn't they be providing employee housing? What about parking? Two lots are going away and the report calls for a “future parking agreement”. It’s very simple: the city will be losing a lot of open parking and maybe….. just maybe…will be replacing them with structured parking somewhere, yet to be determined. Get out your prayer book.

But here is my take: the project is too big, too massive and too unrealistic. Many ol’ timers remember when in the 70’s, Napa ripped-out many historic downtown buildings for what is now called First Street, a disastrous redevelopment project that is just now recovering from decades of mediocrity. The city should never have accepted this bare bones minimal application that does not show the full size, scope or impact on the downtown. The architecture does not embrace our distinctive cultural values.

There is a proposal included for an “advocate committee” to overview the design. Not necessarily a formal design review, but advisory. This sounds like the embryo of a design review board that the city could use. Stay tuned.

Chris d Craiker ALA/NCARB welcomes your questions and comments. Email: [email protected]

From: Joy Barger
To: Clerk; Scott Sedgley
Subject: Public Support Comment for June 24th
Date: Friday, June 20, 2025 2:39:52 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Mayor Sedgley and Napa City Council:

The Napa First Street project is a remarkable investment in Downtown Napa that our community will be proud of for generations. The project will also further revitalize our downtown with increased foot traffic and by creating pedestrian corridors that will connect and beautify the pedestrian experience for locals and visitors.

I support the Redevelopment of the Kohl’s project and ask you to approve the project tonight.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Joy Barger (she/her)
Store Manager
lululemon First Street Napa | 10771
c: 352-538-4300
https://shop.lululemon.com/
Out of office Sunday and Monday
From: John Truchard
To: Scott Sedgley
Cc: Clerk
Subject: First and Main Hotel
Date: Friday, June 20, 2025 9:11:00 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Hello Scott!
The purpose of this letter is to encourage the city council to support the hotel and condominium project proposed on First and Main.

This is exactly the type of beautiful, thoughtful, and first class development downtown Napa needs.

I enthusiastically support the project and encourage you and the rest of the city council to do the same!
This project, if approved and built, will become the hub of the downtown for the next century! Let’s do this!! It’s so darn beautiful too!
Thanks for hearing me out.

CONNECT
in | SHARE f | ENJOY >
From:

To: Clerk; Scott Sedgley
Subject: Napa First Street: June 24th Support Letter
Date: Friday, June 20, 2025 3:28:12 PM
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council & Mayor Sedgley,
As residents of Alta Heights, I am writing to express our family's enthusiastic support for the First Street project. We care deeply about this community and believe this project will have a profoundly positive impact on downtown Napa.

This project represents more than just development; it’s an investment in the future of downtown Napa.

The economic benefits are significant, from construction jobs in the short term to long-term employment through the hotel, residences, retail, and dining establishments. The architectural design and integrated public art are both inspired and thoughtful, setting a new standard for what a modern Napa experience can look and feel like. The inclusion of amenities and welcoming gathering spaces will activate the area in a meaningful way, creating new opportunities for connection, culture, and community life.

As Alta Heights residents, we were saddened by the loss of the River Concert Series, which brought energy, joy, and meaningful revenue to local businesses during the summer. We believe this project has the potential to restore that vitality and create a destination we can all be proud of.

We strongly encourage the City Council to move quickly in approving this project so the community can begin to reap the much-needed benefits as soon as possible. Downtown Napa is ready for its next chapter, and this project is a bold and beautiful step in the right direction.

Sincerely,
Carrie Gorospe
Resident of Alta Heights

From:

To: Clerk
Subject: June24 agenda
Date: Saturday, June 21, 2025 4:22:29 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
I am writing this letter to show my support for the proposed development the city council will be reviewing. I am a member of the Methodist church committee that will be converting a part of the church property to work force housing. The amount of money the developers will be providing the church allows us to go forward with our plans without endangering the church’s financial position. This , along with the other features of the development make it a worthy addition to downtown Napa.

Gary Neal
Sent from my iPhone

From: Michael Prichett
To: Clerk; Scott Sedgley
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Excited for new event spaces in Napa
Date: Saturday, June 21, 2025 7:00:11 PM
Attachments: image002.png
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Mayor Sedgley and Napa City Council:

I am writing in support of the First Street Napa Project. This project is important for the continued revitalization of Downtown Napa. As the President of an event rental company, I am particularly excited about the spectacular ballroom that's unlike anything else in Napa. A magnificent space like what they are proposing will bring in so many large weddings and corporate events that will help support all our downtown businesses. As a business owner as well as a Napa resident, I’m looking forward to seeing this project come to fruition.

Please support the project and don't delay its many benefits to downtown Napa.

Cheers,

MICHAEL PRICHETT
PRESIDENT – NORCAL REGION
C: 707.292.8232
[email protected]

www.bright.com

From: Justin Linkner
To: Clerk; Scott Sedgley
Subject: Napa First Street project_ Comment letter
Date: Sunday, June 22, 2025 10:43:36 AM
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Mayor Sedgley and City Council:

I
live and am a homeowner in downtown Napa (and studied Urban Planning at the undergraduate and graduate level focusing on new urbanism and adaptive reuse revitalization).

We
enthusiastically
support
the Napa
First
Street project.

This is the type of world class
development downtown Napa needs and it will be a major component in the continued revitalization of our downtown.

I
support the Napa First Street project and urge City Council to approve the
project.

Thank
you for your time and consideration.

From:

To: Scott Sedgley; Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Support for First Street Napa - Phase II / 3VG Coombs St LLC Date: Sunday, June 22, 2025 1:36:52 PM
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgley and Honorable City Council Members:

I am writing in support of the First Street Napa - Phase II project you are considering at your meeting on Tuesday June 24, 2025.

I think all of you are familiar with my passion to bring some much needed workforce housing and daycare to downtown Napa at the First United Methodist Church. I have been impressed with 3VG/Coombs St LLC as I(we) were introduced to them by Kevin Teague. Their donation to the First United Methodist Church workforce housing project is a significant commitment to our community and a much needed piece of the funding puzzle to help bring our project to fruition.

I have personally been impressed with 3VG/Coombs St LLC vision for the former Kohls site and they have been sensitive to our local residents and business community as they have incorporated innovative designs with a nod to our past, in the proposed design elements.

I appreciate your work with staff to bring all of the pieces of this project to our community and urge your support for this important development in downtown Napa! Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,
Dave Whitmer

From: Ken Ehrman
To: Clerk; Scott Sedgley
Subject: Public Support Comment for June 24th
Date: Sunday, June 22, 2025 4:55:23 PM
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]

Mayor Sedgley and City Council Members,
As a five year resident of Napa, I am impressed with the forward-thinking plan for development of the city. The 3GV Napa First Street Project is a significant step toward fulfilling that plan.

Two aspects of the Project are of particular significance to me:

1. The

$450k per year for affordable housing to the city and an additional $2 million toward the Napa First United Methodist Church Workforce Housing Project and

2. The large annual tax revenue that the Project will generate for the City of Napa.

On June 5th I attended the Napa Planning Commission hearing on the 3GV Napa First Street Project.

Most impressive to me was when a business owner, who will be displaced by this Project, gave her wholehearted support to seeing it fulfilled.

Sincerely,
Ken Ehrman

From: Lara Young
To: Clerk; Scott Sedgley
Subject: Napa First Street Support Letter
Date: Monday, June 23, 2025 10:58:10 AM
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgley and Napa City Council:

As a mom with young kids I am looking forward to how the Napa First Street project connects and beautifies the pedestrian corridors downtown. Currently we have very few safe indoor spaces to access on hot or rainy days. Once the project is completed, downtown will be safer and more accessible for families to get around away from cars - in all weather conditions. I look forward to going from westside of the First Street mall all the way to the Oxbow Commons while only crossing Main Street with an enhanced crosswalk. It's the way Napa always should have been!
Please vote to approve this project. Thank you for your time.

Lara Young

From: Michael Gyetvan
To: Clerk; Scott Sedgley
Subject: Napa First Street Project - Support Letter
Date: Monday, June 23, 2025 11:54:28 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Mayor Sedgley and Napa City Council:

I am writing in support of the First Street Napa Project. This project will be great for the continued revitalization of Downtown Napa and will help all downtown businesses thrive.

We are so fortunate that the owners believe in Napa and want to invest so much into our community. I also greatly appreciate that they are ready to start construction so the site does not sit undeveloped for years like other key sites downtown. Please don’t delay this project and its many benefits to Napa residents and downtown businesses. --
Michael
& Christina Gyetvan
Azzurro Pizzeria e Enoteca
1260 Main Street
Napa, Ca 94559
707-255-5552

1205 Randolph Street Napa, CA 94559 www.michaelpozzanwinery.com t: 707-252-9800

6/23/2025

Mayor Sedgley and Napa City Council,
My name is Michael Pozzan and I own Michael Pozzan Winery in downtown Napa. I am writing as a downtown business owner in support of the Napa First Street project. Both my wife, Mary Ann, and I are extremely impressed with the architecture and the attention paid to details. This hotel/resort will add so much to the downtown area and will greatly benefit so many other businesses. In short, this hotel will be a destination in itself.

I respectfully request that Mayor Sedgley and the Napa City Council move forward without delay to approve the Napa First Street project.

Kindest regards,

Angelo Michael Pozzan
Michael Pozzan Winery
1205 Randolph St
Napa, Ca 94559

From: Wendy Messman
To: Clerk
Cc: Scott Sedgley
Subject: First St. Napa Project
Date: Monday, June 23, 2025 4:19:09 PM
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Mayor Sedgley and Napa City Council:

As a mom who lives downtown, I am looking forward to how the Napa First Street project

connects and beautifies the pedestrian

corridors so we can get around
downtown away from cars. Going from the far side of the First Street mall all the way to the Oxbow Commons while only crossing Main

Street with an enhanced crosswalk
is the way Napa always should have

been!

I love having areas that are safe for my
child to run around and explore and not worry about traffic just off the curb.

I think
this will be a great addition to downtown.

Please vote to approve

this project. Thank you for your time.

Wendy Messman

Napa

Connie Brennan
Napa, CA

P.O. Box 5157 | Napa, CA 94581 | (707) 258-6318 | www.napabike.org June 24, 2025 RE: First Street Napa Phase II Dear City of Napa Councilmembers, The Napa County Bicycle Coalition (NCBC) represents over 2,000 members and supporters throughout Napa County in advocating to make riding a bicycle in our communities safe, convenient, and accessible for riders of all ages and abilities. For over 15 years, NCBC has worked with local organizations, businesses, elected officials, and the public to align our transportation infrastructure with the needs of cyclists and other active transportation users. There is much to admire about the proposed development on First Street, and we are particularly grateful to read about the plan to include “a clear path of travel for…bicyclists through new development, and particularly through parking lots and open spaces” (IS Addendum, p 128). However, though bike parking is mentioned, the plan for the type, quantity, and location of bike parking is unclear. Attachment 15 (parking) contains a detailed plan for vehicle parking, but no similar plan exists for bike parking. The most specific information we could locate—the inclusion of 34 bicycle parking spaces serving the residential units—does not meet the requirements of the California Building Codes that will go into effect on January 1, 2026, which would require, at minimum, 39 long-term parking spaces for 78 units. Further, it is unclear whether the planned parking spaces are short-term or long-term. We have been in touch with City Planning since 2022 with requests to modernize bike parking ordinances, but unfortunately, even with the General Plan’s support for biking, the City has not moved faster than the State. State improvements to bike parking, taking effect January 1, 2026, will require the City to update its ordinances, changing what is currently in place and adding new requirements for multi-family residential developments. The detailed bike parking requirements that will take effect in January are attached. We ask that you direct staff to install bike parking for this project that, at minimum, meets the standards that will be required by the State in January. The State standards include detailed requirements for multi-family housing, hotels, and commercial developments. These standards will best enable the City to meet its Vehicle Miles Traveled goals and the following General Plan policies that we did not see included in staff’s analysis: • “TE 10-4 Continue to support and implement the use of alternative transportation modes to reduce car trips, such as bikeshare, electric bikes, and electric scooters, by providing proper infrastructure such as designated parking areas." P.O. Box 5157 | Napa, CA 94581 | (707) 258-6318 | www.napabike.org • "CCS 2-1 Support programs to reduce autodependency and GHG emissions from personal vehicles. Efforts for this include:...Support programs to install bike racks in new developments, commercial areas, and within Downtown Napa and the Oxbow district." • "TE 7-3 Incorporate design and bicycle parking requirements so that adequate bicycle parking is provided throughout the City." Should Councilmembers or staff have any questions about our requests, please do not hesitate to reach out to us at (707) 258-6318 or at [email protected] or [email protected]. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kara Vernor Executive Director, Napa County Bicycle Coalition Attachments: HCD-04-24-FET-PT11-SOS Filing goes into effect 010126 (See pages 5 – 6) BSC-03-24-FET-PT11-SOS filing - Goes into effect 010126 (See pages 1 – 3)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23 Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 HCD 04/24 Part 11 - 2024 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle FET-SOS Filing Department of Housing and Community Development Page 1 of 15 APPROVED BY THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2024 FINAL EXPRESS TERMS FOR PROPOSED BUILDING STANDARDS OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE 2025 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24, PART 11 (HCD 04/24) The State agency shall draft the regulations in plain, straightforward language, avoiding technical terms as much as possible and using a coherent and easily readable style. The agency shall draft the regulation in plain English. A notation shall follow the express terms of each regulation listing the specific statutes authorizing the adoption and listing specific statutes being implemented, interpreted, or made specific (Government Code Section 11346.2(a)(1)). If using assistive technology, please adjust your settings to recognize underline, strikeout, italic and ellipsis. LEGEND for EXPRESS TERMS • Existing California amendments appear upright • Amended or new California amendments appear underlined • Repealed California language appears upright and in strikeout • Ellipsis (...) indicate existing text remains unchanged FINAL EXPRESS TERMS The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) proposes to adopt mandatory and voluntary green building standards for occupancies within its authority, and further proposes to make amendments and clarifications to the 2025 California Green Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen). ITEM 1 Chapter 2 Definitions HCD proposes to continue to adopt the above referenced section with amendments as follows: SECTION 202 DEFINITIONS RESIDENTIAL LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING. [HCD] A secure locker, weather protected enclosure, or storage room that provides bicycle parking for more than twelve hours that allows individual locking of bicycles to a permanently anchored parking device or rack. RESIDENTIAL SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING. [HCD] A permanently anchored bicycle parking device, rack or lockers, in an unsheltered, open area, that provides bicycle parking for twelve hours or less that allows individual locking of bicycles to the

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23 Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 HCD 04/24 Part 11 - 2024 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle FET-SOS Filing Department of Housing and Community Development Page 2 of 15 parking device or rack. Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17921, 17928, 18938.3, 18941.10, 18941.11, 19984, 19990; and Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1 and 12955.1.1. References: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17042, 17921, 17928, 17958.12, 18938.3, 18941.5, 18944.19, 19990 and 19984; Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1. ITEM 2 Chapter 4 Residential Mandatory Measures, Section 4.106.4.2.2 Multifamily dwellings, hotels and motels. HCD proposes to continue to adopt the above referenced section with amendments as follows: 4.106.4.2.2 Multifamily dwellings, hotels and motels. 1. EV Ready Parking Spaces with Receptacles. a. Hotels and Motels. Forty (40) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. b. a. Multifamily Parking Facilities with Assigned Parking. Forty (40) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. EV charging receptacles required by this section shall be located in at least one assigned parking space per dwelling unit where assigned parking is provided but need not exceed forty (40) percent of the total number of assigned parking spaces provided on the site. Where dwelling units are provided with assigned parking spaces equal to or greater than the number of dwelling units, at least one low power Level 2 EV charging receptacle shall be provided at an assigned parking space for each dwelling unit. 1. Where the total number of dwelling units exceeds the number of assigned parking spaces, all assigned parking spaces shall be provided with one low power Level 2 EV charging receptacle. Exception: Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts, including but not limited to, automated mechanical-access open parking garages as defined in the California Building Code; or parking facilities otherwise incapable of supporting electric vehicle charging. b. Multifamily Parking Facilities with Unassigned Parking. Where dwelling units are provided with unassigned parking spaces equal to or greater than the number of dwelling units, at least one low power Level 2 EV charging receptacle shall be provided at an unassigned parking space for each dwelling unit. 1. Where the total number of dwelling units exceeds the number of unassigned parking spaces, all unassigned parking spaces shall be

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23 Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 HCD 04/24 Part 11 - 2024 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle FET-SOS Filing Department of Housing and Community Development Page 3 of 15 provided with one low power Level 2 EV charging receptacle. Exception: Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts, including but not limited to, automated mechanical-access open parking garages as defined in the California Building Code; or parking facilities otherwise incapable of supporting electric vehicle charging. c. Multifamily Parking Facilities with Assigned and Unassigned Parking. Where multifamily buildings are provided with both assigned and unassigned parking spaces equal to or greater than the number of dwelling units, at least one low power Level 2 EV charging receptacle shall be provided for each dwelling unit at either the assigned or unassigned parking space, but not both. c. d. Receptacle Power Source. EV charging receptacles in multifamily parking facilities at assigned parking spaces shall be provided with a dedicated branch circuit connected to the dwelling unit’s electrical panel, unless determined as infeasible by the project builder or designer and subject to concurrence of the local enforcing agency. Exception: Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts, including but not limited to automated mechanical-access open parking garages as defined in the California Building Code; or parking facilities otherwise incapable of supporting electric vehicle charging. d. e. Receptacle Configurations. 208/240V EV charging receptacles shall comply with one of the following configurations: 1. For 20- ampere receptacles, NEMA 6-20R 2. For 30- ampere receptacles, NEMA 14-30R 3. For 50- ampere receptacles, NEMA 14-50R 2. EV Ready Parking Spaces with EV Chargers. a. Hotels and Motels. Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers. At least fifty (50) percent of the required EV chargers shall be equipped with J1772 connectors. a. b. Multifamily Parking Facilities with Unassigned or Common Use Parking. Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers. At least fifty (50) percent of the required EV chargers shall be equipped with J1772 connectors. Where common use parking or unassigned parking is provided, EV chargers shall be located in common use or unassigned parking areas and shall be available for use by all residents or guests. In addition to the low power Level 2 EV charging receptacle requirements of section 4.106.4.2.2 (1), twenty-five (25) percent of unassigned or common use parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers and shall be made available for use by all residents or guests. Where low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles or Level 2 EV chargers

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23 Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 HCD 04/24 Part 11 - 2024 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle FET-SOS Filing Department of Housing and Community Development Page 4 of 15 are installed beyond the minimum required, an automatic load management system (ALMS) may be used to reduce the maximum required electrical capacity to each space served by the ALMS. The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to deliver at least 3.3 kW simultaneously to each EV charging station (EVCS) served by the ALMS. The branch circuit shall have a minimum capacity of 40 amperes, and installed EV chargers shall have a capacity of not less than 30 amperes. b. EV Charger Connectors. EV chargers shall be equipped with J1772 or J3400 connectors. c. An automatic load management system (ALMS) may be used to reduce the maximum required electrical capacity to each space served by the ALMS. The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to deliver at least 3.3 kW simultaneously to each EV charging station (EVCS) served by the ALMS. The branch circuit shall have a minimum capacity of 40 amperes, and installed EV chargers shall have a capacity of not less than 30 amperes. Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17921, 17928, 18938.3, 18941.10, 18941.11, 19984, 19990; and Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1 and 12955.1.1. References: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17042, 17921, 17928, 17958.12, 18938.3, 18941.5, 19990 and 19984; Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1; and Vehicle Code Section 22511.2. ITEM 3 Chapter 4 Residential Mandatory Measures, Section 4.106.4.2.6 Hotels and motels. HCD proposes to adopt the above referenced section as follows: 4.106.4.2.6 Hotels and motels. 1. EV Ready Parking Spaces with Receptacles. a. Hotels and Motels. Forty (40) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. Exception: Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts, including but not limited to automated mechanical-access open parking garages as defined in the California Building Code; or parking facilities otherwise incapable of supporting electric vehicle charging. b. Receptacle Configurations. 208/240V EV charging receptacles shall comply with one of the following configurations: 1. For 20- ampere receptacles, NEMA 6-20R 2. For 30- ampere receptacles, NEMA 14-30R

3. For 50- ampere receptacles, NEMA 14-50R 2. EV Ready Parking Spaces with EV Chargers. a. Hotels and Motels. Twenty-five (25) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers. b. EV Charger Connectors. EV chargers shall be equipped with J1772 or J3400 connectors. Exception: Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts, including but not limited to automated mechanical-access open parking garages as defined in the California Building Code; or parking facilities otherwise incapable of supporting electric vehicle charging. c. An automatic load management system (ALMS) may be used to reduce the maximum required electrical capacity to each space served by the ALMS. The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to deliver at least 3.3 kW simultaneously to each EV charging station (EVCS) served by the ALMS. The branch circuit shall have a minimum capacity of 40 amperes, and installed EV chargers shall have a capacity of not less than 30 amperes. Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17921, 17928, 18938.3, 18941.10, 18941.11, 19984, 19990; and Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1 and 12955.1.1. References: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17042, 17921, 17928, 17958.12, 18938.3, 18941.5, 19990 and 19984; Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1; and Vehicle Code Section 22511.2. ITEM 4 Chapter 4 Residential Mandatory Measures, Section 4.106.4.3 Electric vehicle charging for additions and alterations of parking facilities serving existing multifamily buildings. HCD proposes to continue to adopt the above referenced section with amendments as follows: 4.106.4.3 Electric vehicle charging for additions and alterations of parking facilities serving existing multifamily buildings, hotels and motels. Where new parking facilities are added, or electrical systems or lighting of existing parking facilities are added or altered and the work requires a building permit, ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces added or altered shall be electric vehicle charging spaces (EV capable spaces) capable of supporting to support future Level 2 EVSE electric vehicle supply equipment. The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the overcurrent protective device space(s) reserved for future EV charging purposes as “EV CAPABLE.” When existing parking facilities are altered or new parking spaces are added to existing parking facilities, and the work requires a building permit, each parking space added or altered shall have access to either a low power Level 2 EV charging receptacle or Level 2 EV charger, unless determined as

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23 Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 HCD 04/24 Part 11 - 2024 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle FET-SOS Filing Department of Housing and Community Development Page 6 of 15 infeasible by the project builder or designer and subject to concurrence of the local enforcing agency. Notes: 1. Construction documents are intended to demonstrate the project’s capability and capacity for facilitating future EV charging. 2. There is no requirement for EV spaces to be constructed or available until EV chargers are installed for use. Exception: Where work requiring a permit is being performed for the installation of 120-volt electrical receptacle(s) for level 1 EV charging. Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17921, 17928, 18938.3, 18941.10, 18941.11, 19984, 19990; and Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1 and 12955.1.1. References: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17042, 17921, 17928, 17958.12, 18938.3, 18941.5, 19990 and 19984; Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1; and Vehicle Code Section 22511.2. ITEM 5 Chapter 4 Residential Mandatory Measures, Section 4.106.4.4 Bicycle parking. HCD proposes to relocate and amend existing requirements from Appendix A4.106.9 into new section 4.106.4.4 as follows: 4.106.4.4. Bicycle parking. Comply with sections 4.106.4.4.1 through 4.106.4.4.3. 4.106.4.4.1 Short-term bicycle parking for multifamily buildings, hotels and motels. Provide on-site bicycle parking at a ratio of one parking space for every 10,000 square feet, but not less than two spaces. Short-term bicycle parking shall be located within 200 feet of building entrances, and readily visible to passers-by. Acceptable parking facilities shall be conveniently accessed from the street and may include, but not be limited to: 1. Permanently anchored bicycle parking devices, racks, or lockers in an unsheltered, open area. 2. Covered or uncovered enclosures with permanently anchored bicycle parking devices or racks. 4.106.4.4.2 Long-term bicycle parking for multifamily buildings. Provide on-site bicycle parking at a ratio of one parking space for every two dwelling units. Acceptable parking facilities shall be conveniently accessed from the street and may include, but not be limited to: 1. Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored bicycle parking devices or racks. 2. Lockable bicycle storage rooms with permanently anchored bicycle parking devices or racks. 3. Lockable, weatherproof, permanently anchored bicycle lockers.

4.106.4.4.3 Long-term bicycle parking for hotel and motel buildings. Provide one on-site long-term bicycle parking space for every 25,000 square feet, but not less than two. Acceptable parking facilities shall be conveniently accessed from the street and may include, but not be limited to: 1. Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored bicycle parking devices or racks. 2. Lockable bicycle storage rooms with permanently anchored bicycle parking devices or racks. 3. Lockable, weatherproof, permanently anchored bicycle lockers. Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17921, 17928, 18938.3, 18941.10, 18941.11, 19984, 19990; and Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1 and 12955.1.1. References: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17042, 17921, 17928, 17958.12, 18938.3, 18941.5, 18944.19, 19990 and 19984; Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1. ITEM 6 Chapter 4 Chapter 4 Residential Mandatory Measures, Section 4.303.1.4.5 Pre-rinse spray valves. HCD proposes to continue to adopt the above referenced section with amendments as follows: 4.303.1.4.5 Pre-rinse spray valves. When installed, Commercial Pre-Rinse Spray Valves shall meet the requirements in the California Plumbing Code, Section 420.3. California Code of Regulations, Title 20 (Appliance Efficiency Regulations), Section 1605(h)(4) Table H-2, Section 1605.3(h)(4)(A), and Section 1607(d)(7), and shall be equipped with an integral automatic shutoff. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: The following table and code section have been reprinted from the California Code of Regulations, Title 20 (Appliance Efficiency Regulations), Section 1605.1(h)(4) and Section 1605.3(h)(4)(A). TABLE H-2 STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL PRE-RINSE SPRAY VALVES MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 28, 2019. Product Class [spray force in ounce force (ozf)] Maximum Flow Rate (gpm) Product Class 1 (≤ 5.0 ozf) 1.00 Product Class 2 (> 5.0 ozf and ≤ 8.0 ozf) 1.20 Product Class 3 (> 8.0 ozf) 1.28 Title 20 Section 1605.3(h)(4)(A): Commercial pre-rinse spray valves manufactured on or after January 1, 2006, shall have a minimum spray force of not less than 4.0 ounces-force (ozf) [113 grams-force (gf)].

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23 Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 HCD 04/24 Part 11 - 2024 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle FET-SOS Filing Department of Housing and Community Development Page 8 of 15 Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17921, 17928, 18938.3, 18941.10, 18941.11, 19984, 19990; and Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1 and 12955.1.1. References: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17042, 17921, 17928, 17958.12, 18938.3, 18941.5, 18944.19, 19990 and 19984; Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1. ITEM 6.1 Chapter 7 Installer and Special Inspector Qualifications, Section 702 Qualifications. HCD proposes to continue to adopt the above referenced section with amendments as follows:. 702.2 Special inspection. [HCD] When required by the enforcing agency, the owner or the responsible entity acting as the owner’s agent shall employ one or more special inspectors to provide inspection or other duties necessary to substantiate compliance with this code. Special inspectors shall demonstrate competence to the satisfaction of the enforcing agency for the particular type of inspection or task to be performed. In addition to other certifications or qualifications acceptable to the enforcing agency, the following certification or education may be considered by the enforcing agency when evaluating the qualification of a special inspector: 1. Certification by a national or regional green building program or standard publisher. 2. Certification by a statewide energy consulting or verification organization, such as HERS raters, building performance contractors, and home energy auditors. 3. Successful completion of a third party apprentice training program in the appropriate trade. 4. Other programs acceptable to the enforcing agency. Notes: 1. Special inspectors shall be independent entities with no financial interest in the materials or project they are inspecting for compliance with this code. 2. HERS raters are special inspectors certified by the California Energy Commission (CEC), to rate homes in California according to the Home Energy Rating System (HERS) Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17921, 17928, 18938.3, 18941.10, 18941.11, 19984, 19990; and Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1 and 12955.1.1. References: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17042, 17921, 17928, 17958.12, 18938.3, 18941.5, 18944.19, 19990 and 19984; Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23 Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 HCD 04/24 Part 11 - 2024 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle FET-SOS Filing Department of Housing and Community Development Page 9 of 15 ITEM 7 Appendix A4 Residential Voluntary Measures, Section A4.106.8.2 New multifamily dwellings, hotels and motels. HCD proposes to continue to adopt the above referenced section with amendments as follows: A4.106.8.2 New multifamily dwellings, hotels and motels. New multifamily dwellings, hotels and motels shall meet the following requirements. Tier 1. New multifamily dwellings, hotels and motels. Tier 1 consists of Option A and Option B. One or both may be adopted as voluntary measures. Option A for New multifamily dwellings, hotels and motels. 1. EV Ready Parking Spaces with Receptacles. a. Hotels and Motels. Fifty (50) Sixty (60) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. b. Multifamily Parking Facilities. Fifty (50) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. EV charging receptacles required by this section shall be located in at least one assigned parking space per dwelling unit where assigned parking is provided but need not exceed fifty (50) percent of the total number of assigned parking spaces provided on the site. Raceway Capacity Requirements. To allow for future upgrades to the electrical conductors serving low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles, the listed raceway serving such receptacles shall be sized to allow the installation of a dedicated 208/240-volt 40-ampere branch circuit. Where no raceway is used, the conductors shall be sized to accommodate a 208/240-volt 40-ampere receptacle. Exceptions: 1. Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts, including but not limited to automated mechanical-access open parking garages as defined in the California Building Code; or parking facilities otherwise incapable of supporting electric vehicle charging. 2. 1. Hotels and motels may substitute Level 2 EV chargers for some or all of the required EV charging receptacles. Where Level 2 EV chargers are installed in place of low power Level 2 receptacles, at least fifty (50) percent of the installed EV chargers shall be equipped with J1772 connectors. 2. EV Ready Parking Spaces with EV Chargers. a. Hotels and Motels. Fifteen (15) Forty (40) percent of the total number of parking spaces for hotels and motels shall be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers. At least fifty (50) percent of the required EV chargers shall be equipped with J1772 connectors. b. Multifamily Parking Facilities with Unassigned or Common Use Parking. Fifteen (15) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers. At least fifty (50) percent

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23 Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 HCD 04/24 Part 11 - 2024 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle FET-SOS Filing Department of Housing and Community Development Page 10 of 15 of the required EV chargers shall be equipped with J1772 connectors. Where common use parking or unassigned parking is provided, EV chargers shall be located in common use or unassigned parking areas and shall be available for use by all residents or guests. In addition to the low power Level 2 EV charging receptacle requirements of Section A4.106.8 (Tier 1, subsection 1), forty (40) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers and shall be made available for use by all residents or guests. Exception: Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts, including but not limited to automated mechanical-access open parking garages as defined in the California Building Code; or parking facilities otherwise incapable of supporting electric vehicle charging. An automatic load management system (ALMS) may be used to reduce the maximum required electrical capacity to each space served by the ALMS. The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to deliver at least 3.3 kW simultaneously to each EV charging station (EVCS) served by the ALMS. The branch circuit shall have a minimum capacity of 40 amperes, and installed EV chargers shall have a capacity of not less than 30 amperes. Option B Multifamily dwellings. 1. EV Ready Parking Spaces with Receptacles. For multifamily parking facilities, install low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles in at least one parking space for each dwelling unit with assigned parking. Exceptions: 1. Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts, including but not limited to automated mechanical-access open parking garages as defined in the California Building Code; or parking facilities otherwise incapable of supporting electric vehicle charging. 2. Where the number of parking spaces available for residents is less than the total number of dwelling units. 2. EV Ready Parking Spaces with EV Chargers. Ten (10) percent, but not less than one, of common use parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers for use by all residents or guests. At least fifty (50) percent of the required EV chargers shall be equipped with J1772 connectors. Exceptions: 1. Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts, including but not limited to automated mechanical-access open parking garages as defined in the California Building Code; or parking facilities otherwise incapable of supporting electric vehicle charging. 2. Where no common use parking spaces are provided. An automatic load management system (ALMS) may be used to reduce the

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23 Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 HCD 04/24 Part 11 - 2024 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle FET-SOS Filing Department of Housing and Community Development Page 11 of 15 maximum required electrical capacity to each space served by the ALMS. The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to deliver at least 3.3 kW simultaneously to each EV charging station (EVCS) served by the ALMS. The branch circuit shall have a minimum capacity of 40 amperes, and installed EV chargers shall have a capacity of not less than 30 amperes. Tier 2. Tier 2 consists of Option A and Option B. One or both may be adopted as voluntary measures. Option A for New multifamily dwellings, hotels and motels. 1. EV Ready Parking Spaces with Receptacles. a. Hotels and Motels. Fifty-five (55) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. b. Multifamily Parking Facilities. Fifty-five (55) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. EV charging receptacles required by this section shall be located in at least one assigned parking space per dwelling unit where assigned parking is provided but need not exceed fifty-five (55) percent of the total number of assigned parking spaces provided on the site. Exceptions: 1. Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts, including but not limited to automated mechanical-access open parking garages as defined in the California Building Code; or parking facilities otherwise incapable of supporting electric vehicle charging. 2. Hotels and motels may install Level 2 EV chargers instead of all or portions of the required percentage of low power Level 2 receptacles for EV charging. Where Level 2 EV chargers are installed in place of low power Level 2 receptacles, at least fifty (50) percent of the installed EV chargers shall be equipped with J1772 connectors. 2. EV Ready Parking Spaces with EV Chargers. a. Hotels and Motels. Twenty (20) percent of the total number of parking spaces for hotels and motels shall be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers. At least fifty (50) percent of the required EV chargers shall be equipped with J1772 connectors. b. Multifamily Parking Facilities. Twenty (20) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers. At least fifty (50) percent of the required EV chargers shall be equipped with J1772 connectors. Where common use parking or unassigned parking is provided, EV chargers shall be located in the common use or unassigned parking areas and shall be available for use by all residents or guests.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23 Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 HCD 04/24 Part 11 - 2024 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle FET-SOS Filing Department of Housing and Community Development Page 12 of 15 Exceptions: 1. Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts, including but not limited to automated mechanical-access open parking garages as defined in the California Building Code; or parking facilities otherwise incapable of supporting electric vehicle charging. 2. Where no common use parking spaces are provided. An automatic load management system (ALMS) may be used to reduce the maximum required electrical capacity to each space served by the ALMS. The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to deliver at least 3.3 kW simultaneously to each EV charging station (EVCS) served by the ALMS. The branch circuit shall have a minimum capacity of 40 amperes, and installed EV chargers shall have a capacity of not less than 30 amperes. Option B Multifamily Developments. 1. EV Ready Parking Spaces with Receptacles. Install one low power Level 2 EV charging receptacle for each parking space available for use by residents. Exception: Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts, including but not limited to automated mechanical-access open parking garages as defined in the California Building Code; or parking facilities otherwise incapable of supporting electric vehicle charging. 2. EV Ready Parking Spaces with EV Chargers. Twenty (20) percent of parking available for nonresidents or guests shall be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers. At least fifty (50) percent of the required EV chargers shall be equipped with J1772 connectors. Where common use parking is provided, EV chargers shall be located in the common use parking area and shall be available for use by all residents or guests. Exceptions: 1. Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts, including but not limited to automated mechanical-access open parking garages as defined in the California Building Code; or parking facilities otherwise incapable of supporting electric vehicle charging. 2. Where no common use parking spaces are provided. An automatic load management system (ALMS) may be used to reduce the maximum required electrical capacity to each space served by the ALMS. The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to deliver at least 3.3 kW simultaneously to each EV charging station (EVCS) served by the ALMS. The branch circuit shall have a minimum capacity of 40 amperes, and installed EV chargers shall have a capacity of not less than 30 amperes. Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17921, 17928, 18938.3, 18941.10,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23 Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 HCD 04/24 Part 11 - 2024 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle FET-SOS Filing Department of Housing and Community Development Page 13 of 15 18941.11, 19984, 19990; and Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1 and 12955.1.1. References: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17042, 17921, 17928, 17958.12, 18938.3, 18941.5, 19990 and 19984; Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1; and Vehicle Code Section 22511.2. ITEM 8 Appendix A4 Residential Voluntary Measures, Section A4.106.9 Bicycle parking. HCD proposes to repeal the above referenced section as follows: A4.106.9 Bicycle parking. Comply with Sections A4.106.9.1 through A4.106.9.3 or meet a local ordinance, whichever is more stringent. Exception: Number of bicycle parking spaces shall be permitted to be reduced, as approved by the enforcing agency, due to building site characteristics, including but not limited to, isolation from other development. A4.106.9.1 Short-term bicycle parking. Provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 100 feet of the visitor’s entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5 percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack. A4.106.9.2 Long-term bicycle parking for multifamily buildings. Provide on-site bicycle parking for at least one bicycle per every two dwelling units. Acceptable parking facilities shall be conveniently reached from the street and may include, but not be limited to: 1. Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles. 2. Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks. 3. Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers. A4.106.9.3 Long-term bicycle parking for hotel and motel buildings. Provide one on-site bicycle parking space for every 25,000 square feet, but not less than two. Acceptable parking facilities shall be conveniently reached from the street and may include, but not be limited to: 1. Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles. 2. Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks. 3. Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers. Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17921, 17928, 18938.3, 18941.10, 18941.11, 19984, 19990; and Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1 and 12955.1.1. References: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17042, 17921, 17928, 17958.12,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23 Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 HCD 04/24 Part 11 - 2024 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle FET-SOS Filing Department of Housing and Community Development Page 14 of 15 18938.3, 18941.5, 18944.19, 19990 and 19984; Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1. ITEM 9 Appendix A4 Residential Voluntary Measures, Section A4.602 Residential Occupancies Application Checklist. HCD proposes to continue to adopt the above referenced section with amendments as follows:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23 Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 HCD 04/24 Part 11 - 2024 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle FET-SOS Filing Department of Housing and Community Development Page 15 of 15 Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17921, 17928, 18938.3, 18941.10, 18941.11, 19984, 19990; and Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1 and 12955.1.1. References: Health and Safety Code Sections 17040, 17042, 17921, 17928, 17958.12, 18938.3, 18941.5, 18944.19, 19990 and 19984; Government Code Sections 12955, 12955.1; and Vehicle Code Section 22511.2.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23) Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 BSC 03/24 - Part 11- 2024 Triennial Code Cycle FET-SOS Filing California Building Standards Commission Page 1 of 19 APPROVED BY THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION December 17, 2024 FINAL EXPRESS TERMS FOR PROPOSED BUILDING STANDARDS OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION REGARDING THE 2025 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24, PART 11 (BSC 03/24) The state agency shall draft the regulations in plain, straightforward language, avoiding technical terms as much as possible and using a coherent and easily readable style. The agency shall draft the regulation in plain English. A notation shall follow the express terms of each regulation listing the specific statutes authorizing the adoption and listing specific statutes being implemented, interpreted, or made specific (Government Code Section 11346.2(a)(1)). If using assistive technology, please adjust your settings to recognize underline, strikeout and ellipsis. LEGEND for EXPRESS TERMS (California only codes - Parts 1, 6, 8, 11, 12) • Existing California amendments appear upright • Amended or new California amendments appear underlined • Repealed California language appears upright and in strikeout • Ellipses ( ...) indicate existing text remains unchanged FINAL EXPRESS TERMS [The California Building Standards Commission (BSC) proposes to bring forward existing California amendments in the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code for adoption into the 2025 California Green Building Standards Code with the following modifications.] ITEM 1 CHAPTER 5 NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES DIVISION 5.1 – PLANNING AND DESIGN SECTION 5.106 SITE PLANNING Section 5.106.4.1 Bicycle parking [with subsections] 5.106.4 Bicycle parking. For buildings within the authority of California Building Standards Commission as specified in Section 103, comply with Section 5.106.4.1. For buildings within the authority of the Division of the State Architect pursuant to Section 105, comply with Section 5.106.4.2. 5.106.4.1 Bicycle parking. [BSC-CG] Comply with Sections 5.106.4.1.1 and 5.106.4.1.2; or meet the applicable local ordinance, whichever is stricter. ITEM 1-1 5.106.4.1.1 Short-term bicycle parking. If the new project or an addition or

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23) Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 BSC 03/24 - Part 11- 2024 Triennial Code Cycle FET-SOS Filing California Building Standards Commission Page 2 of 19 alteration is anticipated to generate visitors traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5 20 percent of the peak daily new visitors motorized vehicle parking spaces being added, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack. Exception: Additions or alterations which add nine or less visitor vehicular parking spaces. ITEM 1-2 5.106.4.1.2 Long-term bicycle parking. [Relocated from Section 5.106.4.1.5 below] Acceptable bicycle parking facility for Sections 5.106.4.1.2.1, 5.106.4.1.2.2 and 5.106.4.1.2.3 shall be conveniently located near the street and shall meet one of the following: 1. Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles; 2. Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks; or 3. Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers. Calculations for bicycle parking requirements shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 5.106.4.1.2.1 For new buildings with tenant spaces, that have 10 or more tenant-occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5 10 percent of the tenant-occupants, vehicular parking spaces with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility. 5.106.4.1.3.2.2. For additions or alterations, that add 10 or more tenant-occupant vehicular parking spaces, provide secure bicycle parking for 5 10 percent of the tenant-occupants vehicular parking spaces being added, with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility. 5.106.4.1.4.2.3. For new shell buildings in phased projects, provide secure bicycle parking for 5 10 percent of the anticipated tenant-occupants, vehicular parking spaces with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility. [Relocated to Section 5.106.4.1.2 above] 5.106.4.1.5 Acceptable bicycle parking facility for Sections 5.106.4.1.2, 5.106.4.1.3 and 5.106.4.1.4 shall be convenient from the street and shall meet one of the following: 1. Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles; 2. Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks; or 3. Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers. Note: Additional information on recommended bicycle accommodations may be obtained from Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23) Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 BSC 03/24 - Part 11- 2024 Triennial Code Cycle FET-SOS Filing California Building Standards Commission Page 3 of 19 Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18944.19 Reference(s): Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18944.19 ITEM 2 Section 5.106.5.3 Electric vehicle (EV) charging ITEM 2-1 5.106.5.3 Electric vehicle (EV) charging. [N] [BSC-CG] Construction to provide electric vehicle infrastructure and facilitate electric vehicle charging shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3.1 EV capable spaces, Section 5.106.5.3.2 Electric vehicle charging stations and associated Table 5.106.5.3.1, or Section 5.106.5.3.6 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS)-Power allocation method and associated Table 5.106.5.3.6, and shall be provided in accordance with regulations in the California Building Code and the California Electrical Code. Exceptions: 1. On a case-by-case basis where the local enforcing agency has determined compliance with this section is not feasible based upon one of the following conditions: a. Where there is no local utility power supply. b. Where the local utility is unable to supply adequate power. c. Where there is evidence suitable to the local enforcement agency substantiating that additional local utility infrastructure design requirements, directly related to the implementation of Section 5.106.5.3, may adversely impact the construction cost of the project. 2. Parking spaces accessible only by automated mechanical car parking systems are not required to comply with this code section. 2. Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts, including but not limited to, automated mechanical-access open parking garages as defined in the California Building Code; or parking facilities otherwise incapable of supporting electric vehicle charging. Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18941.10. Reference(s): Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18941.10.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23) Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 BSC 03/24 - Part 11- 2024 Triennial Code Cycle FET-SOS Filing California Building Standards Commission Page 4 of 19 ITEM 3 Table 5.106.5.3.1 EV Capable spaces ITEM 3-1 TABLE 5.106.5.3.1 EV Capable spaces and EVCS TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTUAL PARKING SPACES NUMBER OF REQUIRED EV CAPABLE SPACES Other than Office and Retail NUMBER OF REQUIRED EVCS (EV CAPABLE SPACES PROVIDED WITH EVSE) 2, 3 Office and Retail NUMBER OF REQUIRED EVCS 2, 3
0 1-9 0 0 0 10-25 4 0 2 3 26-50 8 2 4 6 51-75 13 3 6 8 76-100 17 4 8 13 101-150 25 6 12 19 151-200 35 9 18 26 201 and over 20 percent of actual parking spaces 1 25 50 percent of EV capable spaces 1 75 percent of EV capable spaces 1 1. Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 2. Each EVCS shall reduce the number of required EV capable spaces by the same number. The number of required EVCS (EV capable spaces provided with EVSE) in column 3 count toward the total number of required EV capable spaces shown in column 2. 3. At least one Level 2 EVSE shall be provided. Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18941.10. Reference(s): Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18941.10. ITEM 4 Section 5.106.5.3.2 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) [with subsections] 5.106.5.3.2 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS). EV capable spaces shall be provided with electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) to create EVCS in the number indicated in Table 5.106.5.3.1. The EVCS required by Table 5.106.5.3.1 shall be provided with Level 2 EVSE or DCFC as permitted in Section 5.106.5.3.2.13. At least one Level 2 EVSE shall be provided.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23) Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 BSC 03/24 - Part 11- 2024 Triennial Code Cycle FET-SOS Filing California Building Standards Commission Page 5 of 19 One EV charger with multiple connectors capable of charging multiple EVs simultaneously shall be permitted if the electrical load capacity required by Section 5.106.5.3.1 for each EV capable space is accumulatively supplied to the EV charger. ITEM 4-1 5.106.5.3.2.1 Receptacle Configurations. 208/240V EV charging receptacles shall comply with one of the following configurations: 1. For 20-ampere receptacles, NEMA 6-20R 2. For 30-ampere receptacles, NEMA 14-30R 3. For 50-ampere receptacles, NEMA 14-50R ITEM 4-2 5.106.5.3.2.2 EV Charger Connectors. EV chargers shall be equipped with SAE J1772 with a maximum output 240 Volts AC or SAE J3400 connectors. When using level 2 SAE J3400 SAE connectors, supplied by a 480 V 3-phase service, at least 20 percent of the EV charger connectors shall be SAE J1772 with a maximum output 240 Volts AC. 5.106.5.3.2.1 3 The installation of each DCFC EVSE shall be permitted to reduce the minimum number of required EV capable spaces without EVSE or EVCS with Level 2 EVSE by five, and reduce proportionally the required electrical load capacity to the service panel or subpanel. ITEM 4-3 5.106.5.3.2.2 4 The installation of two Low Power Level 2 EV charging receptacles shall be permitted to reduce the minimum number of required EV capable spaces without EVSE in Table 5.106.5.3 by one. 5.106.5.3.2.4.1 Raceway Capacity Requirements. To allow for future upgrades to the electrical conductors serving low power Level 2 charging receptacles, the listed raceway serving such receptacles shall be sized to allow the installation of a dedicated 208/240-volt 40-ampere branch circuit. Where no raceway is used, the conductors shall be sized to accommodate a 208/240-volt 40-ampere receptacle. Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18941.10 Reference(s): Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18941.10 ITEM 5 Table 5.106.5.3.6 EVCS–Power allocation method 5.106.5.3.6 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS)–power allocation method. The power allocation method may be used as an alternative to the requirements in Section 5.106.5.3.1, Section 5.106.5.3.2 and associated Table 5.106.5.3.1. Use Table 5.106.5.3.6 to determine the total power in kVA required

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23) Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 BSC 03/24 - Part 11- 2024 Triennial Code Cycle FET-SOS Filing California Building Standards Commission Page 6 of 19 based on the total number of actual parking spaces. Power allocation method shall include the following: 1. Use any kVA combination of EV capable spaces, low power Level 2, Level 2 or DCFC EVSEs. 2. At least one Level 2 EVSE shall be provided. ITEM 5-1 TABLE 5.106.5.3.6 EVCS–Power allocation method TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTUAL PARKING SPACES MINIMUM TOTAL kVA @ 6.6 kVA Other than Office and Retail TOTAL kVA REQUIRED IN ANY COMBINATION OF EV CAPABLE 3, 4, LOW POWER LEVEL 2, LEVEL 2 1, 2, OR DCFC Office and Retail TOTAL kVA REQUIRED IN ANY COMBINATION OF EV CAPABLE 4, 5, LOW POWER LEVEL 2, LEVEL 2 1, 2, OR DCFC 0 1-9 0 0 0 10-25 26.4 26.4 26.4 26-50 52.8 52.8 52.8 51-75 85.8 85.8 85.8 76-100 112.2 112.2 112.2 101-150 165 165 165 151-200 231 231 231 201 and over 20 percent of actual parking spaces x 6.6 Total required kVA =P x .20 x 6.6 Where P=Parking spaces in facility Total required kVA =P x .20 x 6.6 Where P=Parking spaces in facility 1. Level 2 EVSE @ 6.6 kVA minimum. 2. At least one Level 2 EVSE shall be provided. 3. Maximum allowed kVA to be utilized for EV capable spaces is 75 50 percent. 4. If EV capable spaces are utilized, they shall meet the requirements of Section 5.106.5.3.1 EV capable spaces. 5. For Office and Retail buildings the maximum allowed kVA to be utilized for EV capable spaces is 25 percent. Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18941.10. Reference(s): Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18941.10.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23) Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 BSC 03/24 - Part 11- 2024 Triennial Code Cycle FET-SOS Filing California Building Standards Commission Page 7 of 19 ITEM 6 Section 5.106.5.3.6 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS)–power allocation method [with subsections] ITEM 6-1 5.106.5.3.6.1 Receptacle Configurations. 208/240V EV charging receptacles shall comply with one of the following configurations: 1. For 20-ampere receptacles, NEMA 6-20R. 2. For 30-ampere receptacles, NEMA 14-30R. 3. For 50-ampere receptacles, NEMA 14-50R. ITEM 6-2 5.106.5.3.6.2 EV Charger Connectors. EV chargers shall be equipped with SAE J1772 with a maximum output 240 Volts AC or SAE J3400 connectors. When using level 2 SAE J3400 connectors, supplied by a 480 V 3-phase service, at least 20 percent of the EV charger connectors shall be SAE J1772 with a maximum output 240 Volts AC. ITEM 6-3 5.106.5.3.6.3 Raceway Capacity Requirements. To allow for future upgrades to the electrical conductors serving low power Level 2 charging receptacles, the listed raceway serving such receptacles shall be sized to allow the installation of a dedicated 208/240-volt 40-ampere branch circuit. Where no raceway is used, the conductors shall be sized to accommodate a 208/240-volt 40-ampere receptacle. Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18941.10. Reference(s): Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18941.10. ITEM 7 Section 5.106.5.4.2 Existing buildings or parking areas with previously installed EV capable infrastructure [A] 5.106.5.4 Additions or alterations to existing buildings or parking facilities [A]. [BSC-CG] Existing buildings or parking facilities being modified … 5.106.5.4.1 Existing buildings or parking areas without previously installed EV capable infrastructure [A]. When EV capable infrastructure … ITEM 7-1 5.106.5.4.2 Existing buildings or parking areas with previously installed EV capable infrastructure [A]. When EV capable infrastructure is available at an existing parking facility or building, and the parking facility or building is undergoing an addition or alteration listed in Section 5.106.5.4, construction shall include electric vehicle charging in compliance with either Section 5.106.5.3 and

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23) Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 BSC 03/24 - Part 11- 2024 Triennial Code Cycle FET-SOS Filing California Building Standards Commission Page 8 of 19 associated Table 5.106.5.3.1, or Section 5.106.5.3.6 and associated Table 5.106.5.3.6. Install EVCS at all existing EV capable spaces, utilizing the existing EV capable allocated power and infrastructure for the total number of actual parking spaces being added or altered, prior to adding any new EV capable spaces. If the area being added or altered exceeds the existing EV capable capacity, allocated power and infrastructure, provide additional EV charging as needed to comply with this section. Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18941.10. Reference(s): Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18941.10. ITEM 8 CHAPTER 5 NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES DIVISION 5.3 – WATER EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION SECTION 5.303 INDOOR WATER USE ITEM 8-1 5.303.3.4.6 Pre-rinse spray valve. When installed, Commercial Pre-Rinse Spray Valves shall meet the requirements in the California Plumbing Code, Section 420.3. California Code of Regulations, Title 20 (Appliance Efficiency Regulations), Section 1605.1(h)(4) Table H-2, Section 1605.3(h)(4)(A), and Section 1607(d)(7), and shall be equipped with an integral automatic shutoff. FOR REFERENCE ONLY: The following table and code section have been reprinted from the California Code of Regulations, Title 20 (Appliance Efficiency Regulations), Section 1605.1(h)(4) and Section 1605.3(h)(4)(A). TABLE H-2 STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL PRE-RINSE SPRAY VALVES MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 28, 2019. Product Class [spray force in ounce force (ozf)] Maximum Flow Rate (gpm) Product Class 1 (≤ 5.0 ozf) 1.00 Product Class 2 (> 5.0 ozf and ≤ 8.0 ozf) 1.20 Product Class 3 (> 8.0 ozf) 1.28 Title 20 Section 1605.3(h)(4)(A): Commercial pre-rinse spray valves manufactured on or after January 1, 2006, shall have a minimum spray force of not less than 4.0 ounces-force (ozf) [113 grams-force (gf)]. Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Section 18930.5. Reference(s): Health and Safety Code Section 18930.5.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23) Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 BSC 03/24 - Part 11- 2024 Triennial Code Cycle FET-SOS Filing California Building Standards Commission Page 9 of 19 ITEM 9 CHAPTER 5 NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES DIVISION 5.5 – ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY SECTION 5.504 POLLUTANT CONTROL Section 5.504.1 Temporary ventilation ITEM 9-1 5.504.1 Temporary ventilation. The permanent HVAC system shall only be used during construction if necessary to condition the building or areas of addition or alteration within the required temperature range for material and equipment installation. If the HVAC system is used during construction, use return air filters with a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 8, 13, based on ASHRAE 52.2. 1999, or an average efficiency of 30 percent based on ASHRAE 52.1-1992. Replace all filters immediately prior to occupancy, or, if the building is occupied during alteration, at the conclusion of construction. Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Section 18930.5 Reference(s): Health and Safety Code Section 18930.5 ITEM 10 SECTION 5.506 INDOOR AIR QUALITY Section 5.506.4 Carbon dioxide (CO2) monitoring in classrooms. [BSC-CG] … 5.506.3 Carbon dioxide (CO2) monitoring in classrooms. [DSA-SS] Each public K-12 school classroom ... requirements: 1. The monitor or sensor … windows. … 6. The monitor or sensor … five years. ITEM 10-1 5.506.4 Carbon dioxide (CO2) monitoring in classrooms. [BSC-CG] Newly constructed projects and qualifying additions and alterations (per scope in Section 301.3) for University of California, California State University, and private school classrooms, lecture and post-secondary classrooms shall be equipped with a carbon dioxide monitor or sensor that meets the following requirements: 1. The monitor or sensor shall be permanently affixed in a tamper-proof manner in each classroom between three and six feet above the floor and at least five feet away from doors and operable windows. 2. When the monitor or sensor is not integral to an Energy Management Control System (EMCS) the monitor or sensor shall display the carbon dioxide readings on the device. When the sensor is integral to an EMCS the carbon dioxide readings shall be available to and regularly monitored by facility personnel.

3. A monitor shall provide notification through a visual indicator on the monitor when the carbon dioxide levels in the classroom exceeds 1,100 ppm. A sensor integral to an EMCS shall provide notification to facility personnel through a visual and/or audible indicator when the carbon dioxide levels in the classroom exceeds 1,100 ppm. 4. The monitor or EMCS devices used to measure carbon dioxide levels shall maintain a record of previous data that includes at least the maximum carbon dioxide concentration measured. 5. The monitor or sensor used to measure carbon dioxide levels shall have the capacity to measure carbon dioxide levels with a range of 400 ppm to 2000 ppm or greater. 6. The monitor or sensor shall be certified by the manufacturer to be accurate within 75 ppm at 1,000 ppm carbon dioxide concentration and shall be certified by the manufacturer to require calibration no more frequently than once every five years. Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Section 18930.5 and Educational Code Section 17661 Reference(s): Health and Safety Code Section 18930.5 and Educational Code Section 17661 ITEM 11 CHAPTER 6 REFERENCED ORGANIZATIONS AND STANDARDS Section 601.1 601.1 This chapter lists the organizations and standards that are referenced in various sections of this document. The standards are listed according to the promulgating agency of the standard. ITEM 11-1 ORGANIZATION STANDARD REFERENCED SECTION … … … ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1791 Tullie Circle, NE Atlanta, GA 30329 180 Technology Parkway NW Peachtree Corners, GA 30092 www.ashrae.org

52.1-92 52.2-2007 2017 62.2 90.1
A5.504.1 202 5.504.1 A5.504.1 5.108.8 … … …

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23) Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 BSC 03/24 - Part 11- 2024 Triennial Code Cycle FET-SOS Filing California Building Standards Commission Page 11 of 19 Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 18928.1 and 18930.5 Reference(s): Health and Safety Code Sections 18928.1 and 18930.5 ITEM 12 APPENDIX A5 NONRESIDENTIAL VOLUNTARY MEASURES DIVISION A5.1 – PLANNING AND DESIGN SECTION A5.106 SITE DEVELOPMENT Section A5.106.5.3.1 Tier 1 with Table A5.106.5.3.1 Tier 1 EV capable spaces and Section A5.106.5.3.2 Tier 1 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS)—Power allocation method with associated Table A5.106.5.3.2 A5.106.5.3 Electric vehicle (EV) charging. [N] Construction shall comply with Section A5.106.5.3.1 Tier 1 or A5.106.5.3.3 Tier 2, and in accordance with regulations in the California Building Code and the California Electrical Code. ITEM 12-1 A5.106.5.3.1 Tier 1. Comply with Section 5.106.5.3.1 EV capable spaces, Section 5.106.5.3.2 Electric vehicle charging stations and associated Table A5.106.5.3.1, Tier 1, or comply with Section A5.106.5.3.2 Tier 1 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS)—Power allocation method and associated Table A5.106.5.3.2. Tier 1. Refer to Section 5.106.5.3.2 … TABLE A5.106.5.3.1 Tier 1 EV capable spaces and EVCS TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTUAL PARKING SPACES TIER 1 NUMBER OF REQUIRED EV CAPABLE SPACES
Other than Office and Retail NUMBER OF REQUIRED EVCS (EV CAPABLE SPACES PROVIDED WITH EVSE) 2, 3 Office and Retail NUMBER OF REQUIRED EVCS 2, 3
0 1-9 2 0 1 2 10-25 5 2 3 4 26-50 11 4 6 8 51-75 19 5 10 14 76-100 26 9 13 20 101-150 38 13 19 29 151-200 53 18 27 40 201 and over 30 percent of actual parking spaces 1 33 50 percent of EV capable spaces 1 75 percent of EV capable spaces 1 1. Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.

2. The number of required EVCS (EV capable spaces provided with EVSE) in column 3 count toward the total number of required EV capable spaces shown in column 2. Each EVCS shall reduce the number of required EV capable spaces by the same number. 3. At least one Level 2 EVSE shall be provided. ITEM 12-2 A5.106.5.3.2 Tier 1 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS)—Power allocation method. The power allocation method may be used as an alternative to the requirements in Section 5.106.5.3.1, Section 5.106.5.3.2, and associated Table A5.106.5.3.1. Tier 1. Use Table A5.106.5.3.2 Tier 1 to determine the total power in kVA required based on the total number of actual parking spaces. Power allocation method shall include the following: 1. Use any kVA combination of EV capable spaces, Low Power Level 2, Level 2 or DCFC EVSEs. 2. At least one Level 2 EVSE shall be provided. TABLE A5.106.5.3.2 Tier 1 EVCS–Power allocation method TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTUAL PARKING SPACES MINIMUM TOTAL kVA @ 6.6 kVA Other than Office and Retail TOTAL kVA REQUIRED IN ANY COMBINATION OF EV CAPABLE 3, 4, LOW POWER LEVEL 2, LEVEL 2 1, 2, OR DCFC Office and Retail TOTAL kVA REQUIRED IN ANY COMBINATION OF EV CAPABLE 4, 5, LOW POWER LEVEL 2, LEVEL 21, 2, OR DCFC 0 1-9 13.2 13.2 13.2 10-25 33 33 33 26-50 72.6 72.6 72.6 51-75 125.4 125.4 125.4 76-100 171.6 171.6 171.6 101-150 250.8 250.8 250.8 151-200 349.8 349.8 349.8 201 and over 30 percent of actual parking spaces x 6.6 Total required kVA =P x .30 x 6.6 Where P=Parking spaces in facility Total required kVA =P x .30 x 6.6 Where P=Parking spaces in facility 1. Level 2 EVSE @ 6.6 kVA minimum. 2. At least one Level 2 EVSE shall be provided. 3. Maximum allowed kVA to be utilized for EV capable spaces is 67 50 percent. 4. If EV capable spaces are utilized, they shall meet the requirements of Section 5.106.5.3.1 EV capable spaces.

5. For Office and Retail buildings the maximum allowed kVA to be utilized for EV capable spaces is 25 percent. Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18941.10 Reference(s): Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5, 18931.7 and 18941.10 ITEM 13 Section A5.106.5.3.3 Tier 2 with Table A5.106.5.3.3 Tier 2 EV capable spaces and Section A5.106.5.3.4 Tier 2 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS)—power allocation method with associated Table A5.106.5.3.4 ITEM 13-1 A5.106.5.3.3 Tier 2. Comply with Section 5.106.5.3.1 EV capable spaces, Section 5.106.5.3.2 Electric vehicle charging stations and associated Table A5.106.5.3.3, Tier 2, or Section A5.106.5.3.4 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS)—Power allocation method and associated Table A5.106.5.3.4. Tier 2. Refer to Section 5.106.5.3.2 … TABLE A5.106.5.3.3 Tier 2 EV capable spaces and EVCS TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTUAL PARKING SPACES TIER 2 NUMBER OF REQUIRED EV CAPABLE SPACES Other than Office and Retail TIER 2 NUMBER OF REQUIRED EVCS (EV CAPABLE SPACES PROVIDED WITH EVSE) 2, 3 Office and Retail NUMBER OF REQUIRED EVCS 2, 3 0 1-9 3 0 2 2 10-25 8 3 4 6 26-50 17 6 9 13 51-75 28 9 14 21 76-100 40 13 20 30 101-150 57 19 29 43 151-200 79 26 40 59 201 and over 45 percent of actual parking spaces1 33 50 percent of EV capable spaces 1 75 percent of EV capable spaces1 1. Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 2. The number of required EVCS (EV capable spaces provided with EVSE) in column 3 count toward the total number of required EV capable spaces

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23) Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 BSC 03/24 - Part 11- 2024 Triennial Code Cycle FET-SOS Filing California Building Standards Commission Page 14 of 19 shown in column 2. Each EVCS shall reduce the number of required EV capable spaces by the same number. 3. At least one Level 2 EVSE shall be provided. ITEM 13-2 A5.106.5.3.4 Tier 2 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS)—Power allocation method. The Power allocation method may be used as an alternative to the requirements in Section 5.106.5.3.1, Section 5.106.5.3.2, and associated Table A5.106.5.3.3. Tier 2. Use Table A5.106.5.3.4 Tier 2 to determine the total power in kVA required based on the total number of actual parking spaces. Power allocation method shall include the following: 1. Use any kVA combination of EV capable spaces, Low Power Level 2, Level 2 or DCFC EVSEs. 2. At least one Level 2 EVSE shall be provided. TABLE A5.106.5.3.4 Tier 2 EVCS–Power allocation method TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTUAL PARKING SPACES MINIMUM TOTAL kVA @ 6.6 kVA Other than Office and Retail TOTAL kVA REQUIRED IN ANY COMBINATION OF EV CAPABLE 3, 4, LOW POWER LEVEL 2, LEVEL 2 1, 2, OR DCFC Office and Retail TOTAL kVA REQUIRED IN ANY COMBINATION OF EV CAPABLE 4, 5, LOW POWER LEVEL 2, LEVEL 2 1, 2, OR DCFC 0 1-9 28.8 19.8 28.8 19.8 19.8 10-25 76.8 52.8 76.8 52.8 52.8 26-50 163.2 112.2 163.2 112.2 112.2 51-75 268.8 184.8 268.8 184.8 184.8 76-100 384 264.0 384 264 264 101-150 547.2 376.2 547.2 376.2 376.2 151-200 758.4 521.4 758.4 521.4 521.4 201 and over 45 percent of actual parking spaces x 6.6 Total required kVA =P x .45 x 6.6 Where P=Parking spaces in facility Total required kVA =P x .45 x 6.6 Where P=Parking spaces in facility 1. Level 2 EVSE @ 6.6 kVA minimum. 2. At least one Level 2 EVSE shall be provided. 3. Maximum allowed kVA to be utilized for EV capable spaces is 75 50 percent. 4. If EV capable spaces are utilized, they shall meet the requirements of Section 5.106.5.3.1 EV capable spaces. 5._For Office and Retail buildings the maximum allowed kVA to be utilized for EV capable spaces is 25 percent.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23) Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 BSC 03/24 - Part 11- 2024 Triennial Code Cycle FET-SOS Filing California Building Standards Commission Page 15 of 19 Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18941.10. Reference(s): Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5, 18931.7 and 18941.10. ITEM 14 APPENDIX A5 NONRESIDENTIAL VOLUNTARY MEASURES DIVISION A5.6 – VOLUNTARY TIERS Table A5.601 Nonresidential buildings: Green Building Standards Code Proposed Performance Approach ITEM 14-1 TABLE A5.601 NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS: Green Building Standards Code Proposed Performance Approach Note: This table is intended only as an aid … CATEGORY ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE GOAL TIER 1 TIER 2 All Minimum Mandatory (See Mandatory Checklist) Meet all of the provisions of Chapter 5 (See Tier 1 Checklist) Meet all of the provisions of Chapter 5 (See Tier 2 Checklist) DIVISION 5.1 Planning and Design Reuse of existing building See Section A5.105.1 and Section A5.105.2 requirements See Section A5.105.1 and Section A5.105.2 requirements Designated Parking for Fuel Efficient Vehicles (Tier 1 and Tier 2 only) Approx. 35% of total spaces Approx. 50% of total spaces Electric Vehicle Charging Approx. 30% of total spaces Approx. 45% of total spaces Cool Roof to Reduce Heat Island Effect Roof Slope < 2:12 SRI 75 Roof Slope > 2:12 SRI 16 Roof Slope < 2:12 SRI 82 Roof Slope > 2:12 SRI 27 1 additional Elective from Division A5.1 3 additional Electives from Division A5.1 … … … … DIVISION 5.4 Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency Recycled Content Utilize recycled content materials for 10% of total material cost Utilize recycled content materials for 15% of total material cost Construction Waste Reduction At least 65% reduction At least 80% reduction Cradle-to-Grave Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment See Section A5.409.1, Section A5.409.2 and Section A5.409.2.3 requirements See Section A5.409.1, Section A5.409.2 and Section A5.409.2.3 requirements Product GWP compliance – prescriptive path See Section A5.409.1, Section A5.409.3.2, Table 5.409.3 and Table A5.409.3 requirements See Section A5.409.1, Section A5.409.3.2, Table 5.409.3 and Table A5.409.3 requirements 1 additional Elective from Division A5.4 3 additional Electives from Division A5.4 … … … …

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23) Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 BSC 03/24 - Part 11- 2024 Triennial Code Cycle FET-SOS Filing California Building Standards Commission Page 16 of 19 Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Section 18930.5 Reference(s): Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18931.7 ITEM 15 A5.602 through A5.602.2 CALGreen VERIFICATION GUIDELINES MANDATORY and VOLUNTARY MEASURES CHECKLISTS [These checklist tables will be updated based on the final proposed code updates for both the mandatory and voluntary code sections.] ITEM 15-1 A5.602 CALGreen VERIFICATION GUIDELINES MANDATORY MEASURES CHECKLIST CHAPTER 5 DIVISIONS DIVISION 5.1 Planning and Design REQUIREMENT SECTION TITLE CODE SECTION Y N/A O PLAN SHEET, SPEC, OR ATTACH REFERENCE … … Mandatory Long-term bicycle parking 5.106.4.1.2 through 5.106.4.1.5 2.3 Mandatory Electric vehicle (EV) charging [N] with Section 5.106.3.1, 5.106.5.3.2 and associated Table 5.106.5.3.1 OR Power Allocation Method: Section 5.106.5.3.6 and associated Table 5.106.5.3.6

5.106.5.3.1, Table 5.106.5.3.1, 5.106.5.3.2, 5.106.5.3.2.1, 5.106.5.3.2.2, 5.106.5.3.2.3, 5.106.5.3.2.4, 5.106.5.3.3, 5.106.5.3.4 and 5.106.5.3.5. OR 5.106.5.3.6, Table 5.106.5.3.6, 5.106.5.3.6.1, 5.106.5.3.6.2, 5.106.5.3.6.3, 5.106.5.3.3, 5.106.5.3.4 and 5.106.5.3.5.

… … … …

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23) Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 BSC 03/24 - Part 11- 2024 Triennial Code Cycle FET-SOS Filing California Building Standards Commission Page 17 of 19 DIVISION 5.5 Environmental Quality REQUIREMENT SECTION TITLE CODE SECTION Y N/A O PLAN SHEET, SPEC, OR ATTACH REFERENCE … … … Mandatory Carbon dioxide (CO2) monitoring 5.506.2 Mandatory Carbon dioxide (CO2) monitoring in classrooms [BSC-CG] 5.506.4 … … … ITEM 15-2 A5.602.1 CALGreen VERIFICATION GUIDELINES TIER 1 CHECKLIST CHAPTER 5 DIVISIONS DIVISION 5.1 Planning and Design REQUIREMENT SECTION TITLE CODE SECTION Y N O PLAN SHEET, SPEC, OR ATTACH REFERENCE … … … Tier 1 prerequisite Electric vehicle (EV) charging [N] with Section 5.106.3.1, 5.106.5.3.2 and associated Table A5.106.5.3.1 Tier 1 OR Power Allocation Method: Section A5.106.5.3.2 and associated Table A5.106.5.3.2 Tier 1

5.106.5.3.1, 5.106.5.3.2, 5.106.5.3.2.1, 5.106.5.3.2.2, 5.106.5.3.2.3, 5.106.5.3.2.4, 5.106.5.3.3, 5.106.5.3.4, 5.106.5.3.5 and Table A5.106.5.3.1 Tier 1 OR A5.106.5.3.2, and Table A5.106.5.3.2 Tier 1 5.106.5.3.3, 5.106.5.3.4 , and 5.106.5.3.5, 5.106.5.6, 5.106.5.3.6.1, 5.106.5.3.6.2 and 5.106.5.3.6.3,

… … . . . …

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23) Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 BSC 03/24 - Part 11- 2024 Triennial Code Cycle FET-SOS Filing California Building Standards Commission Page 18 of 19 DIVISION 5.5 Environmental Quality REQUIREMENT SECTION TITLE CODE SECTION Y N/A O PLAN SHEET, SPEC, OR ATTACH REFERENCE … … … Mandatory Carbon dioxide (CO2) monitoring 5.506.2 Mandatory Carbon dioxide (CO2) monitoring in classrooms [BSC-CG] 5.506.4 … … … ITEM 15-3 A5.602.2 CALGreen VERIFICATION GUIDELINES TIER 2 CHECKLIST CHAPTER 5 DIVISIONS DIVISION 5.1 Planning and Design REQUIREMENT SECTION TITLE CODE SECTION Y N O PLAN SHEET, SPEC, OR ATTACH REFERENCE … … … Tier 2 prerequisite Electric vehicle (EV) charging [N] with Section 5.106.3.1, 5.106.5.3.2 and associated Table A5.106.5.3.3 Tier 2 OR Power Allocation Method: Section A5.106.5.3.4 and associated Table A5.106.5.3.4 Tier 2

5.106.5.3.1, 5.106.5.3.2, 5.106.5.3.2.1, 5.106.5.3.2.2, 5.106.5.3.2.3, 5.106.5.3.2.4, 5.106.5.3.3, 5.106.5.3.4, 5.106.5.3.5 and Table A5.106.5.3.3 Tier 2 OR A5.106.5.3.4 and Table A5.106.5.3.4 Tier 2, 5.106.5.3.3, 5.106.5.3.4 , and 5.106.5.3.5, 5.106.5.3.6, 5.106.5.3.6.1, 5.106.5.3.2 and 5.106.5.3.6.3,

… … . . . …

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION
BSC TP-103 (Rev. 10/23) Final Express Terms December 17, 2024 BSC 03/24 - Part 11- 2024 Triennial Code Cycle FET-SOS Filing California Building Standards Commission Page 19 of 19 DIVISION 5.5 Environmental Quality REQUIREMENT SECTION TITLE CODE SECTION Y N/A O PLAN SHEET, SPEC, OR ATTACH REFERENCE … … … Mandatory Outside air delivery 5.506.1 Mandatory Carbon dioxide (CO2) monitoring 5.506.2 Mandatory Carbon dioxide (CO2) monitoring in classrooms [BSC-CG] 5.506.4 Mandatory Acoustical control (with exception) 5.507.4 … … … Notation: Authority: Health and Safety Code Section 18930.5 Reference(s): Health and Safety Code Sections 18930.5 and 18931.7.

Statement in Support of Downtown Napa Revitalization Project

Twenty years ago, downtown Napa was quiet—practically closed at night, and even more so on weekends. We’ve worked hard over the years to help make downtown a true destination, and that effort continues regardless of the circumstances. It can be hard for some to remember just how lifeless the area once was. Unfortunately, despite many successes, the demolition of historic buildings in favor of what replaced them remains one of Napa’s greatest planning missteps. That decision created a "dead zone" that disconnected key areas of our downtown, stalling its potential to thrive as a unified whole.

When my son Michael introduced me to 300 Venture Group and their proposal to invest more than $450 million into revitalizing that very area, it felt almost too good to be true. But this is exactly the kind of bold, visionary private investment that downtown Napa desperately needs. I not only fully support this project—I believe anyone who understands Napa’s past and cares about its future should be asking how we can help make it happen.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The City Council, I’m confident, will see the extraordinary value of this project—not just for what it brings architecturally and economically, but for what it represents: a reinvigoration of the heart of our community.

We should all be saying: thank you for choosing Napa.

To those who might oppose it, I would simply say: remember how far we’ve come, and how fragile that progress has been. Opportunities like this do not come often, and hundreds of cities across California—and beyond—would eagerly welcome this caliber of investment and vision.

I’m deeply grateful that this proposal is being brought forward. Let’s not let it slip away.

Let’s come together and ask: How can we help?

Michael Lee Holcomb

Docusign Envelope ID: 41E2B6E1-5A4C-4463-8071-A521A2CED3BD 6/24/2025
From: Dommen, Debra
To: Scott Sedgley
Cc: Clerk
Subject: Napa First Street Project
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 11:45:57 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgley and City Council:

I am writing to express my strong support for the First Street Napa Project and to respectfully encourage the Council to approve and advance this important development. This project represents the kind of high-quality hotel and residential investment that downtown Napa needs and will serve as a key component in the continued revitalization of our city’s core.

At a time when Napa—and the broader wine industry—is facing significant challenges both locally and globally, the increased visitation this development is expected to generate will provide meaningful economic stimulus. Moreover, the substantial tax revenue it will bring to the City of Napa, along with its direct investment in affordable housing that results in actual units being built, addresses critical community needs.

I urge you to support the First Street Napa Project and to do everything possible to streamline the remaining permitting steps to ensure this development moves forward without delay.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Debra Dommen

Debra Dommen |VP, Gov & Industry Affairs
555 Gateway Drive, Napa CA 94558
O: +1 707 259 4673 | M: +1 707 315 4506
[email protected] | www.tweglobal.com

**************************************************************************** ****************************
This email and any attachments may be confidential, protected by copyright and may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not use, copy or disclose any of the information in the email for any purpose. Treasury Wine Estates and its related entities do not guarantee that this email or any attachments are virus free. Please do not alter or delete this notice.
**************************************************************************** ****************************
From: Ristorante Allegria Napa
To: Clerk
Subject: Ristorante Allegria
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 12:00:34 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City Clerk,
I hope this message finds you well. I would like to formally submit the following concerns regarding the proposed project near our business:

1. Patio Area Impact:

Our patio area is a critical part of our business and was recently improved at considerable cost, following city requirements. We’d like to know:

What guarantees are in place to ensure we will retain or be able to rebuild the patio?
If removal is necessary, will the city or developer assist with dismantling and rebuilding?
Can any work involving the patio be scheduled during the off-season and completed as quickly as possible.

If we are required to obtain permits to rebuild our patio area we ask the city work with us to expedite the process. We want avoid long delays and ensure we can restore the patio quickly so our business operations are not disrupted for an extended period.

2. Garbage Area Access and Cleanliness:

We’ve worked hard to maintain the shared garbage area. How will this project affect our access to it and our responsibilities before, during, and after construction?

3. Business Operations and Liability During Construction:

If any damage occurs to our property or operations during the construction process, what protections or compensation policies are in place?

4. Employment Concerns:

Any disruption to our patio and operations could result in a loss of employees and significantly affect our business.

5. Parking and Delivery Access:

The parking lot behind our restaurant is essential for our deliveries and staff. With the proposed changes, we respectfully request one designated parking spaces for our business use to maintain operational continuity we do have storage where we go get things for the restaurant using our personal vehicles.

6. Longstanding Community Support:

Ristorante Allegria has proudly served the Napa community for over 23 years. We’ve consistently supported local schools and nonprofit organizations, and we are deeply committed to continuing that involvement. We are not against this project our main concern is ensuring that this does not negatively impact our business or our employees during construction or after is completed.

We respectfully ask that these concerns be taken into consideration and request written clarification and assurances on how these matters will be handled before, during, and after construction.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

If we can please have this read at the city council meeting tonight that would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Baris yildiz
Rodi yildiz
Ristorante Allegria
7072668109
Thank you for choosing Ristorante Allegria.

Our group menus and information are on our website under group events. www.ristoranteallegria.com
Phone (707) 254-8006
Fax (707) 254-8397
From: Michael Gonzales
To: Scott Sedgley; Clerk
Subject: Napa First Street Project - Support Letter
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 1:18:57 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Mayor Sedgley and Napa City Council,
As a Napa citizen and business owner, I’m writing to share my strong support for the First Street Napa project. I truly believe this development will play a key role in the continued revitalization of Downtown Napa and help local businesses, both new and long-established to thrive.

We’re incredibly lucky to have owners who believe in Napa and are willing to make such a significant investment in our community. I also appreciate that they’re ready to move forward now, rather than letting the site sit vacant for years like we’ve seen with other key downtown properties.

Please don’t delay this opportunity. This project brings real benefits for Napa residents, businesses, and the future of our downtown.

Sincerely,
Mike Gonzales
Pivotal Ground Inc
Napa City gets a New Face-lift…. Or a Rip off
Chris d Craiker ALA/NCARB
Napa city has always had an identity problem. Its desire to go big and become a tourist attraction has been ingrained it since the 80’s when the Napa Town Center was hailed as the savior of the city’s sluggish downtown. By tearing down many downtown notable buildings to create an open mall with only one anchor tenant, the town fathers vision was to become a magnet for tourists and wine connoisseurs heading up Valley. In those days, many Valley visitors didn’t know there actually was a city named Napa. Grand classical buildings such as the Megliavacca and Carithers were demoed in the name of “Redevelopment”. Todd Zapolski and Trademark Property acquired the property in 2012 and have been slowly transforming the maze into a destination shopping experience. But for 40 years the walkway of shops and restaurants struggled and only now are reaching its original goal.

Residence have been waiting for decades to see Napa’s downtown Dwight Murray Plaza revitalized along with the redevelopment of what used to be called Mervin's department store, now Kohl’s, an reasonable example of Mid-Century Brutalist architecture. The dilapidated Clock Tower that had time right twice a day was razed in 2001. The Square has had multiple artists’ competitions to resuscitate it as the heart and soul of the Downtown. But now, it looks like saving Murray Plaza is the latest lost- cause. A big and highly polished proposal has emerged to wipe this space off the map and out of our hearts.

Say goodbye to Napa Downtown as we once knew it.

On June 5th the Napa City Planning Commission and the public reviewed for the first time- and apparently the last- a massive proposal for significant reconstruction of Downtown Napa. The applicants, PC 300Venture Group and Coombs Street LLC, released for the first time their proposed First Street Napa Phase II for redeveloping

2.85 acres of the city’s core, if not it’s soul, stretching between First, Coombs, Brown and Pearl Streets. The Applicant owns approximately 1.94-acres that includes the former Kohl’s and other users along First Street.

In 2022 Commercial real estate industry veterans Jerry Hunt, Mark Pleis, Howard Overton and Kameron Klotz from Danville launched 3VG, a new, privately held real estate investment, development and advisory company to focus on transforming, underutilized property such as the Napa downtown property. Five years ago, the city made a deal with the applicant to purchase the city owned parking lots, followed last year with an agreement to exchange real estate, allowing the applicant to take over Dwight Murray Plaza. Their current proposal is to create a mixed-use project consisting of 78 high-end condominiums, 161-room luxury hotel and 30,000 square feet of commercial space. Dwight Murray Plaza will be “relocated” and turned into a pedestrian paseo, essentially a narrow alley way. The proposal includes the elimination of two surface parking lots and the redesign area around the 9/11 Memorial, the largest memorial in the West to the tragic event.

In the public hearing, the Commissioners made comments and recommendations. As Commissioner Alex Myers pointed out, multiple issues needed clarification and noted the planning commission only had one shot at this massive proposal. The City Attorney Dan Deporto complained that Mr. Myers questions were inappropriate. The final Commission vote was four in-favor of the massive stack of documents and one vote, Mr.

Myers, against.

This cannot be the last time the Planning Commission and the public get a chance to look, comment and seek modifications, if not denial, of this project.

Let's talk about the process. The Development Agreement is going to be assigned to the City Planning staff for their review only. For such a large project, this is inappropriate.

Granted the staff has worked with the developer for years to assure consistency with the General Plan. I reviewed the attachments and only found one rendering of the First Street six-story hotel. It is mammoth. I know the Planning Department was obligated to accept this skeleton of a proposal but the number of elevations, plans and details shown are well below minimum requirements, for even a simple garage conversion. There are multiple interior renderings of lobbies and multi-story spaces, but they could be New York or Omaha, Nebraska. They lack any relationship to a Napa vernacular.

Not only will Dwight Murray Plaza to be removed, but multiple stores around the Plaza will be closing soon. As noted by the applicant, it took 13 years to get to this point, of which six years were in the planning with vaguely detailed exhibits just now being circulated. It will be another six years before they break ground, let alone get a building permit. In the meantime, multiple spaces will sit vacant, unused. That's all the city needs is to have visitors see closed shops, well into the 2030’s. One restaurant, Allegria will remain but will be overwhelmed by the proposed gigantic adjacent buildings. They will lose their outdoor patio.

One important question is: does Napa need another hotel in downtown Napa? While the revenue to the city for TOT sales and real estate taxes could be significant, hotel occupancies have been dropping as visitors fail to return in the pre-COVID era numbers. Already a number of hotels have been approved but not broken ground. I've been a major supporter of providing more B&B's in the city and I know from experience that their occupancies are down as well as their revenues.

I've discussed with Chuck Shinnamon, a local housing supporter, the housing issue and it's noted that the developers have helped fund the Methodist Church affordable housing project significantly but what happens if it doesn't go forward or is stalled? If the developers were to pay in-lieu fees based on 161 room hotel and a 68 high end condominiums, the fees would probably be significantly higher, but it's all hocus pocus at this time. Mr. Shinnamon points out that studies have shown that up to 50% of hotel employees may qualify for affordable housing. With two-bedroom rental apartments hovering over $2000 a month, shouldn't they be providing employee housing? What about parking? Two lots are going away and the report calls for a “future parking agreement”. The reality is the city will be losing a lot of open parking and maybe….. just maybe…will be replacing them with structured parking somewhere, yet to be determined. Get out your prayer book.

But here is my take: the project is too big, too massive and too unrealistic. This won’t be the first time Napa has looked to a major redevelopment to save its soul. The Napa First Street Mall is just now recovering from decades of mediocrity. The city should never have accepted this bare bones minimal application that does not show the full size, scope or impact on the downtown. The architecture does not embrace our distinctive cultural values.

Chris d Craiker ALA/NCARB welcomes your questions and comments. Email: [email protected]

Shinnamon Family

Napa, CA 94558

June 24, 2025

Napa City Council
Napa City Hall
Napa, CA 94559

Re: First Street Napa; Phase II Design Guidelines

Dear Mayor Sedgely and Councilmembers,

As a long-term advocate for downtown as well as for housing that is affordable, I have concerns as well as positive comments about the proposed project that will encompass the former Kohl’s st ore and adjacent businesses. This is a large and important project, and I am thrilled that the project developers are willing to make a significant investment in our downtown community.

Final Design Review : I concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations regarding design review. However, public improvements including the arcade and the Brown Street pedestrian areas need to have public input and I recommend that the Council add this requirement. I am all in favor of the full redesign they suggest including an integrated design that runs between Pearl and Third Streets.

Hotel Overload? I reviewed the “Downtown Napa Hotel Analysis” prepared by Economic Forensics and Analytics, Inc. It clearly shows the potential for significant revenue to the City in terms of Transient Occupancy, Sales, and Real Estate taxes. I note that the analysis suggests hotel profitability at 67% occupancy, which used to be considered unprofitable. As our local hotel occupancies continue to fluctuate, are we now in a Zero Sum game in which new hotels are taking guests away from existing hotels without really adding overall room nights in Napa and in our Valley? One of these days, we might have an analysis of the actual need for additional hotels.

Housing: As a housing advocate, I acknowledge and applaud the idea of the developers making a payment to help move the approved Methodist Church housing project forward. Yet, this is the same amount as they would be paying as an ‘in lieu” fee to the City. It is not an extraordinary amount.

The good news is that the funds are going directly to an approved project. Unfortunately, those funds are only a drop in the bucket since no funds will be coming from either the Federal or State for the various affordable housing projects that have been approved in Napa. Without significant local funding, these affordable housing projects will not move forward.

As an exercise, I made the following estimate of what a married couple might make at the hotel using the hourly rates in the Staff Report:

Presume husband (engineer - $28/hr.) plus wife (front office - $20/hr.) = Annual income of $96,000.

Per the City’s 2025 Annual Income Limits, for a family of four they would be at approximately 65% of AMI. Using the City’s “Affordable Rents” document, they could afford to pay approximately $2,500 per month for a three bedroom apartment or about $2,200 / month for a two bedroom apartment. Unless they somehow were able to get into an existing affordable complex, good luck finding a place to live in Napa at those rates.

As optimistic as the Staff Report paints the housing picture for employees, we are not being realistic about employment housing and where these 175 new employees are going to live . The City’s In -Lieu Fee /

First Street Napa ; Design Guidelines
June 24, 2025

Page 2 ends

Alternate Proposal is woefully inadequate given this large number of employees who will need affordable housing.

I contacted a regional contractor who is currently completing construction of a Four Star hotel near Paso Robles. Based on this very recent experience and his review of the First Street drawings, he estimates that construction costs for the hotel to be in the range of $600 to $700 per square foot. The City’s In-Lieu fee of $6.00/s.f. is de minimis in relation to the costs to build and furnish this hotel. Why are these needed employees given such short shrift for their housing needs? Given the developers’ request for a Development Agreement with “frozen” impact fees and many other concessions, it is entirely reasonable for the Council to ask for commensurate concessions to help with housing costs. I suggest that the Housing Fee have a cap of $20.00/s.f. incorporated into the Alternative Equivalent Proposal. This amount of money would be a substantial help in making sure that the Methodist Church’s housing truly gets built. This is within the range of Housing Fees that Napa County is in the process of reviewing this summer based on appropriate 2025 Nexus Studies that focus on our Napa Valley community.

Public Access Easement tradeoff: I question the way in which the 0.18 acre “public access easement” is being offset. The public is losing a truly public gathering space that has been in use for decades. In its place, the 0.18 acres is being shown as the walkway area between the hotel building and the residence building with retail uses on the ground floor. That means that they are using our “public” space for their own benefit with ready access to their shops. Instead, I suggest that the 0.18 acres be added to the Brown Street corridor for true “public” benefit. This can be done by widening the corridor and taking away a bit of depth from the building footprint.

Parking: As you know, there is a push for increased parking downtown. New garages are incredibly expensive to build. The DA speaks about a future “parking agreement” to be negotiated, primarily for the use of the Pearl Street garage. Let’s make sure that fair compensation is agreed upon at that time for private use of a publicly funded space and that replacement parking is clearly identified elsewhere downtown so as not to impact existing merchants and their clientele.

I applaud and welcome the developers of this significant project in our town. There are many positives about revitalization of this downtown quadrant along with questions that need to be addressed.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Chuck Shinnamon

Charles W. Shinnamon, P.E.
cc: Kevin Teague
Napa Housing Coalition
City Planning Staff
From: Katie Migliavacca
To: Clerk; Scott Sedgley
Subject: Napa First Street Project Comment Letter
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 3:03:55 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Mayor Sedgley and Napa City Council:

As a fifth-generation Napa resident and descendant of Giacomo Migliavacca, who built the original Migliavacca Building on 1st and Brown Street in 1905, I write today in support of the proposed development on this historic site.

While I’ve long felt disappointment that the original Migliavacca Building was lost to downtown's “redevelopment" in the 1970s, I’m heartened to see a thoughtful new project proposed in its place. The renderings reflect a design that echo the architectural character of the original building from the early 1900s, while introducing new dynamic spaces that will serve both residents and visitors. There is a meaningful link between past and future, and I appreciate the developer’s intentional nod to the site’s history.

In addition to its historical sensitivity, the project offers tangible community benefits and major improvements to the surrounding downtown corridors, creating a more walkable and welcoming environment. What makes this project especially compelling is that it’s ready to move forward now — after six years of planning — rather than being delayed, as we’ve seen with other downtown developments.

Thank you for considering this letter of support. It’s been exciting to watch the transformation of Downtown Napa over the years, and I believe this project would be an inspiring and valuable addition to its future. On a personal note, my father (great grandson to Giacomo) passed away in December 2024, and I know the prospect of this project moving forward would have brought a big smile to his face.

Sincerely,
Katie Migliavacca
Migliavacca Wine Company
Napa, CA
From: Adam Ghisletta
To: Clerk
Subject: First St Redevelopment Project (Kohl"s Site)
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 3:48:40 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgley and City Council,
I am writing today in support of this project. I have seen the design and scope of the project at a presentation from the developers. I think it is thoughtful and a great use of the space.

As we all know Dwight Murray Plaza has been an eye sore for a long time. This redevelopment will improve the overall downtown area for both locals and tourists. It is my opinion that we embrace tourism and use it as a viable source of funds for projects the City of Napa needs.

Having lived in Napa all my life I remember when downtown was dead. There was no one there and nothing to do. Today it is a destination for all of us, locals and tourists. I hope to see more projects like this one that improve our city and allow you as our Council to use the money collected from them for the good of us all.

I sincerely hope that you vote in favor of this project.

Thank you,
Adam
--
Adam Ghisletta
Pinnacle Realty Advisors
Cell: 707-363-5868
GhislettaRealty.com
LIC 01724657
I am never too busy for referrals. I would be honored to assist your friends and family

From: Ryan Stetins
To: Scott Sedgley
Cc: Clerk
Subject: First Street Napa Hotel Project
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 5:12:35 PM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
Good day,
I am writing this to advocate for the approval of the hotel project slated for tonight’s hearing.

Ive been a small business owner in downtown Napa for the last eight years. Compline Restaurant in 2017 & Compline Wine Shop in 2022. My business partner and I developed both plans dependent on a strong level of foot traffic in the first st corridor. Since we opened foot traffic and new businesses have been growing at a a very slow rate and have had high turnover. Understandably, businesses hesitate to open with the uncertainty of business growth and viability. The 2030 Downtown plan defines the need for this type of balance in Napa. The businesses in downtown need the support of another hotel.

In addition, after approving these permits please know that faster is better. A project of this size can make a small downtown area feel like chaos if not done at a steady pace complimentary to the needs of other local businesses.

Ryan Stetins

Napa City CouncilJune 24, 2025

Napa City Council
June 24, 2025