Good evening. Welcome to the June 4th, 2026 City of Napa Regular Meeting for the Planning Commission. I would like to call this meeting to order and ask my right to conduct a roll call, please.
Commissioner E-Bock? Present? Commissioner Massaro? Present? Commissioner Shotwell? Present? Vice Chair Myers?
Chair Owen? Present? We will now rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Planning Commission conducts all meetings in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and
and pursuant to the city's rules of order for planning commission meetings.
Staff, are there any changes to the evening's agenda or any supplemental reports?
Yes, in light of correspondence received, we are recommending removing item 6b and moving it to public hearing.
And then there have been four supplemental members that have been conveyed to the commission.
Thank you. And yes, I received those. So do we need a motion to move item 6a to the public hearing?
Yes. Can I get a second? All those in favor?
Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
I'm staying.
Public comment provides an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the planning commission on items of interest,
not otherwise noted on the agenda. Each speaker's comments will be limited to three minutes
and will comply with the rules of order for planning commission meetings.
Do we have any members of the public who wish to provide public comments on non agenda items?
Okay, consent calendar. These routine items may be approved by a single vote.
However, any member of the public or commissioner may remove an item for consideration during the public hearing portion of the agenda.
This evening, we are reviewing the planning commission regular meeting minutes for May 7th, 2026.
Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes for May 7th, 2026 planning commission regular meeting?
It's all moved.
Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.
Motion passes.
Consent hearings. These items must be noticed as a public hearing in any member of the public or commission may remove an item from the consent hearing calendar
and the item will be considered during the public hearing portion of the agenda.
Tonight, we still have on the consent hearing item six, a feast at forward temporary use permit 728 first street.
Is there a request from a commissioner or member of the public to pull this item from the consent hearing?
Is there a motion to approve this item for the consent hearings?
So moved. Second. All those in favor? Aye.
Motion passes.
For the public hearing portion, do you want to hear writer item six A or should we do the B and B first?
I start with the B and B.
Public hearings and appeals. These are items that are formally presented to the planning commission and provide an opportunity for members of the public to comment.
Applicants are allowed ten minutes to present testimony at the beginning of the public hearing and if needed five minutes to present the battle at the end of the public hearing.
All other speakers will be limited to three minutes.
Tonight, we will start with the following items seven A, eight four five Jefferson street bed and breakfast use permit.
Can we start with the commissioner disclosures please.
I drove by the site.
I'm familiar with the site.
I'm familiar with the site as well.
I need to disclose that I was recently involved in a transaction as Council for a party that is insular to the property.
But the applicant was not the client is not a source of income to me and I can be fair and impartial.
Thank you commissioner.
I actually had the privilege of attending the 2012 holiday candle light tour and the property was on that tour.
So I was one of the privileged few to actually get a tour.
Many years ago.
And I am jealous.
All right, and now we will hear a report from staff.
Good evening, everybody.
I'll be presenting on the proposed bed and breakfast in at eight four five Jefferson street.
The applicant request a use permit to allow the conversion of the structure to afford gastroom bed and breakfast.
In addition, the project proposes a certificate of appropriateness permit.
I'm to allow for major modifications to the property which is designated as a local landmark.
And within the first in Jefferson, the central historic district.
The applicant is Michael Clark, who will be presenting later.
Just to make everybody wear there was a late communication.
After the publication of the meeting agenda staff received an updated plan set with a modified design for the rail lanes proposed with the project.
And this was based on additional information that the applicant obtained after preparing the original plan set.
The new railing design is more consistent with what was originally present on the home.
I want to highlight that there's no other changes proposed in the updated plan set.
And then this is the picture of the updated railing design.
Meers the existing siding on the rest of the home.
And just a note on the entitlements required with the project.
A use permit is needed for the conversion of the structure to a bed and breakfast in.
In addition to a certificate of appropriateness permit.
The planning commissions per view really pertains to the use permit.
The application was reviewed by the cultural heritage commission at their May 14 regular meeting.
And the commission recommended that the city council approve the certificate of appropriateness and the more historic parts of the project.
The property is located on the southwest corner of second street in Jefferson Street within the business professional general and designation and the commercial office zoning district.
This site is within the first in Jefferson potential historic district.
This is a district that was determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register and the California Register of Historical Resources and the West Napa Historic Survey conducted in 2010 but it's not officially on either list.
The property is a local landmark.
It's a Paris style structure one of the few in Napa if not the only it is.
I believe to be the work of notable local architect Lutheran Tertan and constructive for Henry J. Menassie the son of the one of the owners of the Sawyer Tannary which was a major local industry at the time.
In addition, the site contains a detached garage which would remain with the project.
Here is a close up of some of the details of the site. There's unique lattice like detailing in the eaves, porch columns, there's a unique planter box integrated with the Jimmie at the site.
In addition, there's been some damage and modifications to the structure over the years.
The site was converted from residential used to a dentist office in the early 1950s and since then it's been various other commercial offices.
In addition, the structure sustained significant damage and the 2014 South Napa earthquake including the loss of the chimney.
The applicant proposes to convert the interior of the structure into a four guest room, better breakfast.
Each guest suite, we contain an ensuite bathroom. There'd be three guest suites on the second story in one ADA accessible suite on the ground floor.
In addition, the applicant proposes communal areas including shared living and dining rooms and shared library on the second floor.
The addition of a commercial kitchen at the rear on the first floor and a required manager suite in the basement.
Moving into the floor plan, the interior of the site has been heavily modified since its original use as a residence with this project. The applicant really seeks to restore the original layout and some of the historic interiors of the site.
You can see the ADA accessible suite at the rear adjacent to the kitchen and the new common areas and reception.
On the second level are the three new guest suites, each with an ensuite bathroom and step out balcony.
And then within the basement is the proposed manager's unit. This is a full regular residential living unit with kitchen and bathroom.
The facility would operate consistent with the city's requirements for bed and breakfast and breakfast would be served daily to guests only.
The project is conditioned prohibit any non guests from intending an event or some other function at the end.
In the site would provide an onsite manager who lives at the site providing a near 24 seven staff presence.
In addition, the applicant proposes some site improvements with a project.
The proposed maintaining the existing parking area off the second street.
The proposed addition of a new ADA lift through the structure and some paving work.
All paving work proposed is permeable to reduce stormwater impacts.
Moving in to the proposed site plan. You can see the proposed onsite parking area off the second street.
Currently this is separated into two driveways with the project.
It would be converted to one large driveway curb cut.
This parking arrangement and the exception requested with a project was really proposed to maintain the site's garage,
which was constructed around the same time as the residents in a similar style.
So it does contribute to the historic nature of the property.
In addition, our general plan seeks to promote projects that use creative parking methods on historic properties.
This includes policies both in the transportation element and an historic and cultural resources element,
which recommend flexibility and new strategies when accompanying parking on historic properties.
And just briefly moving into some of the exterior modifications for context.
I won't go into too much detail.
The applicant proposes removal of replacement of unoriginal windows with more historically appropriate windows.
The restoration of the chimney that was damaged in that was destroyed in the earthquake.
Excuse me.
And then addition of railings provide each unit with a step out balcony.
And then looking closer at the north facade facing second street.
You can see the proposed new railing and restoration of the home's main porch.
A removal of some inappropriate windows and restoration of the original railing.
Moving into analysis.
Staff on the project consistent with the city's policies for better breakfast ends.
The site would host an onsite manager.
All guest suites proposed in the project would be within the principal building.
There would be one meal served with the project breakfast and it would be limited to guests.
The project's consistent with the parking requirements for better breakfast ends.
There's four guests spaces in addition one space for the owner or manager within the detached garage.
The project would be consistent with the signage requirements subject to administrative review if and when the project is approved.
And the number of guests rooms is reasonable with the size of the house and it's less than 10.
The project is located within 300 feet of a couple of other better breakfast ends with that being said.
Those ends are at least one block away from the site.
In addition, the site is within a commercial zoning district so it wouldn't.
And it proposes a less intensive use than could otherwise be a company at the site.
So a staff didn't feel it would harm the character or livability of adjacent residential properties.
As mentioned previously on the project was reviewed closely against historic design guidelines.
As a part of the certificate of appropriate as process and would be consistent with design criteria.
No structure moving is proposed with a project.
In addition since this project was, excuse me, this site was most recently used as a commercial office.
There'd be no loss of residential units with the project.
The staff also recommends that the commission determine that the project is exempt from sequa.
The California Environmental Quality Act pursuant a section 15301, which exempts the operation repair maintenance of existing facilities and section 15331, which exempts projects that restore historic properties in a manner that's consistent with the secretary of interior standards.
To approve or to recommend approval of the project.
The Plenty Commission would have to make the findings for a use permit.
That the project is in accordance with the general plan and the zoning ordinance and any others overly district.
That the use wouldn't be detrimental to the health safety or welfare of properties.
Governments in the vicinity, that the project complies with each applicable provision of the zoning ordinance.
In addition, the findings for better and breakfast ends would need to be made, that the establishment of the better and
breakfast in is consistent with the general plan, including policies regarding historic preservation and the loss of rental housing units,
that the better and breakfast in would not be detrimental to the historic character of the site, that the better and breakfast used is compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding land uses.
In addition, if the property is within 300 feet of another better and breakfast in the project would not harm livability in the adjacent neighborhood.
And with that, staff recommends that the planning commission forward a recommendation to the city council to adopt a resolution approving a use permit for a four-guess room.
Better breakfast in and determining that the project is exempt from sequa. Thank you.
Thank you, Paul. Chair. Chair Owen. I did forget about one additional disclosure.
I attended the Cultural Heritage Commission meeting on May 14th. I was there because I was supporting the Napa Abajo Street Signage District situation.
And it just so happened that this was also on the agenda, so I did sit through that entire meeting.
Thank you.
Does any commissioner have a question for staff?
No. Okay. Will the applicant be providing a presentation, Paul?
Yes.
Come on up.
Thank you, Paul.
Good evening, commissioners. I'm Michael Clark.
I live at 616 Washington Street in Napa.
I am the owner and designer of the Jefferson project.
So, I have thanks.
And Paul, how about the slide today?
This recent photos show the document, the existing condition of the Henry J. Manasi House at 845 Jefferson Street.
This 1917 House was designed by Luther Thurton.
It's a significant house in Napa, due to it's one of the only prairie houses in the city of Napa.
However, more research is being made, as the discovery of a few weeks back of William H. Courlitz, another prominent Napa architects,
has a signature on the wall and one of the dining room panels.
So, I've actually been in touch with landmarks and with the Napa Historical Society to find out more information on that.
This 1970s photo was just located at the Ascissors Office from John Tudor, because we had been unable to find any original pictures of the house.
And this one actually shows the upstairs railing.
However, in this picture, as you can see, the front window on Jefferson Street and the two side windows flanking the fireplace had already been altered at this point.
So, the plan is to restore this house to its original beauty.
Non-historic windows will be replaced, chimney rebuilt, porch windows removed to show the original front doors and side lights.
The plans were revised this week to incorporate the new railing on the second level.
The floor plan show restoring the original living room, dining room, and adding an ADA suite on the first level.
The upstairs will have three suites each with private baths and then the large hall upstairs will be a library leading out to the main balcony.
The lower level will have an apartment for the on-site manager.
Thank you. Thank you. If you have any questions, let me know. Thank you.
Are there any questions for the applicant from the commissioner?
I have one question that I need to ask our attorney. Would it be.
Would it be acceptable for me to give this to the applicant because I have to at home and do you have a copy of this.
The candlelight tour, the house is on it from 2012. May I give him this?
Is that okay? Is that acceptable? You may have that. I have another question.
Your capacity is citizen, right?
Okay.
Yeah, as a citizen.
Really?
Not as a plan.
Okay, I'm going to open public comment.
Am I ready? Do we have any public comment cards?
No. Okay.
Well, could I have a motion to close public comment?
Motion to close public comment.
Second.
All in favor?
Aye.
Public comment is closed.
Are there requests for staff for the public?
Well, if we have no comments, I'll take it back to the commissioners for deliberation.
Does anybody want to start?
Have a commissioner shot well.
If it isn't painfully obvious, I'm in enormous support of this.
And very grateful that you've taken on this task.
It's going to be beautiful, absolutely magnificent, in my humble opinion.
How about you, commissioner?
I'll go next.
I also agree that it is a labor of love.
When you want to save one of our historic houses and put it into a use that will help it live its life through the generations.
The only question I have is on the parking exception that we're granting.
I know that we're doing, I said about 40 feet or somewhat of the making it one big large.
It's fairly close to the intersection there.
I noticed in the photographs provided in our staff report that there was a red truck sitting there that was backed in to the parking area.
Is there any way we can require back in, rather than front ins, private ins?
Not necessarily.
One thing I would want to highlight is that second street is one way in this location so that that was part of the the thought process that factored and to us recommending this.
In addition, it's really an exception from public work standards, so they they look at things like that California's new day lighting laws visibility and things like that and they determine that it was.
It wouldn't be a health or safety issue.
Okay.
Thank you for answering that question.
And thank you for your investment.
Well, I think that this is the exactly what the bed and breakfast rules were made for to revive somewhat languishing.
Historic building and bring it back to the glory that I think it once represented and so I look forward to seeing this downtown and being a nice symbol of our history on Jefferson Street.
Thank you.
I will largely echo what my public measures have said.
I think that this is a great project and excited to see this property restored to its glory and historic condition.
I will say that my preference would have been of course for this to be converted into some type of housing, but I also realized that.
The cost that goes into both preservation and restoration is great and.
It may not necessarily be able to.
Recoup that cost without being being being used and.
This use also gives.
Could have more long term assurance that the property will be maintained.
And of course, you know, it's currently commercial and it does net one dwelling unit so all of that to say.
It's a good project and thank you for being a sport.
Thank you.
I agree with all of my fellow commissioners.
I'm in support of this application and you're I appreciate your investment and stewardship to revive this building.
What makes it especially significant is it's architectural style.
The prairie style is one of America's most important architectural movements and their rare and we are lucky to have one in Napa and I appreciate that we will get to enjoy it.
And see it and appreciate it for years to come.
So all in favor.
All right.
We are.
Okay, let's make a motion.
What are we motioning on?
I move that.
The plan of commission for recommendation to the city council to adopt a resolution approving a use permit to allow a four guest room bed and breakfast in.
Under terming the project is exempt from secret.
Second.
All those in favor.
All right.
Thank you.
Motion passes.
Thank you very much.
Now we'll go back to six.
Be.
Lapatite elephant public art design review 15 chapel road.
We'll do a presentation from staff.
Thank you.
Do you need to do disclosures for this item specifically?
Okay.
I will be recusing myself from this personally meeting.
Because Lapatite is one of my clients.
Okay.
Commissioner Ebach.
Do you have any other disclosures?
I stop by the site and I correspond and be a email with the applicant.
I drove by the site.
To avoid any perception of bias around fairness.
I will also be recused from this item.
Thank you.
You'll be missed.
I had email correspondence with the applicant and I also drove by the site.
Thank you.
All right.
And now we'll hear every port from staff.
Sounds great.
Thank you.
Okay.
Good evening planning commission and those in attendance tonight.
I'll be giving a brief presentation on the proposed public art design review for Lapatite elephant.
So just to give you a recap of what's being requested.
The applicant is requesting a design review permit to give them authorization to install two public art pieces.
One on either side of the primary pedestrian gate entrance at the Lapatite elephant campus,
which was approved under a separate project.
The applicant is Miss Millie LLC.
However, the artist is here representing them and can answer any questions.
As you may know, we did receive some late communications.
These communications included two letters of opposition, including some questions from neighbors as well as one letter of support from the applicant team.
These documents and letters were provided as supplemental memorandums to the Planning Commission.
To refresh everybody, the project site is at 15 Chapel Hill Drive, which is within the L-Tites neighborhood.
And the request once again is to install two public art pieces at the previously approved campus to clarify this project is to satisfy the city's public art ordinance requirements.
Property zoning is single family residential, low density residential general plan and the campus is currently under construction and is, you know,
tentatively going to complete that construction at the end of this year.
And the proposed art pieces are barrel rings by Gordon Heather.
He is an attendance today.
So he's here to answer any questions that you may have about the art to clarify the dimensions of these art pieces are approximately eight feet tall by two feet wide.
And these are the specific colors that would be installed on the campus.
So Gordon, as your familiar, he's an artist that is from the city of Napa.
He's done several public art installations throughout the United States.
So he is technically, you know, meets this definition of an artist as defined in our public art ordinance.
As for the materials for the art pieces, they are repurposed wine barrel rings.
They're also rebar, which holds them together and powder coating in the two colors that I previously had shown.
As for the lighting, one light would be installed in each concrete base.
This is directed straight upwards to avoid any glare onto the site or adjacent properties.
And this lighting would be on an automatic timer from dusk till dawn.
And also maybe adjusted as necessary.
To clarify the location for the proposed public art pieces would be on either side of the pedestrian gate entrance. I did visit the site as well to take some more photos of where specifically this would be.
And these photos were taken from the vantage point of Chapel Hill Drive.
So, with this information and with the design review findings in mine as well as the public art criteria that was provided in the staff report, planning staff does make a recommendation that the planning commission adopt a resolution,
approving a design review, authorizing the installation of the two public art pieces on either side of the primary pedestrian gate, at the left heat elephant campus, located at 15 Chapel Hill Drive, and determining that these actions are exempt from sequa.
As I mentioned, the artist is here to answer any questions, and so is staff. And I would do want to clarify based on the, based on the public comments that we have received, staff did want to clarify that although
although the concrete bases were constructed, you know, people can propose to install art or other features on their site, and it's not necessarily, you know, it was permitted through the building permit process.
So, they are coming in after the fact, but that's because they're proposing that the satisfy that requirement.
And with regards to location, I would like to remind the planning commission that you do have the discretion to propose or, or suggest alternate locations for the public art work.
So with that in mind, here for any questions. Thank you.
Do either of my fellow commissioners have any questions for Angela.
Would you mind clarifying both press and folks in attendance?
What the anapomunisable code specifies in terms of the visibility or like accessibility of the public art from the right of why?
Or visual standpoint.
Yes.
So it does just state that it has to be, you know, publicly viewable.
It doesn't specify a specific location or set back that it must be from from the public right of way.
So as proposed, it does.
Yeah, I do have the definition. So it defined public place means any exterior area on public or private property, which is clearly visible to the general public.
If located on private property, the area must be clearly visible from adjacent public property, such as street or other public thoroughfare sidewalk or path.
Thank you, writer.
Thank you.
Mr. Shopwell, do you have any questions for staff?
No, they know.
Okay.
Will the applicant be providing a presentation for this at all?
I believe that the artist may want to come on chair if you are a user.
Not a chair.
I'm sure it's a little staff.
I was not aware that I was representing the applicant, but here I am because the applicant's not here.
I am here though, because I.
I just wanted to talk a little bit about.
Well, let me start with my background professionally, because I think it's relevant.
I've spent four decades in the public art realm, and I have hundreds of installations across the country, and I kind of live and breathe public art.
I kind of consider myself something of an expert.
I initiated the conversation, the process that got us a public art ordinance here in Napa.
This project, it's kind of a nothing burger in terms of there shouldn't be any controversy.
It's totally within the realm of ordinance and what public art is.
And I don't know what's up with the neighbors.
If we put it closer to the street, they'd probably complain that they can see it too well.
I'm not sure what's going on there, but that, you know, there's been a lot of conflict with the neighbors, some of the neighbors.
For the daycare.
I also want to mention, I don't know that it's relevant, but.
My studio, my staff, my wife, we donated those sculptures, because it was a gesture of support for the project and for the whole idea of having daycare in that building.
If you have any questions about it, I'm not used to being used to being over there.
But it's been a while, so I'm not used to being here, so I don't know what you want to know.
What?
I just have a question about the powder coating.
What is the lifespan of that?
Well, it depends on how much UV light exposure that it gets.
Maybe 10, 15 years start fading.
Then you just unbolt it and take it down to Berkeley and have it really powder coating.
It's pretty straightforward.
Excellent.
Thank you.
Did you have any questions for this?
Have you considered any alternate locations on the site?
Yeah, I mean, I drove around out there.
I mean, we could put it somewhere else if you want.
But it's so perfect, because everybody that's getting out of their car and going to the front door,
those two sculptures become a gateway.
And that was the thought.
They fit perfect there, but, you know, I don't want to say I don't care, but I don't think we need to do that.
But if you all want to put them somewhere else, they're pretty easy to manage.
There's just two people hump it down the street or whatever and put it here or put it there.
But it's great that there's pads there.
I don't know why it makes any difference that the pads are there now or before it's there.
It's their property that can have pads wherever they want.
What's nice though is electricity is there.
And those, they'll have uplite.
So they really light up beautifully as lanterns.
So, but I'm totally down with if you guys want to put it somewhere else.
Let's just get them approved.
Thank you.
All right, my dismissed.
You are dismissed.
Thank you.
All right.
I'm going to open public comment.
My red, do we have any comment cards?
We did.
We received two public comment cards.
The first one, Typham.
And then the second one, Laura Corp fell.
Hi.
Good evening, commissioners.
My name's Typham.
I'm a member of the Alter Heights neighborhood coalition.
I'm asking the commission to apply the city's municipal code code as written.
And require a late petite elephant to contribute the required 1% fee to the city's public art fund.
Regarding the municipal code that you quoted earlier,
I just wanted to emphasize that the words clearly visible and general public are part of that.
The proposed artwork does not meet this definition.
In fact, the staff report states that the artwork would not be immediately visible from the street.
Do this due to the sites typography and would instead be viewed primarily by students, parents and guardians visiting the site.
The photographs that I submitted earlier this week show the distance from the public street.
The elevation changes, the limited visibility of the proposed insulation area once cars are part there.
And the site also is marked clearly with private property signage.
The supplemental images that the applicant submitted yesterday show zoomed in images.
But to the naked eye when you're walking on the street, it's not very clearly visible.
So taken together these facts demonstrate that the artwork serves a limited private audience rather than the general public.
I'm also concerned that the project plans indicate the plettings and electrical infrastructure for the sculptures were already installed prior to this review that Angela referred to.
At a minimum, this raises questions about the process and public confidence in the review being conducted today.
Ultimately, the application comes down to a straightforward question.
Does the proposed installation satisfy the city's definition of public art in a public place?
Based on the municipal code and the facts before you, it does not.
Therefore, the applicant should be required to pay the 1% fee into the city's public art fund.
Thank you.
In our second speaker.
Good evening. Good evening, everyone.
I'm Laura Quorthel. I live at 677 Montesito Boulevard for Montesito.
Actually, at the top of Montesito.
Gordon, thank you for your donation.
Any orders to donate are it needs to be addressed and appreciated.
Now, you've heard from other people emails and from the prior speaker about the concern about public art,
only accessible to private audience.
That would be the customers of LPE, the people who are the paying customers of the daycare center.
I am concerned about that.
And I certainly would like to see the art possibly placed on a pedestrian access off of Montesito.
However, my bigger concern about the art is the location.
And did someone measure to make certain because my concern is always safety.
Is that pathway wide enough for transport carts or whatever it's going to need to have to move infants and toddlers during a firestorm from inside that building out to the parking lot.
All the while parents are trying to come in and pick up their child.
My concern about this project from the very beginning has always been about safety.
Safety for the children, for the babies and for the neighbors.
So I would request that someone do some type of research to find out if there is adequate distance between those two structures in order for various numbers of people to be able to access that site.
And I realize this could be an exercise in futility for me.
However, because I am so concerned about safety, that's why I wanted to come and speak.
And certainly if you put it where it's scheduled to be positioned, we won't be able to see if the neighbors won't be able to see it.
However, more importantly, is the safety feature of putting it in a location where it's scheduled to be placed.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Are there any other speakers?
No.
Seeing there's no more requests this week, is there a motion to close public comment?
So moved.
Second.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Thank you.
Motion.
Okay.
Are there any requests for staff or the applicant to respond anything?
Do you want to respond?
Okay, go ahead.
Thank you.
So, could you write or Angela speak to the safety issue or is there a safety issue?
Yeah.
So, as you can see here, this is kind of a zoomed in image of where those concrete bases would be.
And as you can see, they're actually in the grass area.
So this would not impede the pedestrian path at all.
That remains unchanged from the existing pedestrian path.
One of levity elephants requirements was to work with nap a valley transportation authority to work out in evacuation plan.
So, I do believe that they're taking into account all of the site's features when preparing that.
I would also add and not to get too far into detail because it's not on the agenda.
This consideration is not on the agenda tonight, but in evaluating the plans for construction,
it's with a careful eye that our fire marshal and our chief building official review at base on occupancy type.
Part of occupancy includes adequate egress from the buildings.
So, that that in itself has been evaluated in the plans reviewed to not get too far into detail,
but thankfully the photos also show that they're outside of that path.
Mr. Ebak, do you have any further questions or comments?
No.
Madam Chair, I think since I'm the applicant representing the applicant, I get to rebut.
Sure.
What are you there? You can have a minute.
Thank you. I would like to rebut.
So, you can get a car through there.
But this and so I don't think that that's really a problem.
And in regards to seeing it, as I said before, this meets public art requirements, hands down.
There's not even any question.
And you can see it from the street.
Zoomed in or no zoomed in. I drove by this morning to make sure that I was seeing it right.
And the other thing is, you know, to try to force them to pay another 30 grand into a public art fund.
I don't know they're just, I don't know, trying to exact more pain.
Million all of that, but it's a goodwill gesture.
It's worth more than, well, it's worth more than they're paying.
Obviously, but they're 15,000 each, but they sell for 20.
So we're giving them a lot of value.
And there's nothing in it for me except to help the daycare.
So did you have any questions for me or, nope, we good?
Thank you.
It's nice to see you all.
Okay, we'll bring it back to the commission.
I do want to say that I do have a little pause.
And I also want to note, say that public art is often on private spaces like Stanley Ranch.
Those places it's great brings the public there.
My pause is that I'm going to want to go see Gordon,
who there's artwork, but I don't, I don't want people drawn to a nursery school.
Like general public up to the entrance.
So that's where I have a little bit of pause on safety concerns of,
is it appropriate to put a public art piece right at the entrance of a nursery school.
So I don't know if there's another area we want to look at, or I have pause on that.
Usually like a Jew maybe is there a gate?
So line that.
They could theoretically see them but not go further.
That is correct.
So the gate is not finished just because construction is ongoing.
But as you can see here, the posts would be located in such a way so that the public art would sit outside of it, okay? Yes.
That helps ease my partner's concern.
So I can't, I perhaps could have driven around to various locations throughout Napa Valley to see public art everywhere.
And there are many areas whether it's a resort or winery.
In fact, many wineries have public art and they are not visible from 29 or Silverado Trail.
You have to literally visit the resort or the winery in order to see the public art.
So I'm having a hard time understanding because I am familiar with the site.
I walk out of heights on a very regular basis.
And I've walked around that hood like hundreds of times in the last 23 and a half years.
So I am quite familiar with it and I drove around because I didn't want to walk around it.
I wanted to drive around it.
And I believe from my own vantage point in the car that I could see that I would be, I will be able to see this art.
Is that isn't that the case?
Because they're colorful and I feel that they are close enough to the street that they would be within my view.
Is that the case or is that not the case?
So the photos that we provided they are visible from Chapel Hill Drive.
So it is correct that due to the topography of Montesito, when you're driving, you may not be able to see it immediately from the street.
So that is true.
But as you've mentioned, there are several properties on which the public art is located within a private property.
But it is still visible to the general public.
Also, there are also, there is, like, for instance, public art in apartment buildings, you know, like in those, and again, you have to go into a courtyard.
And so I feel like we could argue this all day because there are so many alternatives to where you can put, where you can place public art and fill that need.
The one thing that I do have an issue with is the fact that the electrical was run and the pads report and it's.
I don't know if that we take that back to staff or is that part, I mean, we do they have to get those plans approved before doing it.
Because that is where the confusion lies for me.
I understand generally, I mean, anybody can propose to install, you know, like an uplit concrete pad to put some feature on it for the site.
It just so happens that they approve this and, you know, they've got this approved through the building permit.
And now they're wanting to install public art on these pads.
Is this ever done in lighting? This could have been like, got it. Yes. Excellent. Okay. Fabulous.
That's very helpful. Thank you for clarifying. Yes. No problem.
I might add to that, you know, if we were to decide that this was not a good location, that wouldn't procured them from using the pads for something else.
Like, this is totally within their purview of being the property owner to install these and choose to put whatever they would like on them, you know, within the.
The confides of.
I don't know. I did drive by the site and I.
I personally feel like you probably can see them. I mean, these are going to be bright colors and maybe not if you're driving by and you're not looking right I was going very slowly and trying to peak.
But I don't think that there's a strong argument to be made that this does not need the definition of public art nor does it not meet the ordinance.
I think it does and I take care of such an important community resource and if they have the opportunity to feature are they don't have to go out and buy or to contribute to the fund.
I think this is to me. This is a slam dunk.
I understand other concerns about access or both the community of the site.
I'm going to be open to maybe furthering the discussion about moving.
But I also do want us to think about way kind of the cost to the property owner and whether or not we do think it's very substantial safety risk.
Because they do provide this public service and there will be costs to form new pads and run logical.
I also have another concern that it reminds me of the round about the first street round about.
There was public art proposed for the center of that and then everyone switched gears because they knew that it could be distracting.
I have a concern that if you have, you know, an enormous, you know, peace, like let's say the infinity, the garden here.
There's what he did at Stanley Ranch, which is spectacular.
Something like that on Montecito and everyone's driving by to look at, you know, this magnificent piece of art that becomes a safety risk on the road.
Like if you're, you, you can look at it to waste that.
Yes, I do believe that we will be able to see these sculptures from the street.
I think it's safer to look at them if you're walking by.
And I know that I'm not the only person that drives out the heights to walk it.
So I think that, sure, we could, we could look at spaces that would be visible from Montecito.
But then does that open up a whole new can of worms where it's now becoming people are slowing down to look at the art and it becomes a hazard.
Yes, and I would like to clarify that we did receive public comments prior to the late communications from other neighbors who were concerned about the art pieces possibly being located at the driveway entrances.
So that is a concern that's already been shared with staff.
Okay, any other comments?
No, all right, we're ready to.
Okay.
All those in favor? Do you want to make a motion?
I move, we, we don't wait.
We don't have to close public comment.
I don't know where we did.
Sorry.
Yeah.
I move with the Planning Commission and Dr. Resolution of proving a design review.
Permit authorizing in the installation of two public art pieces on either side of the primary pedestrian gate entrance at the previously approved previous.
The previously approved year.
Let's repeat fatigue.
Elephant day care campus located at 15 Chapel Hill Drive and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from sequel.
Second.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Motion passes.
All right.
There are no administrative reports.
Do you have any additional reports for the commission?
I do have a few updates.
So we now have a zoning map that's currently available.
It's publicly available, GIS on the city's website.
I think it's on a planning division web page.
But if you are curious at all, happy to share a link to that.
So you can dive into the world of maps like us planners do.
We do have some housing projects that have been submitted in consideration.
And I rise in as well as some notable projects that will be tentatively tracking on the planning commission forecast.
So my recommendation is to continue following our agenda forecast.
And understand if there are any timing constraints.
And or conflicts with any of the projects listed because it's important to us in timing,
especially with residential projects that.
We have a full quorum the planning commission and an action can be taken.
So in order to update, we are returning some comments on the screen check draft.
So public draft to go to be available probably within the next two weeks is what we're tracking for.
One item I don't think it's on the agenda forecast yet likely have a steady session of planning commission about middle July regularly scheduled session for the planning commission.
Bottle rock what is it now was two and a half weeks ago three now there's a lot of outreach that was done.
Before hand.
Given the heightened and increased commercial activity in the area and it seems to have been pretty productive.
And we're getting to feedback that was receptive from some business owners in the community.
Our intent is to improve upon some of that outreach debrief with all the respective divisions and departments.
And then hopefully even smoother processes next year come Bottle rock.
Won't get too far into detail yet until it's final, but the city has gone through a summer internship program.
The community resources and development department will likely bring on two summer interns won't give too much detail until it's final.
Yet hopefully in time introduce you to the interns.
And then our application instructions have been updated on the city's web page.
Establishes some timelines and policies for when applications can be submitted.
So we're looking to receive feedback in time from the developer community.
Hopefully provide a little bit of clarity and certainty to what our expectations are as far as what we need to receive to review development projects.
And that kind of wraps up updates that I have for you.
I have a question about that.
With the application process and your.
Is it like an upgrade is it an improvement is that what you're seeing?
So you know, not quite not yet. So we're still in the minutes of process improvements for digital review plan review.
That's an ongoing effort from from the city as a whole.
What we're looking to is clarifying some of the existing application types we have.
When those can be received and the fashion that they can be received.
So it gives a little bit more certainty to the public when there's submitting applications to us.
Sounds helpful.
Any other comments by commissioners?
Angela, what you're on the screen? Could you show where the map is the news out of the map?
Yes, absolutely.
Yes.
And we will be.
We're definitely doing an overhaul of this website.
So there are a lot of funny links that go to funny spaces.
So if you are on the planning division page, you press this little button here.
And then we'll click on zoning map here.
And so this is different and it's helpful, especially for the business community.
Because we now have the ability to search parcels by zoning type.
So specifically when somebody wants a particular use set of property and we tell them,
you know, unfortunately not a possibility and local commercial but check out community commercial.
Now they have this tool to be able to look up properties, which is very helpful,
especially to our real estate community and just small business owners looking to get started.
So this is publicly available at that link.
We'll definitely want to make it front and center.
So there are some website updates coming on the horizon.
Thank you.
I wanted to say this is the commissioner comments.
Yeah.
So I just wanted to say that I don't think that this is, I think it's okay for me to mention that I did
to attend the North Bay Health Care Community Breakfast that they gave us just a lot of information about what their plan is in terms of,
you know, they're purchasing Providence and Queen of the Valley.
And, and it was so incredibly informative and I think we're so lucky to have North Bay Health Care coming in and taking over Providence.
It's really, I believe from everything I've heard and seen and they're track record throughout, you know, the bait, well the Bay Area Solano County Sonoma County and now Napa.
They've got a really great track record.
Great.
So I'm going to mention that.
All right. Well, with that the next regularly scheduled meeting for the Planning Commission on the City of Napa is July 2nd, 2026.
Meeting for adjourn.