Okay, we can go ahead and get started.

Good evening.

Welcome to the May 7th, 2026 City of Napa regular meeting for the Planning Commission.

I would like to call this meeting to order and ask Myra to conduct a roll call.

Commissioner Ebog.

Here.

Commissioner Masaro.

Present.

Commissioner Shotwell.

Present.

Vice Chair Myers.

Yep.

And Chair Owen.

Present.

We will now rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the America.

To the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God.

The Planning Commission conducts all meetings in accordance with the Ralph M.

Brown Act 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?

There are no changes to the agenda, but I do want to clarify there was a legal ad publication on April 23rd for Gin Grass 1746 Yahomey use permit appeal.

And the applicant ended up withdrawing the appeal.

Thank you.

Commissioners, are there any proposed changes to this evening's agenda?

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?

Alright, the 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 April 16th, 2026.

Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes for the April 16th, 2026 Planning Commission regular meeting?

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Consent hearings.

These are items that are required to be noticed as a public hearing, but the city is not aware of any interest from the members of the public to comment on the items.

However, any members of the public or commissioners 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 have item 6A, Ross Sign Use Permit at 211 Saskill Avenue.

Is there a request from a commissioner or member of the public to pull this item from the consent hearings?

Is there a motion to approve the consent hearing as submitted?

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

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 or appellants are allowed 10 minutes to present testimony at the beginning of the public hearing.

And if needed, five minutes to present rebuttal at the end of the public hearing.

All other speakers will be limited to three minutes.

Tonight we have the following item.

Can we start with commissioner disclosures?

I drove by the site and uh had an email exchange with staff.

I have no disclosures.

I'm familiar with the site and I met with staff.

I uh have a property right next door, so I will be leaving the meeting now.

Okay, thanks for joining us for the first portion.

Um I visited the site and spoke with staff.

Thank you.

And we will now hear a report from staff.

Good evening, everybody.

Um I'll be proposing on the proposed tentative subdivision map at Capitola Drive.

Um, from the applicant team, we have Jeremy Sill and Chris Russell to answer any questions.

Um the applicant proposes a tentative subdivision map, design review permit, and use permit to subdivide an approximately 1.46 acre parcel into eight single-family lots and construct eight new single family homes with associated improvements.

Um the project site is located on the east side of Capitola Drive, south of Capitola Court.

Um, the project site is mostly vacant.

There's a couple um trees.

None of the trees meet the criteria to be considered protective native trees under the code's definition.

There's an existing single family home and filled-in pool that would be removed with the project.

Limited grading is proposed to accompany the new homes.

Currently, the property frontage is undeveloped with curb, gutter, or sidewalk.

In addition, the property currently separates the northern and southern extensions of Capitola Drive, which would be extended with the project.

The applicant requests to divide the property into eight new single-family lots.

In addition, they propose one new shared parcel to host the project's required bioretention facilities.

In addition, they propose to construct eight new single-family homes, including related improvements like retaining walls, including walls over three feet in height, which do require design review approval and a new private street.

In addition, they propose public improvements like the connection of Capitola Drive, a new curb gutter, and sidewalk.

Just relisting the required entitlements with a project, a tentative subdivision map to divide the property into eight parcels and one shared parcel, a design review permit for the subdivision layout for the design of the new single-family homes, and for the retaining walls, and a use permit to allow two flag lots and for the application of small lot development standards.

This is the proposed site plan.

Six of the units would be accessed by a new private street.

Lots four and six are the proposed flag lots.

At the west end of the site, you can see the new public extension of Capitola Drive.

Next, I'll be going through the proposed front elevations of each home.

Each home proposed in the project is unique, having their own architectural design.

Each home incorporates unique features, consistent with the high level of design recommended by our design guidelines.

The proposed units would be between 3,108 square feet and 3,820 square feet.

Like I stated earlier, there would be a mix of architectural styles as each home is uniquely designed, and there's a high level of architectural detail provided in each home.

The retaining walls are mostly located at the perimeter of the site.

Most sections of wall are between one and three feet in height.

There's limited sections above three feet.

Staff has required that any wall that's visible from the public right-of-way be clad in a decorative material to match the adjacent home, like stucco or another siding material.

Four more parking spaces would be provided on each parcel.

In addition, guest parking would be provided both along the new private street and along Capitola Drive.

The Capitola Drive extension would be constructed consistent with city standards, a full 60-foot right-of-way with separated sidewalks and parking on the side of each travel lane.

This linkage is important for the neighborhood broadly as it allows connections to Terrace Drive, Silverado Trail, and Coombsville Road beyond.

Moving into staff's analysis of the project, staff has determined that the project would be exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 1532 of the CEQA guidelines at Class 32 exemption, which exempts projects characterized as in-fill development.

In support of this exemption, staff has prepared an environmental memorandum included as attachment 10 of the staff report.

In order to approve the project, the commission would need to make the findings for a tentative map, a design review permit, and a use permit, in addition to the findings required under the interim zoning ordinance.

With that, staff recommends that the commission approve the proposed tentative subdivision map use permit and design review permit and find that the project is exempt from CEQA.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, are there any questions for staff?

Do you have any questions?

I have one.

Okay.

Um Paul, we got a late correspondence the other day from a concerned neighbor regarding the environmental impact.

Can you speak to that a little bit as to why this falls within the CEQA exemption?

Yes, uh, so we reviewed this project with the city's transportation planner and the project um sorted out both based on its location and um being below the uh VMT thresholds that apply in Napa.

Um it also screens out um when you combine both this parcel with the neighboring project site to the north regardless.

I think furthermore, there's an attachment 10 that we go into detail of how the project doesn't raise any significant impacts um and meet the criteria of a class 32 exemption, and how it doesn't meet um any of the exceptions to for the categorical exemption.

Okay.

In case there were watching, I just wanted that person to have some assurance.

Thank you.

Will the applicant be providing a presentation?

Yes, um, not a presentation, but um a short uh discussion.

Okay.

Hi, uh Chris Russell.

Um, part of the uh ownership group of Gator at Capitola.

And I don't have much to say, just wanted to come up and introduce myself and let you know I'm here to answer any questions.

Um, did just have a couple of uh the things I wanted to mention.

I do want to thank you guys for reviewing the project.

The commission uh also wanted to extend appreciation to planning staff for all the help they gave us through throughout the process.

I was very um, I would say, uh uh surprised um at the collaborative nature that we um experienced during the process with you guys, so was really uh appreciative of that.

Um, just want to point out a couple of things that uh you may have already seen as you're reviewing the project uh that um uh uh I think are just were important to us.

So, number one, these homes compared to some of the other homes in the neighborhood and the surrounding streets are a little larger.

The square footage is uh slightly larger than uh what you find in the neighboring um in the neighborhoods around.

And the reason for that was it's really important for us, and we've seen this a lot as we've built homes uh in Northern California, is that a lot of the buyers are uh very interested in finding homes where they can settle down and stick around for a long time.

So we're trying to design homes where our residents can age in place.

And so when we place when we design those homes, we try to get the master suite on the ground floor, and uh with the master suite on the ground floor, naturally the footprint of the home does end up larger, and so the square footage, you know, likewise increases.

Um so that was one unique thing.

Another thing that we was important to us was uh that we really wanted to pay tribute to the history of Napa and particularly the um architectural history of Napa.

And I know that everybody in this room is aware of uh the unique um uh architecture in in, especially in downtown.

Uh, you know, obviously the Victorians are uh beautiful homes, craftsmen, uh, arts and crafts, even some storybook, really good representations.

And so it was important to us to design homes that um kind of to the extent that we could create a an authentic representation of those um those design elements.

And so um you'll see that they are our uh because of that our elevations, our floor plans are a little unique compared to a lot of what's getting built in uh in Napa today.

So that's really all I have.

Um happy again to answer any questions you guys have.

Um, but that's pretty good.

Thank you.

Does anybody have any questions for the applicant at this time?

No.

Okay, I'm gonna open for public comment.

Myra, do we have any public comment cards?

I didn't receive any, but I do believe there are a few uh members of the public that wish to speak.

Come on up.

Hey, my name is Sean Hughes.

I live at 910 Shelleybrook Court, which is an adjacent property to the 808 Capitola property.

I'm here to urge the Planning Commission to reject the recommendation that the 808 Capitola Drive development is exempt from CEQA.

The staff analysis is fundamentally flawed because it analyzes this proposed development in isolation and not in conjunction with a similar proposed development on a similar timeline at an adjacent lot at 804 Capitola, known as the Harvest Village Subdivision 2, where an additional nine homes have received tentative approval for development.

The staff analysis recommends a CEQA exemption.

However, CEQA expressly states that the exemptions cannot be considered if the cumulative impacts for multiple projects have not been properly analyzed.

Not only does the staff analysis not address the cumulative impacts from adjacent lots being developed for 17 additional homes, possibly even simultaneously, it barely even references the tentative approval at 804 Capitola, which I have to say was a process rife with its own massive irregularities, especially pertaining to public notification and the ownership of the property by a commission member.

Both of these proposals, 804 and 808 Capitola, essentially maximize the housing density of two small lots.

The reality is that adding 17 homes would have massive massive impacts on traffic, parking, noise, the environment, and the quality of life for the current residents in the neighborhood.

The job of this commission is to represent Napa residents and not developers.

The commission should not rush to advance proposals from developers without due consideration for current residents.

Follow the law and reject this poorly formed recommendation for a sequel waiver.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, uh, my name is Noah.

I live at uh 925 Celibro Court, uh, the direct um neighbor behind the uh proposed 808 Capitola.

Um I would also like to uh encourage you to reject the uh current uh proposal for CQA exemption, um similar to what uh Sean just mentioned.

Um it doesn't take into account the fact that uh both of these projects are happening at the same time.

Uh and uh it also doesn't take into account um well my personal experience with uh the developers and the landowners so far.

Um I've had we've had multiple issues with them.

They've had illegal parking lots in both of those sections.

Um I believe it's a conflict of interest.

I'm glad Lisa left, but uh it's a conflict of interest to have one of the owners here uh on the commission.

Um they've opened the two lots together, I believe about a year and a half ago.

Um last bottle rock they had um cars, you know, they had the lot open, so clearly the two of the the two lots are working together and are very friendly at the very least.

Um I think that this shows a clear conflict of interest in uh kind of what is happening.

Um yeah, I would just encourage you to kind of look at things in um a holistic sense and and really look at what's happening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name's Marianne Ellsworth.

Um I live at one Capitola Court.

Um so I if you can take the overhead view of the the neighborhood that has the streets.

Um the property, you see that big pond there.

I have questions about drainage and that the water that um could potentially flood across and has in previous years when um the rain has been torrential, that pond overflowed and the infill that I don't know whether it was legal or illegally happening on 808 to build up for the bottle rock parking has overloaded the drains.

And um I noticed the last big rain we had the drain, the water's coming up through the drains in my property.

So I want there to be consideration about what happens with that water.

I believe it's supposed to go from the pond under Silveron Trail.

I don't I don't know all the specifics.

Um then also connecting Capitola Drive, you know, you would you'll be putting a lot of traffic on those streets that right now can't even accommodate two-way traffic because people are parking on the streets because those neighborhoods are old and weren't built for having cars parked on the street.

So I think there needs to be more consideration before this is uh approved.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Does anybody else wish to speak?

No.

Seeing their normal requests to speak.

Is there a motion to close public comment?

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Public comments closed.

Does anybody have any questions for staff for the applicant?

Um, can we ask the applicant to speak to the drainage issue that was raised by Mary Ann?

Good evening.

Jeremy Sell RSA Plus.

Do we have a um I don't know what plan you have, Paul, that we could show that maybe shows a just a site plan that that might work.

Um yeah, so the drainage is kind of unique in this location.

Um there's drainage kind of off to the to the north there that comes down, and there is it all kind of ends empty empties into the pond, including this property now flows towards the pond.

I think that pond was um, I think it was man-made maybe 30, 40 years ago.

Um, this is off the property, it's a separate property owner.

Um, and so there are numerous pipes that discharge into that pond.

Um, this project is doing city standards.

We are going to be collecting our runoff, detaining it to the city standard level, and then discharging into the pipe that it discharges into now that does go into the pond, right?

So the uh the pond, you know, I can't speak to the pond on whether or not it's how it functions when water gets into there, but we are we're not adding any more water into the pond that's going there now, right?

So we're meeting the city standard and discharging it into the pond.

So into the pipe.

To clarify basically the existing condition of the pond is not being improved, but it is not necessarily being made worse either.

That's correct.

Okay.

And I did want to clarify too, one of the earlier pieces where there are eight lots here, and there's also a separate lot where I think it says parcel A there, so that's a um like a common lot.

So that is there's another lot that's there, and there'll be an easement.

You see the driveway off to the the south.

So there'll be a there's an easement for that driveway to access that detached garage on lot.

What is that six there?

Eight.

Eight.

Oh yeah, that's six where there's eight.

Um so there'll be an easement over parcel A is to so there is there's eight lots plus the um open space parcel.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can I ask a question?

Uh there subdivision creates the eight residential lots, and then the lot that's shown as the bioretention lot.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Uh does it what does it do with the area that constitutes the private drive?

Uh what does it do with the area that what as far as what?

Well, uh, would that retain would that stay in the ownership of the current property owner, or would it be combined with the uh the other common lot?

Uh or what happens to that?

Who who who becomes the owner of the private drive?

That's the question.

So I you know, I'll I'll guess what Chris might say, but I mean I would think that like the there'd be an easement over there, and that the person who has the driveway with that easement, that would be their maintenance, you know, it'd be prescribed like in the C C and Rs of some sort that that driveway maintenance is not for that just the driveway to the the garage is not the responsibility of the whole eight, it's just the responsibility of there'll be something on that easement that is theirs to maintain.

So the eight, the lots then they that you're creating run to the center line of the private drive.

I think you guys are talking about two different things.

Jeremy's talking about the driveways, but you're talking about the street.

The street.

I'm talking, yeah, the the hammer of the T area on that map.

Okay, so I thought you're talking about the bio.

So we moved over to the street now.

So the the parcel the street A.

Not capital.

Street A, the private zero.

The the private street, the that shape like a horizontal T there.

Yeah.

Who's gonna be the owner of it?

So that would that would be part of the, you know, there's gonna be some sort of maintenance agreement.

I mean, you know, some of I don't want to call it an HOA, but it's a maintenance agreement that includes the bio and it includes the proportionate share, eighth an eighth share of the street maintenance of understood.

Uh it the the city has an issue right now.

Well, it's I think it's just clarifying for the record more or less than it is.

Um likely to come as a form of maintenance agreement and reciprocal access agreement, and then the maintenance agreement will speak to the share um between the individual lots.

Is that how else would you do it?

I guess I'm could be a common space parcel that's still maintained, you know, equally by the eight owners.

Right.

And my question really doesn't go to the maintenance.

I understand that there'll be a maintenance agreement that addresses the private drive, I'm assuming, and the bioretention parcel.

Uh but uh there would be then a T-shaped strip of land that nobody owns that isn't conveyed to an HOA or anything like that.

Do you have the parcel map?

I don't want to show the parcels that I don't do.

Uh I can pull it up.

Do you mind putting it on screensaver?

Dan, is your question whether the street is also a separate parcel?

Yes, or could it or could it be combined with the bioretention parcel?

Uh the question arises because uh who would own that parcel.

I understand that the homeowners would enter into an agreement to maintain that parcel, just like they would with respect to the common bioretention parcel, which I understand the HOA would own.

But there's that T-shaped land strip that will be paved and used as a common drive, but the ownership of that stripes.

Do you mind turning it back on?

There we go.

Rider, what usually happens in this situation?

So it it takes two forms.

Um you can have an easement where the individual property lines will go out to the street, and then it the easement is prescriptive of maintenance obligations, and it's usually explained in such a way that it it still takes the form of like an HOA in identifying who's responsible for the cost, who's responsible for maintenance, and at times it can also be a common space parcel owned by the HOA association, and then the maintenance and the CCNRs will identify who's responsible for payment, who's responsible for repair.

You go to the cover sheet, sorry, the first page?

So right there in the bottom right there.

Like, so it's that's a can you I don't know if you can zoom in right there right there.

So that's kind of the clearest easy picture to look at.

Right.

So um I guess it is so right now, I guess the the answer is like we're not only to the center of the street, right?

We're only just so so there's right.

So I think it's point of clarity in the in the plan it shows a common space parcel at the private street.

Oh so it would be owned by the street A, I guess is like you can see clear here right so um yeah it's just like it's like it's not it's not owned at the center of of the street it's owned.

They owned at the back of their the curb or whatever it is right.

So for purposes of the um recorded map and I mean liability does it get glommed on with the bioretention parcel.

There would be different language specific to that parcel but yeah the effectively the association that's created would assume maintenance ownership and maintenance obligations of both the street and the bioretention.

So is it really 10 parcels?

Well it's it's technically still an eight lot subdivision with two open space parcels if you will or common ownership parcels.

Interesting thank you.

It's still an eight lot subdivision that's just a nuance of it right.

Yeah.

Thanks a lot Dan.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sorry.

That's okay.

Are there any other additional questions or comments for the applicant or staff?

Yeah go ahead.

Sorry you may need to come back up.

I was hoping that the applicant team could speak to the choice to utilize a hammerhead and um was it did you look at potentially contacting the adjacent um property and connecting potentially to the other private drive there um kind of what what was the thought process so we did a couple things the the the roads would not align so it would you'd have to jog the road to get it to align with the center of the industry uh behind it also the the I I'm not sure whether that's an hoa behind us or um or whether that's another kind of road maintenance agreement set up but um those do tend to be you know it's you gotta get however many eight neighbors to agree to uh open this up and it seemed like it was probably a long shot we did think about it we talked about it but and it would have been great for our site if the roads aligned it would have been super efficient um but really it came down to the hammerhead or um or a cul-de-sac and we ultimately went with a hammerhead we we we requested to go with the hammerhead because we wanted to the the width of the hair the width of the cul-de-sac really eats into lot number seven there and with the pretty significant change in top I mean the topography of the site the change in grade um it it made it hard to get we were interested in creating you know housing for the city of Napa and uh that would have eliminated one of the parcels and so uh and even even then the grading would have been challenging to get that large of a flat area uh set up in the middle of the site so that's why we chose to go with the hammerhead okay I understand uh just in general hammerheads are not my favorite um and I would have loved to s have seen connectivity but if that wasn't an option I understand and um and also recognize that you're weighing a potentially eliminating in that case one to two parcels of one to two homes so um definitely respect that just one good clarification.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Can someone from staff speak to Noah and Sean's concern of the cumulative lots against Sequa.

So it's very likely actually with the combination of the two would still benefit from an infill exemption.

So it perceived a residential density that would actually be higher than this subdivision allows and really parcels of this size don't typically um raise to certain impacts that would be significant and unavoidable.

Um, nor would they raise in this instance to um evidence that impacts that need to be mitigated at all.

Um so it's important to to recognize that the the projects aren't successive in the form of a cumulative, because they are independent projects that have been entitled at independent timelines.

But assuming that there's still the ability based on the size of the properties to benefit from an infill exemption because that extends up to five acres in size.

Um it's also important to note from a transportation standpoint because there have been other comments received about parking within the general neighborhood and the impacts to the neighborhood based on other projects.

So those other projects aren't on the agenda, but parking in itself is not an environmental impact.

But when you look at the benefit of the Capitola Drive extension, our um our traffic engineer likes to put it in the frame of mind of like a a sprinkler system with one sprinkler and the pressure that feeds into one sprinkler, and when you start adding sprinkler heads or adding opportunities for different access points, it actually relieves pressure onto the roadway systems.

Um but I think in summary there hasn't been any substantial evidence submitted on the record to conclude that an infill exemption is not appropriate.

Thank you.

Public comments closed.

Are there any other questions for staff or the applicant?

No.

It's important to know that they can speak if the chair is willing to give them the opportunity.

Yes, you may speak.

One more time.

One more time.

Let's go.

I just wanted to ask a question, because you you specifically said it's very likely that it wouldn't raise to the uh thing.

Isn't that exactly what CEQA is designed to do?

Is to study this and determine whether or not it does raise to that level.

And without without being able to do the study, how do you like I know you can say it's very likely that it won't, but that's what CEQA is designed to do.

And doesn't CQA specifically say that when there are multiple projects, you shouldn't take them in isolation and that you should take them all together.

It looks into cumulative projects that are deemed successive projects.

And so successive is actually a very narrow um definition.

Uh yeah, the uh the cumulative uh provisions that I think you're referring to uh in the CEQA guidelines that provide an exception to the application of an exemption is that I see nodding heads, right?

Yeah, um staff about actually evaluated the project.

They put the two parcels together, and even together they qualify for the exemption.

So the the exemption provides for uh uh five-acre developments uh that meet the general plan standards and the exemptions are actually very strictly construed, so while uh while you could argue that um you know you you should uh when in doubt uh do more environmental on the other hand exemptions uh are intended to streamline the process and the city could be subject to challenge for not applying this particular exemption because if you walk through the categories that are at issue, it even the two projects combined together meet every one of the standards, uh and so I mean it staff appears to have correctly evaluated it and um uh it would be as counsel it would be my recommendation that uh the exemptions apply, and of course, you know, people are so subject to disagree and have their remedies, but um uh staff seems to have done uh an adequate job here of evaluating.

Thank you, Dan and Rader.

I have a follow-up question for Ryder regarding the pond thing again.

Um I know that's a separate parcel, but what is the city's approach to that surface retention on the adjacent parcel?

What what happens in general if that pond is problematic?

Like if it is subject to um backing up into drains um as Mrs.

Ellsworth mentioned and things like that.

What what what's the deal with that thing?

I'm trying to follow so it if so storm drainage facilities um are usually annually inspected and then have to be maintained, and then there are certain obligations to maintenance, and that those can take different forms.

So where it's primarily on-site retention of facilities, then you obviously have associations that maintain that, and so in this instance, you're not looking at any additional drainage than what's already existing, but as far as maintenance obligations, is that the question?

I'm really more asking for her edification, the parcel that is not part of this application.

The the response from the applicant, which is generally satisfactory to me, is we're not making this situation any worse, and it's someone else's parcel if it's not a great situation.

But uh as someone who's living next to this where her her drains allegedly have a problem from this adjacent pond.

I know this is a little bit off track.

I'm just trying to like give her something to go on.

Understood.

Um let me see, there's usually an independent drainage form of analysis that has to be calculated and prepared and subject to the review of a public works department.

Um so to that specific requirement because it falls onto a private property, it's through the agreement that's executed between both the association here and that private property owner.

So the the agreement would outline responsibilities as it pertains to drainage, but what I would say is that usually it's it's not too uncommon for certain drainage facilities to feed into other waterways.

It's just that no additional, no net like additional um water would feed into those waterways.

May I just interject a question?

Yes.

Just to be clear, when I visited the site, and I believe it was already mentioned, the pond in question is not a part of this property.

Correct.

So I don't understand why we are having this conversation right now.

I'm trying to just give give the I understand, but I feel like this is not the planning commission's um, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you.

So it it's still drainage as it pertains to this this project.

So there's there's a portion of this conversation that is subject to the review of the commission.

Okay.

Then fantastic.

I just wanted to make sure that we're not veering from what we're tasked with.

So apologies for the confusion.

I just needed clarity because I again saw the pond.

The pond looks like it needs some assistance of some kind.

But um, yeah, so where where can we land here to find a resolution?

I don't think there's anything for us to do.

I just wanted her to have some something to take home with her.

Got it.

Yeah.

That's it.

Thank you.

I don't want to follow up on that at all.

Okay.

Not to belabor the point here, but uh if there's an existing condition on that property and it sounds like it's historically been a problem, right?

Then uh I mean the people who are experiencing or suffering from that condition, you know, they can come to meetings of the city and voice the concern about the problem that's existing on that parcel.

And you know, I don't know the details of it.

It it could give rise to a nuisance claim, uh, or it could give rise to a claim that the people who own that property aren't managing it correctly, or uh, you know, the there are other remedies, and to your point, uh the project that's before you tonight has done what it's supposed to do.

So I don't know if that helps or not.

That's very helpful.

Thank you, Dan.

Does anybody have any additional questions for staff or the applicant?

No, okay.

Bring it back to deliberate.

Does anybody want to start?

No.

I'll start.

Um I think that it is recognized globally that infill housing is necessary, critical, and mandated by the state.

This does accomplish that at less than the maximum density, which could be put here.

I commend Paul and the rest of the staff for doing all their diligence and doing excellent job at it.

And I support the project.

Thank you.

Apologies for this lingering cough.

I am not contagious.

I've had this for two weeks, it just won't go away.

Um, so uh apologies I made very well cough during this.

Um apologies in advance.

I am very impressed with the designs, the architectural designs blew my mind away.

I checked out the the development team, the architectural firm.

I looked at their portfolio, their website.

I was very impressed with their mission statement, how what what drives them to do what they do, and what they've done all over the world.

And I feel that we're very fortunate to have this project before us.

I love the designs.

They are an homage to our historic gems.

Uh they you know they are beautiful, they will be beautifully done, I'm sure, and just in terms of the materials and the design and and the track record of the team.

Uh I feel that the parking situation is this is not presenting a parking problem because they're going beyond their parking standards.

If we want to talk about the parking problem in the neighborhood, that may be something that you want to lobby the state's legislature because when people put in ADUs and infill housing, parking is no longer required.

So that's a whole separate issue, but I don't feel that that relates to this project before us.

But that is a we do have a we do have parking issues, and they are becoming more problematic as a result of the state's legislature.

Um, and what else did I have to say about this?

I love that it's a mix of architectural designs, that they're not it's not like track housing.

Um I could go on and on and on about how enamored I am with the actual designs, but you you get the point.

I don't feel that there's anything negative about this particular subdivision.

I think it's creating some wonderful homes in a very unique area, and it will probably improve um the values of other you know homes as a result.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ebach.

I um to not repeat things, I'll just say that I uh echo comments of my fellow commissioners.

Um, despite my comments about the connectivity east and west, um, ultimately, this area in terms of the street grid.

It's it's not really actually even a grid at this point in this area.

So I'm really pleased to see that there'll be further connection.

Um with the extension and connection of Capitola Drive.

Um, it's gonna be not just a benefit to the folks that reside in the subdivision, but the entire area and definitely a step in the right direction, in my opinion, in terms of improving accessibility and connectivity in this part of the city.

And architecture is great, and I support the project.

Thank you.

I echo a lot of what the fellow commissioners have said, especially the connectivity of Capitola Drive infill housing for us is fantastic.

There were some emotions here tonight, and then the emails that we received.

So I just want to strongly encourage the applicant and the development team to continue engaging constructively and transparently with the surrounding neighbors.

The success of the project is not only the compliance and the regulations and design, but also how it integrates with the existing community.

But this is a fantastic project, and I'm excited to see it be built.

Alright, shall we start?

Does anybody want to make a motion?

I can't get through it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Second.

All in favor?

I motion passes.

Congratulations.

All right.

There are no administrative reports.

There are any comments by commissioners and or staff.

Take vitamins and supplements.

Rest well.

Drink plenty of water.

Don't get what I had.

Well, thank you for still coming tonight.

Sorry for uh jumping in there with the public comment closed thing.

Okay.

Reactionary didn't want to open a debate with staff in a public forum like that, but I think it was fine.

I thought that was so thoughtful of you, and I always appreciate that we do acknowledge the letters, and I just I just started feeling that it was beyond what we were um tasked with.

So apologies if I came across as the kabosh, I think it's the it's the hoarseness in my voice that doesn't give that sweet quality of you know inquiring.

Any other comments?

Um just it's very well said.

I think your comments would be.

Oh, thank you.

Great, all right.

I think we have somebody at the audience.

Hi, Molly Radigan, community resources and development director.

Um, I'm sure Ryder has uh some updates for you as he prepares every every time for you.

But um, you received an email from me, but I just wanted to formally end this meeting congratulate Ryder on his uh appointment to the planning manager position officially.

Um, as you saw in my email, um, it was a open uh city open recruitment.

Um, we had lots of qualified applicants.

Ryder had to go through three interview processes, which is you can imagine as an internal candidate can be a little bit nerve-wracking, and did a fantastic job and has really shown us through both his uh um interim stint um and his years here at the city that he's such an asset to the city.

So um I'm thrilled to appoint him to that position.

And while he officially starts the role on Monday, we we were calling him the planning manager already.

So congratulations, congratulations.

And with that writer, do you have anything to report for us?

Just a couple, not not too many today.

Um, we'll just want to to remind, well, to um bring attention to the fact that there's still ongoing efforts in the outreach to assist with um bottle rock operations as businesses like to expand, and the city likes to provide an opportunity for them to expand within reason and in a safe manner.

So and through consultation with planning staff, economic development, fire, police department, in working with businesses, giving them an opportunity to do that given the additional foot traffic that that bottle rock brings.

So continue to follow the agenda forecast.

If you do have any time conflicts or any other conflicts with those projects, just let us know in advance because we we like to schedule and and at times applications, they like to see a full body in front of the planning commission to understand.

Especially if projects can be contentious, and not saying that contentious projects are on the horizon, but um just something to note, um, then that's that's pretty much it for for tonight.

Do you have any comments, Commissioner Massaro?

Just congratulations.

And a reminder about the boards and commissions dinner.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

I am gonna take the moment to make a comment because May is mental health awareness month, and I serve on the stewardship committee for Mentis, which is a local nonprofit organization that provides critical mental health services to the members of our community, and one of the main focuses this year is our youth, especially as our school district continues to face funding cuts that impacts mental health resources and support services that they used to receive.

And the statistics surrounding our local youth struggling with feelings of hopelessness, worthlessness, and suicidal thoughts are staggering and deeply concerning.

So I encourage everyone to visit Mentis's website at mentisnappa.org to learn more about the work they do and how you can support and get involved in their important efforts.

And I also urge the members of our community to continue checking in on one another, especially our young people, and to help foster culture.

We're seeking mental health support is encouraged, and mental health is treated with the care and attention that it deserves.

And that is all I have to say.

Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned, and we will meet again on June 4th as the May 21st, 2026 meeting is scheduled to be canceled.

Thank you.