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 Myra to conduct a roll call, please.

Commissioner Ebach.

Present.

Commissioner Masaro.

Present.

Commissioner Shotwell.

Present.

Vice Chair Myers.

Present.

And Chair Owen.

Present.

We will now rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands 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 this evening's agenda or any supplemental reports?

Yes, in light of correspondence received, we are recommending removing um item six B and moving it to public hearing.

And then there have been four supplemental memos that have been conveyed to the commission.

Thank you.

And yes, we I received those.

So do we need a motion to move item six A to the public hearing?

Yes.

So moved.

Can I get a second?

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Abstain.

I guess I should abstain too.

Abstain.

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?

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Consent hearings.

These items must be noticed as a public hearing, and 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 6A, feast it 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 6A or should we do the B and B first?

Start with the B and B.

Okay, perfect.

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 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 will start with the following items 7A 845 Jefferson Street bed and breakfast use permit.

Can we start with commissioner disclosures, please?

I drove by the site.

Thank you, Commissioner Myers.

I um actually had the privilege of attending the 2012 holiday candlelight tour, and the property was on that tour, so I was um 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 uh presenting on the proposed bed and breakfast in at 845 Jefferson Street.

The applicant requests a use permit to allow the conversion of the structure to a four guest room bed and breakfast.

In addition, the project proposes a certificate of appropriateness permit to allow for major modifications to the property, which is designated as a local landmark and within the first and Jefferson potential historic district.

The applicant is Michael Clark, who will be presenting later.

Just to make everybody aware, there was a late communication after the publication of the meeting agenda.

Staff received an updated plan set with the modified design for the railings proposed with the project.

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 a picture of the updated railing design.

It uh mirrors the existing siting 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.

Um the planning commission's purview really pertains to the use permit.

Um, the application was reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Commission at their May 14th regular meeting.

Um, and the commission recommended that the city council approve the certificate of appropriateness and the um more historic parts of the project.

Um the property is located on the southwest corner of 2nd Street and Jefferson Street within the business professional general plan designation and the commercial office zoning district.

This site is within the first and Jefferson Potential Historic District.

Um, 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 is not officially on either list.

The property is a local landmark.

It's a prairie-style structure, one of the few in Napa, if not the only.

In addition, there's been some damage and modifications to the structure over the years.

Um the site was converted from residential use 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.

Um the applicant proposes to convert the interior of the structure into a four-guest room bed of breakfast.

Each guest suite would contain an ensuite bathroom.

Um there'd be three guest suites on the second story and one ADA accessible suite on the ground floor.

Um, in addition, the applicant proposes communal areas, including shared living and dining rooms and a shared library on the second floor.

Um, the addition of a commercial kitchen at the rear on the first floor, um, and a manager 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.

Um 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 in breakfast would be served daily to guests only.

The project is conditioned to prohibit any non-guests from attending an event or some other function at the inn.

And the site would provide an on-site manager who lives at the site, providing a near 24-7 staff presence.

In addition, the applicant proposes some site improvements with the project.

They propose maintaining the existing parking area off of 2nd Street.

They propose the addition of a new ADA lift at the rear of the structure and some paving work.

All paving work proposed is permeable to reduce stormwater impacts.

Moving into the proposed site plan, you can see the proposed on-site parking area off of 2nd 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 the project was really proposed to maintain the site's garage, which was constructed around the same time as the residence in a similar similar style.

So it does contribute to the historic nature of the property.

This includes policies both in the transportation element and in the 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 the that was destroyed in the earthquake, excuse me, and then addition of railings to 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 found the project consistent with the city's policies for bed and breakfast inns.

The site would host an on-site 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 bed and breakfast inns.

There's four guest spaces and 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 guest 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 bed and breakfast inns.

With that being said, those inns 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 accompanied at the site, so staff didn't feel it would harm the character or livability of adjacent residential properties.

As mentioned previously, the project was reviewed closely against historic design guidelines as a part of the certificate of appropriateness process, and we'd be consistent with design criteria.

No structure moving is proposed with a project.

And in addition, since this project was most, excuse me, the site was most recently used as a commercial office.

There'd be no loss of residential units with the project.

Staff also recommends that the commission determine that the project is exempt from CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 15301, which exemps 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 planning 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.

Overlay district, that the use wouldn't be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of properties or improvements in the vicinity, that the project complies with each applicable provision of the zoning ordinance.

That the establishment of the Better Breakfast Inn is consistent with the general plan, including policies regarding historic preservation and the loss of rental housing units, that the Bed and Breakfast Inn would not be detrimental to the historic character of the site, that the Bed and Breakfast use is compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding land uses.

And in addition, if the property is within 300 feet of another bed and breakfast inn, 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 guest room bed and breakfast in and determining that the project is exempt from CEQA.

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 Abaho 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.

You're welcome.

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 6160 Washington Street in Napa.

I am the owner and designer of the Jefferson Project.

So yeah, thanks.

Okay.

And Paul, how about the slide today?

Oh, thank you.

Oops.

Okay.

This recent photos show the document the existing condition of the Henry J.

Manasseh 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 style houses in the city of Napa.

However, more research is being made, as the discovery a few weeks back of William H.

Corlitz, another prominent Napa architects, has a his signature on the wall in one of the dining room panels.

So I've actually been in touch with landmarks and with um the Napa Historical Society to find out more information on that.

So this 19 um 70s photo was just located um at the assessor's 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, you can as you can see the front uh window on Jefferson Street and the two side windows flanking the fireplace had already been um altered at this point.

So the plan is to um restore this house to its original uh beauty.

Ums will be replaced, chimney rebuilt, porch windows removed to show the original front doors and side lights.

The plans were revised um this week to incorporate the new railing on the second level, uh the floor plans show um restoring the original living room, um 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 uh will be a library leading out to the main balcony.

And the lower level uh will have an apartment for the on-site manager.

Thank you.

Okay, and if you have any questions, let me know.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any questions for the applicant from the commissioner?

No, no, I have one question that I need to ask our attorney.

Um would it be would it be acceptable for me to give this to the applicant because I have two 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 comment.

Your capacity is uh citizen, right?

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, as a citizen, I'm giving that to you, not as a planning commissioner.

You're welcome.

Okay, I'm gonna open public comment.

Myra, 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 or the applicable?

Well, if we have no comments, I'll take it back to the commissioners for deliberation.

Does anybody want to start?

How about Commissioner Shotwell?

Well, if it isn't painfully obvious, I'm in enormous support of this and very grateful that uh you've taken on this task.

It's going to be beautiful, absolutely magnificent, in my humble opinion.

How about you, Commissioner Masaro?

Oh, maybe go next.

Um, I also agree that it is a labor of love when you want to save, you know, one of our historic houses and put it into a use that um that will help it uh live its life through the generations.

Um the only question I have is on the parking exception that we're granting.

I know that we're doing, is it about 40 feet or somewhat of the making it one big large?

It's fairly close to the intersection there.

Um I noticed in the photographs provided in our staff report the there was a red truck sitting there that was backed in to the parking area.

Is there any way we can require back ins rather than front ends drive-ins?

Um, not necessarily.

Um, one thing I would want to highlight is that uh second street is one way in this location.

So that was part of the um the thought process that factored in to us um recommending this.

Um addition, um, it's really an exception from public work standards.

So they they look at things like that, California's new daylighting laws, visibility and things like that, and they determined that it was it would be it wouldn't be a health or safety issue.

Okay, thank you for answering that question.

And thank you for your investment.

Hello, Commissioner Myers.

Well, I think that um this is exactly what the bed and breakfast rules were made for to revive uh somewhat uh languishing uh 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.

And Commissioner Ebach.

Um I will largely echo what my fellow commissioners have said.

I think that this is a great project and I'm excited to see this uh property restored to its glory and uh 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 realize that the costs that goes into both preservation and restoration is great, and um it may not necessarily be able to recoup that cost without it being a B and B use, and this use also gives um more long-term assurance that um 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, um, I think it's a good project, and uh thank you for bringing us forward.

Thank you.

Um I agree with all of my fellow commissioners.

Um I'm in support of this application and your I appreciate your investment and stewardship to revive this building.

What makes it especially um significant is its architectural style.

The prairie style is one of America's most important architectural movements, and they're 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?

Aye.

We have question first.

Okay, let's make a motion.

What are we motioning on?

Um I move that the planning commission forward a recommendation to the city council to adopt a resolution approving a use permit to allow a four-guest room bed and breakfast in and determine that the project is exempt from CEQA.

And I have a second, second, all those in favor.

Aye, thank you.

Motion passes, thank you very much.

Now we'll go back to 6B.

La Petite Elephant Public Art Design Review, 15 Chapel Road.

Will there be a presentation from staff?

Thank you.

Do we need to do disclosures for this item specifically?

Okay.

Um I uh will be recusing myself from this portion of the uh meeting because uh Le Petite is one of my clients.

Okay.

Commissioner Ebach, do you have any disclosures?

Um I stopped by the site and I corresponded via email with the applicant.

Thank you.

I drove by the site.

Uh, to avoid any perception of bias or unfairness, I will also be recused from this item.

Thank you.

You'll be missed.

I had um an email correspondence with the applicant, and I also drove by the site.

Thank you.

All right, and now we'll hear a report 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 Le Petite Elephant.

So just to give you a recap of what's being requested, the applicant is requesting a design review permit to uh give them authorization to install two public art pieces, one on either side of the primary pedestrian gate entrance at the Le Petite Elephant campus, which was approved under a separate project.

The applicant is Ms.

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 Alta Heights 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.

The 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 Heuther.

He is in 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 you're familiar, is 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.

There are 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.

Also may be 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 mind, 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 permit, authorizing the installation of the two public art pieces on either side of the primary pedestrian gate at the Lepetite Elephant Campus, located at 15 Chapel Hill Drive, and determining that these actions are exempt from CEQA.

As I mentioned, the artist is here to answer any questions, and so is staff.

And I do want to clarify based on the um based on the public comments that we had 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 this 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 artwork.

So with that in mind, here for any questions.

Thank you.

Of course.

Do either of my fellow commissioners have any questions for Angela?

Angela, would you mind clarifying both for us and folks in attendance?

What the NAPA Municipal Code specifies in terms of the visibility or like accessibility of the public art from the right-of-way or a 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 setback that it must be from the public right-of-way.

So as proposed, it does.

Yeah, I do have the definition.

So we define 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.

Commissioner Shotwell, do you have any questions for staff?

No.

Okay.

Will the applicant be providing a presentation for this at all?

Um I believe that the artist may want to come on to Mr.

Heuther.

Madam Chair, Commissioners.

Hello, staff.

Um I was not aware that I was representing the applicant, but here I am because the applicant's not here.

Um I am here though because I uh I just wanted to talk a little bit about um well let me start with my background professionally, because I think it's relevant.

Um 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.

Um I initiated the conversation, the process that got us a public art ordinance here in Napa.

Um 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.

Um, 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.

Um I also want to mention, I don't know that it's relevant, but um we my studio, my staff, my wife, um, we donated those sculptures because we it was a gesture of support for for the project and um for the whole idea of having daycare in that building.

Um I don't know if you have any questions about it.

I'm not I'm not used to being I'm 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.

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.

Um maybe 10 15 years start fading, then you just unbolt it and take it down to Berkeley and have it newly powder coated.

It's pretty straightforward.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Do you have any questions for 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 that was the thought.

They fit perfect there, but you know, I don't want to say I don't care, but I I don't I don't think we need to do that.

But if y'all want to put them somewhere else, they're they're pretty easy to manage.

This is 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 if the pads are there now or before it's their it's their property.

They can have pads wherever they want.

Um what's nice though is electricity is there, and those they'll have up lights, so they really light up beautifully as as lanterns.

So um, but I'm totally down with if you guys want to put it somewhere else?

Let's just get get them approved.

Thank you.

All right, am I dismissed?

You are dismissed.

Thank you.

Alright, I'm gonna open public comment.

Myra, do we have any comment cards?

Uh, we did.

We received two public comment cards.

Uh, the first one, Taifuam, and then the second one, Laura Courtfell.

Hi, good evening, Commissioners.

Uh, my name is Ty Fam.

I'm a member of the Alta Heights neighborhood coalition.

Sorry.

I'm asking the commission to apply the city's municipal code as written and require Les Petit Elephant to contribute the required one percent 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.

Um, in fact, the staff report states that the artwork would not be immediately visible from the street due to this due to the site's topography, 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 installation area once cars are parked there, and the site also is marked clearly with private property signage.

The supplemental images that the applicant submitted um yesterday show zoom 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 footings 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 and 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.

Thank you.

And our second speaker.

Good evening, everyone.

Uh, I'm Laura Courthel.

I live at 677 Montecito Boulevard, further up Montecito, actually at the top of Montecito.

Um, Gordon, thank you for your donation.

Any orders to donate art needs to be uh addressed and appreciated.

Um 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 uh 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 Montecito.

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 fire storm 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 uh positioned, we won't be able to see it, the neighbors won't be able to see it.

However, more importantly, is the safety feature of putting it in the 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 to speak, is there a motion to close public comment?

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Motion closes.

Okay.

Um are there any requests for staff or the applicant to respond to anything?

Do you want to respond?

Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Shopa.

Thank you.

Uh so could could you write or Angela speak to the safety issue, or is there a safety issue?

Yeah, so as you can see here, um 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.

And one of Le Petite Elephant's requirements was to work with Napa Valley Transportation Authority to work out an evacuation plan.

So I do believe that they're taking into account all of the site's features when when preparing that.

I would also add, and not to get too far into detail because it's not on the agenda.

This consideration's 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 it based on occupancy type.

Part of occupancy includes adequate egress from the buildings.

So that in itself has been evaluated in the plans reviewed.

So not to get too far into detail, but thankfully the the photos also show that they're outside of that path.

Commissioner Ebach, do you have any further questions or comments?

No.

Madam Chair, um, I think since I'm the applicant or representative applicant, I get to rebut.

Sure.

Gordon Heuther, you can have a minute.

Thank you.

I would like to reboot.

So um, you can get a car through there that distance, so I don't think that that's really a problem.

And um, in regards to seeing it, uh as I said before, um, 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.

Um, and the other thing is, you know, to try to force them to pay another 30 grand into a public art fund.

Um, I don't know.

They're just, I don't know, trying to exact more pain on Millie and all that, but um, it's a goodwill gesture.

It's worth more than, um well, that it's worth more than they're paying, obviously, but that they're 15,000 each, but they sell for 20.

So we're giving them a lot of value, and um there's nothing in it for me except to um help help the um daycare.

So did you have any questions for me or no?

We could cool it's nice to see you all.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the commission.

Um, I do want to say that I do have a little pause.

Um, and I also want to note um say that public art is often on private spaces like Stanley Ranch.

Um, those places it's great brings the public there.

My pause is that I'm gonna want to go see Gordon Hutzer'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?

Um so I don't know if there's another area we want to look at or I have pause on that.

Angela, could you maybe speak to is there is there a gate so find them?

They could theoretically see them, but not go further.

I don't know that is correct.

So the gate is not finished just because construction is ongoing, but as you can see here, the posts um would be located in such a way so that the public art would sit outside of it.

Okay, yes.

That helps ease my I understanding their concern though.

Yeah, so I can't um 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 to 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 wanted I didn't want to walk around it, I wanted to drive around it.

And I I believe from my own vantage point in a 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 they're colorful and I feel that they are close enough to the street that with 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 it is correct that due to the topography of Montecito, when you're driving, you may not be able to see it immediately from the street.

So that is true.

Um but as you've mentioned, I mean, there are several properties on which the public art is located within a private property, but it is still visible to the general public.

And also in there are also there's there is like for instance public art in apartment buildings, you know, like in in those and again you have to go into a courtyard, and so I'm 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.

Um the the one thing that I do have an issue with is the fact that the electrical was run and the pads were poured, 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.

Um because that that is where the confusion lies for me.

Yeah, 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 approved this and you know, they got this approved through the building permit, and now they're wanting to install public art on these pads to satisfy the requirement.

And 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 that wouldn't preclude them from using the pads for something else.

Like this is um 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 um the confines of planner view and such.

So yes.

Um I I did drive by the site, and I I personally feel like you probably can see them.

I mean, these are gonna be bright colors and maybe not if you're not driving by and you're not looking, right?

I'm I was going very slowly and trying to peek.

Um, but I I don't think that there's a strong argument to be made that this does not meet the the definition of public art, nor does it um not meet the ordinance.

I mean I think it does, and um, and take careers um are such an important community resource, and if they have the opportunity to feature art, they don't have to go out and buy or to contribute to the fund, I I think this is to me, this is a slam dunk.

Um I understand other concerns about access or folks coming to the site, um, and would be open to maybe further into 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 pods and run to electrical.

I also have another concern that it it reminds me of the roundabout, uh the first street roundabout.

Um 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, uh an enormous you know, piece, like let's say the infinity thing Gordon Hewlett's what he did at Stanley Ranch, which is spectacular, um, 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 two ways 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 to Alta Heights to walk it.

Um 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 um a hazard?

Yes, and I 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.

Thank you.

Okay, any other comments?

No.

All right, are we ready to go?

Okay, all those in favor.

Do you want to make a motion?

Uh I move we well no wait.

We don't have to close public comment.

We're not to public comments.

Yeah, we did.

Sorry.

Yeah.

Um, I move that the planning commission adopt a resolution approving a design review permit authorizing the installation of two public art pieces on either side of the primary pedestrian gate entrance at the previously approved previous at the previously approved uh lift petite elephant daycare campus located at 15 Chapel Hill Drive and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA.

Second.

All those in favor?

I motion passes.

All right.

There are no administrative reports.

Do you have any additional reports for the commission?

I do have a few updates.

Um so we now have a zoning map that's currently available that's publicly available GIS on the city's website.

Um it's on a planning division web page.

But um, 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.

Um we do have some housing projects that have been submitted in consideration on the horizon, as well as some notable projects that will be tentatively tracking on the planning commission um 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 in timing, especially with residential projects that um we have a full quorum of the planning commission and an action can be taken.

Um zoning ordinance update.

We are returning some comments on the screen check draft, so public draft to go um to be available probably within the next two weeks is what we're tracking for.

Um one item, I don't think it's on the agenda forecast yet.

Likely have a study session with planning commission about middle of July regularly scheduled session for the planning commission.

Um bottle rock, what is it now?

Two and a half weeks ago, three now.

Um there was a lot of outreach that was done um beforehand given the heightened and increased commercial activity in the area and it seems to have been pretty productive.

Um, and we're we're getting some 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 um hopefully even smoother processes next year come bottle rock.

Um won't get too far into detail yet until it's final, but the the city's 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 unless it until it's final yet.

Um hopefully in time introduce you to the interns.

And then um our application instructions have been updated on the city's web page.

Um establishes some timelines and policies for when applications can be submitted.

So we're looking to to receive feedback in in time from the um developer community.

Hopefully provide a little bit of clarity and certainty to what our expectations are as far as um what we need to receive to review development development projects.

Um, and that kind of wraps up the updates that I have for you.

I have questi a question about that.

Um with the application process and your up, is it like an upgrade?

Is it an improvement?

Is that what you're saying?

Um no, not quite, not yet.

So we're still in the the midst of process improvements for um, you know, digital review plan review.

Um that's an ongoing effort from from the city as a whole.

Um 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, um, so it gives a little bit more certainty to the public when they're submitting applications to us.

That's great.

Sounds helpful.

Any other comments by commissioners?

I was just gonna ask Angela, where you're on the screen.

Could you show where the map is, the news outing map?

Yes, absolutely.

So I know where to find it.

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, click on zoning information, 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 you know wants a particular use at a property and we tell them, you know, unfortunately, not a possibility in 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 you know our real estate community and just small business owners looking to get started.

So this is publicly available at that link.

Um 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, um, this is the commissioner comments section.

Uh so I just wanted to say that um I don't think that this is um I think it's okay for me to mention that I did attend the North Bay Healthcare um community breakfast that they gave us just an uh a lot of information about what their plan is in terms of per when the you know they're purchasing Providence and Queen of the Valley, and um and it was so incredibly informative, and I think we're so lucky to have North Bay Healthcare coming in and taking over Providence.

It's really, I believe, from everything I've heard and seen, and their track record throughout, you know, the Bay, well, the Bay Area, Solano County, Sonoma County, and now Napa, they've got a really great track record.

Great.

Just wanted to mention that.

All right.

Well, with that, the next regularly scheduled meeting for the Planning commission of the city of Napa is July 2nd, 2026.

Meetings adjourned.