SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS-AFTERNOON — Napa City Council, May 17, 2022

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
Office of the City Clerk

City Council of the City of Napa

Regular Meeting
May 17, 2022

FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA

AFTERNOON SESSION:

SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING

3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:

3.D. Napa Sonoma ADU Center
• PowerPoint Presentation by Renee Schomp, Director of the Napa Sonoma ADU Center.

4. PUBLIC COMMENT:
1) Email from Jarvis Peay received on May 5, 2022.
2) Email from Charles Shinnamon received on May 5, 2022. 3) Email from Lynne Posner received on May 6, 2022.
4) Email from Ellen Gallagher received on May 6, 2022.

6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:

6.B. Housing Element Update Introduction
• PowerPoint Presentation by Ethan Mobley, Dynamic Planning

Hello there!
ADU Presentation
For Napa City Council
May 17, 2022
City Coucil Meeting
5/17/2022
Supplemental - 3.D.

From: Renee Schomp, Director
Napa Sonoma ADU Center
● About the Napa Sonoma ADU
Center
● Spotlight:
○ Standard Plans Program
○ ADU construction loan
Agenda
About the
Napa Sonoma
ADU Center
We’re a fiscally-sponsored project of
Napa Valley Community Foundation
here to help Napa & Sonoma County
homeowners build ADUs.

Napa Sonoma
ADU Resources
● ADU calculator
● Local ADU rules
● Address Lookup Tool
● ADU Workbook
● Stories & floor plans
● Webinars
● Vendor registry
● Newsletter & social media

Support for homeowners
● Contact Us:
https://napasonomaadu.org/stay-in-touch
● Phone: 707.804.8575

ADU Feasibility
Consults #3
Hour-long
site visit
Sign up on our website:
napasonomaadu.org/consultations
# 2
Prescreening#1
Questionnaire
#4
ADU Feasibility
Report
Helping
City of Napa
Homeowners

ADU Webinars
Register for upcoming webinars &
view past webinars on-demand:
napasonomaadu.org/aduevents
All You Need to Know
About Prefab &
Modular ADUs!
How to Create an
ADU Permit
Application
How to Finance Your
ADU
Standard Plans Program
SPOTLIGHT 1

New ADU Loan Product
SPOTLIGHT 2
● Opens up financing to homeowners who otherwise may not be able to build
○ Future rental income counts towards debt-to-income
○ Future value of ADU counts towards loan-to-value ratio ● May pair with $40K CalHFA ADU predevelopment grant
ADU construction loan

Amortization 20 Year Fixed Rate
Draw Period 12 months, w/ Interest Only payments
Rate 4.375%
Loan Amount Up to $300,000
ADU construction loan basics
•What it is:
• 20 Year Fixed Rate 2nd Mortgage with
a 1-year Interest Only draw period
• Second lien product – you can leave
your first mortgage in place
Photo: Lanefab Design/Build
Photo: Abodu
•Why it’s so helpful
• Can qualify on the “as complete”
future property value
• Can use the future rental income for
qualification
• Up to 90% CLTV/HCLTV enables
access to more of your home’s equity
• RCU partners with you to help
manage your project
•How to qualify for it
• RCU will look at standard credit
qualifications
• RCU will partner for the
assessment of the property
value
• RCU can process the
application as a preapproval
upfront
How Does the ADU Construction Loan Compare to RCU’s Other 2nd Lien Products? ADU Construction Loan Existing Second Lien Loan Products Fixed Rate HELOCs are variable with the Prime rate
20 Year Amortization Maximum of a 15-year amortization
Up to 90% CLTV/HCLTV Up to 85% CLTV/HCLTV
Use future value and proposed rents to qualify Use existing value and current income to qualify RCU will be the funds manager You act as your own funds manager

Thank
you!

CITY OF NAPA
2023
-
2031

HOUSING ELEMENT

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 17
TH
, 2022
City Council Meeting
5/17/2022
Supplemental - 6.B.

From: Ethan Mobley, Dynamic Planning

PRESENTATION
TOPICS
Introductions
What is the Housing Element
What has changed
How can the Council help?
Next Steps

INTRODUCTIONS

City Leads

Mike Walker

Vin Smith

Others on the call
-
roles for this update

Ethan Mobley
-
Project Manager/
Owner

Brian Greer
-
Site
Inventory & Data
Visualization
Manager

WHAT IS A HOUSING ELEMENT?

The
City’s housing plan
prepared by the Planning Dept. in coordination with
multiple agencies, non
-
governmental agencies and the public

It is a
legislated document
adopted by the Council and signed into ordinance.

An updated housing element is required eligibility criteria for state affordable
housing funds

Updates are required
every 8 years
this update covers 2023
-
2031

It does not change land use controls or zoning and does not allocate budget but would guide or direct those decisions.

PLANNING OBJECTIVES

Housing Production:

Accommodate projected
(RHNA allocated) housing units, particularly affordable housing

Housing Preservation
: Protect & rehabilitate
affordable housing

Affirmatively Further Fair Housing:

Foster an
inclusive community that provides equal access to
opportunity

Housing for All:

Promote housing for all income
levels and special
-
needs populations
Source: Manzanita Family Apartments Apartments.com

KEY COMPONENTS
Housing Needs
Assessment
Analysis
of demographic &
housing trends
Evaluation of Prior
Housing Element
Report on progress
during the last 8
-
year
cycle
Housing Sites
Inventory
Identify
sites where new
housing can be built
Constraints Analysis
Analyze
possible
barriers to
addressing housing
needs
Goals, Policies, &
Programs Establish
a
plan to address
housing needs
WHAT’S CHANGED?

2021
-
Gov. Newsom signed approx. 31 California
bills passed addressing housing issues

2017
-
California Housing Package (15 bills were
passed)

Special mention: Furthering Fair Housing Bill (AB
686)

City of Napa’s housing allocation has significantly
increased!
Source: HCD FHA Webinar (2021)
NEW FURTHER FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT:
5 Areas of
Analysis:

Source: HCD FHA Webinar (2021)

RHNA FOR NAPA CITY (CALCULATED FROM ABAG)
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for City,
Compared to County and Bay Area
Geography
Very Low
Income
(<50% AMI)
Low Income
(50%
-
80% AMI)
Moderate
Income
(80%
-
120% AMI)
Above
Moderate
Income
(>120% AMI)
Total
Napa 2015
185
106
141
403
835
Napa 2022
504
291
319
825
1,939
Napa County
1,138
658
571
1,477
3,844
Bay Area
114,442
65,892
72,712
188,130
441,176
132% increase
from 2015.
192 units
remaining from
last cycle.

RHNA FOR NAPA CITY: W/ COUNTY ADDITIONS
Total RHNA:

Numbers from:

Very Low
Income
(<50% AMI)
Low Income
(50%
-
80% AMI)
Moderate Income
(80%
-
120% AMI)
Above Moderate
Income
(>120% AMI)
Total
Napa 2022 (ABAG)
504
291
319
825
1,939
From Napa County
266
153
86 255
730
TOTAL
770
444
405
1080
2,669
220% increase
from 2015.

ASSUMED GROWTH FROM GENERAL PLAN EFFORTS

New Housing Units
–
Approx. 7,200 to 7,500 units
required to accommodate projected growth.

1,114 Units
required to be affordable by HCD during
sixth cycle. More allocation to come.

Will mirror approach in General Plan Build Out using
opportunity sites and vacant land designated
residential.

HOW CAN WE

ACCOMMODATE
INCREASED ALLOCATION?
The Process:

1. Identify Sites

2. Calculate
Affordability

3. Analyze
Capacity

SITES

INVENTORY
The housing element of
the general plan must
include an inventory of
land suitable and
available for residential
development to meet the
locality’s regional housing
need by income level.
(CA Gov. Code Sec.
65583.2)
Figure
3 :

DP+S's
SMART
Site
Inventory
Model

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
•
Virtual survey
•
Balancing Act
Virtual
•
Pop Up Events
•
Farmers Market
•
Piggy Back with Others
In Person
•
Dovetailing with other community events.
•
Translation services provided
En
Español
Engagement
& interaction
Validation &
direction
Education &
information

NEXT STEPS

OUTREACH

PLANNING

WEBSITE

DEVELOPMENT

SOCIAL MEDIA

PRODUCTION
MEDIA

PRODUCTION

HOW CAN

COUNCIL HELP

Help Plan Housing
Week!

July 25
th
-
July 31
st

Spread the word!

ENGAGEMENT

SCHEDULE
Website Live
June 1, 2022
Online Public Survey /
Balancing Act
June 1
–
Aug 15, 2022
Key Stakeholder
Interviews
June 1
–
Aug 1, 2022
City Council & Planning
Commission Outreach
May
–
Dec 2022
In
-
Person “Housing
Week” Pop
-
Up Events
July 25
–
31, 2022
Public Review
Nov 18
–
Dec 20, 2022
Plan Adoption
April 2023
Ma
y 5, 2022
We have not gotten a
clear and concise response to my emails regarding City of Napa ride-alongs and City of Napa onsite tours. On 3/15/22, I received an email from Mr. Potter stating the following:

Jarvis,
We
are getting pretty close to “back to normal operations” so I wanted to respond to your request.

T
he Police Department has an application to fill out to request a tour/ride along. They also have policies regarding the subject that you should be able to access on the police department web page.

The Fire Department does provide station tours but its best to call and talk to them prior to the request to discuss. They can be reached through their administration number at 707 257 9593.

The Utilities Department does very limited public tours (generally on designated days) at the water treatment and waste management facilities.

The remaining city office facilities do not typically provide tours. We can discuss further if you would like.

Steve
.................................................................................................................

Then I got this:

Jennifer Gonzales <[email protected]>
Sat, Apr 23, 2:55 PM (12 days ago)
to Steve, me
I
am sorry to advise the Napa Police Department is still not hosting public tours due to COVID. We Item 4. Public Comment
have essential services staffing that cannot be compromised at this time.

....................................................................................................................................

I want the
email thread below placed on the public record:

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 6:36 AM Steve Potter <[email protected]> wrote:

Jarvis,

I don’t think the Chief is passing judgement on anyone but rather she, like other City Department Heads, is managing her workforce. I am the person who has told all Managers to preserve their workforce so that we can provide service to the community and this is particularly important for the departments that provide emergency services. Ride a longs and tours will return when staffing levels allow us to do so. In the mean time any help you can give us with recruiting police officers and dispatchers would be greatly appreciated.

Steve

From: King Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:09 AM
To: Jennifer Gonzales <[email protected]>; Steve Potter <[email protected]>; Lee Reynolds ; Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: On Site Access

[EX
TERNAL]
Y
our boss, Mr. Potter, in the email of 3/15/22, sta ted: " We are getting pretty close to “back to normal operations so I wanted to respond to your request. " That statement leads me to believe that a month out from that date, as we are now , you should have a good idea as to when your tours/ride alongs will resume for the taxpayers. You write: " We have essential services staffing that cannot be compromised at this time. " Yet your department is acceding to ride alongs, according to your own city's website, and our other sources. So C.O.P. Gonzales, you are essentially saying that your " essential services staff " are of a greater value than the patrolmen and women, who are of a far greater proximity to individuals on ride alongs than your indoor personnel ? That defies logic. If ther e are no personnel out on the streets, then there will logically be no need for " essential staff ", indoors. The " essential " personnel at the Napa Fire Department are allowing station tours. Are you stating that firemen are less worthy, or essential than your indoor staff? Please answer my questions. On which date next month will I be taking a PD tour and/or ride along ? Jarvis William Peay O
n Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 2:55 PM Jennifer Gonzales <[email protected]> wrote:

I
am sorry to advise the Napa Police Department is still not hosting public tours due to COVID. We have essential services staffing that cannot be compromised at this time. ..............................................................................................

We want
clarity, we want the facts. I have formally made CPRA requests for the staffing data. More are likely forthcoming. Simply, when will tours and ride -alongs begin again, and why does the Chief of Police place different values on different City of Napa personnel.

Jarvis William Peay

pg. 1

Charles W. Shinnamon, P.E.
____________________________________________________

Napa, California 94558 chuckshinnamon

April 28, 2022

Napa City Council
Napa City Planning Commission
Mike Walker, Napa City Planning Department

Re: Draft General Plan Comments Via Email
Draft EIR Comments

Dear Council Members, Planning Commissioners, and Mr. Walker,

I would appreciate the opportunity to add some additional comments on the Draft General Plan as well as on the DEIR.

Pg. 2-11. “Business Professional” definition could use greater clarity to distinguish between uses near the Queen of the Valley Hospital and those in the downtown area.

Pg. 2-20 The outline suggests that there will be a 23% increase in industrial space over the life of the GP. Based on the limited amount of land available for industrial and light industrial uses as well as the GP ’s redesignation of existing industrial land to visitor commercial, I am curious as to how this estimate was established. Similarly, it would be good to have greater explanation for how the increases in office and retail uses are calculated.

Pg. 2-23/26 The Trancas Street illustrations show a wider right of way than currently exists and it shows a highly desirable set of bike lanes. As nice as this looks, I wonder how the additional right of way is going to be acquired and how property owners will be required to dedicate such valuable land to the City without compensation. If this is not a realistic vision, perhaps it should be deleted.

Pg. 2-42 LUCD 3-6. I would encourage a stronger statement and suggest changing the language from, “Where feasible...” to “Unless infeasible,…”. Let us expect and demand higher standards rather than just hoping for them.

Pg. 2-20 Table 2 -2 speaks to the large number of potential new hotels. Nowhere in the GP is there mention of housing associated with those hotels. Please see my comments in this letter regarding the DEIR, hotels, and housing.

Pg. 3-18 TE 3-4. “Prioritize..” rather than “Promote” increased pedestrian and bicycle usage citywide.

Pg. 3-19 TE 6-1. I suggest the City develop a program in which its employees are actively incentivized for walking, biking, using public transit, etc, to get to work. It is far cheaper to pay someone a small monthly bonus for doing so rather than building that parking spot in a garage. And, require that City employees park in the nearby parking garage (s) and preclude them f rom parking in surrounding neighborhoods.

TE 6-4. Include TDM duties with those of the City’s parking manager rather than hiring more staff.

pg. 2

Pg. 3-21 TE 8-4. Why discourage private docks and/or other small boating facilities along the River? Or, perhaps instead, include some stretch goals through which the City will explore the potential of additional public docks along the River.

Pg. 4-12 The Falcon Ridge water tank was originally built to privately serve a very small group of homes along the ridgetop. Subsequently, the tank was taken over by the City. Will its replacement be paid for by the ratepayers or only by those property owners who directly benefit? Pg. 4-13 To further encourage the use of NSD recycled water, I suggest that a policy be included by which the City and NSD fully eliminate their current agreement requiring NSD to make the City water department budget whole when recycled water replaces potable water.

Pg. 4-39 CSPR 8-3. Require, by a date certain such as 1/01/2024, that all food businesses completely shift to compostable take-away containers and/or other sustainable packaging alternatives. This time period would allow businesses to use what they currently have purchased while also putting them on notice about that future requirement.

Pg. 4-40 CSPR 9-3. With all due respect, we might have enough acreage per capita to satisfy a mythical number. However, it is vitally important to understand that some parts of the City are completely underserved by nearby parks. These include the Harvest MS area, Westwood, and others. We need to plan to create new parks to serve those areas.

Pg. 4-42 Goal CSPR-13. Support trail connections and river access to natural areas and the Napa River.

Comments on the DEIR:

Pgs. 3.15-3/4:

The DEIR includes specific discussion about VMT’s and associated thresholds for residential, office, and retail projects. There is no separate discussion about VMT’s associated with hotel development. I expect that the OPR documents and studies have such a discussion and it should be addressed in the DEIR as the Draft General Plan envisions a significant increase in the number of hotels in Napa.

Presume for a moment that hotel projects are similar to office projects as to allowable VMT’s and when excess VMT’s require a finding o f Significant Impact. Per the City’s own commissioned hotel and economic study, it appears that new hotel developments would achieve a finding of Significant Impacts due to the need for new employees to commute to Napa. Following are excerpts from the Bay Area Economics study:

Reference: “Bay Area Economics; Hotel Industry Labor Availability and Housing Affordability Analysis, dated March 28, 2018”.
“The figures in Table 5 indicate that unemployed residents within Napa’s 60-minute commute shed are not lik ely to supply enough labor for the planned and proposed hotels in Napa….However, considering the relatively low salaries of many hotel workers, many people living 45,50, or 60 minutes away from Napa may realize little to no financial gain from accepting ho tel jobs in Napa. Long commutes cause wear -and-tear on vehicles, high fuel expenses, and time away from family, which can translate into higher childcare expenses.” The BAE study goes on to suggest that new affordable housing projects in Napa at the time o f the study’s publication might help alleviate some of that issue. Unfortunately, those new units were oversubscribed by existing workers and residents and such local housing cannot be counted upon to supply local workers. It is time to get beyond the fantasy that new hotel workers will primarily come from Napa.

Clearly, the vast majority of new hotel workers will need to commute from long distances (60+ minutes or more), which translate to VMT’s far in excess of the thresholds in the DEIR. As a result, new hotel

pg. 3

developments that do not provide housing for all or a substantial number of their employees will trigger findings of Significant Environmental Impacts.

Further discussion needs to be had regarding the practical limits of new hotel developments in the City of Napa. With the high probability that new employees will need to commute long distances to work in those hotels, developers should be required to provide complete and detailed information as to where their new employees will live and to why findings of Significant Environmental Impacts related to VMT’s should not be found.

Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely yours,
Chuck Shinnamon

Charles W. Shinnamon, P.E.

From: Lynne Posner < >
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 1:02 PM
To: M
ichael Walker <[email protected]>; General Plan Update <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Liz Alessio <[email protected]>; Beth Painter <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter to be read at next board meeting

[EXTERNAL]

See attached

Lynne Posner

From: Beth Painter
To: Clerk
Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Fwd: Napa County Grand Jury Report Re Red Light Camera Enforcement Re City of Napa Friday, May 06, 2022 1:23:15 PM
ARLE Report.pdf
Here is the full e-mail.

Beth
Begin forwarded message:

From: Ellen Gallagher < >
Subject: Napa County Grand Jury Report Re Red Light Camera Enforcement Re City of Napa
Date: May 5, 2022 at 5:15:25 PM PDT
To:

Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>, Liz Alessio
<[email protected]>, Beth Painter <[email protected]> `
[EXTERNAL]
Good evening,
I have been reading that the City of Napa is considering bringing back the red light
cameras. I highly recommend that you read the attached Grand Jury Report which was directed to the City of Napa in order to make an informed decision regarding this matter.

Best regards,
Ellen Gallagher

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter to Presiding Judge

Letter to the Citizens of Napa County

Map of the City of Napa Automated Red Light Intersections 1

Automated Red Light Enforcement 2

Summary 2

Background 3

i) City of Napa ARLE Implementation Timeline 4
ii) Existing ARLE System Implementation 5
iii) Red Light Citation Fine and Associated Costs 5
iv) ARLE Citations Issued 7
v) Yellow Light Change Intervals 8
vi) Yellow Light Change Interval and California Law 9 vii) Right Turn Movements and Accidents 10
viii) Caltrans ARLE Approval Process 10
ix) ARLE System Costs and Indirect Impacts 11 x) Benefits of ARLE systems 11

Discussion 12

i) Enforcement Clarity and Consistency 12
ii) Reasonableness and Compliance 13
iii) Public Safety and ARLE Enforcement 14
iv) Fines, Penalties, and Fees 14
v) Refunds of Citations 15

Findings 15

Recommendations 16

Request for Responses 17

Commendations 17

Glossary 18

Methodology 19

Appendix 21

I. Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-03
II. California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21453 (a)(c), 21455.5, and 21455.7
III. Customer Management Report (Napa) Redlight Incidents 29-May 2009 to 30 Sep- 2010 by Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc IV. Napa Police Department Reports 2010 – Traffic Accident Statistics
V. Napa County Counsel’s letter to the California Attorney General
VI. Red Light Trial Statistics from Napa County Superior Court
VII. City of Napa Traffic Collision History Report

1 NAPA ARLE INTERSECTIONS

Figure 1

nm

T

SnS

nnS

SnS

2 AUTOMATED RED LIGHT

ENFORCEMENT

SUMMARY
The City of Napa operates Automated Red Light Enforcement systems (ARLEs) at four intersections (See Figure 1). The Napa Police Department (NPD) selected these intersections because of their accident histories. In installing these ARLE systems, the NPD adhered to the California legal requirements and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) directives (See Appendix I). Despite the fact that the NPD was thorough in meeting the installation requirements, the SH 29/12/121 ARLE intersection has critical deficiencies. These deficiencies resulted in financial impacts to drivers who were cited for right turn violations.

The Grand Jury report investigates the City’s ARLE system and recommends remedies for the deficiencies at the SH 29/12/121 intersection.

The SH 29/12/121 ARLE intersection is within the state highway system.

Caltrans does not allow work or improvements within the state highway without an encroachment permit. The NPD obtained an encroachment permit to complete the ARLE improvements by adhering to the instructions and guidance provided by Caltrans’ staff.

This investigation found that Caltrans did not follow their own internal policy directives in issuing encroachment permits for the ARLE improvements within the state highway. Consequently, the ARLE system at SH 29/12/121 has the following deficiencies:
• Lack of an engineering study to address probable design deficiencies and/or alternative countermeasures.
• Lack of clarity as to the legal requirements for setting the yellow change intervals.
• Two right turn phase cycles that provide different and confusing yellow change interval times.

The cost of a red light violation is a minimum of $475 which includes fine, fees, and court costs (See Table 1). Some of these fees are collected for the State for various purposes through a complex funding process set by the California Penal and Government Codes. There is questionable financial incentive for the City to employ an ARLE system due to loss of funds to our local economy. It is also relevant to note that the Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. (Redflex or ARLE) contract with the City requires enforcement of right turns in order for Redflex to guarantee

3 cost neutrality. Cost neutrality is a guarantee that the ARLE system will generate enough money to pay for itself.

Considering the cost of a red light violation, it is essential that ARLE systems strictly comply with state law and that the law is clearly and consistently applied.

The Grand Jury has determined that one aspect of ARLE law relating to setting yellow light change intervals is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. The Grand Jury has requested that the Napa County Counsel obtain an opinion from the California Attorney General regarding the California Vehicle Code Section 21455.7(CVC) so that ambiguities in the law are clarified.

The public must have confidence that ARLE systems meet their principal objective of improving traffic safety. This investigation includes an evaluation of the City of Napa accident statistics and ARLE citations (See Appendix VII).

These statistics indicate that accidents have declined steadily over the last five years and the ARLE system has yet to demonstrate a significant reduction of accidents. The data also indicate that ARLE citations often occur for right turn movements which have very low incidents of accidents.

Based on the findings revealed in this investigation, the Grand Jury proposes several recommendations. One recommendation is that the City refund fines and fees to drivers who were issued citations at the SH 29/12/121 ARLE intersection during the first three months of operation who would not have received a citation under current enforcement practices.

BACKGROUND
In June of 2006, the City of Napa initiated a program to install red light cameras at critical intersections within the City. The focus of the program was to select intersections that have high incidents of violations and accidents. Overall, the goals of the City’s ARLE systems are to:

• Reduce the number of fatalities, serious injuries and property damage that result from traffic collisions,
• Improve the safety of motorists and pedestrians at locations where cameras are in place,
• Improve overall motorist and pedestrian safety and awareness citywide through a coordinated outreach and educational effort.

The specific requirements for implementing an ARLE system are outlined in CVC Section 21455.5 (See Appendix II). Two of the ARLE intersections are

4 located on the State highway system. The NPD sought the assistance of a consultant and equipment vendor to implement the ARLE system.

City of Napa ARLE Implementation Timeline
The NPD followed the timeline below in implementing the ARLE system.

Date City of Napa Action
7/18/2006 The City Council directed staff to pursue a red light photo enforcement program.
11/20/2007 City staff issued a Request for Proposal for red light photo enforcement services.
6/3/2008 The City Council held a public hearing and approved Resolution R2008 107 authorizing a contract for City staff and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. (Redflex or ARLE) to
proceed.
6/13/2008 The NPD contracted with Redflex to furnish equipment, licenses, applications, enforcement monitoring and
enforcement assistance.
4/29/2009 The ARLE intersections at First/Jefferson and Big Ranch/ Trancas became operational and after the required 30 day warning period the City began issuing citations.
7/29/2009 The City of Napa submitted an encroachment permit to Caltrans to install ARLE systems at Soscol/Imola and SH 29/12/121.
11/2/2009 Caltrans issued an encroachment permit to the City. 1/10/2010 The ARLE at Soscol/Imola (SH 221/121) became
operational and after the required 30 day warning period the City began issuing citations.
2/27/2010 The ARLE at SH 29/12/121 became operational. After the required 30 day warning period, the City began issuing
citations.
4/13/2010 Caltrans increased the yellow change interval time on the southbound right turn lane at SH 29/12/121 from 3.2 to 3.8 seconds.

5 The length of time that was necessary to implement the ARLE system indicates the NPD made a thorough and meticulous effort to implement a successful program.

Existing ARLE System Implementation
As a result of the City’s efforts, there are currently four operational ARLE intersections;
• Big Ranch/Trancas
• First Street/Jefferson
• Soscol/Imola (SH 221/121)
• State Highway 29/12/121

Figure 1 shows the locations of these intersections
The City monitors one approach at each of the ARLE intersections. Depending on the configuration of an intersection, each approach may have up to three turning movements. For example, the SH 29/12/121 is monitored in the southbound direction and the cameras identify violations on the through and right turn movements. The northbound and eastbound approaches of this intersection are not monitored by cameras. Failure to stop when traveling in the northbound or eastbound directions at the SH 29/12/121 intersection would not result in a photo enforced citation.

The effectiveness of ARLE systems relies on the public perception that approaches at numerous non-ARLE intersections throughout the City are photo monitored. Many drivers mistake the non-ARLE intersections with infrared signal override receivers and signs as photo enforced equipment. This condition is called the “halo” effect and is promoted by ARLE vendors such as Redflex and has the potential to influence driving behavior.

Red Light Citation Fine and Associated Costs
Failure to stop at a traffic light is a violation of CVC Sections 21453 (a) (c) (See Appendix II). The base fine for this violation is $100.00. The actual cost is a minimum of $475.00. The additional fees are a result of fines and penalties added on by the California Legislature (See Table 1). The Grand Jury acquired the fee schedule from the Napa County Superior Court in an attempt to develop a complete understanding of the fines and penalties associated with this citation.

After three attempts to clarify the fines with the Court, it became clear that the process of allocating fines associated with CVC Sections 21453 (a) (c) is extremely complex and not well understood by even the officials charged with collecting and distributing these funds. The Grand Jury encourages readers to

6 review the referenced sections of the Penal Code and Government Code for a greater appreciation of this complexity.

Table 1 represents the Grand Jury’s best assessment of the fines and penalties and their designated purposes:

DISTRIBUTION OF RED LIGHT CITATION FINES AND FEES

WITH FUND RECIPIENTS AND PURPOSE
Description Amt. Recipient Purpose
Criminal Surcharge $20.00 State General Fund
ICNA-State Court Facilities $39.20 State Courthouse Construction EMS $19.60 County Emergency Services Fund
DNA P.A. GC76104.7 -$1 $9.80 DOJ DNA Lab Analysis
DNA P.A. GC76104.6 $9.80 25% State
75% County
DNA Lab Analysis
State Court Construction $9.80 State Courthouse Construction State Penalty Assessment $68.60 State General Fund
County Penalty Assessment $29.40 County General Fund
Court Construction $39.20 County Past Court Facility Projects Jail Construction $9.80 County Detention Facility Construction Emergency Medical Services $19.60 County Emergency Services Fund VCF – City of Napa $78.40 City General Fund
VCF - County of Napa $19.60 County General Fund
State Automation Fund $7.60 State Courts Automation of Court Functions Security Surcharge $40.00 State Courts Courthouse Security ICNA-Conviction Assess-Inf $35.00 State Courthouse Construction DNA P.A. GC76104.7 -$2 $19.60 State DNA Lab Analysis
Total $475.00
Table 1

Note:

Table
1 provided
by
the
Napa
County
Courts
as
of
12/10.

Table
1 includes
application
of
California
Penal
Codes:
14631464,
1465.7.

Table
1 includes
application
of
Government
Codes:
70372
(a),
70373,
76100,
76101,
76104,

76104.6
&

7. In addition to the above costs, persons cited for ARLE violations are subject to California DMV fees, driver training school fees, and potential costs associated with increases in insurance premiums. These additional costs are specific to individual circumstances and are not collected as part of the total fine for an offense.

Although the base fine of $100.00 has remained the same over the last five years, the additional penalty assessments and fees have steadily increased. The following graph shows the increase in the Napa County Superior Court red light citation costs over the last five years.

7 Figure 2
ARLE Citations Issued
The City provided the Grand Jury with an accounting of the ARLE red light citations issued between May 29, 2009 and September 30, 2010. Appendix III includes the raw data that was evaluated as part of this report. The following table summarizes the number of citations by movement type issued for each of the Napa ARLE intersections:

Intersection Through Right Turn Total
Big Ranch/Trancas 801 0 801
First/Jefferson 2181 538 2719
Soscol/Imola 1615 0 1615
SH 29/12/121 892 3251 4143
Total 5489 3789 9278
Table 2

The number of right turn violations on the SH 29/12/121 is significant relative to the number of citations issued for through movements. Further evaluation also indicates inconsistent numbers of citations issued on a monthly basis. Figure 3 demonstrates the right turn citations issued at the SH 29/12/121 intersection over the first seven month period of operation.
$340
$340

$360

$445

$475

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

$500

2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Year

FIVE YEAR

RED LIGHT CITATION COST

8 SH 29/12/121 RIGHT TURN MONTHLY CITATIONS 2010

Figure 3

The high volume of right turn violations and the erratic number of monthly citations for the SH 29/12/121 intersection provides evidence of irregularities in the ARLE system at this intersection.

Yellow Light Change Intervals
Studies such as the 2007 report “Reducing Red Light Running Through Longer Yellow Signal Timing and Red Light Camera Enforcement: Results of Field Investigation” have shown that the number of seconds the yellow light (the yellow light change interval) is activated has a significant impact on the number of red light violations. The standards for setting the yellow change interval timing are contained in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA- MUTCD). The CA-MUTCD allows the engineer responsible for setting the timing to evaluate the movement, approach speed, and other factors to set the yellow change interval timing.

9 The SH 29/12/121 southbound right turn is especially complex from a yellow change interval timing perspective in that right turns are allowed on a green circular signal (unprotected turn) and a green arrow (protected turn). Prior to May 13, 2010, depending on the phase of the signal, a driver may have had a yellow change interval timing of either 3.2 seconds or 5.4 seconds.

On May 13, 2010, Caltrans modified the yellow light change interval timing for the protected right turn phase from 3.2 seconds to 3.8 seconds. The Caltrans engineer also advised the NPD that the newest version of the CA-MUTCD under review and pending adoption might not allow different yellow light change intervals for the same turning movement. The result of this new change would set the yellow light change interval for all the southbound right turn signal phases (protected and unprotected) to 5.4 seconds.

In light of this information, the NPD implemented a new, informal procedure to be used during the video review of ARLE violations occurring in the southbound right turn lane of SH 29/12/121. Even though the ARLE system may record a violation at a given intersection, a citation is not issued until a member of the NPD reviews the video and agrees with the evidence provided by the ARLE system. Under the informal review procedure, the ARLE system will trigger a violation when a driver enters the intersection from the right turn lane after a yellow change interval of 3.8 seconds. However, the NPD is adding an additional "grace amount" of 1.6 seconds for a total of 5.4 seconds. Drivers who enter the intersection under the 5.4 seconds maximum yellow change interval are currently not being issued citations. The exact date applying this informal procedure was not provided by the NPD.

Yellow Light Change Interval and California Law
The issue of yellow light change intervals and ARLE systems has been controversial in California. In an effort to adopt a consistent standard, the California Legislature adopted CVC Section 21455.7 (See Appendix II). This statute specifically cites approach speeds as the criteria for setting the minimum yellow light change interval times for all ARLE intersections.

Had Caltrans applied the approach speed as the criteria for setting the SH 29/12/121 signal, the southbound right turn yellow change interval would have been set at 5.4 seconds for all signal phases. Because Caltrans does not interpret the approach speed referenced in CVC Section 21455.7 as applying to right turns, the yellow light change for this movement at the SH 29/12/121 intersection was initially set to 3.2 seconds and later increased to 3.8 seconds.

10 Grand Juries have no authority to investigate state agencies. Therefore, this Grand Jury has requested County Counsel to seek an opinion from the California Attorney General regarding the interpretation of CVC Section 21455.7 (See Appendix V).

Right Turn Movements and Accidents
The primary goal of the ARLE system is to reduce accidents. The Grand Jury has investigated the right turn accident history for the SH 29/12/121 intersection. The Grand Jury specifically chose this intersection because right turn citations are responsible for over 1/3 of all citations issued. The Traffic Collision History Report (Appendix VII) provided by the City’s Public Works Department for the SH 29/12/121 intersection dating from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2008 reported 77 accidents. Only one accident in 77 was associated with a vehicle making a right turn.

Based on this accident history, the ARLE enforcement of right turn stops has limited direct benefit of reducing accidents. Vendors of ARLE systems argue that right turn enforcement has an indirect benefit of reducing accidents through the “halo effect.” This effect is a result of drivers in a region becoming more attentive to signal control due to the ARLE systems and citations.

Caltrans ARLE Approval Process
As part of the standard process to install ARLE systems on state highways, Caltrans required that the City submit an encroachment permit. The City contacted Caltrans representatives and followed the procedures for preparing this permit. The permit was accompanied by a report prepared by a representative of the NPD modeled after an example encroachment permit that Caltrans provided.

As part of the investigation, the Grand Jury found that Caltrans has a policy directive for installation of ARLE systems on state highways. Caltrans Policy Directive 09-03 clearly outlines the scope of the engineering study that is required for a local agency to install an ARLE system. This scope includes:
• Analysis of collision history,
• Comparison of collision histories with similar intersections, • Contact of law enforcement and maintenance personnel for opinion and recommendations,
• Field review of site conditions and observation of driver behavior, • Evaluation of previous countermeasures to address collisions and driver behavior,

11 • Identification of possible countermeasures to address collision history and driver behavior,
• Documentation of the study and recommendations to install the ARLE system.

The intent of Policy Directive 09-03 is clear in that it requires a qualified licensed engineer to evaluate the intersection prior to the installation of an ARLE system.

By not having a report prepared by a licensed professional for the SH 29/12/121 intersection, the yellow light change interval, existing driver behavior, and alternative countermeasures were not thoroughly considered. A full version of Caltrans’ Policy Directive 09-03 is included in Appendix I.

The end result of Caltrans not following Policy Directive 09-03 is that the NPD issued citations for right turn violations before the yellow light interval was lengthened and the procedures for evaluating citations were reviewed and revised.

ARLE System Costs and Indirect Impacts
The ARLE system has both direct costs and indirect impacts to the City and its drivers. The following is a summary of these costs and impacts that the Grand Jury identified in this investigation:
• Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. monthly cost is $24,000 for four intersection approaches. Annual total costs for Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. is $288,000.
• ARLE-related court trials increased from eight trials per month prior to the ARLE system to 27 trials per month after the ARLE system was installed. (See Appendix VI for raw data provided to the Grand Jury by the Napa Superior Court.)
• Loss of an estimated 3.3 million dollars to the local economy per year.

This amount was estimated from the total number of citations issued per year at a cost of $475 per citation based on the 16 month period from May 2009 to September 2010 as reported in Appendix III. A portion of these funds is returned to the City and some funds are used to pay Redflex costs.

The remainder is earmarked for Napa County and various State funds outlined in Table 1.

Benefits of ARLE Systems
Reduction of intersection accidents has multiple benefits including public safety, cost of resources required for response, cost of immediate and ongoing medical treatment, and cost of property loss. Early 2010 reports by the NPD show accidents through October 1, 2010, at 455 (See Appendix IV). To compare this data to prior years, the Grand Jury prorated the nine month data for 2010 to

12 represent a 12 month period. Figure 4 illustrates the trend in the City’s traffic accidents over four years.

Figure 4

The first ARLE intersection was activated on April 29, 2009. The premise that the ARLE system has resulted in a significant reduction in accidents is yet to be supported. The data more clearly shows that the incidents of injury accidents have been on a steady decline since 2007 with the highest level of decline occurring between 2007 and 2008 prior to the installation of the ARLE system.

DISCUSSION
Enforcement Clarity and Consistency
The City of Napa followed a careful process of selecting ARLE vendors, evaluating intersections, and conforming to the legal requirements in implementing their ARLE system. Three of the four ARLE intersections were not identified as having deficiencies. These intersections have posted approach speeds of less than 40 MPH.

13 The fourth intersection at SH 29/12/121 had early deficiencies. These deficiencies are primarily associated with the posted 60 MPH approach speed, lack of engineering study as is required by Caltrans Policy Directive 09-03, and Caltrans’ interpretation of CVC Section 21455.7.

After several months of operation and citations, the deficiencies were identified at the SH 29/12/121. The yellow change interval time for one signal phase of the right turn was increased from 3.2 seconds to 3.8 seconds. The NPD also implemented an informal procedure of citing only drivers that would not have stopped even if the yellow change interval was 5.4 seconds.

The basis for the enforcement change was that Caltrans was in the process of reviewing its standards so that all phases of the right turn would have the same yellow change interval timing. If Caltrans had strictly followed CVC Section 21455.7 and based the timing on approach speed, all phases of the right turn would have had a 5.4 second yellow change interval.

Following the change in yellow interval time and enforcement procedures, the average number of right turn citations dropped significantly. To verify that the change in citations was not a result of effectiveness of the ARLE system’s ability to modify driver behavior, the Grand Jury also evaluated the right turn citations at the First/Jefferson intersection (See Table 2). The Grand Jury found that the number of right turn citations remained relatively steady over the first eight months of operation at this intersection. There is circumstantial evidence supporting a conclusion that the increase in the yellow light change interval and enforcement procedures reduced the number of ARLE citations at the SH 29/12/121 intersection.

Reasonableness of Compliance
Although the Grand Jury recognizes the NPD’s efforts to correct the situation on the SH 29/12/121 intersection, we find it particularly concerning that the yellow light change interval timing is so readily subject to interpretation. Traffic rules require consistency and clarity. How are drivers expected to comply with the law when the experts responsible for the traffic signal timing and enforcement must incrementally make adjustments to “get it right”? The strict application of the CVC for all ARLE intersections in California that bases the yellow change interval time on the posted approach speed would provide the clarity and consistency to allow a responsible driver to understand and comply with the law.

The two yellow timing intervals for the right turn phases at the SH 29/12/121 signal compromise the reasonableness of the ARLE system. In the protected mode (right turn green arrow) the yellow change interval is 3.8 seconds and in the unprotected mode (right turn green circular signal) the yellow change interval is

14 5.4 seconds. Should the average driver have the detailed knowledge of the CA- MUTCD to know that they need to change driving behavior when approaching the intersection to make a right turn based on the signal phase? Public Safety and ARLE Enforcement
It is also relevant to note that the Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. contract with the City requires enforcement of right turns in order for Redflex to guarantee cost neutrality. The fact that traffic accident statistics demonstrate a minimal occurrence of collisions on the right turn movement on the SH 29/12/121 prior to ARLE system is important. Cost neutrality is a guarantee that the ARLE system will generate enough money to pay for itself.

Rather than locating automated enforcement on turning movements that will generate a large number of citations, the public interest may be better served by locating the automated enforcement system on the turning movements that have the greatest occurrence and severity of accidents. The Traffic Collision History Report produced by the City of Napa Public Works Department is an excellent tool for evaluating which movements have accidents and which turning movements are good candidates for ARLE systems (See Appendix VII).

Fines, Penalties and Fees
The Grand Jury has two concerns regarding the cost of an ARLE citation. The first is that right turn penalties do not match the risk of the violation. The second is that the fine has increased and is used to fund ancillary government services.

The total cost of a red light violation is the same whether a driver slowly rolls through a red light for a right turn or whether a driver recklessly drives straight through a red light at a high rate of speed. A total cost of $475 appears excessive for failing to stop at a relatively safe right turn.

California Assemblyman Jerry Hill who sponsored AB 909 shares this concern.

AB 909 would have lowered the cost of a right turn violations at ARLE intersections to $250. AB 909 was passed by the California Legislature but was not signed by former Governor Schwarzenegger.

The Grand Jury’s second concern is the way the total cost of the fine is determined. Tacking on additional penalties and fees to fund other government functions does not provide transparency. It creates a complex accounting and funding process that requires additional resources to manage.

Will the California drivers one day see ARLE traffic violations costing thousands of dollars to supplement other government services? What happens to drivers

15 who cannot afford to pay these high fees? Do these drivers end up ultimately losing their license and falling into a downward spiral of penalties and court costs? These questions are beyond the scope of the Grand Jury’s investigation but are important considerations for City officials when evaluating the continuation of the current ARLE program.

Refunds of Citations
Based upon the Grand Jury’s research, the SH 29/12/121 intersection had problems in its first full three months of operation, March, April, and May of 2007 (See Appendix III). During that period, 2,144 citations were issued for right turns on red. Once the yellow light change interval was increased from 3.2 seconds to 3.8 seconds and the City applied an informal enforcement policy of allowing 5.4 seconds, the number of citations dropped. Over the next three month period 1,002 citations were issued.

Based on these statistics, it is conceivable that 1000 drivers received tickets because the yellow change interval timing was set by Caltrans in accordance with the CA-MUTCD rather than the CVC requirements for ARLE intersections.

These drivers may not have received citations had the current signal settings and enforcement procedures been in place.

The drivers who were issued tickets during the first full three months of ARLE operation at this intersection deserve a refund because the initial requirements were neither clear nor consistent and the right turn movement has not been shown to cause an increase in the number of accidents. These drivers would no longer be issued citations under current enforcement practices.

FINDINGS
The 2010-2011 Grand Jury finds that:

F1. The City’s ARLE system was established to reduce accidents.

F2. A disproportionate number of the City’s citations are issued for failure to stop on right turns.

F3. Accidents rarely occur on right turn movements.

F4. More severe and frequent accidents occur due to drivers failing to stop when traveling straight through intersections.

F5. The SH 29/12/121 ARLE signal falls under Caltrans’ jurisdiction; the City has no authority to set signal timing at this intersection.

16 F6. The SH 29/12/121 ARLE system was not studied by a licensed engineer in accordance with Caltrans’ Policy Directive 09-03 prior to the installation of the ARLE system.

F7. The yellow light change interval timing has an effect on the number of citations issued on ARLE intersections.

F8. CVC Section 21455.7 (b) specifically references approach speed as the criteria for setting minimum yellow light interval times.

F9. Caltrans did not use approach speeds to set the SH 29/12/121 right turn yellow light change interval time.

F10. The City and Caltrans recognized deficiencies at the SH 29/12/121 ARLE system.

F11. The City made enforcement changes in an attempt to correct these deficiencies at the SH 29/12/121 ARLE system.

F12. Caltrans made adjustments to signal timing in an attempt to correct these deficiencies at the SH 29/12/121 ARLE system.

F13. Drivers were cited for illegal right turns at SH 29/12/121 prior to the recognition of deficiencies in the yellow light interval timing and prior to the adjustments of enforcement practices.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2010-2011 Grand Jury recommends that the:

R1. City immediately issue a moratorium on ARLE right turn citations at the SH 29/12/121 intersection until such time as the legal requirements for yellow light interval times are firmly established and in place.

R2. City prepare a traffic engineering study at SH 29/12/121 in accordance with Caltrans’ Policy Directive 09-03, within 6 months after the release of this report, to determine if alternative countermeasures or intersection improvements would address driver behavior patterns as an alternative to ARLE.

R3. NPD review and evaluate all SH 29/12/121 ARLE right turn citations, within 90 days after the release of this report, and determine if a citation would have occurred under the most current enforcement practices.

R4. City issue refunds, within 6 months after the release of this report, to drivers cited for right turn violations at SH 29/12/121 who would not have been cited if the current enforcement practices were in place.

17 R5. City immediately limits, after the release of this report, future applications of ARLE systems to turning movements that have a clear history of poor safety and excessive accidents.

R6. City monitors and evaluates the ARLE system for its benefits in reducing accidents and within 6 months after the release of this report publishes its findings in all Napa County newspapers.

R7. City continues the ARLE program if it clearly and substantially demonstrates that the program economically reduces accidents.

R8. City issues a letter to drivers, within 6 months after the release of this report, specifying that the moving violation has been rescinded for those drivers cited for right turn violations at SH 29/12/121 who would not have been cited if the current enforcement practices were in place.

REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code, Section 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requests responses from the following individuals:
 The Police Chief of the City of Napa: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11, F12, F13; R1, R2, R3, R6, R7, R8.
 The Mayor of the City of Napa: F1, F2, F5, F10, F13; R1, R4, R5, R7, R8.
 The City of Napa Public Works Director: F5, F6, F8, F9, F12, F13; R2 The individuals indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the individuals must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.

COMMENDATION
The Grand Jury greatly appreciates the City of Napa’s cooperation and assistance with this investigation.

18 GLOSSARY
AB
–
Assembly
Bill

Alternative Countermeasures: Improvements aside from ARLE that will modify driver behavior to conform to the CVC (e.g. signs, flashing lights, replacement of stop control with yields)
ARLE - Automated Red Light Enforcement System
CA
‐
MUTCD
–
California
Manual
of
Uniform
Traffic
Control
Devices

Caltrans
–
California
Department
of
Transportation

CVC
–
California
Vehicle
Code

DMV – California Department of Motor Vehicles
Halo
effect
–drivers
in
a
region
become
more
attentive
to
signal
controls
due

to
the
ARLE
systems
and
citations
issued.

NPD
–
City
of
Napa
Police
Department

Policy
Directive
09‐03
–
Traffic
Operations
Policy
directive
09‐03
(See

Appendix
I)

Protected
left
turn
–
A
signalized
left
turn
movement
allowed
by
a
green

arrow

Protected
right
turn
–
A
signalized
right
turn
movement
allowed
by
a
green

arrow

Right
angle
collisions
–
a
collision
where
one
vehicle
strikes
the
side
of

another
(T‐bone).

SB
–
Senate
Bill

SH - State Highway
Yellow Change Interval Time - The time, measured in seconds and tenths of seconds, a traffic light is displaying a yellow light; the interval time begins when

19 the traffic light changes from green to yellow, and ends when the traffic light changes from yellow to red.

METHODOLOGY
Information for this investigation was gathered through numerous interviews with City employees, citizens, document analysis, and internet research. The Grand Jury researched relevant California Vehicle, Government and Penal Codes. In addition, the Grand Jury also took a field trip to the NPD to see how photos of red light violations are reviewed and tickets are issued. This information was used to compile questions for interviews as well as to clarify information learned from interviews.

Interviews conducted with City employees included
personnel from:
• City of Napa Police Department
• City of Napa Public Works
• Napa County Superior Court
Websites and Documents reviewed:
• “Red-Light Cameras in Texas, A Status Report.” House Research Organization, Texas House of Representatives, July 31, 2006 • “Reducing Red Light Running Through Longer Yellow Signal Timing and Red Light Camera Enforcement: Results of Field Investigation”, January 2007
• 2009-2010 San Mateo County Grand Jury Report: “Effectiveness of Red Light Traffic Camera Enforcement”
• AB #1022, Chapter 511
• AB #909, August 25, 2010
• Agreement between the City of Napa and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. for Automated Photo Enforcement Cameras, June 13, 2008
• CA Department of Transportation
• CA Government Codes: 70372(a), 70373, 76100, 76101, 76104, 76104.6 and 7
• CA MUTCD, Section 4D.10 & Section 4D.26 Part 4
• CA Penal Code Sections 1464, 1465.7

20 • Caltrans Policy Directive 09-03
• City of Napa, RFP #0701, Red Light Camera System
• CVC Sections 21455.5 – 21455.7, 40518, 40520
• House Research Organization, Texas House of Representatives, Focus Report, July 31, 2006, “Red-Light Cameras in Texas: A Status Report” • Napa City Council Meeting Summary of Council Actions for June 3, 2008 • Napa City Council, Public Hearing Calendar, Agenda Item No. 16A, June 3, 2008
• Public Hearing Calendar, City of Napa, Agenda Item #16A, June 3, 2008 • Red Light Photo Enforcement Program, Business Rules, Doc No. 3130- 001-V1.2, City of Napa
• SB 667 (specifications for official traffic control devices) • The Gazette, Colorado Springs, Colorado, “What You Need to Know About Red-Light Cameras,” October 10, 2010
• Traffic Infraction Fixed Penalty Schedule provided by the Court • U. S. Department of Transportation “Red Light Camera Systems:

Operational Guidelines,” January 2005
• www.bsa.ca.gov
• www.cityofnapa.org
• www.countyofnapa.org
• www.napavalleyregister.com

21 APPENDIX
I. Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-03
II. California Vehicle Code Sections 21453 (a)(c), 21455.5, and 21455.7 III. Customer Management Report (Napa) Redlight Incidents 29-May 2009 to 30 Sep-2010 by Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.

IV. Napa Police Department Reports 2010 – Traffic Accident Statistics V. Napa County Counsel’s letter to the California Attorney General VI. Red Light Trial Statistics from Napa County Superior Court VII. City of Napa Traffic Collision History Report

APPENDIX I

VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 21453,21455.5,.6,&.7

2145

3. (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
(b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver, after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a one-way street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver can proceed with reasonable safety.
(c) A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication permitting movement is shown. (d) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, a pedestrian facing a steady circular red or red arrow signal shall not enter the roadway.

21455.5. (a) The limit line, the intersection, or a place designated in Section 21455, where a driver is required to stop, may be equipped with an automated enforcement system if the governmental agency utilizing the system meets all of the following requirements:
(1) Identifies the system by signs that clearly indicate the system's presence and are visible to traffic approaching from all directions, or posts signs at all major entrances to the city, including, at a minimum, freeways, bridges, and state highway routes. (2) If it locates the system at an intersection, and ensures that the system meets the criteria specified in Section 21455.7. (b) Prior to issuing citations under this section, a local jurisdiction utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system shall commence a program to issue only warning notices for 30 days. The local jurisdiction shall also make a public announcement of the automated traffic enforcement system at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the enforcement program.
(c) Only a governmental agency, in cooperation with a law enforcement agency, may operate an automated enforcement system. As used in this subdivision, "operate" includes all of the following activities:
(1) Developing uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violations and for the processing and storage of confidential information, and establishing procedures to ensure compliance with those guidelines.
(2) Performing administrative functions and day-to-day functions,

APPENDIX II
including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(A) Establishing guidelines for selection of location.
(B) Ensuring that the equipment is regularly inspected. (C) Certifying that the equipment is properly installed and calibrated, and is operating properly.
(D) Regularly inspecting and maintaining warning signs placed under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).
(E) Overseeing the establishment or change of signal phases and the timing thereof.
(F) Maintaining controls necessary to assure that only those citations that have been reviewed and approved by law enforcement are delivered to violators.
(d) The activities listed in subdivision (c) that relate to the operation of the system may be contracted out by the governmental agency, if it maintains overall control and supervision of the system. However, the activities listed in paragraph (1) of, and subparagraphs (A), (D), (E), and (F) of paragraph (2) of, subdivision (c) may not be contracted out to the manufacturer or supplier of the automated enforcement system.
(e) (1) Notwithstanding Section 6253 of the Government Code, or any other provision of law, photographic records made by an automated enforcement system shall be confidential, and shall be made available only to governmental agencies and law enforcement agencies and only for the purposes of this article.
(2) Confidential information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles for the administration or enforcement of this article shall be held confidential, and may not be used for any other purpose. (3) Except for court records described in Section 68152 of the Government Code, the confidential records and information described in paragraphs (1) and (2) may be retained for up to six months from the date the information was first obtained, or until final disposition of the citation, whichever date is later, after which time the information shall be destroyed in a manner that will preserve the confidentiality of any person included in the record or information.
(f) Notwithstanding subdivision (e), the registered owner or any individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation shall be permitted to review the photographic evidence of the alleged violation. (g) (1) A contract between a governmental agency and a
manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment may not include provision for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated, as a result of the use of the equipment authorized under this section.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a contract that was entered into by a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment before January 1, 2004, unless that contract is renewed, extended, or amended on or after January 1, 2004.

21455.6. (a) A city council or county board of supervisors shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed use of an automated enforcement system authorized under Section 21455.5 prior to authorizing the city or county to enter into a contract for the use of the system.

APPENDIX II
(b) (1) The activities listed in subdivision (c) of Section 21455.5 that relate to the operation of an automated enforcement system may be contracted out by the city or county, except that the activities listed in paragraph (1) of, and subparagraphs (A), (D), (E), or (F) of paragraph (2) of, subdivision (c) of Section 21455.5 may not be contracted out to the manufacturer or supplier of the automated enforcement system.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a contract that was entered into by a city or county and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment before January 1, 2004, unless that contract is renewed, extended, or amended on or after January 1, 2004. (c) The authorization in Section 21455.5 to use automated enforcement systems does not authorize the use of photo radar for speed enforcement purposes by any jurisdiction.

21455.7. (a) At an intersection at which there is an automated enforcement system in operation, the minimum yellow light change interval shall be established in accordance with the Traffic Manual of the Department of Transportation.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (a), the minimum yellow light change intervals relating to designated approach speeds provided in the Traffic Manual of the Department of Transportation are mandatory minimum yellow light intervals.
(c) A yellow light change interval may exceed the minimum interval established pursuant to subdivision (a).

APPENDIX II

APPENDIX IV

APPENDIX V

RED LIGHT TRIAL STATISTICS
FROM

NAPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Statute starts with (VC21453)
#1 Number of cites 2 years prior to Photo Red Light 1469 6-4-07 to 6-3-09

#2 Number of Photo Red Light to date 6616 Total

#3 Number of non-photo Red Light since implementation 737 Since 6-4-09

#4 Number of trials for Red Light 2 years prior to implementation of Photo Red Light 199 Cases filed 6-4-07 to 6-3-
09 #5 Number of Photo Red Light trials held to date (Total) 326 Cases filed 6-4-09 to 9- 15-1
0 Dismissed/Acquitted 33
Convicted 293

#6 Number of non-Photo Red Light trials heard since implementation 97 Cases filed 6-4-09 to 9- 15-1
0 APPENDIX VI

APPENDIX VII

Napa City CouncilMay 17, 2022

Napa City Council
May 17, 2022