Napa City Council
May 17, 2022

955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
www.cityofnapa.org
3:30 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
Tuesday, May 17, 2022
3:30 PM Afternoon Session
6:30 PM Evening Session
3:30 P.M. AFTERNOON SESSION

1. CALL TO ORDER: 3:30 P.M.

1.A. Roll Call:

Councilmember Alessio, Councilmember Painter, Vice Mayor Luros, and Mayor Sedgley

Present:
4 -
Councilmember Narvaez

Absent:
1 -

2. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS:

City Clerk Carranza announced the following supplemental documents:

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

Item 4.: Emails from Jarvis Peay, Charles Shinnamon, Lynne Posner and Ellen Gallagher.

Item 6.B.: PowerPoint Presentation by Ethan Mobley, Dynamic Planning. (Copies of all supplemental documents are included in Attachment 1)

3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:

3.A.
149-2022
Proclaim May 2022 as Older Adults Month
Mayor Sedgley and Councilmembers read the proclamation. Kris Brown, Deputy Director, Napa County Health and Human Services, received the proclamation and provided remarks.

CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 5/31/2022

CITY OF NAPA

MEETING MINUTES - Final

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA

Mayor Scott Sedgley

Vice Mayor Mary Luros

Councilmember Liz Alessio
Councilmember Bernie Narvaez

Councilmember Beth Painter

May 17, 2022

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA

3.B.
160-2022
National Peace Officer’s Memorial Day and National Police Week Mayor Sedgley and Councilmembers read the proclamation. Chief of Police, Jennifer Gonzales, joined by Police Department staff, accepted the proclamation and provided remarks.

3.C.
185-2022
National Public Works Week
Mayor Sedgley and Councilmembers read the proclamation. Public Works Director Julie Lucido accepted the proclamation and provided remarks.

3.D.
142-2022
Napa Sonoma ADU Center
(See supplemental document in Attachment 1)
Renee Schomp provided the report via video conference.

Mayor Sedgley brought the discussion back to Council; brief comments and questions ensued.

4. PUBLIC COMMENT:
(See supplemental documents in Attachment 1)
Sheli Smith, Director of Napa County Historical Society - In honor of Preservation Month, provided an annual report to City Council.

Martin Reyes - provided information on the Napa Thrives Symposium (napathrives.org) scheduled for June 7-23, 2022 with six event series organized around the six pillars of sustainable winegrowing leadership.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR:

Approval of the Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Vice Mayor Luros, seconded by Councilmember Painter, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye:

Alessio, Painter, Luros, and Sedgley
4 -

Absent:

Narvaez
1 -

5.A.
196-2022
City Council Meeting Minutes
Approved the May 3, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes.

CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 5/31/2022
MEETING MINUTES - Final

May 17, 2022

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA

5.B.
140-2022
Updated City of Napa Hazard Mitigation Plan
Adopted Resolution R2022-042 adopting the updated City of Napa Hazard Mitigation Plan and determining that the actions authorized by this Resolution are exempt from CEQA.

Enactment No: R2022-042

5.C.
145-2022
Mutual Public Works Assistance Agreement
Adopted Resolution R2022-043 authorizing the City Manager to execute on behalf of the City a Cooperative Agreement with Napa County for mutual public works assistance.

Enactment No: R2022-043

5.D.
162-2022
Napa Countywide Road Maintenance Act (Measure T) - 2022 Master Funding Agreement
Adopted Resolution R2022-044 authorizing the City Manager to execute the Master Funding Agreement with Napa Valley Transportation Authority-Tax Agency.

Enactment No: R2022-044

5.E.
164-2022
Grant of Easement to Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Adopted Resolution R2022-045 authorizing the Public Works Director to execute a grant of easement to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for a non-exclusive utility easement for the installation, operation and maintenance of electric utilities and associated facilities affecting a portion of City owned property identified as APN 003-198-022, which contains the Clay Street Garage, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA.

Enactment No: R2022-045

5.F.
171-2022
Budget Adjustment to Fund Future Studies
Approved a budget transfer from the General Fund to the Non-Recurring General Fund in the amount of $590,000 to fund future studies and General Plan implementation, and appropriating $590,000 of expenditure budget in the Non-Recurring General Fund, as documented in Budget Adjustment No.

BE2205503.

5.G.
172-2022
Monthly Budget and Investment Statement
Received the Monthly Budget and Investment Statement as of March 31, 2022.

6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:

CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 5/31/2022
MEETING MINUTES - Final

May 17, 2022

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA

6.A.
77-2022
Proclamation of Local Emergency to Respond to the Coronavirus (COVID-19)
City Manager Potter provided the staff report.

There were no requests from the public to speak.

A motion was made by Councilmember Alessio, seconded by Councilmember Painter, that the Continue the Proclamation of Local Emergency authorizing the City Manager to take actions necessary to respond to the Coronavirus (COVID-19); and ratify actions taken by the City Manager in implementation of the Proclamation of Local Emergency. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye:

Alessio, Painter, Luros, and Sedgley
4 -

Absent:

Narvaez
1 -

6.B.
168-2022
Housing Element Update Introduction
(See supplemental document in Attachment 1)
Ethan Mobley,of Dynamic Planning, provided the report via video conference.

Mayor Sedgley called for public comment; there were no requests to speak.

Discussion was brought back to Council; individual council comments and questions ensued.

7. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER:

Councilmember Alessio provided comments regarding Older Adults Month, and shared that the Napa/Solano Area Agency on Aging was supporting local area cities in becoming designated as "Age-friendly Cities." She provided brief background of the designation and asked Mayor and Councilmembers if they supported a request to have staff work with Elaine Clark, Executive Director of the Napa/Solano Area Agency on Aging, to return to a future meeting to provide additional information regarding the designation. Brief discussion ensued; Council supported the request.

8. CLOSED SESSION:

City Attorney Barrett announced the Closed Session items.

CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 5/31/2022
MEETING MINUTES - Final

May 17, 2022

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA

8.A.
198-2022
• CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54957.6): City designated representatives: Heather Ruiz, Liz Habkirk, MJ Tueros, Anne Cardwell, Jesse Lad, Jennifer Gonzalez, Steve Potter, and Michael Barrett. Employee organization: Napa Police Officer’s Association.

8.B.
197-2022
• CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54957.6): City designated representatives: Heather Ruiz, Liz Habkirk, MJ Tueros, Anne Cardwell, Jesse Lad, Steve Potter, and Michael Barrett. Employee organization: Napa City Employee’s Association.

CITY COUNCIL RECESS: 4:42 P.M.
6:30 P.M. EVENING SESSION

9. CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 P.M.

9.A. Roll Call:

Councilmember Alessio, Councilmember Painter, Vice Mayor Luros, and Mayor Sedgley

Present:
4 -
Councilmember Narvaez

Absent:
1 -

10. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

11. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS:

City Clerk Carranza announced the following supplemental items:

Item 13.A.: Emails from a concerned citizen, Jason Kishineff, Rebecca Lee, Amy Martenson, Maureen Trippe, Beverly Wiles Shotwell, Lowell Downey, Kara Vernor and Linsey Gallagher.
(Copies of all supplemental documents are included in Attachment 2)

12. PUBLIC COMMENT:
(See supplemental document in Attachment 2)
Irena Miles - provided comments regarding long term parking problems along Beecham Street and Beecham Court.

13. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:

CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 5/31/2022
MEETING MINUTES - Final

May 17, 2022

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA

13.A.
152-2022
Discussion Regarding the Temporary Closure of Main Street (See supplemental documents in Attachment 2)
Public Works Director Julie Lucido provided the report.

Mayor Sedgley called for public comment.

Mick Salyer - spoke in support of keeping Main Street closed. Suggested potential private/public financing options to fund the closure.

Dan Worden - spoke in support of keeping Main Street closed.

Greg Stevens - spoke in support of keeping Main Street closed.

Alicia Garcia, President of Children's Museum of Napa Valley - spoke in support of keeping Main Street closed.

Owen Chappellet - asked if there would be a study to determine potential profitability of a permanent closure.

Discussion was brought back to Council. Lengthy individual Council questions, comments and discussion ensued.

A motion was made by Vice Mayor Luros, seconded by Councilmember Alessio, to table consideration of the item to the next regular City Council meeting in order to allow Councilmember Narvaez to provide comments.

The motion failed by the following vote:

Aye
:
2 - Alessio, Luros
No
:
2- Painter, Sedgley
A motion was made by Councilmember Painter to direct staff to bring back a report to evaluate a temporary closure extension through December 2023. The motion failed for lack of second.

Additional discussion ensued.

A motion was made by Councilmember Alessio, seconded by Vice Mayor Luros, to give staff direction to bring the item back at a future council meeting in order to continue the discussion with Councilmember Narvaez, and have staff return with answers to questions posed by Councilmembers that evening. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye
: 4
- Alessio, Painter, Luros, Sedgley

CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 5/31/2022
MEETING MINUTES - Final

May 17, 2022

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
City Manager Potter shared that the regular meeting scheduled for July 19, 2022 would be the soonest date that the item could return.

14. REPORT ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION:

City Attorney Barrett announced that there was no reportable action taken in Closed Session.

15. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER:

City Manager Potter provided a brief update on Excess Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (ERAF).

16. ADJOURNMENT: 7:55 P.M.

Submitted by:
_______________________________
Tiffany Carranza, City Clerk

CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 5/31/2022
MEETING MINUTES - Final

ATTACHMENT 1

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:

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)
E
mail from Jarvis Peay received on
M
ay 5, 2022.
2)
Email from Charles Shinnamon

r
eceived 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 2
nd
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 2 nd
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!

CI

TY OF NAPA
2023
-
2031
HOUSI

NG ELEMENT
CITY

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

From: Ethan Mobley, Dynamic Planning

PRE

SENTATION
TOPICS
I
ntroductions
W
hat is the Housing Element
W
hat has changed
H
ow can the Council help?
N
ext Steps

INTR

ODUCTIONS

City
Leads

Mik
e Walker

V
in Smith

Ot
hers on the call-
roles for this update

Ethan Mo
bley-
Project Manager/
Owner

Brian
Greer- Site
Inventory & Data
Visualization
Manager

WHA
T 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
le
gislated document
adopted by the Council and signed into ordinance.

An
updated housing element is required eligibility criteria for state affordable
housing funds

Upd
ates are required
every 8 years
this update covers 2023-2031

It do
es not change land use controls or zoning and does not allocate budget but would guide or direct those decisions.

PL

ANNING OBJECTIVES

Ho
using Production:

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

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

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

KEY C

OMPONENTS
Ho
using Needs
Assessment
Analysis
of demographic &
housing trends
E
valuation of Prior
Housing Element
Report on progress
during the last 8-year
cycle
Ho
using Sites
Inventory
Identify
sites where new
housing can be built
C
onstraints Analysis
Analyze
possible
barriers to
addressing housing
needs
G
oals, Policies, &
Programs Establish
a
plan to address
housing needs

WHA
T’S CHANGED?

20 21 - Gov. Newsom signed approx. 31 California
bills passed addressing housing issues

20 17 - 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)

NE
W FURTHER FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT:
5 Areas of
Analysis:

Source:

HCD FHA Webinar (2021)

RHNA

FOR NAPA CITY (CALCULATED FROM ABAG)
Re
gional 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
13 2% increase
from 2015.
19 2 units
remaining from
last cycle.

RH
NA FOR NAPA CITY: W/ COUNTY ADDITIONS
T
otal RHNA:

Nu
mbers 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
22 0% increase
from 2015.

AS

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

HO

W CAN WE

ACCOMMODATE
INCREASED ALLOCATION?
Th
e Process:

1. Ident
ify Sites

2. Calculate
Aff
ordability

3. Analy
ze
Capacity

SITE
S

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)
Fig
ure 3: DP+S's SMART Site Inventory Model

PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION
• V
irtual survey
• Balancing Act
V
irtual
• Pop
Up Events
• Farmers Market
• Piggy Back with Others
In
Person
• Do
vetailing with other community events.
• Translation services provided
En Españ
ol
En
gagement
& interaction
V
alidation &
direction
Ed
ucation &
information

NE

XT STEPS
O

UTREACH

PLANNING
W
EBSITE

DEVELOPMENT
S

OCIAL MEDIA

PRODUCTION
M
EDIA

PRODUCTION

HO
W CAN

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

ENG

AGEMENT

SCHEDULE
W
ebsite Live
Ju
ne 1, 2022
Onli
ne Public Survey /
Balancing Act
Ju
ne 1 – Aug 15, 2022
K
ey Stakeholder
Interviews
Ju
ne 1 – Aug 1, 2022
City
Council & Planning
Commission Outreach
Ma
y – Dec 2022
In-P
erson “Housing
Week” Pop-Up Events
Ju
ly 25 – 31, 2022
Publi
c Review
No
v 18 – Dec 20, 2022
Plan Ad
option
Ap
ril 2023

May
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 followin g:

Jarvis,

We a
re getting pretty close to “back to normal operations” so I wanted to respond to your request.

The
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 man
agement 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 a
m sorry to advise the Napa Police Department is still not hosting public tours due to CO VID. We
Item 4. Public Comment

have essential services staffing that cannot be compromised at this time.

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

I want the
e
mail 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 Depart ment
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

[EXT
ERNAL]

Yo
ur 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 alon
gs 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 esse
ntial 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

On S
at, 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 C
hief 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 Mem
bers,
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 downtow n 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
re
des
ignation of existing industrial land to
visitor

commer
cial
, I am curious
as to how this estimate was establishe
d.

Similarly, it would be good to have g
reate
r explanation
for how
the increases in office and retail use
s 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 owne
rs 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 f
easible...” 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
-
1 8

TE 3
-

4. “Prioritize..” rather than “Pro
mote” 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 additiona
l 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 ratepaye
rs 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 dep
artment 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 numb
er. 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
docu
ments and studies
ha
ve

such a discussion and it shou
ld 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 fan
tas
y that new hotel workers will primar
ily come from Napa.

Clearly,
the vast majority of new hotel worke
rs 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.

T
hank
you for your consideration,

Si
ncerely yours,

Chuck Shinnamon

Char
les W. Shinnamon, P.E.

From:

Lynne Posner <
>
Sent:

Friday, May 6, 2022 1:02 PM

To:

Mic
hael Walker <
[email protected]
>; General Plan Update
<
[email protected]
>;
[email protected]
<
[email protected]
>; Liz
Alessio <
[email protected]
>; Beth Painter <
[email protected]
>;
[email protected]
<
m
[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    


Sn

SnS


nnS


nm


 
 

  
 





nm



   

  

   




 

o






     


SnS


 

   




    

  

 


    T 




   

   


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 opera
tional 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 Cit
y.

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

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX I

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

21453
. (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-
15-10

Dismissed/Acquitted

33 Convicted

293

#6

Number of non-Photo Red Light trials heard since implementation

97 Cases filed 6-4-09 to 9-
15-10

APPENDIX VI

APPENDIX VII

APPENDIX VII

APPENDIX VII

APPENDIX VII

APPENDIX VII

APPENDIX VII

APPENDIX VII

ATTACHMENT 2

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
EVENING SESSION:

SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE
CITY
COUNCI
L

MEETING

13. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
13 .A.

Pedestrian Block on Main Street
1)
Email from a concerned citizen received on May 11, 2022. 2)
Email Jason Kishineff
received on May 16, 2022.
3)
Email from Rebecca Lee received on May 16, 2022.
4)
Email from Amy Martenson received on May 17, 2022.
5)
Email from Maureen Trippe received on May 17, 2022.
6)
Email from Beverly Wiles Shotwell received on May 17, 2022. 7)
Email from Lowell
Downey received on May 17, 2022.
8)
Email from Kara Vernor received on May 17, 2022.
9)
Email from Linsey Gallagher received on May 17, 2022.

SUBMITTED
DURING

THE CITY COUNCI
L

MEETING

12. PUBLIC COMMENT:
10)
Handout from Irena Miles received on May 17, 2022.

13. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:

13.A.

Pedestrian Block on Main Street
10)
Email from
Susan Wheeler
received on May 1
7 , 2022.
11)
Photos from Alicia Garcia received on May 17, 2022.

Ma
in
Street
2 nd
t
o 3
r
d
Str
eet
5/17/2022
City Council Meeting
Supplemental - 13.A.

From: Consultant

P
resentation
•
Bac
kground
•
2019 project
completed for
streetscape
improvements
•
2020 temporary
closure begins
•
Considerations for
permanent street
closure
•
Options

M
ain Street Project
•
Cou
ncil priority
—
completed 2019
•
Sidewalk widened for outdoor dining
•
Bollards and loading zone constructed
•
Intersection modified
•
Project cost approximately $1.8M+

Cl
osed to Vehicles August 2020

Leg
al Context for Temporary
Closure of Public Street
•
City
’s ability to close a street is constrained by state
law (Vehicle Code Section 21)
•
Exception for “Temporarily closing a portion of any
street for celebrations, parades, local special
events…” (Vehicle Code Section 21101.e):
o
Thr
ough the City Manager’s Emergency Proclamation,
the City Manager authorized the Public Works Director
to temporarily close Main Street from 2
nd
t
o 3
r
d
Str
eets
o
Through an Administrative Directive, the Public Works
Director directed the implementation of an approved
traffic control plan for the street closure
o
The temporary closure has been extended until
December 1, 2022 through the City Manager’s
Emergency Proclamation

Leg
al Context for
Permanent
Closure of Public Street
•
V
ehicle Code Section 21
places restrictions on the
permanent closure of
streets
•
Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960
(utilized for former Coombs
Street Pedestrian Plaza)
would be an appropriate
legal approach to close the
area to traffic

R
equired Physical
Changes if Pedestrian
Mall Approved
•
T
raffic signal modifications
•
Striping removal and new
striping
•
Traffic signage modifications
•
Directional signage changes
•
Vehicle access control
upgrades (visibility &
durability)

•
An “
abrupt level change” in
surface over 4
-
inches is not
allowed per ADA 11B
-
303.5
(specific exclusion exists for
streets)
•
Once general street use is
transitioned to Pedestrian
Mall, exclusion does not
apply and the curb line
which qualifies as an “abrupt
level change” of 6
-
inches
must be modified
•
Significant demolition and
reconstruction of hardscape
is triggered
R
equired Physical Changes
if Pedestrian Mall
Approved

Str
eet to Pedestrian
Plaz
a Transitions:

Ex
amples for Accessibility &
“Placemaking”

1. Bend, OR's proposed
Minnesota Pedestrian Plaza to
be reconstruction with level
surfacing, planters, lighting

2. San Diego’s Gas Light District
proposed reconstruction as
curb
-
less plaza
surf
acing

3. San
ta Monica’s 3
r
d
Str
eet
Promenade, 4
-
inch curbs
installed (opposed to their
standard 6
-
inch curbs for
roadways) with fountains,
planters and other amenities

4. Santa Barbara's State Street,
developing Master Plan for
“holistic and long
-
term
planning document that
provides a conceptual layout of
the area and an action plan to
create
”
Bend,
OR
San Diego
Santa Monica

R
equired Physical
Changes if Pedestrian
Mall Approved
•
Modific
ations to hardscape and change to
pedestrian use trigger new “green
infrastructure”
•
Stormwater runoff from adjacent rooftops
and hardscape required to be filtered
•
Substantial area of street would need to be
reconstructed as landscaped stormwater
treatment facilities

Su
mmary of Requirements
Calif
ornia Vehicle Code
does not allow long
term vehicle closure of
street right of way
T
ransition to
Pedestrian Mall
designation would
allow vehicle
restrictions
T
ransition to
Pedestrian Mall
removes exception
that allows existing 6
-
inch curbs (ADA)
Har
dscape
modifications required
to address “abrupt
level change”
Har
dscape/use
modifications trigger
stormwater quality
improvements to filter
drainage
Har
dscape & green
infrastructure
improvements for
Pedestrian Mall
require a new CIP &
an experienced
architect to achieve
high quality design

Do
wntown Circulation/Options for Pedestrian Mall
Ma
in Street Option
for Pedestrian Mall
Br
own Street Option
for Pedestrian Mall
Op
tion Main Street Mall
Option Brown Street Mall

Cen
tral Napa
Pedestrian
Corridor
(Brown Street)
Project
Development
Process
•
Gr
ant obtained from Caltrans
•
Architectural team specializing in public plazas
hired
•
Interdisciplinary city staff team provided
guidance and technical reviews
•
Stakeholder group formed including downtown
businesses and adjacent property owners,
adjacent Napa County offices, Downtown Napa
Association, Arts Council Napa Valley, and City’s
Bicycle and Trails Advisory Commission
•
Design meeting/input/review from
stakeholders, community meeting, Parks,
Recreation and Trees Advisory Commission, and
City Council

Cen
tral Napa Pedestrian Corridor
•
3 r
d
Str
eet to Pearl Street
•
Corridor selected for surrounding land use, redevelopment potential of adjacent properties, pedestrian/bike focus without impacting traffic circulation main routes •
“Green Spine” design concept selected as preferred alternative for project 3 r
d
Street
2 nd
Str
eet
1 s
t
Str
eet
Pearl Street
Br
own Street
His
toric
Courthouse
City
Parking
Garage
9/11
Memorial

Cen
tral Napa
Pedestrian Corridor
•
D
esigned for context of Downtown Napa, with consideration of potential redevelopment sites along corridor
•
Inspired by local elements to achieve a space that fits the Napa character
•
Community input prioritized amenities to activate space with seating and shade, be inviting to families and children, and support small to medium sized events

Cen
tral Napa Pedestrian Corridor/Brown Street: Sample amenities for design inspiration and space programming

Consi
derations/Options
•
A
t the time the City’s Emergency Proclamation is terminated, the City is constrained from keeping the public street closed to traffic •
Transitioning Main Street vehicle use to a Pedestrian Mall use would require a new project to develop substantial physical improvements •
Funding necessary to build the improvements is not readily available; therefore, staff recommends reopening Main Street to vehicular traffic and working with businesses on Main Street to reconfigure outdoor dining permits within the sidewalk area
•
Options for Future Projects:
•
The City could prioritize the development of Main Street Pedestrian Mall as part of future budgets
•
The City could prioritize the development of the Brown Street Corridor as part of future budgets

St
atus/Recommendations
Th
e Main Street temporary closure has been
extended until December 1, 2022 to coincide
with the planned implementation of an
updated parklet program.

F
unding is not currently available for a new
pedestrian plaza project. A permanent closure
of both Main Street and Brown Street to vehicle
traffic is not recommended. Staff recommends
the City continue to pursue the Central Napa
Pedestrian Corridor as a future project.

Qu
estions,
considerations,
& direction to
staff

Du
e to limited funding, projects proposed only cover essential work that falls into three categories. The proposed budget will:
1)
Fund required grant match & finish priority bicycle &
pedestrian connection/safety project
2)
Repair deteriorated and broken public facilities
3)
Complete work required for regulatory compliance
42 %
48 %
10 %

1. Grant/Finish

2. Fix

3. Legal/Regulatory

1. Gr
ant/Finish

2. Fix

3. Legal/Regulatory
Bike Undercrossing
$550,000
Trancas Bridge
$50,000
Bridge Assessment
$50,000
Police Range
$100,000
Sports Court Resurfacing
$100,000
Park Furnishing
$120,000
Kennedy Golf Course
Backflow
$75,000
Buhman Park Bank Repair
$250,000
$550,000
$620,000
$125,000
T
otal
$1,295,00
0 Capit
al Improvement Program
FY 22/23 General Fund Budget
as presented 4/5/2022

r'!TJPFNA^
CfTYCLERK
[:^ HAY ft AM (C^
y
^^ / ^^^dn^
/
s^^ ^U2^_
/^/^-//^
^6^0 07^/ ^^€^'
^ . \
^ ^^t^ a^ /l^t^^-.
^c^rz^<^^C^<£--
(^^^)
Item 13.A.

From:

Jason Kishineff
Sent:

Monday, May 16, 2022 11:03 PM

To:

Clerk <[email protected]>

Subject:

Item 13A

[EXTERNAL]

I have been wondering, for a long time, why this small section of First St has been closed for outdoor eating areas for a couple of restaurants and when it would be re -
opened. I find it outrageous that it is up
for consideration to keep this section of roa
d closed. For what, two restaurants? It is annoying to not be able turn right on Main St, coming west from Soscol. There are what, 77,000 people that live in Napa? Plus more thousands of tourists, and all of this traffic should not be able to turn into dow ntown so two
restaurants can have tables in the streets? On MAIN Street??? Does this make sense to you? I think this is ridiculous. Open the damn street!

Jason Kishineff

From: R Lee
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 4:44 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Closure 800 Block Main Street
[EXTERNAL]
For inclusion in City Council package Tuesday, May 17,2022 To Whom It May Concern;
Was the

p
ermanent

c
losure of the 800 Main Street block suggested by a City planner or Traffic Engineer

ex
pert or was the request made by the restaurants on the block? The emergency COVID closure enabled welcomed revenue relief to the impacted restaurants. Now,

t
hough the restaurants are open again, the increased square footage of the outside space is hard to

ab
andon given the extra revenue generated.

If the restaurants did not have the added revenue expectation, would they want the street closed? The

h
uge negative impact to deliveries and trash pick-
up alone would result in a resounding ‘no’.

In fact, as evidence of the necessity for delivery services, the City, before COVID, invested in the block to

p
rovide a lane for deliveries, wider sidewalks to accommodate

t
ables and pedestrians, and synchronized

l
ights. A block length of parking was eliminated.

Permanent closure of this block, even with the heavily reduced traffic during COVID, has seriously

d
isrupted the traffic flow of downtown. Directing a tourist from

P
earl and Main to the Hatt building

i
ncludes four turns, two of them left turns

-

o
ne onto Brown, one more dangerous turn off Brown onto

3 rd. Even those familiar with the town struggle, sometimes choosing to take the already congested

So
scol.

As business

c
ontinues to pickup, the problem will be exacerbated. And that’s for now. What happens in

1 0-20 years?
Of course, all the same questions of public/private use raised with the parklets exist.

Over the years, Napa has experienced the adverse impacts of street closures, as witnessed by the First

St
reet Mall. Or, cumbersome traffic flows exhibited until recently in the First Street exit from Hwy 29.

Let’s learn from those lessons and leave Main Street a Main Street.

Thank you
Rebecca Lee
Owner

From:

Amy Martenson

Sent:

Tuesday, May 17, 2022 7:30 AM

To:

Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>; Steve Potter <[email protected]>; Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>; Julie Lucido <[email protected]>

Subject:

Public comment for the May 17, 2022 Napa City Council Me eting Re: Discussion on
permanently closing Main St.

[EXTERNAL]

Napa City Council:

As a resident of central Napa, living in the Napa
-
Abajo neighborhood, I am opposed to the
idea of permanently closing Main St., which would do nothing more than benefit a few
restaurant owners and those who can afford to and occasionally eat at those restaurants.

Meanwhile, the daily experience of local residents would be negatively affected.

Traffic would be permanently disrupted, as residents have to take a detour onto

Brown St.
to get back onto Main St, and residents would permanently lose parking spaces in the heart of Downtown, which are already in short supply. It would not even benefit pedestrians, because there is nothing to see in the section of Main St. being pr oposed
--

no boutiques,
antique stores, art galleries, etc, just a few restaurants.

This trend toward privatizing public resources that benefits the few at the expense of the many is really concerning. Please listen to the staff recommendation, and keep Main St.
open.

Sincerely,

Amy Martenson

From:

Mary Luros
To:

Clerk
Subject:

Fwd: Agree about Main Street
Date:

Tuesday, May 17, 2022 11:31:19 AM
Begin forwarded message:

From:

Maureen Trippe
Subject: Agree about Main Street
Date:

May 15, 2022 at 4:55:43 PM PDT
To:
[email protected]
Mary,
Saw your comments and agree that Main Street feels like an extension of Veteran’s Park. Brown Street might’ve been a good idea years ago, but it doesn’t make it the right idea now. Why push pedestrians to a side street that dead ends at a parking garage when you can let them stroll along the river? The river IS the asset.

Hope you are well!
Maureen
https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/napa-city-council-to-discuss- possibility-of-permanently-closing-portion-of-main-street-to- vehicles/article_1868d9e2-d315-11ec-a6d3-cf1a7aa2b351.html

From:

Mary Luros
To:

Clerk
Subject:

Fwd: Al Fresco Dining - UK
Date:

Tuesday, May 17, 2022 11:34:54 AM
Begin forwarded message:

From:

Beverly Shotwell
Subject: Al Fresco Dining - UK
Date:

May 16, 2022 at 1:53:33 PM PDT
To:

Mary Luros <
[email protected]
>
Reply-To:

Beverly Shotwell
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Vice Mayor Luros,
I found a lovely example of the potted plants on wheels as an alternative to unattractive road closure signage. These could be used in between more aesthetically pleasing signage to instruct motorists to avoid the area:
https://www.gordonramsayrestaurants.com/news-and-press/join-us-for-al-fresco- dining-at-gordon-ramsay-restaurants/
Warmest regards,
Beverly
Beverly Wiles Shotwell

From:

Clerk
To:

Samantha Pascoe
Subject:

FW: My opinion on City Streets
Date:

Tuesday, May 17, 2022 4:24:05 PM

From:

Mary Luros <
[email protected]
>
Sent:

Tuesday, May 17, 2022 3:35 PM
To:

Clerk <
[email protected]
>
Subject:

Fwd: My opinion on City Streets

Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From:

Lowell Downey
Date:

May 17, 2022 at 3:28:29 PM PDT
To:
"Alessio, Liz" <
[email protected]
>, Bernie Narvaez
<
[email protected]
>,
[email protected]
, "Sedgley, Scott"
<
[email protected]
>, Mary Luros <
[email protected]
>
Subject:

My opinion on City Streets

Dear City Council and Mayor,

For what it is worth, I am in favor of reopening Main Street to traffic. This is not the street that should be closed.

If you keep Main Street closed, businesses should be removed from the streets and put back inside their buildings. If you permit businesses to sprawl into the street, they should pay fair rent that is equal to the price they pay inside for the use of public space.

The money received from businesses should be given to the public interest.

Regards,

Lowell

Lowell Downey

From:

Clerk
To:

Samantha Pascoe
Subject:

FW: About the future of Main Street
Date:

Tuesday, May 17, 2022 4:23:23 PM
From:

Mary Luros <
[email protected]
>
Sent:

Tuesday, May 17, 2022 4:16 PM
To:

Clerk <
[email protected]
>
Subject:

Fwd: About the future of Main Street

Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From:

Kara Vernor <
[email protected]
>
Date:

May 17, 2022 at 4:14:09 PM PDT
To:

Mary Luros <
[email protected]
>
Subject:

About the future of Main Street

[EXTERNAL]
Hi Mary,

I wanted to send you a brief note about tonight's City Council meeting and the presentation on the possible permanent closure of a segment of Main Street.

While we are still learning about the City's constraints, it's clear that the area would benefit from remaining car-free.

Main

Street between 1st and 3rd is one of the three
locations with the highest bike/ped collisions in Napa
,

a city that already ranks 2nd
worst in the state for traffic

safety and 6th worst for fatal and injury traffic
collisions.

We would like to see both this segment and the pedestrian mall on Brown be car-free areas and prioritized for funding. The current CIP dedicates a very low percentage of funding to bike/pedestrian projects, and if any sort of mode shift is to be achieved,

more resources will need to be dedicated to bike/ped facilities. As well, cars have numerous ways to travel north to south in Napa, including Soscol Avenue, which is right across the bridge, Jefferson, California, and 29 to name a few high volume routes, but lower volume mixed-use and residential streets abound as well.

We're not unsym
pathetic to the challenges of creating bike/pedestrian
facilities,

but this segment of Main is already closed—folks are already used to it, and businesses and residents have already been able to benefit from it. It makes a lot of sense to stick with what many already are accustomed to and appreciate. It may also help prepare folks for the larger pedestrian pathway along Brown Street as proposed. Going

back to the status quo of prioritizing
ease and convenience of vehicle access to the downtown area won't progress

the City any closer to goals around climate, walkable and livable streets, and a pedestrian-friendly downtown core.

Thank you for your time.

My best,

Kara

--
Kara Vernor (she/her)
Executive Director
Napa County Bicycle Coalition
(707) 258-6318
League Cycling Instructor #6818

Celebrate Bike Month during the month of May!

From:

Mary Luros
To:

Clerk
Subject:

Fwd: Visit Napa Valley Statement: Outdoor experiences and their role in Napa Valley"s continued economic recovery
Date:

Tuesday, May 17, 2022 4:31:26 PM
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From:

Linsey Gallagher <[email protected]>
Date:

May 17, 2022 at 4:29:50 PM PDT
To:

Linsey Gallagher <[email protected]>
Subject:

Visit Napa Valley Statement: Outdoor experiences and their role in Napa Valley's continued economic recovery

[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council Member:

Visit Napa Valley supports the investment to establish and protect pedestrian zones and outdoor experiences in the City of Napa and throughout the valley.

Pedestrian
zones and outdoor experiences benefit both our local community and visitors.

As a rural four-season destination, Napa Valley lends itself naturally to socially distancing and
al fresco
experiences. As we’ve seen over the past two years, our community and visitors enjoy and expect
the many attractive outdoor experiences we
now offer, such as outdoor music, dining, trails, and recreation. It also, importantly, sets us apart from other destinations – a tangible benefit to our community.

Napa Valley’s tourism industry has recovered faster than other California destinations.

Our hotel revenues in 2021 reached 98% of 2019 pre-pandemic levels, and the City of Napa is now looking at receiving its biggest Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) contribution ever in 2022. The new Stanly Ranch property, for example, will generate an estimated $5 million alone in TOT funds in its first year open that go to the City of Napa’s General Fund, not to mention the contributions totaling $3.5 million they have paid into the housing trust.

Visitors are coming back to Napa Valley, staying longer, and spending more because we came together as a community to champion health and safety; we prioritized outdoor experiences (such as the closure of part of Main Street in Downtown Napa); we took seriously masking, vaccination, and social distancing. We have won back more than our fair share of visitors and we continue to do so.

Where other California destinations are
still struggling, Napa Valley hospitality industry is returning to pre-pandemic

contributions to the General Fund.

We all recall the tough conversations around the possibility of cutting the City of Napa’s Parks & Recreation budget (in addition to other department impacts) in 2020 as a result of reduced TOT revenues and visitor supported sales tax revenues.

Thankfully
we aren’t in that position this year. Our hospitality industry is looking forward to a busy, but sustainable summer travel season, and accelerating recovery of our economic contribution to our cities and towns.

Tourism tax revenue through TOT will once
contribute at least 30% of the City of Napa’s general fund budget.

Help our community and welcome visitors by saying yes to investing in and creating spaces we can all enjoy.

Visit Napa Valley, on behalf of our hospitality industry, supports turning Main Street between 2
nd
and 3
rd
streets into a pedestrian zone.

The tourism industry’s contribution to Napa Valley is vital. Here’s a look at the numbers that illustrate the impact on Napa Valley.

Hospitality is the second largest employer in Napa County - behind the wine industry.

In normal years, the tourism industry injects more than $2 billion
into Napa
Valley businesses and supports an estimated
16,000 jobs
in the community.

Overnight hotel guests make up approximately
35% of visitors
, but account for
70% of the spending
.

Napa Valley’s visitors generate
$85.1 million
in tax revenue that goes to support
local services like recreation, public safety, and road improvements. Note: this is revenue is generated by hotel stays that is paid for by visitors, not residents.

Resources:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ncgWUURiYAxTDPdDlkgbI88ggeMb7u__/view https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Tourists-are-finally-coming-back-to- California-17137451.php
https://www.visitnapavalley.com/tourism/economic-impact/ https://www.visitnapavalley.com/tourism/

Regards,
Linsey

Linsey Gallagher

·

Visit Napa Valley
President and CEO
1001 Second Street, Suite 330 Napa, CA 94559
Direct:

(707) 492-3099

· Mobile:

(415) 609-6112
[email protected]
· VisitNapaValley.com

FACEBOOK

·

TWITTER

·

INSTAGRAM

·

PINTEREST

·

BLOG

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

EVENING
SESSION:

SUBMITTED
DURING
THE
CITY
COUNCI
L

MEETING

12. PUBLIC COMMENT:

1)

Handout from Irena Miles received on May 17, 2022.

13. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:

13 .A.

Pedestrian Block on Main Street

10)

Email from
Susan Wheeler
received on May 1
7 , 2022.

11)

Photos from Alicia Garcia received on May 17, 2022.

^
^
0 »
§
»
's
0 $
-<
0 c
-i
,.t
¥»
^
\
s
,'.
^
^
ro
^
?s
1 Q-
ST
^
cm
^
s.
^
re
3 i7i'
1 »1
3 3^
s
rt
tu
a.
s
ro
?3
s
ro
s ^
s
TO-
s'
aj
cu
n
<
•<
?r'
7:

IT)
-<
CT-
CD
^cu
CT-
n
s
re'
c
0 s
0 =s
s
6 fD
Q-
CT
y
FD
^
= K
ro
0'
3 Ln
g
-0
tu
S ?3
LU
r+
?s
^
a-
8 ft>
rp
Q.
-i
3 TO
ro
00 a.
ro
IT)
c
0 Q.
?3
Q.
fD
§
^
u
s
=T
0 c
3 s
's
rt)
U)
il)
^
v
(T)
fcn
0 3
0 x
c
-0
n
01 (T>
s-
s.

D
^
Q.
113
fD
5"
a.

TO'
s
^
3-
0-
ft-
-a
N>
0 0
r^
0-
3-
3 -<
?F
0 0
0 cu
0 •^
3 3
CT
a.
m
^
aT
^
s'
s ^
EU
00 •<
3 ?
^"
0'
1->
p
3 OQ
Q.
s
6 ro
^
0 3-5
3-
0- ft)
TO
s
3 3
Q- :
•5.

OT
^ 3
<. s
^-
Q.
ro
n
3 0)
3 s-5
^ ^
qg
fD
^
'~J
QJ
0 s
^
s s
re
N
1^1
?•
tl)
5- ?S
3 3
-0
0 -<
0 FT
c
n

3. 0)
(D
.-'
Q.
a.
^
^

3. ro
??
1 % i'(N
|iiS*
r3
r
^
cro
(->
ro
¥-K
° ^
3 fB
3-
00 re
a.
p
su
iU
/•
3-
ED
3 3
cm
-0
0 0
m
3 3
5-
s
-0
c:
-0
=?
c
0-
ro ^-
6 -^
0 03
^
^'
cu
3-
=ft
£U
r3
3 ^" ^ °
=!
d.
a.
aj
c =
n>
?
s
?
c
u-v
0 3' °
Q. rt.
^
-s
0 1^1
.(=.
s
EU
-0
s,
/'
3 =T
0 a-
s
c
-<
?
0 s
s
n
0 ^-
fD
ro
3 •3
ro
'A
5 aj
s
^
=T
Ln
r^->
4^
3 U1
ro
a.

Lu
t.
0 >
s- s
s
-0
? s
u_
0 ffi
cu
Q.
cn
s
^
I
0 3
re
t
-§
s
ro
ro
s
•z.
0 TO
c
is
II
n
II
II
3 °:
ti
^ 5
^
^
^ ^2^-
j^ls
^•ss-
??^'
^s^' i
I
^.? I
_J-
§
^

^3 ^^ ^
LO
^ ^ ^
ro
t/1
03 :s
;•
s
^
&
2-
0 s
0 re
w'
0 s
3 5T
ro
g OQ
re
n
3 5
EI^N&
s
fD
G
^ s
3 ^
s-
M
0 ~<
^
3-

5.*r
=5-3
-0
s
3 aj
ro
0 0
3 ?•.,
s
cu
i
w
ft) 3
3 a.
s
3 ."
<
f^
3 ro
g
s'
ft)
cn
'^
0 s-^
0 •I
3 cn
^v^1
<
^
^
€
^ s-
£L
0 £3
0-
= 3
^
0 3
0 0
1^
^
8 ?
fl
s
^
s
£
3-
5 3 .'
0 ^
%
•o
0 -D
[U
ro
CT;
d.
=!
0)
^
fc
Q.
t/1
c
s
, i»&: ^-^
ro g-
"G
&^.a^
nj
•'•.!
0~
cro
n>
s^ B.
^
(S
Q.
3 .- -^

3. 0
=r
<
3 -0
D
fD
0 QJ
fD
€
t
^-
g
=T
tU
cu
IT)
-<
s,
fD
-<
m
Q.

Si- v
(D
."••ll
^
^
?
7~
-t'.<
f&S
'.J
3 ro
fD
NJ
0 ?
~<
=?-
re
0 3
N)
0 fWW/!
1"1
!U
= 0 N
0 <
'"-•- .^
5 3
<
a>
^
l^tt?-
s,
(T)
(T)
3 s
a.
3 D
^^^
aj
fD
3 s
(D
I
(5
fD
tS*^'°'
^r^..'
fT>
0;
S' i
ro
3 •;<
-I
FD
^
=!
cn
^
Q.
iu
a.
^- rt.
ro
V 0
?
TO
0 =!.
3 0
x
OTQ
^3:?
3 a-
c
D
to ^
-0
s,
3 s
s
? u
Q.
f5
n>
E7'
,=>••
% iT 'ni
^
m s
s
0 R^:' -
fD
s.

M..
cu
-•
QJ
=!•.

OQ
"s
0 (D
3 s,
&:•£
]
fc^
fSi^
}>,
n>
^s
^
/
fc
:R
ggs
%
's
,^
>l
5:
v
^
•(.
h
-„ - ^
\
r
i
*^-'
OCT
I
y
Ill
(^
»
r
^;?ii
"''§-" ^'
llli
?'i -^ °
'0
? 0
3 5. 3 ^
ro ? § s-
s °- s ^
l^^-
IHI
y^ss-
1115"
S ro ^ 5.
^ S- fD
^ ? s
o rc 3
(p ^.' re
Ill
I ^ I

2.2.1'
|t?
?^ ^
S(2 °:
tn ^:. r-»-
0) 3 IU
3 :- ffi
^ -:%
Ill
? ^^
3 ^ N>
^ ?
i|
s^.
ro ^
% ^
'^
Q-

,:M
=i ^ ?
=T ^ fD
fD
rb
in
II
fD
fD
Ln
fD
(^
^ 0
fD 0)
3 ^
^ Q
r^-
II
cn
ro
^1
10 0
c
c
fD
Q-
0 fT)
GO
3 Q
1-+
-0
fD
Oi
3 r-h
0 fD
3 i2
Is
^ ^-
0 ^
0 3
Q. TO
i?
^- n
°~ b'
c
3 ?D 00
fD
n
0 s:^
5- FD
Ql) Q_
<. f^
0' Q.
ri Q-
CD
Q-
r-h
3-
QJ
> ro
3--a
OQ 3
'II
^ s'
fD
r+ 0) "0
<-h •< QJ
FT)
fD"
0)
7-
3 ^ s'
T3 ^
°. §
^:TO
fD r+
^ 3
IS
^i
o b
0 QJ
Oil
fD
0 Qi) C
=3 -^
<<
0 3
w
•wf:' •~-^,:f
^
^
^
^
>»
5 v\
I
.*
.-41
r
^
m
-y
w-^
.i
TO 0
i- I
r?
H)
?^ s
3 ro ro
3 s.
00 Q.
3 OQ
°" ?•
? 3
n>
Sgl
i7'
^•^!
l/i T3
?• 3
_aJ
K
cn
f1>
2-s
-a
3" T3
0 d>
(p
^
0 3
(D
i7i*
I
II
TO 0'
s-^
ro ?
3 _ffi.
^ (§-
0-
0 ^
^
?,.•
I
w
a-
3-
ft)
^ i
c
3 g-
3 !1!
11 s
0 ^
S.-o
's u
Ill
re § TO
n>
a.
ai
3 a.
0)
t^
Ill
IT)
Is
I
a.
s
=••.
3 s s
^11
s!.
g
I
y
—1
*>
s
fD
3-
cu
3 ?
I
•o
s^S
^^ ^
s^l
=1^ ^
^-". fD_ s" -q
3- 3- n 0)
0 u
< -'
L%
IT)
5' °-
(U
3 (D
fD
2 ?;•
rT
cu
cu
re s-
s
ro
0 CT
s
I
Q.
w
I
IT)
a.
cu
rb
Q-
0 3
-a
c
re
1U
0-
s
5 s ^. °
3 113
Q. ^ 0
Q^ S ?
3^3-
^Q ^
Ill
< 1^-1'
1^1
!?1
s^^
°- TO
3-
ro
-^

From:

Susan Wheeler
To:

Clerk
Subject:

Parklet on Main between 2nd and 3rd Streets
Date:

Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:36:31 PM
I don't know the agenda number, but the Napa Register, today, said that it would be on the agenda tonight.

The issue is whether to reopen Main Street to through traffic between Second Street and Third Street.

There are a number of expensive

improvements which are needed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act if you want to change the status of the street to become pedestrians only.

In my opinion, keeping this street, with its park and river view closed to automobiles would be an investment in Napa's future.

I think you could get a lawyer to draft a short term loan from city funds that are designated for other purposes, put out a "bum bucket" in the businesses on that block with a sign that says "Unless we raise x amount of dollars by such and such a date, this road will become open to through traffic on this (future date)."

If that does not work, stop the work of complying with ADA and open the road;

But at least
give it a chance.

Susan Wheeler
Napa
[EXT
ERNAL]

.
^
I
^
f,
ii
s
^
m" i
I;
^
^
%
i^
sSt
m
»<
s *"3
..^
t
m
y
~.i2tl
m^
^
$;
^
Jl
->^
^
^
w
;^t"~a
<-
w-i,
i»
J
-
7 ^
:*:
•5^<-
-SJ
^
..-:£;• .^*
"•£::-,
';
i
^
t
ft
-*i^
;.:<?. »aia"&
•1C
;^
y
•:R
1 •^^;5
{
M
^t
I."
&
L
...-.
;J
T\
r
'&
sa-
i—
Wt
•-
t»s
#
^
afc^-y^.
^^ar
^
\
f
f
J
f
^s

5.'A;
^
t-
^
^
r
:flK
^
K»
£
^
^^
m
?
c
^
a^l
>,
i
m
"^K
-•
sss.
-^
wv
^
as.
s
s
•I
•rf-
\
/
2^
'<
a.
*£..
;i
\'
^•^^
\-
»•
,.-1
^
t&a
I..
^<-
•;rf
<f
^
ft
(
!^
<
'^
<•
f
<«.
-*:
/
I
^
I
^
i3.
^
^
-^-'
'.»-.
-
,v
f.
4 ^
i-
/!^
'^
^x.
t^
?•
».
f
^
:^
s*
^^^-
-^ .. 0.
fS
^•^
I-
~L
{

c
••
^
w
»
I*
m
*
d.
^
<
^
K
^
^
<w
«
•-
"
^>.
^
^
',

-^
*t
^
^
r-9
r
IKC
•k.
!"
'^'w^es.
^
•^
»>
•;>
^
^
^
%
'-
-^.
1 r
^
71 \
*
^
^--
?i
31 J
i-~.:
*.

K
a*
<..

IjT;
1;
T-
-*.
&
^:
g~.
- 'S-t^^^
^VM^n
<<aj
^^^
?.
:%"i
•i
w
.;'
r<
"1
fc^>k-
;^€I'^
T^y^^
l^A'Ns:
[!^yK
W-Ml
-^ S4^i
tf*!"
:^
m..
^
^
^
y:
/
t
v:
^s
^
^
s'
/-
w
•(,
>.
^
r
-^
^!
c
St
.ii
^
£
IT^":-. ..^~^- -'
I
!tt
y
1 h
^
^
^.
1 li;
»!.,.
»"•
^
-t.

ST
•<•.
^^
-<^&
; */» • ^.,
s'
^^
.^
,„.: 1
EP)

3.-. -<'...?.-! ,*';.-?-;
.3
^
?
%- •*?->-"
^;, !'-
<^^
^l'^/^
"V
s
^)'S?.'^t-•••'-
.-
vt
f.
^
s
ft
^
K
?;
••*"
i
^
^.
.»
^
A
-•»•'<":>
•>
&"
y
•w
-]
^
t
ina
^
ii
"*.
<>
s
•»
^
I;
•;^
<1.
*-
•El
m
sy
k:
«•
"^^
<^->
^
s
;l»
is
y
•^
^
0 ft
»t
><-;
tf
•^•-
^
^
,i
:%
^
?<
v
•^^
%»s-
•I
y.

1. w:
-<-•
;'^
^
&
}
^
.»•
'<;

3. ^
s
^
\
-<
^
^
.1
m
^
•.-(
*;
*s
-
•«
-B
•<,

1. '^
fcl
€
>.(
^
:^
•i
^
^
»..
-*
%
<>
3^
^
•»'
•}
m
H
^
..A
s
v
^
:<.••
Ki
•t
f.

Miiii
1 f-
^
c
:a-
&•
i?,
^'
•^1
~J
a
^
^
4 w^
?(?
1 n»
$
:/
•(
-.:
a.i
/
*-
;-
ff!:f^
~^!S£
•f;
=»
%?1
<?
is
-tS
SSs.
^
y^--
ays'
'-^
S£
^
S5
<•.
3>«.
&;
^
^
?-
^•Ste
^
s~
^
£^
<«
•
s.^
•^m
^
;<
/
?
m
^>
>.&».
^
\
"^
3 ».
s,
•-/*
m
^
^
rtK
.^
^
IS
^
-^^
/
1 's:
v
V"
.'.
•I
{:\:
-^
\-
^
I
yf
^
•k,
fc
J
.^
'y
r
y
•^
I
1^
^.
^
^
^-•Tr^
-CT-K
•!.
^
.1
E&i.
-I
<»
R',
a^-.-SiSk^a
to
^
g
f
'r
%?-
^
e
^
f~r
•
»
s>
r
®
h
1 -I
^u
^
..I
y
^-fc
<y
y-
n
rx-
s
r>
m
>>
l"^^
•^
^
_.,...^^
y!%^^r--'.;-£^,
"~^^
^r<-«fe?NliF^Y^ ^
ll^F
i\
.^
A
>'•
•*;
?)
^K
iSE
•\;
^'-
vBK
\
T.
/
•^ •. ".
r
*»»»'";
f-
:f^—At2jff^;~
*<t-»
y
•,„ ^_ ,
'%-KI
^ »''-1^ •?"
^'A^''^s ^i.»^
ta
^t-
t»
»•;•'- ~".Wi
;:.r
"!vllt.
^ \
"
?;»T-S-s«<
V,