Napa City Council
October 17, 2023

955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
www.cityofnapa.org

CITY OF NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Vice Mayor Beth Painter
Councilmember Liz Alessio
Councilmember Mary Luros
Councilmember Bernie Narvaez
3:30 PM City Hall Council ChambersTuesday, October 3, 2023 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 Luros, Councilmember Narvaez, Vice Mayor Painter, and Mayor Sedgley

Present: 5 -

2. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS:

City Clerk Carranza announced the following supplemental items:

Items 6.B. and 6.C. - PowerPoint presentations from City staff. (Copies of all supplemental documents are included in Attachment 1)

3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:

3.A. 310-2023
Domestic Violence Awareness Month
Mayor Sedgley and members of Council read the proclamation.

3.B. 346-2023 Code Enforcement Officer Appreciation Week Mayor Sedgley and members of Council read the proclamation. Vin Smith, Community Development Director, joined by Parking Manager Tony Valadez and Code Enforcement Officers Anthony Howard and Devon Webb, accepted the proclamation and provided remarks.

ATTACHMENT 1

October 3, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft

4. PUBLIC COMMENT:

Jim McNamara - shared public safety concerns regarding a property on Browns Valley Road.

Pat Burrows, Napa City Firefighters Association - thanked the City Manager, Human Resources, and Finance Departments for piloting a Maternity VTO program.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR:

Approval of the Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Councilmember Alessio, seconded by Councilmember Narvaez, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Alessio, Luros, Narvaez, Painter, and Sedgley5 -

5.A. 351-2023
City Council Meeting Minutes
Approved the minutes from the September 19, 2023 Regular Meeting of the City Council.

5.B. 348-2023 Public Financing Authority of the Napa Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Membership
Reappointed incumbents, Carl L. Ebbeson and Lori Reich to the Public Financing Authority of the Napa Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Membership for terms effective immediately and ending September 30, 2025.

5.C. 352-2023
Amendment to Agreement with Abode Services for North Napa Center Operations
Authorized the City Manager to execute an amendment to City Agreement No. 2023-170 with Abode Services increasing the amount by $205,465 to an amount not to exceed $1,420,000 to provide the staff and start up and operating expenses necessary to operate a non-congregate sheltering program at the North Napa Center located at 3380 Solano Avenue for the term August 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024 and determining that the actions authorized by this item are exempt from CEQA.

5.D. 353-2023
Agreement with EYEP Solutions for Security Cameras
Authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with EYEP Solutions, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $200,000 for the purchase and installation of security cameras at and around the North Napa Center, a 56-unit non-congregate shelter located at 3380 Solano Avenue.

ATTACHMENT 1

October 3, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft

5.E. 339-2023 Emergency Solutions Grant
Adopted Resolution R2023-099 approving an application for funding of a grant agreement and any amendments thereto from the 2022-2023 funding year of the State ESG Program, Balance of State Allocation NOFA and authorizing the City Manager or Deputy City Manager to: (A) submit the application on behalf of the City to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) in an amount of up to $200,000 for homeless street outreach; and (B) execute a grant agreement and any amendments thereto with HCD.

Enactment No: R2023-099

5.F. 349-2023
State Grant to the City for the Law Enforcement Specialized Units Program - Proof of Authority
Adopted Resolution R2023-100 authorizing the City Manager to apply for and execute a grant agreement, and related documents, for the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) 2024 Law Enforcement Specialized Units (LESU) Program Grant to fund services provided to survivors of domestic violence and their children, in the amount of $203,143 with a local match from the City of $67,715.

Enactment No: R2023-100

6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:

6.A. 323-2023
Ceremonial Documents Policy
City Manager Potter provided a brief report.

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

Brief comments and questions ensued from members of Council.

A motion was made by Councilmember Luros, seconded by Vice Mayor Painter, to adopt Resolution R2023-101 approving the Ceremonial Documents Policy. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Alessio, Luros, Narvaez, Painter, and Sedgley5 -

Enactment No: R2023-101

ATTACHMENT 1

October 3, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft

6.B. 309-2023 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds Reallocation (See supplemental document in Attachment 1)
City Manager Potter opened the report.

Jessie Gooch, Budget Officer, provided the report.

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

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

A motion was made by Councilmember Alessio, seconded by Councilmember Narvaez, to adopt Resolution R2023-102 amending the Capital Improvement Project plan and reallocation a portion of the City's American Rescue Plan Act funds, as documented in Council Budget Amendment 99P03, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Alessio, Luros, Narvaez, Painter, and Sedgley5 -

Enactment No: R2023-102

6.C. 305-2023
Climate Action and Sustainability Program Update
(See supplemental document in Attachment 1)
Deborah Elliott, Management Analyst, provided the report.

Mayor Sedgley called for public comment.

Chris Benz - recognized and thanked members of Council for their efforts in supporting climate action.

Jim McNamara - shared that he has observed many parked cars throughout the City with expired registration; concerned that they would not pass smog, or may leak oil into storm drains.

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

7. CONSENT HEARINGS:

ATTACHMENT 1

October 3, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
Approval of the Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Vice Mayor Painter, seconded by Councilmember Luros, to approve the Consent Hearing Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Alessio, Luros, Narvaez, Painter, and Sedgley5 -

7.A. 326-2023
Military Equipment Ordinance Update Adding Additional Equipment Approved the first reading of an ordinance approving the updated police military equipment use policy to add additional equipment in accordance with California Government Code sections 7070 through 7075.

7.B. 336-2023
Update to One-Way Streets Designated
(1) Approved the first reading and introduction of an ordinance amending Napa Municipal Code Section 10.24.010 related to the designation of one-way streets. (2) Adopted Resolution R2023-203 approving the changes to one-way street designations, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA.

Enactment No: R2023-103

8. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER: None.

9. CLOSED SESSION:

City Attorney Barrett announced the closed session item.

9.A. 363-2023
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
(Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)): Initiation of litigation in one case.

CITY COUNCIL RECESS: 4:40 P.M.
6:30 P.M. EVENING SESSION

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

10.A. Roll Call:

11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

Mayor Sedgley asked Craig Smith to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.

ATTACHMENT 1

October 3, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft

12. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS:

City Clerk Carranza announced the following supplemental documents:

Item 15.A.:
- PowerPoint Presentation from City Staff
- Parking Documents provided by City Staff
- 18 Emailed comments
(Copies of all supplemental documents are included in Attachment 2) Mayor Sedgley and Councilmembers re-read the proclamation for Domestic Awareness Month, and presented the proclamation to Tracy Lamb, Executive Director, NEWS. Ms. Lamb provided remarks. She also invited members of the public to attend the "Power of Purple" event and provided members of Council with copies of NEWS' 2022-2023 Annual Report.

13. PUBLIC COMMENT:

Karen Stratvert - provided comments regarding traffic; suggested correcting the timing of traffic signals along Redwood Road, Trancas, and Highway 29 and suggested the repainting of lanes to make them more visible. She also asked who she could speak with regarding CourseCo's management of the Kennedy Golf Course.

Carol Whichard - provide comments regarding poor road conditions in Napa.

14. CONSENT HEARINGS:

Approval of the Consent Agenda
Mayor Sedgley announced the consent hearing. There were no requests to speak; the hearings were opened and continued without comment.

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

Aye: Alessio, Luros, Narvaez, Painter, and Sedgley5 -

ATTACHMENT 1

October 3, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft

14.A. 329-2023 Housing Element Adoption - Continuance
Opened and continued the public hearing to the next regular meeting of City Council on October 17, 2023, at 6:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, to consider adoption of a resolution amending the City of Napa 2040 General Plan to adopt the City’s Sixth (6th) Cycle Housing Element (Housing Element) for the 2023 to 2031 planning period and determine that the actions authorized by the resolution are exempt from the California environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

15. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:

ATTACHMENT 1

October 3, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft

15.A. 337-2023 Downtown Paid Parking Program
(See supplemental documents in Attachment 2)
Tony Valadez, Parking Programs Manager, opened the report.

Danielle Schmitz, Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) provided an overview of NVTA's take on parking.

Mr. Valadez continued the report and reviewed current challenges, recommended solutions, and next steps.

Mayor Sedgley called for public comment.

James A. Rosen - provided comments in support of a paid parking program.

Carol Barge, on behalf of herself and Karen Wesson - shared concerns regarding the program, suggested the recommend action was premature.

Craig Smith, Downtown Napa Association (DNA) - provided supplemental document and comments from the DNA suggesting plan enhancements that would enable the DNA to continue to support the plan. Suggested Council direct staff to come back with a revised plan.

Richard Tippitt - provided comments suggesting the sale of the surface lots for potential added benefit of increased housing, tax revenue, and increased community.

Karen Stratvert - shared various concerns with the proposed paid parking program.

John Sensenbaugh - shared various concerns with the proposed paid parking program.

Tom Finch, Filippis Pizza Grotto - shared need for increased parking enforcement and management of the current program.

Maureen Trippe, Co-founder Slow Down Napa - thanked staff for their efforts toward a program.

Kara Vernor, Napa County Bicycle Coalition - shared concerns that bike parking was not included in the report. Would like to see secure long-term parking addressed.

ATTACHMENT 1

October 3, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
Jeri Hansen, Napa Chamber of Commerce - interested in the broader, strategic, future planning of a parking plan. Encouraged Council to direct staff to continue.

Indra Fortney, Owner Boho Lifestyle - posed various questions regarding the program. Concerned paid program would deter local traffic.

Lindsey Forbes, Representative Zapolski Real Estate - shared various concerns that tenants have expressed regarding current parking issues, and a proposed future program.

Following public comment, discussion was turned over to Council and staff responded to individual questions regarding the paid parking program.

Additional discussion ensued. The meeting continued with Councilmembers providing individual comments and considerations to staff regarding a long term plan to address parking needs. There was no action taken on staff's recommended action.

16. REPORT ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION:

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

17. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER:

Mayor Sedgley asked if Council supported a request to ask staff to return to a future meeting to provide an update on CourseCo Inc.'s management of Napa Golf Course at Kennedy Park. His request was supported.

18. ADJOURNMENT: 8:44 P.M.

The next regularly scheduled meeting for the City Council of the City of Napa is October 17, 2023.

I hereby certify that the agenda for the above stated meeting was posted at a location freely accessible to members of the public at City Hall, 955 School Street, on Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 5:00 P.M.
_______________________________
Tiffany Carranza, City Clerk

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
Office of the City Clerk
City Council of the City of Napa
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2023

FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA

AFTERNO
ON SESSION:

SUBMIT

TED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING

6. ADMINIS
TRATIVE REPORTS:

6.B. Amer
ican Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds Reallocation
• PowerPoint Presentation from Staff.

6.C.

Climate Action and Sustainability Program Update
• PowerPoint Presentation from Staff.

ATTACHMENT 1

ARPA
Update
October 3, 2023
City Council Regular Meeting
10/3/2023
Supplemental - Item 6.B
From: City Staff

ATTACHMENT 1

ARPA Project Changes
• Total Amount to Reallocate: $3,925,761
• Defunding:
– Project Roomkey: $2 .8 million
– Police Department Building HVAC CIP
Projec
t: $625,761
– Stormdrain Condition Assessment CIP
Projec
t: $500,000
• Increasing existing ARPA projects and
adding new H
ousing/Homelessness
priorities to total $3,925,761

ATTACHMENT 1

ARPA Funds to be Reallocated
Project Roomkey
Local
Contribution,
$2,800,000
CIP: Police
Department
Building HVAC,
$625,761
CIP: Stormdrain
Condition
Assessment,
$500,000
$3,925,761

ATTACHMENT 1

CIP Project Changes
• Increases to Existing Projects
– Alternate EOC Backup Power: $76,000
– Fire Station Alerting Systems: $360,000
– Generators for Facilities: $200,000
– Kennedy Golf Course Backflow Device: $75,000
– Stormdrain Infrastructure Funding: $414,761
• Combine Projects
– Close the Stormdrain Condition Assessment
project
and move its $500,000 budget to the
Stormdrain Infrastructure Funding Project

ATTACHMENT 1

Housing/Homelessness
Changes
• Increases to Existing Projects
– Street Outreach/Housing Readiness: $300,000
– Tenancy Care and Ongoing Housing Support
for Proj
ect Homekey Sites: $1,100,000
• New ARPA Projects
– Code Enforcement: Blight Nuisances and
Vehicl
e Abatement: $600,000
– North Napa Center Operational Gaps: $200,000
– Studies and Legal Expenses for Housing and
Homeles
s Related Studies: $100,000

ATTACHMENT 1

Reallocated ARPA Funds
$3,925,761
Code
Enforcement,
$600,000
North Napa
Center, $200,000
Street
Outreach/Housing
Readiness,
$300,000
Studies & Legal
Expenses,
$100,000
Tenancy Care &
Support for
Project Homekey,
$1,100,000
CIP: Backup
Power, $76,000
CIP: Fire Station
Alerting Systems,
$360,000
CIP: Generators
for Facilities,
$200,000
CIP: Kennedy Golf
Course Backflow
Device, $75,000
CIP: Stormdrain
Infrastructure,
New Funding,
$414,761
CIP: Stormdrain Infrastructure,
Reallocated Funding, $500,000

ATTACHMENT 1

End of Presentation

ATTACHMENT 1

Climate Action
& Sustainability
Program
Update
October 3, 2023
City Council Regular Meeting
10/3/2023
Supplemental - Item 6.C
From: City Staff

ATTACHMENT 1

Agenda
• Definitions & Guiding Principals
• Climate Action Committee Update
• On-Road Transportation
• Buil
ding Energy
• Off-Road Equipment
• Outreach
• G
eneral Updates

ATTACHMENT 1

•Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-induced impactsClimate Action •Balancing the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needsSustainability •The goal of recognizing and addressing the unequal burdens made worse by climate change, while ensuring that all people share the benefits of climate protection efforts
Climate Equity
•The scientific evidence indicates that an urgent global climate mobilization effort to reverse global warming is needed as quickly as possible towards net zero climate pollutants from public and private operations within the City by 2030.

Climate Emergency
Resolution
•Goal CCS 1-1 Implement immediate and sustained actions in support of achieving net zero climate pollutants from public and private operations within the City by 2030.

Napa 2040 General Plan
Sources: www.un.org, www.cityofnapa.org, www.epa.gov
Definitions & Guiding Principals

ATTACHMENT 1

Climate Action Committee
Update
Napa County is seeking a consultant to develop a Regional Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (RCAAP) and associated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document. The proposals are due on October 27, 2023.

The CAC is exploring a Time of Listing energy assessment that would require a home energy assessment before selling a single-family residence.

The CAC is exploring a reach code for new construction that would favor electrification but allows natural gas.

The CAC is discussing opportunities for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) planning.

ATTACHMENT 1

GHG INVENTORY RESULTS
Agriculture
0%
Imported Water
1%
Wastewater
6%
Solid Waste
6%
Off-Road Equipment
9%
Building Energy
24%
On-Road Transportation
54%
City of Napa GHG Sectors

ATTACHMENT 1

On-Road Transportation
•As of September 2023, the City has 117 Level 2 charging ports and 40 DC Fast charging ports.
•The City owns 14 charging ports in downtown Napa.
•According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), 24.4% of total light- duty vehicle sales through Q2 2023 are either battery electric vehicles (BEV) or plug in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV).
•Staff is pursuing funding to plan for more EVSE throughout the City.

Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE)
•Staff submitted a Congressionally Directed Spending Request to plan for and install fleet EVSE at the Corporation yard. Funding was not awarded. •Staff applied for a Federal Department of Transportation grant to develop a plan for public electric vehicle (EV) charging at City facilities. Application is pending.
•Staff is applying for a California Air Resources Board planning grant for EV charging on public facilities focused on low-income census tracts. The City will partner with Napa RCD and the Napa County Bike Coalition. – Application is in process.
•Grants for EVs and EVSE are listed on the City’s climate action website.

Grants

ATTACHMENT 1

Building Energy
•MCE Clean Energy, BayREN and PG&E continue to provide rebates to single family, multifamily and commercial buildings focused on energy efficiency and electrification.
•Federal tax rebates and IRA incentives
•The CAC is working to develop a Time of Listing ordinance and a Green Building reach code that would encourage electrification.

Energy Efficiency and Electrification
•344 solar permits were finalized in 2023. In 2022, 629 permits were finalized. This includes both commercial and residential. •Net Energy Metering 3.0 went into affect on April 15, 2023. •Federal tax credit for rooftop solar increased to 30% through 2032.

Solar
•Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) – the City is eligible for $134,500 in a federal voucher. Staff is working through the application process.
• PG&E Resilience Hub grant – Staff supported the Public Works department in applying for a grant to provide backup power to the Senior Center Grants

ATTACHMENT 1

Off-Road Equipment
• Landscapers and gardeners
who ser
ve customers in the
City of Napa are eligible for a
rebate that can be used
towards the purchase of a
new, commercial grade
battery-powered leaf blower!
• Eligible Landscaping and
gardening bus
inesses in the
City of Napa can receive up to
$1,000 towards the purchase
of a commercial grade battery
powered leaf blower.
• 18 applications have been
awarded or
are in process as
of September 28, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 1

Outreach

ATTACHMENT 1

General Updates
Climate Action Fellows
RCD Contract
Upcoming Events
Climate Action Website

ATTACHMENT 1

Questions
Deborah Elliott
Management Analyst, Climate Action
City Manager’s Office, City of Napa
Phone (707) 257-9303
Email [email protected]
Website cityofnapa.org/ClimateAction

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
Office of the City Clerk
City Council of the City of Napa
Regular Meeting
October 3, 2023

FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA
EVENI
NG SESSION:

SUBMI

TTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING

15. ADMI
NISTRATIVE REPORTS:

15.A. Do
wntown Paid Parking Program
• PowerPoint Presentation from Staff.
• Parking Documents (past parking survey and report) provided by City Staff. 1) Emai
l from Ruthie Gardner received on September 24, 2023.
2) Email from Reyna Blasko received on September 24, 2023. 3) Email #1 from Michael Santangelo received on September 22, 2023. 4) Email from Downtown Napa Assoc_Craig Smith received on September 25, 2023. 5) Email from JoAnn Jex received on September 29, 2023. 6) Email from Indra Fortney received on September 29, 2023. 7) Email from James Rosen received on October 1, 2023.
8) Email from Napa Climate Now_Christina Benz received on October 2, 2023. 9) Email from Napa Chamber of Commerce_Jeri Hansen received on October 2, 2023. 10) Email from Connie Anderson received on October 2, 2023. 11) Email #2 from Michael Santangelo received on October 2, 2023. 12) Email from Rusty Cohn received on October 3, 2023.
13) Email from Thomas Coakley received on October 3, 2023. 14) Email from Bruce Barge received on October 3, 2023. 15) Email from Chuck Dell’Ario received on October 3, 2023. 16) Email from Carol Barge and Karen Wesson received on October 3, 2023. 17) Email from Richard Tippitt received on October 3, 2023. 18) Email from Ken Frank received on October 3, 2023.

EVENI
NG SESSION:

SUBMI

TTED AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING

15. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:

15. A. Downtown Paid Parking Program
1) Emai
l from Cathy D’Angelo Holmes received on October 3, 2023. 2) Email from Kathi Bradbury received on October 3, 2023. 3) Voicemail from Susan Rushing-Hart received on October 3, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Mary Luros
To: Clerk
Cc: Steve Potter
Subject: Fwd: Parking meters
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 3:18:07 PM
Begin forwarded message:

From: Ruthie Gardner < >
Subject: Parking meters
Date: September 24, 2023 at 5:37:59 AM PDT
To: Mary Luros <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] [EXTERNAL]
NO ON METERS!
Sent from my iPad
Item 15.A
Public Comment

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Mary Luros
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: No parking meters please
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 3:37:03 PM
Begin forwarded message:

From: Reyna Blasko < >
Subject: No parking meters please
Date: September 24, 2023 at 7:38:50 AM PDT
To: Mary Luros <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from r . Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] [EXTERNAL]
Sent from my iPhone

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Mary Luros
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Paid Parking
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 3:38:08 PM
Attachments: image003.png
Paid Parking in Downtown Napa.docx
Begin forwarded message:

From: Craig Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Paid Parking
Date: September 15, 2023 at 1:31:51 PM PDT
To: Tony Valadez <[email protected]
>, Neal Harrison
<[email protected]>
Cc: Vincent Smith <[email protected]>, Bill La Liberte <[email protected]>
HI Tony,

Thanks for the email, but I am a little baffled and frankly shocked by your response.

The “Planning and Features” stage of this process isn’t something that will happen after the council passes an unrestricted paid parking plan. That stage actually began the day staff introduced the idea of a program, which was initially poorly received, in order to make it more palatable.

For example, you added a detailed permit plan, offering different levels of participation and ways to make it easy for a business with multiple staff members to make it work. That was one of the features that made it easy for the DNA board to support the process. It was in that spirit that you, Neal, Bill and I discussed other changes, such as offering locals free initial parking and formulating metrics to measure the success (or failure) of the program.

Understandably, there may
be some fine-tuning to this, but our impression from your response at that meeting was that you were fully on board, and the bullet points I sent to you were based on that conversation.

Are you saying that is inaccurate? In you view, is everything off the table until council passes an unrestricted paid parking ordinance? That is unacceptable and not the way we’ve been working together so far.

The points I sent are intended for wide circulation, and are conditions of approval of the program by the DNA. I’m c:ing council members here as well as DNA board members.

Thanks.

Craig

ATTACHMENT 1

Craig Smith
Executive Director
Downtown Napa Association
www.donapa.com
1300 First Street, Suite 290
Napa, CA. 94559
(707) 257-0322 T
(707) 254-5884 C
(707) 257-1821 F

From: Tony Valadez <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 5:00 PM
To: Craig Smith <[email protected]>; Neal Harrison <[email protected]>
Cc: Vincent Smith <[email protected]>; Bill La Liberte <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Paid Parking

Hi Craig,
Thanks for putting together your thoughts to incorporate into the plan moving forward.

I’m curious about the intention of the letter. Is this your letter of support intended for the upcoming Council meeting? Or is this something else? Below are some comments
that I’m hoping we can discuss before you send this letter:

Many of these bullet points are premature for the upcoming Council meeting as there are some details better suited for the Planning and Features stage of the project following Council approval. As you know, the approval of the specific features of the program will come at a future Council date when new policies, and the details of the paid parking program, will be recommended for adoption. To that end, we can’t promise all of the requested features in this letter at this time. That being said, throughout the Planning and Features stage, we would like to have regular meetings (monthly?) with an advisory committee to refine the plan and features of the program.

There we can talk about what the Local Discount rate should look like, what the merchant validation program should look like, etc. Our assumption was to solidify the project schedule, including advisory meetings, after Council action and move towards policy changes and fine-tuning program features.

I’m going to have to circle back with the City Attorney’s Office regarding the last bullet point of your letter regarding having additional members on the advisory committee outside of the DNA board.

I’m sure we can find ways to make the advisory committee diverse with other stakeholders. Our earlier conversations with the City Attorney’s Office assumed the advisory board would only be made up of DNA members in which we could sign an agreement with DNA as the advisory board.

ATTACHMENT 1

Ultimately, I feel the bullet points in this letter bring up good points to kickstart discussion in the Planning and Features phase of the program. However, those specific features of the program are better suited for discussion as we refine the plan following Council approval. If telegraphed to members now you may be putting the cart before the horse based on unrefined details and confusing pointers.

We request that you
refine your letter to say these bullet points are suggestions rather than firm stances.

Again, it would be beneficial to us all if we discuss the intent/messaging of your letter before it is sent.

Tony Valadez
Parking Programs Manager

Community Development
City of Napa
ADDRESS: PO Box 660
955 School Street, Napa, CA 94559
Phone
(707) 257-9272
Email [email protected]
Website www.cityofnapa.org
Social www.facebook.com/CityOfNapa · @CityOfNapa

From: Craig Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 4:02 PM
To: Neal Harrison <[email protected]>; Tony Valadez <[email protected]>
Cc: Vincent Smith <[email protected]>; Bill La Liberte <[email protected]> Subject: Paid Parking

[EXTERNAL]
Hi guys,

Thanks for your continuing work on this. Bill and I relayed the conversations we’ve had with you two to the Executive Committee, who asked us to draft the attached to capture those discussions. These represent points we agreed to incorporate into the

ATTACHMENT 1

plan. We’ll share these with our members, city council members and others.

Thanks!

Craig Smith
Executive Director
Downtown Napa Association
www.donapa.com
1300 First Street, Suite 290
Napa, CA. 94559
(707) 257-0322 T
(707) 254-5884 C
(707) 257-1821 F

ATTACHMENT 1

Paid Parking in Downtown Napa
The Downtown Napa Association (DNA) board members recently heard an update on the program, and are in support of the direction the City is going with this. Although this will generate some income, this is a parking management program first, and revenue is a secondary benefit. The program should be designed with an eye on the former, not the latter.

Acceptance of the program from the DNA members and the local community at large is important. Calling it a Two-Year Pilot Program could help with perception. Measurable metrics will be designed, included some suggested below. These will be monitored from the beginning, allowing for any tweaks necessary as soon as they are recognized. If, after two years, the metrics are not met, the program will be discontinued with a return to free parking or some other mutually agreed upon program.

After talking with City staff about how the program can be enhanced and thereby better received by the DNA membership, here are a few points that will enable the DNA to continue to publicly support the plan:
• In order to accommodate parkers running quick errands, 24- minute parking spaces on the streets should remain in place as free spaces. It might be that additional spaces 24 minute spaces are needed for restaurants.
• Although the allocation of three-hour and all-day parking spaces might be ‘reset,’ as usage indicates, all of the spaces in the garages will be available for free parking. • Paid parking will be enforced six days a week, between 7 AM and 6 PM. • Locals can use their drivers’ licenses to “register” for 90 minutes of free parking.

Afterwards, they must wait three hours before being able to do so at any other metered spot. However, they can pay for more time on top of the 90 minutes. • Metrics for the program will include:

The City will generate at least 75% of the projected income. (Currently projected at $2.1M, a number that will be recalculated reflecting 90 minutes of free locals parking as explained above. This metric will indicate that enforcement is taking place.) At least 1,000 of the project +1,400 permits expected to be sold, will, in fact, be sold. (This will indicate that employees aren’t just moving to the surrounding neighborhoods, to prevent ill feelings from those residents.)
• Three members of the DNA board, along with three people from the city and one independent person, such as a Chamber of Commerce member, will be part of a seven- person advisory board that will evaluate the program and determine how revenue will be managed and net income spent. The City and DNA will enter into a formal agreement detailing this.

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Mary Luros
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Parking meters
Date: Friday, September 29, 2023 5:18:08 PM
Mary Luros
Councilmember, District 3
City of Napa
PO Box 660 / 955 School Street, Napa, CA 94559
Phone (707) 258-7800 x5284
Email [email protected]
Website www.cityofnapa.org
Social www.facebook.com/CityOfNapa · @CityOfNapa
Begin forwarded message:

From: JoAnn <s >
Date: September 29, 2023 at 3:53:31 PM PDT
To: Mary Luros <[email protected]>
Subject: Parking meters
[You don't often get email from s . Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] [EXTERNAL]
Ms.

Luros: I’ve been a resident of Napa for 10 years. We always find parking downtown- we DON’T need parking meters. They are ugly, inconvenient, and a nuisance!! Please, NO!
Thank you,
JoAnn Jex
Sent from my iPhone

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Mary Luros
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Paid Parking Petition
Date: Friday, September 29, 2023 5:21:25 PM
Mary Luros
Councilmember, District 3
City of Napa
PO Box 660 / 955 School Street, Napa, CA 94559
Phone (707) 258-7800 x5284
Email [email protected]
Website www.cityofnapa.org
Social www.facebook.com/CityOfNapa · @CityOfNapa
Begin forwarded message:

From: Boho Lifestyle <[email protected]>
Date: September 29, 2023 at 1:19:34 PM PDT
To:

Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>, Liz Alessio
<[email protected]>, Beth Painter <[email protected]>, Mary Luros <[email protected]>, [email protected], Steve Potter <[email protected]>, Craig Smith <[email protected]>, Bill LaLiberte <[email protected]>, Michael Holcomb
<[email protected]>, Ali Paasimaa <[email protected]> Subject: Paid Parking Petition

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
To our downtown Napa representatives;
1,393 members of our community signed a petition (launched on Facebook with very little exposure) AGAINST downtown paid parking, 80 people signed just this week.

Downtown has been through its ups and downs, suffering from mistakes made and corrected from the past (one way streets, shuttered vintage buildings, and paid parking). Napa is a special hamlet with a small town charm that people gravitate towards. Part of the 'brand' of Napa is this small town, historic feeling. Will downtown paid parking meters change this appeal?

Can someone share the updated business case that demonstrates that this would be an economically viable proposition for the taxpayers of Napa? While locals are afforded a certain amount of parking for free, the inconvenience of having to find and enter information into the nearest parking meter is an inconvenience
that will affect business, they have voiced this opinion to us over and over again (Boho Lifestyle has 4000 local repeat customers).

ATTACHMENT 1

For quick task retailers, like coffee shops, this inconvenience could prove the most significant (as one Starbucks study has shown -reduced business in locations with metered parking). Even though it's free it's still considered an inconvenience that will annoy and deter local traffic.

Paid Parking Petition Info
https://www.change.org/p/napa-residents-and-business-s-do-not-support- parking-meters
In this age of advanced technology, how long will this form of payment last before it's outdated like the phone booth? And we're left paying the bill for out- dated, ugly structures marring the appeal and brand of downtown.

To recap, if we go ahead with this we're going against 1,393 members of the community (and this is just the tip of the iceberg, the few that managed to hear of this petition without any type of promotion other than word of mouth).

Lastly, is the consulting agency that recommended parking meters the same that will be involved in implementing them? If so, that's a clear conflict of interest.

--
Indra Fortney, Owner

ATTACHMENT 1

James A Rosen
Napa, CA 94559-3233
October 1, 2023
Napa City Council
City Hall
955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
Subject: Advocating for the Implementation of Paid Parking Dear Members of the Napa City Council,
Drawing on my background in systems engineering and public policy, I am writing to express my strong support for the implementation of a paid parking system within the City of Napa. I believe this change will reduce traffic, fund neighborhood amenities, and improve our health and happiness. I want to focus on three factors that I think are critical to the success of this program.

1. Parking Benefit Districts (PBDs) Parking Benefit Districts give local residents and business owners control of parking revenues — and with them, the ability to continually improve their neighborhood on their terms. Locals get to prioritize safety measures, pedestrian-friendly streets, public transportation, and green spaces, ultimately leading to a more attractive and economically vibrant urban environment. If we fail to use PBDs and instead direct the money to the general fund, people will simply see it as a general tax rather than as a mechanism that directly improves their lives. This approach has been proven in Austin, Pasadena, Redwood City, San Diego, and many other cities.

2. Performance Pricing Anyone who frequents downtown Napa has seen how dramatically it changes by time of day, day of week, and season. It makes no sense to charge the same price on a Wednesday afternoon in February and a Saturday in September — the February price will result in too much traffic in September and the September price will hurt businesses in February. Instead of setting a fixed price, Performance Pricing sets a target occupancy rate — usually around 85%, which ensures roughly one open space per block at all times. This reduces traffic and promotes efficient and fair use of parking spaces.

3. Equitable Rollout Many of the benefits of paid parking such as higher transit utilization aren’t achievable overnight. It will take months for people to find carpools and transit agencies to roll out new routes. During this transition, much of the cost will be borne by our downtown workers who currently commute by car. Whether they live in Napa or not, they are members of our community and we owe it to them to make this change with their needs in mind. A common solution is to offer substantially subsidized parking permits to local businesses to offer as a benefit to their employees, then gradually phase

ATTACHMENT 1

the subsidies out. An alternative is a “cap and trade” system where permits are auctioned off each month and the city reduces the quantity available over time.

In conclusion, the implementation of paid parking, leveraging Parking Benefit Districts and performance pricing, will not only optimize the city's parking infrastructure but also enhance its economic development and our community’s health and happiness.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I am available to provide further insights or address any queries you may have regarding this proposal.

Sincerely,
James A Rosen

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Christina Benz
To: Clerk
Cc: Tony Valadez
Subject: October 3 Item 15.A. Downtown Paid Parking Program Comments Date: Monday, October 2, 2023 5:29:26 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Please share these comments with the Mayor and City Council.

To the Mayor and City Council,
We are writing to support the establishment of a Downtown Paid Parking Ordinance. We realize that “free parking” isn’t free—it requires funds from the City’s General Fund for maintenance and enforcement. Instituting an equitable paid parking system will require users to pay for parking and reward those who use alternative forms of transportation (walking, cycling, public transit).

The proposed program takes a measured approach to the transition to paid parking and was developed as the result of stakeholder input.

We urge your support.

Sincerely,
The Napa Climate NOW! Steering Committee
Lynne Baker
Marilyn Knight-Mendelson
Chris Benz
Linda Brown
Jim Wilson
Lori Stelling

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Jeri Hansen
To: Clerk
Cc: Steve Potter; Vincent Smith
Subject: Napa Chamber letter re: 15A Downtown Paid Parking program Date: Monday, October 2, 2023 12:44:56 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Napa Chamber Paid Parking Letter 10.2.23.pdf
[EXTERNAL]

Dear Mayor Sedgley and members of the Napa City Council,

Please find attached our letter regarding item 15A – Downtown Paid Parking Program - on tomorrow’s Council agenda.

Thank you,

Jeri Hansen

Jeri Hansen
President/CEO
Napa Chamber of Commerce |
1556 First Street | Napa, CA 94559|
[email protected]
707.254.1146 (Direct)
707.226.7455 (Main)

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Mary Luros
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Paid Parking Downtown
Date: Monday, October 2, 2023 5:26:37 PM
Begin forwarded message:

From: Connie Anderson <[email protected]> Subject: Paid Parking Downtown
Date: October 2, 2023 at 4:53:11 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
It is my understanding this topic will be coming up at tomorrows Council meeting

The Downtown Napa Association (DNA) board members have been listening, discussing and debating several sides of this plan for some time now. Whether to make changes, what changes to make or to completely leave it as is.

We decided in the end to support the changes that were brought to us with certain caveats, which Craig Smith, the DNA Executive Director, sent to you earlier. Without these points being included, it will be hard to support any kind of paid parking program.

•Locals would have 24-minute and 90-minute parking allowances for certain downtown parking needs.

•Better enforcement.
•Employee allowed parking on surface lots and garages by selling parking permits would be included.

•Moneys generated by these sales would be managed by a team of three City workers, three DNA staff and board members and one at-large member for a total of 7 people.

We understood these provisions would be included, but were later told they would be addressed at a later date, giving us cause for concern.

ATTACHMENT 1

I hope that it will not be left open-ended if a decision us made.

Thanks,
President of the DNA
Thanks,
Connie Anderson
Publisher, Marketplace Magazine

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

cheaper than installing meters.

On top of all this, we have a surplus of city parking per the recent Register article.

These spaces aren’t utilized because of inconvenience and perception of safety.

How would parking meters address those issues. They don’t. Those same issues remain.

Maybe if parking permits were issued to city residents, other cities do this, then I could understand idea of parking meters. We already pay our taxes to the city. Let the non residents pay for their parking. Perhaps that money could go to improving our streets that aren’t located in the downtown core.

I guess that I am a cynic, but when it comes to issues like this, I will follow the money.

I feel this is just a quick solution to an invented parking problem and a way to generate revenue and we all are gonna pay for it.

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

Bruce Barge, Napa, CA 94558
October 2, 2023
Napa City Council, City Hall, 955 School Street, Napa, CA 94559 Subject: Paid Parking
Dear Members of the Napa City Council,
For important decisions like the implementaNon of a new parking program, it’s essenNal to do two things: 1) gather valid data from the key stakeholders who would be affected in order to assess the need, and 2) socialize the results with the key stakeholders and determine if there is a good business case before authorizing further design. I’m wriNng to say that neither of these two steps has been completed successfully for the proposed Napa parking program. I am not opposed to an improved parking management program. But the City Council should only approve a new ordinance and RFP once steps 1 and 2 have been completed effecNvely.

Regarding step 1, the data gathering was inadequate in the following ways:
• The online survey was poorly communicated, and the overwhelming majority of those affected were not aware of the opportunity/importance to parNcipate. • As a result, this was not an appropriate sampling to be sure that each group of key stakeholders was fairly represented: employees who work downtown, residents who shop downtown, downtown businesses, and tourists. I have low confidence that the survey results accurately depict parking aZtudes/behaviors for each of these groups. • These issues were repeated when the two public meeNngs were held. Because of poor communicaNon, most people were unaware of the importance and scope of a proposed parking program change, so they did not a[end the meeNngs. The meeNngs were also conducted in a way that pushed the consultant’s point of view on parking, rather than a more open solicitaNon of input.
• Overall, the methodology appears to assume that there is a need for a new parking program, rather than an unbiased assessment of the need.

Regarding step 2, it’s great that there were 30 meeNngs with relevant groups to test percepNons about parking need/design. However, this feedback has not yet been communicated to the general public, including real concerns raised in these meeNngs. There has not not been an opportunity to discuss whether there is enough need/business case to jusNfy a new ordinance and RFP . This is an important decision; it warrants more transparency and inclusion.

In my professional life, I have led dozens of assessment projects and know from experience the importance of doing good work upfront to ensure successful implementaNon. More needs to be done regarding steps 1 and 2 in order for a proposed Napa parking plan to be successful. I encourage the City Council to direct staff and the consultant to strengthen their data, communicaNons and engagement with stakeholders before moving forward. Thank you.

Bruce Barge, Ph.D.

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Alan Charles Dell"Ario
To: Clerk
Cc: Mary Luros
Subject: Downtown paid parking. City Council Agenda 15 A Date: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 11:35:25 AM
Dear Ms. Carrazana,
Please advise the council that I oppose paid parking downtown as unnecessary and a further imposition on Napa city residents. One of the pleasant features of Napa is its ready accessibility and imposing paid parking limits that accessibility. While my own experience is, of course, anecdotal, I have never experienced significant difficulty in finding parking. The time may have come for the council to direct the removal of some of the parklets that are no longer in use such as the one on Coombs street, between Second and Third, across from the courthouse.

Thank you.
~Chuck Dell'Ario
Alan Charles Dell’Ario
2019 California Lawyer Attorney of the Year
Certified Specialist, Appellate Law
State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
PO Box 359
Napa, California 94559
707-666-5351

ATTACHMENT 1

Carol Barge

Napa, CA 94558

Karen Wesson

Napa, CA 94558

October 3, 2023

Napa City Council
City Hall
955 School Street
Napa, CA 94558

Subject: 15.A. Downtown Paid Parking Program

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,

Do the Residents of Napa Want or Need a Paid Parking Program for Everyone?

Let us start off by saying free parking is a gift that the City of Napa provides its citizens and guests. We are grateful for this luxury that maintains a small town atmosphere that is both friendly and welcoming.

But it appears from the very beginning of this process, starting in January of this year, the City has been intent on implementing a paid parking plan. Does Napa really need a paid parking plan for everyone? Or can the issues and concerns be addressed without creating a lasting change to the downtown?

A QR Code generated online parking survey was made available to the downtown area during the 2022 holiday season. A mere 511 people - that’s .006% of the residents of Napa based on 78,000 residents - responded to the survey. Were these respondents employees, residents, tourists, employers? We don’t know the breakdown of respondents.

The fact there were so few respondents in a city of this size, and the nature of the questions results in woefully inadequate information to determine the parking experiences and needs of its residents. Yet, the Staff Report cites that “51% of respondents were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the existing parking conditions.” That is roughly 255 respondents, which is ridiculously small. Yet, this survey is being used as a reason to implement a paid parking program.

ATTACHMENT 1

Here’s a short chronology of the two public meetings we attended and were led by Dixon Resources Unlimited, a parking and operations management company.

1. The paid parking process started in January, when a small article appeared in the Napa Register titled, “City of Napa to roll out paid parking program, hold forums starting on January 25”.

2. Following this meeting the headline in the Napa Register recounted the January 25 meeting with residents, “A plan for paid parking set to emerge in Napa three decades after meters were removed.” It seemed like a paid parking plan was in motion no matter what the feedback was from the meeting.

3. Following the March 22 public meeting this was the headline in The Napa Register Article “Napa Paid Parking Plan gets another frosty reception at community forum”
The article stated, “On Wednesday, about 50 Napans showed up at the Senior Activity Center for the city's second community meeting on the plan, and most speakers — a mix of those who’d attended the first meeting and those who hadn’t — spoke out against the idea.” Also stated in the article was this quote “The reason why we’re having this conversation today is because the data is driving this conversation,” Dixon said. “We are basically in a position now where there’s really no more on-street capacity.”
But if you read the Staff Report, it states in part about that March 22 meeting, “Public input has demonstrated that there are critical parking issues impacting local residents, employees, and business owners that must be addressed moving forward.” This statement in the Staff Report is cherry picking the facts.

The majority of attendees opposed a paid parking program by speaking out and wore T-shirts, held signs and had stickers on their clothing that said Keep Parking Free.

To be sure, there are parking issues that need attention and were acknowledged by attendees during these public meetings.

1) A lack of enforcement for current parking limits in which a parked car is allowed to remain way beyond the posted limit without being ticketed

2) Employees parking in areas for long periods of time beyond the posted limit OR moving their cars multiple times a day in desirable parking spots which take up parking spaces that shoppers/visitors would otherwise use.

Although employees can already purchase a $30/mo parking permit, there needs to be a paid parking plan for them that is affordable and accessible or investigate further with them and their employers as to why they don’t utilize the current permit system, which leads to point #3.

3) Some of the downtown garages need updating with lighting, security cameras and better signage. Some of the existing parking lots need repaving.

ATTACHMENT 1

In closing, we believe this agenda item is premature. Are we really at a point in time where we are ready to make a motion to establish a Downtown Paid Parking Ordinance and recommend a contract with a vendor for implementation?

Maybe the answer is YES to a re-worked paid parking plan for employees that they will find more agreeable. This might include making the garages safer with lighting and security cameras. And NO to paid parking for all residents and visitors to Napa who may limit or avoid shopping or dining in the downtown all together.

Respectfully,

Carol Barge
Napa

Karen Wesson
Coombsville

ATTACHMENT 1

Good evening, my name is Richard Tippitt and I live at . I wanted to start by thanking you for your time tonight listening to comments from everyone. If there’s anything I’ve learned so far through these speakers and the conversations I’ve had leading up to this meeting it is that you won’t be able to please everyone. So, maybe it’s time to stop trying. Do less, to do more. Instead of trying to appease everyone with how to best manage parking, it’s time to sell these surface lots and let the market decide what their purpose should be and encourage the type of use you want.

It wasn’t too long ago that these surface lots were shops, houses, apartments, o ffices, physical
places that were here for the community. They were built by the community and they were torn down by the city. The courthouse and historical society are full of pictures of these beautiful buildings. These were homes, small businesses, third places, the cornerstone of a strong community, that were demolished to create blank spaces, blight. As the single largest landowner in downtown, the city of Napa blocks the reestablishment of this community by and for locals first.

There are numerous benefits to selling these surface lots beyond having to yet again fight against your constituents, but housing, revenue, and community stand out as the most obvious.

Housing: With roughly 400K square feet of valuable downtown land owned by the city strictly used for parking, we could build 1000 or more housing units of various heights, sizes, and types.

That would mean 1000 more families of all incomes with homes in Napa with little to no need for extra infrastructure provided by the city. If the city doesn’t want to be San Jose or Sac, as the county planning commission is keen to keep referencing, we have to build inwards. This is our chance to do so.

Tax revenue: Beyond the direct sale of the surface lots–which provides immediate revenue and alleviates the need for further maintenance funding–a parking lot redeveloped into mixed use buildings will far outstrip the projected revenue generated by parking fees. Estimating 1000 housing units at Napa’s average house price, the city would generate $5.2M annually–before adding in the revenue from commercial properties and the added economic activity. Even half that number of housing units creates more revenue than the projected parking revenue.

Community: Most importantly, though, allowing and encouraging a denser downtown will create a sense of community that Napa lacks today. There is no doubt that Napa has communities, but it is not a community. A denser downtown creates a sense of place and belonging that the leveling of buildings in favor of parking lots destroyed. While building density downtown is not a silver bullet to making Napa a better place to live, a strong downtown community is the sign of a strong city. For instance, no one points to SF as a healthy city, although most issues are con fined to the
downtown area.

Looking to the future, Napa has a choice that will be made, consciously or unconsciously, over the coming decade: do we want to be Bordeaux or do we want to be Aspen. To become a community

ATTACHMENT 1

or a resort town. Encouraging building a city all Napans can be proud of by incentivizing building more downtown and refocusing on the local experience is the only way to not become an unattainable resort town void of all real life.

ATTACHMENT 1

image003.png
From: Mary Luros
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Parking experience - Bcc to Napa City Council members Date: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:31:13 PM

Mary Luros
Councilmember, District 3

City of Napa
PO Box 660 / 955 School Street, Napa, CA 94559
Phone (707) 258-7800 x5284
Email [email protected]
Website www.cityofnapa.org
Social www.facebook.com/CityOfNapa · @CityOfNapa
Begin forwarded message:

From: Ken Frank <[email protected]>
Date: October 3, 2023 at 3:07:52 PM PDT
To: Ken Frank <[email protected]>
Subject: Parking experience -
Bcc to Napa City Council members

[EXTERNAL]
I was hoping to attend this evening’s meeting and speak in person, but my day in the kitchen got scrambled so I’m reaching out via blind email to all five of you.

I have been following the parking issue for some time and am pleased to say I think the city staff is doing a great job of learning, listening and understanding how policy, properly implemented can improve the downtown parking experience for all involved. I too have done a lot of learning about this issue, one that many take for granted. It’s actually fascinating what is possible if we get it right.

It has become clear to anyone paying attention that “Free” parking is not free. In fact, it is expensive, and the costs are born by all of us, whether we take advantage of the parking or not. It is also clear that our parking problem is clearly something that needs to be addressed, not something to kick down the road.

I urge you to instruct the staff to keep working on the details so we can make a plan that resolves issues for local merchants, their employees and visitors to our vibrant downtown.

ATTACHMENT 1

Thank you,
Ken Frank

ATTACHMENT 1

City of Napa
Parking
Management
Plan
October 3, 2023
City Council Regular Meeting
10/3/2023
Supplemental - Item 15.A
From: City Staff

ATTACHMENT 1

Agenda

01. 02.

NVTA

CITY CURRENT CHALLENGES
Danielle Schmitz- NVTA take on parking

03. RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS

04. NEXT STEPS
Challenges and long-term goals
Review solutions
Council Feedback

ATTACHMENT 1

NAPA VALLEY

TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY
Danielle Schmitz, Director of Planning

01.

ATTACHMENT 1

4 Introduction
NVTA is a Joint Powers Authority comprised of the
Cities, Town, and County of Napa
• NVTA is responsible for:
• Administering Measure T – ½ Sales Tax for
Transportation
• Countywide Transportation Planning
• Administering the Vine Transit System and
Ancillary Services
• Distributing Transportation Funds
• Coordinating Highway Improvements with
Caltrans
• Administering multi-jurisdictional projects

ATTACHMENT 1

Where Our Transportation
Infrastructure Funding Comes From
• 82% of NVTA’s capital funding is
fro
m competitive grant funds and
federal loans
• 18% of NVTA’s capital funding are
bloc
k grants
– 58% are federal
– 21% are state
– 21% are local
Programming Responsibility
• State and Federal Highway Funds
• Air District DMV funds
• Bike and Pedestrian TDA funds
Transportation Infrastructure Funding 101
Based on NVTA FY 2023-2024 budget
Competitive Grants
82%
Block Grants
18%
Competitive Vs. Block Grants
Federal
58%State
21%
Local
21%
Sources of Funding

ATTACHMENT 1

It’s a new paradigm; Eligibility to Receive and Compete for Grant Funding Comes with New Requirements. . .

Safety: Building transportation
infrastructure that supports all
users of the transportation
system and protects the most
vulnerable
Transportation Infrastructure Funding 101
Climate Protection: Being good
stewards of the environment
Equity: Ensuring all users of the
transportation system get what
they need to ensure equal
mobility

ATTACHMENT 1

"Directly charging drivers for their parking is much fairer than forcing everyone to pay for it indirectly.“ – Professor Donald Shoup
• Resources currently used to maintain
fre
e parking spaces could be better
spent in areas that benefit everyone in
the community
• Low-income families are a lot less likely
to o
wn a car and therefore do not share
in the free parking benefit
• Parking charges are embedded in the
cos
t of goods and low-income families
pay a higher proportion of their income
on those goods
• Free parking encourages driving and
cons
umes too much real estate in the
street – making walking, cycling more
dangerous, and boarding and alighting
transit riders more difficult
• Free parking leads to parking shortages
The Hidden Costs of Free Parking

ATTACHMENT 1

Better Parking Management can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve safety, and generate resources to improve mobility for people who cannot drive. • A good parking management system will
– Discourage driving and encourage people
to us
e alternative modes leaving more
space for people
– Reduce cruising for parking which improves
saf
ety for pedestrians and reduces harmful
vehicle emissions
– Generate revenues to provide alternative
tran
sportation
Advantages of Paid Parking

ATTACHMENT 1

It’s good for business
• People strolling spend more money
• Since free parking leads to shortages, the inverse is also
true that paid parking allows cities to manage it
better, reducing the time spent looking for parking
which encourages more people downtown.
• Parking is less likely to be consumed by employees.
• Parking rules can cap parking times, and turning over parking
is likely to increase business activity.

Advantages of Paid Parking

ATTACHMENT 1

NVTA provides heavily subsidized alternatives to driving alone and can partner with employers to incentivize behavioral change What about our employees?
Ride sharing
Bike subsidies
Van pool
Public transportation
www
.vcommute.org

ATTACHMENT 1

CURRENT SYSTEM

02.

ATTACHMENT 1

Parking is a
Hot T opic
Large and small cities across
the US grappling with parking.
• Parking minimums
• Cost of parking
• Impact on businesses and
employees
• Local and visitor perceptions
• Alternative modes
It’s complex, everchanging, and
difficult.

ATTACHMENT 1

C urrent Parki ng C hal l enges
Not enough
empl oyee
desi gnated parki ng
and i ncenti ves to
use system
Premi um on -street
parki ng for patrons
often not avai l abl e
( +80% usage duri ng
peak ti mes)
C urrent muni ci pal
code and
enforcement can't
keep up
(+80% tickets to
lo ca ls)
T he cost of free
parki ng =
taxpayers i ndi rectl y
subsi di zi ng

ATTACHMENT 1

Free
Ava ila b leC onveni ent
F ree, C onveni ent, &
Ava ila ble Pa rkin g
A s Downtown becomes more successful, it
attracts more busi nesses, housi ng, and
vi si tors. Our i nfrastructure ages and parki ng
management needs to change.

Th e p e rfe ct sce n a rio is le ss a n d le ss like ly.

We want to set the future vision.

Our goal i s conveni ent and avai l abl e parki ng.

ATTACHMENT 1

Lo n g-Te r m
Goa ls
Management
Holistic parking
management
system for
visito rs to fin d
premi um spaces,
empl oyees more
easi l y park, and
promote
al ternati ve transi t
Improvement
I mproved
i nfrastructure and
i ncreased safety
with re lia b le
source of fundi ng
Inventory
B etter fi nanci ng
opti ons and
publ i c/pri vate
partnershi ps to
i ncrease surpl us

ATTACHMENT 1

PARKING

RECOMMENDATIONS

03.

ATTACHMENT 1

C ommuni ty I nput: Past 10 Months
Discussing and studying since 2015
Pu blic Su rve y
+30 one-on-one
meetings with
businesses
+10 Community and
Stakeholder Meetings
One -on -One
Community &
Stakeholder
+450 Reponses
December – February
2023
• Unhappy with the system (need
for employee parking; poor
experience in garages)
• Uneasy of change
• Solution dependent on individual
or business context
• Lots of good ideas and concerns
incorporated

ATTACHMENT 1

C i ty S taff
R ecommended
Solu t ion
Update Municipal Code & Enforcement • Block face parking restrictions • Weekend enforcement
• More enforcement officers
Employee & Neighborhood Permit
Program
• Employees $30 - $10/month
• Increase # of available employee spaces
• Adjacent neighborhood permit &
enforcement
Market Rate Paid Parking • Monday-Sunday 8am-6pm
• On-street $2.50/hr; Off-street $1.50/hr
• 7 yr equipment lease (low upfront
capital investment)
R ecommendation De script ion
Timing: These changes would not take effect overnight. It would take many months to refine details and roll out municipal code changes, permit systems, and paid parking infrastructure

ATTACHMENT 1

K ey F eatures
Downtown Parking Authority Revenue stays in the district. Recommends funding priorities solely for parking and mobility projects that are managed with the City; DNA has tentatively agreed to be this authority
Employee Permits Low-cost employee parking permits with options for employers to purchase and self-manage permit details
Locals & Neighborhood Permits Ability for local discounts and merchant promotions; Neighborhood permit system
Pricing Adjustments Can adjust pricing for peak and off-peak seasons, first 30 minutes free, local discount, etc.

Technology & Enforcement
Efficiencies
Latest technology using smart meters and mobile
payment; +100% efficiency increase for enforcement
officers
Market Forces & Private Lots Private/county lots may opt into system; Private sector and public finance for new inventory

ATTACHMENT 1

E mpl oyee Parking L ocations
Goal is to ensure accessible spaces
for employees and incentive to opt
into system:
• $30/month premium – garages
and off-street lots (surface lots)
• $20/month – only garages
• $10/month – low income, only
garages
Employer can also manage permits
based on shift needs.

ATTACHMENT 1

Pa id Pa rkin g Fisca l Im pa ct
Estimated Impact: Parking
Management Revenue minus
Expenses
Revenue includes paid parking and
permits (not citations)
Expenses
include enforcement
staffing, leased equipment, and
operating expenses
Note: portion of net impact allocated
to collection, maintenance and safety
improvements, but also discretionary
funding for new ideas (pedestrian
improvements, beautification, garage
lighting, etc.)

ATTACHMENT 1

B enefi ts
$2.1 Million net impact
annually
Not a hard number. It will take
more refinement and
community input to figure out
what that number is.
• There will be a sizable pot of
discretionary money.
• Local discounts and
merchant discounts will also
create an impact.

How the money will be
spent
Goes back into the district it
came from
• Bicycle and pedestrian
improvements
• Garage safety
enhancements
• Streetscape improvements
• Daylighting
• Garage updates/New garage
Feedback from stakeholder
Meetings show these points as
their top priorities
• Survey Results
• Community Meetings
• Stakeholder Meetings
• Individual businesses

ATTACHMENT 1

Partial incentives to use permit system and off -street options; on - street, premi um spaces remai n overuti l i zed
Hundreds of thousands of $$ and staff ti me wi thout abi l i ty for maj or system and i nfrastructure i mprovements
Pri ce of doi ng nothi ng: 5 -10 years ( maybe sooner) , si gni fi cant fi xes to the garages requi red; no desi gnated revenue source Muni ci pal C ode C hanges W i thout
Pa id Pa rkin g
Doesn’ t promote al ternati ve transi t and reduce vehi cl e mi l es travel ed

ATTACHMENT 1

NEXT STEPS

04.

ATTACHMENT 1

MT C Pl anni ng G rant
$315,000 to be awarded in early Fall
Municipal Code Changes
Parking Permit Improvements
Community Outreach
Enforcement Analysis
Parking Program Development

ATTACHMENT 1

Community input to develop the solution .

Data gathering; Plan development.

City Council authorizes staff recommendations.

Refine NMC and details; further community input .

Determine infrastructure needs, with Grant
support from the Bay Area MTC.

Paid parking NMC changes; municipal code ,
with Grant support from the Bay Area MTC.
1 - Outreach &
Pl anni ng
2 - Cit y Co u n cil
A uthorization
3 - R efine F eatures
and Pl anni ng
4 – Mu n icipa l Code
Ch a n ge s
5 – NMC & Pa id
Parking I mprovements
Improvements (signs, stripping), RFP & vendor
implementation, operation improvements, with
potential implementation support from the Bay
Area MTC.

Im ple m e n t a t ion Tim e lin e
W e are at the begi nni ng of thi s process;
these are rough esti mates
Past 10 months
October 3, 2023
8 months
4 months
6 months

ATTACHMENT 1

Promote
alternative
transit; reduce
GHG
Mo re wa lkin g
and conveni ent
spaces for
patrons
Better system
for empl oyees
Safe ty,
b e a u tifica tio n , &
infrastructure
improvements
Align m e n t wit h Com m u n it y Goa ls & Policie s
• Council Priorities: climate action and infrastructure improvements • Downtown Specific Plan: parking strategy and monitor parking pricing • 2040 General Plan: reduce VMT, improve transit, sustainability • Partner goals: NVTA and transportation demand management • Regional authority goals: Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Bay Area • Other stakeholders: local businesses, associations, community groups

ATTACHMENT 1

S upport
Efforts in developing plan this plan has gained notable support, including:
• Unanimous board approval at the Downtown Napa Association • Napa Chamber of Commerce board approval
If author
ization to continue, the City aims to continue working
with the community and an advisory group to refine plan details

ATTACHMENT 1

R ecommended A cti on
Direct Staff to prepare updates to the Napa Municipal Code (NMC) to establish a Downtown Paid Parking Program, issue a Request for Proposals from potential vendors to implement the Program, and return to a future Council meeting for consideration of recommended NMC updates and a recommended contract with a vendor for implementation.

ATTACHMENT 1

$JUZ
$PVODJM
3FHVMBS
.FFUJOH


4VQQMFNFOUBM

*UFN
"

'SPN
$JUZ
4UBGG

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

1 City of Napa Parking Program
Comprehensive
Strategies
Report

Prepared by: Dixon Resources Unlimited
November 14, 2018

ATTACHMENT 1

2 Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6 Report Overview .................................................................................................................... 6 Project Background ............................................................................................................... 6 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................ 7 Parking Program Building Blocks ........................................................................................ 15 Parking Focus Group ........................................................................................................... 16 Goal: Improve Wayfinding and Parking Guidance .................................................................. 18 Strategy #1. Create a Public Parking Brand ....................................................................... 18 Strategy #2. Install Parking Occupancy Counting Technology............................................ 20 Strategy #3. Integrate with a Parking Guidance Application .............................................. 27 Goal: Improve the effectiveness of parking enforcement ...................................................... 29 Strategy #1. Utilize License Plate Recognition (LPR) Technology ...................................... 29 Strategy #2. Hire Additional Enforcement Officers ............................................................. 32 Strategy #2. Extend Enforcement Hours ............................................................................ 33 Strategy #3. Move the Enforcement Division under the Parking Programs Manager ....... 35 Strategy #4. Outsource Parking Enforcement Services...................................................... 37 Strategy #5. Utilize a Customer Service Parking Ambassador Model ................................ 40 Strategy #6. Utilize Self -release Boots or Windshield Immobilizer Devices for Scofflaw Enforcement ........................................................................................................................ 41 Goal: Develop a Special Events Plan ...................................................................................... 43 Strategy #1. Charge for Parking During Large Special Events ........................................... 43 Strategy #2. Encourage Alternative Modes of Transportation During Events .................... 45 Goal: Improve Employee Parking Management ..................................................................... 47 Strategy #1. Develop a Downtown Employee Permit Parking Program. ............................ 47 Strategy #2. Utilize an Automated Permit Management System ....................................... 51 Goal: Safeguard Residential Areas from Spillover Parking Impacts....................................... 57 Strategy #1. Develop a Residential Permit Parking Program ............................................. 57 Goal: Improve management of parking demand .................................................................... 63 Strategy #1: Adjust the Length of On- and Off-street Time Limits ...................................... 63 Strategy #2. Establish a No Re-parking Ordinance ............................................................ 67 Strategy #3. Implement Paid Parking ................................................................................. 70 Strategy #3. Establish Regulations for Electric Vehicles .................................................... 81 Goal: Improve Safety and Accessibility ................................................................................... 83

ATTACHMENT 1

3 Strategy #1. Improve Safety in Parking Structures ............................................................ 83 Strategy #2. Collaborate with Transportation Network Companies (TNCs)........................ 85 Strategy #3. Expand Functionality of Loading Zones ......................................................... 86 Goal: Utilize Parking Revenue for Program and Downtown Improvements ........................... 88 Strategy #1. Establish a Parking Benefit District ................................................................ 88 Goal: Improve Downtown Access and Mobility ....................................................................... 90 Strategy #1. Implement a Shuttle Service .......................................................................... 90 Strategy #2. Effectively Utilize and Manage Micro-transit Services ................................... 92 Strategy #3. Encourage Carpooling .................................................................................... 95 Goal: Expand Parking Supply .................................................................................................. 96 Strategy #1. Establish Shared Parking Agreements ........................................................... 96 Strategy #2. Establish a Remote Parking Location ............................................................ 98 Strategy #3. Develop Additional Parking Supply ................................................................ 99 Goal: Ensure Ongoing Maintenance and Collections Capabilities ....................................... 100 Strategy #1. Cross-train Staff for Parking Equipment Maintenance and Collections ...... 100 Goal: Improve Public Engagement ........................................................................................ 103 Strategy #1. Utilize an Effective Education and Outreach Campaign to Promote Parking Information ........................................................................................................................ 103 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 108

ATTACHMENT 1

4 Figures

Figure 1. Citations Issued per Year ......................................................................................... 11 Figure 2. Citations Issued by Day of Week: FY 2014-18 ........................................................ 11 Figure 3. Citations Issued by Time of Day: FY 2014-18 ......................................................... 12 Figure 4. Percent of Citations Issued by Location: FY 2014-18 ............................................. 13 Figure 5. Citations by Type: FY 2014-18 ................................................................................ 13 Figure 6. Parking Permit Processing Tasks ............................................................................ 51 Figure 7. Downtown Napa Parking Map ................................................................................. 63 Figure 8. Downtown Napa Potential Pay Station Locations ................................................... 73

Images

Image 1. July 2014: Peak Thursday Occupancy Rates (1:00 PM) .......................................... 8 Image 2. July 2014: Peak Saturday Occupancy Rates (7:00 PM)............................................ 8 Image 3. June 14, 2018: Thursday Occupancy Counts (1:00 PM) .......................................... 9 Image 4. June 21, 2018: Thursday Occupancy Counts (1:00 PM) .......................................... 9 Image 5. Existing Wayfinding Sign .......................................................................................... 18 Image 6. San Jose Parking Guidance Signage ....................................................................... 21 Image 7. ParkEyes Overhead Sensor ..................................................................................... 21 Image 8. Parking Logix Sensor ............................................................................................... 22 Image 9. McCain OPTIPARK Sensor ....................................................................................... 22 Image 10. Google Maps Parking Information ......................................................................... 27 Image 11. Parkopedia Map of Napa....................................................................................... 28 Image 12. Genetec LPR System ............................................................................................. 29 Image 13. Paylock SmartBoot ................................................................................................ 41 Image 14. Barnacle Windshield Immobilizer .......................................................................... 42 Image 15. BottleRock website parking information ............................................................... 43 Image 16. Paso Robles Flyer (Front) ...................................................................................... 53 Image 17. Paso Robles Flyer (Back) ....................................................................................... 54 Image 18. Paso Robles Instruction Guide .............................................................................. 55 Image 19. Existing Time Limit Signage ................................................................................... 64 Image 20. San Leandro Meter Decals .................................................................................... 68 Image 21. No re-parking sign by PICTOFORM ........................................................................ 68 Image 22. San Leandro Parking Zones .................................................................................. 69 Image 23. Portland's Parking Kitty Application ...................................................................... 74 Image 24. SacPark Escalating Payment Guide ...................................................................... 77 Image 25. TNC logos ............................................................................................................... 85 Image 26. The Free Ride Shuttles .......................................................................................... 90 Image 27. San Diego FRED Application.................................................................................. 90 Image 28. Dockless Lime Bike ............................................................................................... 92 Image 29. Dockless Bird Scooter ........................................................................................... 92 Image 30. City of Napa Website Parking Information .......................................................... 103 Image 31. City of Sacramento Parking Guide ...................................................................... 104 Image 32. City of Seattle "Can I Park Here?" Brochure ........................................................ 105 Image 33. Seattle Parking Flag ............................................................................................ 106 Image 34. Seattle "Play Like a Parking Pro" Sign ................................................................. 106

ATTACHMENT 1

5 Tables

Table 1. Parking Logix Overview ............................................................................................. 22 Table 2. McCain OPTIPARK Overview ..................................................................................... 24 Table 3. Employee Permit Rate Comparison .......................................................................... 48 Table 4. Sample Revenue Distribution Schedule ................................................................... 88

ATTACHMENT 1

6 Introduction
Report Overview
This Comprehensive Strategies Report (CSR) includes a number of goals identified by the project team to optimize the parking operation in the City of Napa (City) . Each of the goals includes a number of strategies for consideration. A suggested implementation t imeline, included for each goal, is organized into three phases:

• Phase 1: November 2018 through April 2019
• Phase 2: May 2019 through fiscal year 2021
• Phase 3: Fiscal year 2022+
The implementation steps are meant to be realistic and actionable. It is important for the City to take a comprehensive implementation approach. In many cases, the strategies will complement one another for improved effectiveness. There are also near-term steps that the City can take to adequately prepare for longer-term solutions.

Each strategy is assigned low, medium, or high priority. Strategy priority is based upon the estimated costs versus the potential benefits, gauged through an assortment of stakeholder outreach, data analysis, industry best practices, and prior experience. The priorities established in this report do not provide a definitive guide for the City. The relative cost is also identified for each strategy from $ to $$$$. There are many factors that influence cost, so there may be different levels of ongoing expenditures. The relative cost provides a baseline comparison for each strategy, rather than identifying a particular dollar amount or range.

Among other factors, Public and City Council review and cost appraisals will ultimately influence whether a strategy i s viable, prioritized appropriately , and whether the implementation timeline is feasible.

Project Background
The City of Napa has experienced tremendous growth in tourism and business in recent years.

As a result, parking demand has increased in the downtown commercial core and Oxbow District. The May 2015 Downtown Parking Management Plan (2015 Plan) identified occupancy trends for both on- and off-street parking facilities, presented ways to improve the existing parking supply, and recommended policies to both stabilize and generate funding for the parking program.

DIXON Resources Unlimited (DIXON) was initially selected in 2015 to provide support services as the City considered implementing paid parking. To begin this process, DIXON first identified the City’s objectives and goals for implementing paid parking. As a key component to this process, DIXON met with internal stakeholders on the City’s parking related committees to build consensus on the benefits of paid parking, provide technology recommendations for the City, identify desired outcomes, and determine roles and responsibilities. The n ext steps included coordinating a parking technology pilot solicitation for pay stations and meters , including identifying and negotiating vendor interest for a potential city-wide pay station rental program.

ATTACHMENT 1

7 By early 2016, DIXON developed a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) that was customized for the City’s paid parking technology pilot. As a result of City staffing changes, the project was delayed. Throughout the delay, DIXON remained available to staff, actively responding and providing parking consulting services on an as-needed basis.

In Fall 2016, the City expanded DIXON’s support services to address both on- street hardware and garage parking, including considerations for electronic wayfinding, parking guidance systems and license plate recognition (LPR) technology . Additionally, DIXON developed a comprehensive financial modeling workbook to support the City with revenue forecasts and projections that included hardware costs and associated technology expenses.

Existing Conditions
There are over 3,100 public parking spaces within the Downtown core and Oxbow District, 44% of which are on-street. The City of Napa owns three garages (Pearl Street, Clay Street, and Second Street) and 13 surface lots, 11 of which offer three-hour parking. The City has a long-term license to use a portion of the garage owned by the County of Napa (Fifth Street) with all-day parking. There are another 2,100 off-street, privately-owned parking spaces within the two areas. Less than 1,000 of the approximately 5,700 city- wide parking spaces are located within the Oxbow District and are predominantly located in off-street facilities. Parking Lot X was recently developed and provides additional parking near the Oxbow District. The City has also presented the site concepts for the Cinedome project which could include a 300+ space parking structure. A garage for the new Civic Center is in the planning stages with just enough parking to serve the parking demand for City employees and Civic Center visitors.

The City offers parking permits for designated spaces in City-owned parking facilities. These locations include level two of both the Clay and Pearl Street garages, level three of the Second Street garage, and Lot X. To obtain a permit a driver must provide the make and model of the vehicle, the license plate number, and business name and address. Permits cos t $30 per month and can be purchased on a quarterly, monthly, or annual basis from City Hall.

Since the 2015 Plan, the Downtown core and Oxbow District have continued to attract more visitors. Visit Napa Valley performs an in -market survey every two years to gather visitor information and assess the impact of tourism on the City of Napa and Napa Valley. The most recent study completed in 2016 revealed a 6.3% increase in the number of tourists since 2014, equating to an additional 200,000 visitors over the two-year period.

To mitigate existing and future parking and mobility challenges, the City will ultimately need to consider a combination of policy, technology, infrastructure, and management adjustments and investments. An understanding of existing conditions, combined with stakeholder feedback, will allow the City to determine the appropriate near-term steps and long- term implementation strategies.

The City recently hired a Parking Programs Manager, Tony Valadez, to centralize the management approach. However, much of the program remains dispersed among various departments and divisions within the City. For example, the Police Department is responsible

ATTACHMENT 1

8 for parking enforcement and Public
Works coordinates maintenance,
repairs and manages the on- street
parking supply, parking counts and
inventory. As a result, parking is not
the primary focus of these
departments; This horizontally
fragmented structure has likely
been a main contributing factor to
the lack of progress with the
recommendations outlined in the
2015 Plan. Additionally, the
program has not historically been
self-sustaining financially. Eager to
incite change, Valadez is working
with DIXON to analyze existing
conditions, collect stakeholder
feedback, define program priorities,
and begin to address any
immediate action-items that result.

As the City’s parking program
continues to evolve, a centralized
management structure can improve
the level of oversight, expedite
change, and effectively steer the
program to meet the City’s overall
goals and priorities.

A review of prior occupancy data
suggests that, while there is a
consistently high usage rate of on-
street parking spaces throughout
the day, most of the off- street
facilities are often underutilized.

In July 2014, occupancy data was
collected on a Thursday and
Saturday every two hours between
9:00 AM and 9:00 PM from both
publicly and privately -owned
facilities within the study area.

Images 1 and 2 show peak period
occupancy for each location. On
Pearl

G
Ge
H
F
G
n
Xw
J
2nd

A
Clay

S
I
B
K
5th
Occupancy:

Green = 0-49%
Yellow = 50-69%
Orange = 70-84%
Red = 85%+
Image 2. July 2014: Peak Saturday Occupancy Rates (7:00 PM)

Occupancy:

Green = 0-49%
Yellow = 50-69%
Orange = 70-84%
Red = 85%+

Image 1. July 2014: Peak Thursday Occupancy Rates
(1:00 PM)
Pearl

Ge
H
G
n
Xw
J
2nd

A
Clay

S
I
B
K
5th
F
G

ATTACHMENT 1

9 Thursday, occupancy peaked in the
Downtown core and Oxbow District at
1:00 PM. But, on Saturday it varied
between the areas, with the Oxbow
District peak period occurring between
11:00 AM and 1:00 PM while
occupancy didn’t peak in the Downtown
core until 7:00 PM. During each peak
period, high parking occupancy (greater
than 85%) was identified along 1
st
street, Water Street, and Main Street; at
surface lots F, GN, I, J, K, and Xw; and
the Second Street garage. The study
also identified low occupancy (less than
50%) or underutilized parking facilities
on 1
st Street, 2nd Street, and 3rd Street;
at surface lots G, Ge, and H; and the
Pearl Street Garage.

An inventory of license plate numbers
was also collected every hour from
10:00 AM to 7:00 PM on a Wednesday
in July 2014 to determine whether
drivers were occupying short- term
parking spaces beyond the posted time
limits. 150 of the 332 observed cars
(45.2%) were parked in short- term
spaces for three hours or longer,
despite the posted time limits.

Meanwhile, 20% of the observed
vehicles were parked for four hours or
longer within the two-hour time limit
zones. A low compliance rate with time
limits is often indicative of inconsistent
enforcement. A number of Downtown
employees were also observed moving
their vehicles between nearby parki ng
spaces to avoid citations. The City does
not currently have an ordinance
prohibiting drivers from re- parking, to
prevent this parking space
“hopscotching”.

More recently in June 2018, a sampling of occupancy counts was collected by Napa City staff at off-street parking facilities on two Thursdays at 1:00 PM (See Images 3 and 4). The purpose of this data collection was to provide a cursory understanding of any changes in demand patterns, without commissioning another full-scale occupancy study. Findings revealed that Pearl

G
H
F
Gn
Xw
J
2n
d
A
Clay

S
I
B
K
5th
Ge
X
Occupancy:

Green = 0-49%
Yellow = 50-69%
Orange = 70-84%
Red = 85%+
Image 3. June 14, 2018: Thursday Occupancy Counts
(1:00 PM)
Pearl

G
H
F
Gn
Xw
J
2nd

A
Clay

S
I
B
K
5th
Ge
X
Occupancy:

Green = 0-49%
Yellow = 50-69%
Orange = 70-84%
Red = 85%+
Image 4. June 21, 2018: Thursday Occupancy Counts
(1:00 PM)

ATTACHMENT 1

10 parking occupancy decreased at two off-street locations (Gn and Xw lots) between 2014 and 2018, while occupancy increased at five lots (A, B, G, Ge, and H). Lots G, Ge, and H were likely impacted by the recent developments along 1 st Street, including First Street Napa, Napa Square, and Napa Center which have brought more than 325,000 square feet of retail, residential, hotel, and office space.

While on-street counts were not part of recent data collection efforts, it is anticipated that on- street parking occupancy will remain at or above the level it was in 2015. This is due to the convenience of on-street spaces, the increased demand of off-street parking facilities, and the growing population and tourism industry.

Despite the Pearl Street garage being underutilized during both the 2014 and 2018 occupancy studies, the City has received complaints regarding a potential lack of long- term parking. Other all-day parking garages and lots also failed to reach capacity, even during the peak periods on Thursday and Saturday. This indicates that there may be sufficient long-term parking supply, but it’s possible that drivers don’t know where to look for it. This could indicate a need for improved vehicular wayfinding and parking guidance system (PGS) signage. The City could also incorporate real-time parking occupancy counts into the PGS signage using sensors.

The City of Napa has been slowly adding publicly accessible electric vehicle (EV) charging stations since 2014, and currently has a total of four, each with two plugs. Between July 2016 to June 2017 (FY 17) there were a total of 4,892 uses versus a total of 7,797 uses in FY 18.

While the number of uses increased by 59.4%, the average duration remained around 1 hour and 45 minutes to 2 hours long. This shows that although turnover at the charging stations has remained constant, charging station usage continues to grow. The City should consider how the demand for EV charging may grow overtime and how this might influence certain parking management d ecisions such as EV charging time limits, rate models, as well as charging station supply and placement.

An analysis of enforcement data from the City’s parking citation management vendor, Data Ticket revealed a 28% decline in the number of parking citations issued between 2013 and 2018, despite the increase in parking demand (Figure 1). A comparison of the peak year (2014) and the most recent year (2018) revealed a 58% decline, or 3,199 fewer citations in 2018 (Figure 5).

ATTACHMENT 1

11 Figure 1. Citations Issued per Year

The data also revealed that 73% of citations were issued between Tuesday – Thursday (Figure 2), and the majority of these were issued during the late-morning or mid-afternoon (Figure 3).

This is likely a result of the enforcement staffing schedule; Currently, the City employs two Community Service/Parking Control Officers to provide enforcement in the Downtown core and Oxbow District. Each officer works four 10-hour shifts each week, and as a result, there is only one officer working on Mondays and Fridays. Also, neither of them work on weekends, which explains why only 4% of all parking citations were issued on a Saturday or Sunday between 2014 - 2018 (Figure 2). Meanwhile, occupancy data collected in 2014 suggests that peak parking demand occurs later into the evening and over the weekend, when parking enforcement is not present. This indicates that the current enforcement schedule and/or staffing levels may not be adequately managing peak demand periods.

Figure 2. Citations Issued by Day of Week: FY 2014-18

5,485
5,446
6,479
7,069
8,684
7,685
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
Number of Citations Issued
Year
2%
2%
12%
24%
25%
24%
12%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Sunday
Saturday
Friday
Thursday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Monday
Percentage of Citations Issued
Day

ATTACHMENT 1

12 Figure 3. Citations Issued by Time of Day: FY 2014-18

0.21%

0.18%

0.11%

0.13%

0.13%

0.07%

0.11%

1.66%

3.67%

5.67%

6.56%

11.82%

14.84%

12.02%

15.97%

14.56%

8.03%

2.10%

0.36%

0.52%

0.51%

0.32%

0.22%

0.21%

0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00% 12 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM
8 PM
9 PM
10 PM
11 PM
Percentage of Citations Issued
Time

ATTACHMENT 1

13 It should also be noted that two-thirds of all parking citations were issued for on-street parking infractions between FY 2014 and FY 2018 (Figure 4). This indicates that the Community Service/Parking Control Officers are likely focusing their efforts on-street, which should continue to be the priority.

Figure 4. Percent of Citations Issued by Location: FY 2014-18

Over the five-year period, nearly half (48%) of all citations were issued for overtime infractions (Figure 5). This compliments the results from the license plate inventory conducted in 2014 where 45% of parked cars were observed to have parked in short-term parking spaces beyond the posted limit. Furthermore, between 2014-2018, 22% of overtime citations were issued to repeat offenders, showing a recurrence of time limit violations. Recurring violations could be a result of a number of factors, including insufficient enforcement, citation fine amounts, and ineffective wayfinding.

Figure 5. Citations by Type: FY 2014-18

66%
19%
13%
2%
On-street Surface lots
Garages Other
10%
2%
5%
5%
7%
10%
13%
18%
30%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Other
Prohibited parking area
Parking in unauthorized location
Off-street permit parking
Stopping in a prohibited zone
Curb marking authorized
Vehicle registration violation
Overtime parking in lots
Overtime in or out of CBD
Percentage of Citations Issued
Type of Citation

ATTACHMENT 1

14 Currently the time limits are being enforced via manual chalking of tires. This is inefficient and can be cumbersome to track compared with the use of license plate recognition (LPR) technology. LPR systems can automate the monitoring of time limited zones to increase enforcement efficiency.

The City does provide each parking enforcement officer with a Data Ticket citation issuance handheld device. Data Ticket is a parking and administrative citation and permit processing company that provides system automations, integrations and efficiencies. The City has had a positive service experience with Data Ticket and is preparing to extend the existing agreement.

The City is currently in the process of reviewing and updating the existing municipal code ordinances relating to the parking program. This process will allow the City to identify opportunities for improvements and efficiency in managing the parking supply by promoting the potential provision of shared, publicly accessible parking. Initial findings identified where the parking program could benefit from revised language to allow for more flexibility in establishing parking rules and regulations as well as defining the appropriate management structure to complement the parking program.

The City of Napa needs to address a parking management issue, rather than a parking supply issue. While there are concentrated areas of high parking demand, other areas are underutilized. This points to a lack in vehicular wayfinding and PGS signage, which could improve availability messaging and guidance for drivers. Moreover, recent feedback from stakeholders has suggested a shortage in long-term parking supply and a difficulty with finding available spaces, especially in locations where construction is taking place. To address these concerns, as well as future issues and impacts, the City can consider a number of parking management strategies.

ATTACHMENT 1

15 Parking Program Building Blocks
The following six core parking program building blocks were considered throughout the development of the CSR. The strategies and corresponding implementation steps consider each of these topics. It is important that the City take a comprehensive approach to parking management to optimize the operation and create a solid foundation for ongoing growth and development.

Technology Enforcement Policy
Budget Organizational
Structure
Capital
Projects

ATTACHMENT 1

16 Parking Focus Group
On August 23, 2018 DIXON hosted a stakeholder meeting with the Parking Focus Group. The focus group included representatives from the City, County, Visit Napa Valley, DoNapa, Oxbow Public Market, and the Chamber of Commerce. The goal of the meeting was the better understand the existing operation and the community’s parking goals and objectives. Below is a summary of stakeholder feedback and ideas organized by topic:

Employee Parking
• Employees often shuffle their vehicle between spaces every few hours to avoid the time limits.
• The City should encourage employees to park outside of the downtown core. • There is a need for more long-term parking options for employees.

Parking Enforcement
• Enforcement hours could be extended to evenings and weekends. • The City should consider the potential impact of dockless bikes and scooters. • Manual chalking of tires for time limit enforcement is inefficient. • Currently the parking enforcement operation is understaffed. • Existing enforcement License Plate Recognition technology is not in use. • An escalating citation fine schedule could increase compliance.

Parking Demand and Utilization
• The parking garages are underutilized, possibly due to concerns about distance and safety.
• Improved wayfinding and parking guidance could align perception of parking with reality of availability.
• Lack of oversize vehicle/RV parking for tourists.
• There has been a recent increase in visitors using Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft.
• High density housing developments are causing a shortage in on- street parking and spillover parking impacts.
• The City should be promoting the “Park Once” mentality. • Remote parking, served by a shuttle system, could support the downtown. • The three-hour time limit in the Oxbow District could be shortened to 2-hours to create more turnover.

Paid Parking
• Paid parking should be considered, but the City should take a phased implementation approach. Initially, paid parking could be implemented for the premium parking locations only.
• A positive marketing campaign could improve the success of a future paid parking operation.
• The City should consider that free parking can be attractive to tourists. • If paid parking is implemented, the City should also utilize a mobile payment vendor.

ATTACHMENT 1

17 • Paid parking could encourage more drivers to utilize the garages for long-term visits. • A validation program could be implemented with paid parking. • Visitors may be more willing to pay for parking if they have the convenience of having no limits.

ATTACHMENT 1

18 Goal: Improve Wayfinding and Parking Guidance

Strategy #1. Create a Public Parking Brand

Priority: High
Cost: $
Considerations: Consistency, signage, outreach materials, shared parking Prerequisites: Wayfinding RFQ/P

The City recently released a Request for
Qualifications and Proposals (RFQ/P) for an update
to the downtown wayfinding signage program. The
existing wayfinding signage has been installed since
2001, and many of the signs need replacement.

Additionally, as the downtown has grown, the overall
circulation plan and directional guides should be
updated. The RFQ/P is aiming to update the
vehicular and parking directional signs.

The signage and parking brand should be consistent
throughout Napa, including sign format, symbols and
colors. A unified parking brand provides an
improvement to the overall customer experience.

The direction of the signage needs to be clear , easy
to understand, and simple to follow along with.

The City should also expand the public parking
branding to any future shared parking agreement
locations. For shared parking agreements, the
parking brand/signage should be required in
conjunction with the terms and conditions of the
agreement. Expanding the public parking brand to
shared parking locations will provide consistency to
the drivers, making it easier to identify public parking locations, regardless of ownership.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Review wayfinding RFQ/P proposals and select a vendor.

2. Work with the wayfinding vendor to develop an updated signage plan, including the development of a public parking brand.

3. Utilize the parking brand/logo in all public parking program outreach materials.

Phase 2

1. Consider integrating the wayfinding brand with any future digital signage installations or parking guidance applications.

Image 5. Existing Wayfinding Sign

ATTACHMENT 1

19 2. Update the City’s website to include the parking brand, information about parking availability and locations.

Phase 3

1. Continue to integrate the City’s parking brand with any additional signage and outreach materials.

ATTACHMENT 1

20 Strategy #2. Install Parking Occupancy Counting Technology

Priority: Medium
Cost: $$
Considerations: Budget, sensors and technology, signage placement Prerequisites: Wayfinding plan

In addition to static wayfinding signage, the City can deliver parking information through multiple outlets including vehicle messaging systems, digital signage, and various websites, including the tourism board, hotel, travel and parking sources. Wayfinding is an integral part of any parking operation. Patrons need to be informed of facility locations, space availability, time restrictions, and parking rates. Navigation from place to place within a parking facility is often overlooked and undervalued. Knowing where one is in a facility, where there are available spaces and knowing how to navigate to those spaces is one of the most fundamental aspects of a successful parking program. The addition of wayfinding signage may significantly improve the ability of a patron to enter, leave and return to a facility.

Vehicle counting systems coupled with automated wayfinding systems are helping to revolutionize how the public utilizes parking resources . Integrating these systems with everyday phone and mapping applications has provided drivers with the ability to plan their parking experiences before leaving their home s, enabling them to make more informed decisions about how to get to their destination s and evaluate alternative modes of transit.

Dynamic signage allows the City to redirect patrons toward alternative, underutilized parking locations. The City should consider installing occupancy count technology in the surface lots and garages located throughout downtown.

Automated Parking Guidance System (APGS) signs can promote parking availability and mitigate congestion in the vicinity of parking facilities. The APGS/wayfinding signage can indicate parking lot status (open/closed), space availability (Full/Available or the number of spaces available), event parking details, alternative parking areas, and targeted messaging.

This methodology allows drivers to prepare their direction of travel upon approach, thereby reducing traffic flow impact, discouraging backups, and addressing maximum capacity concerns. Another benefit to wayfinding signage and real-time parking information is that parking availability can be linked to a variety of publicly available, free parking applications.

This information can be monitored both remotely and on-site by parking operations personnel to anticipate traffic flow impacts and capacity levels, especially for special event management.

A useful example of clear directional wayfinding that has been successfully implemented is in the City of San Jose, CA, displayed in Image 5. The City’s integrated approach highlights where parking is located and the number of available parking spaces at each location. In addition, positioning of the signage is equally important. Motorists exiting the major interstate highway are immediately met with clear wayfinding signage, signaling the locations of available parking opportunities prior to entering the downtown district.

ATTACHMENT 1

21 Once the real-time occupancy data are collected,
transmitting it to digital wayfinding signage located
throughout the garage, the surrounding streets and/or
a website/application is relatively simple. Most
vendors that provide the counting hardware described
above will be able to provide additional digital signage and an API that will allow the data to be used in
websites and applications. In addition to basic
signage, supplementary signage can typically be
purchased. The pricing on this signage depends on the
sign and the application for it, hence the significant
price range.

For signage placed in areas outside the garage, there
are potential costs associated with transmitting
information to the digital display signs. In most cases, wireless transmissions are possible for a small
monthly data fee, or signs can be directly hardwired
and the costs will vary significantly depending on the
distance between the fiber line and the sign.

A critical component of any technology installation, especially a PGS solution, is maintenance and upkeep. If a P GS is installed, it is recommended that a responsible party (i.e., subcontractor) be designated and held accountable for system upkeep. If this support is to be a subcontracted service, performance standards should be defined and incorporated into the vendor service agreement with performance penalties for system support failures.

Digital wayfinding has taken parking guidance to a new level with the ability to display real- time parking space occupancy data while directing patrons to available spots within a parking garage. Overhead space indicators (sensors) for garage facilities can provide color notification to identify real- time parking space availability (Image 7). Space indicators provide in-depth data with the ability to show parking occupancy by level and by row within each level. This type Image 6. San Jose Parking Guidance
Signage
Image 7. ParkEyes Overhead Sensor

ATTACHMENT 1

22 of system can mitigate congestion at the entrance of the garage and also throughout each level and row. However, instead of installing a sensor per space, a more cost effective approach would be to include a sensor at the entrances/exits of each location or at each level of the facilities for a level count.

This information can be provided by technology such as in- ground or above ground loops, or by camera-based sensors.

Ultimately, t he simplest and most cost-efficient method to provide real-time occupancy is to show one aggregate count for available spaces throughout the entire garage. This communicates the most useful
information to drivers at the lowest price. The City should consider starting with facility-wide occupancy counts to begin with, and later expand to level or row-based counts in the future if there is significant congestion within the garages. The exception to this would be for nesting any permit parking or reserved area s, as to not inflate the public parking availability on signage.

The City’s Parking Programs Manager has already been engaged with two parking occupancy counting technology vendors, Parking Logix (Image 8) and McCain (Image 9) for potential pilot program opportunities. It is recommended that the City proceed with a pilot with one or both of these systems to assess their accuracy and effectiveness. Each technology solution has the ability to count and report vehicular occupancy rates, and they can each be integrated through the use of an application program interface (API). The below tables summarize the two vendors, including the installation process, maintenance, and estimated cost. The City should continue to engage these vendors to assess their ability to improve wayfinding and parking guidance in and around the parking facilities.

Table 1. Parking Logix Overview
Parking Logix
US Installations
Currently has over 120 sites installed across the US in under 2.5 years since they opened.

Currently installed in over 80 university lots, 20 municipal lots, commuter lots, etc.

Installation
Process
The sensors are either drilled down in 15-20 min each or glued down to the facility or surface ground in under 10 minutes by the City.

For signage and repeater installation, local power is to be brought to the final signage or repeater destination by the Port, or they can accommodate solar panels to reduce the need for local power costs.

Image 8. Parking Logix Sensor
Image 9. McCain
OPTIPARK Sensor

ATTACHMENT 1

23 Provides all mounting brackets, glue, lag bolts, but the City could be responsible for the physical installation with the assistance of technicians over the phone.

Can be installed in less than 6 hours, with more complex systems taking 1-2 days with a crew of 2-4 staff.

The equipment leaves no structural damage to the property and can be removed simply and easily.

Equipment
Range
Counts at the ingress and egress points

Can be implemented for any number of lanes and is only limited to the display maximum of 9999 cars on the 4-digit display board.

Accuracy
Can be affected by tailgating and idling over the sensors for longer than 300 seconds.

The accuracy of the system is based on the total miscounts divided by the total of ingress and egress events.

To accommodate the small inaccuracies that the system may have, the system can auto-reset to ensure that facilities show a fresh count for peak morning egress, where the system can be reset to any number of spaces at any time on any day.

Data and
Analytics
The system has reports for:
• Daily/weekly occupancy
• Ingress
• Turnover
• Custom reports are available for an additional development fee to be determined upon scope of report development work.

The City owns the data, but it is stored on their servers for use.

The equipment utilizes cellular technology to send the count to the cloud where the client gets instant system data via a dashboard, with full online reporting and sign control functionality.
• The system updates online within 1 min.

Integrations
An open API is used to allow integrations with any equipment or app providers.
• For example, Parking Logix has integrated with Parkopedia

Also provide a simple widget to display all counts from all sites on a web page

ATTACHMENT 1

24 Customer
Service
Customer services is available by phone and email Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm EST.

Out of hours are also typically supported by email through the technical account manager.

Maintenance
All systems come with a 2-year warranty.

Battery life of 3-5 years.
• Cost to replace: $650

The signs/ repeaters are built with a 10-year life expectancy.

Estimated Cost
$7,500 for the basic system, including 2 sensors and 1 sign. • $650 per additional sensor

$85 per month per lot data hosting fee.

$8,800 for a 7-level sign and $3,800 for a 2-level sign

The only ongoing fees for the PL system are the monthly data plans should the client wish to use an API or view occupancy online at $85 per month per site.
• The fees cover sim card costs, hosting fees, online dashboard access, online reporting functionality, and online sign and system control.

Differentiators
• Easy and quick installation
• Most accurate basic
counter on the market
• Most affordable
• Minimal maintenance
• Custer-centric support
team
• Can integrate with
unlimited number of APIs
for all for the same one
monthly price.

Table 2. McCain OPTIPARK Overview
McCain
US Installations
20 installations in US (200 in Europe)
• Largest overall PGS installation is ExxonMobil headquarter with 8,500+ sensors
• Largest OPTIPARK installation is City of Long Beach (4 garages throughout the city)

90% of traffic light systems in Southern California and 30% in the United States
Installation
Process
Small anchors used to mount the cameras (4 screws per device)

Conduits to each device need anchors.

ATTACHMENT 1

25 2-week installation + 2 weeks of fine tuning.

City must provide steady remote access to the garages as well as a range of IP addresses for the equipment.

Equipment
Range
OPTIPARK cameras count zones.

Physical obstacles (e.g. static signage or beams) or low mounting height can limit the field of view.

Accuracy
Counts vehicles driving through the zone in the intended manner with an accuracy of 99%. Due to continuous counting feature, in an event of losing communication for a certain period, all counts are preserved and recuperated by the central server once connection is reestablished.

Accuracy can be impacted by the automatic reset value which is required for every system in the market.

Data and
Analytics
Historical occupancy over a custom time span and granularity (days, hours, minutes).
• Custom reports
• Percental occupancy
• Free spaces

Real time pie charts and bar charts.

Can be exported as CSV Files.

Integrations
OPTIPARK software comes with an open REST based API that can be integrated into any third-party software.

Currently interface with:
• SKIDATA
• TIBA
• Flash Parking
Working on interfaces with:
• ParkMe
• Inugo
Customer
Service
Parking staff is available Mon-Fri 6:30am-5pm.

Technical service team that can assist Mon-Fri between 6am-8pm PST.

Maintenance
Most (95%+) of all SWARCO / McCain equipment has been deployed without needing replacement parts.

The only possible part could be a LED board whereas the replacement would cost approx. $350 (depending on model).

Estimated Cost

OPTIPARK
• $2,500 per camera, with additional installation infrastructure cost
• No monthly service fees
• Approximately $7,000-$10,000 with signage, counting,
software, configuration, etc.

ATTACHMENT 1

26 • The initial cost includes the license fee for the first 36 months after commissioning. Consequently, the license fee will be $2,990 per year.

Differentiators
• Component sourcing
• Detection of tailgating
• Local support
• Lifetime counts
• Company background
• Market footprint
• Smart-city / future proof

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Pilot Parking Logix and/or OPITPARK sensors along with LED signage. It is recommended that the City start with a parking garage to provide a facility- wide occupancy count.
a. Collect stakeholder feedback throughout the process. b. Collect parking occupancy data using the system(s).
c. Following a successful pilot, the City should consider purchasing a system from the preferred vendor. Parking occupancy should ideally be collected on a facility-wide basis for each pubic parking location.

2. Following the City’s selection of a wayfinding vendor, the City should coordinate with the vendor to incorporate any future parking occupancy LED and Parking Guidance signage.

Phase 2

1. Consider expanding the occupancy counting technology to include level or row- based counts in the parking garages.

2. Utilize occupancy counting technology in the parking lots.

3. Broadcast parking occupancy data through additional LED signage located at major arterial roads and entrance points throughout downtown. Ideally, if one facility is at capacity, the City should have the ability to automatically redirect drivers to availa ble parking through dynamic messaging signage.

4. Parking occupancy data can be shared through an open API through any mapping applications such as Parkopedia.

5. Utilize parking occupancy sensors to collect ongoing data and assess parking occupancy trends. This information can be utilized to support policy decisions, determine appropriate time limits and/or paid parking rates.

Phase 3

1. Continue to integrate the City’s parking brand with any additional signage.

2. Ongoing data collection and analysis.

ATTACHMENT 1

27 Strategy #3. Integrate with a Parking Guidance Application

Priority: Low
Cost: $
Considerations: Application program interfaces (APIs), data granularity Prerequisites: Occupancy counting sensors

If the City prefers, a basic integrated independent mobile application (provided by the APGS system provider) can be developed. The overall cost of the mobile application development does vary depending on the type of information to be displayed, any specific branding or graphics requirements, and additional features such as find my car, directions, traffic information, parking reservations, or 3
rd party integrations. If the City was to invest in an
interactive City-developed website or application, the cost could be significant based upon the overall web design and features. However, there are several existing, free parking availability and guidance applications, such as Inrix (formerly ParkMe) and Parkopedia (Image 11), that leverage available public parking information using an interactive parking application.

A growing number of parking vendors are delving into the mobile application space, many utilizing web applications that can feed from open source data platforms. Real-time data can be integrated with several existing parking applications. To stay competitive in today’s market, most parking technology vendors recognize that an open platform is necessary.

Parking and transportation data can be directed to popular mapping applications such as Google Maps and Waze.

Many municipalities understand that sharing data with any platform will allow the information to reach a broader
audience, thus improving the overall operation and user experience. Because applications like Google Maps and
Waze have such a large user base, it may not be valuable for the City to compete by introducing a standalone Napa mobile application. Some municipalities aim to create their own mobility applications; however, this can be a significant undertaking and often requires a costly software
development process that must be maintained and
supported on an ongoing basis.

Implementing this solution on-street can be challenging . A significant number of sensors and/or cameras would be
required to manage guidance on a space by space basis , especially without parking meters. In the future if the City does implement paid parking, the City could attempt to
predict occupancy based on meter payment data. However, not all drivers will pay for the meter – a portion of the drivers may not comply, and there are often a significant number of ADA placard holders that can skew the occupancy and
payment data. This is why some parking technology
companies attempt to use a predictive algorithm to
Image 10. Google Maps Parking
Information

ATTACHMENT 1

28 estimate which areas are likely to have spaces available. Regardless of the approach, there are different issues with accuracy and users are guided based upon the probability of available parking and should not be directed to a specific parking space.

Image 11. Parkopedia Map of Napa

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Based upon the City’s priorities and objectives, the City could consider budgeting for a standalone parking guidance application. However, it is recommended that the City integrate with existing, free solutions as a more effective alternative.

Phase 2

1. When the City implements occupancy counting technology, the vendors should always be required to support integrations through an open API. Real-time occupancy data can be shared through a number of platforms such as Google, Waze, and Parkopedia.

2. The City can also post occupancy information in the form of a map or a list on the City website in case drivers want to plan where they are going to park before they leave for their destination.

Phase 3

1. Continue to integrate with any trip planning and guidance applications to display real- time parking occupancy data. If possible, the City should utilize these applications to push information to drivers about parking alerts, especially during events.

ATTACHMENT 1

29 Goal: Improve the Effectiveness of Parking Enforcement

Strategy #1. Utilize License Plate Recognition (LPR) Technology

Priority: High
Cost: $$
Considerations: Integration with automated citation/permit management systems, enforcement vehicles, training, data retention
Prerequisites: None

License Plate Recognition (LPR) technology can significantly improve enforcement efficiency, especially for time limit management. Rather than relying on physical chalking, the LPR cameras can automatically track license plate reads based upon their GPS location and notify the Enforcement Officer when there has been a violation.

LPR increases efficiency in several ways, including the automation of vehicle location and time occupied monitoring to enforce the time limits that are currently being tracked manually with chalk. Additionally, if the City were to transition to using digital, license plate- based permits, and if any future parking pay stations are configured for pay by plate, then the LPR can efficiently verify valid payment status. Other databases can also be integrated with the LPR system for enforcing scofflaws and stolen or wanted vehicles. The LPR system also provides the opportunity for enforcement officers to more efficiently manage scofflaw records and vehicles with five or more unpaid delinquent parking citations.

LPR vendors provide specialized technology for parking enforcement purposes and have developed the software to integrate with the variety of citation, permit management and technology hardware vendors which will provide the City with a comprehensive program. The LPR solution includes visual evidence of an infraction when it occurs and further when a citation is issued. This is invaluable for adjudication purposes. The City currently utilizes the Data Ticket automated citation management system for enforcement. The selected LPR Image 12. Genetec LPR System

ATTACHMENT 1

30 vendor should be required to integrate with Data Ticket to provide a more seamless parking enforcement operation.

For time limit management, several of the LPR vendors offer a digital chalking feature that uses software to track the location of a vehicle, how long the vehicle was parked at a specific location or within a designated zone/area and simultaneously compares that to the time limit posted in that area. Digital chalking has helped several cities provide a more accountable and consistent approach to time limit management without having to invest in additional labor and provides an additional level of visual evidence that tends to reduce adjudication efforts.

Historically, Genetec has been the parking industry leader when it comes to LPR technology.

However, the recent expiration of a patent used for time limit management has opened the door to other vendors. Vigilant is an example of a widely utilized LPR vendor in the law enforcement arena that has only recently entered into the parking industry. The City should pay close attention to the shift in the LPR industry as it is predicted to see a reduction in equipment and software cost with the introduction of increased vendor competition.

LPR also has the added benefit of providing occupancy and utilization data. Data can be exported to Excel for ongoing analysis and review. The City could develop a data collection plan with fixed routes, days, and hours. Collecting data with LPR would be a cost effective way for the City to understand on and off-street occupancy and utilization trends, which would allow for data-driven decisions about potential policy adjustments.

The City should consider proceeding with an LPR pilot, including Genetec and/or Vigilant.

Based upon predefined measures of success, system features, and pricing options the City should proceed with the preferred vendor. It is recommended that the City immediately equip two enforcement vehicles with LPR to provide more consistent and effective enforcement.

Effective enforcement is critical for the City to understand the actual impact of existing policies and time limits. Without compliance with the posted rules, it is challenging to understand the true need and the root of parking program impacts.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. The City should consider piloting LPR with Genetec and/or Vigilant and proceed with the purchase of two mobile LPR systems.
a. The City should verify that existing and future vehicles are compatible with LPR specifications.
b. Enforcement officers will need training on how to use the system software.

2. LPR should be utilized to improve the management of on- and off-street time limits.

3. LPR data can be accessed from the vendor backend portal and exported to Excel for analysis. The City can use this data to better understand parking occupancy and utilization trends.

4. Based upon the selected LPR vendor, the City should coordinate with Data Ticket to ensure that the systems are fully integrated for enforcement. a. Ideally, the LPR system should be able to send violation data to the enforcement handheld. The officer can then efficiently issue a citation from a handheld device.

ATTACHMENT 1

31 5. The City should consider transitioning to an automated permit management system with digital license plate- based permits. LPR can be utilized f or this plate- based enforcement if integrated with the City’s selected permit management vendor.

6. An LPR policy document must be posted at the City’s website.

Phase 2

1. Based upon the success of the LPR program, the City could consider purchasing an additional LPR unit.

2. Continue to monitor LPR data for occupancy and utilization trends.

Phase 3

1. Perform ongoing data analysis and reporting.

2. Continue to integrate LPR systems with any future citation or permit management system.

ATTACHMENT 1

32 Strategy #2. Hire Additional Enforcement Officers

Priority: High
Cost: $
Considerations: Hours of operation, full time vs. part time, management structure, technology
Prerequisites: None

The City’s parking operation is significantly understaffed. Currently the City has two full time parking enforcement officer positions, each of whom are assigned ten hours per day and four days per week (4 -10). One officer is assigned to Monday through Thursday, and the other is assigned to Tuesday through Friday. Currently, there is no weekend or evening enforcement.

To adequately management the existing and future time limits and parking impacts in the downtown and Oxbow District areas, four parking enforcement officer positions are recommended. This can be staffed through a mix of full time and part-time staff, depending on the staffing schedule. It is important that the City has sufficient staffing levels for instances where an officer may be on vacation or on sick leave. Parking enforcement is critical to support the parking operation because it will improve compliance with regulations.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Budget for and hire two additional Parking Enforcement Officer positions. This can be a mix of full time and part-time staff.
a. All enforcement officers should be equipped with citation issuance handheld devices. Additionally, all officers should be trained on how to use existing and future enforcement technology, including LPR.

2. Based upon the number of positions, the City should develop an enforcement plan that maximizes officer efficiency and provides consistent enforcement to the downtown and Oxbow District areas.

Phase 2

1. Depending on any adjustments to the City’s time limit hours of operation, permit program, and/or the implementation of paid parking, enforcement staffing may need to be adjusted. Depending on the efficiency of deployed technology, the City may be able to provide more effective enforcement coverage.

Phase 3

1. Perform ongoing data analysis and reporting to track officer statistics and effectiveness.

ATTACHMENT 1

33 Strategy #2. Extend Enforcement Hours

Priority: High
Cost: $
Considerations: Parking occupancy trends, Downtown vs. Oxbow District impacts Prerequisites: Staffing

The City’s parking enforcement hours should align with peak parking impact periods. The City should also be aware of how this may vary between the downtown and Oxbow District areas.

Currently, enforcement officers are staffed on Monday through Friday, meaning that there is no weekend enforcement. This is inconsistent with some posted signage, which indicates that time limits apply on weekends. However, it is likely that many drivers are aware of the lack of weekend enforcement and are not complying with posted regulations.

The majority of stakeholders in the Parking Focus Group were supportive of a seven day per week enforcement operation, especially in the Oxbow District where parking is challenging to find on weekends. Evening enforcement should also be considered due to the growing nightlife in Napa. The City should consider extending the hours of enforcement to 7 or 8pm, depending on parking occupancy trends and peak parking impacts. The benefit of extending enforcement and time limits to the evening is that it improves the management of parking during the peak dinner rush. Without evening time limits, it is likely that evening shift employees are utilizing the convenient on-street spaces for long-term parking. Time limits and enforcement can encourage more turnover and create more parking space availability for visitors.

The City’s municipal code section 10.08.030 currently includes Saturdays and Sundays in the definition of holidays. The City should consider amending this code section as shown below, to allow for time limits and paid parking operating hours to apply on weekends.

10.08.030 Holidays.

For the purpose of traffic and parking enforcement pursuant to this title, “holidays” are as established in this section: (1) Saturday and Sunday; (21) January 1st; (32) Martin Luther King Jr. Day; ( 43) President’s Day; (5 4) Memorial Day; (6 5) July 4th; (7 6) Labor Day; (8 7) Admission’s Day; (98) Columbus Day; ( 109) Veteran’s Day; (110) Thanksgiving Day and the day following; and ( 112) Christmas Day. For enforcement purposes, the holiday shall be the day so stated. , or the Friday before or Monday following, if that is the day designated as the observance day for the indicated holiday.

If the City decides to extend the time limits later into the evening, the City will need to update the municipal code. Currently, the time limit hours of operation are restricted to between 8:00am and 6:00pm:

10.36.220 Time limits in central business district.

When authorized signs are in place giving notice thereof, no person shall stop, stand or park any vehicle within the central business district between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. of any day except Saturday, Sunday and holidays for a period of time longer than that designated by signs.

ATTACHMENT 1

34 Implementation
Phase 1

1. Based upon occupancy trends and stakeholder feedback, the City should consider extending the hours of operation for time limits and enforcement into the evening and weekends.
a. The operating hours will likely vary between the downtown and Oxbow District areas due to variations in demand.

2. Based upon the proposed extended hours, the City should ensure that the enforcement operation is sufficiently staffed.

Phase 2 and 3

1. Ongoing monitoring of parking occupancy and stakeholder feedback should be considered when determining any future adjustments to enforcement hours and days.

ATTACHMENT 1

35 Strategy #3. Move the Enforcement Division under the Parking Programs Manager

Priority: High
Cost: n/a
Considerations: Management and oversight, job duties, training and access to technology
Prerequisites: None

Currently the enforcement officers are housed within the Police Department. The Police Department is, and should be, primarily focused on health and safety concerns. Because of this, parking typically becomes a lower priority for the Department. Knowing that effective parking enforcement is critical to the success of the parking operation, it is important for the officers to have effective management and oversight. With the recent hire of a Parking Programs Manager, the City should consider shifting the enforcement division under his oversight. This reorganization would provide a more centralized approach to parking management.

The Parking Programs Manager could monitor and adjust the enforcement procedures and routes based upon ongoing data results. The City’s automated citation management system vendor, Data Ticket, provides granular enforcement data that can be used to monitor citation issuance trends per officer, location, and violation, among other factors. With consistent route-based enforcement, the City can effectively utilize this data to understand trends over time. This would give the Parking Programs Manager the ability to monitor officer effectiveness and provide gap management.

Gap management is the process of ensuring that officers are effectively using their time in the field. As enforcement effectiveness improves, the City can expect increased levels of compliance, resulting in a decrease in the number of issued citations. Gap management will allow the Manager to understand whether a decrease in citations is due to ineffective enforcement or due to higher compliance. Any large gaps in time between citations should be accounted for, whether the officer is chalking tires, providing warning notices, or conducting other job duties. LPR data can also be used to help manage parking enforcement activity for gap management. The GPS locations of plate reads map out daily enforcement routes. This will allow the City to track officer productivity without basing it on the number of citations issued.

To proceed with the suggested reorganization, the City will need to ensure that the municipal code is addressed. Parking enforcement staff outside of the Police Department must be designated the proper authority to issue parking citations. Additionally, the City will likely need to update existing job descriptions, requirements and qualifications. Knowing this, it is important to verify whether existing staffing agreements or union plans do not conflict with the proposed adjustments. Finally, the City should plan for the transfer of enforcement vehicles, updated uniform and patches, and the transfer of any Police Department managed parking enforcement technology.

ATTACHMENT 1

36 Currently, Chapter 10.12 of the Municipal Code assigns the Police Department, or members assigned by the Police Chief, to enforce the street traffic regulations:

10.12.010 General duties of police.

It is the duty of members of the Police Department or such members as are assigned by the Police Chief to enforce the street traffic regulations of this city and all of the state vehicle laws applicable to street traffic in this city, to make arrests for traffic violations, to investigate traffic accidents and to cooperate with the Traffic Engineer and other officers of the city in the administration of the traffic laws and in developing ways and means to improve traffic conditions, and to carry out those duties specially imposed upon said Department by this chapter and the traffic ordinances of this city.

For Napa, the parking regulations are not separated from the traffic regulations in the enforcement definitions. The City should consider designating the authority for parking enforcement to Parking Ambassadors. Sample language is included below:

A. The Chief of Police is hereby authorized to designate regularly employed and salaried employees of the City as Parking Ambassadors.

B. Civilian employees of the City of Napa, as well as special contractors designated by the Chief of Police, shall enforce provisions of this title and the California Vehicle Code relating to the standing or parking of vehicles that legally may be enforced by persons other than peace officers.

C. Parking Ambassadors shall enforce the provisions relating to regulation of stopping, standing and parking of vehicles contained in the City of Napa Municipal Code and in the Vehicle Code of the State of California.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Verify feasibility of reorganizing the management of parking enforcement by transferring the parking enforcement staff under the Parking Programs Manager. a. Consider union agreements, job descriptions, and staffing agreements.

2. Update the municipal code to designate authority for parking enforcement outside of the Police Department.

3. Update job descriptions and organizational structure.

4. Provide new uniforms.

5. Transfer parking enforcement technology and equipment from the Police Department.

Phases 2 and 3

1. The Parking Programs Manager should provide ongoing monitoring of parking enforcement staff.
a. Adjust routes and procedures as required.
b. Utilize the citation management system database to track performance and provide gap management.

ATTACHMENT 1

37 Strategy #4. Outsource Parking Enforcement Services

Priority: High
Cost: $$
Considerations: Existing staff, cost, performance standards Prerequisites: Approval by City Attorney, budget

As previously described, the City’s enforcement operation is understaffed. An alternative to hiring additional officers could be outsourcing the operation. This approach requires the City to establish the number of labor hours, uniforms, equipment, vehicles, and any office space needed to support the City along with the specified enforcement services. Most vendors will offer an existing employee transition program, subject to minimum qualifications, background checks, and specified hiring criteria. The City could specify this approach in any solicitation.

Private parking operators offer both union and non-union labor. The City can specify this requirement as well . The type of labor will impact the cost of the enforcement support services. The City Attorney should confirm the ability to outsource enforcement services. This approach should be evaluated for feasibility and its degree of cost savings.

Managing parking enforcement and the related support services can be expensive and an administrative burden. Several California agencies have successfully outsourced parking enforcement operations for nearly two decades. These outsourced programs have continually demonstrated not only a significant annual cost savings to the agency but also a n increased level of service and consistent application of the parking regulations that had not been supported by their internal resources. With each outsourced program, the City provides oversight and audit control of the parking enforcement operation including frequent meetings with program managers and regularly scheduled audits to ensure the productivity, efficiency and service levels of the vendor.

Though the day-to-day parking enforcement operations is managed by a service provider, the level of transparency in the relationship is critical to the success of the overall program. These programs are closely monitored by designated city staff and, in some case, vendors are even co-housed within existing city facilities. Contract performance requirements s trictly regulate how to address customer complaints and the notification protocols for any community issues that may arise. Polices and operational procedures must be approved by the City and vendors must closely monitor their field staff to ensure compliance and customer satisfaction.

Several California cities have successfully supported an outsourced parking enforcement service agreement , including Palo Alto, West Hollywood, Pasadena, and Newport Beach.

Typically, services are procured through a standard Request for Proposals (RFP) process identifying the type of parking enforcement support services needed. In some cases, cities have outsourced their entire enforcement operations, while others have solicited supplemental services to assist with specific enforcement policies like street sweeping, meter enforcement and overnight parking regulations. Contracts are structured based upon a flat monthly fee, an hourly rate by position with a specified number of annual service hours or a combination of both. Depending upon the agreement, some cities only provide the enforcement devices and, in others, the vendor is required to provide turnkey services, including vehicles, uniforms, office space and the enforcement devices. In either case, the

ATTACHMENT 1

38 City typically specif ies the enforcement needs for the services requested and mutually establishes an enforcement schedule in coordination with the vendor’s scope of contracted services.

Outsourced parking enforcement services have demonstrated an improvement in the efficiency of enforcement, including an increase in paid parking revenue (on and off street).

After the first year of their outsourced parking operation, in 2012, the City of Newport Beach reported to the Finance Committee a 24% increase in parking meter revenue a nd salary savings of nearly $500,000. Importantly, the vendors primary responsibility is to encourage customers to pay at the meter before issuing the citation, including trying to find customers in nearby stores and cafes. Even with this effort, the resul ts also included an increase in parking meter citation revenues by 36%. The supplement parking enforcement program began with parking meter enforcement only and has since expanded to include time limits and off-street parking lots. Napa could expect to see a higher level of compliance with posted time limits if the enforcement operation were to be outsourced.

Just this year, the City of Breckinridge, CO, made the decision to outsource its enforcement.

The City mentioned that the vendor services would be provided a flat fee, therefore providing no incentive based upon the number of citations issued. Instead, the City has promoted a parking ambassador model that focuses on compliance and educating the community and visitors on how to pay for parking rather than a hard stance on issuing citations – with the goal being compliance.

For over 15 years, the City of Pasadena has been supplementing their parking enforcement operation with outsourced services. The most recent contract was approved in 2015 with an annual value of $967,000. Turnkey parking enforcement services have been provided to the City of West Hollywood for over two decades and, the most recent 5-year contract extension was approved in 2015 with an estimated value of $2.3M. The West Hollywood enforc ement program has been recognized as a high-profile, customer centric model operation in a densely populated region of Los Angeles.

Since 1996, the City of Alhambra has utilized a private contractor. Prior to outsourcing, parking enforcement was supported by police cadets reporting to a traffic sergeant. The productivity of the cadets was often impacted by other assignments and the limited annual cap of hours. The City has recognized that the outsourcing of parking enforcement services allows for uninterrupted staffing of the parking detail allowing the City to sustain a consistent level of services and productivity. Since the initial implementation, parking citations have increased yearly. The City’s experience has proven to be very productive and cost effective.

The primary enforcement responsibilities include overnight parking, time limit zones, day/night street sweeping, scofflaw identification and vehicle abatement.

The City of Palo Alto implemented a new residential parking permit program (2015) that is enforced by supplemental parking enforcement support services. A three-year contract was awarded for $1.5M to enforce the new program. The vendor provides the bicycles and enforcement vehicles and the City provides the enforcement handhelds.

ATTACHMENT 1

39 Vendors that provide parking enforcement support services include:
• SP Plus
• Serco Inc.
• LAZ Parking
• Republic Parking Systems
• PCI (currently contracted by Alameda for garage maintenance services).

Prior to considering any outsourcing potential of parking enforcement services in Napa, it is recommended that the City solicit the City Attorney to confirm the legal viability of outsourcing parking enforcement support services. This has been an issue of concern for other California municipalities.

Recently, the City of San Leandro issued an RFP for outsourced parking enforcement services.

The City is currently reviewing proposals and will implement the operation in mid-January. The City of Napa may have an opportunity to learn and benefit from this contract. Regardless, the effectiveness of the City’s enforcement operation should be addressed during Phase 1 to ensure the effectiveness of any future parking operation investments and policy changes.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Assess the viability of outsourcing the enforcement operation with the City Attorney.

2. Contact other California municipalities to vet their success with outsourcing enforcement and inquire about any lessons learned and vendor feedback.

3. Consider learning and benefitting from the City of San Leandro’s outsourced parking enforcement agreement and RFP.
a. Specifications should define minimum qualifications, employee transitions, and performance standards.
b. Outsourced parking enforcement services should fall under the management and oversight of the Parking Programs Manager.

Phases 2 and 3

1. Perform ongoing management and oversight of the enforcement vendor services by the Parking Programs Manager.

2. Consider any necessary adjustments to staffing and hours of operation to meet the City’s parking occupancy goals.

ATTACHMENT 1

40 Strategy #5. Utilize a Customer Service Parking Ambassador Model

Priority: High
Cost: $
Considerations: Training
Prerequisites: None

The City should take a compliance-based Parking Ambassador approach to enforcement. A compliance-based approach includes issuing warning notices before citations for first- time offenders, educating parkers on regulations, and answering customer questions. Often times parking enforcement staff may be the only interaction that visitors have with City employees, so they should be a positive representation for the community. The Parking Ambassador approach puts a positive spin on the parking-enforcement/public interaction. It is recommended that the Parking Ambassadors serve as community liaison s and parking educators for a more customer friendly approach to compliance. While we are not encouraging an enforcement state, consistency and compliance should be mandates to safeguard the community.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. If necessary, update existing enforcement officer job descriptions to be consistent with a customer-service Parking Ambassador model for enforcement. Adjust training information and procedures to align with a customer-service focused approach to achieving compliance.
a. Parking enforcement officers could be renamed as Parking Ambassadors.

2. Provide de-escalating and customer service training to Parking Ambassadors.

Phases 2 and 3

1. Perform ongoing management and oversight of Parking Ambassadors to ensure a customer service approach to enforcement.

2. Utilize gap management analysis to ensure that any reductions in parking citations being issued is due to increased compliance rather than ineffective enforcement.

ATTACHMENT 1

41 Strategy #6. Utilize Self-release Boots or Windshield Immobilizer Devices for Scofflaw Enforcement

Priority: High
Cost: $
Considerations: Hours of operation, full time vs. part time, management structure, technology
Prerequisites: None

The City does not currently boot for scofflaw violations. Scofflaws are cases where vehi cles are tied to five or more unpaid citations. In order to increase compliance and collect on unpaid citations, the City should consider performing scofflaw enforcement. The City should consider booting as a more efficient alternative to towing.

The traditional boot is being replaced with more innovative, automated, and customer- convenient options. Officer safety is always a concern during any boot release. If the City assumes booting responsibilities, there are two immobilization devices that the City should evaluate and consider that specifically address the issue of officer safety - Paylock SmartBoot and Barnacle.

Each of these immobilization devices provide a self-release service feature that allows the customer to manage delinquent citation payments and do not require PEO field presence to complete a transaction. This minimizes wait time and mitigates the often harsh exchange that can occur when the traditional boot is removed from the vehicle.

The Paylock SmartBoot looks just like a traditional boot, however, with embedded electronics that allow for programmed release. When a scofflaw is identified by a PEO, the SmartBoot is deployed by attaching it to the wheel. The violator can contact customer service immediately and pay the designated penalties due to the City. Prior to the payment process, the violator must acknowledge the financial responsibility to return the SmartBoot to a designated location. A credit hold is placed and if the equipment is not returned within the specified timeframe (typically 24 hours), the specified value is processed to the violator. The values range from $500 to $750 and equipment return compliance is high.

While also equipped with a violator release feature, the Barnacle is attached to the windshield rather than the tire. This is another enhanced opportunity for officer safety because, rather than bending down to attach the boot, the Barnacle can be attached to the windshield from the curbside. Industrial suction cups adhere the device to the windshield thereby obstructing the driver’s view. The Barnacle is GPS- enabled and includes an anti-tamper alarm. Same as the SmartBoot, a violator must acknowledge financial responsibility for the device and, if not re turned, they will be charged for the device at a price similar to the SmartBoot.

Image 13. Paylock
SmartBoot

ATTACHMENT 1

42 Both solutions are a tremendous innovation to the traditional booting process. It is recommended that if the City assumes booting responsibilities, either of these options should be considered to more efficiently manage the process. Each of these solutions provide a management system that will
automatically send a notification if an immobilization time limit is defined in the system identifying when a vehicle should be towed. The City can determine if this notification should be sent directly to the tow company or if an officer should solicit the service.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Request scofflaw data from citation management vendor. a. Ensure that any LPR system is equipped with the ability to automate scofflaw enforcement. The LPR should automatically notify the enforcement officer when a scofflaw is identified.

Phases 2 and 3

1. Consider purchasing SmartBoots or Barnacle devices to aid with scofflaw enforcement.

2. Continue to monitor the use of the City’s immobilizing technology to determine whether more equipment is needed.

Image 14. Barnacle Windshield
Immobilizer

ATTACHMENT 1

43 Goal: Develop a Special Events Plan

Strategy #1. Charge for Parking During Large Special Events

Priority: Medium
Cost: $
Considerations: Pricing, parking supply, mode alternatives, BottleRock impacts Prerequisites: Payment technology/equipment, ordinance updates, rate model

The City of Napa is an increasingly popular tourist destination and has a number of special events that impact parking, including the BottleRock Music Festival. The ability to charge for parking during special events will give the City additional income to improve parking and transportation management.

The BottleRock website currently promotes the fact that there is free all- day parking in downtown Napa. Event attendees that utilize downtown parking displace potential customers to downtown businesses. Ideally, to offset the downtown impact, the City could reinvest paid parking revenue into the downtown. Additionally, by charging for parking, the City may encourage more visitors to utilize alternative modes of transportation to access events like BottleRock. The BottleRock website does promote alternatives such as rideshare, biking, and public transit.

Latitude 38 Entertainment is the organization that arranges the BottleRock festival. This year, the City established a Property Entry Agreement with Latitude 38 Entertainment for the use of parking facilities for paid BottleRock
parking. Payment to the City for the use of
Parking Lot X, Lot B, and the Third Street
Lot is based upon a rate of just $5.00 per
space per day . Meanwhile, Latitude 38
Entertainment charges patrons $35.00
per day in the three aforementioned lots .

This is a significant missed revenu e
opportunity for the City. The remaining 15
facilities are available to the public for
free, and are often heavily utilized for
event parking. This displaces parking
valuable supply from downtown patrons
and employees.

The City should also consider that when
drivers park in a municipal facility, they are expecting a high quality municipal experience.

Without providing management oversight during BottleRock and other major events, the City does not have control over the parking experience.

It is recommended that the City manage special event parking. To charge for parking during special events, the City can utilize handheld devices to accept payment. There is also an Image 15. BottleRock website parking information

ATTACHMENT 1

44 opportunity to do a presale for parking so that attendees can pay for parki ng in advance. To improve security, whenever possible, the City should minimize the amount of cash handling.

The City can hire temporary staff or reallocate existing staff to manage parking during special events.

If paid parking meters are implemented for on- and/or off- street parking, the rates can be easily modified for special events that impact downtown parking. Special event rates may help motivate drivers to park farther away or seek alternative modes of transportation. A special event rate can be easily integrated and implemented with smart paid parking technology. For ease of messaging, it is recommended that the City utilize a flat rate for special events. Any flat rate should be commensurate with the value of the existing rates for on- and off- street parking locations. Additionally, the City can utilize magnetic covers that are flush with the edges of any regulatory signage to alter the regulations during events.

To apply a special event rate, the City will need to establish criteria for when the rate would apply, the amount and the advanced notification requirements. Based upon these criteria, the City will have the option to increase special event pricing for any downtown special events, depending upon the need. It is important to keep in mind that special event rates will require increased hours of enforcement for any extended paid parking hours.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Update municipal code to allow for paid parking during special events.

2. Establish criteria for when a special event rate will apply and define the rate structure. a. A flat rate is recommended for ease of messaging. However, tiered rates can also be applied based upon the location and demand.

3. Begin to charge for parking during the upcoming events in and around downtown. a. The City should identify the proper staffing resources to manage the paid parking operation during events. This can be staffed with existing resources or with temporary staff.
b. Minimize cash handing, accept credit card payment upon entry and/or allow for pre-payment.

4. Conduct ongoing education and outreach regarding special event parking. a. Promote alternative modes of transportation to reduce congestion impacts.

Phase 2

1. If the City implements paid parking equipment, program the parking meters to charge a special event rate based upon a calendar of events or manual inputs.

2. Update digital messaging signage with parking information about special events, as applicable.

Phase 3

1. Consider adjusting special event rates over time based upon demand and occupancy.

ATTACHMENT 1

45 Strategy #2. Encourage Alternative Modes of Transportation During Events

Priority: Medium
Cost: $
Considerations: Incentives, company goals, enforcement, geo-fencing Prerequisites: Relationship with ridesharing companies

Promoting alternative transportation options should be encouraged throughout all levels of special event planning and promotions. For example, there are many cross-promotions occurring with services such as Lyft and Uber that both promote the City event and their services to encourage other transportation sources and reduce parking demand.

Municipalities across the country are coordinating directly with these resources to encourage alternative transportation. Special event planning should ideally incorporate safe and accessible location(s) for the drop-off and pick-up of passengers.

The organizers of BottleRock already coordinate with ridesharing companies to improve transportation management. Ridesharing companies have a track record of working closely with cities to address their ridesharing concerns and issues.

For example, Lyft recently worked with the City of Las Vegas to develop a parking solution for the Life is Beautiful Festival. The festival was located in the heart of Downtown Las Vegas, with approximately 150,000 attendees. Lyft worked with the City to establish drop-off/pick-up zones to service the festival, as well as appropriate queuing areas. Service features like in- app geo-fencing, signage, and marketing channels can sometimes be used to improve event planning and management. Drivers can also be incentivized to service certain areas of a city.

The City should work with popular ridesharing companies like Lyft and Uber to request trip data for impacted destinations. This will allow the City to better understand the impact of ridesharing on congestion throughout the City.

Ford, Uber and Lyft recently announced an agreement to share data through a new platform that provides cities with the ability to manage congestion. The SharedStreets platform is meant to be a way for these companies to provide helpful data about road traffic. The City should monitor the developments of this platform and consider how this data could help inform ongoing parking and traffic management decisions.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Perform ongoing outreach to ridesharing companies, Uber and Lyft, about the potential to implement ridesharing incentive programs and drop-off/pick-up zones for special events.
a. Define safe pick- up and drop -off locations and coordinate with ridesharing companies to geo-fence the locations as allowable loading areas.

Phases 2 and 3

1. Conduct ongoing promotion of alternative modes of transportation for special events.

2. Utilize any provided ridesharing data to adjust the program.

ATTACHMENT 1

46 a. Monitor SharedStreets platform and any other future data sharing platforms to access traffic data.

ATTACHMENT 1

47 Goal: Improve Employee Parking Management

Strategy #1. Develop a Downtown Employee Permit Parking Progra m.

Priority: High
Cost: $
Considerations: Parking space allocations, cost, permit management Prerequisites: Municipal code updates, automated permit management, LPR

Currently, the City issues parking permits for designated permit parking spaces within City facilities. Permits can be purchased at City Hall at the Finance Department. Applicants must provide their name, license plate number, vehicle make, model, color, phone number, email address, business name and business address. Each permit costs $30 per month and may be purchased on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis. The price has not been increased for at least 17 years. Permit parking is available on the second level of the Clay Street Garage, Lot X, second level of the Pearl Street Garage, and the third level of the Second Street Garage.

Despite offering permits as an option, many downtown employees continue to park on-street and move their vehicles periodically to avoid the time limits. Despite the affordable price of $30 per month, it is challenging for the City to promote this alternative to employees without the implementation of shorter on-street time limits and/or paid parking. However, if the City implements a no re-parking ordinance, shorter time limits, and/or paid parking, it is expected that there will be an increase in demand for employee parking options. Therefore, before making any adjustments to the on-street parking regulations, it is recommended that the City develop a downtown employee permit parking program. Ideally, employees should store their cars in off-street locations, thus creating more availability on-street for customer parking.

With any employee permit program, the City should also consider eliminating any reserved parking stalls. Instead, permit parking areas can be designated to allow permit holders to park in any designated permit parking stall. Reserved parking stalls are an inefficient use of space because they sit empty whenever the particular assigned vehicle is not on site. By opening up stalls to every permit holder, the City can start to manage the spaces more effectively based upon demand. Many municipalities choose to implement an oversell amount, meaning that the number of permits sold is higher than the number of permit parking stalls. The City can assume that permit holders will not always need parking at the same time. However, any oversell amount should be carefully monitored to ensure that there is adequate availability.

The below table includes the annual parking permit rates for a number of nearby municipalities. In comparison to the City of Napa, the surrounding locations charge significantly more per year. The City should consider raising the permit cost to be more consistent with the market rate. It is recommended that the City raise the permit rate incrementally on an annual basis, eventually reaching an annual rate between $600 and $1,000, or roughly between $50 and $80 per month.

ATTACHMENT 1

48 Table 3. Employee Permit Rate Comparison
Location Annual Employee Permit Cost
City of Napa $360
City of Mountain View $336
City of Palo Alto $750
City of Sausalito $440 - $1,040
City of Redwood City $480 - $1,200
City of San Jose $1,200 - $1,500
City of Sacramento $540 - $3,000
Average $586 - $1,169

Along with the revised rate structure, one critical recommendation for the City is the establishment of a low-income/service worker permit option. It is critical for downtown success that low-income employees have an affordable option for parking. The City should establish an income threshold for qualification, and with proof, employees could qualify for a reduced permit rate. For example, the City of Sacramento offers a Discounted Employee Parking Program (DEPP). The DEPP is designed to provide an affordable alternative to those who make an hourly wage of $16 or less and who work within a designated area of downtown Sacramento.

In order to determine permit eligibility, the City of Santa Monica has implemented a Worksite Transportation Plan that must be completed by the participating business to determine their available parking options. The City of Santa Monica offers substantial discounts and transportation subsidies for the use of alternative transportation modes including municipal bus passes and bikes. A monthly evening parking permit, valid daily between 4:00pm and 6:00am is available for $82.50. The City also provides a discounted monthly parking permit that is available for $20.00 with proof of employment.

In addition to raising the permit price, the City should also consider a tiered pricing approach.

The highest demand off-street parking locations should be priced at a higher monthly rate than the lower demand locations. This can be an effective way to encourage employees to store their vehicles in more remote locations. As seen in the above table, a number of the nearby municipalities offer a large range of permit parking rates. This range is due to the higher cost of premium parking stalls in comparison to the discounted areas. Pricing can be an effective way to influence parking behavior.

The City should also consider any remote parking locations that could be utilized to store employee vehicles. One example is the City-owned property located north of downtown nearby Walmart. This four-acre lot could become a significant remote parking opportunity for the City.

This property is only around a 20-minute walk or a short 5-minute drive from the core downtown area. If the City was to utilize this location for remote employee parking, it is recommended that a discounted or free rate be offered to encourage utilization. This location could also be supported by a shuttle route and/or bike share system. Ideally, revenue from the permit parking program downtown could be utilized to support a remote parking location.

ATTACHMENT 1

49 To prepare for an employee permit parking program, the City will need to update the municipal code. Currently, Section 10.36.270 defines the specific locations for a physical permit:

10.36.270 – Off-street lots – Permit parking.

A. Whenever the Council shall determine by resolution and when authorized signs are in place giving notice thereof, no person shall stop, stand or park any vehicle within any off- street city parking lot so designated without first obtaining a permit therefor and displaying said permit as provided in this section.

B. The resolution shall designate the off-street parking lots or portions of lots to be permit parking only, parking time limits, if any, charge rate and time period or other conditions of permits to be issued.

C. Monthly parking permits issued by the City Collector shall not be valid until affixed to the vehicle windshield in the lower left corner of the rear windshield or left side of rear bumper.

The City will need to add a section allowing for the establishment of an employee parking permit program. The suggested language is included below:

A. The City Manager or designee may issue downtown employee parking permits with a term not to exceed one year subject to the requirements set forth in this subsection of this chapter and in administrative rules and regulations issued pursuant to this chapter.

B. A vehicle with a valid downtown employee parking permit shall be permitted to stand or be parked in an employee permit parking zone for which the permit has been issued. Any vehicle that has not been issued a valid parking permit shall be subject to the requirements and restrictions related to parking within the parking zones.

C. This chapter shall not be interpreted or applied in a manner that shall abridge or alter regulations established by authority other than this chapter.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Update ordinances to allow for a downtown employee permit parking program.

2. Define permit parking locations. Ideally, permit parking should be located in off-street facilities, particularly on the upper levels of garages or in more remote parking lots. a. Remove dedicated permit parking stalls and instead create permit parking areas.

3. Develop a permit parking rate structure.
a. Incrementally adjust the monthly permit rate to reach the market rate of surrounding municipalities.
b. Implement a low-income/service worker permit parking program with a discounted, affordable rate.
c. The rate structure can be tiered based on demand.

4. Ideally, the City should utilize an automated permit management system to manage the permit parking operation.

5. Launch an education and outreach program encouraging employees to utilize the program.

ATTACHMENT 1

50 a. Before implementing shorter time limits, a no re-parking ordinance, and/or paid parking, it is important that employees are aware of alternatives to on- street parking.

Phase 2

1. Conduct ongoing monitoring of permit sales to adjust oversell amounts, permit parking rates, and supply.

2. Consider remote parking opportunities that could be utilized for employee parking as a discounted rate.
a. Remote parking locations may require a shuttle service and/or bike share program for access into the downtown.

ATTACHMENT 1

51 Strategy #2. Utilize an Automated Permit Management System

Priority: High
Cost: $
Considerations: Vendor features, digital permits
Prerequisites: LPR

Currently, the City is managing the permit program manually. Drivers are required to purchase their permits at the Finance Department, and do not have the option of filling out an online application. If the City intends to expand the permit program, an automated permit management system is recommended. A turnkey vendor solution would minimize visitors to City Hall and would ease the management burden.

The City’s existing citation management vendor, Data Ticket, also offers an automated permit management system that could be considered by the City. Whether the City utilizes Data Ticket or another permit management vendor, the automation of the program is recommended.

Regardless of the selected vendor, the City should offer an online portal. Applicants should be required to submit proof of employment to qualify for a permit. Proof of employment can include a recent paystub or a letter from an employer, for example. The supporting documentation should be reviewed by an administrator and approved prior to acc epting payment from the applicant. A vendor system will also allow the City to ability to set a cap on the number of permits with a wait list capability. The vendor system administrator portal should also allow the City to view applications, run reports and track program utilization.

There are a number of services offered by permit management vendors. During a solicitation process, the City should determine which services to keep in-house and which services to outsource to the vendor. Figure 6 below outlines certain services and features for consideration:

Figure 6. Parking Permit Processing Tasks
Task Outsource to
vendor
Optional
vendor service
Keep in-
house
Renewal mailing ☐ ☐ ☐
Permit Application review (validate
eligibility)
☐ ☐ ☐
Fulfillment of physical permit ☐ ☐ ☐
Develop/supply permit stock ☐ ☐ ☐
Customer support (phone/email) ☐ ☐ ☐

It is also recommended that the City transition to the use of digital permits. With digital permits, the license plate number becomes the permit identifier for enforcement, removing the need for physical hangtags or stickers. Digital permits will allow the City to efficiently enforce with the use of LPR technology. This will be more efficient than the visual verification process currently required with the hangtags.

ATTACHMENT 1

52 When transitioning to an automated permit management system, the City should also be prepared to implement an education and outreach campaign. Ideally, employees should learn how to use the new system rather than relying upon ongoing administrative support. While this adjustment period can be challenging at the start, the vendor systems are typically designed with a user-friendly interface which should mitigate customer questions and complaints. In conjunction with the launch of the program, employees should be provided with information about the program, how to use the online portal, general information about LPR enforcement, and step by step instructions for purchasing a permit. For reference, the City of Paso Robles recently launched their first employee permit parking program. The Paso Robles Employee Parking Permit Pilot (PREP
4) included the following outreach materials along with the program launch.

These outreach materials from PREP4 are examples of using positive wording to communicate a program. Additionally, they incorporate the City’s parking brand color palette for consistency.

The use of these instructions and information has helped to provide a smoother transition for the City. A similar outreach approach is recommended for the City of Napa.

ATTACHMENT 1

53 Image 16. Paso Robles Flyer (Front)

ATTACHMENT 1

54 Image 17. Paso Robles Flyer (Back)

ATTACHMENT 1

55 Image 18. Paso Robles Instruction Guide

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Utilize the City’s existing citation management vendor, Data Ticket, or release an RFP for an automated permit management system.
a. A turnkey solution is recommended for the City to minimize the amount of administrative support.

ATTACHMENT 1

56 b. The Parking Programs Manager can oversee the implementation and operation of the program.

2. The City should transition to utilizing digital, license plate-based permits in conjunction with the use of LPR for enforcement.

3. Launch an education and outreach program encouraging employees to utilize the program.
a. Include instructions about how to utilize the online portal, including step-by-step instructions for purchasing a permit.

Phases 2 and 3

1. Conduct ongoing monitoring of permit sales to adjust oversell amounts, permit parking rates, and supply.

ATTACHMENT 1

57 Goal: Safeguard Residential Areas from Spillover
Parking Impacts

Strategy #1. Develop a Residential Permit Parking Program

Priority: High
Cost: $
Considerations: Hours of operation, full time vs. part time, management structure, technology
Prerequisites: LPR, automated permit management system

Whenever parking regulations are introduced in a downtown area, the surrounding residential areas are at risk for spillover parking. Spillover parking is when drivers who are looking to avoid a time limit or parking rate park further away. If the City implements paid parking downtown, residential neighborhoods may experience additional spillover from drivers looking to avoid paying for parking . To safeguard the neighborhoods, the City should update the municipal code to allow for a residential permit parking (RPP) program. Afterwards, the City should make sure that it proactively educates residents about the RPP program, and any future changes to these programs , prior to implementing paid parking downtown. While a residential permit program may not be required for everywhere around downtown, residents should be prepared with the ability to enact the program if desired.

In addition to the surrounding neighborhoods, the City should also be considerate of any residents that live within the downtown. There may be a benefit to separating the programs, with different rules for downtown versus non-downtown residents. Ideally, there should be a cap on the number of permits allowed per address, or an escalated or tiered permit rate structure.

Another consideration is that with the ongoing intensification of development and multi-family housing developments, there will likely be residential areas that have impacted on- street parking without an external source. Typically, RPP programs are designed to safeguard residents from external impacts, such as spillover from a commercial area, hospital, or university. However, when the only impact is other residents, it is challenging for the City to develop an equitable RPP program, knowing that all residents would qualify to participate in a program. The City cannot reasonably guarantee that all residents in a dense area will have adequate on-street parking.

An example of this is the City of Seattle’s Restricted Parking Zones (RPZs) program. In Seattle, RPZs are residential areas around commuter traffic generators – like hospitals or light rail stations – where on-street parking is restricted for those except residents and short- term visitors. To establish a new RPZ, the block must be adjacent to an existing RPZ, at least 75% of spaces on a block are full, and 60% or more of households on the block sign a petition to join the RPZ.

ATTACHMENT 1

58 The City of Napa should also consider combining any future RPP program with the selected automated permit management system so there is one consistent online portal for users.

More information about the online portal is described in the employee permit parking section.

Residents should be required to upload proof of residency to qualify for a permit. Proof of residency can include a recent utility bill and a car registration with the correct address, for example. A web -based permit management system will allow residents to electronica lly submit applications and supporting documentation. Residents should have the ability to establish an online account that allows them to manage the permit requirements. The eligibility requirements for the different RPP areas can be defined by business r ules based upon address or any other specification designated by the City.

The permit management solution can also be integrated with the suggested LPR system. This will provide the parking enforcement officers with real- time valid permit status. Ideally , with the use of LPR, the City can utilize a digital parking permit process and there would be no need for a physical permit to be displayed on a vehicle, the license plate would become the identifier.

The City does have a Preferential Parking Permit program established, per Chapter 10.38 of the Municipal Code. However, it only applies to 30 parking spaces along Brown Street. These parking spaces are meant for visitors, invitees, and employees of the Napa City-County Library and the Napa Mill Planned Development Overlay District. The City could expand this Chapter or introduce a new chapter to include a residential program. Suggested language is included below for consideration:

Purpose
Public streets in neighborhoods in the City have parking accessible to residents in those neighborhoods. Parking by non-residents causes inaccessibility to parking and congestion on neighborhood streets. Such parking by non-residents threatens the health, safety and welfare of all residents of Napa. In order to protect and promote the integrity of these neighborhoods, it is necessary to enact parking regulations restricting unlimited parking by non- residents, while providing the opportunity for residents to park near their homes.

Definitions

1. “Designated preferential parking permit area” means any contiguous area upon which the Council imposes parking limitations pursuant to the authority granted by this Chapter.

2. “Non-residential vehicle” means a motor vehicle not eligible to be issued a residential parking permit, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Chapter, for the specific area in which it is parked.

3. “Visitor permit” means a parking permit issued pursuant to this Chapter or an ordinance enacted pursuant to the authority granted herein, which shall exempt the vehicle from parking time restrictions established pursuant to this chapter for a period defined by the City Manager or designee, beginning upon the date authorized.

Residential Permit Exemption
A. A motor vehicle that has been assigned a valid residential parking permit as provided for herein shall be permitted to stand or be parked in the residential parking permit area for

ATTACHMENT 1

59 which the permit has been issued without being limited by time restrictions established pursuant to this Chapter or any resolution hereunder. Any vehicle that has not been issued a valid parking permit shall be subject to the residential parking permit regulation and consequent penalties in effect for such area.

B. A residential parking permit or any other permit as designated by the Council shall not guarantee or reserve to the holder thereof an on-street parking space within the designated residential parking permit area.

C. This Chapter shall not be interpreted or applied in a manner that shall abridge or alter regulations established by authority other than this Chapter.

Designation of a Residential Parking Permit Area
A. The City Manager or designee shall consider whether a residential parking permit (RPP) area within a designated area, would promote certain benefits or would result in adverse impacts.

B. Benefits that may lead to establishing an RPP area include, but are not limited to:
increased access for area residents, reduced traffic congestion, increased traffic or pedestrian safety, reduced air or noise pollution, reduced commuter parking in neighborhoods, prevention of blighted areas, and promoting the use of alternative modes of transportation.

1. Adverse impacts that may prevent establishing an RPP area include, but are not limited to: transferring a parking problem to a different area, inability to effectively enforce program restrictions, lack of alternative transportation modes, and availability of simpler, cheaper or more effective solutions.

2. There shall be two (2) alternative processes by which the City Council can consider any area for designation as a residential parking permit area:
i. Resident’s Petition. The City Council shall consider for designation as a residential parking permit area any proposed area for which a petition has been submitted that meets and satisfies both requirements and any administrative guidelines adopted by the City Council.
ii. The City Council or City Manager shall consider for designation as a residential parking permit area a location that satisfies both requirements and any administrative guidelines adopted by the City Council.

C. The City Council or City Manager shall initiate the process for establishing the area as a residential parking permit area.

1. A notice of intent to establish permit parking shall be sent to all addresses within the proposed residential parking permit area.

ATTACHMENT 1

60 D. Upon receipt by the City Council of a resident’s petition with at least 51% of the residential addresses within the designated area or upon City Council or City Manager initiation as described above, the City traffic engineer shall do the following:

1. Undertake or cause to be undertaken any surveys or studies which it deems necessary;

2. Present to the City Council for consideration a resolution that would establish a residential parking permit area based upon the aforementioned proposal and studies, including all regulations and time restrictions determined by the City Council to be reasonable and necessary in such area.

E. The City Council may, by resolution, modify a designated residential parking permit area in any manner consistent with this Chapter.

Issuance of Permits
A. Residential parking permits shall be issued by the City in accordance with requirements set forth in this Chapter. Each such permit shall be designed to state or reflect thereon the identification of Permits will be valid in the particular residential parking permit area for which it is issued.

B. The City is authorized to issue such rules and regulations necessary to implement this Chapter that are consistent with it.

Residential Parking Permit
A. The City Manager, or his or her designee, shall issue residential parking permits with a term not to exceed one year to residents that comply with the requirements set forth in this Chapter.

B. A residential parking permit may be issued only to an applicant who can demonstrate that he or she is currently a resident of the area for which the permit is to be issued.

C. Proof of motor vehicle ownership or vehicle use and control and valid registration shall be demonstrated in a manner determined by the City Manager or his or her designee.

Permits are not valid for non-motorized vehicles (i.e. trailers).

D. The City Council may, by resolution, limit the number of permits issued to any resident or dwelling unit if such limitation would further the goals of the residential permit parking program.

Visitor Permits
A. A visitor parking permit may be used on resident or nonresident vehicles. The City Council may, by resolution, authorize the issuance of visitor parking permits in any residential permit parking area. When authorized, visitor parking permits may be issued under the following conditions:

ATTACHMENT 1

61 1. The applicant for a visitor parking permit has not reached the limits, if any, set by the City Council.

2. Such other conditions and restrictions that the City Council by resolution imposes or that the City Manager, or his or her designee, deems appropriate.

B. Visitor permits must be registered with the City and comply with permit regulations to be valid. A visitor permit shall be tied to a specific address, license plate number, name, permit area, and date range.

C. A visitor permit shall, for the period determined by the City Manager or designee, commencing upon the date indicated upon purchase of said permit authorized, exempt the applicable vehicle from parking time restrictions established pursuant to this Chapter.

Posting of Residential Parking Permit Area
Upon adoption by the City Council of a resolution designating a residential parking permit area and after at least sixty percent (60%) of the households have purchased permits, the City traffic engineer, or designee, shall cause appropriate signs to be erected in the area, indicating prominently thereon the area prohibition or time limitation, period of its application, and conditions under which permit parking shall be exempt therefrom.

Parking Permit Fees
The annual fee and renewal fee for residential parking permits and for visitor permits, or any other parking permit designated by the City Council, shall be established by City Council resolution.

Penalties, Liability and Enforcement
The following acts shall constitute fraudulent use of a permit punishable by a fine to be prescribed by City Council resolution and/or revocation of any permit currently held.

Violations of this Chapter shall include, but are not limited to, the following:

A. The distribution or sale of residential or visitor permits for any purpose, other than residential parking, is prohibited. Residential and visitor permits may not be sold or distributed for special event parking or any external attractions outside of the residential area.

B. Falsely representing oneself as eligible for a parking permit or furnishing false information in an application therefor.

C. Copying, reproducing, or otherwise bringing into existence counterfeit parking permit or permits without written authorization from the Finance Director.

D. Knowingly using or displaying a facsimile or counterfeit parking permit in order to evade time limitations on parking applicable in a residential parking permit area.

ATTACHMENT 1

62 E. Changing dates on a visitor parking permit without written authorization from the Finance Director.

F. Knowingly committing any act that is prohibited by the terms of this Chapter or any ordinance or resolution enacted by authority granted by this Chapter.

Revocation of Residential Parking Permit Area
A. A residential parking area may be revoked by resolution of the City Council after following the same procedures for establishing a residential parking permit area as set forth in this Chapter.

B. If sixty percent (60%) of the households in a residential parking area fail to purchase permits after being duly noticed, the City Manager may revoke the residential parking area upon notice to the residents without further action of the City Council.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Update the municipal code to allow for a residential permit parking program. a. The program should require residents to go through a petitioning process to enact a permit zone.
b. The program guidelines should define the price, permit sales, guest parking pass rules, and acceptable hours of operation.
c. The City should require an external impact, outside of dense residential development, to qualify for the program.
d. An on-street parking occupancy study should be conducted by the City to verify whether a location is truly in need of an RPP program.

2. Implement an automated permit management system in conjunction with the employee permit program.

Phase 2

1. The City should proactively notify the residential permit parking program to neighborhoods prior to the implementation of paid parking. a. An educational outreach campaign will be necessary to safeguard the neighborhoods and prevent spillover parking.

Phase 3

1. Perform ongoing monitoring of program utilization to determine necessary adjustments to permit price and caps.

ATTACHMENT 1

63 Goal: Improve management of parking demand

Strategy #1: Adjust the Length of On- and Off-street Time Limits

Priority: High
Cost: $
Considerations: Demand, turnover, on vs. off-street, signage Prerequisites: Ordinance updates, enforcement

The parking industry standard for the target occupancy rate is 85%. At this rate, there are enough vacant parking spaces to: 1) minimize congestion from drivers searching for spaces; and, 2) reduce oversupply, which is an inefficient and costly use of valuable land. The City should also aim to encourage long- term parking off-street, allowing for more turnover in the convenient on-street spaces. The goal is to improve access for customers and visitors.

The existing time limits are outlined on the map, below. The City of Napa owns three garages (Pearl Street, Clay Street, and Second Street), and the City has a long- term license to use a portion of the garage owned by the County of Napa (Fifth Street) with all- day parking, and 13 surface lots, 11 of which offer three-hour parking. The Pearl Street, Clay Street, Second Street, and Fifth Street Garages have all day parking. Parking lots X and K also have all day parking.

The remaining off-street parking lots have 3-hour time limits. There are also a number of on- street time limited locations with 3-hour time limits.

Figure 7. Downtown Napa Parking Map

ATTACHMENT 1

64 During a recent data collection effort in 2014,
150 of the 332 observed cars (45.2%) were
parked in short-term spaces for three hours or
longer, despite the posted time limits.

Meanwhile, 20% of the observed vehicles were
parked for four hours or longer within the two-
hour time limit zones. A low compliance rate
with time limits is often indicative of
inconsistent enforcement. Low complian ce
makes it challenging to know the true impact
of the existing time limits. The City should
ensure consistent and effective enforcement
before considering any adjustments to on-
street time limits. The high occupancy rates
typically observed for on- street parking are
likely a result of employees parking on-street.

The City should not adjust the on- street time
limits until there has been consistent
enforcement during the posted hours of
operation. By improving enforcement, the City
can expect that more employees will utilize the
long-term parking options instead. As it is
today, many employees are able to park on-
street with minimal risk for a citation.

Additionally, the City could implement a no re-
parking ordinance, which would prohibit
drivers from returning to the same block or
zone after the time limit expires. More
information on no re-parking ordinances is included below in the next strategy. The City should also consider partnering with the Oxbow Public Market to provide parking enforcement services in their parking lot. This would improve the effectiveness of any existing or future time limits in this location.

Once the City addresses the enforcement recommendations, the on-street parking occupancy rates and utilization patterns should be reevaluated to determine whether an adjustment to the time limits is warranted. If on-street occupancy continues to exceed the 85% target rate, then the City could consider shortening the time limits and/or implementing paid parking. The benefit of shorter time limits is that it encourages more turnover. However, this also requires additional enforcement support to be effective. While more turnover can be helpful, it has the downside of making it more challenging for visitors and customers to spend their time downtown. To maximize the customers’ ability to stay downtown, longer- time limits in conjunction with a no re-parking ordinance can be ideal. The no re-parking ordinance would address the issue of employees parking on-street, without needing to shorten the time limit.

Image 19. Existing Time Limit Signage

ATTACHMENT 1

65 Ideally, off-street parking should be utilized by long-term parkers since its less convenient. A 5-minute walk from a parking facility to a destination is not a significant inconvenience for a long visit to downtown. Despite the Pearl Street garage being underutilized during both the 2014 and 2018 occupancy studies, the City has received complaints regarding a potential lack of long-term parking. 3-hour parking spaces within the parking garages and lots often did not reach capacity, even during the peak periods on Thursday and Saturday. This indicates that there may be an imbalance between short and long-term parking supply, but it’s possible that drivers don’t know where to look for it. This could indicate a need for improved vehicular wayfinding and parking guidance system (PGS) signage. The City could also incorporate real- time parking occupancy counts into the PGS signage using sensors. More information on wayfinding can be found in wayfinding and parking guidance section.

Demand for all day parking will likely increase once on-street parking enforcement is improved. However, rather than creating all day public parking for employees, this is an opportunity for the City to promote a new employee permit parking program. The City will need to closely evaluate the demand for long-term parking throughout the adoption and implementation of a permit program to ensure that the distribution of parking supply remains appropriate.

The City should adopt a “Park Once” motto for parking management. The Park Once approach encourages drivers to store their car in a single location per visit to downtown, rather than moving their vehicles between time limited spaces. This means that long-term parkers should be storing their vehicles in long-term parking stalls. The Park Once approach will minimize congestion downtown and improve the effectiveness of time limits. This approach can also be geared towards employees, who should ideally be participating in an employee permit parking program for long-term parking.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Update the municipal code to allow for more flexibility with adjusting on and off-street time limits.

2. Before considering any adjustments to on-street time limits, address enforcement recommendations.
a. Consider adopting a no re-parking ordinance.

3. Consider partnering with the Oxbow Public Market to provide enforcement services.

4. Promote all day parking areas using wayfinding and parking guidance technology.

5. The City should aim to encourage long-term parking off-street and short- term parking on-street.
a. The Park Once motto can be adopted to influence parking planning and policy decisions.

6. The City should utilize an employee permit parking program to manage all day parking by employees.

Phase 2

1. Once parking enforcement is consistent during the posted hours of operation, the City should monitor on- and off-street parking occupancy and utilization trends.

ATTACHMENT 1

66 a. If on-street parking continues to reach above the 85% occupancy target, the City could consider shortening time limits and/or implementing paid parking.

Phase 3

1. Conduct ongoing monitoring of occupancy to determine potential adjustments.

ATTACHMENT 1

67 Strategy #2. Establish a No Re-parking Ordinance

Priority: High
Cost: $
Considerations: Enforcement, signage, distance, timing
Prerequisites: Adequate enforcement, LPR

The City should consider developing a “No Re-Parking” ordinance. A ‘No Re-Parking’ ordinance would prohibit drivers from shuffling their cars on the same block, within a parking lot, or within a structure to avoid time limit restrictions. For time limits to be fully effective, a driver should not be allowed to re-park within the same block or zone on the same day or within a defined period of time. This will help ensure that long-term parkers are not utilizing the spaces meant for short-term visitors. Furthermore, employees would be more likely to purchase a parking permit instead of utilizing the short-term spaces meant for customer parking.

However, it is critical that before the City decides to implement a no re-parking ordinance that a low-income service worker permit be offered (see the employee permit parking section).

Some examples of existing no re-parking ordinances are listed below:

City of Portland, OR (16.20.260 Time Zones)

A. A vehicle may park in a time zone only for a period not to exceed the posted time limit.

B. A vehicle may not return to a time zone in the same block face or within 500 feet of where previously parked on the same block face for a 3-hour period.

C. Upon expiration of the designated time limit, as indicated by the parking zone sign, a citation may be issued if a vehicle remains parked or stopped on the same block face unless:
a. The vehicle has moved 500 or more lineal feet, measured along the curb or edge line;
b. The vehicle has moved to an unregulated parking area in the same block face; or c. The vehicle has vacated the block face for 3 hours.

City of
San Francisco, CA (Sec. 1002. Shifting of Parking Vehicles)

For the purpose of Parking regulations other than a violation of Division I, Section 7.2.29 (Parking Prohibited for More than 72 Hours), any vehicle moved a distance of not more than one block or one-tenth of a mile during the limited Parking period shall be deemed to have remained stationary.

City of Seattle, WA (11.72.240 Moving vehicle to avoid time limit)

No person shall move and repark a vehicle on either side of a street within the same block in order to avoid a parking time limit regulation specified for either side of the street in that particular block.

ATTACHMENT 1

68 Based upon industry best practices, the following no re-parking ordinance is recommended for Napa.

A. A vehicle may park in a time zone only for a period not to exceed the posted time limit.

B. A vehicle may not return to a time zone in the same block face or within 1,000 feet of where previously parked for a 3-hour period.

C. Upon expiration of the designated time limit, as indicated by posted signage, a citation may be issued if a vehicle remains parked or stopped on the same block face unless:

I. The vehicle has moved 1,000 or more lineal feet, measured along the curb or edge line;
II. The vehicle has moved to an unregulated parking area in the same block face; or III. The vehicle has vacated the block face for 3 hours.

However, if the City chooses to establish parking zones, then the City should consider utilizing a no re-parking ordinance that is based upon zones rather than the 1,000 foot rule. For example, a parking zone could be all on-street parking within the downtown core. Another zone could be the on-street parking in the Oxbow District. By prohibiting drivers from re- parking within the same zone, this will make time limits even more effective. This will prevent drivers from parking a block away – instead, they will need to park in an separate zone. The challenge with this approach is ensuring that drivers are aware of the specific zones. This approach typically requires additional signage
and messaging. A zone-based approach may
be better suited in the case of Napa
implementing paid parking. The paid parking
equipment can be branded and wrapped with
zone-based information.

A successful example of this is in the City of
San Leandro. The parking meters in San
Leandro were rebranded using decals, and
each zone is color coordinated. This makes it
simpler for drivers to see which areas are
priced higher or lower. The City of San
Leandro established a total of seven zones,
each with different time limits and hourly
rates. This includes both on- and off- street
public parking areas. The decals and signage
all of information highlighting the no re-
parking rules. Drivers are prohibited from re-
parking in the same zone beyond the posted
time limit. In San Leandro, drivers are
required to wait for a period of at least two
hours before returning to the zone. The red no
re-parking signage was designed by the
company, PICTOFORM. For reference, the
following map outlines the parking zones in
San Leandro.

Image 21. No re-parking sign by PICTOFORM
Image 20. San Leandro Meter Decals

ATTACHMENT 1

69 Image 22. San Leandro Parking Zones

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Update the municipal code to prohibit re-parking within the same block face or zone.

2. Design, order, and post signage indicating the new no re-parking rules throughout downtown.

3. Parking enforcement officers should initially issue warning notices to violators of the no re-parking.
a. Information about all day parking and an employee permit parking program should be shared. It’s important that employees have alternative parking options available prior to the implementation of a no re-parking regulations.

4. Recommended LPR equipment should be configured to allow for time limit enforcement and digital chalking.

Phases 2 and 3

1. Conduct ongoing monitoring of on- and off-street parking occupancy and utilization to determine whether to adjust certain time limits or regulations.

ATTACHMENT 1

70 Strategy #3. Implement Paid Parking

Priority: Low
Cost: $$
Considerations: Rate structure, occupancy, technology and equipment, enforcement Prerequisites: Enforcement, ordinance updates, occupancy monitoring, outreach

Paid parking is another parking management strategy that could be considered by the City of Napa. However, there are a number of other strategies included in this report that should be addressed first. Importantly, the City needs to ensure that parking enforcement is consistent.

The City should understand how the existing regulations impact parking occupancy and utilization trends with proper enforcement and improved compliance. The City cannot accurately predict which locations would benefit from paid parking equipment without proper enforcement. The City should not risk investing in paid parking technology and infrastructure without first achieving program stability. Therefore, it is recommended that the City consider paid parking as a longer-term solution, depending on parking occupancy trends and the success of other parking management strategies.

There are a number of benefits to paid parking, including the ability to offer incentive programs, utilize rates structures to influence driver behavior, and encourage drivers to shift to alternative modes of transportation. Additionally, revenue from paid parking can support a sustainable and effective parking operation, including the ability to fund the required management, enforcement, and maintenance staffing and resources.

A paid parking operation should be self-sustaining, and a successful program will allow the City to invest in the development of parking and transportation resources that directly benefit the community. If the City implements paid parking it would be able to reinvest revenue back into downtown, provide incentive programs to residents and more efficiently influence parking behavior. With the current time limit only model, the City’s parking operation is unlikely to be self-sustaining and will unlikely provide the City with the resources required to improve other mobility and pedestrian related solutions in downtown.

Without paid parking revenue, citation revenue is often looked to for supporting the operation.

However, the primary goal of enforcement should always be compliance with the posted regulations. This means that that drivers are following the regulations, and therefore the City is achieving their parking management goals. Therefore, if the efficiency and staffing of the City’s enforcement operation is improved, this will further decrease the City’s revenue from citations. Typically the revenue from paid parking allows a municipality to make these investments, while possibly creating a surplus that can be allocated towards the City’s broader mobility goals.

Paid parking, combined with time limits, is an important management tool for influencing driver behavior and increasing turnover rates. Without assigning a baseline monetary value to the City’s parking assets, it will be challenging to implement effective incentive programs. Paid parking is an effective way to discourage employees from parking in convenient spaces meant for customers. 2-hour and 3-hour time limits may impact the ability of visitors to both shop and eat meals dur ing the same visit. While longer time limits in some areas may improve

ATTACHMENT 1

71 visitor experience, they are not effective at reducing employee use of on-street spaces in the downtown core. Instead, the City can utilize paid parking rate models to achieve its desir ed turnover rates in these cases.

Depending on the rate model, paid parking can discourage employees from parking in paid spaces. The City should be considerate of the cost of a parking permit in comparison to metered parking to ensure that employees have an incentive to purchase a permit rather than pay for hourly parking. Encouraging employees to store their vehicles off- street will increase parking availability for customers and visitors. If the City proceeds with the implementation of paid parking, it should focus on the on-street parking within the downtown core and Oxbow District as a starting point . However, prior to the implementation of paid parking, the City needs to ensure that there is adequate parking alternatives available for employee and downtown resident parking.

The City should continue to collect occupancy data on a recurring basis to monitor the growth of the program and determine appropriate program adjustments . Occupancy data can be used to determine if and when adjustments to rates or expansion of the program is needed to maintain the target goal of 85 percent occupancy. Whenever parking occupancy rates reach above 85%, this is the ideal time for the City to consider adjusting time limits and/or paid parking rates.

Single-Space Meters vs. Pay Stations
The convenience and ease of use of single-space meters is what makes them effective for dense commercial areas. Smart single-space meters accept credit card (and therefore debit card) payments and are enabled with back office tools a nd real-time access to information and data. As opposed to any customer-facing services, the back-office tools are the software or web applications that are utilized by municipal staff to access information like data, maintenance updates, reporting tools, transaction histories, payment processing, noticing, and more. This would allow the City to monitor the meters and be notified of any maintenance issues. The selected equipment must meet the Payment Card Industry (PCI) security standards for credit card transactions to make sure only the last four digits of each card number is stored. Additionally, all payment information can be tracked and audited to ensure proper revenue reconciliation during collections. Most single-space meter vendors offer meter management systems to edit the display screen, manage rate structures, and run reports.

Smart single-space meters range in price from around $400 to $600 per meter mechanism plus approximately $250 to $400 for the meter housing and pole (not including shipping).

There is an ongoing $6 to $8 data management cost per meter per month in addition to transaction fees.

Multi-space pay stations, depending on configurations, are approximately $8,500 per unit with monthly data management fees of approximately $70 per pay station per month. This pay station rate estimate does not include installation and freight. The City should consider including the optional added features such as a motion-controlled light bar and a tilt board security feature with a siren. The typical pay station vendor also provides a meter management system that provides real-time access to pay station information and maintenance support requirements. Additionally, following year one, the City should budget approximately $30 per month for the pay station warranties. While not required, the

ATTACHMENT 1

72 warranties are recommended to safeguard the program and ensure equipment performance and system uptime. Pay stations normally support 7 to 12 on-street parking spaces. A typical off-street surface lot requires 1 to 4 pay stations, depending upon the configuration and number of access points. It is also recommended that pay stations and single space meters limit the primary payment method to credit card. Machines that accept cash and coin require more maintenance and co llections because of the added mechanical parts in bill note acceptors and coin slot jamming. The State of California currently requires municipalities to offer either coin or cash, the payment method does not necessarily need to be applied across the operation consistently. The City can also encourage credit card payments through pricing.

Rates higher than $0.75 per hour make coin usage less convenient.

There are three main operational configurations for multi-space pay stations: pay and display, pay by space, and pay by plate:

•
Pay and Display: The driver parks, purchases parking session time at the pay station, and then returns to the vehicle to display the dashboard receipt. • Pay by Space: The driver parks in a numbered space, and then pays at the pay station using the parking space number. The driver is not required to return to the vehicle because payment is electronically tied to the space number. Parking enforcement is able to use a web application to verify payment status by parking space number. •
Pay by Plate: Similar to pay by space, but the driver enters the license plate number at the pay station to record payment. This method does not require drivers to return to their cars. Parking enforcement verifies payment status by license plate using a we b application and/or LPR technology.

To minimize the amount of infrastructure and street clutter, it is recommended that the City utilize pay stations for on and off- street paid parking. While single space meters are convenient, they also require more ongoing maintenance. Pay stations can also be easier to enforce in conjunction with a mobile payment solution. This is because mobile payment status is tied to the users’ license plate number. More information on mobile payment is included below. The City should utilize the pay by plate configuration with any pay stations. This would allow the City to enforce efficiently with the use of License Plate Recognition (LPR) technology.

If the City decides to proceed with paid parking, the City should consider implementing a three to six-month paid parking pilot. A RFQ could be issued soliciting a single vendor interested in providing approximately 60 parking pay stations and integrated mobile payments for a pilot period. The vendor would be responsible for the hardware installation, implementation and communications requirements. Due to the size of the pilot area and the number of pay stations, this is a different approach than followed by most agencies. However, this method will provide the City with the data needed to validate utilization for both on and off street parking locations and will also identify the potential revenue projections if the on street parking assets are monetized.

The cost of the parking technology pilot cannot be determined without the RFQ vendor proposal responses. However, most vendors are willing to provide a parking pay station rental option to the City. This costs approximately $600 per month per meter. Some vendors also

ATTACHMENT 1

73 suggest a 50:50 revenue share for a “free” 12-month pilot program with revenue caps to the amount paid to the vendor. The City may also be able to arrange a free technology pilot, but the requirement would be a significantly lower number of pay stations and a small fee to cover the cost of installation and training. If the City decides not to proceed with the paid parking model, the rental agreement will include the cost for equipment removal. If the City elects to proceed, a lease option to purchase can be outlined as a requirement within the RFQ.

Figure 8 is a rough outline of the proposed street block locations for the estimated pay stations that would be required for the parking technology evaluation pilot for the Downtown area, including on street parking and surface lots.

Figure 8. Downtown Napa Potential Pay Station Locations

The City should also consider paid parking within the Oxbow District. Pay stations could be installed along First Street and the side streets. Additionally, if the Oxbow Public Market were to implement paid parking, the City could establish a revenue share agreement for providing the paid parking equipment and enforcement.

During a paid parking pilot the technology should be evaluated and monitored throughout the entire duration. For example, any maintenance issue or downtime could be tracked by using a bi-weekly vendor performance matrix. This matrix could include the date and time of the issue, what the issue was, the vendor resolution to the issue and the time and date of resolution along with any additional comments needed. A performance matrix can serve as the maintenance log to evaluate customer service, uptime, complaints and any anomalies with the parking technology. Evaluation criteria should be defined within the solicitation, and

ATTACHMENT 1

74 vendors should have a clear understanding of the performance requirements for the evaluation criteria.

Along with maintenance, the revenue reporting features should be monitored and managed using the selected vendor’s parking management software (PMS) program. The PMS will provide the City with the reporting capabilities, revenue reconciliation and software flexibility for the selected vendor. The revenue deposit procedures should be determined based upon how the City proceeds with parking revenue collection, counting and reconciliation support services. Revenue reconciliation, including credit card and mobile payments, should be coordinated. Ongoing monitoring and auditing support will ensure that proc edures are established and followed to ensure accountability and accuracy of revenues paid versus deposited.

Mobile Payment
It is also recommended that the City offer a mobile payment feature for customer convenience. A mobile payment solution allows drivers to pay for parking sessions using their cellphones and can be implemented with any rate structure. Drivers can either call a number to pay, or they can simply create an account on a mobile application to pay online. Users are able to complete one-time uses or establish accounts with the mobile payment provider that allow them to pay for parking and extend their stays without returning to their vehicles. Zone numbers are assigned to each paid parking area for enforcement purposes, and the active paid parking sessions are tracked and verifiable by license plate numbers. A mobile payment solution can be provided to the City by a vendor at no cost to the City. Instead, the vendor is fully funded by the convenience fees charged to the users. The vendor would provide decals for the meters and would be responsible for education and outreach. Mobile payment vendors typically offer robust validation programs including resident discount programs.

Utilization of mobile payment typically falls between 3% and 10% in most cities, and users pay a small transaction fee, usually between $0.10 and $0.35. Mobile payment can be integrated with either the single space meters or pay stations. While current utilization may seem low, with the continued widespread use of smart phone technology, it is recommended that the City implement a mobile payment system for all paid parking locations once the paid parking program is operational. Verification of mobile payment will require enforcement staff to use a web application to verify payment status, or it can be done through the use of LPR .

Single space meters can receive a real -time update of mobile payment status to provide a visual verification for enforcement purposes, but this feature drains the parking meter battery.

Some vendors offer a white label service, which allows cities to utilize their own branding for the mobile payment service. A great example of this is Passport’s Parking Kitty application in Portland, Oregon. This customized application turned paying for parking into a more positive and fun experience for drivers. Currently, Passport is the only mobile payment provider that offers a white labelled application. But, while white Image 23. Portland's
Parking Kitty Application

ATTACHMENT 1

75 labeling would allow the promotion of the City’s brand, it would take away from the ability to have a broader and unified parking experience region-wide. To encourage utilization, the City should consider implementing the same mobile payment vendor utilized in neighboring agencies. This way drivers will not be required to download different applications for different locations.

Rate Structures
There are several rate structures available to the City for consideration. Each structure has positive and negative externalities associated with the way that rates are applied. Regardless of the rate structure, municipalities typically price on- street spaces higher than off- street in order to encourage longer-term parkers to store their cars off-street. This tiered approach encourages a higher turnover rate on-street, therefore increasing customer access to nearby businesses. Previously, DIXON developed a Financial Modeling Workbook to allow the City to estimate potential revenues based on a variety of different scenarios. The workbook lets the City adjust the paid parking variables such as rates, hours of operation, and compliance, to project how changes in rates and demand may influence revenue. The City should utilize this workbook to determine an ideal rate structure that will meet the goals of the City.

Flat Hourly Rate
A flat hourly rate means that the same rate is charged for each hour of the parking session, regardless of location, time of day, day of week, or any other factor. This rate model can be combined with time limits to ensure turnover. If the City were to proceed with this rate model, it is recommended that the City retain an on-street time limit to ensure turnover. Additionally, the City should consider how the hourly rate compares to the permit parking rates. It’s important that the employee permits provide a cost saving in order to encourage participation in the program.

The benefit of a flat hourly rate is that it is simple to communicate and understand. However, without any tiered pricing structure or variations in price, it does very little to change behavior.

Therefore, if this flat hourly rate is implemented, it is possible that the existing occupancy trends would remain fairly similar, with most drivers continuing to favor the prime parking locations.

Zone-Based/Tiered
The City could also consider a zone-based or tiered parking rate model. In a zone-based model, rates are adjusted by zone, and zones are typically created based on parking demand. Rather than blanketing the downtown and Oxbow areas with the same rate model, as described above, this tiered rate model would give the City more flexibility to influence driver behavior.

By offering a lower rate in the more fringe or remote locations, this rate model can encourage longer-term parkers to utilize the parking locations that are traditionally less desirable. Setting a higher rate in the prime parking locations can also help encourage more turnover and is more conducive for shorter visits. The key for this type of rate model to be effective is that the tiered rates must be clearly communicated and easy to understand.

ATTACHMENT 1

76 Time of Day/Day of Week
The City could also consider adjusting the parking rate based upon the time of day or day of week. This rate model is common in scenarios where there are extreme occupancies peaks, such as during the lunch or evening rushes. The City may consider charging an escalated rate during peak periods to encourage drivers to visit Napa during non-peak periods. However, this can be challenging to communicate to drivers and may not influence driver behavior significantly. For example, a visitor coming to downtown Napa for lunch will likely not adjust their lunch hours based on parking rates. While this rate model could be effective at maximizing revenue, it does not necessarily influence occupancy trends unless communicated effectively.

Escalating/Pay-to-Stay
An escalating or pay- to-stay rate model gives drivers the ability to park for as long as they desire, but at an escalated rate. For example, the rate charged during hours 1 and 2 could escalate to a higher hourly rate during the following hours. When utilized strategically, this type of rate model can encourage longer term parkers to store their cars in more affordable locations, such as off-street lots or remote locations. However, it still gives visitors the option to park on- street for a longer term if they are willing to pay a premium for it . Without using time limits, this provides more flexibility to visitors, but it does not ensure turnover. Relying on rates alone to encourage turnover may be risky, so it’s important to monitor occupancy rates in this case. Additionally, this rate structure has the potential to create an inequitable parking experience where high-income visitors tend to occupy the convenient spaces for as long as they please, and it may not effectively influence driver behavior.

An escalating rate model is most effective when combined with sensors. Parking meter sensors or in-ground sensors can aid in enforcement. It’s important that when the initial payment expires, that a driver cannot “feed” the meter for a lower rate. The sensors can identify whether a vehicle has exited or entered a space. This will ensure that drivers are paying for the actual amount of time that they’re using. Some of the parking meter vendors , offer an integrated sensor that provides the opportunity to reset the meter. A meter reset occurs when a vehicle pulls out of the space it was parked in, the sensor determines there is no longer a vehicle parked there and then automatically resets the meter to zero time or a designated courtesy time allotment. It is estimated that this can increase revenue by up to 10%. The City of Santa Monica implemented the meter reset technology and increased their annual parking revenue by nearly $1M as a result. However, inaccurate citations increased as a re sult of the meters resetting incorrectly. There is a trade-off for the City to consider between accuracy and revenue when it comes to managing parking through a meter reset and the impact on the overall user experience.

Parking meter integrated s ensors also alert parking enforcement by identifying unpaid occupied parking spaces within a set amount of time. Without a sensor, the parking meter will display expired time and required visual verification by an enforcement officer. The integrated parking meter sensor can also provide an anti -feeding solution that prevents users from feeding the meter to extend time beyond the posted time limits. Sensors can also report that the vehicle has parked for more than the allotted time, even if the meter has been paid.

Sensors also provide the opportunity to provide a designated grace period in a parking space.

ATTACHMENT 1

77 The City of Sacramento’s parking program is a great example of an escalating rate model. The SacPark program allows drivers to extend their time beyond the posted time limit for a premium escalated rate. This works by assigning a base meter rate for the initial time period, and any amount of time beyond that costs significantly more per hour. Sacramento also uses Parkmobile for mobile payment, which will automatically remind drivers if the paid time is nearing expiration. This allows users to remotely extend their time without returning to the meter.

The parking program in the City of Sacramento, SacPark, utilizes several automated technologies to improve efficiency and shrink the program’s bottom line. The program operates more than 4,500 IPS single space meters with attached sensors throughout the City.

However, the sensors are not without challenges. The City struggled with sensors resetting, a problem recently resolved through firmware updates from IPS, and issues with large trucks resetting meters as they drove past. In addition to their single space meters SacPark installed Parkeon pay-stations for nearly 1,700 on- street spaces and City -run parking lots. The pay stations are either pay- by-space or pay-by-plate and the City is currently phasing out pay- by- space to move toward a completely automated pay-by-plate system.

Garages
The City may also want to consider implementing paid parking within the City-owned garages.

The City has the option to install parking access revenue control systems (PARCS) equipment which includes gate arms and pay on foot technology or retain open access to the garage entries supported by multi-space meters located throughout the garages for paid parking.

PARCS gate arms will create controlled ingress/egress points, allowing the City to better manage facility access. This also automates the enforcement of time limits and/or paid parking by requiring drivers to pay at a machine before they exit. PARCS are typically most effective in garages because of the controlled access points; In surface lots, there is no guarantee that drivers will not avoid the gates by driving over the curb. While PARCS do cost more, the added level of security and the ability to allocate enforcement resources to other locations can be beneficial. Additionally, a PARCS will ensure that drivers pay for the amount of time used. This is particularly effective when combined with LPR technology. LPR could be mounted at the garage ingress/egress points to record license plate numbers. This can expedite ingress and egress for patrons that have already paid for parking, therefore lifting the gate automatically.

Image 24. SacPark Escalating Payment Guide

ATTACHMENT 1

78 If the City chooses to implement paid parking in the garages, PARCS is recommended due to the long-term cost savings and because it will be easier to monitor and enforce. However, the design of the garage ingress and egress points may limit the ability to install PARCS equipment. A site survey would be required by a PARCS professional to determine the potential for installation.

If the City implements paid parking in the garages,
it is recommended that the rates for garage
parking be the most affordable to encourage longer-term parking at these locations. In general, the City should charge more for on-street parking than off-street parking.

Prerequisites to a Successful Program
To adequately support a paid parking program, a consistent parking enforcement staffing model needs to be implemented. Paid parking will not be successful without consistent enforcement to ensure compliance. Additionally, it will be important to consider safeguarding the neighborhoods with a residential permit parking program to prevent spillover parking.

Identifying alternative employee parking locations along with an affordable employee permit parking program should be established prior to implementing paid parking. This will ensure that there is an affordable location for employees to park without impacting the surrounding residential community.

Municipal Code Updates
There are a number of municipal code updates that would be required to prepare the City for a future implementation of paid parking. Chapter 10.40 of the Napa Municipal Code outlines the parking meter regulations.

• Section 10.40.20 allows for the establishment of parking meter zones. Instead, the City should consider “parking management zones”. This could include time limits and/or paid parking. With parking management zones, the City has the ability to implement a zone-based no re-parking ordinance, if desired.

• Section 10.40.030 establishes the specific parking meter zones. Rather than listing each individual location, the City should define the paid parking zones based upon the installation of meters and/or posted signage. This would provide more flexibility, and would allow for adjustments without requiring Council approval each time.

• The City will need to update Sections 10.40.050 and 10.40.60 to allow for the use of multi-space meters/pay stations. Currently, the language requires meters to be installed alongside individual spaces. Additionally, the existing language is not compatible with mobile payment because it requires the payment to be displayed on the meter – while this is possible, it causes battery drain.

• Currently, Section 10.40.090 of the Municipal Code defines the specific hours of operation for parking meters. The City should consider updating this to allow for more flexibility based upon the hours and days of operation. Rather than defining it within

ATTACHMENT 1

79 the code, the City could define it based upon posted signage or as indicated on the parking meters.

• Section 10.40.160 defines the use of monies received from the meters. The City will also need to update this language to allow for revenue collections from mobile payment devices. Additionally, the language currently restricts payment to coins, and does not consider credit card payments.

• The City should consider establishing an acceptable range of hourly rates to allow the Parking Programs Manager to adjust them as necessary. Ideally, adjustments should be made based upon the 85% occupancy target. Sample language is included below that establishes the occupancy target and paid parking range:

A. It is the intent of the City Council to establish a target occupancy rate of 85 percent for all parking meter zone spaces within the City of Napa. Occupancy rate refers to the percentage of vehicles that occupy the parking zone spaces. The establishment of the target occupancy rate of 85 percent is based on well-accepted planning studies as well as the example of other municipalities. The City Council finds that the establishment of the target occupancy rate of 85 percent is an effective strategy for managing on-street parking and congestion.

B. All parking zone time limits and/or meter rates heretofore established shall be and remain in effect, unless otherwise set or adjusted by the City Council. The City Council establishes a range of hourly parking meter rates from $0.50 to $5.00. The Parking Programs Manager, or their designee, shall set the rate structure of each parking meter zone, consistent with achieving the 85 percent target utilization rate, based upon parking occupancy data and community input.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Update the municipal code to allow for the possibility of a paid parking operation. The ordinance should designate the ability to set paid parking rates within a Council- approved range.
a. Ordinance language should allow for multiple payment types and technology. b. A paid parking revenue distribution plan should be identified.

Phase 2

1. Conduct ongoing monitoring of occupancy rates while other parking management strategies are implemented.
a. The City should ensure that enforcement is consistent before considering paid parking.

2. Continue to engage local stakeholders regarding the possibility of paid parking and/or time limits.

ATTACHMENT 1

80 Phase 3

1. If occupancy rates warrant consideration of paid parking, the City should draft and issue an RFQ for a three to six-month paid parking pilot. a. Pay stations are recommended for on- and off-street parking downtown and in the Oxbow District areas.
b. Define pilot criteria, goals and measures of success. c. Define an appropriate paid parking rate structure using the Financial Modeling Workbook and estimated occupancy rates.
i. It is recommended that the City implement higher on- street rates as compared with off-street rates.
d. Review proposals and vendor interviews.

2. Establish maintenance, collections, and revenue reconciliation resources and procedures.

3. Install paid parking signage and equipment.

4. Conduct ongoing monitoring throughout the pilot.
a. Consider system downtime, maintenance, collections, customer service, back- end portal and reporting, and user experience.

5. Based upon pilot results, the City should consider purchasing the equipment or a long- term meter rental agreement.

6. Continuous monitoring of occupancy on an annual or bi-annual basis can help determine any necessary rate or program adjustments. Active monitoring can help ensure program efficiency by keeping the parking rate structure up to date with current occupancy statistics. It is recommended that the City evaluate parking occupancy on a weekday and a weekend day on at least an annual basis to understand how parking rates and time limits impact occupancy rates.

ATTACHMENT 1

81 Strategy #3. Establish Regulations for Electric Vehicles

Priority: Medium
Cost: $
Considerations: Electric vehicle adoption rate, usage trends, cost of electricity Prerequisites: None

In 2014, the City installed its first electric vehicle (EV) charging station within the City Hall parking lot. This charger has two charging ports. An additional three charging stations were installed in Lot X and Lot G. In 2017 there were 6,509 EV charging station uses, averaging around two uses per charging port per day. The City has seen a steady increase in utilization of the chargers over time. As EVs become increasingly common, the City will need to determine the appropriate way to manage EV charging stations and parking demand. It is recommended that the City charge the user for the electricity, just as a gas station would charge a customer for gas. In addition to charging for electricity, the City should also have the ability to charge for parking. While this may raise concern about “double charging” customers for the same parking space, it does not make sense for the City to provide either of those resources for free, in the event that there is paid parking downtown. It is also recommended that the City require “Active Charging Only”, meaning that an EV cannot be parked within the EV charging station stall unless it is actively being charged. This regulation helps improve turnover and gives Parking Enforcement the ability to better manage these spaces.

Suggested municipal code language is included below as a reference:

Electric Vehicle Parking Regulations
A. Definitions.

1. “Electric vehicle” means either a battery electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.

2. “Battery electric vehicle” means a vehicle fueled entirely by electricity stored in the onboard battery. This type of vehicle is often referred to as a zero emission vehicle.

3. “Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle” means a vehicle that is fueled by both a battery and another fuel source, such as a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine.

This type of vehicle runs on electricity from the onboard battery until the battery is exhausted and then switches to an alternate power source.

4. “Charger” means an electrical component assembly or cluster of component assemblies designed specifically to charge batteries or other energy storage devices within electric vehicles.

5. “Actively charging” means the time during which the connector from the charger at a charging station is inserted into the inlet and electrical power is being transferred for the purpose of recharging the electric vehicle’s on-board batteries.

ATTACHMENT 1

82 6. “Electric vehicle charging station” means a parking space that is served by a charger.

7. “Electric vehicle charging station zone” means a dedicated parking zone for electric vehicles to park and actively connect to chargers.

8. “Connector” means a device inserted into the inlet for an electric vehicle that establishes an electrical connection from the charger to the electric vehicle for the purpose of charging and exchanging information.

9. “Inlet” means the device on the electric vehicle into which the connector is inserted for charging and information exchange.

B. Only plug-in electric vehicles that are actively charging, as indicated by the electric vehicle charging station monitor display, may be parked at electric vehicle charging stations or in electric vehicle charging station zones located on any street or any parking facility owned, leased, or operated by the City of Napa.

C. No person shall park or cause to be parked or allow to remain standing any vehicle at an electric vehicle charging station or in an electric vehicle charging station zone located on any street or in any parking facility owned, leased, or operated by the City of Napa, unless the vehicle is an electric vehicle, is actively charging, and has not exceeded any applicable parking time limit.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Update the municipal code to address EV charging regulations.

2. Update signage to include an “Active Charing Only” requirement.

Phases 2 and 3

1. Conduct ongoing monitoring of occupancy rates to determine any necessary adjustments to the rate structure.

2. Based upon demand, the City could consider installing additional EV charging stations throughout the City.

ATTACHMENT 1

83 Goal: Improve Safety and Accessibility

Strategy #1. Improve Safety in Parking Structures

Priority: Medium
Cost: $$$$
Considerations: Employee parking, technology, cost, upkeep Prerequisites: Budget

A number of stakeholders indicated that they prefer to park on-street because the garages feel unsafe. If the City intends to encourage more drivers to utilize the garages, it’s important that people feel safe in and around the facility. There are a number of garage improvements that could be considered to change this perception, including several strategies for C rime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). CPTED is the practice of using physical design to improve safety through improved visibility, uniformity, access control, and maintenance. Based upon the following suggestions, the City should begin to budget for these safety and accessibility improvements.

Lighting
The City should consider swapping out any existing lighting with LED bulbs for added brightness, and in areas that are not already well lit, additional lighting could be installed.

Motion-sensing lights could also be installed, which when activated during afterhours, could even trigger an alert. Additionally, the City should evaluate the existing lighting provided along pathways to and from the garage facilities. If the City implements an employee permit parking program within the garages, employees will expect to have safe and accessible pathways to and from the facilities. This is particularly important for the evening shift workers, who must return to their vehicles in the dark.

Security Cameras
The City could also consider installing security cameras within the garage facilities.

Strategically placed, and well -marked police camera boxes can improve safety and reduce crime. Additionally, fixed-mount LPR cameras may be utilized at garages ingress/egress points to record a log of vehicles that are being stored in facilities. This can help with crime investigation and provide alerts based upon stolen or wanted vehicles. Alerts can go to the Police Department who can dispatch an officer to the site.

Maintenance and Cleaning
A well maintained and clean facility can improve the perception of safety. The City should ensure that sufficient funding allocated towards routine maintenance and upkeep in the garages. This can include scheduled power washing, sweeping, painting, removing cobwebs, replacing burnt out lightbulbs, litter removal, and damage repairs. The City could also consider repainting the garage interiors white, which provides more visual brightness.

ATTACHMENT 1

84 Implementation
Phase 1

1. Consider budgeting for routine garage maintenance and upkeep, additional lighting, paint, and cameras.

Phase 2

1. Install LED lighting in and around garage facilities in areas that are dimly lit or dark in the evenings.

2. Install security cameras throughout the facilities.
a. Consider installing fixed-mount LPR at garage ingress/egress points.

3. Repaint the interior of the garages white.

4. Conduct ongoing maintenance and upkeep, including power washing, sweeping, and litter removal.

Phase 3

1. Conduct ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the garage facilities.

ATTACHMENT 1

85 Strategy #2. Collaborate with Transportation Network Companies (TNCs)

Priority: Medium
Cost: $
Considerations: Geo-fencing, compliance, data, signage
Prerequisites: Relationship with TNCs, enforcement

The City should take a proactive approach to managing the impact of ridesharing by designating drop-off and pick-up zones for ridesharing companies, including taxis, in popular
destinations. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to enforce parking regulations such as red curb violations for ridesharing vehicles, because they only remain at their drop-off or pick-up location for a short period of time. Drivers and passengers are also not incentivized to utilize ridesharing zones if it will extend the length of their session, due to the cost of the service. Most ridesharing applications also rely on a rating system for reviewing their drivers, so drivers will often favor efficiency and convenience for their passengers, over utilizing a designated ridesharing zone. That is why it is important for any ridesharing zones to be conveniently located in order to encourage their use.

The main goal of having ridesharing zones should be to ensure that there is adequate space available for safe drop-offs and pick-ups. Without ridesharing zones, high parking occupancy rates may lead drivers to drop off or pick up their passengers in the travel lane, which can cause issues with traffic congestion.

In coordination with the TNCs, geo-fenced locations can be defined within the application to guide users to specific pick-up and drop-off locations.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Coordinate with TNCs regarding the potential of geo-fencing certain pick-up and drop- off locations.
a. Locations should be identified in areas that will improve safety and traffic flow downtown.

Phase 2

1. The City should install signage to indicate any passenger loading areas.

2. Continue to work with the TNCs to request available data. TNC data may be helpful for the City in making parking and transportation policy decisions moving forward.

Phase 3

1. Conduct ongoing monitoring and enforcement of zones.

Image 25. TNC logos

ATTACHMENT 1

86 Strategy #3. Expand Functionality of Loading Zones

Priority: Medium
Cost: $
Considerations: Utilization rates, hours of operation, locations, enforcement, signage Prerequisites: Enforcement, utilization study

The City should evaluate the locations and utilization of existing loading zones throughout downtown. Some stakeholders indicated that there may not be enough loading zones, and as a result, they’ve seen double-parked vehicles on-street. This causes congestion and is a traffic safety hazard. The City should also consider the locations of loading zones, and whether certain blocks could use additional or fewer loading spaces. There is a significant amount of curb space in front of Visit Napa Valley that may impact parking availability for nearby businesses. It’s important that there be a mix of loading and regular parking spaces on-street to cater to the varying needs of visitors and businesses. For consistency, some communities have chosen to include one loading zone space at the end of each block. This approach ensures that there are loading zones within a reasonable distance of every business, without disproportionately impacting any of them. Another benefit of having loading zones throughout downtown is that they can also be used for passenger loading, especially with the growing popularity of TNCs.

The City may also consider restricting commercial loading to before 10:00am or 11:00am.

While this can be challenging to implement and enforce, it means that after-hours, the loading zones spaces can be multi-purposed.

If the City implements paid parking, it’s also possible to charge for parking in loading zone spaces during non-loading zone hours. If the City restricts commercial loading to before a certain time, paid parking can be required thereafter. This can be communicated through the use of signage, and often times a municipality will choose to use a yellow-colored meter head or pay station wrap to communicate to drivers that it is a loading zone area.

Section 10.36.020 of the Napa Municipal Code defines the curb marking meanings . To provide more flexibility for management, the City should consider defining the loading zone hours based upon posted signage, rather than within the code language. Loading can also be indicated by signage, rather than relying on curb paint alone. The City can also require active loading within this section. An example is included below.

10.36.020 Curb markings authorized— Meanings— Obedience.

A. The Traffic Engineer is authorized subject to the provisions and limitations of this title to place, and when required herein shall place, the following curb markings to indicate parking or standing regulations, and said curb markings shall have the meanings as set forth in this section:

1. When signs or r Red curb markings are in place, the specified area shall means no stopping, standing or parking at any time except as permitted by the State Vehicle Code, and except that a bus may stop in a red zone marked or signed as a bus zone;

2. When signs or yYellow curb markings are in place, the specified area shall means no stopping, standing or parking at any time, indicated by posted signage, between 8:00

ATTACHMENT 1

87 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. of any day except Sunday and holidays for any except for the purpose of active other than the loading or unloading of passengers or materials, provided that the loading or unloading of passengers shall not consume more than three minutes nor loading or unloading of materials more than 20 minutes , during which the operator must be in attendance.;

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Update the municipal code to allow for multi-purposing of loading zone spaces, based upon posted signage.

Phase 2

1. Work with downtown businesses to coordinate delivery times before 10:00am or 11:00am.
a. Develop an enforcement plan to address the loading zones. b. Consider using time lapse cameras to study loading zone utilization.

2. Install signage requiring “Active Loading Only”. Signage should also indicate commercial loading zone hours and whether passenger loading is allowed after hours.

Phase 3

1. Conduct ongoing monitoring of loading zone utilization to determine whether the City needs more/fewer loading zones on each block.
a. Consider consistently having one loading zone per block. Additional loading zones may be required in certain locations to accommodate tour busses.

ATTACHMENT 1

88 Goal: Utilize Parking Revenue for Program and
Downtown Improvements

Strategy #1. Establish a Parking Benefit District

Priority: High
Cost: $
Considerations: Revenue allocations, program sustainability Prerequisites: Ordinance updates

If the City decides to implement paid parking, the establishment of a Parking Benefit District (PBD) is recommended. A PBD would allow revenue from paid parking to be reinvested into the areas of Napa that have paid parking. The parking program in Napa should be self- sustaining, with a portion of the revenue reinvested into the downtown and Oxbow District areas. For example, surplus revenue can be invested in walkability and pedestrian improvements, public transportation and alternative modes as well as improved bike access and additional parking supply and technology. A PBD would allow revenue from permit fees and paid parking to be directed into a Special Parking Fund. PBDs have been successfully implemented in many municipalities to help fund special projects and program improvements.

Program improvements could include, but are not limited to, improved enforcement, technology, security enhancements, signage, transportation programs, and maintenance. A n oversight committee could be established to define goals and allocate funds. A sample revenue distribution schedule is outlined below.

Table 4. Sample Revenue Distribution Schedule
Revenue Allocation Percent
Operating Costs
• Equipment
• Personnel
• Ongoing Maintenance and Upkeep
35%
Parking Program Improvement
• Technology
• Parking Supply
• Wayfinding
• Safety/Security
40%
Transit Alternative Programs/ Discretionary
• Shuttle Route
• Bike Share
• Based upon Council approval
25%

ATTACHMENT 1

89 Implementation
Phase 3

1. Prior to the implementation of paid parking, evaluate the feasibility of a PBD and update the ordinances to allow for one.
a. Adopt a revenue distribution schedule. The paid parking operation should be self-sustaining, with any surplus revenue reinvested into program and downtown improvements.
b. Establish an authorized oversight committee for any discretionary funding. c. A set of predefined allocation rates will ensure transparency for the community and will allow for a series of community and program improvements.

2. Ongoing allocation of funds.

ATTACHMENT 1

90 Goal: Improve Downtown Access and Mobility

Strategy #1. Implement a Shuttle Service

Priority: Medium
Cost: $$$$
Considerations: Cost, route location, frequency, staffing, outreach Prerequisites: Funding

A shuttle program could be an effective way
to incorporate remote parking locations by
giving drivers the ability to park and ride into
the downtown core. Additionally, if the City
wants to promote the “Park Once”
approach, then a shuttle program could be
an effective way for drivers to rely upon the
shuttle for shorter trips, rather than re-
parking their vehicle. A shuttle program
could also effectively bridge the gap
between the downtown and Oxbow District
areas, providing visitors an easy way to
move between the two locations.

Recently, the Parking Programs Manager has been
coordinating with a shuttle company named The Free Ride to determine the feasibility of a potential pilot program. It is recommended that the City proceed with a four to six-month pilot to evaluate the company prior to making a long- term investment.

The Free Ride is a free shuttle program that has been
successfully implemented in several cities throughout the country. The shuttle program is free to the users because the staffing and operating costs are completely funded by
advertisements. There are moving billboards, videos for passengers and even sample products that are given out
during the rides. The vehicles are all electric and each fit up to five passengers. Additionally, a mobile application will allow users to request a ride within certain boundaries; users are prompted to select their pick up and drop of locations, and the application provides real time driver ETAs and
notifications.

The benefit of utilizing smaller vehicles is that the insurance costs are significantly reduced.

Additionally, The Free Ride offers a revenue share option for advertising monies. This can further offset the cost of the shuttles for the City.

Image 26. The Free Ride Shuttles
Image 27. San Diego FRED
Application

ATTACHMENT 1

91 So far, The Free Ride has been implemented in South Florida, California, the Hamptons, and the Jersey Shore. In the City of San Diego, The Free Ride operates under a partnership between the City, Civic San Diego and the Downtown San Diego Partnership. In San Diego, the program is called “FRED,” which stands for “Free Ride Everywhere Downtown.” The initial funding of $500,000 for the program came from downtown parking meter revenue. The City purchased a fleet of 15 vehicles for $200,000, and the additional $300,000 of funding went towards storage, charging stations and start-up personnel costs. The shuttles operate between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, until Midnight on Friday and Saturday, and from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sunday. Drivers earn $14.66 per hour. Staffing and operating costs are funded by advertisement revenue.

Extensive outreach will be necessary to inform visitors and employees about the shuttle service. Signage and flyers should encourage visitors to download the application.

Typically, The Free Ride program is structured as an on- demand service, however the City could solicit the company about the potential for a fixed route program if desired. A fixed-route option could be designed to serve a remote employee permit parking location, for example.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Continue to work with The Free Ride to determine the feasibility of doing a low-cost pilot for four to six months.
a. Work with downtown stakeholders and the City Council to determine program priorities and goals.

Phase 2

1. Proceed with a pilot program with The Free Ride or a similar shuttle company. a. The City should retain a portion of advertisement revenue. b. Extensive education and outreach will be required to promote the program. c. Ongoing monitoring of program participation.

Phase 3

1. Support any remote parking locations with a fixed route shuttle service.

ATTACHMENT 1

92 Strategy #2. Effectively Utilize and Manage Micro-transit Services

Priority: Low
Cost: $
Considerations: Enforcement, outreach, permitting process Prerequisites: Updated ordinances

Bike and scooter sharing could provide the
City with additional resources to mitigate
the first mile/last mile problems and
provide increased accessibility throughout
downtown. Bike and scooter sharing can
also help support remote parking locations.

While Lime , Bird and other dockless
mobility device share companies offer
improved convenience and flexibility for
users (because they are not required to
leave the bike at a designated location ).
dockless programs can be challenging to
manage and regulate. Many cities
experience a significant amount of
complaints due to dockless bikes,
especially regarding blocked sidewalks and
ramps, which limits ADA accessibility. The
City should adopt ordinance language that
allows the City to hold vendors accountable when bikes are left in locations where they cause a public nuisance.

Adding a fee to the collection of bikes that have been impounded by the City encourages bikeshare programs to inform their users on the
correct locations to leave bicycles when they are
done.

While a docked bike share program could
mitigate most of the problems associated with
dockless program, docked bike programs are
expensive to impleme nt and manage, and may
not be heavily utilized unless implemented on an
expansive scale. Dockless bike and scooter
programs offered by private companies are a
tremendous opportunity for improving mobility at
no upfront cost to the City. The main financial
impact results from the additional monitoring
and enforcement required to manage the
impacts.

Image 28. Dockless Lime Bike
Image 29. Dockless Bird Scooter

ATTACHMENT 1

93 The City of Santa Monica recently adopted an ordinance addressing the permitting and use of shared mobility devices. This ordinance gives Santa Monica additional control and oversight through a permitting process. For reference, excerpts from Chapter 3.21 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is included below:

Chapter 3.21 SHARED MOBILITY DEVICE PILOT PROGRAM

3.21.010 Purpose.

Consistent with the City’s goals of enhancing mobility and access, easing traffic congestion, and promoting sustainability, this Chapter creates a limited term pilot program to facilitate the use of shared mobility devices while ensuring the protection of public health and safety, including the safety of the public traveling by foot, bicycle, or vehicle on public sidewalks, streets, and other public rights-of-way.

3.21.020 Definitions.
(f) “Shared mobility device” shall mean any transportation device by which a person can be propelled, moved or drawn, that is displayed, offered or placed for rent in any public area or public right-of-way, except that a “shared mobility device” does not include any device being vended or made available for rent exclusively from a vehicle pursuant to a valid City vending permit; a car share vehicle, as defined by Chapter 3.06 of this Code; a device authorized by the City bike share system pursuant to Chapter 3.20 of this Code; a taxicab as regulated in Chapter 6.49 of this Code, a device operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; or any other device excluded pursuant to administrative regulations.

3.21.040 Maximum number of shared mobility operator permits and shared mobility devices permitted.
(a) The Director may issue up to four shared mobility operator permits authorizing the deployment of a shared mobility device within the City. Two shared mobility operator permits shall be issued to operators that propose to deploy electric scooters as shared mobility devices and two shared mobility operator permits shall be issued to operators that propose to deploy electric bikes as shared mobility devices. No shared mobility operator permits shall be issued to any operator that proposes to deploy a shared mobility device that is exclusively powered by the human body or powered by combustion engine. (b) The Director may establish the number of shared mobility devices authorized under each shared mobility operator permit. No more than on a weekly basis or within fourteen days following any City Council action adjusting the number of permitted operators or devices pursuant to Subsection (d), the Director may adjust the maximum number of devices authorized by each shared mobility operator permit. The Director shall take into consideration market needs, the number of devices deployed in the City, device utilization, and any other criteria set forth in administrative regulations. The Director shall first publish his or her tentative adjustment decision under this Section, along with reasons supporting the decision, and solicit comments prior to making a final determination. The Director’s determinations under this Section shall constitute the final decision of the City and are not subject to further administrative review. No person shall fail to comply with the Director’s established device limitation.
(c) No operator may be granted authorization for less than two hundred fifty shared mobility devices.

ATTACHMENT 1

94 (d) At any time, in the City Council’s discretion, the City Council may reassess the number of shared mobility operator permits authorized for issuance. The City Council, in its discretion, may determine by resolution that the number of shared mobility operator permits or the number of total authorized devices should be reduced or increased. (Added by Ord. No. 2578CCS § 1, adopted 6/26/18)

3.21.100 Impoundment of devices.
(a) A shared mobility device that is displayed, offered, or made available for rent, or abandoned, in the public right-of-way or a public area in violation of Section 3.21.030 shall be subject to immediate impoundment by the City.
(b) The City Council may adopt impound fees by resolution, which shall reflect the City’s enforcement, investigation, storage and impound costs.
(c) No person shall retrieve any impounded shared mobility device except upon demonstrating proper proof of ownership of the device and payment of applicable impound fees.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Update the municipal code to include provisions for shared mobility device programs.

2. The City should consider implementing an impound fee for bikes and scooters.

Phase 2

1. If shared mobility device companies intend to operate in Napa, the City should ideal ly utilize a controlled permitting process to set limitations on the number of companies, mobility devices, and performance and safety standards.

Phase 3

1. Consider allocating dedicated parking stalls for bikes and scooters.

2. Conduct ongoing monitoring of shared mobility device trends to determine program adjustments and policy changes.

ATTACHMENT 1

95 Strategy #3. Encourage Carpooling

Priority: Low
Cost: $
Considerations: Enforcement, outreach, technology
Prerequisites: Automated employee permit program

Carpooling incentives can be an effective strategy to encourage commuters that have similar work schedules and routes to ride together. There are already several vendors and applications that provide carpooling services to commuters. Scoop and Waze are two of the more recognizable carpooling apps, but there are others that are growing in popularity as well.

Commuters that carpool could be offered discounted parking permits, reduced hourly rate coupons for parking meters and dedicated carpool-only parking spaces in employee parking areas. For example, Inugo, a Bluetooth parking technology provider, has parking beacons that can verify whether drivers are actually carpooling or not. These Bluetooth beacons could be installed in conjunction with a carpool permit program.

Implementation
Phase 1

1. Update ordinances to allow for the implementation of a carpooling permit program if desired.

2. In conjunction with the implementation of an automated permit management system and employee permit parking program, the City should consider providing a discounted carpooling permit.

3. Conduct ongoing education and outreach about carpooling incentives.

Phase 2

1. Consider investing in verification technology, such as the Inugo Bluetooth beacons that support the carpooling program.
a. Verification technology should be installed in any dedicated carpool permit spaces.

Phase 3

1. Based upon program utilization, consider allocating additional carpool permit parking spaces in convenient locations throughout downtown.