Levi’s Stadium, the Santa Clara Police Department and VTA will hold a community meeting next Tuesday. To promote a comment left here earlier today:
Stadium Community Meeting
A community meeting hosted by the Santa Clara Police Department, 49ers Management Company and the Valley Transportation Authority is scheduled for Tuesday, October 7 from 7:00-8:30pm at Don Callejon School, 4176 Lick Mill Boulevard in Santa Clara. The meeting will include an opportunity for residents and business owners to provide constructive feedback. No RSVP is necessary.
Commenter “4Crawler” asks in a private email that cyclists jam the meeting. Don Callejon School is on Lick Mill Blvd not far from the River Oaks bridge on the Guadalupe River Trail.
The trail closure will take time and negotiation to change, but it’s still appropriate register your dissatisfaction so they know they can’t just sweep it under the rug. Some additional issues that can be handled more immediately include:
- Commuters who use the San Tomas Aquino Trail continue to find the trail remains closed on Monday mornings after Sunday games. Even experienced riders who know the area report difficulty in finding alternate routes around the closures.
Bike path by Levi's Stadium blocked again @bikesv @SantaClaraCity pic.twitter.com/4OcJfaUcmZ
— Ron Ng (@spingineer) September 15, 2014
- Even if the trail closure proves necessary, the length closed trail is unnecessarily long. Some people have suggested an alternate, shorter closure. The map below shows the current closure plan in red, with the detour in green. If the trail remained open to the Great America Parking lot, trail users can continue to use most of the trail with a detour through the parking lot while still allowing the Stadium Authority to retain the security perimeter they say they require. This needs discussion, but because no public hearing occurred, there was no opportunity for the public to present alternate plans.
- Speaking of public hearings, somebody at this community meeting can bring up that there were none regarding the trail closure plan, as far as anybody can tell.
Does this trail closure impact you? If so, please consider attending this meeting.
Ah yeah, the map I forgot to include. Sorry about that. Added now.
According to the notices sent out by SCPD, the trail is supposed to only be closed until 11PM following an event:
“• The San Tomas Aquino / Saratoga Creek Trail will be closed from Agnew Road to Tasman Drive from 2:30am, Sunday, October 5 until approximately 11:00pm. ”
I didn’t save the 9/14 event message, but I think it listed the same times, which BTW is different than the 10PM (day before event) to 10PM after the event time the gate guard told me.
Apparently that is another lie put out by the stadium authority. With 40+ events per year, mostly on or around weekends, that is 40+ weeks a year that commuters who use the trail are going to find unexpected closures either on Friday or on Monday. So much for promoting cycling. And there is no place to check and find out if the trail is or is not open, so you have to head blindly down there hoping it is open when promised. And like you mentioned, that segment is in a bad area for getting around and the detour can be very dangerous when it is crowded with shuttle buses, etc.
And for a stadium that touts its “green” aspects, what is with the huge collection of diesel generators that line the trail in front of the stadium to power all the metal scanners and junk out in front? I mean, could they at least have dug a trench and run some underground electrical service for all that? I think that must be one of the reasons for the long closures as I have seen them setting up those generators a day or two before events and I suspect they must have electrical cables and hoses running all over the place. Assuming this stadium is built to be around more than a year or two, who in their right mind would be rolling in portable generators week in and week out as a normal thing?
It’s not strictly to do with the trail closure, but could we also take the opportunity to remind the stadium to clean up litter, especially in the creek, but also in the adjoining parking areas? They seem finally to have collected the construction litter, only to have event litter take its place. The worst part of the creek is directly downwind (south) of the stadium.
It’s more than just unsightly. That part of the creek is tidal, and we’re going into the rainy season, which means there will be every opportunity for bags and bottles to be swept into the bay. Green, indeed.
Quite a heated discussion with the stadium folks and SCPD and the general public tonight. I think the cyclists got the point across that the existing detour is not working and that something needs to be done.
The one SCPD officer seemed surprised when I mentioned the SCPD patrol car I observed driving right past a double parked bus without a second glance. See below for what I saw during Sunday’s game on the detour. I figured for sure the patrol car would at least give the bus driver a warning but he just pulled out and around (crossing a double yellow line) passing the bus that is violating the double parking ordinance as well as the no parking in a bike lane ordinance. I think what they do is park their buses leaving the engine running and the emergency flashers on and that way, they are not “parked”, just sitting there for a few hours.
Squad car driving right past the double-parked (and on the bike lane) without even stopping:
Then 30 seconds later this bus swings out into the oncoming bike lane to get around the double parked bus. Note the handy fencing next to the bike lane that would make it impossible for an oncoming cyclist to take evasive maneuvers. Oh and did I mention that is a blind corner, you can’t see that bus until it pops out in front of you. A cyclist rode through there just a few seconds before that bus pulled out like that!!!
But we’ll see if anything changes as the SCPD officer said he would see that the officers behind the stadium will “step up their enforcement activities”. Yeah right, that is what they said after the 8/17 event when I pointed out the double parking and bike lane blockage issues. I was assured “that should not have happened and we’ll see that it does not happen again”. The fast forward a week to 8/24, same thing again, this time I had the camera. Didn’t make it to the early Sept. event but saw the same thing at the mid-Sept. event and the same thing went on Oct. 5th, this time I had my camera.
I guess they don’t want to ruffle the feathers of the goose that lays the golden egg.
At least the chief of police did collect e-mail addresses of all the cyclists in attendance and made a half-hearted promise to meet with us about the trail and perhaps go out and observe the conditions out there. Hopefully that will happen and also happen on an event day. Since if you go out there on a normal day, it is perfectly serene. At least my pictures are getting to some of the folks in the city, when I handed some prints to the secretary collecting the e-mail addresses, she mentioned that “oh, you must be the one who e-mailed these pictures to us”.
But it is so funny that these jokers can’t even get their own story straight. They keep talking about how 9/11 changed everything and that is what prompted the trail closure. Then someone points out that the stadium wasn’t even planned until 2009, well after 9/11/(2001). Then there is some hemming and hawing and then “oh, well it was like the Boston Bombing that did it”. Then someone points out that the stadium’s own transportation operating plan from July 2013 showed the trail being open and that was after the Boston deal. Then more hemming and hawing and “oh it is NFL Best Practices and Homeland Security” (neither of who was present at the meeting). That seems to be the modus operandi of these meetings, always leave out the folks who are in charge of these decisions and that way the folks at the meeting can just pass the buck to the folks that are not at the meeting.
Then the best one is that they talk about needing such and such amount of security perimeter around the stadium. Then it is pointed out that on the north side, the metal detectors are like 50′ from the wall of the stadium, yet on the south side they have to close the trail 3/4 of a mile from the stadium for a security perimeter. And why is that, someone asked? Oh because there is a fence and gate there. I mean they spent $2B on that heap and could not even afford to build a proper fence and gate closer to that piece of junk, sheesh! And then to top it off, the fence and gate at Agnew Rd. is simple chain link, trivial to climb over. So they have to station guards there from the evening before an event until the morning after an event to stop people from climbing the fence. Almost makes you want to slap one of these on the moron in charge of these “plans”:
My guess though is that it will take someone getting hurt or killed on that detour before anything gets done. Only problem with that is they might just permanently close the trail as being too big a liability.
I have a different take on the meeting. The detour is not the issue, nor is bike access to the stadium or bike parking at it (which was discussed at length). The only person that spoke exclusively on the real issue – keeping the STAC Trail open during events – was the young lady who seemed to be written off. Scott from SVBC mentioned the potential for a lawsuit, and I think this is important but was not emphasized enough.
From what I can see, neither the stadium authority nor city police department have the legal right to deny public access to a trail that was funded by county and state funds under traffic congestion management plans. Several of us who have been watching this through its development were silent last night, but the trail access issue was discussed back in 2009/2010 by the Santa Clara BAC with this same guy who assured us that the trail would not be closed permanently. When the Great America intersection was discussed they proposed an underpass like on all the other roads, and the reply was that the 49er’s aren’t made of money and it wouldn’t be necessary to change the trail in any way. The 2009 Draft EIR that Scott mentioned is one key piece of evidence, and I may have printed meeting minutes from the few BAC meetings I attended back then.
I’d prefer to engage someone legally knowledgeable to help research the details here than to wait around for someone to get hit. Know anyone?
There is a Santa Clara BPAC meeting next Wednesday night from 4-6 BTW:
Totally agree on the long term that either the trail as-is or that a permanent class 1 off-street detour be created to allow the same level of safe transit regardless of stadium activity. But in the short term, they have to stop the lunacy of sending cyclists through that demolition derby arena behind the stadium.
I don’t know any lawyers personally but I am sure someone in the cycling community does. Maybe someone has connections to one of the bike bicycle rights organizations.
I’m not a lawyer but I think Santa Clara is in violation of CEQA. Can you imagine the threat of an injunction against all stadium operations should somebody manage to dig up the $50 thousand needed for an environmental lawsuit? The city of San Francisco delayed implementation of the bike plan for four years because of the CEQA injunction.
Not sure if you’ve seen any of the news coverage from channels 4 or 5 that were there last night. No mention of the trail at all, just of noise and traffic complaints, and all of the online comments just poking fun of the attendees as nimby whiners.
When do we do a STAC Trail critical mass ride? 🙂
I’ve got bolt cutters…
A decent sized group of riders set up to shuttle back and forth around Stars and Stripes could pretty much shut the service entrance down. With the new 3 foot law, they would have to stop bus/truck traffic while riders were in the area because there is not enough room the way the road is striped. The buses and trucks completely fill the lane and no way to give 3′ of clearance to a cyclist, especially if you were to stick to the far left of the marked lane. And since that is the official detour it is totally legal for folks to ride there. Would sort of be like cruising El Camino on a Saturday night. Not sure how long before an event they start using that service entrance, but if you delayed all 4500 employees from getting to work and the trucks from stocking the concession stands, what would get some attention.
I didn’t have a chance to swap contact info with anyone last night, but it would be good for interested parties to know how to contact each other. I’ll be at the BPAC meeting next week.I think efforts need to be coordinated and stepped up.
Great point about the CEQA injunction BTW.
I’ll be at the BPAC meeting, I am not willing to wait until the end of the season for the dust to settle, since by then the Stadium will have gone through the Safety Act certification and any changes to the security perimeter will be an uphill battle.
For those who want to know WHY the stadium want the easiest/cheapest security perimeter have a read of the following links but gist is LIABILITY. Teresa O’Neill did mention at the last BPAC meeting (august) that the trail closure/security perimeter had to do with insurance for the stadium. Basically if they NFL/Stadium Authority/49ers followed all the guidelines and a terrorist act does occur they would have a limited liability to anyone who got hurt or killed.
More on the Safety Act:
“Why haven’t more stadiums and arenas adopted this kind of policy?
The NFL is the only professional sports league that has a comprehensive set of best practices for stadium security certified by the Department of Homeland Security as anti-terrorism technologies under the United States Safety Act. As such, other professional sports leagues look to the NFL as the leader in stadium and large venue security. Other stadiums have watched the NFL closely and followed, to the extent possible, security enhancements pioneered by the NFL. We anticipate that many more stadiums and arenas will soon adopt this policy.”
Channels 5 and 11 clips are what I saw and even though the police chief specifically mentioned that the trail closure was “a very hot topic” they failed to report on it:
I will put up a youtube of the meeting if anyone is interested.
Personally, I don’t thnk we should be looking to open the trail on event days.
Security questions aside, it is going to be crowded and hard to pass. I commute there daily, and during a couple of the preseason things (practices? exhibition games?), the trail was open because it was a weeknight and a smaller event.
Fans were meandering across it or staring up at the stadium, completely heedless of the through traffic from bicycles. They were standing around smoking (*cough*) and pretty much ignored or had no idea what to do about the bell I normally use to warn pedestrians. While I don’t believe any of it was directed at me, I heard a far larger proportion of foul language from the fans than I’d expect from the typical trail users. If a small pre-season event does that to the trail before the game, I definitely don’t want to wind my way through ten or a hundred times that many drunk, post-game revelers. At best, they’re just going to wonder why there’s someone on a bicycle trying to wander through “their” stadium.
What we should be doing, in my opinion, is working toward a safe detour, or better yet multiple safe detours. I don’t for a minute suggest that Stars & Stripes is that detour during events, not while so many trucks and buses are using it as a loading area. (I don’t know if that stuff could be staged elsewhere, but they could at least start by enforcing parking and waiting areas while we discuss/implement the next moves.) On the other hand, this could be an opportunity to build or improve on- and off-street infrastructure on other area streets, which would benefit people on bicycles even when no stadium event was in progress. We could ask for better connections to the Guadalupe trail; for better and more continuous bike lanes on Lafayette and Great America Parkway, and on smaller surface streets nearby; for directional signs and bike lanes showing routes between the trail and other connecting routes, and so on. It might not all be a direct, 1:1 replacement for a protected, separate trail, but it could still be a big improvement over the disappearing-reappearing and nonexistent bike lanes that are (not) there now.
Partly, I think it’s a matter of practicality. I’m disappointed that we were told the trail would be open and it’s not. I think everyone is disappointed. But screaming about it seems to me to be a pretty immature—and likely ineffective—way to react.
Totally agree on not having any desire to use the existing trail segment if it were somehow opened on a game day. You saw what happened in that bathroom last Sunday when someone tapped a guy on the shoulder to point out an open stall, WHAM! Can you imagine trying to cross through 70K fans like that not knowing if the one you might accidentally bump into with your bike is someone like Amador Rebollero, no thanks!.
I once tried to walk my bike across Castro St. in downtown Mt. VIew during one of those free concerts they do periodically. Wow, what a nightmare, trying to make any progress through all those people, never again.
And yes, the stadium needs to come up and pay for a safe detour or two as Dvortybikes suggests.
Stars and Stripes is a service entrance and a train station entrance. You can’t just wave a magic wand and throw a little paint on the road and magically have it become a bike lane as well. There is physically not enough room on that street for all that. You add up the width of two parking lanes (designed for cars not buses) and two bike lanes and two traffic lanes and call that X. Then you add up the width of 4 buses or trucks (two parked along side the road) and two meeting head on and call that Y. You’ll find that X = Y. Fine and dandy but what about the two cyclists in the “bike lanes”, that = 0.
I see the stadium authority is making a big deal about protecting the the stadium from the public, but what about protecting the public from the stadium? Like the residents trapped in their neighborhoods for hours with no emergency services access. Or the lights and noise in those poor people who just happen to live nearby. Or the trail user who is just out to get some healthy exercise on a Sunday afternoon on the trail they paid for?
I think RIchard’s CEQA injunction idea is pretty good. If the stadium operations were to be shut down until they could come up with an acceptable replacement, things would happen fast, since it is costing them big bucks. As is the detour costs them nothing, at least until someone gets run over by a bus.
Dvortybikes, where were the pinch points that you refer to? If there was an underpass at Old Glory Lane that segregated the trail from the Great America (now rented by 49er’s) parking lot, do you think that would help mitigate trail crowding/safety? Or were crowds meandering down from Tasman while waiting around to get into the stadium?
TMOP showed a detour through marked lane in the Great America parking lot, near the Hetch Hetchy right of way, before you reached the crowded bridge areas. So there was never going to be any issue with bikes and peds mixing on the trail in the area near the stadium. None of the concerns over security or mixing apply to that original TMOP plan. The problem was that they did not follow their own TMOP or own EIR either.
All the comments and suggestions on the current situation are great, but these were supposed to have been allowed during the CEQA process, so everyone would have a chance to make them publicly. Therefore I think the demand at this point should be to re-open the CEQA process for the trail closure specifically, in order to create an amendment. Have them hold the official series of public meetings on the trail closure that they should have had, allow written comments to be submitted, have those comments responded to in writing, and then go through the approval procedure. Note that a CEQA ammendament would now need to follow the new VMT reduction priority over LOS rules, which would give the comments a lot more firepower. They will deny the request to re-open CEQA of course, but a judge could force them to.
Then in parallel, ask the judge for an injunction to open back up the trail up to the Hetch Hetchy right of way as was the original plan indicated, with the complete trail available for the morning commute (since the morning closures were not in the TMOP or EIR either). They can just move the gate to that location until the CEQA process has been completed.
x2 on the above. Since the public version of the story all along (EIR, CEQA) was no impact on the bicycle trail, nobody voiced any concerns because there were none to be voiced. But behind the scenes, I think the stadium authority had their own plans and they just waited until it was too late for anyone to complain and then just announced the new plan before the first stadium event.
My guess is they knew this was a major show stopper, but if they just moved ahead and began operations, nobody would care, because “it is just a bike trail”. I have confronted the ManagementCo people directly with that attitude that they seem to think “this is just a bike trail” when they keep it closed past their promised opening time and they “insist” it is a high priority. I call BS on that!
So get this nice reply from SCPD:
Thank you for attending the Stadium Community meeting on Tuesday evening, and sharing your concerns regarding the Creek Trail.
In the coming days, Chief Sellers will review his calendar and reach out to our Council members to determine interest and availability to sit in on this working meeting. Once a day, time and location have been identified, I will reach out to you. Until then, thank you for your patience.
Carolyn McDowell | Staff Analyst | Police Department
City of Santa Clara | All-America City
601 El Camino Real | Santa Clara, CA 95050
Phone 408-615-4892 | Fax 408-261-9165
And earlier I had made the request that any such meeting to discuss issues about the current detour needed to be held during an event as that is when the traffic is so atrocious and I got back this reply to that request:
Mr. Brown, I will share your thoughts with the Chief.
Given the roles of the individuals involved in this pending meeting, I cannot ensure this meeting will take place during a stadium event. Regardless, meeting on site and discussing your first hand experiences will assist in the preparation and enforcement during future events.
Again, thank you.
One might interpret that as “we could really care less about your concerns.” How can you observe the problem with traffic on some morning or afternoon during the week when the place is deserted?
But will wait and see what comes of this “meeting” and will post any information about that when I receive it.
From the meeting, it seemed that Chief Sellers was the one who kept saying it was his decision to close the extent of trail that is now closed and also to abandon the TMOP plans and likely is the one that came up with the current plan. Anyone see a conflict of interest when the guy who made the decision to go with the current plan is the one looking into issues with the current plan?
Also an interesting 49er-related story:
“…nobody voiced any concerns because there were none to be voiced.”
Not true. Four years ago Santa Clara BAC members and PlayFairSantaClara scrutinized plans and voiced concerns over safety, trail access, and stadium accommodation. The same placation going on now took place back then too.
At last night’s BPAC meeting, it seemed that at least some of the committee members are getting the idea about the detour being potentially unsafe and perhaps illegal. So there was some comments made by members to add an agenda item to an upcoming meeting to discuss the EIR related issues with the point of making a recommendation to the city council. So time will tell if that makes it to the agenda of the next BPAC meeting in January.
One of the members started out his comments (prior to that discussion) with “I guess we’ve fixed the issue with the double parked buses by now”. I interjected with my photos from the 10/5 event and said not even close, and if anything it is worse. But that same person said he talked with some DHS agents during one of the August events and asked about the security perimeter and trail closure and the DHS person said that did not come down from DHS. So it sounds more and more like this whole closure thing is pretty much from the chief of police.
If you ride down the trail while they are setting up for an event, they have their portable barricades set up just before the first pedestrian bridge on the south side. Those barricades run down the levee and over to the row of magnetometers. So I could ride or walk down Great America Parkway and into the parking lot and right up to that portable barricade across the trail.
In DHS-speak, the magnetometers are the middle security perimeter, where all fans are checked for tickets and security screened. It sounds like the existing gate on the trail is what they consider the outer perimeter:
You can see the definitions starting on physical page 57 (labelled page 33)
That document mentions: “Establish a 100-foot secure outer perimeter around the stadium…”
One other potential bright spot is that the BPAC wants to discuss the current trail hours (officially open dawn to dusk). That is one thing that might be leading to the trail closure, since if the trail is officially closed after dark, well then it doesn’t matter if “we” close it after a game that lets out after dark. And what difference is it if we re-open the trail at midnight, 2AM, 4AM or even later.
It seems the current trail hours signage is for liability reasons, if the city says it is closed and someone runs off the trail in the dark into the rushing water, they can say it was closed and that person entered illegally. But there was some discussion that perhaps something like a “use at your own risk after dark” signage might be more appropriate and in-line with current usage. As is, bike commuters using the trail have the “break the law” almost half the year either in the morning or at night (or both).
Doing this would at least remove the straw man of pointing to the trail being closed anyway because it is dark. Instead, it would officially be open 24/7 (unless flooded) and any stadium closure would need to be done on its own merit. At least this might help with getting the trail opened for Monday morning commuters, since if they promise the gates should be unlocked at 2AM, then they need to be unlocked at 2AM, daylight or not.
And the city staff again was not aware of the trail NOT being opened in a timely fashion. I’ve seen the various postings here with riders posting photos of locked gates on Monday mornings. Keep those coming and forward those to the ManagementCo and the city and police. If we don’t tell them about such things, they don’t seem to care enough to go out and check for themselves.
I am no longer able to bicycle but I do get around in my power chair.
Monday I rolled down the trail from 237 to Scott Street. To keep the trail open during levi’s stadium events it will need to go under the four bridges south of Tasman.
My primary concern with the trail is that the throngs of bicyclists who attend stadium events and park their bikes in the corral need and want the trail open for safe access to the stadium site.
The trail north of Tasman should be opened all the way to the Tasman sidewalk for safe access to the stadium’s bicycle parking.
The trail behind the Great America Amusement Park should be opened to provide safe access to the stadium’s bicycle parking. If emergency vehicles need to use the creek levee to access Agnew then they can use the east levee. If they can’t drive on a gravel road then they need to pave it.
A bicycle/pedestrian bridge needs to be installed across the creek immediately south of the aqueduct. This would allow a trail to be installed on the aqueduct right-of-way connecting the creek trail with the Amtrak station.
I need the contact information for the gentleman from the 49ers who was at the levi’s stadium traffic meeting Thursday night.
Has anyone heard anything about the follow up bicycle trail meeting?
Here is an key update!
We’ve been able to work with SCPD Chief Sellers and Forty Niners Stadium Mgmt Company’s VP Jim Mercurio to create a “PILOT PROGRAM” for this Friday night, Oct 24th starting at 3pm for the CAL vs. OREGON game.
We need volunteers for the Bike Valet… we will have the existing SVBC Bike Valet on the north side of the main parking lot along Tasman Drive.
We will also now have a NEW Bike Valet INSIDE an existing fenced in area (our first choice) so we will need volunteers for that too!
Here is the link where I’ve tried to put all of the information.
LINK for the Event:
There is a bit more here, with information that still needs to be corrected on the SCPD website.
Note the bummer is that the trail will be closed from 9:00am to 3:00pm due to security sweeps. The parking lots open at 3pm, but it’s a bummer that the STAC Trail needs to be closed for so long. Originally it was to be for 2.5 hours.
So now people will be stuck if they work late, can’t use it at lunch and can’t use it if they start work early but need to go home early.
Once again, this is why the 2009 EIR is being violated. I’ll call to see if anything can be done, but it is probably non-changeable.
(this is the correct info – the SCPD site needs to be updated)
(we need to find a way for volunteers to get to the Bike Valet, etc –
updates will be posted)
• The San Tomas Aquino / Saratoga Creek Trail will be closed from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm on Friday, October 24 between Agnew Road to Tasman Drive while a security sweep is conducted in preparation for the pending event at Levi’s® Stadium.
Once the San Tomas Aquino / Saratoga Creek Trail is deemed secure, as a pilot program, ONLY BICYLISTS WITH CAL vs. OREGON TICKETS to the October 24 event at Levi’s® Stadium will be provided access to the San Tomas Aquino / Saratoga Creek Trail between Agnew Road and Tasman Drive. Ticketed individuals will proceed through the security check and magnetometers, and will be held to the same criteria (e.g. bag policy) as the balance of the stadium attendees.
PEDESTRIANS WITH CAL vs. OREGON TICKETS will have to use the routing used below for Pedestrians below.
BICYCLISTS & PEDESTRIANS WITH “WILL CALL” TICKETS to the CAL vs. OREGON game will have to use the appropriate detours listed below!
• The San Tomas Aquino / Saratoga Creek Trail will be closed from Agnew Road to Tasman Drive to NON-TICKETED PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS from approximately 9:00am on Friday, October 24 until 11:30pm;
NON-TICKETED BICYCLISTS will be rerouted via Agnew Road, Lakeshore Drive, Gianera Street, the VTA Great America Train Station Parking lot, Stars and Stripes Drive and service road/trail along the rear of the Tasman Parking Garage, and then back to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail.
NON-TICKETED PEDESTRIANS will be rerouted via Agnew Road, Mission College Boulevard, Great America Parkway past the Santa Clara Convention Center, and then back to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail.
So the San Tomas Aquino Creek trail at the stadium is going to be closed all day Friday???
Well, isn’t that nice!