PURPOSE

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Redevelopment Agency Board with information in order to consider a wayfinding signage program to be implemented throughout Downtown Burbank.

BACKGROUND

On July 11, 2000, the Redevelopment Agency directed staff to implement a Village Public Improvement Program, which included analyzing a Downtown wayfinding signage component.   Given the current perception of parking problems in Downtown Burbank, staff is proposing an integrated wayfinding signage program to better inform motorists of intended places of interest and public parking facilities.  On March 25, 2003, staff presented details of this program, designed by Hunt Design Associates, including sign types, specifications, community outreach efforts and preliminary cost estimates. 

During the meeting, some concerns were raised about the proposed sign program relative to current governmental sign regulations.  According to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the design and content of directional signs are based on a comprehensive set of rules, guidelines and procedures regulating highway signs and related hardware.  The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices provides for specific colors to be used, font, size, arrow shapes and boarders for each type of official traffic control devices.  For instance, a green background is required for general guide signs and a blue background is used for ancillary destination guide signs (i.e. hospital, police station, etc.). 

However, Burbank, like over 300 cities nationwide and over 40 cities in California, realizes the need to go beyond the strict limits of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for directional �wayfinding� signage and implement a sign program unique to Downtown Burbank (Exhibit A).  Many cities have adopted sign programs that vary from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices guidelines to some degree, but have been designed to be consistent, recognizable and clear with highly legible elements featuring simple messages.  

At the March 25, 2003 meeting, the Agency Board adopted a motion allowing staff to complete final designs and initiate a competitive bidding process for the fabrication, construction and installation of the signage program.  Prior to initiating the bidding process, staff decided not to complete construction documents on the signs as proposed until staff had an opportunity to address the concerns that were raised at the meeting and make necessary modifications to the signage program.  These concerns ranged from adherence to sign regulations, outreach to boards and committees (including the recently-formed Property-based Business Improvement District Board), cost and intended messages for each sign.

ANALYSIS
Adherence to Sign Regulations

Staff received written objections to the signage program as presented at the March 25, 2003 meeting from two concerned citizens (Exhibit B,C & D).  The bulk of these objections have been based primarily upon whether or not the proposed signs meet traffic control device standards as published in the Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices   It is staff�s belief that the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices highway sign structure works because it is a systematic response to a highly uniform set of conditions designed to direct vehicles traveling at a high rate of speed. 

In cities throughout the State of California, the authority for such devices is given in the State of California Vehicle Code to the California Department of Transportation, as contained in the its Traffic Manual.  Section 440 of the Vehicle Code �Official Traffic Control Device�, states that, �An official traffic control device is any sign, signal, marking, or device consistent with Section 21400, placed or erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding traffic but does not include islands, curbs, traffic barriers, speed bumps, or other roadway design features.�

Section 21400 of the Vehicle Code further states that the California Department of Transportation shall adopt rules and regulations prescribing uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices, including but not limited to, stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, speed restriction signs, railroad warning approach signs, street name signs and all lines and markings on roadways, etc.

However, after exiting a highway, road conditions begin to change because each city and municipality has its own set of variables present on local streets and thoroughfares not present on our highway system.  Generally, the number of messages, the size of lettering, and the spacing of signs are all determined by traffic speed along city streets.  Considering the difference in addressing the needs of city drivers versus highway drivers, many cities are developing their own proprietary community directional sign programs. The city-specific systems are driven by a strong desire for a visitor-friendly environment that addresses both vehicular and pedestrian signage issues while presenting a unique civic visual identity. 

Typically, these signs do not follow the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices guidelines and have been perceived as necessary tools for local municipalities in resolving traffic congestion problems affecting cities throughout the State of California.  These programs vary from comprehensive, citywide efforts to those for specialized districts (such as downtown areas).  Some of the most notable cities that have incorporated non-conforming signage include: Glendale; Pasadena; Anaheim; Long Beach; Santa Monica; Culver City; Santa Monica; Brea; San Francisco; San Diego; Inglewood; Santa Barbara and Laguna Beach, to name a few. 

Boards and Committee Outreach Efforts

Staff provided the Property Based Improvement District Board of Directors with information pertaining to the proposed wayfinding signage program for its review and comments on three separate occasions (November 13, 16 and December 15, 2003).  The Property-based Improvement District was created to provide an additional funding source for targeted improvements intended to benefit Downtown Burbank and specifically the wayfinding program.  On December 15, 2003, the Board voted unanimously to approve the signage program as proposed by staff, and earmarked funds (not to exceed $300,000), for a completely integrated signage program to be located throughout Downtown Burbank.

On September 11, 2003, Mr. Ralph Herman, a member of the Transportation and Traffic Committee requested that staff give a presentation of the proposed wayfinding signage program to the Transportation and Traffic Committee (Exhibit E).  Mr. Herman expressed many concerns about the proposed signs not being in conformance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices standards.  Staff concluded that state and federal sign guidelines provide standards and usage guidance for three general types of signs: 1) Regulatory signs that require an action on the part of a driver and have penalties associated with disobedience of the signs (STOP, SPEED LIMIT, DO NOT ENTER, NO PARKING, etc.); 2) Warning signs that are intended to notify drivers of an unusual or unexpected condition, but do not have a penalty associated with disobedience (CURVE, WARNING, DEAD END, SCHOOL AREA, etc.); and, 3) Guide signs that are intended to provide destination information to the driver. 

Staff provided the Transportation and Traffic Committee with information pertaining to the need for more effective directional signage in Downtown Burbank, the size and design types along with proposed sign locations.  The City�s Traffic Engineer, Ken Johnson, was present and offered additional information pertaining to wayfinding signage efforts in the past.  Mr. Johnson explained that over the last several decades, the City has tried several wayfinding signage programs for the Burbank Village area, the Media District as well as other hillside recreational areas (i.e. Castaway Restaurant, De Bell Golf Course and Stough Canyon), with varying degrees of success.  In many instances, the signs were very small in size, illegible and located in areas that did not provide enough reaction time for motorists being guided by each sign.  For these reasons, staff proposed a signage program to the Transportation and Traffic Committee that has been designed to direct travelers to their intended destination more efficiently.

Modification made to the Sign Program

During the Agency Board meeting on March 25, 2003, some concerns were expressed over the cost estimate of the entire sign program ($300,000). Staff later met with Hunt Design and explored ways to effectively reduce some of the total cost while maintaining an integrated signage program that would achieve the greatest results.  After further review, staff was able to remove a total of eight district identification signs from the program. 

Also, staff further reduced the overall cost by eliminating the second panel of each sign.  Originally, this feature was added for aesthetic purposes intended to provide a three-dimensional visual element.   However, after further review, staff was able to remove this feature, maintain the integrity of the proposed design and reduce some of the cost for the program.  Also, staff made further refinements to the directional arrows to simplify and enhance readability.

Staff decided to further the City�s alliance with its partners at Metrolink by incorporating directional programming that would lead pedestrians and motorists to and from Downtown and the Downtown Burbank Station (formerly called the Regional Inter-modal Transportation Center). 

Intent of Sign Program

Staff believes that the intent has been preserved as signs have been designed to effectively direct travelers given street widths, traffic speed, sight lines and other external factors present in Downtown Burbank.

Pending approval by the Agency Board, staff will direct Hunt Design to make any final changes and initiate a competitive bidding process.  It has been determined that the signage program qualifies as a Public Works construction project, therefore a Bid Schedule would be necessary.  The competitive bidding process is anticipated to be completed within eight (8) weeks from the open for award date.  The fabrication and construction activities are anticipated to be completed within seven (7) weeks from the date of award, while installation is expected to be completed within three (3) weeks, for a total of four and one-half (4 �) months to implement the entire program.

FISCAL IMPACT

Funds were set aside on January 6, 2004 in the Property-Based Improvement District budget to pay the cost to implement the wayfinding signage program.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the Agency approve the signage program, as proposed, and allow staff to complete a competitive bidding process for the fabrication, construction and installation of the downtown signage program.

EXHIBIT

Exhibit  A         Comparison of proposed signs to Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices                            guidelines

Exhibit  B         Letter from Ralph Herman dated April 27, 2003

Exhibit  C         Letter from Ralph Herman dated May 12, 2003

Exhibit  D         Letter from Mark Barton dated March 31, 2003

Exhibit  E          Minutes for Traffic & Transportation Committee for 9-11-03

Exhibit  G         Design Package from Hunt Design