HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/18/2000, 5 - STREET NAME SIGNS council 04-18-00
j acEnaa nepont 5 N
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Public Works Director/K#L
SUBJECT: STREET NAME SIGNS
CAO RECOMAMNDATION
■ Adopt new street name sign standard.
■ Approve a three-year implementation program of 250,000 per year to manufacture and install
new signs throughout the City beginning in 2000-01,with the second and third years being part
of the 2001-03 Financial Plan.
■ Direct the priority of installation as downtown first, arterials and collector streets second, and
then all other streets
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Street Name Standards. The proposed new street-naming standards (Exhibit A) and funding
• program are based on the recommendations of the sub-committee appointed by the Council in May
1999 consisting of Council member Romero, Council member Schwartz, the CAO and Public
Works Director. There is consensus on most issues regarding standards,which address background
color and reflectivity, shape, location, size and selective internal lighting. However, agreement by
all members was not reached on the following two issues:
■ Should the font style be Libra (which is the City logo font style) or "Series E" (font style very
similar to "Arial" in word processing software) that is currently used? The proposed standards
in Exhibit A recommend the Libra font for consistency with other City print uses.
■ Should the street name signs have a small white reflective border on the top and bottom? The
proposed standards in Exhibit A recommend that the signs include this border.
These issues are discussed in greater detail below along with the other recommended standards.
Samples of both sign-types will be presented for Council review at the meeting.
Implementation. We recommend that this the new standard be implemented for all existing signs
over a three-year period. In total, this will cost about $750,000, or $250,000 annually. As
discussed in the Fiscal Impact section, this recommendation assumes that this initiative is a high-
priority, since it will_require a significant portion of the limited resources projected in the recent
Ten-Year Financial Plan for"new"CIP projects.
. DISCUSSION
Street name signs in the City have been a subject of observation and concern for some time. Over
the years Councilmember Romero has written a number of memos regarding street sign legibility,
5-1
Council Agenda Report—Street Name Standards Page 2
visibility and standardization. In May of 1998, Councilmember Schwartz wrote the City requesting
a review of the current street name signing program. An agenda item was brought forward to the
Council for consideration in March of 1999. As a result of that meeting, the Council established a
Council sub-committee of Council members Dave Romero and Ken Schwartz to work with CAO
Dunn and Public Works Director McCluskey to review the entire street signing program and return
to the Council with recommendations of proposed changes. The sub-committee met a number of
times, reviewed materials and, in general, came to agreement on most issues as to what should be
recommended to the full City Council for adoption.
The sub-committee met with sign manufacturers and discussed many issues such as sign placement,
the need for internally lit signs at night at certain streets, the need for advance warning signs, etc.
The end result is a specification for new signs, Exhibit A. Once adopted by the Council, the
Engineering Division of Public Works will redraw the specifications into new City Standards
immediately. Among the many issues studied most have concurrence and recommendation for
approval. However, two issues remain that the sub-committee decided must be determined by the
full Council.
Key Issues Resolved
Background color and reflectivity of all signs. Past signs, as mentioned in an earlier slide show by
Councilmember Schwartz, have had a variety of background colors with varying degrees of
reflectivity. The sub-committee reviewed many shades of brown and many degrees of reflectivity. •
A medium shade of brown was chosen from which street name letters would be cut and then
overlaid over a high reflective white background.
Shape of all new signs. To make the City distinctive, the sub-committee chose rectangular signs
with rounded comers. Current signs are a mixture of trapezoidal, and rectangular with square
corners.
Location of signs. Currently signs are located on one corner of each intersection. However,
over the years they seem to have been placed in an inconsistent manner — sometimes at one
corner location and sometimes at a different corner location. The sub-committee felt that all
signs should be placed consistently throughout the City. As seen on Exhibit A (24) creating a
perfectly consistent pole location will be very hard and open to interpretation of which way the
main traffic is traveling and/or whether or not one is entering a neighborhood. Additionally,
putting the sign on the far right comer means that street name signs cannot be combined with
Stop signs meaning, in a number of cases, new sign poles must be installed. The committee
decided to let staff use its best judgment and common sense in locating the appropriate spot for
the poles using the criteria as a guide.
Size of all new signs. A major complaint from visitors to staff and from council members
directly has been the difficulty in finding and then reading existing street name signs,particularly
at night. One way to address that issue is to increase nighttime reflectivity as discussed above.
The other way is to increase the actual size of the sign and the letters on the sign. The sub-
committee reviewed a number of sizing alternatives and is recommending a new sign height of
175mm (7"), which is 25mm (1") greater than the existing standard. This will be the size of the
5-2
Council Agenda Report—Street Name Standards Pane 3
• vast majority of signs throughout the City. At major street intersections and in the Downtown a
uniform sign height of 250 mm (10') will apply to help motorists find the signs quickly and
efficiently. At signalized intersections where internally lit signs will not be installed, street name
signs will be attached to the mast arm above the traffic and will be 450mm(18") in height,which
is the same as most, existing signs. Three of these latter signs at the intersection of Santa
Rosa/Murray will be configured to include the international symbol for hospitals—a blue H with
an arrow pointing toward Sierra Vista Hospital.
Need for internally lit street name signs. Internally lit street name signs are recommended for
installation only at arterial/arterial intersections; that is locations of high traffic volumes.
Existing signs at Higuera/Surburban, Mill/California, Pismo/Osos and Buchon/Osos will be
taken down. Three signs at the intersection of Monterey/Johnson will be configured to include
the international symbol for hospitals—a blue H with an arrow pointing toward French Hospital.
While the intersection of Industrial/Broad is not an arterial/arterial intersection the jurisdiction of
the sign is Caltrans. Staff will request that Caltrans remove the sign but ultimately that is the
decision of Caltrans. Existing Caltrans' internally lit signs are white lettering on a green
background. Caltrans has mostly standardized on this color scheme but has allowed other sign
colors to match those used in other cities. Irvine and Palm Springs currently have internally lit
signs with the same color scheme as that proposed here and the Caltrans signs match those color
• schemes. In very preliminary discussions with Caltrans it appears that the local officials are
willing to allow the color change as long as the new colors picked are not of some new radical
color; and indeed the color selected by the sub committee is already in use elsewhere. Locations
for installation of internally lit signs will be as follows:
Cily Controlled Intersections Caltrans Controlled Intersections
Higuera/Tank Farm' Tank Farm/Broad'
Higuera/Los Osos Valley' OrcuttBroad2
Madonna/Los Osos Valley' South/Broad'
Higuera/Prado' Higuera/South'
Johnson/Marsh2 Higuera/Madonna'
Johnson/Monterey' Santa Rosa/Highland2
Califomia/Monterey' Santa Rosa/Foothill'
California/Foothill'
Laurel/Johnson'
I. Color Change
2. New installation
3. This intersection receives a special H for hospital designation and color change
Other minor issues of agreement are outlined in Exhibit A and include such items as the need for
advance warning signs, destination signing, emergency signing, and the need for the
Architectural Review Commission to do a review of street furniture colors once the Council has
•
finished taking action on street name signs.
5-3
Council Agenda Report—Street Name Standards Page 4
Issues of Disagreement—Needing Full Council Input .
Which font should be used for City Signs? The City's current font on street signs is officially
called Series E which is very close to the axial font found in word processing software. The City's
official font, found on City letterhead, parks signs, destination signs, etc. is Libra The sub-
committee split on the issue, with Councilman Romero believing Series E provides increased
legibility and Councilman Schwartz believing that Libra provides adequate legibility and provides
consistency with other City print uses (Libra is the official font found on City letterhead). The two
staff attendees favored the Libra font. At tonight's meeting, two signs will be available for the rest
of the Council to observe and make a final decision. Councilman Schwartz strongly believes the
City should maintain a consistency in all of its print images.
Should the street name signs have a small white reflective border on the top and bottom?
Currently, older signs in the City do not have any white reflective border and newer signs do.
The key issue in use of the reflective border is "finding/locating" the sign both in daylight and at
night. Councilman Romero and the two staff attendees feel that the border does aid the average
citizen in finding the sign, as well as providing another distinctive feature that will make the sign
unique to the City. Councilman Schwartz feels that the border does not add aesthetically to the
sign and that the new reflectivity materials will provide the ability to "find" the sign. Two signs
will be available for the rest of the Council to observe and make a final decision.
Implementation •
While there are a number of options to "re-sign" the City, staff is recommending a "completion-
over-three-year" project. Options considered varied from "all at once" (one year) to "phase in
over eight years". While each approach had advantages and disadvantages, staff felt the golden
mean was doing the project quickly enough to best insure that it gets completed, but not so fast
as to cause an excessive resource drain on the City. It is well to remember that such a project
does not happen very often, and once completed should not need to be done for another 40 years
or so.
Thus, proposed is a series of three CIP projects, starting in the next fiscal year (2000-01) and
concluding by the end of the next two-year Financial Plan (2001-03). Due to the magnitude of
the project, it is felt that a full project at this time would be too great a drain on the general fund
reserves. Staff and the sub-committee are recommending that an "order of work" be given such
that new signs would fust be installed downtown. A second priority would be arterial and
collector streets and finally all remaining intersections. It is highly likely that the first contract
will satisfy the first two priorities and that the final two years of projects will finish off the
residential portions of the City.
It is helpful to see the quantities involved to gain a better picture of budget estimate.
1. Number of 7" signs: 3768
2. Number of 10" signs: 622 •
3. Number of 18" signs: 103
5-4
Council Agenda Report–Street Name Standards _ _ Paae 5
• 4. Number of internally lit sign locations: 16. Of the sixteen, four are in place and only
require that the color panel be replaced with the new color. For an additional four
locations, signs removed from previous locations can be reused. This will require new
electrical work and color panel change out. Thus only eight locations will require an
entirely new installation.
5. Number of quick punch signposts: 1000
Using GIS analysis, staff determined that approximately 2100 intersections will be affected by
the need for new signing. In the downtown, two signs will be installed at opposite comers in
accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
FISCAL IMPACT
Project Cost Summary and Phasing
Project Costs. The total estimated cost of this project is $705,220 as follows:
Cost of Residential and Arterial Signing $356,041
Cost of Relocation/Uniformity $252,150
Cost of Signalized Locations–Non-Electrical $ 60,229
• Cost of Signalized locations–Electrical 36,800
TOTAL–All Costs $705,220
These costs do not include any contingencies. Staff has made the best estimate possible of actual
costs. Including small contingencies and inflation for the following years, staff is estimating a
three-year total cost of$750,000. If at the end of three years, a few extra intersections are found
that have not been identified that those locations can be addressed within the operating budget of
the sign section of the Maintenance Division of Public Works.
Project Phasing. As noted above, we recommend funding this project in phases over the next
three years—$250,000 annually—beginning in 2000-01. If the Council approves this
recommendation, we will submit a three-year CIP request for $250,000 annually as part of the
1999-01 Financial Plan Supplement for 2000-01 (currently scheduled for Council review and
approval on June 20, 2000).
Impact on General Fund Financial Condition
For 1999-01. As recently presented at the mid-year budget review on February 29, we estimate
ending 1999-01 with an unreserved General Fund balance that is about $1.2 million better than
we projected in the 1999-01 Financial Plan. As such, adequate resources are available to fund
the proposed appropriation of$250,000 for 2000-01 (the second year of the two-year Financial
Plan) and retain fund balance at policy levels.
•
5-5
Council Agenda Report–Street Name Standards Page 6
In the Longer Term. Our ability to fund this new initiative should be placed in the context of .
our recent Ten-Year Financial Plan, which
we presented to the Council in February
$1150010Walong with the mid-year budget review.
This longer-term look at our resources
$I].W,000 AVNlgble New CrP Funding
shows that we will have limited resources at a : ,OW
the end of 1999-01 to fund new CIP projects
over the ten-year period. $600
S300,OW "n
Assuming we support current service levels so
and adequately maintain the equipment, $ ► �Rg ,
facilities and infrastructure we already have,
the plan projects that there will be about $700,000 (in 1999 dollars) available annually for CIP
projects that acquire or build new facilities equipment or infrastructure. Examples of CIP
projects that are not funded in the ten-year, and will have to compete for the limited funding
include:
Projects Not Funded in the Forecast This project is intended to install new street name signs
• Public Safety Facilities throughout the city. As such, funding this project will
• Intersection Improvements compete with other projects for limited resources. It is
• Railroad Crossings important to note that this resource availability of about
• Bikeway/Pedestrian Paths $7 million over the next ten years includes the $1.2• •
Flood Protection• Community Center/Therapy Pool million that will be available at the end of 1999-01.
• Park Improvements
• Downtown Plan Improvements In short, the proposed funding plan responds to previous
• Railroad Area Plan Council direction that this initiative is a high-priority for
• Mid-Higuera Area Plan
• Open Space Acquisition the Council. However, it will use about 101/6—the
• Civic Center Improvements equivalent of one full year of available "new" project
funding—of the total resources we project will be
available for this kind of improvement for the next ten
years. Thus, with completion of this project, future projects will face tougher competition or we
will need more resources–as previously discussed at during the ten-year CIP review.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not adopt new standards. This would be contrary to the strong concerns previously
expressed by some members of the Council as well as residents and visitors.
2. Adopt the new standards and direct that the cost of installation be considered as a part
of the 2001-03 goal-setting and Financial Plan process. Over the next year, new signs
would be installed by staff in those locations of sign vandalism or vehicle accidents, as well
as new development. However, no current signs that are otherwise in good repair would be
replaced. This would place funding this new initiative in the context of other programs and
projects that emerge from Council goal-setting, and the City's ability to fund them.
5-6
Council Agenda Report—Street Name Standards Page 7
. 3. Adopt the new standards and install new signs on an incremental basis. This would be
less disruptive and would spread the cost of the project over a number of years, but this
approach leaves the City with a variety of signs and lessened visibility that might lead to
confusion of the public. For example, the program could be structured to coincide with the
pavement management area program and thus 1/8`h of the City would receive new signs at the
time of the paving program and all new signs would be installed within an eight-year period.
4. Adopt new standards and replace all signs in their current location. This would save
about $252,00 from the project total and still accomplish the goal of a new "standard." The
signs would be easier to read—they just wouldn't be consistently at the same corner at every
intersection throughout the City.
5. Adopt new standards and implement immediately. This project would accomplish the
entire project within one construction season but would put serious constraints on City
resources and limit flexibility in funding major City goals as part of the 2001-03 Financial
Plan process.
CONCLUSION
The formally designated Council Sub-committee of two Council members and two staff
members has worked hard over a period of time to carefully re-examine the City's existing street
• sign program. They developed a replacement sign program that will be an improvement in City
image, consistency, visibility,public consciousness and safety. The Sub-Committee agreed in all
areas but two, and those choices are being presented to the City Council for decision. Equally
important is a commitment to implement the new City standard over the three-year period.
ATTACHMENT
Exhibit A–Description of new sign and sign pole standards, and areas of general agreement
•
5-7
. Exhibit A—Proposed Street Name Standards— version 6
1) Standards common to all Street Signs
a) Sign Shape: rectangular with rounded comers.
b) Sign Color: Brown(Avery Brown#3109 or equal)background with reflective
white letters; all non-internally illuminated signs to be prepared with reverse
screening. Reflective white background shall be 700 candle power, "VIP"
sheeting.
c) Font type: Libra
d) Material: Single blade aluminum— 5052 H38 .125 double faced
2) Street Name Sign Standards—Collectors, Industrial, and Residential Streets
a) Sign Height: 197mm(7 3/4"+/-) with 25mm (1"+/-) radius rounded corners and
no border. Where arterial streets intersect with collector, industrial or residential
streets sign height shall increase to 250 mm(10"+/-). The sign will have a l Omm
(3/8")white edge border.
b) Sign Length: Minimum sign length will be 750mm (30"+/-), increasing in
150mm(6" +/-) increments depending on length of street name sign.
c) Sign Information: As per existing standard 7240 but add directional arrow; to
point in the direction of increasing block numbers. Street designation(Ave, St,
etc.) to be centered over block number and directional arrow.
d) Sign lettering margins: a)top and bottom: 10mm (3/8"+/-)borders between top
• and bottom of sign and tops and bottoms of Libra letters: bfchjklpgty; b) ends:
50mm (2"+/-)minimum and 75mm (3"+/-)maximum; distance between the end
of the street name and its designation (ave, st, rd, etc.) shall be 75 mm (3"+/-)
e) Letter size: Nominal: 1 00m (4"+/-)+/- l Omm for std. Libra letters; 125 mm (5"
+/-) +/- 10mm for Libra letters: O f Gh)klpgty
f) Sign Pole(and sign) location: On far right comer of main street intersection in
the direction of major traffic; or on far right comer of street in the direction of
"entering"the neighborhood. Once started on a particular street maintain that
pattern for consistency.
3) Street Name Sign Standards—Arterial Street Name Sign Standards—"on the pole"
a) Sign Height: 250 mm(10"+/-)with 37mm(1 1/2"+/-)radius rounded comers.
The 250mm sign will have a 10mm (3/8")brown border along the outside edge
and a recessed l Omm(3/8")white border adjacent and interior.
b) Sign Information: As per existing standard 7240 but add directional arrow; to
point in the direction of increasing block numbers.
c) Sign lettering margins: a) Top and bottom: minimum of 10mm (3/8"+/-)borders
between top and bottom of inside edge of white and lettering; b) Ends: 50 mm
minimum; 75mm(3'+/-) maximum; c) Middle: 75 mm (3"+/-)between end of
street name and beginning of street designation.
d) Letter size: Nominal: 150mm(6"+/-) +/- 10mm for std. Libra letters; 175 mm (7"
+/-)+/- 1Omm for Libra letters: d�chlklpgty
• e) Sign location: Two signs per intersection located on far right corner of main
street intersection in each direction of major traffic.
5-8
4) Street Name Sign Standards—Arterial Street Name Sign Standards—"on the mast .
arm"—Non illuminated
a) Location for use: All signalized intersections of Arterial streets with collector,
industrial or residential streets and for all intersections in the Downtown.
b) Sign Height: 450mm (18"+/-). The 450mm sign will have a 13mm (1/2") brown
border along the outside edge and a recessed 13mm(1/2")white border adjacent
and interior.
c) Sign Information: Street Name Only(does not include type of street—i.e. Ave,
Blvd, etc. nor block number nor arrow)
d) Letter Size: 200mm (8"+/-), centered horizontally and vertically within the sign.
5) Street Name Sign Standards—Arterial Street Name Sign Standards—"on the mast
arm"—Internally Illuminated
a) Location for use: All signalized intersections of arterial streets with other arterial
streets
b) Sign Information: Street Name Only(does not include type of street—i.e. Ave,
Blvd, etc. nor block number nor arrow) except on those intersections that lead
from Hwy 1 or 101 to a hospital. In this case a Blue H symbol would be included
in the illuminated sign with an arrow pointing the direction to the hospital.
c) Letter Size: 200mm (8" +/-)
1) Other information received and points of agreement: •
a) Agreed to drop, for now, the issue of advance warning signs. Will wait and see
the effect of newer, high visibility 9"/10" and/or internally illuminated signs.
b) Destination signing: decided that the City should embark upon a destination
signing program for the following destinations: Cal-Poly, Hospitals, Airport,
Amtrak, Mission, and Downtown. Follow-up on this issue will come after
resolution of the street signing issue.
c) City staff will ask Cal-Trans to allow the new City standard arterial signs to be
installed along Hwy's 1 and 227. We believe that Irvine and Palm Springs/Rancho
Mirage (Hwy 111) already allow brown with white background. This will help us
in making our request but we may have to live with the white background.(done)
d) Signs ordered from the manufacturer do have greater durability than those made
by staff.
e) Staff can make "emergency"replacement signs but they won't be the quality or
the adopted city standard. It will be understood that they will be temporary until
ordered manufactured signs arrive.
f) Sign lengths come in 6"increments; the graphic artist that does the sign layout
will determine the sign length needed based upon the street name, block number,
etc. The artist can slightly reduce/enlarge the spacing between the letters to make
them fit the sign height or length if it is a problem. Therefore all signs will not,
realistically,be identical in letter spacing.
g) Refer the issue of overall street furniture colors to the ARC for consideration
h) Sign poles •
5-9
. i) Pole Type: Quick Punch—Type C (quick punch holes high and low only)
ii) Pole Color: Galvanized everywhere except the downtown; in the downtown
pole to be powdercoated a brown color equal to or less than the color of the
sign; two different colors will be presented to the Council.
Points for final resolution
i) Cost of signs—to be determined and presented to full Council
j) Installation/implementation issues—to be addressed via Agenda Report
k) The two council members split on type of font to be used. Councilmember
Schwartz favors the Libra font; Councilmember Romero favors the Series E font
currently in use. It was decided that the full City Council will be asked to decide.
1) Councilmember Schwartz does not want a white border around the proposed
standard residential sign; the other sub-committee members prefer that it does
have a border. It was decided that the full City Council would be asked to decide
the issue.
For the CC meeting: Joe will have four residential street name signs prepared(to the
above length,height, etc specifications) for the Council to review as follows:
1. Libra font with white border
2. Libra font with no border
3. Series E with white border
• 4. Series E with no border
5-10
Richard Schmidt V 544-4247 M04117/0 (D 12:04 PM 01/2
MLNG AGENDA
DATE �4 OD ITEM #=
RICHARD SCHMIDT
• 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
e-mail: rschmidt®calpoly.edu
April 17, 2000 For Tuesday Meetin
Re: $750,000 for New Street Slgns VIA FA) o r-,
Cite Council
..
•) 0
City of San Luis Obispo ❑REC:c_
_D Dc.;=
— `I i
❑ UTIL DlR
To the City Council: ❑ ❑PERS DIR
The proposal to spend nearly a million dollars to replace city street signs has got to be
one of the goofiest things to appear on your agenda in a long time.
IS THE CITY SO FLUSH WITH MONEY THAT IT CAN AFFORD TO THROW MONEY
AROUND THIS WAY?
Not if one judges by how difficult it is to squeeze pennies out of the city for anything
having to do with the enhancement of life safety and quality of life in neighborhoods. I
could write a book on that subject, but suffice it to say that when the Public Works
Department is unable even to supply speed limit signs and truck route signs to alleviate
dangerous traffic conditions in neighborhoods, something is WRONG when we start
talking about spending nearly a million dollars on new street signs we don't need.
PLEASE TOSS THIS IDEA ONTO THE RUBBISH PILE. That's where it belongs.
Further . . . If your discussion leads to consideration of new street sign standards for
new streets or replacement signs, DO NOT ADOPT THE DESIGN STANDARD
PROPOSED by the subcommittee. The proposal, as outlined in the newspaper, is nutty.
LEGIBILITY of street signs is essential. People have to be able to read the sign quickly
as they drive, or the signs will become a'safety hazard. THE PROPOSED DESIGN
STANDARD CONTRADICTS EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT LEGIBILITY.
1. Color Contrast. There is no question that white lettering on a dark ground is more
legible than the proposed dark lettering on a white ground. That's why there has been
near universal acceptance of white letters on dark ground. If you doubt this is a visual
fact, compare the light letters on dark ground of county street signs with the dark letters
on white ground of private street signs in the county. These two types or signs are a
simple reversal of letters and ground -- the same size letters and same colors are used
for both types of signs. Which is more visible? Which is more legible? Is there any
• argument about this?
RECEIVED
APR 1 7 2000
SLO CITY COUNCIL
Richard Schmidt V 544-4247 GM4/17/0 012:05 PM X2/2
2. Color. One can argue about the best color for street signs. If put to a vote, I'll bet •
green (highly visible and the color of trees) would win over brown (less visible, harder to
read, and the color of excrement).
3. 1ypDgiaphy. The plainer the typography, the easier and faster it is to read. Why go
from a plainer, easier-to-read typography to a less legible, fancier, cutesier, more
"designerly" one that will confuse drivers? This change is not good design. It is stupid
design. It will make our street signs as illegible and confusing as Santa Barbara's.
It boggles the mind to see how many bad decisions come out of the current city hall
establishment, but this has to be one of the most frivolous in terms of both dollars and
effort, and the frivoloity is readily understood by the public (unlike many other more
complex decisions). Especially coming on the heels of revelations that the city has been
spending money to poll residents to come up with issues the public will be willing to pay
for in a bond issue! Apparently, the city has no agenda other than to figure out how to
spend taxpayers' money in silly ways, and to grab as much of that money as possible to
spend on pet projects. The public sees through this nonsense. My perception is that if
this signage proposal passes muster by the council, it will become a very heavy
albatross around the neck of any incumbent who votes for it and runs for re-election.
Sincerely,
•
Richard Schmidt
P.S. While we're on the subject of bizarre municipal design and color choice decisions,
who dreamed up that UGLY RED BRIDGE RAIL on the new Santa Rosa Street bridge?
The rail needs to be repainted green, black or gray so that its inartistic design blends in
and cannot be noticed.
•