Transportation Committee

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 12:45 p.m. Municipal Complex, Committee Meeting Room, 3rd Floor 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 MINUTES Members Present: Mayor Will Haynie, Chair; Joe Bustos; Bob Brimmer Staff Present: Eric DeMoura, Brad Morrison, Paul Lykins Mayor Haynie called the meeting to order at 12:57p.m. 1. Approval of Minutes from the October 2, 2017 meeting Mr. Brimmer moved for approval of the December 4, 2017, minutes; motion seconded by Mr. Bustos. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Public Comments Jimmy Bagwell, 41 Vincent Drive, expressed opposition to the proposal to install standard South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) street name signs to replace obelisks in the Old Village area, stating that the installation would dilute the historic nature of the area and that the special character should be preserved. The Committee should reconsider the replacement of obelisks to preserve the ambiance and the historic nature of the area. Regarding the Coleman Boulevard Revitalization project, the current plan on Coleman Boulevard is out of order. While agreeing that beautification would be aesthetically pleasing, the continuous median from Mill Street to Pherigo Street is not necessary and will not work. Residents and business owners have expressed opposition of the continuous median to Council and the current design should be reconsidered regarding business patrons having easier access from each direction of Coleman Boulevard. He recommends that the current project design should be re-examined by Town Council and the general contractor in addition to conducting public meetings to receive input on the project.  Transportation Committee Minutes January 2, 2018 Page 2 of 15 Kevin Cunnane, 3032 River Vista Way, agreed with Mr. Bagwell, expressing the project design was adopted many years ago and is outdated with consideration to first responders having the ability to navigate the medians, suggesting that the current design of the median can be modified to allow equipment to cross the median, if necessary. Additionally, with consideration to the stormwater drainage aspect of the project, residents should be informed if the project will increase property values and benefit property owners to allow higher or more dense development. Lisa Turansky, 1065 Groves Manor Court and the Coastal Conservation League, stated that as a resident of Mount Pleasant and a member of the Coastal Conservation League she is in support of the bike/pedestrian facilities on Coleman Boulevard. Residents and students regularly bike Coleman Boulevard to commute to work and school and perhaps the design could include signage for pedestrians to improve safety. 3. Review of Street Sign Replacement Program in the Old Village Historic District Mr. DeMoura stated that the Street Sign Replacement Program is on-going, and as it relates to the Old Village area, there has been concern expressed that the green street name signs may not be the most aesthetically appealing option. However, as an organization, the Town is constrained by federal highway requirements for retro-reflectivity and other sign attributes. Mr. Morrison stated the Street Sign Replacement Program was presented to the Transportation Committee on June 6, 2016, with final adoption by Town Council on June 14, 2016. The impetus of that program was a federal mandate for retro-reflectivity of street signs as the primary concern, as well as letter height and standardized color schemes, with an emphasis on the aging driving population. The program was then incorporated into the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Mayor Haynie asked if the federal mandate referred to a law enacted or was it agency demanded. Mr. Morrison responded the mandate was an agency act through the Code of Federal Regulations and perhaps that action was preceded by a previous law  Transportation Committee Minutes January 2, 2018 Page 3 of 15 that was passed and promulgated down. Departments of Transportation (DOTs) adhere to federal regulations set forth by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). For the Town, the program provides for standardized signage, removal of unwarranted signage and identifying locations where signage can be improved. The logistics were discussed regarding the type of equipment that will be used and a standard u-channel post was adopted. Homeowner Associations (HOAs) have the option for installing a compliant decorative post at their expense. Policy decisions by Council related to the design of the sign and how to address the concrete obelisks within the Old Village area. A policy decision was also made on whether the Old Village Historic District (OVHD), which is a defined area, would be better served with a decorative street sign. Referring to a graphic, Mr. Brimmer stated that the graphic is titled policy decisions and inquired if the policy decisions were also a mandate. Mr. Morrison stated that the policy decisions are specific to the Town and how the program would be implemented. The policy decisions were approved by Committee and adopted by Council. Mr. Brimmer asked if law allows for any exception regarding historic districts. Mr. Morrison replied in the affirmative stating that the regulations allow for existing historic signage that is like standard signage. At the time of the program’s adoption, staff was informed that concrete obelisks are not considered signage by FHWA standards and street name signs need to be installed at each intersection. Regarding FHWA requirements, the Committee could consider retaining the obelisks and installing a decorative sign. Mayor Haynie referred to the graphic, inquiring if the decorative sign in the graphic is in place in Harleston Village located in downtown Charleston. Mr. Morrison replied in the affirmative, stating that the graphic provides an example of a decorative sign using white lettering on a brown background and that the Town can design and adopt any such compliant decorative signage.  Transportation Committee Minutes January 2, 2018 Page 4 of 15 Mr. Brimmer inquired if the law does allow certain districts consideration for alternative signage that meets FHWA requirements. Mr. Morrison affirmed that specific consideration only applies to historic districts. Mayor Haynie stated, that as a member of the Transportation Committee for the previous two (2) years, the Committee made the decision to not remove the existing obelisks. Research conducted by the OVHD committee indicated that there may be a federal exemption for designated historic districts. For verification, a Congressman’s office was contacted, but a definitive answer could not be provided. Mr. Morrison replied in affirmative stating there is guidance in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and a reference to the exception states that on lower speed roadways, historic street name signs within locally identified historic districts that are consistent with the criteria contained in the guidelines may be exempt from standard sign provisions. Staff contacted the proper FHWA representative who confirmed that obelisks are not considered signage and compliant signage must be installed. Mayor Haynie referred to a graphic of a concrete obelisk located on Church Street and inquired if it is not a street name sign. Mr. Morrison replied in the negative stating that the concrete obelisk pictured is not a street name sign. Mayor Haynie asked how residents know what street they are on if an obelisk is not a street sign. Mr. Morrison stated obelisks are not considered a street sign as defined by the FHWA. Mayor Haynie asked how the FHWA has jurisdiction over Town streets that are owned by the State and drainage issues being maintained by the Town. Mr. Morrison stated that the FHWA has jurisdiction over these matters regarding compliance within the adopted standards of the MUTCD. Every town must comply with the standards set forth within the MUTCD. If the  Transportation Committee Minutes January 2, 2018 Page 5 of 15 Town were not replacing the signage within the Old Village, eventually the SCDOT would install signs utilizing the same standards. Mayor Haynie commented that the State will not use funding to improve drainage issues but may use funding to replace street signs and asked when the last time the SCDOT spent money on street signs in Mount Pleasant. Mr. Morrison replied that question would need to be posed to the SCDOT, stating that SCDOT does not have a comprehensive program like that of the Town and generally, if a sign is missing, SCDOT will replace it. Mayor Haynie asked for clarification that the SCDOT replaces missing street signs on State owned roads. Mr. Morrison replied in the affirmative stating that the SCDOT will replace any type of sign that is in a SCDOT right of way. Mr. Brimmer asked if the Town were not replacing the signs within the Old Village area and historic district, the State eventually would. Mr. Morrison replied in the affirmative noting that the SCDOT typically installs the state road number designations located on top of stop signs and those would meet compliancy guidelines. Mr. Bustos questioned if there are any consequences if Town Council voted not to install compliant signage. Mr. Morrison replied that the Town would not be following the federal mandate and federal funds could potentially be withheld. Mr. Bustos asked if withholding of funds only applied to that area. Mr. Morrison replied it is his understanding that funding can be withheld from any program that the Town receives federal funds for. Mr. Bustos commented that the standard street name signs are difficult to read and are sometimes visually obstructed by overgrown trees and bushes. Because obelisks are at street level, headlights make obelisks easier to read than reflective signs. Mr. Morrison stated that the general mounting height for street signs is approximately seven (7) feet high.  Transportation Committee Minutes January 2, 2018 Page 6 of 15 Mr. Bustos stated that, as a driver within the Town, when stopped at an intersection, obelisks are easier to read than a reflective sign because the reflective sign is mounted too high and difficult to read from a distance. The mandate is not practical and does not accomplish what it is designed to because of the problems with the compliant street sign. Mayor Haynie noted that no first responders were present and asked Mr. DeMoura if he was aware of any house that has been lost to a fire with in the OVHD due to first responders not being able to locate a street because of the obelisks as opposed to the federal signs. Mr. DeMoura replied that he was not aware of houses being lost to fire due to the obelisk, adding that house fires are rare in Mount Pleasant and fire fighters know where streets are located. Mayor Haynie asked if we have any police enforcement issues because police due to visibility of the obelisks. Mr. DeMoura replied that he is unaware of any issues. Mayor Haynie questioned that the discussion of the Street Sign Replacement program as it relates to Old Village is to ensure that the Town is compliant with the directive from the FHWA. Mr. Morrison answered in the affirmative, stating that the program was mandated by the federal government in recognition that compliant street name signage has a safety benefit. Mayor Haynie asked if the federal government will fund the mandate. Mr. Morrison stated that the mandate is not funded by the federal government. Mayor Haynie asked for clarification that the mandate is unfunded. Mr. Morrison replied in the affirmative. Mayor Haynie asked for confirmation that there is not a highway grant that the Town will receive to replace the signs. Mr. Morrison replied in the affirmative, stating that is not a grant that is specific to signage.  Transportation Committee Minutes January 2, 2018 Page 7 of 15 Mr. Haynie questioned if unfunded mandates are legal in the United States. Mr. Brimmer asked if there has been any discussion for the possibility of making the obelisks more reflective with paint that will meet or come closer to the requirement. Mr. Morrison stated that option has not been explored because the initial decision was to not to remove the obelisks due to the addition of the compliant signage. Mr. Brimmer stated that the lettering on the obelisk looks to be a sufficient height and perhaps painting the obelisks in a certain way could increase reflectivity as an alternative in the OVHD to take advantage of what is already in place but closer to was is mandated. Mr. DeMoura stated that obelisk will never constitute a sign per the federal mandate. Mayor Haynie asked if staff had anything further to present. Mr. Morrison replied that staff had addressed all issues relating to the Street Sign Replacement Program. Mayor Haynie noted members of the public were present to provide input on the issue and suggested staff explore options to keep the historic district signs. To keep the area unique is in the Town’s best interest and would reflect the desire of the residents. Mr. Brimmer asked Mr. Morrison if there is an implementation schedule by neighborhood and when the project is scheduled to be completed. Mr. Morrison stated the project is expected to be completed in 2020. Mr. Brimmer asked when the OVHD is scheduled. Mr. Morrison stated sign replacement notices for the Old Village area have been posted for approximately a month and half and implementation is scheduled for February. Mr. Brimmer asked if the schedule can be amended to delay the Old Village area to allow time to explore options and solutions.  Transportation Committee Minutes January 2, 2018 Page 8 of 15 Mr. Morrison replied that the signs have not been ordered and that Committee can delay the program in that area. Brett Bennett, 131 Hibben Street, stated that he was the former chairman of the Old Village Historic District Commission (OVHDC) and had approached Committee approximately two (2) years ago to address the issue. The desire of the residents of the community and OVHDC members is not to supplement the existing street markers with new street signs to preserve the unique traditional streetscape and avoid visual clutter. While a formal poll has not been conducted for quantitative data, many residents in the area have expressed opposition to modern street signs being installed within the district. Not installing the street signs would provide a cost savings to the Town in material and labor. Additionally, there are the questions of whether consulting a single representative of the FHWA really constitutes a comprehensive review, if it really is the position of the government that street names painted on stone or concrete do not define signage, and if that is the position of FHWA, that all the obelisks in any nationally registered historic district be will must be replaced. He questioned that if the exemption written in the MUTCD does not include obelisks, what would a period correct historic street name sign look like. Safety was cited as a concern by the official that staff conferred with at the FHWA. Safety has not been an issue in the Old Village Historic District and although the FHWA was consulted, by his knowledge, members of the State Historic Preservation Office or the National Park Service that oversees the national registration program may not have been consulted. It is inconceivable that Mount Pleasant and the Old Village are the only historic districts that are addressing this issue nationally in how it is resolved. The OVHDC and residents applaud Committee for reviewing the mandate as it applies to historic districts to identify an alternative. Lewis Horton, 138 Live Oak Drive, stated that it is his opinion the obelisks are street name signs and that cell phones provide navigation tools, therefore additional signage should not be installed to prevent visual clutter. That does not enhance the appearance of the neighborhood. Additionally, there is question of why there are no signs that delineate the Old Village District to add interest to the atmosphere.  Transportation Committee Minutes January 2, 2018 Page 9 of 15 Kevin Cunnane, 3032 River Vista Way, stated that emergency vehicles are equipped with computers and navigation tools and that the regulation has been, most likely, been being developed for years and is now outdated. Mayor Haynie stated to the members of Committee that the Street Sign Replacement Program and how the mandate relates to the OVHD has been addressed by the previous Committee and it was his understanding that the program would be delayed in Old Village area to preserve the character of the Old Village, save Town money and not installing standard street name signs they are not wanted and probably not needed. Mayor Haynie moved to postpone the implementation of the Street Sign Replacement Program within the Old Village and Historic District and direct staff to consult other jurisdictions and explore solutions that will preserve the character of area and meet compliancy. Mr. Bustos asked to amend the motion to include the entire Old Village area to include the OVHD to save Town money, noting that it is unlikely federal government will penalize Mount Pleasant regarding the obelisks. Mayor Haynie asked Mr. Morrison if the postponement would include all the Old Village area in addition to OVHD. Mr. Morrison stated that when referencing Street Sign Replacement Program and how it applies to the Old Village, the entire Old Village area is included where obelisks are present. Mr. Brimmer asked if that is that in the form of a motion. Mayor Haynie replied in the affirmative. Mr. Brimmer seconded; motion carried unanimously. 4. Discuss Coleman Boulevard Mayor Haynie stated that in continuing discussion on the Coleman Boulevard Revitalization Project, staff has been working on the standing directive of Mount Pleasant Town Council to proceed with the design and the contract as ordered by the Town. Discussion has been forced about changes without input of what the final vision of Coleman Boulevard should encompass.  Transportation Committee Minutes January 2, 2018 Page 10 of 15 During executive session, the Committee will examine contractual and permitting issues. It is also important to define the vison ourselves as a Council. Councilman Brimmer commented that the issue is a manifestation of a fact that this community has never really come to an agreement on what Coleman Boulevard should look like and that the vision is a continuing community debate. To move forward, it is important for Town Council to eventually to reach an agreement and, if possible without voting to change or negate the contract, decide the design preference to reflect Mount Pleasant as it is today. This is the desire of current Council representing the most recent will of the voters of the Town of Mount Pleasant. Because discussion has not occurred regarding possibilities and vague generalities to any changes that could be supported, staff has been tasked with exploring alternatives with no clear direction from Council as to how the final vision should look. The discussion has been based on what might be possible, but a vision has not been identified. For the record, the bicycle path within the project is critical. Mr. Bustos agreed, stating that the project has been modified in stages and should be re-examined to determine if it meets the final vision of how Coleman Boulevard should look and if the notion of the urban corridor not the desire of the residents. Staff has proceeded, as directed by previous Council, and now is the time for full Council to have the opportunity to re- evaluate the project and decide if any changes should be considered and if so, Council can meet with staff and the contractors to identify what can be accommodated. Mr. Brimmer stated he is not opposed to continuing discussion and that it should be recognized that currently there are severe limitations as to how the project can be modified and any modifications should be financially responsible. The conversation has been ongoing through many Councils and elections and Council should respect any decisions in terms of finances and the investment that is already in place. There are ways to re-examine concerns, but to support wholesale changes would be irresponsible as a steward of public funds. Kathy Landing, 2114 Sewee Indian Court, stated that while presenting an award to the Barre South Company located at The Boulevard portion of  Transportation Committee Minutes January 2, 2018 Page 11 of 15 Coleman Boulevard, it was noticed that no crosswalks were constructed to allow easier access to businesses on the opposite side and it creates a safety issue. Council should spend time to ensure that the entire project is logical upon completion. Lisa Turansky, 1065 Groves Manor Court, stated that this issue needs to be fundamentally addressed to determine if Coleman Boulevard is a thoroughfare or a place for the community to enjoy dining or being able to walk across the street. A community street is favorable and for cars to slow down and create safer cycling conditions. As Council moves forward with changes and determines options, they cannot compromise the vision of that street being a community street with a transit component being considered to eliminate traffic congestion. As a member of the planning forum, comprehensive planning includes ways to adopt bike and pedestrian plans into future land use. Safe pedestrian access and a community street cannot be compromised for any other efficiencies regarding the speed of vehicles. Savannah Brennan, 94 St. Margaret Street, Charleston, SC, stated that as representative of Charleston Moves, a bike and pedestrian non-profit, lack of bike and pedestrian connectivity for segments of Coleman Boulevard can be dangerous. Focus on connecting the existing paths, as part of the Battery to Beach route and East Coast Greenway, is an opportunity to expand on what is already in place for a richer, safer and more inclusive path for residents and visitors. Kevin Cunnane, 3032 River Vista Way, thanked Mr. Bustos for his comments regarding the open corridors, commenting that the new Town Hall was built away from the road with a park was constructed in front and if it is good enough for the Town, it would be good enough for the rest of future development projects. Pat Sullivan, 1002 Plantation Court, agreed with comments made by Ms. Turansky and Ms. Brennan, stating that speed is a concern on Coleman Boulevard. It is important to decide if the vision of Coleman Boulevard is to have more pedestrians and diners outside while traffic is speeding. There may be areas for some improvements to the design encouraging Council to  Transportation Committee Minutes January 2, 2018 Page 12 of 15 seek expertise from the area with Urban Planning or Transportation to work in conjunction with Council. Mayor Haynie stated that it has been mentioned that the Coleman Boulevard Revitalization project is estimated to cost eighteen million, five hundred thousand dollars ($18,500,000) for less than one mile of roadway questioning if the Town has ever spent eighteen million dollars ($18,000,000) on one mile of anything. If I were a resident of Park West, I would be questioning why the Park West Boulevard expansion project is estimated to cost approximately seven million dollars ($7,000,000) and the Town is spending eighteen million, five hundred thousand dollars ($18,500,000) on the Coleman Boulevard Revitalization project which the purpose to move traffic through quicker and the beautification plan for Coleman Boulevard is to slow traffic because that is the vision for the community. The less expensive Park West Boulevard plan encompasses striped bike paths on the roadway and multi-use path. Another question is if there are any plans to install bike lanes for the remainder of Coleman Boulevard from Live Oak Drive to the Ravenel Bridge and is the objective is to slow people down asking if the cost for one mile of road is eighteen million dollars ($18,000,000) will the cost be forty to fifty million dollars ($40,000,000 - $50,000,000) to complete the project to the Ravenel Bridge. Ms. Sullivan inquired what percentage of the project is drainage. Mayor Haynie stated that not one comment that has been heard from the public addressing the project as a drainage issue asking if the current design is a result of the Coleman Revitalization Advisory Board (CRAB). Mr. DeMoura stated that the CRAB dictated the elements with the designer taking the elements to make it into a plan. Mayor Haynie stated that the project is being presented as a drainage project and questioned if part of the mission or the purview of the CRAB is to address drainage in that part of Mount Pleasant. The project is basically a design program and not a drainage program with a surface component, this is a surface program with drainage component. There is confusion as to whether it is a drainage project or about slowing traffic. When the vote was taken  Transportation Committee Minutes January 2, 2018 Page 13 of 15 regarding the design of the traffic circle at the intersection of Coleman Boulevard and Chuck Dawley Boulevard, Council was told that the project was all one state and federal approval because it was a five (5) to four (4) vote and if the roundabout was removed, the entire project may lose approval. An alternative motion was if the Town could proceed in segments and the answer was no, we could not. While not intending to impugn anyone’s credibility, but the Town was also told that there has no flexibility on this project. The Committee will enter executive session to discuss legalities. Mr. Bustos stated that one thing is inescapable, and that is there have been over nine hundred (900) approved residences between Oyster Point and Liberty Farm and there is not a connection except for Six Mile Road and the connection from Liberty Farm up to US-17 is probably years away. Most of traffic to and from Sullivan’s Island goes through Coleman Boulevard and while it is nice to think Coleman Boulevard can be turned into a pedestrian friendly atmosphere, there are thousands of vehicles that use Coleman Boulevard each day. The opening of Costco will increase traffic causing more vehicles to use Rifle Range Road and creating more traffic on Coleman Boulevard. Now is the time to begin discussion in Planning regarding hotel districts. Mount Pleasant should take care of its own workings now and it may be time to start developing some sort of transit system inside the Town of Mount Pleasant that is separate from Charleston Area Regional Transit Authority (CARTA). Mayor Haynie stated that the conversation has started and there is consensus to move in that direction. 5. Executive session to review a contractual matter and/or to receive legal advice on any issue related Coleman Boulevard, if needed. Mr. Bustos moved to go into executive session to review a contractual matter and/or to receive legal advice on any issue related to Coleman Boulevard; seconded by Mr. Brimmer; motion carried unanimously. Mayor Haynie stated that committee would move into executive session with this notice to the public. The committee, upon reconvening, may act on any  Transportation Committee Minutes January 2, 2018 Page 14 of 15 item listed on executive session agenda or discuss any executive session during a properly notice meeting. Committee moved to executive session at 1:52 p.m. 6. Post Executive Session Committee may take action on any item listed on an executive session agenda or discussed in an executive session during a properly noticed meeting. Mayor Haynie reconvened the meeting at 2:08 p.m. and stated that no motions were made, and no actions were taken, and Committee will be moving forward with items that were discussed. Mr. Bustos moved that the Coleman Boulevard Revitalization Project be included on the Council retreat agenda. Motion seconded by Mr. Brimmer. Mayor Haynie stated that anyone anticipating for process or decisions, Council is not deferring action, Council has received legal advice as to where the Towns stands within the contract and no changes will be made materially within the next month. Committee feels that the issue should be discussed and debated among full Council. Council is aware that the public is very tired of elected bodies that defer action. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bustos stated to Ms. Sullivan that as a point of order, the Committee is conducting Council business and not debating the public. There were several public comment periods, and this is not a debate between you and Council. Please add to the next Committee agenda a discussion of the intersection of Faison Road and Park Boulevard and Faison and US 17. 7. Update – ongoing projects Mayor Haynie stated that due to time constraints, updates for on-going projects will be received by email and the updates are always available to the public through our website. 8. Adjourn There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:11 p.m.  Transportation Committee Minutes January 2, 2018 Page 15 of 15 Respectfully submitted by, Cathy Godsey January 11, 2018 Policy Adopted: June 14th, 2016 1 Policy Background ➢ Update signs to meet standards ➢ Meet retroreflectivity standards in USDOT/FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ➢ Required text size (minimum 6”/4.5” upper/lower case) [MUTCD 2D.43] ➢ Standard color scheme (green & white) [MUTCD 1A.12] 2 Policy Highlights ➢ Standardize Signage ➢ Remove Unwarranted Signs ➢ Non-standard Street Name Signs ➢ Other Non-Compliant Signage ➢ Identify New Required Signage 3 Policy Highlights ➢ Town’s Standard Post ➢ U-Channel Post ➢ Approximately $40 for 12ft section delivered ➢ HOAs & Neighborhoods ➢ Special Request Post ➢ Must Be Breakaway ➢ Complete Encroachment Permit ➢ Responsible for Cost of Posts, Installation & Upkeep 4  Policy Decisions ➢ Each intersection requires a standard street name sign ➢ Obelisk Markers Remain in Historic District? ➢ Replace Obelisks with decorative street sign in Historic District? Per correspondence with FHWA, obelisks are NOT considered street name signs 5 Policy Decisions ➢ Standard Street Name Signs ➢ No Logo, All White Logo ($5) or Colored Logo ($16) ➢ Approximately 150 major roadway intersections ($750 White Logo, $2,400 Colored Logo) ➢ Approximately 300 neighborhood entrances ($1,500 White Logo, $4,800 Colored Logo) ➢ Each Intersection Requires a Standard Street Name Sign ➢ Obelisk Markers Remain in Historic District? 6 Committee Motions  The Committee recommended that Council adopt the program as presented with consideration of two options for use of the logo street name signs, the first being colored logo signs placed at Town roadways along major thoroughfares and the second being colored logos placed at neighborhood entrances only and not every street intersection.  Specific to the Old Village area, the Committee recommended that Council retain the concrete obelisks and supplement these intersections with standard street name signs. (Motions made by Committee on 06/06/2016 and unanimously approved by Council on 06/14/2016) 7 Schedule ➢ Notify HOAs and Neighborhood Associations ➢ Inventory Individual Neighborhoods/Areas ➢ Develop Replacement Plans ➢ Process Special Post Requests & Encroachment Permits ➢ Install Signs ➢ Complete by January 2020 Currently complete with Areas 1, 2, and 3 of 16 Areas 8 Questions? 9