Loading...
01-16-1967 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE 'RWULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF TH2' CITY' -COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA J'ANUARY 16, 1967 fThe regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Krieger at 7-:30 o'clock P.M. in the West Covina City Hallo Councilman Gillum led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present- Mayor.Krieger, Councilmen G.illu Nichols, Snyder from 7-45 to 1,0 - 30) , Gleckman Others Present,- George Aiassa, City Manager Robert Flotten, City Clerk Herman R. Fast, Public Service Director Owen.Menard, Planning:Director Wallace Austin, Planning Associate George Zimmerman, Assistant City Engineer Del Hoy, Deputy District Engineer, State Division of Highways William Schaeffer, Assistant Deputy District Engineer, State Division of Highways Charles Bartell, Assistant Deputy District Engineer, State Division of Highways SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT Mayor Krieger- The specific item that was scheduled for discussion this evening was the meeting with the State Division of Highways; and we are glad to see its representatives here this evening. Mr. Hoy and Mr. Schaeffer were down at one of our recent meetings. I be- lieve it was the meeting where the Planning Commission was sitting in with us, and the Council gave certain directives to the staff as a result of that meeting, There was a subsequent presentation to the Council in accordance with the directives to the staff having to do with certain specific interchanges. As a result of that presentation the Council acted to indicate its pre- ference as to these interchanges. Mr. Aiassa, perhaps it would be appropriate to have your staff make the presentations having to do with these specific interchanges. I might preface my remarks in the following way. We were particularly concerned with Vincent. Avenue on the south, Azusa Avenue, and Citrus Avenue, We took into consideration the impact and effect of closing Lark Ellen and Hollenbeck in accordance with the State°s last stated position. and these Council preferences that we have at Vincent, Azusa, nd Citrus are predicated upon assumption that those interchanges at Lark Ellen and Hollenbeck would be closed, Mr, Aiassa,. Mr, George Zimmerman will give us a quick resume of the final -1- Co Co 1/16/67 Page Two SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued recommendations that have been accepted by the Council, copies of which .have been given to the gentlemen from the State, N1ro Zimmerman® The information has been given.in summary form through the Division of Highways, and of course the Council and City Representatives have con- sidered it on several occasions. The first one is the Vincent Avenue Interchange. The south portion of the interchange has been modified to show an undercrossing.which would go under the ramps, under Vincent Avenue, and then again, under the ramps, and ret�,rn to grade at a point very close to Coffee .Dan°s on this side, and a short distance in to the center on this side. There would have to be changes of grades of State Street and California Avenue. We do show an off -ramp for eastbound traffic to come off of the ramps directly in to California, which would permit movement directly :into the center or into the Plaza at this location. The widening of the underpass has been recommended in our report. The northerly side, of course, is not part of the discussion. At Azusa we show a proposal, which again is not new to anyone. This is the original southerly portion as requested by the City, in its letter to the State, early last year, about a year ago. We show an easing, some- what, of the curves of the frontage road connection. That's about it, $At Citrus Avenue: we have nothing new. The ramps, on and off, have been approved by the State and are as approximately shown on the plans. The City is recommending an easing of the curves in the off -ramps so that it becomes more of a through -movement, circular movement, and this would require a widening of the underpass to provide merging in this area for the off -freeway traffic to merge into Citrus, and the on -freeway traffic to merge across and take this loop. The easing of these curves and the cul-de-sac, 1 think, is a change from the way the State.originally pro- posed the interchange. The north side of the interchange is not.proposed to be modified from the design as committed by the Statue. .Mayor Krieger-. Would you trace your pattern of east -west internal traffic, Mr. Zimmerman, on Vincent,.Azusa, and Citrus. That would be on the local roads, Mr. Zimmerman-. On the local. Garvey Avenue off - ramp, you descend into an under- pass situation, go under all the ramps, and the entire interchange area, and back up to grade at this location in front of the Center, just at the beginning of the parking lot in the old Center. These roads would have to be depressed for some distance back, including in front of some of the existing businesses in order to get down to the new grade, which would provide an underpass through this area, of course, conversely, all these moves are possible connections to all of the roads which now exist there to the frontage road to Garvey Avenue.. Through.traffic on the south - Vside at Azusa going eastbound would curve down into a new road, which would run right into an existing road, which would go to a point about two light depths west of Azusa, and a new road would have to be cut through, -2- C.C. 1/16/67 SAS' BERNARD INO rREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued Page "three whl.ch would be this far south of the existing frontage road. This is the Wxisting frontage road, A new road would likewise be cut through the xistin.g shopping center, and we don't propose this to show an exact location, necessarily. It might be it would be cheaper for traffic to go through differently, but it would.go through in this manner. There would doubtlessly be a signal.at this intersection so that traffic could stop or go through in an east -west direction. l might indicate, of course, this is through a residential area, whereas, now it is primarily .right along the freeway, and as such'o; not what you would call through a residential area. On the sough -side, at Citrus, we have a situation quite similar to Azusa, excepting that, we make use of the existing intersection of South Garvey Avenue. Traffic going eastbound would come down through a new cut, into the existing street system, taking a house or two in this area, and there would be an easing of this curve from the presently used intersection of South Garvey, and Citrus would be widened by at least an extra lane, possibly two extra lanes, to provide an easing flow of traffic for north- bound movement on Citrus going eastbound on the freeway. Mayor Krieger., Mr. Hoy, or Mr. Schaeffer, have the people of the State Division of Highways had a chance to review this with our staff people? Mr. Hoy., We haven't had much chance to talk to your people, other then brief telephone conversations. (Indicating Map - Exhibit "B") We have only had this s. few days, and looking at it, there are a few things that :I would like to comment on. .1t is relative to the widening of these underpasses at this time. :I think.it might be more of a problem now, then it would at some future date when your City streets have been widened. 1 think we should try to work this problem out jointly, because at the present time we figure we can handle the through -traffic on the present structures, such as your City streets. :It may be that the widening of your streets can be done easier at a later date when the Foothill Freeway is opened. if you were to widen these structures now, it would require closing those streets for probably a year or something like that, and without possible relief, so we have to question the advisability of trying to widen these structures at this time. We would have to figure that when your City streets are widened, that we would have to come in and coordinate any widening width that was necessary as far as the freeway is concerned, at that time. So, that's what appears to us in the brief time that we have had to study this widening of the structures. Mayor Krieger., George, what was your comment in making these presentations before s, having to do with these underpasses? asically, underpass as I remember:.it, the correlation between the width of the and the system of the interchange at the street, did it not? -3- C. C. 1/16/67 Page four. SAN .EERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT Continued Mr, Zimmerman-. Yes, Mr. Mayor, Two points were brought out. One is a possibility f merging off -ramp and on -ramp traffic in the underpass freeway area. nother is the lack of a need to swerve in and out to meet the -new lane widths and lane locations in the underpass area, and I think it was brought out that this is in conformity with the present State Division of Highway standards. Mayor Krieger-. As far as disruption, Mr. Hoy, am I mistaken that at Vincent you, had this situation when you were putting in the interchange on the south on Vincent? 'there was no blockage of that underpass. Mr. Hoy-. I am talking about going in and tearing out those existing struc- tures, or widen them or put in a parallel facility. You are going to have to detour the freeway traffic; and also, offhand, I think you've got to close the streets if you do. Off -hand it seemed likely that if you were to go in there and widen -these structures, or even if you.parallel structure next to the freeway, that we could detour freeway traffic one-half of the time. Mr. Zimmerman-. The only possibility that occur.ed to us, Mr. Hoy, was the possibility of leaving the existing underpasses in service and building another beside it to handle the additional lanes if they were needed, IM ayor Krieger-. Of course, you have also suggested two underpasses that we don't presently have, Lark Ellen and Hollenbeck, which you could detour during .your period of construction. And the other though I had, was that, isn't there going to•be a detouring period, Mr. Hoy, unless we are able to agree upon, as far as interchange modifications, a certain amount of natural disruption right then and there with this system. Might not it be better to accomplish what you are attempting at that stage, rather then a second disruption at a later date. Mr, Hoy-. I do not deny that there will. be disruption; any construction will cause disruption, 'I am looking at what would be the lesser of two evils, Mayor Krieger-. Your reaction, if you have one, to this problem that we have,... Let's start on South Vincent; and that is tying these two commercial areas up, and accessibility of these two areas together. What we have proposed here is actually an underpass, and it is tying up our frontage streets together. Mr. Hoy-. Relative to that, I am afraid that we have a situation here where we just completed construction of that interchange, and it was in conformance with plans originally submitted by the City, and that's just been completed, and the only possibility that.I can see there is that the City had a workable plan, that we might be able work something out; Co Ca 1./16/67 Page Five SAM BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT ® Continued bu.t.1 don't see how. Neither the State nor the Federal, Government would consider goring in there and spending any more money on that south half, Wunder the circumstances. Mayor Krieger- That whole subject opens a Pandora's Box in this City about South Vincent, and how that design came into being. Well, gentl.emeno any comments on this topic? Councilman Gillum-. My concern is with this widening again, and 1 can understand what you are saying, but I think for the past eight months we have had this story, that the reason that the Huntington Beach Freeway will. eventually, some day, come into this area, this would be to cover the increased traffic need and requirement to carry the cars to this area. I've always felt .if you can do something now, and getit finished instead .of waiting years until we are jammed with cars, then deciding to come through and widen.ito 1 can't understand why it isn't done now; why wait years? Mr. Hoy-. Well, when you figure these other streets would be wide streets leading up to them. Mro Schaeffer-. I think what our real concern here is, Councilman, as Mr. Hoy points out, will it be easier in the future, say for example, shortly after the Huntington Beach Freeway is completed, if history is any indication, we would, within a short.period of time, put in these parallel streets; and at that time we would have an alternate that.people could use. If we go in at Vincent, we would essentially close off the interchange and the street, as we see it; and we have not been able to look, at this and come up with a plan that would show us anything else, that means we close the street and the interchange. Frankly, our personal feeling is tka t the. City couldn't work.. What we would have to do would be to close the interchange, and close Vincent, because it will be necessary to detour the freeway, and remove the existing structure, and construct a new wider structure at that.pointo Mr. Bartell® There is no way of lengthening without replacing the structure, - it is a lengthening of the basic structure. Mr, Schaeffer-. The Huntington Beach Freeway;is another way for these people to goo It may be somewhat out of direction, but it will be there. To get on the San Bernardino Freeway they could reach the Huntington Beach Freeway through the City and get.on to this freeway, 'Where would 6 be an alternate; at least more so then we have now. As.Mra.Ho,y pointed out, we feel that under the present situation on Vincent, -5- C,C, 1/16 /67 Page Six SAID' BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued for example, we very likely handle 100;000 people that the interchange de livers to us. I suspect, frankly, that something is going to have to be done ILthe local streets before or at least by the time the underpasses are be- 7 they must be reconstructed. Mr. Bartell: You can restrict parking to create a type of six lane facility; but this is still sometime off in these locations, or at least it would have to be meshed, I think. Certainly if the capacity develops we are going to have to do some- thing about widening the streets. Mr. Hoy: There is another aspect too, and that is, the Huntington Beach Freeway location as determined; and the interchanges between it and the San Bernardino Freeway, as designed, it may be necessary to change some of these things, these interchanges, at that time. So that it would be another reason for not wanting to cause all this construction at this time, and then comeback and have further expense in construction. By way of recommending the Hollenbeck separation, we hoped it would improve north-sputh circulation in the city. Mayor Krieger: I would like to pose a question. What recommendations do you feel have been encompassed within the state's proposal that would assist the east - west flow of traffic in the city? Hoy: Basically, as I review this plan, aside from this suggestion that you have up here for Vincent, I think that we are talking in the same line relative to the frontage road development. About the only reference, is the easing of those curves that. Mr. Zimmerman mentioned. I think that's a design feature which we can work out; so, isn't that about the only difference here, I mean as far as east and west? Other then the freeway, you are talking frontage road for east and west. I think we are.pract.ically talking on the same line as far as the frontage road. Mayor Kreiger: We do have some di-fferences as to how they reconcile themselves with out frontage road, because of the difference of opinion on the interchange design. Councilman Gleckman: I have just one question, Mr. Hoy. Who will the underpasses be turned over to after we sign the freeway agreement? There seems to be some thought within our city right now, that some of these streets that we have turned jurisdiction over to the state, have never been returned to the city, and yet we have maintained them all this time, and I would just like to get that • so C.C. 1/16 /67 Page Seven SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued aspect of these agreements to turn them over to the state, and we maintain them at our expense. When do we get these streets back under our jurisdiction? Mr. Noy: From completion of the freeway construction. 0 Mr. Schaeffer: When you execute the freeway agree- ment, you upon completion of construction; and without further relinquish- ment, you are entitled to the roads. So, when the city of West Covina, many years ago, refused to accept the re- linquishment or. title to the road, the state insisted that the provisions of the agreement still made it mandatory that the city maintain these roads even though they refused the title to them, because the construction in the manner contemplated in the freeway agreement. Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, pursuing the question of Mr. Gleckman, I think the point is this, that once we executed the final freeway agreement, then those'under- passes, and everything I presume, will be under the jurisdiction of the city. Mr. Schaeffer: In regards to the specific question of the underpass, we would maintain the structure itself; the city would then accept title, and maintenance responsibility for the roadway itself, and the underpass. The underpass it- self will be the State's responsibility. The responsibility would be the same whether it was widened today or five years from now. ouncilman Gillum: I don't mean to keep going over this thing of the underpass, but I save a question in my mind right now; that Lark Ellen and Nollenbeck, and if I understand correctly, you plan to widen the underpass of Vincent also;.. wouldn't that cause part of the freeway to... In other words, you would have to shut off a couple lanes of freeway. Mr. Noy: No. I didn't mean to convey that we would have to cut off a couple lanes of the freeway. We would have to have a detour. I don't see how we can put those structures in there any structure here without carrying the same number of lanes through in each direction while the construction is on. You can put in a detour for three lanes, and that clears up one direction. So that you can get your structure into that side, then when that is done, you can throw three lanes over on that side and still keeping the same three lane detour you can build the other half. Mr. Bartell: Probably at Vincent the -.-detour would be on the southside and we would run a temporary structure over Vincent, or something. Vincent would be closed; we would have either a structure or a fill there. Then we would construct the westbound bridge, and run the westbound traffic on the present eastbound lane, and then use the detour for the eastbound, and then go out and fill L -7- C.c. 1/16./67 Page Eight SA.N BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued the other ones, and use the new freeway for westbound, and the detour in the other direction, and fill the other half. 0, don't see any other way of doing it. The structure has to be demolished first. Then there's three locations at Citrus, Vincent, and Azusa, and this would take about a year to construct. Mr. Schaeffer: We don't have an existing street to concern ourselves about that is the essential difference, and then, we are eliminating connections to make room for the freeway; there is a difference, that's it. Councilman Nichols: I'm not all knowledgable about free- ways, and,off and on -cramps, design engineering,__and..al1 of.the other things that go with it. All I have are thoughts and feelings that any person down the street might or might not have. They have, I suppose merit, those views or opinions, or lack of merit, depending on one's own viewpoint, or one's own personal past experience. I brought, generally, this point up before. This will be my only point that I will make this evening. It is awfully easy to recriminate about the past, and certainly I understand the basis of your responsibilities, what your areas of limitations are, but I would like to review once more for the record something that is very fund- emental to me, and it's perhaps not to you gentlemen because of the nature tf your jobs. with you, that goes back again to when the San Bernardino Freeway came through this area in 1953; and when it came through Pomona, and when it came through many, many other cities, and where it still comes. Almost everywhere, at least it seems to me, there has been an effort upon the State of California's planners, or right of way people -- you gentlemen -- I don't -know who, to work with the various communities in order that their main surface streets are by-passed by the freeways, or in order that their commercial interests and community interests of those cities are not harmed. Now, my recollection is that there was quite a battle with the City of El Monte during that time, that went on for quite some time. The end result is that the streets that were considered at that time to be the major business streets of E1 Monte, that is Garvey Blvd., and Valley Blvd. were left, at great expense to the State,intact. In.1953, 1952, 1951, 1950, West Covina was blooming like mad, growing like a weed, already had achieved the reputation of being the fastest growing area in Southern California, and yet, as one of the few cities in this area, the freeway came right down Garvey Boulevard. West Covina's only east -west business artery was pre-empted by this freeway. The result of this has been a great handicap to the development of this community. It is my position that the State of California shares the responsibility for this situation today. Mr. Hoy: In the present plan here, we recognize that certain features are undesirable. We have been trying to work this out with'you people, and it's running into everal million dollars additional cost which we have con Oinced both our eadquarters and the Bureau of Public Roads to date that we go along with that. WE have given this a great deal of study in view of the city street pattern that we have to meet here; and you hired consultants to study it too, and we CoCo 1/16/67 Page Nine SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued they've come up with recommendations that are entirely independent of ours, but which are not too far from ours. We have peculer street patterns here, hick are nowhere near to being comparable with the Santa Monica, or where 4you are going through. City streets there were on a good pattern, and so forth; city -streets going in all directions here. We have endeavored to work on them for how many years; three,, four years? Councilman Snyder: I think we want to know what advantage it is to us to sign this freeway agreement. Mr. Hoy: We think that our design here will be much better than the present design that you have. Councilman Snyder: You think your design is better for the freeway, or for the City of West Covina? Mr. Schaeffer: For example; for the city, we look at the traffic on this section of the San Bernardino Freeway, west of Pacific, and there's about forty thousand cars a day that have their destinations into West Covina. We are going to provide a lot better traffic service to West Covina so people that are going through your community, going into your community, and when we think it is oing to improve the operations of the local streets that we interchange with. e think this is going to be improved over what exists today, and better north and south circulation. We think we are going to improve traffic service into the community within the limitations of our responsibilities. Councilman Gillum: We get back tothis thing. We agree that you are going to provide adequate oft and off -ramps, and -fine north and south flow, but we are stuck for east and west, and we are stuck withit, that thing out there is a wall. We have to have some relief some place in the east -west. Mayor Krieger: May I go back to something you have alluded to Mr. Troy. We did spend a lot of money for Mr. Gruen's services. We had some preliminary meetins with you people before we ever stated investing money. One of the first things you people told us to do, was to get. -ourselves a consultant who knows something about this field. :We admitted then and we admit it now that we are not experts in this. We took your advice; we got this man and we spent money to get him. He came in with some design complexes and features, and we incorporated them and we sent them in. We laid these designs out, right next to your design features, and we found a lot of dissimilarities between that report recommendation and what you people have come in with, and as far as patterning it into our internal traffic system, I don't find it. Maybe it exists, but if someone would tell me that the $600,000 that was spent on South Vincent if that reconciles with is s%E C.C. 1/16/67 Page Teri SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMNT - Continued your system of internal traffic flow, it's beyond me. I see a number of points of dissimilarity. fe have some long-range responsibilities the same as you people do. Mr. Hoy: You feel that the Lark Ellen and Hollenbeck opening is a good thing, or what? Mayor Krieger: If we can not gain access to our frontage areas; if we can not gain any better access into the West Covina Center, the old Center between Vincent and Glendora Avenue, then I don't see where it is to our advantage, for example to close Lark Ellen because some of the people - that is the only way they can get into that area if they go down to Lark Ellen and come back; they are not going to get into it in that jigsaw puzzle on South Vincent. Anybody share that view? Councilman Gillum: I agree with youa Councilman Gleckman: As far as I'm concerned, what you see on the board (Indicating Map - Exhibit "B") is our compromise, not what we are trying to get from the State. I: think you have taken plenty from us now. still say that the problems we have on our internal streets have been reated by the interchanges we have. Mayor Krieger: The best proof that we have, gentlemen, as to the seriousness of our intent; Mr. Bartell, apparently you live in this area; I don't know Mr. Hoy and Mr. Schaeffer what opportunity you have had to drive into some of our internal streets, and into some of our commercial areas, but we feel there are legitimate complaints in these areas, and all you have to do is just drive into the Plaza -- see the change of ownership, or vacancies. Drive into the West Covina Center and seethe same -thing. We don't feel that there is, in the plan we presently have proposed before us any remedy to that situation whatsoever. This is, I believe, one of the reasons why this Council is faced with the dilemma of what advantage is it possibly to the City of West Covina to expedite the widening of the San Bernardino Freeway through this community, when in effect we are left with, exactly the same internal problems that we had before the freeway was widened. We can no more go backward than you people can go backward; we'have to forward, and these proposals that we have at certain key interchanges, which materially differ from your response of July 26, is the best we come up with out of a bad situation. It's not the best, it's the best the bad. `10 can of C. C. 1 !16 /67 Page Eleven SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued Now, if these are not a basis for discussion with the.State, then I feel I'm gauging the pulse of the Council correctly when I say some response s going to have to be forthcoming from the State on these questions that 4CF-onsider epresent a recognition and a possible solution to this problem, that we can as well. Mr. Schaeffer: Mr. Mayor, could we review our differences and see what they really are.. Actually, if we could start at Citrus. Our existing freeway agreement would handle the Council's concern for the free movement on that loop. This is what we call a design detail and we would be happy to work it out with the staff. Mayor Krieger: Will there be enough storage area north of the signal for cars stopping at the Citrus - Garvey signal? This now backs up quite a distance down into the underpass. Councilman Gillum: May I ask you a question in the same vane? The traffic studies that were made before this freeway was put in and this underpass that would pertain to this time, are we exceeding at this time in that area, or do you know what was projected? Mr. Schaeffer: In regard to these traffic studies, I don°t.know what was projected on hese individual ramps, how good it is. We do have what we call transportation study, and I believe West Covina is participating in that. Basically, this is to gather all of the data of traffic habits, origin and destinations. We certainly have a lot more to work with, and of course we have a computer analysis, which was not avail- able to us then. When this freeway was first conceived the studies were all conducted by hand. I have the projections on the Citrus ramp. Councilman,Gleckman: My point was going to be to Mr. Schaeffer, Mr. Hoy, and Mr. Bartell, that the free flow on our north -south street is the most important thing to us, especially at interchanges. Now, the Victor Gruen report that we recommended to you, at the time that 1 voted against, but the majority recommended to you, showed the.off-ramp tying into the Garvey Avenue -and the on -ramp. in its present location, which would give completely free flow on Citrus; no tie-ups as far as I'm concerned. I'm just curious as to why the State would want to tie in that off -ramp with our main north and south street there. Mr. Schaeffer: That's where the people want to go. They want to use Citrus, they.do not want to use Garvey; so those people are going to get on Citrus, and the problem at hand is, where is the best p.la,ce to put them. councilman Gleckman: M uestion to you is, that you are My,question going to have people on Garvey Avenue, and you are going to have people coming off the freeway on to Citrus; and you are going to;have two stop lights; and how many feet is that George? -11- C.Co 1/16/67 Page Twelve SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued Mr. Zimmerman: Three -hundred feet. 4 Councilman Gleckman: The big problem is going to be that there is not going to be any free -flow, and the people are going to take a left off of Garvey, south, are going to have to stop at that stop light. Mr. Schaeffer: Are you suggesting another loop? Councilman Gleckman: No. I'm suggesting that you take the present loop that is there for the off -ramp, and have it come into Garvey, just the way it is. Mr. Schaeffer: Councilman Gleckman: You mean just retain the existing pattern? Just retain the existing off -ramp. Mr. Schaeffer: We anticipate, in the future, at the off -ramp and Garvey; with these people on Citrus, they would have to stop twice. It certainly wouldn't be cleaning up the problem at the intersection of Citrus and Garvey, the same traffic through there. I think what we are saying is essentially the same problem that you do have now at Citrus and Garvey. You would be taking the on -ramp traffic from the south out of it, but by the same token, you would be putting the on=ramp to the west through the intersection, and basically, in the simplest terms, the capacity of a street is the capacity of its intersection; and that simply, an intersection is a area, and you get so many in that given area in a certain period of time and you will gind that you are just assigning priorities, if you will. So you've got to take something out of there to improve it. Councilman Gleckman: As far as I'm concerned the number one problem on our internal streets, which will continue, if not greater, is the stop signs on our main thorough -fares, and if you are going to put additional stop lights, I just can't understand it. Mr. Schaeffer: I would like to re-emphasize that this set-up providing a three phase signal can't be coordinated with a two phase signal. We believe it is simpler for the surface users --we can make these inter- sections simple and easy to understand. They are of benefit to the users of the surface area. I.might bring this up. There is a very good reason why there is a nominal amount of traffic in the Eastland area, and that is simply, from the east here, you have a much better connection at Barranca; this is a direct entrance into Garvey Avenue on the east. Certainly in this new design that we are proposing, it would be far superior. -12- C. C. 1/16/67 Page Thirteen SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued Mayor Krieger: We don't have any major differences of opinion, on the north side, between our recommendations to you and your proposal to us. Schaeffer: Actually the difference is, if we can get back to that, is simply the free -.._.right turn at the intersection of Citrus, and the south frontage road there. This is a very simple matter. We think it would work better this way, but frankly, I don't think we are that concerned about it. The concern is that we are responsible -for this for some period, and I don't know how Del would feel about that; but if the City feels very strongly, and is ready to assume the responsibility, and relieve our obligation for five years, and make sure it works properly... Mayor Krieger: What's the reverse side of it, Mr. Schaeffer; what if we accept your proposal and it doesn't work satisfactorily? Mr. Schaeffer: We are obligated to make sure the interchanges work five years from the time of construction. If signals are required at some point between then and five years, it's the State's responsibility in total. Mayor Krieger: Structural changes? Mr. Schaeffer: If that is required. ayor Krieger: Is our statute of limitations still in effect on Vincent, south? Mr. Schaeffer: Signals are required at the intersection of those ramps, and Vincent; that's correct. Mayor Krieger: Well, we seem to have two problems on Citrus, although basically there isn't a great deal of emphasis placed by this Council, at least in our discussions on Citrus, except in one quadrant, and that was the southeast quadrant. Mr. Schaeffer: As we say, that actually the freeway agreement is not normally construed to indicate that kind of detail. Frankly, this is something that routinely we work out with your staff in developing the detailed design on the interchange. Mr. Hoy: We are showing the same pattern, or the only thing that I see here, as actually designed details; so we • -13- C.C, 1/16;/67 SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued Page Fourteen won't get into a discussion on what rate we should use on the curves, or something like that. ,Mayor Krieger: We don't.know what is detail, and how much is law, -- when we start talking about these things, and I don't want somebody to say, "Here's the chapter and verse". This is what we are talking about' we want to be talking about the same thing. Mr. Schaeffer: Then at the intersection of Norma and Barranca, will you point that out. This is the frontage road of. Norma Avenue. Here again it would be the one intersection that is not shown on the freeway agreement; then again, that is a minor thing to my own way of thinking. You are sacrificing a little bit in the intersection design for the free right, for the improved alignment, if you will, of this frontage road. Mayor Krieger: Go to the southeast quadrant once, and take your traffic going east on the freeway that wishes to go north on Citrus. Now, that doesn't tie-in, at least in my mind, on your proposal of July. Is that a design feature or is that a basic question? Mr. Schaeffer: The orange color on the agreement itself is to indicate work on the local road. What this does indicate is work on that road as well as Citrus, between Morma and Garvey. Now, the extent of that work is something that we would hope to work out with your staff, as to what the radii of, and details of that intersection, would be. Mayor. Krieger: Well, perhaps I still don't under- stand, but as I see your off -ramp for eastbound traffic on the freeway at Citrus, it comes into the frontage road itself. Mr. Schaeffer: Yes. • Mayor.Krieger: It does not feed directly into Citrus? Mr. Schaeffer: Correct. Mayor.Krieger: Now, when you talk about the definition of radii, are you suggesting that in its ultimate conception, even according to your proposal, that it may feed directly into Citrus? Mr. Schaeffer: I'm saying that a design such as you have shown on the board there is within the scope of that agreement as it is defined. 11 -14- C.C�o 1/16/67 Page Fifteen SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMNET - Continued Mayor Krieger: How are we able to determine that? r. Schaeffer: I am not saying that you could separate that ramp completely. For example, make a free loop. Mr. Bartell: You are still bringing the ramp into the road; you are channelizing a right turn, and channelizing around that curve there;. Mayor Krieger: In fact, we wanted to physically segregate that frontage road traffic by some type of device, from the traffic coming off of Citrus, that intends to go north, making a right-hand turn. Mr. Schaeffer: We don't think that would be a very good idea. We are saying, basically it would be better to control that traffic as it enters Citrus. We have quite a number of off -loops which were designed many years ago, actually, not too long ago, where we have these loops designed for this freeway. Traffic barely moves, and the bind is such that we can't work, and we are forced into building four corner clover -leaves like in Azusa. We have found it necessary to signalize that type of an .intersection so an off -loop, where it enters the city streets, if it is in a very high volume situation such as you have here, I think that it should be controlled; it would be easier, safer, and certainly simpler for the people if it were controlled. ouncilman Gleckman: What is the responsibility of the State when they put in something like that with that service roadway; it has blind corners on both sides.. Mr.. Schaeffer: Under our present set up that would remain in State jurisdiction, from that portion of the frontage between Citrus and the ramp terminals; State's jurisdiction.and State's responsibility. Councilman Gleckman: The point I am making is, when you take that and you want to go east off the.freeway, and when you stop there the alignment of that frontage road is so ridiculous that you can't see to the right and you can°t see to the left, and just take a chance to make that left hand turn on to that frontage road. My question is, what is the responsibility of the State to improve that situation? Mr. Schaeffer: Councilman Gleckman: I -15- Are you concerned with the left turn to go east on this frontage road? Yes. C.C. 1/16/67 Page Sixteen Mr. Schaeffer: ,Most high -volume off -ramps have a signal. Councilman Gleckman: Mr. Schaeffer: As signals make it safe, or handle the traffic, it would be our responsibility. When it is depressed or elevated, not when it is level like in the City of West -Covina. It doesn't make any difference. If you have a high volume, you have to assign the right of way. Councilman Gillum: You made the statement a moment ago that -you have designed in the past few years these free -.flow loops, and found that they didn't work correctly; that's what you said. In other words, what you are saying is that the State had made some mistakes in the design of some of their off -ramps. Mr..Schaeffer: Councilman Gillum: A three million dollar mistake in your community that we are trying to rectify. We are down to that point to find out what to do about it. Councilman Gleckman: The only point I was making, Bill, is that it would seem strange to me that the State would even put in something like that, and have a traffic hazard there, and never do anything about it. Mr. Schaeffer: Well, obviously we are not in the business to build traffic hazards, and we don't think it is or we wouldn't build it. Mayor Krieger: I Councilman Gleckman: nobody do anything about it, and that We are not going into it on the basis that it is a hazard. That is the point I was making, Mr. Hoy; I was surprised to see it there, and exist this long, and is my question. Is it the State's problem, or is it the city's problem to re -align the front- age road or do something to relieve that dangerous situation? Mr. Schaeffer: This re -alignment that is shown there would be the State's responsibility. In.constructinq interchanges it would be as shown, colored in orange. Councilman Snyder: They have said in effect this is a detail of design, that doesn't preclude... -16- Co Co 1/16/67 SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued Page Seventeen Mayor Krieger: I just want to make sure that the detailed design was broad enough o encompass what we have up there in the southeast quadrant, having to do with the interchange design. Councilman Nichols-. Please broaden that a little bit more to include our Southern California Avenue. Mayor Krieger-. Let's talk about this'Hollenbeck, before we pass over it too liberally, That is going to be configuration of that frontage road approximately, if you put in underpasses? Is it going to be approximately where it is now? Mr. Schaeffer: We would have to check our detailed designs. AS I recall, we made a detailed model.of it. It showed essentially what we had in mind on our first run-through. Mayor Krieger: What I am driving at -- as I remem- ber, that model was not to be relied upon other then as a three dimensional presentation of what this underpass would look like. I am trying to determine how close we are coming on that frontage road, to location, with reference to its present location. r. Zimmerman: It's present location was to be duplicated, Mr. Mayor, on the new connection. However, it would be depressed somewhat in order to meet the road going under the freeway. Mr. Hoy: There will be a depression there for the road to go under the freeway. Councilman Snyder: That puzzles me the most about Azusa, is the moving of the right turn quadrant in the State°s plans to the southwest corner instead of leaving it.in the southeast corner. It seems to me that traffic coming from L.A.. goes mostly north on Azusa, and the right turn should be left. In other words, both quadrants could be on the east side, instead of what you have, what you call par-clo quadrants. Mr. Schaeffer: Actually, Mr. Snyder, the majority of the traffic that we predict on Azusa Avenue, getting off the freeway from the west, going east, would be going south. Let me correct that; it is about equal. Councilman Snyder: • But you have plenty of right-of- way in the south-east quadrant; why not leave it in? -17- C.C. 1/16/67 Page Eighteen SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued Mr.. Schaeffer: When we design an interchange, what we are concerned with essen- ially two things, capactiy and operation. Now, wethinkthan the interchange -that we-• propose -certainly equals the -capacity of a four_quadran.t type -of interchange; and we feel it is much superior in operation. So, very basically, what we are=.'recommending:'in this four clover design -- we are recommending it because we think it will work better. The par-clo we are recommending would be the loop on -ramps; and no loop off -ramps. Councilman,Gleckman: One of the things I am curious about, is whether the State Division of Highways is taking into consideration closing Hollenbeck and Lark Ellen, and what effect that will have on Azusa .and Citrus. In other words, it may handle it now; but the think I don't understand is with the present off -ramp that you have in Azusa now, I think this would be a definite improvement over what we have presently at.Azusa.Avenue;. because now, if the traffic wants to go south it has to take a left -turn turn, here you have a free right-hand turn. Mr —Schaeffer: Let me go back to this; maybe this will help you. The capacity of .a street is very basically the capacity of its intersections. If you have this _.traffic that wants to go on this street, it is going to go through this, intersection, and it is going to be the same no matter what your design is; and this signal isn't going to restrict the number that can ge.t_ thr.ough there. As.you have shown in this, in the south half; we could not guarantee we would not have to signalize; if you had the volume in 1990, we would. You do not have free flow. Now, what we are saying is, that it's simpler for all concerned if you make a direct connection to Azusa Avenue, and go right and left. Actually it's more direct, it's simpler, it's certainly faster. If we are talking about a signal , it's faster for all traffic .if you are talking about a signalized intersection. It is faster, even .for those people you see using the loop, plus the fact that weaving section is always a problem. Councilman Gleckman: at least double, and you are putting in provide a left-hand turn for the people south on the northside; that's basicall words, it will be delayed? Mr. Bartell: • y There is no doubt in my mind that the traffic on Azusa Avenue will more signali.zation in order to coming off the freeway, going what you are doing. In other It's a stop and left-hand signal two directions. a go; there is no stop in the other C. C. 1/16/67 Page Nineteen SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued Councilman Gillum: Councilman Gleckman: Councilman Gillum Mr. Schaeffer: Councilman Gillum: You are speaking about this off - ramp coming.._west.on the freeway? Yes This_ar.ea.is going to be depressed in there; is it not, where this off -ramp comes into this? Yes. Off an off -ramp, down a hill, and have a light there? A Mr. Schaeffer: We are going to have a light there no matter whether we have this design or some other design. You have some real complicated intersections. This is the kind of intersection we are talking about here. This is the simplest intersection that can exist. As an intersection, it's simply three or four lanes in width; it has to be that wide to permit the traffic to turn left or right. We have this type of design working with some very high volumes. Councilman Gleckman: Going back to Citrus, how far is that stop light on Norma, for example, to the base of the off -ramp on Citrus, coming south?. ayor Krieger: Councilman Gillum: Mr. Schaeffer: • Between Norma and your eastbound off -ramp. Just like Vincent and Center. There will be no left turn there, Councilman Gleckman: I know that is a free right turn. Isn°t there going to be a stop light there at Norma where the new frontage road is going to be aligned? Mr. Schaeffer: You will not be able to make a left turn there. Mayor Krieger: The only place where we have some concern between us then, is this northbound traffic on Azusa Avenue coming eastbound on the freeway; and you gentlemen feel quite confident, I gather, from your studies and exper- ience, as you stated this evening, that your one ramp coming off east- bound is sufficient both to handle north and south bound traffic. -19- C. C. 1/16/67 Page Twenty SAN BERNARDINOFRFEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued Mr. Schaeffer: I.t _is...suffi..c.i.en.t, _to.. h.and.le the traffic, .and it.will operate better.. Councilman Gl.eckman: I wil.l.agree with you even though you.are the tra.f.fic..experts, and I am not. I am.just trying to figure out a solution. If.you put that stoplight south of the freeway, eventually -- if you put one there, then you really have a problem, unless you can synchronize those stoplights. Mr.. Schaeffer: It is two phased, and you have a lot more latitude. Councilman Gleckman: It's got to be free -flow on one side, if if ---stops on both sides. I think you are going to have three stoplights in there. Mr. Hoy: Being two phase, it can't be synchronized. Mayor Krieger: How about the designs for the frontage road; are we talking about Citrus south? o Schaeffer: Easing of that curve, as you put it, is not shown.on the freeway. agreement. I think, essent.ixzl.ly, ..it would .be..a_.compromi_s_e. between... the...... - alignment of the frontage road and.this intersection with Cherrywo.odo You would have a choice of cul-de-sacing or trying to make an intersection on that small radius curve. Mayor Krieger: Would you mind going to that diagram, Mr. Bartell. Mr. Bartell: You would want to be quite con- cerned about a curve and an inter- section here. You might want a cul-de-sacing in here to keep it from conflicting. Mayor Krieger: Why isn't this within the con- templation of the freeway agreement? Mr. Schaeffer: Actually, we thought the City would prefer the design as we showed it in the freeway agreement. Mayor Krieger: I don't see it. Perhaps I failed to pick it up, but what is the design in the freeway agreement.? -20- C. C. 1/16/67 Page Twenty -One SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued Mr. Schaeffer: Well, we were going to leave it essentially alone as an inter- section, as it exists today. That would minimize the disruption in the rea. Something.like that would..reduire_sev.eraL._..home .. Mayor. Krieger: But it further disrupts the free flow of traffic. Mr. Schaeffer: Certainly, if you are thinking about.a large line of traffic interchanging between these two commercial areas of Eastland and the Plaza -Center, it would be true.. Mr. Bartell-: Did you want to cul-de-sac that street in there, is that.it? Mayor Krieger: I'm trying to visualize, from your comments, exactly what is the scope of this agreement as far as the disruption of the frontage road. We have a displacement problem here. Mr. Schaeffer: The easing of this curve, as you put it, is not in the freeway agreement. Councilman Snyder: 14r. Schaeffer: Mayor Krieger: Running Norma through is in the agreement? . That is right. But that still takes the same traffic that we are talking about down there. Mr.. Hoy: If you want to have more disruption in there, if you think that's the best solution, cul-de-sac Cherrywood. Cul-de-sac that and buy the homes in there. You might be able to work something out. Mr. Schaeffer: were concerned about this feature. Mayor Krieger: We haven't looked at that very carefully; we didn't know you It's a choice you would have to make. Are there any further discussions on this Azusa Avenue before we move on? Mr. Hoy: With that frontage road in there, as I said before, I think we can put in a little dab of color and work something out for you. You people are not talking about a big high radius curve in there which would really disrupt the area, what you want to do is ease off. -21- C. C. 1/16/67 Page Twenty -Two SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued Mayor. Krieger.: 'Phat.was..the .basic desire to ease off and feed it through. . Hoy: I think we are talking about a small item here which can be worked out. I feel that if this will help the situation, to put a little. color in there, so that we will work out a reasonable curve; I will go that far on my own. Mayor Krieger: Well, I think, as our diagram illustrates, we have two basic concerns at Azusa.Avenue. One is the question of the frontage road, and the other is the feed traffic into Azusa Avenue for eastbound or northbound traffic. I don't feel that we should pursue this at this time unless the Council wants to develop this further. Councilman Snyder: Well, I think we should accept his offer to ease off the curve. Mayor Krieger: I'm sure the offer isn't going to be made unilaterally, so it's a question of reaching what agreements we can,..and..going from.there. Councilman Snyder: On the southeast quadrant you have quite a bit of right-of-way, and ...... your design shows that there will be right-of-way, and that you are going to put in the southwest quadrant. Now, do you retain that right-of-way in the southeast or will that be sold? Mr. Schaeffer: Councilman Snyder: Mr. Schaeffer: That will be sold as excess but we wouldn't sell it right away, You wouldn't sell the right-of-way indiscriminately? We would dispose of it a year or two years after the freeway construction, yes. Councilman Snyder: I still have a hard time believing that there isn't going to be a north flow of traffic from the west on Azusa. Mr. Schaeffer: All we are saying is that there will be just as heavy a move to the south. Mayor Krieger: The problem is conceding the point that there is just as heavy a flow to the south, if not more so, your design features do compliment the south then, no more than the north. -22- C.C. 1/16/67 Page Twenty -Three SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued Mr.. Schaeffer: Not -really. Actually, thes.e.people arrive at the intersection and urn right or left, and it's a very direct connection to those people o.i.ng. north.. Mr. Hoy: There will be a signal there. This is at the present time a State highway and it will remain a State highway until such time as replaced by the Huntington Beach Freeway. We are always going to be responsible for the operation of this intersection. This whole interchange and the ramps and whatever configurations are all State Highway responsibility. From the ramps north, that is all State highway. Councilman Snyder: And the orange place filled in here will be the State's respon- sibility of the frontage road? Mr. Schaeffer: Mayor Krieger: Yes. Now, are the design configurations, as you have mentioned on Hollenbeck, the same as Lark Ellen? tco r. Schaeffer: Yes. uncilman Gleckman: When you put through an underpass, is there a State Law involved, or some protection there for this particular homeowner, to not take away his front yard, but buy his whole house? Mr. Schaeffer: Yes, but it's pretty hard to make a general statement there. What we are responsible for there is the damages to this particular piece of property. If the damages exceed the cost of it, we may buy it out,but we can't arbitrarily buy it out unless the damages do exceed. Mr. Schaeffer: We would prefer, of course, to work with these people and if possible regrade the area so that it will look nice. Mayor Krieger: All right then, let's move on to this Vincent Avenue south; we certainly have a basic bone of contention here. Gentlemen, there has to be some solution to this situation on South Vincent. We are not satisfied, regardless of how it came about, and it is not going to serve either side to any advantage as.to how this came about.. The fact remains that it exists, and is not existing satis- factorily as far as we are concerned. Councilman Snyder: What you are saying in effect is that Center Street traffic is just bottle -necked at the inter- section. -23- C. C. 1/16/67 SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued Page Twenty -Four W.e11,. not..nec.es.s.ari.ly..for the ..off the .freeway.traff.ic., but it certainly �is..a..._batt.leneck ._for...y.o_ur. east -west. t.r_af.fic..b.e.tween the two. .shopping centers, and...tha_t-'s. the.mo.st,.dire.ct. acc.es.s. ..I.t.. is also..a..bottle-neck. for the southwest traffic; and it's a long signal, and I always avoid it. .And I think from our standpoint that the biggest bottle -neck is the traffic from the Plaza turning left north, and the traffic from the Plaza going to the old Center. I don't have any traffic counts to back me up.. Mr. Schaeffer: cipate taking out of that intersection here? How much of that traffic that i this kind of a road? Councilman Gillum: Mr. Schaeffer: Councilman Snyder: Well, let me ask you a technical question. How much dial you anti - with the scheme that is proposed using Center Street now would use A great deal of it. Wouldn't the bridge solve the problem? The bridge does not solve that problem. Councilman Nichols: I think to a great many people who want to move north of the freeway, Vincent is also an artery that is carrying heavier and heavier loads over the years. I think if you had a way people could move easterly and northerly -short of Azusa Avenue. There are a rather large number o.f those people that are moving north of the freeway, and north- e.as.t..of the freeway, could then scoot along parallel to the freeway until .-they _could get an easier northbound access. Lark Ellen being only a local street in terms of circulation, rather than carrying inter -City traffic primarily, could absorb a considerable part of that. During the shopping periods, the shopping areas are jammed up with people and there is a great deal of congestion at those intersections more so is than the traffic coming off the freeway. Mr. Schaeffer: I think that traffic that is on the freeway that is getting on to and off the freeway on Vincent Avenue is really the traffic you are talking about. I mean, this is the traffic that wants to use Vincent to get somewhere into the City of West Covina. It wouldn't matter if the Center were there or a thousand feet to the south; would it? Councilman Snyder: section from four ways. It back-up. The traffic going the length of that light -- through. The traffic from 4 Yes, it would make a difference. Traffic comes into that'inter- comes from the west and that is the biggest through to the old Center.is held up because that is the longest light I have ever sat the south is not so bad. -24- C.C. 1/16/67 SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued Mr. Scaaeffer: Page Twenty -Five Let me clarify our five year responsibility. I: don°t want any misunderstandings. What I_.am saying.is, i.f'.in.five years the ramp terminal $or.-log-ical extension if .you will,.. it . is at thi.s...point ..that we will retain ,.we are completely responsible for that intersection for five years. We are not responsible for such things as Center Street for this five-year period. Councilman Gleckman: Even then, the access to the east part of the shopping center is completely cutoff if you cutoff Lark Ellen. councilman Gillum: Didn't you say earlier that what we are proposing would be completely out of the jurisdiction or consideration of the State? So what we are talking about is completely out of the State's jurisdiction as far as you gentlemen are concerned? Mr... Schaeffer: As far as we see it, yes. Councilman Gillum: Councilman Snyder: 0 There is no sense to discuss it then. The California off -ramp is not out of jurisdiction, they have given us.a "No" answer so far. Mr. Hoy: We haven't given you a "No" answer on that California one. You people and the Citizens'Committee that came in on that ramp were most generous in offering to pay for it.. It would seem like a very simple thing for us to ..say go ahead and do it; but our concern was that we didn't feel in our mind and from the studies that it was going to accomplish what you hoped it was going to accomplish, and we didn't want to politely say go ahead and do it. We are giving you our opinion, and if the Citizens' Group still wants to go ahead with that I am sure that the State will approve doing it as long as we are not involved in financing it. Mayor Krieger: Mr. Hoy our traffic observations and it do it. So after another meeting by the Citizens'Committee. The days. What is the solution to the problem there or isn't there a problem? We haven't found the same problem that has been discussed. We made was figured that we picked an off day to there were different days that were selected y figured these would be representative Mayor Krieger: If you were sitting in this community and had the figures on these traffic counts on the one hand and on the other hand you had merchants going out of business and sales dropping and sales tax dropping and empty store, and ,merchants crying all the time about access to their place of business, which set of facts would you pick up - the traffic count or the facts that show that day in and day out the people are hurting in this area? Mr. Hoy: Are you sure they are hurting from business or the traffic? -25- C.C. 1/16/67 Page Twenty -Six SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued Councilman Gleckman: at the time going into the Plaza befo and what is coming off of the Freeway would have a true traffic count, and could.be proven that this interchange destroyed the shopping centers south .and the new center.. If you take a traffic count of what was coming off the Freeway re the new construction went in onto the Plaza now, then you then you would know that the problem at Vincent has almost completely of the Freeway in the old center Mayor Krieger: I think in your own best interests in negotiating this agreement that_ you best .get . to.. a definiation o_f the problem.... We have .al.l..k.inds...o.f... ._-r..epor..t.s .on ...this. I.t . is. a .very .r.eal problem in our minds, and unless we .can_come..up with a very real solution we are going to reach an impasse .in this .whole subject matter. ..Mr. -Schaeffer: We have been so informed that the Bureau of Public Roads will not' makeany further partition on the south half of the Vincent interchange, and._.as we..see it, there would be no justification, no reason, or no way in which the State can participate in the modification of a road pattern such as this. Mayor. Krieger-: And you gentlemen state that you unequivocably speak on behalf of the State Division of Highways, that you are not empowered to speak for it on the subject of Vincent Avenue? Mr. Hoy:. We can speak for the Division of Highways. Mr.. Schaeffer: We've checked this for any.possibi- lities with our Sacramento Office, so we are fairly sure of where we stand. Mayor Krieger: Unless there is a complete reversal of form by this Council as to its express sentiments -- we know where we stand on South Vincent, too -- that is, there has to be a recognition of the problem, and there has to be some assistance with the solution. Mr. Schaeffer: I would say, if I might offer this, that to my mind neither the City nor the State have defined the problem, We have a service that we can provide for you, of course at cost to the City, of actually making a traffic study of this. I am trying to explain to you what we could offer to assist you. Councilman Gleckman: I want to go on record to state to the State Division of Highways that during my last election, during my campaign, I visited some 700 homes and came in contact with some two thousand people. The Vincent Avenue interchange was a major complaint by the people living in the City of West Covina as it presently exists. And if some relief didn't come, that this City Council was not doing its job in order to see to it that the people within this City have some access, as they had in the past, to shopping in their own community rather than having to go outside of their community to do their shopping. This is all due to the congestion on the Vincent Avenue interchange. I would like that in the record so that the State Division of Highways is aware that this is not only from a personal standpoint, but is also personal experience in talking with the people of West Covina. op0m CoC. 1/16/67 Page Twenty -Seven SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY AGREEMENT - Continued Councilman Gillum: May I ask a question? I am not expressing the sentiments of the Council. What happens if we reach the point where we don't sign.a contract with the State?. What do we do. -next?-. This is .fo.r my own information. Mr. Hoy: I think we'd be forced to go ahead under the present Freeway Agree- ment. The State could come in and condemn underpasses at Lark Ellen and Hollenbeck. Councilman G.leckman: Mr. Hoy: Councilman Gillum: Mr.. Hoy: keep the same pattern as it exists now. Mayor Krieger: ,Mr. Hoy: Councilman Gillum: Councilman Snyder: Mr. Hoy: Councilman Gleckman: Mr. Schaeffer: Mayor Krieger: Councilman Gillum: Councilman Snyder: Avenue and from Barranca Avenue east? How about the on and off ramp at Hollenbeck? Remain the same. All you could do is widen the four lanes? The location of the ramps would be changed somewhat but it would And this doesn't show any disruption of the City streets? It wouldn't be closing any streets that are not already closed. We would still have four lanes at Lark Ellen and Hollenbeck? Will the present walk -over be replaced with a steel walk -over? That might have to be rebuilt. Will it be City or State? That's State. We would have to do that. I think we are getting into a legal question here. We already have an opinion by the City Attorney and we will ask for further advice. Can the Freeway Agreement be signed in part up to Sunset Mayor Krieger: We haven't specifically discussed Barranca and Holt. There were some revisions by this Council. But we are basically discussing Vincent, Lark Ellen, Azusa,and-Hollenbeck. Mr. Hoy, Mr. Schaeffer, Mr. Bartel]_, we appreciate your being here. -27- C.C. 1/16/67 Page Twenty -Eight (Conclusion of meeting with representatives of State Division of Highways) Mayor Krieger: Council is now in session. Council reports. Councilman Gleckman: Annexation. I would like to hold up the hearing on Annexation 195 for 90 days, the hearing to be held open in order to give the opponents the maximum amount of time for protest so that we as a City know this particular area does want to come in on this with the City of West Covina. Mayor Krieger: Do you have the date for hold over? Councilman Gleckman: May 8th. Mayor Krieger: Councilman Gleckman moved that the protest for annexation of 195 be held over to May 8, 1967. Is there a second? Councilman Gillum: I second it. Councilman Nichols: I would hope that would be reflected in the press as an overt act on the part of the City Council. Since this will be held over to a later Council meeting, why not make this motion at that time? Councilman Gleckman: If this is the intent of the Council, wouldn't it be better for us to make it at this time? Get the press release, and for those who show up at the meet- ing of the 23rd, make that same announcement at that same hour, and then do it. Mayor Krieger: Upon vote, motion carried. Mayor Krieger: I think this is a better way to do it. Is there further discussion? Other reports? Councilman Gillum: Mr. Mayor, we're having our meeting with our Central Business District at 10:30 A.M „ Wednesday morning. There will be decisions from the property owners if they want to participate. Councilman Snyder: I should get together with you regarding the Citizens' Committee, because I think all your committees there will save you a lot of time. Mayor Krieger: Maybe I can schedule a meeting Friday morning. Councilman Snyder: 7:30 A.M. Mayor Krieger: Okay. Anything else? No use going into this committee of Wednesday night. We had about 65 people, there was a nice turn -out. Also, the Citizens Committee on swimming pools will meet Wednesday night. Thursday night I'll report on that. Mr. Aiassa: We're going to have the setting up of a grand opening the 15th:of February on Azusa Avenue, and we want to make this a pretty good publicity shot. �:� C.C. 1/.16/67 Mr. Aiassa: 0 Mayor Krieger: Page Twenty -Nine Mr. Claridy was here tonight. I want an award session and a final report. Let's have a motion to close the meeting. Motion was made to adjourn the meeting of January 16, 1967 by Councilman Gleckman and seconded by Councilman Gillum. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED Z21 /Z 7 Mayor -29-