Loading...
01-30-1967 - Regular Meeting - Minutes• MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 30, 1967. The adjourned meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Krieger at 7-. 3 5 o'clock P . M . , in the West Covina Ci ty Hall. Councilman Nichols led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL^ Present: Mayor Krieger, Councilmen Gillum and Nichols. Councilman Snyder arrived at 7: 40, Councilman Gleckman at 7: 45. Others Present,. George Aiassa, City Manager Robert Flotten, City Clerk Herman R. Fast, Public Service Director Owen Menard, Planning Director George Zimmerman, Assistant City Engineer Don Russell, Administrative Assistant Ray Windsor, Administrative Assistant: Harry Peacock_, Administrative Aide Harry Williams, City Attorney (arrived at 7. 40) SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY WIDENING Mayor Krieger,. You have before you a very thorough report that has been circulated over the weekend. Today a letter came out over Mr. Aiassa's signature on the status of frontage road. Is there anything you want to add verbally Mr.-Aiassa? (Answer: no) Then gentlemen suppose we get into an area of discussion. Councilman Nichols: There is an overriding conflict that comes to my attention in studying the material and I would like clarification. In the memo on the very beginning dated January 27, the second paragraph states that "it is the firm and unanimous opinion of the City Manager, etc. that the City Council can not be given reliable assurance that the State. couldn't so widen the Freeway and completely ignore the City of West Covina in so doing through the use of the existing '53 agreement." In going through the material we come to the next conclusion which is a January 23rd letter from the City Attorney to the City Council, which would be four days prior to the January 27th communication. The January 23rd states a number of points of interest, but in summation it states "in my opinion the Freeway Agreement of June 29, 1953, has been completed and does not pertain to the proposed widening" - this is in direct conflict of course to the first mentioned. Under paragraph 5 of that report it states '° .. ..... it is most probable that the frontage 'roads have become City streets At the end of the report, last page, last four lines, it says ".....If on the other hand the widening of the street could only be accomplished by closing any city streets including frontage, even though they were to be relocated, an agreement with the City of West Covina would be required. " Now, despite all that has gone, throughout the report and various communications, we still come back to this point that staff communicates with us on the 27th, that it is a firm and unanimous opinion of staff and the city attorney that the State could go ahead under the ' 53 agreement and do the whole job. • C. C� 1/30/67 SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY WIDENING - Cont'd. Page 2 Mro Aiassa- The January 23rd comments were made by the City Attorney, in the sense, I think, that he was advising council of the Highway Code strictly. After council received this letter we were directed by them to come back with a more concise and detailed report. In the last report dated the 27th you received a copy of the State Highway Code and in. this the three of us spent almost 2 hours going through all facets of the factual law. When Mr. Williams prepared on the 23rd he was preparing strictly without analysis to the agreement of ' 53 , We applied facts and figures of. the ' 53 agreement to code and the law and there is some real complex interpretations. The reason for the variance is due to the fact that we had not been able to sit down with Mr. Williams and discuss this in detail previously, Councilman Nichols- I understand, but I assume he was able to avail himself to some of the material. Your statement of the 27th is the "firm and unanimous opinion that no definite assurance.... " well, no one can give anyone 18definite assurance" of anything except to taxes and death, ..... 0 ...But did it remain the opinion of the City Attorney that in his opinion that the City has in fact assumed jurisdiction and operation of these streets and in fact a new agreement would be necessary? Mr. . Aiassa- There are two provisions to this law, We actually made an application. Acpording to the law the State made an offer of the frontage roads, in fact two offers. One was for maintenance of the roads. o . o . . Mayor Krieger- Mr. Nichols is not after historical facts, except between January 23rd and January 27th, please restrict it to that time. Councilman Nichols- All. I really want to know is did the City Attorney change his position in its entirety so that his memo to this council is no longer in fact? Mr. Aiassa- I would suggest you disregard the memo of the 23rd and use the memo of the 27th. (A ttorney Harry Williams arrived at 7 - 4 2 p . m . ) Councilman Nichols. The other question I would have is this. Normally when we subdivide in the City they are required to debd P lots to the City in various locations where property fronts a public street. Mr. Aiassa- The only required time is if there is a future street. This is to protect us Councilman Nichols. Are there any areas in the City of West Covina adjacent to the frontage roads or that might be preempted by the location of frontage roads where the City has any title to the land? Mr. Aiassa- I can't answer your question exactly ® unless we do a strict title search. Councilman Nichols - Mr. Williams, can one government jurisdiction condemn land of another? w • C. C. 1/30/67 PAGE 3 SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY WIDENING - Cont'd. Mr. Williams: Yes. Councilman Nichols: Can the State condemn city property for highway purposes? Mr. Williams: Yes. Councilman Nichols: Could the State condemn city streets for highway purposes? Mr. Williams: Yes, for highway purposes. Councilman Nichols: What is the difference then between this answer you give me and the answer with regard to.the Freeway closing city streets? Mr. Williams: When I say they can, I don't mean that in any given circumstance that it is a certainty they could. The City could condemn a State highway. Between two public agencies it is up to the Court to determine which is the paramount public use and for the greatest public welfare. It would require a court determination between two conflicting public agencies. For example, the State if you will recall, condemned land through Griffith Park some time ago. The State could condemn land through a school; on the other hand, the school could condemn land of the State. Councilman Nichols: Would the right of eminent domain be applicable? Mr. Williams: Yes. When two public bodies are involved the Court must determine which use would serve the public best. Councilman Nichols: There wouldn't be any immediate possession of the party attempting to acquire the land from the other agency? Mr. Williams: No. Councilman Nichols: The question I raised was relative to your communication of January 23rd, before you arrived, as compared to the staff's on January 27th. In the initial communication you stated the Freeway agreement of 1953 was completed and if the Freeway necessitated closing of any city streets or portion thereof of city streets, it would require a new agreement. The communi- cation of January 27th gave the unanimous opinion of the staff and City Attorney that the work could be continued under the 1953 agreement and no additional agreement would be necessary. My question was, did you have complete concurrence and does it supercede the totality of opinion given to the Council on the 23rd? Mr. Williams: Without knowledge of existing facts the statement of the 23rd was made based on the opinion of law. The statement of the 27th is supposed to have been written after examining the facts and determining it would be possible for the State to increase the width of the Freeway without closing any additional streets; therefore, there is no conflict between the two. Councilman Nichols: The memo indicates that they could pro- ceed to do this adjusting even if it required shifting frontage roads, etc., under the 1953 agreement. Ce Co 1/30/67, PAGE 4 SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY WIDENING Cont'd. 'Mr. Williams, In the letter of the 23rd I had not determined the factual situations as to whether or not what was proposed now could be done under the '53 agreement. In the January 27th communication it was the conclusion that the mere addition of an additional line on the Freeway in each direction with the necessary adjustments to on and off ramps could be done within the scope of the '53 agreement without changing it, Councilman Nichols, Even though this might conceivably involve the relocation of the Frontage Roads when you, stated these roads had become the property of the City? It stated "it is most probable that the Frontage Roads have now become city streets. If Mr. > Williams, As I stated when I wrote the memo of January 23rd, I did not have knowledge of the factual situation. Councilman Nichols, But there were certain facts that had been brought to your, attention in reading the files, the material at hand, from a legal standpoint that indicated to you that these streets had probably become city streets ? Mr. Williams, But I had not read all the files Councilman Nichols: Have you read in detail the January 27th memo? Mr. Williams: Yes. Councilman Nichols: Then you would concur entirely in that memo and it super - ceded your memo of January 23rd? Mr. Williams, To the extent there is a conflict, I am saying it was done without study or knowledge of the actual factual situation because I had not seen all the facts :at that time Mayor Krieger, While on the memo of the 27th, I would like to direct the staff to the second page, paragraph beginning with the word "secondly.. e , u If and the last sentence "it is believed ... , e This sentence I find utterly fascinating. Do you really mean what you -are saying in this sentence? You have a double negative, but when we clear it up, I still. don't believe that is what you want to mean. Mr. Aiassa: "It is believed that it is unlikely if the State moved over the Frontage Road the required distance and then reopened such would not be considered to be a permanent closing of a city street" Mayor Krieger, Do you really mean "not:" - if you are going to use the word "unlikely" ? Mr. Williams: The word "not" should not be in there. ' It is believed that it is unlikely if the State moved over the Frontage Road the required distance and then reopened such would be considered < , . o , . " No, "not" should be in there Mayor Krieger, Let's belabor the point then. "It is believed that it is likely if the State moved over, the Frontage Road the required distance and then reopened .such would not be . , o . " this would not be considered to a closing of a city street o Do you mean that is unlikely that such Co Co 1/30/67 PAGE 5 SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY WIDENING - Cont`d. would not be considered, or it is unlikely that such would be? Councilman Gleckman' I get the point. 'Mr. Williams' Let's forget the sentence and talk about the point. Mayor Krieger' But this is the point I am talking about. 'Mr. Williams' I can see your point the sentence is not very clear. The point I think is this, the 1953 agreement does not designate dimensions or exclude locations, merely there will be a freeway and Frontage Road, on each side at certain locations. Assuming the Frontage Roads have become city streets the question could then arise if they are city streets would the State have the power to move the frontage r:pad say 10 or 20 feet, whatever you wish, and reopen and if in doing so, would this be in violation of their code? And to quote from that which the State will not do - "no city street or county highway shall be closed either directly or indirectly by the construction of the freeway except pursuant to such agreement or while temporarily necessary for reconstruction operations. " The purpose of this sentence is to say, there isn't any case on the subject, so it can't be proved, but the opinion is if the same width of frontage r.:pad were provided and since the agreement doesn't give exact locations, and the State provided that width but moved it 10 or, 20 feet: or whatever, the State would stall be in compliance with the agreement and it would not be the permanent closure of a city street... which is prohibited by section 100.2 of the State Code. Councilman Nichols' If the closing of a street and the furnishing of another, in lieu thereof -- if you can, move it 20 or 30' , why can't the same legal analysis apply for moving it 50, 100 or 1.000°? Mr. Williams; I can't prove the point you are raising. I would think it would not be. This agreement puts it adjacent to the freeway, and this relocated frontage road would comply with that agreement just as much as the place where it is now located. Mayor- Krieger-, The sentence then as intended would state "it is believed that if the State merely moves over the frontage road the required distance and then reopened o .... " such would not be considered a permanent closing of the city street? Mr. Williams' That is the intent. Councilman Snyder' We seem to be making a great deal over the acceptance or non -acceptance of the frontage road, whether owned by the State or. City... aren't we in fact grasping at straws ? If this is the final negotiation argument we have m do we have any more negotiating power .if we had accepted the streets? According to the opinion of the staff and city attorney, we don't - so what makes the difference? Mr.. Williams' The difference would be the subject that Mr. Nichols just raised - that it might be held by a court that to close the northerly 20' and open an additional 20' on the south, actually constitutes a closure of a city street. The exact wording is "rno city street shall be closed It is an opinion and not an established facto • Co C� 1/30f67 PAGE 6 Maybe your, opinion is different and maybe it is better but that would not be .she closing of a street, supposing they t. po k 20' and didn't reopen o 0 0 Councilman Snyder. Linder the law you could make them reopen Mr. Williams. I don't thinly. there is any question but what they would add the same width, Supposing they tools 10' off and didn't close, there isn't a court: decision on the subject in the State Councilman Snyder. There is then a doubt whether in fact we have a negotiating power.- with the State. The best you can: say is that we might have Mr. Williams. That is wh at I am conceding now. The former statement was it would make no difference if the frontage road was State or city property. In my opinion this is an accurate statement. If it is a city street conceivably a court would hold that it is the closing of the city street if some part of it were closed even though an equal amount was added at State expense and the State opened it when the freeway was finished. But if width was removed only, in my opinion this would not constitute the closing of the frontage road (Councilman Snyder then asked for the report the staff was to present to Council regarding all of the positive things the City would get out of the proposed proposal from the State. Discussion followed pertaining to the report, council was not satisfied, wanted to know exactly the positive advantages that would be received by the City. Mr. Zimmerman was asked to enumerate the positives.) Mr. Zimmerman, Cameron Avenue interchange, presently designated Orange & Pacific interchange., would become a direct interchange with the cross street; Sunset: would be identical under either agreement; some street closures between Sunset: and Vincent; which would lower the amount of traffic at; the north frontage road. on Vincent, there would be a par -clover design between the freeway and Vincent Avenue at that location and the north side of the freeway under the '67 agreement; there would be -a closure on the north. frontage road between Vincent and Lark Ellen which would prevent some congestion, there would be an undercross.ing at Lark Ellen. instead of ramps to and from the freeway; very little changes in the south frontage road; no north frontage road connecton at Lark Ellen at all.. Easterly to Azusa .is supposed to have a design identicalto the north side of Vincent,: and Citrus, and Barranca. On the south. side you would have a direct connection to Azusa; east bound would go directly on to Azusa instead of the present loop. On, ramp eastbound traffic would be approximately the same under either agreement; frontage road on south side of Azusa would go through a residential area west of Azusa rather than it presently does. (Councilman Snyder asked if Mr.. Hoy stated that he would participate in the cu.l de sac of that: one street? Mr. Aiassa said it was so stated in the minutes.) Proceeding easterly to Hollenbeck we have the same situation as at: Lark Ellen, except: no changes in the frontage road either north or sough of freeway, we would have an undercrossing under the freeway; going on to Citrus we would have the identical- to the other interchanges, would have a direct connection. to the freeway if going southbound instead of being intertwined; on. the south side of the street the proposal under either plan -almost identie�al excepting eastbound off ramp goes directly southbound to Citrus instead of taking a loop as it now does; going east to Barranca the traffic under the new proposal would make a .Loop on the southeast traffic to go nouthbound; to go southbound would have almost direct connection; the northeast traffic would again connect directly to Barranca; the frontage road C. C. 1j30/67 PAGE i. -would be realigned up to the south edge of Ward's; at Grand we have an entirely new interchange- with loops and ramps on the two westerly; on the north frontage road would be continuous and intertwine through the ramps and be continuous; the south frontage road would be made discontinuous at Grand; there would be a cul de sac at • the southeast quadrant which would provide traffic facilities to the property between the freeway and Holt Avenue property east of Grand Avenue, the main difference being the present on ramp which is located half a mile east, would be pulled back and there would be some modification between the ramps and frontage road. Councilman Snyder, In addition is the State offering some drainage improvements on frontage roads? Mr. :Pasta There are certain aspects under design that normally are not included in a freeway agreement, whether that would be put in or not under the agreement we are not sure, but we have had certain assurances that there would be, This is normally taken care of during the design period. Councilman Snyder, In essence the State has come in, with a proposal, far in excess of what they had to do under the law, perhaps they dial .it for various reasons. It seems to me that what faces the council right now is the reality of the situation - whether we have any negotiating power to ask for more or accept what we have been offered in good grace and co operation and accept the responsibility for the situation at Center Street and see if it can be solved, as we should have done a long time ago. In my opinion the State has more than exceeded what we could have expected and I feel we should accept it and set out to solve those internal east -west traffic problems now. Grasping at a straw when you are trying to determine whether the frontage roads have or have not been accepted as a negotiating power _, I think it has all been used up. Councilman Gillum, I appreciate your feelings but I disagree. I have material going back to 1940 and from then until the current time it seems we have always been nice and giving in to the State Some mistakes have been made that are not City mistakes some have been designed by the State. So I don't see how you can say the State is giving something. I think they are trying to rectify a mistake. Councilman Snyder, Well what are you going to do about it? Councilman Gillum, I am not going to accept it, if I stand alone. I think we have a moral obligation to the citizens. I object strongly to a state officer. coming in and saying - take it or else. I think it is time somebody stood up and said to the State, this is a city of 60, 000 people and we are entitled to consideration - and this is what we want, e . o ....... And I disagree with many other things; two stop lights at Azusa. I think we have a very competent staff and the State is telling us in a sense that the `-people we have working know nothing and the great people in Sacramento know everything. It was stated that we have had assurance that we were going to get money for the storm drains, do we have anything in writing? Mr. :Past, No. This is always taken care of during the design period. Councilman Snyder. There is only one thing you can do to an _opponent and that is fight him. But if you work with him you can accom- plish something. We are setting the State `up as an opponent and that is a mistake, especially when we are in the weak position. They are giving us quite a bit C. C. 1/30/67 PAGE 8 SAN BERNARD.iNO FREEWAY WIDENING - Cont'd. (Counc.il.rrr�on. Snyder and Gillum continued discussing. Mention was made that'San Francisco stopped the freeway through their City and Mr. Williams explained that the situation was somewhat different: there, they had to close streets and San IP Francisco would not sign an agreement allowing them to do so so they could not go ahead., Councilman Gillum then brought up the subject of the spacing of the interchanges and Mr. Fast related experiences with the facet of interchanges, stating also "that so far as the spacing of interchanges it is one they do not have to live with but would like to if' possible.) Councilman Snyder- The other night at our meeting with the State we were dis- cussing interchange by interchange and the fact of the matter is in our final consensus here we had really little difference of opinion on any interchange except Vincent. In my opinion the bottle- neck at Center. Street and the Vincent interchange is the one big stone that sticks in the craw of everyone in the City . If that were solved then some of our opposi- tion to the total. freeway agreement would be lessened. Because again none of you had much difference of opinion on any of the other interchanges. I think we should consider rising a traffic engineer to come in and attempt to solve this problem. We accomplished this at Valinda and Glendora and Vincent when we hired a traffic engineering firm to come in and solve this traffic problem. The City and the State should together hire outside traffic engineers to come in and make recommendations for solving the bottleneck at Vincent and Center streets. If we can solve the problem of Center Street and then go to the State with hopeful cooperation on the rest of the interchanges, I don't think we will, get everything we want but I think we will get more than we will get if you take the antagonistic attitude. We will end up- with nothing which is what we now have. This is different than the San Francisco Freeway - this is built, there they stopped it from being built. Just what negotiating power do we have? Councilman Gillum- I am talking about the moral obligation this council has to the City. This council is now fighting some of the problems made previously, and in about 8 years there are going to be 5 other gentlemen sitting up here trying to figure out what: they are going to get the State to pay for something they didn't do. They will say then "Why didn't they have enough guts to stand up to the State? " Councilman Snyder- In the first place this council doesn't have the jurisdic- tion to tell them - you haven't got the power. You have to work within the limitation of your power. Councilman Gillum- But I object to a State Agent coming in and saying they will do it with or without our consent ............. Councilman Gleckman- Mr. Mayor and Council, all I can say is I think both Councilmen Gillum and Snyder have good points. I think this city has cooperated with the State Division of Highways in the past and by so doing they are in the predicament they are now. Going along with Councilman Gillum's thinking, these are things a community has before them now because of our lack of standing up to the State previously, and because of 'our cooperation with the State previously. But as Dr. Snyder says, it is here, we have it and what do we do now? Do we sit down and co- operate or do we sit down and say - look we have a problem because we cooperated with you, we are willing to again but we have to have some of these problems solved that we got by cooperation with you - I disagree with that type of delivery. ....... I am not interested in stopping them but at the same time I am not interested in going down. without a fight. We are five elected officials to look out for the people of this City and not settle for just what we can get out of the State. We may lose . the fight but I would rather do that then. just go out and say anything you C. C. 1/30/67 PAGE 9 can suggest we will take.. I said the other night and I say again, the proposal we gave the State was compromise enough. Councilman Snyder: It seems to me I should refute these as I go along. Part of the interchanges at Pacific and at Barranca are outgrowths of Victor Gruen's proposal and part of the Citrus, Azusa are part of the compromise proposal - I object very strongly to any statement that they are throwing us a bone. We are not simply acceptingwhat the State gave us. The Pacific -Cameron underpass is an outgrowth of Victor Gruen's proposal. This underpass was very expensive and it represented a compromise between the City and the State. Everything we are getting here they are meeting us halfway or more. You can fight them and you can lose the whole thing, then what will you say to thevoters? When we had the big battle with Forest Lawn, I didn't want them here any more than anybody else. But when we finally faced realities, I voted then in the minority to compro- mise with Forest Lawn, and if that had been accepted we could have had the whole 1400 acres and Forest Lawn exactly where it is now. Many people said don't give in, fight them - we did, and we don't have any- thing to show for it. The point is,the realities of the situation face you and it doesn't do anything to tilt windmills - you just go around. Councilman Gleckman: We are talking about this City Council taking on the obligation of planning the future of the on and off ramps and the interchanges of this city. That is exactly what we are talking about. Now, if you would like to put obligation into it, that is a different light as to how far should we • cooperate with the State Division of Highways to........, that is another situation. I am saying to you, Doctor, that as I look at what has been proposed and the State has said to us, that I don't entirely agree with some of their traffic patterns and taking a left hand turn off the freeway into some of our internal streets, which they themselves say is not their obligation once it leaves the freeway, that they couldn't care less if it causes a traffic problem, and then.here they tell us the interchange is their responsibility for 4 years and we ask about Vincent Avenue and they say it is too new and they can't come back and redo it. And when is it too old, after the 5 year obligation is over with? Then we can't make them come back and do something. I dont under- stand their two-way method of obligation to the city. Councilman Snyder: Mr. Schaeffer stated explicitly that the design which you object to at Azusa and Citrus they have found works the best and is used almost exclusively even where they could use a full clover leaf. He said where they have full clover leafs they end up having to put in traffic lights. We have to operate under the law both in our jurisdictional rights and what can be done pragmatically. If their five year guarantee applies to the Center Street intersection, then the city should put pressure to help solve this problem under this law, if it exists. Asfar as the Vincent Avenue interchange south, it works fine. It is the Center Street intersection that is the trouble. Councilman Gleckman: You didn't answer me about their obliga- tion that they claim they have for 5 years on an interchange and when we ask them to do something about the Vincent interchange they said they couldn't do something on it because they expended funds so recently that the State and Federal government would not come back and do anything there, so I am asking you, Doctor, where is their 5 year responsibility on an interchange? That is all I ask you. Councilman Gillum: The thing that concerns me greatly is the other night when these gentlemen were here they told us how they ran surveys and projections to 1990 of the traffic flow in areas, etc., and about an hour later we started asking C. C. 1/30/67 SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY WIDENING m Cont°d. PAGE 10 about this freeway and they said it was designed for an agricultural area and was de- signed in 1949, so what I am trying to say is if they didn't have enough foresight when they designed one in 1940 how can I rely on their foresight for designing one that takes us into 1990. Councilman Gleckmano Let's say we accept everything the State has proposed would you Doctor as a representative of this City and this Council, be satisfied to accept everything they have suggested? Councilman Snyder- What alternative do I have? Councilman Gleckmano If you had an alternative would you take it? Councilman Snyder.- Yes ... Councilman Gleckmano That is exactly what we are saying then. You are not happy about it but if you have no alternative then we have to accept. Councilman Snyder- The alternative we have is this m that this council and this city grows up and accepts the responsibility for the East- West mess at Vincent and on the south side of the freeway and take positive steps to solve that by getting our, own traffic engineers. That is the alternative. With that mess cleaned up, I think you have a prbtty good freeway. (Mayor Krieger called for a 10 minute recess. When the Council again was in session Mayor Krieger asked that each councilman state his opinion.) Councilman Gillum- I am sorry I cannot accept this agreement, I disagree with Dr. Snyder°s phi.losphy that we have to accept. I don't believe the State is giving us a thing that doesn't belong to us in the first place and to rectify some mistakes that were made in the past. Mayor Krieger- I want to understand what the alternatives are, what are you fighting for? Councilman Gleckmano I want better circulation patterns off the freeway into our• internal streets thhn what they are offering us. That is our major problem _ .internal circulation, and in my mind the worst of the problems . Mayor Krieger- What do you want at Service and Pacific? Councilman Gleckmano I am satisfied with Service and Pacific. Mayor Krieger- I want to understand what everybody on this council stands for so when it comes time to vote I know what the alternatives are. Service and Pacific is acceptable. Is there anybody that disagrees with Service and Pacific. I will assume that to be negative. Sunset? Anybody disagree with Sunset? Councilman Gillum: I do. Councilman Gleckmano I am not thrilled with it. C. C. 1./30/67 SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY WIDENING - Con.t'd. PAGE 11 Mayor Krieger What would you like to go to the State with on Sunset? Councilman Nichols, I disagree with so much of it, that for me to attempt to sit here and go down the freeway and say what I would like the Stage to agree. with would be an unfair consumption of time. Mayor Krieger, What if tomorrow morning just by chance the State should come to us and say m overnight we have reconsidered and you are right, we are prepared to design this freeway anyway you want it. Now by accident we all agree on Service and Pacific, but Sunset you don't like.... . Councilman Nichols, You are posing an eventuality that won't occur, so I don't have to be prepared to design the freeway. I have taken the position that would be somewhat comparable with Council- man Gleckman. The internal circulation must be solved before everything else. This is the heart of the situation. I am willing to compromise on many of my basic wants but that is the one area I am not willing to compromise. Mayor Krieger, Do you agree basically with what Councilman Nichols said Mr. Gl.eckma.n? Councilman Gleckman° Yes, when it comes to Sunset Avenue. I think Orange and Pacific is a definite improvement: over what we have now. Sunset Avenue they haven't -proposed anything, we haven't fought them for anything ® unless we want to get into a major change there, a lot would have to depend. on the Civic Center as to the ingress or regress we want there. We haven't discussed this subject with the staff. I would like to hear from the staff if they were designing it, so I could try and improve on it or accept it, rather than redesign it on my own. Mayor Krieger, How close to the truth is Dr. Snyder's statement that if Vincent south was solved with the State - is the rest of the Freeway agreement acceptable? Councilman Gleckman, No. Mayor Krieger., What: points thrown into the balance of this whole program would then make this agreement acceptable? Vincent Avenue south is one of them. What other? Councilman Gleckman, I would have to be convinced and the staff says that it is true, but the closing of Lark Ellen ties in with the type of interchange we have at Vincent and Azusa. I am not convinced that by closing Lark Ellen if we don't get proper circulation at Vincent I don't see any possible way that: you can close Lark Ellen and still say to the people on Glendora Avenue in that section of the City, don't worry about it we have given you proper ingress and regress because we just cut off another access to them without giving them any relief. . Mayor Krieger, If there was a remedy for south Vincent, is Lark Ellen closure acceptable? Councilman Gleckman, Yes. The same thing with Azusa. I am not happy with the system Dr. Snyder alluded too, that the State says is so great. I don't think it is great for Azusa Avenue. Coming Ca Co 1/30/67 PAGE 12 SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY WIDENING - Cont°do from the north side of Azusa going west and making a left hand turn on Azusa to go south, it doesn't make sense to me, If that area develops up the hill you are going to have a lot of people wanting to go south on Azusa Mayor Krieger- We have talked about South Vincent and south Azusa are you critical of north Azusa ? Councilman Gleckman- I am critical of north Azusa coming off the off ramp going west on to Azusa Mayor Krieger- So we have Vincent south and Azusa north and south, how about anything else along the freeway? Councilman Snyder- If they put in a par-clo _ Idesign there you have to have a long turn and if they do that then it is mandatory that they widen the underpass Councilman Gleckman- I am glad you brought that up Doctor, that is another thing I am against. I say they should widen the freeway now and not wait until we get in trouble. Mayor Krieger- What about underchanges? Councilman Gleckman- I am not particularly thrilled with their design going .east on Azusa going on the south side. If this is the best the State can offer us then I have news - I became a traffic engineers You have to make a lefthand turn to get on the freeway, I disagree with it. I have no objection to what they are proposing at Hollenbeck, as long as we get the proper interchanges at Azusa and Citrus. I also disagree with their recommendation on the north part of Citrus, similar to Azusa. North and south Citrus both. I understand why they did it, for economic reasons and not traffic design. At Barranca, on the north side where they want to bring Service road up to Ward's they are considering putting in 3 signals. One at Ward's, one at Barranca and Service, and one south of the Freeway. I am against that, I can see a tremendous backup North. Barranca, today, is one of the worst traffic areas in our city. And if we agree with all of this we are going to have to take the initiative and design our own east west streets, because there is no relief,if accepting them,for our traffic situation in the city. Mayor Krieger- Russ how about you, are there any points on those interchanges that you would exclude or include when we talk about internal traffic situations ? Councilman Nichols- My attitude is one of being willing to compromise with the State, therefore, I will not stand in objection to some of the additional areas that Councilman Gleckman refers to One would be the lack of certain improvements at Lark Ellen but I think so vital is the need that we improve our circulation within the major areas of our City that I would be willing to accept the agreement without some of these other problems solved, provided that the circulation within the areas mentibned are substantially improved. Basically, to being able to tying together the West Covina Center and and the West Covina Plaza, the south Vincent area, to enable people to travel back and forth through our shopping areas. I think it is almost impossible now and is driving many people away from our shopping areas C. C. 1/30/67 PAGE 13 SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY WIDENING - Cont°d. Mayor Krieger-. Would you be in agreement if there was a solution on south Vincent? • Councilman Nichols-. I would accept the agreement if there was a solution on south Vincent. I would not be happy with it, but I would be willing to compromise on'these other areas. I would even be willing to trade off a few underpasses, that I think are not helping us to solve the major problem that needs solving in this community. Councilman Gillum-. I think Leonard has covered most of the areas that I object to. The additional traffic lights ..... I agree with Mr. Nichols that. I feel very strongly about someway of: tying our, business districts together. Unfortunately I am not inclined to say I will, give away many things to gain a very small thing. We have a history of doing this and I cannot be a part of it. I feel very strongly in these areas that Mr. Nichols and Mr. Gleckman mentioned, that we need some help. I don't agree with their ideas of traffic lights at these off ramps. Councilman Gleckman-. Add one thing. I am thinking in my own mind,, when we talk about our problem being east -west, I am thinking of many people that live north of the freeway ® who will not go south of the freeway to your business district because of the congestion and lack of how to get to and from there. We are stressing our east -west streets which is great for the people .soufh' of the freeway but I think we are missing a boat someplace without considering the people north who are going some other place because we don't have access and when we talk about improving the Vincent interchange I would like that kept in mind,, that we are going to have to make some type of thorough fare to get north of the freeway. I would like to keep that in mind when we talk about the freeway. The improvement would have to be, made to keep them coming from north of the freeway, Councilman Snyder-. I didn't have a chance Mr. Mayor to answer your question. I agree basically with Mr. Gleckman except I think strong representation and a cooperative attitude should be made for widening of the underpasses of, the major streets and ought to provide for the long lefthand turn that the par- clover design requires, and I think if we point this, out to the State, that a long lefthand turn is needed that they will see the wisdom of this. We can't make them. see it but we can put in as strong factual words as we can. So if we accept the par -clover designs at these major intersections for the long lefthand turn we have to have widening of the underpasses which .brings us to Vincent south. We all agree this is a bottleneck. We are in disagreement. as to whose responsibility it is. Are we going to fight or lose the battle on making the State think this is their responsibility? I had some communica- tion verbally and secondhand fromMr. Schaeffer that, the State would participate in a traffic study of that interchange and circulation between the two, and I would like to ask if it would be appropriate for the City Manager to ask them if they would participate in hiring a traffic engineer to help solve that particular problem. Maybe this comes under that 5 year guarantee Councilman Gleckman-. I misunderstood, I understand now that the 5 year guarantee is only on traffic signals and not on interchanges Councilman Snyder, Still. it was some indication that they might be willing to help us solve the problem, even though we are going to have to pay to solve the bottleneck at Vincent. There are some firms that possibly could come up with solutions. We cant put this on the C. C. 1./30/67 PAGE 14 SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY WIDENING - Cont'd. staff:. We are asking for a study on a specific item and I think we should go ahead and interview firms to do this and •��rr the meantime see if we can get the State to participate, but I think we will have to go ahead whether they participate or not. Mayor Krfegero A week ago when we had the letter from the City Attorney, on the basic laws applicable to this situation, I did not feel this council had the tools at hand to arrive at any kind of a valued judgment as to where to go with it. In the week intervening the staff has compiled this folder and they have had a chance to focus on the specifics, which is not: a matter of policy but a matter of professional judgment in their areas, `f6 City Attorney, the City Manager-, joined by the Public Service Director. Before we can go beyond the point of what we ask we ought to digest what we were given. It seems to me a practical matter and as a legal matter these frontage roads are not probably city streets because the procedure that can resolve them in being city streets was not pur- sued by the Division of Highways or, the City of West Covina. So there is a strong probability they are not city streets . Secondly, the strong probability is that the State Division, whether they might want to or not, could widen the freeway to four lanes east and west; without a separate agreement with West Covina. This doesn't seem to me to be a judgment conclusion, philosphical conclusion, but: a factual opinion based. on the legal opinion of the City Attorney, and our City Manager , and the Public Service Director, so I think this council is faced with certain probabilities which represents the matter of policy and philosphy. Now, unfortunately, the forum we have to do it in is the least advantageous the public forum. The State Division does not have to operate under the same restrictions a . I think if we continue to face these people out in the public forum'in these discussions, we are going to draw to a point where we can only do one of two things, total acquiescence or total war, and I think the State Division, of Highways might be ill opposed to those two courses as much as we would be. I am somewhat inclined to believe in a total war there would not be a total victory for either, we would each tend to lose something that we are trying to achieve and that we would prefer- to have. The State, for example, under the 53 agreement would have to give us, and I think it is a probability from the City Attorney's report, as I read it, and the City Manager's report, as I read it, if they went' ahead in a total war and claimed their victory that it would provide some bitter fruits . G Lark Ellen and Hollenb.eck :they would be stuck with ramps they don'twant they would have to condemn some property that they would not have to condemn otherwise and would therefore .make it more costly. So it would be a bitter victory at best that they would be achieving, and I could take no particular consolation that the State has been forced to give us their pound of flesh and it hasn't really solved any of our problems in the process. It seems to me the philosphy enunciated by this Council. at various times is related to hawks and doves. The hawks don't want to fight: and the doves don't want to surrender. Because what we are all striving for is a solution to the problem. I do think the State Division would be open for further- and private negotiations on some of these subject matters,and this is why I was trying to focus on where we have our basic disagreements, and would be willing to recognize their limitations in'private as we are recognizing ours in public, and through such discussions on a very private level with them, the council, staff, and State representatives, perhaps the State people could go back to their representatives and we could return to this council with some type of an accommodation that solves some, but not all of our problems, but some and not all of the needs of the State of California, and everyone of us will find ourselves further ahead, - - then if we continue to pursue this blind policy. My suggestion is to take this matter out of the public council meetings and intopr•ivate discussions with the State Division of Highways. We have exhausted literally, figuratively and physically all possibilities of negotiation for these trouble spots we have in the City. Co Ca 1/30/67 PAGE 15 SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY WIDENING - Cont'da Councilman Snyder-, I would move that the Mayor and the staff be authorized to meet with authorized representatives of the State Division • of Highways to discuss our differences regarding the Freeway and the possibilities and report back to the Council I Motion seconded by Councilman Gleckmano Mayor Krieger asked if there was any further discussion. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor I will support the motion, only that the motion will go through as being one of some degree of consensus However, I believe there have been any number of prior meetings, informally, formally, accidentally, on purpose, staff level, council level - all with no final results. Nevertheless, my opinion has always been that these last couple of meetings that the State came into was a result of our inability to meet: in agreement with them on a staff level, but if you feel and other members of the council feel that further staff and council representation contact will be of assistance , I will agree. One thing we have at present is time, so I will spend that. Councilman Snyder-, In regard to the motion, I do feel again that widening of the underpasses is important and the south Vincent problem. Whether you can get them to accept any responsibility for this depends, but certainly we haven't had quite as informed a meeting with the State as we will this time. Councilman Gleckmano Also there are other things to be made a part of this agree- ment that this council should discuss and not leave up in the air as in the '53 agreement, such as a reversion of the frontage roads back to the City, the acquisition of the city of additional land that belies the freeway or at least controlled by this city within its city boundaries, the additional and surplus land .fronting onto the freeway and several other things that we should have spelled out to the State and not leave to chance, aside from the improvements and maintenance, lighting, etc. I think we have the poorest lighting of any section in this State. Those things should be spelled out in dealing with these people, because I have found from past performance that they will give you nothing unless you spell it out, in writing. Mayor Krieger-, Is there further discussion on the motion itself? We will then have a roll call vote Roll Call: AYES. Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Snyder, Gleckman and Mayor Krieger. NOES- ABSENT - Mayor Krieger. The motion carries, the vote is unanimous Councilman Snyder- I asked the staff to give me a list of traffic consultants and I would like to move at this time that the City Manager obtain proposals from these consultants for the study of the solution of the bottleneck at Center Street and Vincent Mayor Krieger. Is there a second to the motion? Councilman Gleckmano I will second it to get it on the floor for discussion. And Doctor, don't you think "feasible" solution would be a better term? • C. C. 1/30/67 SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY WIDENING - Cont'd. PAGE 16 Councilman Snyder: If you go back to the contract drawn by Victor Gruen-, you will find that there was one thing left out of the contract Councilman Gleckman: That is what I am talking about .... Councilman Snyder: I think the word solution is adequate without further adjectives. Councilman Gleckman: I was just trying to make the comment that whatever we engage in let's say "workable" and not just a solution. (Further discussion. Feeling was to add to the motion "best possible solution") Mayor Krieger: Dr. Snyder are you: adding "best possible solution" to your motion? Councilman Snyder: Yes. Mayor Krieger: Councilman Gleckman are you seconding the. motion .with. the addition of "best possible solution"? Councilman Gleckman: Yes Councilman Nichols: Doctor I am with you in spirit but your timing is off. Councilman Snyder: It has to be done and they are only going to come in with proposals, we don't have to accept them Councilman Gleckman: Wouldn't this hold up any freeway agreement that we might be able to make with the State ? Councilman Snyder: No they don't',even have to know about it. And it. might help .... Councilman Gleckman: Again I think you have the cart before the horse here. You are asking the Mayor to meet with the State and work out the problems and then you, want to hire a firm to do the same thing before we know what the State is going to do Councilman Snyder: Mayor Krieger: ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor Krieger: This does not preclude our asking the State to help, but if we have some talk on this it may mean that the State may help. Any further discussion? We will have a roll call vote. Councilmen Snyder, Gleckman . Councilmen Gillum, Nichols and Mayor Krieger. Motion fails. Is there further discussion on the matter? CITY MANAGER'S SPRING CONFERENCE Mr. Aiassa: l: need authorization to attend the annual Manager's meeting. It is for 3 days and in Palo Alto, February 8-9-10. C. Co 1/30/67 PAGE 17 CITY MANAGER'S SPRING CONFERENCE - Cont'd. Mayor Krieger- Is there a motion authorizing the City Manager to attend? • Councilman Snyder; So moved Councilman Gleckman- Seconded. Mayor Krieger- Is there any objection? None, the motion stands approved. Councilman Gleckman- I would move Mr. Mayor that the City Manager be authorized for expenses an amount not to exceed $100.00 Seconded by Councilman Gillum. Mayor Krieger called for a roll call vote. -ROLL CALL- AYES- Councilman Gillum, Nichols, Snyder, Gleckman and Mayor Krieger. NOES- ABSENT. - Mayor Krieger- Motion carried. Vote is unanimous. Mayor Krieger- I have a letter from State Senator Richardson asking if we will provide him with a colored copy of our official city seal. Is there any objection? (No objection. Staff advised to send city seal. plaque.) (Mayor Krieger then asked the Councilmen if they had any items to r e port.) Councilman Gillum- I would like to report I had a meeting with Mr. Zartman of the Bank of America and he explained the items that I had questioned in the treasurer's report to my satisfaction. Councilman Nichols; No report. Councilman Gleckman- I attended a Human Relations Commission meeting the other evening. Dr. McColl was present and went into his particular plan for integration of housing andit was tremendous. I was impressed. Councilman Snyder- The General Plan Committee met last Wednesday night. Excellent turn -out, a very good cross section showed up. The next meeting is scheduled for February 8th. Organiza- tion will take place at that meeting. Mayor Krieger- I have had nothing but good reports on that Committee meeting. No further business? Motion for adjournment. Motion made and seconded for. adjournment. Meeting closed at 9. 30 p.m. , next meeting February 6th. 6 v - �d