Loading...
05-15-1967 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE -ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY' OF TEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA MAY 159 1967 The adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was called to order •by Mayor Krieger at 7035 o'clock P.M., in the Wept Covina City Hall Councilman Gillum led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Presents- Mayor Krieger, Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Gleckman, Councilman Snyder (arrived Others Present, George Aiassa, City Manager H. R. Fast. Public Service Director George Zimmerman, Ass°t. City Engineer Robert Gingrich, Recreation & Park Director Mayor Krieger, With regard to Item 4 m Commission Appoint- ments, it is appropriate and proper to discuss in executive session, so perhaps we can take all items except this E..,_d ,hen adj ourn . to an executive session, FREEWAY WIDENING AGREEMENT B&RR ANC A AVFNTI . N� ORTMA T OU n ail • Mayor Krieger, There was a_meeting.last Friday morning at the State Division of Highways in which the major participants were Mr. Hoy, Mr. Bartell, Mr. Telford, Mr..Fast, Mr. Zimmerman, Councilman Gleckman, myself, and a Mr. Putnam from the Sacramento office of the State Division of Highways, legal council for the State Division of Highways and various other functionaries performing certain functions for the Division of Highways. The major items that were discussed at this meeting, which was a follow ---up meeting to that held some months earlier with. Mr. Hoy, Mr, Schaeffer, Mr. Bartell and Mr. Putnam, was the subject matter of South Vincent Avenue, the widening of the underpass- es and the northeast quadrant of Barranca Avenue. We have a report from Mr. Telford having to do with the widening of,the underpasses which were of some concern to us on Azusa, Citrus and Vincent. If you will remember, orginally, the representatives of the State Division of Highways indicated they had no present plans for the widening of those underpasses. When I met with the State Division of Highways.the councils feelings were that these underpasses should be part of the freeway widening agreement9 that there had to be some discussion about the South Vincent Avenue problem and also the design characteristics of certain of these local streets bordering the freeway to their actual displacement and replacement had to be more firmly ironed out. During the discussion we had some months ago there seemed to be no reticence on the State Division of Highways part to redesign the local street • systems as to actual physical location as to wider radius for example and where we suggested they not be cul de sac but put through, there .was an acquiescence in feasibility of doing this. The major items that seemed to separate us seemed to be in the area of the three underpasses at South Vincent, and the State indicated they would explore this subject matter more fully within their Division and in Sacramento and the Bureau of Public Roads, that would have a great deal to do with the funding of these. 1 ADJ. C o C o 5m15-67 Page Two BARRANCA AVENUE NORTHEAST QUADRANT ® Continued Mr. Telford's comment to us Friday, when this meeting started is that adequate evidence has been presented for the widening of the underpasses, but it has not been fully carried through channels. He thought it would be approved but all.we could do at that • juncture was to wait. We have now received positive information from, the State that the Vincent and Azusa Avenue underpasses will, as part of the Freeway Agreement be widened to six lane facilities, subject only to final confirmation by the Bureau of Public Roads, The jury is still out on Citrus underpass as to whether or not this will be part of the package. As far as South Vincent is concerned the Bureau of Public Roads has indicated they are through, they will not participate anymore fully in this program' The staff of the State Division of Highways came up with two alternative proposals as far as design features are concerned ® we brought those back from the meeting. There was,.a price tag having to do with construction and not with acquisition right of way, attached to these alternatives. The final position seems to be it is going to be the City's responsibility if the City wants to do anything in that area having to do with new construction, except that the California Avenue hook ram pp would be, it seems, acceptable to the State Division of Highways, except the.State Division of Highways has it-s reservations as to what it is going to accomplish. Basically, I don't think they will impose any abjection to that being implemented. There was anew item of discussion, which I advised these gentlemen that the council had never.reached a con- sensus on, this.was the northeast quadrant of Barranca and the Freeway. Believe it is a fair statement that the State's position was that this • is a matter the City of West Covina will have to make up its mind about. They are not going to impose an requirement upon us as to the designs on the northeast quadrant baselon their response to us as to design features in the Freeway. In their opinion the proposal that was first submitted by the City to the State and then incorporated in the States proposal back to the City having to do with the northeast quadrant is still the best design feature. But, if this.City wants to take a position that we are adverse. to that design and have some other proposal in mind, they are not irrevocably committed to that quadrant° The fact remains that there is a great deal of money involved from their standpoint, there was some concern as to whether or not they then went back to the Bureau of Public Roads that this would be a substantial deviation from the package program that the State Division proposed-, which might cause the -Bureau of Public Roads to review the total program of design and participation, But I don't think they were convinced themselves and they certainly didn't make a convincing argument to us that this would be such a factor that'the Bureau of Public Roads might reconsider the entire package. I think it is a fair statement, although I am sure .Councilman .Gle.ckman will .have ..his .own c.omment.s to .make .on this, that: they are .going, to . o ok..t o us- as to what. d e .ign we .want. _f o.r that northeast quadrant and will probably follow our lead as to what the design ultimately will be of that northeast quadrant o: Barranca. So we.finally, by a long route, get down to this Barranca Northeast quadrant, The only thing I indicated to these gentlemen, and I think we owe it to them, is a design on this Barranca northeast quadrant so they and their staff can determine which way to proceed on this matter, • Presently they have initiated as you know the first steps of condemnation action to acquire the necessary land to carry out the design features of the existing proposed design features. They have to know if this.City is going to take a different stance so they can adjust their own procedures accordingly. I will be glad to answer questions as to general areas of discussion we have had with them, but the primary matter for our discussion and decision tonight has to do with the Barranca northeast quadrant. 2 i 0 0 Co Co ADJ. ® 5-15-67 BARRANCA AVENUE NORTHEAST QUADRANT ® Continued Page Three Councilman Gillum: When you are discussing this northeast quadrant they apparently indicated they would accept some proposal from us, as I. understand, as far as design? Mayor Krieger_: I think it is a fair question that they will allow the City to take the lead as far as the design of that quadrant and will accept our decision on it, Councilman Gillum: My next question then this doesn't relieve them of the five year responsibility. The only question I am after is in my -mind that we would come up with same type of design and find that we have made a mistake and theycome back and say - well fellows that is yours, You live with it. Mayor Krieger: The. consequences of an -error in this would be such that they indicated that it would probably involve a closing of the off ramp in that quadrant and a utilization solely for westbound access through Grand Avenue interchange, The state's responsibility as .I have finally been able to discern that on this five year program it really boils down to traffic installations, over ramps directly coming off the Freeway as they intersect your.street system. It. doesn't pertain to -coming in and redesigning, reconstructing or modifying the actual design rl&:s , it really boils down to this matter of signalization. Perhap-s the staff has a different analysis of -it, but that is mine. Is that a fair statement? Councilman Gi11um: Yes. In;our previous discussion this figure of one million dollars kept popping up? Mayor Krieger: Yes'- I pursued that question. What they were talking about was not one million dollars for the northeast quadrant, what they were talking about was approximately #400,000 in acquisition costs and approximately $800,000 in construction costs for the total of the quadrants in that Barranca interchange, Because of land use and the proposed land use since then they feel their acquisition costs were short of the mark, but one million dollars was not their figure for that one quadrant, Councilman Gleckman: I got a different impression. I think the question was explicitly asked by me When you talk about one million dollars are we talking about both quadrants or just the northeast and they said just the northeast quadrant. The rest of the staff was there, correct me if I am wrong.. Mayor Krieger* Well gentlemen? Mr. Fast: It is my understanding that the $400,000 and .Public Service Director #800,000 referred to was roughly the one million dollars and was for the entire Inter- change but that they now feel that was low due to their recent experience in,getting into -details on the northeast quadrant and that the acquisition price was going up, But I toohad the understanding, as the Mayor outlined, that all their discussions in regard to costs was for the entire Barranca Avenue interchange and not .just the northeast quadrant, Councilman Gleckman: I wasn't listening -if I. asked the question, Mayor Krieger: I remember you asking the question and I remember the initial response, which seemed to indicate they were talking about the northeast quadrant but when we asked them to take out their facts and figures and scratch pad 3 Co Co ADJ. - 5-15-67 Page Four BARRANCA AVENUE NORTHEAST QUADRANT Continued and present them for us, this one gentleman, whose name escapes me, but seemed to be the pencil pusher as far as the figures were concerned, I then realized they were talking about $400,000 and $800,000 and the whole set up. Councilman Gleckman: Again we are talking about apples and oranges and it doesn't really mean anything-, But to just clear the air a little bits I asked the question and the answer came directly ® that's the northeast quadrant only and then when they brought out the figures they said wehave had some type of change of heart because we find we didn't allow enough and I then said ® how could you say you didn't allow enough when we already.received a letter saying a million dollars? And maybe from that point on they came up with another discussion. I was quite interested at the time, I didn't think I missed anything. I might add to the conversation - at least I was quite surprised because when I brought up the subject and said point blank that the Mayor asked, I think.fa.cetiously - , why the State would want to spend this kind of money on.the northeast quadrant with this type of design which in my opinion would not give us much better than we had, we would like to know, and the answer I received was that they have taken another look at it and they are not sure It justifies the end, whatever the City of West Covina decides they would be willing to go along with. Now correct me if I am wrong. Mayor Krieger: We have an extract from Mr_, Telford's remarks that might be pertinent on this ® "about Barranca, we can go to another arrangement and if in the future it gets bad we would have to go to the interchange to .the east for relief. Cost of right of way and services are sub- stantial." I think I can comment in here something that isn't in his notes-, he said at first he had his own reservations about it that they had to convince him as to this quadrant but then die went on to say "we think it is better however city must say whatever we want and we will go along with warning however that we must recognize what the long range alternatives are. Mr. Hoy's staff will give us their comments as to the pros and cons and then we went into the pros and cons and what the alternatives are, including the same type of discussion we had on the council ® could you close an on ramp or redesign the of an on ramp and prohibit left turns thus prohibiting westbound traffic getting on to it, Councilman Gillum: My next question, did you gentlemen or the staff take anything with you as an alternative State? suggestion? Was there anything proposed to the Mayor Krieger: Just questions, not suggestions, because we had no consensus of this council as to any proposal. What was discussed was what Councilman Gleckman discussed at the council meeting ® prohibiting left turns from westbound frontage road traffic going on to the Freeway in the northeast quadrant and causing them to cross over Barranca and getti+,ng on that way, Councilman Gleckman: Let me add, I discussed with them the problem, if there is a problem, at -the Barranca inter- 10 change and I asked them for their traffic count and they themselves admitted their traffic count did not indicate any problem at this time but they were looking to the future, I then dis- cussed the Grand Avenue interchange and said the Grand Aveliue interchange would alleviate traffic, in my opinion, at the Barranca off ramp, that the area, if they wanted to look to the future, that the area to the east of the City would be eventually developed and serviced by the Grand Avenue interchange, I also would take it one step further and when Mr, Hoy - 4 - ADJ. C. C. 5-15-67 Page Five BAR.RANCA AVENUE_ NORTHEAST -QUADRANT - Continued commented about if that interchange would give us a problem in the futures that sometime in..the future they would have no alternative but to close it. I asked him if they would give us the same suggestion if we adopted their traffic plan and we had all kinds of traffic pZpblems - whether.the State would help us financially to solve those . problems that were created at Barranca and he,said,"absolutely not,that is your problem." Mayor Krieger: We pursued this question of the signaliza- tions, because originally the signalization of the frontage road as it was displaced to the north, was not in their original contemplation and would not be even within their responsibility under the five year program, but as the discussion developed and boiled down and spread out and we looked at it again, I think it was.conceded that their responsibility in the initial instance would be for the signalization of the frontage road atd the signalization of the off ramp from the westbound traffic,as well as the off ramp from your eastbound traffic en the south. Is that right Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Fast? I am -r,4ly ng on my memory now. Mr. H. R. Fast: Public Service Director Councilman Gillum: Mayor Krieger. - Councilman Gillum: Yes, tha� is correct. We. were talking about widening the underpasses --weren't we discussing eight lanes or was it six lanes? It was six. Tlree in each direction. What would determine if we would leave it the same or they would widen it at Citrus? Mayor Krieger: As far as the City is concerned, I commented that we would have to have a definite answer now or before we make our final decision on the Freeway Agreement as to Azusa, Citrus and Vincent. The only thing I have to report that is more current than our discussion si"nce Friday is that I think the decision as of now in fact has been made on Azusa and V.4mr:EN77 but they are still out on Citrus. I don't think there is any question in their mind that we are not going to proceed beyond our .present area of negotiation unless we know what we are getting and not going into on some prospectus of what may happen in the future. Councilman Gillum: Did you get a chance to discuss frontage road as far as Garvey the south side, the two shopping centers? Did you get into that area? Mayor Krieger: We brought along their design's as to . South Vincent, one involving elevation straight across and the other involving a circular elevation but I think it is a fair.statement to say they are not financially going to participate in South Vincent because the Bureau of Public Roads is not goigig to participate in South Vincent and the major portion of their dollar participation comes from the Bureau of Public Roads; I think the only way we could have gotten this off the ground is if they had been able to convince the Bureau of Public Roads to participate, The Bureau of Public Roads argument is we are willing to particpate in all the other inter- changes that we have never participated in the past -and that is inter --State we.: are talking about. But we did participate on South Vincent and there is no justification in our.mind for participating in the future. Is this a fair comment? ® 5 ADJ. C.C. 5-15-67 Page Six BARRANCA AVENUE NORTHEAST &UADRANT - Cotninued Councilman Gleckman.- Also, aside from the construction costs they didn't give ups costs of right of way which would be excessive because of the rise and as.far back as we would have to start with the rise.to go over or go around it, so the cost was very prohibitive and I know at • that time I couldn't see anyway this City could Mayor Krieger.- We were talking about #500,000 just in construction costs and going around .... kExplained possible route) I got the feeling this was for the rise and that did not consider land acquisition and because you are going.. to have inverse condemnation taking some of these properties for access even if you don't take them for actual use and then if you want to go straight across with an elevation that would have to start just about at your main entrance to the Plaza now and coming down a comparable distance into the old.plaza -you are talking about a million two hundred thousand dollars and .again talking about inverse condemnation and acquisition without acquisition costs. So you are playing with an expensive neighborhood on this approach, Councilman Gillum: Everything else we discussed previously was acceptable, Mayor Krieger: I think we distilled it pretty much, Mrs Aiassa was not able to participate Friday because he wasn't feeling well, but Mr. Fast and I, when we discussed this at our meeting it seems everything was agreeable that we took down to the State with the exception of South .Vincent and the underpasses and when we follow0d it up Friday and what we now bring to you tonight we got two of the three underpasses, with the question open on the third, and South Vincent being out as far,as'the State is concerned. We have reopened this question of the..northeast quadrant at Barranca and I think the State, if this City wants.to adopt some other proposal, I think the State will follow our proposal on it. Mr, Aiassa: Also, after your meeting the staff submitted supplemental grades and other improvements for making this thing .work . Councilman Gleckman: I also asked about the return of land to the City and they said it was in the Agreement. They would return it to the City after completion. Mayor Krieger: I think we have to make a decision tonight on this northeast quadrant of Barranca and the Freeways Councilman Gleckman: I was concerned two ways and I mentioned this to the State. I said I was interested in the benefit to the City'of West Covina, If we bought the particular interchange that the State was asking us to buy, I could see a couple of,problems. First of all we would lose the -income from the project that is presently being built or started to be built prior to condemnation by the State. We would lose the income from • that. Number two, we would create an additional traffic problem on North Barranca, where I myself., feel we really have the problem and not on the frontage road but on North Barranca and the City of Covina would not be too happy with this either-, And, for the amount of money the State was willing to spend there in my mind I think this was a design put up by them to alleviate a situation that could occur and hasn't occurred at that interchange. I would say keep the interchange as it is and permit no left turn on to the Freeway for cars going west and we would alleviate any traffic situation there with exception of all lefthand turns off the freeway with the amount of traffic count we have there. On this service road, leave the on and off ramp as it rresently exists and no lefthand turn on: cars going _ 6 - ADJ_ C. C. 5-15-67 Page Seven BARRANCA AVENUE NORTHEAST QUADRANT - Continued west and we would alleviate any traffic situations there with the exception of a left- hand turn off the Freeway, with the amount of traffic count we have there. On this • service -road leave the on and off ramp as it presently exists and no'lefthand turn on cars going: west on the service road *ntp the Freeway and that to me would pretty much leave it again, irot?the perfect interchange, but unless we had a tremendous increase of traffic there I can't see a problem. Councilman .Gillum: This is my next question in the evening there are a number of people that come out from the communi- ties to the west of us to the theatre. What is going to happen - this is a short span, are you going to have traffic corgestion? Councilman Gleckman: That is presently existing now. My point is if we are only worried about that one or two hours a day, and there is usually a police officer controlling at those particular times and that we can always permit it to be controlled at those particular times. (,Mr-.. Fast advised it was controlled by police at those times.) Councilman Gillum: Now what is proposed on the property that is to be built? Councilman Gleckman: That the on and off ramp go directly into Barranca Councilman Gillum: Do we know what type of structure is being pt6posed? • An office building, gas station, or ...... Mayor Krieger: We approved it - an office building and a gas station. (Mr. Fast presented the Precise Plan and explained.) Mayor Krieger Now that we are getting into the design characteristics I think Councilman Gleckman and I probably stand at opposite ends on this, particularly on this question. Not that either one of us know the right answers, but because we are acting on intuition as much as anything else. I don't believe this is an absolute science and far from it. . The only thing that bothers me is that .the present situation is poor at best and I d:oh'.t. think" ",the perpetuation of the present system or the modification of the present system by et'i mination of a left turn is going to arr*11orate that situation. I would like to make the following comments which I gleaned from what the possibilities of such a modification would be, as well as the long range hazard. I think one of the long range theoritical hazards, which may not in.fact occur, but it is a possibility with that situation, is if we come in and say we want the preservation of that frontage road where it is now, and merely a modification by the eli:Mination of left turns of westbound traffic so they have .to cross Barranca. We run the risk and it is a calculated risk but we are running it, if that off ramp of:. .westbound traffic becomes a problem in the future with more development and more traffic loads, that we do run the risk of having the State come in, which they could • do, and close that off ramp to us, which means your westbound traffic for access would have to come in through Grand Avenue. . I think this is a present danger which we have to have in mind. . Secondly, I think. it was pointed out to us and I think it is a correct statement that if you are going to funnel that traffic across Barranca and force them to make their access through that on ramp on the west side of Barranca, you are causing them to make a left turn, get almost immediately over to the right to geton to that on ramp, which is a difficult traffic maneuver at best. Third, we still have the same problem with the traffic coming along that frontage road to the rear, basically of the traffic that is comingfrom the off ramp. (Mr.. Fast pointed out the directions on the map as the Mayor explained.) My concern.basically boils down - 7 - ADJ.. C... C. 5-15-67 Page Eight BARRANCA AVENUE NORTHEAST QUADRANT - Continued to those three features. .One is the difficult maneuver__v ; of. C6-=hg- the traffic to go across Barranca to get to the on ramp, the possibility at least that we are going to risk the loss of off ramp traffic on to Barranca if the situation deteriorates in the • future and thirdly, I think it is a bad maneuver for off ramp traffic feeding into that frontage road directly. Councilman Gillum: I think also when you have the theatre 1Q'bting out you are bound to have traffic back up waiting for that light to change. I doubt seriously that somebody could come off the off ramp and go left if they wanted to go north on Barranca. . I don't think they could get through and work their way over and then go north. Councilman Gleckman: I understand and I appreciate what the Mayor said and I agree with him. If you want to take any interchange and talk about the problems of it there are problems in .everyone of them. There is no,such thing as a perfect inter- change or even an improvement on an .interchange, as far as,I am concerned. I am comparing this interchange that we presently have and the problems that exist to anything that is being offered and what we are being offered in place of it. If we were going to redesign what we presently have the ideal situation would be entirely different than what the State is proposing but we couldn't afford .it. Mayor Krieger: May.,I inject one other element that. I did not mention. I got the distinct impressionfrom those gentlemen that • if we keep the design complex the way it is that they -would be adverse to curb cuts on that property that is proposed for development to the north as far as access is concerned. 'They don't want to increase the traffic load into that frontage road as well as the traffic that is coming into the frontage road .from the off ramp. .Is that basically their comment having to do with access? Mr.. Fast: Yes, they did discuss the point of access, gecially from this point forward. I am not sure they were talking. about back here. Mayor Krieger: No, I agree. From the point the off ramp comes in to the frontage road and directly across -end west. Councilman Gleckman: I still say you could put a stop light in there and never have the problem. Councilman Gillum: What, off the freeway? Well this gets back to one of the areas where I had an opposition, I forget which .interchange it was, but I believe it was either Azusa or Citrus, . where you get off and there is a stop light and you, went a block and there was another stop light and what you are proposing is almost the same thing here. Councilman Gleckman: I am only -proposing and in comparison to what they • are offering us. You can go up on North Barranca right now and you have utter confusion right now and what they are proposing is to dump the Freeway traffic directly on to Barranca without even stopping on the frontage road plus the frontage road on to Barranca right up to'Montgomery Ward. .What I am saying where we have some confusion now during the main theatre traffic periods, etc. , we would have total confusion on Barranca all daylong. .Right now what they are saying to us, well if we have a pro- blem and they threaten us with closing that interchange - - I venture to say with that ADJ.. C.. C. 5-15-67 . Page Nine U 0 BARRANCA AVENUE NORTHEAST QUADRANT - Continued interchange going another 5 years we wouldn't have that problem but what they are saying if we have utter confusion up on Barranca after we put in any such thing,. that is our problem, the City of West Covina. Councilman Gillum: You said the State had no,traffic count on the present interchange ... Councilman Gleckman: No,. I said that the traffic count they presently -have on the interchange is not a problem. I don't say this .is .th-e_1 est.._d€.sign. Councilman Gillum: Right now we are taking off ramp traffic and putting it on the frontage road'iplus the frontage road traffic and we are still putting off ramp traffic on. Councilman,Gleckman: But dori:'t'cohfuse the issue please now with theatre time. Councilman Gillum: No, but all this goes on Barranca and turns right and goes down, frontage road. J don't quite see your point of where it is presently located or if we move it whatever the distance is up there what is the difference? Councilman .Gleckman: Two things. You have traffic coming directly from the Freeway on to'Barranca with the frontage road - you have the frontage road traffic comingdirectly on to Barranca at the same time, in that short of a space. Councilman Gillum: Don't_.ydu have the same thing now? Councilman. Gle ckman: No, you have it only coming through one and it is not causing a congestion, and.that is my point. .In other words what justifies changing the whole service road line other than the State's request that all their off ramps come into our secondary streets to get the traffic off the:Freeway without regard to what happens to our secondary streets. That is my comment. You have it now at Vincent Avenue where we say "'Jo.ok what you did to us" and they say " that is your problem it is on a secondary street. " (Discussion with Mr. Fast explaining with the use of the maps on the board.) Councilman Nichols: I have been studying that map and as far as this northeast quadrant is concerned myfeelings are ambiguous on .it because the remaining- Freeway frontage is extremely valuable land, that is those parcels which-.feont,.on-the=Freewa.y.; they are without question those portions of the -City that if each one is developed as it is developed will produce a great deal of revenue to the City and. I hate unnecessarily to see very valuable commercial land used up for Freeway off ramps. Yet- I, right now, .I can't quite accept. Councilman Gleckman's thesis. What I have been trying to figure out is someway to have our cake and eat it too. I have been Vrying to redesign the off ramps and the service road andcome up with something sort of a stroke of genius to save that land. Councilman Gleckman: Well this is something we are going to have to live with for the next 20 to 50 years and for us to settle for something substandard just because it is a little better than what we have AD.J_ C. C. 5-15-67 Page Ten _BARRANCA AVENUE NORTMAST QUADRANT - Continued right now and destroy the complex, etc. , I don't see the thinking here either. If this were the answer and we would get that relief and not have the so called problems, I could see it but I can't see another Vincent Avenue and that is exactly what we are doing. Mayor Krieger: Except Councilman Gleckman you say -let's look .ahead and this is one of the imponderables - the people that are supposedly looking ahead are the State'Division of Highways and this is what I sit% to them - you know gentlemen your arguments surprise me;, D would think you would be agruing for what we are arguing for and we would be arguing for what you are arguing for based on price, and they said they are looking beyond this to their best design considerations as to interchanges Councilman Nichols: The area where the service road comes into Barranca is how many -feet north of where the off ramp westbound comes into Barranca? (1b sfa�t: 280') Where the service road comes into Barranca there is no direct access into the theatre, so it is a leftor right turn. As I understand, the purpose for that 280' is to allow both westbound movements access to Barranca and turn on in each direction without a lot of collisions - - is the reason for it to avoid the interference between the off ramp and the service road? (Mr.. Fast replied "Yes" and then explained again using the maps.) Councilman .Nichols: Is it not true that from the Freeway level all the way inorth there is considerable elevation? (Mr<.Fast: quite a rise.) The State is talking about a great deal of money in terms of condemnation wouldn't it, engineering wise, be possible to throw that service road alignment down much closer to where we show the off ramp, almost side by side looking down from up above and design some sort of bridging structure? Where you would. climb a .little bit to the upper level and then have the off ramp come back in to the service road from the right, so that both the off ramp and the service road at the point of juncture at Barranca would become one road`' .Is there space to do that, has anybody, looked at it. ClT'r.. Fast said "generally speaking you(would meet at this point instead of,meeting at this point" - using the map - and after explaining stating "considerable more length would be needed, " And discussion followed.regarding a situation at the Howard Johnson•res;Aurant in Baldwin,Park.) Councilman1.Nichols: You have all the same problems where the service road feeds into Barranca. You have pushed it right up against the southerly edge of the Mont-gomery.. -=- . Wardproperty. You can just. see the traffic abutting up there right to Montgomery Ward's so nobody can .even get out.... Councilman Gleckman: It is there right now on Barranca but not on the service • road. Councilman Gillum: What I am saying is what I see now that we would end up with a problem also on the service road Councilman Gleckman: But we would be getting income from it, is all I can say. The fiesign.the State has proposed to us, has forced me to .fight for what we have presently rather than .buy something. substandard because they have proposed it, - 10 - ADJ,_ C. C. 5-15-67 Page Eleven .BARRANCA AVENUE NORTHEAST QUADRANT - Continued Councilman Gillum: Mr. Gleckman,.I don't agreewith what: the State proposes "but now I am concerned with if we propose and they accept it and then it doesn't work out and • they shut that off ramp then we haven't gained a thing. I don't have the answer to it but I don't know whether I would be willing. to gamble that portion of it. Councilman�Gleckman: Let's say they shut that off and you say -we haven't gained anything. Right? (Answer: Yes) Let's find out what we have lost first. We have lost access to Barranca from an off ramp isituation that when .Grand:.Avenue i s built it is going. to be overcome anyway. Councilman Gillum: Is it necessary to have an off ramp? Councilman Gleckman: My point is that if we buy what: they have now and it develops that we end up with their having to close it, what have we lost? Councilman .Gillum: Why do we have to have an .off ramp at Barranca anyway? Councilman Gleckman: I agree with you, but again that is not the question„ . I am only saying if we buy -what we presently have and it develops there is a problem and the State decides to close it off - what have we lost? We have a ten million dollar development down there, we have a service road the way they designed it, we have less congestion. on Barranca • Avenue, we have no problem when Grand:Avenue comes in to be developed. ,And now, let's take it the other way and say we buy what they have proposed and .we still have to close that on and off ramp because of the congestion. .We have .lost the development, we have increased the amount of traffic on Barranca, we haven't gained a thing and we have lost everything. Councilman Gillum: Mr. Fast do you have the layout of the Grand Avenue interchange? Councilman Gleckman: I wish you would also notice what I am talking about, and what Mr.. Nichols brought up. You can't move now on North Barranca on the frontage road andNou-' put another road in thdre and I would like to have a dollar for every accident of a car turning Intp Montgomery, Ward and a car coming off frontage road. .All I say is drive North Barranca now and tell me you want another curb cutting? Mayor Krieger: The only thing you are assuming which is just not supportable, is the fact that your design features are going to put car one on anyone of those roads. The roads don't create the traffic, the traffic creates the roads. So the question is what roads is the traffic going -to use. .Let's forget about projections and everything • else. I am talking about day to day traffic. Whatloads is that traffic going to use? Now whether you have the- State's proposal or what, the traffic that is going to feed into Barranca-..ids going to be the same number of cars. . The question is how is that traffic going to fit into Barranca and what is going to happen to that traffic? As far as this situation- the only -feature that I find at all questionable in the design prospects of the State, is the possible imingenmentcof certain acreage which represents acreage in the northeast quadrant. I don't find that desirable,, I would like to preserve as much of that property intact as possible, but I think we have a responsibility throughout the development of these commercial areas, not just to Mold our own, but - 1 1 - ADf. C.. Ca 5-15-67 Page Twelve BARRANCA AVENUE NORTHEAST QUADRANT - Continued to enhance what we got and make sure that what we are doing in the future, as far as these Freeway designs are concerned, :is going to be the best long range possibility of success. .We have lived with this situation that exists on this northeast quadrant • now. I am not content to continue to live with it. Councilman Gleckman: You say you are not content to live with. it. - are you content to buy what the State is proposing because of it? Mayor Krieger: I have looked with an open mind to reasonable alternatives and I don't see any reasonable alterna- tive. I am not willing to accept the responsibility for a design which is merely a perpetuation with what we have therewith the thought in mind that this is going to work and if it doesn't work then what have we to lose except. the closing down of Barranca ? I am not willing to run the risk of closing that off ramp at Barranca . I: think:we have too much invested all over that area to lose that off ramp at Barranca , . Now as far as the-seervice to Montgomery Ward is concerned that is not. my primary concern. .It may be the City of. Covina's but it is not my primary concern .and I don't think the City of Covina has been faced with the same balancing of interests that we have been in determination on this inter•- chan.ge. .I can.see very well if we were only concerned with Montgomery Ward - I would be motivated to get the traffic into that area as easily and as painlessly as possible. Councilman Gleckman: Let's forget Montgomery Ward. If they come along • that service road as you say they will and they don't want to go to •Montgomery, Ward but want to go to May Company they have to make a lefthand turn in that same situation. . If they want to get on to the Freeway they still have to make a lefthand turn. All, we are doing is creating another road so the State can move traffic in and off the Freeway and causing a problem in the City of West Covina and all I am telling you is this: If you are not content with what we have and I am not, also I still will not buy something substandard that this City is going to have to live with for the next 50 years and have the State come back to me, If I complain, and say your council approved it. Mayor Krieger: Yes, but the problem is look, none of us because we were elected to this council have suddenly inherited -attributes that we did not have before. The best people that we have on this problem, as far as who we paid outside, say go this way. I haven't seen the staff come in and say "no,that this isn't the way to goo" The State says even though it is going to cost more money we are willing to go .this way and where do we have the gray matter all of a sudden to say. "no you guys are just not thinking right. That-Ahis is not going to work or we have a better proposal that is going to work. " Councilman Gleckman: I don't think that either - unless Mr. Telford was here to give the same answer that Mr.. Telford • gave me when .I brought it up and he said he had second thoughts about it too and as far as they are concerned they would go with whatever West -Covina suggests. In other words, if they thought it was that good of a plan they would fight for it too, but when I.*sked .for justification they couldn't give it to me and I don't see that we should agree just to agree Mayor Krieger: Here is Telford's remarks - "I, too, have reservations on .Barranca expenditure but felt elbow roorn.gained in' separation of traffic ramp on frontage road was worth it" and this is the question that Councilman Nichols asked - is the distance - 12.- ADJ.. C- C. 5-15-67 Page Thirteen BARRANCA AVENUE NORTHEAST QUADRANT - Continued between that frontage road and the off ramp. Councilman Gleckmano Well again,Mr. Mayor, - I don't mean to fight you but I don't want to go on record as accepting this as the • great interchange or great traffic movement that we agreed with the State'Division of Highways because this is what they proposed. Mayor Krieger: Yes, but I know what we are faced with down on South Vincent, we don't have the money to now cure South Vincent .... Councilman Gleckman: Well we won't have the money to cure North. Barranca. Mayor Krieger: But we are not going to create a problem on the weight of the evidence, as far as I am condtrnAld, with this proposal, as much as we have the possibility of creating a situation that we are not going to be able to buy our way out of this other way . Councilman Gleckmano But Mr.,Mayor, I ask again, have our own traffic engineers, as well as the State, showed us where this interchange has caused this kind of a problem and .I can see the problem a.t_ North Barranca much more than. the interchange we presently have causing a problem on that frontage road, and I defy anybody here, yourself included, to. t_,!e11 me that the present interchange we have is causing us • so much problems that we have to create another problem on Barranca that is not going to give us more? Mayor. Kri-eg�er. We don't have an interchange that is our problem. .All we have is an off ramp and on ramp from a frontage road and you are talking. -about the further development of that .area along there. ... Holiday Inn,. Carousel Theatre is now there, talking about further development there is some vacant land in there ..... putting more traffic in there, a situation where you are _g: ing to continue to feed i'rito,.the.-:same:paints:of concentration and I don-'t seea solution. Councilman .Nichols: Let -one raise bne additid a question. There will be a major off ramp at Grand - will that tie into the frontage road? (Mayor Krieger suggested that Mr... Fast explain .by using the maps.) Mayor Krieger: This is what I am concerned about more than anything else. The risk of that situation.- if you end up in that problem. ..And there is not one of .us, here that can say we are not going to. Councilman Gillum: May we go back just a minute -• - night now we have • an off ramp at the frontage road that converges at the same spot and what they are proposing now is take the frontage road off the off ramp traffic - - at the present time you are saying you feel we don't have a traffic problem because of the interchange we presently have- - if. you take the frontage road traffic away and just leave the off ramp traffic wouldn't you have less, you are taking some traffic away that is a lot now? I am just talking about two roads, not the interchange or the stoplights or anything else like this - wouldn't you have less traffic if you.take the frontage road traffic away and move it up there and all you would have coming to that intersection would be off ramp traffic coming. from the Freeway? That anything else from the theatre, etc. , and the developed area would be taken north and put on the city, street? - 13 - ADJ.. C. C. 5-15-67 Page Fourteen .BARRANCA AVENUE NORTHEAST QUADRANT - Continued_ Councilman Gleckman: That's what I am saying, you are diverting your traffic so tightly on Barranca that you are increasing the problem. You take 50 cars and :put them on one street and they can turn into a street if it has a long run, etc. , much easier than • if you put them all on two separate streets and they are both meeting. -Mayor, Krieger: I find trouble following that thesis. If we are talking about traffic on North Barranca it seemsto me that you are facilitating the movement of traffic even on North Barranca if they are coming in not at a .central point but coming in at more than one point and that they have turning alternatives at the point they are coming in. .Now what you are going. to have if we perpetuate -what we have now with the probabilities of increased development including the land that has a Precise Plan on .it, is more cars and as the rest of the area develops you are talking about more cars. • So more cars are concentrating at one point ... Councilman Gleckman: On service road and not on Barranca. Mayor Krieger: So where are they going? Isn't this traffic going someplace ? Councilman Gleckman: That is wh at I am saying, if you are going to talk about increased traffic, where are they going? (Councilman Gillum had some questions and discussion and explained his views by using the maps.) Councilman Gleckman: Let's talk about the present situation :we have right now. The'Mayor says the big. problem we have is when .some- body comes in off the intersection going west that he has to have a cork'�grew to see in both directions even though he is stopped there, he not only has to look -to the left and right..... the point I am making is we don't have �1y confusion .in my estimation right now, other than it is not the greatest standard in the world right there at the service road, but bringing it into Barranca where you have all this :traffic right now and bringing it right off the Freeway you have added direct traffic without a stop or without anything, cars moving all the time. Councilman Gillum: They propose a stop light right where the present stop light is. Councilman Gleckman: Just the way it is now, right? (Answer: Yes.) Now you are taking the traffic you normally have on the frontage road and bringing it up 280' , so now you have double the traffic hitting that intersection where you only had the single amount of traffic. Mayor Krieger: Where do .you double your cars? • Councilman Gleckman: Very simply. I can't go through you or alongside of you on that service road, iexcgpt two cars . Put two cars here and then two cars up above and we have doubled the traffic at that same spot. Mayor Krieger: You haven't doubled the traffic on Barranca, the same number of cars will end up on.Barranca either way. Councilman Gleckman: But not at the same time. You are doubling the traffic on Barranca. 14 - ADJ. -C.. C. 5-15-67 Page Fifteen BARRANCA AVENUE NORTHEAST QUADRANT - Continued Mayor Krieger. You are doubling the possibilities of traffic entering Barranca . • Councilman Gleckman: Let's look at it and say what are we getting if we buy this plan, this is my number one objection. What are we getting and what are we losing? And if we don't buy this plan, what are we getting and what are we losing? Mayor Krieger: If we buy this plan what are we losing? Councilman Gleckman: The development which is income to the city. Mayor Krieger: How much do we lose in actual acreage -Mr. Fast? Mr. Fast: Total acreage 2.98 Councilman Gleckman: I won't argue for the developer but I am sure if I ran a l' drive right through the middle of your house Mr. Krieger we would only lose 1', but I am sure we would also lose the house. Now that is the best way I can describe it. Mayor Krieger: Well let's just talk about what we are losing. in fact here. Okay. I don't have any other figures .... Councilman Gleckman: Mr.. Fast, if we adopt this plan, can he build that Precise Plan.? Mre. Fast: No. Councilman Gleckman: Thank you sir. Mayor Krieger: What difference does it make if he could build that Precise Plan? I could care less if he could build that Precise Plan, I am not talking about his Precise Plan. .I am talking about the land. I want to talk land - land! What have we lost in commercial land? Let him redesign any Precise Plan he wants to, I want to know what we lost inland. Councilman Gleckman: Well I guess just the amount of land you would take, if that's the way you want to figure. Mayor Krieger: If you want to talk about the Precise Plan. - what if the State says "alright fellow you can have what you want but we are not going to allow you to have any curb cuts going in there" - which legaLhy they carr do. What is he going to do with that Precise Plan then, - fly it in by helicoptar • Councilman Gleckman: Well maybe we are talking about two different things then. Councilman Gillum: You are talking about dividing and doubling the traffic, assuming it would be doubled, if we go along with this top one up here I can assure you you will have double the traffic on that one, because you are putting something in there to draw people - a restaurant, a service station and an.office building. You - 15 - ADJ.. C.. C. . 5-15-67 Page Sixteen BARRANCA AVENUE .NORTHEAST QUADRANT - Continued would have double the traffic right there at. the off ramp . • Councilman Gleckman: The only thing I am saying when I look at a rddesign of this type I am saying what 'the -State is offering us is somethingI couldn't buy. If that is the best they can offer and we have to accept it because that is what we have to accept then we just bought another Vincent Avenue. Mayor Krieger: That is the beauty of it, we don't have to accept it. We can tell them we don't want it, . from everything they said on Friday, we can go ahead and keep what we have. Councilman Gillum: To be very honest with you I can't buy the top one, because I think we are tying a knot right there and also running the risk of shutting the off ramp. I don't have the answer, so�I shouldn't sit here and say I can't buy it..... . Councilman.Gleckman: Well I was asked to come up with an alternative. Councilman Gillum: I am sorry if I shot a hole in .it, but I can't buy it. Councilman Gleckman: No, again the only alternative I can suggest would be that and the one'Mr. Nichols suggested aryl that would be the -additional frontage off of frontage road to give us another widening. of frontage road there. Mayor Krieger: Gentlemen, do you want to discuss further? Councilman Gillum: I can't give you a decigion because d don'.tEhave-one. Councilman Gleckman: Has the staff come up with any suggestions, they were,supposed to have something_ for us on.the 22nd? Mr...Aiassa: The 22nd of May - we haven't anything scheduled.... . Mayor Krieger: Look let's not play games with each other,. if you have a germ. of an idea, let us know. I don't care what Ewa) ':we':Yinalj go, we owe it to the State to say ,whether to go ahead with your proposal or drop it. .All they have had .from us is the fact that.they,kw.ent_'atl-enj.-7n.ith us, it was our original design, they took it. Councilman Gleckman: Look let's design. something we can .live with and that would be a right hand.off ramp on the other side of the Freeway, where there is a right hand turn to get off the Freeway irs tead of the on ramp over here. • Mr..�iassa: You mean an extra right lane? Councilman Gleckman: Instead of the on .ramp over here where you come off instead of coming off directly into a frontage road let's come off into a right hand which is the proper off ramp anyway -for an interchange. Mr.. Zimmerman. You mean a loop like this? (Discussion and use of the map.) - 16 - ADS'... C. C. 5-15-67 Page --Seventeen BARRANCA AVENUE NORTHEAST QUADRANT - Continued Mr. Zimmerman: This is the same standard right now at Azusa, Vincent and Citrus all of them on the north side are all the • same. Citrus is proposed to be the same. Councilman Gleckman: There is no way to bring the frontage road down? Lower it? Mr'. Zimmerman: It certainly is considered improper practice to bring the intersections closer'together. You somehow or other have to retain one interchange at the location either by a grading process, etc. , none of which is considered the action desirable for handling traffic as to what the StateWo Mr..Aiassa: There was one suggestion that the staff or council had discussed and it has been mentioned to some of the State officials (explained and again used the map) This will give us a quick accessibility on that off ramp to go directly on to that frontage road without getting into that Barranca traffic . I think this could be a feature that would save us some traffic congestion as long as it is a free right hand turn. Councilman, Nichols: Would there be any feasibility at all in removing in that Northeast quadrant removing both the on ramp and the off ramp and running the service road along the present alignment of the off ramp and coming then off the Freeway on an off ramp that would come in underneath or below the on ramp that is existing in the northwest quadrant - looping around and .coming into that intersection? (In answer - Mr.. Fast explained from the map,: Not feasible.) Councilman Gleckman: In the State plan haven't they moved the on ramp on the northeast quadrant closer in? Mr. Fast: No, it is about on the same alignment so far as the entry on Barranca Councilman Gleckman: No, not the entry, the loop. That was the design I saw at the State, and when I talked with them about leaving the present off ramp I suggested they put in the new on ramp which they had moved .over to alleviate the traffic on `:ser..�rcw,Tzo.ad. (Mr.. Fast explained that this had been considered and that there is no possibility of a left turn into it saying, "we did that here and this is a free turn here and this dimension is less here. ") Councilman Gleckman: When you come along service road you are still • going to have to make a lefthand turn and then across the former frontage road on to the freeway? You can't make a lefthand turn on to the freeway, from the frontage road anyway? Mayor Krieger: But you would have approximately 280` more room to make that maneuver. Councilman Gleckman: That is the only way to go west once you get that service road. Councilman Gillum: What's wrong with that? - 17 - C. Ca ADJ. 5-15-67 Page.Eighteen BAR IANCA AVENUE NORTHEAST QUADRANT - Continued Councilman Gleckman: That is the only way to go west once you get that service road. . Gbuncilman Gillum: What's wrong with .that? Councilman Gleckman: Now you have two. Councilman Gillum. But if you are going west, what difference does it make if you have one o r two, as bang as you are going west? Mayor Krieger: Your proposal is only one way too . , . Councilman Gleckman: Except at theatre times. Imagine, just for example - the theatre letiting out, you now have two different methods, one specifically that is completely separated from May Company,. Montgomery Ward .- everything --that they can take a left on to the Freeway. With this plan they have to intermingle with all the traffic on.Barranca to ever go west. Mayor Krieger: You mean intermingle with all the north traffic about 10 : 3 0 or 11 at night? Councilman Gleckman: No they have matinees too, you know. Mayor Krieger: It seems to me what we really have right now is two choices and we have to go one way or the other. It would really be a stroke of genius if after all these years, literally of discussing this interchange we suddenly come up with something that we hadn't thought of before, I would be surprised. Councilman Gillum: I haven't liked what the State proposes but I haven't seen anything here and apparently the staff hasn't. I can't buy this top thing. I can't,,_, buy this one coming off and putting this'Precise Plan right at the end of the off ramp, and.I don't have any other answer. Mayor Krieger: I propose we take a straw vote of the council on this matter as we did on the others. Alright? (Agreed) We are not doing this in the framework of a motion because we have not taken a position on the State by motion .but just indicate consensus. The question is whether you are in favor of the proposal or the alternative? The proposal being the State's proposal, and the alternative what we have been discussing tonight. Councilman Gleckman: Mr.. Mayor,. I would .like another week to come up with an alternate. If we can't come up with another • alternative in the next week then I would have to buy the State's plan, but right now I just can't see buying something- substandard just to buy. Mayor Krieger: They are pressing us for an answer and -I think they have a right to an answer, but I can't see where it would make all the difference in the -world - I will have to press the council for an answer next Monday night, one way or the other. I 0 0 C. C. ADJ. 5-15-67 BARRANCA AVENUE NORTHEAST QUADRANT - Continued Page Nineteen Mayor Krieger: Let's have a motion to add to the agenda next Monday night. Motion made by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried. BEAUTIFICATION BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, that the Blue Beautification Blue Ribbon recommenda- tions be held over to the agenda of May 29th. HOUSE NUMBERING ON CURBS CITIZEN REQUEST APPROVED Mr. Aiassa advised that a letter had been received in March and was awaiting a reply. The request was from a woman living in West Covina asking permission for her teenage boysto paint house numbers os`the city curbs, Mr. Aiassa further stated that this permission had been given toi the Youth's Club and that not much had been done. The boys now interested want to do a job and charge and they have sent samples of tle work they want to do and the numbers do fit our numbers. The City Attorney has advised that they cannot do anything on city propertywithout some kind of approval by council. At present there are some boys doing this, and this also kind of aggravates the problem because these boys did come through City Hall with their request wanting to charge 50¢ per house on a volunteer basis., and.the other boys are just doing it and chargingg and the -se kids have made .as high as $100. a month. The question is would the council like to have this handled administratively? Discussion followed by the councilmen. They were in agreement that it wais a matter to.be handled administratively, with emphasis placed on the typpe of humbers to be used that they be uniform in size painted white, and.that the charge be reasonable, and that the boys.do ng this type of work carry some. kind of id.entificat.ion.. Motion by Councilman Nichols,_ seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried, that the city manager be authorized to handle the matter of authorization and the details for curb painting and that this be done administratively. USE OF ANTIQUE FIRE ENGIN4 APPROVED Mr. Aiassa: I believe the council received a copy of this memo... (Councilman G eckman said he had not. Mayor Krieger gave him his copy to read. . Mayor Krieger: Is.there any cost involved? Mr. Aiassa: No, the only thing that would be - I would \ want to be sure we are covered by insurance. Motion*by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Gleckman� and carried, that.the council approves the request of the Use of `the Antique Fire Engine in the City of Santa Fe Springs May 20th parade. - 19 - C.-C. ADJ. 5-15-67 Page Twenty COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilman Gillum,* I received a letter from Congressman Wiggins referring to the conduct of United States Congressional leaders and then it brought up the matter of hiring relatives. This thing of nepotism came up before • the Personnel Board but to the best of my knowledge I don't remember it coming up before the council. I don't know if there is something on the books to cover.nepotism, Mr,.Aiassa: It appeared before the Personnel Board and there -was a split of feelings amongst the Employees' Association and it became bogged down. So I checked with the City Attorney and he advised administratively I had the power to make certain decisions as far as the administrative staff were concerned - the department heads. Councilman Gillum: I would like to see it covered for elected officials also. May we put this on the agenda for discussion Mr, Krieger? Mayor Krieger: Mr. Aiassa may we have it on the May 22nd agenda? Councilman Gillum: One other thing, I did turn over to the City Manager this afternoon, the remaining key chains. Councilman Gleckman: The only thing I have to report Mr. Mayor is that we had a very successful police opening as far as the Station. The three • councilmen here this evening were present, COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried, that the council adjourn to an executive meeting, at,9:25 p.m. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that there being no further business than the meeting adjourn at 10:13 PoM„ ATTEST: CITY CLER APPROVED ® 20 MAYOR