02-18-1975 - Regular Meeting - Minutes,a
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED'REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY is, 1975.
The adjourned regular meeting of the City Council called to order at
4:30 P.P. in the west Covina Council Chambers by Mayor Chester Shearer.
POLL CALL -
Present: Mayor Shearer; Councilmen: Browne, Miller,
Chappell, Tice
Others Present: Lela Preston, City Clerk
Michael Miller, Planning Director
George Aiassa, City "tanager
George Zimmerman, Public Services Dir.,
Leonard Eliot, Controller
Harry Thomas, Traffic Engineer
John Lippitt, City Engineer (Arrived later)
Frank O'Connor, Administrative Analyst
(Mayor Shearer stated this was to be conducted as a Study Session and
for that reason the meeting would move to the upstairs City Manager's
Conference Room. Council meeting called to order by the Mayor in the
City Manager's Conference Room at 4:36 P.M.)
PROGRESS REPORT RE (Held over from meeting of 2/10/75)
SUNSET SCHOOL
FACILITIES BY Mayor Shearer: Gentlemen, it is my
FRANK SATA, ARCHITECT understanding that
Mr. Sata has requested
that this matter not -be taken up this afternoon but rather he Wouiri
prefer to'meet with Council in smaller groups under a workshop type
situation. If agreeable, this matter can be carried over to the
first Council meeting in March, thereby giving Councilmen an oppettunity
to discuss with Mr. Sata.
Motion -by Councilman Chappell to carry this item over to the March 10,
1975, Council meeting. Seconded by Councilman Tice and carried.
PROJECT NO. SP-75006 LOCATION: San Bernardino Freeway to
VINCENT AVENUE P-ROJECT Glendora Avenue.
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, this is a project
of a potential need in the CBD and Vincent
Avenue area to accommodate the traffic that
will be increasing in the area with the opening of the Fashion Plaza.
Tonight we are giving you a report only, action is not needed, other
than to carry over to the Council meeting of February 2`4th, which will
-give you a chance to review the material. Tonight staff 1,1i11 make 'a
>S-iide .'presentation.
(Map of the overall area displayed and the following areas explained
by Mr. Zimmerman: ,#1 - West Covina Parkway interchange, scheduled
to be completed by mid -April, 1975; #2 - CBD Pain Entrance, signal_
•at.West Covina Parkway scheduled for completion April, 1975;
—13 - Signal modification at Sunset/West Covina Parkway scheduled for
completion in June, 1975; #4 - Reconstruction and realignment of
California/West Covina Parkway intersection and traffic signal
modification scheduled for eompletion in November, 197-5:
#5 - California off -ramp realignment and traffic"signal modification
Jat California/South Garvey is indefi-nite, and this item is proposed.
to be studied and recommended on in the proposed Frischor ;report; .
#6 - Vincent Avenue widening and traffic signal modifications at
Vincent/South Garvey & Vincent/West Covina Parkway, if approved and
funded scheduled for completion in November, 1975; and #7 - Lark
Ellen undercrossi.ng, scheduled for completion in mid -April, 1975.
CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REG. MEETING Page Two
DISCUSSION RE SP,-75006 2/18/75
Mayor Shearer pointed out Items 1, 2 and 3 are now underway; Item 4 has
not yet received Council approval; Items 5 and 6 not yet approved and
both items are somewhat tied together, and would be let as one contract,
Mr. Zimmerman advised. #6 - Vincent Avenue Widening and Traffic Signal
Modifications is the .main project and the one on the agenda for dis-
cussion tonight. Councilman Tice asked what the plans are for the
northern part of Vincent Avenue; staff advised the Fiv.e.Year Program
includes that as part of the overall project which is proposed to be
started in late 1976 and will probably be funded by that time because
it is federally funded. Mr. Aiassa stated it is also one of the HTC
grants received from the County and the question is whether to spend
it now or move it to the southside if the need is greater there; the
County specifically gra^ted through HTC $100,000 for the nouthside and
$80,000 for Hollenbeck.
Mr. Zimmerman further explained in referring
to'the projects themselves the problems we are addressing ourselves to
are access and circulation to and in the vicinity of the CBD. (Explained
the problems with the use of a displayed map of the area) There are
three alternatives for the handling of the Vincent Avenue Project and
the lowest estimated cost is $84,100, a minimum project to meet existing
deficiencies of the California Avenue closure. Its main attraction is
the comparatively low cost compared to the other alternatives. It adds
double left -turn lanes eastbound at West Covina Parkway coming from the
development area to go north on Vincent. Staff is most concerned
about getting the traffic through the two intersections and the only
way we found to do it.was to keep traffic moving in some direction at
all times with as many lanes as possible. The cost includes the
addition of a new traffic controller and traffic responses operation
at the intersection. (In answer to a question, Mr. Zimmerman stated
the $849100 includes the cost of the 6' right-of-way widening on the
north side of Garvey.)
Advantages and Disadvantages: #2 aiterna-
tive will meet short term projects up until Christmas of this year;
cost $160,000 and in addition to the other things mentioned it allows
an extra free right turn at West Covina Parkway and Vincent, along
with the same double left turn.lanes; a small amount of widening
to get*the double left turn in; raised median would be constructed;
double left -turn southbound and existing pavement resurfaced; 8'
of widening required at Garvey Avenue; by adding 2' of widening the
number one lane can be widened in each direction from 10' to 111.
Staff feels this would accommodate traffic For this first Christmas
season. #2 provides a little better traffic service than the 1st
proposal; requires minimum amount of right-of-way acquisition, not as
little as the 1st alternative, but much less than the maximum; no re-
location of businesses; increases capacity on three major inter-
section approaches; provides better access control because of the
median which makes it more convenient for through traffic; completion
time 7 months. It does not provide for the long term increases in
traffic volume and it does ndt provide as good traffic service as
the final proposal; ultimate development requires removal or re-
location of a significant amount of these improvements to provide
better traffic movement.
The #3 alternative that can serve ultimate
development in the CBD area - estimated cost $500,000;, includes all
of the features of #1. and 2 plus an additional left -turn and 7' of
widening at Vincent and West Covina Parkway, with three double
turning lanes; existing pavement resurfaced. (Explained further)
A disadvantage - Colonel Sanders marque would be removed but staff
feels the building could remain; this closure in the street (pointed
out on map) is under discussion; existing pavement resurfaced with
minimum disruption of traffic; Big Boy's roof would overhang
- 2 -
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REG. MEETING Page Three
DISCUSSION RE SP-75006 2/18/75
slightly into existing right-of-way, just over the edge of the side-
walk which is not felt to be a problem,; adds anew controller
(explained type and location); and at the other major intersection
you would have greater lane width throughout to handle larger lines
of traffic with the California closing; some widening at.the Home
• Savings property, 6' of right-of-way acquisition on one side and a
double left turn lane southbound and northbound, all of which would
provide better access into the redevelopment area. (Explained
difference between Alternatives 2 and 3 - major difference is the
high cost of acquisition of the Triple Check building.)
Councilman Chappell: On Garvey Avenue when you make the left
turn onto Vincent going north isn't there
anyway we can better stripe that turn? I
see a lot of people cut.you off if you are in the right side lane
when you are making the left turn. If you could really make a good
identification for -the turn th-i-s might el=iminate that problem. (Staff
asked to make a note of that suggestion and discuss it with the
Traffic Committee regarding this area and others of the same type.)
Mayor Shearer: I have a couple of questions. In the
report on financing I notice revenue
sharing crops up in two different
locations - $50,000 under the 175/76 and then additional funding of
$160,000 required, totalling $210,000. Back when we approved the
current Five Year Program there was a notation in that plan for
$3009000 of revenue sharing and the question then came up "why"
and it was in order to get matching funds, etc. Now this 5210,000
is that a part of that $300,000 or is this $300,000 plus something?
Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor, the main thing is the County
did not coma through with $100,000+
that we requested of HTC. They came through but changed the limits
so it has to be used north of the freeway and the FAU funding has
gotten confused in a bunch of manipulations which have net been
completed and the funding has not been forthcoming for our use to
this date and we don't know when it will. So because of the dead-
line and in order to proceed we are asking if those two portions
can be funded in effect by revenue sharing, and I also believe there
is a small additional amount we are planning to request. Mainly we
are just replacing the HTC funds not yet provided to us by the
County.and the FAU funding which was in the Five Year Program for
use in the 1975/76*fiscal year.
Mayor Shearer: But in the current Five Year Program
there is a notation that to fund this
$300t000 A.s of revenue sharing - does
that $300,000 include the items mentioned here or is it plus and
if so, what.is the plus?
Mr. Zimmerman: $150,000 was approved by City Council
from revenue sharin and actually
budgeted this year ?passed report to
Mayor Shearer.)
(Councilman Chappell questioned the fact that the FAU funds were
• not yet released, stating when he was chairman at that time it
was all set to go for the first of the year - what happenad?
Harry Thomas, Traffic Engineer, explained they are still pro-
cessing it and the City has not received a go-ahead and funds
are not. expecteduntil sometime this summer. Mr. Aiassa said
the HTC money is not ATC money, which we get automatically.
HTC is given out by .the Supervisors and Mr. Schabarum toured the
city streets before making the allocations and picked up North
3 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Four
DISCUSSION RE SP-75006 2/18/75
Vincent as an area needing the most help and also Hollenbeck.
Councilman Tice questioned the total contract cost figure of
$100,000 for project design and"EIR; Mr. Zimmerman said it --,also
has to 60 with some right-of-way acquisition but staff would expect
to do the .design Which might t,ak,e more than $1009000 for .the .design.
Mayor Shearer: In the 1974/75 Program you proposed
$1509000 from revenue sharing - $259000
for the signal at California and Garvey,
$251000,at West Covina Parkway and California, and $1009000 for
Vincent/Glendora and Merced to Badillo; and in the 1975/76 program
another $1509000 proposed, and now you are telling us that $160,000
revenue sharing figure at the bottom of the page is not in this
Five Year Program?
Mr. Zimmerman: This is additional funding required.
(Councilman Browne asked if staff felt sure they would get the
$150,000 on HTC and Mr. Zimmerman answered "no sir, that depends
on the County.) Mr. Aiassa pointed out the biggest cost of
$100,000 is for the double left turn lane eastbound and south -
bound; staff and Council discussed eliminating. Discussion followed
on various other aspects of the programs that might be eliminated;
Council asked that those portions that might be eliminated be
broken out with cost figures prior to the meeting of February 24.
Mr. Aiassa'saidthe task force agreed with Project 3 with phasing,
possibly doing it in three phases (pointed out the three possible
phases, what might be done in each).
(The possible closing off of Walnut Creek
Parkway discussed and Council asked staff if they had a feel f'cr the
magnitude of that. Mr. Lippitt advised he met with the managers of
Wickes and the at.
State Bank and they feel they need the movement
to and from the southbound lanes on Vincent. Explained in further
detail. Mr. Lippitt.further stated no commitments were made but he
did say staff would look at the possibility of a southbound in turn
lane but not exit.)
Mayor Shearer: That issue should be addressed and very
strongly because I can't see spending
a half million dollars to improve traffic
circulation between Garvey and West Covina Parkway and then right in
the middle sticking in another turning movement because'that defeats
your whole purpose for spending the money. If that is going to be a
politically sensitive issue then I think we should all start thinking
of that right now. If we entertain any thoughts about giving into an
opening there we might as well scale it back down to eliminate it
and live with the congestion. Councilman Chappell mentioned the
no.parking problem and if we are going to consider allowing parking
and these things they all defeat the purpose for doing this. We
should consider.all of this before we vote to approve a half million
dollars and then come back and start chipping away on it for parking,
extra turns, etc. I can't see spending a half million dollars and
opening that median to any turns.
•(Mr.- Zimmerman discussed the time factor, the need for getting things
underway in order to be completed in time for the scheduled opening
of the Plaza; Council discussed trying to avoid building things now
and tearing out later; Mr. Aiassa said Council would be provided with
the information requested for their meeting of February 24.
Mayor Shearer said what Council is asking is in taking out pieces -
Triple Check, the Garvey Home Savings situation and the resultant
impact on staff's traffic estimate - if that i'sn't done what will
- 4 -
0
CITY COUNCLL .
DISCUSSION RE SP-75006
PAGE Five
2/18/75
happen and if done, what will be the result - we need not only the
dollar cost but the impact for not doing it. Mr. Zimmerman then
went over the disadvantages and advantages. Stated #3 would provide
for the longer term increases in traffic., minimizes overall disruption
of traffic, that is to say it would not be necessary.to :widen in a
year from now and it increases the capacity of five major intersection
approaches; provides good control of access with the installation of
medians throughout; provides wide lanes for through traffic (explained
areas); no new improvements need be removed due to future construction;
highest capital cost estimated at S500,000; largest right-of-way
requires the relocation of at least one business,.the UBI, if it is
decided not to drop.that; requires a 10 month construction schedule.)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
a) Department of Re Draft copy of the "Policy and Procedure
Transportation Memorandum" for use of Article 26 money.
(Refer to Staff)
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice and
carried, to refer to staff.
b) Spanish Trails Girl Request permission to conduct Annual Girl
Scout Council Scout Cookie Sale from 2/28 to 3/10/75
and Annual Girl Scout Calendar Sale from
11/21 to 12/19/75. (Approved in prior
years. Recommend approval)
Motion by Councilman Tice to approve request from .the Spanish Trails
Girl Scout Council; seconded by Councilman Browne and carried.
a��OJ NMI EnyT iiutlCii LJ Councilmar� ^uTnwfi�;, seconded by
Councilman Miller and carried, to adjourn
meeting at 5:30 P.M.
I