Below are questions sent to City Hall and also to www.lahbraheights.net

The County applied in January '99 for a 5 lane highway from Orange county line to Glenmark Drive. The MTA asked for it to be phases. The decision before the Council is NOT just the East Rd south portion but the whole road. Phase I has been approved. State funding officials have assured me that it is virtually impossible they would not fund the rest. The purpose in phases is to allow better monitoring of the work and fund use.

1. What is the agreement/pact/contract the City has to sign regarding liability, control, authority, etc with the County and/or state regarding Hacienda Blvd? Please supply a copy(s).

2. What are the addresses (or parcel numbers in cases of parcels without street addresses) of the parcels to be condemned and taken in their entirety along the entire road?

3. What are the addresses and what are the land area amounts of the partial parcel takings?

4. Many homes and lots along Hacienda and in connected neighborhoods directly affected by the project have been sold in the last year or two. Were these people (buyers and sellers) notified/warned of the impending situation?

a. If not, why not?

5. What is the County volume threshold for a 2 lane road, like Hacienda, to be converted to a 4 lane road?

a.What is the current traffic volume?

The most recent known traffic study for Hacienda Blvd was in 1997, done for the Albertson/Rite Aid development in La Habra. They predicted traffic volume on Hacienda Rd Blvd as 40,000 cars per day in ten years.

6. If the City does have the decision authority over increasing to 2 travel lanes in each direction, what decision criteria will be used to make that decision?

7. What is the design plan for the 80 foot deep cut through the Skyline Dr summit? Will the sides be retaining walls? graded slopes?

8. How will East and West Skyline Dr residents get access to their street? Please provide a diagram.

9. How will the 3800 block on Hacienda gain access to the street both onto the final road and during construction? Please provide a diagram.

10. The extensive grading necessary for the Skyline phase appears to make it impossible for traffic during construction. How long will the road be closed?

11. Who has the authority to close a road to through traffic?

a. What are the criteria?

12. How are homeowners on Hacienda Blvd supposed to get in and out of their driveways with 4 lanes of traffic travelling at 50 - 70 m.p.h.?

13. The proposed paved width is 58 feet. What is the proposed right-of-way width?

a. How much more paved area for shoulders?

City officials repeatedly mention road safety as a reason to straighten and widen the road. Accident statistics for the 11 year period 1988-1998 show the road is at least as safe as similar roads. The highest percentages of accident causation are wet surface, at about 41%, and and unsafe speed, at 48% (there is overlap).

14. What steps has the City taken to lessen the impact of these factors and adequately warn drivers of their presence?

a. Have, low cost, "Slippery When Wet" signs been installed?

b. Have, low cost and allowed, "Stop" signs or other methods been used or considered to slow vehicles down?

c. If these simple and inexpensive solutions have not been implemented or considered, why is a high cost, widening and/or straightening project being considered/applied for/funded?

Conversely, County documents, studies, and funding applications make little or no mention of the safety "problems" of the road. Indeed, their study says the road is already as safe as similar roads.Their concerns are all about traffic flow, speed and to increase both of them.

15. How can these two opposite concerns (higher speed and traffic flow vs safety) be reconciled?

16. What is the average or "acceptable" accident rate for roads like Hacienda?

a. How is this rate determined?

The January 28, 1999 MTA Project Funding Application on page 13 indicates that the County expect both trucks and transit buses to use the roadway. Earlier County documents estimate truck traffic will be 600-1000 trucks per day.

17. If the City turns Hacienda over to the County after construction, who will make the decision about truck/bus access?

18. Who will make decisions about further widening to 3 travel lanes in each direction?

19. Where are these decisionmaker roles written down?

The County will be spending $1.6 million of department funds on Phase I and $8.2 million of it's own funds for the entire Widening/realignment project. Redoing the road in it's current width and alignment, with added safety improvements (non-skid pavement, stop signs, pavement edge markers, etc) would be less than $1 million.

20. Why can't the City request just 10 cents on the dollar the County is willing and able to spend to widen the road to just fix Hacienda in it's current width and alignment?

The City Road Reconstruction Bond proposal budgeted about $500,000 to repair/repave Hacienda Blvd. It appears that only a few hundred thousand more would allow us to make the road safe, repaired, and good for another 20 years in its current width and alignment. Factoring in the money the City already has budgeted, we need really only 2 cents on the dollar from the County's commitment for the widening.

21. What is the City's estimate to repair the road and make it safe in its current alignment?

a. If no estimate has been made for this, why hasn't it?

Liability and a threat to the financial viability of the City are also mentioned as reasons to consider the County proposal.

22. How many court cases have been filed against the City concerning accidents on Hacienda Blvd in the last 1, 5, 10 and 15 years?

a. How many have been won against the City?

b. What was the payment amount(s)?

23. How many non-court claims have been filed against the City concerning accidents on Hacienda Blvd in the last 1, 5,10,15 years?

a. How many claimants received payments from the City?

b. What is the average payment? What is the range?

24. How much did it cost the City in the last 1, 5, 10, 15 years in attorney's fees to defend against the above court cases and direct claims?

25. What is the average cost to the City for the past 1, 5, 10, 15 years for attorney' fees, settlement amounts, and payments concerning accidents on Hacienda Blvd?

26. What insurance does the City carry to protect against these financial hazards?

27. What type of case/settlement would result in a financially destabilizing payment not covered by insurance?

28. What does the City consider to be a financially destabilizing amount?

29. Under what circumstances would the City lose insurance protection against these risks?

30. If the City is currently not insured against these risks, why not?

a. What is the cost of the insurance?

The Heights Christian School is depending on La Habra to narrow their part of Hacienda to two lanes to accommodate a left turn lane into a new entrance. They assumed La Habra Heights was maintaining two lanes.

31. How would the school,traffic flow & safety, and student arrival/departure traffic flow & safety be impacted if La Habra does not allow narrowing to two lanes, a reasonable decision on La Habra's part if they see LA County desiring to widen our Hacienda to 5 lanes, their end being on the Orange county master plan of roads and La Habra had also applied to Orange County to WIDEN their end of Hacienda to 5 lanes in October 1999?

32. How would the school,traffic flow & safety, and student arrival/departure traffic flow & safety be impacted if our Hacienda Blvd is widened to five lanes?

The County Hacienda Funding application, along with a City letter of support is dated January 1999. The City Manager, at least, was aware of this. Family Resource Ministries applied for a CUP to expand the school facilities, which was handled by the City substantially in the May to September 1999 period, initially with the intimate involvement of the City Manager.

The school provided a traffic study. This study did NOT discuss the effect the proposed, and by July funded, widening would have. Sadly, the school was negligent in not even bothering to contact LA or Orange County transportation department officials who would have informed them.

33. The City, cognizant at that time of the possible widening, did not tell them or require them to address this. Why not?

a. Why were they not told?

b. If they were told, why was it ignored?

34. What would the impact be on the school's proposed parking lot remodeling and expansion if the proposed and funded expansion proceeds?

35. A likely scenario is that La Habra does not allow narrowing to 2 lanes. Combine this with the proposed and funded expansion in LHH. What does the school do for access?

a. What will the traffic flow be?

b. Who determines if the school should address these likelihoods?

c. Shouldn't this all be figured out before the school is allowed to expand their lot and rearrange traffic flow?

36. What is the liability risk to the City, if the road is widened, because of this omission?

a. Could the school sue the City for financial loss and unacceptable safety risk to their customers, which could have been averted or mitigated if they had been duly and timely informed of the project?

At the January 2000 City Council meeting, all council members and staff, including the manager who wrote the letter of support for the project claimed not to know anything about it.

37. A County representative says the City will be more liable if the project is turned down because they City had the chance to "fix" the road at no cost and turned it down. Is this true and if so please explain the risks and circumstances?

38. City official(s) have intimated that no one in the City really did know about the funding application or expansion to 5 lanes and that the County "manufactured" the letter of support from the City. If the County really did pursue this on their own, would not they bear the liablility increase, if any, for our turning down the project?

39. In April 1996, the Council authorized the County to study "2" lane road proposal "C". In January 1999 the County applied for funding for proposal B2 - a 5 lane road. Who in the City authorized the County to pursue B2?

40. Who in the City authorized the County to go beyond "study" and to apply for funding?

41. Who authorized City Manager Les Doolittle to support the B2 application?

42. If Les Doolittle acted on his own volition, isn't this outside the authority granted him by the Municipal Code, specifically 2107j?

a. If he acted outside his authority, would the actions he took be invalid?

43. Who is responsible for overseeing the City Manager generally and on a day to day basis?

44. Who works with the Manager deciding Council agenda items and prioritizing City business?

45. Who does the Manager call with questions about policy, personnel, project, or other topics?

46. MTA funding officials say that they try to make sure that elected officials are "on-board" for proposed projects and that virtually all applications come with support letter(s) from elected official(s). Who on the Council is/was the contact person for the County on the project?

47. The diagram on the back wall of the meeting room represents the "C" proposal the City approved for study in April '96. The County at the May 4 2000 meeting showed a different proposal "C" diagram that purports to say only the curves would be straightened and no other changes made. Which "C" is the real "C" and why is there a difference?

48. The City is in the midst of a 6 million dollar road project of most roads in the City. No Environmental Impact Report was required to do this. When you are not changing things, no EIR is needed. If the City does not want a 5 lane highway and/or straightened & widened Hacienda Blvd, why do an EIR?

The final conclusion of the EIR is substantially determined by the proposition to be studied, the options chosen, the consultant chosen and who is paying the bill. No matter how bad a potential impact, the catch-all solution is to say it has been mitigated to the greatest extent possible. The County has been saying for decades they "need" to widen and straighten the road, claiming pollution reduction, time savings, regional traffic and economic advantage, among other things.

City documents claim the road is unsafe and is falling apart. It does not take a rocket scientist to see where the EIR could end up.

49. Can initiating the EIR process send the City down a path where a likely conclusion is what no one wants?

50. If the EIR finds the proposed widening & straightening environmentally o.k. or possibly advantageous, is there a liability danger or increase if the City chooses to keep the road as it is?

51. These next three questions relate to the County's follow through, commitment to their agreements and possible loss of City control over its own future.

a. If traffic flow on Harbor Blvd increases to require 3 lanes in each direction, does the City have to authorize widening it or does the County now control it?

b. What is the volume threshold on a roadway like Harbor Blvd for an increase from 4 to 6 lanes?

c. Under the agreements to install Harbor Blvd, the slopes were supposed to be planted and irrigated by the County. Five plus years later this has still not been done. When will the County fulfill its agreements?

52. County documents estimate that of the approximately 14,000 more cars per day that will use a widened/straightened road, "3,000 will be diverted from Colima and 5,000 from Fullerton"(Harbor).

Why would we want, not only a dramatic increase in traffic, but for 60% of the cars to be taken off alternative routes and brought through the heart of the City?

53. Recent news articles and statements by City officials have indicated that those officials believe the 1995/96 County proposal "C" to be a two lane road. County officials have told me, that in order to qualify for funding, the width of a "C" road would have to be increased from the proposed 54 feet wide to 58 feet wide. Four lane proposal B2 is also 58 feet wide. Thus "C" is "two" lanes in name only.

Do City officials realize that proposal "C" is almost identical, short of the Skyline cut, to B2?

54. At the May 4, 2000 meeting Caltrans design exceptions were discussed.

a. What are the criteria for a design exception in cases such as ours? Please provide a copy.

b. What is the minimum change, if any, to the current road width and alignment to qualify for a design exception and still be qualified for state funding to repair and improve the existing road?

55. City officials are interested in getting some or all of the 4.5 million dollars the County/State has allocated for the first phase of Hacienda. A road contractor familiar with Hacienda, has stated that it may cost less than one million dollars, possibly as little as $750,000, to fix Hacienda in its current alignment. The City has already budgeted $500,000 from the Roads Renovation Project to repair Hacienda.

a. Would it be better/easier/quicker to just go after the additional couple of hundred thousand the City needs for Hacienda directly rather than to indirectly obtain the money from the $4.5 M?

b. What is the financial status of the Road's Project?

c. What will be left for Hacienda after Fullerton Rd is done? ... compared to the originally budgeted amount?

56. In January 2000 the County offered to turn over the Hacienda Road project, as proposed, to the City for its execution. County documents indicate a substantial sum will be expended for project engineering and oversight. Our current roads project had both design and oversight by RKA Engineering. It is expected RKA would be either in charge of the Hacienda project or a candidate to be in charge.

a. What are the criteria for determining conflict of interest in a case like this? Who determines if a party should "conflict out" of a situation?

b. Might RKA be inclined to favor the widening project over fixing the road in its current width and alignment because of the substantial and significant potential revenue to the company from widening & straightening?

c. Are either or both of our City engineers traffic engineers?

57. At the May 4, 2000 meeting the City engineer stated that STOP signs can only be used to assign right of way and may/would represent a liability to the City if they were used to slow cars down on Hacienda.

Contradicting the City Engineer, a recent LA Times article described a new policy in Los Angeles to use STOP signs to slow cars down, rather than just for assigning right of way. I spoke extensively to the traffic engineer/assistant general manager for transportation in Los Angeles who wrote the new policy. He said that using STOP signs to slow traffic down has proven to be quite effective and is used across the country for that purpose. He said that if a City has policies describing how and where the STOP signs will be used, and follows the policy, there is little/no liability.( I have the Los Angeles policy and conversation notes if any of you are interested.)

a. Would the City consider using STOP signs, or other traffic calming techniques, on Hacienda Blvd to slow cars down (as well as divert many) and make it safer for residents if it can be shown that this is being used elsewhere and represents no more liability than any other similar solution?

b. Has the city investigated the effectiveness and liability, if any, of this new use of STOP signs or any other traffic calming techniques?

58. The widening/straightening project will entail moving water lines.

a. Who will pay to move the water lines?

b. If it is the water company, that means we will pay. How much will it cost to move water lines for both Phase one and the whole project?

59 The $897,000 to do initial design and environmental review was granted and/or matched by the state and county circa 1987.

What are the rules (strings) that come with this money? Please provide a copy of the grant rules and county matching rules.

60. Other than the $150,000 the county has estimated they spent, this money should have been collecting interest over the past 13 years. This interest alone could pay for the amount, over the $500,000 the city already budgeted for phase I, needed to repair and make safe the road in its current width and alignment.

a. What are the rules governing use of accrued interest on unexpended funds?

b. If the current rules are unfavorable to our getting the interest, what were the interest rules in 1987 when the funds were granted?

c. Has anyone investigated getting this interest?

61. Completion of Phase I will leave the City with a four lane to two lane bottleneck at East road for northbound traffic.

How does the City plan to handle safety and congestion problems associated with the four lanes of high speed traffic dumping into a 2 lane country road in the middle of the City at East Rd?

62. What are the Federal, State, and County programs or sources that the City could take advantage of for funding the repair and improvement of Hacienda Blvd in its current width and alignment other than the $4.5 M approved for the widening & straightening?

63 Ninety percent, or so, of the vehicles using Hacienda are commuters or through traffic.

What legal obligation, if any, does the City have to expedite and/or increase capacity flow of commuters (at the expense of the property values, safety, and quiet enjoyment of residents)?

64. I had the opportunity to review the notices of claims against the city from the past five years. There was only one claim regarding Hacienda Blvd and vehicles. A driver who had never before driven on a wet, windy road lost control of his car and went over the side. This groundless claim was settled for $15,000, plus the city's attorney costs.

One (groundless) claim out of approximately 30 million vehicles using the road during this period does not seem to me to be a liability crisis.

The statistics suggest that liability concerns should not be grounds to alter the road, yet the county and City officials have mentioned that liability in case of accidents is one of the main reasons for straightening and widening the Hacienda.

What statistics can the city and county provide which support the argument that if Hacienda is widened and straightened the City's liability will be reduced in case of accidents?

65a. Does the City expect to turn control of and/or responsibility for Hacienda Blvd over to the County as part of or in conjunction with this project?

b. If so, please state the reasons for turning the road over and supply documentation to support the reasons including, but not limited to, comparisons to like cities and situations.

66. There have been fatalities on other Heights roads.

Are there any other roads that the City feels are a liability risk? ....... and need to be "improved" and/or turned over to the County? If so, please name them and describe the problems.

67.What is the average fatality rate for roads like Hacienda?

68.. What is the fatality rate of accidents on Hacienda?

Since this project will have lasting physical and far reaching financial effects on each resident of the city, shouldn't the residents be the ones to determine the outcome instead of 5 elected officials?

How can a five lane highway and "Rural Country Living" compliment each other?

One of the main reasons for our property values is the "country" type roads. What will a five lane highway do to our property values, especially those unfortunate residents that will be entering and exiting their driveways on Hacienda Blvd. and contend with the noise of semi-trucks traveling the road 24 hours a day?

If the County intends to pay for this road project, what will happen to the District 1 roads assessment fund?

What kind of flood control channels will be built alsong the road?

Will the road have curbs, gutters and street lights?

If the road is to have bus service, will concrete pads be poured for the bus stops and sidewalks put in so that the great volumes of residents that will use the bus won't be walking in the open roadside?

If bus service is available, will the county place a park and ride lot at the park? If a park and ride lot is made available to the general public at the park, who will be responsible for any vandalism to the vehicles in the lot?

Will the county provide the same type of "landscaping" on Hacienda Blvd. as they do on Harbor Blvd., which includes scraping the banks with skiploaders, laying asphalt in the median and not replacing trees that have been mowed down by out of control vehicles?

We only have past records to rely on when trying to determine how the present City Council will vote on this project. If the clear mismanagement of the recent roads projects is any indication of how the City Council will handle the Hacienda Blvd. project WE ARE IN TROUBLE. The project has never been completed and no one is responsible when questions are asked. Fullerton Road was suppose to be repaired a year ago and is one of the most dangerous road in the Heights because no one on city Council will hold the proper City employees to the terms of their contract. Indeed, they pretend all is well and re-write and extend already ludicrous contracts for less work and more money.

It is in the interest of each resident to question and scrutinize the members of the City Council closely since some of them have demonstrated very clearly in the past they do not have the interest of the residents as their first priority, when it comes to roads projects.

1. Approximately 90 percent of the vehicular volume through the city is non-residents. Recent estimates to repair and improve Hacienda in its current width and alignment range from $1 million to $1.5 million. The County should pay its 90 percent share.

a. Does the County have a program or fund for reimbursing cities to maintain city-owned roads that carry significan t through and/or commuter traffic?

b. If so, please provide details and county documents describing the program(s) and qualifications.

2. An alternative to increasing capacity would be to gate off the City.

a. What would it cost to gate off the City? Please provide details to the extent that the estimate can be supported as realistic.

b. What are the legal, logistical, political, and time issues regarding gating the City off?

3. When the City declines the County/State project, the City will need to repair the road. In the current economy, with prudent and frugal spending, a fund can be built to accomplish this without "selling the soul" of the City to the County.

What steps have Council members and staff taken to ensure that the City budget has no unnecessary or wasteful spending?

4. A cursory review of the proposed 2000-01 City budget reveals, at least, $200,000 that could be easily cut to provide for repair of Hacienda Blvd. The cuts range from General Plan update consultant $80,000, Senior Analyst $65,000 to the podium $1,000.

What other cuts have been recommended?

5. A few years ago, a controversy arose regarding using some of the Park land for City offices. It was stated that the Park land was deeded for only specific uses. One third of an acre, much larger that any City office would have been, will be condemned and taken for construction of the highway.

Will this condemnation and taking of Park land conflict with the deed and the use of the Park?

6. A few months ago, newspaper articles reported on the State of California frantically calling for Cities to send in applications for transportation related projects in order to spend the huge budget surplus.

What transportation projects did our City send in applications for? Hacienda Blvd?

7. A recent LA Times article reported that the city of Del Mar periodically closes down a main city street, that is a through artery, when traffic is expected to be too high. Drivers then need to seek alternative routes.

a. Has our City investigated closing Hacienda down (to non-residents) when road or utility construction occurs on the road as well as for special events, such as Music In The Park?

b. What are the legal and cost issues, if any, that would prevent this from being done?

8. A possible cost issue in the previous question is signage that would need to be placed alerting those coming into the City of the road closure. Crimson Oil will shortly (we hope) be installing their pipe line. The City could require, for safety and expediting the project, that Hacienda be closed to through traffic during the project and that Crimson turn over the signs used to the City, which the City could then use for future closings.

a. Has closing the road during Crimson's construction been considered?

b. If so, what are the issues?

c. If not, why not?

9. A Traffic Engineer could determine a safe flow rate of vehicles on Hacienda that would allow for proper spacing and provide "gaps" for residents to enter and exit side streets and driveways. A meter (red light-green light), similar to those used on freeway on-ramps, could then be placed at the City borders, set to allow the safe flow rate of traffic.

a. What would the cost and effectivness of such a system be?

b. What, if any, other issues are involved?

10.. Since January 2000, City staff and elected officials have repeatedly stated they did not want to reject the County/State proposal because they needed to be sure that we could not get at least some of the money allocated for the 5 lane highway. Residents independently contacting the funding authorities (MTA, CTC), learned (and reported to city staff and elected officials) that, absent minor changes, the project must be completed as originally planned and applied for. If changes are made, funding is lost and a new application must be filed.

With the high importance placed on this project, which council members and city staff have called the funding authorities within the last six months to ask them about the impact of City requested scope changes on funding and what did they find out?

11. County documents indicate that the County wants to widen the Hacienda Blvd to expedite the flow of people & goods and reduce congestion. They also state that Hacienda is the only part of Route 39 between the 10 and 5 freeways that is two lanes. A drive from the 10 Freeway via Glendora, Hacienda and Beach roads finds that our Hacienda is the least congested, freest flowing part of the route. If our road is widened drivers will still hit gridlock going through unincorporated LA county in Hacienda Heights and in the City of Industry between Colima and Valley Blvds.

What plans does the County have to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion in that area, as well as on Fullerton Road, north of Colima?