Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout051590 CC MinutesMINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD MAY 15, 1990 An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:07 PM in the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore Mufioz, Parks presiding. PRESENT ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager Frank Aleshire, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. INVOCATION The invocation was waived. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Lindemans. PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Parks announced the appointment of a permanent City Manager, David Dixon, who is presently serving as City Manager of Moreno Valley. PUBLIC COlVI/VIENTS Anne Greenstone, County Public Health Nurse spoke concerning five health issues. 1. Requested help in organizing a transportation system connecting Iatke Elsinore with Temecula, (i.e. bus system and dial a ride). 2. Requested that signs in the County Health Center be in Spanish as well as English. Minutea 5/15/90 I Consider establishing programs for youth, (i.e. extended day care programs, and summer programs). 4. Provide teen mother centers on high school campuses with child care on premises. Provide a centrally located facility for homeless population or new Spanish speaking citizens which would offer "drop in" health care. Jay Waterman, 41790 Winchester, Ste. F, spoke in opposition to street vendors who set up shop in the City roadways. Mr. Waterman stated these vendors are in direct competition with local businesses. He also expressed concern that sales tax revenues will not be reported in Temecula. Mr. Waterman asked the Council to adopt a resolution to prohibit street vendors in the City of Temecula. Councilmember Mufioz asked Mr. Waterman if he would favor a business license requirement, restricting street vendors to certain areas. Mr. Waterman stated he would be in favor of a business licensing process. Steve Sander, 4213 Holden Circle, spoke in opposition to removal of the trees in the median on Rancho California Road. He asked Council to save the street trees and not destroy the character of Temecula. CONSENT CAI,ENDAR Mayor Parks requested the removal of Item No. 3 from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Mufioz requested the removal of Item No. 2 from the Consent Calendar. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve Item No. 1 as follows: 1. Minutes 1.1 1.2 Approve minutes of April 24, 1990 as mailed. Approve minutes of April 25, 1990 as mailed. The motion was carried by the following vote: Minutes 5/15/90 2 AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemarts, Moore, Mufioz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 2. Reconqideration of South West Area Comm.nity Plan Councilmember Mufioz said he was not in favor of adopting the Southwest Area Community Plan, stating it has many flaws. Councilmember Mufioz indicated his desire to proceed with the creation of the City's own general plan. Councilmember Lindemans stated SWAP should be used as a guideline or reference for creating the City's general plan. Councilmember Lindemans stressed that actions taken by the Council today will set the stage for Temecula for the next 50 years. Councilmember Birdsall stated her concern with how the Planning staff is expected to function without any guidelines on which to base their decisions. Councilmember Moore suggested the City use SWAP as a base plan, and look into changing the problem areas. She stated that the City is not compelled to "live" with this plan forever. Mayor Parks said he does not agree with all of the provisions of SWAP, however, he believes it is a good tool to use a base on which to begin building a comprehensive general plan for the City. Councilmember Mufioz reported that SWAP is available now to use as a guide, without the need to adopt it as our general plan. Councilmember Birdsall asked for an opinion from the Planning staff. Ross Geller, Planning Director, stated that it is not a problem to operate without a plan. He said it gives the City Council an opportunity to review each parcel on a case by case basis. He suggested that when discussing the SWAP with the Planning Commission, he would point out that the whole plan is not worthless, and should be used as a guide in creating the general plan. Councilmember Mufioz moved, Councilmember Lindemans seconded a motion to modify staff recommendation to refer to the Planning Commission for evaluation of Southwest Area Community Plan Minutes 5/15/90 3 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 C OUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks 0 C OUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None o Resolution Re~ardint, Time of Meetings Mayor Parks spoke in opposition to this resolution. He stated changing the meeting time from 7:00 PM to 6:00 PM would place a burden on the public as well as staff, not allowing them time to eat or take any break after work. Councilmember Mufioz suggested a compromise of 6:30 PM. Councilmember Moore stated that City Hall is open until 6:00 PM and the change of time would prove very difficult for City staff. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mufioz to table the resolution regarding time of meetings. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 C OUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks None None COUNCH, BUSINKing Councilmember Lindemans requested consideration of Item No. 10 next. 10. Cable Televi.~ion Franchi.~e Analysin City Manager Aleshire reported this item was continued from the meeting of May 8, 1990. The recommendation has been changed to receive and file the report and direct staff to 4 Minute8 5/15/90 reject all CTV license applications filed under the County Ordinance, and to direct City Manager to hire a CTV Consultant. Mr. Aleshire stated a Consultant would be hired to draft a City ordinance and this could be placed on the agenda in a couple of weeks. Donnie Clark, Vice President of Jones Intercable, stated his desire to bring a high-tech system to Temecula. He said Jones Intercable is prepared to wire the entire City. Mr. Clark stressed the high quality of service Jones Intercable provides and stated that competition is in the City's best interest. Mr. Clark stated Jones Intercable is in favor of creating a City ordinance, but did not want construction delayed for nine months to one year. Charlie Guild, Attorney for Jones Intercable, stated that Jones Intercable was provided with certain permits by the County of Riverside, they relied on these permits and commenced construction and are in fact still relying on this franchise. Mr. Guild reported that Jones Intercable submitted an application to the City of Temecula in an effort to settle some differences. Councilmember Mufioz asked if the points indicating non-compliance by Jones Intercable are correct, and which items have been complied with now. Mr. Guild reported that all items have been complied with. City Attorney Fields reported the chief issue is that Jones Intercable did not accept the franchise prior to City incorporation. Once the City had incorporated, a new franchise was necessary. Additionally, the documents the City has seen did not have two signatures, which is necessary. Mr. Fields further stated that Jones Intercable has now filed a surety bond, however it was filed long after the allowed 10 day period. Jim Allman, 43954 Gatewood Way, stated he is in favor of competition and receiving the best service possible. He suggested that staff do research on the best alternatives and negotiate in the residents best interest. Thomas Unglaub, representing Inland Valley Cablevision, reported that with 7,000 subscribers, they have made a major commitment to Temecula. Mr. Unglaub stated the City should take time to evaluate whether it needs another cable company and who the competition is. Councilmember Mufioz asked staff to report on three issues: one, the significance of the failure to comply with the franchise requirements on the part of Jones Intercable; two, how does the City determine the needs for service in a community of this size, three, what is the status of the other cable companies listed in the staff report. Minutes 5/15/90 5 City Attorney Fields stated Jones Intercable had a period of time to accept a contract, but did not do so when the County had jurisdiction. He reported there are practical limitations on how many cable companies can logistically operate in the same community. Mr. Fields said staff wishes to be sure procedures followed for awarding franchises represent the needs and interests of the City. He stated he was not sure the City would be able to determine these issues in the next 30 days. Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Services, reported that the City has only received one application from Jones Intercable. He stated that a copy of all County franchises to operate in the City of Temecula, are included in the agenda packet to serve as information for the Council on all the cable operators active in the area. Councilmember Mufioz asked City Attorney Fields if the City is on pretty solid ground in regards to jurisdiction. City Attorney Fields stated he felt comfortable with his opinion. Mayor Parks asked the cost of having a consultant to draft an ordinance. City Manager Aleshire reported that to draft an ordinance would cost approximately $1,000. If the consultant is asked to process applications for franchise, it could cost up to $9,600. Councilmember Mufioz suggested contacting the League of Cities regarding a prototype ordinance. City Manager Aleshire reported that the League had been contacted and their recommendation is to hire a consultant. Mayor Parks stressed the importance of hiring an expert to draft an ordinance of this type to assure future applications will be resolved. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Parks to adopt the staff recommendation to receive and file the report and hire a CTV Consultant. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemarts, Moore, Mufioz, Parks NOES: 0 C OUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to deny all Franchise Applications filed under the County Ordinance. The motion was carried by the following vote: Minutes 5/15/90 6 AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks NOES: 0 C OUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Mufioz requested patience from the applicants stating that the City Council is not opposed to competition, but it requires time to establish an ordinance to serve the best interests of community. RECESS Mayor Parks declared a recess at 8:20 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 8:42 PM. 4. Temecula Redevelopment Di~rict City Manager Aleshire reported this item was continued from the meeting of May 1, 1990. Mr. Aleshire introduced Dave McElroy, Managing Director of the Riverside County Economic Redevelopment Agency, to give present report. Mr. McElroy reported that the land within Redevelopment Project No. 1-1988 includes the area known as Old Town Temecula, and suggested that all effort should be made to preserve and protect the historic nature and architectural integrity of Old Town Temecula. Mr. McElroy stated that the plan specifically states there will be no eminent domain used in the redevelopment area. The District also authorizes the agency to provide flood control improvements, traffic signals, road improvements, street lighting, bridge improvements, parks and recreation improvements, parking facilities, fire fighting facilities, library facilities, school facilities, construction of a museum in Old Town, improvements for French Valley Airport and participation in County CORAL obligations. Mr. McElroy stated that the County has 35 project areas and would welcome the City taking jurisdiction over this agency. He further stated that redevelopment does not increase property tax. It receives a tax increment as a result of new growth. Mr. McElroy informed the City Council that a law suit is now in progress, and if successful, would halt the redevelopment plan from taking effect and the City would lose funding for these projects. Over the 40-year life of the redevelopment program, $211,000,000 of public facilities could be constructed using Redevelopment funds. Mr. McElroy described three scenarios for possible management of the redevelopment services: Minutes 5/15/90 7 1. The County could continue to manage the program. 2. The City could assume management of the redevelopment agency. The City could enter into a contract with the County specifying how the agency is to be managed. Councilmember Birdsall asked if the City takes over management of this agency, would there be any additional pass throughs. Mr. McElroy stated that according to the County policy on City Redevelopment Projects, the County gets a 100% pass through in some form. This can be in actual dollars or, through acquisition of certain facilities benefiting the City. If the City took over management, the County would enter into an agreement specifying the financial arrangements needed. Councilmember Moore questioned the status of the law suit. Mr. McElroy reported that the law suit is still active, however, a court date has not been set. Councilmember Lindemans questioned whether the County desired the City to take over the law suit. Mr. McElroy stated that it is staff's recommendation to have the City of Temecula take over this issue. Councilmember Lindemans stated the big loser in this issue would be Old Town, if funding is lost, and questioned if this law suit can be won. Councilmember Lindemans suggesting referring this to the City Attorney. Councilmember Mufioz asked if the County plan is adopted, can changes still be made. Mr. McElroy stated amendments to the plan can be made. He further stated that the County would not adopt a plan they did not feel was legal, and would not defend a case that could not be won. Councilmember Mufioz asked how much time the City has to decide this issue. Mr. McElroy stated the County is prepared to give Temecula as much time as is needed. Mayor Parks asked if the City agrees to take over the District, would the County still want it's total pass-through. Mr. McElroy stated that the County would insist on the total pass- through, however it could be used in Temecula based on negotiations. Bill Bopf, Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce, stated the Economic Development Committee has recommended that the Chamber Board encourage the City Council to preserve the Redevelopment option. He stated at present the City has a 1987 tax incremental base. If the City were to start over on this issue, it would lose that base. Mr. Bopf stated the position of the Chamber is to provide support, even to the extent of legal support. Minutes 5/15/90 8 It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to refer this issue to staff for further review. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemarts, Moore, Mufioz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 5. Rerional Park Di.qtrict City Manager Aleshire introduced Paul Romero, County of Riverside Parks Director, to explain the Regional Park District Proposal. Mr. Romero reported that growth is sky-rocketing in this area, with the need for Parks and Recreation not adequately addressed. Mr. Romero reported that in the past funding for parks came from the state. He stated there is a need for a new funding source. The proposed method of funding would be a $30 assessment per parcel. City participation in the district would provide citizens with free access to any regional facility. One property in question would be the Santa Rosa Plateau. Mr. Romero reported that at a public meeting on March 22, 1990, very strong public support was expressed. Mr. Romero also stated results of a public opinion poll showed 46% of public support the district, 23% are undecided. Mr. Romero said he is trying to gain support from as many cities as possible before the November election. Councilmember Mufioz asked the following questions: 1. Why should the City want another government agency taxing the people? Why would only $25,000 be returned to this community of a potential $500,000 collected per year. Why would City residents contribute to this program and give 80% to the County? 3. How will this be resolved if the City's voters choose not to participate? Mr. Romero answered as follows: Minutes 5115/90 9 This is not an additional governmental agency, it is a new agency replacing an old one. It would be creating an agency with a set participation level. It is pioneering a change in governmental structure. o The $30 assessment is apportioned 25 % to the City, 25 % for Regional Benefit and 50% for open space conservation and wildlife preserves. With the sky-rocketing price of property, the time is growing short to be able to purchase land for wildlife refuges. e If the City does not choose to participate there will be no assessment, but there will also be no regional benefit shared. Councilmember Mufioz requested that when this agenda item is brought before the City Council again, it should be clear that citizens will be assessed $30 a year. Mayor Parks stated that if the City adopts the suggested Resolution and then votes not to participate in the district, should the measure pass County-wide the assessment will still be levied. Mr. Romero stated there will be two issues on the ballot: 1. Are you willing to support the Regional Park District? 2. Are you willing to accept $30 per year assessment? Mayor Parks voiced his support of this issue, stating it has received support from the public, and asked the Council to take a good look at it. Councilmember Birdsall moved, Councilmember Mufioz seconded a motion to continue this item to a future meeting and direct staff to solicit public input on the District and on the proposed resolution. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks NOES: 0 C OUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Minutes 5/15/90 10 6. Riverside County Department of Health - Contract for Services City Manager Aleshire introduced Earl Tuntland, Environmental Health Services Division to give a presentation. Mr. Tuntland presented an offer to continue services in the area of environmental health services. These services include land use and water engineering. Mr. Tuntland described contracts with Moreno Valley, Riverside, Lake Elsinore, Palm Springs and Hemet, ranging from subdivision approval to building permits. Mr. Tuntland said The Environmental Health Services Division offers expertise in water supply and sewage, and would be happy to offer services to the City after July 1, 1990. Mayor Parks asked the City Manager if this issue has been addressed. City Manager Aleshire reported that this will be part of the budget process. No formal action was taken on this issue. 7. Tract 23304 - Club Valencia City Manager Aleshire recommended that the City Council direct the City Engineer to conduct a traffic and drainage study of Tract 23304. He reported that at the March 13, 1990 City Council meeting, Mr. William Coghlan of IDM Corporation answered questions concerning Tract 23304 and that the Council asked for a traffic study. On April 19, 1990 staff received a letter from IDM's attorney stating that no conditions can be imposed on the final map and that a traffic study is not warranted. IDM Corporation also agreed to voluntarily pay a traffic mitigation fee of $150 per unit. On April 20, 1990 an application was filed with the City Planning Director, requesting an extension of time on the tentative tract map. The tentative map expired on May 10, 1990. The planning staff is recommending denial of the extension for several reasons including inconsistency with the proposed general plan, potential health and safety problems. The City has received the final map which is being prepared to present to the City Council. Staff recommendation is to prepare a traffic study before a final decision is made on this tract. Councilmember Lindemans asked if it is normal procedure to ask Willdan and Associates to do this kind of work or to go out for bids. City Manager Aleshire reported that in cases of a small traffic study, Willdan would normally be used. Mr. Aleshire reported that in the case of final maps, the City has a 60-day time limit. Mayor Parks asked if the City has any recourse should the study show a traffic hazard exists. City Attorney Fields stated that when the study is complete, if it identifies a traffic Minutea 5/15/90 11 problem, it can address that situation and the cost of the study can be recovered in mitigation fees. Ronnie Crossland, 30632 Hollyberry Lane, thanked staff for a very comprehensive report. She asked if a study will also address density. Mayor Parks responded that the Council could only address health and safety issues when approving a final map. City Attorney Fields stated, however, that the study would be a traffic and drainage study. Councilmember Mufioz asked the City address the fact that the density exceeds the guidelines of SWAP. City Attorney Fields reported that unless it is a health or safety problem, nothing can be done. City Manager Aleshire reported that when a traffic study is made, it may identify a correlation between traffic problems and density. It was moved by Councilmember Mufioz, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to accept staff recommendation and direct the City Engineer to conduct a traffic and drainage study of Tract 23304. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemarts, Moore, Mufioz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Funding Request for the Temecula Valley F~:onomic Development Corporation City Manager Aleshire reported this item is a request for funding from the Temecula Valley Economic Development Corporation for $75,000. He stated it is staff's recommendation to refer this to budget heatings on May 22, 1990. Bill Bopf, Vice President of Chamber of Commerce, congratulated the City Council on hiring David Dixon, as Temecula's City Manager. Mr. Bopf reported the Chamber of Commerce unanimously supports the Temecula Valley Economic Development Corporation and feels it is vital for the welfare of the community. Minutes 5/15/90 12 Mike Perdue, 44028 Highlander Drive, Chairman of the Economic Development Corporation, reported that this Corporation will not operate as a function of the Chamber of Commerce, but as a separate entity called the Temecula Valley Economic Development Corporation. He asked that this corporation be a private/public partnership with the City, funded by 50/50 matching funds. Mr. Perdue stated that the first year budget is estimated at $150,000. He said the main function of the corporation is to promote economic growth and development within the City of Temecula and surrounding areas and to improve business conditions in such areas to attract medium to large clean industry employers. Additional businesses will create jobs as well as tax dollars for the City. Mayor Parks asked what happens if the City funds this group for Temecula Valley and Muraleta incorporates, possibly vying for the same businesses? Mr. Perdue answered that the Corporation would not get into a bidding war with a city or organization. The City of Temecula is named because it is an established City. He stated that Murrieta would be encouraged to join and fund to the same extent. Mr. Perdue also observed that whether or not an industry locates within the City boundaries, everyone benefits from a major industry in the region. Councilmember Moore moved, Councilmember Birdsall seconded a motion to continue this item to the budget hearing on May 22, 1990. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemarts, Moore, Mufioz, Parks NOES: 0 C OUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mufioz to extend the meeting until 10:30 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. Concept Stripinl~ Plan for Rancho California Road Over 1-15, from Front Street to Ynez Road. City Manager Aleshire reported Item No. 9 is a request from Bedford properties to consider a change in the median for Rancho California Road. Mary Jane Jagodzinski, Bedford Properties, spoke regarding the total plan including striping and traffic mitigation measures on Rancho California Road. Ms. Jagodzinski Minutes 5/15/90 13 stated that Bedford Properties valued the quality of life, and the entrance statement to Temecula. She introduced Woody Woodard, Infrastructure Consultant for Bedford Properties, to outline plans for Rancho California Road. Mr. Woodard outlined requirements placed on Bedford Properties by the County as follows: Bedford is obligated to widen the north-bound off ramp and the south bound off ramp, also to assure by striping that there are two through-lanes, in each direction and right and left turn lanes. Mr. Woodard said to accomplish this, Bedford Properties had to work with Caltrans using their specific criteria for approval. Mr. Woodward outlined the proposed changes as follows: With the highest priority, signals should be installed, and the off- and on-ramps and the signals at Front Street and Ynez Road would be designed to be in sequence. Removing the existing raised landscape medians on Rancho California Road between Front Street and Ynez Road and restriping the street to provide for two through lanes and longer left-turn pockets at Front Street and the freeway on ramps. Ms. Jagodzinski stated Bedford was very much concerned with the image of this community, outlining new landscaping going around the hotel on the South side of Rancho Califomia Road, and the Tower Office Building on the North side including a pond. She stated that the traffic problems in Temecula are well known throughout the area and could hurt the Economic Development Committee's efforts in attracting new business. Councilmember Birdsall asked the following questions: 1. If the bridge can be re-striped right now, why has it not been done? Why is it necessary to take medians out, instead of taking space from the sides of the road? Why are the circle loops, funded through Mello Roos, not coordinated with this program? Ms. Jagodzinski answered that the widening of the road and the signals are not fees included in the Mello Roos. This is funded by developer fees imposed by the County. Mayor Parks asked if the loop ramps are installed, would the center median still need to be removed. Mr. Woodward stated the median removal would still be necessary to assist Minutes 5/15/90 14 the traffic flow, but perhaps the entire length would not need to be removed. Councilmember Lindemans read the required provisions dated June 2, 1988 as follows: Provide for the widening, restriping, reconstruction of Rancho California Road to provide six approach lanes at 1-15 with auxiliary lanes as deemed necessary from Ynez Road to Front Street, carrying four through lanes across 1-15, all as approved by the Road Commissioner and Caltrans. Councilmember Mufioz asked, with respect to the 1995 criteria, if the proposed Apricot Overpass was considered. He stated the excess traffic that will be accommodated by taking out the medians, could easily be absorbed by the Apricot Overpass. Jim Allman, 43954 Gatewood Way, stated that "trees are forever", expressed his opposition to the current plan. He asked where the alternatives to this plan? He objected to a plan that was missing loops, and all the objectives necessary to meet traffic needs of the future. Diane Jimenez, Box 1816, spoke in opposition to removal of the medians, stating she moved to Temecula to escape the cement jungle of Los Angeles. Ms. Jimenez said she felt there were better ways to solve the traffic problems. Jane Vernon, 30268 Mersey Ct., spoke in opposition to the plan. William Harker, 30031-85 General Kearny Road, spoke in favor of the plan. Mr. Harker asked the community how much they were willing to sacrifice for a few trees, emphasizing the increasing frustrations of sitting in traffic on Rancho California Road. Mr. Harker further stated the sprinklers in the medians often spray cars and the road, causing chuck holes. Mayor Parks stated a letter was received from Susan McPhillops, asking the Council to save the trees on Rancho California Road. City Manager Aleshire stated the staff recommendation is to approve the plan, with mitigation considered to provide trees along the side of the road. He stated the project complies with the requirements that the County has set forth and believes it will substantially improve the traffic condition at that location. Mr. Aleshire stated that there is a need for a more extensive study of traffic conditions on this road. Tim Serlett, City Engineer, stated the developer has been in an extensive review process with Caltrans. Mr. Serlett stated that the County is funding the signals and if optimum traffic improvements are not made, they would possibly reconsider participation in funding the signals. Minute8 5/15190 15 City Manager Aleshire reported that this is a very complicated issue because it involves Caltrans. He stated the developer has received Caltrans approval for the project. If changes are made in the project, it is likely to create a delay of many months. Councilmember Mufioz asked if this item is disapproved, will traffic signals not be installed in the current time frame. Mr. Aleshire answered that the current signal project is approved and scheduled to be completed this year, but it is unclear what happens if the widening the restriping plan is not approved. Mr. Woodward stated that the design of the signals cannot proceed until a plan is approved. Councilmember Lindemans asked if Bedford had put the signals on hold, with the presentation of their plan. Mr. Woodward stated that they have never postponed the signal program, they have been working on it continuously. Mary Jane Jagodzinski said that Bedford would never put these signals on hold, that they desire the traffic problems to be solved as much as the Council. She stated that Bedford has had to work with Caltrans and the bureaucracy involved, and a change of plan may delay installation of the signals. Mayor Parks asked if it is possible to show how much of the islands can be retained, and see if this will still withstand the Caltrans test. He said he would like this continued for two weeks and in that period of time, work with staff to look at the loop ramp system to determine how this will affect traffic in the future. Mayor Parks stated that a signal system cannot be designed until you know where every lane is exactly located. Until a plan is approved, Caltrans will not approve the signal. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mufioz to continue the meeting until 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. Councilmember Mufioz stated it has been established that the 1995 criteria used did not take into consideration an overpass, which will greatly improve traffic problems. He said that the quality of life that the medians provide is something that cannot be replaced. Councilmember Mufioz suggested seeking another answer to solving the traffic congestion at this location. Tim Serlett, City Engineer, stated staff will address an alternative solution with Caltrans other than removing the medians. Councilmember Birdsall asked staff to look at the comer of Rancho California Rd. and Front Street, to correct the water ran-off pot hole problems. Minutes 5/15/90 16 Councilmember Birdsall moved, Councilmember Lindemans seconded a motion to refer this matter to staff for further study. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks None None CITY MANAGER REPORT City Manager Aleshire reported that Wednesday, May 16, 1990, is "clean-up day" in Temecula. Beginning at 8:00 AM, illegal signs will be removed. Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Systems, will coordinate the effort. The County Road Department will also be present to help determine the legality of signs. Mr. Aleshire further reported that tonight, May 15, 1990, the County will be sweeping the City streets. Mr. Aleshire said that the median on Rancho California Road at the Target Center has had the weeds removed and will have flowers planted. City Manager Aleshire reported that the KTRM-FM radio tower relocation will be on the agenda soon. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None given. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Mufioz requested staff report on the status of a resolution regarding the western ridgeline. Councilmember Moore requested the inclusion of Diaz Road in the sign abatement program. Councilmember Birdsall thanked the public for their help in taking care of 90% of the sign problem, and further thanked the owners of the Target Center for removal of the median weeds. Councilmember Lindemans requested staff look at the sign program for housing developments in effect in the City of Hemet. Minutes 5/15/90 17 ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Mufioz moved, Councilmember Birdsall seconded a motion to adjourn at 10:58 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. Next meeting: May 22, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATYEST: Deputy Minutes 5/15/90 18