Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1974 02 25 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL February 25,.1974 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Saltarelli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Councilman Langley. III. INVOCATION Given by Councilman Sharp. IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: Saltarelli, Langley, Sharp, Welsh. !~ WOOdruff (wOOdruff arrived 8:55 p.m.) Absent: Councilmen: None. Others present: Harry Gill, City Administrator Ken Pieagle, As.sistant C~ty._Administrator for Community Development City Attorney James Ro~rke City Clerk Ruth Poe V. PLANNING AGENCY MATTERS (See Planning Agency Minutes for February 25, 1974.) PRESENTATIONS A presentation was made by the Mayor to Mr. Cooper of the Rehabilitation Institute of Orange County, of a proclamation proclaiming March i, 1974, through Easter Sunday, April 14, 1974, as "Easter Seal Month in Tustin". VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CONSIDERATION OF CITY OF TUSTIN SIGN CODE The Mayor declared the public hearing open at 8:40 p.m. Stephen L. Schuster, President of the Chamber of Corm~erce, 215 West First Street, Tustin, spoke regarding Alternative C. He expressed his feelings that Alternative C is much too restrictive for businessmen to live with. He knows of 25 signs that would be rendered illegal and all wall signs in Tustin Heights. He felt this Alternative would be undemocratic to businessmen in this town. The cost to the businessmen would be $300,000 to $400,000 in cost of signs. He strongly proposed that Council accept Alternative A without amortization. Raymond Kemp advised Council that he would like to point out some things about report to help decide between A, B, and C, dated February 25, 1974. On behalf of Alternative B - this was a result of a very care- ful look at Alternative A by businessmen of the Tustin commu- nity. It was felt that there should be more leniency and, Of course, they were against amortization. Alternative B was the alternative the businessmen designed and if Alternativei-B!was not acceptable he felt the next alternative in line would be Alternative A. Alternative C has not been opened to the public in any way, shape, or fo~Ta. Alternative B has a good philosoph- ical approach in that if a businessman's sign is not in good repair it should be taken down. Alternative C is at the Other end of the spectrum and is very restrictive. He strongly urged that Council very fully consider Alternative B which is a result of businessmen looking over Alternative A. He would like to request on behalf of those who made one pro- posal that the business community at large is against Alternative C. City Council Minutes 2/25/74 Page 2 Jerry Mack, appearing on behalf of Tustin Sign Committee, read a resolution draft prepared at a committee meeting of February 11, 1974. He expressed his feelings that Alterna- tive C would cause gross dissatisfaction. Urged Alternative A as a workable sign ordinance. Dr. John Irving Beck, Bliss Lane, has office on Irvine Boule- vard, advised Council that he ran an ad in the Tustin paper to see how people of Tustin felt about the sign situation. Only one person that contacted his office was very much upset with Tustin signing. Grady Henry, stated that he votes for Alternative A or B. But, for Alternative C - no~ The businessmen and City people have. gotten together to fight this thing out. He stated the only question in Alternative A is amortization. He stated he did not approve of the City being able to say they don't like a sign after it has been put up. He feels Council should choose A or B. Don Schuester, Nisson Road, stated he has looked around at a lot of towns and has seen some sad looking signs. He felt ~DSt signs around Tustin are in very good taste and that Tustin is a nice looking area. His only suggestion was that signs on closed businesses should be taken down. There being no further input for or against this matter from the audience, the Mayor declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:55 p.m. Mayor Saltarelli mentioned letter included in the agenda about not appointing more homeowners on the sign committee instead of businessmen. He expressed his feelings that homeowners generally don't come out as quickly as business- men who have interest. (Councilman Woodruff arrived at 8:55 p.m.) Councilman Woodruff suggested that Council take Ordinance one article at a time and approve in segments. Mayor Saltarelli expressed his opinion that it seemed to him that that was the long way around. The only differences were amortization and compensation. Mr. Fleagle briefly sun~narized each Alternative. In answer to questioning by Councilman Woodruff, Mr. Fleagle advised if amortization was taken out of Alternative A it would be Alternative B. In answer to Councilman Welsh, Mr. Fleagle advised that there would be no cost to the City under Alternative A unless the City removes sign before amortization. Councilman Woodruff advised that he would like to support recommendation and take committee and staff recommendation on Articles 1 through 5 and Article 7 with six small changes. He said he did not suggest that Council take line by line or word by word - just per article. Councilman Sharp supported Councilman Woodruff's approach. Movedby Woodruff, seconded by Sharp that Council approve Article 1, Sections 1, 2, and 3 as submitted with one change as follows: Change Item D under Section 3 to Item A, thus changing items A., B., and C. to B., C., and D. City Council Minutes 2/25/74 Page 3 Moved by Councilman Woodruff, seconded by Langley that Council approve Article 2, Sections 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9, as submitted. Carried. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Langley that Council approve Article III, Section 1, Definitions. Carried. Moved by Councilman Woodruff, seconded by Langley that Council approve Article IV with the following amendments: Section 3, Item A, second line- used for a period of sixty (60) days Or any sign which Was- Item B, eighth line to read, Ordinance, and other Code or Ordinance of the City regulating- Section 5, Item G, last line, add the words are prohibited. Item H, last line, add the words is prohibited. Carried. Councilman Sharp questioned if there was any point in any of the articles in the ordinance where we can have the oppor- tunity to conform to state law relative to the energy crisis. Mr. Fleagle advised Council that basically the question of lighting is preempted by state legislation. He feels the PUC is coping with lights going off at a certain time. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Sharp, that Council approve Article V as submitted° Carried. Moved by Councilman Woodruff, seconded by Councilman Langley that Council approve Article VII as submitted. Carried. Moved by Councilman Sharp, seconded by Councilman Langley that Article VIII be considered next in the ordinance. Carried. Councilman Woodruff questioned why there is a section on advertising benches under Article VIII when this was pre- viously taken care of by Council. Mayor Saltarelti felt that this would be a good place to repeat any action on benches. Councilman Woodruff thought that perhaps the only need would be to have Council add advertising benches under Article 4, Section A. Section 5-A could be identical wording as ordinances previously passed. Mr. Fleagle stated if his memory was correct, it was a policy provision but not an ordinance. Council policy said remove all benches and the City Engineer was not to issue permits. But, it was not a matter of an ordinance. Mayor Saltarelli expressed his feelings that if this was going to be a matter of policy that it would be put into the sign ordinance. F~. Gill reminded Council that the Orange County Transit District took an interest in City bus benches on Irvine and that they plan on coming in with benches marked OCTD Starts Here. City Council Minutes 2/25/74 Page 4 Councilman Woodruff felt Section 5-A could prohibit benches unless at a transit stop. Mayor Saltarelli expressed his feelings that there should be some kind of control on benches. Councilman Woodruff suggested that Article VIII Section 1, under A-1 show approval by Council instead of City Engineer. Mayor Saltarelli felt the real problem regarding advertising benches was four benches being put on one corner. He doesn't feel there is any problem with Orange County Transit District. Councilman Welsh expressed his feelings that the error isn't in the benches or the advertising but the placement of the benches. . Councilman Langley felt that it was the responsibility of the Council for indiscriminate dropping of benches. Councilman Welsh felt question was on advertising on benches. Moved by Woodruff that Council approve Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Article 8. Motion died for lack of second. Mayor Saltarelli called for Ayes on Section 1. Councilman Welsh voted"nO". Councilman Woodruff expressed his feelings that directional signs should be approved for convalescent hospitals. --~ Mayor Saltarelli felt that directional signs should be brought before Council. Councilman Sharp felt lit kind of directional sign would get job done. Mr. Gill questioned Council regarding direction signs for the School District office, City Hall, etc. He stated that he doesn't feel they would want each sign before City Council. Mr. Fleagle referred to definition of service sign on page 9 and advised Council that a convalescent hospital is not included as a public facility. Mayor Saltarelli felt that Council should take the type of sign on their shoulders--not the City Engineer. Councilman Langley advised Council that he has currently been working with a group of gentlemen of the Board of Realtors and they are having same problems. He felt that these conditional signs or directional type signs to be a whole new ball game. Mayor Saltarelli felt that even though a convelescent hospital is a private business, but related to health care, it does ~ not end up in Strictly commercial area. Mayor Saltarelli questioned if there was any specific comment regarding real estate directional signs. Councilman Langley advised Council that the real estate bard he is working with is studying the possibility of making a workable recommendation to create an opportunity of Open house signing with certain limitations. Councilman Woodruff felt that they should limit Councit's approval regarding directionat signs. City Council Minutes 2/25/74 Page 5 Mayor Sattarelli expressed his opinion that what a public facility is is in question. Councilman Woodruff felt that questions regarding directional signs should go before COmmunity Development Department for approval. Mayor Saltarelli expressed~his feelings again that directional signs should come before Council. Moved by Woodruff, seconded bySharp that Council approve Sections 2 and 3 of Article VIII, with correction to change word Engineer to Council inSection 3, Item B-3. Moved by Woodruff that Section 4 be approved as submitted. Motion died for lack of second. Mayor Saltarelli felt that there should be very few limita- tionsto political signs. Councilman Welsh concurred with Mr. Saltarelli. Moved by Saltarelti, secondedby Woodruff that Section 4 of Article VIII be approved as submitted with the following corrections: In paragrpah 2, first and second lines- All such slgns shall be removed not later than forty-eight (48) hours following the date of the election. In paragraph 3, third line, to read: any tree, traffic sign post, traffic. Carried. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Sharp that Council approve Section 5 of Article VIII as submitted. Carried. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Sharp that Class 1, Item B of Section 6, Article VIII, be approved as submitted with the following correction: Maximum size be changed to 16 sq. ft. - maximum height be changed to 6 ft. Carried 3-2. Moved b~ Saltarelli, seconded by Welsh, that Item B, Class 1 of Section 6, Article VIII, be approved as submitted. Carried 3-2. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Saltarelli that Class 2 of Section 6, Article VIII be approved as submitted. Carried. Moved by Sharp, seconded by Langley, that Class 3 of Section 6, Article VIII, be approved as submitted. Carried. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Sharp that Class 4 of Section 6, Article VIIibe approved as submitted. Carried. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Langley, that Classes 1 and 2 of Section 7, Article VIII-be approved as submitted. Carried. Councilman Woodruff felt there might be a great deal of comment regarding Sections 8 and 9, and recommended that these Sections be considered after amortization Section. Mayor Saltarelli questioned Council as to who favored amortiza- tion and who didn't. He expressed his feelings as to being contrary to amortization. If there is amortization, there must be compensation and compensation is not a justifiable City Council Minutes 2/25/74 Page 6 expense. Perhaps amortization should be considered somewhere down the line. Councilman Woodruff commented that just for consistency and general appearance, amortization could benefit everybody to have a high quality of street-scape. Mayor Sattarelli expressed his feelings that replacement of e sign should be part of cost of a building. Councilman Sharp thought amortization would be a sticky business to manage, a high cost, and a difficult thing ~o police. His main concern is with height, size, and could be handled in the future. When a business is changed, then the sign could be changed. Mayor Saltarelli felt that tax money should not be used to replace business signs. When bringing business in from the County amortization would be counter-productive. Councilman Langley said that he felt that the Council would really have to strongly consider a debt that this City has tc its business community with respect to the people who have been here and worked and spent most of their life here and have signs that have always been allowed. Also the City should consider some recent shopping type complexes in the last three years. We made basic commitments and allowances to them and should not turn around and basically change the good faith that they based a lot of their move on. He felt that there are better ways than the basic amortization, and perhaps the change of ownership is more appealing. One thing, above everything that he did not like, is government taking something from somebody. Regardless of whether the City is paying for it or not, it's just public taking. Councilman Woodruff felt Alternative A is unacceptable. He cannot justify the compensation provision. He did not feel it right to use taxpayers' money. He had never been neces- sarily the proponent for amortization and felt that time could cure the problem by change of ownership and use of premises. Perhaps we will look at it two years from now and everything will be in good shape. Moved by Welsh, seconded by Langley, that Council remove amortization. Carried. Moved by Welsh, seconded by Langley, that Council approve Article VI with the following amendments: Title of Section 4 be corrected ~o show: NON-CONFORMING SIGNS Item B of Section 4 - third line: &onformance with this code within 120 days after the effective date of this ordinance and shall no longer-- Item C of Section 4, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh lines: unless there is a change in proprietorship or use, in which instance, non-conforming signs shall be brought into conformity with requirements of this crdinance. Delete Item D of Section 4. Carried. RECESS The Council recessed at 10:50 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting reconvened at 10:55 p.m. City Council Minutes 2/25/74 Page 7 It was suggested by Mayor Saltarelli that Council continue Sign Ordinance at the next Council meeting. Moved by Welsh, seconded by Sharp, that Council continue Sign Ordinance to next Council meeting. Motion failed. Ayes: Welsh. Noes: Saltarelli, Langley, Sharp~ Woodruff. Moved by Woodruff, seconded~by Sharp, that Council approve Article VIII, Class 1, with the corrections shown below and delete Class 2 of Section 8, Article VIII. ChangeClass 1 - Business Identification to read: MAXIMUM NL~4BER MAXIMUM SIZE One (1) double 32sq. ft. face per Carried. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Langley that Council approve Class 3 of Section 8, Article VIII., Carried. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Sharp, that Council approve Class 4, Section 8, Article VIII with the following correc- tions: Under~ Maximum Size for type wall sign a,.b, and c, to show as follows: a. 25% of the front wall area not to exceed 64 sq. ft. b. 5% of wall area on which sign is located not to exceed 25 sq.ft. c. 5% of wall area on which sign is located not to exceed 25 sq. ft. Carried. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Sharp., that Council delete Class 5 of Section 8, Article VIII. Carried. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Saltarelli, that Council approve Classes 7 and 8 Of Section 8, Article VIII. Carried. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Langley, that Council approve Class i - a and b, of Section9, Article VIII with the folloW- ing corrections: Class 1: MAXIMUM NUMBER MAXIMUM SIZE MAXIMUM HEIGHT a. One (1) double 75 sq. ft. per 6' above grade face per or 4' b. 50 sq. ftl per Carried. Moved by Woodruff~ seconded by Sharp, that Council approve Class 2 of Section 9, Article VIII with the following correc- tions: MAXIMUM SIZE ~-~ a. not to exceed 75 sq. ft. b. not to exceed 25 sq. ft. c. not to exceed25 sq. ft. Carried. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Saltarelli, that Council approve Classes 3, 4, and 5 of Section 9, Article VIII, as submitted. Carried. City Council Minutes 2/25/74 Page 8 Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Sharp, that Council approve Class 6 of Section 9, Article. VIII, as submitted~ Carried. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Sharp, that Council delete Class 7 of Section 9, Article VIII Carried. Moved by W6odruff, Seconded by Sharp that Council approve Class 8, of Section 9, Article viii, with the following changes: Class 8 MAXIMUM SIZE 32 sq. ft, per Carried. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded b7 Welsh, that Council approve Class 1, Of Section 10, Article VIII with the inclusion of the word "or" between Type a and b. Carried. Moved byWoodruff, seconded byLangley, that Council approve Classes 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Section 10, Article VIII as sub- mitted. Carried. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Sharp, that Council approve Class 1, SeCtionll, ArtiCle VIII'with the changes shown below and delete type b. Class 1 MAXIMUM HEIGHT Six.l(6) feet above ~ grade or maximum of I 4 feet above~- Carried. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Saltarelli that Council approve Class 2, Section 11, Article VIII with the follow- ing corrections: Class 2 MAXIMUM SIZE a. 32 sq. ft. OR ~(include) b. 64 sq. ft. Carried. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Saltarelli, that Council approve Classes 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Section 11, Article VIII as submitted~ Carried. ORDINANCE NO. 614 An. Ordinance of the City Of Tustin, California, REGULATING THE CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, ALTEMA- TION, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF ADVERTISING SIGNS AND THEIR SUPPORTS. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Langley that Ordinance NO. 614, as amended, be given first reading by title only. Carried unanimously. The secretary read Ordinance No. ~614 by title. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Langley that Ordinance No. 614 be introduced. Carried. VII. PUBLIC CONCEMqS NONE City Council Minutes 2/25/74 Page 9 VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of February 4, 1974, meeting. 2. RATIFICATION OF DEMANDS in amount of $422,793.38. 3. PEPPERTREE SUBDIVISION NEIGHBORHOOD PARK (Preliminary Plans) 4. RESOLUTION NO. 74-11 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin APPROVING PARCEL MAP APPLICATION NO. 74-69. LOcation: Easterly intersection Of Red Hill Avenue and MOulton Parkway. 5. FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 8475 (North side of Irvine Boulevard, between Newport and Holt Avenues) 6. RESOLUTION NO. 74-12 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, CaIifornia, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 73-15 RELATIVE TO THE BOUNDARIES OF FIRST STREET UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 2. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 74-13 A ResolutiOn of the City Council, City of Tustin, California, ACCEPTING AND APPROVING GRANT TO EXTEND BARRANCA CHANNEL. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 74-14 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE CITY OF TUSTIN PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS. 9. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL FOR FINANCING TELEPHONE SYSTEM Award Of bid for lease financing for Civic Center Tele- phone System to Bank of America at a total interest cost of $9,772.84, being the lowest and best bid. 10. AWARD OF BID ON DUMP TRUCK BODY AND LIFT GATE Acceptance of the Paramount Proposal A at $4,650.10 plus tax as the lowest and best bid and additional appropria- tion of $885 from the Equipment Fund to cover the total vehicle including tax--all as recommended by staff. Moved by Langley, seconded by Woodruff, that CounCil approve allitems under the Consent Calendar with the exceptions of Final Map Tract No. 8475 to be discussed at a later portion of the agenda, and Resolution No. 74-14 to be continued to the Council meeting of 'March 4, 1974. Carried unanimously. FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 8475 Mr. Nick Barletta~ 605 S. P~ospect, Tnstin, gave background information on Final Map Tract No. 8475 and brought up the fact that at a very late date an additional item was injected concerning an item that he agreed fully with the City Engineer that is needed by the City. He referred to 178 lineal feet of cement pipe on Irvine Boulevard. They are in opposition to this for three reasons. They are as follows: City Council Minutes 2/25/74 Page 10 1. The stated amount of total cost of $12,000 is not correct. 2. Their engineer confirmed to them that there is a strong possibility that he could get together with the City Englneer and work out a completely different system where the City could get this future cement pipe line and have the work done at a far lesser cost. 3. Memorandum to them from the Community Development Depart- ment refers to Paragraph 2-K in Resolution 1374, which states that storm drain facilities and inlets be installed from the tract into the Flood Control Facility to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This is incorrect. Mr. Barletta reminded Council that they could have control by permit. He asked if it was right for the City to hit him with the additional requirement of the cement pipe line at this late date. Mayor Saltarelli advised the applicant that this was a ques- tion that he could not answer and Council simply had no choice but to continue to the next Council meeting. Councilman Sharp expressed his feelings that it seemed like an impossible task and the only alternative was to continue. Moved by Langley, seconded by Saltarelli, that Council con- tinue Final Map Tract 8475 to the next Council meeting of March 4, 1974. Carried. IX. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 607 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, ADDING CHAPTER 6A TO THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATING TO REQUIRED CONSUMER PROTECTION IN CONNECTION WITH RESI- DENTIAL SALES. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 610 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE TUSTIN-CITY CODE RELATIVE TO COMMIS- SIONERS WHO ARE CANDIDATES FOR CITY COUNCIL. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 612 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, ENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO PENALTY PROVISIONS AND CONTINUING VIOLATIONS. Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Sharp, that Ordinances 607, 610 and 612 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. The secretary read Ordinances 607, 610, and 612 by title. Moved by Welsh, seconded by Langley that Ordinance No. 607, Adding Chapter 6A to the Tustin City Code Relating to Required Consumer Protection in Connection with Residential Sales, and Ordinance No. 612, Amending the Tustin City Code Relative to Penalty Provisions and Continuing Violations, be adopted. Carried. Ayes: Saltarelli, Langley, Sharp, Welsh, Woodruff. Noes: none. Absent: none. Councilman Welsh stated that he has the same contention that he has mentioned before regarding Ordinance No. 610. City Council Minutes 2/25/74 Page 11 Moved by Langley, seconded by Sharp that Ordinance No. 610, Amending t2~e Tustin Cit~ Code Relative to Commissioners Who Are Candidates for City Council, be adopted. Carried. Ayes: Saltarelli, Langley, Sharp, Woodruff. Noes: Welsh. Absent: none. X. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION NONE. XI. OLD BUSINESS 1. APPOINTMENT OF YOUTH REPRESENTATIVE TO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Mayor Saltarelli advised Council that he and Mr. Woodruff will interview the two candidates under consideration. This item to be continued to a future meeting. XII. NEW BUSINESS 1. BURGLARY PREVENTION INDEX GRANT AGREEMENT Moved by Langley, seconded by Woodruff, that the City of Tustin enter into an agreement with the City of Santa Aria relative to the Orange County Burglax~I Prevention Indew and the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute said agreement. Carried. ~-~ l XIII. OTHER BUSINESS 1. REPORT ON CITY SERVICES TO COUNTY AREAS Received and filed. No action required. 2. TREES WITHIN THE CITY CONSIDERED A HAZARD Mr. Gill recommended that, by minute order, the Council implement the recommendation of the Maintenance Department and give them authority to contact the County ROad Depart- ment regarding the hazardous trees in their right-of-way abutting the City. Moved by Langley, seconded by Saltarelli, that Council approve the Maintenance Department recommendations in their report dated February 21, 1974, and that the County ROad Department be contacted regarding hazardous trees in their right-of-way abutting the City. Carried unanimously. 3. RIDE ALONG PROGRAM PROCEDURES Continued. 4. FULL-TIME POLICE DISPATCHER Mr. Gill recommended that Council approve employment of a full-time police dispatcher. Moved by Sharp, seconded by Langley that another full-time dispatcher for Tustin Police Department be authorized. Carried unanimously. 5. FORMAL APPLICATION WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Mr. Gill recommended to Council that the City file a formal application with the Public Utilities Commission for the abandonment of Southern Pacific Railroad tracks from Irvine Boulevard to Main Street. City Council Minutes 2/25/74 Page 12 Moved by Langley, seconded by Welsh that a formal applica- tion with the Public Utilities Conm%ission to abandon the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks from Irvine Boulevard to Main Street be authorized. Carried unanimously. 6. PRESENTATION REQUESTED Councilman Woodruff requested staff to contact Mr. Dennis MacLain of the Municipal Water District of Orange County regarding a presentation to Council relative to getting better support on the California State Water Project. 7. Councilman Woodruff referred to the Barletta matter and stated that staff should make sure, in the future, that all contracts and bonds be approved before final map gets to Council. 8. PUBLIC MEETING RE: GRADE SEPARATIONS Councilman Woodruff brought to the Council's attention a Public Utilities Commission hearing in April regarding grade separations on Culver Road and Irvine. He said he would like to see this considered for Red Hill, Moulton Parkway and Jamboree Boulevard. XIV. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Saltarelli adjourned the meeting at 12:50 a.m. to March 4, 1974.