HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-23-68MINUTES OF A REGULAR
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
December 23, 1968
.CALL TO
ORDER
LEDGE OF
LLEGI~CE
III.
ROLL
CALL
IV.
APPROVAL
OF
MINUTES
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by
Chairman Halus.
Led by Commissioner Oster.
Present:
Commissioners:
~ahoney, Larnard, Webster,
Halus, I,udwig, Oster, Sharp
Absent: None
Others Present:
James G. Rourke, City Attorney
Harry E. Gill, City Administrator
James L. Supinger, Planning Director
Jeanne Hein, Acting Secretary
Moved __b~ Mr. Sharo, se_ce__nded by__Mrs____.__.L.u'dwi~ th____~_._t
the minutes of the last meeting_.be aoproved as
~ailed. Carrie~-~~f~.
1. V-68-225 HARI.AN CROSS - SIGNS
To permit:
Signs having a total area of 356 sq. ft.
(Sign Ordinance permits 300 sq. ft.)
Pole sign located within the front setback
area'and exceeding 150 sq. ft. each side
and 300 sq. ft. total area.
Location: Fronts 150 feet on the north side
of First Street approximately 175 feet east
of the centerline of Prospect Avenue.
Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating
that the proposal is for two signs - the pole
sign totaling 312 sq. ft.. and a wall sign of
44 sq. ft., and recommending approval of this
variance.
Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the
hearing.
Bill Jensen, 400 Avenue Presidio, San Clemente,
Real Estate Representative for Harlan Cross and
McDonald's Corporation, stated they have given
nine reasons why this particular location warrants
a sign of this size. It was two or three years
ago when they first began looking at the Tustin
area for a McDonald's Restaurant. At that time,
in meeting with Mr. Supinger and other men~ers of
the staff, it was determined that their building
was not suitable for the requirenents of the cJ. ty
architecturally. Just recently their new building
was designed to fit into the architectural plan
for the city. Secondly, they failed to request
the standard arches that have been a symbol of
McDonald's over 1000 restaurants throughout the
United States. They feel they can still do a
fine job in Tustin w~th their new building.
Thirdly, the particular sign they are requesting
is, as far as the sign compony ~s concerned,
PC ~.[inutes
12-23-68
Page 2
224 sq. ft. and because of the %.;ay our ordinance is
written ~t has been necessary for thcn~ to come Jn
for a variance request.
There being no further com~nents from the audience,
Chairman Halus closed the public portion of the
hearing.
Mr. Oster moved that Variance 68-224 be a~Droved
for the reasons as set forth in the recors~.ended
action of the staff report and that the minutes
of this meeting and thc staff re~ort be intrc/uced
as evidence. Seconded by
carried unanimously.
2. UP-68-279 - ROBERT H. GP~\NT
For a Use Permit to permit a ter?orary construction
material storage yard and contractor's field office.
Location: Fronts 300 feet on the northwest
side of Red Hill Avenue extending northeasterly
from the AT&SF Railroad and the Orange County
Flood Control Channel.
Mr. Supinger presented the staff report recor~ending
approval of this application subject to the following
conditions:
1 That the permit is granted for six (6) = ~"~
That the entire area utilized be fenced at all
times.
That the storage yard area be screened from
view on all sides to the satisfaction of the
Architectural Committee.
e
That no part of the use be permitted within 70
feet of the centerline of Red Hill Avenue.
That paved access be provided from the curb
line of Red Hill to the storage area.
That the use shall be removed if this parcel is
purchased by the city prior to expiration of the
permit.
Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the
hearing.
~obert Kay, 1665 S. Brookhurst, representing the
Grant Co., stated that Grant is about to start
the last unit of construction of Tustin ~.~eado~.zs.
They have had a construction yard on the other
side of Red Hill and w~sh to now have one over on
a piece of property they are leasing from the
Irvine Co. If they were building houses 25 at a
time, they wouldn't really need a storage yard,
but they have been building them 100 at a time,
and they do get materials that.move in and out
of the yard every day. Mr. Kay stated he would like
to review the conditions with the Co~.~ission. The
first two conditions were satisfactory %;ith Grant
Co. The storage yard area (Condition 3) being
screened from view at all times does create a
problem. They have never been faced with exactly
this same situation before - that is', screen
fencing a construction yard. It would be an
expense they normally don't have. They would
PC Minutes
12-23-68
Page 3
like to have that condition removed and chain link
fence the yard for security purposes. All other
conditions of approval are satisfactory.
Mr. Mahoney asked Mr. Kay if this storage yard
wouldn't create quite a traffic problem on
Red Hill.
Mr. Ka~ stated that they really wouldn't have
that much traffic in and out of there. Basically,
all that would be done would be some periodJc
removal of plumbing material, electrical materia~
etc. He felt it would not create a traffic ~.~_=~.~.~-~
Chairman Halus closed the public portion of the
e~ing.
Mr. Webster asked Mr. S~oi~ng_er if it would be
possible to provid~ for an extension at the
discretion of the Planning Director for a specified
time.
Mr. Supinger stated that he didn't believe it would.
The ordinance provides for temporary uses to be
granted by the Planning Com~ission for periods
up to six months, and the authori.fy must re~ain
with the Planning Co~_mission.
Mr. Oster stated that he would agree with tke
applicant as far as deleting Condition 3 if they
could be sure that the Use PermJt would be for
six months.
Mr. Oster moved that UP-65-279 be conditiona!!v
~pproved for the rea3~ons 1 and 2 as set fcrnh in
the staff r~port a_~ji the recor~nended conditiop.~
of approval are 1, _, 4, 5 and 6 of the s =
~eport, and it is a finding of the C~z'~.issicn
that the reason for Condition ~3 be.!nc de!ezaf
from the conditions is that this is a ter. nc.-;.rv
use with the understanding that i~__t w~_u!d Be
a six month period and that if the aoD!Jca-' o
~ntends to come in for reoeate~h
extensions that the Conumission would then lock
to screeniD_~.
Motion seconded by Mr. S~arp. Carried unan]mously.
3. UP-68-280 - TUSTIN ELE~4ENTARY ~CHOOL DISTRICT
To permit an elementary school containing
four buildings ultimately housing 19 classrooms,
administration, library, two multi-purpose
rooms and service facilities. First phase
to include seven classrooms.
Location: Site fronts 327 feet on the west side
~f Williams Street approximately 115 feet north
of the centerline of Alliance Avenue.
Mr. Supinger presented the staff report stating
that the s~aff recomn~ends conditional approval
subject to the following conditions:
That off-street parking be provided at the
rate of two (2) spaces for each classroom (as
they are developed).
PC ~.[inutes
12-23-68
Page 4
That a six (6) foot solid masonry wall be
constructed along the boundaries of the
existing single family residence at the
southeast corner.
That full street improvements be constructed
including street trees and street lighting
and annexation to the Tustin Lighting District.
Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the
hearing.
Archi. e Currie, Deputy Supt. Tustin Elementary
.School DistrJct, stated he wanted to make it clear
that they are in favor of all of the ..... =-'~
conditions if physically possible. He stated he
was speaking especially, on :l~ - the parking
problem. Mr. Currie stated he had called the
architect when he got the nc=-ice of the conditions
and directed him to revise t' ~ parking lot to
provide as many spaces as p,.~zible to meet this
.requirement. However, the t:me had not permitted
him to find out whether the full 38 is possible.
This would be a matter of double parking down
both sides of the parking lot rather than single
parking, which would move all the buildings back
X number of feet in order to get a parking stall
in there. Parking sta].ls cannot be put o,~-_r in
:front of the sidewalks going into the c!assroor, s
or the administration building. The fact that
we do not have a set number of parking c~
established number of parking for eler. entary
schools makes the establishment of two per
.classroom rather arbitrary, inasmuch as they were
not called in to discuss the physical possibilities
of providing these parking spaces on the site.
They would appreciate the relaxing of the specific
amount required with ~he understanding that they
are working towards trying to put in that number
of parking spaces if physically possible.
Chairman Halus closed the public portion of the
hearing.
Mr. Oster asked ~,~. Supinger if we had ever
placed this parking requ'irement upon a school
before.
Mr. Supinger stated he couldn't answer - this was
the first one that had ever come up during his
time in Tustin. The zoning ordinance says that
the parking requirements should be established
at the time of the issuance of the Use Permit.
The reason we came up wifh these standards is
that a study was made about a year ago of all
of the parking standards for use when the zoning
ordinance was revi~ed, and this is the one
determined for elementary schools.
Mr. Oster asked if the School District had been
notified. Mr. Supinger said they hadn't been
at the time the standards were set. Mr. Oster
stated that he felt some liaison should take--
place with the school district because when they
come in with plans it is rather difficult at the
last minute to change them.
Mr. Oster asked Mr. Rourkc if we could make
"1 as a condition, but subject to
Cond] ti. on .~
revision and r.~od.].fication by the Archiu(ctura]
Commi tree.
PC ~iinutes
12-23-68
Page 5
5~. Rourke stated this could be done.
Mr. Sharp stated that he was more concerned
about access and egress in inclement weather than
he was about the difference between 25 and 38
parking stalls. He stated that he felt that if
the parking stalls were there for the permanent
staff with perhaps two or three left over for
emergency situations, this would be fine - but
the thing that concerned him about these sites
was that during inclement weather it is very
difficult for a large number of cars to move in
and out of there and let children out safely
without backing traffic up on city streets.
Mr. Halus stated that he shared the concern for
the ability to move a reasonable number of
vehicles through the parking area, as well as
~aving a place for them to stand, if necessary.
Mr. Oster moved that UP-68-280 be conditionally
a_pproved for reasons _ and 2 as set for~i in
the staff report and ~he ~ -~= '~ ~cns
are (1) that the off-street DarkJ. nc~ and ~:.~ra~-
and egress to the pro~ose~ use be appro~?5 ky
the Architectural Cordite== =~c ~he Piannln~
~on~ission and the rer~aining condi~'~ons ~- an~
3 as set forth in the s~aff re~ort.
Motion seconded' by Mr. Mah~ey. Carried u~nimous!v._~
4. PZ-68-113 - RINKER DEVELO?~,~NT COP3.
For prezoning of a i.86 acre parcel to the
PC (Planned Cor~aunity - Co~T, ercial) District
including an automobile service station, a
restaurant and retail stores.
Location: Northwest corner of the intersection
~f Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard.
Mr. Supin~e__r_ presented the staff report, stating
%hat the staff reco~ends denial of this application,
for the following reasons:
The proposed use conflicts with the Tustin
Area General Plan which designates the subjec~
area Medium Density Residential (4 d.u./acre).
Need for additional commercial zoning and
modification of the General Plan has not been
shown.
Within one-quarter of a mile there are three
existing shopping centers including the
proposed uses.
As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence
introduced at the hearing are included by
reference and made a part of the motion.
Mr. Halus ~sked if, in the interest of t~me and
constructive approach to the problem, there was
a spokesman in the audience to represent the
interested people when the public portion of the
hearing was opened.
· !
PC ~iinutc~;
12-23-68
Page 6
Chairman Halus then opened the public portion of
the hearing, adding that the applicant had, due
to illness on the part of some of the applicants,
requested a postponement this evening. As a
point of clarification, Mr. Halus stated that the
application is for prezoning. This particular
piece of property is currently in the County.
Under recently enacted legislation, an emi'try can
apply for prezoning and then for annexation
the city. This, in effect, guarantees that when
an entity comes into the city, if it should be
annexed, they will know what zoning will be
applicable.
~Roger Howell, attorney, 811 North Broad%.~-ay, Santa
Ana, representing the Rinker Develop~..ent Co.,
stated that the key witness he had counted on for
the subject of the research as to the economic
justification was down with the flu and unavailable.
His stand-by witness, ~r. Froth.ne, of the Rinker
Development Co., was sitting out front in a car
apparently coming down with the flu. Mr. Howell
stated that he assumed that the bulk of the people
in the audience were here basically in opposition
to this proposal and that he fe%t'that a continuance
- ~"t that
was appropriate under the circumstance=, ~.~
in fairness to those in attendance %;ho could r. ct
meet the continued hearing date, he would have no
obje6tion to these peoo~e._ coming forwa~=~ and giving
their reasons for objection so that their n~-r. es and
reasons could be on record. :.;r. Howell stated that
~ou_th Mo~.da · in ~ .... i'
~_~ua~ would be '
he felt the = r ~. ~ the
first date they could, with some certainty, have
all their people here to fully present the matter.
Mr. Howell stated that he felt they should be
entitled to this reasonable opportunity to
present their best case.
Mr. Ray Pattq~, 1542 TJ. ffany Place, Tustin,
stated he was representing the homeowners in
the area and had represented them back in Aoril
for just this proposal. Mr. Patton had with him
the names and signatures of families in the
area in opposition to this proposal - this on
the basis of the fact that there are, within
one mile, some six shoppin~ centers, and that
Mr. Rinker himself is developing one just down
Red Hill the other side of the San{a Ama Freeway.
This petition was made a part of the record.
Mr. Oster asked Mr. Patton if he, as spokesman for
the group, wanted the Commission to continue this
hearing.
Mr. Patton stated that to continue it would be
just taking up more time. He stated that they
would not like to ~ee this development.
Stan Brand, 13102 Woodlawn Avenue, Tustin, stated
that there was an open ditch running along there
and nobody had discussed what they were going to
do with that. He stated he felt they had not made
it too clear what they were going to do, and that
he was under the impression this development was
in a different location.
Chairman Ha]us pointed out that we %.~ere curren%.]y
PC Minutes
12-23-68
PaGe 7
"4 and that Hearing ~5 does discuss
on Hearing ~
another application by the Rinker Develop~.cnt
Corp. that is on the south side of the street.
~r. Supinger slated that if this proposal were to
be approved by the city, the applicant would be
required to take care of the ultimate improver, ent
of thc storm drain along the north side of Red Hill.
Mr. Harris, 1472 Kenneth Drive, Tustin, stated
that he feels that he speaks for the absolute
majorlty of people living in this area and that
they bitterly oppose this develop~ent. 5Ir. Harris
stated that he had with him a report that had been
put out by the Planning Department - Service Stations
Information Report - dated Feb. 22, 1968. At the
present time there are 49 service stations in tke
area - over half the require~ number. He stated
~hat the homeowners in this area feel there is no
need for more service stations, most particularly in
a residential area. Secondly, he stated that it is
quite obvious that there are many shopping centers
within a mile radius that have vacant stores. The
homeowners in the area feel that there is no need
for retail sales stores in this.residential area.
Insofar as the restaurant and cocktai'l lounge
proposed, Mr. Harris stated there is no nee~ for
a cocktail lounge in a residential area. Further,
there is no way to be able to contain the greases
and the smoke and smell coming from a large enougk
restaurant to seat 122 people. It is the definite
feeling of the group that live in his tract that
there is no honest, valid reason to have another
service station, retail stores, and restaurant and
cocktail lounge adjoining their homes.
Mr. Dan George, 13082 Wreath Place, Tustin, stated
~hat he was also oppose~ to this developn~ent,
mainly for the ingress and egress, creating a
traffic problem on the corner. Mr. George wanted
to know what the Orange County Planning Department's
recommendations were.
Chairman Halus stated that he had a letter from
the County, and that in essence, they are opposed
to this application and ,ecom~mend that we abide
by the General Plan.
Mr. Jim Helm, 1392 Garland, Tustin, stated he had
a petition with him signed by 274 residents of the
area. Mr. Helm stated that these people don't
want the congestion in the area. They also want
adherence to the General Plan that the city of
Tustin has developed. They are not only seeking
denial of this proposal -'they are also seeking
protection - and they don't want this to be brought
up again. The petition was made a part of the record.
Mr. Oster stated he was not in favor of continuing
the public hearing, but wanted to vote on the
matter this evening because of the number of
people that came out on it, but stated he would
like to afford the applicant the opportunity of
giving his presentation.
Mr. Howe].]. stated that if it was the position
~f the Planning Commission tonight that despite the
request for the continuance for at ]east their
portion of the case, he would offer some testin~ony,
... /.
• /~ v PC riinutes
12-23-68
Page 8
although he thin}:s this is wrong. He stated that
he is suspicious that a few were somewhat impressed
by the fact that there were a number of people in
attendance that are.non-sympathetic to the applicant:
He stated that the reason they have made the
application is that he believes technically and
practically, when the entire presentation of the
applicant is heard, the people will change, their
minds and conclude that the request is, in fact,
a reasonable one. Mr. Howell said he felt the
question now was whether or not the majority of
the Planning Commission was in favor of rendering
h decision tonight. If so, he wanted to get into
the merits as best he could without his witnesses.
If not, he would just as soon wait until some of
his witnesses were here to explore the matter more
thoroughly. .
Chairman Halus suspended the public portion of
the hearing to ask Mr. Rourke if this body was
in power to act this evening. Mr. Rourke stated
that it was within the Commissions iscretion
whether to continue the hearing or to make a
decision tonight. ~~ '
Chairman Halus said rather than~a'formal motion,
e would like to get an indication from the
Commission as to their thinking. It was cetermined
that the Commission was in favor of having a
'continuation.
Chairman Halus re-opened the public portion of the
Baring., .
Mr. Gill stated that he had a request from the
owners of the Tustin Heights Shopping Center to
present testimony in opposition to this prc:osal.
They requested a continuation of the hearing as
they were unable to be here due to illness.
Chairman Halus closed the public portion of the
Baring.
Mr. Webster moved that the public portion of PZ-
~68-11'3 becontinued until 1-2~7-69.
Mrs. Ludwig seconded the motion. The motion was
voted by roll call. Ayes: Larnard, Webster,
Ludwig, Halus. Noes: Mahoney, Oster, Sharp.
Motion carried 4-3.
5. PZ-68-114 - RINKER DEVELOPMENT CORo.
For prezoning to the .PC (Planned Community -
Commercial) District of a 4.34 acre parcel
to include a market, satellite retail shops and
a bank.
Location: Parcel fronts 310 ft. on the north-
west si a of Red Hill Avenue and 610 ft. on
the southwest side of lrvirie Boulevard.
Mr. Larnard moved that PZ-68-114 be ost oned until
-27-69. Seconde by Mrs. Ludwig.
Motion voted by roll call. Ayes: Larnard, webster,
Ludwig, Halus. Noes: Mahoney, Oster, Sharp.
Motion carried 4-3.
Chairman Halus declared a five minute recess.
0
VI.
OLD
BUSINESS
PC hlinu~es
12-23-68
Page 9
1. TUSTIN CITY AREA STUDY
Mr. Su in er stated that it had been requested
at. a Tustin City Area Study be put on the
agenda for this meeting.
~~~
Chairman Halus stated that due to illness and
e~'r the holidays, etc., he was not sure if this body
had had an adequate period of time to study it,
.~ but they did want to pursue further the
recommendations and considerations of the Tustin
City Area Study.
Mr. Supinger stated
way we would be able
on this matter would
workshop discussion
Council - and have a
alone on the agenda.
that he felt that the only
to have a good discussion
be to set it for a
- possibly with the City
discussion of this matter
Chairman Halus stated that he agreed, and that
one other tem he was going to touch on was that
the Mayor had requested that the Planning
Commission meet with the City Council on the first
Thursday of every month to exchange ideas,.
considerations, etc. It may be that this coLld
all be tied in.
Mr. Su in er stated that it was his understanding
t at it was the Council's intention that a public
.hearing be scheduled on the next two items o~
Old Business for the meeting of 1-13-69.
Mr. Webster asked Mr. Supinger if it would be
possible for the staff to obtain copies of precise
plans, zoning ordinances, etc. from other cities
in Orange County. Mr. Su in er stated that he
believed these coul be obtained. ._
Chairman Halus stated that Items 2 and 3 would be
difficult areas to study, and that since the
Council had seen fit to return this to the Pla.~ning
Commission, they were looking to the Commission
for positive staff support and recommendations.
He stated that he felt that in order to properly
carry out this responsibility, additional time
would be needed to pursue this.
Mr. Su in ec~r stated that these two items had been
pen ing or some time and that he felt action should
not be delayed on them.
Mr. Oster stated that he felt this should be set
or a first meeting in February in order to allow
enough time to set up a workshop with the City
~~ Council, obtain some staff studies, etc. and
requested the staff to get to the members of the
Commission the Costa Mesa Ordinance, or whatever
other ordinances they might suggest.
Mr. Webster stated that he felt the intent of the
Council was that this thing not drag out and that
there be some certain date set. He felt that the
first meeting in February would allow •sufficient
time to study the matter and get additional material
and facts that would aid them in making a decision
on this matter.
12--23-68
Page ] 0
VII.
NEW
BUSINESS
VIII.
CORRE. SPONDI':NCE
~r. Oster moved that ...............w,,~ defer further study_.o_f_
%he q~-~'~.-J~7~'.~?'~-~,g-ei7. until the I.'ebruaN~ 10, 1.09
meeting an¢i that the Planning Staff be directed
to set an,[_public hearings that ar,,' necc-~:sarx.
.%'it_h_ r__e.g, ard to .pieces of_._~_oro'.~crtv involved ].n the
Tustin Ci%y___A_?_~!~_..__ln the. interim th..e__P_].~_:.?inli
Staff should kee:3 the ~'.~=-'
Co.:'~.,__=ion adv~sea of an~.
and that the: staff be directed to furnish the
Cor.'.'~.~i-~is'i-on w'J.il'~-a-.~--6'~'d, i hence s o f other c i t i e s
with res:}ect to precise o!ans. Also, the
is reouested to see !..-. it micht be~o.-.~_.--=~'~--_~ us
have a workshoo with the Ciny Council with
. . ..... g ..... to the
this one subj_ect on ,R~ ~ ~= prior
Februar. y 10, 1969 meeting.
Motion seconded by Mr. ,..=hon,~. Carried unanir, ous!~.
Chairman Ha]us stated that Items 2 and 3 had been
covered by Mr. Oster's motion. Insofar as the
meeting time for the workshop with the Counc~i,
Mr. Halus indicated that the 3rd Thursday of the
month was agreeable with the Council, and asked if
this was satisfactory with the Commissioners.
Mr. Oster indicated that if these meetings were to
be held on the 3rd Thursday, it might be gccd to
start off with this next one and request that it
be limited to the Tustin City Area Study.
\? T ~ _ 4
1. FO~.~I, FI.,D_~G 68 ,
Request for Formal Finding Receiving & Distributing
Wearing Apparel in the C-2 (Central Cor~p. ercial)
District.
Location: 655 South "B" Street (just south of
Tustin News Building).
Mr. Supinger presented the staff report, re~o ........ d_ng
thaL this be found to be similar to other uses in
the C-2 District.
Mr. Webster stated that after reviewing the applicant's
request and after observing the operation, he
finds that it does conform to some of the allowed
uses in C-2 as set forth°oin the analysis of the
Planning Department and moved that'Formal Finding
68-4 as ~rese~ted in Draft ~1 be ap~ro___ved.
Mr. Larnard seconded the motion. Carried unanir.ously_.
Mr. Halus mentioned to Mr. Supinger that it looks
as if there is a trash problem developing out in
back at this location and'asked Mr. Supinger to
mention this to the applicant.
1. UV-6175 - COUNTY CASE
To permit the continued' use of a landscape
nursery stock storage yard in the R4 "Suburban
Residential District".
Location: Northwest side of Newport Avenue
southwest of the Santa Ana Freeway off-ramp,
in the South Tustin area.
PC 1.1inutcs
12--23-68
Page 11
IV.
OTHER
BUSINESS
Mr. Sup. i__n__.o_,._c.r_ presented the staff report reco~:'..r:endJ, ng
denial of this application because this would permit
the continued use of residentially zoned property
for commercial use. It is further reco'..:u:~endcd that
if the use is to continue tkat the property be
rezoned to the appropriate com,.mercia] zoning.
Mr. Oster asked Mr. Supinger if there wou!'d be
any objection to the use if the property were
zoned cor:mercial. Mr. Suo{nger._ indicated no
objection.
Mr. Oster moved tkat a letter be sent to the
ssion stat~-c ~h.~
Orange .... County Plann~, Cor3nJ _..~ , =t
the Planning Com=r~JssJcn of t~ City of _'usti:.
would have ~__.o~ectio~ to ~n---t-i-~n~. Usc Variance
'6175.
Motion seconded by Mr. Sharp. Motion carried 5-2.
Mr. Sharp asked Mr. Suoinger about some signing
hanging from the fascia board of the Fotcmat
Building that was not a part of the application
for the total signing. ~r. Supi'n~er stated that
Fotomat had been notified to correct the signing.
Chairman Halus mentioned that Taco Pronto, at
· Yorba and 17th had made another addition to its
sign that is inappropriate and exceedin~ the si~ning
that was granted.
Mr. Suninger stated that this was a problem - you
{eJ~--p%ople wkat they can and cannot do about signs
and then you have people adding signs to signs
that are already approved.
Chairman Ha!us stated that this was extrer:e!y
discouraging but we did have the legal machinery
within the city and the power to exercise that
machinery to correct this situation, and that it
is incumbent upon the city to take this action.
Mr. Mahone~ asked ~r. Su~inge__~r what the status
~f the investigation into excessive heights of
antennas in residential ~istricts was. ~Ir.
~upinger stated that the Building ~epar~m. ent had
sent a letter out. Mr. Gill stated that he wculd
look into this.
Chairman Halus set the first meeting with the Council
for January 16, 1969. Mr. Supinger was to coordinate
this with the Mayor and the City Council.
Mr. Gill mentioned that he had a letter from the
Orange County A.I.P. ~!erit Award Program. They
are looking for nominations for outstanding
achievements in urban planning in the County, and
want to receive these by January 3. Possibly
any Con~issioner that has any ideas could contact
Mr. Gill or Mr. Supinger this week.
~r. Brand, 13102 Wood].awn Avenue, wanted to know
who he should talk to about the routing of commercial
trucks through the residential streets in Tustin.
PC :.linu Lc :;
].2-23-68
Page 12
Mr. Gill suggested that ~-~r. Brand write a letter
to his attention, and a ~-u-dy would then be made.
Mr. Sharp moved that the meeting be a~j_ourned,
seconded by ~.:rs. Lucwlg.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40.
)%C~.~'G SECtLETARY OF 5[:~E PLA.NNiNG CO:,2.:iSSION