01-03-1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL 385 Vice Mayor Ward announced MINOR EXCEPTION 77-35 800 N. that this was the time and TUSTIN - CONTINUED TO JAN. 16 place for the public hearing of Notice of Exemption and Appeal #385 of the denial of Minor Exception 77-35 to allow sale of beer and wine in a proposed restaurant "Ship Ahoy" in the LP District at 800 North Tustin Avenue. Planning Director Charles Zimmerman stated that the restaurant is a bona fide public eating place; that there was opposition to the sale of beer and wine from the Calvary Church nearby; and that the Minor Exception had been denied by the Zoning Administrator on the basis of that objection. William E. Gummerman, 16152 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, representing the appellants Kamran and Lucy D. Hussni, stated that his client was born and raised in Turkey, that he is a fine member of the community and takes great pride in his proposed restaurant facility and would not want to do anything that would downgrade the neighborhood; that his intention is to establish a restaurant similar to the Crab Cooker in Newport Beach; that patrons of such a restaurant usually prefer an atmosphere of fine dining and wish to have beer or wine with their meal; that his client's intention is to operate a high-class family restaurant that will be a credit to the community as are the Ancient Mariner and Reubens which are located in the area. Speaking in opposition to the appeal and the minor exception was Paul Harvey, 10411 West Radec Court, Villa Park, Vice President of the Calvary Church Board of Trustees, who stated that members of the Calvary Church are opposed to the sale of alcoholic beverages in proximity to their proposed expansion of a youth center on the southeast corner of Fruit and Tustin; that the Church's youth program services from 100 to 450 young people; that their preschool serves 208 students; and that the Church has established these programs to strengthen the moral fabric of the society. In rebuttal, Mr. Gummerman stated that the proposed adult- family restaurant would be more desirable as a neighbor to the Church than a hamburger drive-in, which sells no alcoholic beverages, and that the proposed restaurant would be of no interest to children and would not interfere with their pro- grams. In answer to questions by Councilmen, the appellant's attorney stated that the area shown on the floor plan as a "bar" will be similar to a "sushi bar" where food is prepared and served. Councilman Bricken questioned whether a stipulation might be attached to the minor exception, if granted, whereby the Council would be advised if there were a future application to change from beer and wine to an on-sale general alcoholic beverage license, so that Council would be aware of that application and have the opportunity to lodge a protest, if desired. In view of questions regarding the floor plan and possible conditions to the minor exception, on the motion of Councilman Brandt, seconded by Councilman Bricken, and carried S:l, with Councilman Yamamoto dissenting, the hearin~ was continued to January 16. 1978. CA 13.5 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 12 JANUARY 3, 1978