Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1969 07 22 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL July 22, 1969 CALL TO Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Coco ORDER !i. PLEDGE OF Led by Mayor Coco ALLEGIANCE ill. INVOCATION Given by Mayor pro tem Mack IV. ROLL Present: Councilmen: Coco, Mack, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller CALL Absent: Councilmen: None Others Present: City Administrator Harry Gill City Attorney James Rourke City Clerk Ruth Poe Planning Director James Supinger APPROVAL OF Moved by L. Miller~ seconded by Mack that minutes of July 7~ 1969 MINUTES be approved. as mailed and received. Carried° PUBLIC 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER OF THE TUSTIN HEARINGS~ PLANNING COMMISSION Mayor Coco explained that this was a continued hearing from the July 7th meeting° There were several applicants who were interviewed by a subcommittee of the Council. Mayor Coco asked if there was anyone in the audience who would care to discuss this matter any further. There being no further comments the hearing was declared closed at 7:34 P.M. Councilman C. Miller presented the subcommittee report and stated that the committee had interviewed each of the applicants and were very favorably impressed by all the applicants° The committee, after due consideration, would like to recommend the appointment of Mr. Milton E. Curtis° Mr. Curtis is from an area not previously represented on the Cormuission and brings a background of public administration and study and graduate work of retailing and its influences on a community. He has resided in the community for some time now and has applied several times before for appointment, and has a continued desire co serve the City in this capacity. Councilman L. Miller stated that he believed the Chamber of Conmerce would be impressed with Mr. Curtis' Masters Thesis. He would be a definite asset to the Chamber of Commerce as well as to the City. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters that Milton E. Curtis be appointed as a member of the Planning Commission and the attached Resolution No. 1006 be so completed~ read and adopted with the effective date of a term to commence this date, July 22, 1969. Carried unanimously. Movedb~.l~ae~ seconded by G. Miller tha~ ~es~!ution. Nee 1006, be passed and adopted. Council Minutes 7/22/69 Pg. 2 APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER TO THE TUSTIN PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Mayo~ Coco announced that as the Parks and Recreation Commission is meeting this evening, this item of business, originally scheduled under New Business, will be moved up on the Agenda. Mayor Coco stated that the same subcommittee which had inter- viewed Planning Commission applicants had also interviewed applicants for this Conmission. Councilman L. Miller reported that the subcommittee had interviewe& numerous applicants for this position and one person in particular impressed the members of the coranittee with her enthusiastic and refreshing response to the potential appointment° They were very impressed with Mary Hernandez and the committee recommendation is that Mary Hernandez be Considered by the Council for the appointment. Mrs. Hernandez has children ranging in all age groups from teenagers on down and had numerous suggestions, especially from the recreation areas,that they feel will be helpful to the members of the Conmission and to the City itself° Councilman Mack s~ated that there had been 3 specific applications for the Parks and Recreation and several of the applicants for the Planning Commission were interested in an appointment to this Conmission. Mr. Mack said he concurred with Mr. Miller and that he was extremely impressed with the enthusiasm of this individual. Mayor Coco stated that this appointment is to fill the unexpired term of Len Miller who had resigned to become a member of the City Council and said term will expire December 31, 1969o Moved by Mack, seconded by L. Miller that Resolution Noo 1013, inserting the name Mary C. Hernandez, be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Mack~ seconded by C. Miller that Resolution No. 1013, appointing Mary Hernandez to the Parks and Recreation Commission, be passed and adopted. Carried unanimously° 2. V-69-248 - APPEAL OF DECISION OF THE PLANlING COMMISSION - Cont'd. from 7/7/69 Appeal by Haven and John Burke (Owner and Manager, Pi~S Briny) of the decision Dr the Planning Commission approving application of Robert Hall fo~: a variance (V 69-248) to permit: a. A fish and. chip take-out food establishment along with commercialsoffices. b. Reduction of the required off-street parking spaces for _. the above uses° (Zoning Ordinance requires 22 parking spaces, 21 parking spaces are proposed°) -- Site fronts approximately 80 ft. on the north side of First St. and approximately 90 ft. on the east side of Hall Circle (proposed). Site is also approximately 600 ft. east of the centerline of Prospect Ave° AS requested by Ma~or Coco, the following is a complete transcript of this hearings Council Minutes 7/22/69 Pgo 3 Mayor Coco: The next hearing is Public Hearing No. 2, Variance 69-248, appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission. This is an appeal by the o~mer and map~ger of HMS Briny. The Planning Commission decision that was continued from the last meeting so that the applicant could be present° The Public Hearing is open, Anyone who wishes to address the Council on the matter of this appeal of the Planning Commission action come forward to the microphone, state your name and address and your position in this matter° We have a picture on the screen of this application and you can use that picture if you wish. My name is Henry Burke, 24551 Arbutus, Newport Beach° I have to speak for my son who thought this would be Monday ' night but because of the holiday he's tied up tonight so I'll speak for him. Excuse me if I don't have all the facts before me. My impression is that he feels this should be developed. He has no complaint against the building, no complaint against the type of building or the occupants of the building. What we are concerned about is the location of one of the tenants that's going in that building who sells fish and chips. Our objection now is the fact that we did make an investment in the purchase of the HMS Briny and we thinkwe took all the usual business factors into account when we purchased it and examined as carefully as we could before we put our name down and put our money down. But we find now that there is one uncontrollable element that we did not take into account and that's the issuance of use permits for this particular type of establishment. it's not the question of competition at all. Competition doesn't enter into this. We thrive on competition, we look for it and we're not concerned with competition. For this competition is a bit of the game, although the game becomes a little stupid in my opinion when the amount of use permits put out in relation to the population of the community becomes a little bit lopsided. tn this case, not a little bit, but quite a bit. As I understand there's 18,300 people in Tustin. A new fish and chip establishment has been coming in every month. It is now being contemplated coming in with 7 fish and chips estab- lishments, just selling fish and chips. I think what the Council should do is just make some kind of fair appraisal of the relation of the number of these establishments to the numbers in the community. The number 7 indicates that if every- body had equal share of the business there would be under 3000 people subject to possibly being in that establishment. Out of those 3000, how many would be fish eaters? So it gets to be a potential cutthroat situation° Then, of course, half of the 7 businessman in the community will suffer. If it's assumed that 7 would be the proper number or 10 would be the proper number, whatever that number is you gentlemen said would be sensible and not promiscuous in the issuance of these use permits, of course we would abide by anything, but location should also be taken into account and if an envestment is nmde and competition is not a factor and the numbers are sensible, it seems to us the location should be a factor here to protect a member of the business community. Somebody who lives in Tustin, is somewhat active here and wants to remain happy financially, it just doesn't strike us to be completely wise to establish another business of this kind directly across the street when there is already one dora the neMt street, another one a ver~ f~w screens and it is every half mile. ~f ~he determination ~s that 10 or 15 of these is what this community wants in fish and chips, that's fine~ the competition is vigorous, but it seems to us there is a limit, after which it becomes financial suicide. There is just so many fish eaters around this world Council Minutes 7/22/69 pg. 4 and even of those not anyone of them is going to eat fish everyday. It's not a diversified business. If it was diversified it would be a different situation. The fact is we are concen- trating on one service. We would like you to give some of these facts ~ little consideration. Mayor Coco: Mr. Burke, if you would clarify one thing for us. You mentioned the fact that there are 7 fish and chip~ places that are existing or contemplated. Would you have more specific information on that? ~r. Burke: Mr. Fish and Chips, Captain Happy's, Big Ben's, HMS Briny, H. Salt is the one being contemplated. Allies is one that has not come to your attention yet, it's in front of the Planning Conmaission. Mayor Coco: Where is that located? Mr. Burke: It's where Stater Brothers is going in. Mayor Coco: On Red Hill? Mr. Burke: Yes, and there's Moby Dick up on Edinger. We're disregarding them completely. They don't enter into the picture. We're not taking into account whether these firms are chains, franChised or independent. It's a free country and everyman for himself° The fact is, though, that if it does go beyond the sensible limits, the independent businessman with l'imited funds is up against this kind of situation as to living within the means provided from the business coming in his place. There should be a limit, some kind of analysis made before use permits ~are issued at a promiscuous rate. My name is Bob Halt, 17452 Irvine Boulevard in Tustin, the applicant. The zoning on this property is C-lo We kave met all the zoning requirements in parking and so forth. We came not for those, but for a use permit because a use permit is required for a take-out food establishanent; not any particular type of food, just take-out food° At the hearing held by the Planning Commission, the representative from McDonald's,was there and welcomed us and felt that they needed this kind of competition and that the quality would be good and people could coun¢ on that quality. We had the feeling that they just had no objection at all. There are 60,000 people in the Tustin Elementary School District. Tustin's Planning jurisdiction is only a small part of that area. I think it would be very difficult for us to begin to state how many this or that we would allow in the local jurisdiction when most of the people live outside of the City and come into the City to shop. Three of those places mentioned, 2 are existing and the additional one, would be in the City. The others are outside the City limits so that it w6uld be difficult to say O.K. you can't have a fish and chips establishment but someone else 3 blocks away · --" in the County area would be able to due to their being out of the control of the City Council. I think you'd end up with an inequitable situation at best. I think the best possible way handle it is to letsthe citizen or clientele make their decision as to what types of food they want and what particular' people they want to patronize. There is one of thes.e establishments in Orange that's veEypopular In fact people come from Tustin to the location in Orange on Tustin Avenue. It"s quite a drive so they don't come as often as they would like, bu~ many people do because they know the quality is good and they're familiar with the product. If you have any questions, i'd be glad to answer them. Council Minutes 7/22/69 Pgo 5 Mayor Coco: Thank you Mr. Hall. Mr. Burke: I'd like to answer 2 or 3 points that Mr. Hall brought up. Is this permissible? Mayor Coco: Mr. Burke, would you kindly wait until we find if anyone else would like to speak? if there is someone else in the audience, whether appearing for this particular ma6ter or not, who would like to speak on it, this would be the time. Fine. Mr. Burke, go ahead. Mr,. Burke: Just a couple of points here° It was mentioned by Mr. Hall that there is a larger number of people in this greater Tustin area, but there are also numerous fish and chips estab- lishments in every nearby community serving the population outside of Tustin. The figure of 18,300 was taken off the 'Welcome To Tustin" sign as you drive into the City, if it's accurate. Mayor Coco: That's the population of the incorporated City. Mr. Burke: Thank you sir. The establishments that I referred to are well within the 2 mile radius of this building ~nd are within the City limits of Tustin to the best of my knowledge° Mr. Hall is one of our best customers, he comas in quite often. Mayor Coco: Thank you Mr. Burke° Mayor Coco: A number of establishments, Mr. Burke, within the Tustin area seam to be in the City but they may be just across the street from the City. I think that's not really important anyway, we're discussing the market area. Is there any further discussion from the floor? If not, I'll close the public portion of the hearing for discussion among the Council. Mr. Miller? Councilman C. Miller: Mr. Supinger, would you refresh my memory as to what the use approved adjacent to McDonald's is? Mr. Supinger: The use adjacent to McDonald's which has been approved is for a Little Old Taco Maker. It is my understanding now, however, that this use is not going to go in but there will be in its place a sit down type of restaurant, I don't think I should indicate the type at this point, but it would be a sit down type of restaurant rather than a take-out restaurant or drive-in restaurant as the Little 01d Taco Maker had been proposed. Councilman C. Miller: Does that mean the use permit, Mro Rourke, doesn't continue to run? Mr. Supinger: The use permit will continue to run with the land until the time expires if its not used within one year, then it would be null and void. Mro Mayor, I might clarify that a sit down restaurant would not require a use permit° Mayor Coco: It's allowed in a C-1 zone without a use permit? Mr. Supinger: That is correct° Councilman L. Miller: Will there be any sit do~a eating permitted in H. Salt Esq. or will that be exclusively a take-out reszaurant? M~. Hall: It will be strictly a take-out restaurant. Council Minutes 7/22/69 Pg. 6 Councilman L. Miller: There will be no benches outside or anything where people will be seated? t know the original plans didn't show, but I wondered if there was any contem- plation of picnic type eating. ~ro Hall: (unaudib~e) Mayor Coco: So that Mr. Hall's answers can be recorde~ on the tape, the answers are that there will be no eating on the premises; it will be exclusively take-out. Mayor Coco: There will be no restrictions, however, on the consumption of food in the car on the parking lot~ is that correct Mr. Supinger? Since we now have the required humbet of parking spaces, you could eat in the car anyplace? ~ro Supinger: Yes. Councilman L. Miller: There will be no car service, or will there? Mr. Hall: There ~ill be no car service. Councilman C, Miller: I agree with Mr. Halt, that the question here shouldn't be one of whether or not this is too much competition for other businesses within the City° That's something I think the market will take care of eventually. It will even out whether the supply is zoo great or if some operations aren't efficient or pleasing uo the public, that will eventually reach a number that the market can support and I don't want, as a Council or personally, to ge~ involved in deciding whether there is an over supply or to be involved in any determination as to what is a sensible number for any particular type of business or industry within the City° I think the thing that we haveto direct our attention to is back to the use permit. Would the use proposed be beneficial or would it be detrimental to this section of the street or this part of the City? I have expressed myself before and I still feel the same: that we can get so many of this type of use located togethe~ within a short distance of each other, that it can be detrimental to the City on the basis of traffic, the amount of trash that gets through on the street, the number and types of signs that are proposed and this use permit here for this particular thing bothers me on that basis, not the fact that it may effect other fish and chips places in the City or without the City. I hope that we can confine our attention strictly to the use permit, not the variance or not the other considerations. ~ayor Coco: The point, Mr. Miller, is that by use permit we have the choice of wh~ther or not to grant a take-out food establishment. That within the zone we have no particular choice to exercise on a sit do%rn place that is not a take-out food. Councilman C. Miller: That's correct° Mayor Coco: So than when we do have this application before us for a use permit, this is the only time we have to exercise that kind of discretion. Councilman C. Miller: We have 2 adjacent use permits for take-out food establishments, one of which, McDonald's, is practically ready to go, and the other may or may not be exercised by the person who secured the use permit. Council Minutes 7/22/69 Pg. 7 Councilman Marsters: Mr. Sup~nger, are you aware of any establishments of this nature coming in that general vicinity? Have any of them been before the Planning Commission? Mro SupinSet: Do you mean if a fish and chips .oo Councilman Marsters: No, any take-out type of restaurant? Mr. Supinger: Not in that area° Of course, we recently had the Chinese take-out go in and we recently approved a Mexican take-out which I don't think has ever opened° In the same area as the Mexican take-out across from Saddleback Bar~ras the Kentucky Fried Chicken° Councilman Marsters: Mr. Mayor, ! might just echo some of the things that Mro Miller stated. It's the old adage you know that success breeds ruinous competition. I think that's the thing Mr. Burkes' faced with. I don't think we, as a Council, can restrict free enterprise in that manner° I'm sympathetic to the problem, however° I, like Mr. Miller, though, am concerned generally speaking about the take-out situation in that, what I call, prime part of town. I think personally that the highest and best use could be many, many other things more desirable for the City in a long range viewpoint. End of comment. Mayor Coco: Thank you Mr. Marsterso CouncilmauL. Miller: Mro Supinger, with the occupancy there, is this premise readily adaptable for other type food establishments rather than becoming a vacant blight on the con~aunity, if it doesnlt make it? For example if a gas station doesn't make it, you have a closed gas station for a long time and one of the reports in here indicated it would not be restricted only to fish and chips, it could eventually change to something else. In your observation is this true? Mr. Supin~er: I think the problem, Councilm~n Miller, would be more with the equipment than with the building itself. it's more or less a shell which probably could be adaptable to another commercial use° I think there would be more problem with the equipment than with the building° Mayor Coco: Mr. Miller, Mr. H~I1 has indicated that he would like to make a response to that. The public portion of the hearing is closed and the only way he can address the Council at this time is as a result of a direct question from the Council. Do you wish to get clarification? Councilman Lo Miller: Yes, Iwould be very interested° The reason I asked that q'aestion and basically the intended occupant is risking his o~zn capital to consider going in there, I just wondered how adaptable it might be to some other phase whether it's tacos or whatever else it might be that would serve more need in the community. Mr. Hall: I forgot to point out that half of the building is office space. ~t will be set up that way so that if there is any problem with a vacant area there, of course it should be another food operation, but there is other space there° ! don't think this is a single purpose building that would have to be one particular thing for ever and ever. Councilman L. Miller; Mr. Hall, I have one other question. Would a fish establishment preclude any tenants moving into the office building? Normally there is quite e~ ~d~r~ Council Minutes 7/22/69 Pg. 8 Mr. Hall: We have a tenant already for part of it and we are not concerned with that° We feel that the location is good and that we won't have any problems along these lines~ We have had our fish and chips.sign up for about 6 months so that people are well aware of what's going in and we've had tenant response mo the sign so that we're not concerned about ito Councilman Marsters: Mr. Hall, are you negotiating p~esently on any other similar uses for this parcel or do you know of any that may be cooing in? Mr. Hall: As you know I developed this piece and the apartments in the back are just about ready° The plans are drawn, we are in the planning stages, the street's under construction, we still have to pave it and put the curbings in and the sewers, water and so forth. We made this deal with the fish and chips people a good 6 months ago, even longer° The first contact was back in November. Of cdurse the McDonald's part is all settled° The other part was originally going to be the Little 01d Taco Maker but it looks like a sit down restaurant is going in. We were actually going to do a pie shop and tacos but it looks like it's going to go into all one piece as a sit down restaurant. With this it will be the finish of the property, that's all there is left with the frontage and the back and so forth. Councilman Marsters: Thank you. Councilman Marsters: Jim (Supinger), in the issuance of a use ~-- permit such as the Little Old TacoMaker, say for instance as we pointed out, which runs with the land for a year if it's developed ~_~ within a year it's a good use permit, say that some other use came in but it's a .take-out food establishment, would it have to then come before us again, or the Commission? The use permit would not carry over to someone else like the Little Old Tea House, would Mr. Supinger: I think this is a question that the City Attorney should answer° Mayor Coco: Mro Rourke, the question was asked about the applicability of a use permit that's granted for a specific use such as the Taco Maker and another use, still a take-out food esKablishment, is proposed, would it be necessary to rehear or reissue a use permit? Mr. Rourke: Typically we grant use permits that are tuned ~o the particular use that's applied for and they would have to, under that circumstance, reapplyo You could grant it in such a general way that it would permit any take-out establishment. Mayor Coco: But the typical use permit is granted for a specific establishment and this"was the case in the Little 01d Taco Maker's use permit? It does mention that particular establishment? Wouldn't the name'have to be identified as well? ..... ~r. Rourke: I don't think so. You might conjure up a situation where the only thing that was changed was the name, but I don't think that's the usmal situation. There are usually various details, they may be minor detailsl that are different between one particular operation and another and they could no~ have the use without reapplying. ~puncilman.Mars~ers: Such as fish smells are different than tacos? Mr.. Rourke: Right. Council Minutes. 7/22/69 pg. 9 ~: The use permit itself is a legal document and that would have to be read and unless the use complied with every term of that use permit it would have to be reheard, correct? Mro Rourke.: Yes, in our use permit we say it's granted as applied __ for among other things and sc that means they've set forth a proposal and they're stuck with it so to speS~n~ecause what changes might or might not be important, we t know. To avoid getting into that question, we do that, Mayor Coco.: Thank you. So if we have any use but that applied for in the case of the Little Old Taco Maker, another take-out food establishment would have to be reapplied for. However, for a sit down restaurant, no use permit is needed. .Co~ncihnan C. MilleK: What assurance have we that the Little 01d ~aco Maker won't go in there? Mayor Coc~: We have none° We have no assurance° They have a use permit, they're perfectly free to go in there. Councilman C. Miller: If they do, we'll have 3 take-out food ~stablishments in a row, on a one block section. Mayor Coco: You're quite right, if this one's approved- Councilman Marstots: Mr. Mayor, I'd like zo ask Mr. Hall another question. Mr. Half, do you feel definitely positively that this Little 01d Taco Maker won't make it? Mr. Hall: I sold the property to a fellow by the name of Tom ~ernatz and he has the Taco Maker chain and also the Bully Beef chain. He kind of lost interest in tacos. I havenwt checked in the last 3 weeks or so, but if he has closed escrow, then the taco guy is out. At this point he's in after another plan and kind of lost interest in the tacos. CouncilmanMarsters: Thank you. Councilman C. Miller.: Jim (Supinger), what has come in to you on this property? Mr. Supin~eK: There has not been a specific application. They have contacted me to find out what the requirements may be a particular problem with the required parking, but no specific application has been made at this point. Mayor Coco.: Thank you. Councilman Mac~: I would like to copanent to the possibility of %raffic safety in this particular area. i certainly would be the first to admit it's a concern, but in this particular plot plan here it indicates a new street going in to the west of the proposed development. I am assuming that would be the exit area for this -- proposed use. I think this would considerably change the situeric* as to safety because it brings people around to a direct stop sial intersection so that they can move freely as the safety requires that it can. I frankly can't see where this particular parcel is going ~o be detrimental as to safety factors on this particular s~=ee~, The e~l~e ~mpr~eme~t on bo~h sides g~B in shortly i~ going no make it a nice side stroet for a free flow of traffic iu the fast lanes and the slower traffic in the outer lanes and the proper lane of parking. Therefore, I'd like to at this time move that we uphold the decision of the planning Commission and grant this use permit. Council Minutes 7/22/69 Pg. 10 Councilman L. Mille. r: I will second this motion, Mr. Mack. Mayor Coco: It has been moved and seconded that the decision of the Planning Cormnission be upheld, in other words that the appeal be denied. Further discussion is in order. Mayor Coco: Mro Supinger, on that point that Mro Mack just made on the access. Will this be one-way ingress and egress or two-way? Mr. Supinger: As the plot plan is laid out, it would be necessary te enter one-way from First Street into the property. tt would not be possible to exit from that driveway. A two-way driveway would be provided at the rear off of the stud street. Mayor Coco: I see. There would be no egress onto First Street. Mr. SupinMer: That's correct. Mayor Coco: The second question I have: Is there any way for you to indicate the shape of the center divider there at that point? I~ there a left turn cut into that particular property? Mr. Supin~er: No, there is not. In order to get into the property, going eastbound on First Street, it would be necessary to either turn left onto Hall Circle or to go on by the property and do a "U" turn and comeback westbound. The reason for this is this street lines approximately with the driveway of the Post Office and there is a cut at that point. The next cut is dow~n near the entrance to the Boston Bull complex. Mayor Coco: So the e~sy access on First Street would be westbound on First, and Hall Street would be used coming eastbound on First and if you missed Hall Street, you'd have to make that "U" turn. Thank you. Councilman Marsters: Just one clarification. The maker of the motion stated that the use permit as set forth by the Planning Commission be granted° Isn't there a variance? Mayor Coco: No, there's no variance involved here, Mr. Marsters, since the parking requirements have been met. Councilman Marsters: Well, as you know my comments as stated here before are pretty much the same. t feel very concerned about the general area as to this type of establishment° ! really wasn't in favor of the previous application. I don't feel that this is a particularly good use for this area. I do feel that this particular parcel is probably more adapted to the use than the other ones. I th, ink a precedent has been more or tess set. I certainly won't be ,sympathetic to anymore and I probably reluctantly would notbe in disfavor of this one. Mayor Coco: The applicant for the appeal has asked us to consider where the line is between vigorous competition and "promiscuity" is the word he used. We have two things to consider if we look into that. First is the absolute number of fish and chips establishments per se (the number of fish eaters per store)° Secondly, we also have the location aspect in 7 such establishments within a 2 m~le ~adius. The consensus I make from the Council is not so much that we should consider the type of establis~hment itself as far as the ~roduct being sold, but the fact that it is a take-out food establishment. I almost get the idea that if this were a sit down fish and chips restaurant, not take-out, there would be very little Dbjection to it. This is my o~a personal reading. Council Minutes 7/22/69 Pg. 11 Of course if it were a sit do%re restaurant, selling the same product, with no take-out provisions, there would be no need for a use permit, it would be allowed in that zone. I might ask Mr. Hall if he'd care to coremetE if such a use would be feasible? Rather than a take-out food to have a sit down restaurant, with the same tenant selling the same product. You don't have to reply to that, Mr. Hall, but if you'd care to I'd like to have you do it. Mr. Hall: More and more people are taking food home these days, instead of eating out, bundling up the children and going out and spending 45 minutes in and out of a place. They're picking up the food and taking it home for dinner that night. You just find more and more of this. Things are changing and people are taking food home and eating it there where they have the convenience of having it already prepared and having something that they normally can't do for themselves but yet they don't have the inconvenience and the extra expense of taking the whole family to eat out. Mayor Coco: Of course the major difference has been brought out by Cliff Miller tonight, being the frequency of the traffic. This use would generate more traffic on the street. Councilman C. Miller: Mr. Coco, I think there is one other aspect that we shouldn't lose sight of and that is that looking at the Fiddlers Three we see one kind of food establishment, looking at another example of a take-out food establishment is the fish and chips place do%rn at Larwin Square. Another example is a drive through kind of take-out, The Jack-In-The-Box. I notice more major differences just looking as we drive around at the amount of traffic. I notice that we generate trash on the streets from the take-out food establishments. People do tend to stop or eat in their car while they're parked there, that's why i'm sure we notice so many trash cans around the take-out food establishments that we don't see around the sit dox~a restaurants. I still am concerned that we can generate more by the City in this particular area too high a concentration of something that begins to be a trash problem and also begins to be a police problem. We've had information from the Police Department about the number of calls that are generated by take-out food establishments and drive-in food establishments because they can be gathering places for younger people as well as older people° My concern is I just don't think this is a use that really is going to be of long term benefit of the City in this particular location. Mayor Coco: So your feeling is that there i__sa difference between a sit down and a take-out? Councilsnan C. Miller: I do sir. Councilman L. Miller: I gave thought to that same thing, but it appeared tome that a fish and chips restaurant would be less likely to encourage the teenage element than a McDonald's or a Jack-In-The-Box would because I don't believe they have the shakes and all the things that would appeal to them. I've been to a number of them myself and it appears to be more a family type place. The kids on hand going in with the father as opposed to the type such as another Jack~In~The~Box m~gh~ be that's filled Mayor Coco: The statement has been made by a member of the Planning Commission that the City should not concern itself with the cutthroat competition. Possibly in one sense that's true. i can't Council Minutes 7/22/69 Pg · 12 agree wholly that the City Council should not be concerned. We should be concerned about anything that might damage the economic health Of the cormnunity. Whether or not it's our province or responsibility to make regulations protecting the economic life of the community, that may be a matter for debate° But it seems to me that if the Council can foresee a problem of any kind having to do with the City, bar none, that it's up to the Council to consider possible ways of alleviating that problem. Some references have been made relative to take-out food establishments here tonight, quote, police problem, traffic, trash~ Councilman C. Miller: I don't want to be misunderstood on that point. My main concern is too high a concentration in one area or one part of the City. ~ouncilman L. Mill&r: Mr. Mayor, I think one other fact that was brought out as far as the odor of fish and chips establish- ments. If you go to the one in Larwin Square or any of the others, generally if you are out on a day that's not too windy, you're not aware of the absence of a sign or anything else out there. Is there any way of keeping the odor down, Mr. Supinger, or is this just a hazardof the trade? ~r. Supinger: Yes, there are ways of filtering odors. Whether they are economical or not for an individual business is a matter of some argument. For instance, on animal hospitals, we require that they filter the air of these establishments so that the odor does not bother nearby properties, so it can be done, It's a question ofhow much you want to spend to have it done. Mayor Coco: Gentlemen, we have a motion on the floor to uphold the decision of.the Planning Commission. I'll just make one- comment from my point of view and see if there is any further discussion, I think that whatever our decision is here tonight we can look forward some day in the future to a situation, if it doesn't already exist that may exist in the near or distant future, that there will be a concentration of the detrimental aspects of the use. that we're contemplating tonight. And while it may not have been pointed out at this time that the detrimental aspects are of such nature to deny the application, my only concern will be that the Council recognizes when this situation does occur. Perhaps it takes a traffic projection, perhaps it takes additional staff work on surveying such establishments for trash problems, perhaps it takes police records that are comprehensive, perhaps it takes all of these things to be in the report to the Council. It may not be the time that we're ready for it. If these things are, in fact, detrimental to the City, it's up to us to consider them, consider them very carefully in a documented fashion, if another application comes in, if the concentration does get to the point where these reports are feasible, where they are meaningful This is my reservation and this would be the last comment that I would have to makeo Is there further discussion on the motion to uphold ~he Planning Commission decision to grant the use permit? If not, those in favor signify by sayingaye.oo.oopposed? ..... (Ayes: Coco, M~ck, L° Miller, Marsters. NOes: C. Miller)° Motion carried. The appeal is denied, gentlemen, and the use permit is granted to the fish and chips establishment. Councilman Marsters: Mr. Mayor, along the lines that Xou outlined as to reports and information which could be fed to us by the staff, I wonder if you could ask Jim and Harry if there is anything available if we could be fed before we issue a permit of this kind. Mayor Coco: Would~the staff take this into consideration, knowing the feeling of the! Council, the detriments of such estabiisb~.ents? If you take this into account on similar applications~ wa ~cou!d appreciate it. CouncilMinutes 7/22/69 Pg- 13 Mr. Gill: Also Mr, Mayor, this is the type of data which is going t0' be a result, benefit or off-shoot from our computer activities where much of the incidence can be data processed when we can readily have this information available- Now it's a time consuming manual chore to go back and search records. For instance, what is our incidence for drive-in or taPe-out food establishments for the last 2 years? This type of data. I think, jim, it's another point we ta!~ed about, a lot of these applications coming before the Commission may be antic- ipating the kind of questions the Council ~ouid have. Say a period of observation by closed circuit television on tape and just show some of these kinds of things. Mayor Coc~: All these things have to be prograumed in of-course, decide what the Council needs. But once that's done, it can be read out on a ready basis. Are the a~m~nds tonight a result of this computer output? M~. Gil~.: Yes. Councilman C. Miller:' I hope we are going to have this data pretty soon or we'll' have 33 take-out food establishments more before we ever have it.. It's hard zo ~=ick up the paper or any of the business magazines without rear~ng about how everybody in the world is selling franchises. We zzy find ourselves with a lot of closed take-out food establistunents all over to~n on our hands. Councilman MarsterJ: Along those lines, I don't know who is -- making those loans, I really don't. Councilman C. Miller: Well, there's plenty of money for them. Councilman Marsters: I'd like to know, I really would. Mro Gill: Of course, Mro Miller, as you suggest, it's our area of responsibility to determine possible traffic and other problems, but maybe the fact that there's 10 or 15 fish and chips establish- ments is not an area of concern that we should have. Councilman C. Miller: Well, it becomes an area of concern when we have a lot~of eyesore closed gas stations. That's harmful to, as Tony says, the community, the business climate, property values and everything else having to do with the community. it would be interesting to know just how many take-out food establish' ments we do have within the planning environment of the City. I can't even hazard a guess at how many we have. Last year we had 8 chicken places, Jerry? Councilman Mack: Well, we may have, there are quite a few. Mayor Coco: Concentration is the key. Granted that these take-out food establishments do have some detrimental aspects beyond those of the sit down food establishments, the question becomes at what point are the detriments at an unacceptable level and this is what I hope the staff reports will allow us to decide. Councilman Marsters: I would like the Planning Commission to get ~hts on this matter. I don't feel that they are in tune with this and I think=it's important. Council Minutes 7/22/69, Pgo 14 Mayor Coco: Mrs. Poe, normally an open hearing is uranscripted, is it not, in the minutes? Would you see that this particular hearing is, including thecomments after the motion? At least for the benefit of the Planning Commission. Mr. Gill: Mr. Mayor, if I may mention one other aspect to the question. in our economic study a determination will be made as to square footage needs and so forth of an area, p~oposed population we'll have, and this may give us some clues as to where saturation of this type of activity is. VII. OLD 1. ORDINANCE NO. 437 BUSINESS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, PREZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION NO. PZ 69-115 OF DUAYNE CHRISTENSON Site fronts approximately 314 ft. on the northwest side of "B" Street, approximately 30 ft. northeast of the centerline of McFadden Street. · Moved by Mack~ seconded by Marsters that Q~nance No. 437 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Marsters~seconded by Mack that Ordinance No. 437, prezoningproperty on Application No. PZ 69-115 of Duayae Christenson, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, Mack, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller. Noes: None. Absent: None. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 438 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUST!N, CALIFORNIA, REGULATING THE CONSTRUCTION, ERECTION, ALTERATION, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF ADVERTISING SIGNS AND THEIR SUPPORTS Moved by Marsters? seconded by Mack~ that Ordinance No. 438 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Mack~ seconded by Marsters that Ordinance No. 438, regulating the construction, erection, alteration, repair and maintenance of advertising signs and their supports, be passed and adopted. Councilman Mack stated that he wanted to take none of the endless hours put into this by the Chamber of Commerce, interested citizens, Planning Commission and the City Council. It had seemed like an insurmountable task. It can't be said that it is perfect but they have done their best to improve the Ordinance and co improve the City. Bayor Coco questioned the necessity for Section 3 of Ordinance Noo 439 (the next Agenda item) with the passage of this Ordinance. Mro Rourke stated that with the passage of this Ordinance, Section 3 of 0rdir~nce Noo 439 could be deleted. Above motion to ad~pt Ordinance No. 438 carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, Mack, 'C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller. Noes: None. Absent: None. council Minutes 7/12/69 Pgo 15- 3. ORDINAINCE NO. 439. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE N0. 157, AS AMENDED, TO PROVIDE FOR A DEVELOPMENT PREVIEW COMMITTEE. Mr. Rourke stated that with the passage of Ordinance No. 438 this Ordinance was clerically redundant and could have its second reading and adoption with the deletion of Section 3 and any reference to the Sign Ordinance in the title. Moved by Mack~ seconded by C. Miller that Ordinance No. 439 have second readin~ by title only as corrected. Carried unanimously. Moved by C. Miller~ seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance No. 439, (as corrected) providing for a Development Preview Committee, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, MacK, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller. Noes: None. Absent: None. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 440 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CITY CODE RELATIVE TO SUBDIVISION BONDS Moved by C. Millerr seconded by Mack zhaa Ordinance Noo 440 have second readin~ by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Marsters~ seconded by C.Miller that Ordinance No. 440, amending the City Code relative to subdivision bonds, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, Mack, C. Miller, Marsters. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstained: L. Miller. 5. ORDINANCE NO. 441 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ABOLISHING THE STATE PURPOSE TAX FUND. Moved by Mack: seconded by C. Miller that Ordinance No. 441 have second' readin~ by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Mack~ seconded by Marsters that 0rdin~nce Noo 441, abolishing ~he Stzte purpose tax fund, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll cello Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Mack, Marsters, L. Miller° Noes: None. Absent: None. 6. ORDINANCE NO. 442 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION NO. Z.C. 69-196. Rezoning of a parcel totaling approximately 10 acres from the R-4 to the R-1 District° Site fronts approximately 660 it. on the' southwest side of Mitchell, approximately 330 ft. west of the centerline of Browning Avenue. Moved by Marsters~ seconded by C. Miller that Ordinance No. 442, rezoning property on Application No. ZC 69-196, have first reading by title only.' Carried unanimously. Council Minutes 7/22/69 Pg. 16 7. RESOLUTION NO. 1012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 0F THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, COMMENDING LEN MILLER.' .. Moved by Mack~ seconded by Mar~ters that .Resolution No. 1012 be rpad in its entirety. Carried. ~oved by C. Miller~ seconded by Mack that Resolution No. 1012, commending LeD Miller, be passed and adopted. Carried. Mr. LeD Miller abstaining. VIII. NEW 1. AGREEMENT WITH TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE COMPANY, INC. FOR BUSINESS MAINTENANCE OF CITY OWNED TRAFFIC SIGNALS. Moved by Mack~ seconded by Marster~ that .Ag, reement with Traffic Signal Maintenance Company~ Inc~ be approved and the Mayor and City Clerk authorized to execute said agreement. Carried. 2.EXONERATtON OF IMPROVEMENT BONDS FOR TRACT 6537 (Northeast portionof Tustin Meadows) ~oved by C. Miller~ seconded by Marsters that improvements within Tract 6537 be accepted. and the pertinent bonds be exonerated. Motion carried° Councilman LeD Miller abstained° 3. EXONERATION OF IMPROVEMENT BONDS FOR TRACT 6595 ---- (North side of Walnut Avenue, 660 fro west of Browning Ave.) Moved by Marsters, seconded by Mac~ that .improvements within ' ' ~yact 6595 be ~ccepted and the pertinent bonds be exonerated. Carried. 4. COUNCIL ACTION RELATiVE TO ENDORSEMENT OF THE PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL PLANNING PROGRAM. It was the consensus of the Council that as Tustin was the leader in working with the County in developing the General Plan and as we have the only joint City-CountyGeneral Plan, that the City's er~dorsement of the Proposed Orange County General Plan be sent to the County Board of Supervisors aswell as to the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities. Moved by Marsters~seconded by L. M~]]er that the intent and objectives of the proposed Orange County General Plarming Program as contained in the Summ~ary Report, Part I dated June 3, 1969, be approved and that the City of Tustin reporu mo the Board of Supervisors and the Orange County League of Cities that the City Council endorses the goals and recommendations as outlined in said Report, Part I° 5. .APPROVAL OF DEMANDS It was noted that $220,652.95 of the total amount of the~ demands was a transfer of funds to the Bank of America. Moved by Mack~ seconded by Marsters that the ~emands in the amounu of ~330,B94.15 be approved and paid. Carried. REPORTS AND 1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR 1968-69 OTHER BUSINESS Presented byMr. Gill Council Minutes 7/22/69 Pg. 17 2. CITY TRANSPORTATION Mr. Gill presented ideas for a City bus traveling roundtrip between residential areas and con~,arciai districts as a means _.~-- of stimulating business and providing convenient ~ransportation for those persons without ready transportation, as well as for transportation for children attending the recreation programs. Mr. Gill recormnended that the City explore the costs, feasibility, and routing of a City "free" bus for service to the community. Mr~ Gill to investigate this matter further and obtain comments from the Chamber of Commerce, interested businessman, and other communities that have this transportation in operation now. 3. PROPOSED ADDITION TO FIRE STATION Mr. Gill reported that plans for a second story addition to the Fire Station had been approved by the Architectural Committee conditioned upon continuation of similar roof treatment on all sides which would require Mission Tile brow around the top of the addition. Estimated additional cost over the amount budgeted is $700,00, The Council discussed the procedure followed by the City in presenting plans to the Architectural Committee. It was stated that in the future any plans for additions or new construction should include proper plans and renderings and be made available to the Council before sent to the Committee, and that the City follow the same rules and receive the same treatment as any other applicant. Moved by Mack~ seconded by. Marstars that the Council approve the report and that in future additions and/or new construction be done under better procedure and improved method so as to be more understandable to the Council. Carried. 4. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS - CITY TREE LIST In answer to questioning by Councilman C. Miller, Mro Gill stated that all changes to the City Tree List ~ould necessitate an Ordinance adopted by the City Council, 5. LIBRARY OF SLIDES OF ALL SIGNS IN THE CITY Councilman C. Miller suggested that it would be helpful to the Planning Co=mission and to the Review Board and the Council if the staff could build a store of slides of signs in the City° Mr. SupinSet said he would pursue this matter. 6. DEVELOPMENT PREVIEW APPOINTMENTS Mayor Coco solicited the help of the press, the Chamber of Commerce and anyone knowing eligible individuals and asked that names be submitted to the Council, Appointments should be made upon effective date of Ordinance in 30 days, THE FOLLOWING CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED: 1, Resolution regarding State Imposed Programs for local Government - City of Brae. Councilmane. Miller stated that he was impressed with this ResolUtion a~d believed a ~ilar resolution f~m this Council Minutes 7/22/69 Pgo 18 Mayor Coco directed that the City Administrator, from his experience and knowledge as to the kind of things that could effect the City that have been adopted or proposed, work with the City Attorneyin drafting a Resolution for presentation at the next regular Council meeting. 2. Minutes of the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities General Meeting - July 10, 1969, 3. Report on A.B. 325 - Mr. Rourke. ~F,. Rourke stated that he would keep the Council informed as to changes or status of this bill. 4. Tentative Schedule for 1969-70 Public Improvemenu Construction- City Engineer. 5. Monthly Report - City Treasurer. 6. Activity Summary - Tustin Police Department. Mid-sunmmer Recreation Program Report - Recreation Director. 7. Mayor COco noted that there has been almost twice as many participants this year as last year. 8. State Highway Under Construction - State of California. ~__ 9. California Council on Criminal Justice Bulletin. 10. Report re functional classification study - State Division of Highways. 11. Legislative Bulletin - League of California Cities. 12. Report on Zoning Administrator for the County - The Register. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Mack~"seconded by Marsters that the meeting be adjourned to a personnel session. Carried.