Laserfiche WebLink
The opponents Stated that the land proposed for the theater <br />project is on the fringe of the industrial development; that the <br />owner is entitled to sell 21 acres out of a 150-acre site isolated <br />in a triangle between the Santa Aha River, MacArthur and Harbor <br />Boulevard; that there is no other contiguous property owner; <br />that Mr. Croddy is in the best position to judge the adverse <br />effects the proposal would have on neighboring property, and <br />that it would not be detrimental in his opinion; that the project <br />is a permitted use in an M-1 zone according to the General Plan; <br />that the EIR has become an "interesting weapon" in the hands of <br />opponents of any project; that the appellants Smallwood, Seymour <br />& Jensen had sought to obtain a writ of mandate to preclude <br />Council from hearing the matter; that drive-in theaters have not <br />hindered industrial development in other nearby cities and <br />tend to increase property values; that they are a compatible <br />industrial use; that based on actual operation experience, the <br />project would not create a traffic problem. <br /> <br />Opponents further stated that the project would bring sales tax <br />revenue to the City and denial of the permit would be a blow to <br />free enterprise. <br /> <br />Mayor Patterson announced that Councilman Evans had been unable <br />to attend the Council meeting that evening; but even if he had <br />been, he would not have participated in the hearing, due to a <br />conflict of interest. <br /> <br />RECESS <br /> <br />members present. <br /> <br />At 12:32 a five-minute <br />recess was declared. <br />Council reconvened at <br />12:42 with the same <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARINGS, APPEAL NOS. 324 - 333, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <br />?3-9 (CONTINUED) <br /> <br />The proponents offered the following statements in rebuttal: <br /> <br />The project would adversely affect the General Plan of the City; <br />all of the proponents have an economic interest in owning and <br />developing property in addition to being members of the public, <br />neighborhood and the community with private and public concerns; <br />the use will not inure to the City as a whole; the questions of <br />air pollution and traffic have not been answered; there is ~just <br />as great a need to be sensitive to the people who live outside <br />the boundaries of the project as to those who are adjacent to it. <br /> <br />There were no further comments by proponents or opponents, and <br />the public hearing was closed by Mayor Patterson. <br /> <br />The following Exhibits were received and filed on the unanimously <br />approved motion (6 - 0) of Councilman Yamamoto, seconded by <br />Councilman Markel: <br /> <br />Appellant <br /> <br />324-1 Appellant 327-1 <br />327-2 331-1 <br />331-2 331-3 <br />331-4 <br /> <br />Applicant - 1 <br /> <br />Applicant - 2 <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MINUTES <br /> <br />447 <br /> <br />NOVEMBER 19, 1973 <br /> <br /> <br />