Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01291985 - T.5 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on January 29, 1985 , by the following votes AYES: Supervisor Powers , Schroder , McPeak, Torlakson, Fanden NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None . SUBJECT: Hearing on appeal of Winford 0 . Adams (applicant and owner) , from Board of Appeals denial of Development Plan No. 3032-84 to establish an arcade within an existing residence with variances from required off-street parking in the North Richmond area. This being the time fixed for hearing on the appeal of Winford 0. Adams (applicant and owner) from Board of Appeals denial of Development Plan No. 3032-84 to establish an arcade within an existing residence with variances from required off-street parking in the North Richmond area; and Harvey Bragdon, Assistant Director of Planning, described the property site and advised that application No-. 3032-84 was issued a negative declaration from California Environmental Quality Act requirements; and The Chairwoman opened the public hearing, and the following persons appeared; and Catalina Lozano, attorney, representing the applicant and owner, Winford 0. Adams , appeared and advised the Board that she had prepared a memorandum of points and authorities , and commented that the persons in opposition to this project had submitted a petition which had never been seen by Mr. Adams , and stated that a close reading of that petition would disclose that people who had signed the petition were not residents of the North Richmond area; and Ms . Lozano also advised that the permit had originally been granted and stated that Mr'. Adams has a petition containing signatures of 147 people who support his project , and also commented that each person who signed the petition is a resident of the area which will be affected by the proposed project , and advised that Mr. Adams has been supported by 147 residents in the area and has also had the support of the Neighborhood Council and the Neighborhood House and urged the Board to vacate the decision made by the Board of Appeals and approve Development No. 3032-84 in the North Richmond area; and Supervisor Powers inquired as to when the Neighborhood House had endorsed the proposed project; and Winford Adams stated that he could obtain letters from Mr. Dorsey of the Neighborhood House if necessary; and The following persons appeared in opposition to the pro- posed project; and Jessie Hudson, 33 Silver Avenue, Richmond; E. B. Bonner, 1457 Kelsy Street, Richmond; Eddie M. Brown, 2602 Shane Drive, Richmond; Reola Griffine, 2616 Ohio Avenue, Richmond; Amadia Thomas , 658 22nd Street , Richmond, representing the Citizens Action Leaque of Richmond; Boston Woodson, 504 Market Street , Richmond; William R. Brown, 2602 Shane Drive, Richmond; I Catalina Lozano appeared in rebuttal and stated that in order to obtain letters from the Neighborhood Council and to further investigate problems which. can be encountered from video arcades; she requested that the Board leave the public hearing open and con- tinue hearing to a later date; and The Chairwoman closed the public hearing, as no one else desired to speak; and Supervisor Powers stated that from his own personal experience with previous arcades , that they did serve as a collection site for questionable activities , and stated that he had no other alternative than to recommend that the Board deny the appeal . Board members considered the matter, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Supervisor Powers is APPROVED, and the Board hereby DENIES the appeal of Winford 0. Adams from the Board of Appeals decision. The Board hereby makes the following required findings , together with an assessment with respect to why it can or cannot make each finding as presented below: 1 . That the proposed conditional land use shall not be detrimental to a health, safety and general welfare of EFFe county. There was public testimony that the proposed arcade would probably promote loitering and juvenile delinquency among the community's youth. 2. That it shall not adversely affect the orderly develop- ment of proper y within the county. The proposed arcade could encourage juvenile delinquency and lawlessness and therefore discourage beneficial development and constructive investment in the community. 3. That it shall not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county. Public testimony indicated that by the possible attraction of an unruly clientele , the surrounding residential and church pro- perty would be adversely affected by vandalism and trespassing, and thereby diminish property values . 4. That it shall not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the general plan. The project appears to conform to the land use designation for the site, Community Shopping, in the 1972 North Richmond General Plan. 5. That it shall not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. Much public testimony was devoted to the concern that the arcade would tend to draw youths to the neighborhood. In the absence of adequate adult or law enforcement supervision, a per- missive environment would prevail that would encourage lawlessness (loitering, theft, drug abuse, vandalism, etc. ) 6. That the project shall not encourage marginal develop- ment within the neigh or ood . If this project were approved, it might make other commer- cial activities associated with nuisance problems and lawless beha- vior appear acceptable to the community (bars, nightclubs , etc. ) 2 7. That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property an s location or surroundings are established . Several community churches are located in proximity to the subject property. Elderly church attendees would be likely criminal victims and subject to public harassment from large unruly crowds discussed above. The other required findings cannot be made, in part because the applicant failed to provide evidence to support their being made. Based on the foregoing analysis , only one of the seven required findings (#3) for development plan approval can be made. Because six required findings cannot be made, the County is obliged to deny the project . Because of the extensive consideration of the proposed project in numerous public hearings , the County will not accept any new applications for arcade activities for a period of one year from the date of this order . However, the County will accept and con- sider, without grace period, proposed commercial activities that do not largely cater to young patrons (i .e . , grocery store, second-hand store , etc. ) . These activities shall be considered in a new appli- cation to the County Planning Department . The application will then be scheduled for hearing before the Zoning Administrator in the usual manner . 1 hereby oertlfy that this is*true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the n9nufes of the Dowd of SupeMsors on the date shown. ATTESTED: .2'7 /f J� PHIL BATC ELOR,C6rk of the Boats of Supervisors and County Administrator ey Ck � cc: Director of Planning Public Works Director County Counsel Winford Adams Catalino Lozano 3