Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City Council approves amendment on Harbor City RV park; requires CUP review amid ongoing litigation
Summary
The council approved an amendment (55b) confirming extra review for an RV park project in Harbor City and recorded a 13–1 vote; supporters said a conditional use permit is required, while planning and legal staff absence prompted calls for further briefing and a likely closed‑session review of appeal strategy.
Council members approved an amendment to an item on an RV park proposed in Harbor City that will require further discretionary review, voting 13–1 on the amending motion (55b).
Councilmember Mike McCosker, who introduced the amendment, said there is "substantial evidence in the record" that the project does not meet the standards under Section 14.007(A) and therefore requires a conditional use permit (CUP). McCosker told the council he filed a motion to "memorialize that this project requires a CUP" and asked for an I vote to preserve the city's appeal rights while legal and administrative processes continue.
"My purpose is to defend our authority under the code, to defend the plain meaning of the code," McCosker said, urging colleagues not to foreclose the city's options. He noted there has been litigation at the trial level and that the city has filed a notice of appeal; the city attorney had sought more time to consider whether to appeal.
Councilmember Bob Blumenfield cautioned that the council should hear from planning and the city attorney before overturning the planning commission or court determinations, warning that reversing course could increase litigation risk and costs. "We should be hearing this in closed session," Blumenfield said, urging staff to come to the table with available input.
A procedural motion to "call the question" to end debate passed before the final vote. The clerk recorded 13 ayes and 1 no on the amending motion 55b, which the clerk announced as passed. Council members also noted that closed-session discussion on the pending appeal is likely in the near future.
Next steps: the council approved the amendment and indicated the city attorney and planning department would be asked to brief members — possibly in closed session — about litigation and administrative remedies related to the project.
