Attend in person, 2212 Beach Boulevard, 2nd floor. Or, view on local television or live feed Pacificcoast.TV, (formerly pct26.com). If you miss civic meetings, view on PCT 26 You Tube! The planning commission meeting begins at 7 p.m., or shortly there following. Planning Commission updates, archives are available on the City website/Planning Commission.
 |
| Item 1. 500 San Pedro Avenue is located west of 560 San Pedro Avenue, Ace Hardware. |
Planning Commission Agenda, 2/1/16, pdf pages 98.
Closed Session, 6:30 p.m.
Govt. code 54956.9 (d)(2), significant exposure to litigation, 1 case.
Open Session, 7:00 p.m. Administrative. Public Oral Communications. Consent items, none.
Public Hearings
1. SP-154-15, PSC-800-15. Construct a new 3,469 sq. ft. 3-story single-family residence on a 5,216 sq. ft. vacant lot, 325 Beaumont Boulevard (APN 009-037-460). Low density residential, zoned planned development. Filed by Brian Pung, agent for property owners Elaine and Alina Woo.
2. PSD-792-15, CDP-349-15, SUB-225-15, S-113-15. 4-detached motel rooms on 1-lot subdivision, vacant lot, 500 San Pedro Avenue (APN 023-073-190). Coastal Zone, recommend CEQA exemption section 15303 and 15315. Filed by David Blackman, agent for property owner David Colt.
Planning Commission communications. Staff communications. Adjourn.
Note photograph by Rolo A. from Yelp/Ace Hardware.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
6 comments:
4 motel units-- our environment is our economy? How many locals get all lathered up and oppose??
Closed session ????? Significant exposure to litigation ????
This is the first time I have ever seen this type of thing directed at the Planning Commission.
Affordable housing! YEA!
I'm sure the snobs in Pedro Point will come unglued if the unwashed sully their neighborhood.
807 Affordable housing? You mean the 4 detached motel rooms on San Pedro? The project sounds more like posh Air BnB stuff for frequent bathers. Doesn't Dave Colt enjoy "most favored nation" status for his role in that Headlands trail deal? C'mon Pacifica, get 'er built!
Tom is right, every thing the PC does is apoealable to council and if that appeal isn't to one's liking there are either other agencies to appeal to or you litigate against the city.
Litigating against the PC is redundant unless the city wants to intimidate the commissioners.
Perhaps the Harmony @ 1 want to reopen their condition of approval for their ... fiasco. Maybe the new quarry owner and his barking dog want to intimidate the commissioners.
Having this as a closed session makes no sense unless intimidation is the goal. Which, in that case, let us all at the litigant.
2:04
Closed session is in regards to pending litigation.
Post a Comment