none, , Staff Reports•City 0/ leoffinv JUL
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE TSOU CASE
DATE: MAY 28, 1996
A memorandum is attached from City Attorney Mike Jenkins describing the City
Council's options in this matter. It is indicated by City Attorney Mike Jenkins that
the Tsou's representative, Stanley Lamport or Doug McHattie of South Bay
Engineering, may request that this case be remanded back to the Planning
Commission. According to the City Attorney's comments, the City Council has sole
discretion to adopt the resolution upholding the denial of this case or remand it
back to the Planning Commission.
CRN:mlk
tsoucase.mem
®Printed on Recycled Parer.
'CHARDS, WATSON & GERSHO•
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Craig Nealis, City Manager
Michael Jenkins
May 23, 1996
Tsou decision
You have asked me to outline the City
Council's options relative to the Tsou appeal, scheduled for
final action at the Council's adjournedregular meeting of
Tuesday, May 28, 1996.
At its May 13 meeting, the Council voted to deny the
appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. The
council directed staff to return with a resolution for adoption
memorializing its decision; the resolution has been prepared and
will be on the agenda for Council adoption on May 28.
Stan Lamport, attorney for the applicant, has advised
me that the applicant may request that the Council remand the
case back to the Planning Commission rather than adopt the
resolution. The purpose of such a remand would be to allow the
applicant to submit a modified project to the Commission without
commencing a new application and paying new fees.
Section 17.54.060 C. of the Municipal Code in relevant
part authorizes the Council on appeal to uphold the decision of
the Planning Commission or remand an application back to the
Commission for further review and direction. In the past, the
Council has remanded back applications where the applicant has
presented on appeal a modified project not previously reviewed by
the Commission. In this instance, Tsou has not presented a
modified project. Nonetheless, Section 17.54.060 C. does not
require presentation of modifications as a precondition of a
remand, and the Council is not constrained from remanding by
virtue of the absence of a modified project.
The Council has complete discretion to adopt the
resolution of denial or remand. Adoption of the resolution would
constitute.a final action; at that juncture Tsou could either
bring a writ of mandate challenging the decision in court or try
again with a new application. In my view, a writ would not
likely be successful, and judging from Mr. Lamport's comments, I
doubt Tsou will elect that option. A remand would mean
postponing final action, and allowing the applicant to re -work
the project asspart of the same application.
MJ:mj
R6980.00001 0565446
RIC:HARDS, WATSON & QERSHO• •
'MEMORANDUM
Craig Nealis, City Manager
May 23, 1996
Page 2
If the Council adopts the resolution of denial, the
question has arisen whether Section 17.30.040 would preclude
another application for a project on this property for a full
year. That section prohibits filing of "the same or similar
request" absent a "change of circumstances." Assuming there is
no change of circumstances, I believe this section only precludes
the filing of the same application, or one so similar that it is
not materially different from the application which was denied.
In this instance, an application which modifies those elements of
the project which were found objectionable by the Commission and
the Council would in my judgment be sufficiently dissimilar as to
allow re -application within the year.
MJ:mj
R6980-00001 0565446
TOTAL P.03