HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD FOR INTRO 04-01-91ATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
4/-/ -` t ,
MARCH 21, 1991 '
"IRDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION NO. l
-1-91
Inter - Com
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY ATTORNEY
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 1140
The City Attorney's office submitted a proposed revision to
Section 1140 of the Tustin City Code and a question was raised as
to whether this amendment required a meet and confer process with
City employees.
This amendment is to update the Tustin City Code to be
consistent with the latest amendment to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.6, as follows:
(1) The definition of "Decision" is changed to include the
words "or other entitlement".
(2) The definition of "Party" has been changed. Previously
administrative mandamus applied to a person whose permit
or license had been denied. The new language will
provide that administrative mandamus also applies to a
person whose permit or license or other entitlement has
been revoked or suspended, as well as denied.
(3) A new section entitled "Conflicting Provisions" is added.
This section tracks the new language found in Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 which states that the
provisions of this section will prevail over any
conflicting provisions, unless the conflicting provision
is a state or federal law which provides a shorter
statute of limitations.
The Government Code prescribes the scope of subjects which
fall within the meet and confer requirements, namely to matters
relating to wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment.
The proposed revision of Section 1140 of the Tustin City Code
simply tracks new language contained in Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1094.6 and is not an item subje the et and confer
requirements.
_ES ROURKE
City Attorney
cc: W. Huston
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 j
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 1056
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE TUSTIN
CITY CODE RELATIVE TO ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as
follows:
Section 1: Section 1140 of Part 4 of Article 1 of the Tustin
City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"1140 ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS - LIMITATIONS
a. Purpose and Effect
Pursuant to Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the City Council hereby enacts this Part to
limit to ninety (90) days following final decisions in
adjudicatory administrative hearings the time within
which an action can be brought to review such decisions
by means of administrative mandamus.
b. Definitions
As used in this Part, the following terms and words shall
have the following meanings:
"Decision" means and includes adjudicatory administrative
decisions that are made after suspending, demoting or
dismissing an officer or employee, or after revoking or
denying an application for a permit or a license, or
other entitlement, or after denying an application for
any retirement benefit or allowance.
"Complete record" means and includes the transcript of
the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders,
any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final
decision, all admitted exhibits, all rejected exhibits in
the possession of the City or its commission, board,
officer or agent, all written evidence, and any other
papers in the case.
"Party" means an officer or employee who has been
suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit or
license, or other entitlement has been revoked or
suspended, or whose application for a permit, license, or
other entitlement has been denied; or a person whose
application for a retirement benefit or allowance has
been denied.
-1-
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. Time limit for judicial review
Judicial review of any decision of the City or its
commission, board, officer, or agent may be made pursuant
to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure only if
the petition for writ of mandate is filed not later than
the 90th day following the date on which the decision
becomes final. If there is no provision for
reconsideration in the procedures governing the
proceedings the decision is final on the date it is made.
If there is provision for reconsideration, the decision
is final upon the expiration of the period during which
such reconsideration can be sought; provided that if
reconsideration is sought pursuant to such provision the
decision is final for the purposes of this Section on the
date that reconsideration is rejected. Whenever the City
Administrator's decision is said to be final except for
the reserved right of the City Council to act as final
authority, the decision is deemed final for the purposes
of the time limit for judicial review on the date of the
City Administrator's decision; provided that if the City
Council does act as the final authority, the petitioner
must file within ninety ( 90 ) days following the action of
the City Council.
d. Preparation of the Record
The complete record of the proceedings shall be prepared
by the City or its commission, board, officer or agent
which made the decision and shall be delivered to the
petitioner within 90 days after he has filed written
request therefor. The City may recover from the
petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise
preparing the record.
e. Extension
If the petitioner files a request for the record within
10 days after the date the decision becomes final, the
time within which a petitioner pursuant to Section 1094.5
of the Code of Civil Procedure may be filed shall be
extended to not later than the 30th day following the
date on which the record is either personally delivered
or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney.of record, if
he has one.
f. Notice
In making a final decision, the City shall provide notice
to the party that the time within which judicial review
must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code
-2-
2
3
W1a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14i
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of Civil Procedure and Section 1140 of the Tustin City
Code.
g. Conflicting Provisions
The provisions of this section shall prevail over any
conflicting provisions in any otherwise applicable laws
relating to administrative mandamus, unless the
conflicting provision is a state or federal law which
provides a shorter statute of limitations. In such a
case, the shorter statute of limitations shall apply.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin
at a regular meeting held on the day of 19
Richard B. Edgar, Mayor
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO.
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council
of the City of Tustin! California, does hereby certify that the
whole number of the members of the City Council is five; that the
above and foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly passed and
adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
day of 19 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
UA D: tw: R:12/ 10/90(S24)
-3-