The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutORD FOR INTRODUCTION 01-07-91DATE: DECEMBER 11, 1990 ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION NO.1 1-7-91 Inter - Com TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY ATTORNCY SUBJECT: AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1140 OF TUSTIN CITY CODE/ ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS Enclosed is a proposed ordinance relating to court procedures and the time periods within which certain types of actions may be filed. We recommend that the City Council pass and adopt the attached proposed amendment to Section 1140 of the Tustin City Code regarding administrative mandamus. The proposed amendment simply updates Section 1140 of the Tustin City Code to reflect the provisions contained in amended Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. The proposed ordinance contains three changes which are 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will provide that administrative mandamus also applies to a person whose permit or license or other entitlement has been revoked or suspended, as well as denied.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 changes in Section 1140 of the Tustin City Code represent an expansion of the application of administrative mandamus. In addition, it provides that a person seeking to challenge an administrative decision may have less than 90 days to file a petition for writ of mandate in the trial court if such a provision is contained in a state or federal law. An example of a shorter statute of limitations is found in the California Environmental Quality Act, which provides only a 30 -day period from the time the public agency's notice of determination is posted with the County Clerk. 49 J ES G. ROURKE City Attorney DAD: tw:R: 12/10/90 (S25) cc: W. Huston 1 z � ti" DA ID A. DeBE R Deputy City Attor e� 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. 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 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 DAD:tw:R:12/10/90(S24)