HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/1989, C-7 - JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FINAL CITY ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS pA9`I 'I pOrigina'�l"�Agenda Re, �t from 3/21/89 Council meeting —
QI�IIII�BpI�I�II�III p�I'I�llll ".7 c MEETING GATE:
olll��lllu �� o son lues oBispo April 4, 1989 Eftze
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMHHa�f /f
FROM: Roger Picquet, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Judicial Review of Final City Administrative
Decisions
CAO RECOMENDATION
Adopt resolution establishing 90-day time period within which
judicial challenges may be made to final administrative or
quasi-judicial decisions of Council. advisory bodies, or
staff.
The resolution attached to this report is presented to the Council for its
consideration in order to establish time limitations for judicial review
of city administrative decisions. The resolution would require that legal
actions challenging a city decision be filed and served upon the City
within 90 days of any final action taken by the City or its advisory
bodies .or employees. The authority for cities to establish time
limitations for judicial review, and specifically a 90-day limitation, is
set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6
(attached) . In the absence of such resolution, the time limitations would
vary depending or. the City action challenged but would, in almost all
cases, be longer than 90 days. Some challenges could be filed as long as
one or two years after the decision.. Presenting and preparing an adequate
administrative record, of course, is proportionately more difficult with
the passage of time. It is in the City's interest to require a prompt
challenge to its actions so that their validity is not left 14:1 doubt for a
long period.
Individuais affected by final City decisions must be provided notice by
the City that the time within which judicial review must be sought is
governed by Section 1094.6. A simple statement "Any judicial review of
this decision must be made within the time set forth in Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.6" on the resolution adopting a decision will
suffice.
There is no fiscal impact associated with this proposed action.
Attachment: Draft Resolution
yam/
RESOLUTION NO.
CRESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL_ADOPTING THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1094 .6 AS BEING
APPLICABLE TO FINAL DECISIONS OF THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
WHEREAS, Section 1094.6(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure permits
the governing body of a local agency to adopt a resolution making Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 applicable to such local agencies; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo finds and
determines that such will provide an orderly and reasonable: procedure for
the review of administrative and quasi-;judicial decisions.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo that the provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure of the State of California are applicable to the final
administrative and quasi-,judicial decisions of the City of San Luis
Obispo.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1989.
MAYOR RON DUNIN
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, PAM VOGES
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
Page 2
APPROVED:
City Ad inistrative Officer
6 QLCity AttornP
SETING AGENDA/��
' uATE .ITEM #
��►I ��IIIIII�IIIIII������ @�IIIIIIIIII
III IIIII
Citof ,
An tuisvispo
y
C� 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
of Derwles action by Lead Person
r
Respond by:
19ouncil
11 t-t<AO
03/30/1989 i1-YAtry.
G3'C>erk_:g.
_ Q--777-
L4--
iTL4- FiA-C ✓
To: 'ion. Mayor Dunin and Counciimembers O
John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Pam Voges. City Clerk
From: Vicki J. Finucane, Acting City Attorney
Attached for your information is a copy of the California Code regarding
Judicial Review. Please refer to this when reviewing item C-7 on the
agenda for the April 4 Council meeting.
C
VJF/sw
attach.
RECEIVED
MAR 3 o 1989
CITY CLERK
.tot, aa, fit a o W aamrnauaure w,wmn ..
.U.
Appel—-court's review or fact findings on appeal from Reman, 'eetition for mandate of city rent stabilind=4
judge tying writ of mandamus having effect of affirm- and tubi board decision was required in aide ft 1s
ing da ay oaepational safety and health appeals board prepmatit.. . administrative?memo bathe tt
findmg violation of occupational sokty standards was gov- challenging board decision, who requested $
eroed by the mbsmntlelsvideox rale and evidentiary until. &word from the board,was only given mine papers b
flirts were to be resolved in favor or the prevailing ply and the tapes or any not of hearing which vrere
sevieviog apart was to view the.evidaxt drawing on to allow review. Buckhart v. San Fraodsce Reddoodd." tj
rmeonable inferences,in light mast favorable to that party, Rent S&bilvation and Arbitration Bd.(McDonald)W14"I"
and was required to affirm as long in the whole record m Din.1988)243 Cal.Rptn 298, 197 C.A.3d 1031 4831�•:
viewed revealed in supp9n of the judgment evidence of Record on appeal of decision of new motor d
preponderable legal dgnificanee, i.e., evidence which was did rant indicate that trial court.in determmin that °'� a
remonnble,chi ible and of solid value. Oachwiler v.Occult. to IY'
pational Safety g Health Appeals Bol(1983)191 Cal.Rptr. °� taeasiv0. filled to give Brat v2iglrl to penally'Of'•J'-R. p
334 141 C.A.3d 1041. revocation of dealers license imposed by board. ToyMa
Visalia,live.Y.Deiertmmt of Motor Vehicles(App.S Dist,
Appropriate scope of review,in regard to private baspi- 1984) 202 Col.Rptr. 190, 135 C.A.3d 313, appeal after 0
tars governing body's refusal to gram an applicant medical remand 233 CaLRptr.708, 188 C A.3d 871 ti
staff membership in hospital's department of psychiatry.was j It
a determination of whether the administrative findings were 373. — Fladiags, weight and sudndenoy of evidence
supported by substantial evidence,rather than a determina- Findings of review committee of the University of Califor- ,. 1 p
tion of whether the I i i was arbitrary, capricious or nice retirement system on which is rejection or administra-
;.`;• (.
entirely tacking in evide maty support. Pick v.Santa Ana- tin low judge's proposed decision in favor of disability ,•..
Tustin Community Hospital(1982) 182 CURpir. 85, 130 dnimant was dosed, and which rairanent system board .a •'i
CA3d 970. apparently approved,were insufficient for purpose of appel-
late �F'`•
337. Preservation of grounds for review review or board's dela!of berudts,ahsemt indication i'�• v
nx officer who fined to raise insure in Trial mrthat specifically adopted those findings m is own, . 't% e
Discharged PO d particularly In light of fact that review committee did
court that city council had idled to determine whether cot hear new testimony presented to administrative law •pt ,. e
officer's conduct connitated willful mistrrntmmt or Prison- judge on de rmro review after commktWs original rejection :';,; F
cr.as found by police dtid,could not raise such issue for of bendts. Reapers v.'University orCalifomin Redra meat
first time on appal following triol tome's denial of petition System(App 3 Dist.1985)217 Cal.Rptr.S94, 171 PA-3d •-"�r'a F
for alternative or peremptory writ of mandate and damages g64. s
against city. Musquiz v.City or Huntington Park(App.21
Diit.1986)225 CLLRptr.817,180 C.A.3d 876. in proceedings an doctors petition for writ of mandate `
concerning I iaforr entered in disciplinary procee 1'V6 evil. . s
358, Waiver des.&was sufficient to sappon fiodmg by trial earl that 1
Stota'o fidiure to seek judicial &view of State Board or the doctor was, as found in the disciplinary proceedings,
-
t.
Oontrors finding in ten claim asserted by coney for guilty of gram negligence in treating child. Am T.Board f
reimbursement for protective clothing and equipment par- d Medical Quality Amor. (1980) 167 CoLltptr. 794 110
e fire for its e lightea,together with State's acquiesence C.A.3d 275. i t
+ I
4 1094.& Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; tiling time; record: ,decision
and party defined: ordinance or resolution
(a)Judicial review of any decision of a local agency, other than school district, as the term local ;t
agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government Code,or of any commission,board,officer or
agent thereof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this code only if the petition for writ of
mandate pursuant to such section is filed within the time limits specified in this section.
(b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date on which the
decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision in any applicable
provision of any statute,charter,or rule,for the purposes of this section,the decision is fatal on the
date it is made. If there is such provision for reconsideration, the decision is final for purposes of
this section upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsideration can be sought;
provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursuant to any such provision the decision is final for
the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected.
Underline Indicates changes or additions by amendment
70
CODE GF•,CIVII, PROCEDURE. JDE OF-CIVIL PROCEDURE §lOw
• -Nol�'2
Redioo by awkivg appropriation to satisfy veli < (c) The complete record of the proceedings shall be prepared by the local agency or its commin*.
a waived state right to courts:Board'srudier�' board, officer, or agent which made the decision and shall be delivered to the petitioner within SoJley Foe Protection Dist V.state 2.Det..' days after he has filed a written request therefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner{
G1. 795, 190 cw.3d 521. = its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the
by id not radon.before agency or trial t non e transcript of the proceedings,all pleadings,all notices and orders,any proposed decision by a h
mp cos which his phystaw°+odarrgem hoesae officer, the final decision all admitted exhibits, all re e�w�
drd argument that be.rat denied fair 6arirg" is rejected exhibits in the possession of the loca3
r of the pond members was biaaed against him? agency or its commission,board,officer,or agent,all written evidence,and any other papers in the
e finding that his choice of hospital for pabmtti' case.
a negligent varied materially from the eI It �'' (d) If the petitioner files a request for the record as specified in subdivision(c)within 10 days after
were waived for purposes of appeal. Pnsre V. the date the decision becomes final as provided in subdivision(b), the time within which a petition
let 31 An".Aa .(1982) 181 Cd.Rptr.732, pursuant to Section 1094.5 may be filed shall be extended to not later than the 30th day following the
M 31 Clef 124. date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of
rd of Waslis tie tribunal - record, if he has one.
of petition for mandate of city rent stabilization . . .
tion board decision war required in order for �� (e) As used in this section, derision means a decision sub'ect to review ursuant to Section
of admin;suative bearing tnersonpu Ianndiord c 1, 1094.5, suspending, demoting, or dismissing an officer or employee, revo ansa or enymg an
board decmmn, who requested administrative ' application for a permits license,or other entitlement,or denying an application for any retirement
the board,was only given some papers With= } � benefit or allowance.
any record of haring,which were®ttlficimt
view. Buckhart vSou Penmen Residential $ (f) In making a fins)decision as defined u1 subdivision(e),the local agency shall provide notice to
iration and Arbitration Bit.(McDonald)(App. 1 -r. ; the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section.
!43 CaJ.Rptr.298, 197 CA3d 1032 -'t, 3 As used in this subdivision, "party" means an officer or employee who has been suspended,
s appal of decision of new motor vehicleboard % demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit,sliceor other entitlement has been revoked or
rate that true court,in determining that penany, suspended, or whose application for a permrti censer oro err entitlement as been denied or a
re railed to give scat "debt m penalty of Yb person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowances n denied.
if daler's license imposed by board Toyota of
v.Department of Motor vehicks(App.5 Dist, (g) This section shall be applicable to a local agency only if the governing board thereof adopts an
Ca1.Rptr. 190. 155 C.A.3d 315, appeal after `s- ordinance or resolution making this section applicable. If such ordinance or resolution is adopted,.
CaLRptr. 708, 188 C.A.3d 872 the provisions of this section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable
F esdfnps, weight sad sumdency of evidence `•' law relating to the subject matter, unless the conflicting provision i4 a state or federal law which
of review committeeof the University of r.r:ror - provides a shorter statute of limitations, in which cage the shorter statute of limitations shall apply.
of system on which its rejection of adminiitra- o j (Amended by Stats. 1983, G 818, § 3.)
lee's proposed derision in favor of disability =j e
s based and which retc®ent system board #. Historical Note «t>r®mt board's de®oa, even though syste is bylaws
pproved.see insufficient for purpose of appd- ';i. 1983 Amendment. Substituted"a decision subject to rc Provided for 60-41y statute of limitations Hittle v.Santa
if board's denial of benefits, absent radiation ]' ' view pursuant to Section 1094.5^for"adjudiwwry adromia- Berbera County Employees Retirement Assn (1985) 216
pne[ifieauy adopted these findings as its own, tretive decision made,after haring"and substituted-revok- CaLRPtr-733.703 P-2d 73.39 Gad 374.
ply light of fact that review committee did ing.or denying an application for a permit..license or other Alleged action of city council, acting as city redevelop-
"' ray prn3ented to administrative law entitlement."for"revoking or denying an application for a went agency, in ask of agency nal property to airport
nor,—sew after committee's original rejection - permit cr a license,"in=bit.(ek rewrote the definition of pip at less than its original apprised value and
Respers v.University of California Retiresnent -party" in solid. (fk and added ", unless the conflicting failure to follow Agency rules and procedures in entering
�. 3 Dia.1985)217 Cal.Rptr. 594, 171 C.A.3d provision is a state or federal low which provides a shorter into agreement with partnership cocooning property did not
statute of limitations, in which ease the shorter statute of fit classification under this section placing 90-day limitation
tangs on doctor's petition for writ of mandate limitations shall apply"at the end of the second sentrnoe of oa judicial review'of soy decision of local agency other than
aicien entered ra disciplinary b proceedings,that
surd.(g). school district. eery commission, beard. offices. or agent
rtfident ro support Grading by trial enure that Law Review Commentaries thermsubdivision of which section Wined 'decision"to
,as, as found in the disciplinary proceedings, suspnmeaning or
administrative decision with regard to
a negligence ra[raring ebibi Amgen v.Bmrd New cancellaWadman(1 rola under the withamron 9. Jd- deni, of or dismissal of perms or employee,or denial or
jwlity Assur. (1980) 16T Ca1.Rptr. 796, 110 trey P. widman(1982)22 Santa Clara L.Rev.589. denial of application for permit or license, or denial of
WFSTCAW Electronic Research application for rtiremmt benefits or allowance. Nolan v,
See WESTLAW Electronic Resareh Guide following the Redevelopment Agency of City of Burbank (1981) 172
Preface. CsLRptr.797. 117 C.A.3d 494.
ition; filing; time; record; decision 2. Exhaustion of administrative remedies
Hall v. Cason(1978) 151 Cal.Rptr.438. 88 C.A.3d 768
Notes of Decisioea (main volume) vacated 165 C&IRptr. 639, 612 P.2d 473,
than school district, as the term local transferred to 171 CaLRpv. 14, 114 C.A.3d 344.
.of any commission, board,officer or Timeliness of petition 4 Tempary academic employee's claim that her Fru
code only if the petition for writ of Tnvseript 3
Amendment rights were violated by conditioning of offer of
good recommendation an her agreement to resign rather
is apexed m this section. than contest her nomeappou tment feu within rule inquiring
day following the date on which the 1. in tteaeral exhaustion of administrative remedies where employee had
ition of the decision in any applicable where county cmph,yces'retirement system did not adopt not demonstrated that grievance procedure available to her
lis-section,the decision is final on the 90-day limitations period authorized by C.C.P. § 1094.6, was inadequate to resolve her claim either became grievance
, the decision is final for purposes of general statutes of limitation for commencement of civil committee lacked power to fashion appropriate remedy or
such reconsideration can be sought; actions,CC.P.§§ 338.343,governed and thereon,forme because issue was beyond smile of grievance resolution and
ICh provision the decision is final for member's petition for writ of malate in which be requested since employee failed to exhaust administrative remedies•
reinstatement for purposes of seeking disability retirement consideration of that claim by the supreme court in an
ition is rejected, was timely filed where it was filed within 85 days of anion for ■ writ of mandate was barred. Tiernan v.
ranges or additions by amendment Asterisks • ' ' Indicate deletions by amendment
71
l
a
J94.6 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE .6
Note 2
Trustor of California State University and Collega(1982) regarding reduction of taxable values of certain properties
188 Cal.Rptr. 115,655 P.2d 317,33 C.3d 211. were not subject to this section,rather,statute of limitatiaq r.
Developer which did not take permitted appeal to the for ordinary civil actions applied; therefore,even if one-year
city'sbuilding department after revocation of its building statute applied,county filed within time limit. San Diego
permit failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Haxon- County v. Assessment Appeals Bit. No. 2 (App. 4 Dist
Iny Development,Inc. v.City of Santa Monica(1982) 179 1983) 195 Ca1.Rptr. 895, 148 C.A.3d 548.
Cal.Rpir. 860, 128 C.A.3d 1. Even if county civil service commissions decision to
3. Transcript discharge county employee predated county's adoption of
Conclusion that indigent was not entitled to free copy of 90day limitations perind for bringing petitions for writ of
transcript of administrative hearing did oat foreclose him mandate to rrvicw commission's decisions,90day limitation
from obtaining independent judicial review of denial of period applied where county had adopted limitation before
industrial disability benefits since,in lieu of a transcript of petition for writ of mandate was due and had notified
the proceedings, he could provide a summary of the evi- employee of the 90day limitation. Foster v. Civil Service
dance and exhibits presented. City of Sacramento v.Supen. Com'n of Los. Angeles County (1983) 191) Cal.Rpir. 893.
tar Court In and For Sacramento County (1980) 170 Cal. 142 C.A.3d 444
Rpir. 75, 113 C.A.3d 715. Where city employee timely requested hearing after rc-
4. Tlmelitsess of petition ceiving notice of proposed disciplinary action and baring
Petition for writ of mandate is a special proceeding and was legally required, limitations was tolled until date city
terminates by judgment when the writ issues; issuing court refused to grant hearing and thus petition for writ of
retains jurisdiction to make any orders necessary and proper mandate, filed 29 days after denial of haring, was eom-
for enforcement of the writ. California Teachers Assn v. menced well within statutory 90-day period of limitations.
Governing 0d.of Simi Valley Unified School Dist. (App.2 Fanner v. City of Inglewood (1982) 185 Cal.Rpir. 9, 134
Dhst.1984)207 Ca1.Rptr.659, 161 C.A.3d 393. C.A.3d 130.
Former police chiefs petition("judicial review filed 93 Filing of a petition for writ of mandate with respect to a
days from city's decision that former chief was not eligible derision of the coastal commission was not untimely on
for disability retirement was filed too late, since § 1013 ground that petition was not filed within 60 days from time
which extends period fmr responding to service by five days decision became final where an equitable extension of time
where service is by merit did not apply. Tielwh v. City of was ncresary because of a delay in preparation of adminis-
Anaheim(App.4 Dist1984)206 Cal.Rptr.740, 160 C.A.3d trativc records after a timely request for extension was filed
576. within 30 days of date report was delivered. Liberty v.
Writs of mandate filed by county and its assessor to California Coastal Commission (1980) 170 Cal.Rptr. 247,
compel assessment appals board to set aside its decision 113 C.A.3d 491.
§ 1095. Judgment for applicant; damages; peremptory writ; officer of public entity as respon-
dent -
If judgment be given for the applicant, ' ' ' the applicant may recover the damages which
the applicant has sustained, as found by the jury, or as may he determined by the court or referee,
upon a reference to be ordered, together with costs; and ' ' ' a peremptory mandate must also be
awarded without delay. Damages and costs mast be enforced in the manner " dad for money
judgments generally. In all rases where the respon ent is an officer o a public entity,all damages
and costs,or either,which may be recovered or awarded,shall be recovered and awarded against the
public entity represented by ' ' ' the officer, and not against the officer so appearing in ' ' ' the
proceeding,and ' ' ' are a proper claim against the public entity for which ' ' ' the officer ' ' '
appeared and shall be paid as other claims against the public entity are paid; but in all such cases,
the court shall first determine that the officer appeared and made defense in ' ' ' the proceeding in
good faith. For the purpose of this section, "public entity" includes the state,a county,city,district
or other public agency or public corporation. For the purpose of this section, "officer' includes
officer, agent or employee.
(Amended by Stats.1982, c. 497, p. 2167, § 73, operative July 1, 1983.)
Law Revision Commission Comment
1982 Amendment
Section 1095 is amended to conform to Title 9(commene- mends Law). The other changes arc not substantive (15
ing with Section 680.010)of Part 2 (Enforcement of Judg. Cal.l_Rev_Comm. Reports 2001).
Historical Note Notes of Decisions
1982 Aawndmat Rewrote the action. 3• Damages—In general
Upon deeertnination that faculty vote terminating univer-
sity programs and thereby eliminating associate professor's
position was unreasonable,associate professor was entitled
to writ of mandamus ordering university to pay associate
professor his salary and brnefits,less any earnings received
from other employment,for period up until date when grant
Underline indicates changes or additions by amendment
'2