HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-01; City Council; 13827; REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY TO DESTROY RECORDS KEPT BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICEe 0 39
CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# /13:83_3 - TITLE
CITY MGR, DEPT. CA
CITY ATTY, BY THE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE MTG- I ‘”I -ci 6 REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY TO DESTROY RECORDS KEPT
DEPT. HD.
-
, , ..
fE
a a a
c 0 .- 8 4”
- .-
c 0
=I 8
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. c/.b -3jg authorizing the destruction of certain files.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
This agenda bill is part of a continuing Record Management Program for City de
Adoption of the Resolution will complete the destruction of obsolete and unneces:
the City Attorney’s office.
Government Code section 34090 provides authority for destruction of documents th
than two years old and are no longer required. Authorization of the City Council
prior to the destruction of any documents.
The documents listed in Exhibit “A” have been reviewed in accordance with the p
section 34090 of the Government Code, and meet those requirements, and the C has consented to their destruction.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. 5% -3/g
2. Exhibit “A”, list of records to be destroyed
3
W 0 0
D ."!A! $2m
an8
iuu OU2 205": ots[r 0002 *;22 zuIrn0 0Z-l- ncr%o E%!! p!%
>-I2
ao-l
00 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
RESOLUTION NO. 96-318
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE
DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS KEPT BY THE
CITY ATTORNEY.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad resolves:
1. That pursuant to Section 34090 of the Government Code,
Attorney is authorized to destroy records over two years old as shown on Exhibit "C
2. This resolution shall not authorize the destruction of any record 1
City Attorney deems is necessary for the ongoing or current activity of the office c
Attorney.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting oi
Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 1st day of October 1996, by the
vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Hall and
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
22
23 ATTEST: -
24
25
1%
26
(SEAL) Z7
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City CIeq
28
ll
e e
EXHIBIT A
Blosser v. City of Fresno, No. SO22345 Respondents petition for review denied.
Briseno v. Citv of Santa Ana, No. SO27339 8127192 Decided. Respondents petition for re'
denied.
Brown v. Powav Unified School District 1/23/93 Decided. The judgment of the Court of k
reversed.
Burden v. Snowden, SO21885 4/30/92 Decided. As modified 5/28/92. Judgment of Col
Appeal is reversed with directions to vacate the order of the trial court granting a '
mandate and to remand the case to that court for proceedings consistent with this
Citv of Lafavette v. East Bav Municipal Utilitv District, A057840 The judgment is affirmed
on appeal awarded to city.
City of San Diego v, Neumann, SO29018 12120193 Decided, Judgment of Court of App'
affirmed.
Fisher v. Countv of Alameda and Citv of Berkeley, SO36859 2/24/94 Decided. Superiol
sustained city's demurrer without leave to amend. Appellants petition for review 1
Hensler v. Citv of Glendale, 9/22/94 Decided. Petition for rehearing denied.
Citv of Petaluma v. Countv of Sonoma, 111 1/93 Decided. As modified 2/10/93. Judgmc
affirmed in part and reversed in part. Each party to bear own costs.
Rider v. Countv of San Diego, S0179173/25/93 Decided. Petition for review denied.
Roberts v. Citv of Palmdale, 6/24/93 Decided. The judgment of the court of appeal is re
Waste Manaaement of the Desert and Rancho Miraqe v. Palm Sprinqs Recvclina Cent( 3/31/94 Decided. Judgment of court of appeal is affirmed with one modification.
Citv of San Jose v. Superior Court, Michael B., Real Partv in Interest, SO27874 5/13/9I
Alternative writ of mandate is discharged and the petition for a peremptory writ c
is denied.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, U.S. Supreme Court 6/29/92 Decided. Revt
remanded.
Greenwood v. City of San Marino, BO69545 7/1/93 Decided. Respondents petition fol
denied.
Trevino v. Gates, 9/9/94 Decided. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to F
this court. (U.S. Supreme Court)
Steen v. Thompson, 11/2/92 Decided. Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
CONSENT TO DESTROY , w c Ld.5 fk3K9 R6 wh