Opinion ID: 2610751
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Operative Facts Leading to this Proceeding

Text: By separate resolutions dated August 27, 1968 (corrected in certain details by an amending resolution dated October 29, 1968) the Long Beach City Council approved the two agreements, directed the city clerk to post the resolutions as required by the city charter, and directed the city manager to execute the agreements on behalf of the city. On August 28, 1968, the State Lands Commission, acting on behalf of itself and the state and pursuant to chapter 1688 and its general powers under the Public Resources Code, executed the two agreements. On September 9, 1968, the Governor executed the agreements. On September 6, 1968, the city manager directed to the mayor and city council a letter in which he (1) stated his recognition that each of the two subject agreements would result in great benefit to the public and to the tideland trust, but (2) respectfully declined to execute the agreements on the following grounds: I have been advised that there exist serious questions of law regarding the constitutionality of the statu[t]es authorizing the City to enter into these agreements, particularly Chapter 1688, Statutes of 1965, and additional serious questions regarding the legality of both agreements and of the form of quitclaim to be executed by the City pursuant to the Belmont Shore-Naples Boundary Settlement. On the same date the city clerk sent a similar letter respectfully declining to post the approving resolutions for the reasons expressed by the city manager. (See fn. 2, ante. ) In this proceeding the city seeks a peremptory writ of mandate to require the respondents city manager and city clerk to perform the ministerial duties which they refuse to perform. [11] By granting the alternative writ we have determined the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. ( County of Sacramento v. Hickman, supra, 66 Cal.2d 841, 845.)