the appellate court cited to 179 Cal.App.2d at page 394 for Santa Barbara County, supra, the proposition that if a city council takes action that is fraudulent, or unreasonable and arbitrary so as to constitute an abuse of discretion, courts may interfere with legislative action. (Bowles at pp. 286-287.) The court held that what v. Antonetti, supra, “[u]ndoing the legislative body has done may be accomplished by a judgment declaring the legislative act (Id. at p. 286.) In contrast, issuing a mandate compelling the city void.” council to annul its resolution required the city council to perform legislative passing a resolution annulling its previous resolution. Therefore, if issued, the writ of mandate would compel the city council to perform legislative acts, which it cannot do. (Ibid.) We note that multiple other courts have, in the past, declared legislatively passed ordinances or acts to be void due to procedural defects. (El 244 Dorado, supra, Cal.App.4th at p. 963 [invalidating act that violated local rule]; Vernon, supra, county’s 107 Cal.App.3d 802 [rule that was unilaterally adopted without prior notice to or meeting and conferring with labor organization was void for its procedural violation of § 3505]; see (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 480 [affirming Williams v. City of San Bruno trial court’s decision that zoning ordinance was void due to the failure to comply with former city’s Gov. Code, § 65653]; (1932) 120 Cal.App. 240 Schofield v. City of Los Angeles [ordinance passed without submission to city planning commissioners declared void].) We believe that such a remedy may be proper in circumstances similar to the ones presented here. Lastly, reliance on its prior decisions ordering cities and city councils to PERB’s rescind rules found to be in conflict with the MMBA is also unavailing. For example, in its supplemental brief, PERB cites to (2007) PERB Dec. No. 1916M County of Imperial [31 PERC ¶ 120], where it considered the validity of a county’s employer-employee relations policy that was adopted as a local rule by the of supervisors. county’s board
the appellate court cited to Santa Barbara County, supra, 179 Cal.App.2d at page 394 for the proposition that if a city council takes action that is fraudulent, or unreasonable and arbitrary so as to constitute an abuse of discretion, courts may interfere with legislative action. (Bowles v. Antonetti, supra, at pp. 286-287.) The court held that “[u]ndoing what the legislative body has done may be accomplished by a judgment declaring the legislative act void.” (Id. at p. 286.) In contrast, issuing a mandate compelling the city council to annul its resolution required the city council to perform legislative passing a resolution annulling its previous resolution. Therefore, if issued, the writ of mandate would compel the city council to perform legislative acts, which it cannot do. (Ibid.) We note that multiple other courts have, in the past, declared legislatively passed ordinances or acts to be void due to procedural defects. (El Dorado, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 963 [invalidating county’s act that violated local rule]; Vernon, supra, 107 Cal.App.3d 802 [rule that was unilaterally adopted without prior notice to or meeting and conferring with labor organization was void for its procedural violation of § 3505]; see Williams v. City of San Bruno (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 480 [affirming trial court’s decision that zoning ordinance was void due to the city’s failure to comply with former Gov. Code, § 65653]; Schofield v. City of Los Angeles (1932) 120 Cal.App. 240 [ordinance passed without submission to city planning commissioners declared void].) We believe that such a remedy may be proper in circumstances similar to the ones presented here. Lastly, PERB’s reliance on its prior decisions ordering cities and city councils to rescind rules found to be in conflict with the MMBA is also unavailing. For example, in its supplemental brief, PERB cites to County of Imperial (2007) PERB Dec. No. 1916M [31 PERC ¶ 120], where it considered the validity of a county’s employer-employee relations policy that was adopted as a local rule by the county’s board of supervisors.
H041407.DOCX