RECENT CALIFORNIA DECISIONS

January 2009

To read this entire item of approximately 2000 words online now in PDF format: Click here to read this item if you are an existing subscriber to this publication. Click here to purchase the full text of this item to read now (price: $25). To subscribe to this publication and immediately access all its archives including this item, select the relevant publication under 'Catalogue' in the left-hand column PLEASE NOTE: to read PDFs on www.argento.com you must be using Version 5 of Acrobat Reader or Adobe Reader. If you have an earlier version you can download the latest free of charge by clicking here

AG Opines on Legality of MOU Where a County Would Implement Land Use Standards in Exchange for City Support of Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
___Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.___

At the request of State Senator Jim Battin (RPalm Desert), Opinion, No. 07-506, prepared by Attorney General Marc J. Nolan, was issued by the Office of the California Attorney General (AG), concluding that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Riverside County and certain cities within the county, would not in itself, amount to an illegal exchange of votes within the meaning of Penal Code § 86. Under the MOU, the county agreed to implement certain land use development standards within each city’s sphere of influence in exchange for the cities’ agreement to adopt resolutions in support of a county-favored multiple species habitat conservation plan. The AG further concluded that such a MOU and an associated agreement between the cities, county, and various federal, state, and local agencies to implement the multiple species habitat conservation plan, would continue in effect even as the memberships of the legislative bodies of the county and signatory cities change over time, provided that the agreements did not purport to surrender the police power of any of the local agencies involved.