Legal Opinions of the Attorney General -
Yearly Index

Opinions published in 2018

Opinion Question Conclusion(s) Issued
18-601 Proposed relator THOMAS J. FOX has requested leave to sue proposed defendant JUDY MORRIS in quo warranto to oust Morris from the public office of Trinity County Supervisor, on the ground that, in her election documents, she used her married name, “Morris,” rather than her birth name, “Yzquierdo,” in alleged violation of Elections Code section 18200. Proposed relator does not raise a substantial question of law or fact that warrants initiating a judicial proceeding, and allowing the proposed quo warranto action to proceed would not serve the public interest. Proposed relator’s application for leave to sue in quo warranto is, therefore, DENIED.

Official Citation: 101 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 76 		08/28/2018
18-302 Proposed relator ART PERRY has requested leave to sue proposed defendant ALLAN MANSOOR in quo warranto to oust Mansoor from the public office of Costa Mesa city councilmember on the ground that Mansoor did not reside in Costa Mesa for several months during his term. Proposed relator does not raise a substantial question of law or fact that warrants initiating a judicial proceeding, and allowing the proposed quo warranto action to proceed would not serve the public interest. Proposed relator’s application for leave to sue in quo warranto is therefore DENIED.

Official Citation: 101 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 42 		07/20/2018
17-1201 Proposed relator KLAMATH-TRINITY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT has requested leave to sue proposed defendant PATRICIA KELLEY to remove her from the public office of trustee of the Board of Trustees of the Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District on the ground that she did not legally reside in the trustee area that she represents at the time of her election and during her term. Leave to sue is GRANTED to determine whether proposed defendant PATRICIA KELLEY meets the legal residency requirements for holding the public office of school district trustee.

Official Citation: 101 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 70 		08/23/2018
17-1001 May a person simultaneously serve as a member of the Concord City Council and as the Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools? A person may not simultaneously serve as a member of the Concord City Council and as the Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools.

Official Citation: 101 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 56 		08/23/2018
17-903 May a member of the Southern Mono Healthcare District board of directors simultaneously serve as a member of the city council for the Town of Mammoth Lakes or on the city’s Planning and Economic Development Commission? A member of the Southern Mono Healthcare District board of directors may not simultaneously serve as a member of the city council for the Town of Mammoth Lakes or on the Mammoth Lakes Planning and Economic Development Commission.

Official Citation: 101 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 81 		10/25/2018
17-902 Proposed relator THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK has requested leave to sue proposed defendant JOHN OSKOUI in quo warranto to remove him from the Board of Directors of the Central Basin Municipal Water District. Proposed relator contends that the water district improperly excluded proposed relator’s nominee from consideration for appointment as a director of the district by incorrectly concluding that the nominee was not “a representative of a city” within the meaning of Water Code section 71267, subdivision (f)(2). Whether proposed relator’s nominee was “a representative of a city” and was therefore improperly excluded from consideration for appointment—thereby requiring proposed defendant’s removal from office so that a new appointment process may be conducted—presents substantial questions of law and fact warranting judicial resolution. Further, allowing the action to proceed would serve the public interest. Therefore, leave to sue in quo warranto is GRANTED.

Official Citation: 101 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 24 		04/24/2018
17-702 Does the power of referendum apply to a resolution by the City of Hollister approving the execution of an agreement to sell real property for development, pursuant to an approved long-range property management plan for disposing a dissolved redevelopment agency’s property? The City of Hollister’s resolution approving the execution of an agreement to sell real property for development, pursuant to an approved plan for disposing a dissolved redevelopment agency’s property, is not subject to referendum.

Official Citation: 101 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 34 		04/27/2018
17-601 Proposed relator, the CITY OF DIXON, applies to this office for leave to sue proposed defendant DEVON MINNEMA, Dixon city council member from the city’s District 4, in quo warranto to oust him from that office on the ground that he did not reside in District 4 at all times required by state law. Proposed relator does not raise a substantial question of law or fact that warrants initiating a judicial proceeding, and allowing the proposed quo warranto action to proceed would not serve the public interest. Proposed relator’s application for leave to sue in quo warranto is therefore DENIED.

Official Citation: 101 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 16 		04/11/2018
16-702 Does Elections Code section 10515, subdivision (a), require a board of supervisors to appoint a director to a water district if to do so would result in the appointee holding incompatible public offices under Government Code section 1099? Elections Code section 10515, subdivision (a), requires a board of supervisors to appoint a director to a water district without regard to whether the appointment might result in the holding of incompatible offices under Government Code section 1099. Nonetheless, an individual so appointed may not lawfully hold incompatible public offices; thus, if the particular offices are incompatible, the appointee and would-be dual officeholder will be deemed to have forfeited the first-held office upon accepting appointment to the second.

Official Citation: 101 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 49 		08/23/2018
14-403 1. Where a city owns real property in an unincorporated area of a county and uses that property for city purposes, is the city’s extraterritorial property exempt from the county’s building and zoning ordinances?

2. Is such an exemption conditional on the city applying its own building and zoning ordinances to its extraterritorial property?

3. If a city leases extraterritorial property to a private party, may any exemption be extended to the lessee? 		1. Where a city owns real property in an unincorporated area of a county and the city itself uses that property for any activity the city is empowered to undertake, the city’s extraterritorial property is not required to comply with the county’s building and zoning ordinances.

2. The city’s freedom from county building and zoning ordinances is not conditional on the city applying its own building and zoning ordinances to its extraterritorial property, but the city must ensure that any buildings on the property comply with state law, including the California Building Standards Code.

3. If a city leases extraterritorial property to a private party, the freedom from the county’s building and zoning ordinances available to the city may be extended to the lessee if the lessee’s use of the property serves a primarily public, rather than private, purpose.

Official Citation: 101 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 88 		12/06/2018
14-301 1. May a city council member who is also an attorney advocate on behalf of a client’s interests when those interests are adverse to the city?

2. May a city council member who is also an attorney participate in a governmental decision concerning a client’s interests when those interests are adverse to the city? 		1. A city council member who is also an attorney may not advocate on behalf of a client’s interests when those interests are adverse to the city.

2. A city council member who is also a practicing attorney may not participate in a governmental decision concerning a client’s interests when those interests are adverse to the city.

Official Citation: 101 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1 		04/03/2018
11-201 1. Are a California charter school and its governing body subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act?

2. Is a California charter school’s governing body subject to Government Code section 1090?

3. Is a California charter school’s governing body subject to the Political Reform Act of 1974?

4. Are the books and records of California charter schools subject to review and inspection by a grand jury? 		1. Yes, a California charter school and its governing body are subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act.

2. Yes, a California charter school’s governing body is subject to Government Code section 1090.

3. Yes, a California charter school’s governing body is subject to the Political Reform Act of 1974.

4. Yes, in general, the books and records of California charter schools that are chartered by a school district or county board of education are subject to review and inspection by a grand jury. However, the books and records of California corporate charter schools that are directly chartered by the State Board of Education are not subject to review and inspection by a grand jury.

Official Citation: 101 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 92 		12/26/2018