Legal Opinions of the Attorney General -
Yearly Index

Opinions published in 2025

To view opinion:  Click on the Opinion Number to open document. Once opened, entire text of opinion may be searched by using Adobe Acrobat or the browser's find tools.

Opinion Question Conclusion(s) Issued
24-803 May a general law city that has expanded its city council from five to seven members establish a seven-member municipal library board of trustees to permit all members of the city council to serve on that board, instead of a five-member board as specified in Education Code section 18910? No. A general law city that has expanded its city council from five to seven members may not establish a seven-member municipal library board of trustees because Education Code section 18910 specifies that such a board consists of five members, and neither that statute nor any other statute or applicable authority provides an exception.

Official Citation: 108 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 7 		02/13/2025
24-502 Does Public Utilities Code section 11865, a provision of the Municipal Utility District Act, require an appointed board member to step down before election day, which would necessarily occur before certification of the election results, thereby leaving a vacancy in office until a successor is seated? No. Under Public Utilities Code section 11865, an appointed board member must step down only when an elected successor takes office upon certification of the election.

Official Citation: 108 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 27 		04/23/2025
24-501 The Density Bonus Law, codified at Government Code sections 65915-65918, seeks to incentivize real estate developers to build affordable housing for rental or sale at below-market prices for households with qualifying incomes. It does so by allowing developers who include a specified amount of affordable housing units in their developments to build more housing units—referred to as “density-bonus units” or “bonus units”—than would otherwise be permitted by local regulations that limit building density. While nothing in the Density Bonus Law requires the density-bonus units to themselves qualify as affordable, may a city or county nevertheless impose its own affordable housing requirements on such units? No. A city or county may not impose affordable housing requirements on density-bonus units that are awarded under the Density Bonus Law because it would impermissibly conflict with the state law formula for calculating how many density-bonus units are awarded per affordable unit under state law. Because of this conflict, the state Density Bonus Law would preempt the contemplated local legislation. A city or county may, however, award its own density-bonus units in addition to those awarded under the Density Bonus Law and may impose affordable housing requirements on those additional units.

Official Citation: 108 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 18 		04/02/2025
24-405 Statutes 1897, chapter 56, extended to the federal government an offer of “exclusive jurisdiction over all lands within this State now held, occupied, or reserved by the Government of the United States for military purposes or defense, or which may hereafter be ceded or conveyed to said United States for such purposes.” Did that offer apply to San Clemente Island off the coast of Southern California? No. We remain of the view expressed in this office’s Indexed Letter No. IL 74-15 (Jan. 23, 1974) that the offer of exclusive jurisdiction under Statutes 1897, chapter 56, did not include San Clemente Island. The historical record does not establish that the federal government used the island for military purposes in 1897. Nor was the island ceded or conveyed to the United States after 1897. But because there is no dispute that the island is federal property, our conclusion does not implicate the federal government’s constitutional power to use the island for military purposes, as it has since 1934.

Official Citation: 108 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 44 		05/15/2025
24-404 Does the California Citizens Compensation Commission have the authority to adjust the compensation of the members of the State Board of Equalization to reflect a substantial reduction in their duties, powers, and responsibilities due to the passage of Assembly Bill 102 (The Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act of 2017)? Yes, the Commission has authority to adjust the compensation of members of the State Board of Equalization to reflect a substantial legislative reduction in their functions and duties due to the passage of Assembly Bill 102.

Official Citation: 108 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 12 		04/02/2025
24-102 Is the Madera County Regional Water Management Group subject to the Brown Act? Yes. The Madera County Regional Water Management Group is subject to the Brown Act.

Official Citation: 108 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 32 		05/08/2025
24-101 The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency was created by the Legislature, as reflected in Water Code Appendix sections 121-102 to 121-1105. Does this statutory scheme allow the Agency to hire its own staff, or to contract with an entity other than the County of Ventura or the United Water Conservation District for staff services? No. The statutory scheme establishes the Agency’s power to contract for staff services, and it limits that power to contracting with the two agencies specified in the statute, which are the County of Ventura and the United Water Conservation District.

Official Citation: 108 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1 		01/22/2025
23-1001 Does California law prohibit the operation of daily fantasy sports games with players physically located within California, regardless of whether the operators and associated technology are located outside the State? Yes, California law prohibits the operation of daily fantasy sports games with players physically located within California, regardless of where the operators and associated technology are located. Such games constitute wagering on sports in violation of Penal Code section 337a. 07/03/2025
23-601 1. May the Teachers’ Retirement Board assess penalties under Education Code sections 23003, 23006, and 23008 against a county office of education for contribution and reporting errors attributable to a charter school on whose behalf the county superintendent of schools contributes and reports to the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS)?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, does the county office of education, through its superintendent of schools, have an administrative remedy for contesting the assessment of a penalty the superintendent believes to be incorrect?

3. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, does Education Code section 23012 authorize the county superintendent of schools to recover funds used to pay the assessment or penalty from the funds allotted to the charter school?

1. Yes. The Teachers’ Retirement Board may assess penalties under Education Code sections 23003, 23006, and 23008 against a county office of education for contribution and reporting errors attributable to a charter school on whose behalf the county supervisor of schools contributes and reports to CalSTRS.

2. Yes. The county office of education, through its superintendent of schools, may seek and obtain an administrative appeal to contest the assessment of a penalty the superintendent believes to be incorrect.

3. Yes. Education Code section 23012 authorizes the county superintendent of schools to recover funds used to pay the assessment or penalty from the funds allotted to the charter school.

Official Citation: 108 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 57 		06/03/2025