Asm. Buffy Wicks

Maddy summaryThis is a symbolic resolution, not a substantive bill. It designates September 7-13, 2025, as "Direct Support Professional Recognition Week" in California. The resolution acknowledges direct support professionals who assist Californians with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) through the state's Lanterman Act system, which serves over 450,000 residents. It formally recognizes their role in enabling community inclusion and independence but does not create new policies, funding, or legal obligations.

Maddy summaryThis symbolic resolution recognizes September 20, 2025, as National Fried Rice Day in California, highlighting the dish's cultural significance to Asian American communities and its connection to California's rice-growing economy (noting the state's status as the second-largest rice producer). It has no legal effect or policy changes - it serves solely to celebrate culinary traditions and community diversity. The resolution was adopted by the California Assembly with no opposing votes.

Maddy summaryThis House Resolution designates a month as Filipino American History Month in California. It recognizes the historical contributions of Filipino Americans to the state, including early settlement (dating to 1587), agricultural labor, community building (such as "Little Manila" in Stockton), and military service during World War II. As a symbolic resolution, it does not create new laws, policies, or direct effects on any specific group.

(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a local agency, as defined, to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase permit, as defined. Existing law also establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant, and whether to approve or deny an application. If a local agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, existing law requires the local agency to provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant within specified time limits. Existing law requires the time limits to be tolled, if the local agency requires review of the application by an outside entity, until the outside entity completes the review and returns the application to the local agency, as specified. This bill would prohibit the local agency from requiring or requesting more than 2 plan check and specification reviews in connection with an application for a building permit, as part of its review, except as specified. The bill would authorize a local agency to deny an application that is not compliant with the permit standards following 2 plan check and specification reviews. The bill would also authorize an applicant to request additional submittals of applications that are not compliant with the permit standards. The bill, if a local agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, would prohibit a local agency from requesting or requiring any action or inaction as a result of a building inspection undertaken to assess compliance with the applicable building permit standards that would represent a deviation from a previously approved building plan or similar approval for the building permit, except as specified. This bill would remove the above-described tolling requirements relating to outside entity reviews and, instead, would require, if federal or state law requires review of the application by another public agency that is independent of the local agency before the local agency is authorized to act on the application, the time limits to be tolled for the application until the public agency completes the review and returns the application to the local agency. The bill would require the local agency to notify the applicant, within 3 business days of the start of the tolling and within 3 business days of the resumption of the time limit, of the tolling and the resumption of the time limit, respectively. (2) Existing law, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, requires a local agency to provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision in writing to the governing body of the agency or, if there is no governing body, to the director of the agency, as provided by that agency. Existing law requires the city or county to provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. Existing law requires a local agency to provide a final written determination on the appeal not later than 60 business days after receipt of the applicant's written appeal, for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer, and not later than 90 business days for a housing development projects with 26 units or more. Existing law also specifies that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. This bill would revise those timelines to not later than 30 business days for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer and 45 business days for housing development projects with 26 units or more. The bill would remove the specification that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. The bill would remove the requirement that, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, a local agency provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision to the director of the agency if there is no governing body, as provided by that agency. The bill would remove the requirement that a city or county provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. This bill would authorize the applicant to seek a writ of mandate to compel approval of the application, if the applicant's appeal is denied, or a decision on the appeal is not made within the timelines provided, or an appeals process is not provided as required. By imposing additional duties on local agencies regarding postentitlement phase permits, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified. The act also requires, when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, that the local agency base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that 2 specified conditions exist. Existing law defines the term "disapprove the housing development project" for these purposes to include any instance in which a local agency takes certain actions or fails to comply with certain requirements, including the time limits described above. Existing law makes a local agency's failure to meet the above-described time limits relating to postentitlement phase permits a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. This bill would, instead, make a violation of the above-described provisions relating to postentitlement phase permits, among others, a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The bill would also revise the definition of "disapprove the housing development project" under the Housing Accountability Act to include any instance in which a local agency fails to comply with any of the provisions described above relating to postentitlement phase permits. By requiring local agencies to take certain actions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The bill would make other conforming changes and would provide that certain changes are declaratory of existing law. (5) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (6) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Housing Accountability Act prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project, as defined for purposes of the act, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. That act states that it shall not be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring a housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need, except as provided. The act further provides that for its purposes, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. The act requires a housing development project to be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application, as specified, was submitted, except as otherwise provided. The act defines "ordinances, policies, and standards" to include general plan, community plan, specific plan, zoning, design review standards and criteria, subdivision standards and criteria, and any other rules, regulations, requirements, and policies of a local agency, as defined, including those relating to development impact fees, capacity or connection fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other exactions. This bill would include in the definition of "ordinances, policies, and standards" materials requirements, postentitlement permit standards, and any rules, regulations, determinations, and other requirements adopted or implemented by other public agencies, as defined. The Permit Streamlining Act, among other things, requires public agencies to approve or disapprove of a development project within certain timeframes, as specified. The act requires public agencies to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project. The act requires a public agency, upon its determination that an application for a development project is incomplete, to include a list and a thorough description of the specific information needed to complete the application. This bill would provide that for the purposes of the Permit Streamlining Act, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision adopted or implemented by a public agency, as defined, if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity, except as specified. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by counties and cities and the implementation of those general plans as may be in effect in those counties or cities. In that regard, existing law requires each local agency, by January 1, 2025, to develop a program for the preapproval of accessory dwelling unit plans. This bill would require each local agency, as defined, to develop a program for the preapproval of single-family and multifamily residential housing plans, whereby the local agency accepts single-family and multifamily plan submissions for preapproval and approves or denies the preapproval applications, as specified. The bill would require a large jurisdiction, as defined, to develop this program by July 1, 2026, and a small jurisdiction, as defined, to develop a program by January 1, 2028. The bill would authorize a local agency to charge a fee to an applicant for the preapproval of a single-family or multifamily residential housing plan, as specified. The bill would require the local agency to post preapproved single-family or multifamily residential housing plans and the contact information of the applicant on the local agency's internet website. The bill would require an application for preapproval to include a statement by the applicant that the applicant has sufficient authority, license, or ownership interest in the plan to submit the plan for preapproval and, if approved, posted as described above. This bill would prohibit the preapproval program from applying to single-family or multifamily residential housing plans intended for use in certain communities and developments, as specified. The bill would require a local agency to either approve or deny an application for a single-family or multifamily residential housing unit, both as defined, within 30 days if the lot meets certain conditions and the application utilizes either a single-family or multifamily residential housing unit plan preapproved within the current triennial California Building Standards Code rulemaking cycle or a plan that is identical to a plan used in an application for a single-family or multifamily residential housing unit approved by the local agency within the current triennial California Building Standards Code rulemaking cycle. The bill would also provide that its provisions do not prevent a local agency from voluntarily accepting or admitting additional plans at higher densities in additional zoning districts into the preapproved housing plan program, at the local agency's discretion. Existing law requires each county and each city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that includes, among other specified mandatory elements, a housing element. That law requires the planning agency of a city or county to provide by April 1 of each year an annual report to, among other entities, the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. Existing law requires the annual report to include, among other things, the city's or county's progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs, as specified. This bill, beginning on April 1, 2027, for large jurisdictions and beginning on April 1, 2029, for small jurisdictions, would require the local agency to include in its annual report the number of units of residential housing that are approved using a preapproved housing plan pursuant to this act. By imposing new duties on local agencies with regard to developing a preapproval program and its annual report, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. To the extent that the ministerial review process established by the bill would apply to final, discretionary approval of an application for a single-family or multifamily housing unit, the bill would exempt those projects from CEQA. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

This measure would call on members of the United States Congress to oppose reductions to funding that negatively impact educational services for students with disabilities and would call on the President of the United States and Congress to ensure that services and funding for students with disabilities are uninterrupted.

This measure would recognize February 2025 as Black History Month, urge all citizens to join in celebrating the accomplishments of African Americans during Black History Month, and encourage the people of California to recognize the many talents of African Americans and the achievements and contributions they make to their communities to create equity and equality for education, economics, and social justice. The measure would also recognize the significance in protecting citizens' right to vote and remedying racial discrimination in voting.

Maddy summaryThis is a commemorative resolution, not a bill with policy changes. It recognizes key historical milestones of transgender people in California, including Indigenous gender diversity documented in 1775, 19th-century transgender figures in San Francisco's Tenderloin, early activism like the 1959 Cooper Do-nuts Riot, and legal precedents such as Sir Lady Java's 1967 employment discrimination case. The resolution has no binding effect and does not create new laws or directly affect any individuals or groups. It serves solely to honor these historical contributions.

Maddy summaryThis House Resolution designates September as "Student Parent Month" in California. It recognizes the approximately 400,000 student parents across the state - over half a million children - and aims to raise awareness of their needs. The resolution does not create new policies or funding but encourages colleges, policymakers, and communities to honor student parents and support their educational success. It follows California’s prior legislative actions (like AB 2881 and AB 2458) that established concrete support mechanisms for student parents.