Asm. Matt Haney

(1) Existing law prohibits the owner of a residential real property from terminating a tenancy without just cause, as defined, after a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a residential real property for 12 months. Among other residential real properties or residential circumstances, existing law exempts from these provisions a residential real property, including a mobilehome, that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit if the owner meets specified criteria and the tenants have been provided a specified written notice of the exemption. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2030. This bill would revise these provisions by removing the exemption for separately alienable residential real property and, instead, only exempting a mobilehome if the above-described criteria are met. The bill would delete the January 1, 2030, repeal date, thereby extending these provisions indefinitely. (2) Existing law prohibits an owner of residential real property, except as specified, from increasing over the course of any 12-month period the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more than 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase, as specified. This bill would reduce the permissible gross rental rate increase under these provisions to the lesser of 2% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 5%. Among other residential real properties, existing law exempts from these provisions a residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit, including a mobilehome, if the owner meets specified criteria and the tenants have been provided a specified written notice of the exemption. This bill would revise these provisions by removing the exemption for separately alienable residential real property and, instead, only exempting a mobilehome if the above-described criteria are met. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2030. This bill would delete the January 1, 2030, repeal date, thereby extending these provisions indefinitely. (3) Notwithstanding the above-described gross rental rate increase prohibition, existing law, upon the expiration of rental restrictions, as defined, authorizes the owner of affordable housing units that meet certain requirements to establish the initial rental rate for the unit, and also authorizes the owner of an assisted housing development who demonstrates compliance with certain requirements under penalty of perjury to establish the initial unassisted rental rate for units in the assisted housing development. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2030. This bill would remove the January 1, 2030, repeal date, thereby extending the initial rental rate authorizations indefinitely. By extending provisions that require the owner of an assisted housing development to demonstrate compliance with specified requirements under penalty of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated program. (4) 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 requires prisoners sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison to serve time on parole or community supervision after their release from prison. Existing law authorizes courts to suspend the imposition or execution of punishments in specified criminal cases and instead enforce terms of probation or mandatory supervision. Existing law allows agencies responsible for supervision to determine appropriate responses to alleged violations, which can include, among other things, a one to 10 consecutive day period of flash incarceration. This bill would prohibit a person on any of those forms of supervision from being arrested, detained, or incarcerated for a technical violation of supervision, as defined, unless the person on supervision has had their supervision revoked by a judge after a revocation petition has been filed, except as specified. The bill would define a technical violation as any conduct in violation of a person's conditions of supervision that is not a new misdemeanor or felony. The bill would require a supervision agent to provide a person accused of a technical violation with a written summary of the technical violations alleged against them. The bill would prohibit the use of flash incarceration, and would make conforming changes. The bill would limit confinement pursuant to a revocation of supervision for a technical violation to no more than 7 days for the first revocation, 15 days for the 2nd revocation, and 30 days for the 3rd or subsequent revocation. By increasing duties on local supervision agents, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law requires the Governor to create the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council, renamed the California Interagency Council on Homelessness, to, among other things, identify mainstream resources, benefits, and services that can be accessed to prevent and end homelessness in California and to serve as a statewide facilitator, coordinator, and policy development resource on ending homelessness in California. Existing law establishes the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program, administered by the Interagency Council on Homelessness, with respect to rounds 1 through 5, inclusive, of the program, and Department of Housing and Community Development (department) , with respect to round 6 of the program, for the purpose of providing jurisdictions, as defined, with one-time grant funds to support regional coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address their immediate homelessness challenges, as specified. Existing law requires the department, upon appropriation, to distribute certain amounts, as specified, for purposes of round 6 of the program. Existing law requires an applicant to submit an application containing specified information in order to apply for a program allocation. Existing law requires an applicant to use at least 10% of specified funds allocated for services for homeless youth populations. This bill would require a continuum of care, upon appropriation and beginning with the 2026–27 fiscal year, to annually certify that they create or maintain a youth-specific process with their respective coordinated entry system, as specified, implement a youth-specific assessment tool, create a body or identify an existing body composed of youth with lived experience of homelessness that the continuum of care and other Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program grantees must consult with regularly, and identify an array of youth-specific housing inventory. The bill would require the continuum of care to document in their application how the housing assessment is youth-specific and their prioritization policy if the continuum of care states they already maintain a youth-specific coordinated entry system. The bill would also make findings and declarations related to youth-specific programs and the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program.

Existing law authorizes a peace officer, as defined, or a regularly employed and salaried employee, who is engaged in directing traffic or enforcing parking laws and regulations, of a city, county, or jurisdiction of a state agency in which a vehicle is located, to remove a vehicle located within the territorial limits in which the officer or employee may act, under designated circumstances, including, but not limited to, when a vehicle is found upon a highway or public land, or removed pursuant to the Vehicle Code, and it is known that the vehicle has been issued 5 or more notices of parking violations to which the owner or person in control of the vehicle has not responded within designated time periods, or the registered owner of the vehicle is known to have been issued 5 or more notices for failure to pay or failure to appear in court for traffic violations for which a certificate has not been issued by the magistrate or clerk of the court hearing the case, as specified. Under existing law, a vehicle that has been removed and impounded under those circumstances that is not released may be subject to a lien sale to compensate for the costs of towage and for caring for and keeping safe the vehicle. This bill would remove the authority of a peace officer or public employee, as appropriate, to remove a vehicle under the above-described circumstances, and make conforming changes. Existing law similarly authorizes a peace officer, as defined, or a regularly employed and salaried employee, who is engaged in directing traffic or enforcing parking laws and regulations, of a city, county, or jurisdiction of a state agency in which a vehicle is located, to remove a vehicle from an off-street parking facility located within the territorial limits in which the officer or employee may act, when the vehicle is known to have been issued 5 or more notices of parking violation over a period of 5 or more days, to which the owner or person in control of the vehicle has not responded or when any vehicle is illegally parked so as to prevent the movement of a legally parked vehicle. Existing law authorizes the vehicle to be impounded until the owner or person in control of the vehicle furnishes to the impounding law enforcement agency evidence of their identity and an address within this state at which they can be located and furnishes satisfactory evidence that bail has been deposited for all notices of parking violation issued for the vehicle. In lieu of requiring satisfactory evidence that the bail has been deposited, existing law authorizes the impounding law enforcement agency to, in its discretion, issue a notice to appear for the offenses charged, as specified. In lieu of either furnishing satisfactory evidence that the bail has been deposited or accepting the notice to appear, existing law authorizes the owner or person in control of the vehicle to demand to be taken without unnecessary delay before a magistrate within the county in which the offenses charged are alleged to have been committed and who has jurisdiction of the offenses and is nearest or most accessible with reference to the place where the vehicle is impounded. This bill would delete the authorization to remove a vehicle from an off-street parking facility when the vehicle is known to have been issued 5 or more notices of parking violation over a period of 5 or more days, to which the owner or person in control of the vehicle has not responded. The bill would also delete the impounding provisions described above. Existing law authorizes a peace officer, as defined, or a regularly employed and salaried employee who is engaged in directing traffic or enforcing parking laws and regulations of the jurisdiction in which a vehicle is located, to immobilize the vehicle that is located on a highway or public lands located within the territorial limits in which the officer or employee may act, if the vehicle is found upon a highway or public lands and it is known to have been issued 5 or more notices of parking violations that are delinquent because the owner or person in control of the vehicle has not responded to the agency responsible for processing notices of parking violation within designated time periods, or the registered owner of the vehicle is known to have been issued 5 or more notices for failure to pay or failure to appear in court for traffic violations for which no certificate has been issued by the magistrate or clerk of the court hearing the case, as specified. Existing law authorizes the vehicle to be immobilized until the person furnishes to the immobilizing law enforcement agency evidence of their identity and an address within this state at which they can be located and furnishes satisfactory evidence that the full amount of parking penalties been deposited for all notices of parking violation issued for the vehicle and any other vehicle registered to the registered owner of the immobilized vehicle and that bail has been deposited for all traffic violations of the registered owner that have not been cleared. This bill would delete that provision.

Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district that determines during a fiscal year that its revenues are less than the amount necessary to meet its current year expenditure obligations to request an emergency apportionment through the Superintendent of Public Instruction, subject to specified requirements. Existing law authorizes emergency apportionments to be provided through an interim loan from the General Fund and lease financing made available by the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, which is authorized to issue bonds for purposes of the emergency apportionments and related costs, or as an alternative to lease financing, as an emergency apportionment from the General Fund. Existing law prescribes the financing conditions on emergency apportionments, including the calculation of the interest rate. Existing law, notwithstanding any other law, authorizes the Inglewood Unified School District, through the State Department of Education, to request cashflow loans from the General Fund for a total of up to $55,000,000 for emergency operational purposes, as provided. Existing law requires the interest on these loans to be charged at the annual rate of return of the Pooled Money Investment Account, plus an additional 2%. This bill, notwithstanding any other law, and once the Inglewood Unified School District has successfully repaid at least 10 years of a General Fund cashflow loan made pursuant to those provisions, would authorize the school district to seek, and would require the Department of Finance to grant, a waiver of interest on that loan for the next succeeding fiscal year if specified conditions are met, including, among other conditions, that the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, in consultation with the County Office Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, determines that the school district is making substantial progress towards fiscal solvency and that a waiver of interest would help the school district to exit receivership, as provided. In each subsequent fiscal year, the bill would authorize the school district to seek, and would require the Department of Finance to grant, a subsequent waiver of interest for the applicable fiscal year if the school district again meets those same requirements. To the extent the bill would impose additional duties on the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Inglewood Unified School District. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act's requirements a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law prohibits a contract between a plan or insurer and a dentist from requiring a dentist to accept an amount set by the plan or insurer as payment for dental care services provided to an enrollee or insured that are not covered services under the enrollee's contract or the insured's policy. Existing law requires a plan or insurer to make specified disclosures to an enrollee or insured regarding noncovered dental services. Existing law requires a health care service plan or health insurer to comply with specified timely access requirements. For a specified plan or insurer offering coverage for dental services, existing law requires urgent dental appointments to be offered within 72 hours of a request, nonurgent dental appointments to be offered within 36 business days of a request, and preventive dental care appointments to be offered within 40 business days of a request, as specified. Existing law requires a contract between a health care service plan and health care provider to ensure compliance with network adequacy standards and to require reporting by providers to plans to ensure compliance. Under existing law, a health care service plan is required to annually report to the Department of Managed Health Care on this compliance. Existing law authorizes the Department of Insurance to issue guidance to insurers regarding annual timely access and network reporting methodologies. If a health care service plan or health insurer pays a contracting dental provider directly for covered services, this bill would require the plan or insurer to pay a noncontracting dental provider directly for covered services if the noncontracting provider submits to the plan or insurer a written assignment of benefits form signed by the enrollee or insured. The bill would require the plan or insurer to provide a predetermination or prior authorization to the dental provider and to reimburse the provider for not less than that amount, except as specified. The bill would require the plan or insurer to notify the enrollee or insured that the provider was paid and that the out-of-network cost may count towards their annual or lifetime maximum. The bill would require a noncontracting dental provider to make specified disclosures to an enrollee or insured before accepting an assignment of benefits. This bill would require specified plans and insurers that cover dental services to offer urgent dental appointments within 48 hours of a request, nonurgent dental appointments within 18 business days of a request, and preventive dental care appointments within 20 business days of a request, as specified. The bill would subject dentists to the relevant department's regulatory geographic accessibility standards. The bill would require plans and insurers to report comprehensive information regarding the networks that each dental provider serves. The bill would require the Department of Managed Health Care or the Department of Insurance to review the adequacy of an entire dental provider network, including the portions of the network serving plans and insurers not regulated by the respective department. Because a willful violation of the above-described provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 property tax law, pursuant to constitutional authorization, provides for a "welfare exemption" for property used exclusively for religious, hospital, scientific, or charitable purposes and that is owned or operated by certain types of nonprofit entities, if certain qualifying criteria are met. That law provides a partial welfare exemption in the case of residential rental property used for lower income households, as specified, calculated as that percentage of the value of the property that is equal to the percentage that the number of units serving lower income households represents of the total number of residential units. This bill would provide a partial welfare exemption in the case of certain residential rental property used for low- and moderate-income households. The partial exemption would be equal to that percentage of the value of the property that is equal to the percentage that the number of units serving low- and moderate-income households, as defined, represents of the total number of residential units, as provided. The bill would require an owner to make specified certifications, under penalty of perjury, relating to the use of the property. By expanding the duties of local tax officials, and by expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would declare that its provisions are severable. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Existing law requires the state to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding those provisions, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.

Existing law, added by Proposition 184, approved at the November 8, 1994, statewide general election, and amended by the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, approved as Proposition 36 at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election, commonly known as the Three Strikes Law, imposes additional years of imprisonment in state prison on a person who commits a serious or violent felony and has been convicted of, or who has a prior conviction for, a serious or violent felony. A prior juvenile adjudication constitutes a prior serious or violent felony conviction for purposes of this sentence enhancement if the juvenile was 16 years of age at the time and other requirements are met. The Legislature may directly amend these initiatives by a statute passed in each house by a 23 vote, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the voters. This bill would amend those initiative statutes by prohibiting a prior juvenile adjudication from being considered a prior serious or violent felony conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement. The bill would provide a means of vacating a prior juvenile adjudication and resentencing a defendant on any remaining counts, as specified. By requiring the participation of district attorneys and public defenders in the resentencing process, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law makes every person who fails to pay the wages of each employee subject to a specified penalty. Existing law makes the initial violation subject to a $100 penalty and each subsequent violation, or any willful or intentional violation, subject to a $200 penalty plus 25% of the amount unlawfully withheld. Existing law requires the penalty to either be recovered by an employee as a statutory penalty or by the Labor Commissioner as a civil penalty, as prescribed. This bill also would permit the $200 penalty for each subsequent violation, or any willful or intentional violation, to be recovered through an independent civil action, as specified.

Existing law regulates the hiring of real property and imposes various requirements on landlords relating to the application for, and leasing of, residential rental property. Existing law prohibits a landlord or its agent from charging a tenant a fee for serving, posting, or otherwise delivering a notice of termination of a hiring of residential property, as specified. Existing law also prohibits a landlord or its agent from charging a tenant any fee for payment by check for rent or security deposit, as provided. This bill would require on or after April 1, 2026, a landlord or landlord's agent who advertises, displays, or offers residential property for rent to include in any advertisement, display, or offer the price, including all required fees or charges, and a description of all available optional housing services, as defined, including the associated fees for each optional housing service. This bill would prohibit a landlord or landlord's agent from using a ratio utility billing system to allocate, demand, or collect fees or charges from a tenant, except for fees or charges for water or sewer service, as provided. The bill would prohibit the landlord from charging any fee or charge other than required fees and charges, as defined, and fees or charges for optional housing services. This bill would also require that any payment received from, or on behalf of, a tenant be applied to rent, rental debt, and any outstanding fees in a specified order, and would prohibit late fees from being charged to a tenant whose only delinquency is attributable to nonpayment or late payment of a late fee. The bill would specify that a decrease in housing services, as defined, is an increase in rent. The bill would provide that a landlord or landlord's agent who violates these provisions is liable to a tenant in a civil action for damages, including treble damages. The bill would provide that its provisions do not prevent a landlord from recovering damages otherwise permitted by law. The bill would establish a 3-year statute of limitations to bring an action under these provisions. The bill would provide that a waiver of its provisions is contrary to public policy and void and unenforceable, and the bill's provisions are severable.