Asm. Matt Haney

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.

The Budget Act of 2018 appropriated $50,000,000 to the Board of State and Community Corrections for a grant program, known as the Adult Reentry Grant Program, for the purpose of awarding competitive grants to community based organizations to support offenders formerly incarcerated in state prison. The Budget Act of 2018 allocated a specified amount of those funds for, among other things, rental assistance, rehabilitation of existing property or buildings, and to support the warm hand-off and reentry of offenders transitioning from prison to communities. Subsequent budget acts have continued to fund the program. This bill, instead, commencing July 1, 2026, and upon appropriation of funds, would transfer the administration of the grant program to the Department of Housing and Community Development. The bill would require the department, on or before December 1, 2026, to modify the grant program to provide 5-year renewable grants to geographically diverse regional administrators responsible for funding permanent supportive housing and reentry services for eligible people, as specified. The bill would require the department to issue proposed guidelines or a draft notice, as specified, establishing the grant program and require the department to competitively score applicants applying for grant funds as regional administrators. The bill would require the department to work collaboratively with the State Department of Health Care Services, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and homeless continuums of care, and seek to work collaboratively with county probation departments, to establish a process for referrals of people eligible to participate in the program, as specified. The bill would also require the department to establish specified benchmarks to promote and track ideal outcomes from the program. This bill would require the department to distribute program funds by executing contracts with awarded regional administrators and would impose certain requirements on those regional administrators. The bill would prescribe eligibility requirements for a person scheduled for release from, or who has been be formerly incarcerated in, state prison, to participate in the program. The bill would require program funds to be used for specified purposes, including specified administrative fees, permanent housing, rental and operating subsidies, incentives to landlords, and voluntary multidisciplinary services, as specified. The bill would require the department, upon implementation of the program, to design an evaluation and hire an independent evaluator to assess outcomes from the program, and would require the evaluation to be submitted to specified committees of the Legislature. This bill would require the board to continue to oversee and administer existing program grants that have not yet expired, using resources allocated to the board through funds allocated by the Budget Act of 2025. This bill would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to establish a process to engage an individual scheduled for discharge, within at least 210 days of the scheduled release date, for the purpose of assessing the individual's risk of homelessness upon discharge, as specified.

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.

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 a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law generally authorizes a health care service plan or health insurer to use prior authorization and other utilization management functions, under which a licensed physician or a licensed health care professional who is competent to evaluate specific clinical issues may approve, modify, delay, or deny requests for health care services based on medical necessity. Existing law requires health care service plan contracts and health insurance policies that provide hospital, medical, or surgical coverage and are issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2021, to provide coverage for medically necessary treatment of mental health and substance use disorders under the same terms and conditions applied to other medical conditions, as specified. On and after January 1, 2027, this bill would prohibit concurrent or retrospective review of medical necessity of in-network health care services and benefits (1) for the first 28 days of a treatment plan for inpatient or residential substance use disorder stay at a specified licensed facility during each plan or policy year or (2) for outpatient services provided by specified certified programs for substance use disorder visits, except as specified. The bill would authorize, after the 29th day, in-network health care services and benefits for inpatient or residential substance use disorder care to be subject to concurrent review. On and after January 1, 2027, the bill would prohibit retrospective review of medical necessity for the first 28 days of intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization services for substance use disorder, but would authorize concurrent or retrospective review for day 29 and days thereafter of that stay or service. With respect to health care service plans, the bill would specify that its provisions do not apply to Medi-Cal behavioral health delivery systems or Medi-Cal managed care plan contracts. Because a willful violation of the bill's requirements by a health care service plan would be a crime, the 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.

(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.

Existing law allows a person who was arrested or convicted of a nonviolent offense while they were a victim of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, or sexual violence, to petition the court, under penalty of perjury, for vacatur relief. Existing law requires, to receive that relief, that the crime for which the person was arrested or convicted was a nonviolent offense and that the person establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the arrest or conviction was the direct result of being a victim of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, or sexual violence. Existing law authorizes the court to vacate the conviction if it concludes that the petitioner was a victim of one of those crimes at the time of the alleged commission of the offense, the arrest was a direct result of being a victim of that offense, and the vacatur is in the best interest of justice. This bill would allow that relief for a person arrested or convicted of any offense, except murder, as specified. Because this bill would authorize more petitions to be filed under penalty of perjury, by expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. If a court issues an order for a person who was arrested or convicted of an offense while they were a victim of intimate partner violence or sexual violence, existing law requires the court to order the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense, the Department of Justice, and any law enforcement agency that arrested the petitioner or participated in the arrest of the petitioner to seal their records of the arrest and the court order to seal and destroy the records within 3 years from the date of the arrest, or within one year after the court order is granted, whichever occurs later, and thereafter to destroy their records of the arrest and the court order to seal and destroy those records. This bill would require the court to also order any law enforcement agency that has taken action or maintains records related to or because of the offense, including, but not limited to, departments of probation, rehabilitation, corrections, and parole, to seal and destroy their records. The bill would require those agencies to seal their records of arrest and the court order to seal and destroy the records within one year from the date of arrest, or within 90 days after the court order is granted, whichever occurs later. The bill would require the agencies to destroy these records within one year of the date of the court order. By increasing duties on local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also require the Department of Justice to notify the petitioner and the petitioner's counsel that the department has complied with the order to seal the arrest records by the applicable deadline. Existing law creates an affirmative defense against a charge of a crime that the person was coerced to commit the offense as a direct result of being a victim of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, or sexual violence at the time of the offense and when the person had reasonable fear of harm. Existing law prohibits this defense from being used with respect to a violent felony, as defined. This bill would allow that defense to be used with respect to a violent felony, except for murder, as specified. 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, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities. Under existing law, local health agencies are primarily responsible for enforcing these standards. Under existing law, a person who violates any provision of the California Retail Food Code is guilty of a misdemeanor, except as otherwise provided. Existing law prohibits a food facility from locating a grease trap or grease interceptor in a food handling area, unless approved by an enforcement agency. Existing law exempts from the prohibition a food facility with an approved grease trap or grease interceptor that was in operation before the effective date of the code. This bill would instead prohibit a food facility from locating a grease trap or grease interceptor in a food preparation area. The bill would additionally exempt a grease trap or grease interceptor from this prohibition if (1) a structural hardship can be determined preventing the grease trap or grease interceptor from being installed in an area not designated for food preparation or food storage or a utensil handling area, (2) the site can provide a cleaning or maintenance plan that indicates how and when the grease trap or grease interceptor will be accessed for service to prevent any cross contamination of food or food contact surfaces, and (3) the site can provide procedures that will be taken to properly clean and sanitize the area following servicing. Existing law limits the size of a passthrough window service opening to 216 square inches. Existing law authorizes a passthrough window of up to 432 square inches if equipped with an air curtain device. This bill would instead authorize a passthrough window service opening of up to 432 square inches if equipped with an air curtain device or equipped with a self-closing device. The bill would authorize a passthrough service opening that is larger than 432 square inches if equipped with both a self-closing device and an air curtain device. The bill would authorize an enforcement agency to approve alternative passthrough window or other service openings if the proposed alternative can adequately maintain exclusion of vermin or other means of contamination. Existing law requires a food facility's walls and ceilings to be durable, smooth, nonabsorbent, and easily cleanable. Existing law exempts from this requirement walls and ceilings of bar areas in which alcoholic beverages are sold or served directly to the consumers, except wall areas adjacent to bar sinks and areas where food is prepared, among other things. Existing law also exempts from this requirement restrooms that are used exclusively by the consumers, except that the walls and ceilings in the restrooms shall be of a nonabsorbent and washable surface. This bill would instead exempt walls and ceilings of bar areas in which beverages are sold, served, or dispensed directly to the consumers. The bill would also instead exempt restrooms that are used exclusively by employees. Existing law requires temporary food facilities to be equipped with overhead protection for all food preparation, food storage, and warewashing areas. Existing law requires overhead protection to be made of wood, canvas, or other materials that protect the facility from precipitation, dust, bird and insect droppings, and other contaminants. Existing law exempts from these requirements a temporary food facility that is approved for limited food preparation if flying insects, vermin, birds, and other pests are absent due to the location of the facility or other limiting conditions. This bill would additionally exempt a temporary food facility that is approved for limited food preparation from these requirements if environmental factors that could contaminate the food are absent due to the location of the facility or other limiting conditions. By revising the standards that must be enforced by local health agencies and by expanding the scope of existing crimes, the 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 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 authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles to establish contracts for electronic programs that allow qualified private industry partners, including second-line business partners, to provide services that include processing and payment programs for vehicle registration and titling transactions. Existing law authorizes the department to establish the maximum amount that a qualified private industry partner may charge its customers, but requires the department to annually adjust that amount, as specified. The bill would, notwithstanding the above-described authorization to establish maximum charge amounts, require the department to limit the amount that any qualified second-line business partner may charge an individual customer for a vehicle registration renewal that is processed on the second-line business partner's internet website to no more than the maximum amount a first-line service provider may charge its customers. The bill would also direct the department to require all qualified second-line business partners to prominently display on their internet websites, in a clear and conspicuous manner, a working link to the department's internet website with a specified statement informing the public that consumers may obtain services from the department at no additional cost.

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.