Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, or genetic information, and provides that discrimination in housing through a restrictive covenant includes the existence of a restrictive covenant, regardless of whether accompanied by a statement that the covenant is repealed or void. Existing law also provides that a provision in any deed of real property in California that purports to restrict the right of any person to sell, lease, rent, use, or occupy the property to persons having the characteristics specified above by providing for payment of a penalty, forfeiture, reverter, or otherwise, is void, except as specified. Additionally, existing law provides that any deed or other written instrument that relates to title to real property, or any written covenant, condition, or restriction annexed or made a part of, by reference or otherwise, any deed or instrument, that contains any provision that purports to forbid, restrict, or condition the right of any person or persons to sell, buy, lease, rent, use, or occupy the property on account of any of characteristics specified above, is deemed to be revised to omit that provision. Existing law requires a county recorder, title insurance company, escrow company, real estate broker, real estate agent, or association that delivers a copy of a declaration, governing document, or deed, to place a cover page or stamp on the first page of the previously recorded document stating that if the document contains any restriction that unlawfully discriminates based on any of the characteristics specified above, that document is void. This bill would require a title company, escrow company, real estate broker, real estate agent, or association that delivers a copy of a declaration, governing document, or deed to a person who holds an ownership interest of record in property to also provide a Restrictive Covenant Modification form with specified procedural information. Existing law authorizes a person who holds an ownership interest of record in property that they believe is the subject of an unlawfully restrictive covenant, as specified, to record a Restrictive Covenant Modification, which is required to include a copy of the original document with the illegal language stricken. Existing law requires the county recorder, before recording the modification document, to submit the modification document and the original document to the county counsel who is required to determine whether the original document contains an unlawful restriction based on any of the characteristics specified above. Existing law requires the county counsel to return these documents and inform the county recorder of their determination, and requires the county recorder to refuse to record the modification document if the county counsel finds that the original document does not contain an unlawful restriction. Existing law requires the county recorder to make Restrictive Covenant Modification forms available to the public. This bill would additionally authorize a title company, escrow company, county recorder, real estate broker, real estate agent, or other person to record a Restrictive Covenant Modification. The bill, beginning July 1, 2022, would require a title company, escrow company, real estate broker, or real estate agent that has actual knowledge of a declaration, governing document, or deed that is being directly delivered to a person who holds or is acquiring an ownership interest in property and includes a possible unlawfully restrictive covenant to notify the person of the existence of that covenant and their ability to have it removed through the restrictive covenant modification process. The bill would, beginning July 1, 2022, and upon request before the close of escrow, require the title company or escrow company that is directly involved in the pending transaction to assist in the preparation of a Restrictive Covenant Modification, as specified. This bill would require the county counsel, after their review, to return the documents to the county recorder and inform the county recorder of their determination within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 3 months, as provided. The bill would require a person who requests to record a modification document to provide a return address in order for the county recorder to notify this person of the action taken by the county counsel. The bill would require the county recorder to make Restrictive Covenant Modification forms available to the public onsite or online, as provided, and require the forms to permit the submission of a form that will correct unlawfully restrictive covenants for multiple dwellings within a subdivision, as specified. This bill would require the county recorder of each county to establish a restrictive covenant program to assist in the redaction of unlawfully restrictive covenants. In this regard, the bill would require each county recorder to prepare an implementation plan by July 1, 2022, as specified, identify unlawfully restrictive covenants in the records of their office, and to redact unlawfully restrictive covenants, as specified. The bill would require the County Recorders Association of California to submit reports to the Legislature by January 1, 2023, and January 1, 2025, of the progress of each county's restrictive covenant program and to annually convene a best practices meeting to share concepts on the implementation of restrictive covenant programs, as specified. Existing law imposes a fee, except as provided, of $75 to be paid at the time of the recording of every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to be recorded, per each single transaction per single parcel of real property, not to exceed $225. Existing law exempts from this fee any real estate instrument, paper, or notice recorded in connection with a transfer subject to the imposition of a documentary transfer tax, as provided, or with a transfer of real property that is a residential dwelling to an owner-occupier. This bill would additionally exempt from this fee any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded to remove a restrictive covenant that is in violation of specified provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. This bill, subject to authorization from the county's board of supervisors and in accordance with applicable constitutional requirements, would authorize a county recorder to impose a fee of $2 to be paid at the time of the recording of every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to be recorded for the purpose of funding the restrictive covenant programs established under these provisions. The bill would exempt certain documents from a fee established pursuant to these provisions. The bill would prohibit a county recorder to charge the $2 fee after December 31, 2027, unless the fee is reauthorized, as specified. Existing law authorizes recordation of certain documents, including a release, discharge, or subordination of a lien for postponed property taxes, without acknowledgment, certificate of acknowledgment, or further proof. This bill would authorize the recordation of any modification document, instrument, paper, or notice to remove a restrictive covenant that is in violation of specified provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act without acknowledgment, certificate of acknowledgment, or further proof. By imposing new duties upon counties with respect to the imposition of the recording fee and new duties upon local county officials with respect to the redaction of unlawfully restrictive covenants, 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 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law requires the Chair of the California Transportation Commission to create a Road Usage Charge (RUC) Technical Advisory Committee in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation. Under existing law, the purpose of the technical advisory committee is to guide the development and evaluation of a pilot program to assess the potential for mileage-based revenue collection as an alternative to the gas tax system. Existing law requires the technical advisory committee to study RUC alternatives to the gas tax, gather public comment on issues and concerns related to the pilot program, and make recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation on the design of a pilot program, as specified. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2023. This bill would extend the operation of these provisions until January 1, 2027. The bill would require the Transportation Agency, in consultation with the California Transportation Commission, to implement a pilot program to identify and evaluate issues related to the collection of revenue for a road charge program, as specified. The bill would require the RUC Technical Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the Transportation Agency on the design of the pilot program, including the group of vehicles to participate. The bill would require that if a group of vehicles other than state-owned vehicles is selected, that participation in the program be voluntary. The bill would require the Transportation Agency to consult with appropriate state agencies to implement the pilot program and to design a process for collecting road charge revenue from vehicles. The bill would require that participants in the program be charged a mileage-based fee, as specified, and receive a credit or a refund for fuel taxes or electric vehicle fees, as specified. The bill would require that the pilot program not affect funding levels for a program or purpose supported by state fuel tax and electric vehicle fee revenues. The bill would require the Transportation Agency to submit reports to the Legislature, as specified.
Existing law generally regulates the nature of contracts and establishes principles for the interpretation of contracts. This bill would require any time specified in a contract of adhesion for the performance of an act required to be performed to be reasonable. Existing law provides that if an employment or consumer arbitration requires the party which drafted the arbitration agreement to pay fees and costs before arbitration can proceed or during the pendency of an arbitration, the drafting party is in breach of the agreement, in default of arbitration, and waives its right to compel arbitration if it does not pay the fees within 30 days after the date they are due. This bill would require the arbitration provider to provide invoices for the fees and costs described above, in their entirety, to all parties to the arbitration on the same day and by the same means. The bill would require those invoices to be issued as due upon receipt unless the arbitration agreement expressly provides a different time for payment. For fees and costs due during the pendency of the arbitration, the bill would require any extension of time for the due date to be agreed upon by all parties to the arbitration. The bill would make technical and conforming changes.
Existing law, the Government Claims Act, prescribes the procedure for claims and actions against public entities, including local entities, and their employees. Existing law requires certain claims, such as those relating to causes of action for death or for injury to a person or personal property, to be presented within 6 months after their accrual. For these actions, if a claim is not filed within the 6-month period, existing law authorizes an application for leave to present a claim to be made to the public entity within a reasonable time, not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action, as specified. Existing law generally requires the relevant public entity review board to grant or deny the application for leave to present the claim within 45 days after it is presented. Existing law requires the application to be granted if one of several conditions is met, including that the person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss was a minor or was physically and mentally incapacitated for the entire 6 months after the accrual of the cause of action, as specified. If the person was physically or mentally incapacitated during that period, existing law requires that the failure to present a claim be a result of the person's disability. This bill would additionally require a board to grant an application for leave to present a claim, as described above, if the person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss was a minor or was physically or mentally incapacitated during any of the 6 months after the accrual of the cause of action, if the application is presented within 6 months of the person turning 18 years of age, or of the person no longer being physically or mentally incapacitated, as applicable, or a year after the claim accrues, whichever occurs first. By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also make conforming changes to reflect these new requirements in provisions relating to petitions made to a court upon denial of applications to present a claim. 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 establishes various civil rights, and authorizes a person denied one of those rights and, for certain rights, specified state and local law enforcement agencies to bring a civil action to enforce that right within a specified amount of time. Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) , establishes the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency under the direction of the Director of Fair Employment and Housing to enforce civil rights laws with respect to housing and employment and to protect and safeguard the right of all persons to obtain and hold employment without discrimination based on specified characteristics or status. The FEHA makes certain discriminatory employment and housing practices unlawful, and authorizes a person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice to file a verified complaint with the DFEH. The FEHA requires the DFEH to make an investigation in connection with a filed complaint alleging facts sufficient to constitute a violation of the FEHA, and requires the DFEH to endeavor to eliminate the unlawful practice by conference, conciliation, and persuasion. If conference, conciliation, mediation, or persuasion fails and the DFEH has required all parties to participate in a mandatory dispute resolution, as specified, the FEHA authorizes the director to bring a civil action in the name of the DFEH on behalf of the person claiming to be aggrieved within a specified amount of time. This bill would toll the deadline for the DFEH to file a civil action pursuant to the FEHA while a mandatory or voluntary dispute resolution is pending. Under this bill, when a complaint is filed with DFEH for an alleged violation of certain laws, the time for complainants to file their own civil actions under those provisions would be tolled until either the DFEH files a civil action or one year after the DFEH issues written notice to the complainant that it has closed its investigation and elected not to file a civil action. The bill would apply this tolling retroactively, but would specify that the provisions are not intended to revive claims that have already lapsed. The FEHA prohibits an aggrieved person from commencing a civil action with respect to an alleged discriminatory housing practice that forms the basis of a civil action brought by the DFEH. This bill would remove that prohibition. The FEHA requires a civil action for specified unlawful practices to be brought in a county in which the practices are alleged to have been committed, in the county in which records relevant to the alleged unlawful practices are maintained and administered, or in the county in which the person claiming to be aggrieved would have worked or would have had access to public accommodation, but for the alleged unlawful practices. The FEHA authorizes the action to be brought in the county of the defendant's resident or principal office. This bill, instead, would require the action to be brought in a county in which the practices are alleged to have been committed, in the county in which records relevant to the alleged unlawful practices are maintained and administered, in the county in which the person claiming to be aggrieved would have worked or would have had access to public accommodation, but for the alleged unlawful practices, in the county of the defendant's residence or principal office, or, if the civil action includes class or group allegations on behalf of the department, in any county in the state. If the DFEH does not bring a civil action for certain unlawful employment practices 150 days after the filing of a complaint or determines that it will not bring a civil action, the FEHA requires the DFEH to notify the person claiming to be aggrieved, indicating that person may bring a civil action pursuant to the FEHA. This bill, for a complaint treated as a group or class complaint, as specified, would instead require the department to issue a right-to-sue notice upon completion of its investigation, and not later than 2 years after the filing of the complaint. The FEHA makes it an unlawful practice for a person to deny or to aid, incite, or conspire in the denial of certain civil rights, including those protected by a cause of action for sexual harassment that occurs as part of a professional relationship. Existing law prohibits a program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by a state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives financial assistance from the state from unlawfully denying a person the full and equal access to the benefits of, or unlawfully discriminating against a person under, that program or activity, on the basis of specified characteristics. Existing law prohibits an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex or of another race or ethnicity for substantially similar work, as specified. Existing law authorizes an employee who receives less than the required wage to commence a civil action no later than 2 years after the cause of action occurs, unless the cause of action arose out of a willful violation, in which case the employee is authorized to commence no later than 3 years after the cause of action occurs. Existing law makes human trafficking, as defined, a crime, and authorizes a victim of human trafficking to bring a civil action for specified relief and remedies within 7 years of the date that the trafficking victim was freed from the trafficking situation or, if the victim was a minor when the act of human trafficking against the victim occurred, within 10 years after the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority. Under the FEHA, the DFEH is responsible for receiving, investigating, conciliating, mediating, and prosecuting complaints alleging violations of those civil rights and laws, as specified. The FEHA prohibits filing a complaint with the DFEH alleging certain civil rights violations one year after the unlawful practice or refusal to cooperate occurred. The FEHA prohibits filing a complaint alleging any other unlawful practice, including a sexual harassment claim that occurs as part of a professional relationship, 3 years after the unlawful practice or refusal to cooperate occurred. Under the FEHA, the amount of time within which to file a complaint is extended under certain circumstances, including for one year from the date that a person allegedly aggrieved by an unlawful practice attains the age of majority. This bill, instead, would subject the filing of a complaint with the DFEH alleging sexual harassment that occurred as part of a professional relationship to the one-year limitation, and would subject the filing of a complaint alleging a violation of the above-described prohibition on unlawful discrimination by a state program or activity to the 3-year limitation. The bill, instead, would prohibit the filing of a complaint alleging a violation of the above-described wage discrimination laws after the expiration of the applicable period for commencing a civil action pursuant to those wage discrimination laws. Under this bill, filing a complaint with the DFEH alleging human trafficking would be subject to the same time limitations, and extensions of those time limitations, as those imposed on a civil action for human trafficking. The FEHA requires the department or private counsel of the claimant, as specified, to serve a filed complaint either personally or by certified mail with return receipt requested upon the person, employer, labor organization, or employment agency alleged to have committed the unlawful practice. This bill would additionally authorize the complaint to be served electronically, as specified. The bill would also authorize service by leaving a copy of the complaint at the office or usual mailing address of the person or entity being served, followed by mailing a copy to that place by first-class mail, as specified. The bill would also authorize service by sending by first-class mail or airmail to that person or entity a copy of the complaint, 2 copies of a certain notice and acknowledgment of receipt, and a prepaid postage envelope addressed to the sender, followed by execution and return of a written acknowledgment of receipt to the sender. The bill would also authorize service by any means specified in the Code of Civil Procedure. The FEHA requires certain employers, labor organizations, and employment agencies to maintain specified employment-related records and files for at least 2 years and authorizes the department to seek judicial relief to enforce these retainer provisions. The FEHA exempts the State Personnel Board from the 2-year retention requirement and requires the board instead to maintain the records and files for one year. This bill would increase the above-described records and files retention requirement from 2 years to 4 years and would delete the exemption of the State Personnel Board, thus requiring the board to retain these records for 4 years. The FEHA grants the DFEH specified enforcement powers, including the power to petition the superior courts to compel compliance with investigations of the DFEH pursuant to certain employment or housing discrimination complaints, as specified. Existing law requires the Director of DFEH to consult with the Attorney General regarding the defense of a writ petition to a decision of the former Fair Employment and Housing Commission for specified challenges pending on or after January 1, 2013. This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to the requirement that the Director of DFEH consult with the Attorney General. The FEHA permits filing these petitions in any county in which the department's investigation or inquiry takes place, but if the respondent to a complaint is not found within any such county, the petition may be brought in the county of the respondent's residence or principal office. The FEHA provides that a superior court order on these petitions is final and not subject to review by appeal, but authorizes a party aggrieved by the order to serve and file in the appropriate court of appeal a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the court to set aside or otherwise modify its order. The FEHA provides specific procedures regarding the stay of an order following the filing of a petition for a writ of mandamus. This bill would permit filing these petitions either in a county in which the department's investigation or inquiry takes place or in the county of the respondent's residence or principal office. The bill would also subject a superior court order on these petitions to immediate review by appeal, and permit an aggrieved party to serve and file a notice of appeal within 15 days after the service of the superior court's order. The bill would require the appeal to have precedence in the court to which the appeal is taken. The bill would also authorize a court to award reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including expert witness fees, to a prevailing party, including the department, for these petitions and appeals. The bill, however, would only authorize attorney's fees and costs recovery for a prevailing respondent if the court finds the petition or appeal was frivolous, unreasonable, or without merit when brought, or the petitioner continued to litigate after it clearly became so.
This measure would recognize August 15, 2021, as India's Independence Day, and urge all Californians to join in celebrating India's independence.
(1) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project, as defined, that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA prohibits an environmental impact report or negative declaration from being approved for any project involving the purchase of a schoolsite or the construction of a new elementary or secondary school by a school district unless specified conditions are met, relating to, among other things, whether the property is located on a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site, a hazardous substance release site, or a site that contains a pipeline that carries specified substances, and the property's proximity to facilities that might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or extremely hazardous substances or waste, as provided. This bill would prohibit a lead agency from certifying an environmental impact report or approving a negative declaration for a project involving the purchase of a schoolsite or the construction of a new elementary or secondary school by a charter school or a private school, unless those specified conditions are met. By imposing new requirements on school districts, charter schools, lead agencies, cities, and counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law prohibits the governing board of a school district from approving a project for the acquisition of a schoolsite unless specified conditions are met, including, among others, that the school district, as the lead agency, determines that the property to be purchased or built upon is not the site of a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site, a hazardous substance release site, or a site that contains a pipeline that carries specified substances, and that the school district, as the lead agency, has not identified specified facilities within 14 of one mile of the proposed schoolsite that might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions or handle hazardous or extremely hazardous materials, substances, or waste, as provided. This bill would impose that prohibition, and related requirements, on the governing body of a charter school and the governing board of a private school, and would require the determination and identification described above to be made by the city or county. By imposing new requirements on charter schools, cities, and counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law requires the State Department of Education, upon the request of the governing board of a school district, to advise the governing board on the acquisition of new schoolsites, as specified. This bill would require the department to additionally advise the governing body of a charter school, upon the request of the governing body, on the acquisition of new schoolsites, as specified. (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 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 that the governing board of a local publicly owned electric utility with an annual electrical demand exceeding 700 gigawatthours adopt an integrated resource plan and a process for updating the plan at least once every 5 years to ensure the utility achieves specified objectives. Existing law requires that the local publicly owned electric utility's integrated resource plan address procurement for, among other things, transportation electrification. This bill would require that each updated integrated resource plan include details of the utility's electrical service rate design that support transportation electrification, and existing or planned incentives to support transportation electrification, as specified. The bill would require that the rate design include details for all applicable transportation sectors. The bill would require that each integrated resource plan include information about the utility's customer education and outreach efforts being implemented to inform utility customers of available incentives and decisionmaking tools, such as cost calculators or cost estimates that can assist customers in predicting the cost of paying for electricity for vehicles. By placing additional requirements upon local publicly owned electric utilities, 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.