Rep. Rob Bonta

This measure would urge each bank with which the State of California has a business relationship to evaluate its commercial relationship with gun manufacturers and to consider the repercussions of that relationship, and urge all banks to discuss their lending practices with their shareholders and to adopt lending practices that mirror the people of California's values of protecting citizens before profit.

Existing law establishes a workers' compensation system, administered by the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation, to compensate an employee for injuries sustained in the course of employment. Existing law creates a disputable presumption that specified injuries sustained in the course of employment of a specified member of law enforcement or a specified first responder arose out of and in the course of employment. Existing law allows for a claim to be presumed compensable if it has not been rejected within 90 days of filing, as specified. Existing law imposes a duty on an employer to provide certain safety materials and adopt safety practices as necessary. A failure to meet this duty, under specified circumstances, is a misdemeanor. This bill would, until July 1, 2024, define "injury," for certain state and local firefighting personnel, peace officers, certain correctional and law enforcement personnel, as described, certain health care employees who provide direct patient care at an acute care hospital, and certain fire and rescue services coordinators who work for the Office of Emergency Services to include illness or death resulting from COVID-19, that is diagnosed on or after January 1, 2020, if certain circumstances apply. The bill would create a disputable presumption, as specified, that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. The bill would require a claim to be presumed compensable, if not rejected within 30 days, as specified. This bill would explicitly add emergency equipment or personal protective equipment, as described, to those materials required to be provided by an employer. A failure to comply with this additional requirement would not constitute a misdemeanor. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law prescribes various requirements to be satisfied before the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage or deed of trust. Existing law requires that a notice of default and a notice of sale be recorded and that specified periods of time elapse between the recording and the sale. Existing law establishes certain requirements in connection with foreclosures on mortgages and deeds of trust, including restrictions on the actions mortgage servicers may take while a borrower is attempting to secure a loan modification or has submitted a loan modification application. Existing law applies certain of those requirements only to a first lien mortgage or deed of trust that is secured by owner-occupied residential real property containing no more than four dwelling units. This bill, the Tenant, Homeowner, and Small Landlord Relief and Stabilization Act of 2020, would, among other things, until January 1, 2023, additionally apply those protections to a first lien mortgage or deed of trust that is secured by residential real property that is occupied by a tenant, contains no more than four dwelling units, and meets certain criteria, including that a tenant occupying the property is unable to pay rent due to a reduction in income resulting from the novel coronavirus. The bill would also enact the COVID-19 Small Landlord and Homeowner Relief Act of 2020 (Homeowner Act) , which would require a mortgage servicer, as defined, to provide a specified written notice to a borrower, as defined, if the mortgage servicer denies forbearance during the effective time period, as defined, that states the reasons for that denial if the borrower was both current on payments as of February 1, 2020, and is experiencing a financial hardship that prevents the borrower from making timely payments on the mortgage obligation due, directly or indirectly, to the COVID-19 emergency. The Homeowner Act would also require a mortgage servicer to comply with applicable federal guidance regarding borrower options following a COVID-19 related forbearance. Existing law provides that a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer if the tenant continues to possess the property without permission of the landlord after the tenant defaults on rent or fails to perform a condition or covenant of the lease under which the property is held, among other reasons. Existing law requires a tenant be served a 3 days' notice in writing to cure a default or perform a condition of the lease, or return possession of the property to the landlord, as specified. Existing law, the Mobilehome Residency Law, prohibits a tenancy from being terminated unless specified conditions are met, including that the tenant fails to pay rent, utility charges, or reasonable incidental service charges, and 3 days' notice in writing is provided to the tenant, as specified. This bill would, until February 1, 2025, enact the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020 (Tenant Act) . The Tenant Act would require that any 3 days' notice that demands payment of COVID-19 rental debt that is served on a tenant during the covered time period meet specified criteria, including that the notice include an unsigned copy of a declaration of COVID-19-related financial distress and that the notice advise the tenant that the tenant will not be evicted for failure to comply with the notice if the tenant delivers a signed declaration of COVID-19-related financial distress to the landlord, as specified. The Tenant Act would define "covered time period" for purposes of these provisions to mean the time between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. The Tenant Act would deem a 3 days' notice that fails to comply with this criteria void and insufficient to support a judgment for unlawful detainer or to terminate a tenancy under the Mobilehome Residency Law. The Tenant Act would prohibit a tenant that delivers a declaration, under penalty of perjury, of COVID-19-related financial distress pursuant to these provisions from being deemed in default with regard to the COVID-19 rental debt, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The Tenant Act would prohibit a court from finding a tenant guilty of an unlawful detainer before February 1, 2021, subject to certain exceptions, including if the tenant was guilty of the unlawful detainer before March 1, 2020. The bill would prohibit, before October 5, 2020, a court from taking specified actions with respect to unlawful detainer actions, including issuing a summons on a complaint for unlawful detainer in any action that seeks possession of residential real property and that is based, in whole or in part, on nonpayment of rent or other charges. The Tenant Act would also authorize a landlord to require a high-income tenant, as defined, to additionally submit documentation supporting the claim that the tenant has suffered COVID-19-related financial distress if the landlord has proof of income showing the tenant is a high-income tenant. The Tenant Act would preempt an ordinance, resolution, regulation, or administrative action adopted by a city, county, or city and county in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to protect tenants from eviction based on nonpayment of rental payments, as specified. The bill would require the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency to, in consultation with the Department of Finance, engage with residential tenants, landlords, property owners, deed-restricted affordable housing providers, and financial sector stakeholders about strategies and approaches to direct potential future federal stimulus funding to most effectively and efficiently provide relief to distressed tenants, landlords, and property owners, as specified. Existing law prohibits a landlord from taking specified actions with intent to terminate the occupancy under any lease or other tenancy or estate at will, however created, of property used by a tenant as the tenant's residence. Existing law makes a violator of those provisions subject to certain damages in a civil action. This bill would, until February 1, 2021, make a violator of those provisions whose tenant has provided to that violator the declaration of COVID-19-related financial distress described above liable for damages in an amount between $1,000 and $2,500. Existing law, The Small Claims Act, grants jurisdiction to a small claims court in cases where the amount demanded does not exceed $5,000, as specified, and prohibits a person from filing more than 2 small claims actions in which the amount demanded exceeds $2,500 anywhere in the state in any calendar year. This bill would instead, until February 1, 2025, provide that a small claims court has jurisdiction in any action for recovery of COVID-19 rental debt, as defined, regardless of the amount demanded and would provide that a claim for recovery of a COVID-19 rental debt is exempt from the prohibition on filing more than 2 small claims actions described above. Existing law, the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, prohibits, with certain exceptions, an owner of residential real property from increasing the gross rental rate for a dwelling or unit more than 5% plus the "percentage change in the cost of living," as defined, or 10%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for the immediately preceding 12 months, subject to specified conditions. The act exempts certain types of residential real properties, including dormitories constructed and maintained in connection with any higher education institution within the state for use and occupancy by students in attendance at the institution and housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years. This bill would revise and recast those exemptions to exempt dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education or a kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, school. The bill would also make clarifying changes to the definition of "percentage change in the cost of living." This bill would also make clarifying and conforming changes. 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 bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

(1) Existing law establishes the State Department of Education in state government, and vests the department with specified powers and duties relating to the state's public school system. This bill would authorize local educational agencies to report to the department their pupils' estimated needs for computing devices and internet connectivity adequate for at-home learning. The bill would require the department, in consultation with the Public Utilities Commission, to compile that information and to annually post that compiled information on the department's internet website. (2) Existing law expressly authorizes a county service area to acquire, construct, improve, maintain, and operate broadband internet access services, and requires a county service area that does so to take certain actions regarding the accessing of content on the internet by end users of that service. This bill would similarly authorize the board of supervisors of a county to acquire, construct, improve, maintain, or operate broadband internet access service, and any other communications service necessary to obtain federal or state support for the acquisition, construction, improvement, maintenance, or operation of broadband internet access service, and would require a board that does so to take certain actions regarding the accessing of content on the internet by end users of that service. (3) Existing law establishes the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development, known as "GO-Biz," within the Governor's office to serve the Governor as the lead entity for economic strategy and the marketing of California on issues relating to business development, private sector investment, and economic growth. This bill would require the office, on or before June 30, 2021, to develop recommendations and a model for streamlined local land use approval and construction permit processes for projects related to broadband infrastructure deployment and connectivity and to adopt, and post on its internet website, the recommendations and model, as specified. (4) Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including telephone corporations. Existing law requires the commission to develop, implement, and administer the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) program to encourage deployment of high-quality advanced communications services to all Californians that will promote economic growth, job creation, and the substantial social benefits of advanced information and communications technologies. Existing law requires the commission, in approving CASF infrastructure projects, to give preference to projects in areas where only dial-up internet service is available or where no internet service is available. Existing law authorizes the commission to impose a surcharge to collect $330,000,000 for deposit into the CASF beginning January 1, 2018, and continuing through the 2022 calendar year. Existing law establishes 4 accounts, the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account, the Rural and Urban Regional Broadband Consortia Grant Account, the Broadband Public Housing Account, and the Broadband Adoption Account within the CASF and specifies the amount of moneys to be deposited into each account, subject to appropriation by the Legislature. Existing law specifies, among other things, eligibility criteria for grants awarded from each of those accounts. Existing law requires moneys in the Broadband Public Housing Account that have not been awarded by December 31, 2020, be transferred back to the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account. This bill would require that the CASF program promote remote learning and telehealth, in addition to economic growth, job creation, and the substantial social benefits of advanced information and communications technologies. The bill would require the commission, in approving CASF infrastructure projects, to instead prioritize projects that reach the greatest number of unserved and underserved households, as defined, and to further prioritize projects based on other specified attributes. The bill would revise, among other things, the eligibility criteria for grants awarded from each account in the CASF, as specified. The bill would repeal the requirement that moneys in the Broadband Public Housing Account not awarded by December 31, 2020, be transferred back to the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account. The bill would establish the State Agency Direct Allocation Account in the CASF for specified purposes relating to the deployment of broadband infrastructure. The bill would require the commission to improve the efficiency of the administration of the CASF program to ensure for the most cost-effective and timely achievement of the goal of the program. The bill would authorize the commission to convene a peer review panel to review grant applications submitted under the CASF program. This bill would require the commission to engage all relevant state agencies to facilitate planning and accelerate deployment of broadband infrastructure through both projects funded pursuant to the CASF program and other infrastructure construction projects that can incorporate high-speed broadband. This bill would authorize the commission to require each internet service provider, as defined, to report specified information regarding each affordable internet service plan advertised by the provider. (5) Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because a violation of a commission action implementing this bill's requirements 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. (6) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law, the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement (STAKE) Act, prohibits a person from selling or otherwise furnishing tobacco products, as defined, to a person under 21 years of age. Existing law also prohibits the use of tobacco products in county offices of education, on charter school or school district property, or near a playground or youth sports event, as specified. This bill would prohibit a tobacco retailer, or any of the tobacco retailer's agents or employees, from selling, offering for sale, or possessing with the intent to sell or offer for sale, a flavored tobacco product or a tobacco product flavor enhancer, as those terms are defined, except as specified. The bill would make a violation of this prohibition an infraction punishable by a fine of $250 for each violation. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature that these provisions do not preempt or prohibit the adoption and implementation of local ordinances that impose greater restrictions on the access to tobacco products than the restrictions imposed by the bill, as specified. The bill would state that its provisions are severable. By creating a new 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) Under existing law, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, if a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes or attempts to interfere, by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, is authorized to bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. Existing law also authorizes an action brought by the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, to seek a civil penalty of $25,000. This bill would provide that a threat, intimidation, or coercion under the act may be inherent in any interference with a civil right and would describe intentional acts for these purposes as an act in which the person acted with general intent or a conscious objective to engage in particular conduct. The bill would, with a specified exception, eliminate certain immunity provisions for peace officers or public entities employing peace officers sued under the act. The bill would also authorize specified persons to bring an action under the act for the death of a person. (2) Existing laws defines persons who are peace officers and the entities authorized to appoint them. Existing law requires certain minimum training requirements for peace officers including the completion of a basic training course, as specified. Existing law prescribes certain minimum standards for a person to be appointed as a peace officer, including moral character and physical and mental condition, and certain disqualifying factors for a person to be employed as a peace officer, including a felony conviction. This bill would disqualify a person from being employed as a peace officer if that person has been convicted of, or has been adjudicated in an administrative, military, or civil judicial process as having committed, a violation of certain specified crimes against public justice, including the falsification of records, bribery, or perjury. The bill would also disqualify any person who has been certified as a peace officer by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and has surrendered that certification or had that certification revoked by the commission, or has been denied certification. The bill would require a law enforcement agency employing certain peace officers to employ only individuals with a current, valid certification or pending certification. (3) Existing law establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to set minimum standards for the recruitment and training of peace officers and to develop training courses and curriculum. Existing law authorizes the commission to establish a professional certificate program that awards basic, intermediate, advanced, supervisory, management, and executive certificates on the basis of a combination of training, education, experience, and other prerequisites, for the purpose of fostering the professionalization, education, and experience necessary to adequately accomplish the general police service duties performed by peace officers. Existing law authorizes the commission to cancel a certificate that was awarded in error or obtained through misrepresentation or fraud, but otherwise prohibits the commission from canceling a certificate that has properly been issued. This bill would grant the commission the power to investigate and determine the fitness of any person to serve as a peace officer in the state. The bill would direct the commission to issue or deny certification, which includes a basic certificate or proof of eligibility, to a peace officer in accordance with specified criteria. The bill would require the commission to issue a proof of eligibility or basic certificate, as specified, to certain persons employed as a peace officer on January 1, 2021, who do not otherwise possess a certificate. The bill would require a proof of eligibility or basic certificate to be renewed at least every 2 years and would require the commission to assess a fee, in an amount determined by the commission, for the application and renewal of the certificate or proof of eligibility, as well as an annual certification fee. The bill would require the fees to be deposited into the Peace Officer Certification Fund, created by the bill, and would continuously appropriate those funds to the commission for the administration of the certification program, as specified, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would declare certificates or proof of eligibility awarded by the commission to be property of the commission and would authorize the commission to revoke a proof of eligibility or certificate on specified grounds, including the use of excessive force, sexual assault, making a false arrest, or participating in a law enforcement gang, as defined. The bill would create the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Division within the commission to investigate and prosecute proceedings to take action against a peace officer's certification. The bill would require the division to review and investigate grounds for decertification and make findings as to whether grounds for action against an officer's certification exist. The bill would require the division to notify the officer subject to decertification of their findings and allow the officer to request review. The bill would also create the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Advisory Board with 9 members to be appointed as specified. The bill would require the board to hold public meetings to review the findings after investigation made by the division and to make a recommendation to the commission. The bill would require the commission to adopt the recommendation of the board if supported by clear and convincing evidence and, if action is to be taken against an officer's certification, return the determination to the division to commence formal proceedings consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act. The bill would require the commission to notify the employing agency and the district attorney of the county in which the officer is employed of this determination, as specified. The bill would make all records related to the revocation of a peace officer's certification public and would require that records of an investigation be retained for 30 years. The bill would require an agency employing peace officers to report to the commission the employment, appointment, or separation from employment of a peace officer, any complaint, charge, allegation, or investigation into the conduct of a peace officer that could render the officer subject to revocation, findings by civil oversight entities, and civil judgements that could affect the officer's certification. In case of a separation from employment or appointment, the bill would require each agency to execute an affidavit-of-separation form adopted by the commission describing the reason for separation. The bill would require the affidavit to be signed under penalty of perjury. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the board to report annually on the activities of the division, board, and commission, relating to the certification program, including the number of applications for certification, the events reported, the number of investigations conducted, and the number of certificates surrendered or revoked. By imposing new requirements on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 832.7 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 776 to be operative only if this bill and SB 776 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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 provides for the compensation of victims and derivative victims of specified types of crimes by the California Victim Compensation Board from the Restitution Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, for specified losses suffered as a result of those crimes. Existing law defines various terms for purposes of these provisions, including "crime," which includes any public offense wherever it may take place that would constitute a misdemeanor or felony. This bill would revise the definition of "crime" to include any public offense described above regardless of whether any suspect is arrested for or charged with the commission of the crime. The bill would also include in the definition of "crime" the use of force by a peace officer that is beyond what is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, and that causes the victim injury or death, regardless of whether the peace officer is arrested for or charged with the commission of a crime or a public offense. By expanding the types of crime for which compensation can be paid from a continuously appropriated fund, the bill would make an appropriation. Existing law specifies that a person is not eligible for compensation under specified conditions, including, among other things, if the board determines that denial of the claim for compensation is appropriate because of the nature of the victim's involvement in the events leading to the crime, or the involvement of the person whose injury or death gives rise to the application. If the victim is determined to have been involved in the events leading to the qualifying crime, existing law specifies the factors that the board may consider to mitigate that involvement including, among other things, that the victim's injuries were significantly more serious than reasonably could have been expected based on the victim's level of involvement, or that a third party interfered in a manner that was not reasonably foreseeable by the victim. This bill would recast the factors that may be considered in determining whether the victim was involved in the events leading to the qualifying crime. The bill would, notwithstanding those provisions, prohibit the board from denying an application based upon the victim's involvement in the crime if the claim is for injury or death that happened as a result of the use of excessive force by a peace officer. Existing law requires the board to deny an application if it finds that the victim failed to cooperate reasonably with a law enforcement agency in the apprehension and conviction of a criminal committing the crime. This bill would prohibit the board from determining that a victim failed to cooperate with law enforcement based upon their conduct with law enforcement at the scene of the crime or on a hospital following the crime, and specify that lack of cooperation shall not be found solely because a victim delayed in reporting the qualifying crime. The bill would, notwithstanding those provisions, prohibit the board from denying an application based solely upon the victim's failure to cooperate if the claim is for injury or death that happened as a result of the use of excessive force by a peace officer. The bill would prohibit the board from denying an application for a claim based on injuries or death as a result of the use of excessive force by a peace officer based solely on a police report, or the lack thereof, or based upon whether the peace officer was arrested or charged with a crime. The bill would, absent a police report, authorize these claims to be supported by other evidence. The bill would also prohibit the board from denying an application, in whole or in part, based solely upon the contents of a police report, or because a police report was not made by the victim, or based upon whether any suspect was arrested or charged with the qualifying crime. The bill would require the board to consider other evidence to establish that a qualifying crime occurred. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

(1) Existing law provides that a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer if the tenant continues to possess the property without permission of the landlord after the tenant defaults on rent or fails to perform a condition or covenant of the lease under which the property is held, among other reasons. Existing law requires a tenant be served a 3 days' notice in writing to cure a default or perform a condition of the lease, or return possession of the property to the landlord, as specified. Existing law, the Mobilehome Residency Law, prohibits a tenancy from being terminated unless specified conditions are met, including that the tenant fails to pay rent, utility charges, or reasonable incidental service charges and 3 days' notice in writing is provided to the tenant, as specified. This bill would enact the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020. This bill would require that any 3 days' notice that demands payment of COVID-19 rental debt that is served on a tenant during the covered time period meet specified criteria, including that the notice include an unsigned copy of an attestation of COVID-19-related financial distress and that the notice advise the tenant that the tenant will not be evicted for failure to comply with the notice if the tenant delivers a signed attestation of COVID-19-related financial distress to the landlord, as specified. The bill would define "covered time period" for purposes of these provisions as the time between March 4, 2020, and either 90 days after the termination of the COVID-19 state of emergency or April 1, 2021, whichever occurs earlier. The bill would provide that a tenant is not guilty of an unlawful detainer if the tenant makes the demanded payment, vacates the property, or delivers a signed attestation of COVID-19-related financial distress within 15 days of the service of the notice. The bill would deem a 3 days' notice that fails to comply with this criteria void and insufficient to support a judgment for unlawful detainer or to terminate a tenancy under the Mobilehome Residency Law. The bill would prohibit a tenant that delivers an attestation of COVID-19-related financial distress pursuant to these provisions from being deemed in default with regard to the COVID-19 rental debt. Existing law regulates specified terms and conditions of tenancies. Existing law authorizes a landlord to demand security at the beginning of a tenancy for residential property and specifies the purposes for which the security may be used, including, among others, compensating the landlord for the tenant's default in payment of rent. The bill would prohibit a landlord from applying a security deposit to satisfy COVID-19 rental debt or applying a monthly rental payment to any COVID-19 rental debt, unless the tenant agrees in writing. The bill would define "COVID-19 rental debt" as unpaid rent or any other unpaid financial obligation under the tenancy that accrued during the covered time period. The bill would prohibit a landlord from charging a tenant, or attempting to collect from a tenant, fees for a late payment of COVID-19 rental debt. The bill would prohibit a landlord from terminating a tenancy or threatening to terminate a tenancy, in retaliation against a tenant for having COVID-19 rental debt. This bill would prohibit a housing provider, credit reporting agency, tenant screening company, or other specified entities from using an alleged COVID-19 rental debt as a negative factor in evaluating creditworthiness, as specified. The bill would prohibit a cause of action to recover COVID-19 rental debt until 15 months after the date the COVID-19 state of emergency terminates or April 1, 2022, whichever is earlier. This bill would provide that any provision of a stipulation settlement agreement, or other agreement that conflicts with or purports to waive these provisions is prohibited and void as contrary to public policy. The bill would provide that if a local initiative, ordinance, regulation, or other policy conflicts with these provisions, the provision that provides the greater protection to tenants controls. (2) Existing law prescribes various requirements to be satisfied before the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage or deed of trust. In this regard, existing law requires that a notice of default and a notice of sale be recorded and that specified periods of time elapse between the recording and the sale. Existing law establishes certain requirements in connection with foreclosures on mortgages and deeds of trust, including restrictions on the actions mortgage servicers may take while a borrower is attempting to secure a loan modification or has submitted a loan modification application. This bill would enact the Small Landlord and Homeowner Relief Act of 2020. The bill would authorize a borrower to request forbearance during the effective time period from any mortgage obligation by submitting a request to the borrower's mortgage servicer, either orally or in writing, affirming that the borrower is experiencing a financial hardship that prevents the borrower from making timely payments on the mortgage obligation due, directly or indirectly, to the COVID-19 emergency. The bill would define "borrower" for these purposes as a natural person who is a mortgagor, trustor, or confirmed successor in interest; an entity other than a natural person provided that the secured property is currently occupied by one or more residential tenants; or a mobilehome owner who is the borrower on a security agreement relating to a loan or conditional sale contract that gives the secured party the right to foreclose its security interest in a manufactured home or mobilehome, except as specified. The bill would define "effective time period" as the time period between the operational date of these provisions and either 90 days after the termination of the COVID-19 state of emergency or April 1, 2021, whichever occurs first. This bill would also authorize a mobilehome owner who is the borrower on any security agreement relating to a loan or conditional sale contract which, according to its terms, gives the secured party the right to foreclose its security interest in a manufactured home or mobilehome to request forbearance during the effective time period, as specified. This bill would require a mortgage servicer or lienholder to, if certain requirements are met, offer the forbearance requested for an initial period of up to 180 days, which may be extended at the request of the borrower or mobilehome borrower, as specified. The bill would authorize a mortgage servicer or lienholder to limit the total forbearance provided to 360 days and authorize the mortgage servicer or lienholder to count any forbearance already provided to the borrower between March 4, 2020, and the date of the mobilehome borrower's initial request against that 360 days. The bill would prohibit a mortgage servicer or lienholder from assessing, accruing, or applying any fees, penalties, or additional interest during the forbearance period, as specified. The bill would require a mortgage servicer or lienholder to attempt to contact the borrower, including a mobilehome borrower, with diligent effort at least 30 days before the end of any forbearance period granted pursuant to these provisions to inquire whether the borrower is able to resume making preforbearance mortgage or loan payments. The bill would, if the borrower indicates that they will not be able to resume preforbearance payments, require the mortgage servicer or lien holder to evaluate the borrower for loss mitigation and foreclosure prevention, as specified. Alternatively, if the borrower affirms they are able to resume preforbearance payments or fails to respond to the mortgage servicer, the bill would require the mortgage servicer or lienholder to reinstate the preforbearance payments and provide a specified notice to the borrower that includes, among other things, a description of any options available to the borrower to address the amount unpaid during the forbearance. This bill would authorize a multifamily borrower that was current on its payments as of February 1, 2020, to submit a written request for forbearance to the mortgage servicer affirming that the multifamily borrower is experiencing a financial hardship during the COVID-19 emergency. The bill would define "multifamily borrower" for purposes of these provisions as a borrower of a residential mortgage loan that is secured by a lien against a property comprising 5 or more dwelling units. The bill would require a mortgage servicer to provide an initial forbearance period of 30 days and grant additional 30-day extension periods upon the request of the borrower, as specified. The bill would authorize a mortgage servicer to limit the total forbearance provided to 180 days and authorize the mortgage servicer to count any forbearance already provided to the borrower between March 4, 2020, and the date of the mobilehome borrower's initial request against that 180 days. The bill would authorize a mortgage servicer to condition forbearance on the receipt of reasonable documentation from the borrower that demonstrates a decrease of at least 10% or more of the multifamily borrower's gross rental revenue, as specified. The bill would authorize a mortgage servicer to condition any extension of the forbearance period on the receipt of payment equal to the net operating income derived from the property and the borrower keeping all property tax and insurance payments current. This bill would authorize a borrower, including a mobilehome borrower and multifamily borrower, who is likely to suffer material harm from a violation of these provisions to bring an action to obtain injunctive relief, damages, and restitution, as specified. The bill would require a court to award a prevailing borrower reasonable attorney's fees and costs in any action based on a violation of these provisions. This bill would provide that any waiver by a borrower of these provisions is contrary to public policy and void.

(1) The Child Care and Development Services Act establishes a system of childcare and development services for children up to 13 years of age. Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to implement a plan that establishes reasonable standards and assigned reimbursement rates, which vary with the length of the program year and the hours of service. Existing law requires the reimbursement system to be submitted to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. This bill would require the Superintendent to implement a reimbursement system plan that establishes reasonable standards and assigned reimbursement rates that would vary with additional factors, including a quality adjustment factor to address the cost of staffing ratios, as provided. The bill would require the reimbursement system plan, including methodology, standards, county rate targets as provided, and the total statewide funding amount necessary to reach annual rate targets for all agencies to be annually submitted to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, on or before November 10. The bill would require the plan to include a formula for annually adjusting reimbursement rates, as provided. The bill would require the department, by July 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, as provided, to establish a reimbursement rate target for each contracting agency that meets specific quality standards based on specified elements, including quality adjustment factors for the age range of children proposed to be served by the contracting agency, as a multiplier, which the bill would also require the department to establish. (2) Existing law establishes adjustment factors for a provider agency's reported child days of enrollment in order to reflect the additional expense of serving specified children, including an adjustment factor for infants and toddlers who are 0 to 36 months and are served in a child daycare center or family childcare home, as provided. This bill would, as of July 1, 2020, delete the above adjustment factors and would make conforming changes. (3) Existing law requires reimbursement rates to be adjusted by specified adjustment factors for childcare and development programs and, for childcare and development providers serving children for less than 4 hours per day, requires the reimbursement factor to be 55% of the standard reimbursement rate. This bill would instead require the above-described reimbursement factor to be 50% of the standard reimbursement rate. (4) The bill would make its operation contingent on the enactment of SB 174 of the 2019–20 Regular Session on or before January 1, 2020.