Asm. Ash Kalra

Existing law prohibits an employer, who is required by law to give an employee a rest period during a workday, from requiring the employee to work during the rest period. Existing law requires an employer to pay the employee one additional hour of pay, at the employee's regular rate of compensation, for each rest period not provided. Existing law requires employers to provide a reasonable amount of break time to employees desiring to express milk for the employee's infant child. Existing law also requires an employer to make reasonable efforts to provide the employee with the use of a room, or other location, other than a bathroom, in close proximity to the employee's work area, for the employee to express milk in private. Existing law exempts an employer from the break time requirement if the employer's operations would be seriously disrupted by providing that time to employees desiring to express milk. Existing law subjects employers who violate these provisions to a civil penalty of $100 per violation and authorizes the Labor Commissioner to issue citations for those violations. This bill would instead require an employer to provide a lactation room or location that includes prescribed features and would require an employer, among other things, to provide access to a sink and refrigerator in close proximity to the employee's workspace, as specified. The bill would deem denial of reasonable break time or adequate space to express milk a failure to provide a rest period in accordance with state law. The bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, or in any other manner discriminating or retaliating against, an employee for exercising or attempting to exercise rights under these provisions and would establish remedies that include filing a complaint with the Labor Commissioner. The bill would authorize employers with fewer than 50 employees to seek an exemption from the requirements of these provisions if the employer demonstrates that the requirement posed an undue hardship by causing the employer significant difficulty or expense, as specified. The bill would require an employer who obtains an exemption to make a reasonable effort to provide a place for an employee to express milk in private, as specified. The bill would require an employer to develop and implement a policy regarding lactation accommodation and make it available to employees, as specified.

The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, generally regulates the disposal, management, and recycling of solid waste. The act prohibits certain stores from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer at the point of sale and prohibits full-service restaurants from providing single-use plastic straws to consumers unless requested by the consumer. This bill, commencing January 1, 2023, for lodging establishments with more than 50 rooms, and January 1, 2024, for lodging establishments with 50 rooms or less, would prohibit a lodging establishment, as defined, from providing a small plastic bottle containing a personal care product to a person staying in a sleeping room accommodation, in any space within the sleeping room accommodation, or within a bathroom shared by the public or guests. The bill would authorize a local agency with authority to inspect sleeping accommodations in a lodging establishment to enforce these requirements by issuing a citation, provided that the local agency be required to issue a written warning upon a first violation of the above requirement, and to impose a penalty in the amount of $500 for a 2nd or subsequent violation, not to exceed $2,000 annually. The bill would provide that a lodging establishment that is in violation of the above requirement is liable for a civil penalty in the amount of $500 for a first violation and $2,000 for a 2nd or subsequent violation and would authorize the Attorney General or a district attorney, county counsel, or city attorney to bring an action to impose the civil penalty. The bill would prohibit, on and after January 1, 2020, a city, county, or city and county from passing or enforcing an ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule relating to personal care products in plastic bottles provided at lodging establishments, except as provided.

Existing law imposes an additional 3-year sentence for each prior separate prison term served by a defendant where the prior and current offense was a violent felony, as defined. For other felonies, existing law imposes an additional one-year term for each prior separate prison term or county jail felony term, except under specified circumstances. This bill would instead impose that additional one-year term served for each prior separate prison term served for a conviction of a sexually violent offense, as defined.

Existing law specifies that a hiring of residential real property, for a term not specified by the parties, is deemed to be renewed at the end of the term implied by law unless one of the parties gives written notice to the other of that party's intention to terminate. Existing law requires an owner of a residential dwelling to give notice at least 60 days prior to the proposed date of termination, or at least 30 days prior to the proposed date of termination if any tenant or resident has resided in the dwelling for less than one year, as specified. Existing law requires any notice given by an owner to be given in a prescribed manner, to contain certain information, and to be formatted, as specified. This bill would, with certain exceptions, prohibit an owner, as defined, of residential real property from terminating a tenancy without just cause, as defined, which the bill would require to be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy when the tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied the residential real property for 12 months, except as provided. The bill would require, for certain just cause terminations that are curable, that the owner give a notice of violation and an opportunity to cure the violation prior to issuing the notice of termination. The bill, if the violation is not cured within the time period set forth in the notice, would authorize a 3-day notice to quit without an opportunity to cure to be served to terminate the tenancy. The bill would require, for no-fault just cause terminations, as specified, that the owner, at the owner's option, either assist certain tenants to relocate, regardless of the tenant's income, by providing a direct payment of one month's rent to the tenant, as specified, or waive in writing the payment of rent for the final month of the tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due. The bill would require the actual amount of relocation assistance or rent waiver provided to a tenant that fails to vacate after the expiration of the notice to terminate the tenancy to be recoverable as damages in an action to recover possession. The bill would provide that if the owner does not provide relocation assistance, the notice of termination is void. The bill would except certain properties and circumstances from the application of its provisions. The bill would require an owner of residential property to provide prescribed notice to a tenant of the tenant's rights under these provisions. The bill would not apply to residential real property subject to a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination adopted on or before September 1, 2019, or to residential real property subject to a local ordinance requiring just cause for termination adopted or amended after September 1, 2019, that is more protective than these provisions, as defined. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. The bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2030. Existing law governs the hiring of residential dwelling units and requires a landlord to provide specified notice to tenants prior to an increase in rent. Existing law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, prescribes statewide limits on the application of local rent control with regard to certain properties. That act, among other things, authorizes an owner of residential real property to establish the initial and all subsequent rental rates for a dwelling or unit that meets specified criteria, subject to certain limitations. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, prohibit an owner of residential real property from, over the course of any 12-month period, 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 bill would prohibit an owner of a unit of residential real property from increasing the gross rental rate for the unit in more than 2 increments over a 12-month period, after the tenant remains in occupancy of the unit over a 12-month period. The bill would exempt certain properties from these provisions. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office to submit a report, on or before January 1, 2030, to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness of these provisions. The bill would provide that these provisions apply to all rent increases occurring on or after March 15, 2019. The bill would provide that in the event that an owner increased the rent by more than the amount specified above between March 15, 2019, and January 1, 2020, the applicable rent on January 1, 2020, shall be the rent as of March 15, 2019, plus the maximum permissible increase, and the owner shall not be liable to the tenant for any corresponding rent overpayment. The bill would authorize an owner who increased the rent by less than the amount specified above between March 15, 2019, and January 1, 2020, to increase the rent twice within 12 months of March 15, 2019, but not by more than the amount specified above. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. The Planning and Zoning Law requires the owner of an assisted housing development in which there will be an expiration of rental restrictions to, among other things, provide notice of the proposed change to each affected tenant household residing in the assisted housing development subject to specified procedures and requirements, and to also provide specified entities notice and an opportunity to submit an offer to purchase the development prior to the expiration of the rental restrictions. This bill would authorize an owner of an assisted housing development, who demonstrates, under penalty of perjury, compliance with the provisions described above with regard to the expiration of rental restrictions, to establish the initial unassisted rental rate for units without regard to the cap on rent increases discussed above, but would require the owner to comply with the above cap on rent increases for subsequent rent increases in the development. The bill would authorize an owner of a deed-restricted affordable housing unit or an affordable housing unit subject to a regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency limiting rental rates that is not within an assisted housing development to establish the initial rental rate for the unit upon the expiration of the restriction, but would require the owner to comply with the above cap on rent increases for subsequent rent increases for the unit. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2030. The bill would void any waiver of the rights under these provisions. By requiring an owner of an assisted housing development to demonstrate compliance with specified provisions under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand the existing crime of perjury and thus would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires the Secretary of State to annually provide every high school, community college, and California State University and University of California campus with voter registration forms. Existing law also expresses the intent of the Legislature that every eligible high school and college student receive a meaningful opportunity to register to vote. Existing law authorizes certain counties, on or after specified dates, to conduct any election as an all-mailed ballot election if, among other conditions, the county elections official permits a voter to vote a ballot at a vote center. Existing law requires a county elections official conducting an all-mailed ballot election to consider various factors in determining the location of vote centers. This bill would direct a county elections official conducting an all-mailed ballot election to consider vote center location on a public or private university or college campus. Existing law requires, upon the request of a local elections official, that the governing body having jurisdiction over a school building or other public building allow the school to be used as a polling place or vote center, under specified conditions. This bill would expand the definition of "public building" for purposes of that provision to include buildings owned or controlled by community college districts, the California State University, and the University of California, and it would also clarify that the University of California is encouraged, but not required, to comply with such a request. Because this bill would impose additional duties on local officials, it would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 4005 of the Elections Code proposed by AB 49 to be operative only if this bill and AB 49 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, 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.

(1) Existing law provides discovery procedures for peace or custodial officer personnel records, and other records pertaining to peace or custodial officers, as specified. Existing law requires the party seeking the discovery or disclosure to file a written motion with the appropriate court or administrative body upon written notice to the governmental agency that has custody and control of the records according to times prescribed under other provisions of law. This bill would limit the written notice requirement with respect to motions pertaining to the discovery of peace or custodial officer personnel records to civil actions. The bill would prescribe an accelerated timeframe for requesting peace or custodial officer personnel records in criminal actions. The bill would require written notice to be served and filed at least 10 court days before the appointed hearing, all papers opposing a motion to be filed with the court at least 5 court days before the hearing, and all reply papers to be filed at least 2 court days before the hearing. The bill would also require proof of service of the notice to be filed no later than 5 court days before the hearing. (2) Existing law prohibits the disclosure of records of peace officers or custodial officers, including supervisorial officers, who either were not present during an arrest or had no contact with the party seeking disclosure from the time of the arrest until the time of booking, or who were not present at the time the conduct at issue is alleged to have occurred within a jail facility. This bill would create an exception to the above prohibition by permitting the disclosure of records of a supervisorial officer if the supervisorial officer issued command directives or had command influence over the circumstances at issue and had direct oversight of a peace officer or a custodial officer who was present during the arrest, had contact with the party seeking disclosure from the time of the arrest until the time of booking, or was present at the time the conduct at issue is alleged to have occurred within a jail facility.

Existing law authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to charge a $5 fee for each inmate-initiated medical visit of an inmate confined in the state prison, except under specified circumstances, and requires that the moneys received be expended to reimburse the department for direct provision of inmate health care services. Existing law also authorizes a sheriff, chief or director of corrections, or chief of police to charge a $3 fee for each inmate-initiated medical visit of an inmate confined in a county or city jail, except as specified, and requires that the moneys received be transferred to the county or city general fund. Existing law also authorizes a county or city to recover from an inmate or a person legally responsible for the inmate's care the costs of necessary medical care rendered to the inmate, under certain conditions. This bill would instead prohibit the secretary or a sheriff, chief or director of corrections, or chief of police from charging a fee for an inmate-initiated medical visit of an inmate of the state prison or a county or city jail, and would make a conforming change. The bill would also prohibit those officials from charging an inmate of the state prison or a city or county jail a fee for durable medical equipment or medical supplies, as defined.

(1) Existing law authorizes the governing board of any school district or community college district to order an election and submit to the electors of the district the question of whether the bonds of the district shall be issued and sold to raise money for specified purposes. Existing law generally requires, to pass a school bond measure, that either at least 23 of the votes cast on the proposition of issuing bonds be in favor of issuing the bonds to pass the measure, or, if certain conditions are met, at least 55% of the votes cast on the proposition of issuing bonds be in favor of issuing the bonds. Existing law prohibits the total amount of bonds issued by a school district or community college district from exceeding 1.25% of the taxable property of the district, as provided. This bill would raise that limit to 2%. (2) Existing law also authorizes a unified school district to issue bonds receiving at least 55% of the votes cast on the proposition of issuing the bonds that, in aggregation with bonds issued with a 23 favorable vote, do not exceed 2.5% of the taxable property of the district, as provided. This bill would raise that limit to 4%. The bill would make a similar percentage increase for community college districts. (3) The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 provides for the adoption of rules, regulations, and procedures, under the administration of the Director of General Services, for the allocation of state funds by the State Allocation Board for the construction and modernization of public school facilities. This bill would, among other things, require a school district to submit to the Department of General Services a 5-year school facilities master plan or updated 5-year school facilities master plan, as provided, as a condition of participating in the school facilities program under the act, would require the school district to submit specified information in the school district's application for an apportionment of state funds, and would make other changes to requirements a school district is required to comply with before participating in programs under the act. The bill would require the department to process applications to participate in the program, as specified, and would make other changes to the method by which the board makes apportionments of moneys under the act. This bill would establish the 2020 State School Facilities Fund, and authorize the board to apportion, and make disbursements of, moneys in the fund, as provided. The bill would require, for bonds approved by voters in 2020 or thereafter, the board to adjust a school district's required local and state contribution, as specified. The bill would authorize new construction and modernization grants to be used for seismic mitigation purposes and, among other things, to establish schoolsite-based infrastructure to provide broadband internet access. The bill would also authorize modernization grants to be used, among other things, for the control, management, or abatement of lead and for the demolishment and construction of a building on an existing schoolsite that meets specified conditions. The bill would prohibit the use of new construction and modernization grants for the purchase of portable electronic devices with a useful life of less than 3 years. This bill would authorize funding for health and safety projects by a school district, as provided. This bill would authorize the board to provide a grant to test for lead in water outlets used for drinking or preparing food on schoolsites serving kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, as provided. The bill would specify procedures that small school districts, as defined, may use to obtain project and construction management, new construction grants, and modernization grants. The bill would also make conforming changes in, and remove inoperative provisions from, the act. (4) The act also requires the board to adopt regulations for determining the amount of funding and the eligibility and prioritization of funding that school districts with a financial hardship may receive from bond acts for construction, modernization, or relocation assistance. The act requires those regulations to include consideration of various factors, including whether the school district's total bonding capacity is $5,000,000 or less, in which case the school district shall be deemed eligible for financial hardship. This bill, for purposes of the regulations related to financial hardship eligibility, would increase the total bonding capacity cap to $15,000,000, to be adjusted as specified. (5) The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from creating a debt or liability that singly or in the aggregate with any previous debts or liabilities exceeds the sum of $300,000, except by an act that (A) authorizes the debt for a single object or work specified in the act, (B) has been passed by a 23 vote of all the Members elected to each house of the Legislature, (C) has been submitted to the people at a statewide general or primary election, and (D) has received a majority of all the votes cast for and against it at that election. This bill would set forth the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide $15,000,000,000 to construct and modernize education facilities, as specified. This bond act would become operative only if approved by the voters at the March 3, 2020, statewide primary election. The bill would also provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters at that election. (6) Existing law establishes the California State University, which is administered by the Board of Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as segments of public postsecondary education in this state. This bill would require the Board of Trustees and the Regents to comply with certain conditions, as provided, before receiving funds from the 2020 University Capital Outlay Bond Fund established pursuant to the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020. (7) Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to impose, as specified, an alternative fee, charge, dedication, or requirement on developers to fund school facilities, until the date new construction bond proceeds authorized by the Preschool-College Public Education Bond Act of 2016 are expended, or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. This bill would remove this authority beginning the earlier of January 1, 2021, or the date new construction bond proceeds authorized by the 2016 bond act are expended or apportioned, until January 1, 2028. The bill would also exempt multifamily housing developments that are located no further than 12 mile from a major transit stop, and reduce by 20% from specified amounts for any other multifamily housing developments, as specified, from any fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities, as provided. (8) This bill, except for the provision making the provisions of the bill severable, would become effective upon the adoption of the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 by the voters at the March 3, 2020, statewide primary election.

(1) The Charter Schools Act of 1992 authorizes the establishment and operation of charter schools. Existing law generally requires a petition to establish a charter school to be submitted to the governing board of a school district, and, under specified circumstances, authorizes a petition to be submitted to and approved by a county board of education or the State Board of Education. Existing law authorizes a county board of education to approve a petition for the operation of a charter school that operates at one or more sites within the geographic boundaries of the county and that provides instructional services that are not generally provided by a county office of education. Existing law also authorizes a petition for the operation of a state charter school to be submitted directly to the state board, and authorizes the state board to approve a charter for the operation of a state charter school that may operate at multiple sites throughout the state. Existing law prohibits the governing board of a school district from denying a petition to establish a charter school unless it makes written factual findings in support of one or more specific findings. Existing law authorizes a charter school to appeal a school district's decision to deny a petition for a charter to the county board of education and, if the county board of education upholds the decision, to appeal the county board of education's decision to the state board. Existing law authorizes a charter to be granted by a chartering authority under designated provisions for a period not to exceed 5 years. Existing law requires that charter renewals are for periods of 5 years. This bill would revise and recast numerous provisions relating to the submission of petitions to establish charter schools, the appeal to county boards of education and to the state board of decisions of the governing boards of school districts to deny approval or renewal of charter schools, and the revocation of charters by chartering authorities. The bill would specify criteria and procedures for the consideration and determination of these issues. The bill would require that a petition to establish a charter school be submitted only to the governing board of the school district or county office of education within the boundaries of which the charter school proposes to locate. The bill would authorize a chartering authority to deny renewal of a charter school upon a finding that the school is demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition due to substantial fiscal or governance factors, or is not serving all pupils who wish to attend, as specified. The bill would prohibit, from January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2022, inclusive, the approval of a petition for the establishment of a new charter school offering nonclassroom-based instruction and funded as specified. (2) Existing law requires teachers in charter schools to hold a Commission on Teacher Credentialing certificate, permit, or other document equivalent to what a teacher in other public schools would be required to hold. This bill would instead require teachers in charter schools to hold the Commission on Teacher Credentialing certificate, permit, or other document required for the teacher's certificated assignment, except that a person employed as a teacher in a charter school during the 2019–20 school year would have until July 1, 2025, to obtain that certificate, permit, or other document. The bill would require all teachers in charter schools to satisfy specified requirements for professional fitness by July 1, 2020. The bill would require the commission, by June 30, 2022, to conduct a comprehensive study to examine whether existing certificates, permits, or other documents adequately address the needs for noncore, noncollege preparatory courses in all schools and, if necessary, to make recommendations to appropriate policy committees of the Legislature. The bill would require the State Department of Education, in consultation with the State Board of Education, to collect data to track the implementation of the changes in law enacted by the bill. (3) This bill would prohibit certain provisions of the Education Code from being waived by the State Board of Education. The bill, except for the provisions (A) relating to prohibition of the approval of a petition for the establishment of certain new charter schools between January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2022, as described above, and (B) relating to the reimbursement of state-mandated costs, would become operative on July 1, 2020. The bill would also make conforming and nonsubstantive changes. To the extent the bill would impose additional requirements on local educational agencies and charter schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 47605 of the Education Code proposed by AB 1507 and AB 1595, to be operative only if this bill and AB 1507 or AB 1595, or both, are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (5) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 47605.6 of the Education Code proposed by AB 1595, to be operative only if this bill and AB 1595 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (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, 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.

(1) Existing law authorizes a charter school that is unable to locate within the jurisdiction or geographic boundaries of the chartering school district to establish one site outside the boundaries of the school district, but within the county in which that school district is located, if the school district where the charter school proposes to operate is notified in advance of the charter petition approval, the county superintendent of schools is notified of the location of the charter school before it commences operations, and either the charter school has attempted to locate a single site or facility to house the entire program, but a site or facility is unavailable in the area in which the school chooses to locate, or the site is needed for temporary use during a construction or expansion project. This bill would delete the authority of a charter school to locate outside the jurisdiction or geographic boundaries of the chartering school district because the charter school has attempted to locate a single site or facility to house the entire program, but a site or facility is unavailable in the area in which the charter school chooses to locate, or the site is needed for temporary use during a construction or expansion project. The bill would authorize a charter school that established one site outside the boundaries of the school district, but within the county in which that school district is located before January 1, 2020, to continue to operate that site until the charter school submits a request for the renewal of its charter petition, and would authorize a charter school to continue operating that site if the charter school either, before submitting the request for the renewal of the charter petition, first obtains written approval from the school district where the site is operating, or submits a request for the renewal of the charter petition, as specified, to the school district in which the charter school is located. The bill would authorize a charter school to relocate for not more than 5 years a site located within an area subject to a Presidential declaration of a major disaster or emergency, issued in accordance with federal law, to an area outside the area subject to the Presidential declaration, as specified. The bill would require a charter school to be allowed to return to its original campus location in perpetuity if that charter school was relocated from December 31, 2016, through December 31, 2019, due to a Presidential declaration of a major disaster or emergency in accordance with federal law. The bill would exempt from the above-described charter school location provisions a charter school located on a federally recognized California Indian reservation or rancheria or operated by a federally recognized California Indian tribe. The bill would require the State Department of Education to regard a charter school approved pursuant to the above-described provisions as a continuing charter school for all purposes. (2) Existing law authorizes a charter school to establish a resource center, meeting space, or other satellite facility located in a county adjacent to the county in which the charter school is authorized if specified conditions are met. This bill instead would authorize a charter school to establish one resource center, meeting space, or other satellite facility within the jurisdiction of the school district where the charter school is physically located if specified conditions are met, except as specified. The bill would require a charter school to notify the charter school's chartering authority of the name and physical location of any resource center, meeting space, or satellite facility operated by the charter school. The bill would prohibit the State Board of Education from waiving those restrictions on the establishment of a resource center, meeting space, or satellite facility. This bill would authorize a charter school or a countywide charter school that was operating a resource center, meeting space, or other satellite facility outside the jurisdiction of the school district or county, respectively, where the charter school is physically located before January 1, 2020, to continue to operate that resource center, meeting space, or other satellite facility until the charter school submits a request for the renewal of its charter petition, and would authorize a charter school to continue operating that resource center, meeting space, or other satellite facility if, before submitting the request for the renewal of the charter petition, the charter school first obtains written approval from the school district or the county office of education, as appropriate, where the resource center, meeting space, or other satellite facility is operating. The bill would authorize a charter school to relocate for not more than 5 years a resource center, meeting space, or other satellite facility located within an area subject to a Presidential declaration of a major disaster or emergency, issued in accordance with federal law, to an area outside the area subject to the Presidential declaration, as specified. The bill would authorize a charter school to establish additional resource centers, meetings spaces, or other satellite facilities within the jurisdiction of the charter school's chartering authority if specified conditions are met. The bill would require the department to regard as a continuing charter school for all purposes a nonclassroom-based charter school that meets specified requirements. This bill would make a conforming change. (3) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 47605 of the Education Code proposed by AB 1505 and AB 1595, to be operative only if this bill and AB 1505 or AB 1595, or both, are enacted and this bill is enacted last.