An act to amend Section 1500 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to community care facilities.
Summary
SB 1331 is a very narrow bill that amends Section 1500 of the Health and Safety Code, which is part of the California Community Care Facilities Act. The bill’s text makes a technical edit to the statute’s introductory language, stating that the chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the California Community Care Facilities Act. According to the digest, the measure is intended to make technical, nonsubstantive changes rather than alter the substance of the law.
Because the bill is limited to a wording correction, it does not appear to change licensing standards, regulatory authority, or operational requirements for community care facilities. The State Department of Social Services would continue to administer the existing framework for licensing and regulation under the Act, and the affected parties would remain community care facilities and the entities that oversee them. The bill has no appropriation, no fiscal committee referral, and no local program impact noted in the provided materials.
Impact
SB 1331 would amend a single section of the Health and Safety Code to clean up statutory language in the California Community Care Facilities Act. The practical legal effect is minimal: it preserves the existing citation and naming of the chapter without changing the scope of regulation, licensing rules, or enforcement authority over community care facilities. No new duties, penalties, or funding changes are created by the measure.
Sentiment
The available context suggests little to no controversy around the bill. It is described as a technical, nonsubstantive cleanup measure, and there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes indicating opposition or debate. The bill was simply referred to the Senate Rules Committee, which is consistent with an introductory-stage measure that has not yet generated visible policy disagreement.
Contention
There are no notable points of contention in the provided record. Because the bill only corrects or clarifies statutory wording, there is no evidence of disagreement over policy direction, regulatory burden, or fiscal impact. Any discussion would likely be limited to the technical necessity of the amendment rather than substantive differences among stakeholders.