California 2023-2024 Regular Session Status: In Committee 1 D cosponsors

SB 356 — Housing: Code Enforcement Incentive Program: Community Code Enforcement Pilot Program.

Last action — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) Existing law establishes the Code Enforcement Incentive Program pursuant to which the Department of Housing and Community Development, upon appropriation by the Legislature, makes funds available as matching grants to cities, counties, and cities and counties that operate local building enforcement programs for more than 3 years, as specified. Existing law requires the recipient city, county, or city and county to provide a cash or in-kind local match of at least 25% in the first year, 50% in the 2nd year, and 75% in the 3rd year, and limits the maximum grant to a single recipient under the program to $1,000,000. Existing law requires grant recipients to submit a report to the department on the expanded code enforcement efforts, among other things. Existing law requires the department to summarize the reports and transmit the reports to the Legislature within 6 months after the grant recipient's submission date. Existing law requires the department to award grants under the program on a competitive basis, based on criteria weighted for specified applicants, including local government applicants that propose to identify and prosecute owners with habitual, repeated, and multiple code violations that have remained unabated beyond the period required for abatement. This bill would revise the cash or in-kind local match requirement, described above, to instead require a recipient city, county, or city and county to match at least 35% of the funds awarded over 3 years. The bill would increase the maximum grant to a single recipient under the program from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000, and require the department to adjust that amount for inflation at least once every 5 years. The bill would require the department to transmit the above-described reports as part of the department's next annual report one year after the grant recipient's submission date, as specified. The bill would revise the criteria for awarding grants, as specified, including additionally awarding local government applicants that propose to prevent displacement of lower income renter or owner households as a result of code enforcement and local government applicants that have employed, or propose to employ by the end of the grant period, a certified code enforcement officer, as defined. The bill would additionally require the department to provide grant recipients technical assistance to assist grant recipients with local code enforcement efforts. (2) Existing law also establishes the Community Code Enforcement Pilot Program pursuant to which the Department of Housing and Community Development awards grants to communities that develop a code enforcement pilot program meeting specified criteria. Existing law limits the amount of a grant under these provisions to $450,000, to pay for costs incurred over the life of the program. Existing law requires that each city, county, or city and county receiving a grant develop a code enforcement team consisting of, among others, at least one full-time code enforcement officer. Existing law requires each grantee to provide, and fund at its own expense, at least one city planner, health officer, or comparable specialist for the duration of the pilot program, and requires that the grant funds be used for the code enforcement and related program costs or for capital expenditures, as specified. Existing law requires a grant proposal to include, among other things, a plan demonstrating an intent to ensure cooperative and effective working relationships between code enforcement officials and other specified local officials. Existing law requires pilot program administrators to evaluate the pilot programs and submit their evaluations to the department within 6 months after completion of each program cycle approved by the department and funded by the Legislature. Existing law requires the department to report to the Legislature on the findings of the pilot program administrators within 6 months after the grant recipient's submission date. This bill would increase the maximum grant under the program from $450,000 to $2,000,000, and require the department to adjust that amount for inflation at least once every 5 years. The bill would require that the full-time code enforcement officer on the code enforcement team, as described above, be a certified code enforcement officer, as defined, and that the team additionally include one representative from a community-based organization. The bill would revise the requirement for a grantee to provide and fund a city planner, health officer, or other specialist to specify that the grantee may provide and fund a building official. The bill would also revise the authorized use of grant funds to include support for the engagement of community-based organizations. The bill would revise the requirement for the plan for cooperative and effective working relationships, as described above, to include cooperative and effective working relationships with local building officials and community-based organizations. The bill would also additionally require the grant proposal to include a plan to prevent displacement of lower income renter or owner households as a result of code enforcement and the number of certified code enforcement officers, as defined, employed by the applicant. The bill would change the above-described reporting requirement to instead require the department to report to the Legislature on the above-described findings, as part of its next annual report, one year after the grant recipient's submission date, as specified.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. May 18 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  3. Set for hearing May 18.

  4. May 1 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.

  5. Set for hearing May 1.

  6. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  7. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  8. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0. Page 796.) (April 18).

  9. Set for hearing April 18.

  10. March 21 hearing postponed by committee.

  11. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HOUSING.

  12. Set for hearing March 21.

  13. Referred to Com. on HOUSING.

  14. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 11.

  15. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 10 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 7001
Republican 2000
Unaffiliated 1000
Total 10001
% of votes cast 91%0%0%9%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Skinner — Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Not Voting
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

housing
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 356 do?
(1) Existing law establishes the Code Enforcement Incentive Program pursuant to which the Department of Housing and Community Development, upon appropriation by the Legislature, makes funds available as matching grants to cities, counties, and cities and counties that operate local building enforcement programs for more than 3 years, as specified. Existing law requires the recipient city, county, or city and county to provide a cash or in-kind local match of at least 25% in the first year, 50% in the 2nd year, and 75% in the 3rd year, and limits the maximum grant to a single recipient under the program to $1,000,000. Existing law requires grant recipients to submit a report to the department on the expanded code enforcement efforts, among other things. Existing law requires the department to summarize the reports and transmit the reports to the Legislature within 6 months after the grant recipient's submission date. Existing law requires the department to award grants under the program on a competitive basis, based on criteria weighted for specified applicants, including local government applicants that propose to identify and prosecute owners with habitual, repeated, and multiple code violations that have remained unabated beyond the period required for abatement. This bill would revise the cash or in-kind local match requirement, described above, to instead require a recipient city, county, or city and county to match at least 35% of the funds awarded over 3 years. The bill would increase the maximum grant to a single recipient under the program from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000, and require the department to adjust that amount for inflation at least once every 5 years. The bill would require the department to transmit the above-described reports as part of the department's next annual report one year after the grant recipient's submission date, as specified. The bill would revise the criteria for awarding grants, as specified, including additionally awarding local government applicants that propose to prevent displacement of lower income renter or owner households as a result of code enforcement and local government applicants that have employed, or propose to employ by the end of the grant period, a certified code enforcement officer, as defined. The bill would additionally require the department to provide grant recipients technical assistance to assist grant recipients with local code enforcement efforts. (2) Existing law also establishes the Community Code Enforcement Pilot Program pursuant to which the Department of Housing and Community Development awards grants to communities that develop a code enforcement pilot program meeting specified criteria. Existing law limits the amount of a grant under these provisions to $450,000, to pay for costs incurred over the life of the program. Existing law requires that each city, county, or city and county receiving a grant develop a code enforcement team consisting of, among others, at least one full-time code enforcement officer. Existing law requires each grantee to provide, and fund at its own expense, at least one city planner, health officer, or comparable specialist for the duration of the pilot program, and requires that the grant funds be used for the code enforcement and related program costs or for capital expenditures, as specified. Existing law requires a grant proposal to include, among other things, a plan demonstrating an intent to ensure cooperative and effective working relationships between code enforcement officials and other specified local officials. Existing law requires pilot program administrators to evaluate the pilot programs and submit their evaluations to the department within 6 months after completion of each program cycle approved by the department and funded by the Legislature. Existing law requires the department to report to the Legislature on the findings of the pilot program administrators within 6 months after the grant recipient's submission date. This bill would increase the maximum grant under the program from $450,000 to $2,000,000, and require the department to adjust that amount for inflation at least once every 5 years. The bill would require that the full-time code enforcement officer on the code enforcement team, as described above, be a certified code enforcement officer, as defined, and that the team additionally include one representative from a community-based organization. The bill would revise the requirement for a grantee to provide and fund a city planner, health officer, or other specialist to specify that the grantee may provide and fund a building official. The bill would also revise the authorized use of grant funds to include support for the engagement of community-based organizations. The bill would revise the requirement for the plan for cooperative and effective working relationships, as described above, to include cooperative and effective working relationships with local building officials and community-based organizations. The bill would also additionally require the grant proposal to include a plan to prevent displacement of lower income renter or owner households as a result of code enforcement and the number of certified code enforcement officers, as defined, employed by the applicant. The bill would change the above-described reporting requirement to instead require the department to report to the Legislature on the above-described findings, as part of its next annual report, one year after the grant recipient's submission date, as specified.
Who sponsors SB 356?
SB 356 is sponsored by Archuleta, Bob (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 356?
This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 356?
Track SB 356 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 356

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 356

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →