BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2255
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 19, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Jim Wood, Chair
AB 2255
(Melendez) - As Amended April 12, 2016
SUBJECT: Drug and alcohol free residences.
SUMMARY: Defines "drug and alcohol free residences" and
requires these residences to be certified by a certifying
organization approved by the Department of Health Care Services
(DHCS) to register drug and alcohol free residences.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines a "drug and alcohol free residence" (recovery
residence) as a residential property that has been certified
and is operated as a cooperative living arrangement to provide
an alcohol and drug free environment for persons recovering
from alcoholism or drug abuse, or both, who seek a living
environment in which to remain clean and sober.
2)Requires residents, including live-in managers, operators, or
owners, to live a sober lifestyle. Requires residents to be
actively participating in legitimate programs of recovery from
substance use disorder, including, but not limited to,
Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous programs.
3)Requires residents within the recovery residence, and
AB 2255
Page 2
residents who have been referred and have access to ongoing
outpatient treatment, aftercare, or other recovery maintenance
services to continue to use these services in accordance with
a clinically managed system of care if one exists for the
resident.
4)Requires owners, managers, operators, and residents to observe
and promote a zero tolerance policy regarding the consumption
or possession of alcohol or controlled substances being used
in any manner not consistent with a documented prescription.
5)Requires a residence that houses persons recovering from drug
and alcohol abuse to be presumed to be a recovery residence if
the residence has been certified by an approved certifying
organization.
6)Requires, if a residence is certified as specified within 90
days of beginning its operations, the activities at that
residence to be deemed a residential use of property and a use
of property by a single family.
7)Defines an approved certifying organization as an organization
approved by DHCS to register a residence as a drug and alcohol
free residence.
8)Defines an approved national organization as a recognized
national organization, approved by DHCS, the primary function
of which is to improve access to, and the quality of, drug and
alcohol recovery residences through standards, education,
research, and advocacy. Requires an approved certifying
organization do all of the following:
a) Maintain an office in the state;
AB 2255
Page 3
b) Maintain nonprofit status in the state;
c) Be an affiliate of, and continuously maintain
affiliation with, an approved national organization;
d) Maintain the most current standards published by the
approved national organization;
e) Document that the organization actively develops and
confers professional, residential, or organizational
quality designations according to applicable nationally
recognized standards;
f) Establish drug and alcohol free residence certification
requirements;
g) Establish procedures to administer the application,
certification, renewal, and disciplinary processes for a
drug and alcohol free residence;
h) Inspect, at least annually, a drug and alcohol free
residence to ensure compliance with certification
requirements;
i) Submit to DHCS and the operator of the certifying
organization, a written code of conduct for a recovery
residence that incorporates national standards for legal
and ethical conduct for recovery residences;
AB 2255
Page 4
j) Submit to DHCS and the operator of a recovery residence
disciplinary guidelines that include sanctions for first
and subsequent violations of the organization's code of
conduct that allows the recovery residence notice and
opportunity to correct a violation and requires the
approved certifying organization to revoke the
certification of the residence if the required corrective
action is not completed within the specified time period;
aa) Respond to and investigate suspected violations of the
organization's code of conduct;
bb) Require an operator who seeks to have a residence
certified to submit all of the following documents with the
operator's completed application and fee:
i) Procedures and requirements for verifying that a
resident remains drug and alcohol free;
ii) A prohibition on the premises against alcohol,
illegal drugs, or the use of prescribed medications by
an individual except as prescribed by a physician and
used in accordance with the prescription;
iii) Policies to support a resident's recovery
efforts;
iv) A good neighbor policy to address neighborhood
concerns and complaints;
v) A policy for informing local government
officials and neighbors about the approved
AB 2255
Page 5
certification organization's complaint procedures, the
contact number of the operator of the residence, and a
contact number of a minimum of one resident assigned
with the responsibility of mitigating a complaint;
vi) Rules for residents, copies of forms provided to
a resident, relapse policy, fee and refund policies,
and eviction procedures and policies;
vii) Proof that the operator of the residence has
completed a minimum of 10 hours of alcohol and drug
free program management education approved by the
approved certifying organization; and,
viii) Proof that a minimum of one resident has
received certification approved by the approved
certifying organization. Certification must include, at
a minimum, the following subjects: ethics, health and
safety topics related to addiction recovery and
maintenance, and emergency planning procedures.
cc) Review the registry posted on DHCS's Internet Website to
determine whether the residence that the operator has
applied to have certified has had a previous certification
revoked or the operator submitting the application for
certification has operated a residence for which a previous
certification has been revoked; and,
dd) Deny an application for certification if the residence
address or operator name in the application is listed on
the registry and send the applicant a written notice of
denial of certification.
AB 2255
Page 6
9)Requires DHCS to adopt application procedures and standards of
approval for an organization that seeks to be approved by DHCS
as an approved certifying organization or as an approved
national organization.
10)Permits DHCS to conduct periodic reviews of an approved
certifying organization to determine whether the organization
is in compliance with all applicable laws. Permits DHCS to
revoke approval of an approved certifying organization.
11)Permits DHCS to investigate complaints it receives regarding
a recovery residence independently or in conjunction with the
approved certifying organization and permits DHCS to impose
sanctions and commence disciplinary actions, including
revoking the certification of a residence as a drug and
alcohol free residence.
12)Permits a city, county, city and county, or local law
enforcement agency that suspects that a drug and alcohol
residence is not operating in compliance with the residence's
code of conduct to request DHCS to revoke the certification of
that residence.
13)Requires DHCS to maintain and post on its Internet Website a
registry containing all of the following information:
a) The street address and the name and contact telephone
number of the operator of each residence that has been
certified as a drug and alcohol free residence pursuant to
this section;
b) The street address of each residence that has had its
certification revoked; and,
AB 2255
Page 7
c) The name of each operator of a residence that has had
its certification revoked.
14)Requires, on and after January 1, 2018, a state agency,
state-contracted vendor, county agency, or county-contracted
vendor that directs substance abuse treatment, or a judge or
parole board that sets terms and conditions for the release,
parole, or discharge of a person from custody, if it requires
a person to reside in a sober living environment, to refer
that person only to a residence listed as a certified drug and
alcohol free residence on the registry posted on the DHCS's
Internet Website.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes DHCS as the sole licensing authority for adult
alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities.
Permits new licenses to be issued for a period of two years,
and requires DHCS to conduct onsite program visits for
compliance at least once during the two year licensing period.
2)Defines "alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment
facility" (treatment facility) as any premise, place, or
building that provides 24-hour residential nonmedical services
to adults who are recovering from problems related to alcohol,
drug, or alcohol and drug misuse or abuse, and who need
alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug recovery treatment or
detoxification services.
3)Establishes requirements for application to DHCS for licensure
of a facility, requires DHCS to terminate licensure if these
requirements are not met, and authorizes DHCS to deny
AB 2255
Page 8
applicants that do not demonstrate an ability to comply with
specified requirements.
4)Requires, if an applicant intends to provide incidental
medical services, such as obtaining medical histories,
monitoring health status, testing associated with
detoxification from alcohol or drugs, and overseeing patient
self-administered medications, evidence of a valid license of
a physician and surgeon who will provide or oversee those
services, and any other information deemed appropriate by
DHCS, as specified.
5)Permits DHCS to issue single licenses to residential
facilities and a facility where separate buildings or portions
of a residential facility are integral components of a single
treatment facility and all of the components of the facility
are managed by the same licensee.
6)Authorizes DHCS to assess civil penalties on facilities that
provide alcoholism or drug abuse recovery, treatment, or
detoxification services without a license.
7)Requires a treatment facility that serves six or fewer persons
to be considered a residential use of property whether or not
unrelated persons are living together. Requires the residents
and operators of the facility to be considered a family for
the purposes of any law or zoning ordinance that relates to
the residential use of property.
8)Excludes, for the purposes of local ordinances, a treatment
AB 2255
Page 9
facility that serves six or fewer persons from the definition
of a boarding house, rooming house, institution or home for
the care of minors, the aged, or persons with mental health
disorders, foster care home, guest home, rest home, community
residence, or other similar term that implies that the
alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment home is a
business run for profit or differs in any other way from a
single-family residence.
9)Authorizes a city, county, or other local public entity from
placing restrictions on building heights, setback, lot
dimensions, or placement of signs of a treatment facility that
serves six or fewer persons as long as the restrictions are
identical to those applied to other single-family residences.
10)Specifies that any local ordinance that deals with health and
safety, building standards, environmental impact standards, or
any other matter within the jurisdiction of a local public
entity also applies to a treatment facility, however, local
ordinances cannot distinguish treatment facilities that serve
six or fewer persons from other single-family dwellings or
distinguish residents of treatment facilities from persons who
reside in other single-family dwellings.
11)Prohibits a conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other
zoning clearance from being required of an alcoholism or drug
abuse recovery or treatment facility that serves six or fewer
persons that is not required of a single-family residence in
the same zone.
12)Prohibits, under the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act (FEHA), discrimination against any person in any housing
accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, or
disability. Specifies that discriminatory land use
regulations, zoning laws, and restrictive covenants are
AB 2255
Page 10
unlawful acts.
13)Prohibits under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (ADA), prohibits discrimination by any public entity
by reason of an individual's disability. Makes it unlawful,
under the federal Fair Housing Act, to make unavailable or
deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a
disability.
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill has not yet been analyzed by a fiscal
committee.
COMMENTS:
1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author, thousands of
facilities treat former alcoholics and drug abusers, who are
very susceptible to relapse, without possessing any formal
credentials. Defining drug and alcohol free residences as a
type of treatment facility will not only protect former
abusers from relapsing, but will also increase the safety of
our communities statewide.
2)BACKGROUND. Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment
facilities provide 24- hour non-medical care and specialize in
providing services to chemically dependent adults who do not
require treatment in an acute-care medical facility on an
inpatient, intensive outpatient, outpatient, and partial
hospitalization basis. These facilities range in size from
six-bed facilities in residential neighborhoods to centers
that accommodate more than 100 beds. The basic services
provided by facilities include group, individual and
educational sessions, alcoholism or drug abuse recovery and
AB 2255
Page 11
treatment planning. Detoxification services are also provided
and are defined by the DHCS as services to support and assist
an individual in the alcohol and/or drug withdrawal process
and to explore plans for continued treatment. These services
can be provided by a variety of health care providers such as
alcohol and drug counselors, mental health therapists, social
workers, psychologists, nurses and physicians.
From 1976 to 2014, the National Institute on Drug Abuse
supported the Community Epidemiology Work Group (CEWG), a
network of local drug abuse experts who reported semiannually
on drug trends and emerging issues in sentinel sites including
major metropolitan areas and some states around the United
States. CEWG monitoring included the cities of Los Angeles,
San Diego, and San Francisco. As of 2014, all of the
California cities monitored by the CEWG were experiencing an
increase in incidences of drug abuse including heroin,
prescription drugs and synthetic drug abuse.
a) Recent substance use treatment reforms. Medicaid is
playing an increasingly important role as a payor for
services provided to individuals with SUD in the United
States. An estimated 12% of adult Medicaid beneficiaries
ages 18-64 have an SUD. The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (ACA) included one of the largest
expansions of mental health and substance use disorder
coverage in a generation by adding mental health and
substance use disorder services as an Essential Health
Benefit category. In July of 2015, in response to this
growing need, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
(CMS) notified states of opportunities to design service
AB 2255
Page 12
delivery systems for individuals with SUD, including a new
opportunity for demonstration projects approved under
section 1115 of the Social Security Act to ensure that a
continuum of care is available to individuals with SUD.
Participating states are eligible to receive federal
financial participation (FFP) for costs not otherwise
matchable, such as services delivered to targeted
populations, in limited geographic areas, or in settings
that are not otherwise covered under the Medicaid program.
On August 13, 2015, DHCS announced that CMS approved
California's Drug Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System
(DMC-ODS) Waiver. Counties participating in the DMC-ODS
waiver program will administer, or arrange for, substance
use disorder treatment for Medi-Cal beneficiaries. The
DMC-ODS demonstration will be elective for five years.
The DMC-ODS provides a continuum of care modeled after the
American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) Criteria for
SUD treatment services. As part of their participation in
the DMC-ODS, CMS requires all residential providers to meet
the ASAM requirements and obtain a DHCS-issued ASAM
designation. The ASAM criteria is a nationally accepted
set of treatment criteria for SUD care and is being adopted
beyond Medi-Cal beneficiaries as the SUD industry standard.
As of March 14, DHCS has designated 168 residential
alcohol and/or other drug treatment facilities with the
appropriate ASAM level of care. DHCS has initiated a
phased-in implementation of the DMC-ODS and established
five regions throughout the state. DHCS determined the
order of implementation based on location, population, and
county and provider readiness.
i) Phase One, Bay Area: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,
AB 2255
Page 13
Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma;
ii) Phase Two, Kern and Southern California: Kern,
Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura;
iii) Phase Three, Central and Northern California:
Calaveras, Eldorado, Fresno Inyo, Kings, Madera, Merced,
Mono, Placer, Sacramento, Stanislaus, Yolo, San Joaquin,
Sutter, Tuolumne, Yuba;
iv) Phase Four, Northern California: Butte, Colusa, Del
Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc,
Nevada, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity; and,
v) Phase Five: Tribal Partners
DHCS has developed a designation program to certify that
all providers are certified based on the level of care they
are capable of delivering consistent with ASAM Criteria. As
part of this designation program, facilities must complete
the DHCS ASAM designation questionnaire and will be given a
provisional designation. The provisional status of the DHCS
ASAM designation will remain on the residential treatment
facility license until verification of the designation(s)
is completed during an on-site visit. Over the next several
months, DHCS will also be adding the ASAM designation
process to the initial licensing process; eventually all
residential providers will have an ASAM designation.
AB 2255
Page 14
a) ADA, Fair Housing and Equal Protection. The FEHA makes
it illegal to engage in various discriminatory practices
relating to the sale and rental of housing based on race,
color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin,
ancestry, familial status, or disability. It also
prohibits land use regulations, zoning ordinances, and
restrictive covenants from discriminating in housing on the
basis of the aforementioned categories. FEHA also states
that groups of people with disabilities living together in
a single dwelling unit are considered a family.
In addition, the ADA gives civil rights protection to
individuals with disabilities, similar to the protection
provided to individuals on the basis of race, sex, national
origin, and religion. Under these Federal laws, an
individual with a "disability" is someone who has a current
"physical or mental impairment" that "substantially limits"
one or more of that person's "major life activities," such
as caring for one's self, working, etc., or as a record of
such a substantially limiting impairment, or is regarded as
having such an impairment. Specifically, ADA applies to
those who have successfully completed a drug rehabilitation
program, or who are currently enrolled in such programs..
b) Pacific Shores Properties v. City of Newport Beach
(Pacific shores). In the late 1990s, the number of
residential facilities for recovering drug and alcohol
abusers began to increase in the City of Newport Beach. By
April of 2007, 73 homes existed in the city, only 48 of
which were licensed. Among these homes were Pacific Shores
Properties LLC, Newport Coast Recovery LLC (NCR), and
Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (collectively,
the "Group Homes"). Pacific Shores and Yellowstone were
unlicensed, while NCR provided services to more than seven
individuals at a time and was therefore a state-licensed
AB 2255
Page 15
facility. As a result of the increasing number of group
homes, the City's residents began voicing hostile
complaints and concerns. In 2008, responding to resident
discontent, the City of Newport Beach drafted an ordinance
that subjected "residential care facilities" to strict
zoning requirements and significantly limiting both the
continued existence of group homes and the creation of new
ones. These new restrictions had an almost immediate
impact on residential treatment facilities, and by 2009,
the number of group housing opportunities was reduced by
40% and altogether shutting down about one-third of group
homes. In 2010, the Group Homes filed suit against the
City alleging discrimination under the FHA, the ADA, the
California FEHA, and the Equal Protection Clause. While
the district court ruled in favor of the City of Newport
Beach, the Group Homes appealed this decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In 2013,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's decision and held that the ordinance enacted by the
City of Newport discriminated against residential treatment
facilities on the basis of disability, and that its
enactment and enforcement harmed a protected class and was
therefore in violation of federal law.
c) Siting Difficulties. A technical assistance publication
published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) entitled "Siting Drug and Alcohol Treatment
Programs: Legal Challenges to the NIMBY Syndrome", states
that community opposition, 'not in my backyard (NIMBY),
prevents or delays the siting of treatment programs, even
when an already existing program tries to relocate. NIMBY
is often targeted toward other types of health and social
service facilities, like shelters for the homeless, group
homes for the mentally ill, halfway houses for
ex-offenders, and health-related facilities for those with
AIDS. According to DHHS, many discriminatory zoning
ordinances and practices may be unlawful under the FHA and
AB 2255
Page 16
the ADA. It is also noted that communities often fear the
decline of property values and increased crime because of
residential treatment facilities in the neighborhood.
However, the DHHS document states that in almost every
instance a community's fears are unfounded, as residential
treatment facilities pose no danger to the health and
welfare of neighbors nor draw substance abusers or pushers
to the area.
d) Facility Accreditation. Two national organizations, the
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations (JCAHO) and the Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF), accredit
facilities that provide behavioral health care services
such as addiction treatment, opioid treatment and
maintenance programs, crisis stabilization, case management
and care coordination, employment services and vocational
rehabilitation. JCAHO and CARF each require facilities to
demonstrate that their programs meet the accrediting
organizations' quality standards in order to obtain
accreditation. These quality standards evaluate functions
relating to client care and program management, including
administrative requirements, financial management,
personnel qualifications, client services, performance
outcomes, client safety and information privacy and
security. JCAHO requires accredited organizations to
reapply for accreditation every three years while CARF
accreditation ranges from one to five years, depending on
the type of facility.
The total number of adult recovery maintenance facilities,
sober living homes, or similar entities in the state is not
known. According to 2012 data that indicated the two
private entities that register sober living homes had
registered about 850 sober living homes in the state.
AB 2255
Page 17
However, these organizations indicated that they may be
registering as few as one-third of the total number of
sober living homes in the state.
1)SUPPORT. Multiple cities write in support of the bill that by
requiring that a residence housing individuals purporting to
be recovering from drug or alcohol abuse be presumed to be a
sober living home if it has been certified, registered or
approved by a state-recognized non-profit organization, the
state can ensure a sober living home is able to operate within
a defined set of guidelines to achieve its purpose and
mission, and in a manner that is suitable to its location
within a residential neighborhood. The cities argue that the
bill assists those individuals with drug or alcohol abuse
issues to more readily identify sober living homes that can
provide the level and quality of services needed for
rehabilitation.
The California Consortium of Addiction Programs and
Professionals (CCAPP) write in support of the bill that this
measure is necessary in order to allow quality drug and
alcohol free residences to continue their important mission,
while ridding the system of "homes" that abuse residents and
ruin neighborhoods. It will allow local governments to
identify quality homes by certification status; register
complaints with confidence they will be addressed; and, teach
owners, operators, and residents how to build relationships
with neighbors in positive ways. CCAPP states that modeled
upon California's counselor certification law/regulations,
this bill would utilize private certifying organizations, with
qualified staff and long histories of quality assessment of
sober living, to approve drug and alcohol free residences for
certification and to respond to complaints from the public or
local government. To give the bill "teeth," referrals and
reimbursement made from public sources would be tied to
certification status. In addition, DHCS would be given
AB 2255
Page 18
authority to revoke certification of any drug and alcohol free
residence for which it has found to be not in conformance with
national quality standards. CCAPP concludes that private
certification, backed by department oversight, with national
standards at the helm has the potential to foster quality and
reduce the number of "bad actors" doing business in
California.
2)OPPOSITION. Western Center on Law and Poverty (Western
Center) states in opposition to the bill that it is not in the
interest of the State of California to erect barriers to
housing for those with special needs. The state has a serious
shortage of specialized housing that serves those with
barriers - many of whom are coming from state institutions of
care. Successful re-integration into the community is crucial
to helping those with special needs make a transition to a
productive life and it is crucial for the state to have the
person succeed to reduce the burden on taxpayers. Western
Center concludes that this measure will encourage local
governments to create additional barriers that may have the
effect of reducing the number of facilities within their
jurisdiction. Once one community reduces the number of
facilities, there will be tremendous political pressure on
neighboring jurisdictions to enact similar bands to avoid
over-concentration of facilities in one community.
Cliffside Malibu writes in opposition to the bill that it
would have the effect of reducing access to treatment for the
state's residents and is contrary to the State's avowed
interest in alleviating problems related to addiction and
would grant local municipalities new power to force
residential treatment facilities from their communities.
Cliffside Malibu further states that California's approach to
the treatment of alcohol and drug abuse treatment relies, to a
AB 2255
Page 19
significant degree, on thousands of state-licensed six-bed
substance abuse treatment facilities in residential
communities throughout California. Those programs are
supplemented with transitional sober living homes throughout
the state. Sober living environments offer safe and
structured living situations to bridge the gap between
treatment and returning fulltime to independent living. They
are necessary because it is detrimental for people in early
recovery to return to the people, places, and situations that
fueled their addiction. It's also often difficult for people
in early recovery to go straight from residential treatment to
the potentially hectic atmosphere of their own homes.
3)COMMITTEE COMMENTS.
a) Local regulation. This bill requires, if a recovery
residence is certified within 90 days, the activities at
that residence to be deemed a residential use of property
and a use of property by a single family. This Committee
may wish to consider an amendment clarifying that as a
residential use of property, recovery residences should be
excluded from local city and county ordinances.
b) Voluntary certification. As discussed above,
individuals recovering from alcohol or drug dependency have
been deemed by the court system to be a protected class and
have been extended civil rights protections afforded under
the ADA and other state laws. If the provisions of this
bill required recovery residences to be certified, the
measure would single out these individuals, and likely be
in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
The Committee may wish to consider an amendment clarifying
that certification of a recovery residence is optional
under the provisions of this bill, and does not prohibit
the operation of establishments which serve six or fewer
AB 2255
Page 20
persons and are deemed residential uses of property.
c) Existing need for treatment options. Requires, after
January 1, 2018, a state agency, county agency, or a judge
or parole board that sets terms and conditions for the
release, parole, and other entities as specified, when
requiring a person to reside in a sober living environment,
to refer that person only to a residence listed as a
certified drug and alcohol free residence on the registry
posted on the DHCS's Internet Website. Federal data on
drug abuse patterns and trends, expanded efforts in the
ACA, and a state overhaul of how alcohol and drug treatment
services are administered are all indicators of an
additional need for treatment facilities. The conditions
imposed by this bill are too restrictive and may prevent
those persons legitimately seeking treatment for a drug or
alcohol problem from receiving such treatment when the
treatment is available from a facility that is not
certified. The Committee may wish to consider an amendment
deleting the provisions of this bill requiring referral to
certified recovery residences in specified circumstances.
d) Sober lifestyle. This bill requires residents,
including live-in managers, operators, or owners, to live a
"sober lifestyle." It is unclear what that means or why
the language is necessary given that the measure already
explicitly prohibits alcohol or drug use that is
inconsistent with a prescription from a doctor. The
Committee may wish to consider if it is appropriate to
legislate any kind of lifestyle.
e) Authority to Revoke. This bill authorizes DHCS to
approve the certifying agencies that would certify recovery
AB 2255
Page 21
residences but also gives authority for DHCS to revoke
certification. However, it is unclear how DHCS can revoke
a certification it did not issue.
4)RELATED LEGISLATION.
a) AB 1915 (Santiago) would establish the Residential
Treatment Facility Expansion Fund for the purpose of making
grants or loans to residential treatment centers that are
expanding services or to substance use disorder treatment
service facilities that are expanding to provide
residential treatment services. AB 1915 is pending in the
Assembly Health Committee.
b) AB 2403 (Bloom) would require DHCS to issue a single
license to a residential or integral alcoholism or drug
abuse recovery or treatment facility when specified
criteria are met and establishes a definition for integral
facilities. AB 2403 is pending in the Assembly Health
Committee.
c) SB 1101 (Wieckowski) would establish new licensing
requirements for alcohol and drug counselors and would
transfer responsibilities pertaining to alcohol and drug
counselor certification and the approval and regulation of
certifying organizations from DHCS to the Department of
Public Health. SB 1101 is pending in the Senate Health
Committee.
d) SB 1283 (Bates) would require DHCS to licensee and
regulate adult recovery maintenance facilities and would
establish licensure fees for that purpose. SB 1283 is
pending in the Senate Health Committee.
5)PREVIOUS LEGISLATION.
AB 2255
Page 22
a) AB 848 (Stone), Chapter 744, Statutes of 2015,
authorizes alcoholism and drug treatment facilities to
allow a licensed physician, or other health care
practitioner, to provide incidental medical services to a
resident of the facility and requires DHCS to conduct an
evaluation of the program on or before July 1, 2018.
b) AB 2491 (Nestande) of 2014 would have exempted sober
living homes from licensure as an adult alcoholism or drug
abuse recovery or treatment facility and required sober
living homes to meet specified requirements, including the
active participation of residents in legitimate recovery
programs and the maintenance of records of meeting
attendance. AB 2491 was held under submission in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
c) AB 1983 (Mansoor) of 2012 would have defined integral
alcohol and drug abuse treatment facilities for purposes of
licensure by the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
(DADP) and excluded integral facilities from being
considered a residential use of property. AB 1983 failed
passage in the Assembly Health Committee.
d) AB 1284 (Huffman) of 2009 would have required DADP to
notify the appropriate city or county planning agency of a
proposed facility's application for licensure as a
residential treatment facility if it operates as an
integral component of an existing licensed facility managed
by the same licensee and is located within 300 feet of the
existing facility. AB 1284 died on the Assembly
Appropriations Committee Suspense File.
AB 2255
Page 23
e) SB 268 (Harman) of 2009, which was substantially similar
to SB 1000 (Harman) of 2008, failed passage in the Assembly
Health Committee and was subsequently amended to a
different topic.
f) AB 2903 (Huffman) of 2008 would have authorized DADP to
require any person or entity applying for licensure to
provide specified information to DADP before a license is
issued. AB 2903 was held in the Senate Health Committee.
g) SB 1000 (Harman) of 2008 would have required applicants
seeking a treatment facility license from DADP to certify
that the facility is consistent with local zoning
ordinances and would have required DADP to verify the
certification. SB 1000 failed passage in the Senate Health
Committee.
h) SB 992 (Wiggins) of 2007 would have required the
Department of Alcohol and Drug
Programs to license adult recovery maintenance facilities
and applied existing alcohol and drug abuse recovery or
treatment facilities licensure requirements to adult
recovery maintenance facilities. SB 992 was vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger.
i) AB 724 (Benoit) of 2007 would have defined a sober
living home as a residential property that is operated as a
cooperative living arrangement to provide an alcohol and
drug free environment for persons recovering from
alcoholism or drug abuse and meets other specified
requirements. AB 724 failed passage in the Senate Health
Committee.
AB 2255
Page 24
j) SB 530 (Dutton) of 2007 would have prohibited DADP from
licensing a treatment facility if another treatment
facility was located within 300 feet. SB 530 was held in
the Senate Health Committee.
aa) AB 370 (Adams) of 2007 would have permitted a local
government to include a residential care facility serving
six or fewer persons, including a sober living facility,
within the definition of single family residence. AB 370
died on the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense
File.
bb) AB 3007 (Emmerson) of 2006 would have prohibited DADP
from licensing a treatment facility if another treatment
facility was located within 300 feet. AB 3007 died on the
Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Association of California Cities - Orange County
California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals
California Police Chiefs Association
City of Dana Point
AB 2255
Page 25
City of Costa Mesa
City of Hemet
City of Laguna Niguel
City of Menifee
City of Rancho Mirage
City of Riverside
City of Whittier
League of California Cities
National Coalition Against Prescription Drug Abuse
Dozens of individuals
Opposition
Cliffside Malibu
Western Center on Law and Poverty
AB 2255
Page 26
Analysis Prepared by:Paula Villescaz / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097