BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1284
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Dave Jones, Chair
AB 1284 (Huffman) - As Introduced: February 27, 2009
SUBJECT : Substance abuse: adult recovery maintenance
facilities.
SUMMARY : Requires the Department of Alcohol and Drugs (DADP)
to notify the appropriate city or county planning agency of a
proposed facility's application for licensure as a residential
alcoholism or drug abuse recovery treatment facility (treatment
facility) if the treatment facility operates as an integral
component of an existing licensed treatment facility managed by
the same licensee and is located within 300 feet of the existing
treatment facility, as specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires DADP to notify the appropriate city or county
planning agency of a proposed treatment facility's application
for licensure as a residential treatment facility if the
treatment facility operates as an integral component of an
existing licensed treatment facility managed by the same
licensee and is located within 300 feet of the existing
treatment facility.
2)Requires DADP to provide the notification to the affected city
or county planning agency via registered mail of receipt,
prior to issuing a license to the proposed treatment facility.
3)Requires the city or county planning agency to have a maximum
of 30 days to provide DADP with any objections to the issuance
of the license.
4)Authorizes DADP, upon completion of the 30 day period
specified in 3) above, to take any of the following actions,
consistent with federal law:
a) Issue an unconditional license;
b) Impose requirements for the health and safety of the
residents of the proposed treatment facility as a condition
of licensure; and,
c) Deny the proposed treatment facility's licensure
application if its location would result in, or exacerbate,
AB 1284
Page 2
the overconcentration of facilities within a particular
area or when the numbers and types of alcoholism or drug
abuse recovery or treatment facilities are sufficient to be
commensurate with the local need.
5)Clarifies that the requirements imposed pursuant to 4) b)
above may include compliance with federal and state
requirements for accessibility by a person with a disability.
6)Allows a city or county to appeal the issuance of the proposed
treatment facility's license within 30 days of the decision if
the city or county has filed objections pursuant to 3) above
and DADP has approved the license.
7)Requires DADP to reconsider a city or county's objections if
the city or county can demonstrate that DADP did not
adequately address the city or county's lawful objections to
the issuance of the proposed treatment facility's license.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes DADP to develop and implement a statewide plan to
alleviate problems related to alcohol abuse and license
alcoholism and drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities
that provide a broad range of services in a supportive
environment for adults who are addicted to alcohol or drugs.
2)Defines a 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)Permits DADP to issue a single license to a treatment facility
wherein separate buildings or portions of a residential
treatment facility are integral components of a single
alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility and
all of the components of the treatment facility are managed by
the same licensee, if the applicant meets specified
requirements.
4)Requires a treatment facility with six or fewer persons to be
considered a residential use of property and not subject to
AB 1284
Page 3
conditional use permits, zoning ordinances, or other
clearances.
5)Prohibits for the purpose of all local ordinances, a treatment
facility serving six or fewer residents from being included
within the definition of a boarding home, rooming house,
institution or home for the care of minors, the aged, or
mentally infirm, foster care home, guest home, rest home,
sanitarium, mental hygiene home, or other similar term which
implies that the treatment facility is a business run for
profit or differs in any other way from a single family
residence.
6)Makes a legislative declaration that it is the policy of this
state that each county and city shall permit and encourage the
development of sufficient numbers and types of treatment
facilities as are commensurate with local need.
7)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
unlawful acts.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill has not yet been analyzed by a fiscal
committee.
COMMENTS :
1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL . According to the author, demand for
treatment facilities has increased with the passage in 2000 of
Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act,
which requires probation and drug treatment, instead of
incarceration, for individuals convicted of possession or use
of controlled substances. The author asserts that individuals
who require drug treatment or maintenance care are
increasingly obtaining it at residential treatment facilities
located in single family neighborhoods. The author maintains
that, in addition to the six residents, these facilities
typically include live-in managers and staff who provide a
variety of services, such as meal preparation, workshops,
training, and counseling, at various hours of the day and
evening and these services may also require frequent
AB 1284
Page 4
deliveries to be made to the treatment facility, shuttle van
service to be provided to residents, and additional vehicle
traffic due to shift changes, visiting hours, and other
activities. The author contends that taking into account
multiple units within the same neighborhood, collectively,
these uses often generate more activity than what is planned
or expected from a traditional single-family residence.
2)DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT FACILITIES . According to DADP,
residential treatment facilities provide non-medical services
to individuals who are working to overcome their addiction to
alcohol or other drugs. Services include education, group, or
individual sessions; recovery or treatment planning; and
detoxification services. In addition, a licensed treatment
facility may offer individualized services, such as vocational
and employment search training, community volunteer
opportunities, new skills training, peer support, social and
recreational activities, and information about and referral to
appropriate community services.
DADP indicates that, to obtain licensure as a residential
treatment facility, prospective applicants must first identify
a location where they plan to provide non-medical alcoholism
or drug abuse recovery, treatment, or detoxification services.
Applicants must also complete an initial application, submit
an approved fire clearance from the local fire authority, and
pay an applicable license fee. According to DADP, the
licensing process primarily focuses on health and safety
concerns, such as appropriate fire clearances, food service
standards, personnel requirements, physical environment
requirements, and residents' personal rights. Finally,
applicants are required to pass a treatment facility on-site
inspection conducted by DADP to determine compliance with all
applicable laws and regulations. An applicant that passes the
inspection is issued a license valid for two years. Licensed
facilities are mandated to display their license, which
indicates the treatment capacity and the population they are
allowed to serve, in a public location.
3)DADP'S GOOD NEIGHBOR GUIDELINES . Currently, DADP includes in
the initial application package that is provided to
prospective applicants a copy of its Good Neighbor Guidelines,
a document developed to provide any entity interested in
operating a residential treatment facility with ideas,
suggestions, and tips, identified by experienced providers and
AB 1284
Page 5
licensing reviewers, for establishing and maintaining positive
relationships in the community. The guidelines recommend that
treatment facility operators know the proposed neighborhood
and the appropriate zoning requirements; ensure that all
required fire permits, licenses, business licenses, and any
other permits have been secured; prepare a neighbor
introduction letter and written materials about the program
that can be shared with neighbors; and, develop a neighborhood
complaint protocol to inform staff of the procedure to follow
should a neighbor complain to the treatment facility. DADP
investigates all complaints involving licensed treatment
facilities and averages a total of 350 complaints per year
regarding the 2,500 facilities that are currently licensed.
4)SITING OF FACILITIES . According to the federal Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA)
publication entitled "Siting Drug and Alcohol Treatment
Programs: Legal Challenges to the NIMBY Syndrome," many people
recognize the pervasiveness of alcohol and drug problems but
such concern has not always resulted in communities welcoming
alcohol and other drug treatment programs into their
neighborhoods. Community opposition, often referred to as
"not in my backyard" (NIMBY) syndrome, often prevents or
delays the siting of a treatment program. The SAMHSA
publication states that the NIMBY syndrome is not new and does
not arise solely in opposition to alcohol and other drug
treatment programs. Community resistance is often mobilized
to prevent the opening or expansion of many types of health
and social service facilities, including 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 the SAMHSA publication, there are five
myths related to locating a treatment facility: a) Community
residents may fear that property values will decline; b)
Merchants may be concerned that crime will increase; c) The
community may believe that a treatment program will bring in
"outsiders," perhaps outsiders of a different class or ethnic
group; d) The community may believe that an over-concentration
of services already exists in the vicinity; and, e) The
community may simply confuse the problem's solutions with its
manifestations. The SAMHSA publication states that, in almost
every instance, a community's fear of having an alcohol or
other drug treatment program located within its borders is
unfounded and, in reality, treatment programs pose no
legitimate danger to the health or welfare of the residents,
AB 1284
Page 6
nor do they draw substance abusers and drug pushers to the
area. An extensive cost-effectiveness study funded by DADP
showed that each dollar invested in a residential treatment
program saves the community $4 to $7 dollars, due mostly to
reductions in crime and emergency medical care.
5)FAIR HOUSING PROTECTIONS . 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.
6)SUPPORT . The Marin County Board of Supervisors writes in
support that this bill provides a common-sense approach to
facilitating greater cooperation and coordination between DADP
and local governments in their efforts to address community
needs. The Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members
(MCCMC) claims that the overall impact of integral residential
treatment facilities is not consistent with the intended use
of single family residences and often raises health and safety
concerns. MCCMC argues that this bill addresses these
concerns by allowing local governments to raise objections
with DADP over residential treatment facilities located in
their communities. The League of Cities (League) writes in
support that it has received a number of reports of individual
residential treatment facilities that operate as a larger
campus or integrated facility in a city, at times knocking
down fences and creating a campus of residential treatment.
While the League acknowledges that there is nothing wrong with
this treatment approach, it supports this bill because it
requires local community input to ensure that these facilities
do not escape the health and safety standards that apply to
any facility serving seven or more people.
7)OPPOSITION . The California Association of Addiction Recovery
Resources (CAARR) contends that this bill creates onerous
requirements for DADP by requiring DADP to determine, for
every license application it receives, whether or not the
licensee operates any other treatment facility within 300 feet
of the proposed site and, if so, to notify the local planning
agency of the license application and then provide the local
AB 1284
Page 7
agency with 30 days to object. Furthermore, in the event that
a city or county registers objections and DADP still approves
the license, this bill allows a city or county to appeal the
issuance of the license within 30 days of the decision and
requires DADP to reconsider those objections if the local
government can demonstrate that DADP failed to adequately
address them. Finally, this bill authorizes DADP to deny a
license if overconcentration exists. CAARR states that the
burdensome requirements imposed on DADP as a result of this
bill will increase application processing costs and create
unjustifiable delays. CRC Health Group adds that this bill
violates FEHA because it imposes requirements that focus
exclusively on the occupants of residential treatment
facilities, simply because they have alcohol or other
substance abuse disabilities, and in consequence, reduces the
availability of housing to this group. Opponents note that
federal and state laws expressly prohibit these kinds of
spacial separation restrictions on the grounds that they are
discriminatory.
8)RELATED LEGISLATION . SB 268 (Harman) requires a proposed
residential treatment facility to include in its licensure
application a certification that it complies with local zoning
requirements and requires DADP to verify this certification.
SB 268 is pending in the Senate Health Committee.
9)PRIOR LEGISLATION .
a) 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.
b) 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, or both, who seek a living
environment in which to remain clean and sober, and that
meets other specified requirements. AB 724 failed passage
in the Senate Health Committee.
c) 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
AB 1284
Page 8
the Senate Health Committee.
d) AB 370 (Adams) of 2007 would have allowed a local
government to prohibit a registered sex offender released
on parole from residing with any other person on parole in
a residential treatment facility serving six or fewer
residents, unless the other resident is related by blood,
marriage, or adoption. This bill also 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 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
e) 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 was held in
the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
10)POLICY CONCERNS .
a) Direct intervention . Residential treatment facilities,
including integral facilities, are a key part of the
continuum of treatment programs. Current state policy
recognizes the need for different types and varieties of
treatment and services. Is permitting a local government
to intervene in the state licensing process consistent with
the state policy of ensuring that integral treatment
facilities continue to provide community-based services
important to the success of recovering individuals?
b) Implementation Issues . This bill requires DADP to give
an affected city or county planning agency 30 days to
object to a proposed integral facility's license.
Additionally, this bill allows a city or county to appeal
the issuance of the license if it has filed objections
within the 30 day comment period and DADP still approves
the license. The 30-day timeframes for comment and appeals
from local governments could significantly delay the
processing of licensing applications and create a workload
backlog for DADP, which, in turn, may require DADP to hire
additional staff. Additionally, this bill allows DADP to
deny a license if overconcentration exists but does not
specify how such a determination would be made. One likely
method would be for DADP to make such a finding but would
DADP need to establish a public process for defining
AB 1284
Page 9
overconcentration for purposes of this bill? The author
may wish to clarify the intent of this provision and
address the potential for delays due to the process
established by this bill.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Marin County Board of Supervisors
Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members
City of Long Beach
City of Whittier
City of Westminster
City of Fountain Valley
League of California Cities
Opposition
California Association of Addiction Recovery Resources
CRC Health Group, Inc.
Analysis Prepared by : Cassie Rafanan / HEALTH / (916)
319-2097