BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1284
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 1284 (Huffman) - As Introduced: February 27, 2009
Policy Committee: HealthVote:14 - 2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill 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
alcohol or drug abuse 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 facility. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Allows the city or county planning agency 30 days to provide
DADP with any objections to the issuance of the license.
2)Allows DADP, after 30 days, to take one of the following
actions:
a) Issue the license without conditions.
b) Impose requirements for the health and safety of the
residents of the proposed facility as a condition of
licensure.
c) Deny the licensure of the proposed facility if the
location of the facility would result in, or exacerbate,
the overconcentration of facilities within a particular
area, or when there are a sufficient number of facilities
already serving the area.
3)Allows a city or county to appeal the issuance of a license
within 30 days and requires DADP to reconsider the city or
county's objections if they can demonstrate that DADP did not
adequately address the lawful objections that were raised.
FISCAL EFFECT
AB 1284
Page 2
Costs in the range of $1.8 million ($350,000 GF) due to
increased foster care costs if 25% of the existing integral
facilities are forced to close by the cities or counties in
which they reside and 3% of those closed facilities served women
with children receiving child welfare service.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . This bill is designed to apply the existing
over-concentration standards that apply to residential care
facilities licensed by the Department of Social Services to
certain residential care facilities licensed by ADP.
This bill is the result of concerns raised by the residents of
Marin County where a developer has begun developing the Alta
Mira Hotel and nearby homes in Sausalito into eight small,
interconnected residential treatment facilities. Because each
building will house six or fewer people, the facilities do not
require a license and meet the legal definition of a
"residential property." However, critics contend that the
hotel and the houses will be interconnected and will create a
"campus" that has the capacity to treat up to 48 people at a
single time.
2)Residential Treatment for Women with Young Children . The state
has consistently faced a shortage of residential treatment
facilities for women who are attempting to receive substance
abuse treatment while at the same time retaining custody of
their children. A small number of facilities in the state
allow women to bring their children with them to a residential
facility while they receive treatment and some of them are
these integral types of facilities. Many times, without this
residential option, women seeking treatment will be required
to surrender their children to the foster care system.
3)Fair Housing Laws . Federal and state fair housing law both
prohibit housing discrimination against families or persons
with special needs. In short, government may not erect
barriers to residential housing of six persons or fewer nor
may it enact any law that limits protected classes, including
the disabled. California's version of the fair housing law is
AB 1284
Page 3
at Government Code Section 12955 (l) and makes it unlawful:
To discriminate through public or private land use
practices, decisions, and authorizations because of race,
color, religion, sex, familial status, marital status,
disability, national origin, or ancestry. Discrimination
includes, but is not limited to, restrictive covenants,
zoning laws, denials of use permits, and other actions
authorized under the Planning and Zoning Law (Title 7
(commencing with Section 65000)), that make housing
opportunities unavailable.
Courts have consistently held that restrictions applied to
residences of six or less must apply to the entire community
or to none at all. In addition, the American with Disabilities
Act (ADA) and the Olmstead court decision both limit the
ability of government to erect barriers to residential housing
opportunities for the disabled. For ADA purposes a person with
an addiction is considered disabled.
4)Committee Suggestion . The author and the committee may wish to
consider applying the requirements outlined in this
legislation only to applicants upon initial licensure. As the
bill is currently written, existing facilities that are
required to renew their licenses every two years would be
subject to the 300 foot rule outlined in this legislation and
would therefore risk losing their licenses every time they
renew them. That type of risk may cause the state to lose
existing treatment beds, either through denied licenses or
facility owners determining that the risk of losing their
license every two years based on an overconcentration statute
is too significant a business risk.
5)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 Appropriations Committee.
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.
AB 724 (Benoit) of 2007 would have defined a sober living home
AB 1284
Page 4
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.
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.
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
this committee.
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 this
committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916)
319-2081