BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE HEALTH
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
Senator Sheila J . Kuehl, Chair
BILL NO: AB 724
A
AUTHOR: Benoit
B
AMENDED: May 15, 2007
HEARING DATE: June 27, 2007
7
REFERRAL: Health and Rules
2
FISCAL: Appropriations
4
CONSULTANT:
Dunstan/cjt
SUBJECT
Sober living homes
SUMMARY
Provides a definition of a sober living home which is
defined as a residential property which 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 which
meets other specified requirements.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law:
Existing law declares that it is the policy of the state
for each city and county to permit and encourage a
sufficient number and type of recovery and treatment
facilities commensurate with local need. Existing law
establishes the State Department of Alcohol and Drug
Programs (DADP) and requires DADP to develop and implement
a statewide plan to alleviate problems related to
inappropriate alcohol and drug use.
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 724 (Benoit) Page
2
Existing law requires DADP to license all adult alcoholism
or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities and defines
those facilities. Existing law defines a recovery or
treatment facility as any premise, place, or building that
provides 24-hour residential non-medical services to adults
who are recovering from problems related to substance abuse
and that at least one of these services are provided:
recovery services, treatment services, or detoxification
services. Existing law also requires treatment facilities
with six or fewer persons to be regarded as a residential
use and to be treated no differently than other residential
uses.
Existing law prohibits a conditional use permit, zoning
variance, or other zoning clearance from being required of
a residential treatment facility which serves six or fewer
persons that is not required of a family dwelling of the
same type in the same zone.
Existing law also requires DADP to certify drug and alcohol
recovery treatment services such as outpatient treatment
services, which are not subject to licensing.
Existing law requires that when a person is released on
parole after having served a term of imprisonment in state
prison for any offense for which registration is required,
that person may not, during the period of parole, reside in
any single family dwelling with any other person also
required to register pursuant to existing law, unless those
persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or
adoption.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act (FEHA), prohibits discrimination against any person in
any housing accommodation on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, status, national origin, ancestry, familial
status, or disability. Existing law also specifies that
discriminatory land use regulations, zoning laws and
restrictive covenants are unlawful acts.
Existing federal law prohibits state and local governments
from treating housing used by the disabled or family units
with six or fewer persons any differently than any other
residential use of property.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 724 (Benoit) Page
3
This bill:
This bill states that its purpose is to provide a
definition of sober living homes in order to give those
purporting to operate these facilities and local code and
law enforcement agencies information to determine whether
residences housing recovering drug and alcohol abusers are
exempt from the exercise of local police powers.
This bill would define a sober living home as a residential
property that is operated as a cooperative living
arrangement in order to provide an alcohol and drug free
environment for persons recovering from alcoholism or drug
abuse, or both, who are seeking a living environment in
which to remain clean and sober. A sober living home meets
the definition when residents, including resident owners,
operators, and managers, are living a sober lifestyle;
residents actively participate in legitimate programs and
maintain records of meeting attendance; a zero tolerance
policy towards drugs and alcohol is maintained; no services
requiring licensure by DADP are provided; current law
regarding registered sex offenders is adhered to for
residential areas; residents do not require care or
supervision as provided by a licensed care facility; and
applicable state and local laws are obeyed.
This bill would also provide that minor dependents may
reside in a sober living home and that sober living homes
that are certified, registered, or approved by a recognized
nonprofit organization providing credible quality assurance
services are presumed to meet the definition of a sober
living home.
FISCAL IMPACT
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee
analysis, there are no significant costs associated with
this legislation.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
According to the author, this bill is based on the direct
experience of the sponsor, the City of Riverside, which
claims illegal uses are being made of single family
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 724 (Benoit) Page
4
residential properties where the owners or operators
falsely claim to be operating "sober living homes" to avoid
local regulation. The author argues that many of these
facilities are not providing legitimate services or
supervision of the residents, and that many are just
housing parolees and other offenders. The author argues
that by providing a specific and comprehensive definition
of a sober living home, AB 724 will set boundaries for
these single family residences and their owners and
occupants. The author also points out that the bill would
not allow local entities to regulate either state-licensed
facilities or sober living homes that meet the definition
contained in AB 724.
Treatment facilities
According to DADP, a residential treatment facility
provides various services, including detoxification,
education sessions, and/or recovery or treatment planning.
In addition, a licensed facility may also offer
individualized services including vocational and employment
search training, community volunteer opportunities, new
skills training, peer support, social and recreation
activities, and information about and referral to
appropriate community services.
Sober living homes are residences or congregate living
situations providing a supportive living environment to
recovering alcohol and drug abusers. Under current law,
sober living homes are exempt from DADP licensure and may
offer no treatment services. Sober living homes operate on
the concept that by surrounding oneself with individuals
who are experiencing the same self-help learning process,
recovering from one's addiction is much easier. Residents
may participate in 12-step meetings or other educational
meetings to help maintain their sobriety and pursue other
activities, including employment. Residents may be
enrolled in outpatient treatment concurrently while living
at a sober living home.
DADP reports there have been numerous complaints relating
to unlicensed facilities, including sober living homes.
DADP specifies that on average, it receives 125 complaints
per year. Many of the complaints indicate that unlicensed
facilities, including sober living homes, are offering
addiction treatment services that only licensed treatment
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 724 (Benoit) Page
5
facilities can provide.
The federal Fair Housing Act protects people with past and
current alcohol addiction and past drug addiction. The
Americans with Disability Act of 1990 (ADA) additionally
gives civil rights protection to individuals with
disabilities, similar to that provided to individuals on
the basis of race, sex, national origin and religion.
Alcohol and drug dependency are covered under the ADA. In
particular, protection is provided to those who have
successfully completed a drug rehabilitation program, or
who are currently enrolled in such programs.
Proposition 36
Demand for treatment has increased with the passage in 2000
of Proposition 36 or the Substance Abuse and Crime
Prevention Act of 2000 (SACPA). Proposition 36 requires
probation and drug treatment instead of incarceration for
individuals convicted of possession, use, transportation
for personal use, or being under the influence of
controlled substances and similar parole violations, but
not pertaining to the sale or manufacture of drugs. Under
the act, eligible offenders receive up to one year of drug
treatment and six months of maintenance care.
Related legislation
SB 530 (Dutton) would prohibit DADP from licensing a
treatment facility if another facility was located within
300 feet. Held in Senate Health Committee.
SB 992 (Wiggins) would require DADP to license adult
recovery maintenance facilities, which provide a more
structured environment for recovery from substance abuse
than a sober living home. The bill is at the Assembly
desk.
SB 1000 (Harman) would require DADP to license adult
recovery maintenance facilities and registration of sober
living homes. Held in Senate Health Committee.
Prior legislation
AB 3007 of 2006 (Emmerson) would have prohibited DADP from
licensing a facility if another facility was located within
300 feet. This bill was held on the Assembly
Appropriations suspense file.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 724 (Benoit) Page
6
SB 987 (Karnette, 2000) would have required DADP to license
and regulate adult recovery maintenance facilities, as
specified. This measure died in the Assembly.
SB 986 (Karnette, 1999) would have required DADP to license
and regulate adult recovery maintenance facilities. This
measure was vetoed by the Governor.
SB 1540 (Karnette, 1998) would have required state
licensure of adult recovery maintenance facilities or sober
living homes and also would have required development of
plans regarding community care facilities. This measure was
vetoed by the Governor.
Arguments in support
Supporters argue that this bill will provide legitimate
sober living home operators the type of residential
environment needed to help those recovering from addiction
to alcohol and/or other drugs. At the same time,
supporters argue this bill will assist local governments in
responding to concerns raised by their constituents about
residences purporting to be a part of the addiction
recovery field but which are, in some instances, operated
without respect for their neighbors and without any
semblance of sober living. Supporters argue that this bill
will be a valuable tool to regulate the use and occupancy
of a single-family residence when the use is not a sober
living home or other licensed facility.
Arguments in opposition
Opponents argue that federal and state fair housing laws
bar discrimination in housing. In particular, they bar
government from enacting barriers that impact only certain
populations but not all members of the public. The Western
Center on Law and Poverty (WCLP) opposes AB 724 because it
would significantly reduce the availability of housing
opportunities for those suffering from alcohol and
substance abuse. They argue that AB 724 would create a
major exception to fair housing laws and would allow local
governments to harass sober living facilities. WCLP notes
that it is long settled by the U. S. Supreme Court that any
group of six or less unrelated individuals living together
are considered a family for the purpose of the fair housing
law and may not be subject to discrimination. They also
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 724 (Benoit) Page
7
point out that nothing in fair housing law prevents a local
jurisdiction from enforcing health and safety codes or
criminal laws so long as they are enforced equally for all
residential housing. WCLP argues that AB 724 should be
rejected because it allows a local government to single out
a specific type of family housing for special scrutiny.
WCLP notes that the key question about AB 724 is who will
determine if a facility meets the definition in the bill.
AB 724 is silent on the subject but apparently this
determination would be made by the local government. They
argue that because the determination of whether a sober
living facility meets the standard lies solely with the
local government, only a court determination that the
agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously would prevent
abuse of the power. In the meantime, desperately needed
housing for those with substance abuse would be denied.
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
1. Sober living homes are a part of the variety of
treatment facilities, services and homes that are necessary
for successful substance abuse treatment. Existing state
policy acknowledges the need for different types and
varieties of treatment and services. Treatment for
substance abuse is similar to treatment for any other
chronic medical condition, in that, as with any chronic
condition, treatment requires care over a sustained period
and a sustained lifelong commitment on the part of those
who are afflicted. Substance abuse, along with other
chronic diseases such as hypertension and diabetes, can be
successfully treated and with similar success rates, but
success requires a variety of interventions and care. In
the case of substance abuse, successful treatment and
recovery requires facilities that offer differing levels of
care and treatment, including licensed treatment
facilities, recovery maintenance facilities, and sober
living homes, which provide a continuum of care and are all
elements in the success of treatment.
2. This bill is an attempt to determine the circumstances
under which local governments can use their police powers.
Federal law and court decisions prohibit discrimination
against the disabled. Those recovering from substance
abuse are included under this protection. According to an
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 724 (Benoit) Page
8
opinion by Legislative Counsel, the federal Fair Housing
Amendments Act precludes the state from treating facilities
with six or fewer residents differently than any other
residential use.
Given these protections, there is a strong limit in both
state and federal law as to how state and local governments
could respond to sober living homes as set forth by this
bill. Facilities larger than six residents could most
likely be subject to local land use regulation. For homes
that house six or fewer residents, state and local
governments face a number of restrictions.
If a local government were to use its police powers, such
as code enforcement, against a sober living home which had
six or fewer residents, and treated them differently, even
outside of the definitions set forth in the bill. The
action could run afoul of state and federal law. The vague
terms set out in the bill could open the door to
unreasonable restrictions specifically placed on sober
living homes, which could be seen as a violation of equal
treatment, as well as the rights of the disabled.
This bill then can be seen as an attempt by the state to
try and better define a multitude of state and federal
protections for the disabled, as it relates to those
recovering from substance abuse. Ultimately, a court could
disagree with the definition provided in the bill as sober
living homes would continue to enjoy the protections from
state and federal law. The limits on local government
exercise of its police powers would ultimately be set by
federal law and federal and state court decisions.
However, these are protections that do not come easily or
cheaply for any given sober living home locked in a
conflict with local governments.
3. Double referral to be considered. If this bill passes
out of Health Committee, the do pass motion needs to send
the bill back to Rules for consideration of the request
from Public Safety Committee to hear the bill.
PRIOR ACTIONS
Assembly Floor: 73-1
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 724 (Benoit) Page
9
Assembly Appropriations:15-0
Assembly Health: 10-4
POSITIONS
Support: City of Riverside (sponsor)
California Association of Addiction Recovery
Resources
City of Costa Mesa
City of Lakewood
City of Moreno Valley
City of Palm Desert
City of Rancho Mirage
City of Sacramento
City of Whittier
League of California Cities
Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce
Riverside County Sober Living Coalition
Sober Living Network
Oppose: California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program
Executives
Western Center on Law and Poverty
-- END --