Loading...
CC SR 20180116 H - Support Letter for SB 786RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AGENDA DESCRIPTION: MEETING DATE: 01/16/2018 AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar Consideration and possible action to support Senate Bill No. 786 regarding residential substance abuse treatment facilities RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to Senator Allen in support of Senate Bill No. 786 (SB 786) regarding residential substance abuse treatment facilities. FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: Kit Fox, AICP, Senior Administrative Analyst" REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager - APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Draft letter in support of SB 786 (page A-1) B. California Contract Cities Association and League of California Cities letters in support of SB 786 (page B-1) C. SB 786, as amended 1/3/18 (page C-1) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: State planning law provides an exemption from local land use regulations affecting congregate care facilities (CCFs) serving six (6) or fewer residents or patients. Under State law, such facilities are defined as residential uses of property, and may not be subjected to any local permitting processes (such as conditional use permits) that would not otherwise apply to single-family residences. In Rancho Palos Verdes, there are currently forty-three (43) State -licensed CCFs, the vast majority of which are residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFEs) serving six (6) or fewer residents each. RCFEs have tended to cluster in a few neighborhoods, most notably in Rolling Hills Riviera in the Eastview area, and in Los Verdes and Grandview in the northwesterly portion of the City. In recent years, small residential rehabilitation facilities for substance abuse have begun to appear in residential neighborhoods in cities throughout the State, operating under 1 the exemption from local land use regulations afforded to CCFs. Some cities have found that the clustering of these facilities in neighborhoods has had adverse impacts upon nearby homes, such as noise, trash, parking and second-hand smoke. Staff is aware of only two (2) State -licensed non-RCFE CCFs in the City: a 6 -bed congregate living health facility in the Country Club neighborhood, and a 4 -bed adult residential facility in the Eastview area. Also, in neighboring Palos Verdes Estates, it is rumored that the owner of a residence in the Bluff Cove area plans operate a residential substance abuse treatment facility from the home. On February 17, 2017, Senator Tony Mendoza from Artesia introduced Senate Bill No. 786 (SB 786), with the California Contract Cities Association (CCCA) as a bill sponsor. SB 786 was intended to apply minimum spacing requirements between residential substance abuse rehabilitation facilities to prevent "overconcentration." It would also make the licenses for such facilities provisional and revocable, and would increase the monetary penalties for violations of licensing and regulatory provisions (Attachment C). SB 786 was originally scheduled for hearing in the Senate Health Committee in April 2017, but the hearing was canceled at Senator Mendoza's request. Recently, SB 786 was heard and further revised in the Senate on January 3, 2018. The revised bill was schedule to be taken up by the Senate Health Committee on January 10, 2018, but this hearing was also canceled at the author's request.' SB 786 is supported by CCCA and the League of California Cities (Attachment B). As discussed above, SB 786 aims to address the problem of overconcentration of substance abuse treatment facilities in residential neighborhoods. This will strike an appropriate balance between giving cities greater local control in preventing overconcentration of rehabilitation facilities in residential areas, while protecting patients from profit-seeking companies seeking to undermine the successful model of therapeutic small group homes integrated into neighborhoods. While the current 6 -bed model has been beneficial and therapeutic to both patients and cities by allowing recovering patients to reintegrate with the community, profit -driven companies have exploited this policy in many cities to take over multiple adjoining homes to create "campus -style rehabilitation" facilities in single-family neighborhoods. This is both detrimental to recovering patients seeking to better integrate into the surrounding community and to residential neighborhoods faced with becoming more like hospital zones. SB 786 would close this loophole by requiring the State to notify cities of applications for licenses to build these facilities within 45 days of approving them, and allowing cities to request denial of an application if a proposed facility would be located within three hundred feet (300') of an existing facility. Staff believes that the enactment of SB 786 could prevent an overconcentration of residential substance abuse treatment facilities in the City in the future. As of January 3, 2018, Senator Mendoza has taken a leave of absence while the Senate conducts in investigation of alleged misconduct. Senator Ben Allen of Santa Monica, whose 261h District includes Rancho Palos Verdes, is now the co-author of SB 786. 2 Staff has prepared the attached letter in support of SB 786 for the Mayor's signature (Attachment A). If approved, Staff will transmit this letter to the bill's author, CCCA and the League. ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative action is available for the City Council's consideration: Do not authorize the Mayor to sign the letter in support of SB 786. 3 January 16, 2018 VIA FACSIMILE (916) 651-4926 Honorable Ben Allen Member, State Senate State Capitol, Room 5072 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: SB 786 (Mendoza) Alcohol and Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities Notice of Support Dear Senator Allen: On behalf of the City Council and residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, I write to express our strong support for SB 786 (Mendoza), which would help maintain residential neighborhoods as a therapeutic environment for the social integration of high functioning disabled persons, including recovering alcoholics and addicts. Residential group home facilities provide valuable rehabilitation and support services in a therapeutic environment, which can benefit both individual patients and the greater community. A rehabilitation facility with six beds in a single-family home is welcome in any neighborhood. It is good for the community, good for the neighbors and more importantly, good for the patient who is trying to recover. However, what was not anticipated was that existing laws would be manipulated for the advantage of business owners to garner maximum profits. Business owners have found loopholes within the existing laws and have exploited them for personal gain. The single rehabilitation facility nestled into the fabric of a residential neighborhood has been taken over by companies that have created multi -structure, campus -style facilities within a residentially -zoned neighborhood. The over -concentrated campus -style facilities are more profitable than standalone facilities and they can drastically change the character of a neighborhood, causing it to become more similar to a hospital zone or busy commercial center. Most importantly, the campus -style facilities eliminate a vital benefit to the patient, which is to become part of the fabric of a community. Under SB 786, cities and counties would be noticed of State license applications, and the municipality could help recognize overconcentration, which is defined as having two or more facilities separated by less than 300 feet. This noticing and distancing provision is consistent with current California law for other types of group homes housing other protected classes of disabled people. Specifically, existing state law imposes noticing and 300 -foot distancing requirements for every existing licensed group home in California, with the exception of alcohol and drug recovery facilities. SB 786 would simply provide consistency with all other State licensed group homes to protect existing neighborhoods and protect the therapeutic, nurturing environment that benefits all categories of protected residence recovering in State -licensed group homes. This measure is consistent with the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and advances State policy favoring residential/social model care facilities for persons with disabilities. Legislative Counsel previously opined that regulations that benefit the protected class do not violate the FHA. The intent of SB 786 is to promote the interest of the protected class (recovering patient) by preserving the integrity of the therapeutic environment of the residential neighborhoods, a core component of the social model of group homes. A-1 The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is pleased to support this important measure to help prevent overconcentration of multi -structure facilities in residential neighborhoods in order to maintain the purpose and integrity of neighborhood care programs. Sincerely, Susan M. Brooks Mayor cc: Senator Tony Mendoza (via facsimile to (916) 651-4932` Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Doug Willmore, City Manager Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager Kit Fox, Senior Administrative Analyst Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Associatio Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities Meq Desmond, League of California Cities 4t) A-2 2016-2017 EXECUTIVE BOARD Lou La Monte President Malibu Michael Davitt Vice President La Canada Flintridge Sandra Armenta Secretary/Treasurer Rosemead Sam Pedroza Director -at -Large Claremont Jorge Morales Legislative Director -at -Large South Gate Mark Waronek Marketing Director -at -Large Lomita Gustavo Camacho Immediate Past President Pico Rivera Frank Zerunyan Associate Member Committee Rolling Hills Estates Nancy Tragarz Budget & Audit Committee Walnut Liz Reilly By -Laws Committee Duarte Reva Feldman City Manager/Administrative Committee Malibu Ana Maria Quintana Legal/City Contract Committee Bell Ali Sajjad Taj Membership Committee Artesia Mitch Englander Resolutions Committee Los Angeles Lindsey Horvath Selection Committee West Hollywood James Bozajian Special Events Committee Calabasas Jeff Wood Ambassadors Committee Lakewood Marcel Rodarte Executive Director April 17, 2017 CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOCIATION 17315 Studebaker Rd., Suite 210, Cerritos, CA 90703 (562) 622-5533 www.contractcities.org The Honorable Ed Hernandez Chair, Senate Health Committee California State Capitol, Room 2191 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: SB 786 (Mendoza) Alcohol and Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities Notice of Support Dear Senator Hernandez, California Contract Cities Association (CCCA) wishes to express its strong support for SB 786 (Mendoza). CCCA is a collection of member cities who contract for municipal services to provide residents with the best services at the lowest cost. Founded in 1957, today CCCA represents 72 member cities with more than 7 million residents. SB 786 aims to address the problem of overconcentration of alcohol and drug abuse treatment facilities in residential neighborhoods, an issue that has affected many of our member cities. We believe that this bill will strike the appropriate balance between giving cities greater local control in preventing overconcentration of rehabilitation facilities in residential areas, while protecting patients from profit-seeking companies seeking to undermine the successful model of therapeutic small group homes integrated into neighborhoods. California law currently treats an alcohol and drug recovery facility with six or fewer beds as a residential use of a property for zoning purposes. We wholeheartedly support this policy as beneficial and therapeutic to both patients and to our city by allowing recovering patients to reintegrate with the community. However, profit -driven companies have exploited this policy in many cities to take over multiple adjoining to create "campus -style rehabilitation" facilities in single-family neighborhoods. This is both detrimental to recovering patients seeking to better integrate into the surrounding community and to residential neighborhoods faced with becoming more like hospital zones. This also clearly contravenes the purpose of the law, which was to create rehabilitation facilities that would provide residential rather than medical settings to patients, to allow them to become part of the fabric of a community rather than segregating them from it. SB 786 would correct this loophole by requiring the state to notify cities and counties of applications for licenses to build these facilities within 45 days of approving any applications, and allow cities and counties to request denial of the application if a proposed facility would be located within 300 feet of an existing facility. These noticing and distance provisions are required of other types of licensed group homes in California, so this bill would provide some much-needed consistency in California law. As Most importantly, SB 786 does not seek to discriminate against residential rehabilitation facilities, but will protect both patients and true residential group homes from exploitation by profit -driven companies and will preserve the successful model of therapeutic small group homes integrated into neighborhoods. Overall, we believe that SB 786 will give cities greater local control in preventing overconcentration of rehabilitation facilities while preserving a vital benefit to recovering drug and alcohol addiction patients. For these reasons, the California Contract Cities Association urges the Senate Health Committee to support SB 786. If you have any questions regarding our position, please contact our Legislative Analyst Ilissa Gold at (562) 217-4703. Sincerely, /f ""�VTX-4 Lou La Monte Mayor, City of Malibu President, California Contract Cities Association Jorge Morales Council Member, City of South Gate Legislative Director At -Large, California Contract Cities Association Cc: Senator Janet Nguyen, Vice -Chair, Senate Committee on Health Senator Toni G. Atkins Senator Connie M. Leyva Senator Holly J. Mitchell Senator Bill Monning Senator Josh Newman Senator Jim Nielsen Senator Richard D. Roth 't L oEAIGUEO RNIA CITIES March 10, 2017 Honorable Tony Mendoza Member, State Senate State Capitol, Room 5100 Sacramento, CA 95814 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 www.cacities.org RE: SB 786 (Mendoza) Alcohol and Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities Notice of Support Dear Senator Mendoza: The League of California Cities is writing to express strong support for your SB 786 (Mendoza), which would help maintain residential neighborhoods as a therapeutic environment for the social integration of high functioning disabled persons, including recovering alcoholics and addicts. Residential group home facilities provide valuable rehabilitation and support services in a therapeutic environment, which can benefit both individual patients and the greater community. A rehabilitation facility with six beds in a single-family home is welcome in any neighborhood. It is good for the community, good for the neighbors and more importantly, good for the patient who is trying to recover. However, what was not anticipated was that existing laws would be manipulated for the advantage of business owners to garner maximum profits. Business owners have found loopholes within the existing laws and have exploited them for personal gain. The single rehabilitation facility nestled into the fabric of a residential neighborhood has been taken over by companies that have created multi -structure, campus -style facilities within a residentially zoned neighborhood. The over concentrated campus style facilities are more profitable than standalone facilities and they can drastically change the character of a neighborhood, causing it to become more similar to a hospital zone or busy commercial center. Most importantly, the campus style facilities eliminate a vital benefit to the patient, which is to become part of the fabric of a community. Under SB 786, cities and counties would be noticed of State license applications, and the municipality could help recognize overconcentration, which is defined as having two ore more facilities separated by less than 300 feet. This noticing and distancing provision is consistent with current California law for other types of group homes housing other protected classes of disabled people. Specifically, existing state law imposes noticing and 300 -foot distancing requirements for every existing licensed group home in California, with the exception of alcohol and drug recovery facilities. SB 786 would simply provide consistency with all other State licensed group homes to protect existing neighborhoods and protect the therapeutic, nurturing environment that benefits all categories of protected residence recovering in State -licensed group homes. This measure is consistent with the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and advances state policy favoring residential/social model care facilities for persons with disabilities. Legislative Counsel previously opined that regulations that benefit the protected class do not violate the FHA. The intent of SB 786 is to promote the interest of the protected class (recovering patient) by preserving the integrity of the therapeutic environment of the residential neighborhoods, a core component of the social model of group homes. The League is pleased to support this important measure to help prevent overconcentration of multi -structure facilities in residential neighborhoods in order to maintain the purpose and integrity of neighborhood care programs. If you have any questions, or if I can be of assistance, please contact me at (916) 658-8264. Sincerely, Jason Rhine Legislative Representative Cc: Chair and Members, Senate Health Committee Melanie Moreno, Staff Director, Senate Health Committee Joe Parra, Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus AMENDED IN SENATE JANUARY 3, 2018 SENATE BILL No. 786 Introduced by Senator Mendoza (Coauthor: Senator Allen) February 17, 2017 An act to amend Sections 11834.09, 11834.10, 11834.31, and 11834.34 of, and to add Section 11834.1 1 -to to, the Health and Safety Code, relating to alcoholism or drug abuse. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 786, as amended, Mendoza. Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities: overconcentration. (1) Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities serving adults by the State Department of Health Care Services, as prescribed. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions punishable by a civil penalty of not less than $25 or more than $50 per day for each violation, with additional penalties for repeat violations, as specified. This bill would require, for any licensing application submitted on or after January 1, 2018, 2019, the department to deny an application for a new facility license, if the proposed location is in proximity to an existing facility in an area zoned residential that would result in overconcentration, as defined. The bill would prohibit the expansion or intensification of legal nonconforming facilities, as defined. The bill would require the department or a county licensing agency, at least 45 days prior to approving any application for any new facility, to notify in writing the planning ageney of the eity-, if the faeility is to be loeate in the eity, or the planning ageney of the eottntr, if the faeility is to be loeated in . jrated area, of the proposed loeation of the 98 C-1 SB 786 — 2 — faeilitr. post on its Internet Web site the address of the proposed new facility, as specified, and would require the license applicant to not in writing the city or unincorporated area's planning department in the jurisdiction where the proposed facility would be located of the license application and provide the applicable planning department a copy of the license application. By requiring a county licencing agency to notipost in this manner, this bill would impose a state -mandated local program. The bill would authorize a city or county to request denial of the license applied for on the basis of an overconcentration of facilities. This bill would additionally make initial licenses to providers provisional, and revokable for good cause, as defined. The bill would require all programs and medical services offered or provided by a licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility to be specified in the license application and provided exclusively within the licensed facility on the licensed property and for the benefit of the residential patients or program participants. The bill would increase the penalties for a violation of the licensing and regulatory provisions to not less than $1, 000 or more than $15, 000 per day for each violation, and increase the additional penalties for repeat violations, as specified. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State -mandated local program: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION]. Section 11834.09 of the Health and Safety Code 2 is amended to read: 3 11834.09. (a) Upon receipt of a completed written application, 4 fire clearance, and licensing fee from the prospective licensee, and 5 subject to the department's review and determination that the 6 prospective licensee can comply with this chapter and regulations 7 adopted pursuant to this chapter, the department may issue a single 98 C-2 — 3 — SB 786 1 license to the following types of alcoholism or drug abuse recovery 2 or treatment facilities: 3 (1) A residential facility. 4 (2) A facility wherein separate buildings or portions of a 5 residential facility are integral components of a single alcoholism 6 or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility and all of the 7 components of the facility are managed by the same licensee. 8 (b) Failure to submit a completed written application, fire 9 clearance, and payment of the required licensing fee in a timely 10 manner shall result in termination of the department's licensure 11 review and shall require submission of a new application by the 12 prospective licensee. 13 (c) Failure of the prospective licensee to demonstrate the ability 14 to comply with this chapter or the regulations adopted pursuant to 15 this chapter shall result in departmental denial of the prospective 16 licensee's application for licensure. 17 (d) Initial licenses to providers at new facilities or new providers 18 at existing facilities shall be provisional for one year. During the 19 term of a provisional license, the department may revoke the 20 license for good cause. For the purposes of this section, `good 21 cause " includes failure to operate in compliance with this chapter 22 or the regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter or comply with 23 the conditions of a license or otherwise fail to provide an 24 acceptable standard of care to residential patients or program 25 participants. Licensees whose provisional licenses are revoked 26 may not reapply for a new provisional license for six months 27 following revocation. 28 SEC. 2. Section 11834.10 of the Health and Safety Code is 29 amended to read: 30 11834.10. A licensee shall not operate an alcoholism or drug 31 abuse recovery or treatment facility beyond the conditions and 32 limitations specified on the license. All programs and services 33 offered or provided by a licensed alcoholism or drug abuse 34 recovery or treatment facility, including, but not limited to, 35 incidental medical services pursuant to Section 11834.025, must 36 be specified in the license application and provided exclusively 37 within the licensed facility on the licensed property and for the 38 benefit of the residential patients or program participants. 98 C-3 SB 786 1 SECT -!ON i 2 SEC. 3. Section 11834.11 is added to the Health and Safety 3 Code, to read: 4 11834.11. (a) For any licensing application submitted on or 5 after January 1, 2018, 2019, the department shall deny an 6 application for a new facility license, if the proposed location is 7 in proximity to an existing facility that would result in 8 overconcentration in an area zoned for residential that would result 9 irt overeoneentfation. use. 10 (b) As used in this section, "overconcentration" means that if a 11 new license is issued, two or more alcoholism or drug abuse 12 recovery or treatment facilities will be separated by a distance of 13 300 feet or less, as measured from the nearest property line on 14 which an existing facility is located to the nearest property line of 15 the proposed facility in an area zoned residential. 16 (c) (1) Legal nonconformingfacilities may continue to operate 17 subject to the terms and conditions of their existing licenses. No 18 expansion or intensification of legal nonconforming facilities shall 19 be allowed unless the facility conforms with the requirements of 20 this section. 21 (2) For the purposes of this section, a "legal nonconforming 22 facility " is a licensed facility that is operating in compliance with 23 all local, state, and federal laws on December 1, 2018, but that is 24 located within 300 feet or less of another licensed facility operating 25 in compliance with local, state, and federal laws on December 1, 26 2018, as measured from the nearest property lines on which the 27 existing facilities are located, as long as they are in continuous 28 operation. 29 (, e) 30 (d) At least 45 days prior to approving any application for a 31 new facility, the department or county licensing agency shallitotify 32 itt writitig the platmitig agettey of the eitr, if the faeility is to be 33 loeated in the eitr, or the platming ageney of the eottnty, if the 34 , ofthe proposed 35 loeatiott of the faeility.-post on its Internet Web site the address 36 of the proposed new facility in a list organized by city or 37 unincorporated county area in which permit applications are made. 38 Within five days of submitting its application, a license applicant 39 shall notify in writing the city or unincorporated area's planning 40 department in the jurisdiction where the proposed facility would 98 C-4 — 5 — SB 786 1 be located of the license application and provide the applicable 2 planning department a copy of the license application. 3 f4� 4 (e) Any city or county may request denial of the license applied 5 for on the basis of an overconcentration of facilities. 6 SEC. 4. Section 11834.31 of the Health and Safety Code is 7 amended to read: 8 11834.31. If a facility is alleged to be in violation of Section 9 11834.30, the department shall conduct a site visit to investigate 10 the allegation. If the department's employee or agent finds evidence 11 that the facility is providing alcoholism or drug abuse recovery, 12 treatment, or detoxification services without a license, the employee 13 or agent shall take the following actions: 14 (a) Submit the findings of the investigation to the department. 15 (b) Upon departmental authorization, issue a written notice to 16 the facility stating that the facility is operating in violation of 17 Section 11834.30. The notice shall include all of the following: 18 (1) The date by which the facility shall cease providing services. 19 (2) Notice that the department will assess against the facility a 20 civil penalty of two thousand dollars 21 ($2,000) per day for every day the facility continues to provide 22 services beyond the date specified in the notice. 23 (3) Notice that the case will be referred for civil proceedings 24 pursuant to Section 11834.32 in the event the facility continues to 25 provide services beyond the date specified in the notice. 26 (c) Inform the facility of the licensing requirements of this 27 chapter. 28 SEC. 5. Section 11834.34 of the Health and Safety Code is 29 amended to read: 30 11834.34. (a) In addition to the penalties of suspension or 31 revocation of a license issued under this chapter, the department 32 may also levy a civil penalty for violation of this chapter or the 33 regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter. 34 (1) The amount of the civil penalty shall not be less than 35 one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more 36 than fifteen thousand dollars ($15, 000) per day 37 for each violation, except where the nature or seriousness of the 38 violation or the frequency of the violation warrants a higher penalty 39 or an immediate civil penalty assessment, or both, as determined 40 by the department. Exeept for penalties assessed pttrsttant to 98 C-5 SB 786 I Seetien 11834.3 1 , ifl In no event shall a civil penalty assessment 2 exceedotte htittdfed fifty dollars fifteen thousand dollars 3 ($15,000) per day. 4 (2) Any licensee that is cited for repeating the same violation 5 within 24 months of the first violation is subject to an immediate 6 civil penalty of one hundred fifty dollars ($150) and fiffy dollars 7 {538) thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) and one thousand 8 dollars ($1,000) for each day the violation continues until the 9 deficiency is corrected. 10 (3) Any licensee that has been assessed a civil penalty pursuant 11 to paragraph (2) that repeats the same violation within 24 months 12 of the violation subject to paragraph (2) is subject to an immediate 13 civil penalty of two thousand 14 dollars ($2, 000) for each day the violation continues until the 15 deficiency is corrected. 16 (b) Prior to the assessment of any civil penalty, the department 17 shall provide the licensee with notice requiring the licensee to 18 correct the deficiency within the period of time specified in the 19 notice. 20 SEC. 2. 21 SEC. 6. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that 22 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to 23 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made 24 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 25 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. 31 98 C-6