That got our attention because we know that such bills routinely fail passage in the Sacramento, so we followed-up. Less than a week after the ink had dried on their article series, the Assembly Appropriations Committee blocked passage of AB 285.

On the morning of May 26, Appropriations Committee chair, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D, Chula Vista) read a list of over 500 bills that would be allowed to reach the Assembly floor for possible passage (some with tweaks by the Committee) or "held in committee."

"Held in a committee" is Sacramento-speak for using the Appropriations Committee to stop a bill from reaching the Assembly (or state Senate) floor. The procedure is useful when the majority party's leadership wants to kill a bill without the embarrassment of a full Assembly or Senate floor debate and recorded vote. The Assembly Appropriations Committee's Chair and its Committee members are approved by the Assembly Dem majority, led by current Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D, NLB-Lakewood-South Gate).

There was no Appropriations Committee public discussion or debate on the 500+ bills. It took roughly 5.6 seconds to announce the death of AB 285, stated simply as "held in committee."

[Scroll down for further.]

AB 285 was fairly modest. As described in an Assembly Health Committee legislative analysis, it would have set up "a voluntary certification process" by which drug and alcohol free residences (recovery residences) could demonstrate a commitment to providing a supportive recovery environment by applying and becoming certified by an organization approved by Sac'to's Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). It would have required DHCS "to adopt application procedures and standards of approval" and permitted "DHCS to conduct periodic reviews of an approved certifying organization to determine whether the organization is in compliance with all applicable laws" and "permitted DHCS to revoke approval of an approved certifying organization." It would have permitted 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" and would have permitted "a city, county, city and county, or local law enforcement agency that suspects that a recovery residence is not operating in compliance with the residence's code of conduct to request DHCS to revoke the certification of that residence."

At the same time, it gave certified facilities an explicit Sac'to green light by providing that "a residence that is certified within 90 days of beginning its operations, [its] activities at that residence shall be deemed a residential use of property and a use of property by a single family."

Sponsor

Sponsor

On March 21, 2017, AB 285 sailed through the Assembly Health Committee with support from (among others) the California Police Chiefs Association, the League of CA Cities and the Association of California Cities -- Orange County. The Assembly Health Committee vote was a unanimous bipartisan "yes" from Assemblymembers Bonta, Burke, Chiu, Gallagher, Limón, Maienschein, McCarty, Nazarian, Patterson, Quirk-Silva, Rodriguez, Santiago, Thurmond, Waldron, and Wood. There were no "no" votes.

The Committee members can now all say that they voted for AB 285 in the Assembly Health Committee; LB-area Assemblyman Patrick O'Donnell (D, Long Beach) can accurately say he wasn't part of any voted actions that killed the bill...but barring some gymnastic legislative action (in Sac'to strange things can happen), AB 285 is basically dead.

AB 285's author, Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez (R., Lake Elsinore), provided this statement to LBREPORT.com: "The Democrats in Sacramento seem to enjoy over-regulating everything about California when it comes to business, yet an industry that is begging for regulation to help save lives is ignored. Pure and simple, this is Democrats putting politics before people and it's shameful."

Sponsor

Sponsor: Computer Repair Long Beach

If her words seem too partisan, consider the recent record:

Two months ago, the Assembly Health Committee voted to block AB 1095 by Assemblyman Matthew Harper (R., Huntington Beach) who sought to address actions by some operators that have aggregated/combined two or more "six packs" (six people living in a residential "sober living" or drug recovery facility), creating an over-concentration and density of such operations in some neighborhoods. AB 1095 proposed to exclude combinations of two or more facilities on the same or different parcels that collectively serve seven or more persons from being considered a residential use of property and (very important) would have allowed local governments to subject such combined/aggregated facilities to conditional use permits, zoning clearances, or prohibitions.

Assemblyman Harper's self-described intention with AB 1095, listed in the Health Committee's legislative analysis, was to help mitigate over concentration, maintain a quiet neighborhood, and give those who are in recovery what they are paying for.

Among the arguments hurled at AB 1095 in committee was the charge that it would violate federal disability and fair housing laws. Assemblyman Harper replied that he believes there is now some movement in Washington to address those issues. He got nowhere with this.

On March 28, 2017, AB 1095 went down in flames on a 4-9 vote (with two Committee Dems as "no votes recorded.") [On the "do pass" motion, the tally was: Yes: Gallagher, Maienschein, Patterson, Waldron; No: Berman, Bonta, Limón, McCarty, Nazarian, Rodriguez, Santiago, Thurmond, Wood; No Votes Recorded: Quirk-Silva, Ridley-Thomas.]

Sponsor

Sponsor

This follows the 2016 demise of the bills below (listed in the Assembly Legislative Analyses for AB 285 and AB 1095)

• AB 2255 (Waldron) of 2016 was a substantially similar bill to AB 285 that would have established state oversight of "drug and alcohol free residences" or sober living homes. AB 2255 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

• AB 2403 (Bloom) of 2016 was a substantially similar bill to AB 1095 that would have established a new definition of "integral facility" for licensure purposes, and a prohibition on licensure approval for facilities whose siting would result in over concentration, as defined. AB 2403 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

• SB 1283 (Bates) of 2016 would have allowed a city, county, or city and county to adopt, by ordinance, health and safety standards and enforcement mechanisms for structured sober living homes, as defined. SB 1283 failed passage in the Senate Health Committee.

And the list of Sac'to bills killed on this general subject matter goes back over a decade.

Further to follow on LBREPORT.com.

Sponsor