Two Cal Cities recovery housing bills await Governor’s decision

Cal Cities’ “political heft” pushed the reform forward

By Caroline Grinder, legislative advocate (community services)

Two recovery housing bills sponsored by Cal Cities, AB 492 (Valencia) and AB 424 (Davies), are on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk. Cal Cities is urging the Governor to sign both measures, which would strengthen oversight of the state’s addiction treatment system and give cities additional tools to protect their residents.

AB 492 and AB 424 are part of a four-bill, sponsored legislative package introduced in response to an audit of the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). The audit revealed that DHCS routinely failed to investigate complaints, conduct timely site visits, or shut down illegal operations, leaving patients and communities at risk.

“The political heft of the League of California Cities has helped push the reform agenda forward this session,” said columnist Teri Sforza, writing for the Orange County Register. “It has thrown its weight behind four bills, two of which are progressing toward the finish line.”

What would these bills do?

AB 424 would require DHCS to notify individuals when their complaint has been received, when the investigation concludes, and the outcome of the investigation. Currently, complainants do not receive updates and must file a public records request just to learn the outcome of their complaint – a process that can take over a year. By improving communication, AB 424 would help cities stay informed and support a more transparent oversight process.

“AB 424 is a critical step towards fixing California’s substance use disorder treatment system,” said Asm. Laurie Davies at a Cal Cities press conference earlier this year. “Bad treatment experiences should be investigated and corrected quickly. The public shouldn’t be kept in the dark as to whether or not corrective actions are being taken or if the complaint was received.”

AB 492 would require DHCS to notify a city if the department approves a new license in its jurisdiction. Currently, municipalities often learn of facilities after a problem arises, making it difficult to integrate programs effectively into communities.

What about the other recovery housing bills?

The Assembly Appropriations Committee held the two other measures, SB 35 (Umberg) and SB 329 (Blakespear), due to high cost estimates. SB 35 would have established strict timelines for investigations into unlicensed sober living homes, allowed counties to partner with DHCS on site visits more quickly, and required follow-up visits. SB 329 would have required DHCS to meet specific timelines when investigating complaints against licensed facilities.

Although these measures stalled, Cal Cities will continue pressing for reforms that hold providers accountable and protect residents.

“We’re disappointed that commonsense legislation to protect residents and hold providers accountable once again failed to advance,” said Cal Cities Executive Director and CEO Carolyn Coleman. “Cal Cities has been at the forefront of this fight for more than a decade, and we remain committed to securing comprehensive reforms that strengthen state oversight of recovery housing facilities.”

What’s next?

This marks the second consecutive year that sponsored recovery housing bills authored by Asm. Valencia and Davies have reached the Governor’s desk. After years of legislative inaction, this sustained progress represents the most movement on the issue in over a decade. With both bills now on the Governor’s desk, Cal Cities is focused on ensuring these reforms become law — and building momentum for the next legislative session.