Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
AB 492 would require DHCS to notify cities when new licensed recovery facilities open, sponsor says
Summary
AB 492 would require the Department of Health Care Services to notify local governments when it issues a license for an alcohol, drug‑abuse recovery or treatment facility, including the licensee’s name and mailing address.
Assemblymember Valencia presented AB 492 to require the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to notify local governments when DHCS issues a new license for an alcohol or drug treatment facility. The written notice would include the licensee’s name, mailing address and facility name, the author said.
Caroline Grinder, legislative advocate for the League of California Cities and lead sponsor, said cities often learn about new treatment facilities only after residents raise concerns. She argued the bill would improve local coordination, allow cities to connect the facility with local services and address community questions more proactively. Grinder said similar notification requirements exist for other state licensing programs, such as liquor and cannabis.
Several city and county representatives — including Encinitas, Orange County Board of Supervisors, Glendale and San Marcos — provided Me‑Too support. Opponents were limited in the hearing; the committee chair explained she issued a non‑recommendation citing concern the bill singled out one licensed facility type and could stigmatize housing for people in recovery. The chair said many licensed activities already generate municipal awareness through local permitting, fire and finance processes. Committee members asked the author whether she would continue to work with the committee on possible amendments; the author said she would.
Committee action: A motion to pass AB 492 and refer it to Appropriations was moved and the committee recorded the item as out with a favorable vote count (transcript recorded the item as coming out with a 6‑0 vote during committee roll calls). The author agreed to continue working with committee staff on any technical changes.
Context and next steps: Supporters said notice fosters coordination for behavioral‑health housing and services; opponents cautioned against singling out treatment facilities and argued existing local processes already surface many facilities. The bill was advanced to Appropriations with the author and committee staff expected to negotiate technical details.
