Senate committee hears bill to let counties inspect unlicensed sober-living homes after DHCS misses deadlines

The California Senate Health Committee heard testimony on SB 35, a bill that would impose investigation timelines on the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) for allegations that sober‑living homes are providing unauthorized treatment and would allow counties or local behavioral health agencies to conduct site visits if DHCS fails to meet those deadlines.

Proponents said the bill responds to a statewide enforcement gap. “Residential recovery housing provides a range of benefits to some of California’s most vulnerable residents and it is critical that their needs are prioritized over profits,” Valerie Mesquan, mayor of Santa Ana, told the committee. She said a recent state audit found DHCS did not consistently investigate claims of unlicensed facilities and that local communities have experienced overcrowding, crime and other harms when operators allegedly skirt licensing requirements.

Testimony at the hearing also included individuals who described harms they said they experienced inside unlicensed or loosely regulated programs. Sequoia Thiessen, who identified as a former resident of treatment programs, described alleged patient brokering, coercion and inadequate living conditions. “During my time in treatment, I witnessed immeasurable exploitation of myself and others,” Thiessen said. Both witnesses urged the committee to pass SB 35 to create clearer enforcement remedies and follow‑up site visits by DHCS or authorized local entities.

Sponsors and several city officials, including representatives of the League of California Cities, said the measure would implement audit recommendations by setting firm timelines for DHCS to investigate complaints and, where the department does not act within those timelines, authorize trained local behavioral health staff to assist or conduct site visits. Committee members pressed drafters on safeguards to avoid untrained local actors entering private homes and on balancing enforcement with the need to avoid displacing people who need housing and care.

Committee leaders said they were accepting committee amendments to align timelines with similar measures and to limit which local entities may conduct follow‑up site visits so that the inspections are performed by behavioral‑health‑trained staff rather than general law enforcement or municipal attorneys. Because the committee lacked a quorum the author asked members to hold further action until a roll call vote could be taken.

SB 35 remains under committee consideration. The author told the panel staff and members they would continue consultations about the scope of local authority and the department’s capacity before the bill returns for a formal vote.

The hearing record contains personal accounts and city statements that proponents say show why timelier enforcement and clearer local backstops are needed. Opponents did not present on the record other than requests for technical clarifications about training and scope of local inspections.