Residential care facilities for the elderly: maximum number of residents.
If passed, AB 1993 would alter state laws governing the operation of residential care facilities for the elderly by formally recognizing larger facilities while protecting them from being categorized as commercial enterprises. It mandates that these facilities must be treated similarly to family homes under local zoning ordinances, exempting them from certain business-related regulations that typically apply to larger care institutions. This could pave the way for more facilities to operate with fewer bureaucratic hurdles, thus enhancing accessibility for elderly care in the community.
Assembly Bill 1993, introduced by Assembly Member Kalra, proposes an amendment to Section 1569.85 of the Health and Safety Code concerning residential care facilities for the elderly. The primary focus of the bill is to increase the maximum number of residents allowed in such facilities from 6 to 10 while ensuring that these facilities are classified as a 'residential use of property.' This classification is significant as it aligns the treatment of these facilities with that of family dwellings under existing laws and ordinances, affecting how local governments can regulate them.
The sentiment surrounding AB 1993 appears to be supportive from those advocating for increased capacity in elderly care facilities, as it addresses the growing demand for such services. Proponents argue that increasing the resident limit will better accommodate the aging population of California. However, there remains a cautious perspective regarding potential overcrowding and the quality of care in facilities that operate beyond optimal thresholds. Advocates for elderly rights are particularly interested in how this regulation will ensure that the quality of care does not diminish as capacities increase.
There are notable concerns regarding local governments' ability to enforce specific zoning regulations that may affect the operation of larger residential care facilities. The amendment raises issues about balancing local control and state law, particularly how it intersects with existing ordinances concerning health, safety, and community standards. While the bill aims to streamline operations for care providers, some local leaders may contest the loss of regulatory control over these facilities, fearing that it might lead to insufficient oversight and compromise community standards.