BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1545
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 5, 2000
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
SB 1545 (Costa) - As Amended: June 29, 2000
SENATE VOTE : 38-0
SUBJECT : Employee housing
SUMMARY : Imposes specified planning and zoning requirements
with regard to employee housing on local jurisdictions.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Establishes processing requirements that give local building
or health departments 30 calendar days to approve or deny a
complete permit application to rehabilitate employee housing.
2)Establishes processing requirements that require the permit
time to be shorter if required by the Permit Streamlining Act.
3)Establishes processing requirements that require a city or
county to deny a permit request on procedural grounds within
10 days.
4)Requires permit denials issued on procedural grounds to
itemize the procedural defects.
5)Allows denial of an application or permit on substantive
grounds if the denial includes an itemization of all
substantive defects.
6)Approves permit requests automatically if a local building or
health department has not approved or denied the application
or permit request after 30 calendar days if the complete plans
for the project are certified by a licensed architect or
engineer to be consistent with all health and safety
requirements.
7)Allows the applicant to begin rehabilitation of employee
housing if the work is consistent with the application or
permit that is issued.
8)Requires state or local agencies to accept the ensuing
construction or rehabilitation project as if the local
SB 1545
Page 2
building or health department had approved it.
9)Eliminates the requirement that a complainant wait five days
for an enforcement agency to bring civil action in cases where
an administrative complaint has been filed against the
operator of employee housing.
10)Reduces the number of days that a local enforcement agency
has to file civil action against the operator of employee
housing for violation of the Employee Housing Act before the
complainant can file a civil action from 34 to 30 days.
EXISTING LAW
1)Provides the Employee Housing Act that governs all aspects of
the construction, operation, and regulation of a variety of
types of employee housing including labor camps (Health and
Safety Code Section 17000 et seq.).
2)Defines employee housing according to a variety of factors
(Health and Safety Code Section 17008 et seq.).
3)States that employee housing means the same as "labor camp"
(Health and Safety Code Section 17008 (d)).
4)Reserves local land use zone requirements, local fire zones,
property line, source of water supply and method of sewage
disposal requirements to local jurisdictions with some
exceptions (Health and Safety Code Section 17021).
5)Provides the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section
65920 et seq.).
6)Requires each state and local agency to compile one or more
lists that specify in detail the information that will be
required from any applicant for a development project
(Government Code Section 65940)
7)Requires state and local agencies to indicate the criteria
that the agency will apply in order to determine the
completeness of any application for a development project
(Government Code Section 65941).
8)Deems an application for a development project complete if the
agency does not make a written determination within 30
SB 1545
Page 3
calendar days of receiving the application (Government Code
Section 65943(a)).
9)Requires an agency to determine an application is incomplete
within 30 calendar days after receiving it and to specify
which parts are incomplete (Government Code Section 65943
(b)).
10)Prescribes time periods for local agencies to approve or
disapprove development permits. The time periods vary
according to a variety of conditions such as certification of
environmental impact reports and determination of a project's
exemption from California Environmental Quality Act
(Government Code Section 65950).
11)Permits a resident of employee housing to submit an
administrative complaint with the local enforcement agency
against the owner/operator of employee housing for violation
of the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code Section
17055).
12)Provides that if a local enforcement agency does not file a
civil action against the owner/operator of employee housing
within 34 days after receiving the complaint, or within 34
days after the administrative complaint is denied, and the
agency determines that the conditions alleged in the complaint
continue to exist, the complainant may file a civil action.
13)Provides that if the court finds that residents of the
employee housing were in imminent peril due to violations of
the serious Employee Housing Act, the complainant does not
have to wait five days for the local enforcement agency to
bring civil action and may do so after five days and be
entitled to all rights and remedies.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
Since the Labor Camp Act of 1913, California has enforced
minimum housing standards to protect the health and safety of
agricultural workers. Enforcement of labor camp codes and
standards remains largely in local hands, with 13 counties
having assumed responsibility for inspection of labor camps. In
recent years, labor contractors operate the camps rather than
SB 1545
Page 4
growers. Many growers have gotten out of the housing business
altogether. In 1955, growers registered more than 9,000 labor
camps in the state, today, it is estimated that there are 800
camps housing approximately 20,000 workers.
It is estimated that there are between 650,000 and 850,000
farmworkers and their families in California. It is also
estimated that more than 60% of farmworkers working in
California have a spouse and children living with them. The
total farmworker population in California (workers and
non-working family members) is nearly 1.3 million.
According to the Statewide Housing Plan, the housing that
farmworkers find in the private market tends to be of poor
quality, too small, or both. The plan asserts that farmworker
housing problems result from low incomes, large household sizes
relative to available housing stock, and their mobility between
the state's agricultural regions during peak seasons. The
Statewide Housing Plan also finds that agricultural workers tend
to live in rural areas which have the highest proportions of
substandard housing in the state, and are chronically unable to
find adequate housing.
Arguments in support:
The California Housing Law Project (CHLP) has put together a
coalition made up of the following organizations: Agricultural
Council of California, Bank of America, California Catholic
Conference, California Church Impact, California Labor
Federation, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation,
Friends Committee on Legislation, Jericho, Lutheran Office of
Public Policy, Manufactured Housing Institute, Western Center on
Law and Poverty, and the Wine Institute. The CHLP is the
sponsor of SB 1545.
According to the sponsor, the bill makes modest changes to the
Employee Housing Act to help address the problem of substandard
living conditions in labor camps. The bill provides that
permits to construct and upgrade farmworker housing must be
acted upon by local governments within 30 days or are otherwise
deemed approved. The CHLP says that this provision addresses
the issue of localities refusing to act on permits needed to
bring substandard employee housing up to code. The CHLP says
that the housing typically is rented to farmworkers illegally
for years and the city or county ignores its substandard
SB 1545
Page 5
condition and when the operator agrees to obtain a license and
bring the housing up to code, the city or county refuses to act
on the permit. The sponsor believes that in these cases, the
city or county does not want to formally approve the use of the
property as farmworker housing.
The sponsor cites incidents in the cities of Firebaugh and
Coachella as situations in which cities did not want to approve
farmworker housing. The sponsor says that discriminatory code
enforcement has been a problem in the Riverside County area for
the last three years where the county recently settled a
discrimination case with the federal Department of Housing and
Urban Development for $21 million.
In addition to streamlining the permit approval process for
farmworker housing, SB1545 shortens the timeline for prior
notice to local enforcement agencies before a complainant may
pursue civil action for substandard labor camp conditions. CHLP
says that at this time enforcement agencies have no process for
responding to these notices and they have become an unnecessary
impediment to bringing substandard camps up to code.
Arguments in opposition:
The California Building Officials (CALBO) oppose SB 1545. CALBO
states that the bill creates the potential for employee housing
to be built or rehabilitated that does not meet the necessary
health and safety codes, and may endanger the health and safety
of future residents.
CALBO says that tightening the timeframe for approving or
denying permit applications and stipulating additional
requirements the building department must follow will make it
harder for these departments to meet the demands in the
specified timeframe.
CALBO also opposes the provision of the bill that would allow an
application or permit request that is not approved or denied by
the local jurisdiction within the new timeframes described above
to be deemed approved if the complete plans are signed by a
licensed architect or engineer.
The League of California Cities and the California Association
of Counties (CSAC) oppose SB 1545. According to these groups,
this bill overrides local building permit and inspection
SB 1545
Page 6
processes for repairs and construction of employee housing as
well as override a city or county health department's review of
water and waste disposal systems, and replace them with a state
imposed process.
The League says that it has requested specific information from
HCD, the source of the language (not a sponsor of the bill) to
determine the reasons for this provision of the bill. The
League says that it has been difficult to obtain specific
information from the department regarding cities that have
delayed permits for construction or repair of farmworker
housing. According to the League, the only city HCD has
identified for delaying permits to upgrade employee housing has
been the City of Coachella.
The League and CSAC have requested that if HCD has experienced
some problems with a local building or health department
approval process for employee housing, that HCD provide the
local jurisdiction with an opportunity to respond to the problem
at the local level.
Staff Comments:
Substantially amended:
SB 1545 has been substantially amended. The provisions of the
bill that approve permits for rehabilitating employee housing
were not in the bill when it passed the Senate 38-0.
HUD's settlement with Riverside County:
On May 23, 2000 Riverside County agreed to spend $16.1 million
on community projects and low-income housing, and to pay
$787,000 to the 24 families that filed the complaints as part of
a settlement with the federal Department of Housing and Urban
Development. HUD investigated the complaints of farmworker
families that claimed that county inspectors applied
differential inspection and enforcement policies against labor
camps operated by Latinos compared with policies applied against
parks operated by non-Latinos.
HUD's investigators examined the county's records related to
nearly 80 camps operating in the unincorporated areas of
Thermal, Oasis, and Mecca. The camps usually consist of
SB 1545
Page 7
manufactured homes owned by families that rent from the camp
operator. HUD found the county had a pattern of refusing to
approve permit applications for labor camps operated by Latinos.
In some cases, county staff discouraged Latino camp operators
from applying for permit while permit applications from
non-Latino operators of labor camps were approved.
HUD says that substandard health and safety conditions (i.e.,
dangerous electrical wiring and raw sewage leaks) existed in all
the camps, but the county limited its enforcement activities to
camps owned by Latinos and other camps were allowed to continue
to operate despite the presence of similar problems. HUD found
that the county building officials unequally applied their
enforcement authority by evicting people from camps operated by
Latinos while allowing others to continue. According to the
federal government, this was a case of discrimination based upon
the race of the camp operator, not the occupation of the
workers.
Given the facts of the Riverside case, the committee may wish to
consider whether there is a true nexus between this bill and
this case.
Statewide significance:
The sponsor has cited the case in Riverside and has alluded to
problems with the City of Firebaugh refusing to act on permit
applications for farmworker housing. While HCD has provided the
language, it has not supplied the committee with adequate data
to determine if this problem occurs statewide. The committee
may wish to consider whether there is sufficient evidence of a
statewide problem to remove local control over use zone
requirements.
California Environmental Quality Act:
The bill says that in spite of any other provision of law
related to a building permit, grading permit or other approval
from a city or county building department for the rehabilitation
of real property improvements that are or will be employee
housing, or from a city or county health department for the
operation, construction, or repair of a water system or waste
disposal system servicing employee housing, the 30 day
processing requirements shall apply. This provision appears to
circumvent California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) approval
SB 1545
Page 8
requirements with regard to building permits. The committee may
wish to consider whether this provision should be more narrowly
written in order to avoid the appearance of circumventing CEQA.
The Permit Streamlining Act:
Existing law provides the Permit Streamlining Act, which
ensures clear understanding of the specific requirements which
must be met in connection with the approval of development
projects and expedites decisions on such projects. Should the
state further restrict the ability of local permit agencies to
perform their duties?
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Housing Law Project
Jericho
Opposition
California Building Officials
California State Association of Counties
League of California Cities
Analysis Prepared by : Chereesse Thymes / H. & C.D. /
(916)319-2085