BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1545
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1545 (Costa)
As Amended August 18, 2000
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :38-0
HOUSING 9-0 APPROPRIATIONS 21-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Lowenthal, House, Aroner, |Ayes:|Migden, Campbell, |
| |Dutra, Knox, Margett, | |Ackerman, Alquist, |
| |Mazzoni, Torlakson, | |Aroner, Ashburn, Brewer, |
| |Wildman | |Cedillo, Corbett, Davis, |
| | | |Kuehl, Maldonado, Papan, |
| | | |Romero, Runner, Shelley, |
| | | |Thomson, Wesson, Wiggins, |
| | | |Wright, Zettel |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Imposes specific planning and zoning requirements on
local jurisdictions regarding rehabilitation of employee housing
for agricultural employees. Specifically, this bill :
) Establishes processing requirements that give local building
or health departments 60 calendar days to approve or deny a
complete permit application to rehabilitate employee housing
for agricultural employees.
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
30 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)Permits the Department of Housing and Community Development
SB 1545
Page 2
(HCD) to approve an application or permit request if it
determines that the plans are consistent with all health and
safety requirements in the event that the local building or
health department does not approve the application or permit
request within 60 days.
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
improvements as if the local building or health department had
approved them.
9)Requires the applicant to correct any defects that are
identified by a local agency after the improvements have been
made if those defects would have resulted in the local
agency's disapproval of the improvements.
10)States that nothing in this code section shall exempt an
application or request from complying with the California
Environmental Quality Act.
11)Reduces the number of days that a local enforcement agency
has to file a civil action against the operator of employee
housing for violation of the Employee Housing Act and the
State Building Standards Code before the complainant can file
a civil action from 30 to 10 days.
12)Permits a complainant to immediately file civil action
against the operator of employee housing if the complainant
alleges and a court finds that the residents of the employee
housing were in imminent peril due to violations of the
Employee Housing Act.
FISCAL EFFECT :
1)Negligible fiscal impact on local governments. The timeframes
established in this measure may force some jurisdictions to
place priority on reviewing the specified permit applications
and employee housing complaints, but should not require
additional personnel to perform the required duties.
SB 1545
Page 3
2)Minor absorbable cost for HCD to review those plans for
rehabilitation projects that are not acted on by local
agencies within 60 calendar days.
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
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.
The goal of this bill is to make modest changes to the Employee
Housing Act to address the problem of substandard living
conditions in labor camps. According to the California Housing
Law Project (CHLP), this bill's sponsor, employee housing is
rented to farmworkers illegally while cities and counties ignore
the substandard conditions. CHLP believes that when the
operator agrees to obtain a license to bring the housing up to
code, the city or county refuses to act on the permit due to
reluctance to formally approve the use of the property as
farmworker housing.
Analysis Prepared by : Chereesse Thymes / H. & C.D. / (916)
319-2085
FN: 0006164