AB 1783 — H-2A worker housing: state funding: streamlined approval process for agricultural employee housing development.

Summary

(1) Existing federal law governing immigration authorizes the importation of an alien as a nonimmigrant agricultural worker, known as an H-2A worker, if specified requirements are met, including that the employer furnish housing, as provided. Existing state law establishes various housing programs administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development, including the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program, pursuant to which the department provides, subject to availability of funds, grants and loans to specified entities for the construction or rehabilitation of housing for agricultural employees and their families or for the acquisition of manufactured housing, as provided. Existing state law, the California Community Services Block Grant Program, requires the Department of Community Services and Development to administer the federal Community Services Block Grant funds to provide financial assistance for activities designed to have a measurable and potentially major impact on causes of poverty in a community or areas of a community where poverty is a particularly acute problem. Existing law authorizes this funding to assist programs that, among other things, meet the needs of migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their families, such as improved housing and sanitation, including the provision and maintenance of emergency and temporary housing and sanitation facilities. This bill would prohibit the provision of state funding, as defined, for the purposes of funding predevelopment of, developing, or operating any housing used to comply with the federal law requirement to furnish housing to H-2A workers and would require an employer, as defined, or other recipient of state funding who utilizes state funding for these purposes to reimburse the state or state agency that provided the funding in an amount equal to the amount of that state funding expended for those purposes. The bill would exempt from these provisions any contract or other enforceable agreement pursuant to which the state or a state agency provides funding that was entered into prior to January 1, 2020. The bill would also make various conforming changes to other laws. (2) The Planning and Zoning Law requires that the housing element of a city's or county's general plan include, among other things, that the housing element of a city's or county's general plan include, among other things, an analysis of any special housing needs, including the needs of, among others, farmworkers. Existing law exempts certain housing developments from conditional use permits and requires those developments to be subject to certain streamlined approval processes, as specified. Existing law, the Employee Housing Act, requires a person operating employee housing, as defined, to obtain a permit to operate that housing from the agency that enforces the act, which may either be the Department of Housing and Community Development or a city, county, or city and county that assumes responsibility for enforcing the act. The act generally reserves local use zone requirements to local governments except as provided, including requiring a specified streamlined approval process for certain improvements related to employee housing for agricultural employees. A violation of the act is a misdemeanor. This bill would provide that a tenant residing in agricultural employee housing, as defined, has all rights applicable to a person residing in employee housing under existing provisions, including the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and specified provisions relating to tenant rights. The bill would require the department to establish and administer, as specified, an application and review process for certifying that a person is an affordable housing organization qualified to operate specified agricultural employee housing. The bill also would require the department to establish and maintain a roster of all certified affordable housing organizations. The bill would, as an exception to the provision reserving local use zone requirements to local governments, authorize a development proponent to submit an application for an agricultural employee housing development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as specified, and that is not subject to a conditional use permit if certain requirements are met, including that the agricultural employee housing will be maintained and operated by a qualified affordable housing organization that has been certified by the department, as specified. The bill would require a local government to notify the development proponent in writing if the local government determines that the development does not meet those requirements by a specified time; otherwise, the development would be deemed to comply with the requirement that the development not be located on certain types of hazardous or conservation sites, as specified. The bill would authorize a specified local government entity to conduct a development review or public oversight of the development, as provided. The bill would provide that agricultural employee housing approved pursuant to the provision providing for a streamlined, ministerial approval process is not subject to the density limitations otherwise required to be considered an agricultural land use and exempt from local approval, taxes, and fees, as described above. The bill would also require, as a condition of that approval process, the qualified affordable housing organization and the landowner to obligate themselves and any successors in interest to maintain the affordability of the proposed agricultural employee housing, as specified, for not less than 35 years. If that organization does not continue to operate and maintain the housing for the time period agreed to satisfy that condition, the bill would require the landowner who obtained approval of the housing to select an alternative certified person within 90 days, and would subject the landowner to an unspecified administrative penalty if the landowner fails to do so. By increasing the duties of local officials with respect to the Employee Housing Act, and by expanding the scope of an existing crime with respect to violations of the Employee Housing Act, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make related findings and declarations, and would include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The bill would make various conforming changes. The Employee Housing Act deems employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household to be an agricultural land use for purposes of specified provisions of the act. The act provides that, for the purpose of all local ordinances, employee housing is prohibited from being deemed a use that implies that the employee housing is an activity that differs in any other way from an agricultural use. The act prohibits a local government from requiring a conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance for the employee housing, or from subjecting the employee housing to certain taxes or fees that are not required for other agricultural activities in that zone. The act, for the purposes of any contract, deed, or covenant for the transfer of real property, requires employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household to be considered an agricultural use of property. This bill, for purposes of the above-described provisions of the act, would deem employee housing that is approved pursuant to the above-described provisions of the bill providing for a streamlined, ministerial approval process, an agricultural land use. The bill would modify the prohibition on a local government requiring a zoning clearance for the employee housing to, instead, prohibit a local government from requiring a zoning clearance that is discretionary for the employee housing. The bill, as an exception to the requirement that employee housing be deemed an agricultural use for purposes of all local ordinances, would authorize a local government to subject an agricultural employee housing development, approved pursuant to the above-described provisions of the bill providing for a streamlined, ministerial approval process, to specified written objective development standards. The bill, as an exemption to the prohibition on a local government subjecting employee housing to certain taxes or fees that are not required for other agricultural activity in that zone, would authorize a local government to impose fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to an agricultural employee housing development. The bill, for the purposes of any contract, deed, or covenant for the transfer of real property, would require employee housing, approved pursuant to the provisions of the bill providing for a streamlined, ministerial approval process, to be considered an agricultural use of property. The bill would provide that if any owner, who invokes the above-described provisions or the provisions of the bill providing for a streamlined, ministerial approval process, fails to maintain a permit to operate throughout the first 10 consecutive years following the issuance of the original certificate of occupancy, the public agency that has waived any taxes, fees, assessments, or charges, as specified, is authorized to recover certain amounts of those taxes, fees, assessments, or charges. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. Because the approval process established by the bill is streamlined and ministerial in nature, the approval of projects subject to this process are exempt from CEQA. The bill, additionally, would prohibit the approval of a development and the application of development standards pursuant to specified provisions of the bill from being deemed a discretionary act within the meaning of CEQA. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.

Bill Text

• Chaptered 10/13/19 - Chaptered Current pdf October 13, 2019
• Enrolled 09/17/19 - Enrolled pdf September 17, 2019
• Amended 09/06/19 - Amended Senate pdf September 06, 2019
• Amended 08/30/19 - Amended Senate pdf August 30, 2019
• Amended 08/13/19 - Amended Senate pdf August 13, 2019
• Amended 05/17/19 - Amended Assembly pdf May 17, 2019
• Amended 04/29/19 - Amended Assembly pdf April 29, 2019
• Amended 04/04/19 - Amended Assembly pdf April 04, 2019
• Amended 03/28/19 - Amended Assembly pdf March 28, 2019
• Amended 03/19/19 - Amended Assembly pdf March 19, 2019
• Introduced 02/22/19 - Introduced pdf February 22, 2019
• AB1783 View text html

Action History

1. October 13, 2019

   Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 866, Statutes of 2019.

2. October 13, 2019

   Approved by the Governor.

3. September 25, 2019

   Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m.

4. September 11, 2019

   Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 57. Noes 16. Page 3427.).

5. September 11, 2019

   Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (Page 3370.)

6. September 10, 2019

   In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after September 12 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

7. September 10, 2019

   Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 27. Noes 10. Page 2761.).

8. September 09, 2019

   Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

9. September 06, 2019

   Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

10. September 03, 2019

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

11. August 30, 2019

    Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

12. August 30, 2019

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 30).

13. August 26, 2019

    In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.

14. August 19, 2019

    In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

15. August 13, 2019

    Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

16. August 12, 2019

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (July 10).

17. July 03, 2019

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on GOV. & F. (Ayes 7. Noes 3.) (July 2). Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

18. June 12, 2019

    Referred to Coms. on HOUSING and GOV. & F.

19. May 24, 2019

    In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

20. May 24, 2019

    Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 59. Noes 11. Page 1971.)

21. May 20, 2019

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

22. May 17, 2019

    Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

23. May 16, 2019

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 14. Noes 3.) (May 16).

24. May 08, 2019

    In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

25. April 30, 2019

    Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

26. April 29, 2019

    Read second time and amended.

27. April 25, 2019

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (April 24).

28. April 22, 2019

    Coauthors revised.

29. April 08, 2019

    Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

30. April 04, 2019

    Read second time and amended.

31. April 03, 2019

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (April 3).

32. April 01, 2019

    Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

33. March 28, 2019

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended.

34. March 26, 2019

    In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

35. March 20, 2019

    Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

36. March 19, 2019

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended.

37. March 18, 2019

    Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and L. GOV.

38. February 25, 2019

    Read first time.

39. February 23, 2019

    From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.

40. February 22, 2019

    Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

• Robert Rivas · Primary
• Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry · Cosponsor
• Bloom · Cosponsor
• Chiu · Cosponsor
• Beall · Cosponsor
• Anna M. Caballero · Cosponsor
• Maria Elena Durazo · Cosponsor
• Scott D. Wiener · Cosponsor
• Jeff Gonzalez · Cosponsor
• Robert Garcia · Cosponsor

Votes

Subjects