BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 655 Hearing Date: 4/21/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Mitchell |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |4/14/2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Alison Dinmore |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Housing standards: mold.
DIGEST: This bill adds visible or otherwise demonstrable mold
growth, except mold caused by inappropriate housekeeping
practice or improper ventilation, to a list of substandard
housing conditions.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law, known as the State Housing Law, lists various
conditions that, if they exist in a building containing dwelling
units to an extent that there is a danger to health and safety
to the public or occupants of the building, require the building
be declared substandard. This includes:
1. Lack of, or improper water closet, lavatory, or bathtub or
shower in a dwelling unit
2. Lack of, or improper kitchen sink
3. Lack of hot and cold running water to plumbing fixtures in
a dwelling unit.
4. Lack of adequate heating
5. Lack of, or improper operation of required ventilating
equipment
6. Lack of minimum amounts of natural light and ventilation
required by existing law
7. Dampness of habitable rooms
8. Infestation of insects, vermin, or rodents as determined
by a health officer or, if an agreement does not exist with
an agency that has a health officer, the infestation can be
SB 655 (Mitchell) Page 2 of ?
determined by a code enforcement officer upon successful
completion of a course of study in the appropriate subject
matter as determined by the local jurisdiction
9. General dilapidation or improper maintenance
10. Lack of connection of adequate garbage and rubbish storage
and removal facilities, as determined by a health officer
or, if an agreement does not exist with an agency that has a
health officer, the lack of adequate garbage and rubbish
removal facilities that can be determined by a code
enforcement officer
This bill would add to the list of substandard housing
conditions visible or otherwise demonstrable mold growth,
excluding the presence of mold which is caused by inadequate
housekeeping practices or failure to use natural or mechanical
ventilation. This bill defines mold as microscopic organisms or
fungi that can grow in damp conditions in the interior of a
building.
COMMENTS:
1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, indoor mold
growth in homes is one of the most common housing complaints
receieved by tenants' rights groups, legal aid organizations,
and code enforcement agencies across the state. Data on moldy
conditions in housing is scarce, however. Since dampness is
required for mold growth, data regarding dampness in the home
is the closest approximation of the mold problem in
California. A 2014 report for the California Breathing Asthma
Program by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH)
estimated that 12.2% of Californians reported recurring or
continual dampness in their home in the past year.
Additionally, the report found that mold is a significant
problem in California, especially for renters in low-income
communities and communities of color and those with existing
respiratory illnesses such as asthma.
Mold is not explicitly referenced in existing law, causing
local code enforcement agencies to be uncertain about their
authority to require mold remediation. This uncertainty leads
to inconsistent attention to mold complaints in California.
Some jurisdictions take no enforcement action, while others
limit enforcement to the underlying water-related issues
enumerated in statute. Finally, some jurisdictions require
landlords and property owners to remediate mold. This bill
SB 655 (Mitchell) Page 3 of ?
will give local enforcement agencies the explicit authority to
address mold complaints and eliminate unhealthy housing
conditions.
2. Statement from the California Department of Public Health.
In 2001, the Toxic Mold Protection Act (SB 732, Ortiz, Chapter
584) required the CDPH, formerly the Department of Health
Services, to determine the feasibility of setting Permissible
Exposure Limits (PELs) for mold in indoor environments. In
its 2005 report to the legislature, the CDPH concluded that
"sound, science-based PELs for indoor molds cannot be
established at this time."
In 2011, the CDPH released a "Statement on Building Dampness,
Mold, and Health." In that statement, the CDPH stated:
"While PELs remain elusive, mounting scientific evidence on
dampness and mold, much of it published since 2005,
supports an alternative, evidence-based approach to the
assessment of health risks from indoor dampness and mold.
Human health studies have led to a consensus among
scientists and medical experts that the presence in
buildings of (a) visible water damage, (b) damp materials,
(c) visible mold, or (d) mold odor indicates an increased
risk of respiratory disease for occupants. Known health
risks include: the development of asthma, allergies, and
respiratory infections; the triggering of asthma attacks;
and increased wheeze, cough, difficulty breathing, and
other symptoms. Available information suggests that
children are more sensitive to dampness and mold than
adults."
The statement also notes that consensus does not justify a
differentiation of some molds as "toxic molds." The only
evidence that is "related consistently to adverse health
effects are: the presence of current or past water damage,
damp materials, visible mold, and mold odor, not the number or
type of mold spores, nor the presence of other markers of mold
in indoor air or dust."
The CDPH concludes that the presence of water dampness,
visible mold, or mold odor in schools, workplaces, residences
and other environments is unhealthy. The CDPH therefore
recommends addressing water damage, dampness, visible mold,
and mold odor by (a) identifying and correcting the source of
water that may allow microbial growth or contribute to other
SB 655 (Mitchell) Page 4 of ?
problems, (b) the rapid drying or removal of damp materials,
and (c) the cleaning or removal of mold and moldy materials as
rapidly and safely as possible, to protect the health and
well-being of building occupants, especially children.
3. Demystifying fuzzy local code enforcement authority. When
renters experience mold growth, they often contact their local
code enforcement or other public entity to perform an
inspection. Code enforcement and public officers refer to the
conditions in existing law to determine whether a landlord or
property owner is required to make an improvement or repair.
Generally, if a code enforcement officer determines there is a
code violation, they will issue the landlord or property
owner a "notice to repair," which provides the landlord or
property owner a reasonable amount of time to make the
correction. Mold is not presently enumerated in the Health
and Safety Code, and jurisdictions across the state treat
complaints about mold differently. Some local code
enforcement entities will issue notices for water intrusion
(i.e., faulty windows or doors, roof and sink leaks, dampness
of rooms) as the underlying condition causing the mold because
those conditions are listed in the code. Others, however,
will also require landlords and property owners to clean and
remove mold.
This bill provides clear guidance to local code enforcement
and other public officers that mold growth is a health and
safety concern and provides them with the authority to issue
notices to require landlords and property owners to abate mold
growth. Additionally, this bill differentiates between mold
growth that can be avoided when a resident utilizes adequate
housekeeping practices or ventilation and mold growth that
results from other conditions.
4. Opposition. Opponents argue that this bill does not present
a workable standard for code enforcement or for property
owners who want to stay in compliance with the law. They also
argue that the current definition of substandard housing
already includes dampness of habitable rooms, which is the
conduit for mold growth. Given that conditions related to
general dilapidation, improper maintenance, and anything
injurious to health already exists in law, the inclusion of
mold in the code is unnecessary and unreasonable.
RELATED LEGISLATION:
SB 655 (Mitchell) Page 5 of ?
SB 732 (Ortiz, Chapter 584, Statutes of 2001) - Required the
Department of Health Services, currently the CDPH, to consider
the feasibility of adopting permissible exposure limits to mold
in indoor environments and to adopt such standards if feasible.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.: Yes Local: Yes
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
April 15, 2015.)
SUPPORT:
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers (cosponsor)
Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (cosponsor)
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
Inquilinos Unidos/United Tenants
Pacoima Beautiful
San Francisco Asthma Task Force
Society for Allergy Friendly Environmental Gardening
OPPOSITION:
Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
Apartment Association, California Southern Cities
Apartment Association of Orange County
California Apartment Association
California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors
Easty Bay Rental Housing Association
Nor Cal Rental Property Association
North Valley Property Owners Association
San Diego County Apartment Association
Santa Barbara Rental Property Association
-- END --