BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 655
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 15, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ed Chau, Chair
SB
655 (Mitchell) - As Amended July 7, 2015
SENATE VOTE: 22-13
SUBJECT: Housing standards: mold.
SUMMARY: Adds to the list of substandard housing conditions
visible or otherwise demonstrable mold growth, and specified.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Adds to the list of substandard housing conditions visible or
otherwise demonstrable mold growth, as determined by a health
officer or a code enforcement officer, excluding the presence
of mold that is minor and found on surfaces that can
accumulate moisture as part of their properly functioning and
intended use.
2)Defines mold as microscopic organisms or fungi that can grow
in damp conditions in the interior of a building.
3)Provides that an obligation shall not arise under Civil Code
Section 1941 or 1942 to repair a dilapidation relating to the
presence of mold until the lessor has notice of the
SB 655
Page 2
dilapidation.
4)Provides that a landlord may enter a dwelling unit to repair a
dilapidation relating to the presence of mold provided the
landlord complies with existing law related to entry of a
tenant's dwelling unit.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Lists various conditions that, if they exist in a building
containing dwelling units to an extent that there is a danger
to the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the
public or the occupants of the building, require that the
building be declared substandard (Health and Safety Code
Section 17920.3).
2)Includes inadequate sanitation on the list of conditions that
can mean a building is substandard, and specifies that
inadequate sanitation includes, but is not limited to, the
following:
a) Lack of, or improper water closet, lavatory, or bathtub
or shower in a dwelling unit;
b) Lack of, or improper water closets, lavatories, and
bathtubs or showers per number of guests in a hotel;
c) Lack of, or improper kitchen sink;
SB 655
Page 3
d) Lack of hot and cold running water to plumbing fixtures
in a hotel;
e) Lack of hot and cold running water to plumbing fixtures
in a dwelling unit;
f) Lack of adequate heating;
g) Lack of, or improper operation of required ventilating
equipment;
h) Lack of minimum amounts of natural light and ventilation
required by the code;
i) Room and space dimensions less than required by the
code;
j) Lack of required electrical lighting;
aa) Dampness of habitable rooms;
bb) 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
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;
cc) General dilapidation or improper maintenance;
dd) Lack of connection to required sewage disposal system;
ee) Lack 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 can be determined by a code enforcement officer.
(Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3)
SB 655
Page 4
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, this bill does not appropriate money or cause any
significant reduction in revenues.
COMMENTS:
Background: Current law lists various conditions that, if
present in a residential building to an extent that there is a
danger to public health and safety, require that the building be
declared substandard. Inadequate sanitation is one of those
conditions, which the law specifies includes, but is not limited
to, 15 different conditions. Each jurisdiction's code
enforcement department is typically responsible for inspecting
buildings and determining whether a building is substandard.
Health officers are responsible for inspecting for infestations
of insects, vermin, or rodents, and lack of adequate garbage and
rubbish storage or removal facilities, although if an agreement
does not exist with an agency that has a health officer, a code
enforcement officer may determine these conditions. Generally,
if a code enforcement officer determines there is a code
violation, the officer 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.
Since mold is not specifically listed as a substandard
condition, jurisdictions across the state treat mold complaints
differently, with some taking no enforcement action whatsoever.
SB 655 would specify that mold is a health and safety concern,
and provides clear authority to code enforcement and other
public officers to issue notices to require landlords and
property owners to abate mold growth. This bill differentiates
between mold growth that is minor and found on surfaces that can
accumulate moisture as part of their properly functioning and
intended use and mold growth that results from other conditions.
SB 655
Page 5
Purpose of the bill: According to the author, "mold is not
explicitly referenced in state code, causing local enforcement
agencies to be uncertain about their authority to address this
common complaint. This uncertainty leads to widely inconsistent
enforcement approaches to mold across the state, ranging from
taking no enforcement action to limiting enforcement to
water-related issues that are identified in the code to, in a
few places, enforcing mold issues as a general nuisance.
"Because of the growing evidence linking mold to adverse health
impacts, state code needs to be updated to provide local
enforcement agencies with clear authority to address mold
complaints. This authority should include the ability to
require both the cleaning or removal of moldy materials and the
remediation of underlying sources of moisture. Current state
code provides local enforcement agencies with the authority to
address moisture issues. SB 655 would add mold as a substandard
condition in Health and Safety Code 17920.3."
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:
SB 655
Page 6
"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 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.
Other local legislation: The City and County of San Francisco
SB 655
Page 7
enforce mold issues as substandard conditions constituting a
nuisance. Specifically, mold and mildew that rise to the level
of a nuisance is defined as "any visible or otherwise
demonstrable growth of microscopic organisms or fungi (mold or
mildew) that feeds on damp conditions in the interior of a
residential building, sufficiently chronic or severe to cause a
health hazard or damage a residential structure or part thereof,
excluding the presence of mold or mildew which is minor in
nature caused by inappropriate housekeeping practices or the
improper use of natural or mechanical ventilation" (San
Francisco Housing Code Sections 401, 1001).
Arguments in support: Supporters of the bill contend that mold
is a common complaint of California tenants. The California
Association of Code Enforcement Officers, a co-sponsor of the
bill, notes that under existing law code enforcements' authority
over mold and moldy materials is "murky at best." The bill's
other co-sponsor, Regional Asthma Management and Prevention
(RAMP), points to the significant health impacts associated with
mold, and notes that a 2007 study estimates that 21% of the
nation's asthma cases are attributable to dampness and mold in
the home. Supporters also cite a 2014 report indicating that
12.2% of Californians experience excessive moisture in their
homes, with renters in low-income communities and communities of
color disproportionately impacted by unwanted dampness in their
homes.
Arguments in opposition: Opponents primarily represent
statewide and regional associations of apartment owners and
homeowners associations. Opponents question the need for the
bill, and contend that existing law relating to substandard
housing and habitability already allows tenants to bring claims
against their landlords when unhealthy living conditions
relating to mold exist. The San Diego County Apartment
Association contends that mold as a substandard condition will
lead to abusive litigation practices, and tenants will have the
right to sue for substandard housing conditions when any mold is
SB 655
Page 8
present, including mold that is not harmful. Opponents also
point to the lack of a consensus within the scientific and
medical communities regarding which molds pose serious health
risks, and 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.
Related legislation:
SB 488 (Hueso, Chapter 89, Statutes of 2013): Permits the
determination of pest infestations and inadequate garbage
storage and removal facilities to be made by a local code
enforcement officer if an agreement for the services of a local
health officer does not exist.
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.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers (co-sponsor)
Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (co-sponsor)
SB 655
Page 9
American Lung Association in California
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network (CPEHN)
Cardno, Inc.
Center for California Homeowner Association Law
City of Emeryville
City of Fremont
East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC) of Berkeley
Esperanza Community Housing Corporation
Healthy Homes Collaborative
Housing California
Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance (KIWA)
San Francisco Asthma Task Force
Society for Allergy Friendly Environmental (SAFE) Gardening
SB 655
Page 10
St. John's Well Child and Family Center
Wilma Chan, District 3 Supervisor, Alameda County Board of
Supervisors
One Individual
Opposition
Apartment Association of Orange County
Apartment Association, California Southern Association
California Apartment Association
California Legislative Action Committee (CLAC)
California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors
(CALPASC)
Community Association Institute (CAI)
East Bay Rental Housing Association
SB 655
Page 11
Nor Cal Rental Property Association
North Valley Property Owners Association
San Diego County Apartment Association
Analysis Prepared by:Rebecca Rabovsky / H. & C.D. / (916)
319-2085