BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 655
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
655 (Mitchell)
As Amended August 17, 2015
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 22-13
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Housing |5-2 |Chau, Burke, Chiu, |Steinorth, Beth |
| | |Lopez, Mullin |Gaines |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |11-5 |Gomez, Bloom, Bonta, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Calderon, Eggman, |Gallagher, Jones, |
| | | |Wagner |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Adds to the list of substandard housing conditions
SB 655
Page 2
visible mold growth, as specified. Specifically, this bill:
1)Adds to the list of substandard housing conditions visible
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
dilapidation or if the tenant is in violation of specified
obligations to maintain the premises.
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.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)No new costs to the Department of Housing and Community
Development.
2)Non-reimbursable mandated costs related to increased
enforcement activity for substandard housing conditions.
Local enforcement costs are not reimbursable and can be offset
by local agencies' ability to charge fees.
SB 655
Page 3
COMMENTS:
Background: Existing law, the State Housing Law, lists numerous
conditions that require a building to be declared substandard,
if the building contains dwelling units and the presence of the
condition is a danger to the life, limb, health, property,
safety, or welfare of occupants or the public. Inadequate
sanitation is one of those conditions, which the law specifies
includes 15 specified conditions, including dampness of
habitable rooms and a lack or improper operation of required
ventilation equipment. Each local jurisdiction's code
enforcement department is generally responsible for inspecting
buildings and determining whether a building is substandard.
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.
This bill is intended to provide local enforcement agencies the
explicit authority to address mold complaints and eliminate
unhealthy housing conditions related to the presence of mold.
Purpose of this 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
SB 655
Page 4
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 [Section] 17920.3."
Statement from the California Department of Public Health: In
2001, the Toxic Mold Protection Act [SB 732 (Ortiz), Chapter
584, Statutes of 2001] 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 noted that consensus does not justify a
differentiation of some molds as toxic molds, but concluded that
the presence of water dampness, visible mold, or mold odor in
schools, workplaces, residences and other environments is
unhealthy.
Other local legislation: The City and County of San Francisco
enforce mold issues as substandard conditions constituting a
nuisance (San Francisco Housing Code Sections 401, 1001).
Arguments in support: Supporters of this bill contend that mold
is a common complaint of California tenants. The California
Association of Code Enforcement Officers, a co-sponsor of this
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
SB 655
Page 5
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 this
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. They contend 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 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.
Analysis Prepared by:
Rebecca Rabovsky / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085
FN:
0001458
SB 655
Page 6