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