(1)Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law requires, for those purposes, that any building, including any dwelling unit, be deemed to be a substandard building when a health officer determines that any one of specified listed conditions exists to the extent that it endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or its occupants.

This bill would instead specify that a building be deemed a substandard building when a health officer determines that any of those listed conditions exist to the extent that it endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the occupants of the building, nearby residents, or the public. The bill would clarify that the term substandard building for purposes of the State Housing Law means a residential building or any other building that is deemed to be substandard pursuant to the provisions described above, and would clarify that standard applies regardless of the zoning designation or approved use of the building. The bill would make conforming changes to this effect.

By imposing new inspection requirements on local entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)The State Housing Law provides for relocation assistance to a tenant displaced from a residential rental unit as a result of an order to vacate by a local enforcement agency under specified conditions.

This bill would define the term residential rental unit for those purposes to mean any unit rented for human habitation that is located in a building that is deemed or found to be a substandard building.

(3)The State Housing Law requires the housing or building department or, if there is no building department, the health department, of every city or county or a specified environmental agency to enforce within its jurisdiction all of the State Housing Law, the building standards published in the California Building Standards Code, and other specified rules and regulations. If there is a violation of these provisions or any order or notice that gives a reasonable time to correct that violation, or if a nuisance exists, an enforcement agency is required, after 30 days notice to abate the nuisance, to institute appropriate action or proceeding to prevent, restrain, correct, or abate the violation or nuisance.

This bill would state that violations of municipal codes are included within these provisions. The bill would define the term petition for those purposes to include a complaint. The If an enforcement agency determines that a building is substandard under these provisions based solely on the building being occupied, then the bill would prohibit the enforcement agency from commencing proceedings to abate the violation by repair if specified conditions are met, including that the owner declares under penalty of perjury that the occupant is not a legal tenant, and the owner has filed an unlawful detainer action against the occupant. The bill would prohibit the enforcement agency from proceeding with a demand for repairs if the owner has filed an unlawful detainer action against the occupant and the building poses no risk to nearby residents and the public. tenant. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4)The State Housing Law authorizes the enforcement agency, a tenant, or tenant association or organization to seek, and the court to order, the appointment of a receiver for the substandard building if the owner of a property with substandard conditions fails to comply within a reasonable time period with the terms of a specified order or notice to repair or abate a violation that results in a substantial endangerment of the health and safety of residents or the public. Existing law authorizes the court to retain jurisdiction for up to 18 months after discharging the receiver.

This bill would specify that the appointment of a receiver for the substandard building pursuant to another provision of law does not prevent an enforcement agency from seeking, or the court from appointing or replacing, a receiver pursuant to these provisions. The bill would authorize the court to extend the 18-month time period for retaining jurisdiction to ensure continuing compliance. The bill would provide that an appeal of a court order or judgment issued pursuant to this article shall not stay proceedings upon the order or judgment, absent an extraordinary writ being issued by the appropriate appeals court upon a properly filed petition, as defined.

(5)Under the State Housing Law, a person who obtains an ownership interest in property after the recording of a notice of pendency of an action or proceeding brought pursuant to the State Housing Law with respect to the property or a notice of a violation of that law, and if there is no withdrawal or expungement of the notice, is subject to the order to correct a violation and any other recorded notice of a violation of the State Housing Law.

This bill would specify that a person described above is subject to any costs and fees of any receiver appointed or enforcement agency, as applicable.

Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. That law requires the building department of every city or county to enforce within its jurisdiction the provisions of the State Building Standards Code, the provisions of the State Housing Law, and specified other rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to that law. Existing law defines terms for purposes of this law.

This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to those definition provisions.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 468 (Quirk-Silva) - State building standards

Bill Summary:

AB 468 would expand the types of buildings that can be declared substandard by a local enforcement agency to include any building, including any building used for human habitation, regardless of the zoning or approved use of the building, and make other changes to code enforcement procedures, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown, potentially significant court workload cost pressures to adjudicate additional civil actions and conduct additional proceedings to the extent that more cases are referred to the courts for receiverships, enforcement of abatement orders, and extended court jurisdiction over substandard buildings as a result of this bill. (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund). See Staff Comments.
  
• Unknown local costs to conduct additional inspections and enforcement actions to abate substandard conditions. These costs are not state-reimbursable because local agencies can recover costs from inspection fees. (local funds)

Background:

Existing law requires the building department of each city and county to enforce within its jurisdiction all provisions of the State Building Standards Code and provisions of the State Housing Law pertaining to the construction, alteration, repair, demolition, or arrangement of apartment houses, hotels, or dwellings (buildings officially approved for human habitation). Existing law defines a substandard building as any building or a portion thereof in which there exists specified conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or building occupants, as specified. Examples of substandard conditions include structural hazards, noncompliant electrical wiring and plumbing, faulty weather protection, fire hazards, lead hazards, and inadequate sanitation (including a lack of hot and cold water, lack of appropriate toilets, sinks, and bathing facilities, growth of mold, infestations of insects, rodents, or vermin, and a lack of required heating and lighting).

Local enforcement agencies are authorized to enter and inspect any building whenever necessary to secure compliance with the State Housing Law, building standards, or other rules the agency has the power to enforce. Existing law requires an enforcement agency, upon receipt of a complaint from a tenant, resident, or occupant regarding a potential violation of habitability laws, to inspect the building that may be in violation, document any violations that are discovered, and notify tenants and the building owner of each violation and the actions required to remedy the substandard condition. Existing law authorizes enforcement agencies, tenants, or tenant associations to petition a court to appoint a receiver for a substandard building if the owner fails to comply within a reasonable time with the terms of a notice of violation. The receiver takes complete control of the building, including management and repairs to remedy any violations. Existing law requires a building owner to provide relocation benefits to a tenant who is displaced because of a building violation that endangers the immediate health and safety of the residents.

Existing law specifically authorizes local governments to charge fees for a variety of building, fire, and code enforcement inspections, including for all of the following:

• The abatement of public nuisances.
• The correction of any violation of habitability standards.
• The enforcement of zoning ordinances.
• Inspections and abatement of violations of fire safety standards, the State Housing Law, the building code, and local ordinances and regulations that implement any of the above.

In addition to fees, local agencies can charge fines to property owners and place liens on property to recover costs associated with abating nuisances or remedying code violations, and some local governments also opt to spend local general funds on code enforcement or inspection activities.

Proposed Law:

AB 468 would provide that any building may be declared substandard by local code enforcement agencies under existing habitability laws, regardless of the zoning or approved use of the building, and make other changes to code enforcement procedures. Specifically, this bill would:

• Define a “substandard building” to be a building, including any building used for human habitation, that is declared substandard pursuant to specified habitability provisions.
• Require a building to be deemed and declared a substandard building if specified conditions exist that endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of nearby residents, in addition to building occupants or the public, regardless of zoning designations or approved uses of the building.
• Explicitly require the provision of relocation assistance to a lawful tenant renting a unit for human habitation, regardless of the zoning designation or approved uses of the building, in the event of displacement to abate a substandard condition, as specified.
• Expand existing nuisance abatement requirements to apply when there is an immediate threat to health and safety of nearby residents, as well as building occupants or the public.
• Prohibit an enforcement agency from commencing court proceedings to abate a violation by repair if it determines that a building is substandard based solely on the building being occupied and all of the following conditions are met:
  • The building owner declares under penalty of perjury that the occupant is illegally occupying the building.
  • The owner filed and is diligently prosecuting an unlawful detainer action against the occupant.
  • The enforcement agency determines the building poses no risk to lawful occupants, nearby residents, or the public.
• Provide that the appointment of a receiver for a substandard building as a result of reasons other than the substandard condition does not prevent an enforcement agency from seeking, or the court from appointing or replacing, a receiver based on the substandard nature of the building. In those cases, both statutory provisions allowing appointment of a receiver apply.
• Expand provisions that allow a receiver, with court approval, to place a lien on the property of a substandard building to secure debts and moneys owed to the receiver to also allow the lien to secure moneys owed to the enforcement agency.
• Authorize the court to extend the timeframe for retaining jurisdiction over a building beyond the existing time period of 18 months after a receiver has been discharged to ensure continuing compliance with a court order.
• Specify that an appeal of a court order or judgment issued pursuant to substandard building laws after application by the enforcement agency does not stay the order or judgment, absent an extraordinary writ issued by the appropriate appeals court upon a properly filed petition.
• Require a person who acquires an ownership interest in a property subject to an order to correct a code enforcement violation to be liable for any costs and fees of the receiver or enforcement agency, as applicable.

Related Legislation:

AB 548 (Boerner), which is currently pending on this committee’s Suspense File, would require local enforcement agencies to develop policies and procedures for inspecting multiple units in a building, if an inspector or code enforcement officer has determined that a unit is substandard or in violation of habitability standards, and the defects or violations may affect other units.

AB 1858 (Quirk-Silva), which was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee’s Suspense File last year, was substantially similar to this bill.

SB 1415 (McGuire), which was vetoed by Governor Brown in 2018, would have required local enforcement officials to inspect all structures within their jurisdiction that are in specified factory or warehouse occupancy classifications at least every five years, require inspection reports to be annually reported to the State Fire Marshal and posted online, and make a number of other changes that extend existing tenant protections and notification requirements to buildings used for human habitation that currently apply specifically to structures categorized as residential buildings. The Governor’s veto message stated the following:

Local officials can already decide what and when to inspect. Some jurisdictions, such as the City of Sacramento, have established a program to monitor vacant buildings. The City of Oakland has a program to conduct frequent inspections of commercial buildings. Local governments have a better understanding of the type of local inspections needed in their communities. Let's leave these decisions to the sound discretion of local governments.

Staff Comments:

This bill would expand the applicability of code enforcement actions to include any building that is declared to be substandard as a result of conditions that endanger building occupants, nearby residents, or the public, regardless of zoning designations or approved uses of the building, rather than limiting enforcement of substandard conditions to buildings specifically approved for human habitation. It is unknown how many additional code violations will be referred to the courts for receiverships, or how many actions courts will take to retain jurisdiction over buildings beyond the current 18 month period following a receivership as a result of this bill. It generally costs about $8,000 to operate a courtroom for one eight-hour day. If additional proceedings and cases brought as a result of this bill take an additional 50 hours of court time in the aggregate in a single year, the cost pressures to the courts would surpass the Suspense File threshold. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased staff time and resources may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund to perform existing duties. Numerous trial court operations are funded through the imposition and collection of criminal fines and fees. However, the Legislature has reduced and eliminated criminal fines and fees over the past decade. As a result, the 2023-24 May Revision proposes an ongoing annual allocation of $105.1 million from the GF to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2023-2024 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 468 (Author:Quirk-Silva)

Version: April 11, 2023

Hearing Date: July 6, 2023

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: ID

SUBJECT

State building standards

DIGEST

This bill allows for any building used for human habitation to be declared to be a substandard building if it does not meet standards required by code, regardless of the building’s zoning or approved use.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Housing affordability and availability is a major problem in California. Because of this problem, buildings not otherwise zoned or permitted for occupancy are used for housing nonetheless. To ensure that such buildings still will be upheld to building standards for inhabited buildings so that human beings living in them will not be harmed, this bill makes changes to the law regarding what buildings can be determined by local housing code enforcement agencies to be a substandard building. Specifically, it provides that a building may qualify as a substandard building regardless of whether it is zoned or designated for habitation. This bill creates an exception from enforcement for instances in which the inhabitant is illegally inhabiting the building, the owner is diligently pursuing an unlawful detainer against the inhabitant, and that the enforcement agency determines that the building poses no risk to lawful occupants, nearby residents, or the public. This bill will also expand relocation benefits to inhabitants when violations are so serious that they pose an immediate threat to the health or safety of a resident to residents who are occupying a building not zoned or approved for human habitation. In an effort to ensure that building owners make necessary repairs, the bill strengthens the law regarding receiverships and appeals of superior court orders for compliance with building standards. AB 468 is sponsored by the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, and is supported by the California Building Officials. It has no known opposition. This bill passed out of the Senate Housing Committee on a vote of 11 to 0.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Defines a substandard building as any building or portion thereof in which there exists specified conditions that endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof, including:
   1. inadequate sanitation;
   2. structural hazards or inadequate structural resistance to horizontal forces;
   3. any nuisance;
   4. hazardous wiring, mechanical equipment, or construction equipment;
   5. plumbing that is not in a good and safe condition;
   6. faulty weather protection;
   7. any building, device, equipment, combustible waste, or vegetation that, in the opinion of the fire department, could cause a fire or explosion or provide fuel to augment the spread and intensity of fire or explosion;
   8. accumulations of weeds, vegetation, junk, dead organic matter, debris, offal, garbage, rodent habitats, stagnant water, combustible materials, and similar materials or conditions that constitute fire, health, or safety hazards; and
   9. buildings that have been inadequately maintained per the California Building Code (CBC), that are not provided with adequate exit facilities, that lack fire-resistive construction or fire-extinguishing systems or equipment required by code, or are occupied for living, sleeping, cooking, or dining purposes that were not intended or designed to be used for those occupancies. (Health & Saf. Code § 17920.3.)
2. Provides that any officer, employee, or agent of an enforcement agency may enter and inspect any building or premises whenever necessary to secure compliance with, or prevent a violation of, any provision of state habitability laws or the building standards, as specified. (Health & Saf. Code § 17970.)
3. Requires that, if a city or county receives a complaint from a tenant, resident, or occupant regarding a potential violation of the habitability laws, the city or county must inspect the building that may be in violation, document any violations discovered, and advise the owner as applicable of each violation and the action required to remedy it. (Health & Saf. Code § 17970.5.)
4. Provides that an officer of an enforcement agency may issue an order to an owner or their agent regarding any violations of the habitability laws, requiring the violations to be remedied. (Id.)
5. Provides that, if an order by an officer of an enforcement agency is not complied with in a reasonable time to remedy a violation, the enforcement agency may file an application with the superior court for an order authorizing the agency to remove the violation or abate the nuisance. (Health & Saf. Code § 17982.)
6. Allows that a superior court may make any order pursuant to the laws on habitability of a building for human habitation, for which an application for order is made. (Health & Saf. Code § 17983.)
7. Establishes that any tenant who is displaced or subject to displacement from a residential rental unit as a result of a specified violation where the immediate health and safety of the residents is endangered, is entitled to receive relocation benefits from the owner. (Health & Saf. Code § 17975.)
8. Requires the lessor of a building intended for human occupancy, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, to keep it in a condition fit for such occupation, and repair all subsequent dilapidations thereof, which render it un-tenantable unless otherwise provided for in law.

This bill:

1. Defines a “substandard building” to mean any building, including any building used for human habitation, that is declared substandard under state habitability laws.
2. Provides that any building or portion thereof in which there are specified substandard conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the occupants of the building, nearby residents, or the public, may be declared a substandard building regardless of zoning designations or approved uses of the building.
3. Requires relocation assistance for any lawful tenant renting a unit used for human habitation in a building that is deemed substandard, regardless of the zoning designation or approved uses of the building, when an order to vacate is issued by a local enforcement agency as a result of a habitation violation so extensive as to endanger the immediate health and safety of the resident.
4. Expands existing nuisance abatement requirements to apply when there is an immediate threat to health and safety of nearby residents.
5. Provides that, if an enforcement agency determines a building is substandard based solely on the building being occupied, the agency is prohibited from commencing court proceedings to abate the violation by repair if all of the following conditions are met:
   1. the building owner declares under penalty of perjury that the occupant is illegally occupying the building;
   2. the owner filed and is diligently prosecuting an unlawful detainer action against the occupant; and
   3. the enforcement agency determines the building poses no risk to lawful occupants, nearby residents, or the public.
6. Provides that the appointment of a receiver for a substandard building as a result of reasons other than the substandard condition does not prevent an enforcement agency from seeking, or the court from appointing or replacing, a receiver based on the substandard nature of the building. In those cases, both statutory provisions allowing appointment of a receiver apply.
7. Allows a receiver, with court approval, to place a lien on the real property of the substandard building to pay for services performed by and any moneys owed to the enforcement agency or the receiver.
8. Provides that the court’s authority to retain ownership of a substandard building through a receiver for 18 consecutive months after a receiver has been discharged may be extended by order of the court to ensure continued compliance with a court order.
9. Specifies that an appeal of a court order or judgment issued pursuant to substandard building laws after application by the enforcement agency does not stay the order or judgment, absent an extraordinary writ issued by the appropriate appeals court upon a properly filed petition.
10. Provides that when a new owner acquires an ownership interest in a property subject to specified requirements to correct a code enforcement violation, the owner must also cover the costs and fees of the receiver or enforcement agency.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s statement

According to the author:

California’s housing crisis, including lack of affordable housing and homelessness is critical. We have provided billions of dollars to combat this severe problem. However, this crisis has multiple layers which affect individuals, families, communities and the state on various levels. Providing a bed is not a solution. It is a temporary service provided each night. There are no guarantees to a bed, and if there are, shelters have been ridden with their own crisis; overcrowding, broken showers and toilets, theft, and abuse. The other options are living on the streets, which come with its own set of safety and health problems or living in warehouses, factories, and buildings without proper permits and oversight. We need to better empower local and state agencies to deal with vacant dilapidated commercial and industrial building that should be brought up to code, and ideally, returned to a beneficial use in the community, perhaps even much needed safe housing.

1. Substandard buildings are being increasingly used for habitation

California is facing a dire housing crisis. The average price for a home has increased so significantly that only the wealthiest of prospective buyers can afford to purchase them. In mid-2022, the median price of a single-family home set an astounding record high of $898,980.^[1] Accordingly, homeownership rates in California are the second lowest in the country, at 56 percent in from 2016 to 2020.^[2] At the same time, rent in California has also experienced significant increases, in part due to how unobtainable homeownership is becoming for most Californians. The largest cities in California are among the most expensive cities for renters in the United States, and renters are spending a significant portion of their income on rent. Homelessness has increased significantly in the state at the same time, in part due to the increases in the cost of housing, and in part due to the lack of housing available. These realities have pushed many to resort to other means of creating more housing, or have forced some to accept poor, unpermitted housing. This includes the conversion and use of warehouses and other buildings not initially intended for housing into spaces for habitation. While these strategies may create more housing options, including more affordable housing options, they may do so at the cost of safety and health.

When a building is built or designated for housing, it must meet various standards in construction and safety to ensure it does not pose risks to its residents. These include standards of sanitation, structural integrity, electrical wiring, plumbing, mechanical equipment, and fire hazards, among others. (Health & Saf. Code § 17920.3.) If a building does not meet the standards and the deficiency endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants, it is considered substandard housing, and the deficiency must be corrected. Local housing authorities are required to regularly inspect buildings for compliance with these requirements, respond to complaints about violations of these standards, and issue orders relating to violations. An officer of a city’s enforcement agency many enter and inspect a building whenever necessary to ensure compliance with the building standards. (Health & Saf. Code § 17970.) If the agency receives a complaint regarding a violation of the habitability standards, it must inspect the building or portion that is intended for human habitation, document any violations, and advise the owner or operator of each violation and the action required to remedy the violation. (Health & Saf. Code § 17970.5.)

However, when a building is being inhabited but is not permitted or zoned for residential use, there is ambiguity about whether the standards for habitability apply because such buildings are not specifically mentioned. Additionally, such inhabited spaces may evade detection and inspection precisely because they are not permitted or zoned, and because tenants in such spaces are not protected if they are forced to vacate the building for the deficiencies to be fixed. Such scenarios can result in occupants having to endure substandard and unsafe living conditions. In the worst of cases, this could result in serious harm to the occupants. One example highlighted by the author is the “ghost ship” fire of 2016, in which a warehouse in Oakland that was being occupied by tenants caught fire during a small concert.^[3] Thirty-six people died in the blaze. The fire was likely caused by poor wiring in the building, something that could have been caught if the building had been inspected to ensure the building standards for buildings used for habitation.

1. This bill would increase consumer protections by extending habitability requirements to all buildings being used for habitation, regardless of whether the habitation is permitted or zoned

AB 468 makes a number of changes to the law in an attempt to better ensure that building standards are applied to all buildings used as habitation, such as the Ghost Ship, regardless of whether they have been zoned or permitted for habitation. It does this by amending section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code to specifically include any building “regardless of zoning designations or approved uses,” thereby making it clear that the section applies to buildings that are not zoned or designated for habitation. AB 468 also amends the definition of those who may be endangered by the substandard conditions sufficient to trigger a finding that the building is substandard. The new definition under AB 468 would include not only situations where the substandard conditions endanger an occupant or the public, but also where they endanger nearby residents. This expanded definition may expand the applicability of section 17920.3 to buildings where part of the building is used for business or events, and an adjoining part is used for residences, as the Ghost Ship was. If part of the building, or an adjoining or nearby building is substandard sufficient to endanger residents in another part of the building or an adjacent building, AB 468 would permit that building to be deemed substandard. For mixed-use spaces or particularly dense developments, this would provide further protections and safety to residents.

AB 468 also attempts to ensure that buildings unofficially used for habitations will be covered by building standards by including in section 17920 a definition of substandard building that includes “any building used for human habitation.” This definition, along with the amendments to section 17920.3, clarifies that section 117920.3’s standards for inhabited buildings apply to buildings in which or near which individuals live, regardless of the zoning or permitted use.

1. This bill would expand the availability of relocation benefits to displaced residents

Sometimes a local enforcement agency will be required to issue an order to vacate a building that is so substandard that the immediate health and safety of a resident is endangered. (Health & Saf. Code § 17975.) When it does, under current law a resident required to vacate under such an order may be eligible for relocation benefits from the owner of the substandard building. Relocation benefits are required to be a payment equal to two months of an established fair market rent for the area, and an additional payment for utility service deposit. (Health & Saf. Code section 17975.1.)

The section regarding relocation benefits states that a local enforcement agency shall determine a tenant’s eligibility for relocation benefits. AB 468 adds a provision to the section regarding relocation benefits to specify that tenants forced to vacate a substandard building are considered eligible for relocation payments regardless of whether the building in which they were inhabiting was zoned or designated for residential use. This additional provision will ensure that such residents will be able to access relocation benefits from the owner of the building, regardless of whether the residential use is authorized. Such a change will help implement the enforcement of the building standards on such buildings, as it will facilitate orders to vacate for appropriate repairs, and will also help minimize fears such tenants may have of filing complaints regarding substandard conditions. With the relocation benefits, tenants dealing with substandard conditions will feel more comfortable reporting those conditions to the appropriate local enforcement agency for correction.

In addition to those changes, AB 468 makes a number of other amendments to the Health and Safety Code to make it easier for both local enforcement agencies and building receivers to be repaid for costs they incur, and to clarify certain procedural steps after a substandard building has gone into receivership. AB 468 also amends a provision relating to receiverships for substandard housing. The amendments clarify that an enforcement agency is prevented from seeking a receivership for a substandard building by the fact that a receiver has been appointed pursuant to another provision of law. AB 468 also amends the provisions relating to receiverships to allow that a court may extend its jurisdiction over the substandard housing beyond the 18 months after the discharging of a receiver that is currently allowed.

1. AB 468 allows superior court orders to go into effect while the order is appealed

If an enforcement agency issues an order to remedy a deficiency in a substandard building, and the deficiency is not remedied within a reasonable time as specified in the agency’s order, the agency may request that a superior court issue an order allowing the agency to remove the violation or abate the nuisance itself. (Health & Saf. Code §17982.) AB 468 adds a subdivision to this section specifying that any appeal of a superior court order issued pursuant to that section shall not stay proceedings, without any extraordinary writ being issued by the appropriate appeals court from a proper petition for such a writ. This amendment clarifies that an owner appealing a superior court order authorized under the statute when the owner does not comply with the enforcement agency’s initial orders will continue to remain in effect during the appeal. In other words, simply appealing a court’s order will not allow the owner to avoid having to comply with that order, unless the appellate court issues an order for such a stay. This clarification will help ensure that a court’s orders will have force when made against an owner who has already failed to comply with orders of the enforcement agency. It nonetheless allows for extraordinary situations where an owner may be irreparably harmed by having to comply with the superior court’s order, as it does not preclude a request of a stay of the lower court’s order. However, absent such a request on appeal and grant of such stay, AB 468 specifies that a superior court’s order to enforce the provisions relating to building standards shall go into effect.

1. This bill includes a provision to protect against enforcement when an inhabitant is not lawfully occupying the space

Under the provisions as amended by AB 468, it is possible that a local enforcement agency could attempt to enforce the habitability building standards in section 17920.3 on a building in which the inhabitants have not been provided permission to inhabit the building. To protect building owners with such unlawful inhabitants in their building from having to comply with habitation building standards, AB 468 creates a carve out for when the building owner is actively trying to evict the unlawful inhabitants. This carve out prohibits the enforcement agency from commencing proceedings to abate a violation if the owner declares under penalty of perjury that the occupant is illegally occupying the building, the owner filed and is diligently prosecuting an unlawful detainer against the occupant, and the enforcement agency determines that the building poses no risk to lawful occupants, nearby residents, or the public.

This provision, while meant to protect owners when they may have had nothing to do with the occupants of their buildings, nonetheless places such occupants at risk. Considering the nature of unlawful detainer cases and the fact that the owner may not win such a case, it might make more sense to extend this exception only to the case where an owner wins the unlawful detainer action. It is also unclear how it will be determined that an owner is “diligently prosecuting” the unlawful detainer, and without a specific definition or evidence required for providing that the occupant is illegally occupying the building, this could allow for an owner to avoid necessary repairs by initiating an unlawful detainer action against a tenant they otherwise had agreed to allow the occupant to use or acquiesced to their use of the building.

SUPPORT

California Association of Code Enforcement Officers (CACEO) (sponsor)

California Building Officials (CALBO)

OPPOSITION

None known

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: AB 548 (Boerner, 2023) requires local enforcement agencies to develop policies and procedures for inspecting multiple units in a building if an inspector or code enforcement officer has determined that a unit in that building is substandard or is in violation of state habitability standards. This bill is currently pending before the Appropriations Committee.

Prior Legislation:

AB 1858 (Quirk-Silva, 2022) was substantially similar to this bill. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 838 (Friedman, Ch. 351, Stats. 2021) required local governments to respond to a substandard building or a lead hazard violation complaint from a tenant or specified others in a timely manner.

SB 1415 (McGuire, 2018) was substantially similar to this bill, and would have also required inspections of buildings used for human habitation, regardless of zoning or permitted use. This bill also included provisions related to fire inspections. SB 1415 was vetoed by the Governor Jerry Brown. In his veto message Governor Brown wrote: “Local governments have a better understanding of the type of local inspections needed in their communities. Let’s leave these decisions to the sound discretion of local governments.”

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Housing Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0)

Assembly Floor (Ayes 78, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 15, Noes 0)

Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 0)

**************

1. Ryan Lillis, “Unaffordable: California home prices break yet another record. How do we compare to US?” The Sacramento Bee (Jun. 29, 2022), available at https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article262865873.html. ↑

2. Marisol Cuellar Mejia el al, “Homeownership Trends in California,” Public Policy Institute of California (Jun. 14, 2022), available at https://www.ppic.org/blog/homeownership-trends-in-california/. ↑

3. “Presenting Solutions to Help Local Officials Avoid another Ghost Ship Fire,” Sen. Comte. On Governance & Finance, Cmte. Background Paper (Jan. 11, 2018), available at https://sgf.senate.ca.gov/content/2018-oversight-and-informational-hearings-1. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING

Senator Scott Wiener, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 468 Hearing Date: 6/20/2023

SUBJECT: State building standards

DIGEST: This bill allows any structure used for human habitation to be declared to be a substandard building regardless of the zoning or approved use of the building, and makes other changes to code enforcement procedures.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Defines a substandard building as any building or portion thereof in which there exists specified conditions that endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof, including:
   1. Inadequate sanitation;
   2. Structural hazards or inadequate structural resistance to horizontal forces;
   3. Any nuisance;
   4. Hazardous wiring, mechanical equipment, or construction equipment;
   5. Plumbing that is not in good and safe condition;
   6. Faulty weather protection;
   7. Any building, device, equipment, combustible waste, or vegetation that, in the opinion of the fire department, could cause a fire or explosion or provide fuel to augment the spread and intensity of fire or explosion;
   8. Accumulations of weeds, vegetation, junk, dead organic matter, debris, garbage, offal, rodent habitats, stagnant water, combustible materials, and similar materials or conditions that constitute fire, health, or safety hazards; and
   9. Buildings that have been inadequately maintained per the California Building Code (CBC), that are not provided with adequate exit facilities, that lack fire-resistive construction or fire-extinguishing systems or equipment required by code, or are occupied for living, sleeping, cooking, or dining purposes that were not intended or designed to be used for those occupancies.
2. Provides that any officer, employee, or agent of an enforcement agency may enter and inspect any building or premises whenever necessary to secure compliance with, or prevent a violation of, any provision of state habitability laws, the building standards as specified, and certain other rules that the enforcement agency has the power to enforce.
3. Establishes that any tenant who is displaced or subject to displacement from a residential rental unit as a result of a specified violation where the immediate health and safety of the residents is endangered, is entitled to receive relocation benefits from the owner.
4. Requires the lessor of a building intended for human occupancy, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, to keep it in a condition fit for such occupation, and repair all subsequent dilapidations thereof, which render it untenantable unless otherwise provided for in law.

This bill:

1. Defines a “substandard building” to mean any building, including any building used for human habitation, that is declared substandard under state habitability laws.
2. Provides that any building or portion thereof in which there are specified substandard conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the occupants of the building, nearby residents, or the public, may be declared a substandard building regardless of zoning designations or approved uses of the building.
3. Requires relocation assistance for any lawful tenant renting a unit used for human habitation in a building that is deemed substandard, regardless of the zoning designation or approved uses of the building.
4. Expands existing nuisance abatement requirements to apply when there is an immediate threat to health and safety of nearby residents.
5. Provides that, if an enforcement agency determines a building is substandard based solely on the building being occupied, the agency is prohibited from commencing court proceedings to abate the violation by repair if all of the following conditions are met:
   1. The building owner declares under penalty of perjury that the occupant is illegally occupying the building;
   2. The owner filed and is diligently prosecuting an unlawful detainer action against the occupant; and
   3. The enforcement agency determines the building poses no risk to lawful occupants, nearby residents, or the public.
6. Provides that the appointment of a receiver for a substandard building as a result of reasons other than the substandard condition does not prevent an enforcement agency from seeking, or the court from appointing or replacing, a receiver based on the substandard nature of the building. In those cases, both statutory provisions allowing appointment of a receiver apply.
7. Allows a receiver, with court approval, to place a lien on the real property of the substandard building to pay for services performed by and any moneys owed to the enforcement agency.
8. Provides that the court’s authority to retain ownership of a substandard building for 18 consecutive months after a receiver has been discharged may be extended by order of the court to ensure continued compliance with a court order.
9. Specifies that an appeal of a court order or judgment issued pursuant to substandard building laws does not stay proceedings upon the order or judgment, absent an extraordinary writ issued by the appropriate appeals court upon a properly filed petition.
10. Specifies that, for the purpose of laws related to substandard buildings, “petition” includes a complaint.
11. Provides that when a new owner acquires an ownership interest in a property subject to specified requirements to correct a code enforcement violation, the owner must also cover the costs and fees of the receiver or enforcement agency.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s statement. “California's housing crisis, including lack of affordable housing and homelessness is critical. We have provided billions of dollars to combat this severe problem. However, this crisis has multiple layers which affect individuals, families, communities and the state on various levels. Providing a bed is not a solution. It is a temporary service provided each night. There are no guarantees to a bed, and if there are, shelters have been ridden with their own crisis; overcrowding, broken showers and toilets, theft, and abuse. The other options are living on the streets, which come with its own set of safety and health problems or living in warehouses, factories, and buildings without proper permits and oversight. We need to better empower local and state agencies to deal with vacant dilapidated commercial and industrial building that should be brought up to code, and ideally, returned to a beneficial use in the community, perhaps even much needed safe housing.”
2. Substandard buildings. State law defines a substandard building as any building or part of a building with specified problems that endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the buildings occupants. Examples of substandard building conditions include sanitation deficiencies (e.g., pests, lack of water or heat, the presence of mold, etc.), structural problems, fire hazards, and lack of sufficient exits. Substandard conditions can create serious health and safety risks for the people living in a building and for the larger community. Code enforcement officers conduct an inspection and cite any violations on a complaint basis. When violations are so severe that an order to vacate the property is issued, the property owner is required to pay relocation costs for tenants while remediation or demolition occurs.
3. Habitability requirements. Existing habitability requirements only apply to buildings officially approved for human habitation. As the state's housing crisis has continued to worsen in recent years, the scarcity of affordable housing options has forced greater numbers Californians into unpermitted dwellings not intended for housing. In these situations tenants pay rent to live in a building that is not officially approved to be used for human habitation, such as an unpermitted addition or alteration to a residential dwelling, a warehouse, or other non-residential building. Los Angeles County is estimated to have at least 200,000 informal housing units that have not been approved for human habitation. Unfortunately, the lack of safety standards in these arrangements can have life and death consequences, as seen in the 2016 Ghost Ship warehouse fire in Oakland that killed 36 people. Despite not being approved for human habitation or assembly, the Ghost Ship warehouse had been leased to artists who lived and worked in the building.

Another recent example of this type of housing was seen in the January 23, 2023 mass shooting that took place at two Half Moon Bay mushroom farms, where farmworkers – including the shooter – were allegedly paying rent to farm owners in order to live in severely substandard housing accommodations that were not properly permitted and had never been inspected by county building officials.

1. Expanding code enforcement authority. This bill proposes to expand the definition of a substandard building to include all buildings used for human habitation, regardless of the zoning or approved use. In cases where an order to vacate is issued, the bill would require building owners to provide relocation assistance to tenants paying rent to live in unpermitted buildings. This change would help lessen the impact of this disruption on the tenants living in those buildings, as they will have to be provided some financial assistance that would help them move to new housing or stay in a hotel while searching for new housing or awaiting repairs to be completed and new permits to be issued, if applicable. Furthermore, this bill makes several other minor changes to provisions that are intended to make it easier for local enforcement agencies and building receivers to be repaid for costs they incur, and to clarify certain procedural steps after a substandard building has gone into receivership.
2. Questions of legal occupancy. To address concerns that a vacant building with an illegal occupant (a "squatter") might somehow be tagged by an enforcing agency for repairs even when the building was not intended to be inhabited, the bill creates a process for a building owner to declare under penalty of perjury that an occupant is illegally occupying the building and the owner has filed and is diligently prosecuting an unlawful detainer against that occupant. In this instance, the enforcing agency would be prohibited from seeking repairs for substandard conditions in that building unless there is some risk to lawful occupants, nearby residents, or the public. However, it is unclear how proof of “illegal occupancy” and “diligently prosecuting” would be evaluated. Moving forward, the authors may wish to clarify these terms.
3. Double-referral. This bill has also been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Related Legislation:

AB 548 (Boerner, 2023) — requires local enforcement agencies to develop policies and procedures for inspecting multiple units in a building if an inspector or code enforcement officer has determined that a unit in that building is substandard or is in violation of state habitability standards. This bill is being heard at this same hearing.

AB 1858 (Quirk-Silva, 2022) — was substantially similar to this bill. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 838 (Friedman, Chapter 351, Statutes of 2021) — required local governments to respond to a substandard building or a lead hazard violation complaint from a tenant or specified others in a timely manner.

SB 1415 (McGuire, 2018) — was substantially similar to this bill, though it would have also required inspections of buildings used for human habitation, regardless of zoning or permitted use. Also included provisions related to fire inspections. This bill was vetoed by the Governor:

Local officials can already decide what and when to inspect. Some jurisdictions, such as the City of Sacramento, have established a program to monitor vacant buildings. The City of Oakland has a program to conduct frequent inspections of commercial buildings.

Local governments have a better understanding of the type of local inspections needed in their communities. Let's leave these decisions to the sound discretion of local governments.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

June 14, 2023.)

SUPPORT:

California Association of Code Enforcement Officers (Sponsor)

California Building Officials

City of Thousand Oaks

OPPOSITION:

None received.

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 468

Author:(Quirk-Silva)

As Amended Ver:April 11, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Allows any structure used for human habitation to be declared to be a substandard building regardless of the zoning or approved use of the building, and makes other changes to code enforcement procedures.

Major Provisions

1. Defines a "substandard building" to mean any building, including any building used for human habitation, that is declared substandard under state habitability laws.
2. Provides that any building or portion in which there are specified substandard conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the occupants of the building, nearby residents, or the public, may be declared a substandard building regardless of zoning designations or approved uses of the building.
3. Requires relocation assistance for any lawful tenant renting a unit used for human habitation in a building that is deemed substandard, regardless of the zoning designation or approved uses of the building.
4. Expands existing nuisance abatement requirements to apply when there is an immediate threat to health and safety of nearby residents.
5. Provides that, if an enforcement agency determines a building is substandard based solely on the building being occupied, the agency is prohibited from commencing court proceedings to abate the violation by repair if all of the following conditions are met:
   1. The building owner declares under penalty of perjury that the occupant is illegally occupying the building;
   2. The owner filed and is diligently prosecuting an unlawful detainer action against the occupant; and
   3. The enforcement agency determines the building poses no risk to lawful occupants, nearby residents, or the public.
6. Provides that the appointment of a receiver for a substandard building as a result of reasons other than the substandard condition does not prevent an enforcement agency from seeking, or the court from appointing or replacing, a receiver based on the substandard nature of the building. In those cases, both statutory provisions allowing appointment of a receiver apply.
7. Allows a receiver, with court approval, to place a lien on the real property of the substandard building to pay for services performed by and any moneys owed to the enforcement agency.
8. Provides that the court's authority to retain ownership of a substandard building for 18 consecutive months after a receiver has been discharged may be extended by order of the court to ensure continued compliance with a court order.
9. Specifies that an appeal of a court order or judgment issued pursuant to substandard building laws does not stay proceedings upon the order or judgment, absent an extraordinary writ issued by the appropriate appeals court upon a properly filed petition.
10. Provides that when a new owner acquires an ownership interest in a property subject to specified requirements to correct a code enforcement violation, the owner must also cover the costs and fees of the receiver or enforcement agency.

COMMENTS

Background: California's Health and Safety Code defines a substandard building as any building or part of a building with specified problems that endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the buildings occupants. Examples of substandard building conditions include sanitation deficiencies (e.g., pests, lack of water or heat, the presence of mold, etc.), structural problems, fire hazards, and lack of sufficient exits (Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 et seq). Substandard conditions can create serious health and safety risks for the people living in a building and for the larger community. Code enforcement officers conduct an inspection and cite any violations on a complaint basis. When violations are so severe that an order to vacate the property is issued, the property owner is required to pay relocation costs for tenants while remediation or demolition occurs.

However, these existing habitability requirements only apply to buildings officially approved for human habitation. As the state's housing crisis has continued to worsen in recent years, the scarcity of affordable housing options has forced greater numbers Californians into unpermitted dwellings not intended for housing. In these situations tenants pay rent to live in a building that is not officially approved to be used for human habitation, such as an unpermitted addition or alteration to a residential dwelling, a warehouse, or other non-residential building. Los Angeles County is estimated to have at least 200,000 informal housing units that have not been approved for human habitation. Unfortunately, the lack of safety standards in these arrangements can have life and death consequences, as seen in the 2016 Ghost Ship warehouse fire in Oakland that killed 36 people. Despite not being approved for human habitation or assembly, the Ghost Ship warehouse had been leased to artists who lived and worked in the building.

Another recent example of this type of housing was seen in the January 23, 2023 mass shooting that took place at two Half Moon Bay mushroom farms, where farmworkers – including the shooter – were allegedly paying rent to farm owners in order to live in severely substandard housing accommodations that were not properly permitted and had never been inspected by county building officials.

This bill proposes to expand the definition of a substandard building to include all buildings used for human habitation, regardless of the zoning or approved use. In cases where an order to vacate is issued, the bill would require building owners to provide relocation assistance to tenants paying rent to live in unpermitted buildings. This change would help lessen the impact of this disruption on the tenants living in those buildings, as they will have to be provided some financial assistance that would help them move to new housing or stay in a hotel while searching for new housing or awaiting repairs to be completed and new permits to be issued, if applicable.

Furthermore, AB 468 makes several other minor changes to provisions that are intended to make it easier for local enforcement agencies and building receivers to be repaid for costs they incur, and to clarify certain procedural steps after a substandard building has gone into receivership.

To address concerns that a vacant building with an illegal occupant (a "squatter") might somehow be tagged by an enforcing agency for repairs even when the building was not intended to be held out for rent, the bill creates a process for a building owner to declare under penalty of perjury that an occupant is illegally occupying the building and the owner has filed and is diligently prosecuting an unlawful detainer against that occupant. In this instance, the enforcing agency would be prohibited from seeking repairs for substandard conditions in that building unless there is some risk to lawful occupants, nearby residents, or the public.

According to the Author

"California's housing crisis, including lack of affordable housing and homelessness is critical. We have provided billions of dollars to combat this severe problem. However, this crisis has multiple layers which affect individuals, families, communities and the state on various levels. Providing a bed is not a solution. It is a temporary service provided each night. There are no guarantees to a bed, and if there are, shelters have been ridden with their own crisis; overcrowding, broken showers and toilets, theft, and abuse. The other options are living on the streets, which come with its own set of safety and health problems or living in warehouses, factories, and buildings without proper permits and oversight. We need to better empower local and state agencies to deal with vacant dilapidated commercial and industrial building that should be brought up to code, and ideally, returned to a beneficial use in the community, perhaps even much needed safe housing."

Arguments in Support

According to the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, the sponsor, "California State Housing Laws are some of the most comprehensive in the nation, establishing health and safety protections through building standards to assure decent, safe, and sanitary housing for all Californians. Current law provides protections for residents that live in a dwelling that is not up to code and puts the resident or the public in harm's way. [This] bill clarifies ambiguities about whether remedies for substandard buildings apply to buildings not residentially zoned, even if they are uninhabited. Substandard conditions and the associated dangers do not cease to exist just because of the zoning."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:

1. Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund) in the mid-hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for trial courts to hear and adjudicate additional civil actions for alleged violations of the State Housing Law. If five cases are filed in civil court annually requiring seven to 10 days (56 to 80 hours) of court time, at an average cost per hour of $1,000 in workload costs, the cost to the trial courts would be between $280,000 and $400,000 annually. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the courts and staff may create a need for increased funding for courts to perform existing duties.
2. Local costs of an unknown amount, but potentially substantial statewide, to local agencies for additional building inspections as a result of this bill. These costs are not reimbursable by the state because local agencies can charge fees for building inspections.

VOTES

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 8-0-0

YES: Wicks, Joe Patterson, Wendy Carrillo, Zbur, Kalra, Quirk-Silva, Sanchez, Ward

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-1

YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Sanchez, Weber, Ortega

ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas

UPDATED

VERSION: April 11, 2023

CONSULTANT: Nicole Restmeyer / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0000477

Date of Hearing: May 3, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 468

Author:(Quirk-Silva) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill expands the definition of a substandard building to include any building used for human habitation in substandard condition regardless of the zoning or approved use of the building and makes changes to code enforcement procedures.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines a “substandard building” to mean any building, including any building used for human habitation, that is declared substandard under Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3.
2. Provides any building or portion thereof, regardless of zoning designations or approved uses of the building, in which there are specified conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety or welfare of the occupants of the building, nearby residents or the public, is deemed and declared to be a substandard building.
3. Requires relocation assistance for any tenant renting a unit used for human habitation when the building is deemed substandard, regardless of the zoning designation or approved uses of the building.
4. Expands existing nuisance abatement requirements to apply when there is an immediate threat to health and safety of nearby residents, in addition to occupants of the building and the public.
5. Provides, if an enforcement agency determines a building is substandard based solely on the building being occupied, the agency is prohibited from commencing court proceedings to abate the violation by repair if the building owner declares under penalty of perjury the occupant is illegally occupying the building, among other requirements.
6. Provides the appointment of a receiver for a substandard building as a result of reasons other than the building is substandard does not prevent an enforcement agency from seeking, or the court from appointing or replacing, a receiver based on the substandard nature of the building. In those cases, both statutory provisions allowing appointment of a receiver apply.
7. Allows a receiver, with court approval, to place a lien on the real property of the substandard building to pay for services performed by and any moneys owed to the enforcement agency.
8. Provides the court’s authority to retain ownership of a substandard building for 18 consecutive months after a receiver has been discharged may be extended by order of the court to ensure continued compliance with a court order.
9. Specifies an appeal of a court order or judgment issued pursuant to specified substandard building laws does not stay proceedings upon the order or judgment, absent an extraordinary writ issued by the appropriate appeals court upon a properly filed petition.
10. Provides when a new owner acquires an ownership interest in a property subject to specified requirements, to correct a code enforcement violation, the owner must also cover the costs and fees of the receiver or an enforcement agency.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund) in the mid-hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for trial courts to hear and adjudicate additional civil actions for alleged violations of the State Housing Law. If five cases are filed in civil court annually requiring seven to 10 days (56 to 80 hours) of court time, at an average cost per hour of $1,000 in workload costs, the cost to the trial courts would be between $280,000 and $400,000 annually. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the courts and staff may create a need for increased funding for courts to perform existing duties.
2. Local costs of an unknown amount, but potentially substantial statewide, to local agencies for additional building inspections as a result of this bill. These costs are not reimbursable by the state because local agencies can charge fees for building inspections.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The author of this bill seeks to improve protections for renters residing in buildings not zoned or approved for residential use by extending the definition of a substandard building, and the tenant displacement protections that accompany it, to include any building used for human habitation.
2. Background. Existing law defines a substandard building as any building or part of a building with specified problems that endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety or welfare of the public or the buildings occupants. Substandard building conditions can include sanitation deficiencies (e.g., pests, lack of water or heat), structural problems, fire hazards and lack of sufficient exits. Code enforcement officers conduct inspections and cite any violations on a complaint basis. Existing law authorizes enforcement agencies, tenants, or tenant associations to petition a court to appoint a receiver for a substandard building if the owner fails to comply within a reasonable time with the terms of a notice of violation. The receiver takes complete control of the building, including management and repairs to remedy any violations. When violations are so severe that an order to vacate the property is issued the property owner is required to pay relocation costs for tenants while remediation or demolition occurs.

Existing habitability requirements apply only to buildings officially approved for human habitation. Housing observers assert, due to the state’s affordable housing crisis, greater numbers Californians are living in unpermitted dwellings not intended for housing. Recent data indicates Los Angeles County has at least 200,000 informal housing units that have not been approved for human habitation. In these situations tenants pay rent to live in such places as an unpermitted addition or alteration to a residential dwelling, a warehouse or other non-residential building.

This bill proposes to expand the definition of a substandard building to include all buildings used for human habitation, regardless of the zoning or approved use. In cases where an order to vacate is issued, this bill requires building owners to provide relocation assistance to tenants paying rent to live in unpermitted buildings. To address concerns that a vacant building with an illegal occupant (a “squatter”) might be tagged by an enforcing agency for repairs even when the building was not intended to be held out for rent, this bill creates a process for a building owner to declare under penalty of perjury that an occupant is illegally occupying the building and the owner has filed and is diligently prosecuting an unlawful detainer against that occupant. In such an instance, the enforcing agency would be prohibited from seeking repairs for substandard conditions in that building unless there is some risk to lawful occupants, nearby residents, or the public. This bill also makes several minor changes intended to make it easier for local enforcement agencies and building receivers to be repaid for costs they incur, and to clarify certain procedural steps after a substandard building has gone into receivership.

1. Prior Legislation. AB 1858 (Quirk-Silva), of the 2021-22 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to this bill. AB 1858 was held on this committee’s suspense file.

SB 1415 (McGuire), of the 2017-18 Legislative Session, was introduced in response to the 2016 Ghost Ship warehouse fire in Oakland that killed 36 people who lived in the building. SB 1415 was similar to this bill but also required inspections of all buildings used for human habitation, regardless of zoning or permitted use and included provisions related to fire inspections. AB 1415 was vetoed by Governor Brown whose veto message expressed concerns about the mandatory inspections. This bill does not contain those provisions.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 19, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 468 (

Author:Quirk-Silva) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2023

SUBJECT: State building standards

SUMMARY: Provides that any structure used for human habitation may be declared to be a substandard building regardless of the zoning or approved use of the building, and makes other changes to code enforcement procedures. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines a “substandard building” to mean any building, including any building used for human habitation, that is declared substandard under state habitability laws.
2. Provides that any building or portion thereof in which there are specified substandard conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the occupants of the building, nearby residents, or the public, may be declared a substandard building regardless of zoning designations or approved uses of the building.
3. Requires relocation assistance for any lawful tenant renting a unit used for human habitation in a building that is deemed substandard, regardless of the zoning designation or approved uses of the building.
4. Expands existing nuisance abatement requirements to apply when there is an immediate threat to health and safety of nearby residents.
5. Provides that, if an enforcement agency determines a building is substandard based solely on the building being occupied, the agency is prohibited from commencing court proceedings to abate the violation by repair if all of the following conditions are met:
   1. The building owner declares under penalty of perjury that the occupant is illegally occupying the building;
   2. The owner filed and is diligently prosecuting an unlawful detainer action against the occupant; and
   3. The enforcement agency determines the building poses no risk to lawful occupants, nearby residents, or the public.
6. Provides that the appointment of a receiver for a substandard building as a result of reasons other than the substandard condition does not prevent an enforcement agency from seeking, or the court from appointing or replacing, a receiver based on the substandard nature of the building. In those cases, both statutory provisions allowing appointment of a receiver apply.
7. Allows a receiver, with court approval, to place a lien on the real property of the substandard building to pay for services performed by and any moneys owed to the enforcement agency.
8. Provides that the court’s authority to retain ownership of a substandard building for 18 consecutive months after a receiver has been discharged may be extended by order of the court to ensure continued compliance with a court order.
9. Specifies that an appeal of a court order or judgment issued pursuant to substandard building laws does not stay proceedings upon the order or judgment, absent an extraordinary writ issued by the appropriate appeals court upon a properly filed petition.
10. Specifies that, for the purpose of laws related to substandard buildings, “petition” includes a complaint.
11. Updates an inaccurate cross-reference.
12. Provides that when a new owner acquires an ownership interest in a property subject to specified requirements to correct a code enforcement violation, the owner must also cover the costs and fees of the receiver or enforcement agency.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines a substandard building as any building or portion thereof in which there exists specified conditions that endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof, including:
   1. Inadequate sanitation;
   2. Structural hazards or inadequate structural resistance to horizontal forces;
   3. Any nuisance;
   4. Hazardous wiring, mechanical equipment, or construction equipment;
   5. Plumbing that is not in good and safe condition;
   6. Faulty weather protection;
   7. Any building, device, equipment, combustible waste, or vegetation that, in the opinion of the fire department, could cause a fire or explosion or provide fuel to augment the spread and intensity of fire or explosion;
   8. Accumulations of weeds, vegetation, junk, dead organic matter, debris, garbage, offal, rodent habitats, stagnant water, combustible materials, and similar materials or conditions that constitute fire, health, or safety hazards; and
   9. Buildings that have been inadequately maintained per the California Building Code (CBC), that are not provided with adequate exit facilities, that lack fire-resistive construction or fire-extinguishing systems or equipment required by code, or are occupied for living, sleeping, cooking, or dining purposes that were not intended or designed to be used for those occupancies. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 17920.3)
2. Provides that any officer, employee, or agent of an enforcement agency may enter and inspect any building or premises whenever necessary to secure compliance with, or prevent a violation of, any provision of state habitability laws, the building standards as specified, and certain other rules which the enforcement agency has the power to enforce. (HSC 17970)
3. Establishes that any tenant who is displaced or subject to displacement from a residential rental unit as a result of a specified violation where the immediate health and safety of the residents is endangered, is entitled to receive relocation benefits from the owner. (HSC 17975)
4. Requires the lessor of a building intended for human occupancy, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, to keep it in a condition fit for such occupation, and repair all subsequent dilapidations thereof, which render it untenantable unless otherwise provided for in law. (Civil Code Section 1941)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

Author’s Statement: According to the author, “California's housing crisis, including lack of affordable housing and homelessness is critical. We have provided billions of dollars to combat this severe problem. However, this crisis has multiple layers which affect individuals, families, communities and the state on various levels. Providing a bed is not a solution. It is a temporary service provided each night. There are no guarantees to a bed, and if there are, shelters have been ridden with their own crisis; overcrowding, broken showers and toilets, theft, and abuse. The other options are living on the streets, which come with its own set of safety and health problems or living in warehouses, factories, and buildings without proper permits and oversight. We need to better empower local and state agencies to deal with vacant dilapidated commercial and industrial building that should be brought up to code, and ideally, returned to a beneficial use in the community, perhaps even much needed safe housing.”

Background: California’s Health and Safety Code defines a substandard building as any building or part of a building with specified problems that endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the buildings occupants. Examples of substandard building conditions include sanitation deficiencies (e.g., pests, lack of water or heat, the presence of mold, etc.), structural problems, fire hazards, and lack of sufficient exits (Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 et seq). Substandard conditions can create serious health and safety risks for the people living in a building and for the larger community. Code enforcement officers conduct an inspection and cite any violations on a complaint basis. When violations are so severe that an order to vacate the property is issued, the property owner is required to pay relocation costs for tenants while remediation or demolition occurs.

However, these existing habitability requirements only apply to buildings officially approved for human habitation. As the state’s housing crisis has continued to worsen in recent years, the scarcity of affordable housing options has forced greater and greater numbers Californians into unpermitted dwellings not intended for housing. In these situations tenants pay rent to live in a building that is not officially approved to be used for human habitation, such as an unpermitted addition or alteration to a residential dwelling, a warehouse, or other non-residential buildings. Los Angeles County is estimated to have at least 200,000 informal housing units that have not been approved for human habitation.^[1] Unfortunately, the lack of safety standards in these arrangements can have life and death consequences as seen in the 2016 Ghost Ship warehouse fire in Oakland that killed 36 people. Despite not being approved for human habitation or assembly, the two-story Ghost Ship warehouse had been leased to artists who lived and worked in the building.

Another recent example of this type of housing was seen in the January 23, 2023 mass shooting that took place at two Half Moon Bay mushroom farms, where farmworkers – including the shooter – were allegedly paying rent to farm owners in order to live in severely substandard housing accommodations that were not properly permitted and had never been inspected by county building officials.^[2] A serious challenge with red-tagging unpermitted housing is that the dire lack of affordable housing options across the state means that the vulnerable tenants of that housing may not have any alternative options if their illegal living arrangement is shut down. The enforcement officer in that instance may face a difficult balance between seeking remedies to substandard conditions and displacing unstably housed tenants even further.

This bill proposes to expand the definition of a substandard building to include all buildings used for human habitation, regardless of the zoning or approved use. In cases where an order to vacate is issued, the bill would require building owners to provide relocation assistance to tenants paying rent to live in unpermitted buildings. This change would help lessen the impact of this disruption on the tenants living in those buildings, as they will have to be provided some financial assistance that would help them move to new housing or stay in a hotel while searching for new housing or awaiting repairs to be completed and new permits to be issued, if applicable.

Furthermore, AB 468 makes several other minor changes to provisions that are intended to make it easier for local enforcement agencies and building receivers to be repaid for costs they incur, and to clarify certain procedural steps after a substandard building has gone into receivership.

To address concerns from opposition that a vacant building with an illegal occupant (a “squatter”) might somehow be tagged by an enforcing agency for repairs even when the building was not intended to be held out for rent, the bill creates a process for a building owner to declare under penalty of perjury that an occupant is illegally occupying the building and the owner has filed and is diligently prosecuting an unlawful detainer against that occupant. In this instance, the enforcing agency would be prohibited from seeking repairs for substandard conditions in that building unless there is some risk to lawful occupants, nearby residents, or the public.

Arguments in Support: According to the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, the sponsor, “California State Housing Laws are some of the most comprehensive in the nation, establishing health and safety protections through building standards to assure decent, safe, and sanitary housing for all Californians. Current law provides protections for residents that live in a dwelling that is not up to code and puts the resident or the public in harm’s way. [This] bill clarifies ambiguities about whether remedies for substandard buildings apply to buildings not residentially zoned, even if they are uninhabited. Substandard conditions and the associated dangers do not cease to exist just because of the zoning. The shootings in Half Moon Bay that took the lives of seven farm [workers] are a call to action about deplorable conditions in unpermitted housing being used by California farmworkers and others. The lack of oversight perpetuated living conditions that were subject to insect infestations, unsafe drinking water, inadequate restrooms, and fire hazards. This is unacceptable. [This bill] specifies any substandard building, regardless of zoning, including those used for habitation, can be brought into compliance when an inspector determines that it endangers the life, health, property, safety, or welfare of the occupants or pubic. The bill also makes numerous definition and clarifications regarding enforcement, notification and change of ownership.”

Arguments in Opposition: None on file.

Related Legislation:

AB 548 (Boerner Horvath) of the current legislative session requires local enforcement agencies to develop policies and procedures for inspecting multiple units in a building if an inspector or code enforcement officer has determined that a unit in that building is substandard or is in violation of state habitability standards. This bill recently passed out of this committee on a 6-0 vote.

AB 1858 (Quirk-Silva) of 2022 was substantially similar to this bill. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 838 (Friedman), Chapter 351, Statutes of 2021: Required local governments to respond to a substandard building or a lead hazard violation complaint from a tenant or specified others in a timely manner.

SB 1415 (McGuire) of 2018 was substantially similar to this bill, though it would have also required inspections of buildings used for human habitation, regardless of zoning or permitted use. Also included provisions related to fire inspections. This bill was vetoed by the Governor:

I am returning Senate Bill 1415 without my signature.

This bill would require local building and fire inspectors to inspect all private warehouses located within their jurisdiction at least once every five years.

Local officials can already decide what and when to inspect. Some jurisdictions, such as the City of Sacramento, have established a program to monitor vacant buildings. The City of Oakland has a program to conduct frequent inspections of commercial buildings.

Local governments have a better understanding of the type of local inspections needed in their communities. Let's leave these decisions to the sound discretion of local governments.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Association of Code Enforcement Officers (Sponsor)

California Building Officials

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Nicole Restmeyer / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/18/business/economy/california-housing.html ↑

2. https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/02/05/who-was-supposed-to-ensure-half-moon-bay-farmworker-homes-had-plumbing-kitchens/ ↑