BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1229|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1229
Author: Pavley (D), et al.
Amended: 8/24/12
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 5/1/12
AYES: Evans, Harman, Blakeslee, Corbett, Leno
SENATE FLOOR : 37-0, 5/17/12
AYES: Alquist, Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Calderon,
Cannella, Corbett, Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Dutton,
Emmerson, Evans, Fuller, Gaines, Hancock, Harman,
Hernandez, Huff, Kehoe, La Malfa, Leno, Lieu, Liu,
Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Rubio,
Simitian, Steinberg, Vargas, Walters, Wolk, Wright,
Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Strickland, Yee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available
SUBJECT : Real property: rentals: animals
SOURCE : Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association
The Paw Project
DIGEST : This bill prohibits a landlord who allows
tenants or occupants to have animals on the premises from
doing any of the following: (1) advertising the property
in a way that discourages individuals from applying because
their animal is not declawed or devocalized; (2) refusing
CONTINUED
SB 1229
Page
2
to allow, negotiate, or make the property available for
occupancy because of a person's refusal to declaw or
devocalize an animal; or (3) requiring a tenant or occupant
to declaw or devocalize an animal that is allowed on the
premises. This bill permits a city or district attorney,
other law enforcement prosecutorial entity to enforce these
provisions and sue for declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, or imposition of a civil penalty of $1,000 for
every violation.
Assembly Amendments provides that only a city or district
attorney or other law enforcement prosecutorial entity has
authority to enforce violations of this bill. Violations
of the advertising prohibition are subject to a civil
penalty of up to $1,000 per advertisement, while violations
of the other prohibitions are punishable by a civil penalty
of up to $1,000 per animal. In both cases, this bill
provides that the penalty is to be paid to the entity
authorized to bring an action for enforcement.
ANALYSIS : Existing law prohibits any person from
performing, or otherwise procuring or arranging for the
performance of, surgical claw removal, declawing,
onychectomy, or tendonectomy on any cat that is a member of
an exotic or native wild cat species, and from otherwise
altering such a cat's toes, claws, or paws to prevent the
normal function of the cat's toes, claws, or paws, unless
the procedure is performed solely for a therapeutic
purpose. (Penal Code Section 597.6)
Existing law generally prohibits discrimination and related
conduct with respect to the rental or sale of housing
accommodations on the basis of a person's race, color,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national
origin, ancestry, familial status, and other factors.
(Government Code Section 12955)
Existing law generally regulates the terms and conditions
of residential tenancies and governs the obligations of
tenants and landlord under a lease or tenancy. (Civil Code
Section 1940 et seq.)
This bill prohibits any person or corporation that
occupies, owns, manages, or provides services in connection
CONTINUED
SB 1229
Page
3
with any real property, including the individual's or
corporation's agents or successors-in-interest, from doing
any of the following if they allow an animal on the
premises:
advertise, through any means, the availability of real
property for occupancy in a manner designed to
discourage application for occupancy of that real
property because the applicant's animal has not been
declawed or devocalized;
refuse to allow the occupancy of any real property,
refuse to negotiate the occupancy of any real property,
or to otherwise make unavailable or deny to any other
person the occupancy of any real property because of
that person's refusal to declaw or devocalize any
animal; or
require any tenant or occupant of real property to
declaw or devocalize any animal allowed on the premises.
This bill provides that, in addition to any other penalty,
a violation of this bill that results in the declawing or
devocalizing of an animal shall result in a civil penalty
of not more than $1,000, per animal, to be paid to the
person whose animal was declawed or devocalized in
violation, or to an entity that is authorized to bring an
action.
This bill defines animal, application for occupancy, claw,
declawing, devocalizing, and owner.
This bill is substantially similar to the enrolled version
of AB 2743 (Nava, 2010) which was vetoed by then-Governor
Schwarzenegger because it contained legislative findings
and declarations "that are unsupported by science." This
bill does not contain the same legislative findings and
declarations and does not include a prohibition for
non-therapeutic reasons as contained in AB 2743.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/27/12)
CONTINUED
SB 1229
Page
4
Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (co-source)
The Paw Project (co-source)
Actors and Others for Animals
Alley Cat Allies
Animal Advocates
Best Friends Animal Society
Born Free USA
California Apartment Association
California Veterinary Medical Association
Cities of Berkeley, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and West
Hollywood
Contra Costa Humane Society
Last Chance for Animals
League of Humane Voters, California Chapter
Marin Humane Society
Nolan-Taft Management
Ohlone Humane Society
Paw PAC
Pet Care Foundation
Red Rover
Social Compassion in Legislation
Western Center on Law and Poverty
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/27/12)
The Animal Council
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author writes, "There is an
ongoing practice of some landlords conditioning occupancy
of rental housing on the declawing of cats and/or the
devocalizing of dogs. Many rental listings in California
show a number of properties with landlords and managers
that require potential tenants to declaw or devocalize
their pets as a condition of tenancy. Declawing and
devocalizing are permanent procedures and such procedures
run counter to the temporary nature of rental occupancy."
The Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, a
co-sponsor of this bill, writes, "SB 1229 will protect
tenants from being forced to choose between securing
housing for their families and subjecting their pets to
unnecessary, costly and life-altering medical procedures. .
. . SB 1229 is a common-sense measure that will ensure that
CONTINUED
SB 1229
Page
5
important medical decisions about companion animals are not
made in the context of rental agreements but rather in
consultation with veterinary medical professionals and
focused on the animals' health and well-being."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Animal Council argues:
We had opposed the 2010 version of SB 1229, AB 2743,
which was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, and we must
again oppose this bill.
These bills pose non-existent issues to de-legitimize,
surreptitiously, elective veterinary procedure unrelated
to any tenancies. In plain English - " declawing" cats
and "debarking" dogs, that are otherwise lawful
veterinary practice in California as determined through
the veterinarian-client relationship in regard to an
individual animal patient of the owner-client. The
widely expanded wording of procedures beyond the usual
species by using non-specific "animal" would be comical
if not signaling future intent of others to seek outright
prohibition. Otherwise, there is no reason to codify
unrealistic terminology. As typically and selectively
performed only selectively with small numbers of patients
in limited circumstances, only de-barking of dogs would
be a realistic occurrence in rental occupancies. Unlike
cats that would only damage the premises for which the
tenant would be liable for repairs, other tenants and
outside neighbors hear dogs' noise and may be greatly
disturbed. Such barking may or may not reach the
threshold for legal action under local animal, noise or
nuisance ordinance. Landlords have some legal
liabilities in nuisances on their owned premises, so the
prospect of legal enforcement arising from mention of
de-barking creates a disincentive to offer or negotiate
pet tenancies, particularly if tenants will not mitigate
barking or dispose of the animal. We respectfully oppose
this disingenuous bill as harmful to both pets, and
tenants and as an initial step to eliminate these options
for any pet owners to keep their pets anywhere.
RJG:k 8/28/12 Senate Floor Analyses
CONTINUED
SB 1229
Page
6
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED