BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    


          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                  AB 2743|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
                                 THIRD READING

          Bill No:  AB 2743
          Author:   Nava (D)
          Amended:  8/20/10 in Senate
          Vote:     21

           SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE  :  3-2, 6/15/10
          AYES:  Corbett, Hancock, Leno
          NOES:  Harman, Walters

           SENATE FLOOR  :  19-14, 8/11/10 (FAIL)
          AYES:  Alquist, Cedillo, Corbett, DeSaulnier, Ducheny,  
            Florez, Hancock, Kehoe, Leno, Liu, Lowenthal, Padilla,  
            Pavley, Price, Romero, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland,  
          NOES:  Aanestad, Ashburn, Cogdill, Correa, Denham, Dutton,  
            Emmerson, Harman, Hollingsworth, Huff, Runner, Wolk,  
            Wright, Wyland
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Calderon, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza,  
            Walters, Wiggins, Vacancy, Vacancy

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  63-7, 5/13/10 - See last page for vote

           SUBJECT  :    Real property:  rentals:  animals

           SOURCE  :     Paw Project

           DIGEST  :    This bill prohibits a landlord that 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 an individual from applying  


                                                               AB 2743

          because their animal is not declawed or devocalized, (2)  
          refusing to allow, negotiate, or make the property  
          available for occupancy because of a person's refusal to  
          declaw or devocalize an animal, (3) requiring a tenant or  
          occupant to declaw or devocalize an animal that is allowed  
          on the premises.

           Senate Floor Amendments  of 8/20/10 strike the proposed  
          prohibition on preferential treatment and discrimination,  
          and revise civil penalty provisions. 

           Senate Floor Amendments  of 7/15/10 make a  
          technical/clarifying change.

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law regulates the terms and  
          conditions of residential tenancies and governs the  
          obligations of tenants and landlords under a lease or  

          This bill prohibits a landlord that allows a tenant to have  
          an animal on the premises, from advertising or establishing  
          rental policies in a manner that requires a tenant or a  
          potential tenant with an animal to have that animal  
          declawed or devocalized, for nontherapeutic purposes, as a  
          condition of occupancy.  This bill imposes a civil penalty,  
          not to exceed $1,000, for each violation   of these  
          provisions, to be paid to the person or entity that brings  
          the action.  This bill specifically authorizes a person to  
          seek declaratory or injunctive relief for a violation of  
          this prohibition.

          This bill additionally authorizes specified   law enforcement  
          prosecutorial entities to enforce these prohibitions.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  No    
          Local:  No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/4/10)

          Paw Project (source)
          California Apartment Association
          California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
          City of West Hollywood
          Nolan-Taft Management


                                                               AB 2743

          United Animal Nations
          Western Center on Law & Poverty

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  8/4/10)

          California Veterinary Medical Association
          The Animal Council

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the author's office,  
          "Eight local governments in California have recently banned  
          the practice of cat declawing (Berkeley, Beverly Hills,  
          Burbank, Culver City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa  
          Monica, West Hollywood), recognizing the practice as  
          inhumane.  And many governments at all levels have banned  
          the practice of devocalization.  Nonetheless, a search of  
          rental listings throughout California produces a number of  
          properties with landlords and managers requiring that  
          potential owners will be considered only with declawed cats  
          or devocalized dogs . . .  both of these practices can have  
          unintended consequences for property managers, physical  
          complications for animals, and emotional and financial  
          consequences for pet owners."

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION :    The Animal Council, in  
          opposition, contends, "Amending the well understood word  
          "debark" - simply reducing volume of barking - to the term  
          "devocalize" being used by political opponents of this  
          lawful veterinary procedure leads to inaccurate  
          presumptions that a dog would be rendered silent.  Rather  
          debarked dogs retain a wide range of noise making abilities  
          that can be annoying or disturbing to the legal public  
          nuisance level in residential settings and [result in] law  
          enforcement action against the owner and dog.  Intentional  
          use of other than plain language in legislation is  
          troubling and problematic. Also, because pet keeping  
          tenants are not a legally protected class, granting  
          standing to enforce and obtain their own civil penalties to  
          certain organizations only increases the incentive for  
          landlords to bar all pets rather than risk the costs of  
          dealing with adversarial, sometimes ideologically inclined  
          organizations not otherwise interested in a party [or] the  
          tenancy.  Lack of or loss of rental housing is a major  
          relinquishment risk for pets, [such] that AB 2743 . . .  
          creates additional barriers to rental housing for pet  


                                                               AB 2743

          owners and new disincentives to landlords to individually  
          negotiate pet rentals either at the beginning of or during  

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  : 
          AYES:  Adams, Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Bill  
            Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,  
            Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Charles Calderon, Carter,  
            Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Emmerson,  
            Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Fuller,  
            Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,  
            Huber, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,  
            Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande, Niello,  
            Nielsen, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas,  
            Saldana, Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson,  
            Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada, John  
            A. Perez
          NOES:  Anderson, Conway, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Harkey,  
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Caballero, Cook, DeVore, Hagman,  
            Jeffries, Knight, Norby, Silva, Skinner, Vacancy

          RJG:dok  8/23/10   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****