Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee advances SB 1296, a bill requiring upfront pet-policy disclosures to renters

California State Assembly Judiciary Committee · June 9, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

SB 1296 would require landlords to disclose pet policies on listing materials and application forms before collecting an application fee; proponents said the change reduces wasted fees and delays, while rental-industry representatives raised concerns about enforcement language regarding addendums and eviction bases. The bill was moved out of committee after discussion and offers to pursue technical changes.

SB 1296, presented by its sponsor to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, would require housing providers to disclose their existing pet policies (or lack thereof) in listings and on application forms and refund fees within five business days if disclosure materially affected an applicant’s decision.

Jennifer Naitake of the Michelson Center said the bill is a limited transparency measure that does not require landlords to allow pets, cap fees, or change existing pet policies; instead, it requires that applicants know the rules before paying an application fee. She told the committee that surveys show many renters pay application fees without understanding pet rules, creating avoidable costs.

Vanessa Semprevira, a renter from Santa Cruz County and a pet owner, said the lack of early disclosure has cost time and money during housing searches. Opponents including the Southern California Rental Housing Association warned language that prevents an addendum’s signature from being the sole basis for an unlawful-detainer action could blunt landlords’ enforcement tools; they requested further tweaks.

Committee members asked questions about practical implications and suggested the author continue to work with landlord groups on narrow technical fixes; the committee moved the bill forward.