SR-8-D (39)
gD
FES - 2 1999
f \atty\muni\strpts\mJm\petrghts
City Council Meeting 2-2-99
Santa MOnica, California
TO Mayor and City Council
FROM' City Attorney
SUBJECT Proposed Ordinance Providing EViction Protections To Tenants With Pets
Introduction
At several meetrngs, rncludlng Its meeting of January 26. 1999, the City Council has heard
testimony from members of the public about Situations Involving eVictions based upon the
fact of pet ownershIp, rather than upon any adverse consequences of the pet's presence
Those testlfyrng urged that pets were being used as an excuse to eVict and that tenants
should not be forced to choose between their housing and their pets In response, the
Councd dIrected legal staff to draft a measure whrch affords some protectron agarnst such
eVictions The accompanYing ordinance fulfills Council's direction by establlshrng a
defense which would be available to tenants In certarn SItuations but would also protect
the landlord's ability to protect the premises and the qUiet enjoyment of other tenants
Back~round
The City Council has previously adopted vanous ordinances Intended to ellmrnate unfair
dlscnmrnatlon rn the proVIsion of housing Thus, the Santa Monica MUnicipal Code
("SMMC") prohibits dlscnmlnatlng against tenants with children SMMC Chapter 4.28 The
1
<6D
FER - 2 1999
code also prOhibIts housing (and other) dlSCrlmmatlon based upon sexual orientatIon,
domestic partnershIp, and AIDS SMMC Chapters 4 40 and 4 52 A number of other Cities
have adopted simIlar protections, and, of course, federal and state law also prohibit
diSCrimination In housing
In recent years, the state and some Cities have also adopted laws Intended to address
dISCrimination against tenants With pets The first protections applied to tenants who
depend on dogs for gUidance, sIgnaling or service CIVil Code SectIon 54 1 Later,
statutory protections expanded to protect the right of seniors and those requIring
supportive services to have pets In rental hOUSing owned and operated by public entities
Health and Safety Code Section 19901 SImilarly, the legislature recently passed a
measure whIch would protect the fight of disabled and certain other condominium owners
to have pets, subject to reasonable restrictions AS 2020 On the local level, the Los
Angeles rent control law prohibits a landlord from changmg the terms of a tenancy to
prohibit pets and then eVicting a tenant In Violation of the prohIbition, unless the pet IS a
nUisance Los Angeles MUniCipal Code SectIon 151 090
Courts have also begun to recognize that certain tenants may have a fight to keep pets
Thus, a federal court has held that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires that a publiC
agency landlord allow a tenant With an acute psychological dependency upon her dog to
keep the dog notwithstanding a policy agaInst pets Majors v HOUSing Authonty, 652 F 2d
454 (5th CJr 1981)
2
This trend In the law IS based, In part, upon increasing societal recognition of the many
benefits of pet ownership, particularly to the elderly, children, the disabled, and those who
live alone Studies have shown that these benefits Include Improved physical and mental
health and longer life Growing eVidence of the benefits of pet ownership has caused
closer scrutinY of the exact Impact of tenants' pet ownership upon landlords' property
rights According to a U C DaVIS School of Vetennary Medicine study, "problems with
nOise, personal InJUry, or property damage have not resulted" from allowing elderly and
disabled renters to have pets In public hOUSing projects
DISCUSSion
The proposed ordinance would establish a defense available to some tenants faCing
eViction based upon ownership of a dog. cat, bird, or small aquatic animal At the same
time, the proposed ordinance would recognize both eXisting legal limitatIons upon pet
ownership and the nghts of landlords and others
SpeCifically, the proposed ordinance would prohibit threatenIng to commence or
commencing eViction proceedings on the grounds that the tenant has violated the
prOVISions of a rental agreement by keeping a pet or pets except In cIrcumstances where
possession of the pet IS otherwIse not lawful or IS an actual detnment to others ThiS
exception would apply where possession IS Itself Illegal (as with unpermitted wild animals)
or where the manner In which the pet IS kept violates health or humane laws
3
EViction would also be allowed If the pet constituted a threat to the health or safety of other
IndiViduals, Interfered with others' qUiet enjoyment, or otherwise constituted a nUisance
ThIS exception would cover a range of situations Including, for example, a tenant keeping
too many pets or a persistently nOIsy pet
Finally, eVictIons would be allowed If the pet caused significant physical damage to the
property of others This exception would cover Situations where the pet caused significant
damage to the premises or to the property of other tenants
Budqetary Impact
The proposed ordinance would have no budgetary Impact
Recommendation
If the CounCil wishes to adopt a measure Intended to protect residential tenants against
eVictions based solely upon pet ownership, staff recommends adoption of the proposed
ordinance
PREPARED BY
Marsha Jones Moutne. City Attorney
Barry Rosenbaum. Senior Land Use Attorney
Claudia Thompson, Administrative Assistant
4
----
CA f \atty\munI\laws\barry\pets
CIty Council Meeting 2-2-99
Santa Monica, Callforma
Ordinance Number _ (eCS)
(CIty CouncIl Serres)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA ADDING CHAPTER 464 TO THE SANTA MONICA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE EVICTION PROTECTION
TO TENANTS WITH PETS
WHEREAS, pet companionship has been shown to have a beneficial Impact on the
pet owner's physical and mental health. and
WHEREAS, pets can particularly benefit seniors. children, the disabled, and those
who live alone, and
WHEREAS, numerous studies have shown that senior citizens who have pets live
longer, go to the doctor less often. recover more qUickly from J11nesses, and have a more
positive outlook than those who do not, and
WHEREAS, the experience of caring for a pet dUring childhood can enhance the
growth of children, making a child more sensitive to the feelings and attitudes of others,
Inculcate tolerance, and provide an early lesson In the facts of life and death, and
WHEREAS, federal law prohibits dlscnmlnatlon In housing against disabled persons
and requires that landlords make "reasonable accommodations" for the disabled, and
WHEREAS, a federal appeals court has held that the requirement to make
"reasonable accommodations" mcludes allowing a person wIth an acute psychological
dependency on his or her dog to keep the dog despite a landlord's no pet policy, and
WHEREAS, the CIty has a continUIng commitment to preserving and enhancing the
quality of life for all City residents, Including seniors. children, the disabled and those who
live alone, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has heard extensive testimony from members of the
public about tenants being eVicted simply because of pet ownership, rather than any
adverse consequences associated wIth the pet, and
WHEREAS, given the shortage of available rental housing In the City, eVicting
tenants simply because of pet ownershIp demes pet owners access to the predominate
form of housing In the City. and
WHEREAS, the City IS committed to ensuring that pet owners have the same
opportunity to retaIn housing In the City as non-pet owners and that eXisting tenants are
not unfairly forced to chose between keeping their pets or their home,
NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS
SECTION 1 Chapter 464 IS hereby added to the Santa Monica Municipal Code
to read as follows
')
Chapter 4.64. PET OWNER EVICTION PROTECTIONS
Section 4.64.010 Statement of Policy_
Many tenants have been eVicted simply because they own pets and
IrrespectIve of whether the pet has caused any adverse Impact Such
eVictions deprive pet owners of full access to the predominant form of
housIng In the City and prevent tenants, Includlnf:! seniors, children, and the
dIsabled, from enroYlng the substantial benefits and rewards of pet
companionshIp or risk losing theIr home For these reasons, a no pet polley
IS detrimental to the health and welfare of thiS community
Section 4.64.020 Definitions.
The followings words or phrases as used In thiS Chapter shall have
the followings meanlnf:!s
(a) Person Any person as defIned In Municipal Code Section
1 12 150
(b) Pet Any domesticated bird, cat. dog. or aquatIc ammal kept Within
an aquarium
(c) Tenant A tenant, subtenant. lessee, sublessee or any other
person entitled under the terms of a rental housing agreement to the use or
occupancy of any rental housing unit
">
..)
Section 4.64.030 Prohibited activities.
It shall be unlawful for any person rentln!=l or leasing any houslnq
accommodation, or any authorized agent or employee of such person, to do
or attempt to do the following
rhreaten to commence or commence eViction proceedings aqalnst
any tenant on the grounds that he or she has vIolated the provISions of a
rental aqreement where the violation consists of keepIng a pet(s) In the Unit
unless (1) possessIon of the pet IS other\Nlse not lawful, Including, but not
limited to, being In violation of humane or health laws, (2) the pet constitutes
a threat to the health or safety of other indiViduals, Interferes with their qUiet
enloyment, or otherwIse constitutes a nUisance. or (3) possession of the pet
has resulted In Significant phYSical damage to the property of others An
action to eVict In vlolatron of thiS Section may be asserted as an affirmative
defense In an unlawful detainer action Nothing In thIS SectIon shall relIeve
a tenantfrom any liability othervvlse Imposed by law for damal=les caused by
such pet when proof of same eXists
SECTION 2 Any provISion of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto Inconsistent with the provISions of thiS Ordinance, to the extent of such
InconSistencies and no further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to affect the prOVISions of thiS Ordinance
4
SECTION 3 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance IS for any reason held to be Invalid or unconstitutIonal by a deCISion of any court
of any competent JUrisdiction, such a decIsion shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of thIS Ordinance The City Council hereby declares that It would have passed
thiS Ordinance, and each and every sectlon, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase not
declared Invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portJon of the Ordinance
would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional
SECTION 4 The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of thiS Ordinance The CIty Clerk shall cause the same to be published once In the
offiCial newspaper Within 15 days after Its adoption ThiS 0 rdrnance shall become effective
after 30 days from ItS adoption
APPROVED AS TO FORM
-....
) ----1)
/nj '~"-..") \ /:1 l"
I I,f ,11 v !LA 1.,0: }; 1100"') ..i.-'-' ,~C 0
.. ~ ~'-- ~ ... - ./II'V"'-L ../.... t,--v.......,. '-- '""\...."'- -"
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE
City Attorney
5