An act to amend Section 798 of 1950.5 of, and to add Section 1947.16 to, the Civil Code, relating to mobilehomes. housing.
AB 2609 would place new limits on two common pet-related charges in residential rental housing. First, it would prohibit landlords from charging more than 1% of monthly rent as additional rent because a tenant keeps a common household pet in the unit. Second, it would prohibit landlords from requiring a pet-related security deposit or other security amount above 15% of one month’s rent. The bill defines “common household pet” to include domestic dogs and cats, with exclusions for certain hybrids.
The bill also amends Civil Code Section 1950.5, which governs residential security deposits, to add the pet-charge limits into the existing security deposit framework. Those limits would apply only to rental agreements entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2027. The bill leaves intact the broader rules on maximum security deposits, return of deposits, itemized statements, inspections, photographs, and landlord liability, while adding a specific cap for pet-related security charges. It also makes a nonsubstantive title change to the Mobilehome Residency Law.
In practical terms, the bill would affect landlords and tenants in residential rental housing statewide by restricting how much extra can be charged for pets at move-in and during tenancy. It would likely reduce upfront costs for tenants with pets and limit recurring pet rent, while also limiting the amount landlords can collect to cover potential pet-related damage. Because the bill is drafted as an amendment to the general residential security deposit statute, its main legal effect is to create a new statewide ceiling on pet fees and pet deposits rather than to overhaul the existing deposit system.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record appears neutral to mildly favorable, but limited. The bill was introduced and amended, then set for first hearing in Assembly Judiciary, but the hearing was canceled at the request of the author, so there is no recorded committee debate or vote to show broader support or opposition. The absence of votes and transcript material means there is little direct evidence of stakeholder positions in the available record.
The main point of potential contention is the balance between tenant affordability and landlord risk management. Tenant advocates would likely support the bill as a cap on pet-related housing costs and a way to make pet-friendly housing more accessible, while landlords may view the limits as too restrictive if they believe higher pet deposits or pet rent are needed to offset damage or administrative costs. The bill’s delayed applicability date, limited definition of covered pets, and preservation of existing security-deposit rules suggest an attempt to narrow the dispute to pet-related charges specifically rather than broader rent control or deposit policy.
AB 2609 would add a new Civil Code section, Section 1947.16, and amend Civil Code Section 1950.5 to impose statewide limits on pet-related rent and security charges in residential leases. It would cap pet rent at 1% of monthly rent and cap any additional pet-related security at 15% of one month’s rent, applying only to rental agreements entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2027. The bill would not change the general one-month security deposit rule or the existing procedures for deposit accounting, inspections, and return, but it would add a specific restriction for common household pets.
The available legislative record shows little formal debate: there are no recorded votes and no committee transcript excerpts, and the bill was set for first hearing in Assembly Judiciary before the hearing was canceled at the author’s request. Based on the bill’s subject matter and structure, the measure appears aimed at tenant affordability and pet-friendly housing, suggesting likely support from tenant-oriented interests, but the record provided does not show a clear public consensus or organized opposition in committee.
The likely point of contention is whether the bill goes too far in limiting landlords’ ability to price for pet-related risk. Supporters would likely argue that pet rent and pet deposits can be used as barriers to housing and that the bill standardizes and limits those charges. Opponents would likely argue that landlords should retain flexibility to cover damage, cleaning, and administrative costs associated with pets, especially in higher-risk units or markets. Because the bill was not heard and no testimony is provided, these positions are inferred from the policy design rather than from recorded debate.