BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1965
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 25, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Richard Pan, Chair
AB 1965 (Yamada) - As Introduced: February 19, 2014
SUBJECT : Outdoor dining facilities: pet dogs.
SUMMARY : Allows food facilities to permit a person to bring a
pet dog to outdoor dining areas, but allows cities and counties
to pass a local ordinance to prohibit pet dogs in food
facilities' outdoor dining areas.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits live animals in food facilities, except provides
that live animals may be allowed, if contamination cannot
result, in the following circumstances:
a) Fish in aquariums and shellfish on ice, under
refrigeration, or in display tank systems;
b) Animals intended for consumption, provided that specific
storage, handling, and slaughter requirements are met;
c) Dogs under the control of a law enforcement officer or
private patrol employees, as specified;
d) Service animals that are controlled by a disabled
employee or person in areas that are not used for food
preparation, if a health or safety hazard will not result;
e) Pets in the common dining areas of restricted food
service facilities (bed and breakfast inns or agricultural
homestays) at times other than during meals, provided
specified conditions are met;
f) In non-food areas, as specified, of a facility that
contains caged animals, such as in a variety store that
sells pets or a tourist park that displays animals;
g) If the animal is kept at least 20 feet away from any
mobile food facility, temporary food facility, or certified
farmers' market.
AB 1965
Page 2
2)Makes law enforcement officers, private patrol operators, and
disabled people who bring dogs into a food facility liable for
any damage done to the premises by the dog.
3)Defines "food facility" to mean an operation that stores,
prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food
for human consumption at the retail level. Includes, within
the definition of food facility, any place used in conjunction
with a facility's operations, including, but not limited to,
storage facilities for food-related utensils, equipment, and
materials.
4)Under the California Retail Food Code (CRFC), states the
intent of the Legislature to occupy the whole field of health
and sanitation standards for retail food facilities, and makes
standards set forth in CRFC exclusive of all local health and
sanitation standards relating to retail food facilities, with
exceptions in 5) below. Finds and declares that the public
health interest requires that there be uniform statewide
health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities to
assure the people of this state that the food will be pure,
safe, and unadulterated.
5)Provides an exception to 4) above for local governing bodies
that: a) adopt food facility evaluation or grading systems;
b) prohibit any type of food facility; c) adopt an employee
health certification program; d) regulate the provision of
consumer toilet and handwashing facilities; or e) adopt
specified requirements related to food trucks.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL . According to the author of this bill, a
number of counties, including Los Angeles and Santa Barbara,
have policies and guidelines for restaurants that allow dogs
in outdoor dining areas. However, the author notes that state
law currently prohibits the presence of dogs in food
facilities, thus preempting any county policy on pet dogs on
patios. The author writes that, while local health officials
can choose to selectively enforce this prohibition, business
owners and local health departments may be subject to
litigation for failure to comply with or enforce state law.
Moreover, the author states there is currently confusion over
AB 1965
Page 3
current law on pet dogs on patios, with a number of counties
erroneously indicating that the law does not apply to outdoor
dining areas as they believe these areas do not qualify as
part of the legal definition of a food facility.
The author writes that many dog owners have an interest in
dining with their dogs, many restaurant owners want to
accommodate these potential customers, and many local
governments want to assist these groups by creating carefully
considered guidelines to accommodate them. This bill is
intended to give restaurants the choice to serve these
customers while preserving the authority of local governments
to determine what policy best serves their community.
2)BACKGROUND .
a) Local environmental health enforcement. In 2012, in
response to the advocacy of dog and restaurant owners, the
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH)
implemented a new policy permitting pet dogs in outdoor
dining areas, provided certain conditions are met,
including the following: i) a separate entrance to the
patio; ii) no food preparation or utensil storage on the
patio; iii) no employee-pet contact; and iv) immediate
cleaning and sanitization of areas where excrement or
bodily fluids are deposited. In an advisory bulletin, Los
Angeles DPH acknowledges that the CRFC continues to
prohibit live animals inside food facilities, but also
notes that local jurisdictions have varying interpretations
of the law. Indeed, a Ventura County Fact Sheet on animals
in food facilities writes that the prohibition on animals
"does not apply to outdoor dining areas such as patio
dining," and a number of other county environmental health
departments, including Sacramento, San Diego, and Santa
Barbara, provide guidance indicating dogs may be allowed in
outdoor dining areas or that such areas are not considered
part of the food facility.
b) Transmission of disease from dogs to humans. According
to a 2011 report by the National Association of State
Public Health Veterinarians (NASPHV) and endorsed by the
federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, animals
in public settings pose various risks for humans, the
greatest of which is infection with enteric (gut) bacteria
and parasites. The report, which covers a broad array of
AB 1965
Page 4
public settings and types of animals, notes that enteric
disease outbreaks among visitors to fairs, farms, petting
zoos, and other public settings are well documented.
Outbreaks are caused by various Escherichia coli strains,
Salmonella enterica, Cryptosporidium, Campylobacter, and
other pathogens. The primary mode of transmission for
enteric pathogens is fecal-oral. Because animal fur, hair,
skin, and saliva harbor fecal organisms, transmission can
occur when persons pet, touch, feed, or are licked by
animals. Transmission also has been associated with
contaminated animal bedding, flooring, barriers, other
environmental surfaces, and contaminated clothing and
shoes. The report notes that cattle, sheep, or goats are
often the sources for infection, but other animals,
including live poultry, rodents, reptiles, amphibians, and
other domestic and wild animals also are potential sources.
Dogs in particular can carry and transmit Salmonella,
Cryptosporidium, and Campylobacter, pathogens which, in
humans, usually result in a mild to severe infection of the
gastrointestinal system, including diarrhea, fever,
abdominal cramps, nausea, and vomiting, but sometimes lead
to more serious complications.
The NASPHV report recommends that venues should be divided
into three types of areas: nonanimal areas (where animals
are not permitted, with the exception of service animals),
transition areas (located at entrances and exits to animal
areas), and animal areas (where animal contact is possible
or encouraged). The report recommends that no animals,
except service animals, be permitted in nonanimal areas,
and that food and beverages be prepared, served, and
consumed only in nonanimal areas.
c) Australian risk assessment. Food Standards Australia
New Zealand, an Australian governmental entity that
develops standards that regulate food in Australia and New
Zealand, conducted an assessment of the risk posed by
allowing pet dogs in outdoor dining areas. The study
concluded that the potential risk of foodborne transmission
of disease agents from dogs in outdoor dining settings to
humans is very low to negligible. The reasons given for
this conclusion are: i) the likelihood of direct contact
of food or food preparation areas with infected dogs or
feces is negligible; ii) acquiring diseases through
indirect foodborne transmission routes requires the
AB 1965
Page 5
involvement of an intermediate vector; iii) potential
contamination of food directly from dogs, or indirectly
through contaminated intermediate vectors, in outdoor
dining settings is managed through compliance with general
food safety standards; iv) studies on human-dog
interactions indicate that, in general, contact between
people and dogs that are not their own pets is limited,
minimizing the potential for contact and consequently the
transmission of pathogens from dogs in outdoor dining
settings to humans.
3)SUPPORT . The sponsor of this bill, Social Compassion in
Legislation, writes that this bill will support business
owners that choose to allow dogs on their patios and will
encourage more businesses to do the same. The sponsor writes
this bill will allow local jurisdictions to set their own
policy on this issue. In support, the California Restaurant
Association writes that rules established by local
environmental health departments like Los Angeles are
technically in conflict with California law, which prohibits
non-service animals in eating establishments, and that this
bill will allow a restaurant owner to determine what best
suits their business model as well as their customers without
the threat of a citation.
4)PREVIOUS LEGISLATION .
a) AB 1252 (Committee on Health), Chapter 556, Statutes of
2013, made numerous changes to the CRFC, including
clarifying that a service animal in training qualifies as a
service animal for purposes of the CRFC and deleting a
requirement that the work or tasks performed by a service
animal be directly related to an individual's disability.
b) SB 144 (George Runner), Chapter 23, Statutes of 2006,
repeals and reenacts the California Uniform Retail Food
Facilities Law as the CRFC.
5)DOUBLE REFERRAL . This bill is double referred and upon
passage of this Committee, it will be referred to the Assembly
Local Government Committee.
6)POLICY COMMENT . Los Angeles County, in its policy allowing
pet dogs on food facility patios, implemented a number of
conditions to protect health and safety of consumers in those
AB 1965
Page 6
facilities. In contrast, this bill allows food facilities
statewide to allow pet dogs on patios but does not create any
health and safety protections for consumers in these
facilities. Therefore, the Committee may wish to amend this
bill to create a set of baseline health and safety
requirements for restaurants that choose to allow pet dogs on
their patios.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Social Compassion in Legislation (sponsor)
California Restaurant Association
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Russell / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097