BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó


          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                       AB 1965|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
                                    THIRD READING

          Bill No:  AB 1965
          Author:   Yamada (D), et al.
          Amended:  5/5/14 in Assembly
          Vote:     21

           SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE  :  8-0, 6/25/14
          AYES:  Hernandez, Morrell, Beall, De León, DeSaulnier, Evans,  
            Monning, Nielsen
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Wolk
          ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  71-1, 5/8/14 - See last page for vote

           SUBJECT  :    Outdoor dining facilities:  pet dogs

           SOURCE  :     Social Compassion in Legislation

           DIGEST  :    This bill permits pet dogs under control of a person  
          to be in outdoor dining areas at food facilities under specified  
          conditions and clarifies that local governing bodies may  
          prohibit that conduct by ordinance.

           ANALYSIS  :    

          Existing law:

          1.Establishes the California Retail Food Code (CRFC) to regulate  
            retail food safety, which is enforced by local environmental  
            health officers.

          2.Prohibits live animals from being allowed in a food facility. 


                                                                    AB 1965

          3.Permits live animals to be allowed in certain specified  
            situations, where contamination of food, clean equipment,  
            utensils, linens, and unwrapped single-use articles cannot  
            result, including the following:

             A.   Dogs under the control of a uniformed law enforcement  

             B.   Service animals that are controlled by a disabled  
               employee or person in areas not used for food preparation;  

             C.   If kept at least 20 feet away from any mobile food  
               facility, temporary food facility, or certified farmers'  

          4.Makes liable those persons and operators in #3A and #3B above  
            for any damages done to the premises or facilities by the dog.

          This bill:

          1.Clarifies that local governing bodies may prohibit the  
            presence of pet dogs in outdoor dining areas of food  

          2.Permits pet dogs under the control of a person to be in an  
            outdoor dining area, under the following conditions:

             A.   The owner of the food facility elects to allow pet dogs  
               in its outdoor dining area;

             B.   There is a separate outdoor entrance where dogs enter  
               without going through the food establishment and pet dogs  
               are not allowed on chairs, benches, seats, or other  

             C.   The outdoor dining area is not used for food or drink  
               preparation, except that a food employee may refill a  
               beverage glass in the outdoor dining area from a pitcher or  
               other container;

             D.   Food and water provided to the dog is only in  
               single-use, disposable containers;



                                                                   AB 1965

             E.   Food employees are prohibited from direct contact with  
               pet dogs while on duty and requires handwashing if employee  
               does come in contact with pet dogs;

             F.   The outdoor dining area is maintained clean and surfaces  
               contaminated by dog excrement or other bodily fluids are  
               cleaned and sanitized;

             G.   The pet dog is on a leash or confined in a pet carrier  
               and is under the control of the pet owner; and

             H.   The food facility owner ensures compliance with local  
               ordinances, as specified.

           Local county guidelines  .  In December 2011, in response to the  
          advocacy of dog and restaurant owners, the Los Angeles County  
          Department of Public Health (LAC DPH) implemented guidelines for  
          the allowance of pet dogs in outdoor dining areas. These  
          guidelines are similar to those outlined in this bill, including  
          the following:  a separate entrance for the outdoor dining area;  
          no food/drink preparation or utensil storage on the patio; no  
          employee-pet contact; pets are not allowed on chairs, seats, or  
          benches; and, immediate cleaning and sanitization of areas where  
          excrement or bodily fluids are deposited.  In an advisory  
          bulletin, LAC 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.  Ventura County Environmental Health Division released a  
          fact sheet on animals in food facilities stating that the  
          prohibition on animals "does not apply to outdoor dining areas"  
          as long as animals do not go through the facility.  There have  
          been a number of other county environmental and public health  
          departments, including Pasadena, Sacramento, and Santa Barbara,  
          that have issued guidelines for allowing dogs in outdoor dining  
          areas or that outdoor areas are not considered part of the food  

           Public health implications .  According to a 2013 study published  
          in the Journal of Environmental Health, entitled "Public Health  
          Implications of Animals in Retail Food Outlets," the overall  
          public health risk is low as long as safety, sanitation, and  



                                                                    AB 1965

          hygiene practices are stringently enforced.  However, this does  
          not remove all risk.  There is the potential for serious  
          illness, including asthma and allergic reactions.  According to  
          the Allergy and Asthma Foundation of America, between 15% and  
          30% of Americans are allergic to dogs and cats.  20% of dog  
          allergen particles appear to remain airborne over extended time  
          periods.  While it is understood that pets carry bacteria and  
          parasites, the relative risk associated with pet and human  
          interaction has yet to be definitively proven.  Thus, the 2013  
          Journal on Environmental Health article states that policies  
          should focus on prevention and be tailored towards training food  
          employees on best hygiene practices associated with animals. 

           Prior Legislation
          AB 1252 (Assembly Health Committee, 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.

          SB 144 (Runner, Chapter 23, Statutes of 2006) repealed and  
          reenacted the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law as  
          the CRFC.

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

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  6/30/14)

          Social Compassion in Legislation (source)
          Anything Canine
          Cabrillo Kennel Club
          California Restaurant Association
          Jason Debus Heigl Foundation
          League of California Cities
          Sacramento Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
          State Humane Association of California
          Veggie Grill, Inc.

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    Social Compassion in Legislation (SCL),  
          the sponsor of this bill, argues that many restaurants choose to  
          allow dogs on their patios already, although this remains  



                                                                    AB 1965

          illegal due to outdated state laws.  SCL further states that  
          this state law should be changed to support businesses and allow  
          the local jurisdictions to set their own policy on this issue.   
          The California Restaurant Association writes that a number of  
          county health departments have approved rules allowing each  
          restaurant to decide whether to allow dogs on their outdoor  

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  71-1, 5/8/14
          AYES:  Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,  
            Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian  
            Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,  
            Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Fong, Fox,  
            Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gray, Grove,  
            Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones,  
            Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal, Maienschein,  
            Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande,  
            Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Rodriguez,  
            Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,  
            Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
          NOES:  Gonzalez
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Eggman, Gordon, Gorell, Mansoor, V. Manuel  
            Pérez, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Vacancy

          JL:k  6/30/14   Senate Floor Analyses 

                           SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                   ****  END  ****