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.
CONTINUED
AB 1965
Page
2
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
officer;
B. Service animals that are controlled by a disabled
employee or person in areas not used for food preparation;
and
C. If kept at least 20 feet away from any mobile food
facility, temporary food facility, or certified farmers'
market.
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
facilities.
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
fixtures;
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;
CONTINUED
AB 1965
Page
3
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.
Comments
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
facility.
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
CONTINUED
AB 1965
Page
4
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:
No
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
CONTINUED
AB 1965
Page
5
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
patios.
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 ****
CONTINUED