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