Restaurant Smoking Ban May Be Blocked : Legislation: Opponents will submit petitions seeking to overturn city law. If enough signatures are valid, the ban will be on hold until election.

A coalition of restaurateurs backed by the tobacco industry said it has collected about 95,000 petition signatures--more than enough to block, at least temporarily, enforcement of Los Angeles’ restaurant smoking ban.

The group plans to submit the petitions to the city clerk’s office Saturday--just two days before the law is scheduled to take effect--in an attempt to put on the ballot a measure invalidating the smoking ban.

The petitioners must submit 58,275 valid signatures to put the measure before voters. But the law cannot be enforced during the period of up to 15 days that the city clerk’s office will take to determine whether enough valid signatures from registered voters in the city have been collected. Then, if the petitions are validated, the law cannot be implemented until a popular vote that is unlikely to come before June, 1994.

“This is an unfair law. It is going to put us at a competitive disadvantage with our neighbors,” said Brian Reed, general manager of Delmonico’s Seafood Grille and co-chairman of the campaign to overturn the smoking ban. “If they are going to enact this kind of ban, they should do it on a statewide level.”

But City Councilman Marvin Braude, whose 15-year campaign for the law culminated in its passage in the City Council last month, described the petition drive as an attempt by the tobacco industry to protect its market.

Braude called the law banning smoking in all enclosed restaurants “a mortal blow to the tobacco industry, and the industry recognizes this and is trying everything it can to keep it from happening.”

The councilman accused signature-gatherers of misleading the public into signing the petitions. Braude’s office reported being contacted by several people who said they were told they should sign the petitions even if they support the restaurant smoking ban.

Reed referred questions about the petition campaign to an employee of the newly formed L.A. Hospitality Coalition, but the staffer declined to comment.

The no-smoking law was approved June 2 by the City Council and was heralded by anti-smoking activists as a breakthrough, making Los Angeles the largest city in the nation to ban smoking in restaurants.

Enforcement was to begin in the city’s nearly 7,000 enclosed eateries on Monday, a month after publication of the law. Restaurant owners who defy the law could be punished by a fine up to $1,000 and six months in jail, with scofflaw restaurant smokers to be tagged with $50 fines.

But Reed said that a group of restaurant owners, who came together after the council vote, has been working on the petition drive. He said the smoking ban is unfair and illogical because it does not apply to other facilities, such as bars and nightclubs, and because smoking will still be legal in most cities in the county.

Many of the restaurant owners have said they will lose business to restaurants in cities where smoking is allowed.

Reed said the petition drive to kill the Los Angeles ordinance has been supported financially by the tobacco industry, the food industry, hotels, restaurants and private citizens. He insisted that the effort to block the smoking ban was broad-based and not driven solely by the tobacco industry.

Seven times in the last several years, restaurant owners, backed by the tobacco industry, have at tempted to use ballot measures to overturn restaurant smoking bans in local jurisdictions throughout the state. But only one such drive has succeeded, according to the Berkeley-based lobbying group Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights.

“Pretty much the tobacco industry is the puppet master behind these campaigns,” said Robin Hobart, associate director of Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights. “They don’t like to come out front because they know people don’t like the idea that a large, multibillion dollar corporation is coming from out of state to try to influence local decisions.”

Who is financially supporting the petition drive will become clearer early next month, when the organizers will be required to submit campaign expenditure reports to the city’s Ethics Commission.

Braude said he would like to put the matter before voters as soon as possible, perhaps by next November’s general election. However, he said the June, 1994, election date is likelier because of expected procedural delays.

Although supporters of the smoking ban deplored any stalling of its implementation, they said they are confident the measure will not be struck down by voters. A recent Los Angeles Times Poll showed that 65% of Los Angeles’ registered voters support the ban.

Meanwhile, two competing measures are making their way through the state Legislature that could also invalidate the law.

One, sponsored by Assemblyman Curtis Tucker Jr. (D-Inglewood), would overthrow the Los Angeles law and place only mild restrictions on smoking in restaurants and other facilities. That bill is being supported by a coalition of restaurants and tobacco interests.

Another bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Brentwood), would enact a statewide ban on restaurant smoking similar to Los Angeles’.