Smoking Ban Held; Petitions Being Checked : Health: Law is frozen indefinitely. If enough signatures are validated, the City Council can either repeal the law or put it to voters in a referendum.

An ordinance that would have made Los Angeles the largest city in the nation to ban smoking in restaurants was frozen indefinitely Saturday when a coalition of restaurateurs, backed by the tobacco industry, filed more than 96,000 petition signatures aimed at repealing it.

The ordinance, which was to take effect Monday, was blocked by a little-known provision in the City Charter that says a measure can be held in abeyance if enough signatures are gathered within 30 days of its becoming law. The last time the strategy was used was in 1958 against a closed-circuit television ordinance, city officials said.

If enough signatures are deemed valid, the ordinance would likely land on the June, 1994, ballot, portending a nasty and expensive battle over an emotional issue.

“I expect the tobacco industry will spend $10 million to (defeat) this on the ballot,” said City Councilman Marvin Braude, a former two-pack-a-day smoker whose 15-year campaign against tobacco culminated in the ban signed into law last month. “And we will have to mount an enormous campaign of nickels and dimes against their millions.”

Packed in cardboard boxes, the petitions arrived at a city-owned warehouse downtown Saturday morning, just two hours before the 30-day deadline was to expire. The city clerk’s office opened Saturday to wait for the filings and hired 27 temporary workers to begin the long process of verifying the signatures, which is expected to be completed Friday. If 58,275 signatures--10% of the total vote in the recent Los Angeles mayoral election--are deemed valid, the City Council has the option of repealing the law or putting it to the voters in a referendum.

Calling the petition organizers “sponsors of death,” Braude said the drive is standing in the way of a measure designed to protect the public health. “Every minute, every hour, every day people are dying,” he said.

But opponents of the ordinance contend that the real issue is less the perils of smoking than the consequences of bad business. A ban would put Los Angeles at a competitive disadvantage for tourist dollars with cities such as Orlando, Phoenix and Las Vegas, they argue, not to mention area communities where smokers can light up freely.

“Los Angeles is the destination of millions of tourists and conventioneers from all over the world,” said Brian Reed, general manager of Delmonico’s Seafood Grille and co-chairman of the Los Angeles Hospitality Coalition, which organized the petition drive. “Our City Council should be attempting to improve Los Angeles’ image rather than driving business out of town.”

Advocates of nonsmokers’ rights counter that such a law might attract patrons to Los Angeles. Statistics indicate that 80% of California residents do not smoke and a Times poll showed 65% of Los Angeles’ registered voters favor a restaurant smoking ban.

Citing the health effects of secondhand smoke, 56 cities and counties nationwide--49 in California--have banned smoking in restaurants, and Braude declared it a “joyous day” when it appeared that Los Angeles was about to take its place as the first major metropolitan city to do the same.

But the new law seemed to escalate the battle rather than end it, as restaurateurs and hoteliers organized to block the ban, arguing that a Los Angeles already hobbled by riots, gang violence, carjackings and a recession is in no position to offend tourists with smoking restrictions.

“We are not selling cigarettes. We are not selling smoking. We are not opposed to a ban on smoking; we are opposed to a ban on smoking in Los Angeles,” Reed said, explaining that a statewide or national no-smoking law would at least keep the city on an even playing field.

Braude denounced the coalition as a front for the tobacco industry, which has attempted seven times in recent years to overturn restaurant smoking bans in local jurisdictions across the state. Only one succeeded, according to the Berkeley-based lobbying group Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights.

It is unclear how much of the coalition’s support comes from the tobacco industry; members contend that their backing is broad-based and includes the food industry, hotels and other hospitality groups. The financial support behind the drive will become clear next month when campaign expenditure reports required under city ethics laws must be submitted.

Even if the law survives the petition challenge, two bills wending their way through the state Legislature might make it moot.

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

The second bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Brentwood), would enact a statewide ban on restaurant smoking similar to the version passed in Los Angeles.

Meanwhile, smokers remained free to puff away in designated areas of the city’s 7,000 enclosed eateries, where the debate raged as patrons discussed the wisdom of the ordinance.

“If you want to smoke while you eat, eat at home,” said one patron at a Westside fish restaurant where a lunch crowd was gathering.

“I am furious about it,” another woman said as she headed inside for a Caesar salad she planned to punctuate with three to four cigarettes.