Smoking Ban Kicks In at All L.A. Restaurants

Los Angeles’ long-contested ban on smoking in restaurants suddenly went into effect Monday, when the city clerk’s office declared that a coalition of restaurant owners had failed in a petition drive to put the issue before voters.

While nonsmokers declared victory and the city attorney’s office said it would begin enforcing the ban immediately, opponents vowed to go to court to seek an order allowing smokers to continue lighting up in the city’s nearly 7,000 enclosed eateries.

The petitions were invalidated because many of those signing or circulating them were found not to be registered Los Angeles city voters.

In the meantime, the Los Angeles Police Department said it will respond to complaints about restaurant smoking, but that such calls are likely to be of low priority. Smokers can be fined from $50 to $250, while restaurant owners who defy the law face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

“August 2nd should be remembered as a historic day for the city of Los Angeles,” said Councilman Marvin Braude, who pushed the smoking ban through the council in late June. “It represents the day when the people of our city said ‘No’ to the powerful tobacco industry.”

Other anti-smoking advocates--noting that Long Beach and Pasadena also voted to prohibit restaurant smoking in recent weeks--predicted that enforcement of the Los Angeles law will be a catalyst for more smoking restrictions.

“I believe other cities around Los Angeles are quickly going to fall into place and pass 100% bans,” said Patrick Reynolds, grandson of the founder of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. who has bucked the family business by campaigning for laws limiting the use of tobacco. He became an anti-smoking activist after his father, a longtime smoker, died of emphysema. “This is a day when all Los Angeles can breathe a little easier.”

And a coalition of nonsmokers announced Monday that it will go to court in an attempt to get an order prohibiting smoking in all public facilities including hotels. The group said at a Woodland Hills news conference that such smoking violates the Americans with Disabilities Act by exposing those with respiratory illnesses to dangerous secondhand smoke.

The sudden invalidation of the pro-smoking petitions Monday was a surprise to both sides, which had been girding for an expensive election to settle the matter. The mere submission of the petitions blocked enforcement of the law for one week and could have held it up until November or June, when the matter would have gone before voters.

Instead, the petition campaign seems all but dead. The law took effect about 10 a.m. Monday, when the city attorney’s office received notice from the clerk that the petitions had been invalidated.

The Los Angeles Hospitality Coalition, the restaurant group formed to fight the ban, had submitted 97,572 signatures to the clerk’s office July 24. That appeared to be a comfortable cushion above the 58,275 signatures the group needed to put the ordinance to a vote.

But in taking a 5% sample of the signatures--standard procedure under the City Charter--the clerk’s office found that less than 43% of the signatures were those of registered Los Angeles City voters. The number was so low that the clerk was not even required by the charter to count the balance of the signatures, said Kristin Heffron, head of the clerk’s Elections Division.

Restaurant coalition members, who had been backed by the tobacco industry, said the clerk’s office botched the petition review.

“What we will be requesting is a court order asking that the ordinance be stayed while all of the petitions are reviewed,” said Dana Reed, attorney for the Hospitality Coalition. The city clerk “hired 28 temporary employees to go in and check these signatures and they just didn’t do a very good job,” Reed said.

More than a quarter of those signing petitions were not listed on the county’s voter registration rolls, while nearly a quarter more were thrown out because those circulating the petitions were not Los Angeles city voters, as required by the charter, Heffron said.

Reed said it was “a terrible error” to throw out signatures simply because the petition circulators were not properly registered.

“The courts won’t allow them to do that,” Reed said. “You can’t penalize the people who signed the petition because of an alleged error by the circulator.”

The City Charter gives the petition sponsors one month to challenge the validation procedure. The greatest threat to the law may come from Sacramento, where restaurant owners and tobacco interests are supporting a law by Assemblyman Curtis Tucker Jr. (D-Inglewood) that would remove the power of cities to regulate smoking.

Another bill, by Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Brentwood), would ban smoking in restaurants statewide.

Los Angeles is the largest city in the United States to ban smoking in restaurants and one of 60 jurisdictions in the state and 70 nationwide to prohibit restaurant smoking. Ten more California cities will consider smoking bans in the next month.

The Los Angeles City Council narrowly passed its law after a 15-year campaign by Braude, a former smoker. Proponents said their cause gained momentum when the federal Environmental Protection Agency declared secondhand smoke a significant contributor to cancer and later recommended that employers minimize their employees’ contact with tobacco smoke.

Opponents have argued that the bans unfairly limit personal freedom and harm business by driving smokers out of restaurants.

The Los Angeles law applies to all enclosed restaurants but does not govern bars--even if they are located inside eateries. Patrons also are permitted to smoke in outdoor patios.

Los Angeles police said they have made no specific plans for enforcing the ordinance.

“We will handle it the same way we handle any call for service,” said spokesman John Dunkin. “We will take the appropriate action, but we have to give it some kind of priority.”

While saying the department will not trivialize the law, Dunkin added that many more serious crimes would get priority.

A spokesman for City Atty. James Hahn said the office has never had to prosecute people for smoking and is hoping for voluntary compliance.

But some restaurant owners said they do not plan on helping the enforcement effort. “I’m not going to play policeman,” said Frank Holoman, owner of the Boulevard Cafe in the Crenshaw district.

A spot check of several downtown restaurants Monday evening showed that word about the ban had not traveled far. From the ultra-casual Philippe of French dip sandwich fame to the trendy Kachina Grill, most of those overseeing the dinner service said they were unaware of the new ban.

Marcelo Falcon, assistant manager of historic Olvera Street’s El Paseo de Los Angeles, shook his head while a party of six puffed away over pre-dinner drinks in the restaurant’s main dining room. “I don’t think the owner knows about this,” Falcon said. “Probably we’ll have some (business) losses, but for me, it’s better because I don’t smoke.”

But Sammy Cheung, manager of the Ocean Seafood restaurant in Chinatown, said the new ordinance will spell disaster for Los Angeles eateries.

“We will lose a lot of customers. People will go to Monterey Park,” he said, referring to the San Gabriel Valley city with a large Asian population and a growing number of ethnic restaurants. “If we make less, the city makes less in taxes,” added Cheung, who said about half his customers request seating in the large restaurant’s smoking section.

At least one restaurant was ready. Susan Onodera, assistant manager of Horikawa in Little Tokyo, had caught word of the ban on an early evening television news broadcast and was scrambling to set out the “no smoking” signs the restaurant had had printed up right after the ordinance was approved in June.

“We have a lot of Japanese clientele that like to smoke,” Onodera said. “We’ll just have to send them to the bar or to a private room.”

Times staff writer Jean Merl contributed to this report.