Liquor Sale Proposal Gains in San Marino

The San Marino City Council tentatively agreed Wednesday night to drop its ban on selling alcohol in restaurants--a tradition that made the city the nearest thing to a dry town in California.

The 5-0 vote came after supporters argued that allowing sales of beer and wine would make it easier to lure upscale restaurants to several commercial pockets along Huntington Drive. A second and final vote on the issue will be taken Jan. 14.

Opponents worry that the move would leave the community of 13,000 vulnerable to out-of-town troublemakers and raise the danger of drunk driving incidents.

“The intent is purely and simply to allow us to solicit upscale restaurants to come to San Marino,” Councilman Eugene Dryden said before the vote. “We want to have a nice thriving business district that complements the city.”

The law would allow sale of beer and wine in restaurants but impose conditions, including a requirement that alcohol be served only with meals and only between 11 a.m. and 10 p.m.

The vote came five years after a similar proposal to allow the sale of beer and wine in restaurants was shelved by the council in the face of vocal opposition.

San Marino is the largest of eight California cities that sell no alcohol in bars or restaurants and the only one to expressly prohibit it. It is unclear when the ban was first put on the books, but estimates are that it was written in the 1950s as a way of preventing people attending horse races at nearby Santa Anita Park from stopping to drink.

The city has one store that sells liquor, but the alcohol must be consumed elsewhere.

The ban has generated its own local customs: Some of the city’s eight restaurants supplied wine glasses and corkscrews for diners who brought their own wine. State alcohol regulators said the practice could violate state law.

But it was concern for energizing local business along Huntington Drive that led supporters to propose the measure anew this year.

Officials and business leaders argued that the ban was hampering efforts to lure high-end restaurants to the strip.

Foes argued that gains would go to out-of-town business interests and maintained that the change would endanger safety in the security-minded city.