No-Smoking Areas Voted in Restaurants

In a move that will force changes--and probably some headaches--at many of Los Angeles’ most exclusive restaurants, the City Council on Wednesday gave final approval to a law requiring restaurants with 50 or more seats to designate half of their service area for nonsmokers.

The ordinance, passed on a 13-2 vote and expected to be approved by Mayor Tom Bradley, should take effect in about a month. It will bring Los Angeles into a group of more than 100 municipalities in California and more than 300 in the United States that have passed laws regulating smoking in restaurants.

The law also bans smoking in service lines at institutions such as banks, in areas of schools where children are present and in private child-care facilities. Smoking would also be prohibited in enclosed sporting arenas, but would be permitted in the lobbies.

The nation’s most publicized law against smoking in restaurants was passed last spring by Beverly Hills, which became only the second city to completely ban it. After complaints from restaurant owners, the Beverly Hills City Council last summer weakened the law to allow restaurants to set up smoking sections for up to 50% of their customers. Restaurants with more than 50 seats must install ventilation systems to prevent smoke from entering nonsmoking areas.

Over the years, as pressure from anti-smoking groups mounted, many chain restaurants have established nonsmoking sections. However, many high-priced restaurants have ignored that trend, putting the burden on the patron to request a table that is more secluded or adjacent to other nonsmokers.

The nonsmoking trend has not infiltrated exclusive restaurants because patrons are often more interested in their table’s proximity to the rich and famous than to smokeless air, according to observers of the Los Angeles restaurant scene. For example, at Le Dome on Sunset Boulevard, owner Michel Yhuelo estimates that only about 5% of his customers ask to be segregated from smokers.

Managers’ Concerns

Some restaurant managers worried Wednesday that it will be harder to make effective use of all seats and that customers who have set their minds on smoking or on sitting in a smokeless section could face longer waits. Others cringed at the thought of having to tell long-time customers that a favorite table was now off limits because it was part of the nonsmoking section.

“Oh my God,” said Franco Meglio, maitre d’ of Jimmy’s, an expensive, glittery restaurant in Century City when a reporter informed him about the City Council vote. “I wish this would never have passed.

“We have 250 seats. We have to have 125 seats for nonsmokers? Oh, shoot. That will be very tough on us. It is going to be my biggest headache. We cater to the best clientele in the world. Everybody smokes. They like to smoke that cigar. They have a cognac; they like to have a cigar.”

Other restaurant managers and operators reacted with more resignation, aware that the City Council had voted preliminary approval of the law last April after failing by only one vote to approve a total ban.

Restaurant executives said they were also aware that the Los Angeles law is merely the latest victory for the growing national movement against so-called “side-stream smoke.” Last year Surgeon General C. Everett Koop issued a formal warning against the danger nonsmokers face from such smoke.

“I’m not surprised by it at all,” said William Moyles, general manager of Harry’s Bar, also in Century City, which has two informal non-smoking areas available to patrons who request them.

Moyles said he would have preferred the city enact a looser law, like the one adopted by San Francisco supervisors last June, requiring restaurants to offer nonsmoking areas to customers on demand but not forcing them to set aside nonsmoking sections.

‘Little More Cosmopolitan’

The difference between the two approaches, Moyles said, was evidence that San Francisco is “a little more cosmopolitan town.”

A number of restaurants have already made concessions to nonsmokers.

Mary Atkinson, general manager of Orleans, a popular New Orleans-style restaurant in West Los Angeles, said her restaurant voluntarily set up a nonsmoking section a month ago as a result of customer requests. However, it will have to be enlarged to conform to the ordinance.

Mike Cardenas, manager of Teru Sushi, a Japanese restaurant in Studio City, said the restaurant’s owners--who, he noted, are not Japanese--have banned smoking at the 20-seat sushi bar, a policy that “once in a blue moon” draws criticism from patrons.

“But it’s necessary,” Cardenas said. “It keeps the restaurant clean.”

The new restrictions do not require restaurants to erect any barriers. However, posted signs would be needed. Restaurant patrons must also be asked if they wish to be seated in a smoking or non-smoking section.

The council’s action followed several earlier smoking prohibitions, each championed by Councilman Marvin Braude.

In 1975, smoking on elevators and in medical facilities was outlawed, and in 1977 smoking was banned in food markets and on buses.

In 1984, despite a heavy lobbying effort by the Tobacco Institute, the council ordered businesses throughout the city with five or more employees to provide a smoke-free workplace for nonsmokers.

That law at the time was one of the most sweeping in the country and served as a model for attempts by nonsmokers to win concessions in other cities.

Opposition to passage of the restaurant law came from Councilmen Nate Holden and Gilbert Lindsay.

“I don’t think anyone has the right to say to a person you can’t have a good smoke after you’ve had a good meal,” said Lindsay, a former smoker who noted that “you don’t have to blow it into someone’s face next to you” and that “gentlemen” would not smoke cigars around women.

Concern for Flexibility

Holden said the 50-50 provision does not provide enough flexibility to the restaurants.

Other council members also expressed doubts about the measure, particularly how it would be enforced, but nevertheless voted for it.

Councilman Ernani Bernardi, who had authored last April’s unsuccessful proposal for a complete ban on smoking, lost again Wednesday, 10 to 5, in his attempt to persuade his colleagues to pass a stronger law.

Bernardi said the evidence against second-hand smoke required a tougher law and also worried that the requirement for nonsmoking areas would make “police officers out of managers and owners of these restaurants.”

In defense of the ordinance, Councilman Joel Wachs said the success of earlier nonsmoking laws passed by the council shows people are willing to comply and enforcement will not pose a problem.

“Once in a while some jerk lights up, but the peer pressure is so great you rarely see that anymore,” Wachs said. “Nobody’s going to go in and be a Gestapo.”

Stan Kyker, executive vice president of the 2,400-member California Restaurant Assn., said members of the restaurant industry will comply with the law as they have in other California cities where such restrictions have been passed.

Kyker said there are about 8,000 restaurants in the city, but he had no idea how many would fall under the new law’s provisions.

While the law gives the restaurants “less flexibility in their ability to service the needs of all their customers,. . . restaurateurs will work with it,” Kyker said.

Asked if he could see any benefit in the new law, Kyker said that perhaps fewer linen tablecloths would be damaged by cigarette burns.

Mark Pertschuk, director of the Berkeley-based Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, said about 130 cities in the state--about 30 higher than estimated by the restaurant association--require the restaurants to set aside between 40% and 60% of their seating for nonsmokers. A number, such as Huntington Beach, Brea, Laguna Beach, Long Beach and Riverside, require at least 25%, while Sacramento County requires only 10% be set aside, he said.

Pertschuk said restaurants required to establish no-smoking sections often expand their sections beyond the required minimum because of requests by their customers.