New Law Will Make it Easier for Restaurants to Serve Alcohol

0
772
The interior of San Pedro Brewing Company. File photo.

On Feb. 9, the Los Angeles City Council voted 13-0 to adopt the Restaurant Beverage Program Ordinance, which will make it easier for sit-down restaurants to acquire permits to serve alcohol.

According to a document from the city planning website, the new process will take weeks instead of months, and reduce the cost from about $13,000 to about $4,000.

However, there are a lot of restrictions — it only applies to restaurants, and there are more than 50 restrictions that must be met. For example, the restaurant can only be open from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., there can be no live entertainment, and the only music allowed is ambient background music.

“The restaurant industry in Los Angeles is one of the most important drivers of our economy,” said Councilman Paul Krekorian, who represents the 2nd District. “It’s one of the most important providers of employment to the people of Los Angeles and it’s a central component of tourism and bringing outside money into Los Angeles.”

Krekorian said that the restaurant industry has fallen on hard times, particularly because of the pandemic. However, he also pointed out that the ordinance had been in the works for years. It has been in development since 2017, according to the city clerk’s website.

“We’ve been working on a way to try to shorten the time that restaurants need to get open … and provide a full range of services to their customers, while still protecting surrounding neighborhoods,” Krekorian said.

Krekorian said that under the ordinance, restaurant owners agree to a set of conditions that are already stronger than the ones typically required. These include security standards, such as security cameras, a complaint log and the removal of graffiti and litter. In addition, participating restaurants must take part in an inspection program.

Jorge Castillo, advocacy director for Alcohol Justice, said that the Los Angeles Drug and Alcohol Policy Alliance objected to this ordinance for many reasons, which were spelled out in a letter. The ordinance will no longer require public input when going through the alcohol permit process, and there will no longer be any California Environmental Quality Act review, public hearing or appeals.

“Public health data show LA is already dramatically over-concentrated with alcohol businesses, 300% over what’s recommended in many areas,” said Sarah Blanch, co-chair of the LA Drug and Alcohol Policy Alliance. “The county spends $10 billion annually managing alcohol-related problems, and this new measure will make it much worse with no controls.”

Castillo said the alliance requested plenty of changes to make the ordinance safer, but most were ignored. One was to make sure that 20 seats were required in order for a business to count as a sit-down restaurant — but this was lowered to 10. Another was to not allow happy hours at the restaurants that used the ordinance, as this encourages customers to drink more heavily.

The alliance also requested a program that would help local community members open restaurants in their communities, as well as ensure a percentage of restaurants open in communities be founded by residents. This was also ignored by the city council.

In addition, the alliance asked for stricter accountability for businesses that broke rules. Under the current system, a restaurant needs three citations in two years to lose its permit. The alliance asked for just three citations in one year, or if a felony was committed on the premises, the permit should be removed immediately.

Castillo said that Krekorian pushed for restaurants to be allowed to have 45% of their sales be from alcohol, which is what the final ordinance states.

“Forty-five percent is really high,” Castillo said. “If half of your sales are alcohol and you’re a restaurant, that’s problematic. Then you’re selling too much, and it’s not really a restaurant at that point. … It’s like a bar that’s selling food.”

The alliance pushed for 30% instead, which Castillo said was more reasonable — but he acknowledged that enforcing this would be difficult, no matter what the percentage was.

“A lot of these conditions are not enforceable,” Castillo said. “And they’re not going to enforce them. So the best thing to do is not even have [the ordinance].”

Councilwoman Nithya Raman, who represents the 4th District, said that Los Angeles is one of the most difficult cities in the country to open a restaurant.

“Our current process of permitting the sale of alcohol at restaurants … stacks the deck against small, independent restaurants,” Raman said. “Because you have to have so much capital and so many connections in order to go through the incredibly lengthy process; and the incredibly expensive process; and a process which demands a huge amount of political wrangling to get a conditional use permit.”

Krekorian said there have been several compromises to the ordinance, including making the ordinance an opt-in program.

“Members who want to participate in this will need to submit a resolution to be able to opt-in to the program,” Krekorian said. “That also provides us with an opportunity to ensure that if particular neighborhoods are not interested in this program, they will not participate.”

While a full menu is required, this does not prevent customers from picking up or ordering alcohol, even if they aren’t buying any food. This is because of Senate Bill 389, which was passed by the state in October 2021. This was a point of contention among some public commenters, including Charles Porter, of the United Coalition East Prevention Project.

“We’re still concerned about a process to fast-track alcohol sales in a time of rampant alcohol substance abuse,” Porter said. “SB 389, which was recently passed by the state, allows all restaurants to sell a bottle and can to go, without food, for the next five years. That completely changes the spirit and scope of this program, which was originally envisioned as allowing alcohol sales in sit-down family restaurants.”

The San Pedro Chamber of Commerce did not respond in time to comment on this story.

Tell us what you think about this story.