Gov. Gavin Newsom Allows Outdoor Dining and To-go Drinks Statewide until Dec. 31

As the state prepares to lift all COVID-19 restrictions on June 15, some changes for restaurants, such as outdoor dining and to-go drinks, will remain until Dec. 31, and possibly beyond in some cities.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday announced that restaurants and bars will be able to continue offering expanded outdoor dining and takeout alcoholic beverages through the end of the year.

The governor's announcement includes the use of sidewalks and converted parking spaces for outdoor dining and the sale of alcohol to-go. Bars will also be allowed to continue partnering with food trucks, restaurants and catering companies to sell food with alcohol even if they don't have an on-site kitchen.

Newsom said restaurants will be vital to the economy "roaring back," which he has repeatedly suggested will happen in the second half of the year, saying the increased operational freedom will spur a faster recovery for restaurants and bars.

When Los Angeles shut down indoor dining last year, DK Marikan did everything in his power to reinvent his 28-year-old Mediterranean restaurant and deli to keep it afloat.

“At some point we only did to go, and that was nothing. Nobody wanted to come,” he said of Garo’s, a staple with downtown workers and residents who would hang out and linger over Greek salads and pastrami sandwiches. “Maybe 10% of our business was to go. That’s it.”

Once the city allowed businesses to expand dining onto sidewalks and streets through its Al Fresco program, Marikan went all in, investing nearly $8,000 on cafe chairs and awnings. He called outdoor dining a lifeline.

“It’s going to bring in a lot of people because, I want to say 90% of our customers, they don’t want to dine indoors anymore. They want to be outdoors,” Marikan said of LA’s proposal to make its outdoor dining program permanent. “We would love to see this be permanent. I pray they do it.”

Aiding hard-hit restaurants

When the pandemic ravaged businesses across the country, it hit the restaurant industry especially hard. The California Restaurant Association last August warned that of the 90,000 restaurants operating in the state, at least 30% would close without significant government aid. As California counties and cities prepare to reopen entirely to pre-pandemic capacity limits, state and city leaders are exploring ways to permanently adopt some of the emergency measures.

Two bills making their way through the state Legislature, one in the Senate and one in the Assembly, aim to permanently allow restaurants to sell to-go alcoholic beverages. Several cities across the state are voting on whether to extend or cement their outdoor dining programs.

“We haven’t been able to operate at full operations in over a year, so anyone still hanging on is barely hanging on. So every piece of possible revenue is going to be critical,” said Matt Sutton, senior vice president of government affairs and public policy at the restaurant association. “The restaurant recovery has not started. It won’t start ‘til after June 15 and it will need a long runway.”

Democratic state Sen. Bill Dodd introduced a bill to allow continued off-site alcoholic beverage sales after realizing how much businesses in his Napa Valley district relied on tourism and alcohol sales to stay afloat.

“To say it was devastating to the restaurants would be an understatement,” Dodd said. “I know a lot of locals tried to take out as much as possible. But when you really look at it in these restaurants, it’s almost like these food bills are half or two thirds of the whole bill and the rest is alcohol sales

Dodd said local business owners began approaching him asking him if there was a chance that to-go drinks could remain after the pandemic both because of their success, and the fact that residents have grown fond of the option.

“It’s not like that was the silver bullet, the thing that’s going to make or break them. It was a contributor to the bottom line for sure,” he said of the to-go option. “This could be something that would not only help the industry, but maybe it’s something that the consumer really wants.”

Dodd’s bill passed unopposed out of the Senate and is now being heard in the Assembly. Alcohol Justice, an industry watchdog group, is the main opposition to the legislation and argues that the bill could threaten public health and safety by increasing drunk driving.

Alcoholic drinks to go

During the pandemic, 33 states and the District of Columbia allowed to-go sales of alcohol, including spirits and cocktails or cocktail kits. A study by Technomic, a food service research firm, found that 58% of consumers said the ability to purchase alcoholic beverages with their take-out orders impacted their choice of restaurant.

Sutton said the to-go drinks program should be expanded.

“If you had a pilot project and it was successful, you continue it for a number of years further,” he said. “We think it’s the sweet spot.”

“We overwhelmingly saw in Los Angeles, and in the pockets that prescribed this program, that people were able to take greater advantage of being comfortable in their neighborhoods, recreate, and other aspects of feeling safe when they’re walking around in their neighborhoods,” the lawmaker said.

While Nazarian said his bill is mostly focused on the public health and safety benefits, he’s been approached by business owners in San Francisco who also want to find a way that the bill could benefit them. A study by Yelp found that safer streets initiatives that closed off areas to vehicular traffic drove increases in business for restaurants. The study specifically saw spikes in business in San Francisco’s Valencia Street and Burbank’s San Fernando Blvd.

Tables on sidewalks

“It’s hard to pinpoint a good thing that came out of the pandemic,” said Nate LeBlanc, business development manager of the San Jose Downtown Association. “It’s just silly that it took something of earth-shattering magnitude to let people put tables on the sidewalk.”

San Jose is one city that recently voted to extend its Al Fresco dining program until the end of the year.

LeBlanc said the Al Fresco program, first passed as an emergency order through the city, makes it easier for restaurants to obtain permits to put tables and chairs in public spaces such as sidewalks and empty parking lots.

In addition to LA, other cities that have or are considering expanding outdoor dining programs include San Francisco and San Diego.

“I think that the people who survived are set up to thrive. I think when our office population comes back, there’s going to be a real kind of Roaring ’20s vibe, and we’re going to be selling a lot of drinks,” LeBlac said. “People are going to be in a celebratory mood. People are going to be happy to be out again.”

Miranda Green is a writer with CalMatters. Bay City News contributed to this report.


  1. What’s good for Plumpjack is good for California. Let’s raise a glass and step on the gas to go.

    Maybe we should defund our state legislature as in Texas and just let the governor make all laws.

  2. What do we have laws for when some smirking, elitist, frat-boy governor can merely change them with the stroke of a pen? And, he does so only to curry favor with his voter base — nothing to do with science or the rule of law. No, it is just about getting votes.

    Remember, this is the guy who violated his own orders and went to the French Laundry Restaurant ($900 for a single meal?) during his mandated lock down. He has also had his children in private in-person schools the entire time while he shut public schools and wreaked havoc on children’s educations and made it impossible for people who could not afford full-time day care to work.

    Vote to recall him and vote in someone who has some integrity.

  3. All I had to read was the first four words of your headline—GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM ALLOWS… That says it all about life in CA under the dictatorship of Governor Dippity Do. No need to read the rest. Newsom “allowed” himself a dinner at the French Laundry, maskless, inside, no social distancing; while we peasants were not “allowed” to do the same. What has happened to Californians that we “allowed” this to happen?

  4. I’ll tell you what happened to Californians that “we”, not me, allowed this to happen, and I’ll sum it all up in one word. “Democrats”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *