Yesterday, the Los Angeles City Council voted to impose requirements for a police permit in order run a cybercafé. Technically, another vote will have to be taken next week and then the ordinance goes to Mayor James Hahn for his signature. The ordinance is expected to go into effect later this summer. Read on for a detailed look at the ordinance...

Although cybercafés would obviously prefer not to have to get a police permit in order to operate, this is actually a victory for the nascent and struggling industry. The permit requirements were orginally proposed in response to a spate of cybercafé "related" violence two years ago and proposed limits included requirements for security guards, enforcement of ESRB game ratings, and mandatory ID requirements for all patrons. The permit requirement finally passed is much less burdensome than what was orginally proposed and, more importantly, the draconian zoning regulations went away entirely. Of course, being that I was the point man for the industry (iGames) negotiations with the city for the past nine months or so, I'm a bit biased. In any case, the important aspects of the new ordinance require the following:

• The definition of what constitutes a cybercafé is still a little problematic. The ordinance covers those businesses that provide more than five computers and computer access isn't "clearly incidental" to the business as determined by the Zoning Adminstrator. The "clearly incidental" language is meant to protect the Kinko's and CompUSAs from getting hit with the ordinance's requirements. As I pointed out to the police commission, however, this definition may provide too much discretion to the Zoning Administrator as well as has the potential to include libraries and will certainly encompass more businesses as PCs become more and more ubiquitous.
• A police permit will be required to operate a cybercafé. Some newspapers liken this to regulations for adult businesses, and they aren't wrong, but a number of businesses are required to get similar police permits, such as: Game Arcades, Motion Picture Theaters (non-adult), Dance Halls and etc.
• The permits shall issue. Basically, this means unless one can show concrete, objective evidence as to why a permit shouldn't be issued, it will be.
• Most of the requirements are that the cybercafé meet the standard requirements of law, such "the health, zoning, fire and safety laws of the State of California and ordinances of the City of Los Angeles applicable thereto." Well, of course.
• One of the major burdens of the ordinance is the requirement that

  There shall be a video or digital camera surveillance system that monitors all entrance and exit points, during all hours of operation. The system shall be maintained in good working order and is subject to inspection by the City during business hours. The videotapes or hard drive data shall be maintained for a minimum of 72 hours.

  Does this raise privacy issues? Absolutely. Unfortunately, a recent California State Court of Appeals decision said that was just fine (though the dissent was one of the most blistering I've ever read). See my coverage of the decision: CyberCafe Ordinance Decision - First Amendment Victory - Privacy Defeat. Hard to say no when the courts have said yes. Also, note that only the equipment can be inspected. This beats versions I've seen that may allow city officials to inspect the video itself whenever they want.
• Another requirement is that the ratio of each computer user station to floor space not exceed 20 sq ft per station. This is generally not a problem for all but the most sardine-packed cybercafés, though some may have to make some adjustments.
• No closed booths permitted, though private rooms are permitted if there is a window in the door. I haven't seen a cybercafe with closed booths.
• No window tinting, but cybercafés are permitted to close drapes or shades to reduce glare.
• Lighting must be the equivalent of one of those dim, romantic restaurants. I've been to a few cybercafés that used no lighting except for the monitors, but I think that was to hide the filth on the floor.
• An interior waiting area shall be provided. No requirements on what that means. A couple of chairs and coffee table probably suffice.
• Cybercafés shall comply with existing regulation of sound amplification and noise. Of course.
• Cybercafés shall comply with applicable alcohol regulations if they serve alcohol. Of course.
• There shall be at least one employee over the age of 18, designated as manager, during business hours. Given that truancy was the major concern of the city council, this is reasonable.
• No smoking (which is the general rule in Los Angeles).
• Cybercafés must follow applicable regulations for gambling. Duh.
• The final major requirement, as many note, is that cybercafés must enforce the curfew and truancy laws. Minors are not permitted in cybercafés from 0830 to 1330 during school days or after 2200 every evening until daybreak. These requirements are no different than the curfew laws already in effect for minors. If a patron who appears to be under 18 is in a cybercafé outside these hours the manger can ask for photo ID.
• The permit must be reviewed annually, as is true of all of Los Angeles' police permits. However, renewal is automatic unless there is some specific concrete reason for the permit to not be renewed.

Hopefully, if other cities feel compelled to regulate cybercafés they will follow Los Angeles' lead.

No More Draconian Zoning Regulations

One thing that the press has not discussed is the major victory cybercafés achieved in convincing Los Angeles to stop enforcing its draconian zoning regulations. Basically, when the city decided to crackdown on cybercafés, the zoning administrator "discovered" that cybercafés required "Conditional Use Permits" (CUP) in order to operate since they were the same as "Penny Arcades" (which required CUPs). The CUP process is extremely expensive, costing thousands of dollars. It takes months. At the end of that time, the Zoning Administrator has enormous discretion to deny the permit, for example, if the proposed use isn't in "harmony" with city planning. You don't get your money back. Dozens of cybercafés were hit with CUP requests and threatened with jail and business closure if they didn't comply. Many paid the money, some simply went out of business.

At every meeting of the Los Angeles Cybercafé Working Group (the city task force designated to develop the ordinance) I told them that the zoning regulations were unconsitutional and of much more concern to cybercafés than the police permit. After the courts agreed with me that similar zoning regulations in the City of Garden Grove were unconstitutional as applied to cybercafés (see, CyberCafe Ordinance Decision - First Amendment Victory - Privacy Defeat), the city decided to stop enforcement of the zoning regulations without forcing another lawsuit.

Press Coverage

The LA Daily News has had the best local coverage of this issue. This story (which quotes a friend of mine, Lisa from Blue Screen Gaming) is a good summary: New rules coming for cybercafes in the city.

The LA Times (reg. req.) is a bit sensational (L.A. Requires Safety Measures at Cyber Cafes):

Businesses that allow teenagers to play video games during school hours, smoke or gamble could lose their permits and be forced to shut down.

The Register focuses on the curfew aspect of the ordinance and implicitly compares it to China shutting down 8,600 cybercafés (LA plans cybercafe teen curfew). The comparison is more than a bit over-the-top, given that the curfew and truancy laws are already in effect.

The Inquirer also compares the new ordinance to Chinese crackdowns, this time in the title (Los Angeles adopts Chinese Cyber café laws).

C|Net News runs a Reuters wirestory that points out the real concerns of the city council (Los Angeles clamps down on cybercafes):

A report found that 86 percent of people arrested at cybercafes were juveniles, and 93 percent of the arrests were for truancy or curfew violations.