Expected OK on Tougher Liquor Sales Law Delayed : County government: Panel is warned that the ordinance would unfairly penalize stores damaged in the riots.

The anticipated approval of a tougher county alcohol sales ordinance, first proposed 10 years ago by a Lancaster resident, was temporarily sidelined Thursday by concerns that it would unfairly penalize liquor stores damaged during the April riots.

The ordinance would require a county permit for new establishments and those that have been vacant for more than three months. Any application would be subject to a public hearing and stricter standards than now exist on the location and operation of the store or restaurant.

Before the meeting, Ray Chavira of Lancaster, a member of the county Commission on Alcoholism and the original proponent of toughening the ordinance, said he was optimistic that the amendments would finally pass.

“It’s a very mild ordinance, but we’re not going to fight it,” he said. “We’re going to get something going for a year or two and then try to make changes.”

But after listening to the protests of a liquor store representative, the board agreed to postpone its decision until at least Tuesday, when Supervisor Kenneth Hahn--who represents South Los Angeles--is expected to be present.

Requirements of the proposed ordinance include construction of buffers between liquor outlets and residential areas; review of the effect on nearby churches, schools or parks, and proof that the store or restaurant is not closer than 500 feet from another liquor outlet.

County planners estimated that only three riot-damaged stores would be affected because most are in the city or in special county districts that already require conditional use permits for liquor sales outlets.

Even so, Ryan S. Song, executive director of the Korean-American Grocers Assn., objected to the amendments. He suggested that the three-month vacancy provision be waived for stores that were destroyed or damaged during the riots.

“They should not be treated like new establishments,” Song said.

Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who has consistently supported the ordinance, asked for the vote postponement based on Song’s complaint.

“There is an issue of fairness here,” Antonovich said. “Their investment has been jeopardized . . . and these are small stores, mom and poppers.”

While she reluctantly agreed to the postponement, Supervisor Gloria Molina strongly objected to any exemptions for the riot-damaged properties.

“You’re making a mistake with being sympathetic because of the riots,” she told Antonovich. “There could have been a contributing factor to why they were burned down. We don’t know.”

Molina pointed out that the city of Los Angeles has adopted regulations that allow public review of riot-ruined liquor stores whose owners want to rebuild. That review includes a meeting between merchants and community members but stops short of requiring a new conditional use permit.

Sylvia Castillo, director of the Campaign to Rebuild South Central Los Angeles Without Liquor Stores, said her organization would like to see the the county go forward with its proposed amendments.

“It’s a real opportunity to heal and improve.”