Advertisement

City Loses Decision Over Liquor Sales : Ruling: A judge says the council was wrong in trying to regulate the hours that three Pacoima stores could sell alcohol.

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITER

The city of Los Angeles cannot use nuisance laws to restrict the sale of alcoholic beverages at three Pacoima liquor stores even though its aim is to reduce crime, a Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday.

Judge David Yaffe said the City Council usurped the authority of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board when it attempted to regulate the hours that the stores could sell alcohol. The council also banned sales of cold beer and wine and of single cans or small bottles of alcoholic beverages at the stores, which had been declared public nuisances.

The council imposed the restrictions on liquor sales at John’s Liquor, Leon’s Liquor and Pacoima Food Market in December under a 1985 ordinance giving the city power to abate public nuisances using zoning laws.

Advertisement

The liquor outlets were declared nuisances last year after police testified at city hearings that they frequently made arrests at the three stores for offenses such as public drunkenness, narcotics sales and prostitution. All three stores were cited for selling alcohol to minors during a sting operation in March, police said.

Attorney Lawrence Adelman, who represented the liquor stores, argued Tuesday that only the state has the power to directly control the sale of alcoholic beverages at establishments to which it has issued liquor licenses.

“The city presented its case as a land-use case, when it’s really a jurisdictional case,” Adelman said. “The city selected these three stores to test how far it could go in controlling public nuisances.”

But Deputy City Atty. Jeri Burge said the businesses are operating under city permits. As a result, she said, the city should have the right to impose regulations on them.

Burge said the lawsuit brought by the Pacoima stores against the city was the first time the 1985 law had been tested. “We don’t know if we will appeal,” she said. “We’re reviewing that now.”

She said the judge let stand other conditions imposed on the businesses by the city, including requirements for the store owners to sweep daily outside their businesses, remove graffiti weekly and prevent loitering.

Advertisement

“We certainly don’t consider the decision a loss,” Burge said. “We consider it a victory in some ways. Basically, the judge said we had the authority to abate nuisances. In this case, he said we went too far.”

The reaction of Pacoima community leaders to Tuesday’s court ruling was mixed.

Fred Taylor, president of the community group Focus ‘90, said the rules hindered efforts by his and other groups to get liquor stores to voluntarily comply with even stricter regulations. “Liquor store violations don’t belong in the Superior Court,” he said. “There are far more serious problems that should be taking up the court’s time.”

The voluntary rules call for the stores to halt liquor sales at 10 p.m., to prohibit the sale of “short dogs,” which are small bottles of cheap, potent wine, and to sell beer only in quantities of two cans or more. Leon’s and John’s were among 22 liquor outlets that voluntarily followed the rules set down by community leaders.

The Rev. James Lyles, president of the Greater San Fernando Valley Ministerial Fellowship, agreed with Taylor. “I’m happy about the court decision. Now, we can get stores to recruit other stores.”

Augie Maldonado of the Pacoima Coordinating Council said he was frustrated. “The bottom line is that the merchants have a right to sell their products, even though that product is one that adversely affects the community,” he said. “Their rights to sell have to be weighed against our rights to safety.”

More than 500 drunk-driving arrests were made in the past year at San Fernando Road and Van Nuys Boulevard, more than at any other intersection in Los Angeles, police said.

Advertisement

In December, Maldonado told the City Council that some of the liquor store owners joined the voluntary effort only after the city put them “on notice they had to answer for these difficulties.”

Advertisement