Lancaster Delays Vote on Plan for Alcohol Permits : Regulations: The City Council will await a county decision Thursday on a similar proposal concerning businesses that sell liquor.

The Lancaster City Council declined to adopt a compromise plan to give the city control over some new liquor outlet applications because alcohol foes and business leaders alike rejected the proposal.

After 90 minutes of wrangling Monday night, council members voted 5 to 0 to send the measure back to city planners. They said they wanted to await a decision by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Thursday on a proposal to toughen county laws on the same subject that apply to unincorporated areas, such as the land around Lancaster.

The Lancaster measure would have required new bars, mini-marts, liquor stores and nightclubs selling alcohol to obtain a city conditional use permit after a public hearing. The measure, which has been under discussion for months, would not have affected existing outlets.

However, proponents of tougher alcohol controls quickly said they could not support the measure. They complained that it exempted markets, drugstores and restaurants. And they argued that by excluding existing businesses, it would not limit the potential over-concentration of liquor outlets.

Business leaders, however, told council members that they opposed any measure at all, saying it would only impose an unnecessary layer of government regulation on already struggling businesses, hurt the city’s sales tax revenues and do nothing to reduce alcohol consumption.

Council members were divided prior to postponing their decision. Councilmen Arnie Rodio and Frank Roberts were reluctant to impose new regulations. Councilmen Henry Hearns and George Runner supported some action. But Mayor George Root noted that no one liked the city’s plan.

Ray Chavira, chairman of the private High Desert Alcohol Policy Coalition and the major proponent of tougher regulations, said he was satisfied to have the city’s position hinge on the outcome of the county’s action. He predicted that the county supervisors will enact a tougher law.

In addition to requiring a permit, Lancaster’s original proposal said new bars, liquor stores and nightclubs could not be located within 500 feet of any similar newly permitted use or within 1,500 feet of churches, parks or schools. The purpose was to prevent over-concentration and to protect children.

However, the compromise proposal made the distance provisions advisory for city planners, rather than mandatory. It also cut the distances to 1,000 feet for high schools and junior highs and 600 feet for elementary schools and parks.

On Thursday, the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider a county ordinance that would require conditional use permits for all new alcohol outlets, including restaurants, in unincorporated areas. The county plan also would not affect existing businesses.

Local government interest in alcohol sales regulations has been on the rise since last year when Gov. Pete Wilson recommended cutting the budget of the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The ABC has virtually abandoned its regulation of liquor sales, because budget uncertainties have caused large numbers of the department’s employees to leave their jobs.