San Fernando Acts to Curb Liquor Sales : Ordinances: The City Council tentatively approves a temporary ban on new outlets and extends a moratorium on permits until 1994.

The San Fernando City Council--under increasing pressure from activists who blame alcohol sales for crime problems--has tentatively approved an ordinance that would forbid establishment of new liquor sales outlets until the number of those already in business drops substantially.

The City Council on Tuesday night also voted to extend the current ban on issuance of permits for new liquor sales outlets until February, 1994, by which time the council hopes to have the permanent law in place.

The law would prohibit issuance of permits to establish new liquor stores, or alcohol sales permits for established stores, until the number of such outlets declines to no more than one per 1,000 residents. That would be a drop of more than half from the current ratio of one outlet per 428 residents.

The goal can be achieved through attrition, said City Administrator Mary Strenn, who declined, however, to say how long such a process would take.

“Over time, stores go out of business or change locations, or quit,” she said. “The council is saying that by restricting the number of permits given, reaching the level of one outlet per 1,000 residents is a goal that will be achieved over time.”

An exception would be made for major retail outlets within a mall area comprising more than 175,000 square feet. The law would block access to liquor sales licenses for restaurants that do not currently hold one. Restaurants now licensed could continue to serve alcohol, but only during the hours that food is served.

In addition, the ordinance would prohibit granting liquor sales permits to stores within 600 feet of a school or public park, within 300 feet of a church and within 1,000 feet of another liquor outlet.

The tentative law--which cannot be finalized until public hearings are held by the city zoning commission and the council votes on it again--was approved by a vote of 3 to 2.

“We have too many stores” that sell alcohol, said Councilman Doude Wysbeek, who introduced the ordinance. “That is the message I’m hearing from the public.”

San Fernando, a city covering 2.4 square miles, currently has 32 liquor stores and markets that sell alcohol, and 23 bars and restaurants that serve drinks. According to the state Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control, the average ratio of liquor outlets is one for every 1,222 city residents. For restaurants and bars, that ratio is one per 947 residents.

A moratorium on issuance of new permits, imposed last July, would have expired Feb. 28. The council extended it to cover the period until work on the ordinance is completed.

“Hopefully, it will only take 90 days to get the ordinance through, and not the whole year,” Wysbeek said.

Some restaurant owners say the ban on alcohol sales is strangling business.

“We’ve had fair lunches where we make about $200 per day, but nobody comes here for dinner,” said Annie Shevock, co-owner of SaraErrol Greek restaurant on Maclay Street, which opened a year ago without a liquor sales permit. “We need our wine license,” co-owner Julie Hamlin said.

When they applied last summer, she said, the moratorium was already in effect. “We’re the only restaurant in the city that doesn’t have a license,” she added. “I made no profits over the holidays. This business could die.”

After eight months of public workshops, heated arguments with council members and numerous revisions of the proposed ordinance, community activists say they are happy with Tuesday night’s council action.

“But we want to make sure there is public input into the final product,” said Lenor Ramirez, a member of Valley Organized In Community Efforts (VOICE). The organization originally pressured the City Council last July to pass an ordinance prohibiting the proliferation of liquor stores.

The group met with the City Council three times in workshops to help write the ordinance, and the most recent meeting erupted into a yelling match between council members and VOICE representatives.

VOICE members complained that Wysbeek did not consult with them before he presented his proposed ordinance, although its provisions are what they have been seeking, they said.

“We thought we were doing all these workshops, working on a draft ordinance,” Ramirez said. “But we do appreciate the fact that we do have an ordinance, and we are working toward the same goal.”