Planning commission continues Circle K alcohol permit hearing after residents speak in favor

At its Aug. 20 meeting the Huntington Park Planning Commission voted to continue public hearing Case No. 202505CUP, a request for a conditional use permit to allow off‑sale beer, wine and distilled spirits at a convenience store at 2319 Street, Unit 400, to the commission's Sept. 17 meeting. The continuance followed public comments in support of the store and staff comments that the applicant and planning staff would meet to resolve outstanding hours‑of‑operation questions.

The continuation matters because commissioners will review any revised hours and updated conditions before deciding whether to grant an alcohol CUP for the store. Planning staff said the applicant had posted notices, and staff wished to meet the applicant outside the meeting to discuss operating hours before returning to the commission.

Several residents showed up to speak in favor of the Circle K location during the public comment period, telling commissioners the business is clean, welcoming and integrated into the neighborhood. “They've always been very friendly,” said resident Damien McCray, describing visits to the Circle K locations on State Street and Randolph. Resident Ronald McCray said the parking lot is “always very clean,” and Theodore Lagin described the store as “very friendly” and “well kept up.”

Attorney Richard Hernandez, who said he represents the applicant, told the commission staff had suggested some interpretive issues that would be better resolved before a final hearing. “Keep it open and it'll be closed next time so he didn't have to give out notices,” Hernandez said, noting the parties planned to resolve the outstanding issues before the next hearing.

Commissioner Carvajal moved to continue the item to the Sept. 17 meeting; Commissioner Estrada seconded. The roll call vote was 3–0 in favor (Commissioner Carvajal: yes; Commissioner Estrada: yes; Vice Chair Tarango: yes). The case remains open pending staff and applicant follow‑up about the proposed hours of operation and any revised conditions.

Staff emphasized the continuation was to streamline the process for proponents who had come to the hearing and to avoid requiring them to return if the parties could resolve outstanding scheduling and notice issues before the next meeting. The commission closed the public comment portion of the item and proceeded with other business.

The planning commission will take up Case No. 202505CUP again at its Sept. 17 meeting, when staff expects to present any agreed‑upon changes to hours or conditions and the commission will decide whether the CUP findings can be made.