Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Marisco Time Extension topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves time extension for Marisco San Ysidro alcohol license upgrade and live entertainment plan
Summary
The Planning Commission approved Time Extension TX25‑01 for CUP 21‑11 on May 27, allowing the restaurant Marisco San Ysidro at 2327 Rosemead Boulevard additional time to pursue an upgrade from a Type 41 (beer and wine) license to a Type 47 (general liquor) and to complete a proposed expansion and live‑entertainment plan.
The South El Monte City Planning Commission on May 27 adopted Resolution No. 25‑05 approving Time Extension TX25‑01 for Conditional Use Permit CUP 21‑11, which allows Marisco San Ysidro at 2327 Rosemead Boulevard more time to pursue a previously approved expansion, an upgrade of its alcohol license and permission for live entertainment.
Planning Assistant Charlize Hernandez told the commission the original CUP (CUP‑21‑11) was approved March 15, 2023 to expand the restaurant to 914 square feet, to upgrade from a Type 41 on‑sale beer and wine license to a Type 47 on‑sale general (beer, wine and spirits) with a bona fide eating place, and to permit live entertainment. The applicant received a first extension and on May 7, 2025 submitted a second extension request, citing financial hardship caused by the COVID‑19 pandemic and rising construction costs.
The applicant, Luis Grama, has not submitted new construction drawings or applied to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) for the Type 47 license; staff confirmed ABC has not received an application. Hernandez said the restaurant has continued to operate under the existing Type 41 license and has not hosted live entertainment. The applicant signaled an interest in pursuing a scaled‑back, less‑expensive design than the originally approved expansion and staff said modifications would be reviewed when submitted to determine whether they require commission review or can be handled as a minor modification by staff.
Commissioners asked about timelines and potential impacts on neighboring residents if live entertainment were later proposed; staff said no timeline has been provided because the owner is still seeking funding and that any proposed changes that increase impacts would be brought back to the commission. Staff also stated there have been no related code‑enforcement calls or sheriff’s reports regarding liquor service at the restaurant.
The motion to approve the time extension passed unanimously. Staff reminded the applicant that the Planning Commission’s action is final unless appealed to the City Council within the 15‑day appeal period set in the municipal code.
