Council continues hearing on proposed alcohol sales at SoFi soccer complex after large public turnout

The City of Southgate City Council continued a public hearing on Feb. 11 on a proposal to amend the zoning code to allow restaurant uses and on-site sales of beer and wine in the Open Space zoning district, and to consider a conditional-use permit for on-site beer-and-wine sales (type 41) at the SoFi soccer complex.

Why it matters: The proposal would change how alcohol sales are regulated at public park facilities and requires a zoning-code amendment, a conditional-use permit and an ordinance. Residents said selling alcohol near schools and a heavily used youth-sports park would jeopardize safety and the family character of the park.

What the proposal would change City staff read the item as an ordinance amending Chapter 11.21 (land-use types) of Title 11 (zoning) of the Southgate Municipal Code to allow restaurant uses and alcohol sales in the Open Space district, and as a request to approve a conditional-use permit to allow on-site beer-and-wine sales (type 41) at the SoFi Soccer Complex at 9599 Pinehurst Avenue.

Public response Dozens of residents attended and most who spoke urged the council not to permit alcohol sales at the facility. Speakers cited the complex's proximity to schools and youth programs, existing problems with intoxicated people and illegal behavior at or near park areas, police staffing vacancies, and the risk of underage drinking. Comments included these points: - The facility is adjacent to schools and is used daily for youth sports, and residents argued that alcohol sales would increase the chance of intoxicated adults at youth events. - Several speakers said the park already faces vandalism, homelessness encampments and drug use and that adding alcohol sales would worsen public-safety and public-health problems. - Some residents said they were not given adequate notice and asked for greater transparency from the applicant and city staff.

Comments by name (selection) Resident Jose Antonio Gutierrez said the repeated continuances of this item disrespected residents' time and asked the council to prioritize community concerns. Caroline Monavia, who filed an appeal of the prior approval, said the presence of a school and church nearby made alcohol sales inappropriate. Francisco Gallegos urged the council to address staffing shortages in the police department before changing park policy. Lisa Ruiz, a planning commissioner who voted against the project at the planning commission, said proposed security measures were inconsistent in the applicant's materials and would not be sufficient to prevent alcohol-related incidents.

Applicant and procedural note The applicant was not present and asked for a continuance. City staff and the city attorney explained that when an applicant requests a continuance the city customarily allows one but that comments made at a continued hearing become part of the administrative record. The city told the audience the council would hear comments tonight but would not take final action until the continued hearing.

Emails and written comments Staff summarized public emails received before the meeting. The record included both letters of support (several from parents and participants in the Manchester City program saying beer-and-wine service could enhance the experience) and many letters of opposition focused on safety, youth exposure and park character.

Council action The council voted to continue the public hearing to the regularly scheduled council meeting on Feb. 25, 2025. The motion was seconded and adopted by roll call (Council members Avalos, Hurtado, Rios, Vice Mayor Baron and Mayor Davila all voted "yes"). Notes in the record state the applicant specifically requested the continuance and that the council followed its standard practice to honor such requests; the council also reiterated that comments provided at the Feb. 11 hearing will be included in the administrative record.

What happens next The public hearing will resume on Feb. 25, 2025. Residents who addressed the council tonight will be able to appear again at the continued hearing; the council emphasized that it would not respond substantively tonight because the applicant requested a continuance and the administrative hearing is being preserved for a complete record.