Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Alcohol Licensing Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council denies appeal to relocate liquor store near new housing and park, 12-1

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council denied an appeal to allow a liquor-license relocation from 1520 to 1524 Venice Boulevard (one door down), siding with Councilmember Walters’s recommendation to refuse the move on neighborhood-suitability grounds. The vote was 12-1.

The Los Angeles City Council on Feb. 2 denied an appeal and refused to allow a liquor-license relocation from 1520 to 1524 Venice Boulevard, voting 12-1 to uphold the recommendation against the relocation.

The property owner who sought to move the business told the council the operation has been family-run for 20 years with no violations and said the relocated storefront would be safer and better monitored by police. The owner said the move was one door down and would improve visibility and safety.

Councilmember Walters, whose district includes the site, recommended denial. Walters said the neighborhood has changed with new low- to moderate‑income housing, more children in the area, the planned addition of a neighborhood park and ongoing gang and crime problems. Walters said those changed conditions made the location unsuitable for a liquor store and urged the council to deny the relocation.

Councilmember Miszkowski explained the council’s prior practice in these cases: when an applicant has not completed the conditional-use (zoning) process the council often denies an application without prejudice, allowing the applicant to pursue a conditional-use permit and zoning-administrator hearing so the full administrative record and community input can be considered.

The owner indicated options if the appeal were denied: move back to the original premises where the license remains in force, or pursue the conditional-use and zoning-administrator process. After discussion the council voted to deny the appeal 12-1. The council directed staff to ensure the applicant is advised of procedural steps to pursue a conditional-use permit and other options available following the denial.

The council cited neighborhood suitability and the need to consider changed local conditions as the basis for upholding the denial. Councilmembers did not state additional specific conditions on similar relocations at the time of the vote.