Planning commission denies liquor‑store permit at Artesia Boulevard after neighbors cite safety, traffic and saturation concerns

The Redondo Beach Planning Commission on May 15 denied a conditional use permit for a proposed convenience store selling beer, wine and liquor for off‑site consumption at 2706 Artesia Boulevard in the Commercial C-2 zone.

Staff presented the application and recommended the permit, noting the lot contains an existing two‑tenant building with 11 available parking spaces on-site (one additional space is a trash enclosure that is not available on trash day). Staff described the ground-floor tenant footprint as 1,425 square feet and said the proposed hours would be 8 a.m.–11 p.m. daily with up to four employees. Because the previous flower-shop use had the same parking requirement, staff treated the proposed use as a legal nonconforming parking situation and concluded the site could accommodate the proposed operation.

Neighbors and nearby business owners speaking at the public hearing urged denial. Speakers described regular transient activity, drug and alcohol incidents and repeated police responses in and around the subject property, and said the nearby veterinarian clinic’s parking lot is used after hours by people who congregate and drink. A resident also noted a recovery house within roughly a block of the intersection. Other commenters warned of delivery trucks blocking traffic at the busy Artesia/Inglewood intersection.

Michael Rancini said he represented applicant Gurjeet Singh and described planned investments to improve the storefront and curb appeal; the applicant said managers undergo state alcohol‑seller training and pledged to install security cameras, keep windows clear of alcohol advertising and avoid single‑serve alcohol sales at the existing business. The applicant also said he would spend roughly $250,000 on tenant improvements.

Commissioners discussed the site’s limited parking and loading access, the character of the Artesia corridor, proximity to residences and recent neighborhood incidents. Several commissioners asked staff whether the city has a policy to limit concentrations of alcohol retailers; staff replied that the City Council has asked staff to study liquor‑establishment regulations citywide but that no such ordinance is yet in effect.

After deliberation commissioners voted 6–1 to deny the conditional use permit. The tally on the motion to deny was: Ayes — Commissioners Light, Young, Gattis, Conroy, Hazeltine and Chair Craig; No — Commissioner Boswell. The commission’s denial cited the application’s incompatibility with adjacent residential uses, concerns about traffic and loading in an already congested intersection, and neighborhood public‑safety testimony.

Because citywide policy on concentrations of alcohol retailers remains under study, staff noted the City Council could later consider ordinances to address saturation or operational limits. The denial is limited to this permit application; it does not preclude the council from adopting broader standards affecting future applications or existing businesses.