Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies appeal for liquor-store relocation after neighborhood-suitability debate
Summary
The council denied an appeal to allow a liquor-store owner to move one door down, with councilmembers citing neighborhood changes and public-safety concerns; owner said she had operated without violations for 20 years.
The Los Angeles City Council on Feb. 2 denied an appeal that would have allowed a liquor-store owner to relocate one door down from her existing premises, concluding the proposed new location is no longer suitable given neighborhood changes.
The property owner, identified in the hearing as Ms. Estrada, said the store had been in her family for 20 years and that she had no violations in that period. "No violations. No sales to minors. No sales to intoxicated persons. 20 years, no violations," she told the council and asked for approval to move to the adjacent corner space, which she said would be safer and better spotted by police.
Councilmember Walters recommended denial, citing a shift in neighborhood circumstances: new low- and moderate-income housing with many children, plans for a small adjacent park and community center, and a high crime rate in the area. Walters said the location is no longer suitable for continued liquor sales and that the Caldera provisions and past ABC-related practice permit the council to deny a move on neighborhood-impact grounds.
Following a brief exchange in which members asked questions of the owner about history and alternatives, Walters' recommendation to deny the appeal was upheld. The item was first voted on earlier in the meeting (11-0 at an earlier roll call), and after the owner spoke and members discussed the conditional-use permit process, the final council vote on reconsideration was 12-1 to deny the appeal.
Planning staff and a council committee member explained that applicants who seek to move a liquor license typically must pursue a conditional-use permit through the Planning Department and a zoning administrator hearing; the council noted denial without prejudice is an option when the applicant has not completed required zoning steps.
Councilmembers who opposed denying the appeal asked that the owner be informed of options, including returning to her previous premises where the license remains valid or pursuing the conditional-use-permit process; staff was asked to explain those steps to the owner after the meeting.
