South Gate council denies SoFi request to sell beer and wine at South Gate Park

The South Gate City Council voted 5-0 on Feb. 25 to grant an appeal and overturn a Planning Commission approval that would have allowed on-site beer and wine sales at the SoFi (GOALS) soccer complex inside South Gate Park.

The decision came after a two-hour public hearing in which the Planning Department and the applicant described the proposal, opponents urged the council to preserve the park as alcohol-free, and SoFi representatives and several outside officials defended the company’s record and offered operational guarantees. Councilmembers cited community safety concerns and widespread resident opposition in announcing their votes.

Rodrigo Palleo, senior planner for the City of South Gate, told the council the Planning Commission had approved a resolution (Planning Commission Resolution No. 2024-07) recommending both an amendment to the city’s zoning code (South Gate Municipal Code, chapter 11.21, table 11.21-5) and approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 24-15 for on-site alcohol sales at the soccer complex. Staff had concluded the proposed zoning change and CUP were exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the “general rule” exemption (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)) and an existing facilities exemption (§15301).

The appellant, Caroline Maravilla, told the council she had organized neighbors who objected to alcohol sales at South Gate Park, citing proximity to schools and churches, longtime park maintenance and safety problems, and the presence of children who play and practice at the fields. “We are pleading with you to listen to us and vote no,” Maravilla said.

Attorney Mike Elias, representing SoFi/GOALS, reviewed the company’s operations, said the facility had invested in the city and maintained security, and offered additional conditions the applicant said would limit risks: no sales for off-site consumption, distinctive cups/glassware, wristbands for patrons 21 and older, ID scanners, a dedicated roving employee during alcohol service, 24/7 video recording retained for 30 days and made available to police, and a six-month compliance review. SoFi’s chief hospitality officer, Luis Gerber, and the mayor pro tem of Covina, Victor Linares, described their experience operating beer-and-wine service at other SoFi/GOALS locations.

Dozens of South Gate residents spoke in opposition. Residents described instances of drug use, illegal gambling, poor lighting, and late-night disorder at parts of the 96-acre park; they said adding an on-site alcohol service would worsen public-safety risks and increase drunk-driving exposure. Several parents and students said the park should remain family- and youth-oriented and alcohol-free.

Councilmembers questioned operations, enforcement and whether conditions would be sufficient to prevent alcohol-related impacts spilling into the larger park. After public comment and discussion, Councilmember Hurtado moved to grant the appeal and deny the CUP; the motion passed 5-0 (Councilmember Avalos: yes; Councilmember Hurtado: yes; Councilmember Rios: yes; Vice Mayor Baron: yes; Mayor Davila: yes).

Because the CUP was the appealed Planning Commission action, the council’s vote removed the approval for on-site beer-and-wine service at the SoFi facility. A related ordinance amendment to zoning (to allow restaurants and ancillary alcohol sales within open-space zoning districts) was not adopted during the meeting; staff noted the council could consider related code changes at a later date.

Council members and staff said the decision does not change existing law that allows limited, temporary alcohol service at city-approved special events, but it does block this specific request to permit permanent on-site sale of beer and wine at the SoFi complex within South Gate Park.

The appeal and denial of CUP 24-15 closes the administrative path that would have enabled SoFi to obtain an ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control) on-sale license (type 41) for the restaurant within the facility. The council left open the city’s ability to revisit park uses and code language at a future date.

The planning staff packet, the Planning Commission resolution and the City Attorney’s CEQA findings were entered into the record during the hearing; the administrative record will reflect the council’s written minute action to grant the appeal and deny the CUP.