Planning commission revokes on-sale alcohol permit for AKA Sushi and Sakebomb after repeated underage-sales citations

The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission on Jan. 21 voted 5-0 to revoke the conditional use permit authorizing on-sale beer and wine at Ramen and Sushiya Inc., also known as AKA Sushi and Sakebomb, after repeated violations that included 11 citations issued by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control on Jan. 3 for sales to underage patrons.

City staff said the revocation followed a tri-annual CUP review and a police recommendation after inspections documented failures to comply with conditions imposed in 2023, including improper signage, incomplete employee alcohol-server training and security-camera footage that was not readily playable for investigators.

The vote came after a multi-department staff presentation and testimony from law enforcement. Chief J. LeBaron of the Hermosa Beach Police Department described the case as a continuing threat to public safety, saying, “This is a public safety threat, and this is a danger,” and urging the commission to act because the location had become known locally as a place where persons under 21 could obtain alcohol.

Agent Connolly of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control described the ABC investigation. Connolly said investigators found 11 people cited on Jan. 3; 10 of those used counterfeit or otherwise clearly invalid ID and one used an older relative’s ID. He told the commission the fake IDs encountered in that operation were unusually poor reproductions and said his office had issued prior citations at the premises in 2023. “These were some of the poorest IDs I’ve ever seen,” Connolly said, describing the IDs’ coloration, photo angles and signatures as obvious defects.

Staff reported that the CUP for the site was first approved in 2004 and modified in 2011; additional conditions were imposed by the Planning Commission in July 2023 and upheld by the City Council later that year. The most recent ABC action prompted a follow-up inspection on Jan. 9 that found at least five conditions of approval from the earlier CUP unresolved: altered signage without permits or required content, lack of posted CUP documents on the premises, incomplete training documentation for employees, and security-camera footage that could not be played back on request.

During the hearing the applicant’s representative, who identified herself as the owner’s daughter and translator, said the owner accepts responsibility and is remorseful. “He’s extremely apologetic and very sorry that this happened again,” she told the commission, adding that the owner intends to stop serving alcohol to patrons who look “remotely under the age of 30” and plans to purchase an ID scanner and pursue additional training.

Representatives from ABC described how enforcement there proceeds separately from the city’s land-use process: ABC staff explained that under their administrative rules, minors’ sales generally follow a progressive penalty structure in a three-year window — a fine or short suspension on first strike, a larger suspension and higher fine on a second, and potential license revocation on a third. An ABC representative summarized the agency’s approach bluntly: “With ABC with minors, it’s 3 strikes and you’re out.”

Commissioners debated the suitability of a CUP-based land-use sanction versus regulatory enforcement aimed directly at the license. Several commissioners said they were reluctant to use the CUP but concluded the repeated nature of violations and failures to comply with conditions left the commission little choice. Commissioner Hoffman moved to adopt staff’s recommendation to find the project categorically exempt under CEQA and to revoke the CUP; Commissioner Flaherty seconded the motion, which passed 5-0.

The planning manager said the planning commission’s minutes and the decision will be transmitted to the City Council for its meeting on Feb. 11; the applicant may appeal the Planning Commission’s decision, and ABC will continue its separate administrative process. Staff told the commission that even if the CUP is revoked, the restaurant could continue to operate as a restaurant and sell alcohol by right until 10 p.m. on weekdays (the CUP had previously authorized sales until 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays); ABC’s enforcement outcome could further affect the business’s ability to sell alcohol.

The commission’s action rescinded the city-level, on-sale alcohol entitlement tied to the CUP. Staff indicated the owner may reapply for a substantially similar CUP after the city’s standard waiting period for denied applications (staff stated that reapplication typically is possible after roughly one year). The meeting closed the hearing and moved on to other planning business.