My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2013_1118
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
CC_Minutes_2013_1118
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/17/2013 9:45:31 AM
Creation date
11/26/2013 11:00:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/18/2013
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
93
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,November 18, 2013 <br /> Page 28 <br /> Mr. Gaughan opined that, from his perspective, he had found nothing to-date on <br /> any of those cases that would indicate moral turpitude or character, causing this <br /> body to deny transfer or renewal based on his review, <br /> Councilmember Laliberte questioned if, when a complaint went through the court <br /> system, if it didn't eventually become the problem of the community where the <br /> business was located. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan noted that litigation is not just when they've been accused <br /> of wrongdoing, but when they've sought clarification of rules and other areas. <br /> Based on his experience, Mr. Gaughan opined that simply because a party was in- <br /> volved within the court system didn't speak to their moral turpitude. Mr. <br /> Gaughan also noted that his conclusion was further based on the fact that the City <br /> of Roseville had stringent licensing requirements for off-sale licenses and within <br /> that context, there was a certain measure of assurance that any applicant would be <br /> held to a high standard. Regarding the other bases for opposition, Mr. Gaughan <br /> noted that there was nothing in City Code on which to base denial on the size of <br /> an operation or their price structure. Given the City's 10 licenses; and Section <br /> 302.13D of City Code specific to this issue; the City Council considerations were <br /> predicated on their review of the market value of neighboring properties, parking, <br /> and the affect on adjacent properties; none that he found to be problematic with <br /> this applicant as it relates to City Code. Mr. Gaughan reiterated that State law <br /> was out of the City's jurisdiction. <br /> Mayor Roe asked staff to address the process for completion of criminal back- <br /> ground investigations as it related to license approval. <br /> Finance Director Miller clarified that this was typical for licensing, and even <br /> though the background check had not been completed at the time of packet prepa- <br /> ration, it had now been completed. Mr. Miller advised that this place holder was <br /> used to provide the Police Department sufficient leeway and time for completion <br /> of those criminal background checks for its 75 liquor license holders; as well as <br /> this transfer application. Mr. Miller advised that the Police Department had now <br /> completed all of those investigations. <br /> Councilmember Etten asked City Attorney Gaughan to speak about the contention <br /> that the City Council as a body need to decide on an applicant's eligibility versus <br /> the state; and where that legal line was, whether the state had a history of denials. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan responded that, while he was not an expert on the state li- <br /> censing process for this industry, and whether or not the State was simply rub- <br /> berstamping the City Council's action, he questioned the relevancy of that to <br /> whether or not the City Council approved of denied this transfer. Mr. Gaughan <br /> opined that the State had its own procedure; but it was this body's task to apply <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.