My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2019-06-06 Liquor Commission Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Liquor Control
>
Liquor Commission
>
Minutes
>
2019
>
2019-06-06 Liquor Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2019 7:42:50 AM
Creation date
7/5/2019 4:30:03 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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
requirements, or can they eliminate them or remove some of them? That's the question <br />before you today. <br />Ibarra: Initially, if the permit (license) is granted without conditions, the Commission could <br />have done that because at that time there was already a public hearing? <br />Takase: Yes, it came through the normal hearing process like you do for all your other <br />applicants. There were no complaints or protests against this application at the time it was <br />originally approved. <br />Ibarra: So in the future, say you have a similar situation and the Commission denies the <br />future request from a different business and they argue that a relief was granted from this <br />one, but actually the Commission already granted the permit (license) with conditions which <br />it could have granted without conditions because there was already a public hearing? <br />Takase: Yes. <br />Gonzalez: I'm going to just interject on the Licensee's history. The license was originally <br />issued by the Liquor Commission on December 15, 2017. They already went through two <br />public hearings at that point. On April of 2018, they requested to increase premises to <br />include the side yard which is part of their lease. That was another public hearing when, <br />instead of doing a site visit, we had a presentation. From that application, after the license <br />was already issued and they were in operation for almost half a year, the Commission <br />imposed the conditions. So there has been at least three fully -noticed public hearings on <br />this matter. <br />Masuda: Mr. Gonzalez, that was publicly noticed, but notifications weren't sent out <br />individually because it was just an increase of licensed area, right? <br />Gonzalez: Right. The notice to the property owners was already done for the other, it was <br />still within the previous property. <br />Masuda: And when the applicant came to increase the license (license premises), it was <br />already contemplated that there was going to be large numbers. That's why you (the <br />Commission) placed the restriction of 100 people, right? <br />Gonzalez: I believe there were concerns about parking and noise because, although it <br />was in/under their control, it was outside the four walls of the building. <br />Masuda: So it's all fenced in? <br />Gonzalez: Right. <br />JUNE 6, 2019 - LIQUOR COMMISSION MINUTES 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.