Eureka council approves card‑room dealer permit for appellant after voluntary reporting agreement

The Eureka City Council approved a card‑room dealer permit for applicant Sean Paddleford on a 4–1 vote on Sept. 24, 2025, after a public evidentiary hearing and an extended appeal of a denial by the police chief. Council member Castellano made a substitute motion to approve the permit with a voluntary agreement to request probation reporting; the motion carried with Council member Contreras Deloach the lone no vote.

The hearing, held in council chambers, centered on whether Paddleford’s recent felony convictions and current three‑year felony probation should bar him from holding a licensed position in a local card room under the City of Eureka’s municipal code governing employee work permits. City Attorney Black explained the quasi‑judicial nature of the appeal and the limited evidentiary rules; Sergeant Cernich of the Eureka Police Department summarized the background‑check process that supported the chief’s denial recommendation.

Paddleford told the council he pleaded guilty to two felony charges last year — an assault on a convenience‑store clerk and a domestic‑violence related conviction — and acknowledged he had been released from custody on Aug. 17, 2024. He described participation in residential and outpatient substance‑use treatment programs, community service, job searches, and that he is a year into three‑year felony probation. He said he has played cards professionally in the past and that the North Coast Casino owner, Raline (spelled in testimony as “Raline” or “Rauline”), had offered work contingent on licensing.

Sergeant Cernich testified the chief considered the municipal code criteria and recommended denial on the basis of felony convictions; he also clarified that the two arrests referenced in the file arose from two incidents that generated five charges, not five separate incidents. Council members questioned the applicant about treatment attendance, current work and schooling status, prior employment contacts, and the timing of convictions and arrest dates.

After council members debated options — including denying the appeal, creating a conditional or temporary permit, or accepting a voluntary reporting agreement — Council member Castellano moved to approve the permit with the applicant’s voluntary agreement that the city ask his probation officer to notify the city if probation terms are violated. City Attorney Black advised that the city lacks authority to impose probation‑style conditions unilaterally but could request notification from probation and could revoke a permit if violations are reported. The council’s substitute motion to approve the permit with that voluntary reporting arrangement passed, 4–1.

The council gave no specific directions to staff at the meeting beyond implementing the approval and facilitating communication with the applicant’s probation officer if the applicant agreed. The decision does not alter the municipal code; council members indicated it could prompt future policy review of the ordinance’s disqualification criteria. City staff will process the permit consistent with the council’s action.

Votes at a glance: the motion to approve the permit passed 4–1 (yes: 4; no: 1).