Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Liquor License topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council gives positive referral for Sizzlin’ Downtown Buffet liquor-license expansion

Klamath Falls City Council · November 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Klamath Falls council voted to refer a request from Sizzlin’ Downtown Buffet at 601 Main Street for expanded on‑premises liquor privileges to the licensing authority after public testimony from the owner and several supporters.

Mayor Cara Westfall presided over a public hearing Monday in which the owner of Sizzlin’ Downtown Buffet sought expanded on‑premises liquor privileges for the restaurant at 601 Main Street.

Planning Manager Joe Wall told council the business previously received a limited on‑premises beer-and‑wine license roughly a year earlier but only recently received that license from the state’s liquor regulator. Staff initially offered a neutral recommendation while taking public comment.

Owner Elizabeth Cisneros said she has been expanding the restaurant’s menu and wants to serve mixed drinks such as margaritas and specialty cocktails in addition to the buffet. “I would like to add beverages like margaritas, specialty drinks to make a complete restaurant,” Cisneros said, adding she typically closes at 8 p.m. and supervises operations herself.

Two residents spoke in support. Mohammed Shabiri described long familiarity with the business and said he trusts the applicant’s professionalism; Tatiana Cisneros, who identified herself as the applicant’s daughter‑in‑law, said alcohol sales often improve profit margins and help small downtown restaurants remain viable.

After the testimony, a council member moved to give the liquor‑license application a positive referral rather than a neutral recommendation; the motion was seconded and the council voted in favor to refer the application positively to the licensing process. Council made no change to business hours during the hearing; the applicant indicated proposed hours of about 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. and said a portion of the establishment would remain age‑restricted.

The council’s action was a referral to the licensing authority/process and did not itself issue the liquor license. The planning manager said the state regulator had only recently completed processing of a prior limited license and that the applicant experienced unusual delay in state processing.