Rangely council denies preliminary liquor license for California Walk LLC

Rangely's town council voted to deny a preliminary liquor license application from California Walk LLC, the council announced after hearing presentation, inspection findings and a police letter tied to the named applicant.

At a public hearing, Kelly Clark, a representative for California Walk, asked the council for preliminary approval so the applicant could proceed with state filings and construction. "This is the 2nd step in a lot of steps," Clark said, describing state manager certifications and local inspections as upcoming requirements. An applicant representative described planned hours of roughly 3 p.m. to midnight and said the owner would keep ownership while his son would manage alcohol service.

The liquor license agent reported an on-site inspection that turned up a cooler not plugged in and an open container in the kitchen and confirmed fingerprinting issues had since been resolved. "I did an inspection of the premises," the liquor license agent said, noting the application had been filed 08/05/2025 and that additional training and follow-up inspections would be recommended.

Council members acknowledged the restaurant's value to the community but repeatedly emphasized their concern over approving a license in the name of the individual listed on the application. The council reviewed a letter from Chief of Police Ty and asked whether naming the owner's son as the licensee instead would change the police recommendation. The chief told the council his letter was based on the facts associated with the individual named in the application and that a different applicant would require a fresh review.

After discussion, Councilor Todd moved to deny the application as submitted; the motion was seconded and carried. The clerk will issue a denial letter with the council's reasons, and the council suggested the applicant could reapply with a different named manager or LLC structure. The liquor license agent said she would return any state fee that had not been forwarded to the state; the approximate state filing fee referenced in the hearing was in the range of $1,200'$1,500.

The council repeatedly said they wanted the restaurant to succeed but felt the town could not assume the liability risk with the application as presented. Council members encouraged the applicant team to work with town staff on permitting and code compliance and to bring a revised application if the applicant changes the named licensee or LLC membership.

The council's denial was a local recommendation to the state licensing authority; the state reviews local recommendations but ultimately issues or denies the statutory license.