>Civic Mart OLCC Board Hearing: SUCCESS

>Short version- The OLCC Board of Commissioners voted 4-0 to grant the Civic Food Mart a liquor license WITH the 4 current restrictions:

1) No sale of malt beverages larger than 24 ounces
2) No fortified wines/malt beverages more than 6% alcohol
3) No glass containers
4) No liquor sales after 9:30pm

Long version- Prior to the neighbors and officials comment period, the OLCC staff presented their report to the Board with the recommendation that the license be granted with NO restrictions. The Board openly debated whether the neighborhood has improved because of the restrictions. The OLCC staff’s response was that when there is a change of ownership, the OLCC is has the burden to prove that there is a legal basis for applying restrictions. The board chair commented that he believed that the board had a right to not base their decisions solely on the legal findings of the OLCC staff’s report.

Then something interesting happened

The Board invited Mr. Baek (new owner of the Civic Food Mart) and his daughter to comment. His daughter speaking for her father commented to the Board that they were fine with the restrictions on their license. Concerned that there was a possible miscommunication, the board rephrased the question 3 times in an effort to ensure that we all heard them correctly. After Mr. Baek’s comments, the Board opened the floor to the public for 2 minute comment periods.

Quick List of folks that addressed the board supporting our efforts in keeping the restrictions (If I forgot anyone one or there is a misspelled word/wrong title, comment and I’ll update)…

1- Rae Selvey (Piedmont Resident)
2- Mark Warrington (Portland Parks)
3- Jim Ferrarin (PPB NE Precinct Commander)
4- Bret Smith (PPB Assistant Chief)
5- Lisa Clayton (PPB License Enforcement)
6- Thresea Marchetti (Office of Neighborhood Involvement)
7- Justin Meier (PNA Secretary & Communications Chair)
8- Brian Borrello (PNA Land Use Chair) (reading a letter from State Rep. Shields)
9- ??? (Piedmont Resident)
10- Paul Anthony (Humboldt Neighborhood Association Chair)
11- Allan Folz (PNA Parks Co-Chair)
12- Amie Massier (Pen. Park Community Cntr. Dir)
In addition to the above speakers, letters from Commissioner Jeff Cogen and
PNA Chair Linda Aruda were entered into the record. In the interest of time, 4
residents that had shown up to speak, withdrew their request to speak to the Board.

The Board then proceeded to vote on granting the license WITH the 4 restrictions. Commissioner Robert Rice paused the voting and asked that the record reflect that Mr. Baek had voluntarily agreed to have the restrictions kept in place. Once confirmed, Commissioner Rice also cast his “aye” vote making it 4-0.

If folks would please comment on this post and leave observations on what they feel worked…and what didn’t work. We as a neighborhood, and a neighborhood association need to build a ‘knowledge base’ that can be passed forward so that next time something like this comes up we don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

I would like to thank Mr. Baek. I will personally invite him and his family to future PNA general meetings and make every effort to ensure knows that his business is in a community that appreciates and supports those that help us build a better neighborhood.

Finally, THANK YOU to everyone for their support and countless hours of hard work on this issue.

This entry was posted in Notices, Public Safety and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to >Civic Mart OLCC Board Hearing: SUCCESS

  1. Shelby says:

    >I wasn’t at the board hearing, though I did attend the meeting at the community center. In light of how this worked out, I’d suggest in the future the PNA board make sure one of its members has been directly in touch with the relevant people in the community — in this case, Mr. Baek or his family.Congratulations to Justin, Brian, and everyone else who worked for this outcome.

  2. Justin Meier says:

    >One of the suggestions from an OLCC staffer was to pursue having the park (and surrounding area) designated as a State Alcohol Impact Zone. Currently it is a City Alcohol Impact Zone (has been since 1990). The OLCC does not factor in the city impact zone into their official license review process.

  3. Anonymous says:

    >I was at the meeting, although I had to leave for a jobsite shortly after Rae Selvey’s remarks. What struck me odd was in the opening statements by OLCC staff – their remarks on how certain criteria (impact on the park, etc) had to be tossed out because “this wasn’t a change in business, change in licence, etc”In my mind, this WAS a change in business/license, as they were looking at essentially changing the business from one with restrictions to one without. It seems quite reasonable to view this as a change, and thus allowing the staff to look at the impact criteria.I don’t know if this is an interpretations issue, or a statutory one. It certainly seems to me (and it seemed that way to the commission as well) that they should be allowed to take that criteria into account, even with a new owner, because the restrictions weren’t a reflection on the past owner specifically, it’s a reflection on the nature of the business and it’s location. This would not change with a new owner.Having said that, despite what seemed to be a miscommunication, I applaud the Baek’s in their willingness to continue to operate under these restrictions, and I hope they make for a good addition to the neighborhood. :)–> Andy

  4. Allan Folz says:

    >The final record is not complete without mention that the OLCC staff got their recommendation wrong and it made for a lot of extra work and head-aches on the part of the neighborhood.To reprise, criteria 1 & 2 for the license application have the following exemption clauses: “This criteria does not apply to renewal applications or to changes of ownership with no change in license privileges or operation.” So based on that, the staffer said “the criterion [proximity to a park & public interest does not demand] does not apply and thus does not provide a basis for the restrictions”The question was not to *deny the license*, which is what the exemption clauses spoke to. It was to *keep restrictions* on the existing license. Thus, removing the 4 restrictions would be, in fact, a change in license operation.OLCC staff got it wrong. They conflated maintaining restrictions on a license with denying the license.As for criterion 3, despite 50 letters of testimony including from neighbors, Police, Parks personnel, and Neighborhood Association showing problems of criminality and quality of life issue exist on this corner, they fell back on one statistic that showed only 6 *arrests*. 6 arrests, which the staffer characterized as incidents in the report.And that is why I have said and will continue to say OLCC actions through this whole fiasco are an outrage.

  5. Kathleen says:

    >Thanks to all who committed time and energy to working on this issue, especially to Allan Folz, representative of the NoPo Cougars and Peninsula Park Commons.

  6. Anonymous says:

    >Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium? Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s