[Neighbors] Councilor Davis's Email on Nob Hill Alcohol Waiver

Wed Oct 5 13:49:12 MDT 2016

Andrew,
I agree with Susan.  The application process already represents an enormous burden for individual residents and/or institutions, such as schools or churches, to oppose each alcohol waiver application on a case-by-case basis.  Let alone with a 3-day notice.  
Veronica

    On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 1:34 PM, Susan Michie-Maitlen via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com> wrote:

 Andrew - thank you for jumping in (once again) to shed some light on our obvious confusion!
Am I correct in understanding that the "waiver hearing" and "license hearing" are not combined in the process? However, if the waiver is approved then it seems that the liquor license which has less stringent approval factors will, most likely, also be approved.

Although I appreciate the increased number of factors the Hearing Officer may take into account for the waiver hearing. I believe there is a basic problem with opposing a waiver/liquor license application that is shown in the excerpts below from the ordinance link you provided. That being the amount of time the church, school, and other stakeholders have to prepare a case against a waiver or license application.  A case they typically have to make against liquor license attorneys who have been hired by the applicants and who naturally have prior knowledge that their client has submitted an application before the Hearing Officer sets the hearing date and notifies all other stakeholders. The problem being that the non-applicant stakeholders who are not full time attorneys have to either hire one, or take time off from their work and other responsibilities to attend these hearings and defend their position against a very experienced opponent on very short notice. In addition, this is a legal hearing, thus stakeholders need time to obtain hard evidence to support their case. Many schools, churches, and small property owners do not have the financial resources to hire legal assistance.

>From the existing Waiver Ordinance link you provided....

"(D) Notice of the public hearing shall be given by the Hearing Officer in writing, at least ten days prior to such hearing, to the applicant, any church or school within 400 feet of the proposed licensed premises, any recognized neighborhood association in the affected area, and to any person or organization requesting such notice."
Is this first official notice that all authorized stakeholders receive? Whereas, the applicants, who (we can assume) know they intend to submit an application, will expect that a notice of hearing date is coming and thus, they can prepare accordingly before and after they submit the application.
And then....
"(H)   The Hearing Officer shall also consider information solicited from the Police Department, the Fire Department, Traffic Engineering, the Environmental Health Department, the Planning Department and the Zoning Office. The information from those city agencies shall be provided to the Hearing Officer at least seven days prior to the hearing on the waiver and made available to the applicant and members of the public at least five days prior to the hearing on the waiver."
Do I understand this correctly, that if a church or school has an objection to the waiver, they basically have three days from the required notification of hearing date by the hearing officer to obtain and deliver information solicited from the above city entities? Is it humanly possible for city departments to respond that fast? 

I do realize these tight timelines may seem necessary, but the average stakeholder can easily be caught unaware and I find it very hard to support this change for that reason. 

Thanks again, 
Susan

      From: "Webb, Andrew" <awebb at cabq.gov>
 To: Susan Michie-Maitlen <sgm150 at ymail.com>; TheBoard NobHill-NM <theboard at nobhill-nm.com>; Beverly Hill <catmandotutu at comcast.net>; "Foran, Sean M." <seanforan at cabq.gov>; Morris Chavez <mo at saucedochavez.com>; Carolyn Chavez <carolynachavez at gmail.com>; Nancy Bearce <nancymbearce at gmail.com>; "Renz-Whitmore, Mikaela J." <mrenz-whitmore at cabq.gov>; Robert Munro <robert at oniells.com>; Chris Smith <chjasmith at gmail.com>; Cohen Rufus <rufuscohen at yahoo.com>; Stephen Paternoster <stevepaternoster at msn.com> 
Cc: Nob Hill <neighbors at nobhill-nm.com>
 Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 3:54 PM
 Subject: RE: Councilor Davis's Email on Nob Hill Alcohol Waiver

#yiv1564647063 -- filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv1564647063 filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv1564647063  filtered {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv1564647063 filtered {panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}#yiv1564647063 p.yiv1564647063MsoNormal, #yiv1564647063 li.yiv1564647063MsoNormal, #yiv1564647063 div.yiv1564647063MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1564647063 a:link, #yiv1564647063 span.yiv1564647063MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1564647063 a:visited, #yiv1564647063 span.yiv1564647063MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1564647063 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1564647063 p.yiv1564647063MsoAcetate, #yiv1564647063 li.yiv1564647063MsoAcetate, #yiv1564647063 div.yiv1564647063MsoAcetate {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv1564647063 p.yiv1564647063msonormal, #yiv1564647063 li.yiv1564647063msonormal, #yiv1564647063 div.yiv1564647063msonormal {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1564647063 p.yiv1564647063msochpdefault, #yiv1564647063 li.yiv1564647063msochpdefault, #yiv1564647063 div.yiv1564647063msochpdefault {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1564647063 span.yiv1564647063msohyperlink {}#yiv1564647063  span.yiv1564647063msohyperlinkfollowed {}#yiv1564647063 span.yiv1564647063emailstyle18 {}#yiv1564647063 span.yiv1564647063msoins {}#yiv1564647063 p.yiv1564647063msonormal1, #yiv1564647063 li.yiv1564647063msonormal1, #yiv1564647063 div.yiv1564647063msonormal1 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1564647063 span.yiv1564647063msohyperlink1 {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1564647063 span.yiv1564647063msohyperlinkfollowed1 {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1564647063  span.yiv1564647063emailstyle181 {color:windowtext;}#yiv1564647063 span.yiv1564647063msoins1 {color:teal;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1564647063 p.yiv1564647063msochpdefault1, #yiv1564647063 li.yiv1564647063msochpdefault1, #yiv1564647063 div.yiv1564647063msochpdefault1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv1564647063 span.yiv1564647063EmailStyle30 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv1564647063 span.yiv1564647063BalloonTextChar {}#yiv1564647063 .yiv1564647063MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv1564647063 filtered {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv1564647063 div.yiv1564647063WordSection1 {}#yiv1564647063 Good afternoon everyone – I hope it’s OK if I jump into the conversation with some clarifications.    First, an establishment with a “dispenser license transferred from another local option district” (as referenced in this draft ordinance) would be limited only to on-premise sales – package sales are not permitted with this particular type of license under state regulations. Such an establishment would, however, be permitted to sell alcohol for on-premise consumption without food service. The Alcoholic Liquor section of the Code of Ordinances (§13-2) references different types of alcohol establishments by state license type, so the reference to “dispenser license transferred from another local option district” is proposed here in keeping with that convention.    Second, readers are correct that permission from a nearby church or school is not a requirement for receiving the waiver. However, the Liquor Hearing Officer is required to notify nearby schools and churches of the upcoming hearing. If the church or school decided to weigh in either in support or opposition of the waiver request, the Hearing Officer would take this position into account when considering whether to grant the waiver. The existing requirement that the Hearing Officer notify stakeholders is in section E of the waiver section of the Alcoholic Liquor Ordinance (§13-2-4,which you can read by clickinghere).    What is being proposed here is an amendment to an existing ordinance that already allows waivers to be granted for similar licenses Downtown, and city-wide for beer and wine licenses. The only change this would make to the waiver ordinance would be this addition of the Nob Hill area.    Finally, just so it is clear, the Council delegates authority to the Liquor Hearing Officer for such decisions, and councilors themselves would not consider waiver requests.    Thanks, Andrew    Andrew Webb Policy Analyst/Planning Albuquerque City Council 505-768-3161    From: Susan Michie-Maitlen [mailto:sgm150 at ymail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 1:01 PM
To: TheBoard NobHill-NM; Beverly Hill; Foran, Sean M.; Morris Chavez; Webb, Andrew; Carolyn Chavez; Nancy Bearce; Renz-Whitmore, Mikaela J.; Robert Munro; Chris Smith; Cohen Rufus; Stephen Paternoster
Cc: Nob Hill
Subject: Fw: Councilor Davis's Email on Nob Hill Alcohol Waiver             Dear Friends and Neighbors,

 Please recall Councilor Davis's email below. It appears that he was fully aware that "permission of nearby churches" was important to the language in this ordinance for the NHNA board members. That is the impression that I got at every board meeting I attended in which the topic was discussed, and most likely the reason why it was not rejected from the beginning.

 I have no idea why the "required permission clause" was not included in the current draft of the ordinance that the attorney's proposed to the NHNA and it appears that the NHNA board members had every reason to believe that it was. It is concerning that intelligent people on the board did not actually read the ordinance or were not able to understand it, before they posted misinformation on our social media. 

 That being said, I was opposed to the ordinance from the beginning with or without the permission clause and I remain so, for the following reasons (based on the many discussions I have now heard on both sides of the issue) : 1) I do not believe the law should be changed at the request of a single business group in a single industry; and 2) I honestly do not believe the NHNA board has the business expertise to make this decision, because without thorough research into the unique economic factors that make up the Nob Hill business mix, we have no way of knowing if passing this ordinance will benefit our commercial district or the community as a whole.  Nob Hill Main Street is working to get that expertise as we speak, and I think we should wait until they get some results before we change our laws based on nothing but the speculations of people who feel they have a stake in the outcome. 

 Cheers!

 Susan Michie, Ph.D
Nob Hill Resident and Property Owner
Professor of Strategic Business Management (Ret.)

 Past Chair of the Nob Hill Main Street Economic Development Committee Past President of the Nob Hill Neighborhood Association Regular Patron of the Nob Hill Entertainment District

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Davis, Pat via Neighbors_nobhill-nm" <neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com>
To: ronhalbgewachs <ronhalbgewachs at peoplepc.com>; NobHill BOD <theboard at nobhill-nm.com>; NobHill Neighbors <neighbors at nobhill-nm.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Neighbors] Nob Hill Neighborhood Association Board Meeting Agenda    Ron, Thanks for including me in these notes.    I appreciate you including me on the agenda, but I want to be clear that I am not supporting this change or taking a position on this at this time.    Earlier this year, a restaurant ownership group asked me to sponsora change to the Nob Hill - Highland Sector plan that would permit liquor license applicants to apply for licenses if they could obtain permission of nearby churches(currently, there is a blanket prohibition on licenses near religious institutions).   Instead of sponsoring that change outright, I had our staff create draft language.  I agreed to sponsor the change only if the neighborhood associations impacted by the change endorsed the change. 
It is my understanding that the restaurant group has been working with the neighborhood association to address their concerns and the Nob Hill Neighborhood Association Board is scheduled to take up this matter at tonight’s meeting.   Please let me know how it goes so we can consider whether to file the change or whether the association opposes it. 
Thanks, Pat   From:ronhalbgewachs <ronhalbgewachs at peoplepc.com>
Reply-To: ronhalbgewachs <ronhalbgewachs at peoplepc.com>
Date: Monday, September 12, 2016 at 12:16 AM
To: NobHill BOD <theboard at nobhill-nm.com>, NobHill Neighbors <neighbors at nobhill-nm.com>
Cc: Ron Halbgewachs <ronhalbgewachs at peoplepc.com>, Patrick Davis <patdavis at cabq.gov>, "Foran, Sean M." <seanforan at cabq.gov>, Morris Chavez <mo at saucedochavez.com>
Subject: Nob Hill Neighborhood Association Board Meeting Agenda   Please see the attached agenda for the next meeting of the Nob Hill Neighborhood Association Board of Directors meeting at Monte Vista Christian Church, 3501 Campus Blvd NE.   Ron Halbgewachs President, Nob Hill Neighborhood Association      _______________________________________________
Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm       

_______________________________________________
Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.swcp.com/pipermail/neighbors_nobhill-nm/attachments/20161005/ab07f9e5/attachment.html>