08/13/1956 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"25 11 e COUNCrL AND THE UNIVERSITY AUTHORITIES." THIS MEANT THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD NOT BREAK I ITS POLICY BY OVERRIDING THE REFUSAL OF THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY, AND THAT ~PPLICATIONS FROM EUGENE WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE SAME MANNER AS APPLICATIONS FOR ANY OTHER AREA -- I N SHORT, THEY MUST HAVE LOCAL ENDORSEMENT BEFORE BEING CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION. THE ONLY TIME THE COMMISSION OVERRIDES A lOCAL COUNCIL'S REFUSAL IS WHEN PERSONAL PREJUDICE IS OBVIOUS. AT NO TIME, HAVE~HE PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ENTERTAINED THE IDEA OF RELAXING THE SO CALLED "BOUNDARY LINES" IN EUGENE, AND THEREBY IGNORE THE LOCAL SENTIMENT EXPRESSED THROUGH THE ELECTED OFFICIALS OF EUGENE. SHOULD THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY EVER ENDORSE AN APPLICA- TION WITHIN THE BOUNDARY, AND THEREBY INDICATE A CHANGE OF LOCAL POLICY THE COMMISSION THEN WILL CONSIDER THE APPLICATION. ,HOWEVER, FAVORABLE ENDORSEMENT BY A LOCAL GOVERNING BODY DOES NOT MEAN THE.COMMISSION AUTOMATICALLY WILL GRANT THE LICENSE, AS EVEN WITH LOCAL ENDORSEMENT THE COMMISSION STILL MUST SATISFY ITSELF THAT THE LICENSE IS NEEDED AND THE APPLICANT SATISFACTORY. REMOVAL OF THE BOUNDARY DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT ANYMORE LICENSES WOULD BE ISSUED IN EUGENE.. THE COMMISSION DOES NOT FEEL THAT REQUIREMENT OF LOCAL ENDORSEMENT IS A SHIFTING OF e RESPONSIBILITIES. THIS REQUIREMENT IS ONE THAT USUALLY IS WELCOMED BY COUNTIES AND CITIES . -BECAUSE IT RETAINS A DEGREE OF, THEIR LOCAL AUTONOMY. HOWEVER, SINCE THE COMMISSION REQUIRES THAT APPLICANTS IN ALL OTHER COMMUNITIES SECURE LOCAL ENDORSEMENT, IT CANNOT SIDESTEP THIS REQUIREMENT FOR APPLICANTS FROM EUGENE. " $ IT WAS MOVED BY MR. HARTMAN, SECONDED BY MR. GODLOVE, ~HAT THE COMMUNICATION BE REFERRED I TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED. I 24 COMMUNICATION F~OM THE OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION - RE: GENERAL' STATEMENT WITH I RESPECT TO "DRY ZONE" AROUND THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON CAMPUS WAS SUBMITTED AND READ AS FOLLOWS: "FOLLOWING YOUR. VISIT TO: ,THE COMMISSION ON JULY 10, AND THE,RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER, THE MEMBERS OF THE REORGANIZED COMMISSION HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE SOME STUDY TO YOUR I NQUI RY, AND HAVE APPROVED A GENERAL STATEMENT AS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. AT THE SAME TIME I WILL NOT OVERLOOK YOUR LETTER OF JULY 6 AND WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE I, I SPECIFIC ANSWERS TO THE FOUR QUESTIONS YOU PROPOUND: I I WILL A DRY-ZONE AROUND THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON CAMPUS BE RECOGNIZED BY ~HE I . COMMIS$ION IN CONSIDERING FUTURE APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES? ANSWER: THE LIQUOR CONTROL COMM1SSION WILL GIVE RECOGNITION TO SUCH A ZONE IF THE COMMON COUNCIL REFUSES TO FAVORABLY ENDORSE ANY APPLICATION FOR AN OUTLET WITHIN THE ZONE. 2. IF THE DRY-ZONE IS NOT GIVEN RECOGNITION, WILL IT BE THE POLICY OF THE COMMISSION TO GRANT LICENSES WHICH ARE OPPOSED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON BUT APPROVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE? ANSWER: NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THIS QUESTION IS ANSWERED ABOVE, IT SHOULD I _ BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NO INTENTION OF GRANTING LICENSES ~N LOCATIONS WHICH, IN ITS OPINION MIGHT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE AREA. I N THE :CASE OF A FAVORABLE ENDORSEMENT OF A LOCATION, THE COMMISSION WOULD FOLLOW . ITS USUAL PRACTICE OF A RE-SURVEY OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE PREMISES, THE NEED I, FOR ANEW OUTLET IN THAT AREA AND THE SENTIMENT OF THE INDIVIDUALS OR ORGANIZATIONS THAT MIGHT BE AFFECTED BY SUCH AN OUTLET. IF IN THE OPINION I OF THE COMMISSION THE PROTESTS WERE JUSTIFIED, THE LICENSE WOULD NOT BE GRANTED, AND BY THE SAME TOKEN, Ir CONDITIONS WERE FAVORABLE AND THE r e PROTESTS WERE UNREASONABLE, A LICENSE WOULD BE GRANTED. I 3. IF THE DRY-ZONE IS TO BE RECOGNIZED, .S IT THE INTENTION OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE COMMON COUNCIL Of THE CITY OF EUGENE RECOGNIZE THE SAME ZONE AND REFUSE TO APPROVE APPLICATIONS-FOR LICENSES.WITHIN THE ZONE? ANSWER: THE-COMMON COUNCIL WOULD BE THE PRIMARY FACTOR IN ESTABLISHING AN AREA IN I WHICH THEY WOULD REFUSE FAVORABLE ENDORSEMENT. THE COMMISSION.WOULD GIVE CONSIDERATION TO NO APPLICATION UPON WHICH FAVORABLE ENDORSEMENT HAD NOT I' BEEN MADE UNLESS IT.COULD BE SHOWN THAT PERSONAL PREJUDICE OR MATERIAL 'INTEREST ON THE PART OF AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP WAS A FACTOR IN THE DENIAL. I 4. WILL THE COMMISSION'S POLICY AS TO THE DRY-ZONE APPLY TO PACKAGE STORE LICENSES I, AND APPLICATIONS FOR CONSUMPTION ON THE PREMISES LICENSES OR MIGHT THE COMMISSION APPROVE I PACKAGE STORE LICENSES WITHIN THE AREA AND STILL CONTINUE TO DISAPPROVE LICENSES PERMITTING I I CONSUMPTION ON THE PREMISES? I ANSWER: AGAIN THIS DEPENDS UPON THE ENDORSEMENT. IF THE COMMON COUNCIL SHOULD ADOPT AS A POLICY FAVORABLE ENDORSEMENT OF ACCEPTABLE PACKAGE OUTLETS, THESE APPLICATIONS WILL BE GIVEN CONSIDERATION IN THE USUAL MANNER BY THE COMMISSION." IT WAS MOVED B~ MR. HARTMAN, SECONDED BY MR. GODLOVE, THAT THE COMMUNICATION BE REFERRED TO THE DUBLIC SAFETY COMMI~~EE. MOTl ON CARR I ED. .e ~ <::G