SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT 
							OF COLUMBIA

							CIVIL DIVISION
						PETITION FOR REVIEW OF
						       AGENCY DECISION
________________________________________________
								:
Ruth Foster, Sara Green, Richard Holzsager, Petitioners:	:
								:	Docket Number ______
			v.					:
MPA								:
								:
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 				:
District of Columbia, Respondents				:

						:

A.  Notice is hereby given that Ruth Foster, Sara Green, and Richard Holzsager appeal to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia from the order of the Alcohol beverage Control Board of the District of Columbia, issued on the twelfth (12th) day of July, 2006.  A copy of that order or decision is attached

Description of judgment or order:  

On July 12, 2006, the Alcohol Beverage Control Board dismissed a 2003-2004 referendum petition against an alcohol license for the Safeway at 6500 Piney Branch Rd Ave, NW.  The decision was mailed to interested parties by ordinary mail, postmarked July 21, 2006.

Concise statement of the Agency proceedings and the decision as to which review is sought and the nature of the relief requested by petitioner: 

At the end of January, 2006, a referendum petition was filed against the application of the Safeway at 6500 Piney Branch Rd, NW for an alcohol license.  Under the law in effect at that time, a valid petition, with the signatures of over half the registered voters living within 600 feet, was automatic cause for denial of the license.  The petition was accepted by the ABC Board, and a statement issued by their staff on March 17, 2004 indicated that there were about fifteen (15) more signatures than needed.

On April 1, 2004, Safeway filed a challenge to the petition, to which we responded.  Although April 19, 2004, was the statutory deadline for the Board to rule on the validity of the signatures, they held their hearing on Safeway’s motion on July 28, 2004.  Douglas Fierberg, who was then acting as our pro bono lawyer, defended the petition against each of Safeway’s objections, objections for which Safeway called no witnesses and produced no actual evidence.  No further action was taken by the Board, leading us to assume that the staff count held, and Safeway’s application was denied.

The Board violated its own rules.  It is required to rule in 90 days.  Instead, eighteen months passed with no Board comment or ruling.  Only in response to Safeway’s Feb 1, 2006 motion, did the Board take further action.

In September of 2004, a law repealing the referendum process went into effect, but since it had no stated retroactivity, we assumed it was not relevant to our case.  However, Safeway’s February 1, 2006, motion requested that the Board declare the petition void on grounds that it had never been validated, and since the referendum law was no longer in effect, it could not be validated now.

To us, the situation is clear: The Board did not have the power in 2004 to deny a valid petition.  By not acting (in contravention of their own regulations), they accepted the validity (as attested to by their own staff) and the license application automatically terminated.  They should not have, retroactively in 2006, a power that they did not have in 2004, to dismiss a valid petition, and thereby deny the democratic rights of all the voters who signed that petition.  Nevertheless, the Board accepted Safeway’s reasoning and made what we believe is a self-contradictory ruling, (a) that the Board “no longer has jurisdiction over the referendum process” and (b) that it “is dismissing the pending referendum petition.”

The relief we request is the upholding of the referendum petition and the consequent denial of the Safeway application of 2003.  Although a protest process on this application has just begun, we are not asking for an injunction against that process at this time.  However, we reserve the future right to seek a stay of the granting of a license.

B.  Address of Respondent Agency or Official: Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 941 N Capitol St, NE, Room 7200, Washington, DC 20002.

C.  Names and addresses of all other parties to the agency proceeding:
Safeway, Inc., t/a Safeway, 6500 Piney Branch Rd, NW, Washington, DC 20012,
represented by
Jerry A. Moore III, Venable LLP, 575 7th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004
Advisory Neighborhood Commission 4B, 6856 Eastern Ave, NW, # 314, Wahington, DC 20012

D.  Names and addresses of parties or attorneys to be served:
1. Fred Moosally, Office of the Corporation Council
2. Jerry A. Moore III, Venable LLP, 575 7th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004
3. Ruth Foster, 6601 Piney Branch Rd, NW, Washington, DC 20012
3. Sara Green, 7106 Piney Branch Rd, NW, Washington, DC 20012
4. Richard Holzsager, 7106 Piney Branch Rd, NW, Washington, DC 20012

E.  A copy of the Agency decision or order sought to be reviewed is attached to this petition.

F.  
	Richard Holzsager (pro se)_________	      _________________________________
	Printed name of attorney for petitioner	      Signature of petitioner's counsel or petitioner

	Address:  7106 Piney Branch Rd, NW, Washington, DC 20012
	Unified Bar No.: n/a (pro se)		Telephone No.:  202-829-8802