HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/2003, 6A - REGULATION OF CONCURRENT SALES OF GASOLINE AND BEER AND WINE (CR 1402) Attachment 5
Illp city of San tins osispo
WhGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 'E'"Nwm:
FROM Michael Multari, Community Development Director BY: Glen Matteson, Assoc. Planner
SUBJECT: Regulation of concurrent sales of gasoline and beer and wine (CR 1402).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Introduce in summary form the attached ordinance to approve a negative declaration of
environmental impact, repeal the prohibition of concurrent sales, and amend the Zoning
Regulations to restrict concurrent sales.
INTRODUCTION
A 1982 city law prohibits selling alcoholic beverages from service stations, defined as
any retail business selling motor fuel. The state legislature voided the prohibition
effective January 1, 1989. Since the mid-1970's, the city's Zoning Regulations have
required use-permit approval for the combination of service station and retail sales of
groceries or liquor. Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending strengthening
the Zoning Regulations to minimize the health and safety problems resulting from
concurrent sales, while conforming with state law.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Staff foresees no significant impacts from amending the regulations.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING ACTION
If the council does not introduce the ordinance amendments at this meeting, there may be
a time after January 1 when concurrent sales could be established with little or no city
control. According to expert testimony, greater availability of alcoholic beverages
leads to more drinking and resulting health and traffic safety problems. The specific
contribution of concurrent sales outlets is not known, but it appears to warrant concern,
especially in a community with many potential under-age drinkers.
:LAIcity o� s`.. � Luis oB�s o ���C�M�N��p
COUNCIL AGENDA REPOPM
Concurrent sales
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Situation Evaluation
A city law adopted in 1982 prohibits selling alcoholic beverages from service stations,
defined as-any retail business selling motor fuel (Municipal Code Section 5.36.020,
attached, which is not part of the Zoning Regulations). Several cities adopted such laws
because they were concerned that the concurrent sales of fuel and alcohol from the
increasingly popular minimarts at gas stations, and at convenience stores with fuel
Pumps, would encourage drunk driving. Locally, the police chief was concerned with
concurrent sales outlets becoming prime "stop-and-rob" targets, because of the large
amount of cash frequently generated by beer and wine sales.
Since the mid-1970's, the city's Zoning Regulations have required use-permit approval for
the combination of service station and retail sales of groceries or liquor(Section
17.22.010, attached). They do this not by explicitly saying so, but by requiring a use
permit for one or the other of the uses in each zone where they are allowed, and by
requiring a use permit when adding to or changing a use which needs a use permit to be
established, or adding an allowed use to a site with a use which needs a use permit
(Section 1758.070). Use permits were required for this combination of activities
because the city was concerned about conflicts between people walking and driving cars on
the site, supervision of self-service fuel sales, and possible harmful effects on
neighbors. (Visibility and emergency shut-off of the pumps from a control booth and some
other basic safety featu;es are separate code requirements.)
Last year, the state legislature prevented future local prohibitions and voided existing
ones after January 1, 1989 (Section 23709.5 of the California Business and Professions
Code, enacted as AB 937, attached). This law was supposedly a compromise between oil
companies and retailers anxious to expand their concurrent sales activities and local
government and citizen groups. As a result, the city's prohibition of concurrent sales
Will be invalid after the first of the year. The state law does allow city use-permit
regulation of "the concurrent retailing of motor vehicle fuel with beer and wine for
off-premises consumption, based on appropriate health, safety, and general welfare
standards contained in the" regulations, if the regulations also:
1. Require the decision-making body to make written findings;
2. Provide for appeal if the ability to act on use permits has been delegated;
3. Contain procedures for notice, hearing, and public testimony;
4. Require "that the findings be based on substantial evidence in view of the whole
record to justify the ultimate decision."
The city's Zoning Regulations have the first three items but not the fourth, which until
now has been a judicial standard applied to some actions that have been challenged,
rather than a required element of local zoning regulations.
Apparently, the advocates of concurrent sales hoped there would be no substantial
evidence that selling fuel and beer/wine at the same site was more likely to cause
problems than selling them at separate but nearby sites, and this lack of evidence either i
would persuade cities to approve requests or it would be used by applicants to challenge
denials. (Note: The new law applies only to beer and wine; concurrent sales of "hard
liquor" can still be prohibited and this prohibition is recommended in the draft
ordinance.)
city of san Luis omspo
ATTACHMENT 5
i COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT
Concurrent sales
Page 3
City staff asked the state Alcoholic Beverages Control staff and the League of California
Cities legal division to provide or refer to any studies of this issue which might
provide empirical evidence, one way or the other. Two items have been offered. One is a
summary of an expert's testimony at the state legislature, and the other is a San Diego
County survey referred to in that testimony. Both are attached. To summarize the
observations: greater availability of alcoholic beverages leads to more drinking; more
drinking causes more public health and safety problems; concurrent-sale outlets make
beer/wine more available, for drivers and under-age consumers;concurrent-sales outlets
are responsible for a higher proportion of in-car drinking among those in
alcohol-offender programs.
The state law does include standards concerning display and advertising of beer and wine,
but they automatically expire January 1, 1990. The fact that these standards have been
incorporated into the law seems a tacit admission that drivers should not be encouraged
to buy beer and wine, or at least not to buy individual containers ready for drinking "on
the way out." It makes sense to staff to keep these standards after January 1, 1990.
Also, additional requirements may be justified, such as:
1. No alcoholic beverage sales for on-site consumption (just to be sure, though this is
covered by state rules and bars would need use-permit approval);
2. Any service'station selling beer and wine could do so only in conjunction with
selling groceries and other sundries and convenience items, to avoid having liquor
stores with gas pumps;
3. No concurrent-sales outlet within a certain distance (1,000 feet) of another
concurrent-sales outlet;
4. No concurrent-sales outlet within a certain distance(1,000 feet of any other
business selling alcoholic beverages for off-site (or on-site) consumption);
5. No concurrent-sales outlet within a certain distance (1,000 feet) of certain uses
(any elementary or secondary school, public park);
6. Fewer hours than provided in state law for concurrent sales to occur (for example,
not after 9:00 p.m., rather than 2:00 a.m.), to reduce the likelihood of evening or
late-night purchases being consumed on the road;
7. No advertisement or display of alcoholic beverages visible from off the premises;
8. Inside the premises, space for "public service" posters noting the effects of drunk
driving, equal to at least the area devoted to advertising beer and wine.
9. Prohibit sale of refrigerated items, reducing the likelihood of immediate
consumption.
a 11 y MY Of S", I LUIS OB1spO - 1i,fACHMENT4
=OM27WB COUNCIL AGr=NDA REPORT
Concurrent sales
Page 4
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
City Attorney
Concerning the legislative requirement for "substantial evidence," such evidence need not
be as concrete as, for example, local accidents attributable to buying beer at a gas
station; it could be an expert's statement that greater availability of alcohol generally
leads to additional problems of alcohol abuse.
Police
Concerning the possible requirements (listed on the previous page), the Police Department
believes items 6 and 7 are good ideas. A limit on hours of operation would prevent a gas
station from staying open late just to sell beer and wine. In their view, items 2 and 8
are probably not useful.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may:
Continue action. However, if the council does not act on the item at this meeting,
the amended regulations could take effect before January I only if the council
adopted them as an urgency ordinance.
Adopt the amendments recommended by the Planning Commission, or with any changes to
review requirements or standards which are consistent with state law.
Decide to not regulate concurrent sales.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
On October 12, 1988, the Planning Commission voted six to none (one absent) to recommend
the amendments contained in the attached draft ordinance. Commissioners favored the most
restrictive possible regulations. One citizen spoke, favoring the prohibition of
concurrent sales.
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce in summary form the attached ordinance to approve a negative declaration of
environmental impact, repeal the prohibition of concurrent sales, and amend the Zoning
Regulations to restrict concurrent sales, with:
(I) No alcoholic beverage sales for on-site consumption;
(2) Any service station selling beer and wine could do so only in conjunction with
selling groceries and other sundries and convenience items;
(3) No concurrent-sales outlet within 1,000 feet of any other alcohol-serving or
selling establishment;
(4) Sales of alcoholic beverages between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. only; eA4_
:00100
�� CTCy of San LUIS OBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Concurrent sales
Page 5
(5) No advertisement or display of alcoholic beverages visible from off the
premises;
(6) Inside the premises, space for "public service" posters noting the effects of
drunk driving, equal to at least the area devoted to advertising beer and wine;
(7) No beer or wine shall be displayed within ten feet of the cash register;
(8) No advertisement of alcoholic beverages shall be displayed at motor fuel islands
and no self-illuminated advertising for beer or wine shall be located on
buildings or windows;
(9) No sales of alcoholic beverages shall be made from a drive-in window;
(10) No sale or display of refrigerated alcoholic beverages.
Attached:
Draft ordinance
Draft Planning Commission minutes, 10-12-88
Municipal Code excerpt - alcoholic beverage sales at gas stations
Zoning Regulations excerpt - use chart
AB 937 - state law
State Assembly Committee testimony, Wittman, 4/86
San Diego County study, 3/86
Initial environmental study
gm2/cr 1402
Ste' i
CP
ORDINANCE NO. (1988 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REGULATING
CONCURRENT SALES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND MOTOR FUEL (CR 1402)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held hearings to consider
appropriate regulations in accordance with the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Zoning Regulations amendment is
consistent with the.general plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment has been evaluated in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the city's Environmental Impact Guidelines, and a negative
declaration has been granted by the city; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning provisions promote the public health, safety, and
general welfare;
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. After review and consideration, the determination of the Community
Development Director to approve a fiegative declaration is hereby affirmed.
SECTION 2. Municipal Code Section 5.36.020, prohibiting the concurrent sales of
motor fuel and alcoholic beverages is hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. The Zoning Regulations (Municipal Code Chapters 17.08, 17.22, and 17.58)
are amended to provide standards and use-permit review for concurrent sales outlets, as
fully contained in the attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the city attorney, shall be
published once, at least three (3) days before its final passage, in the
Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this city. This ordinance
shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on
the ....... day of 1988, on motion of
seconded by .. . and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Ordinance No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
.. .... . .... . ..... ..... ..... ..... ............
Mayor
ATTEST:
................ ............ ... ....
City Clerk
APPROVED:
—.
City A inistrative Officer
,ty Att ney
Community Development Director
gm2/1402ord
ONES
Ordinance No. (1988 Series)
EXHIBIT A
Add the following section:
. 17.08.100. Concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages.
Concurrent sales of alcoholic beverages other than beer and wine are strictly
prohibited. The concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer and wine at a single premises or
retail outlet shall be subject to the following:
A. There shall be no alcoholic beverage sales for on-site consumption;
B. Beer and wine may be sold only in conjunction with selling groceries. and other
sundries and convenience items;
C. No concurrent-sales outlet shall be established within 1,000 feet of any other
alcohol-serving or selling establishment;
D. Sales of alcoholic beverages between 4:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. are prohibited;
E. There shall be no advertisement or display of alcoholic beverages visible from off
the premises; I.
F. Inside the premises, there shall be provided space for public-service posters
concerning the effects of drunk driving, equal to at least the area devoted to
advertising beer and wine;
G. No beer or wine shall be displayed within ten feet of the cash register;
H. No advertisement of alcoholic beverages shall be displayed at motor fuel islands and
no self-illuminated advertising for beer or wine shall be located on buildings or
windows;
I. No sales of alcoholic beverages shall be made from a drive-in window;
J. There shall be no sales or display of refrigerated alcholic beverages.
The following shall be added to Section 17.22.010 (Table 9):
Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 I R-2 . R-3 R-4 C/OS 1 O PF I C-NI I C-C I C-R C-T C- I Ni I
I IDI ( D DIpI
Cc rcurrenc sales of alcoholic
beverages and mucor fuel (see
also section 17.08.100) I I
— Allowed PC — Planning commission approval required
.D — Director's a09rov91 required A/D — Director:s approval on ground floor.allowed above
The director shall determine if a proposed.unlisted use is similar to a listed use.Numbered nota are at end of chart.
The following shall be added to Section 17.58.040:
Actions on use permits shall be justified by written findings, based on substantial �q
evidence in view of the whole record.
Draft P.C. Minutes
October 12, 1988
Item 3. Zoning Regulations Amendment CR 1402. Consideration of adding standards and
procedures for regulating concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages
from the same site to the Zoning Regulations; City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant.
Glen Matteson, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the
commission consider the initial environmental study and recommend to the City Council
that the prohibition on concurrent sales be replaced by new zoning standards and
requirements for use-permit approval.
Chairperson Kourakis declared the public hearing open.
Laverne Schneider, 1356 Marsh Street, indicated she had been instrumental in getting the
prohibition procedures in the regulations originally. She felt allowing the purchase of
liquor and gasoline at the same site would result in more drunk drivers on the street.
She hoped that the commission would not make it easier for the purchase of alcoholic
beverages at gas stations.
Chairperson Kourakis declared the public hearing closed.
Chairperson Kourakis was concerned about the proposed amendment. She suggested changing
the hours of sale of alcoholic beverages to as short as possible, possibly no earlier
than 10 a.m. and no later than 4 p.m.
Commr. Hainline felt the hours of 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. may be more reasonable.
Commr. Duerk felt it should be very clear that alcoholic beverages should not be consumed
on the premises or the automobile upon leaving. She felt not refrigerating the beverages
would make people refrain from drinking it at the site. She suggested amending condition
10 to state that there should be no sale of refrigerated alcoholic beverages.
Commr. Crotser suggested changing condition 7 to prohibit sales within 10 feet of the
cash register to deter last minute sales.
Chairperson Kourakis indicated her rationale for changing the hours of sales was her
concern for the large underage population and that their daytime activities (i.e.,
school) would preclude them from patronizing gas stations where alcoholic beverages were
sold.
Commr. Duerk moved recommend to the City Council that the prohibition of concurrent sales
be deleted and that the Zoning Regulations be amended to include permanent standards for
concurrent-sales.busincss including items I through 10 in the staff report, amending No.
4, changing the hours of sales from 10 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., amending No. 7, prohibiting
displays of beer or wine within ten feet of the cash register, and amending No. 10, not
allowing sale or display of refrigerated alcoholic beverages.
Chairperson Kourakis seconded the motion.
AYES: Duerk, Kourakis, Crotser, Gercty, Hainline, Roalman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Schmidt
The motion passes.
E'CISTI NG CITY CODE
5.36.020 Alcoholic beverages—Sale
Chapter 5.36. prohibited—Exceptions.
A. It is unlawful for any person to sell. offer
SERVICE STATIONS for sale,display for sale or otherwise furnish any
alcoholic beverage from a service station.
Sections: B. For the purposes of this section "service
536.010 Gasoline prices—Posting station"means any business where motor fuel is
required. offered for retail sale,whether or not in conjunc-
5.36.020 Alcoholic beverages—Sale tion with any other use or activity.
prohibited—Exceptions. C. The prohibition contained in subsection A
of this section shall not apply to service stations
536.010 Gasoline prices—Posting required. lawfully selling, offering for sale, displaying for
sale or otherwise furnishing alcoholic beverages
as of the effective date of the ordinance first
adopting the provisions codified in this section.
(Ord. 915 § 1. 1983: prior code § 4290)
EXISTING Z. DNING RE CSIs,
17.22.0 10
Table 9 Continued
Uses Allowed by.Zone R-1. 114 R-3 R-i COS 1 O,I I PF I C-N C-CIC-R C-T I C-S I M
I 1 1 I I
Retail sales—groceries,liquor
and specialized foods(bakery,
meats, dairy items,ctc-) A A I A I PC D
Service stations(see Section
17.08.030) 1 Ll
A.
D D D A JA
G �
L .. L U-C -C— b0 G a) i U o •r-' U >,= O a) u ca
V os s y r y �.a,E C.�; ms C c C c eoC C c •3=`z °L �� OL a
cunt smm a N Cc 7.Cco3 7 7 C rn c
c o .S 5 ai �ti.' — ° °__ ' v o c N °' o`o -" C > -
�� a� bc cncE � o mo3 � L � � � a m ✓ Qc uO@ °� .. ° c
L L
>,.Y i:; 'in 'U9 U .r U •-' .E W "O C °A O C 7 C h 7 L C. y > d 6 7 O .c
ca U r. H y U sf U v
ESE °' a % v � '� � � ° �_ � o� d �rncoaa� cc aW-2
O � ^. U U Q N G E
° 7 ... ` s 7 r a) H� N 7 .� C u 3 " L v1 +- a) 3 "-° U U ° E c U o a Q:
� ° a � c . e > oo > p p a yo 7— ° cc E Logic
L p - a) L c! y-C U i u p u N 0 .. >. U y 0 O . o`L C r. O .
.. :7 U O C r vL O L .2 H m L-C L U a'".. cE .+ m O W cE 6 .. c. O O u 7 U O L R
m F v v m— = 0 7 0 > u c � o ° o Ct u o a) a� :: o c `� . p c
7 � _3LcH0. UO-O, CL.12 W � u '..Lp0
u o O " � c U C OdU °- LO .m " . eC6 C �CL0
°
o •° O )� c0-p03 .ou0 ., cCEOOaO .!3aLLC)L°3mU�•s•�UH?oC. .0oUo�E��U.-
°
U p O U 0
C to 0 - C
N E C' U ` ° .
O O Coi � ° a >,.a t to cc cc m
OO �> ' O � H
: " - ° UN >CuUCULc�vU.i
Z'.i
�b.
pco7Cac
H ` U00 7 0 XTmUpU0E q L , N-0 C O Oc N U-0
.0
U n C . . 0 0) cu .O
W. p 0— 0 — ty C >N L C0O ° Ca S U 4 c 2 E °< ov 49 c yc, oyo bo 0 cmh � . . . �� ° 7
IL = ° Gm °Ws cW o u
> . -o . ) U CL C - ro2 ; u
C "U ° 0O ° OO > U U � V 7 C -b w .bE
ci U'C 0 a) y O O
Lo. O >c � Zd° : > ° � E� oO
— h U7Lc^ EO ° � - icaU p ;t C O 1.0 ° C U'C O-Z C O a
> o " o roupboU = >— w0w — �W '5u C E
E _0 0 N
> cNJ . --aM ° vU U x
_ m O G
N VLUU o. -3 O uL O N O E ON Cm a'-
cCa
o
p f0 U LU-C ° •:9 .>. O O C C y C > C t)o C H '''C C d U w C d cD N " Q) = C'u
to V3 'b •• m �, " ' m U m U m • 7 C m ' x,,= •, O C o
U � :: o � >� G °�a� FPo— a) e-o `° cE `y3 °' 3 � cO3 >e mo
O m CLU C C . .� �][] o V O U a) m m t u
E u+ c r� � c ° m 0 O cti N s o m 0 242 L >w-z ^-o > E
ya(^U�C.O.." attNb�"„.h�7O•G^��+,j yaUo '[�%o3_"o>.v_c�.m�,i• v:O>3.n�:�. �.0v_ :r.a..�'=yCC•i�my�N.�..—'CV yU'�Cr3LU°�E.0C-p'CUa)L E y°. C r. sh c o �y >> 0 2 0 Lc c `a a �E ` ° o = N '_�-OmU.L•.`S�No0.3hAL °�NL' FCoN3 sc+CrCCed'
LO'ENyy
? E
0 MEa . 0 ca _ao6 � 3-Cd
> 7 .y U-O Cyc °-C
JuUVo°Uaa.^NS-
d)
O
cu ed E cm xC ' = > yQ>° 0 CU o >O —
— c CSV- (J a
C W -0 m
>Ln .
d -C O
> o °
U 0-C O . G U A M-0O U U"c- Cao
0.
bo�
° ' cu ° � a z ��- o ° � ° > > °so' ° zwc � totola m ” a>U0 ° U O "CE c o y C - oCCrOCL j CU CL y UO O D U 0 O U.0 UO N= > bo
yoO C=p . Cc � aNmO 0 "U O. -p� -C
L L . O O cc p O E U O C p
� Cm ° O
.L yUnU-a cu -GT9p ° : Gc. E.0 d N 0OCOy u0L7y CC O� E � CN U .>OO C -C ca w 0 -C uc-
ap,z � oH �uN°� � Wc3 � coe`' °m t 0
c oau
° aE
3p U "O uV O to U Q) -!2 E EO 75 O C C) UC
'C•u U • U O aaU Up 9) U OZ y 9 ; - 0 - p N
U G 7 N
o � .. ' 0q0 O O�
to -0 U cq b
� U . ch Tg080voo �
Cca p p to ccd = Ovy � 0 y—�
N
0 r 0 0 fl vU N U
<= <W m a°, °u 'CG(�• � °s N >o u > F�y ., EH �.5�o m ad > e, 'e 0 01
3
E a N u o :=o o 0. °� ucEi
r>3 GA -/�
ATTACHMENT 4
a �
y o
u
N cc
y�
00
c c
s o
v
. 0
.c 'G
u u
CJ
! O C
OE
VL
0 O
° O
C U
i+ c7
� C
O "
S y
Ci R
.0 S L
U u�
cu
n yO,O �..J O C i.' O C C'D w 0Cc— O - ,U �- E y w L c-i y •_ S L S to
�
c7 E cd C •^ y c4.O �..._, c9 % O L ..
s E GN C N boy oo i u E --9 y u T m Los N N E o y p cL y u
U Q ' S y C C1..0 �W c y.D cd .O E yO .NU_U.O m��
N C 'C y �' 7 L. y O. 6) C 7 y N G.0 cc y m. �.
C O y p L 7 N d..a 1'..-r O `^ E C c7 E' O. C y y Ti N ( .? y 7 y O .C.
= u u u ° >_ c e m ;a " ��.. o E c 3 c u E >s m c-0 c air L
'� Naflau � �� oE � 3T � � W D p , y � G3 = mo " aom ;q h °
ca
^ °' _p ° > y p 3 c _ > c _ u C 4 c ° y y o ° o g N y > >
G L u C. N y ar CC y. L T' y "" + cd._C N E to N L T L
C y p Y C �'O. C O m L y C _ C N b C) t„ m .y y' L]. y - cC S.'n C °
E_ . o m c o� ° ° c ° oo � ° E= o e v Tey 3
7<<",•, E }' _� y ° N� �T C:d C y ` a _..1' cv y W 7 L H Eo
>7 w R y U C O U ca to r
OL �.G E a ep y GD=,:0 .. -p a > b y. C z�,"O 7 C s �. ° C C u N
U 0 3 v a� :c r c o o c M y u e s cu = oo m .� y N e ` ° n•g ,, o y
.. E C•� a O N 4 N_ _U fJ ci
N N L _ O L N_ y n' fa-a p
C� ., = y _ .. L °fi � riN u to p C > w p _ ° U E L O N .+ lq 0 ` U
ri LT.
N L y ° C. 61 y > y 'c-'C OS OC C yO a.. T U d vi y Oa U C cd
p 0 L -L•' y d p T N E. N _, y � •n j u!'C (Q •- . fin S y 7 a O> y 7 N
¢ci iv 3 a � .u-. mss c e o c ° u `o o m .5 To E e o p o ay p-c E p C
o c o _ L ° 3 v = N u 3 N c 24 � .5 ` �s ` -• y �q . y
$ � u� � , yc ° yy � � °uDyo° _� s° m [ Eoy°o ;ao 0D �°-ccq �c cd y )
S L� C..0 _ 7 N _ C•D cc�� N 7 y C y U _
C 7 C7 s° aaE cd y a.. C y O ap C. ` 3 .: Oo O r•..O O. T CO OO C <4�" _ O ` C X m u
�s :�s E ° ti a��° E ° � p ' u off, H p ° L c N � u o e sr '� - ° u ,= ° (U E.-0
7 61 O L y 3 N U E" OO O W - v cv ° H'C y N L 0 7 y C 3yii'C cc U N L •.Ui
0. co L •^� c �.= yyy ;? aLy — yam ° a Lp . >, .- ❑ > a;tic °my � > 0t 0
°' y ° uc .= ° p :3� c �> � ".?� c �s �� =b N mcg° y-D� h•�- oc � � ysc � �ZeL. �
° L yo •- 000000yo 0 ocoE am „ = Hoy o3u
v d n ya° � �y0. a¢ ;Z 4) o yZ -4 3 "L Z H'ow y "��� u H u m'=o z EFN cc
c o r.
N
•� Gi N ` °c....... N C9 O Q' y y ^vi v_ �^- 'C 'O i L.�. W _ N''O .. i'. 61 U O V y
�� OCC '"... .� O N O �'! C �'.O W uCD
is f^ > C d q�+�y
0. t0 r r S Q •u 61 •3 v L E I w m O .0 ami C v L H •_ y •-�'`i.. O L' V] •3
h N a 0 0 .0 E q u _ O
MACHMENTO
b '
PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES IN SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
' AT GASOLINE STATIONS
f
Testimony Before the Select Committee on Alcohol and Related Problems of the
California State Assembly
• F
r.
: - April 10, 1986
Friedner D. Wittman, Ph.D.
Study Director
Prevention. Research Center
2532 Durant
t� Berkeley, California 94704
4rF
r
� S'�j
Int�rodu°u°n
My name is Friedner D. Wittman; I am a Study Director at Prevention
Research Center, Berkeley, California. The Prevention Research Center is a non-
profit research, organization dedicated to studies in the prevention of alcohol and
drug problems. For the past six years I have been engaged in the study of uses of
local planning and zoning ordinances, to prevent problems related to alcohol
availability. My work has included responses of localities to California's repeal of
"dry zones" around University of California campuses in 1979; studies of selected
California cities' and counties' uses of local planning and zoning ordinances to deal
with problems related to alcohol outlets; a statewide survey of practices among all
California cities to regulate alcohol problems through local planning and zoning
• ordinances; and detailed planning studies of selected communities' uses of ordinances
to deal with particular problems specifically related to alcohol outlets.
The statewide survey of local zoning practices, conducted in 1984,
determined that approximately ten percent of California cities (that is, thirty five
of the three hundred forty nine that responded to the question) disallow the
practice of selling alcoholic beverages in gasoline stations. Since then perhaps a
dozen more cities around the state have banned the practice, and many more cities
are now considering such legislation. Meanwhile oil companies and convenience-
store corporations have been vigorously pushing to increase the number of gas
stations that have convenience or "mini-mart" operations. A battle has been raging
for over a year between those in localities, mainly cities, who are concerned about
Public health issues in the sale of alcohol in gas stations, and those who would
install gas-station/convenience store operations. Now the conflict has found its way
to the State legislature in the hearing before the Assembly's Select Committee on
Alcohol-Related Problems, and in various pieces of proposed legislation.
A major source of contention has been questions about the extent to which
alcohol sales in gasoline stations present a serious threat to public health and well-
being; and secondarily, whether it is wise for localities, rather than the state, to
take the primary role in protecting public health in this regard. I would like to
address both questions very briefly today. I have also brought memos that expand
Ion the points I wish to make here, and that provide further references for those
:- who wish to consult primary sources of the research in this area.
ti.
r' 1- Substantial increases in offsale alcohol availability are associated with
=eases in alcohol consumption and alcohol-related prob ms• California has
Y aPVhi
roximately 14,000 gas stations, of wch perhaps 1,500 now sell alcoholic
5
beverages. The state has about 26,000 off-sale retail outlets altogether. If oil
wesmPanies and convenience stores were to commence competition regarding alcohol-
without restriction as to numbers and locations of outlets, in my opinion it is
hely that the total number of off-sale retail outlets would increase significantly.
would increase accordingly, by something on the order of twenty percent of
ronvenience-item sales for each new outlet. Sales might well increase beyond
x > to is expected another duce too increased numbers of outlets if minimarts in close proximity
4: begin "price wars" on alcohol sales.
ATTACHE
2. Marketin alcoholic bevera es through gasoline stations in a convent
format he htens risks o robleMs of drinking-driving,ivin and sales o alcoholic
ever es to minors and inebriates: Structural aspects of. convenience marketing✓
alcoholic beverages give grounds or concern that gasoline station-based convent
sales are particularly high sources of risk. Problematic structural aspects of
convenience marketing include: late-night hour of operation; underaged and
minimally-supervised clerks; advertising, promotion, and store
in close Y
association with motoring of alcoholic that encourages impulse buying ages,
sales of alcoholic beverages almost exclusively in beer, which is heavily-represevft
in automobile accidents; highly-dispersed locations which make difficult monitocia,
by the owner and enforcement by the ABC and local sheriff/police departments...A.
In this context rich in potential problems, it is unrealistic to expect, and iq
has not been demonstrated, that special server training programs for clerks and ,
by themselves effective for preventing problematic
posting of warning signs are
informational materials are necessary elements of
purchasing. Such training and
full prevention programs; but they are not sufficient by themselves alone. The
very high costs of continual training, monitoring and supervision by both the store;
• operator and public agencies, and the many opportunities for errors and omissions
that occur along the way, make it highly unlikely that server training programs
alone can be effective in this particular application.
y Recent studies in San Diego County have looked into DIII offenders' episode
of in-car consumption of alcohol shortly after alcohol had been purchased from-alt
off-sales outlet. These studies show that such purchasing/consumption patterns.•
emanate from gasoline stations at almost three times the rate one would expectm
from the number of gas-station of -sales outlets relative to other. types of off-A`
alcohol outlets. Although gas-station alcohol outlets are small in number compare
to other types of off-sale outlets, their relatively small numbers mask a substantL
contribution to drinking/driving rates (a full report of this study is forthcoming
from the San Diego County Alcohol Program).
A summary of the results of the San Diego County study, which surveyed s;
offsale purchasing/drinking/driving experiences of more than 21000 DIII offenders,;
•k
shown in this table:
Offsale
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Outlet Type Percent Percent Percent patio•i
Of offsale reporting episodes
Outlets purchase drkg in car
-Ale/Gasoline
6 15 14 2.83
Liquor store
25 42 43 1.72
Supermarket
22 17 12 0.6:
Convenience
47 25 28 0.6(
Some recent studies have tried to compare drinking-driving experiences
emanating from off-sales outlets to drinking-driving experiences emanating from
sales outlets (bars, restaurants). These apples-and-oranges comparisons conclude
�4.�� F
ATTACHMENTor
that on-sales outlets are a far more serious problem for generation of drinking-
driving episodes, and that therefore restrictions on off-sates outlets 'are not needed.
Such studies are misleading on two counts:
First, on-site establishments include drinking as part of their activities by
definition. It is hardly surprising that many more DUrs emanate from on-sates
than from off-sales locations, particular in California, where patrons of off-sales-
` only outlets are not permitted to consume alcohol on the premises.
Second, it is logically incorrect and in fact erroneous to assume that because
on-sales outlets may produce more drinkdng/driving episodes, that off-sales outlets
are not also major producers of drinking/driving episodes. The above-referenced
San Diego study notes that approximately sixty percent of DUI-arrested drivers
report having consumed alcoholic beverages in a car shortly after purchasing from
liquor stores, convenience stores, or gas-station "minimarts."
3. Local control plays a critical role in the preventive regulation of off-
sales retailing of alcoholic beverages: The California Alcoholic Beverage Control
Code's Section 23790 states that a license will not be issued contrary to a valid
local zoning ordinance. The Code's allowance for local zoning activity serves an
extremely important purpose in helping to shape the distribution of alcohol
availability at the city or county level. The local ordinance is a far more efficient
and sensitive means for determining times, locations, concentrations, types, numbers
of alcohol outlets, and conditions of appearance and operation that are needed to
serve a community. The state sets liberal boundaries in these areas within which
cities and counties are left to themselves to make these determinations. Localities
in turn have to decide upon the appropriate mix of outlets. In deciding upon this
mix, local governments and community groups consider both the prevention of
t alcohol-related problems and the community's standards for acceptable drinking
Practices.
Although people normally think of the ABC as "carrying the ball" in
regulating outlets, California communities actually do a great deal on their own to
;. Participate in the regulatory process. Almost sixty percent of California
communities require a use-permit of some kind for retail alcohol sales. Twenty-six
Percent of California communities require special physical or operational limitations
on alcohol outlets. Eighteen percent of the communities require both conditional
tMe permits and special restrictions.
The preventive value of local regulation is a little-studied but growing area
the public
d health field. Several early investigations show that local controls on
development are associated with lower rates of increases in consumption; that more
': rcounty-level regulations on availability are associated with lower rates of alcohol-
elated diseases such as cirrhosis; and that local controls that limit concentrations
outlets and ErWiof
local accotuitabilit or retail o ratois are associated with
tr renes in prf decorum, vice, and violence. California is a particularly
tde k;z'ound fte reventveefectsolotlets becauseofthtate's size, diversity, and varying levmof local activity.
' it
Portant
activity in licensing of alcohol outlets has become particularly
ane tart in light of declining ABC field strength in recent years; now fewer than/
�. hundred fifty ABC field agents are available to cover more than seventy-
Y•
- /�� F - 14
J
ATTACHMENTS
thousand alcohol outlets in the state. This creates a major.enforcement burden f
local agencies 'snd'community groups, and communities have become far more
prudent about accepting alcohol outlets in the first place.
Community-level attempts to control alcohol sales in gasoline stations sho
be understood as a healthy response to certain local problems of the distribution;o•
availability, using local resources in ways that decrease demands upon the state.
protect public health. As.long as the problems remain .local, local responses
suffice. However, marketing of alcoholic beverages through gasoline stations see
to have become a statewide oil-industry and convenience-industry phenomenon,
involving a major shift in the industries' retailing plans. Prevention of problems '
related to retailing then require a state-level response.
The State Legislature is currently struggling with exactly what such a sta
level response will be: protection of the efforts that local communities are
currently making to protect the health of their citizens; or disallowing local
planning for availability and locally-derived protections against availability-relate
alcohol problems. Experience to date indicates that local planning and zoning ..
powers provide a major public health resource for the state. From a publich
perspective, these local powers have barely-realized potentials could be pro
and enhanced for the preventive regulation of alcohol availability.
.�I
i
8
y
J •7
I�..• S I
V
Survey of Off-Site Purchase
and Consumption Locations
of Convicted Drinking Drivers RECEIVED
CFP 1y88
Gar of San Luas Owspo
cwl'-'Jmr Oescrooment
Prepared By
SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES - ALCOHOL PROGRAM
Lance B. Segars and Barbara E. Ryan
County of San Diego- Alcohol Program
Robert I. Reynolds
Alcohol Program Administrator
March, 1986
♦o ^r
.^ . � I6t9FEB0+20!
s o
•'tiorcc �
MICHAEL ANN HAIGHT
ANALYST
ALCOHOL PROGRAM
COUNTY OF Depen I of Heann Serums
SAN DIEGO M51 Rose ws Stec,.San taeW.Carton 92110
S,LpO
AMRS
Survey of Off-Site Purchase
and Consumption Locations
of Convicted Drinking Drivers
INTRODUCTION
In recent years the distribution of outlets selling alcohol beverages has
changed dramatically. Most recently, a new type of outlet has emerged for the
off-site sale of alcohol : the gas station mini-mart.* Gas station mini-marts
are often former full service gas stations which have converted car repair
areas to convenience stores which sell beer and wine. In addition, convenience
stores may become gas station mini-marts by converting parking areas to gas
service.
The growth of these new outlets has resulted in increasing concern on the part
of public officials, law enforcement officers, and planners. Generally, four
concerns have been raised. First, with the proliferation of gas station mini-
marts the availability of alcohol beverages is greatly increased. Availability
of alcohol is correlated with the occurrence of many alcohol related problems
such', as drinking and driving, public drunkeness, and work and home accidents
(1). Second, the availability of alcohol at locations which sell gasoline is
believed to result in higher rates of drinking and driving since most
purchasers are driving to and from the purchase loction. Third, the character-
istics of the employees of mini-marts (i .e. , most often young. persons) may
result in higher rates of sales to underage persons. Finally, the concurrent
sales of gasoline and alcohol is inconsistent with current concern over the
drinking driving problem in this country since it unnecessarily relates the
two. These and other concerns have resulted in many attempts to limit the
availability of alcohol at mini-marts.
When mini-marts first began to appear in California in the early 1970 's, the
State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control uniformly denied all applica-
tions on the statutory grounds that issuance of the license would be contrary
to the public welfare and safety and would create a law enforcement problem.
As these denials were appealed to the courts, however, they were overturned
primarily due to lack of credible evidence that would conclusively show that
drinking related problems could be tied directly to the. operation of mini-marts
(2)•
More recently, local jurisdictions, in response to community concerns regarding
the proliferation of mini-marts, have enacted zoning ordinances which prohibit
concurrent sales. Currently, at least 40 California cities and two counties
have ordinances in effect prohibiting the .marketing of motor fuel and alcohoic
beverages from the same premises. In addition, there is currently a bill in
the State Assembly (AB 3366) prohibiting concurrent sales at the State level .
or this report he term "mini-mart" is used to describe locations which sell
gasoline and alcohol concurrently.
1
�p�'d
One of the concerns regarding the proximate sale of alcohol and gasoline is the
degree to which purchase from these locations more often results in community
alcohol problems than purchases at other types of locations. Among the prob-
lems most often cited is the consumption of alcohol in cars . Since purchases
at convenience stores are often impulse sales, and those making purchases at
mini-marts are often traveling by car, the likelihood of consumption while
driving appears increased. However, little information is available concerning
the relationship between mini-mart sales and drinking in cars. A 1985 study of
679 individuals in multiple offense drinking driver programs in Orange County
found that of those who had purchased alcohol and gasoline at the same outlet
(51% of the sample) 85% had consumed the alcohol in their car (3) . One
question left unsnswered by this study is whether the occurrence of drinking in
a car, and other problems, occur more. often following mini-mart purchases than
after purchases from other types of locations.
METHODOLOGY
In order to assess the degree to which consumption of alcohol purchased at
mini-marts differs from consumption of alcohol purchased at other types of
off-site locations, a survey was developed to assess the purchase and consump-
tion locations of individuals known to be at high risk for drinking and
driving. In December, 1985, participants in first and multiple offense drink-
ing driver programs in San Diego County were asked to complete a survey. Each
respondent was asked about his frequency of purchase of alcohol from four types
of off-site outlets over the previous year: liquor stores, convenience stores
which do not sell gas, gas station mini-marts, and supermarkets. For each type
of outlet, participants were asked the frequency with which they consumed that
alcohol in six settings: in a car shortly after purchase, in a public place
shortly after purchase, at a work site shortly after purchase, at a party
shortly after purchase, at home shortly after purchase, and kept for later
consumption.
RESULTS
Over a two-week period, 628 first offenders and 705 multiple offenders in San
Diego County drinking driver programs were surveyed. The general demographic
characteristics of this sample are consistent with previous findings for drink-
ing drivers in San Diego (4,5) . This group is predominantly male (85%) and
most often in their late. 20's to early 30's (mean age 32.9) with ethnic dis-
tributions similar to the County breakdowns.
This study concentrated on alcohol purchased for consumption off-site. Four
types of off-site outlets were included: liquor stores, supermarkets, conveni-
ence stores and small markets, and mini-marts. Table 1 describes the
purchasing patterns of this sample. The largest number of individuals reported
purchasing alcohol from liquor stores followed by supermarkets, convenience
stores, and mini-marts, in that order. While more people reported purchases at
supermarkets than convenience stores, purchases at supermarkets occurred less
frequently than purchases at convenience stores. Overall , the least frequent
point of purchase of alcohol was reported to be mini-marts. Those purchasing
at liquor stores during the last year averaged between three and four purchases
2
&f7
- LP�
js
ATIACHMENT
per month while those purchasing at mini-marts averaged between one and two
purchases per month.
Table 1
Frequency of Purchase
for Store Types
Type of Location Mean Frequency % Who Purchased
of Purchase* at Store Type
Liquor Store 3.79 89%
Convenience Store 3.11 76%
Supermarket 3.06 83%
Mini-Mart 2.46 60%
n=1,333
*Respondents reported frequency of purchase from each outlet type on a 7-point
scale. The values assigned to the scale for calculating mean scores are never
(1), less than once a month (2), about once a month(3), 2-3 times a month (4) ,
1-2 times a week (5) , 3-4 times a week (6), almost every day (7) .
After purchasing alcohol , individuals consume that alcohol in various locations
(Table 2). Regardless of purchase location, with only one exception, individ-
uals reported most often consuming the alcohol at home shortly after purchase
followed, in order, by drinking at a party shortly after purchase., keeping for
later, drinking in a public place, drinking in a car, and finally, drinking at
a work site. Those purchasing at supermarkets reported more often keeping the
alcohol for later than drinking at a party. In general , for all purchase
locations, individuals reported most often purchasing alcohol for immediate
consumption at a private location.
3
ATTACHME,
Table 2
Percent of Sample Reporting
Consumption at Each Location
By Purchase Store Type
Purchase Store Type
Location of Liquor Store Convenience Supermarket Gas Station
Consumption Store Mini-Mart
Drank at home 92% 91% 90% 89%
Drank at party 91% 90% 81% 88%
Kept for later 85% 84/% 89% 88%
Drank in public 71% 74% 55% 76%
place
Drank in car 60% 62% 39% 65%
Drank at work site 37% 39% 26% 40%
Percentage represents proportion of those reporting any purchase at store type
who reported ever consuming that alcohol at the location.
These findings are consistent with the contention that a majority of those who
purchase alcohol at mini-marts sometimes consume that alcohol in a car. Of
those who had purchased alcohol at a mini-mart during the previous year, 65%
report at least occasionally drinking in a car. However, of those purchasing
alcohol at liquor stores or convenience stores, almost identical proportions
report consuming in a car. The only significant difference in places of
consumption are reported following supermarket purchases. In general ,
purchases which occur at any convenience type store result in similar patterns
of consumption. Supermarkets produced a somewhat different pattern of
consumption. Purchases at supermarkets were significantly less likely to
result in any form of public consumption.
By combining information concerning frequency of purchaseat each type of out-
let and frequency of consumption in each location by store type a measure of
purchases per month for each location was developed (Table 3) . As the previous
tables indicated, the largest number of purchases for any drinking location
were reported for liquor stores. While these individuals report, on the
average, 1.95 occurrences of drinking in a car after purchase in a liquor store
per month they report 0.77 occurrences of drinking in a car after purchase in
mini-marts. To a large extent these differences in occurrences are due to
differences in frequency of purchase.
4
- �t
5
Table 3
Mean Purchases Per Month*
By Store Type
and Drinking Location
Location of Liquor Store Convenience Supermarket Gas Station Total
Consumption Store Mini-Mart
Drank at home 3.25 1.89 1.52 1.10 7.76
Drank at party 2.77 1.65 1.01 0.97 6.40
Kept for later 1.91 1.13 1.17 0.64 4.85
Drank in public 1.95 1.17 0.62 0.76 4.47
place
Drank in car 1.95 1.24 0.54 0.77 4.50
Drank at work site 1.22 0.73 0.33 0.46 2.74
TOTAL 13.02 7.81 5.19 4.70 30.72
*Mean purchases per month computed as frequency of purchase from each outlet
type multiplied by frequency of consumption at each location when purchased at
that outlet. For computation responses for frequency of purchase from each
location were recoded to: never = 0, less than once a month = .5, about once
a month = 1, 2-3 times a month = 2.5, 1-2 times a week = 6, 3-4 times a week =
14, almost every day = 25. Frequency of consumption was computed using never
= 0, rarely = .25, about half the time = . 5, frequently = .75, almost every
time = 1.
The purchase of alcohol from any type of outlet is partially controlled by the
number of outlets available. Currently there is no method used by the State
ABC or other agencies to keep track of the number of outlets of any particular
type (e.g. , mini-marts versus supermarkets) . To assess the degree to which
purchases are related to concentration of outlet types a survey of San Diego
City off-site establishments was conducted and used to estimate the number of
outlets of each type in the County (Table 4) . The largest number of outlets
for off-site consumption are convenience stores or small markets representing
an estimated 47% of all off-site locations. In most cases, convenience stores
have beer and wine licenses. Liquor stores and supermarkets, most of which
have general liquor licenses, represent about equal portions of outlets. The
least frequent location is the mini-mart which also typically has a beer and
wine license. Although the survey of outlets from June, 1984 indicated 3% of
outlets were mini-marts, for purposes of estimation this figure was doubled to
account for the perceived increase in these locations over the last two years .
Regardless of this estimation, mini-marts remain much less frequent than other
types of outlets.
5
Table 4
Comparison of Outlet Frequency, Purchase
Frequency and Frequency of Drinking in a Car
Location of Liquor Store Convenience Supermarket Gas Station Total
Consumption Store Mini-Mart
Estimated # of
Outlets in 432 812 379 104 12727
County
% of Total 25% 47% 22% 6% 100%
Outlets
% of Reported 42% 25% 17% 15% 100%
Purchases**
% of Drinking
in Car 43% 28% 12% 17% 100%
Occurrences***
*Estimate based on a survey of all off-sale (Type 20 and 21) outlets in the
City of San Diego as of June, 1984. Percentage of outlets of each type was
determined by phone sampling of 10% of all City outlets . County N's based
on percentage from city sample used on known County total outlets. Survey
results indicate 3% of total• outlets were mini-marts as of June, 1984. For
estimation purposes total percentage for mini-marts was doubled to 6% in
recognition of increases in such outlets. Convenience Stores were reduced
by 3%.
**From Table 3 Total .
***From Table 3 Drank in car.
It is not unexpected that liquor stores account for a disproportionate share of
liquor purchases. People go to liquor stores primarily to buy liquor. What is
surprising is the proporiton of sales attributed to mini-marts given their
currently low share of total outlets. While mini-marts represent an estimated
6% of the outlets they account for 15% of reported purchases, and 17% of pur-
chases that result in drinking in a car. By comparison, supermarkets, which
account for 22% of total outlets, account for only 17% of purchases and only
12% of purchases that result in drinking in a car. Convenience stores, which
represent the largest share of outlets (47%) represent only 25% of purchases .
One explanation of the low reported convenience store purchases may be price.
Generally, prices for all items are somewhat higher at convenience stores.
Consequently, people intending to purchase alcohol may go to liquor stores
because of price. Individuals stopping to buy gas may buy alcohol on impulse
thus producing higher than expected mini-mart sales. This is confirmed by
sales data which indicates that in one mini-mart chain 70% of those purchasing
alcohol also purchase gasoline and that 40% of beer sales are single cans
rather than larger purchases, suggesting immediate consumption (6) .
6
/7 r�
�'(oU
DISCUSSION
This study demonstrates that there is a relationship between where people buy
alcohol and where they drink it. The data indicates that purchases from
convenient locations more often result in public drinking and drinking in a
car. The finding that public consumption in general and consumption in a car
in particular does not vary significantly for liquor stores, convenience stores
and mini-marts is not surprising given current marketing strategies in these
stores. Other than the availability of gasoline, the differences between such
outlets is often negligible. Convenience stores, liquor stores, and mini-marts
all rely heavily on impulse sales. The finding that purchases at these three
types of stores more often results in immediate consumption is consistent with
marketing research which indicates that beer, the beverage of choice of
drinking drivers (7), purchased in convenience stores is consumed within a half
hour (8). Supermarket purchases are more often planned and result in at home
consumption.
Although mini-marts were not found to produce significantly greater rates of
drinking in problem situations, several factors suggest that. the continued
proliferation of mini-marts could produce increased problems. The location of
gas stations are generally the most desirable in terms of easy access by cars.
These locations include street corners, freeway offramps, etc. which provide a
high visibility for alcoholic beverages among the driving population. This may
account for the substantialy higher rate of alcohol purchases in mini-marts
than would be expected given. their proportional share of outlets in the
community. In addition, mini-marts symbolically merge the ready availability
of alcohol and gasoline. This merging is inconsistent with increased public
concern regarding drinking and driving problems.
An important factor contributing to the level of community alcohol problems is
the overall availability of alcohol . As availability increases, per capita
consumption increases, and alcohol problems increase. Current ABC regulations
in California provide very limited controls over the number of beer and wine
off-sale outlets. In general the acquisition of a beer and wine license is
simply a matter of paying the fee and having a location. There are no ABC
controls over the number or distribution of licenses except in limited
situations. If alcohol becomes generally available at gas stations the number
of outlets would increase in San Diego County by up to 50%. With the current
rate of conversion of gas stations to mini-marts, the availability of alcohol
is increasing dramatically with no systematic method of assessing the impact of
such conversions on communities . Indeed, in the absence of state control , it
seems only prudent for communities to institute local land use ordinances to
control the proliferation of outlets.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
This study examined the relationship of place of purchase to place of
consumption of different off-sale outlets, with particular focus on mini-marts .
The findings raise a number of issues for future study. First, data on outlet
type and distribution is very limited, thus making it currently extremely
difficult to assess the impact of mini-marts on overall alcohol availability.
7
9rV)
r _ i M11HN$
Second, extrapolated assessment of proportional share of outlets in relation to
share of purchases and subsequent drinking in a car clearly suggests that
mini-marts disproportionately contribute to problem behavior. This data
suggests that mini-marts account for approximately three times the expected
proportion of drinking and driving occurrences given their estimated outlet
share. Additional research is needed to assess the proliferation of these
outlets as well as their relationship to problematic drinking to assist policy
makers in addessing alcohol availability issues.
8
ATTACHMENTS
REFERENCES
1. Rush, B., Steinberg, M. , and Brook, B. The relationships among
availability, alcohol consumption and alcohol-related damage in the
Province of Ontario and the State of Michigan, 1955-1982. Addiction
Research Foundation. n.d_
2. Personal communication from Jay R. Stroh, Director, California State
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control . July 9, 1984.
3. Reported in: Stop mixing alcohol and gasoline. California Capitol Re-Cap,
California Council on Alcohol Problems Newsletter. Jan-Feb, 1986.
4. Ryan, B.E. and Segars, L.B. San Diego County first conviction program
population description. San Diego County Department of Health Services,
Alcohol Program. January, 1983.
5. Segars, L.B. and Ryan, B.E. A description of the multiple offense drinking
driver in San Diego County. San Diego County Department of Health
Services, Alcohol Program. March, 1986.
6. Wickland Oil Company. Position Paper in Support of AB 1433. January,
1986.
7. Berger, D.E. and Snortum, .J.R. Alcoholic beverage preference of
drinking-driving violators. Journal of Studies on Alcohol . 46:232-239,
1985.
8. No author. Beverages: drowning the recession. C-.Store Business.. P.
11-16, April , 1983.
9
5'-LDR
ATTACHMENT 1511'
city of san tuts osIspo
+ir!!nilll►�ii����j9! I��j;f I I N IT1AL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SrrE LOCATION City of San Luis Obispo APPUCATION NO. ER 50-88
PROJECT DESCRIPTION RPneal t-hp rt vynroh bi ion of thp nongttrrpnt_ZAj&a_g_f_=tor , 1
And alrnhelir h c+erag�a� as rP q .ir d Y data lae RPvica tho ctandariic and iILCL7�L
nrn tirac fnr rPgtilating ennrnrrPnt calPc-rnncictPnt wl h ctato lav
APPLICANTS of San T.nic Obiepn(rnmm,mit3t T)avaln;lmont )lenartmont)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY Glen Matteson, Associate Planner -DA� August 31, 1988
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE 9-14-88
Negative Declaration
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
L DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS .................................................... No
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH............................................ NO
C. LAND USE ........................................................................... NO
0. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ..............................................
NO*
E. PUBLICSERVICES ................................................................ NO
F. UTILITIES....._...........................,....................................... NO
NO
H. GEOLOGIC d SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHICMODIFICATIONS .................... NO
1. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS.................................................
NO
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. NO
K PLANT LIFE NO
L ANIMAL LIFE................................................._..................._..
NO
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL.................... NO
N. AESTHETIC ............: NO
O. ENERGI7RESOURCEUSE ........................................................... NO
P. OTHER ....PUBLIC,HEAI,TIi SAF;ElY. NO*
IIL STAFF RECOMMENDATION / A
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT Sr lO gffi
A J1
D. Transportation and circulation
P. Public health and safety
The city's current regulations were intended to protect pubic safety by not
increasing the convenience of buying alcoholic beverages likely to be consumed right
before or during driving. The proposed changes are still intended to do this,
within the limits allowed by state law. Evidence on public safety impacts of the
current or proposed regulations is not available. In any case, no impacts on the
natural environment are likely to result.
gm2/er50-88
�' r
-�. - MachmeM s
W. 6
COU CILA
FROM Terry Sanville, Acting Community Development Dir. BY: Glen Matteson, Assoc. Plnr.
SUBJECT: Regulation of concurrent sales of gasoline and beer and wine (CR 1402).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Introduce in summary form the attached ordinance to (1) affirm the prohibition of
concurrent sales and (2) adopt regulations-for concurrent sales, to take effect if the
prohibition is invalidated.
INTRODUCTION
A 1982 city law prohibits selling alcoholic beverages from service stations, defined as
any retail business selling motor fuel. The state legislature voided the prohibition
effective January 1, 1989. Since the mid-1970's, the city's Zoning Regulations have
required use-permit approval for the combination of service station and retail sales of
groceries or liquor.
Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended strengthening the Zoning Regulations
to minimize the health and safety problems resulting from concurrent sales, while
conforming with the recent change in state law. The council considered this issue
November 1, and continued action with direction to affirm the city's position that
concurrent sales are not appropriate.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Staff foresees no significant impacts on the community from affirming the prohibition,
but substantial legal costs may be incurred in defending this position (see City
Attorney's memorandum, attached).
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING ACTION
If the council does not act at this meeting, there may be a time after January 1 when
concurrent sales could be established without city control.
BACKGROUND
Situation/Evaluation
A city law adopted in 1982 prohibits selling alcoholic beverages from service stations,
defined as:any•retail business selling motor fuel (Municipal Code.Section 5.36.020,
attached, which is not part of the Zoning Regulations). Several•.eities.adopted such laws
because they. were concerned that the concurrent "sales of fuel and alcohol from the
increasingly popular minimarts at gas stations, and at convenience storeS:with fuel
pumps, would encourage drunk driving. Locally, the police chief was-concerned with
concurrent sales outlets becoming prime. 'stop-and-rob" targets, because of the large
amount of cash frequently generated by beer and wine sales.
,.},t- - . •y 3 y rY � ... .. ..; _ AAA v
_ r
COnCurrent sales
Page 2
Since the mid-19701s, the city's Zoning Regulations have required use-permit approval for
the combination of service station and retail sales of groceries or liquor (Section
17.22.010, attached). They do this not by explicitly saying so, but by requiring a use
permit for one or the other of the uses in each zone where they are allowed, and by
requiring a use permit when adding to or changing a use which needs a use permit to be
established, or adding an allowed use to a site with a use which needs a use permit
(Section 17.58.070). Use permits were required for this combination of activities
because the city was concerned about conflicts between people walking and driving cars on
the site, supervision of self-service fuel sales, and possible harmful effects on
neighbors. (Visibility and emergency shut-off of the pumps from a control booth and some
other basic safety features are separate code requirements.)
Last year, the state legislature prevented future local prohibitions and voided existing
ones after January 1, 1989 (Section 23709.5 of the California Business and Professions
Code, enacted as AB 937, attached). (Note: The new state law applies only to beer and
wine; concurrent sales of "hard liquor" can still be prohibited, and this prohibition is
recommended in the draft ordinance.) The new state law was supposedly a compromise
between oil companies and retailers anxious to expand their concurrent sales activities
and local government and citizen groups.
According to the statute, then, the,city's prohibition of concurrent sales will be
invalid after the first of the year. ' The state law does allow city use-permit
regulation of "the concurrent retailing of motor vehicle fuel with beer and wine for
off-premises consumption, based on appropriate health, safety, and general welfare
standards contained in the" regulations, if the city's regulations also:
1. Require the decision-making body to make written findings;
2. Provide for appeal if the ability to act on use permits has been delegated;
3. Contain procedures for notice, hearing, and public testimony;
4. Require "that the findings be based on substantial evidence in view of the whole
record to justify the ultimate decision."
The city's Zoning Regulations have the first three items but not the fourth, which until
now has been a judicial standard applied to some actions that have been challenged,
rather than a required element of local zoning regulations.
Apparently, the advocates of concurrent sales hoped there would be no substantial
evidence that selling fuel and beer/wine at the same site was more likely to cause
Problems than selling them at separate but nearby sites, and this lack of evidence either
would persuade cities to approve requests or it would be used by applicants to challenge
denials.
City staff,has,previously,distributed a summary;of;expert testimony at the state
legislature and,,,,SanoDiego.County survey which conclude that:
Greater•availability of'alcoholic beverages leads to more drinking;
More:drinking,causes more public health-.and safety problems;
Concurrent-sale,outlets-make beer/wine more available ,for drivers and under-age
consumers;
Concurrent-sales outlets are responsible for a higher proportion of in-car drinking
ng
amo ';th se alcohol-offender prQ rams., a .
'}xav s.Yfr[ l a3�' ♦ �n% C1.;, -d{r �Y•
�. ..� LAN
AN
*HIVIEIIT
,b
SC11y4 _Q tSdn t&,Um S 8� _.r i' c 'a x : i ;�� .i ✓� (
a
COl �N UU., END E ....OR
:� .,
..... tiL
Concurrent sales
Page 3
The state law does include standards concerning display and advertising of beer and wine,
but they automatically expire January 1, 1990. The fact that these standards have been
incorporated into the law seems a tacit admission that drivers should not be encouraged
to buy beer and wine, or at least not to buy individual containers ready for drinking "on
the way out" It makes sense to keep these standards after January 1, 1990. Also,
additional requirements may be justified, such as:
1. No alcoholic beverage sales for on-site consumption (just to be sure, though this is
covered by state rules and bars would need use-permit approval);
2. Any service station selling beer and wine could do so only in conjunction with
selling groceries and other sundries and convenience items, to avoid having liquor
stores with gas pumps;
3. No concurrent-sales outlet within a certain distance (1,000 feet) of another
concurrent-sales outlet;
4. No concurrent-sales outlet within a certain distance (1,000 feet of any other
business selling alcoholic beverages for off-site (or on-site) consumption);
5. No concurrent-sales outlet within a certain distance (1,000 feet) of certain uses
(any elementary or secondary school, public park);
6. Fewer hours than provided in state law for concurrent sales to occur (for example,
not after 9:00 p.m., rather than 2.00 a.m.), to reduce the likelihood of evening or
late-night purchases being consumed on the road;
7. No advertisement or display of alcoholic beverages visible from off the premises;
8. Inside the premises, space for "public service" posters noting the effects of drunk
driving, equal to at least the area devoted to advertising beer and wine.
9. Prohibit sale of refrigerated items, reducing the likelihood of immediate
consumption.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Citv Attorney
The state legislature has indicated its intent that regulation of concurrent sales is a
state matter, and has.prescribed limits to,local regulationas,it has.other aspects of
alcoholic beverages sales. The city can and probably will need to defend from legeal
challenges city regulations which are more strict than the state's.. A more complete
discussion of the legal issues is available in the enclosed memorandum from the City
Attorney.
ATTA
Y Clog Sd►' 1150 (S '�Y.�3 ,r._ , 's A"
Concurrent sales
Page 4
Police
Concerning the possible requirements (listed on the previous page), the Police Department
believes items 6 and 7 are good ideas. A limit on hours of operation would prevent a gas
station from staying open late just to sell beer and wine. In their view, items 2 and 8
are probably not useful.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may:
Affirm the prohibition on concurrent sales and adopt regulations which would take
effect if the prohibition is ruled invalid;
Repeal the prohibition and adopt regulations;
Decide to not prohibit or regulate concurrent sales.
Continue action. However, the council would have to approve any new regulations as
an urgency ordinance to have them take effect before January 1.
If the council chooses to regulate, it may adopt the zoning amendments as recommended by
the Planning Commission, or any changes to review requirements or standards which are
deemed appropriate.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
On October 12, 1988, the Planning Commission voted six to none (one absent) to recommend
the amendments contained in the attached draft ordinance. Commissioners favored the most
restrictive possible regulations. One citizen spoke, favoring the prohibition of
concurrent sales.
RECO1VI11'IBNDATION
Introduce in summary form the attached ordinance to:
A. Affirm the existing prohibition of concurrent sales, with recommended findings.
B. Approve-a:negative declarktion of environmental impact for the new regulations.
of; .. :�". _t. .. ,g�•:, i; - _� '. _ � -
C. Amend the Zoning Regulit ions,'effective upon invalidation of the p
require: rohibition, to
1. No sales of alcoholic beverages other than beer and wine;
2. No beer or wine sales.for on-site consumption;
f
City 0 lA I: 1:$ ATTACHMENRo
OBISpo
COUNCIL=AGENOA REPORT
Concurrent sales
Page 5
3. Any service station selling beer and wine could do so only in conjunction with
selling groceries and other sundries and convenience items;
4. No concurrent-sales outlet within 1,000 feet of any other alcohol-serving or
selling establishment;
5. Sales of beer or wine between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. only;
6. No advertisement or display of beer or wine visible from off the premises;
7. Inside the premises, space for "public service" posters noting the effects of
drunk driving, equal to at least the area devoted to advertising beer and wine;
8. No beer or wine shall be displayed within ten feet of the cash register;
9. No advertisement of beer or wine shall be displayed at motor fuel islands and no
self-illuminated advertising for beer or wine shall be located on buildings or
windows;
10. No sales of beer or wine 'shall be made from a drive-in window;
11. No sale or display of refrigerated beer or wine.
Attached:
Draft ordinance
Enclosed: Memorandum from City Attorney (forthcoming)
Distributed previously:
Draft Planning Commission minutes, 10-12-88
State Assembly Committee testimony, Wittman, 4/86
San Diego County study, 3/86
Municipal Code excerpt - alcoholic beverage sales at gas stations
Zoning Regulations excerpt - use chart
AB 937 - state law
Initial environmental study
gm2/cr 1402
11NII � .
"VIII VIII VIII I IIII IIII I pplll IIII
�IIIIII Ill
city of sAn luis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
(805) 549-7140
November 15, 1988
CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
From: Roger Picquet, City Attorney
Subject: City Prohibition on Concurrent Sales of Alcohol and Gasoline
( Item 2 on November 15, 1988 Agenda)
The issue is whether the City's prohibition on the concurrent sale of
alcohol and gasoline (SLOMC §5.36.020) prevails over state legislation
permitting same (Bus. & Prof. Code §23709.5) . For background refer to
Council Agenda Reports for November 1 and 15, 1988.
The general police power for a Charter city comes from the California
Constitution, Article XI , §5: . . . the city governed thereunder [a
Charter] may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to
municipal affairs " . As to matters of statewide concern, however,
Charter cities remain subject to and controlled by applicable general
state laws regardless of the provisions of their Charters, if it is the
intent and purpose of such general laws to occupy the field to the exclu-
sion of municipal regulation (P.T. & T. Co. v. City and County of San
Francisco (1959) 51 Cal. 2d 766, 766-69) . In resolving a particular
legislative conflict, a determination must be made as to whether the
subject matter in question is a municipal affair or of statewide concern.
The courts have held "no exact definition of the- term 'municipal affair'
can be formulated" and that, ultimately, judicial interpretation is
necessary to give it meaning in each controverted case.. (Bishop v.. City
of San Jose (1969) 1 Cal. 3d 56, 62) . The term is elusive and subject to
change: "What at one time may have been a matter of local concern may at
a later time become a matter of state concern controlled by the general
laws of the state". (Bishop, at p. 63) . The mere fact that the state
legislature intends a piece of legislation to apply to Charter cities is
not controlling:
November 15, 1988
Page 2
. . . the courts will of course give great weight to the
purpose of the Legislature in enacting general laws which
disclose an intent to preempt the field to the exclusion
of local regulation, and it may well occur that in some
cases the factors which influenced the Legislature to
adapt the general laws may likewise lead the courts to the
conclusion that the matter is of statewide rather than
merely local concern. However, the fact, standing alone,
that the Legislature has attempted to deal with a partic-
ular subject on a statewide basis is not determinative of
the issue as between state and municipal affairs, nor does
it impair the constitutional authority of a home rule city
or county to enact and enforce its own regulations to the
exclusion of general laws if the subject is held by the
courts to be a municipal affair rather than of statewide
concern: stated otherwise, the Legislature is empowered
neither to determine what constitutes a municipal affair
nor to change such an affair into a matter of statewide
concern. " (Bishop at P. 63. )
Thus, in theory, neither Willie Brown nor the Legislature determines what
is a municipal affair.
Theory and practice, of course, often are difficult to reconcile. In the
present situation the issue is complicated by the subject matter itself,
alcohol . Alcohol and alcohol-related matters tend to be considered of
statewide concern because of the peculiar history of alcohol in our
society and the fact that a specific regulatory scheme for same is
addressed in the Constitution. Article XX, §22 of the California
Constitution states: "The State. of California . shall have the
exclusive right and power to license and regulate the manufacture, sale,
purchase, possession and transportation of alcoholic beverages ."
(Emphasis added) . This section continues on to provide that the Legis-
lature shall implement laws by way of the Alcoholic Beverage Act (Bus. &
Prof. Code §§23000, et see . ) . In our present situation the former law
(§23790) provided that no alcohol sales license could be issued which
would be contrary to a city zoning ordinance. The new law (§23790.5)
purports to prohibit a total local ban but allows a conditional use permit
process for concurrent sales.
I could go on at length on the various judicially-articulated standards
for determining whether state preemption exists. In every case it boils
down to a judgment call by a court. On the face of it our existing ban
would appear in serious jeopardy. For example, a relatively recent case
which upheld a Los Angeles regulation requiring pregnancy warning signs in
alcohol sales premises stated: " . . . Article XX, §22, will not be held
to preempt a local ordinance where, as here, the ordinance does not
directly affect the licensee's ability to sell alcoholic beverages to a
ATIACHMER�
November 15, 1988
Page 3
willing purchaser. " (C.R.A. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 237 Cal. Rptr.
415) . The implication, of course, is that one (like ours) that does so
affect a licensee's ability is preempted.
Although preemption may be too difficult to avoid, there may be a way to
sustain our regulation. We may argue that the state law is illegal as
being contrary to the basis purpose of the Act. Business & Professional
Code §23001 provides:
"This [Act] is an exercise of the police powers of
the state for the protection of the safety, welfare,
health, peace and morals of the people of the State, to
eliminate the evils of unlicensed and unlawful
manufacture, selling and disposing of alcoholic beverages,
and to promote temperance in the use and consumption of
alcoholic beverages. It is hereby declared that the
subject matter of this [Act) involves in the highest
degree the economic, social and moral well-being and the
safety of the State and its people. All provisions shall
be liberally construed for the accomplishment of these
purposes. " (Emphasis added) .
Try as I may. I cannot conceive of a logical explanation of why allowing
drivers to purchase alcohol and gasoline concurrently rationally relates
to or promotes "temperance in the use and consumption of alcoholic
beverages. " Quite the contrary. If we get a favorable trial court that
understands how §23790.5 represents the ultimate in special-interest
legislation which will serve only to harm the public, and is willing to
strike the state law down, then we may have a chance.
Whether the seemingly contradictory purposes or effect of the new
legislation can be a useful argument is opposition to the statute and in
support of our ban is questionable. But, given the strong feelings of
Council and community on this matter, I believe a good-faith argument can
be and should be made.
Please call me if you have any questions.
RP:cac
cc: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Mike Multari, Director, Community Development Department
Jim Gardiner, Chief of Police
MACHMEW (P
ORDINANCE NO. (1988 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CONCERNING
CONCURRENT SALES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND MOTOR FUEL (CR 1402)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows.
SECTION 1. Findinsts
A. The Planning Commission and the City Council have held hearings to consider
appropriate regulations in accordance with the California Government Code.
B. The prohibition of concurent sales of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages is a
muncipal affair, addressing locally defined issues of land use and public health and
safety.
C. Within the city there exist many retail outlets of various types, other than service
stations, where alcoholic beverages are readily available.
D. There is substantial evidence that greater availability of alcoholic beverages leads
to greater consumption, and that greater consumption causes more problems of absense
from work or school, occupational injuries and reduced product quality, domestic
violence, alcohol-related diseases, inappropriate public behavior, under-age
drinking, and household, recreational, and vehicle accidents.
E. Concurrent sales have been shown to contribute proportionately more to incidents of
alcohol-induced health and traffic problems than other means of alcoholic-beverage
retailing.
F. The regulations for concurrent sales which may take effect upon invalidation of the
prohibition have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and the city's Environmental Impact Guidelines, and a negative
declaration has been granted by the city.
G. The proposed zoning provisions, absent a prohibition, are necessary to promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare.
SECTION 2 Environmental determination
After review and consideration, the determination of the Community Development
Director to approve a negative declaration is hereby affirmed.
SECTION 3. Prohion_Qj concurrent sales
Municipal Code Section 5.36.020, prohibiting the concurrent sales of motor fuel and
alcoholic beverages, is hereby affirmed, and shall remain in full effect unless and until
it is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction.
ATTACHMENT(o
Ordinance No. 0988 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 4. Zoning Regulations amendment
The Zoning Regulations (Municipal Code Chapters 1.7.08, 17.22, and 17.58) are hereby
amended to provide standards and use-permit review for concurrent sales outlets, as fully
contained in the attached Exhibit A. This amendment shall take effect immediately upon
the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction which holds Municipal Section
5.36.020 to be invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. Publication
A summary of this ordinance, approved by the city attorney, shall be published once, at
least three (3) days before its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper
published and circulated in this city. This ordinance shall go into effect at the
expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on
the ....... day of ......................, 1988, on motion of ...........................
seconded by .. .........................., and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
........ ........... ...........................
Mayor
ATTEST.
.. ... ..._..................
City Clerk
e7
s'e l
MACHMENT to
Ordinance No. (1988 Series)
Page 3
APPROVED:
city A inistrative Officer
�..... .......N.....
ty ttOT
U ..
................... . ...........
Community D ve opment Director
gm2/1402ord
s�g� j
i
Ordinance No. (1988 Series)
EXHIBIT A
AJA lk followingsection;.
17.08.100. Concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages.
Concurrent sales of alcoholic beverages other than beer and wine are prohibited. The
concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer or wine at a single premises or retail outlet
shall be subject to the following:
A. There shall. be no sales of beer or wine for on-site consumption;
B. Beer and wine may be sold only in conjunction with selling groceries and other
sundries and convenience items;
C. No concurrent-sales outlet shall be established within 1,000 feet of any other
alcohol-serving or selling establishment;
D. Sales of beer or wine between 4:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. are prohibited;
E. There shall be no advertisement or display of beer or wine visible from off the.
premises;
F. Inside the premises, there shall' be provided space for public-service posters
concerning the effects of drunk driving, equal to at least the area devoted to
advertising beer and wine;
G. No beer or wine shall be displayed within ten feet of the cash register;.
H. No advertisement of beer or wine shall be displayed at motor fuel islands and no
self-illuminated advertising for beer or wine shall be located on buildings or
windows;
I. No sales of beer or wine shall be made from a drive-in window;
J. There shall be no sales or display of refrigerated beer or wine.
11m.followinst shall IM added.IQ Section7 21�2914 (Tab1g 91-
sm Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 R.2 R-3 R-4. COS O.tt PF ON C-C C-R C-T .CSS M
Ccnccrrent sales of alcoholic
beverages and motor fuel (nee I I I I I I. d D p I
also section 17.08.100) I I
A — Allowed PC — Planning commission approval required
D — Disector's approval required A/D — Director's approval on pound noon,allowed above
The director shalldetermine ifs proposed.unlisted use is similar to a listed use.Numbered noxa are at end of eham
TJU, following shall kQ added IQ Section 17.58.040
Actions on use permits shall be justified by written findings, based on substantial
evidence in view of the whole record.
s�g 3
Attachment 7
ORDINANCE NO. (2003 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE
CITY'S ZONING REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO CONCURRENT
SALES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND MOTOR FUEL
WHERAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 24, 2003,
and recommended approval of revisions to the Municipal Code and the City's Zoning
Regulations relating to concurrent sales of alcoholic beverages and motor fuel; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in
the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 7,
2003, for the purpose of considering changes proposed to the Municipal Code and the City's
Zoning Regulations relating to concurrent sales of alcoholic beverages and motor fuel; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation
of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Section 1. The City Council finds and determines that Negative Declaration
adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed
modifications to the Municipal Code and Zoning Regulations, and reflects the independent
judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
Section 2. Subsection B of Section 5.36.020 (Alcoholic Beverages-Sale Prohibited-
Exceptions) of Chapter 5.36 (Service Stations) of Title 5 (Licenses, Permits and Regulations) of
the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
B. For the purposes of this section "service station" means any business �
faeter fuel is a€€eFed for- retail sale, whethe June6ea • ^th aBy
other- a business where motor fuel is sold as the principal use of
the property. Service station includes_ any ancillary retail facility of 5,000
square feet or less that offers-for,-sale pre_packaged food items and tangible
consumer goods, primarily for self-service by the consumer.
Section 3. Section 17.08.040 (Concurrent Sales of Motor Fuel and Alcoholic
J�r�
City Council Ordinance No. (2003 Series)
Page 2
Beverages) of Chapter 17.08 (Uses Allowed in Several Zones) of Title 17 (Zoning Regulations)
of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.08.040 Concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages.
Concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcoholic beverages other than beer and wine are prohibited.
The concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer or wine at a single premises or retail outlet shall be
subject to the following:
A. There shall be no sales of beer or wine for on-site consumption;
B. Beer and wine may be sold only in conjunction with selling groceries and other
sundries and convenience items;
C. No concurrent sales outlet shall be established within 44, W 500 feet of any other
establishment selling or serving alcoholic beverages;
D. Sales of beeror-wine between n:nn.. .. and 10.p.Fa. a„rehibi--
ED. There shall be no advertisement or display of beer or wine visible from off the
premises;
FE. Inside the premises, there shall be space provided for public-service posters
concerning the effects of drunk driving, equal to at least the area devoted to
advertising beer and wine;
GF. No beer or wine shall be displayed within 5 4-9 feet of the cash register or front
door,
ISG. No advertisement of beer or wine shall be displayed at motor fuel islands and no
self-illuminating advertising for beer or wine shall be located on buildings or
windows;
1H. No sales of beer or wine shall be made from a drive-in window;
3I. _ . No display or sales
of beer or wine shall be made from an ice tub.
KJ. . Employees on duty between the hours of
10 p.m. and 2 a.m. who sell beer or wine shall be at least 21 years of aged
MUNI
City Council Ordinance No. (2003 Series)
Page 3
MK. Applicant shall pay a fee, in an amount determined by resolution of the City
Council, to cover costs of City inspection to assure compliance with these
requirements. (Ord. 1124 - 1 Ex. A(part), 1988)
L. For purposes of this .section, "concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer or wine"
shall mean the ability to purchase motor fuel and beer or wine at the same time or
at the same place. More specifically, a retail outlet that permits a customer to pay
for motor fuel and beer or wine: 1) at the same location, i.e., on a single parcel
and within 50'of each other, or 2) _utilizing a single financial transaction, is
engaging in.concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer or wine.
Section 4. The definition of "Service Station" set forth at Chapter 17.100
(Definitions) of Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Service Station. A.,..busifiess WheFe ..,,.t,._ fUel : O fi ..oa f0f-.et it Sale ,,., eL40F Of ffl8t
keoen with - "Service station" means a business where motor
fuel is sold as the principal use of the property. Service station includes any ancillary
retail facility of 5,000 square feet or less that offers for sale prepackaged food items and
tangible consumer goods, primarily for self service by the consumer. Service station
includes the sale and installation of tires, batteries and automotive accessories;
lubrications; and the testing, adjustment and repair of motor parts, brakes, tires and
accessories. May also include accessory sales of fuel oil, butane, propane, and liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG). Service station does not include: steam cleaning, mechanical car
washing, tire recapping, body or chassis repair or painting, which are instead included
under"Vehicle Services;" or the sale, rental or storage of motor vehicles, trailers or other
equipment, which are included under"Auto and Vehicles Sales/Rental."
Section 5. It is the intent of this Council for the prohibition of sales of alcoholic
beverages from service stations, set forth at section 5.36.020, and originally enacted in 1982, to
remain in full force and effect, as contemplated by subsection (b)(4) of Business and Professions
Code section 23790.5 (which exempts from the directive that beer and wine sales be permitted,
those prohibitions enacted by local governments prior to August 1, 1985.) It is also the intent of
this Council that, in accordance with subsection C of section 17.02.40 (Interpretation), section
5.36.020, as the more restrictive provision, shall apply rather than section 17.08.040. In the
event that section 5.36.020 is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court
of competent jurisdiction, the provisions of section 17.08.040 shall apply.
Summary. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members
voting for an against shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the
Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect
thirty(30) days after its final passage.
s'�
MAHER
City Council Ordinance No. (2003 Series)
Page 4
INTRODUCED on the day of , 2003, and FINALLY ADOPTED
by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of 2003, on the
following role call vote:
,AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED:
Jonat an Lowell, City Attorney
GAAgenda-ordinances-ResoRSale of alcohol and fuel Ordinance4.doc
MEETING AGEND42,C ,
DATE ITEM # 5'
i
�I
l
' Xr 1 b-C�[I) 11•G f war I ur mol. r1ty
EFFECT OF BANNING-comoN SI' LES
ON Ai. OL RELATED AUTO ACCIDENTS Ih -_, FORMA:
AN UPDATED, EMPIRICAL STUDY moi'
CITY OF SAP! LUIS OBISPO BY
PROF. PATRICK MCCARTHYAND
BSEP 10 2003 OH k
PROF. JOHN UMBECK �
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
2/10/91
COMMUNITY D-VELOPMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
In 1986 we reported the results of our first study of legislated bans on common
site sales of gasoline and alcohol on drunken driving in the state of California.
Our conclusions at that time were as follows:
1) Common site sales bans have no effect on the incidence of alcohol related rotor
vehicle accidents. In fact, such bans could increase the likelihood of such acci-
dents.
2) The likelihood of a drunk driver being convicted and punished, either with jail,
license suspension or some type of rehabilitation program, has a significant effect
in reducing alcohol related accidents. If legislators want to reduce alcohol re-
lated accidents, they could make it easier to get convictions and encourage judges
to impose larger penalties on those arrested for DUI.
3) Although alcohol related accidents are positively related to the total number of
retailers licensed to sell alcohol in a city, general liquor licenses appear to have
a greater effect than beer/wine licenses. Legislation making general licenses har-
der to obtain would reduce the incidence of drunk driving.
4) After isolating each type of retail alcohol license, it appears that on-sale,
beer/wine licenses have a larger and more predictable effect on alcohol related ac-
cidents than off-sale, beer/wine licenses. By restricting the issuance of, on-sale.
beer/wine licenses, legislators will have greater success in reducing drunk driving
than is they restrict the issuance of off-sale, beer/wine licenses.
SEpylb-Gbb3 11;Gf UtrI ur HbL MU Vic aoj 0714 r. .L"
�1 2 r
5) To the extent that a ban typically prevents further increases in co=Qn site
retailers within a city, our study demonstrates that, if legislators want to reduce
drunk driving by restricting the number of retail licenses, the one license they do
not want to restrict is off-sale, beer/wine to convenience type common site sellers.
While restricting the supply of other types of licenses will help reduce drunk driv-
ing, bans on common site, beer/vine retailers will. have zero, or possibly even a
perverse, effect on alcohol related accidents.
Because of the large quantity of detailed data and the fact that the measure of
the ban's effect was always insignificant, we were quite confident in our conclusion
that banning common site sales would not help reduce alcohol related traffic acci-
dents. Still, proponents of the ban raised two valid issues regarding our study,
one was significant the other relatively minor. The first, and most important,
criticism arose because of the fact that most of the cities in our studv that -
enacted bans did so in the early or :aid 1980s with a grandfather provision, allowing
existing common site sellers to continue to sell gasoline and alcohol. Proponents
argued that since the bans only Kept out new common site sellers, we would not ex-
pect any effects immediately. Yet, at the time of our first study, the bans had not
been in place long enough to really give them a chance to impact drunker. driving.
The second criticism comes from the suggestion that maybe cities that enacted bans
were different from other cities, even before the ban. if this were true, it may
not be a valid methodology to compare cities with bans to cities without bans in or-
der to determine the effectiveness of the law.
The purpose of this updated study, which was funded by the Atlantic Richfield
Company, was to address these two criticisms. we have collected additional data
from California for the years 1986 through 1989 .or areas with and without•coTnon
site bans in order to determine the effects over a loncez period of tine. We also
did a statistical comparison to determine if cities with bans were different, befo:e
ShJ'�}10-G10t�3 11;GG L r I ur HriL Mul 710 GbJ b71 G r•1_�
71 3
they passed the laws, from those cities.without the ban. our findings can be sum-
marized briefly as follows. There appear to have been no significant differences
between cities that had common site bans and those that did not as measured before
the bans were enacted. with four more years of data the ban of co,7non site sales
continues to have. no measurable effect in reducing the incidence of alcohol related
traffic accidents.
In the next section we will review the methodology which was used in our first
and our updated study. section III will describe the data and the tests _sed in
both studies. Section Iv will report the results of the statistical tests and Sec-
tion v will conclude.
II . METHODOLOGY AND THEORY
The focus of this study is on individual behavior. As one of the behavioral
sciences, economics has much to say about human behavior, even drunk driving- To
begin, most economic theories assume that each and every individual wants to
mize his/her wealth. In making any decision, the person will act as if they have
considered all of the gains and the costs. This economic person will increase the
extent of any action when the gains increase and curtail it when the costs increase .
This applies as well to the drunk driver.
we might point out here that there are many who disagree with the ecorordc
theory, especially as it applies to the drinker. Some people would argue that rhe
drunk is different from the rational economic man. The problem drinker is "sick".
he can not help himself. He does not stop to consider the consequences of .his ac-
tions. As a' result, it is pointless to legislate higher penalties (costs) c: :.. . _ .
tehavior because they do not take them into account when they drink and drive .
L1-GO UC1-1 Ur nrj . nue eau cuu u�ac av
4 )
Proponents of this theory would advocate the establishment of "rehabilitation cen-
vers" .
The economic argument does not deny that some drinkers may be sick, whatever
that may mean. All we are assuming is that, sick or not, these individuals will
respond to changes in the gains and costs of drinking and driving while intoxicated.
In other words, if the price of liquor decreases, more will be purchased; if the
penalty for driving under the influence is increased to include mandatory jail
sentence, less drunk driving will occur. Proponents of this theory would advocate
the establishment of "penal institutions".
Following the methodology of economics, we presume that the decision to drive
while under the influence of alcohol is made by the individual as if he had consid-
ered the gains and costs of his actions. Anything which affects the gains on costs
will alter his drunken driving behavior. Therefore, the assumption which legis-
lators must be making, either implicitly or explicitly, is that banning common site
retailing of alcohol and gasoline will .either reduce the gains or increase the costs
of driving under the influence. Before examining the effect of the common site ban.
let us first examine other elements in the gains and costs of the intoxicated
driver.
On the gains side, there are two obvious possible sources for gain. The first
gain from drinking and driving is that this allows an individual expanded op-
portunities to travel to different locations for drinking, such as a cavern, a
restaurant or a residence. in economic jargon, driving is an input in the production
of "drinking". While other means of transportation (taxi, bus, walking, carpooling,
etc. ) are usually available, driving his own vehicle saves him taxi fare or the cast
of planning to meet a bus schedule or the cost of coordinating a carpool. • Relative
to the cost of other transport options, the reduced costof drivi.^.g to or f-on a
`.�tF'�lt9-Gt'Jl'J3 11•. 1 lJCr I Ur Hot- r1w 710 eon o-it e r .i r
• place where drinking is occurring is probably the largest source of gain to the
drunken driver.
Another possible source of gain is from complementarity in consumption. In
economic theory, two goods are "complements" to each other if the consumption of one
increases the value of consuming the other. More precisely, if some external event'
leads to the reduction in the consumption of one good, the consumption of its com-
plement will also be reduced. In the context of alcohol and gasoline, suppose that
the price of gasoline increases 30 that consamers drive less. Will this lead to
reduced value in the consumption of alcohol? Alternatively, if the cost of acquir-
ing alcohol increases, reducing its consumption, will this lead to a reduction in
the value of driving? The. answer to both of these questions is probably no. There
is little reason to believe that these two products are complements for most indi-
viduals: any complementarity between them is likely to be trivial.
In the absence of anv cdmolementarity, there is no economic reason to believe
that alcohol and driving will be consumed simultaneously even if they are purchased
at the same time. If an individual purchases 20 items at one store, they will not
be consumed together unless there is some complementarity between them. The fact
that someone buys shoe polish at a store selling gasoline does not imply that he
will polish his shoes as he drives home.
Even in the absence of complementarity, drinkers will drive while intoxicated
when driving is used as an input in the production of drinking. That is, even if
drinking while driving does not increase the value of driving, some drunk driving
will occur as drinkers drive home from a night of partying, bar hopping or dining.
It is in this way that the ban on common site sales may have an effect, altnough, a:
we will show, this effect is very different from what legislators might expect.
As with any input in a production process, an economic person will want to -_-
imize its cost in order to maximize the net benefits. The cost of purchasing gasc-
5tF'glb-�lJb3 11 33 uth'i ur Hbl. HL! 71b cow b71L r .lb
6
line, liquor or grocezy items is not only the out-of-pocket money cost but also the
time cost . And the time Cost includes the time required to go to the store as well
as the time spent at the st store. For an. individual. who wants both gasoline and some
grocery items, his total trip would comprise 3 legs:: home to the gasoline station,
gasoline station to the grocery store, and the grocery store to home. If, on the
other hand, the gasoline station stocked the grocery items required by the consumer,
this would eliminate one leg of the trip thereby reducing the consurcer's trip cost.
Thus, economic theory would predict that one effect of common site sales is a
cost reduction in the Consumption of those goods sold in common, including alcohol.
This reduction in cost, all else held constant, would lead to an increase in the
consumption of alcohol. However, this does not imply drinkers will drive more.
In order to understand the effect of common site sales on drunk driving behav-
ior, it is necessary to examine the nature of this type of market. one very impor-
tant observation is that on average the prices charged at convenience stores for
non-gasoline items are higher cham the prices charged at grocery stores. Why would
anyone pay .a.hi.gher pri„ce .for .the sane item if they .can go to a grocery store or a
liquor store and save money. One obvious explanation is that the buyer values Con-
venience and is willing to pay higher monetary prices in order to save time. The
convenience store typically saves the consumer time in two ways. First these stores
are usually located near residential areas, saving the buyer driving time. Second,
because these stores have higher prices and fewer items, they offer shorter lines
and quicker check out.
The significance of this observation can be made clear with a few examples.
For convenience, the convenience store usually locates near residential areas, near
large apartment complexes or university dormitories, not in business districts or
out in the country. Suppose that someone who has not been drinking wants to pur-
chase and consume some alcohol. He would only pay the higher prices at the con-
bc?- "J—c17YJ.] 1 i••rc alCr 1 Ur NLI. rTu Dao =0. QD r .[!a
P
venience store if it offers him a time. savings by being located closer to him than• a
grocery or liquor store. That ,iap'lies that if he purchases his alcohol at the con-
venience store he will be driving less distance back to his residence than if he
purchased elsewhere. Therefore, even if he opens the bottle and starts drinking
while driving, he will be less likely to get drunk and have an accident. Alterna-
tively, if this person has been drinking, either at home or somewhere else, and goes
to a convenience store to purchase more liquor, because it is located closer to him
than other. outlets, . he..will.. drive less, thus reducing the probability of having an
accident.
Summing uD the first part of this section we can conclude that economic theory
does not suggest that common site sales of alcoholic beverages and gasoline will
lead to more drinking and driving: in the absence of complementarity, coincident
sales does not impiv coincident consumption. Furthermore, a careful examination of
the nature of the typical conmfon site convenience store sucaests that the.
availability of alcohol at these stores, other things being ecual, may actually lead
to a reduction in drunk driving and a- reduction .in the number of. alcohol related
traffic accidents.
In addition to the theoretical reasons outlined above, there are other empiri-
cal reasons for predicting that particular legislation banning common site selling
in California will have no affect on drunken driving. In those cities that have
passed such bans, the common site legislation has done nothing to reduce the total
numCer of individuals licensed to sell liquor, beer or wine_ If drinkers truly
value the convenience of common site locations, some retailers will apply for an al-
cohol license and open their store next to a gas station. The current legislation
does not prevent this. Furthermore, all the bills have done to date is tq prohitit
entry into the market of any new common site sellers: previously existing comm--non
site sellers have been allowed to remain in the market . This, combined with the
SEP;�10- b3 11 4G litr i ur ri01. rnu _- --- ----
8 _-_8
first observation, suggests that these 'bans will have no significant effect on drunk
driving. If there is any effect, it may be to increase slightly the incidence of
alcohol related accidents.
III. PROPOSED TEST AND Da1TA DESCRIPTION
The Test
The previous section concluded that common site restrictions are likely to
have little or no impact upon the incidence of driving under the influence of ai-
cohol. To the extent that there is any effect, it is likely to be exactly the oppo-
site of what legislators have expected, that is, bans on common site sellers may ac-
tually increase drunk driving and alcohol related accidents. In order to test this
hypothesis, it is necessary to -control for ether factors which inf-luence the number
of drunken drivers on the road. These factors can be summarized by the following ex-
pression:
drunk driving behavior - f(cost, availability, ban)
"Cost" is the cost associated with driving under the influence and is Comprised
of three components: the probability of getting arrested given that an individual is
driving under the influence of alcohol: the probability of being convicted given an
arrest: and the probability of being jailed or receiving some other penalty given a
conviction. Economic theory implies that increases in each of these ele.mehts of
cost, all else held constant, will decrease the incidence of drunk driving.
7Cr-1 C/�GGrcJJ a a•�G i n . . to r'.ar. .nx --- ------ •••---
Side of the mar
"Availability" reflects the supply
Market for alcohol and Would `
•
include the price of alcohol and the number of retailers in a market. Decreasing
the price or increasing the quantity of alcohol available, all else held constant,
reduces the cost of consuming alcohol and may lead to an increase in the level of
drunk driving behavior.
"Ban", refers to the legislation banning coan;ton site sales. As stated above,
it is expected, holding all else constant, to have little or no impact upon drunk
ct, it is expected to increase drunk driving.
driving behavior. If there is an impa
"Drunk Driving" is a measure of the number of times drivers operate a motor
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Because it is impossible to measure
directly the extent of drunk driving unless the drinker has an accident or is ar-
rested, the number of alcohol related accidents is used as an index of the incidence
of driving under the influence of alcohol. This is 'an appropriate measure of
drunken driving activity since there is probably a positive relationship between the
per capita level of drunk driving and per capita alcohol related accidents. There-
fore, changes which affect the incidence of DUI behavior will be systematically
reflected in changes in alcohol related accidents per capita. 'here is another rea-
son for selecting alcohol related accidents as our measure for drunk driving: legis-
lators are concerned about DUI only to the extent that it leads to accidents. If
drinking drivers did not hurt anyone, there would be little justification for
restrictive legislation. All evidence suggests that driving under the influence
deteriorates the level of traffic safety for the average motorist. Thus, in addi-
tion to measuring DUI behavior, alcohol related accidents also reflects the level o:
highway safety.
The number of individuals driving within a given market area will also have an
effect on the number of drunk driving accidents. To adjust for the DOPulation, we
I Z)CP 11 CI-QCJCIJ t 1•-.c uu • unus. •w �.... ��.. ...�.-
1 10'
have divided the total number of alcohol related accidents by the total population
living in the area to obtain a per capita measure of accidents.
Data
The underlying sample for our original study Was comprised of California
cities during the period 1980 through 1985. This has been updated for this study to
include 1986 - 1989. From the California Highway Patrol, individual accident
records were obtained for the period January 1, 1980 through December 31, 1989. For
each accident occurring during this period, detailed information was collected. Of-
fice'rs at the scene of each accident reported or. the road conditions, the types of
vehicles involved, the number and extent of injuries and property damage, the time
of day and location, and the extent of alcohol involvement. For the purposes of
this study, focus centered upon those accidents in which there was "driving or bicy-
cling under the influence of alcohol or drug"..
Population estimates for each city were obtained from the California Department
of Finance. with this information, alcohol related accidents per capita, the depen-
dent variable, could be derived.
The data needed to calculate the "cost" of driving under the influence of alcohol
was obtained from the Bureau of Criminal Statistics (BCS) and the California Depart-
ment of Motor Vehicles (DMV) . From the BCS, driving under the influence of alcohcl
arrest figures were obtained for each city in California over the period 1980 to
1989. The DLIV supplemented this information with county wide data on the . .Urber :.
convictions and the disposition of those convicted. ?n addition, for the same t:-.e
period, data 'on the numbe- of vehicles in each county was collected. From t!:4_3 :
formation, the separate cost components could to estimated.
�r-1 b��b.� 11•SIJ LLQ , u, r1.,�. ,n.x - -_ _. _
M1..
Data was not available for prices on liquor, beer and wine on a city vide
basis. However, there is no reason to believe that there is any systematic varia-
tion in the retail price of alcohol. across cities within the state or that any price
difference would be correlated to a legislative ban on cc-=on site sales. The-re-
fore, the omission of price data should not affect our results. The California De-
partment of Alcoholic Beverage Control provided i..^.formation on the number of alcohol
licenses, by type of license, in each city over the period 1981 through 1989. This
license data is a useful proxy for the total amount of alcohol consumed in the city.
By state law the issuance of a general liquor license is strictly determined by pop-
ulation. For every 2000 and 2500 persons in a county, one on sale and one off sale
liquor license, respectively, is issued and there are some restrictions on the
resale of these licenses. There is no limit to the number of beer/wine licenses
that may be issued. Although the issuance of general 'liquor 'licenses is regulated
by population, it is nevertheless true that the per capita number of licenses will
vary by area. The reason for this is that the 1:2000 and 1:2500 ratios applied to
post law licenses. For those areas that before the law nad licenses in greater pro-
portion than allowed by the law, new licenses would not be forthcoming until their
population grew sufficiently to warrant them. In those counties- receivinc no new
licenses, changes in population would result in changes in the per capita number of
licenses. On the other hard, for those areas that have grown in population and have
received new licenses since the "license per population" law, there will be little
variation in the number of licenses per capita: each of these counties will have
about the same number of licenses per capita.
Finally, information on the age and sex distribution of drivers for 1983 and
1985 through 1989 was obtained from the Departnent of motor vehicles. !984 -data was
approximated by a simple average between 1983 and 1985 data .
. bt.r•rtjb-G�(J.� 111...1 LLI 1 1.11 f'11.A... I IV --- --- ---- • ry
12 1
Notwithstanding the attentive efforts devoted to collecting the raw data and
developing the economic variables relevant to this analy3i3, t^ere still zemain data
deficiencies. The definition of an alcohol related accident, for example, is based
upon the judgment of the officer at the scene of the accident. There is no objec-
tive information, such as blood alcohol level, provided in the accident records.
In addition, the conviction and disposition records for DUI offenders, as well
as vehicle -registration data, are obtained at the county level. This implies that
data on the probability of arrest, conviction, and receiving a particular sentence
does not vary by city within a given county. Since it is likely that different
cities may express different attitudes towards t"e drinking and driving problem, at-
titudes which would be expressed through the election of public officials, this is a
restrictive assumption.
However, despite the problems resulting from the unavailability of more ac-
curate data, there is no evidence that the available data leads to a systematic bias
in anv of the variables. We have found, for example, no reason to believe that of-
ficers in the banned cities have systematically different judgmental determinations
of an alcohol related accident than those in the unrestricted cities. Similarly, we
have seen nothing that suggests that conviction rates and dispositions are systemat-
ically different in communities that have bans. Thus, we have no a priori basis for
expecting the estimation results to be systematically biased.
IV. TEST RESULTS
The usable data set for the updated study includes 467 incorporated cities anc
52 unincorporated areas for the period 1.983 through 1989. Cities and unincorporated
areas were elirunated _rorc the estimation data sec fcr three reasons: 1> cr,issinc :-.-
13
formation on variables included in the estimation. For the years 1981 and 1982, Dul
disposition data, which are important for developing cost measures, were unavail-
able. Since the updated analysis includes four additional years, 1981 and 1982 were
dropped from the analysis rather than exclude a theoretically i, ortant variable or
adopt an ad hoc method of "assigning" disposition data to these areas. A few other
cities with missing information on a variety of variables were also dropped from the
analysis. 2) Five cities in the sample, Vernon, Commerce, Industry, and Irwindale in
Los Angeles County and Sand City in Monterey County are very atypical. These cities
are industrial in nature with a limited residential population but a high working
population. From 1980 to 1990, Vernon, for example, had a residential population
ranging between 80 and 90. Yet its daytime population is on the order of 70,000. Be-
cause of their unusual nature, these cities were dropped from the analysis. 13) the
third reason for eliminatinc observations from the estimation sample was an unknown
ban status. Some cities and unincorporated areas had restrictions on the common site
sale of alcohol and gascline but it was not known when the ordinance vas implemented
nor the nature of the restriction.z
Table I defines the dependent and independent variables in the estimating
equations_ The dependent variable, Per Capita Alcohol Related Accidents, is the
number of alcohol related accidents per capita. Probability of Suspension/Treatment
reflects the probability that, given an arrest, a DUI offender will have his license
suspended or be Sent to an alcohol treatment program. This is a county widevarable
which, for this analysis, implies that DUi offenders in different cities but the
3
same county face the same cost.
per capita DUI arrests reflects the probability of being arrested for a DU!
offense and equals the ratio of county DUI arrests to' the total number of vehicles
unty wide basis, it is
in the county_ Since vehicle data were available en a co
btF'',n.1F0—N'G.� L 1••+a war i ter nvnu:
14
Table 1
Definition of variables
Deoendent Variable.
Per Capita Alcohol the number of alcohol related accidents per
Related Accidents capita. This variable is available for each
city in the sample.
Indecendent variables
Probability of Sus- the probability of conviction given an arrest
pension/Treatment times the sun of the probabilities of being
sent to an alcohol treatment center or have
his/her license suspended. This variable is
available for each county in the sample.
Per Capita DUI the number of DUI arrests made by the CHP
CHP Arrests divided by county population.This variable is
available for each county in the sample
Per Capita DUI the number of DUI arrests made by city police
City Police Arrests divided by city population.
Per Capita Alcohol the number of total alcohol licenses per
Licenses capita. This information is available for
each city in the sample.
Per Capita Young the number of drivers less than or equal to 24
Drivers divided by county population. This variable is
available for each county in the sample.
Unincorporated Area a dummv variable which eolals ene is tle area
is unincorporated, 0 otherwise.
Metropolitan Stat- a dummy variable which equals one if the city
atistical Area is located i. a :metropolitan statistical area,
0 otherwise.
Unemployment. Rate unemployment rate in a county
San a dummy variable which equals one if a city
passed an ordinance banning the cc=on sire
sale of gasoline and beer/wine, 0 otherwise.
Constant constant term.
`r.ItYT.114- 1F93 11.44 Lt_ri Ur Mot- MUtau cuv uJaG .vim
assumed that, independent of the city, the driver of each vehicle in a given county
has the same probability of being arrested for driving under the influence. A
priori, the sign of this variable is ambiguous. The reason is that Per Capita DUI
Arrests is not a perfect measure of the number of individuals who dri-k and drive
but rather comprises two separate components: the n:.mber of arrests per drinking
driver and the number of drinking drivers per capita. Economic theory suggests that
an increase in the number of arrests per drinking driver, holding constant the nua-
ber of drinking drivers per capita, increases the deterrent to driving under the in-
fluence and would lead to a decrease in per capita alcohol related accidents. on
the other hand, an increase in per capita drinking drivers, holding Constant the
number of arrests per drinking driver, would be expectedto increase the incidence
of alcohol related accidents_ Because we have no information that would allow us to
determine whether there has been a charge in per .capita arrests or drinking drivers
in any given geographic area, we can not predict the sign on this variable. This
variable will be included separately for California Highway Patrol (CHP) arrests and
city police arrests.
Per Capita Alcohol Licenses reflects the availability of alcohol in a city.
The greater the number of License_ in a city the more accessible, hence less costly,
will it be to purchase. Thus, this variable is expected to carry a positive sign.
As noted above, although the number of general liquor licenses issued is pegged to
population, Per Capita licenses will vary both because beer/wine licenses are un-
restricted and because the majority of areas are receiving no new licenses. in the
latter case, changes in the population will t`:ereb_y result in changes in the per
capita number of licenses held.
Per Capita Young Drivers is the number of drivers less than 25 years .of age
a counr-y. Since young drivers tend to be more risk taking, this variable is e\pectet
to carry a positive sign.
� yCr rt1CJ—GVVJ 1a•�� uu �n .,u�. w .•.•• � ..+ ..�.— •_
In general, counties can be divided into incorporated cities and
unincorporated areas. Generally, the unincorporated areas have a different character
than incorporated cities (e.g. population density is much 'ower) . To control for
such differences, a du.::ny variable, Unincorporated, was included. A priori, the sign
on this variable in unknown. Similarly, incorporated cities that are part of a large
metropolitan area experience numerous external effects related to driving under the
influence and enforcement. An increase in city A's enforcement of DUI_ ,may increase
alcohol related accidents in city B, which is contiguous to city A, by reducing city
B' s relative price of drinking and driving. To control for these "neighboring" ef-
fects a dummy variable, Metropolitan Statistical Area, was :rcl-ded in the estima-
tion equations. A priori, it is nct known whether the effect of this variable will
be positive or negative.
In general, the number of alcohol related accidents depends upon the vehic'_e.
miles travelled. Although this information was not available, it is expected to be
positively correlated with the state of the local economv. when the ecoromv is grow-
ing (contracting) , vehicle miles travelled, in total and by drinking drivers, in-
crease (decrease) whit:: is expected to increase (decrease) alcohol related acci-
dents. To control for this effect, county wide unemployment rate is included in the
estimation equation.
The final variable included in the estimation model is Ban, a du:.mv variable
which equals one if a city has passed an ordinance banning the co=on site sale o:
gasoline and alcohol, 0 otherwise. The null hypothesis -Jr, this study is that the
presence of a ban will have no impact upon per capita alcohol related accidents. It
is expected, accordingly, chat the coefficient of Ban will not be significantly d:
ferent from 0.
Before Ban .City Differences
one of the issues raised by proponents of bans is the possibility that people
living in cities that passed bans may be different from people living in cities that
did not pass bans. This difference may make any comparison invalid, like comparing
apples and oranges. in particular, the argument suggests thatmaybe the enactment
of bans was caused by (a reaction to) an extra large number of alcohol related acci-
dents. In other words, maybe cities that passed bars were experiencing more than
the average nu.'mber of drunken drivers. if this was the case, a city that just
passed a ban could actually have more alcohol related accidents than a city without
a ban. Proponents have argued that this could explain why our oiiginal study showed
a small (and insignificant) positive effect from the ban, that is, cities apparently
experienced a slight increase in alcohol related accidents after enacting the fan.
However, this criticism 'is valid only if we had compared cities with and
without bans, what is called a cross section study. This is no longer a valid crit-
icism in a time series study that compares cities 'befoze and after the enactment of
the ban. in a tine series study :.he effect of the ban is isolated as an event in
time and its effect on alcohol related accidents is measured by comparing before and
after the event. Even though the ban may have been caused by an unusually large
number of problem drinkers, if the ban has any effect in reducing this problem it
would be captured and measured in the test.
These arguments aside, it is still an interesting question as to whether or
not the bans were enacted by a community outraged by a large (above average) number
of drinking drivers. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that t.^.ere were di`-
ferences between cities with bans and cities without. Actually, twc different tests
were performed. The first test (hypothesis 1) compared each year cities with no
I
ans to cities that legislated a ban in the following year. For example, suppose
n7tl�L 1�YGCJYJ:� a a•-,.i uu + nu... „u �••• �••••• ••'•— �—
19 _
that city X passed a ban in 1985, while •city Y had no ban_ he compared the per
capita alcohol related accidents reported in the two cities in 1984, the year ?rior
to the passage of the ban in city X. This allowed us to dete=.ine is city X had ex-
perienced an unusually large number of alochol related accidents one year prior to
the passage of the ban that might have prompted the legislation. This test was done
for each year from 1983 to 1986. Later years were not tested because the cities in
our data set implemented no new bans after 1987.
The second test (hypothesis 2) compared over pore than one vear. cities with no
ban to cities that passed a ban in the following year. :or example, suppose that
city X passed a ban in 1985, while city Y had no bar.. we compared the per capita
alcohol related accidents reported in the two cities in 1982, 198., and 1984. This
allowed us to determine if city x had experienced an unusually large number of al-
cohol related accidents in the vears prior to the passage of the ban. This test was
run for each vear 1983 to !986 for the same reasons as test 1 _
Table 2 presents the results of these two tests. The numbers in tre .cc_u.=s
under "T-statistic" (explained in more detail in the next section) are all less than
1 .96, which is the standard against which eccnomists measure "significance' In
other words, the differences in the alcohol related accidents reported between
cities in these tests are so small that thev are "not significant" and we have to
reiect the argument that cities with bans passed their law out of a reaction to an
unusual increase in drinking drivers.
Because cities with bans showed no signi_icanc differences, be-`ore their bans,
compared to cities without, the next step was to test for any effects the implemen-
tation of bans .nigh: have on alcohol related accidents. Using the data described in
Table 5, we compared cities with bars to cities without bans for each year from 149:
to 1989 to see if bans had any deterre-c effect. The statistical techni-que ennployed
for this comparison was the widely sled ordinary -east scuares regression..
�Cr-1G—GGG.J 1 a•�.� ✓�. W r,u�. ..v --- —_- ----
Table
__—
Table 2
'fest for ?reban City Differences
Hvpothesis 1 Y.voothesis 2
Year T-statistic Year T-statistic
1983 .2149 1983 •2149
1984 -.2793 1984 -.2606
1985 -.2941 1985 -.2096
1986 -.1325 3986 . 0;12
Effect of San on Entire Sample
Table 3 presents the separate estimation results for each year using ordinary
least squares regression analysis. For those Who are not familiar with regression
analysis, a brief explanation will help in understanding our results. in general,
we are trying to measure the relationship between the dependent variable (alcohol
related accidents) and several independent variables (cost, licenses per capita,
ban, etc. ) _ The nature of this relationship is measured by the coefficient on each
of the independent variables. For example, in the year 1983, the variable "Prob-
ability of Suspension/Treatment" has a coefficient of -.0014 . The "negative" sign
on this coefficient tells us that: for every one percent increase in cost (the prob-
ability of conviction and penalty) , alcohol related accidents per capita decrease in
that county by .00.14. :n tnat same vear, "Per Capita Xlcohol Licenses" has a coef-
ficient of .0604. This "positive" coefficient tells us that an increase of one in
the number of retail licenses per capita in a city will increase the number of al-
cohol related accidents per capita by .0604 . Below each of the variable' s coeffi-
cients is a nu-ber in parentheses. These numbers are t-statistics and are used to
measure the significance, or the degree of confidence, in the variable' s coeffi-
cient . The larger the statist''-c, the greater our confidence that tte
20
Table 3*
Estimation Fesul:s
Year
1983 1984 165 1-986 1987 1988
variable
Probability of Sus- -.0014 -.0017 -.00081 -.0011 -.001C -.00092
pension/Treatment (-2.48) (-2.43) (-.76) (-1 .05) (-1.28) (-1.34)
Per Capita DUI -.0083 -.0052 .0045 .0275 .0281 .0396
CHP Arrests (--48) (-.30) (.27) (1.66) (1.60) (2.22)
Per Capita DUI .0210 .0378 .0313 . 0207 .0281 .0224
City Police Arrests (4.11) (6.30) (4 .93) (3.70) (4.45) (3.31)
Per Capita Alcohol .0604 .0472 .0346 .0358 .1121 .0905
Licenses (4.43) (3.61) (2.47) (2_58) (8.24) (6.22)
Per Capita Young -.00073 .0056 -.000008 -.00012 .0167 .0157
Drivers (-.12) (.99) (-.002) (-..02) (2.50) (2.45)
Unincorporated Area .001.9 .0020 .0020 .0021 .0023 .0022
(11.72) (12. 46) (11 .50) (12. 37) (13.72) (12.96)
Metropolitan Stat- .00035 .00023 .00039 .00024 . 00032 .00012
atistical Area (2..53) (1. 66) (2.48) (1 .43) (2.04) (.72)
Unemployment Fate -.000027 -.000033 -.000029 -.000064 -.000051 -.000076 -
(-2.02) (-2. 43) (-1.78) (-3. 1;) (-2. ;2) (-3.23)
Bar. .00036 .00027 .00033 .00088 . 00039 .00032
(1.35) (.26) (.42) (1.161 ( .53) ( . 43)
Metropolitan Stat- - .000053 -.000018 -.00056 -.00017 -.00015
atistical Area * Ban (.05) (-.02) (-. 72) (-.22) (-.20)
Constant 0016 .0010 .0012 .0016 -.0002; .00020
(2.84) (1.65) (1 .84) (2 .74) (-- 43) ( • 371
F-2 .25 .28 .24 -28 .36 . 33
t-statistics are in parentheses
=r.;4V—GCJYJ� 11• �� a,�, --- --- ---- —'
t — ,
• ' � 21
variable ia. question has the indicated effect on the dependent variable. :ticorg most
researchers, a t-statistic larger than 1.96 is considered "significant" . Notice
that in 1983, the t-statistic on the "ban" coefficient is 1 .35. Therefore, we re-
ject the hypothesis that bans had any effect on alcohol related accidents in that
year.
In general, the signs and significance of each of the variables are as ex-
pected. The cost variable, Probability of suspension/Treatment, is negative and
significant in 1983 and 1984 and is negative but insignificant after 1985. on the
other hand, the enforcement variables, Per Capita CHP DUI Arrests and Per Capita
City Police DUI Arrests, are either insignificant or positive. The interpretation
of this was discussed earlier when describing the enforcement variable. The number
of Per Capita Alcohol Licenses, as expected, is positive and significantly different
from Q. From the level of significance as well as the magnitude of its paralreter
estimate, the number of alcohol licenses per capita is an important determinant o
alcohol related accidents. The young drivers did not contribute to alcohol related
accident until 1987. In this and subsequent years, an increase 'r Per Capita Young
Drivers, all else held constant, increased Per Capita Ucohol Related accide :ts.
The state of the local economy had its expected effect upon alcohol related
accidents. As the rate of unemployment increases, there is a significant decrease in
the number of per capita alcohol related accidents.
With respect to the city related du;=y variables, it is seen in Table 3 that,
all else held constant, unincorporated areas have significantly higher alcohol re-
lated accidents than unincorporated areas. Second, it is seen in the table that
cities which are located in metropolitan statistical areas are more likely, all else
held constant, to have alcohol related accidents. This was a ccnsistent effect WIZ-'-
the
i,^the exception of 1988.
In the estimation results presented in Table 3, the effect of a ban enters
t Vr�l�.�G(J(J-. L L 1V Vr• • yr ..v... •v
two ways. First, Ban is a separate explanatory variable which gives the effect of
banning the common site sale of gasoline and beer on alcohol related accidents, all
else held constant. Second, Ban is interacted with Metropolitan Statistical Area in
order to investigate whether the effect of a ban is different for cities that are
located in large urban areas. As seen in the table, both of these variables are con-
sistently insignificant. That is, banning common site sales has no significant ef-
fect on ver cavata alcohol related accidents in fact rather than decreasing the
number of alcohol related accident3.g as argued by provonents the ban avvears to in-
crease- them, although this increase is statistically insignificant.
In addition to analyzing the effect of a bar. in each separate year, an addi-
tional regression model was estimated which data for all of the years was com-
bired into pooled cross section-time series data set. This had :`.e advantage of ex-
plicitly accounting for differences in the cities that are not controlled for in a
year by year analysis. Also, a• pooled data sec enables one to include a time trent
which accounts for other deter:.inants of alcohol related accidents that are chancing
over time but are not included in the estimation eq"4ation. The results of this anal-
ysis led to qualitatively similar conclusions as those reported in Table 3. The
coefficient on Ban was .0000l with a t-statistic of .23. Si ularly, the interaction
between Ban and Metropolitan Statistical Area produced a coefficient estimate of -
.00012 with a t-statistic of -.34.. Bans on co-non site sales consistently show no
significant effect in reducing the number of alcohol related traffic. accidents.
The 'Effects of. Bans Over Time
Although the preceding analysis demonstrates t`zt a ban on co.—..On site sales
does not affect per capita alcohc related accidents in any given year. it aces r.c:
adequately address whether the ban is effective over a period of tine. Because mc5z
___ ___ _. --
23
of the bans allowed existing common site sellers to continue under a grandfather
clause, if a ban is an effective policy for reducing the incidence of drunk driving,
we would expect that the growth rates in alcohol related accidents would be greater
for cities with no restriction on cc-=.On site sales relative to those with a
restriction on such sales. Moreover, the difference in growth rates would be ex-
pected to increase over time as the ban's effect strengthened. To investigate this
possibility, a subset of the sample of cities was selected according to the follow-
ing criteria. R city was included in the subset if, as of December 31, 1982, it
had .
passed an ordinance banning common site sales of gasoline and alcohol. Alternative-
ly, a city was included in the subset if no restriction had been passed during the
years :983 through 1989. This subset now included only those cities which were ei-
ther restricted or did not restrict commcn site sales throughout the period 1983
through 1985.
:or this subset of observations, the most generalized model was estimated. one
would expect that if a ban did produce differential growth rates in alcohol related
accidents, the coefficient of Ban would be significantly different from 0 at score
point during this period. moreover, if the ban led to diverging growth rates, tr.en
the coefficient of Ban would be expected to increase over the 5 year period.
For each separate year, Table 4 presents these estimation results . As seen is
the table, these results are very similar to those reported in Table 3. There are no
major changes in the signs or significance of any variable. Ban continues to be Ocs-
itiv: but insignificant and there is no observable trend of ban over time.
Also, as in the previous case a pooled cross section-time series mode' was
estimated and yielded similar results. in particular, when taking heterogeneity
across cities and time trends into account, the coe°_iciest on Ban was .00043 we:n
t-statistic equal to 1.75. 4
24
:able 4'
Estimation Results
Year
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 '--589
variable
Probability of Sus- -.0011 -.0017 -.00085 -.0015 -. 0095 -.00091 -.00096
pension/Treatment (-1 .95) (-2.39) (-.73) (-1.26) (-1.08) (-1.24) (-1.35)
Per Capita DUT -. 0089 -.0055 .0041 .0246 .0255 .0317 .0077
CHP Arrests (-.49) (-.301 ( .23) (1 . 41) (1.38) (2.01) (.411
Per Capita DUI .0192 .0369 .0288 .0190 .0288 .0210 .04Ci
City Police Arrest3 (3.57) (5.82) (4 .33) (3.19) (4 .24) (2.92) (5.07)
Per Capita Alcohol .0601 . 0450 .0352 .0357 . 1134 .0928 .0612
Licenses (4 .29) (3.34) (2. 41) (2.47) (7.98) (6. 10) (4.07)
Per Capita young .0033 .0027 -.0018 -.0010 .0162 .0153 .0116
Drivers ( .48) (.43) (-.30) (-.14) (2.20) (2.19) (1.60)
Unincorporated Area . 0019 .0020 .0020 .0021 .0023 .0022 .002;
(17.16) (12.03) (11.03) (11 .18 ) (13.09) (12_ 31) (13.24)
Metropolitan Stat- .00038 .00021 .00036 .00023 . 00034 .00012 .000-`
atistical Area (2.59) (1.44) (2.24) (1.34) (2.05) ( . 69) (2. 60)
Unemployment Rate -.000023 -.000031 -. 000029 -.0.00062 -. 0000;8 -.000075 -.0000=7
(-1. 67) (-2.09) (-1 .57) (-2.85) (-2 . 15) (-2 . 99) (-1 .55)
ban .00040 .00041 .09051 .00050 .00047 .00033 .00016
(1.+9) (1 .721 (1 ."11) (1 . 64) (1.14) (.57)
Constant .0017 .0013 .0014 _ 0018 - .00025 . 00023 .0002
(2.81) (7 .92) (1.92) (2 .78) (-.41) ( .39) ( .35)
R- .26 . 26 .2; .26 . 37 . 34 . 32
t-statistics are in parentheses
�_ . rte 1��C,'„q'„I...l 11.••�lJ ✓�• • vu.. ...
Z'5
v. Conclusions
The conclusions we can draw from this updated study are suite clear. Adding
four more years of data to our original set c-anged none of our earlier iirdirgs.
Bans on common site sales of gasoline and beer still show no significant effect in
reducing alcohol related traffic accidents. However, while our basic conclusions
remain unchanged, we can now be much more confident in our findings for two reasons.
First, we can now eli:ainate speculation that cities with bans were different than
cities without bans such that our initial comparison would be invalid. This study
shows that argument to be false.
Second, we now have four more years of experience with bans. Cities that had
bans in 1983 with grandfather clauses for existing co.-=on site sellers have now had
7 years to see if the bans can reduce drinking and driving. ':he evidence is quite
robust: bans do not reduce the incidence of alcohol related traffic accidents.
1 26 i
Footnotes
n which
hlchcug� -lot reported,variab_e for these oaiate regression were :uc_t es This had .c effect on the rresul s aresults
du.^my be 1
low.
2. This eliminated so,-,e unincorporated areas and some incorporated cit'_es.
3. Initially, two cost jariables were inclined in the analysis, the ?robability of
Jail and the Probability of Treat^ert/Suseensicn- T 3estima cionre
'_=exults were t�e model.
consistently improved when the Probability o`_ Jai_ c
e or. t^e Prcbability e_ Jail
in the maiority of cases, the coefficient estimat
was not significantly different from 0.
5 .
In, addition, a pooled cross section-time series model was estimated when Ban was
disaggregated by year in order ':o deter^=ne writ~ewan al e3`.lcm a low of
decreasing Over time. The
coefficient eSL i,�•a te9,
ranging
00023 in 1988 to a high of .00056 in 1985, displayed no clear pattern in any
directicn. None of the ban coefficients were statistically sig..^.ificzr.t.
TnTOI o Dn
RECEIVED
OC( 0 6 2003
SLO CITY CLERK
October 3, 2003
San Luis Obispo City Council
City Hall
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Re: amendment of municipal code provisions relating service stations and the sale of beer
and wine
Dear Council Members:
I am an owner of the Madonna Shell Station, Laguna Lake Shell Station, and ARCO
AM/PM store on Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo. I will be represented by Anne
Russell Tuesday evening. I have received a copy of Deron Brewer's letter to the council
and agree with his position.
I do not think that the existing ordinance should be changed to accommodate COSTCO.
This amendment.is being proposed just to create a loophole for COSTCO at the expense
of the dealers who have lived with this ordinance for many years. I think COSTCO
should be able to sell gasoline at their proposed store, but I also thing the other gasoline
retailers in San Luis Obispo should be given the same opportunity.
No one envisioned a large retailer selling gas and alcohol in 1982 when this ordinance
became law. Many things have changed since then including the way gasoline is sold,
the studies regarding the causes of drunken driving etc. All of these factors need to be
considered when looking at this ordinance.
I ask that the City Council postpone a decision on this proposal until a complete and
comprehensive study can be completed and presented to the community.
Thank yo
Jim P it er e
f3"COUNCIL
CAO -LCDD DIR
J2-ACAO Z'FIN OIR
RED FILE ATTORNEY IlFIRE CHIEF
f'rCLERK/0RI0 ZPW DIR
MEETING AGENDA Do HEADS ,Q POUCE CHF
DA31TEM #216'
g ZPEC DIR
B'UTIL DIR
R DIR
RECEIVED
OC I 0 6 2003
SAN LUIS ARCO AM/PM SLO CITY CLERK
254 SANTA ROSA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
October 3, 2003
San Luis Obispo City Council
City Hall
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Re: amendment to city ordinance relating to service stations selling beer and wine
Dear Council Members:
I am an owner of the ARCO AM/PM store on Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo. Anne
Russell will be addressing the Council on my behalf Tuesday evening. I also have
received a copy of Deron Brewer's letter to the council on this subject and I am in
support of his comments.
In my opinion, the existing ordinance and zoning restrictions are outdated and
unnecessary. In fact, there is no evidence that the concurrent sale of beer and wine and
gasoline increases drunk driving.
If the Council thinks that the ordinance needs to be clarified and amended to allow
COSTCO to sell gasoline and alcohol then perhaps the entire ordinance should be
reviewed. This proposed amendment is being rushed through the approval process in
order to accommodate COSTCO'S application. What research has been done to support
this proposal?
Please take the time to study and research this issue before approving these amendments.
I think the business people who have lived with this ordinance for years are entitled to
fair consideration on this matter.
Yours truly,
Thomas A. Murrell .COUNCIL
jd'CAO ZICDO DIR
2'ACA0 .2'FIN DIR
,LR'ATTORNEY Z-' FIRE CHIEF
RED FILE �CLERK/ORIG �'�DIR
HEA $ .e ROUGE CHF
MEETING AGENDA
QZREC DIR
DA la ITEM #ALLY RIDDIR
co un a l m cm oizAn aum
DATE: October 6, 2003 RECEIVED
OC 1 0 6 2003
TO: City Council
SLO CITY CLERK
VIA: Ken Hampian, CA
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direc
BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: October 7 City Council Agenda Item PH-5
TA/ER 108-03 Regulations regarding concurrent sale of motor fuel and alcohol
Due to some confusion associated with the final language recommended by the Planning
Commission at the September 24`s hearing regarding the concurrent sales of motor fuel and
alcoholic beverages, staff is offering the following clarification:
It was the intent of the Planning Commission to recommend the adoption of staff s
recommendation to amend the regulations. On a separate motion, however the Commission
wanted to offer the Council an additional alternative to clarify the Municipal Code's intent as it
relates to concurrent sales. In particular, Commission Cooper felt it was a better idea to use
distance separation between points of alcohol and fuel sales rather than maximum store size in
defining what constitutes a service station.
The second motion approved by the Commission recommended that a separation of at least 200
feet be required between the points of sale of alcohol and motor fuel sales. It was this motion
that became distorted when it was read into the public record. The motion as adopted read:
Cooper moved to have the City Council consider modification to language in Lb, second
sentence to read: "Service stations include any ancillary retail facility only if the point of sale of
that retail facility is greater than 200 feet from another point of sale on the same parcel serving or
selling alcoholic beverages".
As made clear by examining the earlier discussion of the intent of the motion, the motion (as
found on page 5.2 of the staff report) probably should have read:
'Service stations include any ancillary retail facility within 200 feet of a point of sale on the
same parcel serving or selling alcoholic beverages".
Z(COUNCIL Zc CDD DIR
J2 CAO .12 FIN DIR
J3ACAO - FIRE CHIEF
RED FILE 2ATTORNEY ,- PW DIR
MEETING AGENDA ,0'CLERK/ORIG 2 POLICE CHF
13DEPT HEADS Ja'REC DIR
DA 03 ITEM #Le1a4—S' V ZHRID RIR
Memo
R �+ �,
+
,d'COUNC L CDD DIR
CAO ZFIN DIR
,0'ACAO ;G FIRE CHIEF
2ATTORNEY �ePW DIR Chevron
fa'CLERK/CRIG. ;ePOUCECHIP
13HEADS Z?REC DIR
October 6, 2003 ,Q UTIL DIR
HR DIR
Foothill Chevron
151 N.Santa Rosa St.
San Luis Obispo City Council San Luis Obispo,CA 934%
CITY HALL PETROSLO INC.
Phone 805 543 4415
990 PALM STREET Fax 805 543 2739
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 slochevron@aol.com
Re: Introduction of an ordinance regarding the amendment of
municipal code provisions relating to service stations and sales
of alcoholic beverages
Dear Council:
I own and operate San Luis Chevron & Foothill Chevron. I am represented
by Anne Russell of Diehl & Rodewald. This is not about Costco selling gas.
Ours is a very competitive business, bring on the competition. This is about
poorly founded laws that have no basis and shouldn't be on the books.
In 1982, the city wasn't thinking about Costco when they wrote these laws.
They weren't thinking about drinking and driving, either. In 1982, this
municipal code was written as a robbery prevention law. Now, we know that
whether you sell beer& wine has nothing to do with robbery. In 1982, we
didn't use time delay safes, audio/video surveillance systems, wireless panic
alarm necklaces, or strict robbery prevention programs. It is ridiculous to
think that not having beer/wine decreases the chance of robbery! Ask any
expert in the field, this is a known fact. Please direct staff to research current
studies and provide you with an informed opinion. Right now, the staff
report is based on other staff reports that are all based on one ancient study.
The State of California passed the B&P code that makes laws like our 1982
Municipal Code section illegal. As soon as this happened, the city drafted
our zoning ordinance as a back-up plan,just in case SLOMC 5.3 6.020 was
challenged and repealed. ONLY at this time was drinking and driving ever
discussed. This law does nothing to prevent drinking and driving. Current
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED
Printed on DA �'� ITEM #—qkS' MT 0 8 2003
Recycled Piper
SLO CITY CLERK
research shows that off-site sales restrictions do nothing, it's the on-site sales
restrictions (bars, restaurants) that are effective.
Staff was told to find something out there that supports beer/wine sales
restrictions at service stations. They found a 1986 study that was not
conclusive, but had the implications they were looking for. The staff report
for the `88 ordinance contained one study, done in 1986. As you read in our
letter, there was no correlation between concurrent sales of fuel and alcohol
and drunk driving. In 1986 there was a serious lack of concurrent sales
research. Now, we have plenty! Ask staff to look at current research!
In 1982 gas stations fixed cars, we didn't have convenience stores. You
couldn't pay at the pump either. A majority of our gas customers never even
come into our stores. A majority of our store customers don't buy gas. They
have evolved into separate businesses. People drive to the store to buy a
bottle of wine. In fact, they drive to go buy any sort of beer/wine. To think
that restricting them from filling up their car at the same time does anything
for drinking and driving is just silly. There is no current research that
supports this law!
Our 1982 law was based solely on robbery prevention. I am a service station
robbery prevention expert, how much do you know? I know how to prevent
robberies, and restricting beer and wine sales doesn't help me at all. We
have a law that was based off of one 1986 study. A lot of research has been
done since then. It is our duty to look at this research and determine whether
or not it supports a ban on concurrent sales. If not, there are 20 small
businesses in this town that are needlessly being crippled by our own city's
laws.
We have an awesome staff, lets use them, tell them to look at updated
research in the concurrent sales field and get you a staff report that isn't
based on other staff reports that were based on one done nearly 20 years ago.
We just might find that current research does not support this law.
Thank you,
D. A.,mi bakwER'...,
DERON BREWER
(805)459-9143
OIL COMPANY
RED FILE
October 3, 2003 MG AGENDA
San Luis Obispo City Council
DATE20 D31TEM # _
City Hall
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Council:
As a retail business owner in the City of San Luis Obispo, we were appalled when informed of
the City's intent to modify a law that will provide special privileges for anew business-entering
this market, while placing a number of small businesses at a competitive disadvantage that
have been serving this community for years! We are referring, of course, to the issue of Costco
being allowed to sell (both) alcoholic beverages and automotive fuel, which is currently in
violation of the City's ordinance, and continuing to prevent all other fueling stations from
engaging in a like-product offering.
This is preposterous, to think that the City of San Luis Obispo would create a "special interest"
modification in their statutes for, what appears to be, a larger tax revenue base from a major
retailer(Costco). This is totally out of harmony with a community that prides themselves with
fairness of opportunity in all areas of life, including commerce. As a premier site of prestigious
educational centers for our young people, the City of San Luis Obispo should be exemplary in
their fair treatment of all persons who live, work and shop in this community.
We won't rehash all of the legal rhetoric and spurious studies that have been presented and/or
challenged in previous correspondence and meetings. We will, however, restate the fact that
after reviewing all of the materials we stand firm on our belief and convictions that SLOMC
5.36.020 was preempted by Business & Professions Code §23790.5 and is an unfair,
discriminatory ordinance!
As a convenience store retailer/petroleum marketer in the City of San Luis Obispo, with a
strong presence in the Petroleum Industry throughout Northern California, we are loudly voicing
our concern and lending our full support to the concerted efforts of Anne M. Russell (Diehl &
Rodewald) and our fellow colleagues to either(1) encourage the repeal of SLOMC 5.36.020, or
(2) revise the ordinance to allow for fair trade practices to be enjoyed by all.
ReVM. Teske
Ric I,R�CouNCIL ,RcbD DIR
er CAO ; AN:DIV
General Manager ACAO . FIRE'CH1EF
TEK -
- _ TTORNEY O'PW:DIR
CLERK/ORIG ZPOGCE CHF
❑ DEP HEADS ;2'REC DIR
2349 Rickenbacker Way JTIL DIR
Auburn, CA 95602 HR DIR I RECEIVED
(530) 885-0401
OCT 0 6 2003
SLO 017( " : '�N�IL