The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/01/1988, 6A - REGULATION OF CONCURRENT SALES OF GASOLINE AND BEER AND WINE (CR 1402). I��h��II�IyIIIIIIII�I�IIUIII ci"1 o f M 11N l OtStS san lugs osispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ISM NUMBER: 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. 11111111$Ip W§j city of San LUIS oBI spo A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 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 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). 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.) ,11111QJJJW§1 city of San tuts OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA 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; i 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. I �A- ��► ��Ilplll��i� 11 MY of San LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Concurrent sales Page 4 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMNMNTS 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 1 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: (1) 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; /04_ j1��U city of san lues oBispo NoGs 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 i I 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 negative 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: .......I......................... City Clerk APPROVED. City A inistrative Officer U. ..a.�� City Att hey Community Development Director gm2/1402ord 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; 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; L 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 R-2 R-3 R-s COS O PF C-N 1,C-C J C-R J C I CS M I — I I I IDI ID D PI Ccrccrrent sales of alcoholic beverages and motor fuel (see also Section 17.08.100) q - Allowed PC — Planning commission approval required D — Director's appmval 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 notes are at end of Chan. The following shall be added to Section 17.58.040: Actions on use permits shall be justified by written findings, based on substantial evidence in view of the whole record. Draft P.C. Minutes October 12, 1988 Item 3. Zonine Reitulations 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.business including items 1 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. A AYES: Duerk, Kourakis, Crotser, Gerety, Hainline, Roalman NOES: None ABSENT: Schmidt The motion passes. EXISTING CITY CODE 536.020 Alcoholic beverages—Sale Chapter 536. prohibited—Exceptions. A. It is unlawful for any person to sell. offer SERVICE STATIONS for sale,display for sale or otherwise furnish any j 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- 536.020 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 § I. 1982: prior code$ 4290) l EYISTIN & Z- O INCS RE G 's. 17.22.010 Table 9 Continued Uses Allowed b .7zm R-1 R-2 R-3 R4 COS O PF C-N C�l C-R C-T(GS M i i c J Retail sales—groceries,liquor and specialized foods(bakery. A A A PC D meats,dairy items.etc.) S 17.08.030) D D D ALA]ervice stations(see Section G • �T�T� �1�LA �W� •� Y y C a O v U 0 Y v 6)-O •D� COG N >� O tr /- y Tyr W� (� Y - �. C b .67. a S C s '_ �i Y O �. OpvO U C) C CC C ._ Lr C O ._ C Y � y 7 C•t � ° co U 00 O O y ._ G '^ o -o G U ns Us U a a y 0 3 o sr. y O CD y •C = •0 7 C°p v Ur1v 0.� U y CL G U p a'), U•V y .`> .t,. C U C U E .T y G O C >. O O 'y Y E C y E 'ti >. cy a 4 Y ... O E a C O O ` U a o a C y )n C y y y c0 + G O y a ^ 03 `M O bo O� O O M cn O Y U >•'i+ �-• ' >. >. �' O U O) C O-0 O �. O O C: O C N O C U V Z L=4 O O E G a 0 U y .+ U -r ` U y U O Q y b o = ` L °� � c� c % = � N .> 7c°' 3yG � oc; 3 �� uvEcmo`o > c, 'til'- O L m y OU a°. U H >. U y O 'C O c_ G v y Y y- �' U y y �. a OyFO0. O ` U O 4) 0.y ' Yca � w ° O " = ` aci c oos ' G G c E ai Co) > CU u '� " a� o U U °s 3 a 3 0� m a .O. o m 7 ^r�...t y 0...y.W y U ",t W m y O-OPC y b :: °u d e o °a -a � me U e� o -: w 0 e �� ° c e co c(v CJ C . es m a� U u E e o yEsus °GQsu� aao3 `o� u ° YE `o� om ° - � � 0' c °u °u cv E E � � Q z c � c " 0 CZ > y h 010 and o . o c s 3 �. U m >; to L rJO CUO O E C ^ Oc o cd UOO.eOO G 0. 0 —"`C uU yedmOay) LaaO " O > " N :° ° ° c +yV" .0 O cl Y =c° OYE 'G cs CL` m L) 0i00- OO4yOr > LC00. > N71C OC CJ � N 4) O >, Co0" O . G y G ca U O.0 o ._ .yL E eo COQo O U y= 0. n � o�oac3yyo Ca ° � C OLO - +``Co tN 0 F cCC3) NE.LE•.n N f •u Yp> m 0y 00.L` E 0C EO 0 0 0 0 o U 0OeO w ° -0 0. 0 0y , z-0 y > > U EYm O OCV 7O n > a +; C 0>N. U O a C) ap0 �O Y U � O H y - O a - > O O m > o C) O ° to _ O ` CE E V Ed L U COyVj r N ° > bo vp " - to Lc(nONUc' teid sm 0 d - O Ov • ya U 3 z :7 c U-C O N N a o ~p � m O LCO ';q yp00' yG > NboC7 YCC O �' GX61 yCy ' C tll D O Y Y 4) U +' O 'C .0 > vi 6C1 a+0., `� y O O O mQA U ym ° oa > 0E �°, � Er �m : aci�c ° LoEE oa:) 000ylm � m$ EW E G r7 :: GO mOOC"' y �.G ° abo tl+ >:=� �. >.•�b > � �,st >.� C36 Z H w > y O a 4 C r. a C U y ~ ny G G N't7 ev ++ U G j C+ a ? 3 G (u-aa y 'Z N O G ` y i cc cc 0 ° y C L• 'D U„L• 0'L' V c r o G � v 0 0. 0 41 0. > cYa O � y 'yy Om O N C m ° '� " " C G o 3 O 0 0 Cc °r 3 i s u u m � y E . -o_�Q�^ E o >� bo a n a) C � N e F N y 9 '> = CU E 7 y ° G� es o m 3� yy -r d G � E 1. � o > ' ae W a Iz- C C C E L C OC C y O O > O� -U ed fA ',�� Sin J O 4) _tl C.V O O U E 4. to C ea y �1 'C a e6 U .r y a s U nl N O �j U L U U y O a o O r. O y y C y E C O b o 'um °� � 3 0 � � CuY > > � yto0 HcU 'r v � H `�'• �; ' o O— oos y C 0. '2 ., y a 0.^O C y a) 0. z •� c� :. W bo O Y uyi 61 O �>'. d C COW a a� i° 0. > O YC C O .. E O y 0'C .r. E Y 3 0 CD a >. _ W L N `a• O y F 'y.^ a O L O U °a) G y V r. a.t' 7 > COO cL' a L a� r c m m O o y y U Q. 0. u O" a :,O y 61 G C o y-C L O o y N C O vi y O 7 L O N 'r E i m C 6) i+ _. > 3 a Co to w Q o > U 'C vOi�.m G 3 0 0 .0'O O m Y G C G O-� p' COS nLf .'^ C cc E V c$� a ° ' <F o c co _� 'o .:�`. o0°pp ,3 O o ° C .mc o ° s° oy y E o o u ° u E GV > .m .] O n'O t v Y y >, Y Op C G O o " O-O 0. °L r.O G y ed O r ti `• ►. N ed O N O .O O ed � U 0) COO C C.� C Q) a -[ C pe� b E a,.E r 0 a COQ O �. o O-0 y u n oyo 0.0 m W Q a .� 0. y U V. 0. U �r O N 3 b o •> `� y r: 7 y U C U 0 L G m O a O vU°i° z , 0 .---�� 6C°'-OG `e��Y-° � c ° �: �+ m-o � '�� m_EE� cEmcd bo o oC .- 0 * U O y O y m O ld a ^ �0. m o v O Q) 0 L C O FO. O >� C v v°i 0. C' C b c'� V m V 'y L N c-yC C ._° a>.• 7 ,7 Cm, 3 y t3. <° 4' O `` C.� .- c>a 3 y r0 O CO 7 L'O ` �. 7 O y C ++ U w'O C °�„ v CO COO L y O YY M ci U.0-0 0 3� c U 0 0 C`LO�'C .. �n c 3 � c � � o y " E u oo .c a _ y c-0 �? U U Y a� o y '>, c > +• 'C O ° � y '7 U 'N W tr V! >� L y U CQ x N Ott CL G �'• L a ° OFi >` O O S a O C O'O m y OL <� QCs] Y ° c ° cF c or Y y >o C > a,y E � E o °a ° > U c c o C U .=� 0 CF 'uF C o y U E U c C OF m s a o y a y N U c : -c o 0. y a a ._�... a m 33 u ._-O� a a� Y�,� G . GA -4- , C W a � U O an a C s ` U O . d c E 'Z V V a W C d i O C I E C o u L m ° j O C c u .0 V O L u u rEY y ` � u C a L L L U u a°r >..:'O '^'6 d ,�.' L '•' C y Q) N'p ,�L�j' U c7 N 67 0 O N +' o 0 ' ° b C y p C C'O m� e U 7 L E a O Ac = L == b Y i � � q ° o °so Cu .O cmm oEQ 0 �L y o _ b" o. xp u -L0 Cd C Q E 0 a Oca r U O bo c ^ y0acu a O U E jU 0 C >- C ) h Y° mQ. O a U° Q > b � LCL a : od � u ;:� � � •° ou "O a aL O= 'L d • Y �. O N 61 '> '3 U wL � C u "O d y C QO c9 _a C 0 ra .0O O cc COc c oo c CO C , u m e >M e y U C U u UE3 q C C O a? d �. U 'O-' > 7 3 C. y 00 L y >A C N o y O p C a Q e V .Z. 3 E ;� Q1 Q) .� O C O O O a C N C y ::, y = Q) as N^ L Q� Q) =C E C C = ° a a Q7 u •>b N"Q L O L N 3 L Q1 N L Q �" N a S 0 a y c = y " :° `o occ o` aE a n 'y o �° $ e > aci o = a [ Es o =y m c h 'd-M `o _ o 3WohoDs � dmu ° Y c � u n0m5y � Ysw � oa - ) . (� bo a'C >.'O F q Y r, a X 3 a C O s L O ° y _ 3 .�•. y C^' Qj"C C L y S +. aL. y W C d y"Q7 UccjO y0 CCY Vim ,`. UYdO C O 9 CEo.D c`9y0 w'fl " ay. H 0 QU 0 = X7 i O q U +' r 3 L C.t C = y'O C.D ^ C y = 4) C C .•y y Q) y y C C� 'ay a ai.° O.'0 `L° u c c c.'u_^ 3 C N N 0 34. � o ..>. u� `� me c!o o� c E m .— ed cu C No0 yo ,, oma . L� Cy � Ca oo'3uo _ au _ u— E� U . > E C N y ar y U E L 'fl cr >. O N Q) _ N O = d C L y U ` bC0 0L U v a ° O. r 0 >a "� U e >+Y�O Q) o q 0, ° .O o L U Ql 1 Z_ L Q) m .� ._ T .... ❑. > 0 .Lr >, >y N y C = O y a.0 0 ti O C (� 0 1'i Q L Z.<S L cc Q1 O y C C O aU, d C Qa > o u L'o a Z7 > N y G' u Ql C4 a.. 7 = a 0 L eQ u = � .0 i Car O.0 �, a a� �n "O �.o C C_ C i N _ C L = yM O 3 U a Qui ` 0 0 °'II L cE O O ? O O O O cd O E a y'C L C y L Q0J 000 E ar O E L N cD YN/1 C vde'Qa�— «.cl, 0 Zvi ZyeZ -- Z , 'L ZyoWm L =-0cs F eoa u = oLo u m u L o nay � OgL _ w_ LEYCu U0 Ci -C -6:v° coovvo � ey — =oaSoic � v ^ q `°= s� o asy� > c ,uu. G 'L' yu CU C�y ... yam. C .�.> � •? T,v � N Cv•> v7 w OvSF .q.. CvL vi 4) ' .... O C Q) C ' > G. 'a t e u d . � r N y o 0 Q CU Q ._ vn 0 3 b ' PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES IN SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES x ' AT GASOLINE STATIONS Testimony Before the Select Committee on Alcohol and Related Problems of the California State Assembly April 10, 1986 N Friedner D. Wittman, Ph.D. Study Director Prevention Research Center 2532 Durant t� Berkeley, California 94704 `' F - 11 r . - I Introduction 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 .on the points I wish to make here, and that provide further references for those ' xho wish to consult primary sources of the research in this area. i 1. Substantial increases in offsale alcohol availability are associated with u!creases in alcohol consumotion and alcohol-related problems: California has approximately 14,000 gas stations, of which perhaps 1,500 now sell alcoholic beverages. The state has about 269000 off-sale retail outlets altogether. If oil "meanies and convenience stores were to commence competition regarding alcohol- 4les 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.. ' - es would increase accord' I' to^venience-item sales for each new outlet. Sales might wellf Increase percent of to expected due to increased numbers of outlets if minimarts in close proximity one another were to begin "price wars" on alcohol sales. F'- 12 2. Marketin alcoholic bevera es throu h gasoline stations in a conveni format he' htens risks o roblems of drinki ivi and sales o alcoholic everages to minors and inebriates: Structural aspects of. convenience. markeU41 alcoholic beverages give grounds for concern that gasoline station-based conveni sales are particularly high sources of risk. Problematic structural aspects of late-night hour of operation; underaged and convenience marketing include: minimauy-supervised clerks; advertising, promotion, and store location in close association with motoring that encourages impulse buying of alcoholic beverages; sales of alcoholic beverages almost exclusively in beer, which is heavily-repres in automobile accieents; highly-dispersed locations which make difficult moni by the owner and enforcement by the ABC and local sheriff/police departments. ! c and In this context rich in potential problems, it is unr alis forto ec arks and , has not been demonstrated, that special server training p �' problematic nd , posting of warning signs are by themselves effective for preventing purchasing. Such training and informational materials are necessary elements of full prevention programs; but they are not sufficient by themselves alone. The very high costs of continual training, monitoring and supervision by both the sto 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. Recent studies in San Diego County have looked into DIII offenders' episome �.� of in-car consumption of alcohol shortly after alcohol had been purchased from...,.. off-sales outlet. These studies show that such purchasing/consumption patterns.I - emanate from gasoline stations at almost three times the rate one would expec from the number of gas-station off-sales outlets relative to other. types of of _, alcohol outlets. Although gas-station alcohol outlets are small in number compar • • ... to other types of off-sale outlets, their relatively small numbers mask a substan contribution to drinking/driving rates (a full report of this study is forthcoming from the San Diego County Alcohol Program). r. A summary of the results of the San Diego County study, which surveyed ' offsale purchasing/drinking/driving experiences of more than 2,000 DIII offenders,; shown in this table: Offsale (1) (2) (3) (4) Outlet Type Percent Percent Percent Ratio A Of offsale reporting episodes (3):(1) Outlets purchase drkg in car 6 15 17 2.8 •Alc/Gasoline ; Liquor store 25 42 43 Supermarket 22 17 12 0.65 Convenience 47 25 28 0.60 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 �;x that on-sales outlets are a far more serious problem for generation of drinking- driving episodes, and that therefore restrictions on off-sales 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 DUI's emanate from on-sales 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 drinking/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 ode's Section Z37VO 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 alcohol-related problems and the community's standards for acceptable drinking Practices. j Although people normally think of the ABC as "carrying the bell" 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 r Percent of California communities require special physical or operational limitations on alcohol outlets. Eighteen percent of the communities require both conditional use permits and special restrictions. The preventive value of local regulation is a little-studied but growing Area i In the public health field. Several early investigations show that local controls on development are associated with lower rates of increases in consumption; that more county-level regulations on availability are associated with lower rates of alcohol- Mated diseases such as cirrhosis; and that local controls that limit concentrations Of outlets and require local accountability or retail operators are associated with leases in problems of decorum, vice, and violence. California is a particularly 4' f`=tde ground for study of the preventive effects of local regulation on alcohol = _ outlets because of the state's size, diversity, and varying levels of local activity. - ._ Par Local activity in licensing of alcohol outlets has become particularly Cant in light of declining ABC field strength in recent years; now fewer tha / /7 one hundred fifty ABC field agents are available to cover more than seventy- F - 14 thousand.alcohol outlets in the state. This creates a major.enforcement burdet%f local agencies and 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 public. perspective, these local powers have barely-realized potentials could be protects and enhanced for the preventive regulation of alcohol aveilablity. .j• 1 ,p♦ 3 •1 . Survey of Off-Site Purchase and Consumption Locations of Convicted Drinking Drivers RECEIVED CFP 6 1988 Car W San w::Ot)isM C0m.1'may Development 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 � (67hE(�al7! MICHAEL ANN HAIGKr ANALYST ALCOHOL PROGRAM COUNTY OR D"nment d mann Sanaeaa SAN DIEGO 3851 R°aev Suae1•Sen DoW.CaOa 92110 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 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 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 1 ' 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 purchase at 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 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 a�� 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 19727 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 a 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 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 W� t . 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 city 4 san USOBISPO i►u!►niill.11iiltl�li11111 INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT • SITE LOCATION 1711-1 of San Luis Obia_pe APPUCATION NO. ER 50-88 PROJECT DESCRIPTIO` Reveal the r1 al s prohihition of the concurrent sales of motor fuel and iilrnhnlie hPveraggai agraquirpd by a ata lac P a hP grmndarelm and use-permit nrnradnrua fnr roMilatiT,g rem current with state lav_ APPLICANT ritX of San Tnia nhiq;_(rx=m>QitF TIavp1agmant De,artmant) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: X NEGATIVE DECLARATION MM43ATION INCLUDED EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED PREPARED BY Glen Matteson, Associate Plaamer DATE—August 31, 1988 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACnott DAA 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 NO B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... NO C. LAND USE ....................................................................... NO* D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ............................................... E PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................ NO F. UTILITIES........................................................................ NO G. NOISE LEVELS ........................................ NO NO H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS STOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... • NO 1. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS............................................... J. SURFACEW&TER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. NO K PLANT LIFE.. %...................1................................................ NO L ANIMALLIFE..................................................................... NO M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL..................................................... NO NO N. AESTHETIC ........... . NO 0. ENERGYIRESOURCEUSE............................ P. OTHER ....PUBLIC,HEARTH b,SAF.EI;Y........................................ NO* III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION 'SEE ATTACHED REPORT J$°° D. Transportation and circulation P. Public health and safety The city's current regulations were intended to protect public 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