State Considers Lifting Bans on Gas-and-Alcohol Outlets

Elected leaders in Glendale grew alarmed early last year when two gas stations, both within a block of R. D. White elementary school, proposed selling beer and wine along with gasoline.

The City Council, worried about “one-stop drunks” driving through the neighborhood, voted to prohibit gas stations from selling alcohol anywhere in the city.

The decision placed Glendale in the forefront of a movement among California cities to outlaw the simultaneous sale of gasoline and alcohol. But now the Glendale ban, and similar prohibitions adopted by at least 30 other cities, are in danger of being wiped off the books.

At the behest of the politically powerful convenience store and gas station industries, the Legislature is considering a bill that would take away the authority of cities and counties to impose blanket bans on the sale of gasoline and alcohol from the same outlets.

Any ban enacted after Aug. 1, 1985, would be nullified by the bill.

Altogether, backers of the bill contributed more than $700,000 to candidates for state office in 1985 and 1986. Among the recipients were 106 of the Legislature’s 118 members, including the measure’s author, Assemblyman Gary A. Condit (D-Ceres), who received $5,707.

Cast as a compromise by Condit, the legislation would require local government to review on a case-by-case basis applications to operate businesses that sell both gasoline and alcoholic beverages. The local officials could deny an application altogether or could impose restrictions on the design and operation of the business.

“My intentions are to allow local governments a process by which they could control convenience stores,” Condit said. “I have always been supportive of local government’s autonomy and I don’t intend to deviate from that.”

Nevertheless, Glendale City Councilwoman Ginger Bremberg was irate over the state’s attempted intervention.

“I think it is an incredible encroachment on local home rule,” she said. “If this bill goes through, it has eroded our opportunity to control our city’s destiny.”

The bill has the support of Atlantic Richfield Co., which operates AM-PM Mini-Marts, the Southland Corp., which operates 7-Eleven stores, and a coalition of oil companies and convenience store chains.

Local officials and community groups are divided on Condit’s bill. Behind the scenes, Condit has waged a campaign to win support for the measure in Southern California as well as in Sacramento.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner and the South-Central Organizing Committee, a citizens’ activist group, participated with representatives in negotiations that produced the bill. Reiner and the committee support it largely because it would not interfere with their efforts to curb the proliferation of liquor stores in South-Central Los Angeles.

But officials in cities such as Costa Mesa and Glendale that have enacted bans oppose the measure, contending that it would undermine local control over land-use decisions. Los Angeles City Atty. James Hahn also has taken a stand against the bill, rejecting pleas from Condit, who flew to Los Angeles last week in an attempt to win him over. And the legislation has drawn fire from Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other groups concerned with alcohol abuse.

Last year, the convenience store and gas station lobbies sought passage of a bill that would have stripped cities and counties of any authority to regulate the joint sales of alcohol and gasoline. But local government leaders were successful in defeating the legislation.

Spokesmen for Atlantic Richfield, Southland Corp. and the industry coalition known as the Food and Fuel Retailers for Economic Equality said they are not pleased with the Condit compromise because it does not go far enough, but are supporting it as a first step in eliminating unfair local controls on their businesses.

“We are not attempting to preempt local government,” said Joseph Ackler, a lobbyist for Atlantic Richfield. “We just want them to judge us on a level playing field.”

Central to the debate over the bill is the question of whether the joint sale of alcohol and gasoline contributes to the problem of drunk driving.

Some city officials contend that the sale of both items together prompts some motorists to drink while driving. At some gas stations, they say, beer advertisements posted at the gas pumps and tubs of cold beer displayed near the cash register encourage drivers to drink.

But spokesmen for the stores and gas stations say that studies paid for by their industry show that the concurrent sale of alcohol and gasoline is not a major contributor to the problem of drunk driving. Bars, restaurants and parties at home put more drunks on the highways, they say.

Marc A. Aprea, a lobbyist for Southland Corp., cited one industry study that showed that only 3% of those arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol obtained their drinks from an outlet that sells both gasoline and alcohol.

Aprea said Condit’s legislation actually provides little relief for his corporation. But the 7-Eleven chain is supporting the bill, he said, because it will bolster the company’s case that joint sales of alcohol and gasoline do not contribute to drunk driving.

“With the passage of (the Condit bill), the State of California will rightfully dismiss the fiction that concurrent sales contribute to drinking and driving,” Aprea wrote in a March 30 letter to Condit.

Los Angeles City Atty. Hahn, however, challenges Aprea’s assessment. Hahn said his office prosecuted more than 40,000 drunk-driving cases last year. Based on the industry’s 3% estimate, he pointed out, the drivers involved in more than 1,000 of those cases would have obtained their drinks from outlets that sell both gas and alcohol.

“More than 1,000 cases in the city of Los Angeles is not a fiction,” Hahn said.

Creates a Perception

The large amount of money spent on campaign contributions by Atlantic Richfield, Southland and their allies has created the perception among opponents that the industry is extremely influential in the Capitol and could eventually win passage of a stronger measure limiting the power of local governments.

The list of recipients of industry money reads like a Who’s Who of California politics:

During the last legislative session, Atlantic Richfield gave $492,000 to state politicians, including Gov. George Deukmejian, Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy, Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp, Controller Gray Davis, state Schools Supt. Bill Honig--and even some of their opponents in last year’s elections. In addition, the oil company made donations to 112 legislators or candidates for the Legislature.

During the same period, Southland Corp. gave $127,000 to Deukmejian, several other statewide officials and 77 incumbent legislators who were seeking reelection.

The food and fuel coalition, which counts Southland and the Beacon Oil Co. among its members, sprang to life during the five weeks leading up to the Nov. 4 elections and gave $81,000 to 31 legislators who were running for reelection. Beacon Oil also gave another $1,550 to three legislators last session.

In addition to making substantial contributions, the industry has hired firms headed by such influential lobbyists as Clay Jackson and Don BrOwn, who are known for representing powerful special interests in Sacramento.

Connie Barker, a lobbyist for the League of California Cities, said the industry’s influence raises the fear that it would win passage of a more onerous measure and prompted her to seek a resolution of the issue. She helped draft the compromise, although her organization is officially neutral on Condit’s bill.

“When we have a lot of money and lobbyists on the other side, we try to work out a compromise,” she explained.

Some opponents of Condit’s legislation liken the bill to a controversial measure sponsored by fireworks manufacturer W. Patrick Moriarty in 1982 that would have stripped cities of the power to ban non-explosive fireworks. Moriarty, a major campaign contributor to the Legislature, won passage of the bill but it was vetoed by then-Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr.

Subsequently, Moriarty and former Assemblyman Bruce E. Young (D-Norwalk), a major proponent of the fireworks bill, were convicted in an influence-peddling scandal surrounding the measure’s passage by the Legislature. Young, who became a lobbyist after leaving office in 1984, was registered to represent the Southland Corp. until just before his conviction in February.

Permit Process

Condit’s bill, while taking away the power of local governments to ban the concurrent sale of alcohol and gasoline, would funnel all decisions on such sales through the conditional use-permit process used by local governments in many zoning and land-use decisions.

Under this process, cities and counties would have to consider every applicant individually and would be able to grant or deny a permit only after gathering evidence and holding a public hearing. The process also allows local officials to impose conditions on how the businesses are designed and operated.

Condit acknowledged that the conditional use-permit procedure would be more cumbersome and time consuming than the enactment of an outright ban. But he said any city or county that wanted to prohibit all simultaneous sales of alcohol and gasoline could do so under the bill simply by denying every application.

“This bill would allow cities to do exactly what they’ve been doing except they have to do it through a conditional use permit,” he said. “The business community then knows what the conditions are. They know what the rules are.”

The conditional use-permit process is being used with some success by Los Angeles to regulate liquor stores in South-Central Los Angeles. Dist. Atty. Reiner and the South-Central Organizing Committee contend that the proliferation of off-sale outlets in that part of the city is a more serious problem than gas stations and convenience stores that sell both gasoline and alcohol. Reiner and the community group favor the Condit compromise because it would leave their permit process intact.

But city officials say that the permit system is weaker, more expensive and more time consuming than adopting a blanket prohibition. The choice of whether to issue permits or enact an outright ban should be left to elected city councils, they say.

“Obviously, (the permit process) does not accomplish the same objective, which is to substantially reduce or eliminate the concurrent sales of gasoline and alcohol,” said Allan Roeder, city manager of Costa Mesa, which last year banned all new joint-sale outlets.

Glendale Councilwoman Bremberg added: “The conditional use process is a cop-out to make it sound like you’ve got home rule and you don’t.”

Faced with growing opposition to his bill, Condit has postponed a Capitol hearing scheduled for Tuesday so that he can meet with opponents and attempt to work out an acceptable solution.

“If we’re doing something improperly that takes away their authority, we want to do redo that,” said Condit, himself a former city councilman, mayor and county supervisor.

Denies Being Influenced

Condit, chairman of the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee that now has jurisdiction over the bill, said he has not been influenced by the industry’s campaign contributions to him.

Condit noted that his bill would curb advertising of alcoholic beverages at outlets that also sell gasoline. It also would allow authorities to close such outlets for 72 hours if they were found to be selling alcoholic beverages to minors. These provisions, however, would expire after the bill is in effect for two years.

Even if local governments give in to the compromise, Hahn argued, the convenience store and gas station industry will be back with a bill next year to further reduce local government’s power.

“I just see it as the first step,” he said. “Once they get this bill, the liquor industry or the gasoline retailers will say, ‘We’ll come back next year and get something else.’ ”

Aprea, the Southland Corp. lobbyist, would not discuss what the industry might propose in the future. But of Condit’s bill, he said, “I think this is a real first step.”