The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-09-07 Packet CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL and CULTURAL ARTS ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA Joint .Regular Adjourned Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Semihary Avenue September 7, 1993 7:00 P.M. 1. Roll Call a. City Council b. Cultural Arts Advisory Board 2. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion Regarding CAAB's Role with the City and in the Community b. Review Revised Goals and objectives for the coming Year c. Presentation of Idea for a Community Arts Recognition Program d. Review of CAAB's Relationship to the Museum e. Suggestions for Cultural Arts Presentations for Next Year 3. ADJOURNMENT The Effect of Ordinances RecluiHng Smoke Free Restaurants on Restaurant Sales in the United States: An Update Stanton A. Glantz, PhD Lisa R. A. Smith, BA Institute for Health Policy Studies Department of Medicine University of California, San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94143 March 30, 1993 Last year, we: published the first study of the effects of 100% smoke free restaurant ordinances on restaurant sales. Based on 12.3 quarters of experience in 4 cities, we concluded that these ordinances had no significant impact on revenues. This study attracted considerable attention from the tobacco industry, often working through front organizations such as the Beverly Hills Restaurant Association, Restaurants for a Sensible Voluntary Policy on Smoking (RSVP), Califomiam for Fair Business Policy, or the California Business and Restaurant Alliance,2 which criticised our study and produced its own "studies" purporting to show a negative effect of 100% smoke free restaurant ordinances on restuarant sales. The industry condusious were all based on selective analysis of one or two quarters of data, rather than long-term trends over time in all dries with such ordinances. In the meantime, many more dries have passed 100% smoke free restaurant ordiances and those with existing ordinances have continued to accumulate experience. We have therefore, expanded our analysis to include another 9 dries and another year of experience. Our total data base now encompasses 102.3 quarters of experience in 13 cities in two states (California and Colorado). We have extended our earlier study to include sales tax data for the first thirteen US cities to enact smoke free ordinances affecting restaurants. The California cities of Auburn, Bellflower (which repealed its ordinance in March 1992 because of claims that business had dropped following implementation of the ordinance), Beverly Hills (which amended its ordinance four months after it went into force to-eliminate the 100% smoke free requirement in response to the claim that business had dropped by 30%), E1 Cerrito, Lodi, Palo Alto, Paradise, Roseville, Ross, and San I. axis Obispo, and the Colorado cities of Aspen, Snowmass Village, and Telluride have had such 100% smoke free restaurant ordinances in force long enough to assess their effects. We also examined sales tax data from thirteen comparison cities that are similar to the smokefree cities in population, income, smoking prevalence and other factors. An analysis of restaurant sales as a fraction of total retail sales, and restaurant sales ha dries with smoke free restaurant ordinances compared to similar dries which do not have smoke free ordinances shows no significant effects on business. (See attached figures.) To account for population growth, irtflatiOIl~ and 'changes 'in underlying economic conditions we computed the fraction of total retail sales at restaurants as well as the ratio of sales in dries with ordinances compared to matched control dries without 100% smoke free restaurant ordinances. Neither variable dropped significantly when 100% smoke free restaurant ordinances were in effect. This is the first multi-state comprehensive analysis that examines ta:xable sales data to determine the economic impact of smoke free restaurant ordinances on restaurant sales. These data were reported to the California State Board of Equalization and the Colorado State Department of Revenue for purposes of paying sales taxes. Data from these government sources have several advantages. First, the numbers reflect all restaurant sales in a community, not just a small sample of restaurants. Second, the numbers are objective; they were collected through consistent methods by an agency with no interest in the effects of smoking restrictions on restaurant sales. Third, sales tax data can be expected to be reasonably accurate since it is a crime to lie in reporting the figures. Moreover, even if" restaurants understate sales, it is extremely unlikely that the level of under-reporting would change concurrently with smoking restrictions being imposed or repealed. The communities included in our analysis are different from each other and represent · a cross-section of communities that might enact legislation controlling smoking in restaurants: Beverly Hills is a well-to-do urban city; Bellflower is a middle class bedroom community; San Luis Obispo is a college town; Ross is a small affluent San Francisco bay community; Lodi is a rural agricultural center; Auburn is a small Sierra foothills community; E1 Cerrito lies within a highly industrial area; Roseville represents a semi-rural bedroom community near the state capitol, Sacramento; Palo Alto is a large suburban university community; Paradise is a small semi-agricultural community; and the three Colorado cities are mountainous, tourist resort areas. The fact that there were no adverse effects on business in any of these communities supports the conclusion that the results generalize broadly. Further, these thirteen cities represent every city that has passed smoke free ordinances that have been in effect long enough to study. It is important to take into account long-term (secular) trends as well as the quarter- by-quarter random variation and short-term economic changes. We avoided short term analyses because it is generally possible to reach any conclusion you want by selectively picking the "correct" two quarters for analysis? To avoid such biases and increase the power of the statistical analysis to detect an effect of the ordinances we used data for a 6 year period (9 years for Aspen and Vail). This length of time allowed us to obtain good estimates of secular trends before evaluating any effects of the ordinances. A cOmmonly stated concern when considering an ordinance requiting 100% smoke free restaurants is the possibility that patrons will dine in adjacent communities without such restrictions. Our data address this concern because the cities examined in this study are not isolated communities. Auburn, Lodi, Paradise, and San Luis Obispo, while not in large urban centers, are all surrounded by unincorporated areas that contain restaurants. Beverly Hills and Bellflower and their comparison cities, Santa Monica and Lakewood, are all located in Los Angeles County, a major metropolitan area in which all communities directly abut other communities. E1 Cerrito, Palo Alto and Ross and their comparison cities all lie within the San Francisco bay region. Roseville rests on the Sacramento County line. Although the skiing communities of Aspen, Telluride and Snowmass Village are relatively secluded, other resort towns nearby which allow smoking would represent viable tourist alternatives to these smoke free cities. Restaurant sales in each of the ten cities were compared with sales from comparable cities with no 100% ordinance in effect. If people were leaving these cities to dine in neighboring cities, our analysis would have detected it. Another area of concern is the effect on bars, since smoking and drinking are thought to go together. Revenues from bars and "full service" restaurants are included in the sales tax data we used. The ordinances examined in this study contain different provisions governing bars independently and bars in relation to restaurants. Had there been a significant effect on sales in such restaurants (without an offsetting change in other restaurants in the same city), our analysis would have detected it. Furthermore, an analysis of individual classes of restaurants (based on whether they sold different types of alcohol) for four cities in California previously showed no effect on any category of restaurant when analyzed separately.~ Finally, the fact that the ordinances in Beverly Hills and Bellflower were repealed adds to the strength of our conclusions. Had the ordinani:es affected sales negatively, we would have expected to see an increase in sales following repeal. No such changes were observed in either community (see figures). CONCLUSION Based on restaurant sales data obt_ained from the California State Board of Equalization and the Colorado State Board of Revenue, there is no evidence that 100% smoke free restaurant ordinances have any effect on restaurant sales. Public health officials can enact such health and safety requirements to protect patrons and employees in restaurants from the toxins in second hand tobacco smoke without the fear o£ adverse economic consequences. REFERENCES 1. Glantz S,a,., Smith LR.A. The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke Free Resters on Restaurant Sales in California. San Francisco: University of California Institute for Health Policy Studies Monograph Series, 1992. 2. Samuels B, Glantz S. The politics of Local Tobacco Control. ffAMA 1991;266:2110- 2117. 3. Califor~a Business and Restaurant Alliance. Impacts of Local 100% Smoking Bans on .Rest~ and Related Businesses. Los Angeles, 1992 2O Smoke-Free Auburn 1987 1988 t 989 1990 1991 1992 20 I ~ ~ , , 15 10 0 ]986 1993 Bellflower 0 ! I ' I , ~986 1987 1988 1989 ]990 199i t 99.2 2O ~0 Beverly Hills 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 t99° 2O 15 I0 - E1 Cerrtto 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 199 t 1992 Year ~'993 15 5 - 0 1986 Smoke-free Lodi 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 10 - 5- 0 ~ 992_ ,~ 1986 1987 ~ 988 1989 ~ 990 ~ 99 ~ 1 Palo Alto ,,.. 15 '" · lO Paradise i 986 1987 1988 1989 1990 199~ 1992 199,5 99.3 5 ~- Rosevtlle ~986 1987 1988 1989 '~990 199 ": ': 992 :, 99,.3 Year 2O Smoke-Free Aspen = '~'...:8°~ ] 985 188,.t. 1985 1986 :"':':C r , ~ ; "-' ,D'"' , '~ c '~ ,~.:.i.... '-",. .× -' ,,' x,,,,, ~0 - "987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 199,3 I Snowmass 1990 199'1 1992 1 60 = Telluride i '~,, !986 1987 i988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Year 1993 ~C O' ~986 Smoke-~ree \ ~0~$ 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 987 ! 988 ~989 1990 '~99'~ '~992 Year' (EXCERPTS FROM) NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, CURRENT INTELLIGENCE BULLETIN ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE IN THE WORKPLACE LUNG C~NCER ~ND OTHER HEALTH EFFECTS JUNE, 1991 ABSTRACT The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has deter- mined that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is potentially carcinogenic to occupationally exposed workers. In 1964, the Surgeon General issued the first report on smoking and health, which concluded that cigarette smoke causes lung cancer. Since then, research on the toxicity and carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke has demonstrated that the health riskf~om inhaling tobacco smoke is not limited to the smoker, but also includes those who inhale ETS. ETS contains many of the toxic agents and carcinogens that are present in mainstream smoke, but in diluted form. Recent epidemiologic studies support and reinforce earlier published reviews by the Surgeon General and the National Research Council demonstrating that exposure to ETS can cause lung cancer. These reviews estimated the relative risk of lung cancer to be approximately 1.3 for a nonsmoker living with a smoker compared with a nonsmoker living with a nonsmoker. In addition, recent evidence suggests a possible association between exposure of nonsmokers to ETS and an increased risk of heart disease. Although these data were not gathered in an occupational setting, ETS meets the criteria of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for classifying substances as potential occupational carcinogens (Tide 29 of the Code of FederalRegulations, Part 1990). NIOSH therefore recommends that ETS be regarded as a potential occupational 189 Tobacco Control in California Cities carcinogen in conformance with the OSHA carcinogen policy, and that exposures to ETS be reduced to the lowest feasible concentration. Employers should minimize occupational exposure to ETS by using all available preventive measures. INTRODUCTION The Surgeon General has concluded that tobacco smoke is a carcinogen and an important risk factor for heart disease. The purpose of this bulletin is to disseminate informa- tion about the potential carcinogenicity of environmental tobacco smoke~ (ETS) in the workplace. Evidence is now clear that the health riskjgom inhaling tobacco smoke is not limited to the smoker, but also includes those who inhale ETS. Recent epidemiologic studies of nonsmokers exposed to ETS have shown an increased relative risk for lung cancer com- pared with unexposed nonsmokers. In addition, recent evidence suggests that exposure of nonsmokers to ETS may be associated with an increased risk of heart disease. This bulletin describes the results and implications of these studies. The conclusions and recommendations in this Current Intelligence Bulletin are based on the following: · Reports of the Surgeon General on the health effects of tobacco smoke · Comparison of the chemical compositon of ETS with that of mainstream smoke 2 (MS) · Results from recent epidemiologic studies of nonsmokers exposed to ETS Methods for controlling involuntary exposures to ETS in the workplace are also discttssed. REPORTS OF THE SURGEON GENERAL ON THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF TOBACCO SMOKE In 1964, the Surgeon General issued the first report on smoking and health, which concluded that cigarette smoke causes cancer: "Cigarette smoking is causally related to lung cancer in men; the magnitude of the effect cigarette smoking far outweighs all other factors. The data for women, though less extensive, point in the same direction...The risk of developing lung cancer increases with duration of smoking and the number of cigarettes smoked per day, and is diminished by discontinuing smoking." Since 1964, evidence has continued to support the causal relationship between exposure to cigarette smoke and lung cancer, demonstrating that risk increases with amount and duration of smoking. Subsequent research has increased our knowledge about the toxicity and carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke and the risks of exposure. Additional support for the Surgeon General's conclusion has come from (1) animal studies that demonstrated the carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke condensate, and (2) analytical studies demonstrating that tobacco smoke contains carcinogens. Cigarette smoking is the major cause of lung cancer (87 percent of lung cancer deaths) and is estimated to account for 30percent of all cancer deaths. The 1964 Surgeon General's report also pointed out that male cigarette smokers have higher death rates from heart disease than nonsmokers. Subsequent reports have concluded that cigarette smoking is a major cause of heart disease and that smoking is a major independent risk factor for heart attack. - .... 190 On July 1, 1965, Congress approved the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-92). This law, which becamse effective on January 1, 1966, was the first of a continuing series of Federal statutes enacting warning labels to inform the public about the health hazards of smoking and, subsequendy, the use of other tobacco products. Presendy, the Comprehensive Smoking Education Act (Public Law 98-474) (Title 15, §1331 of the U.S. Code) requires cigarette companies to rotate four health warnings on all cigarette packages and in advertisements. RECOMMENDATIONS Several systems exist for classifying a substance as a carcinogen. Such classification systems have been developed by NTP (1989), IARC (1987), and OSHA (29 CFR 1990). NIOSH considers the OSHA classification system (Identification, Classification, and Regulation of Potential Occupational Carcinogens (29 CFR 1990), also known as the OSHA carcinogen policy) the most appropriate for use in identifying occupational carcinogens? The Surgeon General has concluded that cigarette smoke causes lung cancer as well as heart disease...Furthermore, a large body of evidence indicates that exposure to ETS has produced lung cancer in nonsmokers. NIOSH therefore considers ETS to be a potential occupational carcinogen in conformance with the OSHA carcinogen policy (29 CFR 1990). The risk of developing cancer should be decreased by minimizing exposure to ETS. Employers should therefore assess conditions that may result in worker exposure to ETS and take steps to reduce exposures to the lowest feasible concentration. METHODS FOR CONTROLLING INVOLUNTARY EXPOSURE TO ETS Workers should not be involuntarily exposed to tobacco s~noke. To prevent worker exposures to any hazardous substance, employers should first eliminate hazm_rdous workplace emissions at their source. If elimination is not possible, emissions should be removed from the pathway between the source and the worker (NIOSH 1983). Therefore, the best method for controlling worker exposure to ETS is to eliminate tobacco use from the workplace and to implement a smoking cessation program. Until tobacco use can be completely eliminated, employers should protect nonsmokers from ETS by isolating smokers. Methods for eliminat- ing tobacco use from the workplace and isolating smokers are described here briefly. ELIMINATING TOBACCO USE FROM THE WORKPLACE Worker exposure to ETS is most efficiently and completely controlled by simply eliminating tobacco use from the workplace. To facilitate elimination of tobacco use, employ- ers should implement smoking cessation programs. The Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) has recommended the following strategy for smoking cessation (NIOSH 1986). Specifically, management and labor should work together to develop appropriate nonsmoking policies that include some or all of the following: · Prohibit smoking at the workplace and provide sufficient disincentives for those ~)ho do not comply · Distribute information about health promotion and the hamafial effects of smoking 191 Tobacco Control in California Cities · Offer smoking-cessation classes to all workers · Establish incentives to encourage workers to stop smoking Further information regarding workplace smoking policies and smoking cessation programs can be found in No Smoking: A Decision Maker's Guide to Reducing Smoking at the Worksite (American Cancer Society etal. 1985) ISOLATING SMOKERS The 1986 Surgeon General's report on involuntary smoking concluded that, "the simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same ah'space may reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers to ETS. "In indoor workplaces where smoking is permitted, ETS can spreak throughout the airspace of all workers. The most direct a~ut ~ective method of eliminating ETSJ~om the workplace is to prohibit smoking in the work- place. Until that is achieved, employers can designate separate, enclosed areas for smoking, with separate ventiliation. Air from this area should be exhausted directly outside and not recirculated within the building or mixed with the general dilution ventilation for the building. Ventilation of the smoking area should meet general ventilation standards, and the smoking area should have slight negative pressure to ensure airflow into the area rather than back into the airspace of the workplace (ASHRAE 1989). Guidance for designing local exhaust ventilation systems can be found in Recommendedlndustrial Ve~tilation Guidelines (Hagopian and Bastress 1976), Industrial Ventilation-A Manual of Recommended Practice (ACGIA 1986), and Fundamev~tah Governing the Design and Ope~'ation of Local Exhaust Systems (ANSI 1979). Warning signs should be posted at the entrances to the workplace in both English and the predominant language of non-English-reading workers. These signs should state that smoking is prohibited or permitted only in designated smoking areas. If designated smoking areas are provided, they should be clearly identified by signs. ~tobacco smoke in the ambient atmosphere composed of sidestream smoke and exhaled mainstream smoke 2smoke drawn through the tobacco and into the smoker's mouth 3"'Potential occupational carcinogen' means any substance, or combination or mixture of substances, which causes an increased incidence of benign and/or malignant neoplasms, or a substantial decrease in the latancy period between exposure and onset of neoplasms in humans or in one or more experimental mammalian species as the result of any oral, respiratory or dermal exposure, or any other exposure which results in the induction of tumors at a site other than the site of administration. This definition also includes any substance which is metabolized into one or more potential occupational carcinogens by mammals" (29 CFR 1990.103). .... · 192 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. HEALTH EFFECTS AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT OF INVOLU ./WFA~Y SMOKING ~ Invo!untary smoking causes: , Increased frequency of cough and wheezing in children; · Increased rates of pneumonia, bronckitis and other respiratory finesses in children; · Reduced lung function and lung growth in children; · Increased rates of ctu'onic ear inflections in cNildren; s Increased risk of heart disease in adults; · Increased risk of lung cancer in adults; · Increased risk of other cancers in adults; · Exacerbation of s)nnptoms in adults with chronic obsh'uctive lung disease; · Exacerba~on o£ symptoms in persons with asthma; and, · Exacerbation of s)nnptoms in adults with heart disease. · Environmental tobacco smoke is a class A carcinogen- a substance known to cause cancer in humans for which there is no safe level of exposure. · The best estimate of involuntm-y smoking-related mortality in the United States is 53,000 deaths per year:. 37,000 from heart disease, 3,700 from lung cancer, and 12,000 from other cancers. · Involuntary smoking is the ~third .leading cause of pr. eventable death, behind -. only active smoking and alcohol. · . :- :t;,'. .,-. j-~-.. · The cancer mortality from involUntary Smoking alone' exceeds the.'~x~mb~ed.'i - .mo.,rtality from all regulated envir, onmental carcinogens. While inv01tm..(~.~ ~'m01dng i:i: .-.'-. .... " ' ' ' ' ' -' ' ," ': "::~."~" "5'S.' '~'~"-?~i"~ ;-'.~ : --' "., - ' ..... . '.:-~ ~i~.,"q .~ "., -. ~. :'.~' ,'~ :-~..,,, '-- -_ .... - · .-'. 7 ."~.'.:: Z:'.'. '... -:" ',?., :~- ' ~,:' :,-'- · . -_:. ':-- -> '~-.-..,--. · .. . . .... ~.-'~,. ,.-,,~t:d.~'.- . · :. : ..f ..' .. . - - ' :-'?' '..' . ' ' .. -..._,.~,_.~ '::- ,.,.:"':":":;<"~'k;"~'}'~i]:"5 7. i ' .,. . .... · ; .... :~ . ....~,-.'..-.. :.:.~ ~ ::-;-.,-...... :'~:.~- · :~ ;-2,' .- -' - · ' ' ...... ' ........... ' -' '. ,. '--'"-.5'."-- :.'.-,-,r. 5: .,'i--_fd:Si'~:':."~,'_ . " From: Smoking and Re~tau~nm A Guide for Pol~cg-Makm'$ · Michael Siegel, M.D., M.P.H. DC Berkele7 Preventive Medicine Residency Program September, 1992 II. ENVIRONMENrl''AL TOBACCO sMOKE EXYOSURE IN RESTAUILANTS . = Restaurant environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure is about 3-5 times higher than typical workplace expo.'ure. = Restaurant employees' ETS exposure is about 8-20 times higher than domestic exposure. · = The most heavily exposed restaurant workers inhale the benzo(a)pyrene equivalent of ac6vely smoking 1~A to 2 packs of cigarettes per day. =~ Restaurant air causes gene rz.~utations at a rate 10-100 times higher than previously measured urban outdoor~.~nzl indoor air. '= The mutagerfic poten, cy of restaurant air is 5-10 .times that of "high-risk" indusb'i.al workplace air. ~ Heavily ex~posed restauranl: workers have levels of carcinogens in their blood 2-3 times higher than persor~s with typical ETS exposure, and have higher levels of mutagenicity in their urine. m Restaurant employees are therefore the. occupational group most heavily exposed to ETS and mos! likely to suffer adverse health effects due to ETS exposure. III. HEALTH EFFECTS OF ETS EXPOSURE IN RESTAURANTS · In California, waitresses have the highest mortality of any female occupational group. Compared to all other women, they have almost 4 times the expected lung cancer mortality and 2~ ~r{es the expected heart disease mortality rate. m Prelimin~ evidence suggests that waiters and waitresses have about a 50- 90% increased i-isk of lung cancer that is most likely attributable to restaurant tobacco smoke exposure. Thus, exposure' to ETS at work makes restaurant workers 1~ to 2 times as likely to die from lung cancer as they would otherwise be. .- · studied, morbi~lity and mortality of restaurant workers m AlthOugh not'Yet the from heart disease attributable to restaurant ETS eXposure is expected to be even more significan~ .than.~0? lung cancer. . .. .~:.; . ,, . . .. : · ..: .... .. '~,.-~ ...'<.; .. ,..~ ~-. .... :-..-. F .... .._.. .-... . ... , . From: Smo._._..~l,,in~ and Restaurants: A Guide for Policy-Makers_ MicLael Siegel, M.D., M.P.H. UC Berkeley Preventive Medicine Residency Program September, 1992 FACT SHEET #2 .ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE EXPOSURE IN RESTAURANTS Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in restaurants is 3-5 times higher than typical workplace exposure, and 8-20 times higher ~lhan domestic exposure (living with a smoker). RELATIVE ETS EXPOSURE: RESTAURANTS vs. WORKPLACES vs. DOMESTIC 2O 2O RES rAURANTS Workplaces Domestic Waiters and waitresses have a 50-90% higher risk of dying from lung cancer because of exposure to tobacco smoke in restaurants. Involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke at work makes restaurant workers 1 1/2 to 2 times more likely to die from lung cancer. RISK OF LUNG CANCER DEATH IN WAITERS AND WAITRESSES DUE TO ETS EXPOSURE IN RESTAURANTS 2 g o:s 1.7 WAITERS AND WAITRESSES I ~1 I · . From: Smol,.in'~ and Restaurants:iA Guide for Policy-Makers '"' ' ' "¥ '~ ' '-' Michael Siegel, M.D., M.P.H. UC Berkeley Preventive Medicine Residency Program September, 1992 . FACT SHEET SMOKING IN RESTAURANTs: THE LEGAL SITUATION Restaurant en~ployers are/equirec:l to provide a smoke-free work environment for eml~lovees. If they fail Io do so, employees may: . - -- - ~ · Collect workers' compensation benefits for injury due to tobacco smoke exposure. · Sue the employer for damages due to failure to protect from the hazards of environmental tobacco smoke, if the injury is not within the scope of workers' compensation. · Quit working for fear of ~ealth damage from environmental tobacco smoke, and collect unemployment compensation benefiis. Claims in eat. h of ~ese three areas have been made by'employees affected by ETS at work, upheld by the courts, and have resulted in numerous large awards or settlements: · In California, a waiter won an $85,000 settlement after suffering a heart attack caused by involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke in the restaurant. In Wast0ngton, an employee won a $27,000 settlement after developing chronic lung disease from years of exposure to passive sInoke in the workplace. In Wisconsin, an employee won $23,400 in workers' compensation for permanent disability caused by exposure to secondh~_nd smoke. In California, an employee won $17,500 in workers' compensation for headaches caused by workplace tobacco smoke exposure. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF 100% SMOKE-FREE RESTAURANT ORDINANCF~ "Based on the best available evidence, 100% smoke-free Ordinances do not have a significant impact on restaurant sales. · Studies that fotmd a decrease in restaurant sales in gi i;:.ia-a gnno,, ious,n mo o og c flaws, and are invalid. ?~sS-'~?;-:'".~'.'~.,- -, ~. ':~. : . · The use of anecdotal evidence and restaurant surveys is' invalid in analyzing the economic impact of smoke-free ordnances. - · . '. . . · Public policy-makers_have been mislec about the economic impact of restaurant smoking ordinances, by studies based on invalid evaluation approaches. Before being considered seriously, evidence should be evaluated on criteria which include the use of actual sales tax data, inclusion of ali data points before and after i. mplementation of an ordnance, the USe of regression or other statistical methods to control for trend and fluctuation in the data, anc'. appropriate control for Overall economic trend. This will help ensure that public policy is based not cn assumptions and inappropriate or invalid data, but on the best available data. &EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Washington, DC 20460 Office of Air and Radiation Washington, DC 20460 EPA/600/6-90/006F December 1992 Respiratory Health Effe,cts of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders ...:-u ...... : - ...... :-. :!i.:!i::ii:-!::::i:ii'iii. - ' ........ iL;;;:: ..; :':::':' iZ: :::::::::::::::::::::::: !i!;'. .... ::ii:! :. '::!.:' " . ...:.... . ": '.: .... : . '-.' :.:: .: :':: ::-::-: .... i:i:':::::.: ::E' ::i- ' ....... ' :' ':::' :' :::: ...... . . ..... .::-.: ..... :: ;.:.:: .... . . '::. :.:.: ============================================ ..::!!i.:Zl}i;::ii.ii;.:i:::.i i.:':..:. -. ........:::::-:: ..-::.......:.:::::..:::-::-.::,: . :..:::::.:::::...::. : .::-:::.::.:.:-:. ::::..: :.::::: ........ . ..:::::: .... .- :: ..: :.: . ....... -:: ::: .::: ::::: :: ::...::.::: .: ::::--: .:: :: . .... :: ............... =========================== ..... .:..:::::...: ..... : -.:...: , ,. :.:..: .... : :- .:: .... :::": .: .'. :: '::.:.::-::-:: ':::::':::-:':::: ::.::. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ============================================ :::-::.:.' ' , .: .:.!: !!i:-:'ii i:i ii ':i ":':- ....... :::i;:ii!ii! ;; ' ' ' -' .': :::. 'i:i .::!::::::!ii.:ii;":::ii!;:i:!::i.!ii:i:.iiii:i;.i;.:;'::iii:ii~::!!!:i'Z!i:! !:!!;:Z'.i::.:!. i:..Z:'ZZ'-.': ..... :..:...::: ..................... :::..:.. : ... : :::..: ::- ::- :: ::: :::: · i!-!;:!ii;i'.!!::;i:.. :.ii::.":::.-:::i:' :i: ;!::; 'i:i::i: :::ii: iii;;:!;Z;!'!! :: .:.Z.:;!-..iZ;..::.::;' ::::'":. '::'--:'.:.':':'". ....... .. i::i;::!;.i:i!!.!!i.i:i:::!.:;, i.ii-:i-:i:..i!.:i...i: ;i::ii':;!;i;':;i: !:::;!i:':i;i:;::;:.!':':..i:.i::.-: i:::iZ:-: ::::. :..:.... ........... ::::: : -:::..-. 1. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1.1. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS Based on the weight of the available scientific evidence, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concludt~ that the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United St~ites presents a serious and substantial public health impact. In adults: ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers. In children: · ETS exposure is causally associated with an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections (LRIs) such as bronchitis and pneumonia. This report estimates that 150,0(10 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months o:l, age are attributable to ETS. ETS exposure is causally associated with increased prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, symptoms of upper respiratory tract irritation, and a small but significant reduction in lung function. ETS exposure is causally associated with additional episodes and increased severity of symptoms in chi:~dren with asthma. This report estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to ETS. ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed syn~ptoms. 1-1 1.2. BACKGROUND Tobacco smoking has lonl; been recognized (e.g., U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare [U.S. DHEW], 1964) as a major cause of mortality and morbidity, responsible for an estimated 434,000 deaths per yea: in the United States (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 1991a). Tobacco use is known to cause c~ncer at various sites, in particular the lung (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [U.S. DHHS], 1982; International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC], 1986). Smoking can also cause respiratory diseases (U.S. DHHS, 1984, 1989) and is a major risk factor for heart diseas~ (U.S. DHHS, 1983). In recent years, there has been concern that nonsmokers may also be at risk for some of these health effects as a result of their exposure ("passive smoking") to the tobacco smoke that occurs in various environments occupied by · smokers. Although this ETS is dilute compared with the mainstream smoke (MS) inhaled by active smokers, it is chemically similar, containing many of the same carcinogenic and toxic agents. In 1986, the National Research Council (NRC) and the Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service independently asse~ssed the health effects of exposure to ETS (NRC, 1986; U.S. DHHS, 1986). Both of the 1~}86 reports conclude that ETS can cause lung cancer in adult nonsmokers and that children of parents who smoke have increased frequency of respiratory symptoms and acute lower respiratory tract infections, as well as evidence of reduced lung function. More recent epidemiologic studies of the potential associations between ETS and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and ~etween ETS and noncancer respiratory effects more than double the size of the database av:filable for analysis from that of the 1986 reports. This EPA report critically reviews the curre:at database on the respiratory health effects of passive smoking; these data are utilized to develop :~t hazard identification for ETS and to make quantitative estimates of the public health impacts of ETS for lung cancer and various other respiratory diseases. The weight-of-evidence analysis for the lung cancer hazard identification is developed in accordance with U.S. EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1986a) and established principles for evaluating epidemiologic studies. The analysis considers animal bioassays and genotoxicity studies~ as well'as biological measurements of human uptake of tobacco smoke components and epidemiol(,gic data on active and passive smoking. The availability of abundant and consistent human data, especially human data at actual environmental levels of exposure to the specific agent (mi:,:ture) of concern, allows a hazard identification to be made with a high degree of certainty. The ccnclusive evidence of the dose-related lung carcinogenicity of 1-2 MS in active smokers (Chapter 4), cot.pled with information on the chemioal similarities of MS and ETS and evidence of ETS uptake in nonsmokers (Chapter 3), is sufficient by itself to establish ETS as a known human lung carcinogen, or "Group A" carcinogen under U.S. EPA's carcinogen classification system. In addition, thi~; document concludes that the overall results of 30 epidemiologic studies on lung cancer md passive smoking (Chapter 5), using spousal'smoking as a surrogate of ETS exposure for female never-smokers, similarly justify a Group A classification. The weight-of-evidence analyses for the noncancer respiratory effects are based primarily on a review of epidemiologic studies ~'Chapter 7). Most of the endpoints examined are respiratory disorders in children, where parental ~moking is used as a surrogate of ETS exposure. For the noncancer respiratory effects in nons~noking adults, most studies used spousal smoking as an exposure surrogate. A causal association was concluded to exist for a number of respiratory disorders where there was sufficient {:onsistent evidence for a biologically plausible association with ETS that could not be explained by bias, confounding, or chance. The fact that the database consists of human evidence from actual environmental exposure levels gives a high degree of confidence in this conclusion. Where there was suggestive but inconclusive evidence of causality, as was the case for asthma induction :~n children, ETS was concluded to be a risk factor for that endpoint. Where data were inconsistc~nt or inadequate for evaluation of an association, as for acute upper respiratory tract infections and acute middle ear infections in children, no conclusions were drawn. This report also has attempted to provide estimates of the extent of the public health impact, where appropriate, in terms c f numbers of ETS-attributable cases in nonsmoking subpopulations. Unlike for qualitatb, e hazard identification assessments, where information from many sources adds to the confidence in a weight-of-evidence conclusion, for quantitative risk assessments, the usefulness of studies usually depends on how closely the study population resembles nonsmoking segments of the general population. For lung cancer estimates among U.S. nonsmokers, the substantial epidemiology database of ETS and lung cancer among U.S. female never-smokers was considered to pro~ide the most appropriate information. From these U.S. epidemiology studies, a pooled relatix e risk estimate was calculated and used in the derivation of the population risk estimates. The large number of studies available, the generally consistent results, and the condition of actual er vironmental levels of exposure increase the confidence in these estimates. Even under these circumstances, however, uncertainties remain, such as in the use of questionnaires and current bio:narker measurements to estimate past exposure, assumptions of exposure-response linearity, and e ~trapolation to male never-smokers and to ex-smokers. Still, given the strength of the evidence for the lung carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke and the extensive human database from actual environr~ental exposure levels, fewer assumptions are necessary than 1-3 is usual in EPA quantitative risk assessments, and confidence in these estimates is rated medium to high. Population estimates of iETS health impacts are also made for certain noncancer respiratory endpoints in children, specificailly lower respiratory tract infections (i.e., pneumonia, bronchitis, and bronchiolitis) and episodes :and severity of attacks of asthma. Estimates of ETS-attributable cases of LRI in infants and young children are thought to have a high degree of confidence because of the consistent study ;?indings and the appropriateness of parental smoking as a surrogate measure of exposure in very young children. Estimates of the number of asthmatic children whose condition is agg~'avated by exposure to ETS are less certain than those for LRIs because of different measures of' outcome in various studies and because of increased extraparental exposure to ETS i:a older children. Estimates of the number of new cases of asthma in previously asymptomatic children also have less confidence because at this time the weight of evidence for asthma induction, ~vhile suggestive of a causal association, is not conclusive. Most of the ETS popula'~ion impact estimates are presented in terms of ranges, which are thought to reflect reasonable as~,~ umptions about the estimates of parameters and variables required for the extrapolation models. The validity of the ranges is also dependent on the appropriateness of the extrapolation models themselves. While this report focuse:~; only on the respiratory health effects of passive smoking, there also may be other health effects of concern. Recent analyses of more than a dozen epidemiology and toxicology studies (e.g., Steenland, 1992; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH], 1991) suggest that ET3 exposure may be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. In addition, a few studies in the literature link ETS exposure to cancers of other sites; at this time, that database appears inadequat,~ for any conclusion. This report does not develop an analysis of either the nonrespiratory cance~' or the heart disease data and takes no position on whether ETS is a risk factor for these diseases. If it is, the total public health impact from ETS will be greater than that discussed here. 1.3. PRIMARY FINDINGS A. Lung Cancer in Nonsmoking Adults 1. Passive smokir~g is causally associated with lung cancer in adults, and ETS, by the total weight of evidence, belongs in the category of compounds classified by EPA as Group A (known human) carcinogens. 2. Approximatels, 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year among nonsmokers (never- smokers and f¢:,rmer smokers) of both sexes are estimated to be attributable to ETS in the Un[ted States. While there are statistical and modeling uncertainties 1-4 - Be - in this estimate, and the true number may be higher or lower, the assumptions used in this analysis would tend to underestimate the actual population risk. The overall confidence in th!s estimate is medium to high. Noncancer Respiratory Diseases and Disorders 1. Exposure of children to ETS from parental smoking is causally associated with: a. increased prevalen¢:e of respiratory symptoms of irritation (cough, sputum, and wheeze), b.increased prevalence of middle ear effusion (a sign of middle ear disease), and c. a small but statistically significant reduction in lung function as tested by objective measures of lung capacity. 2. ETS exposure of young children and particularly infants from parental (and especially mother's) smc king is causally associated with an increased risk of LRIs (pneumonia, bronchitis, and bronchiolitis). This report estimates that exposure to ETS contributes 150,00()to 300,000 LRIs annually in infants and children less than 18 months of age, :t'esulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations. The confidence in the estim:~Ltes of LRIs is high. Increased risks for LRIs continue, but are lower in magnit'~Jde, for children until about age 3; however, no estimates are derived for children over 18 months. 3. a. Exposure to ETS is causally associated with additional episodes and increased severity of asthma in children who already have the disease. This report estimates that ETS exposure exacerbates symptoms in approximately 20% of this country's 2 million to 5 million asthmatic children and is a major aggravating ['actor in approximately 10%. b. In addition, the ep!idemiologic evidence is suggestive but not conclusive that ETS exposure incr~!.,ases the number of new cases of asthma in children who have not previously exhibited symptoms. Based on this evidence and the known ETS effects on both the immune system and lungs (e.g., atopy and airway hyperresponsiveness), this report concludes that ETS is a risk factor for the induction of asthma in previously asymptomatic children. Data suggest that relatively high levels of exposure are required to induce new cases of asthma in :hildren. This report calculates that previously asymptomatic chil(ren exposed to ETS from mothers who smoke at least 10 cigarettes per day will exhibit an estimated 8,000 to 26,000 new cases of 1-5 asthma annually. The confidence in this range is medium and is dependent on the con,:lusion that ETS is a risk factor for asthma induction. 4. Passive smoking has subtle but significant effects on the respiratory health of nonsmoking adults, including coughing, phlegm production, chest discomfort, and reduced lurg function. This report also has reviewed data on the relationship of maternal smoking and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), which is thought to involve some unknown respiratory pathogenesis. The report concludes that while there is strong evidence that infants whose mothers smoke are at an increased risk of' dying from SIDS, available studies do not allow us to differentiate whether and to what extent this increase is related to in utero versus postnatal exposure to tobacco smoke prodt~cts. Consequently, this report is unable to assert whether or not ETS exposure by itself is a risk factor for SIDS independent of smoking during pregnancy. Regarding an association of parental smoking with either upper respiratory tract infections (colds and sore throats) or acute middle ear infections in children, this report finds the evidence inconclusive. 1.3.1. ETS and Lung Cancer 1.3.1.1. Hazard Identification The Surgeon General (U.~;. DHHS, 1989) estimated that smoking was responsible for more than one of every six deaths in the United States and that it accounted for about 90% of the lung cancer deaths in males and about 80% in females in 1985. Smokers, however, are not the only ones exposed to tobacco smoke. 'i?he sidestream smoke (SS) emitted from a smoldering cigarette between puffs (the main component of ETS) has been documented to contain virtually all of the same carcinogenic compounds (krown and suspected human and animal carcinogens) that have been identified in the mainstream smoke (MS) inhaled by smokers (Chapter 3). Exposure concentrations of these carcinogens to passive smokers are variable but much lower than for active smokers. An excess cancer risk fi:om passive smoking, however, is biological',y plausible. Based on the firmly established causal association of lung cancer with active smoking with a dose-response relationship dowr~ to low doses (Chapter 4), passive smoking is considered likely to affect the lung similarly. The widespread presence of ETS in both home and workplace and its absorption by nonsmokers in the [ieneral population have been well documented by air sampling and by body measurement of biomarkers such as nicotine and cotinine (Chapter 3). This raises the question of whether any direct ev!idence exists for the relationship between ETS exposure and lung cancer in the general population and what its implications may be for public health. This 1-6 report addresses that question by revie~ ing and analyzing the evidence from 30 epidemiologic studies of effects from normallyoccurr, ng environmental levels of ETS (Chapter 5). Because there is widespread exposure and it is d fficult to construct a truly unexposed subgroup of the general population, these studies atteml:t to compare individuals with higher ETS exposure to those with lower exposures. Typically, female never-smokers who are married to a smoker are compared with female never-smokers v~ ho are married to a nonsmoker. Some studies also consider ETS exposure of other subject.,i (i.e., male never-smokers and long-term former smokers of either sex) and from other sources (e g., workplace and home exposure during childhood), but these studies are fewer and represent fe ~er cases, and they are generally excluded from the analysis presented here. Use of the female never-smoker studies provides the largest, most homogeneous database for analysis to d~. termine whether an ETS effect on lung cancer is present. This report assumes that the results for "'emale never-smokers are generalizable to all nonsmokers. Given that ETS exposures are at actual environmental levels and that the comparison groups are both exposed to appreciable background (i.e., nonspousal) ETS, any excess risk for lung cancer from exposure to spousal smoke ~,ould be expected to be small. Furthermore, the risk of lung cancer is relatively low in nonsmo[~ers, and most studies have a small sample size, resulting in a very low statistical power (probability of detecting a real effect if it exists). Besides small sample size and Iow incremental exposures, other problems inherent in several of the studies may also limit their ability to detect a possible effect. Therefore, this report examines the data in several different ways. After downward adjustment of the relative risks for smoker misclassification bias, the studies are individually assessed for strength of association, both for the overall data and for the highest exposure group when exposure-level data are available, and for exposure-resPonse trend. Then the study results are pooled by country using statistical techniques for combining data, including both posi'live and nonpositive results, to increase the ability to determine whether or not there is an ass )ciation between ETS and lung cancer. Finally, in addition to the previous statistical analyses that weight the studies only by size, regardless of design and conduct, the studies are qual.tatively evaluated for potential confounding, bias, and likely utility to provide information aboat any lung carcinogenicity of ETS. Based on these qualitative considerations, the studies ar~; categorized into one of four tiers and then statistically analyzed successively by tier. Results from all of the analyses (lescribed above strongly support a causal association between lung cancer ETS exposure. Th~~. overall proportion (9/30) of individual studies found to show an association between lung cance~' and spousal ETS exposure at all levels combined is unlikely to occur by chance (p < 10-4). When the analysis focuses on higher levels of spousal exposure, every one of the 17 studies with exposure-level data shows increased risk in the highest 1-7 exposure group; 9 of these are si:gnificant at the p < 0.05 level, despite most having low power, another result highly unlikely to occur by chance (p < 10-7). Similarly, the proportion (10/14; p < 10-9) showing a statistically significant exposure-response trend is highly supportive of a causal association. Combined results by core,try showed statistically significant associations for Greece (2 studies), Hong Kong (4 studie,0, Japan (5 studies), and the United States (11 studies), and in that order of strength of relative risk. Pooled results of the four Western European studies (three countries) actually showed a slightly stronger association than that of the United States, but it was not statistically significant, probably due to the smaller sample size. The combined results of the Chinese studies do not show an association between ETS and lung cancer; however, two of the four Chinese studies were design.ed mainly to determine the lung cancer effects of high levels of other indoor air pollutants indigenous to those areas, which would obscure a smaller ETS effect. These two Chinese studies do, hc, wever, provide very strong evidence on the lung carcinogenicity of these other indoor air pollutants, which contain many of the same components as ETS. When results are combined only for the other two Chinese studies, they demonstrate a statistically significant association for ETS a~'~d lung cancer. The heterogeneity of obs~xved relative risk estimates among countries could result from several factors. For example, the observed differences may reflect true differences in lung cancer rates for never-smokers, in ETS exposure levels from nonspousal sources, or in related lifestyle characteristics in different countries. For the time period in which ETS exposure was of interest for these studies, spousal smoking is considered to be a better surrogate for ETS exposure in more "traditional" societies, such as Jal~an and Greece, than in the United States. In the United States, other sources of ETS exposure (e~.g., work and public places) are generally higher, which obscures the effects of spousal smoking and may explain the lower relative risks observed in the United States. Nevertheless, despite obs,: rved differences between countries, all showed evidence of increased risk. Based on these analyses a~Ld following the U.S. EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1986a), EPA concludes that environmental tobacco smoke is a Group A (known human) carcinogen. This. conclusion is based on a total weight of evidence, principally: · Biological plausibilit3.'. ETS is taken up by the lungs, and components are distributed throughout the body. The presence of the same carcinogens in ETS and MS, along with the established causal relationship between lung cancer and active smoking with the dose-response rel:~tionships exhibited down to low doses, establishes the plausibility that ETS is also a lung carcinogen. 1-8 · SUl~pOrting evidence from animal bioassays and genotoxi¢ity experiments. The carcinogenicity of tobacco s:noke has been demonstrated in lifetime inhalation studies in the hamster, intrapulmon ~ry implantations in the rat, and skin painting in the mouse. There are no lifetime animal inhalation studies of ETS; however, the carcinogenicity of SS condensates has been shown in intrapulmonary implantations and skin painting experimer~ts. Positive results of genotoxicity testing for both MS and ETS provide corroborat:~ve evidence for their carcinogenic potential. · Consistency of response. All 4 of the cohort studies and 20 of the 26 case-control studies observed a higher risk of lung cancer among the female never-smokers classified as ever exposed to any level of spousal ETS. Furthermore, every one of the 17 studies with response categorized by exposure level demonstrated increased risk for the highest exposure group. When assessment was restricted to the 19 studies judged to be of higher utility based on study design, execution, and analysis (Appendix A), 17 observed higher risks, and 6 of these increases were statistically significant, despite most having Iow statistical power. Evaluation of the total study evidence from several perspectives leads to the con,~.'lusion that the observed association between ETS exposure and increased lung cancer occurrence is not attributable to chance. · · Broad-based evidence. Thes~ 30 studies provide data from 8 different countries, employ a wide variety of stu~ty designs and protocols, and are conducted by many different research teams. Results from ali countries, with the possible exception of two areas of China where hi[h levels of other indoor air lung carcinogens were present, show small to modest increases in lung cancer associated with spousal ETS exposure. No alternative exl:~lanatory variables for the observed association between ETS and lung cancer have been indicated that would be broadly applicable across studies. · Upward trend in exposure-response. Both the largest of the cohort studies--the Japanese study of Hirayama with 200 lung cancer cases--and the largest of the case-control studies--the U.S. study by Fontham and associates (I 991) with 420 lung cancer cases and two sets of ¢:ontrols--demonstrate a strong exposure-related statistical association betweer~ passive smoking and lung cancer. This upward trend is well supported by the prepon:lerance of epidemiology studies. Of the 14 studies that provide sufficient data for a 'l'rend test by exposure level, I0 were statistically significant despite most havir g low statistical power. · Detectable association at environmental exposure levels. Within the population of married women who are lifelong nonsmokers, the excess lung cancer risk from 1-9 exposure to their smoking husbands' ETS is large enough to be observed, even for all levels of their spousal exposure combined. Carcinogenic responses are usually detectable only in high-exposure circumstances, such as occupational settings, or in experimental animals receiving very high doses. In addition, effects are harder to observe when ther~ is substantial background exposure in the comparison groups, as is the case here. ® Effects remain aft.er adjustment for potential upward bias. Current and ex-smokers may be misreported as never-smokers, thus inflating the apparent cancer risk for ETS exposure. The evirlence remains statistically significant and conclusive, however, after adjustments for smoker misclassification. For the United States, the summary estimate of relative risk from nine case-control plus two cohort studies is 1.19 (90% Confidence interval [C.I.] = 1.04, 1.35; p < 0.05) after adjustment for smoker misclassification, i~or Greece, 2.00 (1.42, 2.83), Hong Kong, 1.61 (1.25, 2.06), and Japan, 1.44 (1.13, ' .85), the estimated relative risks are higher than those of the United States and more highly significant after adjusting for the potential bias. · Strong associations for highest exposure groups. Examining the groups with the highest exposure levels increases the ability to detect an effect, if it exists. Nine of the sixteen studies worldwide for which there are sufficient exposure-level data are statistically significant for the highest' exposure group, despite most having Iow statistical power. The overall pooled estimate of 1.81 for the highest exposure groups is highly statistically significant (90% C.I. = 1.60, 2.05; p < 10-6). For the United States, the overall pooled estimate of 1.38 (seven studies, corrected for smoker misclassification bias) is also highly statistically significant (90% C.I. = 1.13, 1.70; p = 0.005). · Confounding cannot explain the association. The broad-based evidence for an association found l:,y independent investigators across several countries, as well as the positive exposure-)'esponse trends observed in most of the studies that analyzed for them, make any single confounder highly unlikely as an explanation for the results. In addition, this report examined potential confounding factors (history of lung disease, home heat ~ources, diet, occupation) and concluded that none of these factors could account for the observed association between lung cancer and ETS. 1-10 · 1.3.1.2. Estimation of Population Risk The individual risk of lung cancer from exposure to ETS does not have to be very large to translate into a significant health hazard to the U.S. population because of the large number of smokers and the widespread presence of ETS. Current smokers comprise approximately 26% of the U.S. adult population and consume more than one-half trillion cigarettes annually (1.5 packs per day, on average), causing nearly universal exposure to at least some ETS. As a biomarker of tobacco smoke uptake, cotinine, a metabolite of the tobacco-specific compound nicotine, is detectable in the blood, saliva, and urine ot!' persons recently exposed to tobacco smoke. Cotinine has typically been detected in 50% to 75% of reported nonsmokers tested (50% equates to 63 million U.S. nonsmokers age 18 or older). The best estimate of approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year in U.S. nonsmokers age 35 and over attributable to ETS (Chapt ~-r 6) is based on data pooled from ali 11 U.S. epidemiologic studies of never-smoking women married to smoking spouses. Use of U.S. studies should increase the confidence in these estimates. Some mathematical modeling is required to adjust for expected bias from misclassifica:ion of smoking status and to account for ETS exposure from sources other than spousal smoking. 'Yhe overall relative risk estimate of 1.19 for the United States, already adjusted for smoker misclassification bias, becomes 1.59 after adjusting for background ETS sources (1.34 for nonspousal exposures only). Assumptions are also needed to relate responses in female never-smokers to those in male never-smokers and ex-smokers of both sexes, and to estimate the proportion of the nonsmoking population exposed to' various levels of ETS. Overall, however, the assumptions necessary for estimating risk add far less uncertainty than other EPA quantitative assessments. 'l'his is because the extrapolation for ETS is based on a large database of human studies, all at levels actually expected to be encountered by much of the U.S. population. The components of the 3,000 lung .:ancer deaths figure include approximately 1,500 female never-smokers, 500 male never-smokers, and 1,000 former smokers of both sexes. More females are estimated to be affected because there are more female than male nonsmokers. These component estimates have varying degrees of confidence; the estimate of 1,500 deaths for female never-smokers has the highest confidence because of the extensive database. The estimate of 500 for male never-smokers is less certain because it is based on the female never-smoker response and is thought to be low because males are, generally subject to higher background ETS exposures than females. Adjustment for this higher background exposure would lead to higher risk estimates. The estimate of 1,000 lung cancer deaths for former smokers of both sexes is 1-11 considered to have the'lowes'~: confidence, and the assumptions used are thought to make this estimate low as well. Workplace ETS levels, are generally comparable with home ETS levels, and studies using body cotinine measures as biomarkers demonstrate that nonspousal exposures to ETS are often greater than exposure from spousal smoking. Thus, this report presents an alternative breakdown of the estimated 3,000 ETS-attributable lung cancer deaths between spousal and nonspousal exposures. By extension of the results from spousal smoking studies, coupled with biological measurements of exposure, more lung cancer deaths are estimated to be attributable to ETS from combined nonspousal exposmes--2,200 of both sexes--than from spousal exposure--800 of both sexes. This spouse-versus-ot!~er-sources partitioning depends on current exposure estimates that may or may not be applicable to the exposure period of interest. Thus, this breakdown contains this element of uncertainty in addition to those discussed above with respect to the previous breakdown. An alternative analysi;, based on the large Fontham et al. (1991) study, which is the only study that provides biomarker estimates of both relative risk and ETS exposure, yields population risk point estimates of 2,700 ~tnd 3,600. These population risk estimates are highly consistent with the estimate of 3,000 based orr the combined U.S. studies. While there is statistic:d variance around all of the parameters used in the quantitative assessment, the two largest areas of uncertainty are probably associated with the relative risk estimate for spousal ETS exposure and the parameter estimate for' the background ETS exposure adjustment. A sensitivity anatysis that independently varies these two estimates yields population risk estimates as Iow as 400 aed as high as 7,000. These extremes, however, are considered unlikely; the more probable range is narrower, and the generally conservative assumptions employed suggest that the actual population risk number may be greater than 3,000. Overall, considering the multitude, cor~sistency, and quality of all these studies, the weight-of-evidence conclusion that ETS is a known human lung carcinogen, and the limited amount of extrapolation necessary, the confidence in the estimate of approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths is medium to high. 1.3.2. ETS and Noncancer Respiratory Disorders Exposure to ETS from parental smoking has been previously linked with increased respiratory disorders in childr~n, particularly in infants. Several studies have confirmed the exposure and uptake of ETS in children by assaying saliva, serum, or urine for cotinine. These cotinine concentrations were highly correlated with smoking (especially by the mother) in the child's presence. Nine to tweb,e million American children under 5 years of age, or one-half to 1-12 two-thirds of all children in this age group, may be exposed to cigarette smoke in the home (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1986; Overpeck and Moss, 1991). With regard to the noncancer respiratory effects of passive smoking, this report focuses on epidemiologic evidence appearing since tile two major reports of 1986 (NRC and U.S. DHHS) that bears on the potential association of parerr tal smoking with detrimental respiratory effects in their children. These effects include symptom~ of respiratory irritation (cough, sputum production, or wheeze); acute diseases of the lower respi:-atory tract (pneumonia, bronchitis, and bronchiolitis); acute middle ear infections and indications of chronic middle ear infections (predominantly middle ear effusion); reduced lung function (from forced expiratory volume and flow-rate measurements); incidence and prevalence of asthma and exacerbation of symptoms in asthmatics; and acute upper respiratory tract infectiot~s (colds and sore throats). The more than 50 recently published studies reviewed here essentially corroborate the previous conclusions of the 1986 reports of the NRC and Surgeon General :~egarding respiratory symptoms, respiratory illnesses, and pulmonary function, and they strengthen support for those conclusions by the additional weight of evidence (Chapter 7). For exar~ple, new data on middle ear effusion strengthen previous evidence to warrant the stronger conclusion in this report of a causal association with parental smoking. Furthermore, recent st'~ldies establish associations between parental smoking and increased incidence of childhood asth~a. Additional research also supports the hypotheses that in utero exposure to mother's smoke i~.nd postnatal exposure to ETS alter lung function and structure, increase bronchial responsivene,.;s, and enhance the process of allergic sensitization, changes that are known to predispose children to early respiratory illness. Early respiratory illness can lead to long-term pulmonary effects (:'educed lung function and increased risk of chronic obstructive lung disease). This report also summarizes the evidence for an association between parental smoking and SIDS, which was not addressed in the 1986 reports of the NRC or Surgeon General. SIDS is the most common cause of death in infants ag,Ds I month to I year. The cause (or causes) of SIDS is unknown; however, it is widely believed that some form of respiratory pathogenesis is generally involved. The current evidence strongly s aggests that infants whose mothers smoke are at an increased risk of dying of SIDS, independ~nt of other known risk factors for SIDS, including low birthweight and low gestational age, whict~ are specifically associated with active smoking during pregnancy. However, available studies do not allow this report to conclude whether that increased risk is related to in utero versus postnatal exposure to tobacco smoke products, or to both. The 1986 reports of the NRC and ~;urgeon General conclude that both the prevalence of respiratory symptoms of irritation and the incidence of lower respiratory tract infections are higher in children of smoking parents. In the 18 studies of respiratory symptoms subsequent to 1-13 the 2 reports, increased symptoms (cough, phlegm production, and wheezing) were observed in a range of ages from birth to miCiteens, particularly in infants and preschool children. In addition to the studies on symptoms of ~'espiratory irritation, 10 new studies have addressed the topic of parental smoking and acute lo,~'er respiratory tract illness in children, and 9 have reported statistically significant associatiions. The cumulative evidence is conclusive that parental smoking, especially the mother's, causes ~n increased incidence of respiratory illnesses from birth up to the first 18 months to 3 years of lite, particularly for bronchitis, bronchiolitis, and pneumonia. Overall, the evidence confirms and strengthens the previous conclusions of the NRC and Surgeon General. Recent studies also solidify the evidence for the conclusion of a causal association between parental smoking and increased middle ear effusion in young children. Middle ear effusion is the most common reason for hospitalization of young children for an operation. At the time of the Surg,~on General's report on passive smoking (U.S. DHHS, 1986), data were sufficient to conclude only that maternal smoking may influence the severity of asthma in children. The recent studies reviewed here strengthen and confirm these exacerbation effects. The new evidence is also conct~sive that ETS exposure increases the number of episodes of asthma in children who already have the disease. In addition, the evidence is suggestive that ETS exposure increases the number of new cases of asthma in children who have not previously exhibited symptoms, although ~he results are statistically significant only with children whose mothers smoke 10 or more cigarettes per day. While the evidence for new cases of asthma itself is not conclusive of a causal association, the consistently strong association of ETS both with increased frequency and severi:y of the asthmatic symptoms and with the established ETS effects on the immune system and airway hyperresponsiveness lead to the conclusion that ETS is a risk factor for induction of asthma in previously asymptomatic children. Regarding the effects o[' passive smoking on lung function in children, the 1986 NRC and Surgeon General reports both conclude that children of parents who smoke have small decreases in tests of pulmonary output function of both the larger and smaller air passages when compared with the children of nonsmokers. As noted in the NRC report, if ETS exposure is the cause of the observed decrease in lung function, the effect could be due to the direct action of agents in ETS or an indirect consequence of iacreased occurrence of acute respiratory illness related to ETS. Results from eight stud les on ETS and lung function in children that have appeared since those reports add some additio~al confirmatory evidence suggesting a causal rather than an indirect relationship. For the [:opulation as a whole, the reductions are small relative to the interindividual variability of e:~ch lung function parameter. However, groups of particularly susceptible or heavily exposed ,:hildren have shown larger decrements. The studies reviewed 1-14 suggest that a continuum of exposures to tobacco products starting in fetal life may contribute to the decrements in lung function found it't older children. Exposure to tobacco smoke products inhaled by the mother during pregnancy may contribute significantly to these changes, but there is strong evidence indicating that postnatal exposure to ETS is 'an important part of-the causal pathway. With respect to lung function effects in adults exposed to ETS, the 1986 NRC and Surgeon General reports found the data at that time inc6nclusive, due to high interindividual variability and the existence of a large number of other risk factors, but compatible with subtle deficits in lung function. Recent studies confirm the association of passive smoking with small reductions in lung function. Furthermore, new evide~ce also has emerged suggesting a subtle association between exposure to ETS and increased respiratory symptoms in adults. Some evidence suggests that the ;incidence of acute upper respiratory tract illnesses and acute middle ear infections may be morc~ common in children exposed to ETS. However, several studies failed to find any effect. In add: tion, the possible role of confounding factors, the lack of studies showing clear dose-response relationships, and the absence of a plausible biological mechanism preclude more definitive cot clusions. In reviewing the available evidet~tce indicating an association (or lack thereof) between ETS exposure and the different noncancer respiratory disorders analyzed in this report, the possible role of several potential confounding factors was considered. These include other indoor air pollutants; socioeconomic status; effc~ct of parental symptoms; and characteristics of the exposed child, such as Iow birthweight t:,r active smoking. No single or combined confounding factors can explain the observed respiratory effects of passive smoking in children. For diseases for which ETS has been either causally associated (LRIs) or indicated as a risk factor (asthma cases in previously asymptomatic children), estimates of population-attributable risk can be calculated. A population risr assessment (Chapter 8) provides a probable range of estimates that 8,000 to 26,000 cases of caildhood asthma per year are attributable to ETS exposure from mothers who smoke 10 or more ci~r, arettes per day. The confidence in this range of estimates is medium and is dependent on the suggestive evidence of the database. While the data show an effect only for children of these heavily' smoking mothers, additional cases due to lesser ETS exposure also are a possibility. If the effect of this lesser exposure is considered, the range of estimates of new cases presented above increases to 13,000 to 60,000. Furthermore, this report estimates that the additional public health impact of ETS on asthmatic children includes more than 200,000 children whose symptoms are s!ignificantly aggravated and as m, any as 1,000,000 children who are affected to some degree. 1-15 This report estimates that ETS exposure contributes 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually of lower respiratory tract illness :n infants and children younger than 18 months of age and that 7,500 to 15,000 of these will r,~quire hospitalization. The strong evidence linking ETS exposure to increased incidence of bronchitis, bronchiolitis, and pneumonia in young children gives these estimates a high degree of confidence. There is also evidence suggesting a smaller ETS effect on children between the ages of 18 months and 3 years, but no additional estimates have been computed for this age group. Whether or not these illnesses result in death has not been addressed here. In the United States, more than 5,000 infants die of SIDS annually. It is the major cause of death in infants between the ages of 1 month and I year, and the linkage with maternal smoking is well established. ~l'he Surgeon General and the World Health Organization estimate that more than 700 U.S. infan'l: deaths per year from SIDS are attributable to maternal smoking (CDC, 1991a, 1992b). Howew~r, this report concludes that at present there is not enough direct evidence supporting the contribution of ETS exposure to declare it a risk factor or to estimate its population impact on SIDS. 1-16 CALIFORNIA SMOKE-FREE CITIES B U L,, E ! N August 1993 Issue 1 Sponsored by California Healthy Cities Project (916) 327-7017 in partnership with the League of California Cities (916) 444-5790 and Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights (510) 841-3032 Managed by the Western Consortium for Public Health Developed with the support of the California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section using funds generated by Proposition 99 Cities with both a 1IX) Percent Smoke-Free Workplace AND Restaurant Ordinance (Includes cities with phase-in provisions) City ........................ County .................. Population Albany ....................... Alameda .................. 16,700 Anderson ..................... Shasta ................... 8,600 Auburn ...................... Placer .................... 11,150 Belvedore .................... Marin ..................... 2,370 Berkeley ..................... Alameda .................. 104,200 Burlingame ................... San Mateo ................. 27,300 Ceres ....................... Stanislaus ................. 28,407 Chico ....................... Butte ..................... 43,700 Chino F!ills ................... San Bernardino ............ 44,000 Concon] ..................... Contra Costa ............... 113,000 Davis ....................... Yolo ..................... 49,600 El Cerri~o ..................... Contra Costa ............... 23,050 Fremow, ...................... Alameda .................. 177,500 Hercule ~ ..................... Contra Costa ............... 18,100 Larkspur ..................... Marin ..................... 11,750 Lathrop ...................... San Joaquin ............... 7,050 Long Beach ................... Los Angeles ............... 442,100 Los Gatos .................... Santa Clara ................ 27,700 Martinez ...................... Contra Costa .............. 32,400 Mill Valloy .................... Marin ..................... 13,200 Millbrae ...................... San Mateo ................. 20,800 Modestc ...................... Stanislaus ................. 174,200 Moorpar< .................... Ventura ................... 26,150 Novato ....................... Marin ..................... 48,650 Oakland ...................... Alameda .................. 377,900 Orinda ....................... Contra Costa ............... 16,850 Paradise ..................... Butte ..................... 26,000 Patterson1 ..................... Stanislaus ................. 9,250 Placerville .................... El Dorado ................. 8,700 Pleasant Hill .................. Contra Costa ............... 31,700 Redding ...................... Shasta .................... 72,800 Roseville ..................... Placer .................... 50,300 Sacramento ................... Sacramento ............... 385,100 San Carlos .................... San Mateo ................. 26,700 San Mateo .................... San Mateo ................. 87,900 Solana Beach ................. San Diego ................ 13,200 Tiburon ...................... Marin ..................... 7,800 Turlock ...................... Stanislaus ................. 45,450 Visalia ....................... Tulare .................... 81,700 Walnut C'eek .................. Contra Costa .............. 62,000 Whittier ...................... Los Angeles ............... 79,300 Total .................................................. 2,854,327 Cities with 100 Percent Smoke-Free Workplace Ordinance O~ly City ............ County ......... Population Clayton ......... Contra Costa .... -3,025 Colfax .......... Placer .......... 1,390 Lafayette ........ Contra Costa .... 23,550 Pasadena ....... Los Angeles ..... 133,500 Pinole .......... Contra Costa .... 18,100 Sonoma ......... Sonoma ........ 8,400 South Lake Tahoe. El Dorado ....... 22,650 Total .......................... 215,615 Cities with 100 Percent Smoke-Free Restaurant Ordinance Only City ............ County ........ Population Dana Point ...... Orange ........ 33,150 Del Mar ......... San Diego ...... 4,980 Grass Valley ..... Nevada ........ 9,325 Laguna Beach .... Orange ......... 23,950 Lodi ............ San Joaquin ..... 53,200 Loma Linda ...... San Bernardino.. 19,950 Los Angeles ...... Los Angeles ..... 3,579,572 Menlo Park ....... San Mateo ...... 28,850 Palo Alto ........ Santa Clara ..... 56,300 Rohnert Park ..... Sonoma ........ 38,200 Ross ........... Marin .......... 2,170 San Luis Obispo .. San Luis Obispo. 42,500 Willows .......... Glenn .......... 6,175 Total .......................... 3,898,322 CALIIFORNIA SMOKE-FREE CITIES Fact Sheet 41 cities have ordinances that'require both 100% smoke-free workplaces and 100% smoke-free restaurants. · 48 cities have an ordinance which specifies that workplaces be smoke-free. · 54 cities have an ordinance which specifies that restaurants be 100% smoke-free. 284 cities currently have ordinances that restrict smoking pollution and/or restrict access to vending machines. counties currently require 100% smoke-free workplaces and restaurants. 1,287,900 Californians live in unincorporated areas that require 100% smoke-free restaurants and workplaces. 2,854,327 Californians live in cities that require 100% smoke-free restaurants and workplaces. 4,142,227 Californians (13%)!ive in areas requiring 100% smoke-free restaurants and workplaces. The number of Californians whose local governments have some form of a 100% smoke- free ordinance (including restaurants and/or workplaces) now totals 8,256,164 or 27% of the state's population! mike~update\update 8/93 Helping you breathe a little eas~er ORDINANCES ELMINATING SMOKING IN WORKPLACES AND RESTAURANTS July 28, 1993 100% SMOKEFREE RESTAURANTS AND WORKPLACES Albany, CA, 1992 Anderson, CA, 1993 Auburn, CA, 1991 Belvedere, CA, 1993 Berkeley, CA, 1992 Burlingame, CA, 1993 Butte County, CA, 1992 Ceres, CA, 1993 Chico, CA, 1992 Chino Hills, CA, 1993 Concord, CA, 1993 Contra Costa County, CA, 1991 Davis, CA, 1993 Del Mar, CA, 1993 E1 Cerrito, CA, 1991 E1 Dorado County, CA, 1991 (1/94)~ Fremont, CA, 1993 Hercules, CA, 1992 Larkspur, CA, 1993 Lat!xrop, CA, 1991 Lo[:~g Beach, CA, 1993 Los Gatos, CA, 1991 Ma~nez, CA, 1991 Meadocino County, CA, 1993 Mi!Il Valley, CA, 1992 Mi]lbrae, CA, 1993 -. Mcdesto, CA, 1993 Mcorpark, CA, 1993 Novato, CA, 1992 Oadand, CA, 1992 (8/94Y Psaadise, CA, 1991 Patterson, CA, 1993 Pl~cerville, CA, 1992 (1/94)~ Pleasant Hill, CA, 1993 Redding, CA, 1993 Roseville, CA, 1991 Sacramento, CA, 1990 Sacramento County, CA, 1992 (1/94)~ San Carlos, CA, 1993 San Mateo, CA, 1993 Shasta County, CA, 1993 Solana Beach, CA, 1992 SOlano County, CA, 1991 (2/97)x Stanislaus County, CA, 1993 Tiburon, CA, 1992 Visalia, CA, 1992 Wake County, NC, 1993 (7/96)TM Walnut Creek, CA, 1991 West Lake Hills, TX, 1993 Whittier, CA, 1991 (7/93)~'2 100% SMOKEFREE RESTAURANTS ONLY Aspen, CO, 1985 Dana Point, CA, 1993 Flagstaff, AZ, 1992 (6/93)~ Grass Valley, CA, 1990 Laguna Beach, CA, 1992 (1/95Y Lee, MA, 1992 (7/95Y Lenox, MA, 1992 (7/95Y Lodi, CA, 1990 Loma Linda, CA, 1992 Los Angeles, CA, 1993 Madison, WI, 1992 (7/95)~ Mmlo Park, CA, 1993 Pa, lo Alto, CA, 1991 Rohnert Park, CA, 1993 Ross, CA, 1989 San Luis Obispo, CA, 1990 Stockbridge, MA, 1992 (7/95)t Telluride, CO, 1987 Vermont, 1993 (7/95)~ Willows, CA, 1993 100% SMOKEFREE WORKPLACES ONLY Alpine County, CA, 1988 Clayton, CA, 1992 Colfax, CA, 1991 Lafayette, CA, 1992 O:inda, CA, 1992 P:~madena, CA, 1993 Pinole, CA, 1992 Placer County, CA, 1991 San Mateo County, CA, 1991 Sonoma, CA, 1992 South Lake Tahoe, CA, 1992 RE2YCLEO PAPER restaurant provisior~s are phased in, date noted in parentheses. workplace provisions are phased in, date noted in parentheses. 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J · E,erkeley. California 94702 · (510) 841-3032 / FAX (510) 841-7702 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ SUMMARY OF STUDIES ON THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF SMOKING BANS IN CALIFORNIA The following studies have been conducted on communities that have smoke free restaurants or smoking bans with actual experience in being smoke free long enough to determine the affect or. business. They represent th~ full spectrum of rural, urban, suburban and tourist areas as well as a variety of research methodologies, including comprehensive analysis of sales tax revenues, maii and phone su. rveys and interviews with owners of smoke free restaurants. Studies commissioned or funded by the tobacco industry and its affiliated organizations have been based on speculatior. of what might happen if bus[ness went smoke free. Conclusions of all studies show that, based on past experience, business is either unchanged_ or improves by going smoke free. The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke Free Restaurants on Restaurant Sales in California. Stanton Glantz, Ph.D, UCSF 1992, 1993. Using sales tax figures from the State Board of Equali:mtion, the analysis of dozens of cities concluded that total retail sales at restaurants was unchanged and actually improved in some cities in the presence of a 100 ~ smoke free restaurant ordinance. The San Luis Obispo Smoking Ordinance: A Study of the Economic Impacts on San Luis Obispo Restaurants and Bars. City of San Luis Obispo, January, 1993. San Luis Obispo has had a 100 ~ smokefree restaurant and bar ordinance in effect for over two years and the ordinance has had no measurable impact on the profitability of San Luis Obispo bars and restaurants, or or~ the sales tax revenues of the City of San Luis Obispo. California Health Departments Survey Local Restaurants For Business Impact Of Going Smoke Free. Sue RoOerts, M.A, Research Methodologist, 1993. Shows cumulative results of restaurant surveys conducted from December, 1991 to February, 1993 in Marin, Sar. Mateo, Ventura and Alameda Counties. "In county wide surveys, 90 % or more of surveyed restaurateurs said tLat business either improved or didn't change after they went smokefree...in Marin this figure is 95 %." Restaurants who had gone smoke free before ar ordinance went into effect in their city were studied. These represented a cross section o? socio-economic areas in 36 cities, including Oakland. Not one restaurant ever went back t¢ smoking status after voluntarily going smoke free. San Diego Study of Convention Delegates. Lisa Gaspard, American Lung Association. 1992. Of the 40 largest convention groups to visit San Diego in 1991 and 1992, only one group would avoid ttte city if restaurants and bars did not allow smoking (the Americar Candy and Tobacco Company). The study also surveyed San Diego smoke free restaurants and found that not or~e experienced a business loss, many reported increased business and a few said their business actually doubled. The study also found that over half of Sar Diego's foreign visitcrs are from countries that already have strong anti-smoking programs in place. _1. 6 1993 August 11, 1993 Dear C~il ~; Recently the Environmental Protection Agency categorized second hand smoke (along with the likes of asbestos) as a Class A carcinogen. I can find no rational argument for allowing this known toxin to affect children, the infirm, the elderly and others in public places. Therei~ore, I'd like to encourage you to vote in favor of the Public He~,.lth inspired tobacco ordinance, scheduled to come before you on September 1. I am familiar with arg~ments against ordinances of this kind, often fueled by the apprehensions of local businesses. These arguments typically take shape as "The ordinance will harm my business" and/or "People shoulq have the right to smoke wherever they choose." As for the first argument, most surveys-- both locally and nationally-- indicate that there is usually no detectable change in business or that business actually increases. Furthermore, successful businesses constantly adapt to the changing market place. This ordinanc~ would constitute another variable in that equation. A business can choose to respond as if it were a crisis or as an opportunity t.~ attract new customers. I think it's important~ however, to maintain a level playing field for business. Now that the ordinance has been passed by the county, I encourage council members to pass the ordinance so that incorporated and unincorporated areas will be governed by the same set of principles. As for the second argument, it quickly dissipates under close scrutiny. For example~, we are all required to wear seat belts in order to protect our own and other's health and safety. In the arena of personal behavior, certain public protections have repeatedly taken precedence if they advance community health or safety. None of us are free to drive while intoxicated-- even down our own street. In some quarters, this ordinance has been framed as government's intrusion into private ]~usiness and private conduct. I contend that this issue has nothing to do with profits or unalienable rights. Rather, it is-- pure and simple-- a public health matter. This ordinance represents government discharging its highest duty: to protect the public health and safety. Please enter these remarks for the public record. Thank you. Ar_m. _a~d Brint % Ukiah Ukiah City Council 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 August 12, 1993 Dear Council Members: I am writing this letter for the record. As a counselor, ::: have worked with kids in Tobacco Prevention programs in our local, schools. These are important programs as tobacco is a highly a¢idictive drug and it kills more people in the U.S. than any other drug, including heroin. Yet it is available to kids in cigarette inachines and often in stores. Kids tell me the~ don't want cigarette smoke in their lives. They tell me their eyes burn, they cough, and their clothes and their rooms smell of smoke. Most of all they fear their parents will die at a young age. I have also work,~d in this county as a medical social worker with the elderly. I have seen the devastating effects that tobacco use has had on their health. Unfortunately it effects not only the smoker, but also their non-smoking spouse and family. The dangers from secondary smoke .are evident. Therefore, on behalf of our children, grandchildren, and non- smokers of this county, I urge you to vote in favor of the Smoking Control Ordinance in 'the City of Ukiah. Sincerely, Nancy ~. Nanna NANCY A. ADAI S, I .A. Licensed Marriage, Family & Child Counselor Frank McMichael Ukiah City Council 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA. 95482 August 12, 1993 813 South Dora Street Ukiah, California 95482 ~.,.~ ,.~ (707) 463-1305 ,? !993 Dear Frank; As a constituent, a business owner and President of the Mendo/ Lake Unit of the American Cancer Society, I urge your YES vote supporting the Smoking Pollution Control' and Health Protection Ordinance. A quote from the August 9, 1993 Newsweek magazine: Dr. Michael Siegel of the University of California, Berkeley, found that restaurants, are 1.6 to 2 times as polluted as offices, bars 4 to 6 times as polluted. He found that food-service workers suffer 50 percent more lung cancer than do people in other occupations, even when the effects of active smoking are ~actored out. "To protect these workers," Siegel concludes, "smoking in bars and restaurants should be prohibited." Until then, restaurant personnel are advised to do their breathing at home. Very truly yours, Nancy A. Adams c.c. Mayor Fred Schneiter The Youth Project Mendocino County's Service to Youth and Their Families 202 South State Street - Ukiah, California 95482 552 North Main, Ste. 2A - Fort Bragg, California 95437 110 South Main Ste. A - Willits, California 95490 (707) 463-4915 Ukiah · (707) 964-1228 Coast August 20, 1993 Ukiah City Council 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Council Members: The Mendocino Co~anty Youth Project fully endorses the Smoking Pollution Control and Health Protection Ordinance. Statistics citin,l the effects of second-hand smoke concern us very much. It is our hope this ordinance will protect the health of our youth and give them the chance for a full and healthy life. We would like this letter to be included as part of the public record on this topic. Sincerely, Arlene Rose Director /nb ;!993 Ukiah City Hall 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Ukiah City Council Members, I am writing in support of the Smoking Pollution Control and Health Protection Ordinance. I feel that it is your responsibility as lawmakers to protect the health and well-being of Ukiah City residents. By supporting this ordinance you will be removing a known carcinogen from our environment. You will also be making tobacco products less accessible to minors, which will provide a positive message, as well as protecting the youth of our community. Therefore, I strorlgly urge you to vote in favor of this ordinance. Sincerely 630 King's Court, Suite 204 P.O. Box 480 Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 468-1196 (707) 468-1498 FAX August 20, 1993 MENDOCINO PRIVATE IND'.,.USTRY COUNCIL, INC Charles R. Hall Executive Director ECE VED CIT'V OF UKIAH 1993 310 East Redwood Avenue P.O. Box 2175 Fort Bragg, California 95437 (707) 964-6950 FAX (707) 961-1761 Mayor Fred Schneiter City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 ':;!i Y CI.EI~K DEPAN I'MEN1 Dear Mayor Schneiter: As a member of the business community, I am writing this letter in support of the City adopting a "Smoking Pollution Control and Health Protection Ordinance" at its council meeting of September 1, 1993, or as soon thereafter as law allows. I believe this type of ordinance is long overdue and will in no w,'ay harm the businesses in Ukiah. When our agency incorporated last year, I imposed a "Non-Tobacco Products Use" policy. At that time, certain outside areas were designated as smoking areas for those individuals so desiring to smoke. The amount of productivity I may lose from smokers occasionally going outside is minimal, and far offset by the healthy environment other non-smoking employees enjoy inside our offices, not to mention the absence of damage cigarette smoke would do to the interior of the building, carp,,~ts and furnishings. Those who still smoke have become used to the policy and I have yet to hear any complaints from them. They too enjoy working in a smoke free environment. Again, I urge passage of this ordnance and request that this letter be admitted as part of the public record in support of this ordinance. Sincerely, Charles R. Hall Executive Director cc: CRH:jla Richard Schoemaker, Councilman, City of Ukiah Sheridan Malone, Councih~oman, City of Ukiah Jim Wattenberger, Councilman, City of Ukiah Jim Mastin, Councilman, City of Ukiah Jane Piper, Project Director, Mendocino County Tobacco Control Program Regional Centers COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH.PROGRAMS August 18, 1993 Fred Schneiter, Mayor Ukiah City Council 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 RE: Smoking Ordinance As a member of the Mendocino County Tobacco Coalition, I strongly urge you to adopt the comprehensive smoking ordinance as we have presented for adoption. The Tobacco Coalition members have been actively involved in developing and whole-heartedly supporting this ordinance for both incorporated and unincorporated communities. In the meetings I have attended business people have asl(ed for an "even playing field", which they indicated promoted fair competition. As a wellness educator for MencJocino County Office of Education, I believe that this policy statement promotes the concern of local government for the health of youth. Decreasing availability and access of tobacco products as well as promoting environmental health are proven prevention methods. Since Ukiah is my place of work and center for shopping and recreation, I want smoke free work and public space environments. Sincerely, Lillian Hoika, Healthy Kids Coordina'r:or Mendocino County Office of Education 2240 Eastside Road, Ukiah, CA 95z:~82 707-463-4838 LH/U REGION # 1 -North Coast Participating Cour ties: Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Sonoma Regional C~nter Site: Sonoma County Office of Education 5340 :i;kylane Boulevard, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) 524-2800 .. FAX (707) 578-0220 August 19, 1993 DONALD I. COURSEY, M.D., F.A.C.S. A MEDICAL CORPORATION OTOLARYNGOLOGY HEAD & NECK SURGERY & FACIAL PLASTIC SURGERY ! ! 65 SOUTH DORA STREET, SUITE C-2 UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 TELEPHONE (707) 462-8855 Ukiah City Council 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Council Members: Please do our citizens i~ favor and impose an ordinance to provide a smoke-free workplace and restauran- environment. There are no medical reasons to allow people to be exposed to cigarette smoke; there are multiple medical reasons to ban smoking in all closed environments. Thank you for your cons:lderation. Sincerely, Donald L. Coursey, M.D. DLC/ljp 0.%,wt LORIS AND DOUG PUCKERING 620 CAPPS LANE UKIAH, CA, 95482 PH 462-3019 August 19, 1993 Dear Members of the City Council The August 17 coverage by the Ukiah Daily Journal of the proposed smoking ordinance for the City of Ukiah left us with the impression that it is basically being promoted by Jane Piper and the Mendocino County Health Department. While we appreciate the leadership and resources they have put behind this endeavor, we believe it important to give credit to the much larger coalition of local citizens that worked with the American Cancer Society over a dozen years ago to help pass the existing law and who have continued throughout the interim to endeavor to strengthen laws regarding this issue. It is not that we nee¢:i to. seek credit for our work over these many long years but to leave ':he co','rect impression that our ranks have been increased by the more recent addition of the County Health Department not led or dominated by them. The existing ordinance, was at the time of its passage, the strongest of its kind in America. This showed great leadership and courage on the part of the Council who v/ere acting at that time and we would welcome your support in strengthening their work. If we can be of any help to you in this endeavor~ we are f~lly prepared to do so. Sin .cCrely, .r//~ , AMERICAN Fred Schneiter, Mayor Ukiah City Council 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 105 Astrid Drive Pleasant Hill, California 94523-4399 (510) 935-0472 Fax 935-6530 LUNG A, SSOCIATION/ of Contra Costa/Solano The Christmas; Seal People® August 20, 1993 Dear Mayor Schneiter: I am writing to support the smokeCree ordinance you are considering. On behalf of Bar and Restaurant Employees Against Tobacco Hazards (BREATH), I applaud your addressing the issue of secondhand s~noke in the workplace. Bars and restaurants need to be considered as workplaces, as well as public places. Bar and restaurant employees deserve to have a safe, healthy workplace .just as do office workers or any other workers. Restaurant and bar workers, up till now, have been exposed to many hours of secondhand smoke as a condition of employment. They breathe three to five (3 to 5) more secondhand smoke than other types of workers. This greater exposure is why the lung cancer rate for bar and restaurant workers is one and one-half to tw{~ (1 1/2 to 2) times that of other workers. We are not discussing an issue of comfort, but a vital health issue. On behalf of BREATH, I support your stand for a healthy, smokefree city. I urge you to protect the health of all citizens, including waiters, waitresses, and bartenders, of Ukiah. Yollrs, MENDOCINO- LAKE COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY 216 fi~. Henry St. · P.O. Box 1030 August 26, 1993 City CoLmci 1 Ukiah City Clerk 300 Se~ninary Ave. [Iki~h, CA 95482 · Ukiah, California 95482 · (707) 462-1694 RECEIVED CITY OF UKtAH AUG 2 5 1993 CiTY CLERK DEPARqrM£N-f ©_ [k:, ouncilmember s: Tt-~_ Executive Committee c~f the Mendocino-Lake Cotmty Medical Society has asked ne to express tJ%eir su~:[:xDrt of the Me~%docino Cotmty Pt~blic Health Tobacco Control Coalitior~ ' s pro[.~o:;ed ordinance. The Executive Conmittee Jl.s ¢~nvinced l~e "Stoking Pollution Control and Health Protection ord.~n~ce" wil[ help protect [~lic health. Please include', ti%is lette:: of support in t/%e p~ODlic record. DMT / cid Post-It" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 MENDO-LAKE UROLOGIC MEDICAL GROUP INC. August 19, 1993 Ukiah City Council 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 FRED G. GRAEBER, M.D., F.A.C.A. 1165 SO. DORA STREET I~AUL M. JEPSON, M.D., F.A.C.S. SUITE B-1 ROBE!iRT E. BLACKWELDER, M.D., F.A.C.S. UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 (707) 462-1928 ROLOG~. ~.[~x (707)462-8642 ADULT & PEDIATRIC U ~' !':~':~'''~ ~ - Dear Councilpersons: This letter is in support of the proposed No Smoking Ordinance. Your efforts in that regard are most commendable and your attention to the matter is very much appreciated. Sincerely, PAUL M. JEPSON, MD PMJ:jg Mayor Fred Schneiter 300 Semina~ Avenue .. Ukiah, California 95482 Dear Mayor Schneiter: . : I am writing this letter to be submitted as pad of the public record in sup~rt of the passing the "Smoking Pollution Control and Health Protection Ordinance". The evidence which links cigarette smoking to myriad health problems and to the deaths of over 400,000 people in the United States each year is irrefutable. The evidence that links "passive" or "second-hand" smoke with death and disability has also been established and has been classified as a "Class A" carcinogen by the Environmental '3rotection Agency (EPA). In light of this evidence it is important that community governments proceed with the implementation of policies that support the protection of the health of the citizens of these communities. Futhermore, the actions of government officials as they establish just public policies, serve as models for the entire community and can positively influence health related behaviors. This is especially important as it relates to the younger members of the community whose voices are often not heard ia public debates. The impact of this ordinance could be quite significant in the younger populations who are more vulnerable to the effects of "second-hand smoke". This ordinance could serve as an educational tool to help inform people about the effect that smoking has on the children and others who live in homes where people smoke cigarettes. The action of people not smoking around their infants and children could, by itself, sav~ many health care dollars in addition to the improvement in the quality of life for all of these children. I therefore, respectfully urge you and the members of the City Council of Ukiah to vote in favor of the "Smoking Pollution .Control .and .Health Protection Ordinance". , Respectfully, · Dell Smith, Ph.D. Director of Health and Human S~rvices Programs Mendocino College Mt-!NI)OCIN(:,-LAKE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Serving ~ aj{>r Porti,)~ts of Lake and Mendocino ('~)t~nties MENDOCINO- LAKE COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY 216 W. Henry St. · P.O. Box 1030 Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 462-1694 August 26, 1993 City Council Ukiah City Clerk 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Councilmembers: The Executive Conmittee of the Mendocino-Lake County Medical Society has asked me to express their support of the Mendocino County Public Health Tobacco Control Coalition's pro~xlsed ordinance. The Executive Conm~ittee is convinced the "Smoking Pollution Control and Health Protection Ordinance" will help protect public health. Please include this letter of support in the public record. Sincerely, David M. Turner Executive Director DMT/dd GLENN W. MILLER, M.D. UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 (;;~.( ,f (;Lg~:,:t<, L 8/27/93 Charles Rough, City Manager City of Ukiah South School Street Ukiah, California 95482 Dear Mr. Rough, You and the City Council will soon be asked to consider adopting the anti-smoking ban recently adopted by our County Board of Supervisors. I take this opportunity to voice my opposition to the this ban and to express the reasons why. I begin by noting that buying and using tobacco products is not illegal. The issue, as I understand it is the health risk to the general public of second hand sr~loke. I have listened to those proponents of this ban, and note that they cite statistics as to the number of illnesses and deaths directly related to smoking tobacco products. I do not hear any scientifically based statistics cited,(and do not believe there are any) related to second hand smoke. Common sense te[I. ls us that breathing anything other than good clean air is unhealthy. Common decency tells us that we must all respect the rights of others. Good clean air is a rare commodity in today's environment. Anyone who pumps gas into their automobile is subject to fumes which are known to the State of California to be carcinogenic. Following behind a diesel truck or school bus in traffic is as about as foul as air can get. Free standing propane, and kerosene heaters (which are available, "with warnings") produce unhealthy air. Many others could be cited, my point is, can we really determine that "second hand tobacco smoke" is the culprit that its made out to be when there are so many other influences in the air we all breath. No, we cannot. Therefore, it is inappropriate for anyone to dictate their objection to a personal choice by so~]e, in the form of laws that affect all. This is an issue on which a "favorable" vote is most popular. That's the easy way, foil[low in the footsteps of others. I don't think the City of Ukiah is a follower, but is in fact a leader. Don't do what is popula~lz, do what is fair and reasonable. The smoking ordinance no~ in effect in the City of Ukiah offers a freedom of choice to businesses, and the public. Although it may or may not be a factor, one might consider the long range impact of such a ban when trying to attract various groups to our city for functions like annual conferences, etc. I would note, the City of Ukiah has been a socially responsible city for many years. Perhaps this is one of the many reasons our city and the other top ten cities in our country do not have such a "smoking ban." in effect. It is only logical, the "rule of reason" should apply. Please express my comments to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, ~o~othy ~ H~ise 201 Fircrest Drive Ukiah, CA 95482 September. Dear Counci] Member's., This letter is written to support the smoking ban in City limits. Our family has enJured year, s c;f chr'onio problems related to al lergies and as "hma., These problems have been great ly exacerbated by th,:~ fact, that smoker, s are allowed to produce second hand smoke i'~ most. publ ic places, It. is time t,o mall i',. halt to the practice of' allowing smokers the right, to pollute th~:~ common air that we must sha~e. We sincerely hope that you will consider the health of our entire family when it comes time to d~,cide which direction the City of Ukiah wilt take. Flea. se do not forget thai asthma is on the rise in children nat ion ~id~,. Please t cond _i. t i ,.'a i ncr ed i b normal a. o f o u r t h o u g h t s affected be retain hink of t.h~, sleepless nights spent ]"~ o~ c, ur.'. sc n, t. he days of school ly expensiv~ drugs he must take daily life a.s pcssible, and the due t.o the ser ious he has missed, the in order to lead as allergic effects on the rest family caused by second hand smoke. Multiply those hundreds of times t.o reflect: the hundreds of chi]dren by second ~a'nd smoke in the Ukiah Valley, and you wi][ ded of the gravity of your vote on this issue. Thank you for your consideration. C~noerely, c~m Montesonti Cyndi Montesonti o~ 1525 East Hill Rd. Willits, Ca. 95490 Sept. 7, 1993 Mendocino County Board of Supervisors 301S. State St. Ukiah, Ca. 95482 Dear Supervisors: Thank you for passing the Smoking Pollution Control and Health Protection Crdinance! I felt that it might be important to give you positive feedback since it seems that you probably only hear from people when they are unhappy about some issue. Hopefully I am wrong about that, but it does seem like human nature these days. Last month our family took a short vacation over in the Redding area and what a joy and breath of fresh air (literally) to eat three meals a day in restaurants and not have to be subjecte.~ to cigarette smoke! This was such a bon'~s to me for several reasons. First it is nauseating to ea'.~ while breathing smoke. More seriously for me is the fact '~hat I am allergic to the cigarette smoke so I am uncomfortab.i~e to say the least. Depending on the amount of smoke, I ~i~et reactions ranging from headaches to Asthma attacks. It is necessary to change clothes and shower before these reactions will even begin to subside. Obviously, when traveling this is n~t always an option. And certainly never~ a convenience, even when eating out locally. Often when I go to ~ restaurant the non-smoking area will be full, w~th only one or two tables in the smoking section occupied by smokers. Yet this smoke usually permeates the whole area unless tkere are totally separate rooms. Mine is not an isolated case. There are many people with sensitivities to cigarette smoke, not to mention the studies that have proven it to be a substantial health risk to the general public, especially childr, en. Thank you again fo~~ exercising your leadership responsibilities by adopting this ordinance for the welfare of those you serve. My only concern is the "unfairness" to those in the unincci~rporated areas. It should be equal throughout the cou~'Lty. Hopefully, the cities will soon follow suit and do as you, and other areas in our State, have done. I know it is contrc].versial~ but it is the responsibility of our leaders to ado~]t ordinances which are in the best interest of the pu~lic health. Sincerely~ Susan Walker cc: Willits City Cc~,uncil ~iah City Cour:.cil MEMORANDUM DATE' TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 15, 1993 Mayor Fred Schneiter and Members of City Council Charles Rough, Executive Director Petition Re Smoking Ordinance Attached is a copy of a memo received by the City Clerk this morning, which had as an attachment a petition opposing the County Smoking Ordinance. The petition is a copy of the petition presented to the 1-3oard of Supervisors and includes County as well as City residents. The lady presenting the documents wished to remain anonymous, but a member of staff recognized he~' as Dorothy Heise. The petition will be entered intc the record this evening. It is available at City Hall today if you wish to see it. R:4:CM Att. MCC27 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 13, 1993 TO: Mayor Fred Schneiter and Members of City Council FROM: Charles Rough, City IVtanager SUBJECT: Smoking Survey Information I wanted to provide you, prior to the City Council meeting this Wednesday, additional information relative to the Smoking Survey results. If after your review of the following information I can make further clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact me. The following are the actual question.,; posed in the survey: 1. In your opinion, is the City of Ukiah's present ordinance regulating smoking in our community adequate? Yes [] No [] 2. Do you think the City of Ukiah should adopt the County's proposed changes to regulate smoking in our community? Yes [] No [] 3. Are you responding to this survey' as: City Resident [] City Business [] Both [] Other Comments: A total of 6,499 survey cards were mailed to City residents and businesses. By the cut-off date of August 23, 1993; 2,455 survey cards ~vere returned. The following is a break-down of those responses. It must be noted that some of the respor~dents were unsure of what the current City and/or County ordinances were, however, we were able in some cases to ascertain, by their comments, their feelings on the issues. When unclear, the question was left unanswered. I have also included for your consideration a breakdown of individuals who wished to see a re~triction placed on vending machines. SURVEY PROFILE Question No. 1' 1,048 individuals feb that the City of Ukiah's present ordinance regulating smoking in our community is ade(~uate, and 1,312 felt that the City's ordinance is not adequate. There were 95 cards which did not answer in this category. The following breakdown illustrates which respondents were residents, businesses, or both. Residents 789 ~:~:i:i~i:i:i:i~i:i:i:!:i:i:i:i~i:;:;:;:;:;;;~.;:;:;~;:;-;:;:;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;~;:;:;:;:;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~°~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~ · · ..... - ...... -,..-.-.-....-.-.-.- -.- - Businesses 70 Resident and Business 189 ~:~iii~!{~:~i:i:::::~:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:::~ :~ :;:;:;:~:~ :-.';:::;:~:.:.:. :;:;:;:;:;:~:;:;:;:;:;.;. ;.; ?;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;?~.; .;.;.;.;.:.;.;.;.;..; ........... .-.-...-.. TOTAL 1,048 'i' FEEL CITY ORDINANCE IS NOT ADEQUATE I # I Residents 955 i!iiiiii~i!!iiii~i!i~i~:ii:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:::i:i:i:~:~:~:~:~:;:;:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:;:~:~:~:~:;:;:~:~:~:~:;~:~;~:~;~;~;~;~;~ .................. Businesses 101 Resident and Business 256 :i:!:i:i:i:::~:i:i:;~i:;;;-~;:;:;~;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;~;:;:;:;:;:;:;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~ .-.'. --..-.-- --..- ............... - .... TOTAL 1,312 Question 2:1,446 respondents felt that the City of Ukiah should adopt the County's proposed changes to regulate smoking in our community, and .970 respondents felt that we should not. There were 39 cards which did not answer in this category. The following breakdown illustrates which respondents were residents, businesses, or both. FEEL CITY SHOULD ADOPT COUNTY'S; # ORDINANCE Residents 1,075 Businesses 110 Resident and Business 261 ................................ ~:::~:~ .......................................... ~ ............................... ~::;::::::~::~ ........................................ !~i~[i[ifiii::i :i![i::iii!~ ............................. : TOTAL 1,446 FEEL CITY SHOULD NOT ADOPT COUNTY # ORDINANCE Residents 721 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ==================================================================== ........ ~:!iiii~!~!~!~ii~iii~!i~!ii~!i~!i~i!~!~i!i~! ............................. :.:.:.: Businesses 62 Resident and Business 187 TOTAL 970 It is clear from the survey responses on all sides of the issue, that people identify the core issue as one of individual rights. For the smoker or non-smoker opposed to either County or City smoking regulations, this effort by the County and/or City is viewed as one more example of government intrusion. The proposed ordinance is seen as one more government regulation, in a nation of too many regulations already, that are taking away the basic freedoms of citizens. On the other hand, the smoker or non-smoker favoring strong anti-smoking regulations by the Count!/and City, believes that government must protect the individuals from being exposed to the health risks of second-hand smoke. They see their rights being infringed and violated when they are unwittingly subjected tc second-hand smoke. The following is a sampling of concern,,~ expressed by the community relative to this issue. Those that I have chosen are indicative of the types of comments expressed. REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS OF THOSE SURVEY RESPONDENT~ OPPOSING COUNTY ORDINANCF "1 don't smoke - I think each busine,,;s should do anything they want. It seems we are heading for a dictatorship." "1 personally hate to see any more rights taken away." "Both my husband and I are non-smokers, but we feel the present ordinance is adequate." "1 resent having freedom of choice taken away from me. Please no police state." "Today smoking rights - tomorrow what? Perfumes, deodorants, red cars, big trucks, bleached hair, alcohol"? "1 don't smoke and I don't like it. If a business wants smoking, ok. I'll go someplace else." "1 think businesses should be able to decide for themselves which they want in their businesses. Otherwise, what happened to our free country. Please, lets be careful about our laws." "The present separate smoking and ~lon-smoking areas are adequate and fair." "We are non-smokers, however, we t:hink the public is over-regulated now and there are too many laws." "1 do not believe in taking our freedoms away - We are losing them - I am not a smoker! It is not the City's job to say who can smoke or not, no~' is it their business." "1 for one would not go to a restaurant if I couldn't smoke. Sometimes I go and sit for coffee. There are no smoking sections available. This is a free country, I thought." "People should be left with the ability to make the decision for themselves." "1 am a 78 year old female with a 64 year smoking habit. I have always tried to respect the rights of non- smokers, but I think there should be ~ome consideration of my rights, too." "1 think personally owned businesses should be able to designate whether to allow smoking or not in their place of business. Likewise, their employees and/or customers have the right to choose to enter or not. Its their livelihood at stake"! "1 think the City should stay out of personal affairs and get back to what they are supposed to be taking care of. All people have their rights, even ','~mokers." "1 feel that things should be left as they are. The quarrel should be with the cigarette companies and the paid advertisers. They are the ones who hooked the public into smoking and keep them there. I feel sorry for the addicted." "Could regulate vending machines to ~inors so they do not have access, and should monitor stores who continue to sell to minors." "1 agree with the prohibition of tobacco vending machines, however, I feel some restaurants and small businesses would suffer under the County's proposal." "School buses are horrible polluters. E~eing behind one is nauseating. Do something if your so concerned about tiny cigarettes." "These ordinances are a joke. They are unenforceable." "1 believe the City ordinance is fair, reasonable and equitable - keep as is." "1 think government should be more att~gntive to crime, hunger and homelessness." "Enough is Enough! What ever happer~ed to 'live and let live'." "This is really stupid. Any minor can (.let someone of age to buy tobacco products for them if they choose to smoke, you can't do a damn thing. Age 22, also a smoker, I know what I am saying." "Restaurants and other businesses are already being regulated excessively. Why are we wasting precious taxpayer dollars on legislating social mores." "City's present ordinance is a good cor~promise for smokers and non-smokers in Ukiah. Should protect the teenagers though." "1 think the present ordinance is perfectly sufficient. If they keep going you won't be able to even smoke in your own home." REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS FROM THOSE SURVEY RESPONDENTS FAVORING COUNTY ORDINANCE "1 have a right not to breathe smoke. The smoker pushes their right on us who do not smoke." "Many businesses that have poor ventilation I do not patronize because smoke is not removed adequately." "To be fair, it should be County-wide, including all cities in the County. I don't go into businesses where smoking is too dominant. Also, what ~bout Bingo locations! Talk about hazard! Whew"! "1 don't go any place where there is smoking. Eating places where they have smoking and non-smoking sections, I can still smell it. If I go by anyone smoking I can taste it and my eyes water." "Smoking is harmful to health whether first hand or second hand." "1 feel there shouldn't be any smoking in buildings, period. That smoking, if it has to be done, people should smoke outside." "1 think businesses will see an increase from those who presently do not patronize 'smoking' establishments. Please pass the ordinance"! "'Non-smoking' sections in restaurants are almost always inadequate or ignored. Our family will certainly patronize more restaurants if there is no smoking." "It is long overdue that a stop be mad6 to smokers polluting the clean air of others"! "Health-wise there's no other alternativ,~." "1 feel the bars should also be included in the no smoking ordinance. When I go out dancing, I come home smelling of tobacco smoke. I am responding to this as a smoker. Thank you." "Whenever you go out to most restaurants, you usually have to go through smoking areas to get to non- smoking. May have to wait to be seatgd, where smokers are. Also, puts you in a corner area instead of open areas. Hard on eyes, nose and breathing. Thank you." "The sooner the better, tomorrow if possible." "The County and City should be the same, as is confusing to some people." "Unfortunately, I am a smoker myself. However, in all fairness to everyone, smoking should be banned in all public places. I believe all motels and hotels have smoking and non-smoking rooms. Smoking should be banned in restaurants and dining roe,ms." "Please have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for the 75% - 80% of the population who do not smoke! How wonderful to be able to eat out without the necessity of inhaling someone's used smoke." "1 am for anything to keep our young people from getting hooked on tobacco of any kind." "My husband died of lung cancer several years ago. He was a heavy smoker. So where do I stand? No _smoking - anyplace. Government can't dictate people's lives, but they (us) have an obligation to protect people who do care"! "If people want to smoke that's fine, that's their business, but when they smoke around me or my family, that is my business. Smokers do not haw~ the right to make others sick with their ignorance, and we should all have the right to patronize all restaurs, nts and businesses. I feel people lose business by allowing smoking. I don't want to die from someone else's lack of consideration." "This ordinance should be enacted just as a matter of good health policy." "Any opportunity to reduce passive srroke inhalation should be pursued. Also, all obstacles to minors being able to purchase cigarettes should be put in place." "Non-smokers have rights too." The survey responses have been placed in Conference Room 2 until Wednesday night's meeting. If you would like to review all the surveys please do not hesitate to come to City Hall. Also attached is a note received from a citizen who cannot attend the meeting but wanted to express her views on this issue, and a log which was kept in an attempt to monitor unsolicited telephone calls received from individuals expressing their feelings. CLR:ky Att. R:CM MCC25 R E S P 0 N S E S 1200 10OO 800 20O SMOKING SURVEY-AUGUST 1993 1075 789 YES NO CITY ORDINANCE ADEQUATe:_? YES NO CITY ADOPT COUNTY ORDINANCE? [] RESIDENT 1~ BUSINESS i~ BOTH SURVEY RESPONDENT.~ 18% BOTH 1% NON - SPECIFIED 7% BUSINESS 74% RESIDENTS September 15, 1993 TO: City Council Memkers, City of Ukiah RE: Proposed Smoking Ordinance The enclosed copies of a "Petition", and attached informational data were submitted to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Tuesday, September 14, 1993, requesting them to"reconsider" their decision on the no-smoking ban. Copies of this material is being submitted to the City Council for their review and information, hopefully to assist in making a "more informed" decision regarding this important issue. Citizens for Freedom of Choice Date: TO: RE- September 14, 1993 Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Attached "Petition" After only two weeks of solicitation (9/1-9/15/93), the attached "petition" signed by nearly 1,000 citizens of Mendocino county reflects a strong opposition to the recently passed anti-smoking ban. (obviously, peti~2ions had to be collected and copied prior to 9/15/93, more will be forthcoming) You may be wondering, where were all these people when this issue was being discussed in open forum at the Supervisors chambers? Many of those whose names appear do not live in Ukiah, but do live (some at a far distance) within the County of Mendocino. Many of those whose names appear are not available to attend meetings on a weekday. Many of those whose names appear do not feel comfortable with speaking in a public meeting. But most importantly, many of those whose names appear felt that their individual civil liberties would be protected by prudent and reasonable elected representatives. Those whose names appear would like you to consider the following: Buying and using toba6co products is not illegal. Common sense tells us that breathing anything other than good clean air is unhealthy. Common decency tells us that we must all respect the rights of others. Good clean air is a rare commodity in today's environment. Anyone who pumps gas into their automobile is subject to fumes which "are known to the State of California to be carcinogenic". Following behind a diesel truck or school bus in traffic is as about as foul as air can get. Free standing propane, and kerosene heaters (which are available, "with warnings") produce unhealthy air. Backyard barbecues produce smoke which can be bothersome and possibly unhealthy to those living in close proximity. Many others could be cited, but the point is, can it really be determined that second hand tobacco smoke is the culprit that it is made out to be when there are so many other influences in the air we all breath. (See page 2 of attachments, "Investors Business Daily" 9/28/93) We question the validi..-_y of statistics cited by proponents of the smoking ban with regard to health problems "directly" related to second hand smoke. (See attachment "The Washington times 12/6/92) , Those persons appearing before you in favor of this ordinance, have expressed concerns, citing studies and statistics, as if they have first hand knowledge of the basis of the conclusions drawn by others. We s~spect that in the zeal to have this ordinance passed, they might have drawn imperfect conclusions. It is inappropriate for anyone to dictate their objection to a personal choice by some, in the form of a law that affects all. We feel the Board of Supervisors have not shown "reasonable diligence" in that they have not reviewed all of the information available, nor have they in fact reviewed ~ information cited in the studies and statistics cited by the proponents. To enact an ordinance that restricts the freedom of one segment of our society with such voracity and without the decency of a personal review of all the information relating to the scientific data, is lud--~crous. Those that compiled the data and their credentials to draw conclusions that certain members of our community should be banished, should be reviewed as well. We submit that the purpose of drawing such conclusions and the enactment of such laws is in itself "unhealthy" attachments: Informaticnal data regarding ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke): National Review 7/19/93 The Washington Times 12/6/92 The Detroit News 1/14/93 Investors Business Daily 1/28/93 Tobacco Institute Analysis Stooging under the gun am~r~ off u~ ~a~tt: tM t~o the ~e ia sucufsful, re~u~flu aM cfi. ~r~ ~a ~cien~i-~dv~o~ - ~ra ~ Administrator Wtllhm ~a~y Knurl il efls~m~ml ca~flaaen. Tha ~M bll~ Itl rec. ,Jmmen~tiofl on a ~tt~g ,f the ~ data on tM subj,. t~t~ly, tM ~M's ~mm~n. da~ ~as not ~ ~n s~n~M sciatic metfl~l. ~ It was ml~r nsK~s~t Itudy ~on. ~U~ ~ ~ since the If~ ll- .u~ ~ideimH earl;er t~ii y~r -- :md ~mUy the KPA is , ]wfl ~;~lllnes, And tM lilly ~utt Milady qn p~tc~: OtMr P~uctl ,tmz~ly svdl bo tarred as "caramolefls" usmu t~o Mine ~lihcally ~r~t For :Mf~ce. ~ is ~ I~kinf ,nm ~e ~~m .fT~u oY ~k. tee s~U ~ouflt of plo ~td ~ uoflce~ ulatml their nho~rl. Yet the · ~ amumenr will M~IY ,sbdit% 'rhore tr. many t~&itc wtttl the ~ilncl Advisarv ~'1 the ~ u~ a ~ ~t ~ft- nu~ of ~[tc ~e~mnty) tn ~Y ~ act~a- tn~u~znf gPA ~~s- ts 9S ~t ~ile I~ ~fid~ mm~als f~ TM~ 1~ k~n(~ iflMr- ~l I~e ~l~ is CMl the ~~ of :M ~uufle ~vt. ~ ~Imihr ~I~ In ~lflnflc ~mb~, tM a~mul ink--cmn s~ st~ am all It~rty ~ iR ~ ~ alNM~t. the ~MI~ ~e~ wes ~ w~ the~(ori, t~r mqepenaent re. s~~ to ~flfy whemer rile am~gr ItU~ltl ~wre similarly ~ p~leml w~th the ¢1~ (~) M~tmflc, ~ ex.ute c:~ of th~ .~ure pie's ~a~ Mr ~ny d~fl. (2) bi~ m me da~ 4U0 ~ t~t ~ ~r ~ iff ~tl~. tM ~ "StUdy" al- ~ nonsmokers, we.:Ch avmds mo~f of the flawa tn thc KPA autt~ meet. tbund little or no evtdm~a to Spemfi~ me NC! study foam "tm :n~run~ risk of ~uM ~ancor wag allOCated wtta crlligthooct link IMtw~ea cancer ami etpoaure or' a alma# to Ngomlsry smog. for less tMn 40 IMgg ye&-i imm gm:it IMf gay rbr 40 years or mQ petits for 20 ~r;J. The ,,may ctid f'u~l a IMtlaltl- · ~llly inailmtficant tncrmje in can- cer risk ~or SIXNLIH Rpoaed for more than 4o pm:X ~ dar). smoke a Clam 'A" cargtn~en. tho conmnnm:j demi ~ this ts. ~ue will tilt in favor of ann-,mokers. ThtL1. it is important wM(hm. £PA's scimlce adviaory tx~m.g M~ its recommendmian aa mum mence -- or wMr. Mr it wel acUr~ palm. pr~.e<lent_l:~mLs~. IT~ern mb-ni semnnfle ftndmp--~to not adhere to t~l and nffonxm sctennfic metl~)dt thru1 they Mn represent nothtnl[ more fft&n tho pO41Lica~ lean- ings of then wteldtRg · rnallea01e tool ,.. If i ii m M CrL'dible and valuable to the PubLt~.pQti~ ~ or ~t. ~mg a~ t~t the next t~ ~'~ m tM J't.,'LY l~. 199}., NATIONAL R~VIE\~,' '1.} Second-Hand Science CO~GR~.~MA~ Joim Ding"Iii, ~R~. ~ 2a~ w~ elevate ~ ~A ~ C~me~ level. ~e ~~~ ~ ~~ ~e ~A ~= ~~ion ~ ~ h~ ~ a~.~ b~ ~ p~ed ~ ~ ~hac e~ ~a~on ~ 'cupped bM the ~R e~en~o dam." Fo~ ~ ~m~ ~ Johann e~ ~e EPA h~ fo~ on ~ people re~ia~o~ ~ha~ a~ '~~me. [~d ~e] e~~ ~." We ~ I~p~io~ a~u~ ~e abi~ty ~f ~e well- ed wo~ ~ ch~ ~ way ~ EPA ~ valve. (~he ~en~enc pHud 98 ~ 3) ~v. ca~h~ on ~ the a~ncy', wa~, ~at m~ b. ~ ~~ pnp~d ~ fight ~ when ~~ co~ for iU miauu of a~en~ in d~iarinf en~mn- men~ ~e~ ~moke (ETS) a ~la.. A c~nopn," ETS i. regarded by many people aa a auisazce, and L~ properly the tub~ec: of private rules euch inn thac he act..pta to trn~-e_form a nuiaance properly hanclled by an infini~ variety of private ~mellta 21:o a deadly menace ju~ng a tional edict~ The EPA's ed, cc on ETS was acco.pa. used by a weighty tome of junk science, in which .oR every known szatistical confidence trick is on ~ overwheLmLug number of acientific stucLiee have ~owu ao sta~a~caLly aignifican~ relationship between lung and heart di, eHe and expoaure ET~ whaler measured by workpbu:e concLitioml or a ~ of ~ivin~ with a smoker. Of course, a few stud.in have .h~wn a ,light rela~ioMhiO. Several IL'tibia, f01' ir~CArAce, lUggee: higl~er rites of heart di~e amon~ "pall,ye amok. rs" than among ~recc Imoker~: buc we would properly pro,eec if the bacco i~duRry claimed these studies prove t.~at 'smoking M'otec~ your hear.." Yec the EPA engagecL in exactly such statistica~ ~. nangLing in making it, ch. againR the highly cLi- luted smoke typically breathed by non-smoker" (which ia indiar, tngubhable in chemical composition and concentration from cooking and heating gu. aa ina, de buildin~L The EPA handpicked smd. th, tnclud~g thoae which base suited it. precor. teared policy, excluding ocher, which didn't. It failed 1:o ad, uae for a variety of plauaible confounding fac- tore ~uch as dial a history of ocher lung disease, etc. ~ broke the cardinal rule for "raM:a-analysis" by combining unlike ,tucLiee. It rewrote the sta~i,~i. ciera' rulebook for minimizing the risk of' chance as- social:ion by dropping the standard 95 per cent confi. dance in~rval :a 90 per cent. %t rea~i significance into an odds ra~io of' ImM than L2 when sCatiaticians conventionally rejec~ the significance of odds ratios of lm than 2.0 or even 3.0. By the scandalously manipulative standards ct' :he ETS cue. the EPA could move immed.~ately to ban chlorination of d~nking wa~er, order rnmlaively pen.iv, reorganization of electricity ear,rice ILnes (be. cause of ~he speculative dangers of elect, re-magnetic flel~), and ou~aw diesel vehicle, and heating sys. ~arrm Jha~ uJe numb.r 2 home hea~ing oil. ~n all thHe cHee there are already scatia~ica& studie~ pro(iuce r~sk numbere aC l~ast u s~'ong as rhode u~d to ind~ct ETS. When power, grabbing scar"mongers like those a~ the EPA hustle up bogus science, an incius~ty hfl~ a choice. ~t can either roll over and die. aa tho asbestos tnduf~ry d~d. Or it can fight, aa ~he apple growers are fiih~i~l over the .imf scare. The to0acco peopie are ia the fighting tradition in taking the EPA :o court over iU ETS ,turk science. We are oa the side of the fighters where science supports them, However politically incorrect theM maybe. : .. Snioke and Mirrors ,, vhf~ ~tnks 'riou onvt~onmon:al ~-etu, toLlmu EPA's, ~oneiudod that so.ttlbd nnla undtoemblhh rt~i. mutn u~mown, ]{PA chim n~'wRbUndb~ ts · 'd A ?Z O.N A k ISSUE ~utaeay, dAma~ 21, ~H3 · IS EPA BLOWIING ITS OWN SMOKE? How uch Science is Behind Tobacco Finding? "Taken :osether'. the totlJ weight or' evtden~ is conclusive that environmental tobacco smoke incteas:a the risk of lun$ ~acer in ~o~mokers." Uofl Ap~ A~nu~tor ~ill~m mon~. ~flflou~nj t~ ~m~inj to~o Yet tomy m t~ m~nl~ aM mKi. ~ COCkily ~y ~M ~ ~l EPA ~ ~ not ~r O~t iU the ~ co ~a~n smokml m ~n- So~ ~tau and ~tt~ who My t~ ~dn't ~ i~ a~ut to~ com~y pmtTu o~ ~en the ~I~M or' lmo&en ~r~ wol~tflg ~ny ~t ~ ~mnd th~. Said ~n~ Co~n, ~itet o1' EPA Wl~ b~ m ~lflt,ly. V~.. "it's now o~ ~fl off whl~ nant thl EPA chum co Ii~ the kill~ ~fl~ml~nt of' the ~, with the · that ofl~ alan. Amm~ a~ ~ifll ~ ftam~ into t~fll I su~Mnct lt'mflslmn, writ,nj ltl the Joumll Toxico. lll"~q'ck :2 promlMflt le~(lff tn ~dfffllO. Iow ,ldmtt of' the EPA's ~,o~ on ?usstve smozln8: "YeJ. ,o's rotten SCI- tact. but It'S ~ '~ worthy CIUM. l! will .~no&ner c~tie. AII'~ P. Weaner. p~t~nt of 3iom~l~l ~fld Ear,toff. wasa.. ~:d: "l 4~ woe~ :~r tM EPA CAI ~[ a~ troupe ;l' :h~ lO~biy WEH. ~t ~ [ lAW ~ ~ ~m~L'* - I Smoking Gun? qemlvl Ami of It,arq cmrtcor 100 mill small/1 CIIIOI'MQ mtnlPI · I ch~l dirKz policy f'=mtllCStmru o1' EPA ~n cou~ N c~~. chou OSHA I c~ ~Daczofla$ and H~i~ A~tfltlt~cmn} s~okifll in c~ woripi~." ~ Jonn S~lni~. chi ~ronWdt[l ~flllyK il the Heflm~ Fou~uon. R,~IIy u~iy ~t~ Lo =~d~ G~ ~n ~he worKDl~e, tILI~L ~flMym In t~ ~.A ~c:ually i~o~ the st~i~ thai 1oo~ In ~ ~uiym ~( thom I I EPA t~ :Mt th~ was a "st~tuu. smo~ I~ o~ ~~ m~i :o ~ it :o ~ ~ve smo~n · -- La ~ cue t~ 19 adclJ~oMl :si But mt3m sly that, ~l ia own =~y, I wu enbmumd, u · ModltAI of'the cilia." salt Wemm', who ]~uMd i peM4 of sctenam and cbx*mn mat ina~y:m t~ dr~ vernon ol' tbs ~ u~ of ~s pme~ my TI ~mm~l~--wMt C~ my t~ ~m~~ my bo ~ ~ way. S~ 0~ of the Z~ or' H~ Pol~ S~m at t~ Unitary ~ l~ ~t for ~ Sm~ of C~o~ ~iumly tTm ram. ~ of ~ien~ I've ~ &~m any. thinl." ~ Wehnet ~d t~ stay ~ ~ty. how a~ w~n ~~ and vio~l~ in the m~ l0 st~ t~t ~ flo ~ ~ only one EPA ~ t~t sh~ Aa~ f~m ~ve ~n& it ~y ~nt t 0 Mo~ im~t c~ c~ ~ o( cae m~4naJy?k ~~oi~ -- lik~h~ ll~ wsm 95% ~~ m~ ~ of C~o~ ~ ~~ tanm to tM mml. ~ ~nmumt,/. ~y ~ ~ s~ ~l t~ ~PA C~ =y iai ~u ,~ Mtllinl people are elude., nariS, whsc ~, known h~tt~~m~- Hay, i ~ ~ tt t~ Uaivlity of S~;~Mrn ~oram w~ m mM~L "tn ,mum. '.a~'s mom b Imnl to in tO~ EPA~oftu~a ~t m~l aMI ~ Kmmom 2e russ o( or mort." ~J11ol~_ pirlOn sim lual c=oMr you find 10.000 upMm ohm. 'You're ~$ ro see ttup tif'u~e di/rerencm betMm (£~ ~W smot- en ~ fannlbs M~ ~ smokers) ~,"~~ Ona of ~ l~ uoa-U~ ~moto~- cai ~ c~ ~ ~A ~ not put into ~y fo~ t ~iy si~at ~ tn nil · 'Whes you ~AftgB just one ~.numlnons EPA ~" ~ Wehn~. ~m tim -- ~ o~ ~ t~'s j~t ~ B~ ~t ~~ a~ ~A wu~'s Co~ ~ ~ EPA ~tO ~ CO~i ov~ t~of :~ t~ ~ tflto ao~ t~ ~m~ st~ on no~ :lad ~ tA~ :~t hO~ wda :t~ff ti tMt ,a~ hi~ to I~t tM ~o~to~ ~ the ~A ~ :mflv, the ~PA ~ not · il~ I~ trim ~ ~" Cd~ I~. ~ GaY ;~,ty ~n~. ' Till& ~ oi' ~ oM ;'w~ EPA's ~ ~mmy ~ · '1 ~n t '.~tfll it ~ ~i f~ tat SUMMARY* OF ~D~CCO IN$~'IT]TE CRI~CISM$ OF EPA RISK ASSE$SM~N'I' EPA) tmmmm of mvi~)mmmi ~ mola - the tomb to whl~ a uonsmo~ EpA uses · ques~le mpproath to reaeh Its ,q~,.h,.,,*** Tie documei ...... ..matmmm~.._ smoke - that which the smoker Inhales - ev~o~h'~. mey are different, en th__._..__ ...,..... Ineream In risk. arlm~ ev~ connuetea - report no statistically significant If' the most recent s~dies are added to EPA's I=I o.~n~ ~ ba.~, the risk aneument's overall :Ltk for EPA's report would be statisticatly nonsignificant. Over two-thirds of ~ ~tudtes reviewed in the EPA document do not report a statt~y significant, usaciation bemeen exposure to ETS and lung ~tncer among nofl~okers. Never l:efore hu EPA proposed to ela~6/a substance u a Group A carcinogen on the ba~,',s of such weak and inconclusive dam. EPA acknowledged earlier that the U.S. studies do not convincingly suplMrt the contention that ETS etponu~ increases nonsmoker lung cancer risk. To ttach a cofl~ conclusion, Utis repor~ Mop~ lowered sl3ndards and statistical devices. ~ between e~posure to ETS and lung canc~- ~tly because the majority of these d~a do not fit the r~on's conclusion. The EPA report also discuses respiratory disorders in children. The first draft document acknowledged th~ the pertlnextt studies were too equivocal to support a causal lnfertnc,. Tn contrast, the ftual report selectively reviews the studies and rafts to aeeomn for miry of the fla~q and lneonsktenek~ tt had rerun, Iektlowll~Id. SUMM~RY OF TOBACCO INSTITUTECR/TIC~ISMS OF EPA DRAFT REPORT El)Ne treltment of elTvlronrnental tobacco smoke - the srnoke to which a nonimoW may be exposed - is without Agency precedent. EPA u$14 a quMtlon.ble sPproach to reach its conclusions. The document Iugg~ts the plau~ibll~, of ~ conclusions by pointing to an assumed slrnllarlty between ETS and mainitrelm smoke - that which the smoker Inhale~ - even though the report Indies,tel they are d~erent. · The draft report concedes substantial physlcal and c~emical differences between the mainstream tobacco ~lmoke to which smokers are exposed and the ETS to which nonsmokers may be exp,;~ed. The draft also concedes enormous differences In the levels and mutes of exposure. Never before has EPA ignored such differences in proposing to classify a substance as a Gn3up A car,ctnogen. · An untenable prec;~dent will be set if ETS is classified as a Group A carcinogen 13a~ed on comparisons of the smoke to wt~ich a smoker is exposed and nonsmoker ETS exposure. If containing ar~/of the same substances as mainstream smoke is a sufficient baal. for such a claasiflca~:[on, then the air in every building and home might qualify as a Group A carcinogen. Water, hamburgers, peanut butter and many other everyday products and foods also coulcl qualify. The rntJorlty of the lung olncer etudlel, Including the rnost recently published i'T~ung e. lncer study -- one of the Isrgelt ever conducted - report no statistically elgntfl~nt Increale In risk. · If the most recent studies are added to EPA's lung cancer data base, the risk assessment's overall risk for EPA's report would be statistically nonsignificant. · Over two-thirds of the studies reviewed in the EPA document do not report a ltltllticaily significant as.,~ctatlon between exposure to ETS and lung cancer among nonsmokers. Never before has EPA proposed to classify a substance as a Group A carcinogen on the basis c3f such weak and inconclusive data. · EPA acknowledged earlier that the U.S. studies do not convincingly support the contention that ET8 exposure Increases nonsmoker lung cancer risk. To reach a contrary conclusion, this report aclopts changed standards and statistical devices to reach a cor~ary - and scientifica~ly questlon~le - conclusion. · The report ignores workplace and maJe exposure data -- data that do not inclicate an association between exposure to ETS and lung cancer -. apparently because the majority of these data do not fit the report's conclusion. The EPA report also dl;scu88ee respiratory dlsorclers in children. The first draft domJment acknowledged that the pertinent stucllee were too equivocal to support I caulll inference. In contrast, the reviled report selectively reviews the studies and faill to account fc)r many of the flaws and inconsistencies it had earlier acknowledged. 'Th-~ Tobacco Institute 1875 1 Street, Northwest Washington, DC 2000~ (8OO) 42~-9876 2) 3) 1) (]wen the Agenw'l longstanding ~cllbillty problems in reeognbed reeentl b , eluding tho~e Y y an expert panel ~onvened by the revlo Ad.nllnlalza~, how gould EPA ,d,.... ........... P Ui m-~or~ M ,., ,,..~. ..... .-,N~ · rupun mat Ii 110~ tUDDOrted hu -, .-~ ,,, .,w wing,., on lung ~anw tlllt w~rl reviewed? ~r · Of the ~ lung c~mcer studies reviewed by EPA, 24 do not report smtisttcaily aignlflca~ enchases in risk. The Aclmini~tri~.,a ~ ...-, ,_ , , · -,--...,-, ,n a r~ entitled $ Future. Credible Science Cr ,. . . ._af~9_uard, ing the of n , edible I:)ects~ons, found that EPA u even quail and the . .. science is unconsciously.' , ....-- .., ~.~.~.¥, enter consciously or liner It true that ef the 11 U.8. lung cancer Studies reviewed by the EPA, not one orlglniJly reportlKI an overall ItatlltJ~aily significant Inereaee In risk? The .tatlsttcaj sta~ndard in question involv . ..--~- ........ .. es EPA e novel use of a 90 ercem ,.~nn~ence mm~,m. ~enerm . P -- . . ~y accepted conventions require the use u~ Percent confic~ence Inten~j. _, of a of Ii bail-curve Itl test racl - g _ ,~d is the equivaJent desired result, g lng l~e standard m Iowerect to achieve ed by ~m National Cancer Irmtffute over-ill itatlltlcally IIGtnH'leant In~'eale In risk? , reported no This study, publJst~ed in November 1992 in the American Journal of. Publl~ ~, reported no over-all stattsticaJly significant increase In risk between lung cancer and reported ETS exposure. In fact. the rnajor~.y ~ the most recent ETS studies fail to demo .ta~~ stgn~,~-r~ association be~,vee- ---' -nstrate a - . n =1~ aha nonsmoker I can¢~. Many scte .r~sta have pointed out that th ung · ese newer studies are la~ger ar~ better cles~gned than prev~us stuCles, The Tobacco Institute 18Z$ I S trtet, Northwest Washington, DC 20006 4) ") ~ the ET~ ltudlee publllhed llnoe ~e EPA'I renew were in~uded, wouldn~ the OOnC~Ullonl be drlml~ClJly d~ertnt? · Yet If ~ cirri from l~e ~ new pubilnhecl stt.zllea were in.cluclecl, ~e EPA'i metl. lmll~i c~ U.~. ;lucllel wouJcl not be statlsti~ $~gniflca/R, Doemt~ one of the ippmlohel of the ~lk lilM~ment - u~lng ~e smoke to dif~em~cee in ~,e levels ancl routes of expos~e~. - w ~ u~._.~, ..... ~ ..... ~.~.. ~a no~moKer ~ ~m, ~up ~ ~, ~en me ~r in ~e~ building ~ home, ~n~n~ ,4 P.F". T!TION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOAR~~i~j;~y4~SORS ~c undersigned ~ adm~fly oppos~ to a Coun~ "Smohng Ban" .. ~e undenigned citizens of Mend~ino Coun~ s~ongly ~ge ~e Coun~ Bo~d of Supemiso~ to reconsider ~eir action on ~e ~cenfly passed Anti-Smo~ng ~nance. ~e ~~ee:~ses serious msfficfion m ~1 businesses ~at se~e ~e pubhc. ' "~ ': ~,~: ~,~. r,~,.~ ~e or~n~ce is view~ by ~ undersigned ~ unf~r, bi~ed, ~d ~ ~ inffingement on the civil li~ffies of ~e gener~ public. The unde~igned ~e ~ppointed ~at ~e gene~ public w~ not polled prior to passing ~ or~n~ce ~at h~ such ira,act on busines~s and in~vidu~ choice. ~ecogni~ng ~at ~e Bo~d ofSupe~imrs ~e concem~ wi~ ~e health of ~e citizens of ~is co~um~, we ~lieve existing laws 9hor to the passing of ~is o~n~ce were adequate ~d provided a ~eedom of choice m ~ citizens. PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS I 0 Z A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS , . The.undersigned are adamantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urgc the CounW Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious reswiction to ail businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the andersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE t,' · . A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamant!y oppo.,;ed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses ',.hat serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by th,.- undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing laws ii,riot to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS o .I A PETITION TO THE MENiiOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Y PP ~ County Smoking Ban" . The undersigned citizens of Me:a~mo County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently l:assed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the andersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. R. ecognizing that the Board of S apervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this commumty, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance Were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. . PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly oppbsed to a County "Smoking Ban" . The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undez'signed are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS .5" // '2 / A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly opposed t{) a County "Smoking Ban" '% The undersigned citizens of Mendocino Couhty strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the un4ersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The unders~i gned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. , A PETITION TO THE MENI)OCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPEI~ISORS . Thc unSe~igned are ~d~m~ufly opposed ~o a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the Coun~ Board of Supcrvisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed And-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction tn all businesses tha~ serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undcrsign~ as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liber~es of thc general public. Thc undersigned are disappointed that thc general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance tha~ has such impact cn businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supenvisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing laws prior t:o thc passing of this ordinance were adequam and provided a freedom of choice m all cifi~ns. PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE A PETITION TO THE MFNDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Menclocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is. viewed by the t,ndersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The unde:~igned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impa:.t on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing laws pror to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly opposed tv a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mend>cino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the urdersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impac:: on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing laws pricr to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undemi~ am adamantly opposed n) a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on thc recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. Thc ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the umtersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on thc civil liberties of thc genial public. Thc undersigned arc disappointed that thc general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. R?cognizing that thc Board of Supervisors are concerned with thc health of thc citizens of this commumty, we believe exis~g laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undex~igned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impa~:t on busi.nesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS rl/ d ,////,v' A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPER'VISORS. The unde~igned are adamantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mcndocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious resu'icfion to all businesses that serve thc public. The ordimince is viewed by thc undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on thc civil liberties of the general public. Thc undersigned arc disappointed that thc general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with thc health of thc citizens of this community, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME ,[ SIGNATURE . ] ADDRESS ii · The undersigned are adamantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the andersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such imp~ct on businesses and individual choice. R. ecognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this commumty, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to ~11 citizens. PRINTED NAME ADDRESS t A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mcnd~ino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reco~ their action on the mc~nfly pa~l Anti-Smoking ~anc¢. The ordinanc~ poses sexious restriction to all buaincasr~ .that acrv¢ tb~ public. The ordinance is viewed by thc undcrsigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringcmcnt on thc civil lil~rfi~ of the genial public. Thc und~r~ign~:l am disappoinmd that the genial public was not polled prior pa.~ing ~ ordinan~ that has such impam on busincs~s and individual choir. R~o~i~ng that thc Board of Sup~wisor~ am conch'ned with thc health of the citi~m of this commomty, we believe CXistirlg laWS prior tO thc passing of this ordinance were adequam and provided a ~m of choice m all citizens. rK~I'ED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS -- ~ 1 ,' ~%z ' " ~ .... ~ ' -~r , - ~ --/~ , , , k ff , ' I ...... -, '-., :. -., ',.., .- , _ ,_..., '~. ~.:..~ .1 .! '_ ,:uT ~::x.z.d Cd. ~r .eI A PETITION TO THE MF. NDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly opposed to a Count3.' "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently p~,ssed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The unde:~igned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance tha~ has such impa~.-'t on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of St~pervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS /! .ETLON TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The unCersigned are adamantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the andersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. R. ecognizing that the Board of Sapervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to al_j citizens. }q ./ A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly oppose41 to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Me]adocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently l:assed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual,choice. R. ecognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this commumty, we believe existing laws prior to,___..._~e passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. 1,2._ O ~ -.e~~-~Q..~ _. ..._. ~ NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS ,. _ , I ~ ~: .... " I · TO THE M[NDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The unCersigned a~e adamantly opposed to a County "Smo -Icing Ban" The undersigned citizens of Men :locino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsicier their action on the recently passed Anti-Smokin~ Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. ~ The ordinance is viewed bv the undersized as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. Th~ undersized are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. R. ecognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this commumty, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME [ SIGNATURE ADDRESS } t3 / tt i / A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly opposed to a County "Smoldng Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses thax serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impac~ on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing laws prier to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. LCLON TO THE M ENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The unCersi~ed are adamantly oppose:~ to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. R. ecognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this commumty, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE _ . ~) ADDRESS Cml The un~ersigr~ed a~m adaz:',anfly oppose 1 to a Coumy "Stnoktng Ban" The undersignM citizens of Meadocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently t,assed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinmee poses serious rest'fiction to ~11 businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, bias~, ~d as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The und,:wigned me disappointed that the gener~l public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance mat h~ such impact on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Bom'd of i;upewisors m-e eoneeme, d with the health of the Citizens of this community, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of t3is o~in~mce we~ ~equate and pn:,vided ~ freedom of choice to ~ ¢ifi~ns. PRINTED NAME mil :T SIGNATURE ...... ~. - ,- ',_: '. ~ ..,, ,;_' ,:'__ .... .Ir ,, , _ Il - / ," . .. //"-'": ADDRESS · ! ~1 i ., .~ _ , ~ '- _ · 5'~" --" , ~ ~._4'-'-~' ~ ':' .. · . · I i imm- - .... i · mm -; - m ii · mi il _ _ The unaersigreA a~.~', adara~mtl), c, ppos:d to a ~',-t~v~,_ ~ "Sm,king Ban" The undersigned citizens of M;ndocino County strongly urge the County Board of Sul~rviso~ to reconsider their action on the ~cently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. Thc ordin$.nc¢ poles serious resffietion to all businesses that serve the public. The orclinanee i$ viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The uncicraignr, d ~¢ disappointed tlmt the general public was not polled prior to passing an orclina~ce that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. Rraognizin~ that the Board of Supervisors ar~ oonoome, d with the health of the citizens of this community, we b~heve existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance wer~ ~doquate and provided a fr~e. dom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME I SIGNATURE i ii Il ADDRESS . The undersigned are adamantly opposed to a County "Stnoking Ban" The un. der~i.gned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their acuon on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious r~$trietion to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, ~nd as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned me di~ppointed fl~at the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that h~ such impact on businesses and individual choice. Recognizin$ that the Board of S.upervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we beheve existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were udequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS The uncersigned a.m ;id~tly el:pO iexl to a Couxtty "Smoking Ban" The undersigned cidzens of l~lendocino C.ounty s.trongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to rex:onsider their a:tion on the r~centl:' pas~ed Anu-$mokmg Ordinance. Thc ordinate poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public The ordinance is viewed by t~.e undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil lil~rties of the general public. The u~de~ignr..d am disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such iutpaot on businesses and individual choice. Recognizinl~ that ~e Board of S.upervisors m'e conceme, cl with the health of the Citizens of this community, we b~heve existing law,,; prior to the passing of this ordinance wer~ adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS 'l't,e ,~dersiqno. d are ac]ama~tly opl~osed to a County "Smohing Ban" The undersjg~ed citizen,s of Mendocino County strongly urge ~t~> County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on +-~ recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses ~, serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, nnd as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general [,ublic. The undersigneJ are disappointed that the general public ,.:as not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing _lat:s prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. 'l'}~r_: undersiqned are adama~tlv opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Hendocino County strongly urge ~-}~e County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses n serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, nnd as an infringement cn the civil liberties of the general p,~blic. The undersigned are disappointed that the ge. neral public ~.?as not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with t}~e health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED I~AME .~ SIGNATURE ADDRESS ! A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citi::ens of Mendocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Ant:i.-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses a serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is vie%.~ed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, and'as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public waslnot polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. .Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the'health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing lav~ prior to the passir.g of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of ckoice to all citizens. ............... pR_i?TE,D NA~E ~$IGNATURE ADDRESS . ! ~ ' '1 ' ........... ~, ?: PE'I'ITJ.()II TO TItE t. IEI"JI)()(]tH() C()LII'~TY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 'I't~_; undersigned are adama~ltJy opposed to a County "Smoking Bat]" The undersi, gned citizens of b~endocino County strongly urge ~t;~ County Board of Supervisors to reco~sider their action on ~he recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses a serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, at~r.] as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general [,ublic. The unders:igned are disappointed that the general public' :..'as not polled prior to passing .an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with t_},e health of the citiz_=ns of this community, we believe existing ]at,'s prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of c:~oice to all citizens. A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by th(: undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing laws ofior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. HAME SIGNATURE · ADDRESS , A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly opl~)sed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing law:~ prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to ail businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. I'RI~TED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious resection to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing laWs prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious resn-icfion to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this community, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE . ] ADDRESS A PETITION' TO THE' MENDoCINO C~OUNTY BOARD OF sUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly oppos~l to a County "Smoking Ban" ' Th, undersigned citizens of M,,ndoeino C?u_nty ?on~.ly..urg, reconsider their a~tion on the ~ecently passed Anu-Smok~ng ~mmance. to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by th,: undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. Thc undersigned arc di~;appointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such imlaaet on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the ,Board of S,upervi ,acrs are,cone.em..ed wi.t.h the health of the eitirgns of this community, we b~lleve eMstmg laws prior to me passing or tnts olxllnance were ~lequate and provid~ freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME ;IG ADDRESS lA fl.,.,. "77, Z .c,;,c co ,, C~ ' co A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned arc adamantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County stron~y urge the County l~oard of Supervisors to reconsider'their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by thc undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individ~a! choice. R. ccognizing that the Board of'Supervisors arc concerned with the health of the citizens of this commumty, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned a~ adamantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County slrongly urlt~ the Counvff Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on ~e n:cently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. Thc ordinance 0oses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, ad as an infringement on the civil liberties of the.general public. The undersigne, d sr~ disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impac~ on businesses and individual choice. Recognizin~ that tl}.e Board of Supervisors ar~ eongmed with ~e health of the c~itiz~ns of this community, we believe ex~s~g laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS [I ~ [ [ I __ . A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned a.m adamantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" . The un. dersi.gned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge thc County Board of Su~rvisors to ruconstder theu- a~uon on the recently passed Anti-$mokin{~ Ordinance. Thc ordinance poses serious r~striction to all businesses that serve the public. / The ordinance is viewed by '~'.he undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil libgnies of the general public. The ~ndcraignud an: disappoint~ that tl~c general public was not polled prior to p~sing_an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. ., R. ecognizin~ that thc Board of Supc~isors ar~ concerned with the health of the Citizens of this community, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of this orclinancc wcru adequate and provided a ~om of choice to all citizens. PRINTE~) NAME SIGNATURE t~j I ADDRESS · -- i ii i i . · A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" PRINTED NAME The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the. County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses a s~rious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, and!as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public waslnot, polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on businesses and individual choice. .~ecognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with thelhealth of the citizens of this community, we believe existing laW~ prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and pr6~ided a freedom of choice to all citizens. A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are a~amantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the. County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on thelrecently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses a serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by the undersigned as unfair, biased, and!as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general pubiic. The undersigned are disappointed that the general public was!not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impact on 6usinesses and individual choice. ~ecognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with thelhealth of the citizens of this community, we believe existing law~ prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME { .,S,!GNATURE ADDRESS A PETITION TO THE MENDOCI~O COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly opp0_sed t.o a County "Smoking Ban" The undersigned citizens of Mendocino County strongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their action on the recently passed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public:. The ordinance is viewed by tae undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The tmdersigned are disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such ~apact on businesses and individual choice. R. ecognizing that the Board of Supervisors are concerned with the health of the citizens of this commumty, we believe existing law~ prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to Lll citizens. . PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS / · /,,c/d o c~/ A PETITION TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned are adamantly opposed to a County "Smoking Ban" The undersi,gned ~ of Mendocino County s.trongly urge the County Board of Supervisors to reconsider their ~t~on on the recentl.v p~ssed Anti-Smoking Ordinance. Thc ordinance poses serious restriction to all businesses that serve the public. The ordinance is viewed by tile undersigned as unfair, biased, and as an infringement on the civil liberties of the general public. The u~dcrsigncd arc disappointed that the general public was not polled prior to passing an ordinance that has such impacx on businesses and individual choice. Recognizing that the Board oi' Supervisors are concerned with the health of the Citizens of this community, we believe existing laws prior to the passing of this ordinance were adequate and provided a freedom of choice to all citizens. PRINTED NAME . SIGNATURE ADDRESS 7 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. -~lb DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 1993 REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION "TREE AND LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES" Earlier this year the Plannir, g Commission considered and approved the attached recommendations entitled "City of Ukiah Planning Commission Tree and Landscaping Guidelines" for distribution to prospective applicants of new development. The goal was to identify the issues the Plannin~ Commission felt were important in evaluating landscaping proposals for new development. This effort was in direct response to the Sycamore tree matter in the Kentucky Fried Chicken project. These recommendations are being brought forward to Council for their review and comment. In addition to general statements about the value of trees and importance of landscaping throughout the community, the "Guidelines" state policy relative to indigenous trees and riparian vegetation and require a land~.cape survey of the property with the application for new development. The "Guidelines" sl3ould provide some assistance for the development community with respect to the information necessary for application submittal. More precise criteria and standards are necessary for Ioncj term implementation. (continued on following page) RECOMMENDED ACTION: City Council conduct general discussion of landscaping concepts and standards and provid,a direction for the Planning Commission and the Community Forest Committee. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine "Guidelines" as approved by the Planning Commission are appropriate as presented and adopt them as City policy. 2. Defer any consideration of landscaping standards until after action is taken on the Growth Management/General Plar~ and/or Community Forest Committee recommendations. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Michael F. Harris, Director of Community Development~ Coordinated with: Robert Sawyer, Principal Planner; Noel Ibalio, Associate Planner; Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager Attachments: 1. "City of Ukiah PI.anning Commission Tree and Landscaping Guideline", pages 1-2. 2. "Riparian Vegetation of Ukiah", prepared by the California Native Plant Society, pages 3-13. Ch~T-~i L. Rough, Jr. City!Manager ASR PC LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES SEPTEMBER 10, 1993 page 2 Staff believes specific landscape standards, including such parameters as percent coverage of site, minimum area dimensions, sizes and types of plants, design or aesthetic themes, etc., which can be implemented at staff level, are necessary. Typically these standards would be based upon policy developed in a broad context, such as the Growth Management/General Plan or the Community Forest Progr~m, and finalized through public hearings. The General Plan should be to the City Council fcr action in early 1994, while it is anticipated the Community Forest Committee will complete its recommendations in November. Council's direction relative to these issues at this time woul~ be appreciated. This agenda item is to afford the City Council an opportunity to discuss, in general, landscaping design concepts and standards ~and provide policy direction to the Planning Commission and Community Forest Committee. Staff is familiar with many landscaping programs, and final development of one for the City is pending the adoption of goals and objectives. The visual, physical, and economic impacts 'within the community can vary depending upon the emphasis placed on xeriscape, indigenous l:auna, ornamental plantings, annuals or perennials, deciduous or evergreen species, etc., and tl3e specific installation requirements established. Staff requests the City Council review the attached "Guidelines", discuss in general landscaping design standards, and indicate their preferences and desires. ' mh:planning asr 9/10/93 PC LANDSCAPE GUIDE CITY OF-' UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION TREE AND LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES Purpose and Intent The City of Ukiah lies in a fertile, agricultural valley which originally was well forested with native majestic t~'ees, canopied with a wide variety of tree species such as oak, madrone, willow, dogwood, and buckeye species, and well drained by varied water courses, including the Russian River. As the valley has been developed, much of this original vegetative character has changed. It is recognized that the preservation and expansion of those representative species which still remain in the City and Ukiah Valley area can play an important role in the urban environment, and the planning and development process. The Planning Commission feels strongly that the protection of significant existing tree specimens and the inclusion of new trees within a comprehensive site development program is beneficial to the City generally and property owners directly. Essentially, trees enhance a City's natural scenic character, sustain the long-term potential increase in property values, maintain the Ukiah Valley's unique ecology, provide a tempering effect on extreme temperatures, improve air quality, establish and reinforce City and neighborhood identity, and encourage quality development. Based on these community-wide attributes, it is necessary to evaluate the incorporation of eXisting significant trees in the development of property, encourage the use of indigenous trees and vegetation, and utilize landscape plans which preserve the integrity of natural drainage courses within the Cty. New development must emphasize the protection of existing significant trees, inc(:)rporating them in the site planning and development process. New landscaping sh(:)uld use indigenous trees and plant materials as much as possible. The Planning Commission's emphasis in tree preservation and increased plantings is primarily directed to protecting indigenous tree species. Significant ornamental species which are mature and have vi.~ual focal value to a proposed development also deserve consideration in the initial site lay-out process. The Commission strongly encourages the planning innovation necessary to incorporate existing trees in initial site assessment and lay-out phases, as a basis of a comprehensive development Plan. New landscaping should use indigenous trees and plant materials as much as possible. The Planning Department Staff will review proposed removal of significant trees or riparian vegetation together with possible alternatives, and include recommendations in their report to the Planning Commission. . Each project application shall include a tree survey, as part of the Site Landscape Plan, specifying the precise location and drip line of all existing trees and riparian vegetation on the property. The survey shall also indicate the precise location of existing and proposed buildings and grades to these trees, which shall be accurate and final. This plan shall also include a table which identifies each tree by number along with its size, species, and whether it is proposed for saving or removal. . . Riparian vegetation is .any and all tree species together with their complimentary understory shrubs, flowers and grasses along all watercourses - natural and constructed. "No deveiopment" buffering between the outside edge of the riparian canopy and proposed development may be necessary to insure the viable retention of this landscape treatment. Indigenous species are particularly important adjacent to creeks to provide bird and animal habitat and enhance possibilities for restoration of creeks and fisheries. Applicants may obtain from the Planning Division copies of the report prepared by the California Native Plant Society titled "Riparian Vegetation of Ukiah", which describes the riparian ecosystem unique to this valley and includes a list of nurseries which sell native plants. Existing trees which a~'e to be incorporated in a development must be protected during site preparation, any demolition, and construction, to avoid long-term risks of disease and shortened life span. A. Vehicle traffic aqd material storage should be kept outside the drip line of trees to avoid compacting the soil, which can prevent water from reaching tree roots and stress the tree's ability to adapt to the changed situation. If traffic routes must be located near trees, eight (8) inches of mulch should be laid down to cushion the weight of vehicles, reduce soil compaction, and retain soil moisture. Bo Cutting roots fo~" utility lines or grade changes interrupts water and nutrient flow to specific parts of the tree canopy, if roots must be cut, they should be severed cleanly, not with a backhoe. C. Impervious co~er within the drip line of trees prevents the necessary exchange of air and water and may damage or kill the tree; gravel, mulch, grasscrete or ol:her pervious materials should be used. a. Grade changes and alteration of drainage patterns can result in rot, suffocation, or desiccation of trees. Soil build-up should not exceed two (2) to four (4) inches over root area; root flare should not be covered with soil; soil reduction sqould not expose roots. i. Hitting trees with construction equipment can cause unsightly' and life- threatening wounds. If necessary, temporary fencing should be placed around trees to warn equipment operators. F. Paint, paint thinners, oil, concrete washings, and other chemically contaminated water can kill tree roots and should not be poured within the drip line of trees. MU:PLANNING\TREEGUID I'HE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY DEDICATED TO THE PRE :ERVATION OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE FLORA Sanhedrin Chapter 950 Lake Mendocino Drive Ukiah, CA 95482 7 January 1992 Ukiah City Planning Commi.~sion 300 Seminary Ave Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear City Planners, We have been asked bi; Stephanie Hoppe and the planning staff for some direction in the reestablishment of native vegetation of Ukiah's riparian areas. We have completed an intitial survey of the native riparian plant species in the valley. It is certainly not complete, but it is in the 90% range of accuracy at least. A proper detailed survey would take several seasons, and has never been attempted by anyone to our knowledge. This is actually quite a typical situation regarding specific biological information. Rather than give specific descriptions of native plants as if they were landscape plants, we believe it is more important at this point to impress upon you the far more important reasons for planting natives than their landscape value. There is no way that 30 native species can compete in landscape value t~ exotic plants chosen from around the world. To attempt to do this would immediately comprom se the only purpose for which native plants can truly measure up, and that is their ability to sustain the wild ecosystem which once thrived here and which still survives just outside of town. Our comments to this point are intended to give you a clear purpose. Sonoma County has begun a study called the Russian River Resource Enhancement Plan, being prepared by Circuit Riders Productions in Windsor, which will be completed one year from now. This plan may prove very useful for Ukiah's pupsoses as the riparian plant communities are identical to ¢urs. Healdsburg as also done studies, and we have heard it has developed a model riparian protection ordinance. Ukiah's recently formed Creek Coalition will undoubtedly have some very intelligent input on this timely matter. So you are not alone, and there is plenty of information that is forthcoming to give a clear vision to your good intentions. I hope there is enough information here to help you take a step forward toward your intention to begin to return our creeks to a more natural condition. We are available to help in the future. Thanking you for your ,~ttention, I am Sincerely, Mark Albert Conservation Chairman CNPS Sanhedrin Chapter , January 1992 Riparian Vegetation of Ukiah List of Important Rip~ri{~n Veqetation. Page I ~. Trees Valley Oak (Quercus Iobata) (40-125') Garry Oak (Quercus garryana) (35-60') Interior Live Oak (Quercus wislizeni) (25-75') Black Oak (Quercus kelfoggi) (30-80') Fremont Cottonwood (Fopulus fremonti) (40-100') Black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) (40-100') California Black Walnut (Juglans hindsi) (30-70') Oregon Ash (Fraxinus latifolia)(F, oregona) (30-70') California Bay (Umbellularia californica) (20-75') Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) (100-340') White Alder (Alnus rh¢,mbifolia) (40-100') Box Elder (Acer negundo var. californicum) (20-40') Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum) (30-100') Willow species (Salix spp.) S. laevigata (Red cr Smooth Willow) (15-40') S.-lasiandra (Yellow or Black Willow) (the inland sp.) (15-45') S. lasiolepis (Arro~/o Willow or White Willow) (10-30') S. hindSiana (Sandbar Willow) (5-25') other possible willow spp.: S. mackenziana, S. melanopsis Shrubs (understory for wildlife cover and corridor) Coyote Bush or Chaparral Broom (Baccharis pilularis var.consanguinea) Blue Elderberry (Sambucus caerulea) California Wild Rose (P, osa californica) California Hazelnut (Corylus cornuta var. californica) Gooseberries & Currants (native Ribes spp.) Snowberry (Symphoricarpos rivularis and S. alnus) Vines (understory for wildlife cover and corridor) California Wild Grape (Vitis californica) Twinberry or Honeysuckle (Lonicera involucrata) Rubus spp.' Salmonberry (R. spectabilis), Thimbleberry (R. parviflorus). Janua~ 1992 · Riparian Vegetation of Ukiah Page 2 .Has the Time h{~s Come for Peaceful Co-existence? _ L We are the absolute masters of what the Earth produces. We enjoy the mountains and the plains. The rivers are ours. We sow th~ seed and plant the trees. We fertilize the earth... We stop, o~irect, and turn the rivers; in short, we endeavor... by our various operations in this world, to make, a,,; it were, another Nature. This quote is frorr~ Cicero, Treatises on the Nature of the Gods and on the Commonwealth, written in 50 B.C., when the human population of the earth was less than the present population of the United States. It is a beautiful paragraph beck, use it is so easy to see ourselves in it, and it even kindles a feeling of pride. It was intended by the Stoic philosopher- politician to be objective account of our relationship to the Earth up to .that time. I think it r~veals that this is still our instinctive .relationship to the Earth. Our course has been very consistent over 7000 years, and it has a momentum that is probably unstoppable. Very few people have even had the audacity to say that it should be stopped, for the concepts behind environmentalism really shake our religious foundations as well as our feelings of security. But more and more people are beginn'ing to realize that in our noble effort to create a practical world where we feel comfortable, we have actually badly beaten and robbed the original world of Nature. What I think Cicero is pointing out which is so crucial today is that there are two Natures that we are living in simultaneously. There is the original wild Nature which we now realize is complicated beyond imagination, and there i~ "another Nature," the one we have created by diverting the resources of the original. We feel much more comfortable in "another Nature," which ~s our homes, our yards and lawns, our parks, our vineyards and orchards, our institutional buildings and shopping malls, and our vast road and highway system that connects it all together. I am trying touch here on what I believe to be an important point, and that is the paradoxical world we truly live in. Though we have to live in the real world of Nature, we really do love our own artificial world more. We can't really stop ourselves from imposing our own aesthetic on wild nature, maybe because it's not a comfortable place. This is a human phenomenon January 1992 Riparian Vegetation of Ukiah Page 3 , that is not going to go e.way. It is behind the momentum to change the world into "another Nature, "and it is behind the looming ecological crisis. And it is behind our everyday practical decisions. Haven't we decided to plant miniature trees on our city streets to avoid interference. with the electric and t~.,lephone wires? The question is: Are we going to stop and make peace with original Nature? If we have arrived at that point, then our question is: What can we do to begin to make peace? The answer from environmentalists is unanimous: focus on our water, on our streams and rivers, on our watersheds, and on our bioregional resources. If every area acts locally on these issues, the big picture may improve by itself and then the looming ecological crisis may be averted. An Ecological View of Then and Now Following Cicero's direction, let us look at the two natures living simultaneously in Ukiah. The first Ukiah is an exquisite geologically young valley 22 miles long and only 50-60 million years old. It had a tumultuous and long birth under the Pacific ocean which probably started 100 million years before that. Ukiah more or less stabilized into its present shape about 200,000 years ago, but the plants and animals have been here riding out the changes and working out there complex relationships for many millions of years. The canyons and their creeks were probably all here 200,000 years ago, but the creeks probably moved around on the valley floor periodically whenever there were floods, like the rest of California. if we flew over the Ukiah Valley 500 years ago, what would we see? The large forests of tall Valley Oaks would be the largest lowland feature along with many glistening seasonal swamps. The wide gravelly river down the middle would I:,e very prominent, like the main artery of a great green being. The many tributary creeks would hardly be visible except by the thick green lines of tall trees and dense vegetation which wander in a dentritic pattern into the ::anyons to the east and west, ending in dense stands of fir or redwoods. Edging the Valley Oak forests on drier ground are the very dark green dense forests of Interior Live Oak, and beyond them on the hills thinner' mixtures of rich grassland with other deciduous oak species, along with large red madrone trees sunning themselves like queens. Animals abound here because they have plenty of what they need: water, food, and cover. The rivers are alive with fish like steelhead and salmon. This patterned picture of life stills exists today, but in a greatly January 1992 Riparian Vegetation of Ukiah Page 4 (,_ diminished form, of course. The Valley Oak forests are gone forever; only a few isolated dinosaur.,; are left of it (such as a Oak Manor School). That was the valuable agricultural land, obviously. The swamps have all been drained, the Redwoods ~nd most of the other trees have been cut down on the bottomland. As we ascend the hills, however, thinned out remnants of the original patterns are still there along with the original animals, although the grasslands are looking a bit worn from decades of grazing sheep and cattle. The mountain lion and black bear still patrol the hills for deer right down to tl~e edge of the valley floor. And the creeks are all there in some form. You can't stop the water, but you can remove all the trees and vegetation and make the water too hot for fish and too exposed for safe passage by animals. Now let's fly over Ukiah today and view "another Nature." Most prominent is the Masonite stack billowing steam. The color of the town is not green but gray by the expanses of rooftops and parking lots in a gridwork of roads and wires all laid out at right angles. Vegetation is completey broken up anti isolated by these structural features. The freeway with its overpasses is like a large gray artery which feeds the minor arteries that connect all the rest of the roads and parking lots. The bridges are quiteimpressive over the narrow, now-tamed and mined Russian River. The gray air strip in a bare dirt expanse is also quite prominent. East of the '~reeway there are the impressive expanses of orderly rectangular orchards and vineyards. Newly exposed soils reveal that the vineyards have recently ascended high up the eastern hills. The only dense lines of green are along the Russian River, and along the creeks in spots, though they're not continuous. Although Ukiah has a typical appearance, the main streets contain a lot less street trees than most small towns of similar ~.ize in California. When you put these two views on top of each other, you get Ukiah today. The Ukiah Valley today is still surrounded by wild nature. The only part left in town of the original nature is the creeks. If we wish to make peace with the surrounding wild nature, we need to keep the creeks natural. In places where Ihey are exposed we need to cover them. The plants which were made ';or the job and which supply food as well a cover to the native animals are the original riparian plants. We must allow a touch of wildness to flow through our town. If we don't, we are completely cutting off the passageway of wild animals across our valley, and we are sterilizing the creek of its native aquatic life. January 1992 Riparian Vegetation of Ukiah Page 5 L .The Creeks as Wildlife Corridors I would like to introduce a few simple terms which I feel will help people get an understanCing of purpose. Larry Harris' landmark book The Fragmented Forest introduced "Island Biogeographical Theory" to many people interested in the preservation of Biotic Diversity. Though its impact is in the future ¢,f forest management, the new ecological principles really apply everywhere that we are concerned about wildlife. Very oversimplified, Harris says if we look at the impacts of human on wildlife habitat, we see a clear pattern. In the forests, we have pushed the wildest animals into islands of old growth with no connection to the other islands. It was just practical in the past to cut the forests in that pattern, and most of the islands are very hard to access. Because the wildlife is stranded from other islands, we have created a genetic inbreeding pr. oblem in our wildlife which leads to weakness and eventually to extinction. What he .~;uggests is that we find the islands, and consciously create protected corridors between the islands so that the animals can move and mate with animals from other genetic islands. This is a practical approach to a peaceful co-existence with wildlife in the future. The same model applies to Ukiah but in a different way. Ukiah is an island of no wildlife, and the major north-south highways have created a significant barrier against the east-west passage of wildlife which do live in the surrounding hills. Roads are incredible killers, really. The creeks are the only semolance of wild nature left in the valley, and they run mostly east-west. '['heir function today becomes very important, and that is as corridors of p~ssage for wildlife from one side of the valley to the other. Let us keep this in mind to keep our purpose clear. The Selection of Plants for Riparian Revegetation The question of s.91ecting particular plants for renaturalizing our steams in town is alway.~', gpoing to raise age-old problems. When given the choice of uneconomic plants, humans are always going to make their decisions in terms of aesthetics and probably maintenance. Nature, on the other hand, is more concerned with function and continuity. If we are going to impose our aesthetics upon the selection of native plants for their landscape values, we have already compromised our intentions. Native ripari~n plants cannot in any way compete in landscape values with exotic plants from around the world. Some of these exotics may appear to complement native vegetation. A few of them have already -8- January 1992 Riparian Vegetation of Ukiah Page 6 escaped from cultivaticn and have naturalized into Ukiah's riparian community, such as American Elm and Myrobalan Cherry Plum. Whether these will really complement the natives is hard to assess. If over time they replace natives to any important degree, they will be seen by ecologists to be invaders. In truth there is no objective criteria for either accepting or denying e~:otic plants. We really do not have the knowledge of natural biological systems to make such decisions. Nature does not look at individual plants like humans do, but at plant communities. If we suspend our judgements and study her patterns, we will see that each coml:,onent has its function. There are very good functional reasons why willows crowd the stream banks. The riparian birds have evolved their' feeding and nesting habits based upon the continuous presence of such plants. To humans, these patterns strike us differently depending on our mood. Sometimes a bank of willows looks beautiful and wild, while at other times it appears monotonous and overcrowded. The riparian vegetation of Ukiah's bottomland streams is a fairly monotonous blend of plants. In any one area, the dominant plants can often be counted on one hand. This is what Nature intends because it works for her purposes. If we wish to help Nature, we must imitate her ways. Selection of particular 1:lants should always be based on the nearest remnant natural population, or at least upon simple deduction. It is really quite simple. It is more difficult to actually obtain the plants. Native revegetation is a new field, and nurseries are just beginning to respond to the demand. It will become easier each year, I'm sure. (._ Where the Valley Oak Reigned On the valley floor', before the white man, the Valley Oak was king. Large isolated individuals can testify to the once vast forest of Valley Oaks which inhabited the Ukiah Valley bottomland. Today, there is not even part of a single acre of bottomland in the Ukiah Valley that we are aware of that is virgin. From a ecological point of view, the Valley Oak may be the most important and the most endangered hardwood in California. A comprehe~qsive review of wildlife food habits (Martin et al. 1951) demonstrated that Quercus (Oak species) was the single most important genus of North American wildlife food plants. These are the reasons why we should always recommend the replanting of Valley Oaks. We would even recommend that endangered native plants like the Va!ley Oaks to be planted in Ukiah Valley bottomland January 1992 Riparian Vegetation of Ukiah Page 7 should come ,from locally gathered seed. Valley Oak trees brought in from outside the area could lack the precise genetic adaptation to our particular soil and climate, and would probably not enhance the fragile genetic pool of the rerrnant population. Can Non-native plants be recommended ? From a truly prot,gctionist point of view, non-native plants cannot be recommended because the ecological impacts of their introduction cannot be known. The Ukiah Valley's native plants and animals have evolved together over millions cf years into a self-sustaining web of life. How can any naturalist claim the authority to say that a particular non-native plant will be compatible with an ecosystem? There is just not enough knowledge regarding wildlife foraging 'habits to create any real criteria by which to judge non-native plants. People want ornamental plants, and the streets and yards are filled with them. But imposin~;I such an aesthetic upon riparian areas cannot be rationalized as helping the native animals which need to feed as they migrate through our cre,~kbeds. If we truly wish to help the nature surrounding Ukiah, we rqust preserve and enhance the few natural threads of the still natural web that stretch across our valley, and those few threads are our creeks and river areas. If we break the natural continuity of these last few threads, we will have failed our resolve to co-exist with our animal brethren. Until we do have the knowledge, we should take the humble path of non-intervention, the one that says "nature knows best." The Streamside Ecosystem The streamside ecosystem actually contains at least three distinct layers of vegetation types creating a multi-level habitat: (1) The upper bank, a floodplain terrace containing large trees and a woody understory, which without human intervention is relatively undisturbed except for occasional flooding (overflowing every 50-100 years or more). (2) The steep embankment from the floodplain down to the gravel edge, which usually contains fast growing trees such as Oregon Ash, Willow, and White Alder. It is home to many shrubs and vines, enduring seasonal inundation and torrential water flow which periodically sweeps away the trees and soil holding the tree roots. (3) The water's edge, a highly disturbed area where only specialized plants can regrow or reseed after the season's January 1992 Riparian Vegetation of Ukiah Page 8 underwater gravel flows. Examples are the sedges, rushes, sandbar willow, berries, milkweed, and sweet clover. For the purposes of revegetation or restoration, the main concern is the top level, which is the area most often disturbed by human interventions, and is endangered statewide. The lower layers can recover by themselves much faster, as the high water flow deposits seeds and live branches in the bank, a.,; long as the banks are left in their natural state. When stream banks are changed or damaged, revegatation would be required. L January 1992 Riparian Vegetation of Ukiah Page 9 Preliminary List of Nurseries that sell Native Plante California Conservation Corps Napa Native Plant Nursery P.O. Box 7199 Napa, CA 94558 707-253-7783 They carry at least 20 of the species listed here, in various sizes up to 15 gallon ($30) Circuit Rider Productions 9619 Old Redwood Highway Windsor, CA M-F 8-5. 707-838-6641 Evergreen Gardenworks Nursery 430 N. Oak Street Ukiah, CA 95482 462-8909 T-Sa, 9-3, by appointment..Brent Walstrom Anderson Valley Nurser!/ 18151 Mountain View Rd. Boonville, CA 895-3853 Ken Montgomery North Coast Native Nursery P.O. Box 744 Petaluma, CA 707-769-1213 Growing Concern Nurser,.,, 39151 S. Highway 1 Gualala, CA 884-3982 January 1992 Riparian Vegetation of Ukiah Page 10 .( (_ Literature Resources Consulted Preliminary Description,,; of the Terrestial Natural Communities of California, by Robe,'t F. Holland. Calif. DFC, 1986. California Natural Diversity Data Base, Sacramento. American Wildlife and Plants: A guide to wildlife food habits. A.C. Martin, H.S. Zim, and A.L. Nelson. 1951. New York: Dover. Fremontia, Vo1.18, No.3, July 1990 (the Oak issue), pp.22, 48, 55. The Value of Riparian Habitat, by Anne Sands. pp.3-7 of Fremontia Vol.10, No.1, April 1982, (pub.) California Native Plant Society. The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of Biodiversity. Lar~'y D. Harris. 1984. Univ. Chicago Press. Ecology and Man. Rezneat M. Darnell. 1973 Wm. C. Brown Co. Pub. Pacific Coast Trees, by Howard Mcminn & Evelyn Maino, U.C. Press, 1935 Forest Trees of the Pacific Slope, by George Sudworth, 1908. Growing California Natiw~ Plants, by Marjorie Schmidt, U.C. Press, 1980 Field Guide to Pacific Wildflowers, Niehaus & RiPper, 1976. Native Shrubs of Southern California. Peter Raven. U.C. Press, 1966. A Natural History of Western Trees. Donald C. Peattie, 1953. Biological survey report,,.;, 1984-88, various bridge projects. Mendocino County Public Works. (contact: Granville Pool). A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. CDFFP, Sacramento, 1988. _l..i.,;t of Local Resource Pers0n8 *Mendo Co. planning library documents (contact: Woody Hudson). Cai Trans biologists. (contact: Tim Ash, Eureka office, 445-6420). City of Healdsburg Planning Dept. (contact: Deborah Faaberg, 431-3346). reports and riparian protection ordinance. Pete Passof, U.C. Exten,,;ion, 463-4495 Gregory Guisti, U.C. Ext.onsion farm advisor, 463-4495 Jerry Cook, 3560 Donna, Ukiah, 462-8021. Jack Booth, DFC Region 3 biologist, 468-0639. Park Steiner, Fisheries biologist (Creek Coalition), 743-2542, 462-5110. Linda Bailey, (Creek Coalition), 308 S. School St. #8, Ukiah. 462-9606. Andy Hernandez, (Creek Coalition), 485-5007. Chuck Williams, CNPS presisdent, 462-8984. New Growth Forestry. Meca Wawona. 618-B Walnut, Ukiah, 462-2524. Circuit Riders, 9619 Old .:{edwood Highway, Windsor. M-F 8-5. 838-6641 Ukiah Planning Commission. @Stephanie Hoppe, 612 Standley, 468-0718. Rob Jones, Earthcraft Pl~:nning Services, 1540 Talmage Rd, 462-7623. David Drell, Willits Envirionmental Center Alan Falleri, Mendocino County Planning Dept. ITEM NO. llc DATE: September 15, 1993 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVE RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF REFA FINANCING FOR GOLF COURSE PURCHASE The 1993/94 Budget provides for lease/purchase payments for the acquisition of the Golf Course property from the County. Staff is recommending that this $1,000,000 financing be included in the scheduled Redwood Empire Financing Authority (REFA) Certificates of Participation (COP's) issuance. The City has participated in REFA financings in the past for various projects including the Civic Center. REFA allows for the pooling of financings from several cities to achieve economies of scale on the cost of Lssuance. By using the REFA financing, the Golf Course Fund will kave the $1,000,000 financed over 25 years at 5.5%. This results in annual payments of $78,000 which is within the budget parameters. (CONTINUED ON PAGE 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve resolution of intent to reimburse expenditures from the proceeds of REFA financing for Golf Course purchase ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Not approve resolution 2. Suggest other financing APPROVED: 3: F~/ASR. REFA Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: 695-6120-255 Appropriation Requeste¢[: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Louise Butt, Finance Director ~ Coordinated with: Char]es L. Rough, Jr., City Manager Attachments: 1. Resc. lution 2. REFA~i~ancing timeline SUMMARY (CONTINUED) The timeline for the financing is attached as Exhibit A. The most significant dates are October 6, when Ukiah must approve the documents, and November 10, when the financing will close. Escrow for the land purchas~ is scheduled to close in the middle of October. Because there will be a period of nearly a month between the City paying for the Golf Course and the REFA financing reimbursing the City, the City must pass a reimbursement resolution. This is required because United States Income Tax Regulations Section 1.103-18 deems, that financings that reimburse governments for prior expenditures are generally not tax exempt unless the government declares ~ts intent to reimburse itself before the expenditure is made. For this reason, a resolution of intent is attached for Council approval. To complete this transaction one more resolution will need Council approval. This resolution will be on the October 6 agenda, after the documents, including the official statement, are prepared. 3: FIN~ASR. REFA -2- 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 lO 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 ~8 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLU?ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH DECLARING INTENTION TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF OBLIGATIONS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS WHEREAS, the City proposes to undertake the project referenced below, to enter into a lease financing for such project, and to use a portion of the proceeds of such refinancing to reimburse expenditures made for the project prior to the issuance of the financing; WHEREAS, United States Income Tax Regulations Section 1.103-18 provides generally that proceeds of a tax-exempt financing are not deemed to be expended when such proceeds are used for reimbursement of expenditures made prior to the date of issuance of such financing unless certain procedures are followed, among which is a requirement that (with certain exceptions), prior to the payment of any such expenditure, the issuer must declare an intention to reimburse such expenditure; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and for the public benefit that the City declare its official intent to reimburse the expenditures referenced herein; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED AND ORDERED as follows: Section 1. ~he City intends to execute a lease in a maximum principal amount of $1,300,000 (the "Obligation") for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring 39 acres of land used as 8 holes of a golf course (the "Project"). Section 2. The City hereby declares that it reasonably expects to use the proceeds of the Obligation for reimbursement of expenditures for the Project that are paid before the date of issuance of the Oi~ligation. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 :28 Section 3. The foregoing declaration is consistent with the budgetary and financial circumstances of the City in that there are no funds (other than proceeds of the Obligation) that are reasonably expected to be (i) reserved, (ii) allocated, or (iii) otherwise set aside, by or on behalf of the City or any entity controlled by the City, for the expenditures for the Project that are expect~d to be reimbursed from the proceeds of the Obligation. Section 4. Within not more than thirty (30) days following the date of adopts.on of this Resolution, the City Clerk is directed to make this Resolution available to the public at the customary location of public records of the city. The City Clerk is hereby further directed to assure such public availability until the date of issuance of the Obligations. Section 5. This resolution is a declaration of official intent under Inccme Tax Regulations Section 1.103-18. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Ukiah at a AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: regular meeting thereof held on the , 1993. day of Mayor ATTEST: By: 3: FIN\ P, ILS. R EFA City Clerk Seidler-Fitzgerald Public Finance A Division of SeidterAmdec Securities Inc., Member: NewYork Stock Exchange, Inc. REDWOOD EMPIRE FINANCING AUTHORITY 1993 Certificates of Participation Sales Schedule (as of September 2, 1993) Date 9/3/93 9/9/93 9/14/93 9/16/93 9/15/93 9/22/93 10/4/93 10/5/93 10/6/93 Activity All information requested from Cities sent to Seidler-Fitzgerald ,, First draft of Preliminary Official Statement ("P.O.S.") distribu':ed · First draft of legal documents distributed Comments due from all parties on first draft of documents · Second draft of F.O.S. distributed · Second draft of legal documents distributed · Notify California Debt Advisory Commission · Meeting at 9 a.m at JHHW in San Francisco of Authority to approve all documents in substantial form and authorize City Managers to enter into Purchase Contract · Document review meeting with Cities to finalize all documents · Adoption draft of P.O.S. distributed Cities agenda · Adoption draft of legal documents distributed ~ Send all documents to rating agencies/insurers All Cities approve c!ocuments: City of Healdsburg City of Sebastopol City of Ukiah 515 South Figucroa Street · Los,~'~gclcs. California 90071-3396 · (213) 624-4232 Responsible Party Cities S-F JHHW Cities S-F JHHW JHHW All Parties All Parties S-F JHHW S-F Cities Exhibit A Date Activity '10/8/93 Print and mail P.O,, S. 10/13/93 Receive rating 10/18/93 Price issue 10/19/93 · Sale of Certificales of Participation · Purchase Contract signed 11/9/93 Pre-closing 11/10/93 Closing SEPTEHBER 1903 OCTOBER 1993 NOVEHBER 1993 S H T 14 T F S S N T W T F S S H T W T F S I ~ 3 4 1 :~ 1 :~ 3 4 5 6 5 6 7' 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7' 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 10 11 1;~ 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17' 18 19 20 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27' 26 27 28 29 30 2/, 25 26 27' 28 29 30 28 29 30 31 Parties: Cities: City of Healdsburg City of Sebastopol City of Ukiah JHHW: Jones Hall Hill & VVhite ~',Special Counsel) S-F: Seidler-Fitzgerald Public: Finance (Underwriter) MR: Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon (Underwriter's Counsel) Responsible Party S-F S-F S-F S-F S-F, Cities JHHW S-F Exhibit A ITEM NO. 11 d MEETING DATE: 9/15/93 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: Water Conservation Plan SUMMARY: In order tc obtain a preliminary loan committment from the Water Resources Control Board (WRCB) for the waste water treatment plant upgz'ade, the City must either adopt a water conservation plan or iprovide the WRCB with an acceptable schedule for adopting one. The State Revolving F~nd (SRF), which is administered by the WRCB under the authority cf Water Code §§ 13475-13485 and the federal Clean Water Act (33 E.S.C. §1382), has not adopted guidelines or standards for a water conservation plan. However, it has approved, as a substitute for aqopting a water conservation plan, becoming a party to the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California (MOU) developed for several jurisdictions in September 1991. The MOU contains a l~.st of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Possible Best Management Practices (PBMPs) together with an implementation scheduii_e with which each party to the MOU agrees to comply. Staff does not recommend signing the MOU. Rather, it has prepared a plan for the City of Ukiah which is based on the BMPs contained in the MOU and an implementation schedule which staff believes is workable for the City. Staff has submitted the plan for the City Council's consideration at its September 15 meeting, because in early October it wants to request a preliminary loan committment from the WRCB. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the resolution establishing a water conservation plan for the City of Ukiah. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Develop an implementation schedule for adopting a plan and direct staff to develop a recommended plan in compliance with the implementation schedule. Acct. No. (if NOT bud~eted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizens Advised: N/A Requested by: Ted Goforth Prepared by: David J. Rapport, City Attorney Coordinated with: Ted Goforth, Darryl Barnes, Charles L. Rough Attachments: Resolution Establishing Water Conservation Plan, Resolution No. 93-40. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAHESTABLISHING WATER CONSERVATION PLAN. WHEREAS, 1. The City of Ukiah in Resolution No. 93-40 has already made findings regarding wa'er availability in the City. 2. According to the computer model developed by the Sonoma County Water Agency as described in the October 1988 publication "Russian River Syste~ Modeling,, and as reported in the Agency's Urban Water Management Plan, dated January 1991, sufficient Russian River water is available to meet the present and projected future demands of all users under maximum demand conditions without reduction in water use until the year 2010. However, with the implementation of reasonable water conservation measures by major water users the Russian River will meet the demand for water well past the year 2010 without the construction of new water storage facilities. 3. The City Council finds that water conservation by all major Russian River water users provides a cost effective means to delay the construction of costly additional water storage or other improvements that eventually will be necessary to support additional growth in the Ukiah Valley. 4. The City Council hereby intends to establish a water conservation plan for the City of Ukiah that uses techniques which are established as cost effective and practical to implement within the City of Ukiah, recDgnizing the condition of the local economy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. Establishment of water conservation measures. The City of Ukiah will establish the following water conservation measures within the City of Ukiah: a , INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR WATER AUDITS AND INCENTIVE PROGRAMS FOR MAJOR WATER USERS. The City utility department shall offer interior and exterior water audits to the top 20% of water users J.n each segment of the water market (e.g., residential (such as large multi-family apartment complexes), commercial and industrial). The Department shall offer incentives that will meaningfully encourage customers to implement water s:u\resos93\water September 9, 1993 b . C . d. consezving measures (such as free showerheads, hose and sprinkler timers, adjustment to high water use bills if customers implement water conservation measures, etc.). PLUMBING, NEW AND RETROFIT. . ENFORCEMENT OF UNIFORM PLUMBING STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. Tine City building department shall enforce uniform plumbing standards which require ultra low flush ("ULF") toilets in all new construction. . , THE CITY WILL SUPPORT STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION PROHIBITING THE SALE OF TOILETS T}~T USE MORE THAN 1.6 GALLONS PER FLUSH. PIJUMBING RETROFIT. The City utility department will deliver retrofit kits, including high quality low-flow skowerheads to pre-1980 homes that do not have t~iem and toilet displacement devices or other devices to reduce flush volume for homes that dc not have ULF toilets. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WATER AUDITS, LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR. The City utility department will continue its program of regularly auditing the City's water distribution system for leaks, using methods such as those described in the American Water Works Association's "Manual of Water Supply Practices, Water Audits and Leak Detection,,, advising customers whenever it appears possible that leaks exist on the customers' side of the meter; and perform.lng distribution system leak detection and repair whenever the audit reveals that it would be cost effective. The City utility department will also advise customers on ways to detect leaks on their side of the water meters. METERING WITH COMMODITY RATES FOR ALL NEW CONNECT[i[ONS AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONNECTIONS. The City will continue its practice of requiring meters for all new connections and billing by volume of use. s:u\resos93\water September 9, 1993 e . f . g. h. i . LARGE LANDSCAPE WATER AUDITS AND INCENTIVES. The C~.ty will identify all irrigators of large landscapes (at least 3 acres), recognizing that the City and the Ukiah Unified School District are the largest irrigators. The utility department will conduct a water audit of its landscapes and will encourage the school district and other irrigators of large landscapes to conduct a water audit of their landscapes, using methods such as that described in the Landscape Water Management Handbook prepared for the California Department of Water Resources. The existing City price structure should provide a sufficient economic incentive for large irrigators to institute water efficient landscapes. LANDSCAPE WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, INSTITUTIONAL. GOVER~4ENTAL AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS. The City will comply with Resolution No. 93-40, copy attached. PUBLIC INFORMATION. The Water Conservation Coordinator (see item m) shall develop a program of community education, which may include speaking to community groups about the methods and benefits of water conservation, showing gallons per day usage and compar~i~ng yearly usage on customers' bills, including water conservation information as billing inserts and in city sponsored publications and coordinating with other public and private groups promoting water conservation. SCHOOL EDUCATION. The Wazer Conservation Coordinator will work with teacher,s and school officials to develop water conservation education programs for use in schools. NEW COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER USE REVIEW. During project review by the Project Review Committee and during consideration of site development and use permits for new commercial and industiifial projects, the City will make recommendations and, where appropriate, include permit conditions, to improve water efficiency. s:u\resos93\water September 9, 1993 j. CONSERVATION PRICING. k , i , m. n . The City will establish rate structures for water and sewer service that provide incentives for water conserw!~tion (such as using unit prices that remain constant or increase with increased use, setting rates ti!hat recover the cost of providing service, bill for both water and sewer use based on metered water u:~e (the City will study the feasibility of basing sewer rates for residential customers on metered water use), and such additional features as rates that encourage reduced use during peak demand and lifeline rates). LANDSCAi?E WATER CONSERVATION FOR NEW AND EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. In complying with Resolution No. 93-40, the City will study the feasibility of establishing guidelines, information and incentives to encourage the in~tallation of low water use plants and efficient irrigation techniques in single family home landscaping, both new and existing housing. WATER WASTE PROHIBITION. In enforcing Ukiah City Code §3571 the City utility depart~'ent shall prohibit gutter flooding, use of automatic (self-regulating) water softeners, single pass cooling systems in new connections, nonrec~.rculating systems in all new conveyer car wash and commercial laundry systems, and nonrecycling decorative water fountains. WATER CONSERVATION COORDINATOR. The C~i_ty shall designate within the utility department a Water Conservation Coordinator. The City Council will determine whether the duties of the Water Conservation Coordinator may be assumed by an existing city employee or whether it must create a new position, depending on estimates of probab[i_e workload and budgetary considerations. The B'ater Conservation Coordinator will be responsible for suggesting amendments to the Water Conser~zation Plan, implementing it and evaluating its effectiveness. FINANCIAL INCENTIVES. The utility department shall study the cost s:u\resos93\water September 9, 1993 III III III III III III III III effectiveness of offering financial incentives to encoura~e customers to conserve water and make recommendations to the City Council for its considelration. o. COOPERATION WITH OTHER WATER AGENCIES. The City will encourage other Mendocino County water a~encies within the Russian River watershed to adopt compatible water conservation plans and will cooperate with those agencies in promoting the conservation of water. 2. Schedule for implementing water conservation measures. a. The Ci5¥ will implement the followinq measures immediately: b.1 & 2, c, d, f, j. (except additional incentives and the feasibility of basing residential sewer rates on water consumption will be studied over the next 2 years with recommendations to the City Council by the end of that time period), and k. b. The City' will implement the followinq measures over a period of one year: a, b.3, e and i. c. The City' will implement the followinq measures over a period of two years: g, h, 1, m and n. 3. Additional wa. ret conservation measures. Annually, commen~ing one year after the adoption of this policy, the Director of the Utility Department in consultation with the Water Conservation Coordinator, when appointed, shall report to the Citer Council whether this plan should be amended to include additional water conservation measures. The report s:u\resos93\water 5 September 9, 1993 shall analyze the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of such measures, using the latest available research and other data. PASSED AND ADOPTED on 1993 by the following roll call vote: ' ' AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Fred Schneiter, Mayor Cathy McKay, City Clerk s:u\resos93\water September 9, 1993 6 RESOLUTION NO. 93-40 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING FINDINGS UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65595 THAT WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPiNG ORDINANCE IS UNNECESSARY AT THIS TIME AND ESTABLISHI~IG AD HOC COMMITTEE AND INTERIM POLICIES. WHEREAS, 1._ The Water Conservation In Landsca~in- A-~1 .... ~- -- City of Ukiah by January 1, 1993, to ad~pt~a ~t~r=q~~i~ landscape ordinance or make findings based on climatic, geologica~ or topographical conditions, or water availability, which state that a water efficient landscape ordinance is unnecessary; and 2. Under Government Code section 65595, if the City does not adopt such an ordinance or make such findings by January 1, 1993, the model water efficient landscape ordinance developed by the Department of Water Resources shall take effect in the City of Ukiah as if adopted by the City Council; and 3. The City Council recognizes the importance of conserving water and developing local standards to encourage the efficient use of water in landscaping; and 4. The City Council also recognizes that additional local regulation of development should be carefully adapted to local conditions; and 5. For the reasons as more fully stated hereafter, sufficient water is available within the City to accommodate current water use and anticipated increases in water use until at least, the year 2000; and , 6. The City Council in this resolution establishes an ad hoc committee to develop a local ordinance or policies to promote water efficiency in landscaping; and 7. Because of availability of water, sufficient time exists for the committee established by this resolution to develop an appropriate ordinance or policy to promote water efficient landscaping; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council makes the following findings: Government Code sections 65591-65600. \u\wpres92\ [ andscap 1 a. The City currently uses an annual average of 3.3 million gallons per d~,y (mgd) or 5.1 cubic feet per second (cfs). b. The City projects that future demand within the City will increase by the ~,'ear 2000 to 3.5 mgd or 5.4 cfs. c. The City has an appropriative rights permit entitling it to divert 20 cfs fr~m the Russian River. 2.8 cfs of the City's 20 cfs permit arises from pre-1949 use and is superior in right to the appropriative right permits issued to the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District (MFCWD) and the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). The City is also located within the MFCWD and city water users are entitled to water under its permit and its contract to purchase additional water from SCWA. In addition, the City has a groundwater well currently producing approximately 2 cfs or 1.3 mdg during periods of peak demand. d. Independent studies conducted by the Department of Water Resources, SCWA and the Mendocino County Water Agency have concluded that Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma will provide sufficient water to meet maximum demands of all water users dependent on those so~.rces until the year 2000 and beyond. e. The Cit}~'s water supply is adequate to meet present and future demand for water until the year 2000 and beyond. f. The availability of water makes it unnecessary to adopt a water efficient landscape ordinance by January 1, 1993. However, the City in this resolution commits itself to study ways to promote efficient ~ater use in landscaping and adopt a water efficient landscape ordinance or policies within calendar year 1993. 2. The City Council hereby establishes an ad hoc advisory committee to develop for recommendation to the City Council a plan and any necessary ordinances, resolutions or other documents to promote water efficient landscaping within the City. In developing the plan the committee shall consider the provisions of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance developed by the Department of Water Resources, the unique climatic, geological, topographical and economic conditions within the City of Ukiah and the cost and benefits of various policy options. a. Name. The committee shall be called the Water Efficient Landscaping Committee (WELC). b. Membership. The WELC shall consist of nine (9) members as follows, w~o shall be appointed by the City Council: (1) T~'..e Director of Public Works s: \u\wpres92\ [ andscap a. The City currently uses an annual average of 3.3 million gallons per day (mgd) or 5.1 cubic feet per second (cfs). b. The Cit~' projects that future demand within the City will increase by the year 2000 to 3.5 mgd or 5.4 cfs. c. The City has an appropriative rights permit entitling it to divert 20 cfs from the Russian River. 2.8 cfs of the City's 20 cfs permit arises from pre-1949 use and is superior in right to the appropriative right permits issued to the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District (MFCWD) and ~2he Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). The City is also located within the MFCWD and city water users are entitled to water under its permit and its contract to purchase additional water frcm SCWA. In addition, the City has a groundwater well currently producing approximately 2 cfs or 1.3 mdg during periods of peak demand. d. Independent studies conducted by the Department of Water Resources, SCWA and the Mendocino County Water Agency have concluded that Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma will provide sufficient water to meet maximum demands of all water users dependent on those so~.rces until the year 2000 and beyond. e. The Cit~,"s water supply is adequate to meet present and future demand for water until the year 2000 and beyond. f. The availability of water makes it unnecessary to adopt a water efficient landscape ordinance by January 1, 1993. However, the City in this resolution commits itself to study ways to promote efficient 'water use in landscaping and adopt a water efficient landscape ordinance or policies within calendar year 1993. 2. The City Council hereby establishes an ad hoc advisory committee to develop f. Dr recommendation to the City Council a plan and any necessary ordinances, resolutions or other documents to promote water efficient2 landscaping within the City. In developing the plan the committee shall consider the provisions of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance developed by the Department of Water Resources, the u~ique climatic, geological, topographical and economic conditions within the City of Ukiah and the cost and benefits of various policy options. a. Name. The committee shall be called the Water Efficient Landscaping Committee (WELC). b. Membersi~]iR. The WELC shall consist of nine (9) members as follows, who shall be appointed by the City Council: (1) The Director of Public Works s: \u\wpres92\ [ andscap (2) The Director of Community Development (3) The Parks/Golf Course Superintendent (4) A representative of University of California Agricultural Extension Service (5) A representative of the Ukiah Builders' Exchange (6) Three landscape architects or landscape contractors doing business in the City of Ukiah (7) A member of the general public who resides in the City of Ukiah c. Meeting~. The WELC shall hold such meetings as it deems necessary to pre,duce a recommended plan within six (6) months after its members are appointed. It shall appoint a chairperson to preside over its meetings and establish such rules for conducting its meetings as it deems necessary and appropriate. d. Term. The WELC shall continue to meet as it deems necessary until it sul~mits a plan approved by the City Council or until terminated by o~der of the City Council. 3. On and after the effective date of this resolution and to the extent authorized by already issued permits, the Director of Community Development~, in reviewing and approving landscape plans, shall consider~ the provisions of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance relating to landscape and irrigation design contained in Title 23 California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 492 c 5-8. 4. On and afte~i the effective date of this resolution all City departments sh.i~ll cOnsider the provisions of 23 CCR subsections 492 c 5-8 in designing, constructing or modifying any City projects that require or include landscaping. PASSED AND ADOPTED on December I6 following roll call vc,te: ~ , 1992 , by the AYES: Councilmembers M~lone, McMichael, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: ~ ? . ~-'~/ Cathy ~cKay,/City C~ s: \u\wpres92\ [ andscap 6/11/91 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING URBAN WATER-CONSERVATION IN CALIFORNIA September 1991 (- TABLE OF CONTENTS 6/~1/91 RECITALS ...... TERMS ..... SECTION 1: SECTION 2: SECTION 3: 3.2 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · .e · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 DEFINrrlONS 1.1 Best Management Practices ............. 1.2 Implementation ..................................... 3 1.3 $ignat°V" Groups ..................... ' .............. 3 1.4 California Urban Water Consen, ation Council .............. 3 PURPOSES .............. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ~' · · · · e e e · · · · · · · · · 4 LIMITS TO APPLICABILITY OF MOU ...... · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 3.1 Relationship Between Water Suppliers ................... 4 Agriculture 3.3 Reclamation 3..4 3.5 Land Use: Plarm/ng Use of ' Water Conserved SECTION 4: IMPLF~MENTATION OF.BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 4.1 The Best Management Practices List, Schedule of Implemen:ation and Assumptions ....... . ...... Initial BMPs, PBMPs, Schedules, and Estimates of Reliable Savings ................................. Future Re, fision of BMPs, PBMPs, Schedules, mad Estimates of Reliable Savings .......................... 4.2 4.3 .6 -i- 6/11/91 4.4 7 Good Faith' Effort .................................. 4.5 Exemptions .... ' .................................... 7 4.6 8 Schedule of Implementation ........................... SECTION 5: BAY/DELTA PROCEEDINGS ............................ 5.1 Use of MOU for Bay/Delta Proceedings ................... , 5.2 9 Recommendations for Bay/Delta Proceedings ............. 5.3 10 Letter to State Board ................................ 5.4¸ 10 Withdrawal from MOU ............................. SECTION 6: CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION COUNCIL .. 10 6.1 Organization ...................................... 10 6.2 11 Annual Reports ................................... SEC-'WION 7: GENERAL PP, OVISIONS ............................... 11 7.1 11 Initial T,~-rm of MOU ............................... 7.2 Signatories 11 7.3 11 Renewa',: of MOU ................................. 7.4 11 Withdrawal from MOU ............................. 7.5 12 Additional Parties .................................. 13 7.6 ' Legal Authority ................................... ...... 13 7.7 · Non-Contractual Agreement ......... ' ........... · 7.8 13 Modifications ..................................... -ii- le ge e Se 6/11/91 EXHIBIT 1: Best Ma.nagement Practices, Implementation Schedules, Assumptions, and Potential Best Management 'Practices for Urban Water Conseraation in California EXHIBIT 2: Califo~aia Urban Water Conservation Council EXHIBIT 3: Princip',ies to Guide the Performance of BMP Economic (Cost- Effectiveness) Analyses EXHIBIT 4: Form of Letter to State Water Resources Control Board EXHIBIT 5: Urban Water Conservation Annual Report Outline -iii- MEMORAN'DUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING URBAN WATER CONSERVATION IN CALIFORNIA 6111191 This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING URBAN WATER CONSERVATION IN CALIFORNIA (MMOU") is made and entered into on the dates set forth below among the undersigned parties (Msignatories'). The signatories represent urban water suppliers, public advocacy organizations and Other interested groups as defined in Section 1 of this MOU. RECITALS, A. The sig.natorie:i to this MOU recognize that California's economy, quality, of life and environment depend in large part upon the water resources of the State. The signa- tories also recognize the need to provide reliable urban water supplies and to protect the environment. Increasing der,aands for urban, agricultural and environmental water uses call for conservation and the elimination of waste as important elements in the overall manage- ment of water resources. Many organizations and groups in California have an interest in urban water conservation, and this MOU is intended to gain much needed consensus on a complex issue. B. The urban water conservation practices included in this MOU (referred to ms "Best Management Practice.,;" or "BMPs") are intended to reduce long-term urban demands from what they would have l::een without implementation of these practices and are in addi- tion to programs which may' be Lratituted during occasional water supply shortages. C. The combination of BMPs and urban growth, unless properly accounted for in water management planning, could make reductions in urban demands during short-term emergencies such as droughts or earthquakes more difficult to achieve. However, notwith- standing such difficulties, the.. signatory water suppliers will carry out the urban water conser- vation BM? process as described in this MOU. D. The signatories recognize that means other than urban water conservation may be needed to provide long-term.reliability for urban water suppliers and long-term protec- tion of the environment. However, the signatories may have differing views on wh_at addi- tional measures might be appropriate to provide for these needs. Accordingly, this MOU is not intended to address these issues. E. A major benefit of this MOU is to conserve water which could be used for the protection of streams, wetl~mds and estuaries and/or urban water supply reliability. This MOU leaves to other forfir:.~ the issue of how conserved water will be used. -1- 6/11/91 F. It is the intent of this MOU that individual signatory water suppliers (1) develop comprehensive conservation BMP programs using sound economic criteria and (2) consider water conservation on an equal basis with other water management options. G. It is recognized that present 'urban water use throughout the State varies according to many factors including, but not limited to, climate, types of housing and land- scaping, amounts and kinds ot' commercial, industrial and recreational development, and the extent to which conservation ::measures have already been implemented. It is further recog- nized that many of the BMPs identified in Exhibit 1 to this MOU have already been imple- mented in some areas and thz..t even with broader employment of BM/s, future urban water use will continue to vary from area to area. Therefore, this MOU is not intended to establish uniform per capita water use allotments throughout the urban areas of the State. This MOU is also not intended to limit the amount or types of conservation a water supplier can pursue or to limit a water supplier's more rapid implementation of BMPs. H. It is recognized that projections of future water demand should include estimates of anticipated dcm;md reductions due to changes in the real price of water. TERMS SECTION I DEFINITIONS For purposes of this MOU, the following definitions apply: 1.1 Best Management Practices. A Best Management Practice ("BMP") means a policy, program, practice, nde, regulation or ordinance or the use of devices, equipment or facilities which meets eithe, r of the following criteria: (a) An established and generally accepted practice among water suppliers that results in more efficient use or conservation of water; 0,) A practice for which sufficient data are aVailable from existing water conserva':ion projects to indicate that si~ificant conservation or con- servation related benefits can be achieved; .that the practice is techni- cally and economically reasonable and not environmentally or socially unacceptable; and that the practice is not otherwise unreasonable for most water suppliers to carry out. -2- ( 6/11/91 Although the term "Best Management Practices" has been used in various statutes and regulations, the definitions and interpretations of that term in those statutes and regula- tions do not apply to this MOU. The term "Best Management Practices" or "BMPs" has an independent and special mezning in this MOU and is to be applied for purposes of this MOU only as defined above. 1.2 [mplementatio~ "Implementation" means achieving and maintaining the staffing, funding, and in general, the priority levels necessary to achieve the level of activity called for in the descriptions of the various BMPs and to satisfy the commitment by the signatories to use good faith efforts to optimize savings from implementing BMPs as described in Section 4.4 of this MOU. Section B of Exhibit 1 to this MOU establishes the schedule for initial impleme~.tation of BMPs. 1.3 Signatory_ Grou;~. For purposes of this MOU, signatories will be divided into three groups as follows: (a) Group 1 will consist of water suppliers. A "water supplier" is defined as any entity, including a city, which delivers or supplies water for urban u.?;e at the wholesale or retail level. (b) Group 2, will consist of public advocacy organizations. A"public advo- cacy organization" is defined as a non profit organization: (i) ~'hose primary function is not the representation of trade, industrial, or utility entities, and (ii) ,,.,hose prime mission is the protection of the environment or who has a clear interest in advancing the BMP process. (c) Group 3 will consist of other interested groups. "Other interested groups" is defined as any other group which does not fall into one of the two groups above. 1.4 California Urb:~n Water Conservation Council. The California Urban Water Conservation Council or "Council" will have responsibility for monitoring the implemen- tation of thi~ MOU and will be comprised of signatories to this MOU grouped according to the definitions in Section 1.3 above. The duties of the Council are set forth in Section 6 and in Exhibit 2 to this MOU. -3- (" ( SECTION 2 PURPOSES 6/11/91 2.1 This MOU has two primary purposes: (1) to expedite implementation of reasonable water conservafic,n measures in urban areas; and (2) pursuant to Section 5 of this MOU, to establish assumptiom for use in calculating estimates of reliable future water con- servation savings resulting fiom proven and reasonable comervation measures. Estimates of reliable savings are the water conservation savings which can be achieved with a high degree of confidence in a given service area. Thc signatories have agreed upon the initial assumptions to be used in ;dculating estimates of reliable savings. These assumptions are included in Exhibit I to this MOU. It is probable that average savings achieved by water suppliers will exceed the est:.mates of reliable savings. SECTION 3 LIMITS TO APPLICABILITY OF MOU 3.1 Relation.shiv Between Water Suppliers No fights, obligations or authorities between wholesale suppliers., retail agencies, cities or other water suppliers are created or expanded by this MOU. Mcreover, wholesale water suppliers are not obligated to imple- ment BMPs at the retail cus'~:omer level except within their own retail service area, if any. 3.2 Agriculture, Tais MOU is intended to apply only to the delivery of water for domestic, municipal and industrial uses. This MOU is not intended to apply directly or indi- rectly to the use of water for irrigated agriculture. 3.3 Reclamation. T'he signatory water suppliers support the reclamation and reuse of wastewater wherever techaically and economically reasonable and not environmentally or socially unacceptable, and agree to prepare feasibility studies on water reclamation for their respective service areas. However, this MOU does not apply to that aspect of water management, except where the use of reclaimed water may otherwise qualify as a BMp as defined above. 6/11/91 3.4 Land Use Planning. This MOU does not deal with the question of growth management. However, each signatory water supplier will inform all relevant land planning agencies at least annually of the impacts that planning decisions involving projected growth would have upon the reliability of its water supplies for the water supplier's service area and other areas being considered for annexation. 3.5 Use of Con.served Water. A major benefit of this MOU is to conserve water which could be used for tl:~e protection of streams, wetlands and estuaries and/or urban water supply reliability. This MOU leaves to other forums the issue of how conserved water will be used. SECTION 4 IMPLEMENTATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 4.1 The _Be~t Management Practices List. Schedule of Implementation and Assumptions. Exhibit I to this MOU contains: (a) In Section'A: A list identifying those practices which the signatories believe presently meet the definition of a BMP as set forth in Section 1.1 of this MOU. In Section B' A schedule for implementing the BMPs to be followed by sign',:itory water suppliers unless exempted under Section 4.5 of th/s MOU or an alternative schedule is prepared pursuant to Section 4.6 of this MOU. (c) In Sect:ion C: Assumptions for use in developing estimates of reliable savings from the implementation of BMPs. Estimates of reliable savings are the water conservation savings which can be achieved with a high .:legree of confidence in a given service area. The estimate of reliable savings for each BMP depends upon the nature of the BMP and upon the amount of data available to evaluate potential savings. For some BMPs (e.g., public information) estimates of reliable savings may never be generated. For others, additional data may lead to signific~mt changes in the estimate of reliable savings. It is probable that average savings achieved by water suppliers will exceed the estimates of reliable savings. -5- (d) In Sect:ion D: A list of "Potential Best Management Practices" ("PBMPs"). PBMPs are possible conservation practices which have not. been promoted to the BMP list. 4.2 Initial BM'Ps. PBMPs. Schedules. and Estimates of Reliable Savin~s, The ini- tial position'of conservation practices onthe BMP and PBMP lists, the initial schedule of implementation and study for the BMP list, the initial schedule of study for the PBMP list, and the initial estimates of :reliable savings represent compromises by the signatories to move the process forward both for purposes of the-present Bay/Delta proceedings as defined in Section 5 and to promote water conservation generally. The signatories agree that as more and better data are collected in the future, the lists, the schedules, and the esti- mates of reliable savings will be refined and revised based upon the most objective criteria available. However, the signatories agree that the measures incluided as initial BMPs in Section A of Exhibit 1 are e,:onomically justified on a statewide basis. 4_3 Future Revision of BMPs. PBMPs. Schedules. and Estimates of Reliable ~ After the beginning of the initial term of the MOU as provided in Section 7.1, the California Urban Water'Conservation Council ("Council") will, pursuant to Section 6 of this MOU and Exhibit 2, alter the. composition of the BMP and .PBMP lists, redefine individual BMPs, alter the schedules of implementation, and update the assumptions of reliable savings as more data becomes available. This dynamic BMP assessment process includes the fol- lowing specific commitments: (a) The assamptions of reliable savings will be updated at least every. 3 years. (b) The economic reasonableness of a BMP or PBMP will be assessed by the Council using the economic principles in Sections 3 and 4 of Exhibit 3. (c) A BMP will be removed from the BMP list if, after review of data developed during implementation, the Council determines that the BMP cannot be made economically reasonable or determines that the BMP otherwise fails to conform to the definition of BMPs in Section (d) A PBMP will be moved to the BMP list and assigned a-schedule of implementation if, after review of data developed during research, and/or demonstration projects, the Council determines that the PBMP is econcmically reasonable and otherwise conforms to the definition of BM-Ps i:.a Section 1.1. -6- 6/11/91 4.4 Good Faith Effort, While specific BMPs and results may differ because of 'varying local conditions among the areas served by the signatory.water suppliers, a good faith effort to implement BMPs will be required of all signatory water suppliers. The follow- hag are included within the meaning of "good faith effort to implement BlVIPs": (a). The proactive use by a signatory water supplier of legal authorities and administrative prerogatives available to the water supplier as necessary and re.~.sonable for the implementation of BMPs. (b) Where implementation of a particular BMP is not within the legal authori'~ of a signatory water supplier, encouraging timely implementa- tion of the BMP by other entities that have the legal authority to carry out the BMP within that water supplier's service area pursuant to exist- ing legal authority. This encouragement may include, but is not limited to, finmacial incentives as appropriate. (c) Cooperating with and encouraging cooperation between other water suppliers and other relevant entities whenever possible and within existing legal authority to promote the implementation of BMPS. (d) Optimizing savings from implementing BMPs. (e) For each signatory water supplier and all signatory public advocacy organizations, encouraging the removal of institutional barriers to the implementation of BMPs within that water supp!ier's serv/ce area. Examples of good faith efforts to remove institutional barriers include formal presentations and/or written requests to entities requesting approval of, or amendment to, local ordinances, administrative policies or legislation which will promote BMP implementation. 4.5 Exemptions. A signatory water supplier will be exempt from the implementa- tion of specific BMPs for as long as the supplier annually substantiates that based upon then prevailing local conditions, one or more of the following findings applies: (a) A full cost-ben~fit analysis, performed in accordance with the princi- ples set ~orth in Exhibit 3, demonstrates that either the program (i) is not cost.-effective overall when total program benefits and costs are considered; OR (ii) is not cost-effective to the individual water supplier even after the water supplier has made a good faith effort to share costs with other program beneficiaries. -7- ( 6/11/91 (b) Adequ'~ te funds are not and cannot reasonably be made available from sources accessible to the water supplier including funds from other entities.. However, this exemption cannot be used if a new, less cost- effectiw~ water management option, would be implemented instead of the BMP for which the water supplier is seeking this exemption. (c) Implementation of the BMP is (i) not within the legal authority of the water supplier; and (ii) the water supplier has made a good faith effort to work with other entities that have the legal authority to carry out the BMP; and (iii) the water supplier has made a good faith effort to work w~th other relevant entities to encourage the removal of institu- tional barriers to the implementation of BMPs within its service area. · 4.6 Schedule of Implementation. The schedule of implementation for BMPs is set forth in Section B of Exhibit 1 to this MOU. However, it is recognized by the signa- tories that deviations from tlais schedule by water suppliers may be necessary. Therefore, a water supplier may modify,, to the minimum extent necessary, the schedule for implemen- tation of BMPs if the water supplier substantiates one or more of the following findings: (a)' That af':er a good faith effort to implement the BMP within the time prescril:ed, implementation is not feasible pursuant to the schedule. However, implementation of this BMP is still required as soon as fea- sible within the initial term of this MOU as del'reed in Section 7.1. (b) That.irr~plementation of one or more BMPs prior to other BM'Ps will have a more positive effect on conservation or water supplies than will adherence to the schedule. (c) That implementation of one or more Potential BMPs or other conser- vation measures prior to one or more BMPs will have a more positive · effect cn conservation or water supplies than will adherence to the schedule. -8- SEC'TION 5 BAY/DELTA PROCEEDINGS 6/11/91 5.1 Use of MOIl for Bay/Delta Proceeding, The BMPs, the estimates of reliable savings and the processes established by this MOU are agreed to by the signatories for pur- poses of the present proceedings on the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary ("Bay/Delta") and in order to move the water conservation process forward. "Present Bay/Delta proceedh~gs" is intended to mean those Bay/Delta proceedings presently underway and those conducted until a final water rights decision is reached by the State Water Resources Control Board ("State Board"). The willingness of the signatories to enter into this MOU for purposes, of the present Bay/Delta proceedings in no way limits the signatories' ability to propose different conservation practices, different estimates of savings, or different processes in a forum other than the present Bay/Delta proceedings, or for non- urban water suppliers'or for other water management issues. By signing this MOU; public advocacy organization signatories are not agreeing to use the initial assumptions of reliable conservation savings in proceedings other than the present Bay/Delta proceedings. The signatories may present other assumptions of reliable conservation savings for non-signatory water suppliers in the present Bay/Delta proceedings, provided that such assumptions could not have adverse impacts upon the water supplies of any signatory water supplier. Furthermore, the signatories retain the right to advocate any particular level of protection for the Bay/Delta Estuary, including levels of freshwater'Hows, and do not necessarily agree on population projections fc,r California. This MOU is not intended to address any authority or obligation of the State Board to establish freshwater flow prote~ions or set water quality objectives for tf:te Estuary, or to address any authority of the Environmental Protection Agency. 5.2 Recommendations for Bay/Delta Proceedines. The signatories will make the following recommendations to the State Board in conjunc~i0n with the present Bay/Delta proceedings and to the EPA to the extent the EPA concerns itself with the proceedings: (a) That for 9urposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings, implementa- ' tion of the BMP process set forth in this MOU represents a sufficient long-tern:t water conservation program by the signatory water suppliers, recognizi:ag that additional programs may be required during occa- sional water supply shortages; That for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings only, the State Board an,:t EPA should base their estimates of future urban water con- servation savings on the implementation of all of the BMPs included in Section A of Exhibit 1 to this MOU for the entire service area of -9- (. 6/11/91 the signatory water suppliers and only on those BMPs, except for (i) the conservation potential for water supplied by urban agencies for agricultural purposes, or (ii) in cases where higher levels of con- servafion have been mandated; (c) That for the purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings, the State Board a~ad EPA should make their estimates of future urban water comervation savings by employing the reliable savings assumptiom associated with those BMPs set forth in Section C of Exhibit 1 to this MOU; (d) That the State Board should include a policy statement in the-water fights phase of the Bay/Delta proceedings supporting the BMP process described in this MOU and that the BMP process should be considered in any documents prepared by the State Board pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as part of the present Bay/Delta proceedings. 5.3 Letter to State Board, Within 30 days of signing this MOU, each signatory will jointly or individually convey the principles set forth in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 above by sending a letter to the State Board, copied to the EPA, in the form attached to this MOU as Exhibit 4. 5.4 .Withdrawal from MOU, If during the present Bay/Delta proceedings, the State Board or EPA uses futu;e urban water conservation savings that are inconsistent with the use of BMPs as provided in this MOU, any signatory shall have the fight to withdraw from the MOU by providing written notice to the Council as described in Section 7.4(a)(i) below. SECTION 6 CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION COUNCI'I. 6.1 Organization. 'Ihe Calffor~a Urban Water Conservation Council ("Council") will be comprised of all signatories to this MOU grouped according to the definition in Section 1. The signatories agree to the necessary organization and duties of the Council as specified in Exhibit 2 to this MOU. Within 30 days of the effective date of thi_~ MOU, the Council will hold its first meeting. (_ ( 6/11/91 6.2 Annual Ret~ort:i, The signatory water suppliers will submit standardized reports annually to the C-ouncil providing suffident information to inform the Council on the progress being made towards implementing the BMP process. The Council will also make annual reports to the State Board. An outline for the Council's annual report to the State Board is attached as E~.hibit 5 to this MOU. SECI'ION 7 ~3ENERAL. PROVISIONS 7.1 Initial Term of MOU. The initial term of this MOU shall be for a period of 10 years· This initial term s[:~all commence on September 1, 1991. 7.2 _Signatories. Signatories shall consist of three groups: water suppliers, public advocacy organizations and other interested groups, arranged according to the definition in Section 1.3. Such arrangement will be made by a Council membership committee comprised of three representatives fi.om the water suppliers' group and three representatives from the ° · r~ ! public advocacy orgamzauo s group. 7.3 Renewal of MOU. The MOU shall be automatically renewed after the initial term of 10 years on an annual basis as to all signatories unless a signatory withdraws as described below in Section 7.4. 7.4 Withdro, wal frt~rn MOU. Signatories to the MOU may withdraw from the MOU in three separate way:'~ as described in sections (a), (b) and (c) below. Wi~ladrawal t~fior to exp. iration of initial term. Before the expiration of the iaitial'term of 10 years, a signatory may withdraw by providing written notice to the Council declaring its intent to withdraw. Th/s written notice must include a substantiated finding that one of the two provisions (i) or (ii) below applies: (i) :~g the present Bay/Delta proceedings, the State Board or EPA'used future urban water conservation savings that are inconsistent with the use of BMPs as provided in this MOU; OR (ii) After a period of 5 years from the commencement of the initial term of the MOU: -11- (.A) 6/11/91 Specific signatory water suppliers representing more than 10 percent of the population included within the combined service areas of the signatory water suppliers have failed to act in good faith pursuant to Section 4.4 of the MOU; and (B) The signatory wishing to withdraw has attached findings to its past two annual reports to the Council beginaing no earlier than the fourth annual report identifying these same signatory water suppliers and giving evidence based upon the information required to be submitted in the -annual reports to the Council to support the allegations of failure to act in good faith; and (C) '(D) The State Board has failed to require conservation efforts by the specific water suppliers adequate to satisfy the requirements of this MOU; and Discussions between the signatory wishing to withdraw and the specific signatories named have failed to satisfy the objections of the signatory wishing to withdraw. After a signatory decka'es an intent to withdraw under Section 7.4(a), the MOU shall remain in effect as to that signatory for 180 days. (b) Withdra..w~! ~fter expiration of initial term, After the initial term of 10 years, m'~y signatory may declare its intent to withdraw from the MOU unconditionally by providing written notice to the Council. After a signatory has declared its intent to withdraw as provided in this section, the MOU will remain in effect as to that signatory for 180 days. (c) Immediate withdrawal. Any signatory who does not sign a modifica- tion to the MOU requiring a 2/3 vote as described in Exhibit 2 of this MOU may withdraw from the MOU by providing written notice to the Council, The withdrawing signatory's duties under this MOU will be terminated effective immediately upon providing such written notice. If a signatory withdraws bom the MOU under any of the above methods, the MOU shall remain in effect as to all other signatories. 7.5 Additional Parties. Additional parties may sign the MOU after September 1, 1991 by providing written nc,rice to and upon approval by the Council. Additional parties -12- 6/11/91 will be assigned by the Council to one of the three signatory groups defined in Section 1.3 before entry into the Council. All additional signatory water suppliers shall be subject to the schedule of implementation provided in Exhibit 1. 7.6 Legal Authori~ Nothing in this MOU is intended to give any signatory, agency, entity or organization expansion of any existing authority. No organization formed pursuant to this MOU has authority beyond that specified in this MOU. 7.7 Non-Contractual A_m'eement. This MOU is intended to embody general prin- ciples agreed upon between and among the signatories and is not intended to create con- tractual relationships, rights, obligations, duties or remedies in a court of law between or among the signatories. 7.8 Modifications. The signatories agree that this writing constitutes the entire understanding between and among the signatories. The general manager, chief executive officer or executive director of each signatory or their designee shall have the authority to vote on any modifications to this MOU and its exhibits. Any modifications to the MOU itself and to its exhibits shall be made by the Council as described in Exhibit 2. -13- ( EXHIBIT ! BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, IMPleMENTATION SCHEDUI.FS, ASSUMPTIONS AND POTEN'HAL BEST , MANAGEMENT PI~.~CTICES FOP, URBAN WATER CONSERVATION IN CALIFORNIA 6/11/91 SECTION A. I~EST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES' This section contains those Best Management Practices ("BMPs") that signatory water suppliers commit to implementing. Suppliers' water needs estimates will be adjusted to reflect estimates of reliable savings from this category of BM'Ps. For some BMPs, no esti- mate of savings is made. It is recognized by all i')arties that a single implementation method for a BMP would not be appropriate for all wa'~:er suppliers. In fact, it is likely that as the process moves for- ward, water suppliers will find new implementation methods even more effective than those described. Any implementation method used should be at least as effective as the methods described below. . INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR WATER AUDITS AND INCENTI~ PRO- GRAMS FOR SING! .1:::. FAMILY RESIDENTIAD MULTI-FAMILY RESI- DENTIAL, AND GOVERNMENTAL/INS'ITTUTIONAL CUSTOMERS. Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as identifying the top 20% of water users in each sector, directly contacting them (e.g., by mail and/or telephcne) and offering the service on a repeating cycle; providing incentives sufficient to achieve customer implementation (e.g., free shower- heads, hose end sprinkler timers, adjustment to high water use bills ff cus- tomers implement water conservation measures, etc.). This could be a cooperative program among organizations that would benefit from its imple- mentation. 2. PLUMBING, NEW AND RETROFIT. ENFOR.CEMENT OF WATER CONSERVING PLUMBING FLX- TLrRE STANDARDS INCLUDING REQUIREMENT FOR ULTRA LOW FLUSH ("U[~') TOIIFTS IN ),IJ~ NEW CONSTRUCTION BEGIN'..'CING JANUARY 1, 1992. 1-1 e ., Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as contacting the local building departments and providing information to the inspectors; and con- meting major developers and plumbing supply outlets to infOrm them of the requirement. ,. 'b. SUPPORT OF STATE AND FEDERAL I.I=GISLATION PROHIBI- TING SAI.I=. OF TOll.ETS USING MORE THAN 1.6 GAII ONS PER FI.USH. C. PLUMBING RETROFIT. Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as delivering retrofit kits including high quality low-flow showerheads to pre-1980 homes that do not have them and toilet displacement devices or other devices to reduce flush volume for each home .that does not already have ULF toilets; offering to install the devices; and following up at least three times. DISTRIBUTI('.)N SYSTEM WATER AUDITS, LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR. Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as at least once every three years conpleting a water audit of the water supplier's distribution sys- tem using metl~odology such as that described in the American Water Works Association's "Manual of Water Supply Practices, Water Audits and Leak Detection;" advising customers whenever it appears possible that leaks exist on the customers' side of the meter; and performing distribution system leak detection and r,,-.pair whenever the audit reveals that it would be cost effective. METERING WITH COMMODITY RATES FOR Al.l. NEW CONNECrlONS AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONNECTIONS. Implementation methods shall be requiring meters for all new connections and billing by volume of use; and establishing a program for retrofitting any existing unmetered connections and billing by volume of use; for example, through a reqt:,irement that all connections be retrofitted at or within six months of resale of the property or retrofitted by neighborhood. LARGE LANDSCAPE WATER AUDITS AND INCENTTv'ES. Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as identifying all irriga- tors of large (at least 3 acres) landscapes (e.g., golf courses, green belts, common areas, multi-family housing landscapes, schools, business parks, 1-2 e . . 6/11/91 cemeteries, pa.ri!cs and publicly owned landscapes on or adjacent to road rights-of-way); contacting them directly (by mail and/or telephone); offering landscape audits using methodology such as that described in the Landscape Water Manageraent Handbook prepared for the California Department of Water Resources; and cost-effective incentives sufficient to achieve customer implementation', providing follow-up audits at least once every five years; and providing multi-Lingual training and information necessary for implementation. LANDSCAPE WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING COMMERCIA~ INDUSTRIAL, INsrHUTIONAL, GOVERNMElXTAL, AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS. Implementation methods shall be enacting and implementing landscape water conservation ordinances, or if the supplier does not have the authority to enact ordinances, cooperating with cities, counties and the green industry in the service area to develop and implement landscape water conservation ordinances pursuant to the "Water Conservation in Landscaping Act" ("Act") (California Go,,'ernment Code §§ 65590 et I~1.). The ordinance shall be at least as effective as the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance being developed by the Department of Water Resources. A study of the effectiveness of this BMP will be initiated within two years of the date local agencies must ~,dopt ordinances under the Act. PUBLIC INFORMATION. Implementatiort methods shall be at least as effective as ongoing programs promoting water conservation and conservation related benefits including pro- v/ding speakers to community groups and the media; using paid and public service advertising; using bill inserts; prodding information on customers' bills showing use in gallons per day for the last billing period compared to the same period, the year before; providing public information to promote other water conservation practices; and coordinating with other governmental agen- cies, industry g::oups and public interest groups. SCHOOL EDUCATION. Implementatio:a methods shall be at least as-effective as ongoing programs promoting water conservation and conservation related benefits including working with Se school districts in the water suppliers service area to provide educational m~terials and instructional assistance. 1-3 e 10. 11. ( ( COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER CONSERVATION. Implementatior~ methods shall be at least as effective as identifying and con- tacting the top 10% Of the industrial and commercial customers directly (by mail and/or telephone); offering audits and incentives sufficient to achieve customer implementation; and providing follow-up audits at least once every five years if necessary. NEW COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER USE REVIEW. Irnplementatior~ methods shall be at least as effective as assuring the review of proposed water uses for new commercial and industrial water service and making recomrr,.endations for improved water use efficiency before completion of the building permit process. CONSERVATION PRICING. Implementatior~ methods shall be at least as effective as eliminating noncon- serving pricing and adopting conserving pricing. For signatories supplying both water and sewer service, this BMP applies to pricing of both water and sewer 'service. Signatories that supply water but not sewer service shall make good faith effo1:u to work with sewer agencies so that those sewer agencies adopt conservalion pricing for sewer service. Nonconserving pricing provides no incentives to customers to reduce use. Such pricing is characterized by one or more of the following components: Rates in which the unit price decreases as the quantity used increases (declining block rates); be Rates that involve charging customers a fixed amount per billing cycle regardless of the quantity used; Co Pricing in which the typical bill is determined by high fixed charges and low commodity charges. Conservation p:~'i~ing provides incentives to customers to reduce average .or peak use, or both. Such pricing includes: a. Rates designed to recover the cost of providing service; and b. Billing fi:Dr water and sewer service based on metered water use. 1-4 t2. 13. &/11/~1 Conservation pricing is also characterized by one or more of the following components: . Rates in which the unit rate is constant regardless of the quantity used (uniform rates) or increases as the quantity used increases (increasing block rates); do Seasonal rates or excess-use surcharges to reduce peak demands during summer months; e. Rates based upon the long-run marginal cost or the cost of adding the next urfit of capacity to the system; Lifeline rates. LANDSCAPE: WATER CONSERVATION FOR NEW AND EXISTING SINGLE FA.MILY HOMES. Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as providing guidelines, information and incentives for installation of more efficient landscapes and water saving practices (e.g., encouraging local nurseries to promote sales and use of Iow waler using plants, providing landscape water conservation mate- finals in new home owner packets and water bills, sponsoring demonstration gardens); and. enacting and implementing landscape water conservation · ordinances or, if the supplier does not have the authority to enact ordinances,' cooperating with cities, counties, and the green industry in the service area to develop and implement landscape water conservation ordinances pursuant to the "Water Conservation in Landscaping Act ("Act") (California Government Code §§ 65590 et seq.). The ordinance shall be at least as effective as the Model Water' Efficient Landscape Ordinance being developed by the Department o~! Water Resources. WATER WASTE PROHIBITION. Implementation methods shall be enacting and enforcing measures prohibiting gutter flooding;, sales of automatic (self-regenerating) water softeners, single pass cooling s~stems in new connections, nonxecirculating systems in all new conveyer car wash and commercial laundry systems, and nonrecycling decorative water fountains. 1-5 14. 15. 16. 6/11/91 WATER CONSERVATION COORDINATOR. Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as designating a water conservation coordinator responsible for preparing the conservation plan, managing its implementatio~ and evaluating the results. For very Small water suppliers, this might be a part-time responsibility. For larger suppliers this would be a ruE-time responsibility with additional staff as appropriate. This work should be, coordinated with the supplier's operations and planning staff. FINANCIAL INCENTIVES. Implementatio:a methods shall be at least as effective as: am Offerini: financial incentives to facilitate implementation of conserva- tion programs. Initial recommendations for such incentives will be develop,ed by the Council within two years of the initial signing of the MOU, iincluding incentives to improve the efficiency of landscape water me; and b,, Financi~l incentives offered by wholesale water suppliers to their custo- mers to achieve conservation. · ULTRA LOW FLUSH TOILET REPLACEMENT. Water suppliers agree to implement programs for replacement of existing high-water-using toilets with ultra-low-flush toilets (1.6 gallons or less) in resi- dential, co .mmercial, and industrial buildings. Such programs ~ be at least as effective as c~ffering rebates of up to $100 for each replacement that would not have .occurred without the rebate, or requiring replacement at the time of resale, or requiring replacement at the time of change of service. This level of implementation will be reviewed by the Council after development of the assumptions included in the following two paragraphs using the economic principles included in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Exhibit 3. Assumptions for determining estimates of reliable savings from installation of ultra-low-flush toilets in both ex/sting and new resi- dential, commercial, and industrial structures will be recommended by the Council to the State Water Resources Control Board '("State Board') by December 31, 1991 for use in the present Bay/Delta pro- ceedings, - 1-6 6/11/91 Should the Council not agree on the above assumptions, a panel will be formed by December 31, 1991 to develop such assumptions. The panel shall consist of one member appointed fi.om the signatory public advocac:l group; one member appointed from the signatory water supplier group; and one member mutually agreed to by the two appointed members. The assumptions to be used for th~s BMP will be determh~ed by a majority vote of the panel by February 15, 1992 using the criteria for determining estimates of reliable savings included in this MOU. The decision of the panel will be adopted by the Council and forwarded to the State Board by March 1, 1992. ,( 1-7 6/12/91 SECTION B. IMPI.EMENTATION SCHEDULES Best Management Practices will be implemented by signatory water suppliers according to the schedule set forth below. "Implementation" means achieving and main- taining the staffing, .funding, and in general, the priority levels necessary to achieve the level of activity called for in the descriptions of the various BMPs and to satisfy the commitment by the signatories to use good faith efforts to optimize savings fi.om implementing BMPs as described in section 4.4 of the MOU. BMPs will 'be implemented at a level of effort projected to achieve at least the coverages specified in Section C of this Exhibit within the initial ten year term of the MOU. This schedule sets fo:.'th the latest dates by which implementation of BMPs will be underway. It is recognized tzar some signatories are already implementing some BMPs, and that this schedule does not prohibit signatories from "implementing BMPs sooner than required. The following BMPs will be implemented by the end of the first year of the initial term (numbers correspond to those in the list set forth in Section A above): ENFORCEMENT OF WATER CONSERVING PLUMBING FIXTURE STANDARDS; INCLUDING REQUIREMENT FOR ULTRA LOW FLUSH TOIl.ETS IN AI.L NEW CONSTRUCFION BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1992.' term: 2b. SUPPORT OF STATE AND FEDERAL I.I=-GISLATION PROHIBITING SAI F. OF TOIl.ETS USING MORE THAN 1.6 GAl.! ONS PER FLUSH. e . DISTRIBIYTION SYSTEM WATER AUDITS. (I.EAK DETECTION AND 'REPAIR to be implemented by end of second year.) PUBLIC INF()RMATION. 8. SCHOOL EDUCATION. 13. WATER WASTE.PROHIBITION. 14. WATER CONSERVATION COORDINATOR.. The following BMPs ~411 be implemented by the end of the second year of the initial 2c. PLUMBING RETROFIT. 1-8 term: 6/11/91 e I F. AK DETECTION AND REPAIR. (DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WATER AUDITS to l:.,e implemented by end of first year.) e METERING WITH COMMODITY RATES FOR AI~I. NEW CONNECHONS AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONNECWIONS. e ' LANDSC~E WATER CONSERVATION REQ~MENTS'FOR NEW AND EXIS'ITNG COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, INSTITLFYIONAL, GOVERNMF. NTAL, AND MULTI-FAMII.y DEVELOPMEN'I~. 11.' CONSERVATION PRICING. (All components except billing for sewer service based on metered water use.) 12. LANDSCAPE WATER CONSERVATION FOR NEW AND EXISTING SINGI_E FAMILY HOMES. 16. ULTRA LOW FLUSH TOILET REPLACEMENT. The following BMPs will be implemented by the end of the third year of the initial le e 10. 11. INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR WATER AUDITS AND INCENTIVE PRO- GRAMS FOR SINGI.E FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY RESI- DENTIAL, AND GOVERNMENTAL/INSTITUTIONAL CUSTOMERS. LARGE LANDSCAPE WATER AUDITS AND INCENTIVES. COMMERCL. kL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER CONSERVATION. NEW COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER USE REVIEW. CONSERVATION PRICING. (Billing for sewer service based on metered water use.) 15. FINANCIAL 7.INCENTIVES. 1-9 SECI'ION C: ASSUMYI~ONS FOR ESTIMATING RELIABIJ~. SAVINGS FROM BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 6/11/91 Estimated Water Savings Pre-1980 Post-1980 Best Management Practice ' ' Construction Construction 1. Interior and Exterior Water Audits and Incentive Programs for Single Family Residential, Multi. family Residential and Governmental/Institutional . Customers . Single F0.mily an(l Multi-fv~mily Reduction factors Low-flow showerhead 7.2 gcd 2.9 gcd Toilet retrofit' . 1.3 gcd 0 Leak repair 0.5 gcd 0.5 gcd Landscape audit, percent outdoor use 10% 10% Coverage factor Target, top percent of users 20% 20% Accept audit 20% 20% Governmental/Instituti0na! Reduction Factors Interior retrofit, percent indoor use 5% 0 Landscape audit, percent outdoor use 10% 10% Coverage Factor Target, top percent of users 20% 20% Accept audit 70% 70% 1-10 2. Plumbing, New anti Retrofit ae Enforcement: of Water Conserving Plumbing FixtUre Standards Including Requirement for Ultra Low Flush Toilets in AH New Construction Beginning January 1, 1992 Reduction factor Coverage factor All new hornes and buildings built after January 1992 be Support state and federal legislation prohibiting ~'~ale of toilets using more. than 1.6 gallons per flush Reduction factor Coverage factor c.. Plumbing Retrofit Single family canvass Reduction factors Toilet retrofit" Low-flow showerhead Coverage factor Installation Rate Multi-family owner contact, Reduction factors Toilet retrofit Low-flow shcwerhead Coverage factor Installation rate N/A b NQ 1.3 gcd 7.2 gcd 75% 1.3 gcd 7.2 gcd 80% 6/11/91 N/A b NQ 'N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1-11 e 6/11/91 Distribution System Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair Reduction factor Lower unaccounted for water to no more than percent total use (All other utilities remain at current levels) Coverage factor Total numbe:~ of utilities participatiag in audits Utilities participating in teak detection and repair Metering with Commodity Rates for All New Connections and Retrofit of Existing COnnections Reduction factor Unmetered portion of utility, percent of applied water Coverage factor Un.metered customers Large Landscape V~'ater Audits and Incentives Reduction factor Landscape audit for multi-family, commercial, :i,ndustrial, institutional, and public users, with 3 acres of landscaping or more, percent of irrigation water use Coverage factor Applies to al:. sites three acres or more FACTOR lOOk 100% varies based on cost- effectiveness analysis 20% 1'00% 15% 1-12 ® ® e Landscape Water Conservation Requirements for New and Existing Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, Governmental, and Multi.family Developments Reduction factor Reduced landscape water use, percent of new irrigation use Coverage factor All new landscape areas Public Information Reduction factor Coverage factor School Education Reduction factor Coverage factor ® Commercial and Industrial Water Conservation Commercial water '::eduction results from Best Management Practices such as Interior and Landscape Water Audits, Plumbing Codes, and Other Factors but exclude Ultra Low Flush Toilet Replacement. Estimated reduction in gallons per employee per day in year 2000 use occurring over the period 1980-20{')0. Industrial water reduction results from Best Management Practices, Waste Discharge Fees, New Technology, Water Audits, Plumbing Codes and Other Factors, but exclude Ultra Low Flush Toilet Replacement. Estimated reduction in gallons per employee per day in year 2000 use over the period 1980-2000. 10. New Commercial and Industrial Water Use Review Reduction factor Coverage factor 1-13 6/11/91 20% NQ NQ NQ NO 12%~ 15%' NQ NQ 13. 14. 15. 16. Conservation Pricing Reduction factor Coverage factor Landscape Water Conservation for New and Existing Single Family Homes Reduction factor Coverage factor. Water Waste Prohibition Reduction factor Coverage factor Water Conservation Coordinator Reduction factor Coverage factor Financial Incentives Reduction factor Coverage factor Ultra Low Flush Toilet Replacement Programs Reduction factor Coverage factor NO NO NQ NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 6/11/91 1-14 ( ( NOTES AND DEFINITION OF TERMS a five year life (toilet retrofit) b refer to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Best Management Practice No. 16 c includes savings accounted for in other Best Management Practices gcd = gallons per capita per day Reduction factor = unit water savings Coverage factor = installation and/or compliance rate Low flow showerhead = 2.5 gallons per minute maximum flow Ultra low flush toilet = 1.~ gallons per flush maximum Unaccounted for water = authorized (unmetered uses), leakage and meter error Outdoor use = summer - winter use, on an average annual basis Irrigation use = water useC. solely for irrigating, excluding cooling water use Target = customers offered a.n incentive or audit N/A = not applicable NQ = not quantified at thi:; time 6/11/91 1-15 6/11/91 SECTION D. POTENTIAL BEST MANAGEMENT. PKACFICES This Section contains Potential Best Management Practices ('PBMPs') that will be studied. Where appropriate, demOnstration projects will be carried out to determine ff the practices meet the criteria to be designated as BMPs. Within one year of the initial signing of this MOU,' the Council will develop and adopt a schedule for studies of these PBMPs. lo RATE S'I'RUC~ AND OTHER F_L~NOMIC IN~ AND DISIN- CEOS T£) ENCOURAGE WATER CONSERVATION. This is the top priority PBMP ~ be studied. Such studies should include seasonal rotes; increasing block rates; coxmection fee discounts; grant or loan programs .to help finance conservation projects; financial incentives to change lan~; variable hookup fees fled to landscaping; and interruptible water service to large industrial, commercial or public customers. Studies on this PBMP will be initiated within 12 months frorr:: 'the initial signing of the MOU. At least one of these studies will include a pilot project on incentives to encouarage landscape water conservation. EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR WATER USING APPLIANCES AND IRRIGATION DEVICES. e REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING WATER USING APPLIANCES (EXCEPT TOILETS AND SHOWERHEADS WHOSE REPLACEMENTS ARE INCORPO~TED AS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES) AtND IRRIGATION DEVICES. 4. RETROFIT OF EXISTING CAR WASHES. 5. GRAYWATER USE. 6. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PRESSURE REGLff..ATION. e WATER SUPPLER BILIfl2qG RF_ODRDS BROKEN DOWN BY CUb~RD~R CIa, S (E.G., RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAl., INDUSTRIAL). e SWIMMING POOL AtND SPA CONSERVATION INCLUDING COVERS TO REDUC~ EVAPORATION. '9. RF~TRICYIONS OR PROHIBITIONS ON DEVICES THAT USE EVAPORATION TO COOL EXTERIOR SPACES. 10. POINT-OF-USE WATER HEATERS, RECIRCUI~TING HOT WATER SYSTEMS AN[) HOT WATER PIPE INS~TION. 11. EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR NEW INDUffIRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROCESSES. 1-16 ( EXHIBIT 2 CALIFORNIA URBAUN WATER CONSERVATION COU~C~ 6/11/~1 1. The California Urban Water Consen, ation Council (the "Council") will be comprised of a representative of each cf thc signatories to the MOU. 2. The Council w,~ be housed by California Urban Water Agencies ("CUWA"). The Council will act independently of CUWA on all technical and policy issues. CUWA will be responsible for the initial ftmding and ensuring that the'Councirs administrative and general office needs are met. CUWA will retain the right to withdraw from this relationship at any time upon 180 days written notice to the Council. The Council recognizes that its funding requirements may exceed what CUWA is prepared to contribute and that alternative funding may be needed. 3. The Council's responsibilities and authorities include: (a) Recommending study methodologies for Best Management Practices ("BMPs"), including procedures for assessing the effective~ and reliability of urban water conservation measures. (b) Developing guidelines including discount rate to be used by all signatories in comparing BMP benefits and costs pursuant to Exhibit 3. (c) Reviewing and modifying the economic principles set forth in Exhibit 3. (d) Collecting and summarizing information on implementation of BMPs and Potential Best Management Practices ('PBMPs'). (e) Adopting or modifying BMPs and PBMPs lists. (f) Adopting or modifying reliable water conservation savings data for BMPs. (g) Adopting or modifying the schedules of implementation for existing and new BMPs. (h) Adopting or modifying the schedules for research and demonstration projects for BMPs and PBMPs. (i) Coordinating and/or making recommendations regarding BMPs study and den:.onstration projects. 2-1 ( ( 6/11/91 (J) Accepting, or denying requests for additional parties to join the MOU and assigning additional parties to one of the three signatory groups as described in Section 1.3 of the MOU. (k) Reviewing and modifying report formats. 0) Making annual reports to the State Water Resources Control Board and the Coundl Members on the above items based on the format described in Exhibil: 5. (m) Within two years of the initial signing of this MOU, developing and implementing procedures and a funding mechanism for independent evaluation of the MOU process at the Council and signatory levels. (n) Undertaking such additional responsibilities as the Members may agree upon. 4. The Council will make formal reports to the State Water Resources Control Board and to the governing bodies of all Council Members. Such reports shall include a formal annual written report. Other reports such as status reports and periodic updates may be prepared as deemed appropriate by the Council. Any Member of the Coundl will be entitled to review draft reports and comment on all reports. Such comments shall be included in any final report at the Member's request. 5. It is anticipated l:hat the Council will develop a committee structure, which will include a Membership Comnfittee as described in Section 7.2 of the MOU. A Steering Committee and one or more ':ethnical committees may also be needed. 6. 'For purposes of l:he Council, signatories will be divided into three groups: water suppliers ("Group 1"), public advocacy organizations ("Group 2") and other interested groups ("Group 3") as those terms are defined in Section '1 of the MOU. Members of Groups 1 and 2 shall be members of the Coancil and shall possess all voting fights. Members of Group 3 shall not have voting rights, but shall act in an advisory capadty to the Council. 7. Decisions by the Council to undertake additional responsibilities; to modify the MOU itself; or to modify Exhibi~ 2 or 3 require the following: (a) The Council will provide notice to all signatories giving the text of the proposeCi, action or modification at least 60 days in advance of the vote by the-Cauncil. (b) To pass lhe action or modification, there must be a vote in favor of the action or.modification by at least 2/3 of the members of Group 1 voting, 2-2 6/11/91 including votes made in person or in writing, and a vote in favor of the action or modification byat least 2/3 of the members of Group 2 voting, including,: votes made in person or in writing. 8. All other modifications and Council actions shall be undertaken as follows: There must be a vote in favor c.f the modification or action by a simple majority of the members of Group 1 voting, including votes made in person or in writing, and a vote in favor of the modification or action by a sirr~ple majority of the members of Group 2 voting, including votes made in person or in writing. 2-3 .¢ EXHIBIT 3 PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE PERFORMANCE OF BMP ECO~r'OMIC (COST-EFFECTIVENESS) ANALYSE~ 6/11/91 , . , The total cost-effectiveness of a conservation measure will be measured by comparing the present value of the benefits of the measure listed in paragraph 3 below to the present value of the costs listed in paragraph 4.' The measure will be cost-effective if the present value c,f the benefits exceeds the present value of the costs. 'The cost-effectiveness, ora consev,,ation measure to the water supplier will be measured by comparing the present value of the benefits described in paragraph $ to the present value of the costs-des~.Tibed in paragraph 6. The measure will be cost-effective if the present value of the benefits exceeds the present value of the costs. Total benefits exclude, financial incentives received by water suppliers or by retail customers. These benefits include: (a) avoided capita] costs of production, transport, storage, treatment, wastewater · treatment and distribution capacity (b) (c) avoided operating costs, including but not limited to, energy and labor environmental benefits and avoided environmental costs (d) avoided costs to' other water suppliers, including those associated with making surplus water available to other suppliers (e) benefits to retail customers, including benefits to customers of other suppliers associated with making surplus water available to these suppliers Total program costs are those costs associated With the planning, design, and implementation of the particular BMP, excluding financial incentives paid either to other water suppliers or to retail customers. These costs include: (a) capital expenditures for equipment or conservation devices (b) operating expenses for staff or contractors to. plan, design, or implement the program (c) costs to other water suppliers 3-1 e 1 6/11/91 (d) costs to the envit'onment (e) costs to retail ct~$tomers Program benefits to the water supplier include: (a) costs avoided by the water supplier of constructing production, trart, rport, storage, treatment, distribution capacity, and wastewater treatment facilities, ff any. (b) operating costs avoided by the water supplier, including but not limited to, energy and labor associated with the water deliveries that no longer must be made (c) (d) (¢) avoided costs of water purchases by the 'water supplier · environmental l:.enefits and avoided environmental costs revenues from o:her entities, including but not limited to revenue from the sale of water made available by the conservation measure and financial incentives received from other entities 'Program costs to the water supplier include: (a) capital expenditures incurred by the water supplier for equipment or conservation devices (b) (c) f'mancial incentives to other water suppliers or retail customers operating expenses for staff or contractors to plan, design, or implement the program (d) .costs to the environment The California Urban Water Conservation CrJuncil ("Coundl") will be responsible for developing guidelinea that will be used by all water suppliers in computing BMP benefits and coata. These guidelines will include, but will not be limited to, the following issues: (a) analytical frameworks (b) (c) avoided environmental costs other impacts on the supply system that may be common to many water suppliers (d) time horizons and discount rates 3-2 ' 6/11/91 (e) avoided costs to non-water supply agencies (f) benefits and costs tO retail customers (g) benefits of water made available to other entities as a result of conservation efforts These guidelines will recognize, the uniqueness of individual water suppliers and will'therefore not impose excessive nniforr~it~. e Within these guidelines, each water supplier will be responsible for analyses of the cost-effectiveness of particular BMPs on its system. These analyses will be reviewed by the Council. e The Council will also be responsible for periodically reviewing the overall framework set forth in this Exhibit. 3-3 EXHIBIT 4 6/11/91 [Date] - W. Don Maughart, Chairman~ and Members State Water Resources Control Board 901 "P" Street Sacramento, California 95801 Subject: Bay/Delta P:oceedings: Urban Water Conservation. Dear Chairman Maughan and Members: We are pleased to forw:u'd to you a copy of a "Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California" recently entered into by many urban water suppliers, public advocacy organizations, and other interested groups. This Memorandum of Understanding was developed over a period of many months of fact-gathering and intensiw', negotiations. It commits the signatory water suppliers to good faith implementation of a program of water conservation which embodies a series of 'Best Management' Practices" for (hlifornia's urban areas. It also commits all of the signatories to an ongoing, structured process of data collection through which other conservation measures, not yet in general use, can be evaluated, as to whether they should be added to the list of Best Management Practices. Flintily, it commits all signatories to recommending to this Board that the Best Management Practices identified in this Memorandum of Understanding be taken as the benchmark for estimating reliable savings for urban areas which utilize waters affected by the Bay/Delta proceedings. An important part of this program is the signatories' ~-ecognition of the need to pro'ride long-term reliability for urban water suppliers and long-term protection of the environme:at. - To carry out these commitments, please be advised thai each of the signatories has endorsed making the following recommendations to this Board: 4-1 6/11/91 1. That for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings, implementation of the Best Management Practices process set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding represents a sufficient long-term water co~:servation program by the signatory.water suppliers, recognizing that additional programs may be required during occasional water supply shortages. '2. That for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings only, the Board should base its estimates of future urban water conservation savings on implementation of all of the Best Management Practices included in Section A of Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Understanding for the entire service area of the signatory water suppliers and only on those Best Management Practices, except for (a) the conservation potential for water supplied by urban agencies for agricultural purposes, or (b) in cases where higher levels of conservation have been mandated. 3. That for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings, the Board should make its estimates of future Urban water conservation savings by employing the reliable savings assumptions associated with those Best Management Practices set forth in Section C of Extfibit 1 to the Memorandum of Un¢:lerstanding. Measures for which reliable savings assumptions are not yet available should not be employed in estimating future urban water use. 4. That the Board should include a policy statement in the water rights phase of the present Bay/Delta proceedings supporting the Best Management Practices process described in the Memorandum of Under.,:.tanding and should also consider that process in any documents it prepares pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as part of the present Bay/Delta 'proceedings.. It Should be emphasized that the Memorandum of Understanding does not contain. projections of population for California and, accordingly, none of the signatories to the Memorandum of Understandirg are agreeing to recommend that any specific population levels be used by the Board in estimating future water demands. Furthermore, it should be noted that the signatories have retai:aed the fight to advocate any particular level of protection for the Bay/Delta Estuary, including levels of freshwater flows, and that the Memorandum of Understanding is not intended to address any authority or obligation of the Board to estab~h freshwater flow protections or to set water quality objectives for the Estuaxy. The Memorandum of Understanding is also not ia':ended to address any authority of the Environmental Protection Agency. Finally, as described in Section 5.1 of the MOU, the signatories have not limited their ability ~o propose different conservation practices, different estimates of savings or different processes in a forum other than the present Bay/Delta proceedings or for non-urban water suppliers or for other water management issues. Public advocacy organization signatories have not agreed to use the initial assumptions of reliable conservation savings in proceedings other than the present Bay/Delta proceedings. The signatories may present other assumptions of reliable conservation saving~ for non-signatory water suppliers in the Bay/Delta proceedings, 4-2 6/11/91 provided that such assumptions could not adversely impact the water supplies of signatory water suppliers. The Memorandum of Understandi~ establishes an ongoing process for study aud research in the field of urban water coaservation and an or§anizadonal structure to supporl this effort, which is described in Exhibit 2 to the Memorandum of Undersmuding. The proce,~ is dyuamic .and contemplates periodic revisions to the list of Best Management Practices, as well as refinements to the savings assumptiom based on continuing field studies. The Califom~ Urban Water Conservation Council will forward updated lists of Best Management Practices and updated savings assumptions to the Board as they become available. However, for the present Bay/Delta proceedings, the measures and savings assumptions listed on Exhibit I should be used as described above. The Memorandum of Understanding is a significant accomplishment and one of which all the parties are proud. We hope it will be of value to the Board in the complex and important Bay/Delta proceedings. By copy of this letter, we are forwarding these recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency. Very Truly Yours, Name of Signatory CC: By: Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 "M" Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20~.60 Regional Administrator, Region IX U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, California 94105 4-3 EXHIBIT 6/11/91 III. URBAN 'fl/ATER CONSERVATION ANNUAL REPORT OUTLINE Executive Summary Implementation Assessment Water Suppliers' Report Findings Comments Progre,ss Public Advocacy Organizations' Report Findings Comments Progre:5s Survey Results for 199X Summary of Survey Responses Table . Per Capita Usage [by region] Table . Status of BMP Implementation [by supplier] Table .... . Proposed Implementation Schedules Interpretation of survey Responses Lack of Data Climatic Influences Implex:aenmtion Difficulties Evaluation of Results Trend Analysis Comparison with Prior Years Table . Per Capita Usage [by.region] Projected Conservation Table . Schedule of Implementation 5-1 6/11/91 XI. Substantiated Findings in Support of Use of Alternative Schedule of Implementation APpendices ~ List of Signatories [sul~zommittee members noted] Key Correspondence a~d Comments 5-3 Me Vim 6/11/91 . Updated Estimates of Future Savings [by region] Evaluation of Progress Studies of Best Management practices Assessment of Current BMPs Table ___. Evaluation of Effectiveness [by measure and region] · Assessment of Fotential BMPs .. Status of Current Studies Proposed Future Studies Revision of Lists of Chm'ent and Potential BMPs Additions and Deletions Other Modifications to MOU or Exhibits Recent Developments Legislative Update Program Funding Case Studies Residenti~fl Conservation Industrial Conservation Irrigation Efficiency Legal Act:ions National Practices Technical Advances PubLications Council Committee Acdvi'ties Funding Levels Staffing Levels Substantiated Findings by Signatory Water Supplier in Support of Use of Exemptions 5-2