The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-09-11 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 12:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. Executive Session - Legal Matters 2. Follow-up on Question Raised by Council at September 4th Work Session on the Number of Rental Units the Marriott Mark is Required to Provide 3. Presentation regarding the Municipal Complex 4. Review Staff Research and Planning and Environmental Commission Recommendations on Air Quality Issues including Passive Smoke and Smoking in Restaurants, Fireplace Ordinance, as well as Other Air Quality Measures 5. Discussion regarding Vested Property Rights 6. Planning and Environmental Commission Report 7. Design Review Board Report 8. Information Update 9. Other VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 12:30 P.M. EXPANDED AGENDA 12:30 1. Executive Session - Legal Matters Larry Eskwith 1:00 2. Follow-up on Question Raised by Council at September 4th Jill Kammerer Work Session on the Number of Rental Units the Marriott Mark is Required to Provide Background Rationale: This issue was raised as there is a request to combine two condominiums, each with a lock-off unit, into one condominium with one lock-off. The issue was raised during the DRB report on Sept. 4, 1990. Community Development staff will update Council on the status of any existing agreements which address the number of Marriott Mark units which must remain in the rental pool. 1:10 3. Presentation regarding the Municipal Complex Steve Barwick Mike Mollica Action Requested of Council: Provide direction relating to Corey Schmidt site selection for all or part of municipal needs. Background Rationale: The consultants selected to work with the Municipal Complex Redevelopment Task Force will update the Council on site analysis, recommended space needs, and a discussion of comparisons with other communities. 2:40 4. Review Staff Research and PEC Recommendations on Air Susan Scanlan Quality Issues including Passive Smoke and Smoking in Restaurants, Fireplace Ordinance, as well as other Air Quality Measures Action Requested of Council: 1) Develop consensus on direction to take on the issues of passive smoking and smoking in restaurants. Review PEC recommendations for revisions to the existing fireplace ordinance and other air quality measures based on staff research. Background Rationale: 1) Last year when the issue of restaurant smoking restrictions was addressed by a voluntary effort on behalf of the restaurants, Council asked to review the voluntary program in a year. Council also raised the issue of passive smoke and its affects. 2) Staff has recently completed research on fireplace ordinances and air quality measures in other communities with the intent of revising Vail's existing ordinance. PEC has now reviewed and added to staff's suggested changes, and Council review is requested prior to drafting of the revised ordinance. Staff Recommendation: 1) Develop Council direction for desired actions on the topics of passive smoke and smoking in restaurants. 2) Review proposed ordinance changes and make any additional suggestions for input prior to drafting of the ordinance (revised). 4:40 5. Discussion regarding Vested Property Rights Larry Eskwith Action Requested of Council: Give staff direction. Background Rationale: A discussion relating to the State of Colorado's vested rights statute and its affect on TOV policies and procedures. 5:10 6. Planning and Environmental Commission Report Kristan Pritz 5:25 7. Design Review Board Report Mike Mollica Shelly Mello 5:40 8. Information Update Ron Phillips 5:45 9. Other l TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 7, 1990 RE: Air Quality: Indoor and Outdoor Concerns I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memo is two-fold. The first part of the memo, Section II, deals with the topics of passive and restaurant smoke which are being revisited at the request of Council. There are three attachments addressing the topic of passive or second hand smoke which are provided for information purposes. The second portion of the memo, Section III, deals with the issue of the fireplace ordinance and outdoor air quality. The information contained in Section III is the result of research and discussion with the Planning and Environmental Commission. The conclusions and recommendations are based on discussion of the PEC memo dated July 23, 1990 entitled Air Quality Research: Summary and Staff Recommendation. Staff .would recommend reading the attached memo before reading Section III to more fully understand the information contained in that portion of the memo. II. AIR QUALITY: INDOOR CONCERNS--PASSIVE AND RESTAURANT SMOKE A. Purpose of Discussion: The Council last year stated that the issues of smoking controls in restaurants and passive smoke would be revisited this fall. The staff is bringing these topics forth for discussion at this time to examine the merits of further action. Research does show that passive or second hand smoke is a significant cause of disease in healthy nonsmokers. The attached literature addresses the issue of passive or secondhand smoke. B. Backaround: Last year at this time the issue of an ordinance to prohibit smoking in public places was addressed by Council. Prior to that time the Town of Vail had an ordinance in place which prohibited smoking in all Town owned or operated property. In response to public concern and an increasing amount of literature concerning the negative health effects of smoking, active and passive, the Council directed the staff to research ordinances from other communities; specifically as they related to restaurant regulations. 1 Staff researched ordinances in Aspen and Telluride, of the more restrictive ordinances in the state and presented the results to Council. The local restau community came to Council and requested a chance to develop some type of a program whereby they could regulate smoking in their establishments on a volun basis. The Council agreed to a one year trial peri for the voluntary program after which time they wou review the program's success or failure and also reserve the right to enact an ordinance at a future date. A group of local restauranteurs worked with staff to devise a sticker to be placed on the menus of all local restaurants. The verbage on the sticker read "In consideration of everyone's health, we encourage you not to smoke." Stickers were provided to local restaurants by the Town in an effort to get cooperation from all local restaurants. Although some establishments chose not to use the stickers, most did. Others that did not use the stickers either had their own message printed or already had existing no-smoking policies. The staff also encouraged establishments not to place ashtrays on their tables and this recommendation was followed by most establishments. C. Present Situation: At this time staff has spoken with up to a dozen local establishments as to the success of the program. Each proprietor staff has spoken with feels the program worked well and although they may have encountered a few minor problems, they did not have any major complaints. The Community Development Department did not receive any complaints during the course of the trial program. D. Recommendation: Staff recommends the continuation of the voluntary program which has been well received. Restaurants have communicated to staff that public smoking in the dining area has dramatically decreased and now occurs if at all in bar areas. At this point the Vail restaurant C~uu~~unity would like to see the voluntary program continued. 2 1 III. AIR QUALITY: OUTDOOR CONCERNS--FIREPLACE ORDINANCE A. Backaround: Over the past two years the staff has been conducting and overseeing a number of studies and research projects in an effort to come to terms with our air quality situation. Approximately six years ago it was determined Vail had a 95$ probability of exceeding new EPA standards for PM10 based on previous air sampling results. Subsequent years have seen the continuation of air sampling for determination of current PM10 levels. Although the sampling results do not indicate violation of the PM10 standards, it has been noted that the winter season has periods of poor visual air quality or poor visibility. Over the past two years the staff has coordinated a carbon monoxide study with the State Health Department, an emissions inventory with Air Sciences, Inc. and a significant amount of research on ordinances from other communities. The carbon monoxide study determined Vail does not violate federal carbon monoxide standards for 8 hr. or 24 hr. periods. The emissions inventory was conducted to determine the major contributing sources to our PM10 picture and determined two major contributors. The major sources of our PM10 pollution were determined to be road sand and wood smoke. Additional conversations with state officials and private sector personnel seemed to reiterate that if the problem is determined to be a visibility issue as opposed to PM10 violations the largest contributing factor would be wood smoke. The reasoning behind this statement is that although road sanding materials tend to be ground up by traffic and resuspended they will not remain airborne for extended periods and as a result would not be a significant contributor to the visible haze. Road sand would contribute to the overall PM10 total due to sampling procedures. The Air Pollution Control Division of the State Health Department has indicated that they would not recommend chemical mass balance testing at this time to further pinpoint the percent contribution of road sand or wood smoke. The existing PM10 data does not indicate sufficiently high values to indicate effective CMB analysis. Their feeling is that we have the two major contributors identified and both of these should be addressed if possible. 3 1 After considerable time and discussion with the Planning and Environmental Commission, the staff drafted a number of recommendations to address the issues of road sanding and wood smoke in an effort to improve our overall air quality picture. Staff recommendations and results of ordinance research are included in the attached memo. B. Plannina C~.~u,~ission Recommendations--Current Ordinance Revisions: The staff position on the existing ordinance is that it is not restrictive enough if our position is to control or reduce the amount of wood smoke in the valley. It currently contains "loopholes" or language which does not result in a net reduction in the number of fireplaces in the event of units being combined. The largest area of concern was that it does not encourage or offer sufficient incentives for people to build fireplaces equipped with gas logs and refrain from burning wood in new construction. After discussion with PEC members they concurred with the recommendation of State Health not to pursue chemical mass balance testing at this time. They were of the opinion that the two major contributors to the pollution picture had been identified. They felt since road sand and wood smoke had been identified as major contributors it would be more productive to address both immediately rather than await further studies to - identify exact contributions of each. The staff made several recommendations for changes to the existing ordinance (see pages 10, 11 and 13 of attached 7/23/90 memo) and after working with the Planning and Environmental Commission produced the following recommendations for your consideration. 1. Add a provision to allow for the construction of 3 fireplaces to be equipped with gas logs and up to 3 gas appliances in new construction. If this option is chosen the owner gives up entirely the right to burn wood. 2. Change the existing ordinance to allow for the construction of one wood burning fireplace or ore certified wood stove per dwelling unit and up to 3 gas appliances. 4 3. If anv number of separate dwelling units are combined to form one larger dwelling unit and each dwelling unit previously contained some form of wood burning fireplace or certified wood stove. a. All but one wood burning unit must be removed. b. All wood burning units may remain if all units are converted to gas, either by the installation of gas logs or if fireboxes and vent are modified to accommodate a gas appliance. 4. If units are to be considered separate for the ' purposes of consideration for 2 wood burning fireplaces they must be completely separate--no connecting doors. 5. In those structures with multiple units or in primary/secondary, duplex, or single family that allows for a restricted unit where the units cannot be subdivided and sold separately, the restricted unit shall be allowed no more than one gas log installation and 2 gas appliances--no wood burning. In terms of more far-reaching changes, which would affect proposed development and possibly effect a decrease in wood smoke pollution as opposed to what would currently be allowed, the Planning Commission chose to address numbers of fireplaces in future high density construction. The suggested addition to the ordinance would apply to structures which contain more than two separate dwelling units. 6. Allow the construction of one wood burning unit in the lobby of the building if the lobby is over 1,000 sq. ft. in size and if fireplaces are not permitted in the units. If the units are 2,500 sq. ft. or larger they would be allowed either option 1 or 2 stated above and the lobby fireplace would not be permitted. If however the units are less than 2,500 sq. ft. they would not be allowed to have any wood burning units other than the one in the lobby. 5 { " Lobby if Units over Units Under lover 1000 sa. ft.) 2.500 sa. ft. 2.500 sa. ft. Woodburning 0* 1 0 Fireplace Gas Log or Appliance yes yes yes * If the units are under 2,500 sq. ft. in size, one wood burning fireplace is allowed in the Iobby. C. Planning Commission Recommendations--Other Pollution Sources: The staff had also made several suggestions for other innovative and fairly radical changes to our current air quality policy. 1. Consider the prohibition of wood burning fireplaces in new construction. Planning Commission felt this type of a step is not warranted at this time because not everyone perceives that we have an air quality/wood smoke problem and because wood burning fireplaces are an integral part of the mountain experience. It was suggested that staff investigate if unbuilt yet approved units could be required to comply with proposed amendments to the ordinance. 2. Develop cost analysis for utilizing less polluting sanding materials and improved street cleaning techniques or practices. The PEC wanted to see this option addressed immediately. This has been addressed briefly with both Stan Berryman of T.O.V. and Rich Perske of Colorado Department of Highways. At this point further investigation into the use of less polluting sanding material by the Town needs to be conducted and also whether a more aggressive street cleaning program is possible. Staff Berryman said the granite chips currently in use in the core area would be less polluting but would cause more vehicle damage when used on roads where cars travel at higher speeds. 6 4~ Rich Perske said it would be difficult and expensive to use a different type of sanding material for the Vail. area because of the current sanding jurisdiction for the department. They would welcome the Town of Vail taking over the sanding and sweeping of the Frontage Roads through Town, but no reimbursement was mentioned. Rich also questioned the net reduction in pollution on a different sanding material based on Aspen's past experience. Aspen has tried a variety of sanding materials and is still experiencing PM10 violations. A suggestion which has been made would be to form a coalition of ski towns or western slope communities to approach the State as a group and address the current sanding and sweeping techniques. 3.. Financial incentives to encourage conversion from wood to Gras in existing firetilaces. Planning Commission felt that it was not appropriate to provide a financial incentive but that other incentives should be considered. Other incentives including waiving permit fees for installation and to provide inspections to ensure proper installation of gas units for safety purposes should be considered. The Planning and Environmental Commission felt that people would be willing to convert without the financial rebates. It was suggested that the Town approach the gas company to ensure that gas is available to all properties in Town and also to check with log manufactures to determine if cost savings for log purchases could be negotiated. D. Conclusion: The staff would ask Council to review the research of other community ordinances which has been completed, the base information used in the formulation of these ordinances and the recommendations made by the Planning .and Environmental Commission. The staff would like to draft an ordinance for Council consideration which will encompass Council concerns and PEC concerns. The staff would like the ordinance to be comprehensive and address all areas of concern in relation to wood burning, present and future. 7 r TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 23, 1990 RE: Air Quality Research: Summary & Staff Recommendation I. BACKGROUND Over the past several years the town staff has been conducting various studies, testing programs and research programs related .to the topic of air quality. This has been an extension of efforts which began as early as 1978. The effort has included air quality studies such as a woodburning survey (1984), a carbon monoxide study (1987- 88), the present emissions inventory (1988-1989), in addition to the ongoing PM10 monitoring. Staff has also researched chemical mass balance testing (CMB), regulations in other communities which address the issue of woodburning and other related minor items. The Town currently experiences periods of reduced visibility during the winter season as a result of various contributing factors. This issue has been addressed in the past by having voluntary no burn weekends requiring the installation of Colorado certified solid fuel burning devices and by limiting the number of fireplaces which can be installed in new construction, both residential and commercial. Although these measures have been in place for a number of years we continue to experience periods of reduced visible air quality. The carbon monoxide study which was conducted during the winter season of 1987-1988 concluded that carbon monoxide levels are not currently in exceedance of state or federal standards nor is there any indication that this will occur in the foreseeable future. Elevated carbon monoxide levels are related to the amount of vehicular emissions and generally poor air quality conditions such as those which occur during temperature inversions. Denver experiences some carbon monoxide violations during the winter season because of temperature inversions combined with the large number of vehicles on the road. Vail does not experience problems with carbon monoxide because of the free shuttle bus system, weather patterns and reduced numbers of vehicle trips. The emissions inventory which was completed in May 1989 concluded Vail has two major sources of PM10 or particulate pollution. These sources were identified as emissions from fireplaces and woodstoves and resuspended road sanding 1 material. The emissions from wood smoke are estimated to contribute 57$ of the total picture, road sanding and resuspension 33$, dirt resuspension 7$, tailpipe emissions 2$ and restaurant grills making up the remaining 2$. Based on the results of the inventory, controlling the emissions from wood smoke and addressing the road sanding issue will have the greatest impact on the PM10 emissions. Although there was some imprecision in the data due to its basis on emissions factors from other areas and interpolation for Vail, the overall conclusion remains the same that the major contributing factors to the overall air quality problem are wood smoke and road sanding material resuspension. II. RESEARCH The staff has contacted various communities throughout Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho and Utah to gather information concerning fireplace ordinances in other communities. A. Communities with no Regulations: 1. Jackson Hole, Wyoming Research is currently underway similar to what Vail is doing. They are gathering information on control measures currently in place in other communities. Although it is perceived that Jackson Hole has a potential problem because of long term inversions which occur during the winter season, they do not have any PM10 violations to their knowledge. They are unaware of any current PM 10 monitoring although the State may currently be conducting this sampling. It is hard to gain support for the development of control measures without any violations. However, people are concerned about solving the problem before it gets worse. 2. Pocatello, Idaho Independent research has been done by private individuals based on health concerns--asthma and allergies. The information has been presented to the city government, but no action has been taken to date. Monitoring for PM10 and other gaseous species has been set up and will run from February 1990- January 1991. The information will then be analyzed to determine which sources need to be controlled. 2 3. Park City, Utah Although the issue has been raised several times and control measures discussed, to date nothing has been developed. To date it is not perceived that there is a sufficient problem to warrant the development of any control measures. 4. Summit County, Colorado There are no control measures currently in place in Summit County except for the Town of Breckenridge. According to Jim Rada, Environmental health Officer for Summit County, the issue will probably be researched in the next year or so. 5. Pagosa Springs, Colorado The State of Colorado conducted a study in Pagosa Springs 2-3 years ago to determine the sources of PM10. They believed woodburning to be a major contributor, but their study found the source to be the unpaved roads not woodburning. According to the City Attorney, the city did not develop any control measures for woodburning as a result of the study. 6. Fort Collins, Colorado Although there are no limitations placed on the number of solid fuel devices per dwelling in the city, there are limitations placed on type of fuel to be burned--no coal and to the type of woodstove which can be installed. The woodstove, free standing or insert, must meet Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulations. The city has also established opacity standards for the smoke coming out of chimney flues. 7. Eagle County, Colorado The county is currently researching air quality plans in other communities. This background information is to allow for the development of a plan for presentation to the board of County Commissioners by the end of the year. 3 B. Communities with Regulations in place: 1. Castle Rock, Colorado Elevation: 6,500 ft. Population: 8,500 residents Geography: Gently rolling area with a few ridges, hills. The City of Castle Rock has been determined to be a part of the Denver metro area air shed although they are located 25 miles south of the city. Based on the air studies conducted in the metro area and the support of several council members, it was determined to take strong action to limit the increased deterioration of the air quality in the Plum Creek Basin. Effective December 31, 1989 the City of Castle Rock prohibited the construction of any new solid fuel burning devices. At present the ordinance allows only for the installation of gas appliances--no installation of any type of unit which can be converted to solid fuel burning. The ordinance does not allow for the installation of "clean-burning" stoves, but does have a provision which will allow for review of the Phase III stove technology when it becomes available. The limits were imposed when Castle Rock had approximately 3500 units constructed of a possible 50,000 dwelling units. The ordinance was devised as a result of the .visible particulate pollution. It was felt that wood burning was a major cause of the pollution and as a result was the only contributor dealt with for reduction/control of the pollution problem. Castle Rock does not currently sample for PM10, but feels the state may run some monitors in their area. At last report the city is in compliance with state and federal air quality limits. 2. Crested Butte, Colorado Elevation: 8,888 ft. Population: 2,000 full time residents Geography: Town located at the upper end of the East River Valley. The valley is very narrow and surrounded on 3 sides by mountains. 4 r Crested Butte was in a rather unique position several year ago to receive help with their air quality situation from the Wood Heating Alliance. In an effort to alleviate the visual effect on the air in the Town of Crested Butte, an ordinance was developed where by all solid fuel burning units had to be replaced over a 3 year period with either gas appliances, certified wood stoves or fireplace inserts or removed altogether. Given the 3 year compliance period, 95$ of those who complied did so within the last 30 days of the time frame. According to Bill Cranke, 25$ of the units are still not in compliance. A cooperative effort was made with the Wood . Heating Alliance to offer stoves and inserts at wholesale prices. This still involved an expenditure on the part of residents of $1000- .$2000 for the units. This created ill feeling on the part of some residents, but prior to any implementation of the program or ordinance, a survey was done to gather.a feel for people's perception of the air quality problem. 86$ of those surveyed felt there was a problem and were willing to do something about it. The decision to implement the ordinance was based on past TSP (total suspended particulate) violations, but no additional studies had been completed to determine source apportionment of contributing sources of particulates. PM10 monitoring is ongoing with Crested Butte currently being in compliance with state and federal emission standards. A reduction in the visibility problem has been achieved and an approximate reduction of 80-90$ in emissions. Their staff recommended requiring non-catalytic stoves and cautions against problems related to retrofitting or changing old units. 3. Breckenridge, Colorado Elevation: 9,600 ft. Population: 1,396 year round residents; 18,860 peak season population Geography: A fairly narrow valley located east of the 10 mile mountain range. 5 Although Breckenridge has not done extensive monitoring or studying of their emissions picture, their Planning Commission and political entities made the move to place limitations on the number of solid fuel burning devices in their jurisdiction. This was brought about by a desire not to have the air quality problems seen in other mountain communities. They took the steps to .initiate their present ordinance because of the visual impacts created in other communities by the development of large multi-family developments. There is a significant potential for Breckenridge to expand by the construction of large multi- family developments. The response to the ordinance has been very favorable and has received the support of the elected officials. Although there is a variance process incorporated into the ordinance, no variances have been granted. The original ordinance was drafted by the Planning Commission and made more restrictive by the Town Council. The original ordinance has been in place for over 5 years, but the current restrictions were imposed as the result of revisions to the Development Code in the summer of 1988. The ordinance permits one woodburning appliance per dwelling unit for single family residential, unless larger than 4,000 sq. ft. in which case there may be 2. In duplex or townhouse residential , if units are 1,500 sq. ft. or larger they may have one appliance per unit. If the units are smaller than 1,500 sq. ft. of internal heated floor area, they are not allowed a wood burning appliance. The ordinance was based on square footage as a means to set limits without scientific basis. It was a fairly arbitrarily drawn point of reference. In multi-unit residential buildings, one woodburning appliance is allowed in the lobby area if over 1,000 sq. ft. in size. No woodburning appliances are allowed in dwelling units. If development occurs which would wish to provide additional fireplaces to those which are permitted they may do so by the use of gas, electricity or similar means. 6 4. Telluride, Colorado Elevation: 8,745 ft. Population: 1,300 year round residents. Geography: Box canyon The city is located in a valley surrounded on 4 sides by mountains. During the late summer/early fall of 1985, the Town of Telluride initiated a registration program for all solid fuel burning devices and issued permits for the registered units. The ordinance also called for the prohibition of construction of new solid fuel burning devices unless they met strict emissions standards and permitted only one per unit--no~open burning fireplaces are permitted unless they are located on restaurants, bars or commercial lobbies. The ordinance also incorporated a rebate program over a 3 year period to encourage people to install alternate forms of heat or to upgrade their existing wood burners. All open fireplaces in residential units had to be equipped with fireplace inserts. The rebate program was funded through the town's real estate transfer tax and offered: 1st & 2nd year $750 for alternate form of heat $200 for certified woodburning unit 3rd year $250 for alternate form of heat $100 for certified woodburning unit These actions were taken in Telluride based on the supposition that Telluride would be in violation of PM10 standards based on historical TSP data. However, no professional air quality comprehensive study was completed before the ordinance was enacted. There was also a great deal of visual evidence supporting the premise of an air quality problem. The Town of Telluride continues to do PM10 monitoring today and is currently in compliance with state and federal standards. The public was generally unhappy with the ordinance and registration program when it was initially introduced. There was one lawsuit against the Town which was dismissed and talk of a citizens initiative to change the parameters of the ordinance, but it never got off the ground. At this time, they have achieved compliance with a solid fuel burning units. 7 1 5. Steamboat Springs, Colorado Elevation: 6,700 ft. Population: 6,300 people year round. Geography: A wide valley with rolling mountains on two sides. In early 1987 the town of Steamboat Springs passed an ordinance which required the registration of all solid fuel burning devices within a 6 month period of final passage of the ordinance. Reports from the planning office and environmental health office indicate that the registration program has not been overly successful. The lack of success is based on the mail-out type of registration they conducted--not a great deal of return of surveys. The ordinance placed limitations on the number of solid fuel burning devices allowed in residential units. In single family, duplex and two family homes one solid fuel burning advice is allowed per dwelling unit. In multi-family buildings, there is a limitation of one approved solid fuel burning device allowed per building. The ordinance also required the elimination of non-conforming solid fuel burning devices in existing dwelling units and specified time frames for completion of this project. The non- conforming units had to be eliminated, but could be replaced with approved solid fuel devices. The ordinance also requires the elimination of solid fuel burning devices which are non-conforming in commercial buildings and permits the installation of only one approved device per building after the effective date of the ordinance. The controls were imposed and developed as the result of an air quality advisory committee. The basis for the initial control measures was a public perception that there was an air quality problem. Steamboat Springs has historically violated TSP limits and has recently-winter '89- '90--violated PM10 limits. The committee in Steamboat is reorganizing to address the issue of number of units in multi-family buildings and also the issue of retrofitting existing units. Public response to control measures for future construction has been great. 8 1 6. Aspen, Colorado Elevation: 7,928 ft. Population: 12,000 year round permanent residents. Geography: Narrow valley with 10,000+ feet peaks on 3 sides of the valley. The valley floor is approximately 1/2 mile wide in town. Aspen has been regulating solid fuel devices since as early as 1973 when the Colorado Department of Health recommended a moratorium against the construction of fireplaces in condominiums and lodges. The first law in 1977, allowed unlimited woodstoves and one fireplace for single family dwellings. In multi-family developments the units had to be over 3,500 sq. ft. to allow separate fireplaces. This 1977 law also allowed for the construction of only one fireplace in the lobby for hotels and motels. In 1983 the 1977 law was modified to require that all stoves installed were certified units. In 1986, the law was further modified to allow the installation of one fireplace or one certified stove per multi-family building. The most recent revision to the ordinance applies to the metro area which encompasses most of Pitkin County. The current ordinance allows for the installation of one gas log fireplace with a provision for a second device if it is a gas log fireplace or certified stove. This provision is allowed per building and prohibits the installation in individual condos. The ordinance also allows for the installation of an unlimited number of gas appliances per building. As a part of this 1988 ordinance there was also a registration program required which to date has registered 5,200 of 5,500 property owners. The metro area ordinance no longer allows for the construction of wood burning fireplaces unless they are equipped with gas logs. This type of ordinance has been well received by the general public as it relates to new construction or individuals doing additional work to units and does not require removal of existing wood fireplaces as was initially proposed. 9 I Aspen is designated as a Group I PM10 area. In other words, they have violated PM10 standards and have been required to develop a local implementation plan to bring the community within PM10 limits. Aspen has based their ordinances over the years on results of emissions inventories and updates conducted in 1977, 1982 and 1987. The ordinance developed in 1988 was the product of the emissions inventory and some computer modeling done by the Colorado Department of Health. Aspen has done CMB sampling for the past 2 seasons in conjunction with the State Health Department, but have no results to date. They did purchase meteorological gear to enable them to predict high pollution days and announce no burn alerts, but equipment failure has prevented any alerts. III. CURRENT VAIL ORDINANCE A great deal of the research and studies which have been conducted have been to allow for the well informed development of an overall air quality plan. The plan would address Vail's air quality on a long term basis and encompass a number of different factors which contribute to the .overall air .quality. In addition to the overall plan the staff would like to recommend changes and revisions to existing fireplace ordinances. These changes would address some of the issues which have been raised related to fireplaces and the current ordinances. The initial purpose for the original fireplace ordinance and the purpose of the proposed recommendations is to protect the air quality of the valley and to reduce the amount of particulate pollution introduced into the air. Each of these recommendations will result in no net increase in the amount of particulate pollution and may result in a decrease by eliminating some particulate. The staff recommendations are: A. Include a provision to the existing ordinance to allow for the construction of 2 masonry fireplaces for the installation of gas logs in new residential dwelling units. If the fireplaces are constructed under this provision of the ordinance, the owner will forfeit the right to burn wood in either fireplace. This provision would also allow for the installation of one gas appliance. 10 Research has indicated that the by-products of natural _ gas combustion are carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and small amounts of smoke under improper operating conditions. These by-products are not released in sufficient quantities to pose any problems from the standpoint of carbon monoxide or particulate levels. At this time there are no~ standards for levels of hydrocarbons or nitrogen oxides. The overall effect of burning natural gas as opposed to wood in a fireplace is a 85-99$ reduction in the levels of carbon monoxide and particulates released to the atmosphere. Although a 99$ reduction in particulates is rather optimistic, research shows the reduction to be over 90$. B. Change the existing ordinance which allows for the construction of one wood burning fireplace and one certified wood stove or two certified woodstoves per dwelling unit to permit only one fireplace or one certified wood stove per unit. C. Include language which specifically states that if two separate dwelling units are combined to form one larger unit and both previously had fireplaces there are two options: 1. Both units may remain if both are converted to gas logs or if the fire box and vent are converted to accommodate a gas appliance; or 2. One wood burning fireplace must be removed. D. Include language which states that if units are to be considered separate for the purposes of consideration for 2 wood burning fireplaces they must be completely separate--must have a complete physical separation between units--no connecting doors. E. Consideration of a provision to prohibit the installation or construction of wood burning units-- whether fireplaces or stoves--in units which are employee restricted, caretaker designated, units which cannot be subdivided and sold separately or units under a certain square footage. The staff rec....~.,.ends these changes to the current ordinance to address requests which have been made recently and also to continue to respond in a responsive and yet environmentally sensitive manner to the issue of fireplaces. 11 1R i IV. OVERALL AIR QUALITY PLAN At this point in time the next step in the development of an overall air quality plan for Vail is to make a determination of how to proceed. As indicated earlier, the Town currently has historical TSP (total suspended particulate) data, PM10 data (both historical and ongoing), the woodburning survey results, carbon monoxide study findings, emissions inventory findings and research information from actions taken in other communities. The staff has also investigated the costs of conducting a chemical mass balance study to further delineate the percentage contribution of the major particulate pollutants (see attachment from PEC memo 3/19/90). The bulk of the research conducted from other communities has indicated that ordinances and control measure have been ,developed based on a variety of base data ranging from past TSP violations, PM10 violations, emissions inventories and in several cases public concern over the degradation of the community's visibility or visual air quality. The ordinances cover an extensive range. of options in the various communities and their acceptance has also been varied. At this time, the Planning Commission is asked to consider the next step in the process for the development of an overall air quality plan. There has been some indication on the part of several members that the chemical mass balance analysis should be the next step in collection of background data for a well founded, well based air quality plan. The staff feels at this time that consideration should be given to the length of time required to conduct the CMB study. The study could quite possibly run from the start of the ski season to early spring. There would be a delay experienced in receiving data from this study and there is some concern in putting off the development of control measures until next summer. The staff supports, in theory, the question of a chemical mass balance analysis to provide numerical data for back-up of proposed control measures, but would caution that there is a certain amount of uncertainty and variability inherent even in this type of study. 12 6 Conversations with various other communities and experts during the course of this research have caused staff to hesitate on taking a position to advocate conducting a chemical mass balance analysis. We currently do not experience PM10 violations or elevated values which seem to be necessary for an effective chemical mass analysis to be conducted. Prior to implementing a CMB study, the staff would recommend evaluation of existing PM10 by a trained professional to determine the effectiveness of a CMB study in our circumstances. The staff would make this recommendation as a precaution against conducting a study which may not provide any more conclusive data than is already available. The study is also quite expensive. If it can be determined that the CMB will not provide additional relevant data, a great deal of money can be saved and possibly used for a rebate program or other incentives to improve air quality. V. SUNIIKARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Vail has strived to be a proactive, environmentally sensitive community and at this point staff would recommend a continuation of this policy. The environment here in Vail is a natural resource which must be preserved and cannot be replaced. A large part of the success of the area is the natural beauty which we must protect. We would recommend development of future control measures in relation to woodburning and road sanding based on the studies conducted to date. These proposed recommendations should be well considered as they will be long term and far reaching. Staff would recommend consideration of the following points: 1. Limit woodburning in multi-family units--especially for units under a certain square footage. 2. Consider the prohibition of woodburning fireplaces in new construction. 3. Develop cost analysis for utilizing less polluting road sanding materials and improved street cleaning practices. 4. Consider financial incentives to convert from wood to gas. 5. Complete changes to the existing fireplace ordinances on pages 10 and 11. 13 0 c 7 If the commission advocates CMB testing, the staff would recommend it be conducted in conjunction with the development of the above control measures. As stated previously, we recommend that a trained professional determine if a CMB study will provide useful data for policy development. In this way the development of the control measures and air quality plan will continue to go forward instead of being on hold for the upcoming ski season and potentially next spring's building season. Monies, if spent, will be used prudently. 14 FA~~I~S ABOUT' SECON t~HAN ~ SMOT~~ The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking, the 1986 Surgeon's General ~ _ Report which was peer-reviewed by more than 60 scientists, concludes: `~__J' • Involuntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy nonsmokers. • Simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same airspace may reduce, but does not eliminate, exposure of nonsmokers to environmental tobacco smoke. • The technology for the cost effective filtration of tobacco smoke from the air is currently not available. • The children of parents who smoke, compared to children of nonsmoking parents, have an increased frequency of respiratory infections, increased respiratory,; . ~ ~~,y symptoms, and slightly smaller rates of increase in lung function as the lung matures. _ _ .i .Cigarettes contain over 3,800 chemicals. Hazardous substances in secondhand smoke include:~~ carbon monoxide, nicotine, tars,. hydrogen cyanide, benzopyrene, arsenic, formaldehyde, cadmium, benzene, nitrogen dioxide, and radioactive elements. There is no safe exposure level to many of these toxic elements. Every time anyone lights a cigarette, cigar or pipe, smoke enters the atmosphere from two sources. First, sidestream smoke goes directly into the air from the burning end of the cigarette. Second, mainstream smoke is exhaled directly by the smoker. • Cigarette smokers inhale and exhale mainstream smoke eight or nine times with each cigarette fora _ total of 24 seconds. But the cigarette burns for 12 minutes and pollutes the air continuously with _ sidestream smoke, which is more noxious than mainstream smoke. • Smoke from an "idling" cigarette contains Hearty twice the amount of tar and nicotine, up to five times as much carbon monoxide and 50 times as much ammonia than smoke that is drectly inhaled. • The total smoke exposure to nonsmokers is smaller than the exposure to the smoker, but the smoke nonsmokers breath is richer in certain hazardous compounds than mainstream smoke. . "One hour sent in asmoke-filled room is equivalent to smoking a cigarette." . U.S. Surgeon General, January 1989 GASP of Colorado Group To Alleviate Smoking Pollution Box 12103 Boulder, CO 80303 (303) 444-9799 _ United States pff~ce of June 1989 Environmental Protection Air and Radiation Agency (ANR-445) A~ ~.=.EPA Indoor Air Facts i\!o. 5 Environmental Tobacco Smoke Environmental 7"obacco Smoke (I;TS) is one of the Why ETS Is Harmful most widespread and harmful indoor air pollutants. E"I"S comes from secondhand smoke exhaled by Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn smokers and sidestream smoke emitted from the completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 burning end of cigarettes, cigars, and pipes. E"IS is chemical compounds, including: carhon monoxide, a mixture of irritating gases and carcinogenic tar nicotine, carcinogenic tars, sulfur dioxide, ammc~cti;t, particles. It is a known cause of lung cancer and nitrogen oxides, vinyl chloride, hydrogen cyanide, respiratory symptoms, and has been linked to heart formaldehyde, radionuclides, benzene, and arsenic. disease. Breathing in E'I"S is also known as "involun- These chemicals have been shown in animal studies tart'" or "passive' smoking. to be highly toxic. Many are treated as ha-rardous ' when emitted into outdoor air by toxic-waste dumps What's The Big Dea! About A Little Smoke? and chemical plants. There are 43 carcinogenic compounds in tohacco In the United States, 50 million smokers annually smoke. In addition, some substances arc mutagcnic, smoke approximately 600 billion cigarettes, 4 billion which means they can cause permanent, often cigars, and the equivalent of 11 billion pipesful of harmful, changes in the genetic material of cells. tobacco. Since .people spend approximately 90 , E1 A research has shown that I:"I'S is the major percent of their time indoors, this means that about source of mutagens indoors when smoking rrccurs. 4G7,000 tons of tobacco are burned indoors each higher levels of mutagcnic particles arc found in year. Over a 16-hour day, the average smoker homes with i'I'S than in homes with wood stoves or smokes about two cigarettes per hour, and takes in outdoor urhan environments with n_u_merous diesel ahout ten minutes per cigarette. 'l~hus, it takes only trucks and huscs. a few smokers in a given space to release amore-or- less steady stream of ETS into the indoor air. Many studies have shown that nonsmokers absorb E1'S components in their body fluids. The of feet crf In 19$5, three major bodies were independently E7~S nn nonsmokers depends on the dun~tiun cif convened to consider the public health implications exposure. According to the National Research of passive smoking_ Commissioned by the U.S. Council, short-term visitors to a smoking area arc Public Health Service under the Surgeon General, by most likely to he annoyed by the tobacco smoke the National Research Council (NRC) at the request odors, whereas nonsmoking occupants of the area of IsPA, and by the congressionally-mandated are more likely to complain about irritating effects Interagency Task [~orce on linvironmental Cancer, to the eyes, nose or throat. Long-term exposure to I{earl, and Lung llisease, the three bodies arrived at E'IS may lead to more serious health effects. a consensus: passive smoking significantly increases the risk of lung cancer in adults. In the words of the Impact On Children Surgeon General, "a substantial number of the lung cancer deaths that occur among nonsmokers can be Passive smoking induces serious respiratory symp- attributed to involuntary smokinb." Moreover, there toms in children. Wheezing, coughing and sputum was agreement that passive smoking substantially production among children of smoking parents increases respiratory illness in children and the NRC increase by 20 percent to 8O percent depending on recommended eliminating E7'S from the environ- .the symptom being assessed and the number of ments of small children. smokers in the household. Asthmatic children arc particularly at risk. _ y i~ ` Children of smokers have significantly higher can double the amount of lr,rticulatc air lu,llurinn rates of hospitalization for bronchitis and pneu- inhaled by nonsmoking members of the household. monia, and a number of studies report that chronic ear infections are more common in young children Evidence Of Nonsmoker Exposure whose parents smoke. Also lung development is slower in children exposed to ETS. Lung problems Nicotine, a chemical unique to tohaca,, has been caused by LTS exposure in childhood can extend into found to he a widespread air contaminant in build- adult life. ings where smoking occurs. Nicotine breaks down into cotinine as it passes through the body. cotinine ETS And Cancer can be detected and measured in the saliva, blood, and urine of nonsmokers, indicating they have 'l he U.S. Surgeon General and the NRC agree that absorbed tobacco smoke from the air. Concrntra- F.TS can cause cancer. The NRC estimates that the lions of cotinine have been found in the body fluids risk of lung cancer is roughly 30 percent higher for of infants of smoking parents, and of adults who nonsmoking spouses of smokers than for nonsmoking were unaware they had been exposed to I?~I S. spouses of nonsmokers. In 1986, an estimated 23,000 U.S. nonsmokers died from lung cancer, and the Removal Of ETS From Indoor Air Surgeon General attributes a substantial number of those deaths to passive smoking. Environmental tohaccosmoke can he totally removed from the indoor air only by removing the source ETS And Heart Disease (cigarette smoking). Separating smokers and non- smokers in the same room may reduce, but will not The Interagency Task Force on Environmental eliminate, nonsmokers' exposure to tobacco smoke. Cancer, heart, and Lung Disease Workshop on f~TS Placing smokers and non-smokers in separate rourns concluded that the effects of ["fS on the heart may that are on the same ventilation system also may be of even greater concern than its cancer-causing reduce nonsmokers' exposure to tobacco smoke; this effects on the lungs. ETS aggravates the condition approach, however, will proh:,hly not eliminate of people with heart disease, and several studies have exposure to tobacco smoke since most pollutants linked im~oluntary smoking with heart disease. readily disperse through a common air space and since, in public or commercial buildings, most ETS's Contribution To indoor Air Pollution I IVAC systems recirculate much of the contaminated There are many potential sources of indoor air indoor air. pollution, including chemicals emanating from In 1981, the American Society of l Icating, Itefri- building materials, furnishings, and consumer pro- gcrating, and Air-Conditioning I?ngincers ducts; gases from combustion appliances like space (ASIIRAE), in its standard "Ventilation for Accept- heaters and furnaces; and biological contaminants able Indoor Air (~ualit~•° recommended fi~~e cubic from a variety of sources. Because cigarettes, pipes, feet of outside air per minute per occupant and cigars produce clouds of tar particles when (cim/occ) in smoke-free office buildings and ?0 smoked, [;"I'S is a major contributor of particulate cim/occ in buildings where smoking is permitted. indoor air pollution. E'fS also contributes numerous "these recommendations were not designed to reduce toxic gases to indoor air, including carbon monoxide, health risks (for example, limiting cancer incidence formaldehyde and ammonia. or eye irritation); rather, the recommendations were Field studies, controlled experiments, and maths- intended to control the ndnr from tobacco smoke sc, matical rnodelsshciw that, under typical conditions of that 80 percent of visitors (smokers and nonsmokers smoking and ventilation, E~CS diffuses rapidly combined) to the building find it acceptable. A throughout buildings and homes, persists for long proposed revision of this standard rccomrnends a periods after smoking ends, and represents one of minimum of 15 cim/occ in all buildings. the strongest sources of indoor-air particulate pol- Research indicates that total removal of tobacco lotion in buildings where smoking is permitted. smoke through ventilation is both technically and Studies of indoor air quality in commercial and economically impractical. The effectiveness of air public buildings show that particulate levels in areas filters for removing 1:"fS particles from the indoor where smoking is permitted are considerably higher air is generally dependent on the type and efficiency than in nonsmoking areas. Studies using personal air of the air cleaner used; the cffectivencss of air monitors have shown that a single smoker in a home cleaners in removing the gaseous cornponcnts of 1 . tobacco smoke and other air pollutants requires Association, Cancer Socict~~ or I Ieart :\ssociati~n, or further research. the follo~~•ing: Since there is no established, health-based thres- hold for exposure to em~ironmental tobacco smoke Office on Smoking anti Ilcalth and since L•PA generally does not recognize a no- 11.S. Public Ilcalth Service ~6UU fishers I.anr, Room I-111 effect or safe level for cancer causing agents, the Rockville, ~1U '_OSi7 Agency recommends that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke he minimized wherever possible. "I'he Puhlic Itclations Of flee most effective way to minimize exposure is to i\merican tiociet_v of Ilcating restrict smoking to smoking areas that are separately Refrigerating and ,\ir ~'onditioning ventilated and directly exhausted to the outside, or f:nginecrs (ASTIR:\1:) by eliminating smoking in the building entirely. 1791 'I'ullie Circle, N1:. Atlanta, GA 30329 The Public Reaction To ETS Office of Cancer Conununications People arc becoming increasingly sensitized to the National Cancer Institute issue of ED'S. Numerous surveys have documented 1-800-4-CANC.I•.It that the majority of both smokers and nonsmokers support restrictions on smoking in public, particular- Smoking I olicy Institute ly in the workplace. Ina 1987 Gallup National ~ 14 East .)ef fcrson Suite 219 Opinion Survey, 55 percent of all persons inter- I'.O. 13ox 2()271 viewed (including smokers and nonsmokers) were in Seattle, \VA c)8 tU2 favor of a total ban on all smoking in public places. As a result, thousands of businesses and hundreds Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights of cities, as well as over 4U states and the District of 2054 lJniversity Avenue Columbia restrict smoking in various settings. The Suite SUO 13crkelcy, CA 94704 number continues to grow rapidly. Action on Smoking and Ilcalth Conclusion 2013 II Street, N\v. Washington, IX 20006 E1'A shares the recommendations of the 1986 Sur- geon (.;encral's Report: Cigarette smoke is only one of many indoor air o Adults should protect the health of children by pollutants that can affect your health and comfort. not exposing them to environmental tobacco Other 1?PA publications concerning the quality of smoke. indoor air include: o Employers and employees should ensure that the o 7'he lnsirle Story: ,1 Guide ro /uc/vor :fir l)ualiry act of smoking does not expose nonsmokers to 0 1)irecrory of Stare lndour Air Coirrcrers environmental tobacco smoke by restricting o lndnor ,•t it Facts nl: f;'P.~ and /ndvnr :t it ~)uuliry smoking to separately ventilated areas or banning o 1?rdoor ;fir Facrs l+Z: E1'A lndour Air ~u~rlily smoking from buildings. /mplementurinn Plan o lndour .tit Pacts ~3: Venrilarion and :tit ~hurliry o Smokers should ensure that their behavior does in Ojjices not jeopardize the health of others. o lndour Air Fuels H4: Sick Buildings o Nonsmokers should support smokers who arc 'T'hese publications, as well as additional copies of trying to quit. this fact sleet, arc available from: For More Information Public Information Center 11.S. Environmental Protection Agency For additional information on environmental tobacco Mail Code I'M-21113 smoke, contact your state or local Ilcalth depart- 401 M Strcct, SW. mcnts, nonprofit agencies such as your local Lung Washington, IX' 20460 3 R 1986 ~ WRSH MEDICJ?L JOURNAL VOLUME 193 8 NOVEMtIER 1986 1217 - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MEDICAL ~ PRACTICE - r. M . ~ , . ~t<... . ora ~ Themes ~ : • - : Contemn ry . j Does breathing other people's tobacco smoke cause Lung cancer? l ' YICHOLAS j WALD, KIRAN NANCHAHAL, SIMON G THOMPSON; ..HOWARD S CUCKLE abstract cancer. About a third of the cases of lung cancer innon-smokers The available epidemiological studies" of lung cancer and who live with smokers, and about a quarter of the cases in - erposure to other people's tobacco smoke, in which exposure non-smokers in general, may be attributed to such exposure. •as assessed by whether or not a person classified as a aon-~ .+:.:.t• • - ~ ~r•-~ smoker Gved with a smoker, were identiled and the:.results. -~i. " ° combined. There wen 10 case-control studies and three pros- Introduction ~ ~ , ~ective studies..Overall, there was a highly significant 35% It has been shown that non-smokers who live with smokers are ' increase in the risk of lung cancer among non-smokers Living with generally more exposed to other people's tobacco smoke, and that smokers compared with non-smokers living with non-smokers" their exposure is greater both inside and outside the home, than (relative risk 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.54). Part of ~ non-smokers living with aon-smokers.' The epidemiological • this increase was almost certainty caused by the misclassification :'°"studies that have compared the risk of lung cancer in these two of some •smokers as non-smokers. As smokers,. who arc more..,.., groups of non-smokers therefore provide a valid means of assessing - Gkely to get lung cancer than non-smokers, tend to live with - -the effect of exposure to envirotmental tobacco smoke ("passive smokers this misclassification probably exaggerated the esti= ~ smoking'?'" Few of the studies have shown a significant risk of mated increase in risk. Adjustment for this _ reduced the lung cancer associated with exposure to such smoke, but this cannot ~ • estimate to 30%° (relative risk 1.30), but as people who live with ~ taken as negative evidence because most of the studies were too non-smokers may still be exposed to other people's smoke this small to detect the small eecess risk that would be expected. To ' _ estimate was rtivised again to allow for the fact that a truly overcome this problem we present here an analysis that combines ~ - unexposed reference group was not used. The increase is risk the results from all 13 studies. We have also interpreted the among non-smoker living with smokers compared with ~a collective evidence and jud e:d whether there is a causal association codtpletely unexposed group was thus estimated as 53% (relative between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer. risk of 1.53). . ~ _ . . This analysis, and the fact that non-smokers breathe environ- . mental tobacco smoke, which contains carcinogens, into their ~ ' lungs and that the generally accepted view is that there is no safe .Methods _ _ ' _ threshold for the•effect of carcinogens, leads to the conclusion We revieared the available epidemiological studies-of lung cantor and that breathing other people's tobacco smoke is a cause of lung. _,~,.,.,ure to environmrntal tobacco smoke, in which exposure was a•~s-:d + by whether the subject lived with a smoker (generally taken as having a • ~ spouse who was a smoker). In the case-control studies the frequency ofliving - with a smoker was compared in reported lifelong non-smokers with and Department of Environmental and Preventive Medicine, St Bartholomew's without lung cancer. In the prospective studies the incidence of lung cancer Haspiul Medical College, London EC1M 6BQ - - - • - - was compared in reported' lifelong non-smokers who lived with a smoker and YiCHOLAS J WALD, ffc.K, Fxxcr, professor _ . in those who did not. Three studies were excluded, two because insufficient RIRAN NANCHAHAL, erse. raearch assistant data on nun-stnoke:ts were available"" and the other because it used S1~tON G THOMPSON, M,?, arrsrnr, lecturer in medical statistics population estimates of smoking prevalence for comparison rather than ~ HOWARD S CUCKLE, ntsG DrHtt., Cancer Research Campaign senior lecturer an explicit control group.'' Of the two reports by Koo ee al on the same group ~ Comespondrnce to• Professor Wald. of subiects, the most recent one has been used for'rltis analvsis.101 We thus ' .analysed the 10 remaining case-control studies'' and thm prospective Iz18 BR.IrLSft MEDICAL JOURNAL .VOLUME 293 8 NOVEMBER 1986 1 studiesu'" (see table I). Ia these studies most of the cases of lung cancer were and the summary estimate based on all the studies combined. Figure 1 shot in women (990/1125). • relative risks and 95%con5drnce intervals. Of the 10 case-control studies, six used hospital controls with diseases The suttunaty estimate of the increased risk of lung cancer innon-stnokfas that were not related to smokingi'• t' and fear used population based who lived with smokers compared with that in non-smokers who lived wits ' eontrols.f 101 The controls in all the studies except one were age matched to non-smokers was 35% (relative risk 1.35). The 95°'° confidence limits of this individual subjects; in the exception the mean ages of cases and controls were estimate (1.19 to 1•S4) indicate that the result is unlikely to have arisen by similar.' Controls were thatched by xx and usually by hospital or chance (p<0.OOOl). The estimate of increased risk from the p.w,...JSt geographical azu. studies was similar to the atitttate from the casacohtrol stadia (cable I). No Subjrets had been ascertained to be non-smokers by interviews of either relative risk from any one study was inconsistent with the sutrtasary ttlatice the subject or the subject's rscxt of kin (usually with a structured question- risk estimate. A formal tat for hettrogeneiry"was not sigtuficant(x19=20.0, Haire) except ih two studies, which used postal quatiottttaim alone." " p>0.2). Gtegocisatioa of the smoking habits of the person living vrith the subject ~ differed somewhat between studies. Usually all at-smokers and current unokers were amalgamated into one smoking category. Ia studies--for example, that of Trichopolous et al'-where an ex-smoking category was separately defined these data were excluded from our analysis. Most stadia 20 excluded unmarried subjects or those living alone, but in a few studies these gioups were amalgamated with the category of subjects living with a non-smoker. _ _ Some of the case-control studies obtained relative risk acimaca after ' adjustment foe cenain factors such as occupation and type of housing. These estimates were virtually identical to those that were unadjusted, indicating s that the factors considered were not important. Ia some studies thatched , . ~ ~ t analyses were performed, but again this had no material effect. The published atitnata were always close to those calculated in this paper for 3 2 •f _ j inclusion in our pooled analysis. In the prospective studies adjustmrne for - o - T ~ ¢1 " ~ 1 -age was important, and we therefore rued the age adjusted relative risk ~ t di ~ ~atimata published by the authors. ~ ; The risks of lung cancer of exposed and unexposed subjects are compared - here ody within each study, and the differences in risk within each study are ~ ¢ 0,5 _ . , then combined over all the studies. This avoids directly-comparing data from - x _ . _ , • : one study wick those of another. De[ails of the statistical analysis are given in 0.3 • ~ the Appendix. In sutntnary, relative risk estimates from each study were • combined across studies using published methods."m The method gives a 1 weighting to each of the studia~according to the precision of its estimate of - . - _ . ~ :-.~i` { risk. For the individual and pooled relative risk estimates 95% confidence O;t F M F M F M F M F M F M F M y 1 limits were derived from calculaaonsonalogscaleasln(relauvetisk)±(2SE St°ds, z a a s e 7 e a 1o tt . tz a to (In (relative risk)): . , lrelaenre ~ l _ ~ twmoer) - Casecontrol :tunes Prosoecti~e All ' ' _ ' ' - F1G 1 The relative risk of lung cancer (atitha[e and 95°x° rnttfidetue inserval} m Results - ~ - ~ • ~ • non-smokers who live wi[h smokers compared with noa-smokers who Eve with ~ Table I shows the relative risk atimaces of lun cancer associated with non-smokers for each of the studies given in table I and the summary atittute g based on all the studies rnttibined. The estimate for female is shown first far exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is the 13 epidemiological stadia studio based on both crank and female subjects... ~ .u ...a - . _ .i: ....i. r~~~. 1.>.:.! -.:t; ~ • ZtietE't-.Swnmary ajthe epidentialogica/ st+idies`of risk o~Loig-caeca ninon-srimakeri ouociaud •mirh axtmhtre to... « _:.rntal_tobeceo.snwkt . . , • • ~ • . . • ~ Exposed to enrironmeatal smoke Unexposed to e°viroameanl smoke . 93X :study ••:i Relative `Coo6dena . +,Aurhats • m.:: r : beation : ~ • Sts ~ • Lung catu'et. • , _ No lung cents • Lung eanttt No lung renar risk. limiu Chaaand Fungr Hong Kong F . . }6 • . , 66 ;_.i. . i73 .0.73 • .0.43 • !•31 Cocteaaals US '•F l+. '61 B .72' .2,03 - •0.81 S•Ot • M 2 +26 :J` 6 .:i•134 - 2.29' • -0.30 .17.3) Ttiehopmdos er aC : ' Craeoe F . • . ' 38 = . 81; _ 24 109. 2.1 t _ .1.17 3.7t SuffleraaP . • - US F:• .•:~l • 33 _ 164 8 • 32 _ •0.80 .0.32.1.99 ~ .M _ _ S •56 ,••b. ••'34 '0.50 -.,.all'l•O Kabatandwyndcr• . US . "F"• • 13 15 _ ~ 1! ' l0 . • . a79 a23. 2•N ' - • M' ~l.l S S 7 7 1.00 ~ 0.20 S•06 Garfinkclstaf' US, F . Sc'• -,..9l ..r,, 254 • •43 •'•148 1.23 •....'j a8! 1.16 h: Akiba et al° Japan ` • P ' - 73 188 ' , ; , •f 21 82 _1.48 a 87.2.51 rat ' - •t ' • M 3 9 l6 10l 2.45 , a45 13.0 Leestol' England F 22 45 !0 21 1.03 a41 2•St Ot 1 M 8 • 14 ..•.:i.: 7..::.. , !b• . .':r .190 ~ ~ a37 .:4•f9 (0. Koo st °f'O Hoag Kong F S I 66 ~ ~ . 35 1,.: _ 70 1 •S4 0.89 .1.61 Petshagrnetul"} Sweden F 33 ISO `'34':• 197 1.27: "a73 ~~2•It ~l ~ Values overall for use-conuol cradles 425 l•; - 286 1'27 , .,1.03 1.33 ~ ' ~ _ , Arorpectsu xudisr ~ SII: . j Garfinkel u~' r US - R >t8. ~ l27 t64 65 49 422 1.18 0.90 i•St (1' • Gillisaa: s Scotland F 6•>:....., l 388 2 521 1.00 a20 4.91 t1J • M . 4 306 - 2 _ . _ S I S 3.25 0.60 17.65 Hirayamaad" ~ Japan " ~ F 146 63 287 37 21 858 l•63 l•IS 2.11 1 - M.. 7 . l l 003 ~ S7 ' , 19 222 2.25 : -•1.04 i•66 rc( 1 ValuesoveraLLforprospectivesttsdia 251. 163 l••}i , l•zo .LR ~ RC Sr: Values overall foe all stadia ~ 676: .449 l' 3S 1.19 1.51 ~ - iu! '7'he method used to nlculate the relative risk for theease-conerol stadia and Ne prospective studies is given is the Appmdis. tl7anshowoobcaineda:a,_..._..lc°mmunication. frl jThe number of women not exposed to environmeaW mbatxn smoke was quoted u 2896 0[ 176 739.'= - . _ ~ 111: i'86 BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL VOLUME 293 8 NOVEMBER 1986 I219 ows Discussion • all of these people (93°/n) had reported smoking 10 or more years - ;~np Our analysis of the epidemiological studies takcit together earlier but not more recently, and, on average, they had smoked ritht showed an increased risk of lung cancer innon-smokers living with only about a third as many cigarettes per day as chose who reported this smokers compared with non-smokers living with non-smokers, a that they were current smokers and had also reported smoking by result that is unlikely to have arisen by chance. This result must Previously. ave represent either a direct and causal effect of exposure to environ- From these two sources the proportion of ever smokers who are No mental tobacco smoke or be partly or completely due to bias. misclassified as lifelong non-smokers seems to be about 7"/0 j°° A potentially, serious source of bias arises from the probability (2.1%+4.9%). t that some current smokers and cx-smokers will report themselves oc . _ . be reported by others as never having smoked. They are more likely m develop lung cancer than those correctly classified as lifelong RELATIVE RISK OF LUNG CANCER IN CURRE,*!T AND EC-ShsOKERS non-smokers and they are also more likely to Live with a smoker as MiSCLASSIFIED AS NON-SMOKERS couples.tend to share the same smoking habits. People reported to be lifelong non-smoker who live with smokers will therefore seem In the epidemiological studies considered in this paper nearly to have an increased risk of lung cancer. In order to quantify the ~"/0 of the cases of lung cancer occurred in women. The study by alert to which this misclassification bias could have accounted for Hammond showed that women aged 35-74 years who smoked 20 or the risk found in the epidemiological studies it is necessary to morn ttigazettes a day had a 4.9 fold increased risk of lung cancer estimate four parameters: the proportion of current and ex-smokers compared with non-smokersj'~ the study by Doll et al yielded an tttisclassified in this way, the risk of lung cancer in those who are estimace of 6.4 for women smoking 15-24 cigarettes daily.' Both ttlisclassified, the extent to which smokers live.with smokers-that studies 'were conducted a number of years ago, and with the a, aggregate together, and the proportion of men and women who increased' duration of smoking in women in recent years"current Save smoked at some time. estimates'of the relative risk would be closer to about 8. The risk • _ ~ will, however, be much less in both current and ex-smokers who _ report incorrectly that they are lifelong non-smokers. Such current PAOPORT20N OF EVER SMOKERS WHO ARE REPORTED AS staokers smoked, on average; only about a quarter as much as other • NON-sMDKERS etirrent smokers and might be .,.,,~..._3 to have an excess risk of ' ~ Lung cancer a quarter as much-that is; an approximate threefold The proportion of people who say that they have never smoked risk of lung cancer (1+t/i(8-1)). Ex-smokers who had, in general, but are, in fact, likely to be current smokers maybe estimated by given up at least 10 years ago, and therefore had about a quarter of using the data from studies in which the distributions of nicotine the excess relative risk of continuing smokels~ and smoked only a • and its metabolite, cotinine, were aleasured in those who described third as much as continuing smokers, will have an even lower risk, themselves as non-smokers. Both nicotine and cotinine arc derived ~ say about 1 •S jl+t/4x th(8-1)j. •The average of 3 and 1.5 weighted virtually exclusively from tobacco: Table II summarises the results according to the relative proportion of current and ex-smokers in of four such studies, in which data on smokers were also given.'t'=' ~ those misclassified yields a, two fold risk. i t ~ TAHLE n-C~,,:.'..., cold nieotint coaeentratianr err rton-tmokert at markers ojmisclauljicatimt ~ ~ No of No of No(•h)ofr_.....~ ."utswith . • ' • ' ~ reported reported awker eotteentration > IO°As of - Study Marker' oon-smoker smokm mwkers' ...:.-...ntioo• Feymbend er aly Urinary ai~edne , 56 . _ , , r • 82 0 Wald er a!ss . ~ - Urinary eotinirx 221 l3 t' 2 (0.9~ ! - . • Pour a a(=' ~ Plastru cotinine I81 .187 6 (3.3~ ' Iiaddow n do , ' Serum eotiaine 232 305 3 (I.3)S ~ . i Tool _ 690 705 11(1.6) • •Smokets'median-....__trarion(mean..,,._.,...,..,.inthestudgofFeyenbenderaQ. tl9Y. and 24°!. of sewkers' ........cation. . • • Ylbtee IO• 14Y., one 15-29•A, two 30-14Y. of smokers' .......tntion (utdiridual slues not specified). . Slt'K 16Y.. and 68'.L of amokca' j eraonal commt+nicadoo. 1 . , In a11, there were 690 people who described themselves as AGGREGATION OF SMOKERS non-smokers, 11 of whom (1.6°!0) had concentrations of nicotine ~..,_.Z-!te'extent to which smokers live with other smoy~ts can be or cotinine greater than a tenth of the median concentration qtp~~ numerically as the odds ratio in a 2x2 table ca, gorising tor, in one study, the mean) found in smokers, though these the smoking state of the subject by the smoking state of those with 11 had still on average only about a quarter of that • median whom the subject lives. We call this ratio the a 1 ggregatioa factor. It concentration in smokers. If, as is the case for women in Britain, • cvas estimated to be 3.94 based on interviews with 364 sub ects'~ about SO% are reported never to havrsmoked, 0 35% to be current (table III), 2.22 based on a study of 4064 subjects," 3.55 for men and smokeis, and IS /o to be ex-smokers then 2.1 /o of ever smokers - • 3.07 for women based oti a stud of 8800 subjects N Lee ' (1.6%x (SO%+ 15%)/(35%+ 15%)) may be current smokers who aze ' • ' y ~ • C unpublished findings). We have adopted a figure of 3.0. _ not classified as such. • . The proportion of ever-smokers who, though ex-smokers, aze ~ reported never to have been smokers was estimated in the Medical PROPORTION OF MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE SMOKED AT SOME - ~l Research Council national survey of health and development (N Britten, personal communication). In this study information on :.TIME . ' ' • . VI 'smoking was collected on several occasions from 3274 of tile' . """•The proportions of men and h'~men in the population who have subjects from.the survey: Of all the subjects who had previously smoked at some time influences the extent of.the misclassification CR reported that they smoked, 4.9% said in their most recent interview : .bias; the greater the proportions (of women in particulaz), the f M that they had never smoked as much as one cigarette a day. Neazly greater the bias. We chose quite high proportions in the calculations ; I I 1220 BRITISH YIEDIt'<11 JOURNAL. VOLUME 293 $ NOVE.IiBER 19: TABLE to-Nwnba of smokent arul eeon-smokers• rrlucd ro smoking habits of their to 1.1. In particular, table IV may be used to determine how Lu, rpoteur and the odds rarto inJicatirtq flu eztrnt ajaggregation f these estimates would have to be to account completely for G. observed increase in risk. Lee has produced a similar illuscratio~. subicrt the bias" but believes (unpublished findings) that its effect is great: spouse Ever smoker l.ifdongnws•ssaoker Total than we do; mainly because he assumed a higher rate of m:. classification (more than 12% of those who reported themselves t L t~>on~g ~n.sm°k.r t~ ' • .too • z~ be non-smokers) and applied to misclassified smokers what u consider to be too high a risk of lung cancer-in particular, a 10 ful. Toul 2{s t u ~t relative risk in the 1.4°!0 of tnisclassified current smokers. ' The possibility of a dose response relation between expostire ;c •Baxd oa inteniers u( 200 womert and Ibi men anending ~ health urerni°g ctatrt in ~ ~ • loadua or wruktnr is the civil se[vice in Newcutk in 19tls, euludiag thus peopk who lived alone. - • . TAaLE tv-P „ ..'on oje:,er snwkerr miretauijted err Gjelortp non-smokers d_ • - taould be nesded to convert specified observed retuttas riskt of tLng cancer awki°u. ' with ezponrrs to estvironmerttal tobacco smoke to unity according to she szuu of smoiu -namely, SO% of worsen and •70% of men-representative of the a~+yregatia,s a„d the ,ctatrae risk of karg career ;n stir u„okers misctauled c higher figures is the coluttries in which the studies on.exposure to nmt•r~~ • • ' environmental tobacco stroke were tarried out as this tends,.to. • ' ~ ' • overestimate rather than underestimate the effect of the bias.:... , ~ • Relative risk unung tattccr in Wox Figure 2 shows how, OII [he basis Of these four estimates,. [he. - - Ob3e~cd rdatstrc r'dt °f ~ • ~ ~ • ~ ~ ` •""'t"``ate as lifelong non-:maker relative risk of lun cancer in association with ~~isii°ieO1 °`p0S11e ~"ga"O° ' ' g exposure CO CIIVitrOn- m envimttmeaml robaao smoke favor 2 4 _ t mental tobacco smoke of .1.35 (the overall estimate from table I) z ' : l . ' . ' ~ • ' ~ would be observed if the true relative risk for non-smokers exposed t•4 ; ~•o s*s to such smoke was 1'30. Under these conditions the 95%. copfidence {a zo•o e•t _ limits of.1~19 to 1.54 for the observed. relative...risk~ of 1.35 ~ z ~ t+•o correspond to limits of 1.14 to_ 1.54 for, the. estimated true relative a • • t3•o 4•f risk of 1.34. The misclassification bias. is .therefore unlikel to, ' I account for all d7e association between lun cancer and ex Y • ~z zo•o 6•i g pOStlre t0 1.2 . 3 73 9.7 3.8 i this type of smoke. - . . , • . _ . a 3a 7 ~ • . 3 0 E . Table IV illustrates the effect of adopting different estimates pf ~ • • ~ " z . • 31 •t~• s•9.:.: it ~ the variables that affect the ausclassification bias b showin the 1•t 3 a 4.2 - 1.7 • proportion of ever smokers who would need to be tnisclassified as _ lifelong non-smokers to.accotlnt for observed relative risks from 1.4 •Even l00°!. misdassi6catiaa would mr glue flu atuerved relative risk.. • . 1 . Proportion Husbands'• ~ • True relative Proportion Expected Proportion of Observed Clsuified _ smoking.. _ • _ risk of lung with lung number of . _ (ung•eancers relative ' as never habits pncer pncer in lung pncer: observed in risk of smokers " - t 10 years in 10 years vwrnen classified lung tstr~a ; • ,r.. ; 8S never smoker - - - _ 2.30 i " 2835 0.115% 3.3 ~ 50 000 Smokers . , ' . 7% - 3500 ~ 1 Ever smokers _ , _ . _ . . _ 19% . R Non-smokers 2.00 '0,~ ~ 0.070% 666 •0.7007. ' If husband • is a smoker ~ 100 000 ; t 1.35 { ` . ,.......1.30._ •i ~ . . . ' ~ • 29 500 •0.065%• 19.2 0-052% • • ' ' ~ ~ . If husband is''.~ • • . anon-zmoker..•. ~ 50 000 . 100% ~ 50 000.` a.• 1 Never smokers - ~ • ± . • ~ 417. } • Nonsmokgn ~ . • 1.00 • . - • t f ( 20 500 ^0.050". - .•10.3 . • t~ f ~s' a , • ' J • • _ FIG 7.-Illustration of how the tnisclaui5ntion bias transforms :true relative risk of lung cmca of.1.30 to as observed relative risk of 1.35 in non-smoking framer j comparing those married to smokers with those married to non•staokers assuating that: (a) the proportion of current and ex•smokea mis ta~ei~irri as «oa-smoker: is : . ' (b) the true relative risk of lung cancer among women tssisdassified as aoa-smokers is 2.0 for those married to aoa-smokers and 2.30 Cor those married to smoker; (c) t~ s ~ ate. -b..yon Castor of smoking state within marriages is 3.0 (see text and table l In; and the pmportioo of ever smokers is 50°!° for women and 70% for men, which, r~ as aggregation Castor of 3, dctesatiaes the estimates o2 a huiband's smoking habiu according to the wottuo's smoking; 3=(81%x 417o)I(19%x 599'0). (The lung mr , ineideace of 0.OSO% per !0 years iaron-smoking wumca wu chosen for illustration but does not affect the conclusion.} I BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL YOLL'ML' 293 8 NovE~taER 1986 1221 ! ~I environmental tobacco smoke (assessed by the amount and duration with a smoker the number of years of exposure is likely to be closer ~ ~ tlt a partner's smoking) and lung cancer was investigated in eight of to the number of years of smoking among men than among women.) i the epidemiological studies""'"" and identified in five.""" This We conclude that breathing other people's tobacco smoke does ! .supports a causal explanation, but the evidence is weak. It could also cause lung cancer, and our conclusion rests on several observations. i Yle explained by bias if smokers, some oC whom had been mis- Firstly, carcinogens in tobacco smoke arc released into the air. , classified as non-smokers, had a cigarette consumption (and Secondly, tobacco smoke is breathed into the lungs by non- therefore slung cancer risk) that was correlated with the cigarette smokers. Thirdly, the general view is that exposure to carcinogens consumption of the person with whom they lived. does not have a threshold below which there is no effect. Fourthly, Other potential sources of bias are unlikely to have distorted the people known to have an increased exposure to environmental alienate of risk.-Jn the case-control studies cases may have denied tobacco smoke seem to have an excess risk of lung cancer, which is smoking mare than controls or their interviewers may have not explained satisfactorily by bias. Fifthly, the magnitude of the investigated their non-smoking status to a different extent, There is excess seems reasonable in view of the extent of exposure, and, no evidence to suggest this, and indeed the. prospective studies sixthly, there is a dose response relation between the extent of which by design avoided this bias yielded similar results to the case- exposure and risk. In view of all these observations, we.could not control studies. Positive studies may have.been more likely to have have concluded otherwise. i been published than negative ones. We are, however, unaware of unpublished negative studies, and once the initial positive studies ~ had been reported the incentive to publish negative studies was at 'Illispaperwasproducedwhileoneoftheauthols(NJW)wasamemberof least as great as that to publish positive ones. We conclude, the NationalAcademyofScienceCommittcconPassiveSmoking(Chairman therefore, that at least pan of the association is causal, and our best Barbara Hulks), which has produced a report, Ertvirortmenral Tobacco estimate is that the excess risk of lung cancer due to exposure to Srnoke: Measttrirty Exporure and AssessireR Nealrh Efjau, to be published environntenta! tobacco- smoke, as judged by the difference in shortly by the National Academy. We would tike to thank members of that committee, particularly James Robins, and Diane Wegener and Marvin exposure in those who do and [hose who do not live with smokers; is Schncideirnann on the secretariat of the committee, for their constructive about 30"/0 (relative risk 1.30). criticism and help in developing the ideas exptascd in this paper. We also "this figure is an underestimate of-the true risk of exposure to thank Jane Stock for rnllection of data, Nicky Britten, Linda Koo;'and environmental tobacco smoke typical of those who live with Goren Pershagrn for allowing us to use their unpublished data, Malcolm smokers because_some of the non-smokers who live with non- Law for his catnnrznts, and the Cancer Research Campaign and the British I smokers and who _are not exposed to such. ambient. smoke at home United Pcovident:Associationfnr their financial support.. • . are exposed to it in other settings-for. example, at work. The ~ ~ • • ~ ' relative risk estimate of 1.30 is therefore based on a reference group that is partially exposed. This can be allowed for to some extent by References • ~ ~ • • the use of data on urinary cotinine concentrations in non-smokers 1 Wald NJ, Ritchie C. Valid:lion of stadia on lung lancer in non-amoktes married to smokers. living. with smoking n=oon-smoking partners. In the study by Wald tancn 19e4;i;1067. sad Ritchie the sue=d z ~ urin cotinine' concentration anion ? Q'a^ WC, Fung SC. Lung canner in non-smokers in Hong Kong. Gncer_ Gmpaian. in: g ~ g ~ Grundmann E. ed. Cancer ,:~,'qp.. Vol 6. New Yorlt: Gtsttav Fueher Verlag, 1982: non-smokers married to smokers was about three times that among 199-zoz. • son-smokers married tonon-smokers.' If y is the excess lung cancer 3 ~^h P, Ptckle LW, Fontham E, t-in v, Haensttl W. Passive . ,and lane t,nesr. ~a 1983:u:393-7. risk•in non-smokers living with non-smokers then, assuming a 4 TrichepobaaD,KalandiaiA,Sperms[..Luntcaneerandpaasivesrtoking:eonelusionofGreek linear relation between the access risk in non-smokers and the study. Lancn 19a3;ii:tS67.8. ~ ' ~ • extent of ~.~y„~ure, the eRCCSS lun cancer risk ir1 non-smokers - s BnmereA,PickkLW,MuonTJ,ContantC.TheauraoftungancerinTma.ln:6titt11M, g Correa P. eds. Ltnq eanur, castrn sad pnoendan. New York: Ver1a8 Chemie Intetmtional, living with smokers is 3y and the relative risk of~l•30 above must 1954'83.99• satisfy the equation 1.30=(1+3y)/(1+y). When the equation is 6 KatratGC,WynderEL.Lnngeanceriiinonsrrokm.Canrn19a4¢3:121421. 7 Garfinkel I„ Attetbaclt O. joubtot L. Involuntary smoking and lung atttxr: a .-.,.....tml study. solved y=0.176, and the excess risk in son-smokers living with JwrwlofthsNationafCancnfrorinuet983;n:+~3.9. . smokers may be estimated as 53% (3yx 100%) and in non-smokers a Akibas; Kate H.abtWJ.PassiK>n,pk;nganatanao~,m«,gJ,o•~*a++~-~?R« 1986;46:48047. living with non-smokers as 18% . (y x 100%). This estimate of y z~ PN, Chamberlain J, Atdtxsett MR. R ' ....hip er passivesmoking ro t6a risk o[luaa coact increased risk would indicate that about a•third of cases of lung and«tt~r:<n°king-as:«iat~adir~rs.ar7 can~~t9s6;s4:9r•1os. - , ranter in non-smokers livin with sti=nkers 'and about a as=ter of to Icon t-C. He JH-C, r"_.~"; JF, Btoe WJ, Lnbin JH, stone HJ. Maneranmes of lataive : g. s q .smoking and atimatea of risk for lung cancer among ~ Chitsoe fanales. uses in nori-sutokers in general, may be attributed to exposure to ~ lraer,atiw,alJatvnarofcanarGnp~s)• environsnrntal tobacco smoke. (The excess risk divided by the 1 t Penhagm c, Hrubec Z, Svtmsen C. Passive smokirtg attd lung ta°cer in Swedish women. AarJ - 1 Epideniaf (in press). total risk for non-smokers living with non-smokers is 0.53/1 •S3, Or - .12 Garfinkel L.Ttme trends in tong eantxr rttortatiry among rtensnwka: attd a nee on psaive ~ - y about a third, and for non-smokers in general is 0.38/1.38, or about "m°king•J°"'A°!°I~NaeiamfCanrr/wtimi 1981:66:1o61.s. j 13 Gillis CR, Hole DJ, Haahorne V M, Hoyle P• The effect of ~ . I robsceo smoke in two •1 - 1 a quarter; 0.38 is an average of the excess risks of 0.53 and 0'18 urtianc«nmu"itiesinthaweat_°tSeatand.EtrJRsrprDu.(SrvOr119a4:173:121a. y- I 1 weighted according to the estimated proportions of spouses who had l4 Hirayama r, Cantu mert,firy;n ,,.:.;:ins women with smoking ntnbattds in a brge•sale , t smoked at some time. eelwn =roar in Japsn. rrre Mn! 1954:13:68x90. . ) l3 Sandler OP, Everson RH, Wilton AJ. Passive smoking in atlnlthood and lancer risk. AM J ~ - J ' The effect of exposure to such smoke on lung cancer may be • ~ Epideniaf 19as;12r:3T-4a: • . ~ t. ~ ~ ' i estimated from data on bioiogica! markers in smokers. •We have . 16 Wa nH, Henderson BE, Pike MC, Yn MG Smoking tied other risk Gctoa for lung tanner in +omen.Jeer.natofrAeNatianatCoau+fnstirrtr19g5:74:7QS1. ~ rl t avoided performing a detailed analysis of thss kind as it entails, it Knuth A. Bohn H, Schmidt F. Pasaivrsuehen ab LnngatN eel Nicttaaucherinneo. ' 1 several assumptions that with present knowledge are difficult to Af~dirinirehtxrini419a3;7a:s4.9.. : ? su for e•~am le - as to the uantitative relation .between la xee LC. He IH,1.c N. Aa arulyaia of sonic risk factoes rot itmg oats= ie Hena icons. 2rrrJ rY""'~ p s q CaxnI983~S:149-sS. t r Il1Catllle 1rl ambient smoke and in mainstream smoke and the 19 Yusuf S, Pero R, Lewis j, Collins R, Sleight P. H.... ~:..kade amine and titer . , •"ul relation of these values to the concentration of the carcino ens In mGrtton:an. . oftlterandeeniaederiaktiPr°~CardiosorrDir198S:27:333.71. t g zo weinbaum [)G, KuPD~ LL. M.., •...m+ H. EAgird nseask wd fradrauw tobacco smoke. It is, however, pertinent that in non-smokers who avdtodr. New York: Wn Nostnnd Rhdnhokl, 1992:341.2. - o It Woolf H. On estimating the rdatiots L., bktod poop attd disease. Atur Nta+ Goer live with a smoker urinary cotinine concentrations are about 1 /o of 19ssa9:ula. - :hose found in active smokers"'° In the study that examined 2z Ftryerabmd G Higrnb«tun T, Rttssell MAH. Nicedtte coeeentruiau in urine and salia of ]nnary CO[llllne COriCZntraUOnS In csgareL[e smokers and lri stokersandiron-amaken.BrMrdJ19a2;284:l002.4. - Ion-smokers classified accordin to whether or oat the lived with ~ WatdNl.HerehamJ,aaikyA,Ritenit:C,HaddttwJE,XnightG.Ut,mryt:aimneaamarkaof _ g Y braJting other people's tobaes:o smoke. Latte=r 1984;1:230.1. smokers, further analysis showed that the mean concentrations 24 Pour R, ~vltitfiele JH, P«tt°w v,>;~khard lF, R;t:hm«a x, H~nr1~y WJ. c .r...., • _ , {n, verz in the ratio 200:3:1, respectively. This ratio is broadly in line ' ' n 1984` ~3n:~."'°"' `°°'p"ed f°r m'°np'"tttng a„"°k°' li°m ' ' . can • vith the excess risk of lung cancer in the threegroups-namely, l3, 25 OfliceofPoputationC......._.andSttrseys.Gesv+olbmeAeldrsseq/9d2. L«den:HM50, 1954. ~ y~ I.3, and 0, respectively, Suggesting the[ the Observed risk 1S 26 Hammond [:C. Smoking in rdatitm to the Bath me of one million mat and women. Variard Concalnsnnw.NanagrapM 19ti6;]9:127.20i• . k easonabIy consistent with what might bz expected. (We used the 27 t)o1l R, Goy R, Hafta;r B, Peto A. Moeralin in telatioa ro smoking: 22 ytars' obx^'¦ri~ °n - ' w figure of 13 here, instesd of 7, as it relates to men," and (a) in the [emdesritishdaetors.BrMedJ 198o;2ao:967-71. r ~ ; otittine study all the smokers were men and (b) in women living ~ 0.4i3R•1t~ene+l sttq tO"'d"h` prerer1dO1 er bmncltial , scar Mod J 19~O;ts: t . , BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL voLlrhtE 293 8 xovE.3tnER 1986 _ r z9 Lchnen c, Car6nkd t, x;r:,.,ma r,.r ar. R.M~a nele d;><,~aanu rro~n symposiumeo medial published relative risk values were used in the following calcuiacions „ peespeetires oq paasive,awkini lYiema, TprJ 1980. Prev.tr~d 148i;13a32.3. i . 30 Russell ~iAli, Jarvis \t J, viceu RJ. t)se a urusary ni,:otiae coocentntiuna ro Csumate espoaurc as iri all of the articles the authors had estimated the relative risk, i turd moesality tmm quire ao~oluna io eoo•smoken. BnnrA Jowrd .,fAddittiw~ 1986;81: adjusting for variables such aS age. For those studies In which ; 2~s-a~ ~ relative risk estimates were given separately for different levels of 3r Doll R, . eto R. Mortalisr is nla~im m smokins:.9 teen' oluervstion oa mak Sndsh.locton. B~ nteaJ r9~a•,;i:ts2s-3o. smoking by the spouseu" a combined estimare of relavve risk was ; tAere~+d3ooao6et9saJ calculated as an average of the individual estimates, each weighted inversely proportional to its variance. (See method below for ) • combining the prospective studies.) The variance of the natural • - ~ logarithm of the relative risk was derived from the published ' Appendix - confidence limits foe the estimate of relative risk in all studies except Let the number of subjects in each of the epidemiological studies one" (where adjustment for age seemed of little importance and no be classified by disease status and exposure in this way: ' confidence limits had been published), in which the method given ' _ ~ • ~ ~ • ~ - above for the case-control studies was used. - ' 'For combining the rerulu from the studies-The method used for With lung eanea vrmouiiuna anar Total combining the results from the case-control studies is based on that firing with a smoker , b m, of Yusuf et al."The overall estimate of RR was calculated by adding L+'vutgwith anon-smoker e a mt . the values of (O-E) and their variances for all the studies and using • Total m, . m+ T The relative risk of lung cancer in association with living with a ~ ~ ' ' ' ' " a smoker (and its confidence limits) were then calculated as follows: and for the variance , ~ - ' ' j tc For each of the case-control studies---Ia the absence of a risk from ~ • ~ ' " ' • ' a expostue tb environmental tobacco smoke the expected number of 1 ~ • " ~ ' ~ P people (E) who live with a smoker and have lung pacer is mtm~T. ' ' • Var (ln RR)~-~Vaz (O-E) . ~ • . ~ p. The difference .(O-E) between observed (O) and ....,.....red (E) ~ ' ' . tt numbers of people with fang cancer who live with a smoker was ~ • - ' ~ • - ~ ' ~ ~ - ~ R 1 calculated, the variance of this difference being The method used for combining the results from the prospective I e>, studies is based oa a pooled value for the In RR calculated as as mtxm2xm3xm{ average of the individual!nltRs,eachiisverselyweightedaccording j do Var(O-E)- co its variance. 1{ ~ ~ bit . .In RR= ~ (lnRR) . ~ 1. r. ~ su. 1 The natural logarithm of the relative risk (RR) was estimated for . cacti study using,+ , . _ _ Var {ln RR} Vat (ln RR) to . O-E and for •the•vaziance , . ' du: la RF - - y... Jan o~ Var (O-E) ~ ~ Var (ln RR)- 1 sett Confidence limits for Ia RR were calculated using the variance , ~ ~ ~ 1 ' ~ ' ~ ' ` . sue ~ Vat (ln RR) ~ allu • Var(1nRR)=1Naz(O-E):. • . ' ~ The overall value for the In RR is all of the studies combined was T • and the estimate of RR and its confidence limits were estimated obtained using the same method that was.used to pool resulu from unu from the calculations on a logarithmic scale by exponentiation... • the prospective studies, using the ovtraU values for thecase-control ihei . For rack of,the prospective sdrdies-For prospective studies the and prospective studies. - ' ' . ' " • corn "He Can Fybogel saclurs (lspaglwla husk) de taken irtdefmitely? . by sensorineural deafness which is usually reversible though one case of M • irreversible deafness has been reported with piroxicun.' I was linable to find and • I know of no documented or anecdotal evidence of long term i11 effects from any studies of the mechar»sm of this effect, but aspirin produces dose related Otto taking ispaghula oya many years. The only theoretical problem is of Cochlear toxicity characterised by depolarisation.of the cochlear apparatus abot redua-d calcium absorption which might lead to as increased risk of with reduced hearing over the whole frequency ranges ttNat sEr:tEx, prof osteoporosis. Faecal calcium ptcredan is increased by any form of extra "wnsultant clinical pharmacologist, Birmingham.: _ - 5bre; a strort term study showed such an increase daring the ingestion of ' . ' ' of S~ itpagbula and of bran but the changes did not reach statistical significrirce.' 1 vernick DM, Ketty7H. swam nr'v;ns iota auociaad with, as.Ase~ omf 1986:1:47-t. t2Cai7 2 Dukes MNG, ed. AryLli ode affertt ojdnra. tOt4 ed. Amuerdun•Ner Ywk.Oatord: Elsevier, It is unlikely that this would be as adverse effect of any practical r984:1a3. Inds importance. )oxx R eExNl:i't', consultant physician, Kingston upon Hull. . , • . ~ . affet 1 SmithRG,RoweMJ,SmirhAN,nad.bmdrofIwikia~aaetw;odaer+rp.tieau.ApradAeea( bein 19ao;4:267-n. as th = - Correction ` chr Can non-rtrroida! arui-inflammatory drags rastse tinnitus? ~ . piriC Tinnitus has been repotted as a side effect of treatment with most, if not all, Serene byperatagnesaemia due to magnesium sulphate enemas in ofpt non-steroidal anti-inflarantatoty drugs. Most of the have been on patienu with hepatic coma . clinical trials rather than as well documented case reports. The Committee V7e regret chat an error occurred in this On Safety Of Medicines has had a few reports with most non-steroidal anti- paper by Dr P O Collituon and isu'larnmatary drugs. The incidence appears to 6e low, and there is no good Dr A K Burroughs (I8 October, p lOl3). In figure 2 it is sated that calcium is evidence that one non-steroidal anti-inflammatory dru is more like! to tepresrnted by blocked circl~y and magnesium by bluckrd squares. It should Britia g Y lour acid thrt calcium is represented by blocked square and magnesium by K1M have this effect iharr another. In some cases tintictu has been accompanied blocke,J circles. ai~i+ ++1 i~ NIVnLa + + ~.Vn, ~..r . .•v . r.. r.. -.+a .vas . .v.. ~ - . ~T~~r~ aF ~o~,ar~~a COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ~ o'`~, ~2 ~ U East 1 t th Avenue Telet~x: Fe Uenver, Colorado 80220-3716 (3031 J27•A076 {Min Ruiidmg/Denve•) " jr (30)) J20-15291Ptarmig.+n Place/Acrtr~rt • ~~r~t`? ?B phone (303) 320-8333 e`1tia,L,~,A~e~ (a0a) 24H•719d IG•unA !unction Regional Otlicc) ~~~,,..ff ~4. Rvy Rpmrtr (~pv~m~t August 13, 1490 rw,„~~,,,. v~,,,,,,,, kaecutivc pi+~ctor Ms. Susan Scanlan Environmental Health Officer Town of Vaif 75 So. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 8]657 Dear Ms. Scanlan: Per our discussion of August .8, 1990, Y would like to offer the fol]owing thoughts on addressing air quality concerns In the Town of Vail. It is impportant for the town .to establish a clear direction through a rational planning process to insure that actions taken match the objectives the town wishes to achieve. To this end we would recornmend the following process be followed in the development of a air quality action plan: ~1) The Town should develop a clear statement of what pollution problems it wishes to ameliorate or prevent. 2) 1'he Town should assess the cause of each problem and develop projections of future levels of the respective problems. (At this lima we do not believe complex • modeling or analysts, e.g. CMB, would be needed to accomplish this task). 3) The Town should develop short and long term strategies consistent with the objective associated with each pollution problem. uu~~ n1R WVPiLl l i I.UIVIRU IGL ivu hug lU,yU 1J%J1 IYO.U14 1'.UJ leis. Susan Scanlan _ August 13, 1990 Page 2 The Air Pollution Control Division is willing to provide assistance in pursuing these activities. We would iike to emphasize that our role would be strictly one of technical support and that all policy and strategy decisions would be the 7ovm's. We expect that if a work plan was developed by early September, this project could be completed by the end of February. Please let us know if you would Iike our assistance on this matter. Sincerely, hn Leary, Deputy Director Air Pollution Ctmtr~~l Division I _ _ i ? _ . _ _ _ , . . Y _ _ . F ~ ~ intratec I I I y _ September • 7 . 19 9 0 ~ - r---; ~ ~ _ p.O.~JOX .~17._ _ _ . _ _ ~ : , ' ,--wail c . - - ~ 1658 _ _ r__. _ _ _ . _ _ . 1000 lionsridge loop' suite liu ' _ . Honorable-;Mayor .and .Town Counc il_ Members _ - cso3)47s-s34a - - - - ~ ' ` - - ; . Town -of-Vail. ~ I , _ - ~ fax 476 4901. _ _ - 75 S : -Fronta'ge' Rd. ~ , ~ r 1 _ , _ - Vail, .CO 81557 - _ _ I _ _ - -.Re:'Ordinance-Nos`. 24 !(1983) '-and 28 (19-87) _ - ~ _ : - _ - __._J _Revsions_ to.~'ireplace Regulations. I I ~ i I _ ~ + . ! r _ ~ - - - - - ~ ~ ~ Dear 'Council -Members : ~ _ ~ _ _ - _ - _ - r _ f~ _ , . - • - - - I am ~ sorry .that -I; --cannot -personal-•ly attend your -discussion -on the I - ' above 'referenced-'revisions to the fireplace__regulations this-; ~ . : _._upc~~.u.:ng • Tuesday,_-_but appreciate...-the- opportunity:_to__.~resent_-some thoughts- regarding the proposed -ordinance.; ~ ~ - - _ _ _ I _ _ ~ _ My primary. concern.. is_with _the _proposed__changes_~egar,ds.~..the~_re quirement -to remove -existing fireplaces -in the -event --two-dwellings - - - ' -are -combined -into one unit : - ; _ _ _ restoredcto theirn reviousaconditionlinIn mostccasese~hthey can be-;-----~- as separate ..units. on. .the condominium ,plat _ Lf. ahe _ units that .were _ ! - , . ~ . ~ - - - -combined were restored--each unit would be permitteda-wood :-burning~.v_y ' ~ - } . - ~ fireplace. - _ i..,_ _ - - . ' - ~ ~ I _ i - It is my opinion that preventing a^ fireplace -from being-con-- - - _ structed is ~entirel different than- re uirin -the reztioval "~of - an _ . - - . Y_. _ q _ g _ : existing _fireplace .from ...a dwelling _ unit__during _a-_remodeling..__ef fort • - ~ -that combines -two units . - - It -seems that-- the financial--burden to - -remove an' existing fireplaces: ,far _exceeds -ahe-Ylmited_potential~;_~~--~ - - - - ~ _ _ _...improvement air .....quality. ~ _ _ . __-w _ _ . . _ _..u _ - .._i_ • , - - - illiam F-. _..P.i rc ' _ - - - ~ _ - • ~ - Architect- ~ . _ . - _ F ~ 1 I ' • _ - i 1 ~ I I _ i _ - _ _ ~ F _ . _ - i ~ ~ i i. 1... . .-_..._i - i _ • - - _ i I _ ~ i ~ I i . _ . _ . _ __.T_ _ y _ Y.... . - ~ - ~ ' " pierce fritzlen architects inc: dba intratect ~ - architecture, interiors, landscape design..- - i - - . _ . , - , 1987 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 SENATE BILL N0. 219. BY SENATORS Fenton, Cole, Oodge, McCauley, Pastore, P. Powers, Trujillo, Wattenberg, Winkler, Beatty, DeNier, Rizzuto, and Strickland; also REPRESENTATIVES Berry, Bowen, Romero, Trujillo, Carpenter, Hume, Owens, Ratterree, Ulvang, and Tebedo. CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. Be it enacted ~ the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: SECTION 1. Title 24, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1982 Repl. Vol., as amended, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW ARTICLE to read: ARTICLE 68 Vested Property Rights 24-68-101. Legislative declaration. (1) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that: (a) It is necessary and desirable, as a matter of public policy, to provide for the establishment of vested property rights in order to ensure reasonable certainty, stability, and fairness in the land use planning process and in order to stimulate economic growth, secure the reasonable investment-backed expectations of landowners, and -foster cooperation between the public and private sectors in the area of land use planning. (b) The ability of a landowner to obtain a vested property right after local governmental approval of a site specific development plan will preserve the prerogatives and authority of local government with respect to land use matters, while promoting those areas of statewide concern . described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (1). ~ ¦ APPENDIX 1 Capital letters indicate new material added to existing statutes; dashes through words indicate deletions from existing statutes and such material not Dart of act. (c) The establishment of vested property rights will promote the goals specified in this subsection (1) in a manner consistent with section 3 of article II of the state constitution, which guarantees to each person the inalienable right to acquire, possess, and protect property, and is therefore declared to be a matter of statewide concern. 24-68-102. Definitions. As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Landowner" means any owner of a legal or equitable interest in real property, and includes the heirs, successors, and assigns of such ownership interests. (2) "Local government" means any county, city and county, city, or town, whether statutory or home rule, acting through its governing body or any board, commission, or agency thereof having final approval authority over a site specific development plan, including without limitation any legally empowered urban renewal authority. (3) "Property" means all real property subject to land use regulation by a local government. (4) "Site specific development plan" means a plan which has been submitted to a local government by a landowner or his representative describing with reasonable certainty the type and intensity of use for a specific parcel or parcels of property. Such plan may be in the form of, but need not be limited to, any' of the following plans or approvals: A planned unit development plan, a subdivision plat, a specially planned area, a planned building group, a general submission plan, a preliminary or general development plan, a conditional or special use plan, a development agreement, or any other land use approval designation as may be utilized by a local government. What constitutes a site specific development plan under this article that would trigger a vested property right shall be finally determined by the local government either pursuant to ordinance or regulation or upon an agreement entered into by the local government and the landowner, and the document that triggers such vesting shall be so identified at the time of its approval. A variance shall not constitute a site specific development plan. "Site specific development plan" shall not include a "sketch plan" as defined in section . 30-28-101 (8), C.R.S., or a "preliminary plan" as defined in section 30-28-101 (6), C.R.S. (5) "Vested property right" means the right to undertake and complete the development and use of property under the terms and conditions of a site specific development plan. . 24-68-103. Vested property right - establishment. PAGE 2-SENATE BILL N0. 219 (1) A vested property right shall be deemed established with respect to any property upon the approval, or conditional approval, of a site specific development plan, following notice and public hearing, by the local government in which the property is situated. Such vested property right shall attach to and run with the applicable property and shall confer upon the landowner the right to undertake and complete the development and use of said property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan including any amendments thereto. A local government may approve a site specific development plan upon such terms and conditions as may reasonably be necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Such conditional approval shall result in a vested property right, although failure to abide by such terms and conditions will result in a forfeiture of vested property rights. A site specific development plan shall be deemed approved upon the effective date of the local government legal action, resolution, or ordinance relating thereto. Such approval shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; except that the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication, in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdiction of the local government granting the approval, of a notice advising the general public of the site specific development plan approval and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this article. Such publication shall occur no later than fourteen days following approval. (2) Zoning that is not part of a site specific development plan shall not result in the creation of vested property rights. 24-68-104. Vested property right - duration - termination. (1) A property right which has been vested as provided for in this article shall remain vested for a period of three years. This vesting period shall not be extended by any amendments to a site specific development plan unless expressly authorized by the local government. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, local governments are hereby authorized to enter into development agreements with landowners providing that property rights shall be vested for a period exceeding three years where warranted in light of all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the size and phasing of the development, economic cycles, and market conditions. Such development agreements shall be adopted as legislative acts subject to referendum. (3) Following approval or conditional approval of a site specific development plan, nothing in this article shall PAGE 3-SENATE BILL N0. 219 exempt such a plan from subsequent reviews and approvals by the local government to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the original approval, provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with said original approval. 24-68-105. Subsequent regulation prohibited - exceptions. (I) A vested property right, once established as provided for in this article, precludes any zoning or land use action by a local government or pursuant to an initiated measure which would alter, impair, prevent, diminish, or otherwise delay the development or use of the property as set forth in a site specific development plan, except: (a) With the consent of the affected landowner; (b) Upon the discovery of natural or man-made hazards on or in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, which hazards could not reasonably have been discovered at the time of site specific development plan approval, and which hazards, if uncorrected, would pose a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare; or (c) To the extent that the affected landowner receives just compensation for all costs, expenses, and liabilities incurred by the landowner, including, but not limited to, a1i fees paid in consideration of financing, and all architectural, planning, marketing, legal, and other consultants' fees incurred after approval by the governmental entity, together with interest thereon at the legal rate until paid. Just compensation shall not include any diminution in the value of the property which is caused by such action. (2) The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regu]ations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by a local government, including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical codes. 24-68-106. Miscellaneous provisions. (1) As used in this article, the term "development" includes "redevelopment". (2) A vested property right arising while one local government has jurisdiction over all or part of the property included within a site specific development plan shall be effective against any other local government which may • subsequently obtain or assert jurisdiction over such property. (3) Nothing in this article shall preclude judicial determination, based on common law principles, that a vested property right exists in a particular case or that a PAGE 4-SENATE BItt N0. 219 t, 1 compensable taking has occurred. (4) This article shall apply only to site specific development plans approved on or after January 1, 1988. SECTION 2. Effective date. This act shall take effect January 1, 1988. . SECTION 3. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety. l Ted L.. Strickland Carl B. Bledsoe PRESIDENT OF SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE THE SENATE OF REPRESENTATIVES ~~U~ ~ ~~e-n- C~~ C ~ `Marj rie L. Nielson / Lee C. hrych SECTARY OF CHIEF CLERK OF T~HOUSE THE SENATE OF REPRESENTATIVES APPROVED ~ / ~1 Q •~~d i~ Roy ~r GO OR OF THE STATE OF COLORADO PAGE 5-SENATE BILL N0. 219 v 4 ORDINANCE N0. Series of 1990 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL BY THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 18.67 VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: 1. Title 18 is hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 18.67 to read as follows: 18.67.010 PURPOSE The purpose of this Chapter is to provide the procedures necessary to implement the provisions of Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S., as amended. 18.67.020 DEFINITIONS A. Site specific development plan shall mean and be limited to a final subdivision plat, a conditional use permit, or a special development district. B. Vested property right means the right to undertake and complete the development and use of property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan, and shall be deemed established upon approval of a site specific development plan. 18.67.030 NOTICE AND HEARING No site specific development plan shall be approved by the Town Council or any Town board or commission as applicable, until after a public hearing proceeded by written notice of such hearing. Such notice may, at the option of the Town, be combined with the notice for any other hearing to be held in conjunction with the hearing on the site specific development plan for the subject property. At such hearing, persons with an interest in the subject matter of the hearing shall have an opportunity to present relevant or material evidence as determined by the Town Council or Town board or commission as applicable. 18.67.035 ACTION FOR APPROVAL OF SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN - CONDITIONS The action of the Town Council or Town board or commission as applicable for approval of a site specific development plan shall be in the same form as that required to approve any request being considered for the subject property in conjunction with the hearing on the site specific development plan, such action being either by ordinance, resolution, or motion as the case may be. The approval may include such terms and conditions as may be reasonably necessary to protect the .19' public health, safety, and welfare, and the failure to abide by any such terms and conditions may, at the option of the Town Council or Town board or commission as applicable, and after public hearing, result in the forfeiture of vested property rights. 18.67.040 APPROVAL - EFFECTIVE DATE A site specific development plan shall be deemed approved upon the effective date of the approval action relating thereto by the Town Council or the Town board or commission as the case may be. 18.67.045 VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS - DURATION A. A property right which has been vested as provided for in this Article shall remain vested for a period of three (3) years. In the event amendments to a site specific development plan are proposed and approved, the effective date of such amendments for purposes of the duration of the vested property right, shall be the date of the approval of the original site specific development plan, unless the Town Council or applicable board or commission specifically finds to the contrary and incorporates such finding in its approval of the amendment. 18.67.050 NOTICE OF APPROVAL Each map, plat, or site plan or other document constituting a site specific development plan shall contain the following language: "Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S., as amended." Failure to contain this statement shall invalidate the creation of the vested property right. In addition, a notice describing generally the type and intensity of use approved, the specific parcel or parcels of property affected, and stating that a vested property right has been created, shall be published once not more than fourteen (14) days after approval of the site specific development plan in a newspaper of general circulation within the Town. 18.67.055 EXCEPTION TO VESTING OF PROPERTY RIGHTS A vested property right, even though once established as provided in this Article, precludes any zoning or land use action by the Town or pursuant to an initiated measure which would alter, impair, prevent, diminish, or otherwise delay the development or use of the property as set forth in the site specific development plan except: A. With the consent of the affected landowners; or B. Upon the discovery of natural or man-made hazards on or in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, which hazards could not reasonably have been discovered at the time of site specific development plan approval, and which -2- hazards, if uncorrected would pose a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare; or C. To the extent that the affected landowner receives just compensation for all costs, expenses, and liabilities incurred by the landowner, including but not limited to all fees paid in consideration of financing, and all architectural, planning, marketing, legal, and other consultants fees incurred after approval by the Town Council, or applicable Town board or commission, together with interest thereon at the legal rate until paid. Just compensation shall not include any diminution in the value of the property which is caused by such action. D. The establishment of a vested property right pursuant to law shall not preclude the application of .ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all properties subject to land use regulation by the Town of Vail, including but not limited to, building codes, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, housing, and dangerous building codes, and design review guidelines. 18.67.060 PAYMENT OF COSTS In addition to any and all other fees and charges imposed by the Municipal Code of the Town, the applicant for approval of a site specific development plan shall pay all costs relating to such approval as a result of the site specific development plan review, including publication of notices, public hearing, and review costs. At the option of the Town, these costs may be imposed as a fee of 18.67.065 OTHER PROVISIONS UNAFFECTED Approval of a site specific development plan shall not constitute an exemption from or waiver of any provisions of this Code pertaining to the development and use of property. 18.67.070 LIMITATIONS Nothing in this Chapter is intended to create any vested property right, but only to implement the provisions of Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S., as amended. In the event of the repeal of said Article or judicial determination that said Article is invalid or unconstitutional or does not apply to home rule municipalities such as the Town of Vail, this Chapter shall be deemed to be repealed, and the provisions hereof no longer effective. 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby -3- declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, ~ sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this day of , 1990, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of 1990, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1990. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1990. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -4- 1' `f PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 10, 1990 SITE VISITS 12:00 site visits 1 1:30 A request for a work session for a major change to existing development approval for the Valley, Phase VI. Applicant: Edward Zneimer 2:00 Public Hearing 1. Discussion of Ted Kindel Park Sfte. 2. Approval of minutes from the August 27, 1990 meeting. 3 3. A request for an exterior alteration fn order to construct a 30 sq. ft. expansion on Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing, 610 W. Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Landmark-Vail Condominium Association 4 4. A request for an exterior alteration on Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing, 225 Wall Street. Applicant: American Angler/American Ski Exchange 2 5. A request for a work session for a conditional use permit, a stream setback variance and a side setback variance in order to construct a remediation system at the Vail ~ ~ Amoco Service Station, 934 S. Frontage Road. Legal Description as follows: A ,PART OF THE. NE1 /t NEi /t OF SECIGN 12. TrrWNSI~gP S SCt1T'N. RANGE S 1 11~ES'T OF T>KE ~ PRINGPAi. MER10bW. OESC4t8E0 AS FOLLOWS: BECiNNtNC AT THE PQWT Oi INTERSECTION OF TMg EArsr LINE cF svo. SECnoN :2.~1?ITN .TME SovtHERLY RIcIaT-of-~?~Y uNE of us. ?ucaiwAr No, s, SAtO POINT E~NC Q34.iS FEET SOUTHERLY FrtOw. THE NORTNEAS~ CORNER OF SAIO SECTION ~2; THENCE WL~~4~LY ALONG THE SOUTMEtLY RICHT-OF-WAY LINE OF S,vo NIGiiWAY. A DISTANCE OF 2~0 r~i~. 1tCRE OR LESS. TO A .POINT ON THE E+;ST I{IG>i WATE4 DANK OF REO SANDSTONE Tt~tENCE SOUTHERLY. ALONG h+E slNuous:nES of SAO E+LST wcli WATER BAtrK. 200 FEET. WORE .OR LESS. t0 R5 WTERSECTION WITFI THE NORTH NICK WATER BANK OF GORE CRS TFIENCE EILi~c-.~Y. ALONO TIE SMUO1lSTIES of TFIE rreaT>{ HrCH RATER BANK OF GoaE CREEx~ 24s FEET. YORE OR LESS. TO RS tNT~SE:'T10N WI'T'H THE EAST tJNE OF SAID SECTION t2: THENCE MORTFiERLY. ALONG SAIb EAST IJNE. 160 rrc~. YORE CR LESS. TO THE POINT OF BEGPR~IG. Applicant: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. I( L~ TABLED UNTIL 6. A request for a height variance in order to SEPT. 24 construct a retaining wall along Phase II of the East Vail Bike Path on the North side of Bighorn Road, in the Colorado Department of Highways Right-of-way. Applicant: Town of Vail TABLED UNTIL 7. A request for a major subdivision, to approve SEPT. 24 the preliminary plan, a request for a variance. to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. TABLED UNTIL 8. A request for an amendment to the approved SEPT. 24 access plan for Lots 5 and 6, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing, 146 and 126 Forest Road. Applicant: Ron Byrne TABLED UNTIL 9. A request to amend section 18.04.130-- OCTOBER 8 definition of Floor area, gross residential (GRFA); 18.09.080 Hillside Residential District density control; 18.10.090 Single Family District density control; 18.12.090 Two Family Residential District density control and; 18.13.080 Primary/Secondary District density control, of the Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail TABLED UNTIL 10. A request to amend sections 18.04.360-- OCTOBER 8 definition of site coverage; 18.09.090-- Hillside Residential District site coverage; 18.10.110--Single Family District site .coverage; 18.12.110--Two Family District site coverage; 18.13.090--Primary Secondary District site coverage;, 18.14.110-- Residential Cluster District site coverage; 18.16.110--Low Density Residential District site coverage; 18.18.110--Medium Density Residential site coverage; 18.20.110--High Density Residential District site coverage; 18.22.110--Public Accommodation District site coverage; 18.24.150--Commercial Core I .District site coverage; 18.26.120--Commercial Core II District site coverage; 18.27.090-- Commercial Core III site coverage; 18.28.120--Commercial Service Center District site coverage; 18.29.090--Arterial Business M l' District site coverage; 18.30.110--Heavy Service District site coverage; 18.32.110-- Agricultural and Open Space District site coverage and; 18.39.190--Ski Base/Recreation District site coverage, of the Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail TABLED UNTIL 11. A request to amend section 18.52.160--Off OCTOBER 8 Street Parking and Loading Exemptions, of the Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail WITHDRAWN 12. A request for a minor subdivision on portions of Lots 7 and 8, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing, 1107 E. Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Thomas Rader DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA SEPTEMBER 5, 1990 REVISED 9/4/90 3:00 P.M. SITE VISITS 1:30 P.M. 6 1. Oelbaum - Conceptual review of Satellite Dish 3907 Lupine Dr./Lot 3, Block 1, Bighorn 1st AK MOTION: Pat H. SECOND: George L. VOTE: 5-0 Denial. 7 2. Vail Resort Association Sign BR Old Post Office Building/111 S. Frontage Road MOTION: George L. SECOND: Dalton W. VOTE: 5-0 Consent approved. 4 3. Holiday House - Flue Chase BR 9 Vail Road/Part of Lots A,B,C, Vail Village 2nd MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 19TH MEETING. 4. Ruder & Associate Sign - New Sign BR 4496 E. Meadow Drive/Timber Falls Condominiums MOTION: George L. SECOND: Dalton W. VOTE: 5-0 Consent approved. 1 R• 3 5. Vail Valley Medical Center - Additions to JK approved. 181 West Meadow Drive. Lots E & F, Vail Village 2nd MOTION: George L. SECOND: Sherry D. VOTE: 5-0 Approved with condition to add window to west wall of Emergency Entrance vestibule to allow those leaving the emergency room to view traffic arriving from the west. 2 6. Gensler - 2 New Single Family Residence SM/JK 2427 Garmish Dr./Lot 12 & 13, Block H, Vail Das Schone #2 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Conceptual. 1 7. Snowden/Smith - Sunroom Addition SM 1473 Aspen Grove Ln./Lot 5, Blk 2, Lionsridge #4 MOTION: George L. SECOND: Dalton W. VOTE: 5-0 Consent approved. 5 8. Precourt Residence - New Primary/Secondary SM with 250 and 2nd unit on a lot which is less than 15,000 sq. ft. 328 Mill Creek Circle Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Village 1st MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 19TH MEETING. 2 1; w 9. Rader - 250 Addition JK 1107 East Vail Valley Drive/ Lot 7, Block 6, Vail Village 7th MOTION: George L. SECOND: Pat H. VOTE: 5-0 Approved with the condition that the landscaping and berm north of bend in drive, as shown on DRB reviewed plans, will be removed. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Ned Gwathmey Pat Herrington Dalton Williams (PEC) Sherry Dorward (New DRB Member) George Lamb STAFF APPROVALS: Alpine Standard Remediation System, Temporary 28 South Frontage Road West Marmot's Tale Sign Crossroads Mall Roost Lodge - Entry Awning on West Side of property 1783 North Frontage Road West Red Lion - Paint change for siding and fascia Vail Village Red Lion - Exterior Alteration Vail Village Pratt Residence - Materials change Lot 2, Bighorn 2nd May Palace - Awning & Lights, put spots on walkway and end of awning. 223 East Gore Creek Drive 3 WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP 9/7/90 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS Page 1 of 2 8/8/89 WEST INTERMOUNTAIN ANNEXATION ARRY: Proceeding w/legal requirements for A new advocate for petition circulation is being sought. (request: Lapin) annexation. Cindy Callicrate to be contacted. 2/21 SATELLITE POST OFFICE (request: ON: Pursue station "in town" and/or increase Meeting to be set up with Ernie Chavez. Summer bus service Osterfoss) summer bus service? increased. 5/1 AMEND CODE, 12.04.240, STREET CUT TAN/LARRY/KRISTAN: Per Council direction, proceed. Pam has given original ordinances to Stan. Recommended PERMITS changes to be presented to Council October 2. 6/12 VAIL GLO SIGN (request: Levine) ON/KRISTAN: Through DRB, or some other process, Kristan has written a letter to Vail Glo. can the lettering color and lighting be modified? 6/26 AIR QUALITY USAN: Issue of passive smoke and smoking in Susan will discuss with Council Sept. 11. restaurants needs to be revisited by this fall. 6/26 TED KINDEL MEMORIAL ODD 0.: Track down ownership of land to the south Land is all owned by VA. VA says a plaque can be placed (request: Rose) of the Christiania. If this belongs to the TOV, there. A letter from VA is forthcoming. Stan has begin to formulate memorial plan, i.e., park. contacted Gordon Brittan, who had a plaque made up. bench, plaque, etc.? This will be discussed Mon., Sept. 10, with PEC regarding an appropriate place to put the plaque. 7/17 BIKES/ROLLER BLADES AND SKATES/ EN/LARRY: Should bicycles, roller blades, etc. be Researching appropriate ordinances for application in 1991. SKATEBOARDS prohibited from highly pedestrianized areas in the Village and Lionshead? 7/24 AG/OPEN SPACE AMENDMENT ARRY/KRISTAN: Legal research requested to make Research underway. Larry will report to Council. ORDINANCE AG/Open Space 35 acre minimum per unit. 7/27 UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES IN ARRY/STAN: Work with Holy Cross Electric to Scheduled to begin this fall. EAST VAIL establish special improvement district(s) for undergrounding utilities in East Vail. 8/1 JOHNSON/GATES MEETING ON: Schedule discussion w/Bud Gates and Linda Will do closer to the election. Johnson prior to November general election. WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP 9/7/90 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS Page 2 of 2 8/28 BUDGET CALENDAR OUNCIL/DEPT. HEADS: Special work sessions will be Sessions scheduled are: conducted for budget hearings. Tuesday, Sept. 18 12:00 p.m. Council Chambers Thursday, Sept. 20 1:00 p.m. Council Chambers Tuesday, Sept. 25 12:00 p.m. Council Chambers Thursday, Sept. 27 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Tuesday, Oct. 2 12:00 p.m. Council Chambers Thursday, Oct:-4 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers - this 10/4 date will only be scheduled if necessary. *Please note change back to original 7:00 p.m. starting time. 8/28 FOREST SERVICE LAND USE STUDY ON: Staff updated boundary position statement to Letter will be written. Council for review. Can the Forest Service be encouraged to complete a fractional study, rather than waiting for the entire Gore Valley? 9/4 DRAIN IN FRONT OF CHAPEL TAN: Roadway breaking up/needs repair. Will address. (request: Lapin) 9/4 BOARD OF REALTORS LETTER ON: Prepare letter to realtors re: deteriorating Will do. properties/aging condos - to ask for solutions to this perceived problem and their vested interest in maintaining inventory. 9/4 CLUB 20 ANNUAL FALL MEETING OUNCILMEMBERS:. Tom will be attending on 9/15/90 at the Grand Junction Holiday Inn. Please let Ron/Brenda know immediately if anyone else is interested in attending. ~o,2,P.~er~ q/7/~ TOWN OF VAIL 1991 BUDGET TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 Council Chambers 12:00 p.m. Work Session Items 1:00 p.m. 1991 Budget Overview - The Town's Fund System - 1991 Revenue Projections - 1991 Expenditure Budget - Employee Compensation - 1991 Service Levels 3:00 p.m. Public Works Department Orientation THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1990 Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Public Works Department Transportation Heavy Equipment Fund 8:30 p.m. Capital Projects TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1990 Council Chambers 12:00 p.m. Work Session Items 1:00 p.m. Fire Department 2:00 p.m. Library Department 3:00 p.m. Contribution Requests THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1990 Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Police Department 8:30 p.m. Community Development TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1990 Council Chambers 12:00 p.m. Work Session Items 1:00 p.m. Town Officials (Council, Manager, Attorney, Court) 2:00 p.m. Administrative Services Department 3:00 p.m. Insurance, Special Events 3:30 p.m. Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund Debt Service Fund Conservation Trust Fund Lionshead Mall Assessment District Fund Marketing Fund TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1990 Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. Budget Wrap-up 3:00 p.m. Work Session Items ~ •ASENT BY~EAGLE COUNTY GOVT. 9- 4-90 ;10~11AM ; COUNTY MANAGER-? 14792157;# 2 ~e~- q•l(•46 (,USA la ~ ~ Raymond P. Merry, R.S. ~Fr'~',.'FQ PA. Box 1528 Eagle, Colorado 81631 (303) 328.6$33 (303) 328-7311, Ext. 530 EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science degree in Biology enhanced by a minor In Related Subjects covering areas in Chemis y, Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics. Graduated with a cumulative 3,4~ ~+,P,A, in December 19 3. Graduated from Deil Rapids Public High School In May 1978. B.S~ Fra~'i .Scu~li ~lroTA srrtTt UnivE~s'iry ,~t/ ~.ODiS'O/r/, s~lh' ~~uf~ ADDITIQNAL Attended Twin Cities Asbestos Seminar, TRAINING: Environmental Protection Agency Courses Completed: • Hazard Evaluation and Environmental Assessment • • Incident Mitigation and Treatment Methods ~ Hazardous Materials Response Operatiarts (40 Hr, OSHA Safety Training) • Introduction to Groundwater Investfaations PROFESSIONAL Enviranmenta! Health Officer for Eagle County, Colorado f:XPERiENCES: October 7989 -Present Major duties include compliance with the State Contract through the Consumer Protection Division perfor~n- ing routine sanitation inspections. Responding to hazardous materials incidents. Providing technical assistan e far the County landfill manager. Supervise the Assistant Environmental Health Officer. Assisting the Director f Community Development in reviewing land use proposals. Developing and implementing environmental heal h regulations and guidelines, Environmental Analyst with the City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota Aprl! 7987. October 1989 Specialized in Hazardous Material mitigation responding to chemical releases, evaluating analytical date a d making prompt decisions to protect public health and the environment. Operated sensitive instrumentation f r the detection of hydrocarbons, Samp!@d well water far laboratory analysis. Determined what waste materials a acceptable for disposal in the sanitary landfill, Sanitarian with the City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota /uly 7984 -April ?987 Health code enforcement including inspections of restaurants, lodging establishments, bars, etc., as well s environmental complaint work documenting health violations and taking necessary action such as co rt testimony to abate nuisances, Laboratory Manager for Howard Beet Proceasora in Howard, South Dakota Aprl! 1984 -July 1984 Implemented quality assurance and quality control programs doing analytical tests on meats and pracessi g equipment. Identlfled problem areas in the plant that contributed to bacterial contamination and took a prcprlata mQaauras to 9liminate those arose. praparod tachnieal reports for a major food chain on the quality f beBf processed to assure continuation of the account, Researcher far South Dakota Came, iiah and Parke Department of the Big Siaua Tree Nursery !n Watertow , South Dakota Summer 1963 Compiled and evaluated data for technica! reports including studies on pesticides phytotoxlclty, tree Brow h rates, seed germination, effectiveness of antitranspirants on various species of ,trees. ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Chairman of the Minnehaha County Hazardous Materials Committee ANp a Chairman of the Local Emergency PlannlnQ Committee RECQCNITIpNS • Sorvod an savQral erdinancv drafting cvmmittoes including the Minnehaha County Chemical Storage Tank Ordinance • Successfully met the qualifications and became a Registered Sanitarian • Remain an active member of the National Environmental Health Association ~ ~rula~ ~ ws~3 - y~i~~5o TOWN OF VAII MUNICIPAL COMPLEX MASTER PLAN ROTH + SHEPPARD ARCHITECTS SNOWDON AND HOPKINS ARCHITECTS PROGRAM AREA REQUIREMENTS September 11, 1990 Program area requirements are provided for NET AREA, GROSS DIVISION AREA ~or GROSS AREA and GROSS BUILDING NET AREA refers to the total assigned area of the space GROSS DIVISION AREA or GROSS AREA refers to the NET AREA plus a factor of 2596 to cover circulation GROSS BUILDING AREA refers to CROSS DIVISION AREA plus a BUILDING FACTOR of 2596 The 25°~6 BUILDING FACTOR consists of the following: lobby and Reception 396 Design Contingency 596 Major Circulation 596 Stairs and Elevators 390 Restrooms, Jan. & Mech. 6.5 Structure 2.5°~ r TOWN OF VAIL MUNICIPAL COMPLEX MASTER PLAN PROGRAM AREA REQUIREMENTS 9/11/90 SUMMARY EXISTING PROJECTED I DIVISION TOTAL NET TOTAL NET I GROSS STAFF AREA STAFF AREA I AREA I POLICE DEPARTMENT I I I OFFICE OF THE CHIEF I 2 292 3 9171 1146 STAFF/ SUPPORT I 14.5 1108 26 33781 4223 OPERATIONS 42 1465 77 82081 10260 COMMON FACILITIES 0 805 0 3040 3800 ~ I TOTAL STAFF I 58,5 ~ I;OG + TOTAL NET AREA ~ IW 3670 ; `?15543 GROSS DIVISION AREA I I pp. 1,94.29. GROSS BUILDING I I ~ ~ 24~2~8~6 :~X• i I I I TOWN OF VAIL I ADMINISTRATION 6) 2843 6I 45321 5665 ADMIN SERVICES 15.331 2107 181 72321 9040 COMMUNITY DEV. 141 1837 171 3692 4615 TOWN ATTORNEY I 1 260 3 491 614 MUNICIPAL COURT I 2 354 4' 1756 2195 COMMON FACILITIES ~ 0 7101 1I 11354 14193 I ~ TOTAL STAFF I 38.33 49~ I TOTAL NET AREA ( ~ I - 81~`a1~1'I I 290~5~7I GROSS DIVISION AREA I I ~ I I I ° 36321.. • GROSS BUILDING I I I I I 4`54"UF2'; , TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 11, 1990 RE: Follow-up on Question Raised by Council at September 4th Work Session on the Number of Rental Units the Marriott Mark is Required to Provide. The issue regarding the number of Marriott Mark units which must remain in the rental pool was raised at the September 4th Town Council meeting in response to the DRB report on the Artinian 250 addition. The Artinian's are combining two existing condominium units, each with a lock-off unit, into one condominium with one lock-off unit and adding a 250 sq. ft. loft/sauna area. The Marriott Mark Special Development District No. 7 was-approved by Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1977, on February 1, 1977. The Artinian unit is located in the eastern most building of the Marriott Mark complex (Phase I). The building in which the Artinian property is located was constructed under Public Accommodation Zoning District development requirements and the units condominiumized and sold prior to the adoption of SDD No. 7. The agreement which addresses the number of keys (rooms) which must be available for rent is the franchise agreement between M-K Corporation and the Marriott Corporation. This agreement was entered into to ensure the Marriott Corporation that a certain number of rooms will be affiliated/available for hotel use. The Town is not a party to this agreement. ~ t ~ D0214A~~, PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. 1990 08 30 MONTHLY PROGRESS SCHEDULE Pe9e 1 °f 1 TOWN OF VAIL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Essooo38 VAIL TRANSPORTATION CENTER LEGEND Actual Forecast VAIL, COLORADO Planned •sa==aa 5 Day Work Week MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1990 1890 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 Com. 30 07 14 21 28 04 11 18 25 02 09 16 23 30 06 13 20 27 03 10 17 24 O1 08 15 22 ~29 05 12 19 26 03 10 17 24 31 NOTICE TO PROCEED MAY 01, 1990 100 = MOBILIZE 100 _ - SHORING 100 = - - - - --p- EXCAVATION 100 DEMOLITION 100 =~a= _ _ FOUNDATION GROUTING 100 = _ STRUCTURAL STEEL VIS170R CENTER 100 CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE 60 _ _ _ _ _ _ PRECAST ERECTION 88 _ _ SITEWORK 75 e _ _ FINISHES CONCRETE TOPPINGS 25 ~ _ SEALERS = ' STRIPING INSTALL PARKING EQUIPMENT _ MEP SYSTEMS 50 __a= __=a ELEVATORS = _ ==fi== SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION NOV 21, 1990 I ~ I ~ t MICHAEL BARBER ARCHITECIUR-E 16 August 1990 Mr. Jim Brown PCL Construction Services 2000 S. Colorado Blvd. Suite 400 Denver, CO 80222 RE: Vail Transportation Center CRX's 1,4,5,11,12,15,16,17,18 Project Number 22289 Dear Jim: This letter will document the discussions we had last Tuesday, 7 August regarding the referenced CRX's. GENERAL DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Following the negotiation with the Owners representatives present, the agreed upon mark ups on Change Order requests will be as follows: Items less than $5,000: 20% total mark up (including the 1-1 /2% for . Bonds). Items greater than $5,000: 16-1/2% total mark up (including the 1-1/2°k for Bonds). ff PCL wishes to make a claim for field staff overhead as a part of the cost of the work, PCL should show this as a separate line item within the backup. 2. On numerous CRX's you have quoted a price for the item then included a paragraph reserving the right to make further cost or schedule claims in the future. This is unacceptable. All ramifications of a Change Order request need to be discussed and mutually resolved prior to inclusion in a Change Order. 3. Specific resolution of the CRX's discussed. (NOTE: Revise and resubmit amounts per agreement with the Owner on mark ups). MICHAEL BARBER ARCHITECTURE PROFESSIONAL C O R P O R A T I O N 1290 BROADWAY SUIiE 600 OENVER COLORADO 80203-5606 TELEPHONE 303 837 0555 FACSIMILE 303 8?7 0600 Mr. Jim Brown 16 August 1990 Page 2 CRX NUMBER AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 1. (RFI-031) 439.00 Unforseen buried pipes. RESOLUTION: Recommend approval for Change Order. 4. 957.00 Temp. lights at frontage road. RESOLUTION: Owner approved. 5. (RFI-028) 624.00 Added W14x22 RESOLUTION: Recommended approved. 11. 1,989.00 Steel framing at Information Center. RESOLUTION: Disapproved. Examination of site conditions required prior to bidding, Specification Section 00120. Review of Field Conditions required prior to commencing activity (shop drawings) General Conditions Article 3.2.2. Field Verification required during shop drawing preparation, General Conditions Article 3.12.7. 12. (PR#2) 1,768.00 Check existing fire sprinkler system for sludge. RESOLUTION: Owner says no. 15. (RFI-022) 2,959.00 Change AD-2 to AD-1 in Mechanical Drawings. RESOLUTION: Recommend approved. 16. (RFI-057) 2,243.00 Stair 11 drains shown on Arch. not shown on Mech. RESOLUTION: Recommend disapproved. Drains in question were shown on the Architectural and therefore in the scope of work. Instructions to bidder, Article 321, General Conditions, Article 1.2.3. 17. (RFI-72) 4,038.00 Routing of new storm sewer at level 1, east end. RESOLUTION: HOLD, Natkin to refigure going underground overhead out east end of the building then undergrounding around east end. 7 Q Mr. Jim Brown _ 16 August 1990 Page 3 18. 22,105.00 Additional conduit supports, removal of existing abandoned carbon monoxide system. RESOLUTION: Owner says no. Jim, in your correspondence of 26 July 1990 on the referenced items, you indicated you desired a Change Order by 3 August. We did not receive your correspondence until 2 August. Please provide revised dollar figures for the approved items. Once we have these figures, we will then issue Change Order No. 1 for the approved items. In the future, please allow at least one week for raview of your Change Order requests. Thank you. Sincerely, MICHAEL BARBER ARCHITECTURE " Chris Thomas CT/sh (\vai~cnc.ltr) cc: Vail: S. Berryman URS: G. Voos L Wood MBA: S. Ward File 22289 Vault 22289 f,K'~c, -''~i-°--- ~ Tr~G C2X r , /t r- p Arf ~v~.==. I." A~o,~,,~.o y39 ~ y5,~~y 95~. 2 A A (~2 y ~ ~ z©9 ~ 131 f o p~o~~ ~'l /b b `l r~1s~ ~ ~ J~ N~ ~Z~ " 2y ~ ? 29` 13 2~ ~ y ~ o -y l ~ z y 3 ,~'S d I ~d 22 ~ ~S ~ 1y z~ 1 Zl 22 ~ 11,-~ ~ Z ~ . . F ~.Z~~ 3oZ1~ _ 2~ 3y37 Z~-/off zy 30 ~9~ - 3/ ~Zo2 - 3 2. 3 3 9 ` ~7 3y y~y9 . 3~~ X00 ~~~3~ 3~' ~y yo y 9os l `I 2 z ~ - y3 ~7~) y ~ j 3 ~ ~j S 2 J Z Z - `T 9 50 S~ 5Z 53 .S . 5"S ~ ~y L Town of Avon P. O. Box 975, Avon, CO 81620 (303) 949-4280 - August 31, 1990 Mr. Stan Berryman Director of Public Works, Transportation . Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Stan: As discussed today, the Town of Avon will be managing the transportation system this year for Avon and Beaver Creek. We believe it would be very beneficial to develop a transit committee that will be representative of such services in the area. An opportunity to share common interests and operational concerns should be beneficial to us as well as those we serve. Since you would prefer to meet on Wednesdays or Thursdays,, I will check with the county and Vail Associates about these days. We will be in touch with you to set a meeting time, and appreciate your interest. Sincerely ~ Larry ooks ' Director of Municipal Services Copy/File LB/mml i I August 29, 1990 Mr. Allen Best THE VAIL TRAIL Drawer 6200 Vail, Colo 81658 Dear Mr. Best: We want to publicly express our appreciation to John Gulick and Mike McGee of The Vail Fire Department. On Friday, August 10th, shortly after midnight, some rags left by a painter spontaneously combusted and ignited some other materials in our Potato Patch residence. Upon receiving a call from the SCI alarm monitoring station, the fire department was at the house in approximately 8 minutes. The action they took prevented a disaster. Mr. McGee reached us in Connecticut, with the assistance of Bill Baginski at Vacation Resorts, and explained the situation, assuring us that the house would be secure before he departed. The Fire Department spent over 2 hours venting the smoke from the house to prevent permanent smoke damage. Because of the quick action taken by The Vail Fire Department, as well as having a monitored alarm system and Knox box, the damage was relatively minor. The Vail Fire Department has much to be proud of and we to be grateful for. Sincerely, , M'tch & Jane Imber Stamford, Connecticut cc: Editor; Vail Daily Ron Phillips; Town of Vail Geoffrey Wright; Vacation Resorts John Gulick; Vail Fire Department Mike McGee; Vail Fire Department Bill Baginski; Vacation Resorts Deanna Turner; Property & Rental Management TOWN OF ESTES PARK E ~ H. Bernerd Dannels ~ t ~ Mayor _ / ,Y ~L-7 N -9.- i Z k• ' ~ ~ SIC` j f, ~ , y~ : ~ L\ s J ~ ',1,rw % w.. ` a ~ Estes Park, Colorado 80517 a ~~w ~ , August 23; 1990 The Honorable Kent R. Rose, Mayor Town Council Members TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mayor Rose and Council: On behalf of the Town of Estes Park, we would like to express our heartiest welcome to you as our Colorado Sister City. We anticipate a very successful exchange of information as we are both tourist-oriented resort communities, facing similar chal- lenges. Sincerely, TOWN OF ESTES PARK (~f~S~~ L Ii. Bernerd Dannels, Mayor Geo e ~ik, D~Yayor ProTem ~ ~ ert L. ~1~L11t.1 , stee Dave Barker, Trustee f Milan A. Dickinson, Tru tee Polly G~frrett, Trustee _ ~ e Habec~cer, Trustee Ga~'~i Rla ha~Ce own` Administrat P. O. Box 1200 Telephone (303) 586-5331 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT 90-1 PARKING POLICIES I. The basic parking rate structure for general parking was reviewed in terms of its revenue potential, comments from the public meeting, and three suggested options prepared by staff and Council members. The Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee unanimously recommends the following rate structure to the Town Council for adoption. Hours Amount 0 - 1 1/2 $ 0.00 1 1/2 - 2 $ 2.00 2 - 3 $ 3.00 3 - 4 $ 4.00 4 - 5 $ 5.00 5 - 7 $ 6.00 7 - 9 $ 7.00 9 - 11 $ 8.00 11 - 13 $ 9.00 13 - 15 $10.00 15 - 24 $12.00 This represents a change from the previous recommendation for parking durations over 13 hours. Previously 13 to 18 hours would cost $12.00 and 18 to 24 would cost $15.00. II. The Premium Service Program was also reevaluated. The committee unanimously rec..,~..ends the following Gold Pass Program to the Town Council for adoption. o Price set at $750.00 plus $25.00 deposit. o Limited to a maximum of 150 Gold Passes. o Guaranteed space availability and unlimited entry/exit. o No restrictions on use. o Gold Passes valid to November 1, 1991 y ~ III. The Discount Program was discussed in three areas; Coupons, _ Blue Passes, and use of Ford Park. Coupons: o Coupons will be sold for $3.00 each up to a maximum of 100 coupons per individual and may be purchased in any quantity. o Coupons are valid to November 1, 1991. o At the VTC, Level 4 and Level 5 will be reserved for coupon holders (226 spaces). o If Levels 4 and 5 fill, then coupon holders will use Lionshead. o If Levels 4 and 5 do not fill, then general parkers will be allowed to use Levels 4 and 5 provided that the rest of the VTC is full. o Coupons may be purchased by those individuals who have a valid drivers license with a Vail address or verification of employment by a Vail business. Blue Passes: o Blue Passes will be sold for $400.00 plus a $25.00 deposit to anyone wishing to purchase them. o Blue Passes are valid to November 1, 1991. o Blue Passes may be used at the VTC at any time Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday (except between Christmas and New Years Day) and after 3:OOP.M. on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. o Blue Passes may be used at Lionshead any day and at any time. o Blue Passes allow unlimited entry/exit during the valid time periods defined above. Ford Park: o Ford Park will be free and available on a first come, first serve basis on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. o Ford Park will be available to Coupon and Blue Pass holders or to general parkers for a $5.00 flat fee (payable upon entry) on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. i • r / l~ J '1 ~J~ r , . z C~~= * ~?y f.~ qa~ ~.2X1`rTlhko._:. ~ALIGL'Q4`~3 .l c'i ( T l - ,;fir,;';. / . ~PV 'Ji Ul ~ ~ :-r;~~.{; _ Re~GENce.___ iw.i-.-• 98Kn~ p( / - ~ op-ICE. as r • ~ ~ - ' I ~ ~ - ~ ~_s~o~o.,.:~xb (ware) . - ptx~roP ~ , - ~ . F m g! m No. ' ~ , . • • . ~ ' • ' ~ < "q-bElnnw~ ~l.Ge ' !N Lary - _ _ ~ r, . , ~ -Zy. JAY I~. PETERSON ATTORNEY AT law TELEPHONE SUITE 307 VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 1303) 476-0092 f08 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST ,~vt! ,r~'.~'_= FAX LINE JAY K. PETERSON VAII., COLORADO 81657 13031 479-0467 M,F,MORANDUM TO: KRISTAN PRITZ, TOWN OF VAIL, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: JAY K. PETERSON . DATE: AUGUST 24, 1990 RE: REZONING OF THE MARRIOTT MARK HOTEL Dear Kristan: The following is a quick synopsis of why we are currently asking for a rezoning of SDD#7 to Public Accommodation, and High Density Multi-Family. During the course of working with the Town Staff and the Planning Commission it became evident that the underlying zone district for SDD#7 was somewhat confused due to past documentation of SDD#7. Fairly late in the process and during presentation to the Planning Commission it was suggested by the Planning Commission that in order to clear up any past confusion regarding underlying zoning and in order to have a base line from which to compare the proposed changes in the Special Development District we should request a rezoning of the property to an underlying zone district. We therefore complied with that request. We then submitted an application to zone the property "HDMF" as that would allow the .use for time-sharing. Obviously the standards set forth in the original SDD Ordinance, as amended from time to time, would control the entire project. After being passed on first reading by the Town of Council, the Town Council decided not to rezone the property and turned down the Ordinance on second reading. The reasons were somewhat confusing, however, based upon review of the video tapes of the meetings, it would appear that the major concern was that time-sharing could then be used in the existing hotel. We therefore revised our request for rezoning to place a portion of the property upon which the existing hotel is situated in the Public Accommodation zone which would not allow time-sharing and which best conforms the existing uses and density on the site. At the same time the portion upon which the time-sharing project would be situated would be placed into the High Density Multi-Family zone which would allow the time-share use and which would also best conform to the uses and density which we propose. i Memorandum August 24, 1990 Page 2 While there is no legal requirements for the rezoning of the property we felt it was important to address the concerns of the Town Staff and the Planning Commission to not only clarify past zoning on the property, but also to have an underlying zone district for comparison purposes only. During the past Town Council meetings the rezoning issue was completely blown out of shape by Jim Lamont, given the fact that the Special Development District Ordinance controls all facets of the project and the underlying zoning forms no basis for control . except as stated in the Special Development District Ordinance. If you have any questions please contact me at my office.