HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/1993, 9 - RESULTS OF THE SMOKING ORDINANCE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS I'Iry�lypl��llll�lllll�ll'IIII r MEETING GATE:
A0O lul city o san lues oBIspo ya-
90074 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer
Prepared By: Deb Hossli, Administrative Analyst h,
SUBJECT: Results of the Smoking Ordinance Economic Analysis
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report.
DISCUSSION:
Background
During 1992, the City received a grant from the California Healthy Cities Project for$10,000
to conduct an economic analysis of the Smoking Ordinance. The purpose of the grant was
to determine whether the City's Smoking Ordinance (still considered the strongest in the
nation) has affected the profitability of local bars and restaurants. Because economic
considerations have been the major concern of nearly every municipality considering a
comprehensive smoking ordinance, it was felt that having concrete statistical data available
on this issue would greatly aid decision making.
Under the terms of the grant, the City was permitted to hire a consultant to carry out the
project. The consultant's work was overseen by a Steering Committee composed of
representatives from the City, the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Improvement
Association, the Visitors and Conference Bureau, the County Health Department (Tobacco
Control Program), and the Central Coast Restaurant Association. The Steering Committee
was responsible for selecting the consultant that conducted the analysis (Taylor Consulting
Group), approving the strategy for carrying out the study, approving all survey instruments,
and accepting the final report.
Report Methodology and Results
The study involved three major components: (1) a statistical analysis of bar and restaurant
sales tax receipts comparing the City with other "tourist oriented" cities inside and outside
of the County; (2) a patron survey to determine changes in customer behavior resulting from
the Ordinance; and (3) a survey of bars and restaurants to identify costs associated with the
Ordinance.
The results of the survey were very positive. We found that:
■ The Smoking Ordinance has not affected bar or restaurant profitability in San Luis
Obispo based on a regression analysis comparing the City of San Luis Obispo to
Pismo Beach, Morro Bay, Arroyo Grande, Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Ventura,
Monterey, and the County of San Luis Obispo.
city of san Luis oBispo
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
■ The Smoking Ordinance has affected patron behavior - although the change has not
been measurable from a financial perspective. Most notably, the survey showed that
there are more smokers choosing to go to neighboring cities to dine or drink;
however, this trend is offset by the increasing number of non-smokers who are more I
likely to come into San Luis Obispo. In addition, more smokers are choosing to dine
or drink at establishments that have outdoor seating areas (as the Ordinance does
not preclude smoking on patios). f
■ Aside from expenditures to expand outdoor seating capacity, local restaurants and
bars have not experienced significant cost savings or cost increases as a result of the
Ordinance. Although some restaurants and bars report increased cost for things such j
as more employee smoke breaks, and reduced costs for drapery and carpet cleaning,
these cost impacts are not experienced widely enough to represent a measurable
impact.
A detailed discussion of the methodology and results of the study is contained in the
attached report.
Future Use of Report
Upon City Council acceptance of the report, staff intends to widely distribute a press release
publicizing the results of the report. We also intend to develop a brochure summarizing the
highlights of the report for distribution to the public and other governmental agencies.
CONCURRENCES:
The Steering Committee has reviewed and accepted the final report.
I
ATTACHMENTS:
I
1 - Copy of Report
i
� I
i
I:smoke45
I
qLca
S
I
C TIS SAN LUIS OBISPO
SMOIJNG ORDINANCE
A STUDY OF THE ECONOMIC
IMPACTS ON
SAN LUIS OBISPO
RESTAURANTS AND BARS
Submitted To:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Smoldng Ordinance Economic Analysis Steering Committee
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California
Submitted By:
TAYLOR CONSULTING GROUP
6835 Avila Valley Drive
San Luis Obispo, California
January, 1993
9- 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. BACKGROUND 2
IIL DETAILED FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. REVENUE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. PATRON SURVEY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT TO/FROM NEIGHBORING
COMMUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2. "GOING OUT, MORE/LESS OFTEN AS A RESULT OF THE
ORDINANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. THE BAN'S EFFECTS ON TOURISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. THE BAN'S IMPACT ON OUTDOOR FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
C. COST IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. COST INCREASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2. COST REDUCTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3. ES FOR OUTDOOR SEATING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
IV. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A. RESTAURANT AND BAR RETAIL SALES ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. STATISTICAL METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2. TIME PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . 25
3. AREAS OF COMPARISON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4. STATISTICAL COMPARISON AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5. COMPARISON TO OTHER STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. DATA SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7. ECONOMETRIC METHOD 28
8. AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION: THE ECONOMY IN
GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 .
9. DOES THE BAN INCREASE SALES IN NEIGHBORING CITIES? . 31
10. RESTAURANT SALES WITH AND WITHOUT ALCOHOL . . . . . . 32
11. OTHER VARIABLES: IMPROVING THE EQUATION
SPECIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
B. PATRON SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1. SURVEY METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2. RESPONDENT PROFILE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
C. MANAGER SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
APPENDICES
L CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ORDINANCE No. 1172 - SMOKING
PROHIBITED IN CERTAIN AREAS
H. SMOKING INCIDENCE DATA
III. RESTAURANTS AND BARS PARTICIPATING IN THE SURVEYS
IV. PATRON SCREENER AND QUESTIONNAIRE
V. MANAGER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
VL SALES DATA
i
LIST OF CHARTS AND TABLES
CHART IIIA EATING/DRINKMG RETAIL SALES
FROM ALL ESTABLISHMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
CHART M-B: EATING AND DRINKING RETAIL SALES
FROM ALCOHOL FREE ESTABLISHMENTS BY CITY . . . . . . 7
CHART III-C: EATING AND DRINKING RETAIL SALES FROM
ESTABLISHMENTS WITH BEER & WINE ONLY . . . . . . . . . . 8
CHART III-D: EATING AND DRINKING RETAIL SALES FROM
ESTABLISHMENTS SERVING ALL TYPES OF ALCOHOL . . . 9
CHART III-E: UNEMPLOYMENT RATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
TABLE III-A: SMOKERS GOING TO NEIGHBORING CITY
BARS AND RESTAURANTS VERSUS
SAN LUIS OBISPO BARS AND RESTAURANTS . . . . . . . . . . . 14
TABLE III-B: NON-SMOKERS GOING TO SAN LUIS OBISPO
BARS AND RESTAURANTS VERSUS NEIGHBORING
CITIES BECAUSE NO SMOKING THERE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
TABLE III-C: SMOKERS STAYING HOME VERSUS GOING TO
SAN LUIS OBISPO BARS AND RESTAURANTS . . . . . . . . . . . 16
TABLE III-D: NON-SMOKERS GOING TO SAN LUIS OBISPO
BARS AND RESTAURANTS VERSUS NOT GOING OUT . . . . 17
TABLE III-E: VISITING/NOT VISITING SAN LUIS OBISPO
BECAUSE OF SMOKING BAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
TABLE III-F: VISITOR AWARENESS OF NO SMOKING ORDINANCE PRIOR
TO SLO VISIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
TABLE III-G: SMOKERS PREFERENCE FOR OUTDOOR SEATING AREAS 20
TABLE III-H: COSTS EXPERIENCED BY BARS/RESTAURANTS . . . . . . . . . 24
TABLE IV-A: EFFECT OF SMOKING ORDINANCE ON TOTAL
RESTAURANT SALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Hi
9-�
LIST OF CHARTS AND TABLES (continued)
TABLE IV-B: EFFECT OF SMOKING ORDINANCE ON TOTAL
RESTAURANT SALES WITH UNEMPLOYMENT
RATEINCLUDED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
TABLE IV-C: RELATIONSHIP OF TOTAL RESTAURANT AND BAR SALES IN
NEIGHBORING CITIES WITH THOSE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
DURING THE NO SMOKING ORDINANCE TIME PERIOD 38
TABLE IV-D: EFFECT OF SMOKING ORDINANCE ON ALCOHOL-FREE
RESTAURANT SALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
TABLE IV-E: EFFECT OF SMOKING ORDINANCE ON
RESTAURANT SALES FROM ESTABLISHMENTS THAT SERVE
BEER, WINE, ALL OTHER TYPES OF ALCOHOL . . . . . . . . . 40
TABLE IVF EFFECT OF SMOKING ORDINANCE ON
RESTAURANT SALES FROM ESTABLISHMENTS LICENSED
TO SERVE UNLIMITED ALCOHOL TYPES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
TABLE IV-G: TIME OF DAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 \
TABLE IV-H: DAY OF THE WEEK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
TABLE IV-I: RESPONDENT AGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
TABLE IV-J: SEX OF RESPONDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
TABLE IV-K: NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN PARTY . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
TABLE IV-L: RESPONDENTS SMOKING HABITS AND RESIDENCES . . . . 49
TABLE IV-M: RESIDENCE AND SMOKING STATUS OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO RESTAURANT AND BAR CUSTOMERS . . SO
iv
L E1M=MVE SUBIlMA U
�. Since August, 1990 smoking in San Luis Obispo restaurants, bars, and other
establishments has been banned by a City Ordinance. This report summarizes an
investigation into the effects of that ban on the profitability of San Luis Obispo
restaurants and bars, and indirectly on the City's sales tax revenues.
The smoking ban appears to have no significant effects on the profitability of the
restaurants and bar; of San Luis Obispo. The ban has no measurable impact on
restaurant and bar sales, as measured by sales tax revenues. This is true for both
restaurants serving alcoholic beverages and those who do not. Furthermore,sales
in neighboring cities did not increase when .the ban was instituted in San Luis
Obispo.
Sales of San Luis Obispo establishments have trended downward since August,
1990. However, that downturn is the result of a general economic recession that
has affected restaurant and bar sales in other California jurisdictions as well.
Although there is no measurable 'impact on total sales of San Luis Obispo
restaurants and bars, significant numbers of smokers and non-smokers have
changed their behavior as a result of the ban. Most notably, smokers are more
often going to out-of-town restaurants and bars, while non-smokers are more likely
to go to San.Luis Obispo establishments. These two shifts offset one another such
that there is no net sales impact.
Some restaurant and bar patrons who are smokers have shifted to establishments
with outdoor facilities. Some restaurant and bar owners have reacted by expanding
their outdoor capacity. This activity might be considered the best of both worlds,
as smokers are still able to obtain their pleasure without the local establishments
and the City losing revenue. Of course, establishments without outdoor facilities
do not have an opportunity to take advantage of this shift in consumer demand.
Aside from the expenditures to expand outdoor capacity,local restaurants and bars
have not experienced significant cost savings or cost increases as a result of the
ordinance. Although some restaurants and bars report increased cost for things
such as more employee smoke breaks, and reduced costs for drapery and carpet
cleaning, these cost impacts are not experienced widely enough to represent a
measurable impact on the collective bottom line of San Luis Obispo restaurants and
bars.
In summary, although significant numbers of smokers and non-smokers are
frequenting different restaurants and bars, the ordinance has had no measurable
impact on the profitability of San Luis-Obispo bars and restaurants, or on the sales
tax revenues of the City of San Luis Obispo.
l
9•�
i
IL 7AOUND
In August, 1990, The City of San Luis Obispo put into effect one of the strictest
smoking ordinances in the nation. Among other things, the ordinance banned
smoking in all restaurants and bars in the City. A copy of Ordinance No. 1172 is
contained in Appendix A of this report.
Opinions about the smoking ban, and its effects on the City's economy, have been
investigated prior to this study. In October, 1990 two Cal Poly graduate students
conducted 200 interviews with City residents regarding the smoking ban. A
Telegram-Tribune article indicated their survey found 73.5 percent of respondents
"favored the smoking ban', with 23.5 percent opposed, and 3 percent having no
opinion' The article also reported that 37.5 percent of smokers favored the
ordinance with 60 percent opposed.
In March, 1992 Dr. Stanton Glantz of the Institute for Health Policy Studies at the
University of California, San Francisco,and Ms.Lisa Smith of the Regional Tobacco
Prevention Center in Sacramento, published a report analyzing the impacts of
smoke free restaurant ordinances in four California cities on restaurant sales in
those cities? Using taxable restaurant sales data from the California State Board
of Equalization, the authors conducted econometric analyses using several
measures of impact Overall, the authors conclude "the presence of a 100%smoke
free restaurant ordinance had no significant effect on total restaurant sales in any
community."
In 1991, L. H. Masotti and P. A. Creticos released a document titled "The Effects
of a Ban on Smoking in Public Places in San Luis Obispo, California.'* They
contended restaurant sales in San Luis Obispo in the fourth quarter of 1990
declined significantly more than the general decline in total retail sales being
experienced in San Luis Obispo at that time. Subsequent to their report, the Board
of Equalization released revised sales data for San Luis Obispo, which essentially
eliminated the fourth quarter dip in restaurant sales.
' David Eddy, "Smoking Ban. Has More Fans Than Its Creators," Telegram-
Tribune, November 19, 1990,p A-1.
2 Glantz, Stanton A., and Lisa R. Smith, "The Effect of Ordinances Requiring
Smoke Free Restaurant Sales in California," unpublished paper, Institute for Health
Policy Studies, School of.Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, March
1992.
' L. H. Masotti and P. A. Creticos, "The Effects of a Ban on Smoking in Public
Places in San Luis Obispo, California," unpublished paper, Creticos & Associates,
Oak Park M. 1991.
2
f i
The study reported herein was conducted for the City of San Luis Obispo, with
funding from the California Smoke-Free Cities Mini Grant Program,which is funded
by the Cigarette and Tobacco Surtax Fund of the State of California. The study
was designed to investigate only the economic impacts on the hospitality industry,
specifically restaurants and bars. Impacts on employers, and the general public's
opinion of the ordinance, are beyond the scope of this study. While most attention
is focused on whether or not a smoking ban would reduce restaurant and bar
sales, it is also possible a ban could change the costs of restaurants and bars.
This study investigated these potential changes in cost,to provide a comprehensive
evaluation of the impact of the ban on the financial health of the City's restaurants
and bars.
The research was managed by the Taylor Consulting Group, a San Luis Obispo
market research and public opinion polling firm. The Taylor Consulting Group
conducted the Patron and Manager surveys. The sales tax analysis was conducted
by the Economic Forecast Project of the University of California at Santa Barbara.
3
9-y
ML DETAUM FII1=C;S
A. _REVENUE IMPACTS
A number of statistical tests were conducted to determine whether restaurant sales
in the City of San Luis Obispo were negatively or positively impacted by the no
smoldng ordinance that banned all cigarette smoldng from eating and drinldng
establishments beginning in August of 1990. A regression equation was specified
for sales from:
1. All eating and drinldng establishments
2. Eating and drinking establishments without alcoholic beverage
licenses
3. All eating and drinking establishments with a license to serve beer
and wine or other alcohol
4. Eating and drinldng establishments that serve all tyyes of alcohol
Included in 3. above are all establishments with any type of license,which includes
those with beer and wine only licenses. Number 4. includes only the subset of
those establishments licensed to serve distilled spirits,which excludes the beer and
wine only licenses.
Some suggest the no smoldng ordinance would impact bars and pubs more heavily
than full service restaurants or fast food restaurants. Therefore, to attempt to
observe any sales variation from the no smoldng ordinance in pubs and bars, an
equation for "all types of alcohol" was tested.
Following Glantz and Smith, a regression equation was estimated for San Luis
Obispo city and a number of comparison jurisdictions,including the cities of Pismo
Beach,Morro Bay,Arroyo Grande, Santa Maria, Santa Barbara,Ventura, Monterey,
as well as San Luis Obispo County, and the state of California.' Using the straight
Glantz and Smith specification but with sales data adjusted to account for general
inflation,we found that restaurant sales were seriously depressed during the period
in which the no smoldng ordinance became effective in the city of San Luis Obispo.
However, the result was true not only for the City of San Luis Obispo but for nearly
all of the comparative jurisdictions in the analysis. It should be noted that there is
not a non-smoldng ordinance operative in any of the comparative jurisdictions.
Consequently,other factors not included in the regression equation are responsible
for the negative effect on restaurant sales observed during the time period
represented by the no smoldng ordinance in the City of San Luis Obispo.
'Throughout this report,San Luis Obispo,Monterey,Santa Barbara,and Ventura.
refer to the cities, except where specifically indicated as the counties.
4
When a variable for general economic conditions was added to the regression
equation,the estimated coefficient of the non-smoldng ordinance variable declined
in magnitude and statistical significance. We used the corresponding county
unemployment rate to serve as a prosy for general economic conditions for the
City of San Luis Obispo and each of the comparative jurisdictions. We used the
state rate as a prosy for general economic conditions in the California eating and
drinking sales equation. The results of this second set of estimations demonstrated
that most of the restaurant sales decline during the 1990-1992 period could not
necessarily be explained by the no smoldng ordinance. Furthermore, significant
downward variation in restaurant sales was still attributable to events which
occurred since the non-smoldng ordinance became effective but in the cities of
Ventura and Santa Maria. We could not detect any statistically significant impact
of the non-smoldng ordinance alone on retail sales in the City of San Luis Obispo
for any category of eating and drinking establishments.
Charts III Athrough III-D shove eating and drinkng.retail sales overtime for several
jurisdictions, including the City of San Luis Obispo. In all charts, a vertical line is
shown where the no smokng ordinance was instituted in San Luis Obispo.
A general sales decline is visible in most of the jurisdictions,beginning in late 1990
and continuing through the end of the data series. Chart III-E shows the
unemployment rates used in the second set of estimations. The dramatic increases
from mid-1990 through the end of the data series provide a visual understanding
of why eating and drinkng sales have declined in almost all areas of California,not
__. just San Luis Obispo.
Because of the difficulty of reading the plots, not all jurisdictions used in the
analyses are shown on Chart III-A through.III-D. However, Appendix VI contains
the quarterly sales data from every juristiction used in the analyses.
Q•Q
CHART III-A.
thousands Eating/Drinking Retail Sales
of dollars from All Establishments August 1990
per quarter 1985 04 - 1992 01 /
38,000 .
Santa Barbara
33,000 - _-- — — ._ __ ---- -------- ---------
:282000 - ---— -Ventura.-------.._........_..._...--------
...........------------. ------------
23,000 —- - ---. .__----- -
onterey
18,000 --..............-----------...----...........................................................................-- -- -----------------................
San Luis Obispo 1111,11,111111111 4
13,000 ---------------- -- - --------- _..... =- ---
- - .
'Santa Maria
8,000
85-4 87-1 88-2 89-3 90-4 92-1
6
Prepared by the UCSB Economic Forecast Project
C .
CHM M-B
thousands Eating and Drinking Retail Sales
of dollars from Alcohol Free Establishments
per quarter by City Ar"August 1990
10,500
Ventura
9,000 - ..................
7,500 -
Santa Barbara-
6,000
..........................
........-77-1 .
Monterey
49500 ---.. .....
3,000 San Luis Obispo
- ................................--------
1,500 ................................................................I.................. .............................. ...................
Pismo Beach
............. ................... ..........
0
854 87-1' 88-2 89-3 90-4 92-1
7
Prepared by the UCSB Economic Forecast Project
CHART M-C
thousands Eating and Drinking Retail Sales from
of dollars Establishments With Beer & Wine Only
per quarter by City Ar" August 1990
15000
.
12000 -- - Santa Barbara
9000 - --"—--- i� Ventura
Monterey,
6000 ------- ---
San Luis Obispo
3000 -----•-- �..—
- -........................-.....---........................_..._....- ---.....---•...
Pismo Beach ............
0 -
85-4 87-1 88-2 89-3 90-4 92-1
8
Prepared by the UCSB Economic Forecast Project
C
CHART III-D
thousands Eating and Drinking Retail Sales from
of dollars Establishments Serving All Types Of Alcohol
per quarter by City August 1990
16500 ,santa Barbara "
A
13500 - , ._. -- —.....__....:... .—.:r�a___�� •t ,�_._..-----+�--�-_.....
10500 .........-----
V oMonterey
Ventura
7500 -
-- - —
--- - -- -... -- --- ----•------
San Luis Obispo
.---• -
........ ..
Pismo Beach
1500
85-4 87-1 88-2 89-3 90-4 92-1
(� 9
Prepared by the UCSB Economic Forecast Project
CHART M-E
Unemployment Rates August 1990
percent 1985 04-199201
9.00 -
&00 -------Santa Barbara County................ .......................................................................... .............. ........... ........./
7.00I...... .......... ......... ................................................... ..................................................................................... .......... . .......
:
Ventura County California to
.........to.
&00 ........................ ................. ......................................;k. .............................................. ................. .. .... ........
to
5.00 . .............. . .. ........ ...... ... . .. ........ .................... .... ....... ............. .. .... r.. .................
.......... ......
4.00Sa.n Ud.s.Obispo Co.unty
300
854 87-1 88-2 8" 90.4 92-1
10
Prepared by the UCSB Economic Forecast Project
B. PATRON SURVEY RESULTS
Although the revenue analysis showed no overall sales effects from the
smoking ban,it is still possible that smokers and non-smokers reacted to the
ban. The survey of bar and restaurant customers was conducted to
detennine if smokers were less attracted to, and non-smokers more
attracted to, San Luis Obispo establishments after the imposition of the ban.
Specifically, the types of customer behaviors that could be disguised in the
sales data and were investigated in the patron survey were:
• Non-smokers who patronize San Luis Obispo establishments more often
(as a result of the ordinance) rather than:
• Patronizing establishments in neighboring cities
• Staying home
• Smokers who patronize San Luis Obispo establishments less often
because they now:
Patronize establishments in neighboring cities
Stay home
Non-smoking tourists who visit San Luis Obispo and patronize local
establishments more often.
• Smoking tourists who visit San Luis Obispo and patronize local
establishments less often.
• Smokers who patronize establishments with outside seating more often
1. BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT TO/FROM NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES
It appears that significant numbers of smokers and non-smokers have
altered their restaurant and bar selections as a result of the
ordinance. Roughly one-third of non-smokers say they patronize San
Luis Obispo establishments more often as a result of the smoking ban
in San Luis Obispo. (Table M-B) About an equal number of smokers
say they frequent San Luis Obispo restaurants and bars less often as
a result of the ordinance. (Table III A) It is important to note that
since the survey covered only customers in San Luis Obispo
establishments, customers who had abandoned San Luis Obispo
l 11
9-�
i
totally for restaurants and bars in neighboring cities would have been
missed by the survey. -�
Those non-smokers who said they frequented San Luis Obispo
establishment more often reported doing so about five times in the
past year. The smokers doing the opposite reported doing so
roughly eleven times per year.
Given the strongly held opinions regarding smoking, it is possible
there is considerable overstatement in all of these numbers.
Nonetheless,it is interesting that-these two groups roughly cancel out
each other, in terms of the .number of visits to San Luis Obispo
restaurants and bars.
Thus, the repulsion of smokers and the attraction of non-smokers
appear to be roughly equal,in magnitude, resulting in no net change
in business for San Luis Obispo establishments. This supports the
conclusions of the sales analysis.
2. "GOING OUT"MOREAMS OFTEN AS A RESULT OF THE ORDINANCE
In addition to going to restaurants or bars in neighboring cities,
patrons could stay home more/less as a result of the ordinance. A
small proportion of smokers (12 percent) reported staying home
more because they could not smoke in San Luis Obispo bars and
restaurants. (Table III-C) Similarly, a small proportion (16 percent)
of non-smokers reported going out more often as a result of the
ordinance. (Table III-D)
These two changes in behavior, smokers staying home more and
non-smokers going out more, also offset each other. There is no
reason to expect these offsetting behaviors to have a significant
impact on San Luis Obispo restaurant or bar sales.
3. THE BAN'S EFFECTS ON TOURISM
Conceivably, the ordinance could cause tourists to visit San Luis
Obispo more or less. No visitors who smoke said they had ever not
visited San Luis Obispo because they could not smoke while here.
Likewise, an insignificant number of non-smoking visitors said they
visited more often because there is no smoking here. (Table III-E)
Another indication the ordinance is unlikely-to impact tourism is that
less than one-half of the visitors surveyed knew of the ban prior to
12
1
their current visit to San Luis Obispo. This level of awareness was
.roughly the same for both visitors who smoke and those who do not.
C_ (Table III-F) Thus,the ban-appears to have had no significant impact
on tourism levels.
4. THE BAN'S MACT ON OUTDOOR FACII,ITIES
Since the ordinance does not restrict smoking in outdoor drinking
and dining areas,smokers could be more attracted to establishments
with such facilities, in lieu of staying home or going to neighboring
cities.
Indeed, almost one-half of the smokers surveyed reported going to
San Luis Obispo restaurants or bars with outside seating so they
could smoke while there. (Table M-Q These smokers reported
doing so about four times in the past year. While this type of change
in behavior (switching from one San Luis Obispo establishment to
another) would not have an impact on overall City sales, it does
enable the smoker to continue his/her pleasure without losing sales
to neighboring cities.
13
TABLE IIIA
SMOKERS GOING TO NEIGHBORING CITY BARS AND RESTAURANTS
VERSUS SAN LUIS OBISPO BARS AND RESTAURANTS
SMOKERS
COUNTY
TOTAL RESIDENTS VISITORS
Number of Respondents 58 44 14
YES, have gone to restaurant
or bar outside of the
City of San Luis Obispo
specifically so could smoke 19 18 1
while there 32.8% 40.9% 7.1%
Number of times in past year:
One 3 3 0
Two to four 5 4 1
Five to nine 1 1 0
Ten or more 10 10 0
Median number of times 11 12 2
NO, have not gone to restaurant
or bar outside of the
City of San Luis Obispo
specifically so could smoke 39 26 13
while there. 67.2% 59.1% 92.9%
14
i
TABLE III-B
NON-SMOKERS GOING TO SAN LUIS OBISPO BARS AND RESTAURANTS
VERSUS NEIGHBORING CITIES BECAUSE NO SMOKING THERE
NON-SMOKERS
COUNTY
TOTAL RESIDENTS VISITORS
Number of Respondents 169 126 43
YES, have gone to restaurant
or bar in City of.San Luis Obispo
rather than one in neighboring 58 58 0
city because no smoldng there. 34.3% 46.0% 0.0%
Number of times in past year-
One
earOne 0 0 0
Two to four 16 16 0
Five to nine 21 21 0
Ten or more 21 21 0
Median number of times 5 5 0
NO, have not gone to restaurant
or bar in City of San Luis Obispo
rather than one in neighboring . 111 68 43
city because no smoldng there. 65.7% 54.0% 100.0%
�_ 1S
4-i?
TABLE M-C
SMOKERS STAYING HOME VERSUS GOING TO
SAN LUIS OBISPO EARS AND RESTAURANTS
SMOKERS
COUNTY
TOTAL RESIDENTS VISITORS
Number of Respondents 58 44 14
YES, have stayed home:
not gone to San Luis Obispo
bar or restaurant because T 6 1
couldn't smoke there. 12.1% 13.6% 7.1%
Number of times in past year.
One 0 0 0
Two to four 2 1 1
Five to nine 0 0 0
Ten or more 5 5 0
Median number of times 12 12 2
NO, have never stayed home and
not gone to San Luis Obispo
bar or restaurant because 51 38 13
couldn't smoke there. 87.9% 86.4% 92.9%
16
1
TABLE M-D
NON-SMOM S GOING TO SAN LUIS OBISPO BARS AND RESTAURANTS
VERSUS NOT GOING OUT
NON-SMOK RS
COUNTY
TOTAL RESIDENTS VISITORS
Number of Respondents 169 126 43
.YES, have gone to San Luis Obispo
restaurant or bar rather than
stay home because would be 27 24 3
no smoking there. 16.0% 19.0% 7.0%
Number of times in past year.
One 0 0 0
Two to four 9 6 3
Five to nine 8 8 0
Ten or more 10 10 0
Median number of times 5 8 2
No, have not gone to San Luis Obispo
restaurant or bar rather than
stay home more often because 142 102 40
would be no smoking there. 84.0% 81.0% 93.0%
17
TABLE III-E
VISITING/NOT VISITING SAN LUIS OBISPO BECAUSE OF SMOKING BAN
VISITING SMOKERS
Number of Respondents 14
Ever not visited San Luis Obispo
because could not smoke in restaurants
and bars?
Yes 0
No 14
VISITING NON-SMOKERS
Number of Respondents 43
Visited San Luis Obispo more
often because there is no
smoking in bars and restaurants
Yes 3
No 40
18
TABLE M-F
VISITOR AWARENESS OF NO SMOKING ORDINANCE PRIOR TO VISIT
VMTORS
SLO RESIDENTS SLO VISITORS AWARENESS OF
TIS oRDINANCE
NOW NOW NOT
TOTAL SMOKE AWARE AMM
TOTAL RESPONSES 57 0 0 14 43 27 30
AWARE 27 0 . 0 T 20 27 0
48% 0% 0% 50% 47% 100% 0%
NOT AWARE 30 0 0 T 23 0 30
52% 0% 0% 50% 53% 0% 100%
�a
� ' 19
TABLE III-G
SMOKERS PREFERENCE FOR OUTDOOR SEATING AREAS
SMOKERS
COUNTY
TOTAL RESIDENTS VISITORS
Number of Respondents 58 44 14
YES, have gone to San Luis Obispo
bar or restaurant with outside 27 24 3
seating so could smoke while there. 46.6% 54.5% 21.4%
Number of times in past year.
One 2 2 0
Two to four 12 9 3
Five to nine 5 5 0
Ten or more 8 8 0
Median number of times 4 5 2
NO, have not gone to San Luis Obispo
bar or restaurant with outside 31 20 11
seating so could smoke while there. 53.4% 45.5% 78.6%
20
C. COST RAPACTS
C' A survey of 24 San Luis Obispo restaurant and bar owners and managers
investigated the potential changes resulting from three types of costs:
• Costs that unavoidably increase as a result of the ordinance
Purchasing no smoking signs
Putting up no smoking signs
Briefing staff on the new ordinance
Replacing employees who quit
Informing customers about, and enforcing, the ban
Increased time for employee smoke breaks
• Costs that decrease as a result of the ban
No longer buying ashtrays and matches
No longer cleating ashtrays
Reduced cost for fire insurance coverage
Reduced cleaning of draperies and carpets
Reduced electricity cost for ventilation
Reduced cost for medical insurance
Reduced cost of hiring new employees
-' • Costs voluntarily incurred by management to exploit opportunities
created by the ban.
Expansion of outside seating capacity
For each type of cost impact, the owner or manager was asked:
• If the cost impact was experienced
• If experienced, was it significant or not
• If significant, what was the dollar amount
The results are shown in Table III-H.
1. COST INCREASES
The unavoidable costs that restaurants and bars incur as a result of the
ordinance appear to be nil. Over one-half of the owners and
managers surveyed did report experiencing one-time costs for putting
up signs and for briefing employees. However, nearly all of these cost
were reported to be insignificant (as determined by the
21
9-/
f
owner/manager). Only one owner/manager reported a "significant"
cost of$400 for employee briefings.
The ongoing cost for customer education/enforcement and for J
employee smoke breaks also appear to be insignificant. One
owner/manager did,however,report an additional annual cost of$5475
for more employee smoke breaks.
2. COST REDUCTIONS
Reports of cost savings resulting from the ordinance are also sporadic.
Individually or collectively, these cost savings are probably not
meaningful in terms of the cost structure of San Luis Obispo
restaurants and bars.
Over one-half of owners/managers report reduced costs for ashtray
purchasing and cleaning. However, the vast majority indicated these
cost savings were insignificant. Two owner/managers reported
"significartt" cost reductions of $300 and $60 per year for eliminating
ashtray purchases. Two also reported "significant" labor savings of
$550 and $1440 per year resulting from not cleaning ashtrays.
Only sig of the twenty-four establishments reported spending less for
drapery and carpet cleaning as a result of the smoking ban. Of
course,some of the establishments do not have draperies or carpeting.
Three of the sig indicated their savings are "significant" at $500, $600,
and $1800 per year.
Only one owner/manager reported saving money from lower staff
turnover as a result of the ordinance. That owner/manager indicated
the savings associated with less frequent hiring was significant at
$1900 per year.
3. EXPENDITURES FOR OUTDOOR SEATING
The biggest impact of the smoking ordinance on the cost side of
restaurant and bar balance sheets is in the expenditures for expansion
of outside seating capacity to accommodate more smokers. The
decisions to expand outdoor capacity were of course not mandated by
the ordinance, but were the reactions of business managers to
increased demand from smokers for outdoor space.
Five of the twenty-four establishments surveyed reported significant
expenditures for outdoor expansion. Collectively,they report spending
22
about $25,000 for such expansion.
This outdoor expansion represents some dislocation as a result of the
ordinance. The expanding establishments presumably gained business
at the expense of other establishments with no potential for outside
seating. From the public welfare perspective, the smoker has
increased opportunity to drink and dine in San Luis while the non-
smoker still has the opportunity to escape secondary smoke.
U
23
9-14
i I ,
TABLE III-H
COSTS EXPERIENCED BY BARS/RESTAURANTS
Dollar
Experience. Significance Costs
estion Cost Item Yes No N/A Sig_ Insia Reported
ONE-TIME COST INCREASES:
1/2/3 a Buy smoking signs 24 7 17 7
b Put up signs 24 14 11 14
c Brief staff 24 16 8 1 15 400
d Replace employees 24 24
e Expand outside 24 6 18 5 1 2400,6500,
1QOOQ 800,
5750
CONTINUING COST INCREASES:
4/5/6 a Enforcement 24 3 21 3
b Smoke breaks 24 1 23 1 5475 �
CONTINUING COST REDUCTIONS:
7/8/9 a No buy ashtrays 24 15 9 2 12 300, 60
b No ashtray clean 24 18 6 2 16 5509 1440
c Reduce insurance 24 23 1
d Less cleaning 24 6 18 3 3 500, 600,
1800
e Less electricity 24 1 23 1
f Reduce medical 24 24
g Less hiring 24 1 23 1 1900
NOTE: Significance asked only of those Experiencing the cost. Dollar amount
asked only of those with a Significant cost.
24
IV. MEMODOLOGr
A. RESTAURANT AND BAR RETAIL SALES ANALYSIS
A retail sales statistical analysis was performed to determine whether any
increase or decrease in eating and drinking retail sales was statistically
measurable as a consequence of the smoking ordinance imposed in the
city of San Luis Obispo as of August 1990.
1. STATISTICAL METHOD
The method used is multiple linear regression using the following four
measures for testing the effect of the smoking ordinance:
(1) eating and drinking retail sales at all eating & drinking
establishments
(2) eating and drinking retail sales at establishments that serve no
alcoholic beverages
(3) eating and drinking retail sales at establishments that serve
beer, wine, or other alcohol
(4) eating and drinking retail sales at establishments licensed to
serve any type of alcohol not limited to beer and wine
Data from the state Board of Equalization are used to test the
hypothesis that eating and drinking retail sales were affected by the
smoking ordinance imposed in the city of San Luis Obispo during the
third quarter of 1990.
2. TIME PERIOD
The data are analyzed quarterly from 04 1985 through Q1 1992.9
Eating and drinking retail sales for cities are available back to 1969 but
not desegregated by-restaurants that serve and do not serve alcohol.
The time period..1985Q4-199201 provides nineteen quarters of sales
data under which no smoking ordinance was operating, and seven
quarters of.sales data during the smoking ordinance.
9This was the longest time period of continuous data on eating and drinking
retail sales for restaurants serving alcohol that was available from the state board
of equalization. The data were prepared specifically for this study by special
request.
25
9-i
3. AREAS OF COMPARISON
The analysis compares the performance of eating and drinking retail
sales activity in the city of San Luis Obispo with the following
comparison cities:
Pismo Beach Santa Barbara
Monro Bay Monterey
Ventura
and with San Luis Obispo County and the state of California.
Furthermore,we also use total eating and drinking retail sales activity
in the cities of Arroyo Grande and Santa Maria in the comparison to
total eating and drinking retail sales activity in San Luis Obispo city.
These two cities were not used in the analyses of subsets of
establishments with/without alcohol.
4. STATISTICAL COMPARISON AND CONCLUSION
For each of these jurisdictions, the same regression equation as the
one constructed for San Luis Obispo is estimated. A discrete binary
variable is introduced into all of the equations for the time period:
199003-199201. Other variables are added to the right hand side of
the regression equation to control for other factors affecting the
variation in eating and drinking retail sales over time.
The regression equation is constructed under the assumption the
variation in retail sales activity is caused by economic and/or
demographic factors in a region. Those factors do not generally
include the existence of unequal prohibitions across cities that may or
may not affect sales activity. By including a factor that represents the
existence of a non-market prohibition, namely a smoking ordinance
which could increase or decrease retail patronage in the city of the
ordinance, we are able to estimate whether the prohibition has a
significant effect on sales.
The effect of the estimated coefficient of the discrete smoking
ordinance time period variable is compared across all equations.
Using standard statistical tests, the estimated coefficient associated
with the smoking ordinance variable in the San Luis Obispo city eating
and drinking retail sales equations and each of the comparison cities
is compared for significant differences. If the smoking ordinance
26
adversely affected sales activity in San Luis Obispo, the estimated
coefficient associated with the smoking ordinance variable in the San
Luis Obispo city estimated regression equation will be negative and.
statistically significant. Further, we should not expect to observe a
negative and statistically significant coefficient of the smoking
ordinance variable in the other comparison city equations. If the
estimated coefficients in the comparisoncities' equations are negative
and statistically significant, then other explanations aside from the
smoking ordinance for why a negative coefficient of the smoking
ordinance was estimated in the San Luis Obispo city equation could
reasonably be pursued.
5. COMPARISON TO OTHER STUDIES
Glantz and Smith used a dummy variable for cities with the no-smoking
ordinance to test.for any positive or negative effect on restaurant sales
during the period in which the ordinance was in effect.' The Glantz
and Smith study concluded as follows:
"The overall conclusion from these data is that 100% smoke free
restaurant ordinances do not adversely affect restaurant sales within
a community or lead to a shift in patronage to restaurants in
communities with no such ordinances. If anything, the presence of a
smoke free restaurant ordinance slightly increases the share of total
retail sales that go to restaurants?°
However, the study suffers from three principal problems which may
seriously flaw the results: (1) the analysis does not control for
differences between cities such as economic conditions, which have
been quite poor in many California cities since the latter half of 1990.
In fact, no control variables for differences between cities are used in
the analysis. (2) Glantz and Smith used incorrect data for the city of
San Luis Obispo for no alcohol restaurant retail sales in 1990 04 and
1991 Ql. Total restaurant retail sales may also be affected by this
incorrect data problem if the total was derived by summing the no
alcohol sales and the with alcohol sales together. (3) The study did
not use inflation adjusted restaurant retail sales in the analysis. To
avoid construing increases in retail sales dollars which are actually
due to inflation as increases in demand (and therefore more positive
6 Glantz and Smith, P. 6.
'ibid, page 11.
27
q_,4
I'
economic activity),dollar valued variables in statistical analysis should
be analyzed in constant inflation adjusted dollars. -�
6. DATA SOURCES
The retail sales data were obtained by special request from the state
Board of Equalization. Unemployment rates are from the Employment
Development Department and are part of the Economic Forecast
Project San Luis Obispo County economic database. Population
growth rates are derived from population data obtained from the
Department of Finance and part.of the Economic Forecast Project's
demographic database for San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and
Ventura counties.
T. ECONOMETRIC METHOD
Glantz and Smith used a number of response variables in their analysis
including total restaurant sales, the ratio of restaurant sales in one
community to another comparison community, and the ratio of
restaurant sales to total retail sales. In this study,we test how constant
dollar retail sales in eating and drinking establishments are affected by
the ordinance, holding constant other factors. Following Glantz and
Smith, the base equation estimated is:
(1) Yffl = a+ b(1)*tine + b(2)*02 + b(3)*03 + b(4)*Q4 + c*NOSMOKE
where:
Y(j) is the dependent variable, restaurant retail.sales, where i=1,,,n
cities, and j=1,2,3 restaurant retail sales types;
a,b(i) and c are the estimated coefficients or parameter values;
time, Q2, Q3, and Q4 are the control independent variables, and
NOSMOKE is a binary variable (0,1) for the smoldng ordinance:
NOSMOKE = 0 until third quarter 1990 when NOSMOKE=1
(reflecting the smoldng ordinance which became effective in
August of 1990).
NOSMOKE = 1 thereafter indicating that the smoldng ordinance
persists through the duration of the retail sales data
The letter i of the dependent variable Y(ij) reflects the index for the
city and county level restaurant retail sales for San Luis Obispo city
28
and each of the comparison cities, for San Luis Obispo County, the
state of California,Arroyo Grande and Santa Maria.The letter j reflects
�., the index for whether the restaurant retail sales are from all
establishments, from establishments serving alcohol or from alcohol-
free establishments.
The control variable time is a counter for time. It is equivalent to the
variable t that Glantz and Smith used to capture the secular trend in
retail sales. 02, 03, and 04 are binary variables representing the
seasons which capture.seasonal variation in restaurant sales. They are
directly equivalent to the variables that Glantz and Smith denoted in
their report.
The results of the estimation of equation (1) appear in Table IV-A. The
results indicate that for San Luis Obispo city restaurant sales, the
parameter estimate of NOSM01E is negative and statistically
significant implying that restaurant sales were adversely affected
during the period in which the no-smoldng ordinance was in effect
However, the results show that this same conclusion applies to many
of the other comparison cities, the county of San Luis Obispo, and the
state of California
The parameter or coefficient estimates of the NOSMORE variable in
the eating and dhnldng retail sales equations for Monro Bay, Pismo
Beach, Santa Barbara,Ventura Santa Maria and the county of San-Luis
Obispo, as well as the state of California, show negative and
statistically significant numbers.
8. AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION: THE ECONOMY IN GENERAL
Charts III-A, III-B, III-C, and III-D show restaurant eating and drinldng
retail sales over time for many cities. In all figures, a vertical line is
shown where the no smoldng ordinance was instituted in San Luis
Obispo city. It is generally true that for nearly all cities or jurisdictions,
eating and drinldng retail sales declined in the second half of 1990 and
continued to decline through the end of the data series, i.e., 199201.
The national economic recession was recently formally defined by the
National Bureau of Economic Research in Washington, D.C. to have
begun in July of 1990. Real retail sales for eating and dhnldng and for
all other types of activities have generally been falling for most San
29
rail
Luis Obispo County cities since 1990.8
By including a factor for the economic malaise that began affecting the
overall spending climate in San Luis Obispo,Monterey,Santa Barbara,
and Ventura Counties,we may be able to explain much of the negative
variation in restaurant retail sales in the cities of these counties. It can
be seen in Chart III-E that unemployment rates in California counties
including the state average unemployment rate began to rise in mid to
late 1990, consistent with the official determination of the economic
recession In most California counties through 1992, unemployment
rates are at some of their highest levels in 10 years. This is generally
true for the counties of Monterey, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo
as of November 1992.
The unemployment rate is tested in the analysis by including it as an
independent variable on the right hand side of each equation. For
each city, the unemployment rate corresponding to the county the city
is located in is added as an explanatory variable. All other variables
remain the same as in general equation (1). The results of the
estimation are show in Table IV-B.
For the San Luis Obispo city eating and drinking retail sales equation,
the estimated coefficient associated with NOSMOKE is still negative
but the magnitude is nearly half what it was in the previous estimation
and it is no longer statistically significant at any level of confidence.
As expected, the estimated coefficient of the unemployment rate (UR)
is negative, implying that higher rates of unemployment lower
restaurant;retail sales in the city of San Luis Obispo' The explanation
is simply that in a depressed economy retail spending declines, even
8See The 1993 San Luis Obispo County Economic Outlook, published by the
UCSB Economic Forecast Project, December 1992, pages 6-7, and 39-41.
'The lack of statistical significance of the estimated coefficient of the
unemployment rate may be primarily due to the lack of degrees of freedom
(observations or data points less independent variables in the equation) which
allows the presence of any multicolinearity to inflate the standard errors of the
estimates. What is clear from the estimation, however, is the fact that when the
unemployment rate is added to the equation, a significant amount of the estimated
parameter of NOSMOKE that previously explained restaurant retail sales is now
explained (or taken over) by the unemployment rate. Consequently, we can no
longer be statistically confident that the smoking ordinance is responsible for the
decline in restaurant retail sales observed from 1990Q3 to present.
30
for restaurant sales. For all of the various jurisdictional estimated
regression equations, the estimated coefficient of the unemployment
rate is negative (except Santa Maria). In most cases, the estimated
coefficient of NOSMOKE is no longer statistically significant though it
is still negative. Note that the size of the negative coefficient is
especially large in the Ventura and Santa Maria restaurant sales
equations, both of which are statistically significant at the 10 percent
level. These general results imply that other factors concurrent with
the no smoking ordinance in the city of San Luis Obispo are
responsible for the decline in restaurant retail sales in the general tri-
counties area.
The statistical results show that restaurant sales were depressed in
Ventura, Santa Maria, and San Luis Obispo city even after controlling
for the unemployment rate since the third quarter of 1990. (The
statement is also true for Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo County
too, although lie SLO city,the estimated coefficients are large but not
statistically significant) Other factors are therefore likely at work which
are not included in the regression equation. Further econometric
testing of equation specifications for these cities including SLO is
therefore warranted. However, the results presented thus far do not
indicate that the no smoking ordinance is unequivicably responsible
for declining restaurant sales in San Luis Obispo city simply because
we find .much stronger effects of the no smoking ordinance period
depressing restaurant sales in Santa Maria and Ventura, two cities
without smoking bans.
9. DOES THE BAN INCREASE SALES IN NEIGHBORING CITIES?
We found no statistical evidence that restaurant sales in the adjacent
cities of Pismo Beach, Morro Bay, Arroyo Grande, or Santa Maria
increased during the no smoking ordinance in San Luis Obispo city.
Though the estimated coefficients of the NOSMOKE variable were
positive in Morro Bay and Arroyo Grande (implying that sales may
have been greater there during the period of the ban), the statistical
tests further indicated that the coefficients were not significantly
different from zero. The results of the test imply that no positive. or
negative sales effect could be confidently ascertained from the
statistical analysis.
A further test was conducted to determine whether cities adjacent to
San Luis Obispo benefitted from the no smoking ban Adjacent city
restaurant sales were added to the regression equation explaining San
Luis Obispo city restaurant sales. The equation was estimated and the
,._ 31
9-J
i
coefficient of the included city restaurant sales was evaluated. If the
coefficient was positive, sales in the adjacent city moved in the same
direction as restaurant sales in SLO city. If the coefficient is negative,
sales in the adjacent city moved in the opposite direction as sales in
SLO Qty, This type of test was performed only for the no smoldng ban
period by creating an interaction variable. The interaction variable
represents the interaction of restaurant sales.in adjacent cities during
the period of the no smoldng ordinance. The estimated regression
coefficient measures the effect of sales activity in adjacent cities on
restaurant sales in San Luis Obispo city during the 1990Q3 to 1992Q1
period. Table N-C presents the estimated coefficients of each of the
adjacent cities tested.
All estimated coefficients are negative except that associated with
Arroyo Grande restaurant sales. No coefficient is statistically
significant with the exception of the coefficient of Santa Maria
restaurant retail sales, which is only marginally significant at the 90
percent confidence level. The estimated coefficient indicates that
during the no smoldng period,restaurant sales in San Luis Obispo city
decreased at the rate of$1.10 for every$1.00 sales increase in the city
of Santa Maria For the other cities tested, the effects were small and
insignificant
From this particular analysis we might conclude that Santa Maria
restaurant sales increased during the no smoldng period. However, it
is improbable for consumers to leave San Luis Obispo because of the
smoldng ordinance and bypass Arroyo Grande and Pismo Beach
establishments to get to Santa Maria establishments that allow
smoldng. The much more 11tely explanation.is that the increase in
restaurant and bar sales in Santa.Maria are a function of the growth of
all types of retail sales in that city. Other reports have documented the
fact that all retail sales, not just restaurant and bar sales, in Santa
Maria have increased relative to San Luis Obispo city during the no
smoldng period.10 Several major Santa Maria retailers opened to the
public in late 1989 and early 1990. The city has seen an influx of San
Luis Obispo County residents buying retail merchandise, including
food, since that time.
Since we cannot statistically accept the hypothesis that restaurant
sales increased in cities adjacent to San Luis Obispo during the no
10Much of this evidence is presented in the "1993 San Luis Obispo County
Economic Outlook," !Wd.
32
smoldng period,we cannot ascertain with any confidence that adjacent
cities benefitted from the no smoking ban.
10. RESTAURANT SALES WITH AND WITHOUT ALCOHOL
Further testing of the no smoking ordinance was conducted on
restaurant sales categorized by establishments that are alcohol free
and which sell alcohol. We also estimated a series of equations for
restaurant retail sales originating from establishments that sell all types
of alcohol. It is this latter category that allows the closest testing of
the effect of the no smoking ordinance on pubs and bars,though there
are still many food service establishments that offer full alcohol
services.
We fast estimated the effect of the no smoking ordinance on alcohol
free restaurant sales by city. Table IV-D shows the key estimation
results for San Luis Obispo, five comparison cities, the county of San
Luis Obispo, and the state of California The results are similar to the
previous estimations. The estimated coefficient of NOSMOKE is
negative but not statistically significant when the unemployment rate
is included.in the equation. The only exception is the city of Ventura
where the coefficient is significant at the 0.10 probability level. The
statistical results indicate no statistically significant or substantively
significant sales decline associated with the no smoking ordinance in
alcohol free restaurants for any of the cities in San Luis Obispo
County. Furthermore, restaurant sales were not very responsive to.
economic conditions as measured by the unemployment rate.
Table IWE shows the key estimation results for restaurant sales from
establishments that are licensed to serve beer or wine or other types
of alcohol. Table N-F presents the key estimation results for
restaurant sales from establishments licensed to sell all types of
alcohol not limited to beer and wine. The general results of these
estimations do not indicate that the no smoking ordinance in San Luis
Obispo city has had an unambiguous adverse affect on restaurant
sales for any collective type of eating and drinking establishment in
San Luis Obispo city.
11. OTHER VARIABLES: RAPROVING THE EQUATION SPECIFICATION
To try to untangle the negative effect of the statistically insignificant
coefficient of NOSMOKE in many of the estimated equations, we tried
to include additional variables such as the population growth rate or
33
g-�
employment growth. The growth .rate in population for San Luis
Obispo County did prove to provide .some additional explanatory -
power in the equation and it (as did employment growth) did dilute the
overall negative coefficient associated with the variable NOSMOKE in
most of the equations. We also found that the addition of the
population variable caused in most cases the coefficient of the
unemployment rate variable to become statistically significant. The
entire estimated equations for San Luis Obispo city all restaurant sales
and only alcohol establishment restaurant sales are as follows. T-
statistics are in parentheses.
(2) All Restaurant
Sales = 19366 + 2416*Q(2) + 1954*0(3) + 972*0(4) -
(10.24)*** (4.69)* (3.65)* (1.79)***
442*NOSMOKE - 760*URSLO - 407 POPG(t-1)
(-0.82) (-2.54)* (-1.60)
R-square: 76.3 DW=2.92 Number of observations=25
(3) Alcohol Restaurant
Sales = 12788 + 1894*0(2) + 1097*0(3) + 872*Q(4) -
(1.44) (3.30)* (1.73)*** (1.46)
597*NOSMOKE - 838*URSLO - 534 POPG
(-0.53) (-1.83)*** (-1.73)***
R-square: 68.6 DW=2.41 Number of observations=26
where URSLO is the unemployment rate in San Luis Obispo County
and POPG is the population growth rate in San Luis Obispo County
and all other variables are defined as before.
significant at the 99 percent confidence level (P<=0.01)
" significant at the 95 percent confidence level (P<=0.05)
*** significant at the 90 percent confidence level (P<=0.10)
The estimated coefficients of the NOSMOKE variables are not
statistically significant, yet the estimated coefficients of the
unemployment rate and the population growth rate are. Thus, by
specifying the equation with more theoretically correct variables,
additional variation in the dependent variable is explained and the
34
I
explanatory variables that are truly "causing" or "influencing" the
dependent or response variable tend to have the correct algebraic
G sign and become statistically significant.
It should be noted, however, that by adding more variables however,
we deplete the number of degrees of freedom in the equation and
therefore the power of the tests concerning statistical significance of
the estimated equation and the estimated parameter values.
Consequently, a parsimonious equation with the fewest number of
correct variables is preferred to an equation with many variables and
a marginally better fit, especially when the number of observations is
less than 50.
35
9-a
TABLE ]V-A
EFFECT OF SMOENG ORDINANCE ON TOTAL RESTAURANT SALES
Model
Validation
Variables Criteria
iurisdiction Constant tQs Qa Q NOSMOKE Rz DW
- - - estimated coefficients - - -
San Luis Obispo
City 3226 1.08 2809 2574 1515 -2080* 742 2.86
Morro Bay 2591 0.19 1055 2121 160 -580* 88.4 2.04
Pismo Beach -384 0.61 1164 2355 39 -1070** 82.7 1.44
Arroyo Grande 1370 023 219 370 -278 -406 40.0 1.31
Santa Barbara 49504 -1.30 4262 6242 564 -2822* 89.7 1.94
Santa Maria 7004 0.59 1423 1440 1021 4018** 65.3 2.01
Ventura 15911 1.03 1804 2483 -140 -2794* 69.3 2.01
San Luis Obispo
County -845 4.95 8765 13744 1154 -6900* 90.2 1.65
California 3157 0.27 342 421 125 -397* 78.5 1.13
Monterey 41057 -1.58 3902 6651 -575 -301 93.1 2.10
Number of Observations = 26
* Significant at the 99% confidence level (P <= 0.01)
** Significant at the 95% confidence level (P <= 0.05)
*** Significant at the 90% confidence level (P <= 0.10)
36
TABLE IV B
EFFECT OF SMOKING ORDINANCE
ON TOTAL RESTAURANT SALES
WITH UNEMPLOYMENT RATE INCLUDED
Key Test Variables
Lurisdiction NOSMOKE UR' RZ DW
estimated
- - - coefficients - - - - -
San
- - -San Luis Obispo City -1266 -360 75.3 2.84
Morro Bay +53 -280* 90.2 2.23
Pismo Beach -373 .-308 842 1.41
Arroyo Grande +182 -260. 46.7 1.37
Santa Barbara -956 -871*** 91.5 2.13
Santa Maria -1282*** +123 65.8 2.10
Ventura -2295*** -233 69.7 2.05
Monterey -114 -351 94.3 2.02
San Luis Obispo County -2094 -2122* 92.3 2.01
California 54 -16267* 93.3 1.62
Number of Observations = 26
* Significant at the 99% confidence level (P <= 0.01)
'• Significant at the 95% confidence level (P <= 0.05)
•" Significant at the 90% confidence level (P <= 0.10)
i = County: San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Monterey, or California
. 37
9.01'
I
TABLE IV-C
RELATIONSHIP OF TOTAL RESTAURANT AND BAR SALES
IN NEIGHBORING CITIES WITH THOSE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
DURING THE NO SMOKING ORDINANCE TIME PERIOD
Turisdiction Coefficient*
Pismo Beach - 0.23
Arroyo Grande 0.50
Morro Bay - 0.44
Santa Maria - 1.10'**
' The coefficient is associated with the interaction variable derived by the -�
multiplication of NOSMOKE and restaurant sales in each of the jurisdictions. j
The resulting interaction variable (Interaction) is included as an independent
variable in the following equation:
SLO city all restaurant sales = a + b(1)*time + b(2)*Q2 + b(3)*Q3 +
b(4)*Q4 + c*NOSMOKE + d*UR(i) + e*Interaction(j)
where i=SLO or Santa Barbara County, whichever is applicable, and all
other variables and coefficients are defined as before. The equation is then
estimated j times were j=4 (Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, Monro Bay, and
Santa Maria)
"* significant at the 90 percent confidence level (P<0.100)
38 j
1
TABLE N D
EFFECT OF SMOKING ORDINANCE
ON ALCOHOL FREE RESTAURANT SALES
Key Test Variables
Jurisdiction NOSMOKE UR' RZ DW
estimated
- - - - coefficients - - - - -
San
- - -San Luis Obispo City -532 104 50.0 1.94.
Morro Bay -123 -57 70.3 2.81
Pismo Beach 12 -72 67.7 1.82
San Luis Obispo County -.1490 -183 70.5 2.92
Santa Barbara -298 -99 78.5 1.91
Ventura -1283*** 115 52.7 1.96
Monterey 483 -111 44.3 1.18
California 1850 -6955* 89.1 1.64
Number of Observations = 26
* Significant at the 99% confidence level (P <= 0.01)
" Significant at the 95% confidence level (P <= 0.05
Significant at the 90% confidence level (P <= 0.10)
i = County: San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Monterey, or California
39
9-a:
TABLE IV E
EFFECT OF SMOKING ORDINANCE
ON RESTAURANT SALES FROM ESTABLISHMENTS
THAT SERVE OPINE, BEER, ALL OTHER TYPES OF ALCOHOL
Key Test Variables
' lurisdiction NOSMOKE UR' Rz DW
estimated
- - - - coefficients - - - - -
San Luis Obispo City -733 -464'•• 63.4 2.92
Morro Bay 176 -223••' 91.5 2.10
Pismo Beach -385 -236 82.6 1.39
San Luis Obispo County -604 -1939° 92.5 1.47
Santa Barbara -659 -771 89.1 1.96
Ventura -1012 -348 64.2 1.93 -�
Monterey -75 -76 94.0 2.05
California 36 -9312" 89.3 1.61
Number of Observations = 26
• Significant at the 99% confidence level (P <= 0.01)
Significant at the 95% confidence level (P <= 0.05)
"•" Significant at the 90% confidence level (P <= 0.10)
i = County: San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Monterey, or California
40
TABLE IV F
C EFFECT OF SMOKING ORDINANCE
ON RESTAURANT SALES FROM ESTABLISFTIVIENTS
LICENSED TO SERVE UNLIIVMW ALCOHOL TYPES
Key Test Variables
Turisdiction NOSMOKE R'_ RZ DW
estimated
- - - - coefficients - - - - -
San Luis Obispo City -322 -80 49.2 3.59
Pismo Beach -646 -131 75.5 1.11
Morro Bay -38 -131 67.5 2.50
San Luis Obispo County -.1167 -5 86.1 1.82
Santa Barbara 113 -223 86.7 1.93
Ventura -500 -69 63.5 2.56
Monterey 725 7.8 862 1.88
California 258 -5366* 88.4 1.26
Number of Observations = 26
• Significant at the 99% confidence level (P <= 0.01)
" Significant at the 95% confidence level (P <= 0.05)
*" Significant at the 90% confidence level (P <= 0.10)
i = County. San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Monterey, or California
41
9a
B. PATRON SURVEY
The survey of restaurant and bar customers was conducted to
determine if smokers and non-smokers changed their behaviors in
ways that would have financial impacts on the restaurant and bars of
San Luis Obispo. More specifically,.does the ordinance attract non-
smokers to, and repel smokers from, patronizing San Luis Obispo
establishments?
1. SURVEY METHODS
The patron survey consisted of personal interviews conducted
with adults (age eighteen or older) who were in, or just
leaving, a San Luis Obispo restaurant or bar. A list of the
twenty-two restaurants and bars where interviewing was
conducted is contained in Appendix III. These interviews
were conducted from December 3 to December 16, 1992.
Interviewers working at the designated restaurants and bars
screened patrons to determine if they were residents of the
City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo, or
from outside the County, and if they were smokers or non-
smokers. A total of 227 patrons were randomly selected and
screened. The document used to conduct this screening is
contained in Appendix IV. The proportions of smokers and
non-smokers and residents of the three geographic areas were
determined from this random screening. The screening result
are shown in Table 1V-M.
A total of 108 of the 227 screened patrons were then
personally interviewed about their visits to San Luis Obispo
restaurants and bars. Smokers and visitors were given
preference in selecting the person for interviewing. No more
than one person from a given party was interviewed. A copy
of the patron questionnaire is contained in Appendix IV.
Interviewing was conducted over all tunes of the day and days
of the week to provide a patron sample that approximates the
universe of San Luis Obispo restaurant and bar customers.
(Tables IV-G and IV-H)
Interviewing was conducted by Cal Poly students who were
just completing a research methods course. They were
trained in interviewing techniques, and the details of this
42
particular questionnaire. Interviewers conducted practice
interviews before actual interviewing began, and were
monitored during interviewing.
The 108 completed interviews were weighted to reflect the
smoking/non.smoking status and residence (San Luis Obispo
County, visitor) of the 227 randomly selected patrons.
2. RESPONDENT PROFILE
The survey respondents appear to be a good representation
of customers of San Luis Obispo restaurants and bars. The
surveyed patrons were:
Mostly in the middle age group (30 to 54 years of age)
Somewhat more likely to be males (60%)
Mostly in parties of two (52%)
Mostly non-smokers (74.7%)
Mostly residents of the City of San Luis Obispo (49.3%)
Table IV=M shows where respondents live (City of San Luis
Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, or outside of the county)
and whether or not they smoke. Those who live in either the
City or the County are referred to as local residents in this
report. Those who live outside the County are referred to as
visitors or tourists.
The proportion of smokers among the restaurant and bar
patrons was 25.6 percent. The proportion was essentially the
same for residents of the City of San.Luis Obispo (26.8%), the
County(24.1%), and visitors (24.6%). These proportions may
appear to be somewhat higher than expected based on the
incidence of smoking among area residents. Statewide, the
proportion of adults who smoke is about 22 percent, and about
18 to 20 percent for San Luis Obispo County adults. Appendix
IL describes the sources of these proportions.
It is not surprising that restaurant and especially bar
customers are more likely to be smokers than the population
at large. The substantial number of smokers encountered in
San Luis Obispo establishments is further evidence that the
ordinance has not "driven out" all the smokers.
43
9-a;
TABLE IV-G
TIME OF DAY INTERVIEW CONDUCTED
VISMRS
SLO RESIDENTS SLO VISITORS AWARENESS OF
TFC ORDINANCE
NON- NON- NOT
TOTAL AWARE AMM
TOTAL RESPONSES 226 43 126 14 43 27 30
DAYTIME 90 13 .55 4 18 12 10
TILL 5:00 PM 40% 31% 44% 30% 41% 43% 34%
EVENING 104 25 58 8 13 13 8
5:00 PM TO 9:00 PM 46% 58% 46% 60% 29% 47% 27%
NIGHT 32 5 13 1 13 3 12
PAST 9:00 PM 14% 11% 10% 10% 29% 9% 39%
44 i
TABLE TV H
C_
DAY OF THE WEEK DITERVIEW CONDUCTED
VISITORS
SLO RESIDENTS SLO VISITORS AWARENESS OF
THE ORDINANCE
NON- NON- NOT
TOTAL SMOffit SMOTR SMOKER SMOKER AWARE AYM
TOTAL RESPONSES 227 44 126 14 43 27 30
WEEKDAY 172 30 97 10 35 22 23
76% 68% 77% 70% 82% 80% 78%
SATURDAY/SUNDAY 55 14 29 4 8 5 6
24% 32% 23% 30% 18% 20% 22%
45
9•�
TABLE 1V-I
RESPONDENT AGE
VISITORS
SLO RESIDENTS SLO VISITORS AWARENESS OF
THE ORDINANCE
NON- NON- NOT
TOTAL SMOKER SMOXER SMOT R AWARE AMM
TOTAL RESPONSES 225 44 126 14 40 27 27
18 TO 29 72 15 47 1 8 3 6
32% 35% 37% 10% 19% 9% 24%
30 TO 54 120 23 60 7 30 22 15
54% 51% 48% 50% 75% 80% 57%
55 AND OVER 32 6 18 6 3 3 5
14% 14% 15% 40% 6% 10% 20%
46
TABLE IV-J
SEX OF RESPONDENT
VISITORS
SLO RESIDENTS SLO VISITORS AWARENESS OF
THE ORDINANCE
NOW NOW NOT
TOTAL, SMOffit SM014:R SMO SMOI 'R AWARE AWN
TOTAL RESPONSES 227 44 126 14 43 27 30
MALE 137 30 74 11 23 11 23
60% 68% 58% 80% 53% 39% 78%
FEMALE 90 14 53 3 - 20 17 6
40% 32% 42% 20% 47% 61% 22%
47
TABLE IV-K
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN PARTY
VISITORS
SLO RESIDENTS SLO VISITORS AWARENESS OF
THE ORDINANCE
NON- NON- NOT
TOTAL SMOKE SMOKERSMOI R SMOi R AWARE AMW
TOTAL RESPONSES 220 42 124 14 40 27 27
SINGLE PERSON 50 13 26 3 8 4 6
23% 31% 21% 20% 19% 14% 24%
PARTY OF TWO 113 20 68 7 18 16 9
52% 49% 55% 50% 44% 58% 33%
PARTY OF THREE 26 5 16 0 5 5 0
12% 11% 13% 0% 13% 19% 0%
PARTY OF FOUR 31 4 13 4 10 3 12
OR MORE 14% 9% 11% 30% 25% 9% 43%
48 ,�
TABLE IV-L
RESIDENTS SMOKING HABITS AND RESIDENCE
VISMRS
SLO RESIDENTS SLO VISITORS AWARENESS OF
THE ORDINANCE
NON- NON- NOT
TOTAL AWARE MME
TOTAL RESPONSES 227 44 126 14 43 27 30
LOCAL SMOKER 44 44 0 0 0 0 0
19% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
VISITING SMOKER 14 0 0 14 0 7 7
6% 0% 0% 100% 0% 26% 24%
LOCAL NON-SMOKER 126 0 126 0 0 0 0
56% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
VISITING NON-SMOKER 43 0 0 0 43 20 23
19% 0% 0% 0% 100% 74% 76%
�. 49
i
TABLE IV M
RESIDENCE AND SMOKING STATUS
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RESTAURANT AND BAR CUSTOMERS
Geographic Area
City of County of Outside of
Total SLO SLO County
Total Customers
Intercepted 227 112 58 57
Smokers 58 30 14 14
25.6% 26.8% 24.1% 24.6%
Non-Smokers 169 82 44 43
74.7% 73.2% 75.9% 75.4%
50
C. MANAGER SURVEY
While most attention has focused on the revenue impacts of smoldng
restrictions, such restrictions could have impacts on the costs of
businesses,which need to be understood in order to assess the impact of
restrictions on profitability. The Manager Survey was conducted to
determine if San Luis Obispo restaurants and bars experienced significant
increases or decreases in their costs as a result of the smoldng ordinance.
The first step was to compile a list of eating and drinidng establishments
in the City of San Luis Obispo. That was done from a list of business
licensees provided by the City, with updating of owner names from the
Chamber of Commerce lists. Businesses that have no inside seating, or
have substantially changed operations or ownership,were eliminated from
the list. Finns were then stratified into larger and smaller, based on
subjective estimates of dollar sales. There were 25 businesses in the
larger stratum, and all were retained in the sample. There were about 80
firms in the smaller stratum, and a random sample of 27 of them was
selected. These 52 restaurants and bars provided the starting sample for
both the Patron Survey and the Manager Survey.
Interviewers then telephoned the selected restaurants and bars and
attempted to schedule interviews with the owner or manager. The
interviewer required that the person interviewed was in a senior position
and aware of the businesses costs, and had been worlang at that business
at the time the ordinance went into effect.
A total of 24 personal interviews was completed, either in the
owner/manager's office or somewhere in the business establishment. Alist
of the establishments where owner/manager interviews were conducted
is contained in Appendix III. A copy of the questionnaire used in this
interview is contained in Appendix V. These interviews were conducted
between December 5 and December 17, 1991
51
4
C-
APPENDICES
9-3
L CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ORDINANCE No. 1172 - SMOKING PROHIBITED
IN CERTAIN AREAS
J
IL SMOKING INCIDENCE DATA
III. RESTAURANTS AND BARS PARTICIPATING IN THE SURVEYS
IV. PATRON SCREENER AND QUESTIONNAIRE
V. MANAGER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
VL SALES DATA
J
APPENDIX I
SMOIGNG PROHMM IN CERTAIN AREAS
Ordinance No. 1172(1990 Seriesi
a IT ORDAINED W the Council Of the City at San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION i. Chanter&16.Smoking Prohibited in Certain Areas•is hereoy amencea to rear as follows:
Chapter&16
Smoking Prohibited in Certain Ams
Sections:
6.18.010 Purpose.
ILIL D Detintoom
&16.030 Prohllbidw In oertskh Pum Pl
&16.040 Regulation ot smoldrg in the rwrkWace.
&18.050 PUNW19 at A9M
&16AM Compliance.
&16.070 Vhofdan-P .
&16.080 VAse an o l,gnat regulated
&16.090 Soverabdity
&18410 PuMom
accesses amakkg d tobsoco or any other wesd or plant is a poativs dshgr b hemp and a cause of malarial discomfort
and a healtlf had b tleoss vho are pveesnt in oanrarhsd pwM and in ardrbw
ae pubdo hhahh.safaW and wNtan,se d*CWW
purpoa of thus dttptr b b prdhibht Lha snakktg d tobaccoor any ober sand a r plant in - I i meas whirls are used by ar open
to the public (Ont. 1048 f 1 (para.198
Mem Dsftdtims.
For she purpose at oft alhrlpasr,the faOoaiYt0 words shall have tie taMevekg aeshkpc
A �dmswaoaeavAtldriealwo0adblhesnMrtpdaloohoYobnrwepes/oraorrmnptfonbyguesmonlhopramias
and in which to serving of food Is ahq hmldsnW to the aorhwnhptlon d welts bsveapsa
6 Tsrepbyef'feces any bdkidrd who remWn verroes8dm tar canines pefaned wiftin the eby.
C.Tanpiwpwm sasanypstaa%F rP COW ootpaaflonwheempWpumserviceeofan individual person orpersons.
M 'Seca'or%npWrgmaans and includes the aanybtp d a pips,dpr or dpavetts at any kind which is bunting,OF
the iprddrtg of a pipe,dgr or dgarsfte of any kind which is burNrg.
E 'Service foe'mew an khdor gra or am hrAm pecans await=nice at any Bind,tegardlen of whether or not such
service h Volved esehanps d nn ingy Such calve shall khckmic but isnot Iknited t0.tales,giving of information.directions or
advim And ttarh I of moray or goods
F 'RosounmC swans any coffee shop,admbwW luncheonette,team.Haddam lode.aardriidh mrd.soda lounsin.
privet and public coed , Inferta or m*q aaabedorrerd, and any COW saWg astabfdmhatt aganbzdcn, dub, inaktding
veterans'dub.boandirtgthotse or gheadmtae,which gives a af=for see food to the public punas.paaores cr employees as well
as kitchens In whish food Is prepahed an the pre I far servknp e0,ev4earo,ktohamrnp 0 tadntin.
C. -Rear Tabasco Stas'means a read Gore utinsd pr*N*for ale Mats Of labaarco txoeuaa and aaceaam and in
-- whidh In ask of other prude fa is I W*kholdsehI I
K "lMorkplew new any knodw space radar the ached d a public ar p., w tployw vNtkln employees normally
tragtrseet dtalug the amens of enplopnmL Including.Out not Intlnd/o,wank aeaa,employee icu gds,aonMarhoe rooms.and
arttplal eofssAas A pfiutsresldanoe is not a worfeplaoe star fhb=e0ort. (Ord. 1048 i 1 (part). 19"
&16.030 Prohibition in asrtsirh publb pissesSmaiting am bw Prohibited in the Wowing_
A. R- In micallume, 111 m, galleries, public traneporstion faeutees open to to public and swine Una of
establishments doing buakea vim the pesral ptubliG
& wank morna,a* , groo ArPubtiohaNraysdsnryprivGsarptbeclnesltlhantaotlily.khdudk+g.tttdnotWnisd
to hmphtsb,e8nica,phyafetl l onW taoMdM ddaras'olli . RMdm- aMias provided ft~.awe"prohibition Shan no
prawm the smbeduneent d a ae1 room in which wnoklup in panniltsd,as lag as there also fists a waiting mom in
the ams twi ty in vrfhkA snhcidrg is prohibidef b bad spaos Bess d hakh MdROm used tr two ar moa patiema,amoldnp shad
beprohil l- unlan ad paUants witllkt t!to roerih we strokes and inquest in whilt upon On heatlt tare ttheaty's admi=ion forma
m to placed m a room wawa erholdrg b penciled
M A9 buildings vahides,a oswenclosed ureas aecuphnd byetty asM,owned or teased bythe dry,or COW wise operated
by the City.accept in ares which the city adrdnisoatr mW design=0rtGM19 Masa
The city adadetiGraaor may ' 'a 'sa smaldrg area only if the ares involved:
1. knot regaWy open to the public:and
2 Omni not aquko nape roomer buldkg rhhodheoatiaes and
& b not aguiedy aaatupiud by tmrsrnndvra
in any depute+iskhg urderte amoldog an desipnatlare meds by the city ad+hkdxmas undersea c aper,the fights
of the nonenolet 00 be given paesdehoe.
0. Vdo* say building not open b the sky which is prkrwYy and for or designated for to purposes of shddDitirg any
motionpiclumsupedaima,laeth4a.ntaraleahaoa8sladfhramm rpsAomwteswhereveropenfothepublic,saapesnwkingwhidh
b a part d a colla parlarrnahoa,including ail rsmoom4 and any am oommonky rafawtl 10 as a lobbir,
E Within ad pubic area in every retail sae, krokallft but not Handed t0. redl esnbe Ogtsbgshffwwft vetad food
production ad nwlellug estselshmeehts.MA gtoeGy.and drug staves
F. A9 resaoorte open for public Las;
Ci vdm fury reGaYa-and ter.
K M ams in a(sundtamG apse to and available for tae by the public. (Ord. 1048 f 1 (part),190
L. yNtitie al cess saa9able b and cuMmaW used by the garwG pabno In ad businesses and rhonProm entities
patlonfsed by the public,Including.but not Milled b,ptaend, 1 oteoas and of hir oM banks,hotsta and motels.
& Jim' 'thaadk 0 any Mehr phovlakorh of 4"=orlon.any owner,opermor.manager or now parson who aormota any
\` aaablWandlR or heftily described In this section may declare that MrhWe establishment or faCiUry as a nonsmoking eaabushir it.
&16440 Regulation of of michup In the wodiplaos.
Each enpbys ate oI- a workple, In the dry alae,within abay days d dw efleco was of se ordinance codifled
h nuke secdom adopt,kntpi meta a d nh i l I a written smo l g poliay which Shad ootttakh G a rthkwrnohh,tea foaowirg ptdNdore
ad g
A. Any nonrnoking employee rtny object m his«her employ«about whom in his«her workplace. ting aueady
d office apace, a* employer shalt attempt to reagin a reasonaoie
avellaDis mew of ventilation « separation « PtuNtiort �. gyne and artwking employees• however,an
accommodation,insofar as possible,between the pnderenoe+ m accomrrnodaa the pretarsnoss of
employer b not required by ttka motion m la maairy eapendtures -_
nonsmoking of arnoking employees m ati affected nonsmoking smpbyen canna be reached in any given
B. Man a000rtmrodatlon whidh is satidat and the employer shat Prohibit an Ag m that workplace•Where
wo P
which amokirhp t ptohiblfad e
Othe WhpjCqW b ! area W be dearly rtwked with ragna
unoWng in a workplace,the in
G The antc11 M Ploy eared by the aeation ahaM be announced within three wwb of adoption m all WnPbyees
working in woritpleoaa in the city and Posted oraupigaxtudlr in all woriti" a in on city under the arnpioyds jhaediWeh.
0. This section Is t Intended m(SWAM@ anh m-i a to the following pia and under roe Ofollowing conditidrs within the
ro
oaY 1. A private hoot Oft lldl may wave m a workpMdK
2. Any property awed«band by a am Or f@"W gaernhunall agsncY• (Oto. 1048 f 1 (per).1985)
E Notwithstanding any outer pin at am sectim every employer shah hoe the right to designate any Waco of
ernpbyment.or&W porion there 0 as a nesmoICIM area.
&16.060 P 111ttb 10 a norersOW idng areae astabBdsd by this daplar shag be conspicuously Poafed in every
rbonL bu8din0 or Oliver pi>a so covered by fhb dspter. The mQaher of such paWq shag be at the discretion at the owner,
opttrmw• mthow or cow pram kofrp corhbol d nudh,roam, building or other place o long as dadty. sufficiency and
mnopWuouwwm ant appy in dprtorepicetlng the Itterd of this dhaPtr. (Ord• 1918 11 (part).1985)
&113060 A.
M. am, «his designated raprwhrte�(hte tfsg be maposble f«cenPgrtce with this dspfer
INS m facidtles which a m awned,uprated«lined by Ore oily. The.tlhaexe director tdsg provide each bhsurn Gorhr applicant
with a copy at this dal d andl oomplywith
I& Thaowrar.operamrormtnogrof&W oft bu*mmdcagmW""* "our Such oirrhith
the provides of Vdo ctspter. No oil of them rwtdrtliam shag be glvwh m all appgy tiff
oPeretar or mama w Mai pat«oa me m be P�ad ro mholdna signs required by Oda dhaper aid shag not guar serviot m
any Person who violates this dspisr by anhoklq la a possad nc?ung aaa d Section 816 040 of this Any plea of empbyrnrd m la d or operated without OMPgrha with the prwnt isia
chapter applicable two m Shag be and go soma is declared to be a pubic nuisance. Wmwver Osre is reason to bellow such
public eadsrnce adabt anyafMeMd enhpbyw«wary rwidert df to city.in his or her awn name.xW n an action in equity
m abaft end Pr Ant such raiarse ad mrprrerdly npa pain the 0111Plolwr item ndmaolutg or?r...Ig M. upon Un punting
of equitable relief,in whole or in parL by a court d oenpeterd jtabdcden.an anhpbyr dotosrrtdrhad m be m violation d Section
&16.040 d fhb dsPMr slag be RAM for the aoxrw's few,m may be datsntdned by Ste court.Incurred by 1M party bringing the
action
0. The dry amnldatratlra aNbr or his dagnw my ertMroe Station 8113040 of'his olhapter by either of Os fouberng
a 1_ Serving notice tagWft Os ortaeifon d any violation d that maid h;or d Section 8.161100112"
Z, RKPO MO the any ltmtny to nhalwkn an dson for Igtaeeticn to ethfonn Os ptdvitlons
chapter.to tame the donaetion at my wain vbW Mn.end for aasasmed and 18010 In'd a dA penally of snxh violatiorh.Iduftg
atatttWe fftLE Any ernployer who vbiMa Section 816.0/0 d fhb CIMPsr their be gable for a"penalty,hot m Faced five hundred
dcUare,which penalty shag be m and and taoowred in a"wren brought in Os none d the Feople d tit city. Each day
such violation is oonatdted«peotdtad m acrl4, ends cosoarte a separate offense and shall be punishable Be aueh. Anfr
penalty eamew and rrhovrad M an action brought Purtusnt m fhb subtectbn shag a paid m the 6nanoe director of One city.
F. b tandertelirhp the a ddroamrn d Seation 8,&M al!Oda duptsr.tree city is asauutmp an u ndartabn0 only m Promote
"general Mme Itisnot aaeuming aydury«obapallon not is a knpaskV any ateyor abilgadon an He olfiaees ipioywsand employees.
nor it t Gableable in many darna0es dr othtrabe to any pram who dmos Oat(1)the dry oraw d lis otrara«enbreached
any such obiigOm and 0 the broach pmxWWM fr=treed lajry. (Ord 1948 f 1 (PWC-196M
&16Z70 Vfolmon-PeeiaMY• of Section 8.16.0.'!0«&16.040 d tfda dnaPfrr qY smobng in a posted no smoking
Any ea
pan who vblatesrry Pte
area.or by fatting to Post or cause In be Pond a noaethokirng sign required by this chapter.or by swing any paean who vi0tatss
this Moat by sac'' n If a Ported ro snholdrhg arca,is guinY of an infraction.and Is abject to punidnmeid as provided for in
chapter 1.12 of Ods coda. (Ord. 1018 f 1 (pan).19851
&16.080 What Smddng Nat Rtphulated
P1olwitlmme ling ay other prdviabn d fhb dspterm Os ocrsary,is fogowkhp arm dreg hoe be oubdet m One inking
is -. 1.rte d Oda chapter.
t. f°flvate raddan=aa,attwpt when used as a ddld an or ihwMlh cora fadgly.
2. Motel and nh. roans ranted to guests
& RMI tobacco st«as everh lthotrgh ahxh an office wakplaos may
4. AprlvateerhdoedoMbeworltpladeoccnpiedadushslybYathloisr&
ba visited by norm molsra
L Any ata enmerbr m the building In which the estebBdMW t«ftdgty b located.
& Any encored moms in an puDlWhsnt Or f cit widdh aro being used entirely for prlvate tuthWons
&1&=Severability rimenf to any person«ekwresfa<hoes
M any ppvi dwsa.asnwxa a paragraph d Ohio chapter«tree application _
shall be hold Inv"such fflvagft or and emend thi p ov dons d Ont of
declared to be saverable. without Os imaiid
i
• APPENDIX II
SMOMNC; INCIDENCE DATA
1 The Stanford Heart Disease Prevention Program conducted a ten year study
in which City of San Luis Obispo residents volunteered to have medical
examinations and answer questions about their risk factors. In 1989, the
Program reported that fifteen percent of San Luis Obispo residents
participating in the research smoked. Recalculating the numbers on a basis
of only those nineteen years of age or older yields a smoking incidence of
19.5 percent. This is based on 2133 adult San Luis residents. Since the
sample was to some degree self selected, there is no way to know if this
figure represents the smoking incidence among residents who elected not to
participate.
2. The California Department of Health Services conducts large scale telephone
surveys of California residents, measuring, among other things, smoking
incidence. Their 1990.1991 report indicates 18.9 percent of the 3541 surveyed
adult residents of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties are
current smokers. Their report does not provide any data below the three
county level. The same source reports that 22.2 percent of all adult California
residents are smokers. This study employs rigorous methods and provides
high quality data, unfortunately not specifically for the City of San Luis
�.. Obispo.
3. In The Cost of Smoking in California, 1989, Dorothy Rice and Wendy Max
report a smoking incidence of 17.7 percent for San Luis Obispo County.
(Methodology description insert here)
4. The survey of people attending the San Luis Obispo farmers market,
conducted in 1992 by Cal Poly students, reported a smoking incidence of 16
percent. Since this sample was entirely self selected, there is no way to
know whether or not it is representative of all City residents.
I
APPENDIX III
RESTAURANTS AND BARS PARTICIPATING IN THE SURVEYS 11
Participated in:
Patron Survey Manager Survey
Angelo's Italian Pizza X
Ben Franklin's Sandwich Shop X
Boston Bagel Company X
Brubeck's X
Budget Cafe X
Bull's Tavern X
Cafe Roma X
Central Coast Plaza Food Court X
Chile Peppers X
Chocolate Soup X X
Country Culture Yogurt X
Debby's Ice Cream X X
F. McLintocks Saloon X X
Golden China X
Hudson's Grill X X
Linnaea's X
Little Bangkok X
Mandarin Gourmet X
Margie's Diner X
Pepe Delgado's X
Pete's Southside Cafe X X
Pizza Pub X
Rrs Giant Hamburgers X
Royal Oak Cantina X X
Rythym Cafe X.
San Luis Sizzler X
San Luis Obispo Donuts X X
SLO Graduate X
SLO Brewing Company X X
SLO Maid Ice Cream X
Sunshine Donuts X X
Thai-Rrific X X
The Coffee Merchant X X
Tortilla Flats X X
Upper Crust Pizza X X
JdyLua ltl U. VUJa
6835 Avila Valley.Drwe APPENDIX N December, 1992
San Luis Obispo, CA 9W5.
PATRON SCR
C'Restaurant/Bar Name: Sample: A B
Owner/Manager's Name: Telephone No.
Call Attempt Notes:
Scheduled For. On-Duty Name:
Actual Date: Time From: To:
Interviewer's Name:
Hello, my name is , and I am conducting a survey on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo.
IF TWO OR MORE ADULTS, ENUMERATE ALL ADULTS.
A. Do you live ?In City of Outside City Outside of
SLO in SLO County SLO County
temp space ->
YES
CB. Do you smoke
cigarettes?
NO
SELECT 1 ADULT FOR INTERVIEW; SMOKER IF AVAILABLE.
GO TO PATRON QUESTIONNAIRE.
---------------------------------------------------------
INTERVIEWS COMPLETED WITH:
Residence: In City of Outside City Outside of
SLO in SLO County SLO County
YES
Smoker:
NO
C
9-2
Taylor CA=mtft G-1W APPENDIX IV - No Smoi�Study
Job No.
SMS Alla Valley I ) er. 1992
San Lus; Obspo,Cr, 93405 Deceebr, 1
IRNTRON 01JESTAMNAM
IF LOCAL (city or aovnty) SNOM, ASE:
As you probably know, the City of San Luis Obispo banned smoking in indoor
public places, including bars and restaurants, about two years ago.
1. Since that ban went into effect, have you yourself . . . (INSERT EACH
STATEMENT BELOW) ?
2. ZF YES FOR ANY STATEMENT: How many times have .you done that in the past
twelve months?
01 02
STATEMENTS - XU 2 No. Times
a. Ever gone to a restaurant or baruta side of
the City of San Luis specifically so you
could smoke while there? . . . . 1 2 w VIC
b. Ever stayed home, that is not ,gone to a San
Luis bar or restaurant, because you couldn't
.smoke while there? . . . . . . . . 1 2 m
c. Ever gone to a San Luis bar or restaurant
with outside seating so that you could
smoke while there? . . . . . . . . . 1 2 nm r+++a
SKIP TO QUESTION 10
IF VISITING (out of County) SMOKER, ASE:
As you may know, the City of San Luis Obispo banned smoking in indoor public
places, including bars and restaurants, about two years ago.
3. Since that ban went into effect, have you yourself . . (INSERT EACH
STATEMENT BELOW) ?
4. IF YES FOR ANY STATEMENT:. How many times have you done that in the past
twelve months?
03 04 - -
STATEMENTS x= No No. -Times
a. Ever not visited San Luis Obispo because
you knew you could not smoke in restaurants
and .bars here? . . . .. . . . . . . . 1 2 nor n�+s
b. When visiting the City of San Luis, ever
not gone to a bar or restaurant specifically
because you could not smoke while there? 1 2 (ie) m•+er
c. When visiting San Luis, ever gone to a bar
or restaurant that is outside of the City,
specifically so you could smoke while there? 1 2 nsr carr
d. When visiting San Luis, ever gone to a bar
or restaurant with outside seating so you
could smoke while there? . . . . . . . 1 2 as n3-24r
SKIP TO QUESTION 9
1
over
IF ZOC•AL NON.SNUM,--%Mt
City of.San Leis Obispo banr smoking in indoor
As you probably, knc the
public places, incl. ng bars and restaurants, about 1
. .years ago.
5. Since that ban went into effect, have you yourself ... (INSERT EACH
STATEMENT BELOW) ?
G 6. IF YES FOR ANY STATEMENT: How many times .have you done that in the past.
twelve months? O5 91
STATEl�]TS K2 No. Times
a. Ever gone to a bar or restaurant in San
Luis, rather than one in a neighboring
city, because you knew there would be no 1 2 a+7 ^
smoking there? . . . . . . . . . . . .
b• Ever gone to a bar or restaurant in San
Luis, rather than stay home, because you
knew there would be no smoking there? 1 2 an a
SKIP TO QUESTION 10
IF VISITING NOH-B , ASE=
As you may know, the City of San Luis Obispo banned smoking in indoor public
places, including bars and restaurants, about two years ago.
7. Since that ban went into effect, have you yourself (INSERT EACH
STATEMENT BELOW) ?
8. IF YES FOR ANY STATEMENT: How many times have you done that in the past
twelve months?
07 OS
STATEMENTS 12 No. Tunes
a. Visited San Luis Obispo more often because
you knew there would be no smoking in bars
and restaurants here? . . . . . . . . 1 2 a+) MAIM
Cb. When visiting the City of San Luis Obispo,ever gone to a bar or restaurant in San
Luis, rather than one outside of the City,
because you knew there would be no smoking? 1 2 aq aw
c. When visiting San Luis, ever gone out to a
bar or restaurant more often because you
knew there would be no smoking? . . • . 1 2 as asst
V 9. Before you made this visit to San Luis Obispo, did you know about the
ban on smoking in public places?
Yes . . . . . 1 um
No . . . . . 2
L 10. Is your age
is*to 29 . . 1 a+�
30 to 54 . . 2
55 and over 3
TOM RESPONDENT FOR PARTICIPATION.
11. Number of persons in party:
12. Sex: Male . . . . 1 i�
Female . . 2
13. Time of day:
Daytime (til 5:00 PM)
Evening (5:00 PM til 9:00 PM) 2
Night (past 9:00 PM) 3
C
14. Day of the week:
Weekday . . . . 1 pst Saturday, Sunday 2
15. Restaurant/bar name: Interviewer Name:
GO TO SCREENER AND RECORD COMPLETED INTERVIEW. 4&
Taylor const>idng Group No Smoiong Study
6835 Avila Valley DrAPPENDIXV job No. 6051
San Luis Obispo, M -4405 December, 1992
MANAGER OUESTIONNAIItB
As I explained on the telephone, this part of the research is looking just
at how the no smoking ordinance may have affected the costs of local
businesses. I want to assure you, again, that all of your answers are
strictly confidential. Your information will be combined with the answers
from other bars and restaurants to provide a total picture of the impacts of
the no smoking ordinance.
First, I want to ask about one-time costs you might have incurred when the
no smoking ordinance initially went into effect.
1. For each item I read you, please tell me, Yes or No, if that .is something
your business did as a result of the no smoking ordinance. When the
ordinance was first adopted did you ... (READ EACH ITEM ON LIST BELOW)
FOR .EACH "YES", ASH:
2. would you say the cost to (ITEM) was significant or insignificant to your
business?
FOR SACH SIGNIFICANT COST, ASH:'
3. About how much money did your business spend, including labor, to (ITEM)?
01 02 _03
ITEMS YES NO UG- INSIG COST
a. no smoking signs . . . . . 1 2 3 4 (4)
b. Put up no smoking signs. . . . . 1 2 3 4 ai
c. Brief or train your staff on the
new no smoking rules . . . . . . 1 2 3 4' (M
d. Replace any employee(s) who quit
because he/she could not smoke
in your place . . . . . . . .. . 1 2 3 4 m
e. Expand your outside seating capacity
to accommodate smoking customers 1 2 3 4 0
Now I want to ask about on-going costs that might have changed as a result
of the no smoking ordinance..
4. Again, as I read each item, please tell me if it is something your
business has experienced as a result of the no smoking ordinance. Since
the ordinance Was adopted are your . . . (READ EACH ITEM ON LIST BELOW)
FOR EACH YES ITSK, ASIC:
5.. would you say the increased labor costs from (ITEM) is significant or
insignificant to your business?
FOR SACH SIGNIFICANT COST, ASE:
6. About how much money does your business spend, annually, as a result of
(ITEM)?
04 05 06
-
ITEMS SES NO IG INSIG COST
a. Employees spending more time
telling patrons about the no
smoking rules and enforcing
the rules . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 1M
b. Employees spending more time for
smoking breaks . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 nom
over
7. Again, as I rel ach item, please tell me if tha4 something your
nee
business has doe as a result of the nDO smoking02-TEM ON I,ISe- S'w the
„
ordinance was adopted are you ...
FOR EACS ^YEB"t ASKS
a. would you say the cost savings from (ITEM) is significant or
insignificant to your business?
FOR EACS SIONVXCAM COST, ABE:
9. About how much money does your business save, annually, from (ITEM)?
07 08 __09
I'rs�t5 YES �QSIG INSIG COST
a. No longer buying ashtrays 1 2 3 4 nn
and matches . . . • • • • '
b. Spending less time cleaning 1 2 3 4 nz
ashtrays • • . • • • • '
c. Reducing your fire insurance 1 Z 3 4 nT
premiums costs . . . . . . • .
d. Cleaning your draperies and 1 2 3 a
carpets less often . . . . . . .
e. Using less electricity for air 1 2 3 4 ns
circulation fans . . • ' • -
f. Reducing your medical insurance 1 2 3 a nay
premiums costs . . . . . . . .
g. Spending less time hiring and
training new employees because of1 2 3 4 nn
lower turnover . . . . . . . .
10. Other than those we have already talked about, can you think of any
ways that your costs have changed, either up or down, as a result of
the no smoking ordinance? (DETERMINE SIGNIFICANCE OF COST CHANGE, AND
DOLLAR AMOUNTS IF POSSIBLE.)
THANK OWNER/MANAGER
Restaurant/Sar Name:
Owner/Manager's Name:
Interview Date and Time:
Interviewer's Name:
,a
,a
9- 3►'
7. Again, as I r6F ach item., please tell me if tha+ something your
business has do.J as a result of the no smoking o. ,ance. Since the
ordinance was adopted are you (READ EACH ITEM ON LIST BELOW)
POR 87108 "YES", ABE:
8. Would you say the cost savings from (ITEM) is significant or
insignificant to your business?
FOR KUM SIGNIFICANT COST, ASE:
9. About how much money does your business save, annually, from (ITEM!)?
07 08 _ 09
iTEMs YES No SIG INSIG COST
a. No longer buying ashtrays
and matches . . . . 1 2 3 4 (++)
b. Spending less time cleaning
ashtrays . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 ma
c. Reducing your fire insurance
premiums costs . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 t+>t
d. Cleaning your draperies and
carpets less often . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
e. Using less electricity for air
circulation fans . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 c+s�
f. Reducing your medical insurance
premiums costs . . . • . . • • • 1 2 3 4
g. Spending less time hiring and
training new employees because of
lower turnover . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 nn
i
10. Other than those we have already talked about, can you think of any
ways that your costs have changed, either up or down, as a result of
the no smoking ordinance? (DETERMINE SIGNIFICANCE OF COST CHANGE, AND
DOLLAR AMOUNTS IF POSSIBLE.)
THANK OWNER/MANAGER
Restaurant/Bar Name:
Owner/Manager's Name:
Interview Date and Time:
Interviewer's Name:
,e.
_ APPENDI%VI _.
0 0 0 0 O O O 00
0 0 CD m CO
CD m tO CD tD CD CD M M M M m m m m m m CO m CD CO m CD b IO 10
Y
3
O
d m A W T N W CD W d N N A d W W N W O O d d W A M co
$ d M d d w M N 0 d d W W r O M CD r 10 A A A W M O A
O W M b A W d A M M A A M r A W N N W 1U A CO W CO CO W
of l7 at 17 vi t7 ' tt tt d at tt of M .1 tt t et 10 tt at tr tp tt C7
ci
y IA 10 to C9 M M M 0 0 0 0 10 0 IO O A A A A A A A A d d d
clw d d d d d d a M M M M d d d d d 4 d d d d d d 1D 1D 1D
C O
0
CD aD M O A O m N A A. M d M CO M CD A T CO r W M M N N aD
r CD N W N M d W O N M O A O CO M tf d M m m M IA O A M
C O .1 n n O CD Dl Di CD at r d A 4m O .1it l7 N
W d CO) CO r CO CD N CD 10 O A m A O b m CO W 00
A W A r d
m � N M m m M m W O W W M M N � CD A CD W CO W A m W O m CD
c W
a' tr tr tr tr tr tr 16a tr 1ri 1 t lei 16 1010 w 16 ui 1ci ui 1ri m 6 ui
Y
N N A A d d W W d d m CD O O M M m m ID CO d d M M W W
W W O O W W A A CO t0 r r W W A A r T I0 b M M m to CD CD
M M IO 11f M M N N r T W W d d 0 O. M lO W W d d A A N N
CD CO W CD O O .- r N. N N CV M M d d d d d 10 d CO CO CD A A
.0.. LL� M 10 l0 m t0 m CO m CO CO CO CD CD CD CD m CO CO CD m m m m m m
m C)
Y
O O
A O M m M M r CO W ti' T N O O N W O N A r W CO to m CD W
� d N M O A A W A 0 A M CD M A CO d W N N W W A 0 W O r
d m 10 tp CD V O M 16 W O CO P P: W tf C N DD M CD M tf CV 16 N CO tt
r d N r M d W O r d d A N M CO W d 10 W m m N M M M CD
T O to
CO CO A A m A A A A A m CD OD Do W W W W O O W W O O W W
.2:-
N N r r N N r T
LLA A M lO 0 0 r T CO CD r T d d CD CD d d' 10 10 10 10 M M A A cm
C)
U A A CD m d IT O O r r T T d d 10 10 W W r T W CO W W W 10 w .
T r r T r T r r 0 0 0 0 W W O O W W CO CD W W d
O
O T T O O O O
O O
U m
W
m �
CA O
d d 10 10 dA CD m m O CD m w O W M CO M T N CO
� CD CO W M N N N M d N N M CD CD M CD O M d W O r r A N A
W C O W W N O M W M W b M d N N O N W r m W m W d O W CO
N m M r Of CD r W W N d CD M 10 A d r N Cp r M CD
� 3 W N W O CO M O N A r. CD d A A A M A CD W O M M d M M d
a,
� a
to N N A A r r W W M M IT d 00 d d A A T T A A A A r T
Q m 0 m CO A A r r W W C0 CO M to d d CO CO A A W W W W r T
y mO T r M M CO CL A f` cc O O N N N N C',
M M M M M 10 10
CD fD m CD CD CD CD co CA W CD 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
to
O
N CO O CD CO CD O W CD 10 M M M d y N W d N W 10 M W A M W M M O M d O m CO d A M O O w W A d' co C9 CC I'M- A N N N m CD
p m m W CO 1U M 1O CO O O W CO O 10 A w CO O 'd CD N CD CO O A N
z m C r r W 10 W O r 10 M M CO CO d W O d W CD T O A M M r
m CO r A W 0 W r A co m M m C9 A N d d O N W r T Co r M
Q CO CO CO m P. CD W O W W T •: r O N M M N M d M M d d It
M
O 1 r r r .- r N T .- N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N'
C
M M A A M M W W 10 10 M M CO CO M M A A0 W N N T r r T
M to A A CD Co 1p W 10 1D d It Cl) W A A M M f0 CO A A A A 0 0
=
M M r r CO CD 1n 1n N N m m M M A A 0 0 10 0 O O d d m m O O CD CD CA 0 CA 0 0 0 +- r r r N N N N M M M M d d d d v; w;
m N N N N N Nm M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Cl) M M M co
V O
ID N M d r N M d r N M d T N M d r N M d T N CO -d r N M d r
Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
O Iq IC Lb CD co w co A A n h CD CD CO co W CD CD W O 6 O O r r r r CV
'O CO CD CO CO CD CD CO CD CO CO m CO CO m CO O CO CO CO W W W W m W W W W
+�.
Q N CO d r N M d r Ni I
w I0 10 W CO C0 CD fO A A A A m m m CD m to W W O O O O r T N
CD M O m to CD to CD CO CO W <D m m CO CD OD CO W W W W W W W W W W
9-131
W M M O O A N v v M r co M T W d A r T 0 10 N N
w W O O M O r O N Q M O O W W Of M W M W T
C Iff W W A IO W W W W A W O_ co co m T A W O N W W W co co W
T T T T
0
O m W co co co W W W 10 10 W 10 A A A A M M co M A A A A r r r
N N N
oE CD
Y
01
r A v co O M " v M A N N 10 N W M A T A " 0 N M O O co
r CO N W r co co O N 0 10 v N M 10 W O. A W A M M v r W M
W < co N A W N M N A O M W. M M O N O r O r r O O T co
N M M b 10 Mi of v v M 16 10 l9 M tt m tt tt W W R tt ID W tf W
Y
W r r r r T r M W W 'o W O O O 0 ,010
,0O O 0 ,%l
A A A A M M M
1owloiowl0vvavalo1nw10W1c� 1o � vavvvvv
m �
3
O 0
A M W
M W tT W et tt tt O r. O IO M 10 A O A 1O A N O M r tt W tt W
M N W O W tt 10 W W N O 10 M N A O v M W r N M W M M N
r T r N r T r " r N r r r T N r r " N T T T r T r
CL
0
3
c
U r T T 0 0 0 0 00 0 co 0 0 O r r 'r r M M M M co co co
m
0
Tr T co A r M M M v N a0 W W W 0 10 M O T CO M Cl) M 0 W
NvN W 1U vATN CO 10 " vM A T 'V 10 W ONO co N co W
m r 10 W N 10 CO r CO A CO N CO W CO M M M M v 00 10 O O W
0 ; lzr r N r l- N N r r N N T r N N r r N M da N via r
IL L
co m
co m
m a
A M M M M co co co co 't v v v W W W N
LLL. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
U
O 1 1 10
� O AN 1U N 10 tt M r M 1p O mi A co' 0 W M W N M O N O r tY
C07 0 O A W r " co 1O co M v v M N f-
0
0 M W M M 1O v 10 A W W A M A A W O W A W M W A W O A W
m U r r
M �
� ® C
®®®® M M M A -A A M Co M M M
cO Y
G 0
r M A M M v A .� W o r v M N M co v <o N M M v A M
CO W M 'r M N N IO LO W N. r tf r W. M " r r co CO r W O T N
�. M W M r 0 " v co N " N W 10 r N r M O M M W M A N O W
1D' O r a 00 O 'i td O O. M W O M v A W M 10 A r N10 W N O
r N N N r N N N N N N N N r N N r N N N N N N N N N
W O
C W
Y
T r r AA A A A A A A 0 0 0 O W 40 W' W tt v v v co W W
m co co W 10 W t0 10 10 10 10 0 W W W W 10 10 10 W W W 10 t0 W 10 W
OD
m
O 0
Y
W M W O Nr r M A MM N M T 10 M M M M co N at
O W t M N v co
m M C N " M r r 10 co co A r O W M OD M.. 10 A W M co O N M r
CL `p O) �- N N O) O M M 0 01 r M 0 Of MMM � N M O *- M 16 � r
co W W w v v v 0 0 0 0 W W W W CO 10 00 CDAAA co co co
m w1n1o1owwww1n1t� avvvvvvvavvcvacv
Y
m
0
m T W M O v W M A r'. 0 0 0 M r 10 r W W M M W N r r N A
tt M M O v O W W M CO A W T r r N M N W N W M A tt 'R W
ID v U, P 1n 1p w f, ID 1D tD CD m 10 tz W to to r ED 10 IA A 1p tp
m
m
a
0 m r - T r r N N N N V d d d d d d — 0 (0 m m M M M .
i m m m W m 450 m m 0000
mWm m W m m a W m W W W m
C m
� o
NPmNm PmPrdmoN 'ONT NNmartprN
�.. NO W mOMNOmMdnmNMMMNdrmrM tO Nm
mMtOdOOlOmrmOdmCD OdMPP0000NtO <D
- r d d M N to tO d M O b W R M a) d M
, � O m N � M O d M N
W
y m m W m 00
Co T T T r d d 'd d r r r'W W m W N N N
r r r N N N N M M M M d d d d R Q d d M M M M d d d
r
V
O O m
T W O W tO10 M co O W NV to M CO to r to t0 N N d W d m
N A tO W 10 m W A r d co d m r W N m 0 MN d 0 N ^ d P
m W M W M M d M r W m r w N M A � d 0 a d N m N 00
m
7 CN d N W N W a
cr
dddddvvT � r 0000mmODIaDm (ommmto
N NN N N N N N N N N NN
O
O N CD W W N d r m M O O m d d d ►� � PO d r � m 10 M O
N N N W m P P W m N W O m r m N m W M W M n r m 'd 10
o C666Ci6696q a a 1696te966t6aitoa 6 to 6mto6L
'3
m
m
a
M M M W m W W to to to M N N N N W Of W W M M M M tO M M
.O. d d d d d d d to tO M to 0 m 0 m 0b W 0 00 tO to W LO M
m
O 7
a o
r <O. CD N N d W d M t>D M <O CD O M o W M M P 0 a) r d N to
W N M MV O d 0 m O M O d r m m N U2 M W n W r W to
L
to to W N O W N N d M N N CO O m m O CO m n W f` r- M f0 d M
U. a o C6C6C6u ld eC6q lc C6vdvdvaa' vdveiavavv m
COcm
E C o
o C
O a N
m N N m m m ra M to to lO N N N N d d d d 0 0 0 0 r r r
LU j aotoww
towwtototomtom ,(omro aCofnf% nt� t. t. Pn
M = m
to o
N o
H co N N W d' m t'O M W M W W N M W M r r r N M M O d
r P N b W r W n
to O � d W O W M M to r W M CD d N d r
O h M. W W N W W A A N d m W O d 0) r 0 m N M r d M d
V M d M M d LO to d M W A M d tO n M M n r tD M fO P U) M
r W
d d dW co co co M co co M d d d d h h n P r r r r d d d
m d d d d d d d d d d d d d to tO d IT d d to a to M M M M
m m
0 0
._r- N d CDM W W O r m ti N M M N co r fO W d r T W P fD
fO m tO W � m O B I T W M t0 W W d O A m ID N O f0 r
Co d co h co P, co w N to r fO t0 W A M d T 0 0 0 0 tO W W CD
of N N N M N N M M co M d d M N M d M C d C M M M N N
m
cr
Co
7
r r r M M M M N N N N 0 0 0 0 CO W CO CO
CD
0 0 0 0 W W W
r
7
0
O r <O M M m tD t'D M 0 W M N W tD O m m O d t0 O N r r tD
m O r N r IO to CD N r O N � m N to W d m 0 n fD M m N CD W
C m h O d M M M W W r' M P 'r N M W N N W M d LO It tO (O A
' i m
m
(C A r, W CD W W W <O co fO A A O O O O d d d d d d d
T T N N N N N N N N N N N N N
7
O
9_=1c
R v v O O O O b CO CD b 0 0 0 0 CD CD 0 0 to b b b CD O m �-
m N N N Cl) M M M M M M P7 M CO) M M to to b b b tO b b It v V' '
Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N '
YY
Y O
le m O b m N N T v M r A r CM O O to It O N N M A A O r
T T N A to CO N m A N N 10 T V' N A M V co O CD M V' CO N
a ` O M O b CO co V• O CO O m Co T CD NW O O CD O O O A N ,
Q. 7 CO CO n h 46 46 fD CD CO C6 A A A CD O A O A A CD CD' A A ^ n /-
� c
to t0 b CD co m m V' a V' V' M M M M M M M M O O O O O co W
m b two 0 b to to b b w b t0 b b t0 b t0 b t0 b y IV v v v v v
Y
m
Y_
O
to T T 0 b A N M V' N M A to v r M V' A CO N M O O N M
4) b b b M CO V' b T_ CO A CO O w b b V' b CO 0) M O r NM
C O M
CO) b CO co M M O CD A. O t0 A O M le v r M CO m V• V• b O
b b b b b b CO b CO A m m CD ACC) A A b b A A co m A b
a)
CD
m
tD TT to CO CO m O O O O MM M M m m b m m O b CD M MM
m A A A A A A A m CD co m to m m b co m co CD to CD CD b Co b 0
i
7
O
T V' m A CO V': T M M M M V' N V' N b T. M T N M CD r CD
N V' CO b A N to M CD O co b co b N m O 10 O b 90 CO N b O r
o O CO CCI CO T m CO CD T V T CD O CD O O M c T O O V A T N CO
A A A m A A A 0 0 CD m CD 0 co0 0 0 0 0 0 coO 0 C C O6
O
T T T
CL O
Y B
Ts O co O CO b CO. t0 N N N N M M M M O O O O O m b b CO b iD
O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 N N N NID
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
LL ® Y
O O Q
0 W O N 0 0 T O M O b b
MA m D O A N W �i-- t0 Co m a
c O D A O O r O M 0 r D O Ob r D b D b VM VVM T M
U N O A O VM O O O O A0 Q
-_
v
Iy m N c N CD CD N to CD m IO m m O M r N r CO r. W m CT
m N N co M N N M M N N M M N M M M M M M M M M M M M M
En
,O W
"M M M v v v V M 'M M M CD CO CO CO to to b b M M co M A N,r
CC O O O O O O O O O O O r T T T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C7 M M W M C7 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N N N
m
O
r N N m m to CO CD CO O A0
O CO O O. M M O N N CA A R A M
CD M O T T N A O O O A T T M , 0 N W b M 0 V A V b O W
CL
.1i C7 b Ili 07 N -Ri b N N to C6 M C6 CD C? N to b N r M V' N r
c
m m m CO M M M M CO 0 W 0 r r r r t�. A 1!t A CO CO CO CO M M M
A A A A AA N CO CO CO CO A A AN CD CO 0 b CD CD m 0 O b CD
4D O
A CO v CY N M N V O O M O N M A A O T O M V A O. O
O
c V' T b O CO W O O O A b O O CO V A r CO N b M IO. V' M h r
3 C m m r W O r N r N N r r N IF N N C7 C7 N N M a N N
L
m
CD
a
T T T 000 O W tD to tD T T T r V V a V
a v v a a a a c v v a b b b b a a v a < v a v a v v
Y
O
OT V N �- N O O b tD O O r M A O co A A O CD v A N
M A T M O CO O V R A A 7 T b CO co T M N co ib CD CO M co O
O N O r M M O M CO N T A CO r CO � 0 A 0 b v b b O O b v
P b V m CD b b CO CD b b CD CO CO b t0 CD A A CO m A A CD CD
0 �
i O
C
O o M o o M O M M M M I� M P M O P M ►� O M O
M O cv V O M A W N m O r r m A m W M m r W W r P 10 r
m r� rm ►� i: mv �ei �eiv �cimieivvwav � mm � �on �: � i: ao
M
V C
C m > 3
E MmoMo � MmoM000l� MMoCe.� �. 1. MOMor` M
_ T 10 W P m N r O N M a CO W O P T r Ip CO 1t� m MOO < N "r M O
O m O M W P O M P m m T h (6 m T P m P r 1z m O m O P O m O W
a m T r r r T r r T r r r r r
E
ID
� C, g
T co m N N m CO P O I� Cp r N V P m V m M w CO N m 0
M W V 1� W f► W m W O M m m m M V 0 0 0 M V N m m m O
(� I. r m N m W N m W V r W f� m r m O r M m m M CD M m
O .�`. m m m m m W W W W W W 0 0 cc 0 r r r r r r r N N N N
CD 0 U
at
co N m W 0 10 m m V N V T h M m m O M m W M M V m N
00 P. r N M M W N CO r m M 0 m O m P m m m N O m
N r T m O m m P M W m N N r l�
m m O !O u) m m M m N P co m V N m N m u7 N O V O M
la m m P m W m 00 O CO W O r W O r M W O N W CO r r
f0 r r r r r r r r N r r N N r N N N r N N N r N N
co U
O O 1. m m m N P vl IO N m V O m M r 0 0 C',
c r. mmmmmwmuiunwwL64uiui mamr. � r� � m
Q � 3
o ►� oo ►� MM � r� ooNr� oMMn1� 0) U) V) oMMM
N m O m m M m V N V N N P O m m M m m M m W �' 0 0 0
c
o E o uiuiuiuitov uiai4 � � cvvi4e�iviviM, oivwuiuiuiuir.
0 E
0 0
to Egg m
O w 0 0 0 0 0 O O M P 1� f� 1� M P I� M M M M P O O ^ M P O P O
LL O r r W N O V N M V M m V V W u) r r W V O V N m m m W m cm
o U uiuiuiuiuiuiuiui < vvvvvc�iv V,V,mv vuiro000r a
E o
o U
w N M O MP� co M N M M O O O M h M O 0 0 M M 1` co m
C3 m N 1• V V r M V N V rA t� I. T V O M N V m 10 W m h W r N
C m a O O r N M CC P.: C6 CD r' N4 ui m CA O M 4 W* co, W C7 r M m
C E C T T r T T r r T T r eT N r T T r r r r r r r T r r r
CD Uva CL
fC W co M M m N u) 0 N CON N 1) W T V mI� V N m N u! V m
4) m V r m W 1� T m f� M r M W h M M O W W V m T N m m m
CD N e7 N CO N N T M M M N N M eO CO M CO V M M M M M M M M CO M
• m
II p
C F.
CD W W O O m m W W VV N N r r M u) M MN N N Ncm C,4
r T N
IO M M M M M M M V sf
O
O �
r
Q 0
m P M M 0 u) m mN u) V O @9 m M N N M M V r Il m m V T
co W V M O m V N m N W O CD T u) O r CO r u) N V O W m M 0
m m m P N P W N O m r W I, V O 1� r W T CO M N V N CO V N
ca y O W O r C r c 0 T r N T N V N N M N M Nm M M N
T r T r T T r r T r T T T r r r r T T T T r T r
W T m m T u) M O N M CO V O T CO V M M m r N N m r P N
�-" � m M r P f� m m N 1� W ID m W O O W m r 0 u) ►� V r M O W
m m r T m O r T O r M b N N (D W V Q m b N u) a m V M
r r N N r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
9.�1