HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-2015 PH1 Expanded Polystyrene Ordinance
June 2, 2015
PH1
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Greg Hermann, Special Projects Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REGULATING EXPANDED
POLYSTYRENE FOOD CONTAINERS AND PRODUCTS
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an Ordinance adding Chapter 8.06 to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code prohibiting the
use of expanded polystyrene food or drink containers and the retail sale of non-encased expanded
polystyrene products.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The City Council previously provided direction via a study session to draft an ordinance to prohibit
retail food providers within the City from providing food or drink in containers made from EPS and
prohibit the retail sale of EPS products which are not wholly encapsulated or encased within a more
durable material. In California, over 80 cities and counties have introduced regulations focused on
restricting the use of food and drink containers made from EPS all citing the environmental effects
of EPS as a basis for regulation. EPS is made of non-renewable petroleum products and is uniquely
problematic as litter as EPS is a lightweight, durable material that is not biodegradable. The City is
situated entirely within the 84 square mile San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed and a significant
amount of EPS is found and discarded during creek cleanups.
In order to develop a draft ordinance staff reviewed existing policies, researched approaches by
other jurisdictions and gathered input from the public including the business community. The
ordinance prohibits food providers from using disposable food or drink containers made of EPS and
requires that disposable food and drink containers that are recyclable, compostable, or
biodegradable be used as an alternative. The ordinance also prohibits the retail sale of products
made of EPS not wholly encapsulated or encased in a more durable material. There are also
exemptions if the ordinance creates an undue hardship for food providers. Undue hardship
exemptions may be granted because alternatives are not available or because the alternatives are not
affordable. An exemption for the retail sale of EPS products is included for packing materials which
have been collected for reuse.
The ordinance will take effect six months after final adoption with warnings occurring for an
additional six months. The ordinance also provides an in-lieu fine program which allows receipts
for acceptable products to presented in-lieu of paying an initial fine.
DISCUSSION
Council Direction
At the March 4, 2014, City Council meeting, concerns were raised during public comment
regarding the use of expanded polystyrene (EPS) products in the City. The City Council directed
staff to address the consideration of regulations for EPS products at a future meeting.
PH1 - 1
Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers and Products Page 2
On September 2, 2014, the City Council hosted a study session to review relevant policies, research
from other agencies, and implementation and policy options (Attachment 1). After reviewing the
information provided, receiving comments by the public and discussion by the City Council,
direction was provided to draft an ordinance to prohibit retail food providers within the City from
providing food or drink in containers made from EPS and prohibit the retail sale of EPS products
which are not wholly encapsulated or encased within a more durable material.
Background
In California, over 80 cities and counties have introduced regulations focused on restricting the use
of food and drink containers made from EPS. Some of those agencies have taken the additional step
of prohibiting the retail sale of most EPS products within the city.
Most agencies cite in their ordinances the environmental effects of EPS as a basis for regulation.
First, EPS is made of non-renewable petroleum products. Secondly, food and drink containers made
from EPS are uniquely problematic when they become litter as EPS is a lightweight, durable
material that is not biodegradable. Its foam structure allows it to break easily into small pieces,
making it difficult and expensive to remove from the environment. Additionally, these pieces can be
harmful to fish and wildlife as it is often mistaken as food and ingested.
According to the California Department of Transportation, EPS comprises approximately 15% of
storm drain litter. It can be difficult, however, to approximate the exact amount of EPS in storm
drains, waterways and oceans due to the small size of the material when broken down. A study
published in 2011 found that 71% of all the plastic flowing through the Los Angeles and San
Gabriel Rivers is foam. It is the second most common form of beach debris in California, according
to a study conducted in Orange County. Also, several studies approximate that plastic products,
including expanded polystyrene, make up 80-90% of floating marine debris. The City is situated
entirely within the 84 square mile San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed and a significant amount of
EPS is found and discarded during creek cleanups.
In addition to reducing the amount of harmful litter entering local waterways, cities also typically
cite the improved potential for recycling opportunities and diverting trash from landfills as a basis
for an ordinance. EPS products are challenging to recycle due to a lack of recycling facilities and
difficulties with recycling EPS that has been in contact with food. EPS products are not currently
recycled at the Cold Canyon landfill. There is also a clear, non-expanded form of polystyrene used
in food service called “oriented” or “rigid” polystyrene. These polystyrene containers are recycled
at the Cold Canyon landfill even after having been in contact with food.
Policy Analysis
In order to develop a draft ordinance staff reviewed existing policies, researched approaches by
other jurisdictions and gathered input from the public. Each of these steps is discussed below.
1. Existing Policies
While concerns expressed by the community served as the catalyst for pursuing an EPS ordinance,
there is also a significant policy foundation for such action. There are three City documents that
either directly reference EPS or have policies regarding waste, recycling and sustainability that
would support and ordinance of this type. Those documents are:
PH1 - 2
Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers and Products Page 3
General Plan - Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE)
Section 5 of the COSE establishes goals for the City related to the use of materials. These goals
include using materials efficiently and minimizing the undesirable effects that can result from the
use of potentially toxic materials. The policies developed in support of these goals include
operational considerations such as avoiding materials which inhibit recycling, and purchasing
products which incorporate recycled materials. Policies in this section also establish the role of the
City to coordinate and participate in waste-reduction and recycling efforts, as well as the City’s
responsibility to expand public education regarding conservation and sustainability.
Climate Action Plan
The Climate Action Plan identifies solid waste strategies to increase the community’s waste
diversion rate, which is the amount of material diverted from the landfill to be recycled, composted
or reused. One waste diversion strategy explicitly states that “(a)n ordinance that requires
biodegradable food packaging in restaurants and other food vendors can reduce the amount of non-
recyclable [plastic foam] that is sent to the landfill.” Implementation of this ordinance would
accomplish this objective of the Climate Action Plan by increasing the amount of food containers
which are recycled and thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with solid waste
disposal at the Cold Canyon landfill.
Storm Water Management Plan
The City’s Storm Water Management Plan does not directly address EPS, but does have related
elements that involve public education and outreach for reducing pollutants and increasing
recycling of materials that may enter storm drains. In addition, there are specific strategies aimed at
pollution prevention which would include materials such as EPS.
It should also be noted that the San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority
(IWMA) briefly discussed the issue of regulating EPS at their March 2014 Board Meeting. The
outcome of that discussion was a determination that IWMA has no plans to consider a regional
policy regulating EPS at this time.
2. Approaches from Other Agencies
A wide range of cities and counties with adopted EPS ordinances were reviewed to study the scope
of their regulations and methods for implementation and enforcement. These agencies were selected
based on proximity, best practice ordinances or status as a benchmark city with San Luis Obispo.
Most cities and counties focus on the environmental concerns of EPS food and drink containers as
the basis for an ordinance. The major concerns cited include the fact that EPS is lightweight, and
can be easily blown out of waste receptacles and into storm drains and waterways. Most
communities also site the fact that EPS is not economically feasible to recycle.
The ordinances reviewed had several common key elements including:
• Prohibiting the use of EPS food and drink containers by food providers;
• Including an “undue hardship” exemption for unique cases;
o Many agencies also include an exemption for economic hardship defined as a 15%
increase in cost for replacement products;
PH1 - 3
Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers and Products Page 4
• Exemptions for packaging of uncooked food and food prepared or packaged outside of the
city limits;
• Timeframes for implementation after adoption ranging from 30 days to one year.
Some cities and counties further the scope of their ordinance with additional elements. These
elements include a requirement that replacement food and drink containers and products be
recyclable, compostable, or biodegradable. There are also some jurisdictions that have included
prohibiting the sale of most retail products made of EPS, such as small coolers and packing peanuts.
Some ordinances also include an “in lieu of fine” program, where “in lieu” of paying a fine, the
purchase of acceptable products can be made for the same amount.
More information on approaches from other agencies can be found in the September 2, 2014 City
Council study session staff report (Attachment 1).
3. Community Outreach
Over the past several months, staff gathered input and solicited feedback from community
stakeholders as well as the general public. Staff facilitated meetings with the Foam Free SLO
(which includes representatives from local environmental groups), the Chamber of Commerce,
affected business owners and other community members.
In addition, staff used the Open City Hall tool on the City’s website to solicit additional feedback on
the issue. This forum was advertised through the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Association,
City website notification and postcards mailed to over 250 businesses. The Open City Hall topic
had 61 visitors and 25 statements posted or the equivalent of 1.3 hours of public comment. A
complete report of statements from Open City Hall on this topic is included as Attachment 3.
In general, those who were supportive of regulations for EPS stated:
• Concern regarding negative environmental effects of EPS;
• Concern of potential negative health effects of EPS;
• Interest in reducing the amount of waste that ends up in landfills; and
• General support for community sustainability.
In general, those who were not supportive of regulations for EPS stated:
• Concern regarding the additional cost of alternatives;
• Concern performance of alternative products (e.g. rigidity, insulating properties, etc.); and
• General concern over increased regulations.
Proposed Ordinance
The proposed ordinance was developed using City Council direction, best practice approaches by
other jurisdictions and feedback from the community outreach.
The ordinance has three main sections. The first section prohibits food providers from using
disposable food or drink containers made of EPS. Second, the ordinance requires that all food
providers use disposable food and drink containers that are recyclable, compostable, or
biodegradable. The last section of the ordinance prohibits the retail sale of products made of EPS
which are not wholly encapsulated or encased in a more durable material such as cups, plates,
bowls, coolers and packing peanuts.
PH1 - 4
Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers and Products Page 5
The ordinance also includes several exemptions. First, any food provider may file for an exemption
if they can provide documentation of an undue hardship created by the ordinance. Undue hardship
exemptions may be granted because alternatives are not available or because the alternatives are not
affordable. For the purposes of this ordinance, affordable is defined as no more than 15% higher in
cost then the product being replaced. Exemptions also apply to foam trays for uncooked meats and
food prepared or packaged outside of the City.
There are also certain exemptions to the prohibition of the retail sale of EPS products. These
exemptions include products that contain EPS, but are wholly encapsulated in a more durable
material such as coolers encased in hard plastic, construction materials made of EPS, and items
related to public health and safety or a medical necessity. An additional exemption is included for
packing materials which have been collected for reuse.
The specific language for each of these sections can be found in the proposed ordinance
(Attachment 3).
Potential Impacts to Businesses
The most frequently cited impact to businesses is cost. To better understand this, below is a cost
comparison of EPS products to alternatives developed by the City of San Jose in 2012 as a part of a
county-wide effort to regulate EPS. The results of that analysis are shown in the following table.
Material Cups Plates Clamshell Container
EPS $0.035 $0.056 $0.09
Rigid Plastic $0.026 $0.083 $0.25
Paper $0.055 $0.02 $0.28
Molded Natural Fiber n/a $0.064 $0.22
Compostable Plastic $0.07 $0.15 $0.33
Alternatives to EPS cups ranged from 26% less expensive to 50% more expensive. The range for
plates was 35% less expensive to 63% more expensive for EPS alternatives. Alternatives to EPS
clamshell containers ranged from 59% to 73% more expensive. Staff compared the results of the
City of San Jose analysis to some local prices and found general concurrence with the findings.
In addition, as a part of the September 2, 2014 City Council Study session a business survey was
distributed with the assistance of the Chamber of Commerce. The results of the survey along with
additional information on other potential impacts to business are included in the study session staff
report (Attachment 1).
It should be noted, that the Chamber of Commerce, after consideration by their Issues Evaluation
Committee, voted to unanimously support the proposed ordinance.
Potential Benefits to the Environment
It is equally important to consider potential benefits to the environment from an ordinance
regulating EPS. Classification of litter can be very time intensive and expensive. As a result, there is
relatively little data on the outcomes of EPS ordinances. There are, however, some observational
studies that have documented results. Those include:
PH1 - 5
Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers and Products Page 6
• The City of Santa Cruz observed a 50% decrease in EPS food and drink containers
picked up during annual beach and river cleanups between 2007-2012.
• One year after implementation of the City of San Francisco ordinance that prohibits EPS
food and drink containers, the City’s litter audit showed a 36% decrease in EPS litter.
Implementation and Enforcement
The ordinance is designed to take effect six months after final adoption and warnings will occur for
an additional six months. This would allow businesses up to a year if necessary to make the
transition to alternative products. During this time, City staff would send additional notification to
affected businesses and make additional information available on the City’s website regarding
compliance with ordinance. Enforcement of the recommended changes would continue through the
existing operations and resources of Code Enforcement and Community Development Department
staff. The ordinance also includes an in-lieu fine program which allows receipts for acceptable
products to presented in-lieu of paying an initial fine.
CONCURRENCES
A team of staff from the Community Development, Utilities and Administration departments
participated in the development and review of the draft ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed ordinance is exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity
in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Further, the proposed Ordinance is
exempt from CEQA on the separate and independent ground that it is an action of a regulatory
agency (the City) for the protection of the environment because, among other things, it will regulate
the use and sale of expanded polystyrene products and reduce the amount of expanded polystyrene
products that enter local landfill and waterways. Thus, this Ordinance is categorically exempt from
the requirements of CEQA under Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as
an action by a regulatory agency for the protection of the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed Ordinance adds additional regulations to the City’s Municipal Code. All complaints
of this type are currently investigated and enforced by Code Enforcement staff. At this time, the
impacts of implementing and enforcing the additional elements of the ordinance can be incorporated
into existing resources. Additional resources may be required if further outreach is desired during
implementation.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Amend the proposed ordinance. The City Council may modify the proposed amendments
to the Municipal Code. Specific direction should be given to staff regarding any
modifications.
PH1 - 6
Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers and Products Page 7
2. Continue the proposed ordinance. The City Council may continue action, if more
information in needed. Direction should be given to staff regarding additional information
needed to make a decision.
3. Reject the proposed ordinance. The City Council may reject the proposed ordinance
although public testimony and current research demonstrate that an ordinance is needed.
ATTACHMENTS
1. September 2, 2014 City Council Study Session Staff Report
2. Open City Hall Report
3. Proposed Ordinance
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2015\2015-06-02\Expanded Polystyrene Ordinance (Johnson-Hermann)\ECAR- Expanded Polystyrene.docx
PH1 - 7
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PH1 - 8
CityofSanLuisObispo, CouncilAgendaReport, MeetingDate, ItemNumber
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: GregHermann, Special Projects Manager
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE FOOD CONTAINER AND
PRODUCT REGULATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive a presentation on expanded polystyrene food container and product regulations
and policy options.
2. Provide direction to staff regarding initiation of an ordinance.
REPORT IN BRIEF
On March 4th, 2014, the City Council directed staff to exploreoptions for establishing
regulations for expanded polystyrene (EPS). This reportprovides a review of existing relevant
policies, research from other agencies, and implementation and policy choices for the City
Council to consider when providing direction to staff.
In California, over 80 cities and counties (listed in Attachment 1) have introduced regulations
focused on restricting the use of food and drink containers made from EPS, commonly referred
to as Styrofoam™ or plastic foam. Some of those agencies have taken the additional step of
prohibiting the retail sale of most EPS products within the city.
Most agencies cite in their ordinancesthe environmental and potential healtheffects of EPS as a
basis for regulation. EPS is made of non-renewable petroleum products and manufactured with a
monomer called Styrene, which may have adverse effectson human health. EPS food and drink
containers have been shown to leach this potentially carcinogenic chemical into food and drinks
when heated or when coming into contact with hot foods.1 Food and drink containers made from
EPS are also uniquely problematic when they become litter as EPS is a durable material that is
not biodegradable. Its foam structure allows it to break easily into small pieces, making it
difficult and expensive to remove from the environment. Additionally, these piecescan be
harmful to fish and wildlife as it is often mistaken as food andingested.
Accordingto the California Department of Transportation, EPS comprises approximately 15% of
storm drain litter.2 It can be difficult, however, to approximate theexact amount of EPS in storm
drains, waterways and oceans due to the small size of the material whenbroken down. A study
1 Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 33, Issue 6, Pages 475–481 (1995). Available at: http://ac.els-
cdn.com/027869159500009Q/1-s2.0-027869159500009Q-main.pdf?_tid=1d125fac-2177-11e4-ad09-
00000aacb35d&acdnat=1407775800_19aeb4101043c117eb2842c55b96e237
2 California Integrated Waste Management Board, Useand Disposal of Polystyrene in California, 2004.
Available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Documents/Plastics/43204003.pdf
9/2/14
SS1
SS1 - 1
Attachment 1
PH1 - 9
Polystyrene Study Session Page 2
published in 2011 found that 71% of all the plastic flowing through the Los Angeles and San
GabrielRivers is foam.3 It is the second most common form of beach debris in California,
according to a study conducted in Orange County.4 Also, several studies approximate that plastic
products, including polystyrene, make up80-90% of floating marinedebris. The City does not
currently have data on theamount of EPSpresent in our storm drains or creeks, but can consider
some methods of documentation during the next Creek Day.
In addition to reducing the amount of harmful litter entering local waterways, cities also typically
cite the improvedpotential for recycling opportunities and diverting trash from landfills as a
basis for an EPS ordinance. EPS products are challenging to recycle and are not currently
recycled at the Cold Canyon landfill through San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management. There is also a clear, non-expanded form of polystyrene used in food service called
oriented” or “rigid” polystyrene. These rigid polystyrene containers are recycled in San Luis
Obispo County even afterhaving been in contact with food.
Food service based businesses are often mostimpacted by these types of ordinances. Frequently
cited concerns are the additional cost of alternatives and performance of alternative products
e.g. rigidity, insulating properties, etc.).
DEFINITIONS
In order to ensure a common understanding of terms being used in thediscussion that follows,
definitions are offered below.
A. “Foodcontainer” means a container that is used to hold prepared food or drinks. Food
containerincludes cups, bowls, plates, trays, cartons or clamshell containers that are
intended for single use.
B. “Food provider” generally means anyvendor, business, organization, entity, group, or
individual that offers food or beverages to the public for consumptionon or off premises,
regardless of whether there is a charge for the food. “Food provider” typically includes
restaurants, retail food establishments, caterers, cafeterias, stores, shops, sales outlets,
grocery stores, delicatessens, itinerant restaurants and mobilefood vendors.
C. “Foodservice ware” includes cup lids, straws, stirrers, forks, spoons, knives, napkins,
trays, and otheritems primarily designed for use in consuming food.
D. “Expanded Polystyrene” or “EPS” means a foammaterial made of blown polystyrene,
and expanded and extrudedfoams (sometimes calledStyrofoam™) which are
thermoplastic petrochemical materials utilizing a styrene monomer whichis often used to
hold prepared food (pictured below). EPS is not recycled in San Luis Obispo County.
3 Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Volume11, Issue 11, Pages 65-73 (2011). Available at:
http://www.cleanwateraction.org/files/publications/C%20Moore%20et%20al%202%20urban%20rivers.pdf
4 Composition and Distribution of Beach Debris in Orange County, California. Available at:
http://www.cleanwateraction.org/files/publications/Beach%20Debris%20Orange%20County%20Study.pdf
SS1 - 2
Attachment 1
PH1 - 10
Polystyrene Study Session Page 3
E. "Polystyrene" means a thermoplasticpetrochemical material utilizing styrene monomers.
Polystyrene includes the foammaterial as well as clear, rigid polystyrene also called
oriented polystyrene" (pictured below). Rigid polystyrene is recycled in San Luis
Obispo County.
F. “Prepared food” means any food, including beverages, which is served or prepared for
consumption, including ready-to-eat and takeout food.
POLICY REVIEW
General Plan Policies
The General Plan does not contain policies that explicitly address EPS. There are, however, three
Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) policies that address reuse and recycling of
materials in and by the City.
SS1 - 3
Attachment 1
PH1 - 11
Polystyrene Study Session Page 4
COSE Policy 5.5.2:
The City will manage its operations to foster reuse and recycling for:
A. Avoiding using inks, papers, and plasticsthat inhibit recycling or that produce
pollutants in preparation for recycling.
B. Purchasing products incorporating recycledmaterials.”
COSE Policy 5.5.3:
The City will coordinate local, and participate in regional, household and business
waste-reduction and recycling efforts.”
The Conservation and Open Space Element also contains a policy intended to expand public
education regarding conservation and sustainability.
COSE Policy 5.5.6:
The City will expand its public education outreach efforts to raise public awareness of
energy and material conservation goals, sustainable technology, benefits and incentives.”
These policies recognizethe City’s responsibility for efficient use of materials and recycling
while also acknowledging its role in encouraging residentsand business to do so as well.
Climate Action Plan
The San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan identifies solid waste strategies to increase the
community’s waste diversion rate, which is theamount of material diverted from the landfill to
be recycled, composted or reused. These strategies help reduce the amount of greenhouse gas
GHG) emissions associated with transport and organicdecomposition. A description of the
Increase Waste Diversion (WST 1) strategy indicates:
An ordinance that requires biodegradable food packaging in restaurants and other food
vendors canreduce theamount of non-recyclable Styrofoam™ that is sent to the landfill.
Successfulexamples in other California cities will be explored.”
Implementation of this strategy includes several actions, one of which is WST 1.8 which calls for
the City to:
Evaluate the effectiveness of a FoodPackagingOrdinance that requires biodegradable
containers.”
Implementation of this action would accomplish the objective of the Climate Action Plan to
reduce GHG emissions by decreasing thenumber of vehicle trips associated with solid waste
disposal at Cold Canyon landfill.
Storm Water Management Plan
The City’s Storm Water ManagementPlan does not directly address EPS, but does have related
elements that involvepublic education and outreach for reducing pollutants and increasing
recycling of materials that may enter storm drains. In addition, there are specific strategies aimed
at pollution prevention whichwould include materials such as EPS.
SS1 - 4
Attachment 1
PH1 - 12
Polystyrene Study Session Page 5
In addition, The State Water Quality Control Board has proposed to adopt amendments to
Statewide Water Quality Control Plans to control trash. These amendments are currently pending
an adoption hearing by the State Board. Dependent on the outcome of that hearing and the final
language of the amendmentsthere may be additional requirements for the City to take action to
prevent trash from entering storm drains and waterways.
San Luis Obispo CountyIntegrated Waste Management
The San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) briefly
discussed the policy issue of regulating EPS at their March 2014 Board Meeting. The outcome
of that discussion was a determinationthat IWMA has no plans to consider regulating EPSat this
time.
ORDINANCES FROMOTHER AGENCIES
A wide range of cities and counties with adoptedEPS ordinances were reviewed to study the
scope of their regulations and methods for implementation and enforcement. Information on11
agencies is presented in this report. Those agencies were selected based on proximity, best
practice ordinances or status as a benchmark city.
Most cities and counties focuson the environmental concerns of EPS food containers as the basis
for an ordinance including:
EPS is a lightweight material that canbe blown out of wastereceptaclesand into storm
drains and waterways.
EPS breaks down into small pieces, which allow it to spread easily through aquatic
environments and is mistaken as food by fish and wildlife.
EPS, in its broken down form, is difficult and expensive to clean up.
EPS is generally not economically feasible to be recycled.
Most ordinanceshaveseveral key elements including:
Language expressly prohibiting the use of EPS food and drink containers provided by
food providers.
Specific definitions thatexclude or include polystyrene food service ware items such as
straws, lids for cups, and utensils from the scope of the ordinance.
An “undue hardship” clause providing exemptions for cases wherealternativeswere
either too costly or their container needs could not be met by alternatives.
o 15% was often used as the threshold for determining an undue economic
hardship.
An exemption for packaging of uncooked food items such as raw fish andmeat.
An exclusion of foods prepared or packaged outsidethe city and sold inside the city
limits.
Inclusion of an emergency clause for public health and safety or medical necessity.
An implementation time frameafteradoption, usually ranging from 30 days to one year.
SS1 - 5
Attachment 1
PH1 - 13
Polystyrene Study Session Page 6
Some cities and counties have additional elements which further specify the ordinance’s scope
including:
A section stating that all non-recyclable containers are to be prohibited in favor of
recyclable, compostable, or biodegradable materials.
The addition of other products made of EPS. This includesitems such as small coolers,
pool toys, and packing “peanuts” for shipping.
An “in lieu of fine” program, wherethe proof of purchase of acceptable products is
accepted instead of a fine for the first offense.
Other considerations addressed by individual agencies include:
Capitola and Santa Cruz amended andexpanded initial ordinances to include a wider
range of items including the retail sale of polystyrene products.
Carpenteria has included that each foodprovider file a signed certification that they are
aware of the ordinance and will comply with it. Thisis to bedoneat the beginning of
each year.
SS1 - 6
Attachment 1
PH1 - 14
CityofSanLuisObispo, CouncilAgendaReport, MeetingDate, ItemNumber
EXPANDEDPOLYSTYRENE FOODCONTAINER AND PRODUCT REGULATIONS Page 7
The chart below compares the key elements of ordinances from the agenciesselected for research.
City and Ordinance Adopted EPS Food
and Drink
Containers
All Non-
Sustainable
Containers
Straws,
CupLids,
and
Utensils
Other EPS
Products
coolers,
peanuts")
Affordability
exclusion of
15%
Purchase
In lieu of
fine
program
Enforcement
Santa Cruz - Environmentally
Acceptable Packaging and
Products
2007/
2012 X X X X X X
Director of Public
Works
Santa Monica - Banning Non-
recyclable PlasticDisposable
Food Service Containers
2007
X X
Environmentaland
Public Works
Director
Capitola - EPS and
Biodegradable and Compostable
Food Service Ware
2009/
2011 X X X X
City Manager or
designee
Monterey - Environmentally
Acceptable Food Packaging
2009 X X X X Deputy City
Manager
Carpenteria - Food Container
Regulations
2008 X X City Manager or
designee
Ojai - Environmentally
Acceptable Packaging and
Products
2014
X X X X X X
Code Enforcement
Salinas - Environmentally
Acceptable Food Packaging
Ordinance
2011
X X X X X
City Manager or
designee
Newport Beach - Use of
Expanded Polystyrene
Disposable Food Service Ware
2008
X
City Manager or
designee
Cupertino -
Polystyrene FoamDisposable Fo
od Service Ware
2014
X
City Manager or
designee
County of Monterey - Use of
Polystyrene FoamFood
Packaging by FoodProviders
2010
X X
Director of Health
County of Santa Clara -
Expanded Polystyrene Food and
Beverage Containers
2012
X X
Agricultureand
Environmental
Director
SS1 - 7
Attachment 1
PH1 - 15
CityofSanLuisObispo, CouncilAgendaReport, MeetingDate, ItemNumber
EXPANDED POLYSTYRENEFOODCONTAINER AND PRODUCT REGULATIONS Page 8
ISSUES & IMPACTS
Business Perspective
Food-based businesses are typically the groupmost affected by EPSordinances. City staff
worked with the Chamber of Commerce to contact several localfood-basedbusinesses to better
understand their perspective on this issue. Initially, a small group of businesses were contacted
directly to discuss the issues. Based on those conversations, a survey wasdeveloped that was
sent to a largergroup of businesses in the City. In total, feedback was received by 20 local
businesses.
The businesses were grouped into threecategories for analysis.
Group1: Businesses thatno longer use EPS food containers, but had in the past.
Group2: Businesses that have not used EPS food containerssince the businessbegan.
Group3: Businesses that currently use EPS food containers.
Businesses in Group1 generallycitedowner/managementpreference as the main reason for
switching away from EPS food containers. Also, those businesses saw an approximate15-60%
increase in cost associated with switching to another product. Those businesses noted increased
customer satisfaction as well as increased consumer prices as the main effects of switching.
Group2 businesses chose not to use EPS food containers for a variety of reasons including
owner/managementpreference, customerpreference and environmental and health concerns.
Businesses in Group3 generally use EPS food containers because it is less expensivethan
alternatives. Some businesses also indicated concerns with the performance of alternative
containers. The concerns involve both the rigidityof the containers with hot foods orliquids and
poor insulating properties. Concerns about an EPS ordinance from thesebusinesses included
increased costs and additional regulationson private business.
This outreach effort was intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive of the issues and concerns
of the business community on this issue. If desired, additional, in-depthoutreach to the business
community canbe included as a part of the City Council direction on this issue. Thesurvey and
results are included as Attachment2.
SS1 - 8
Attachment 1
PH1 - 16
Polystyrene Study Session Page 9
Cost Comparison
In 2012, the City of San Jose completed a cost comparison of EPS products to alternatives as a
part of a county-wide effort to regulate EPS. The results of that analysis are below:
Material Cups Plates Clamshell Container
EPS $0.035 $0.056 $0.09
Rigid Plastic $0.026 $0.083 $0.25
Paper $0.055 $0.02 $0.28
Molded NaturalFiber n/a $0.064 $0.22
Compostable Plastic $0.07 $0.15 $0.33
Alternatives to EPS cups ranged from 26% less expensive to 50% more expensive. The range for
plateswas 35% less expensive to 63% more expensive for EPS alternatives. Alternatives to EPS
clamshell containers ranged from 59% to 73% more expensive. Staff comparedtheresults of the
City of San Jose analysis to some local prices and found generalconcurrence with the findings.
Outcomes of Regulation
Classification of litter canbe verytime intensive and expensive. As a result, there is relatively
little data on theoutcomes of EPSordinances. There are, however, some observational studies
that have documented results. Those include:
The City of Santa Cruz observed a 50% decrease in EPS food and drink containers
picked up during annual beach and river cleanupsbetween 2007-2012.
One year afterimplementation of the City of San Franciscoordinance that prohibits
EPS food and drink containers, the City’s litter audit showed a 36% decrease in EPS
litter.
POLICY TYPES
As referenced in the research section, there are severalelements that may be included in
ordinances regulating EPS. Tofacilitate discussion, staff has grouped those various elements into
four policy types. Below is a graphic illustrating those policy types and the associatedscope of
the regulations listed in order of increasing level of affectedproducts.
SS1 - 9
Attachment 1
PH1 - 17
Polystyrene Study Session Page 10
Type 1: The first type of ordinance focuses only on food and drink carrying EPS
containers. This would notinclude clear, rigid polystyrene containers. This would
also notinclude any food serviceware items such as straws, cup lids, or utensils.
Type 2: The second type of ordinance is a restriction on EPS food and drink
containers as well as all other food containers that are non-recyclable, non-
compostable or non-reusable. This would not include clear, rigid polystyrene
containers as it recyclable in the County. This would also notinclude any food
service ware items such as straws, cup lids, or utensils.
Type 3: The nexttype of ordinance is one that prohibits EPS food and drink
containers as well as all other food containers that are non-recyclable, non-
compostable or non-reusable. In addition, this type of ordinance includes restrictions
on straws, cup lids, utensils and other similar products.
Type 4: The last type of ordinance includes all of the previously stated restrictions,
but also prohibits the retail sale of any product that is made with EPS that is not
wholly encapsulated or enclosed. This generally includes foam plates, cups, packing
peanuts”, smaller foam ice coolers (those not clad in plastic), pool toys and other
products that maynot be directly associated with food service.
IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
The following implementation and enforcement strategies were common among cities and
counties with EPS ordinances of all types:
Type 1: EPS food and
drink containers
Type 2: EPS and non-sustainable
food and drink containers
Type 3: Above and non-sustainable
food service ware
Type 4: Above and retail sale of EPS
containersand other non-enclosed products
SS1 - 10
Attachment 1
PH1 - 18
Polystyrene Study Session Page 11
Several cities held initial stakeholder meetings and included current restaurant product
suppliers andwaste haulers in addition to neighborhood associationsand food vendors.
Clear definition of items covered by the ordinance isimportant for effective
implementation. This allows for clarity to vendors affected andmakes enforcement
easier.
Gradual implementation of an ordinance, up to a year in length, increased effectiveness.
This allows for outreach and a phase-in timeto providefood vendors and others timeto
use up their existing stock of containers.
Sending mailings to affected vendors to inform them of ordinance’s scopecanincrease
compliance andreduce theamount of enforcement needed. In addition to thehearing
process, these mailings were sent out between the passing of ordinance and its
implementation, as well as at least one mailing after the implementation date.
Workshops were held to inform affected businesses and included vendors of alternative
products. This was helpful for educational purposes, but can also help establish
relationships betweenthe affected businesses and thesuppliers of the needed
replacements.
In the case of the ordinance having multiple parts or categories, staggering the
implementation has proved to be effective.
In some cities, a purchasing co-op was created so that small businesses can take
advantage of having access to bulk suppliers. Smaller local businesses often are more
affected by the increased costs of alternative products, and this can help offset the overall
cost.
Different strategies for implementation, comprised of the above options, for the different
types of ordinances can range from 40 to 1000 staff hours to complete.
On-going enforcement is typically complaint based andcan account for 10% of the time
for a full time employee for Type1 ordinances and 50% or more of the time for a full
time employee for Type4 ordinances.
SS1 - 11
Attachment 1
PH1 - 19
Polystyrene Study Session Page 12
FOCUS QUESTIONS FOR COUNCILDIRECTION
In conclusion, staff has provided the following table with focusedquestions tofacilitate Council
direction:
Questions for Council Direction
Yes No
Pursue an ordinance regulating the use of EPS
Include EPS food containers
Include all non-recyclable, non-compostable, non-reusable food containers
Include all non-recyclable, non-compostable, non-reusable food serviceware
utensils, cup lids, straws, etc.)
Include the retail sale of EPS products (coolers, packing “peanuts,” etc.)
Include exception for undue hardship
Include an “in lieu of fine” program
The staff presentation on September 2, 2014, will include a similar decision matrix to help focus
Council direction.
FISCAL IMPACT
It is estimated that the workto prepare an Ordinance using the traditional outreach and public
engagement approach would be approximately 250 hours or $10,500 in staff and public outreach
costs which can be absorbed through existing resources. Costs for implementation and on-going
enforcement are dependent on City Councildirection and the scope of an adopted ordinance and
may require additional resources.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the study session if more information is necessary in order to providedirection to
staff onpreparing an EPS ordinance.
2. Bring an ordinanceback to the City Council as soon as possible and limit public outreach
efforts. Thisis not recommended as the City’s public outreach efforts bring valuable input
to the Ordinance preparation process andhave become an integral and expected component
of any such effort.
ATTACHMENTS
1. California Cities and Counties with Polystyrene Ordinances
2. Business Survey
chstore6\team\council agenda reports\2014\2014-09-02\environmentally friendly food container (johnson-hermann)\polystyrene study session
agenda report.docx
SS1 - 12
Attachment 1
PH1 - 20
Attachment 1
California Cities and Counties with VariousPolystyrene Ordinances
Alameda (2008)
Albany (2008)
Aliso Viejo (2005)
Belmont (2012)
Berkeley (1988)
Burlingame (2011)
Calabasas (2008)
Capitola (2012)
Carmel (1989)
Carpenteria (2008)
Cupertino (2014)
Dana Point (2012)
Del Ray Oaks (2010)
El Cerrito (2014)
Emeryville (2008)
Fairfax (1993)
Foster City (2012)
Fremont (2011)
Half Moon Bay (2011)
Hayward (2011)
Hercules (2008)
Hermosa Beach (2012)
Huntington Beach (2005)
LagunaBeach (2008)
Laguna Hills (2008)
Laguna Woods (2004)
Livermore (2010)
Los Altos (2014)
Los Altos Hills (2012)
Los Angeles City (2008)
Los Angeles County (2008)
Malibu (2005)
Manhattan Beach (2013)
Marin County (2010)
Marina (2011)
Mendocino County (effective 2015)
Menlo Park (2012)
Millbrae (2008)
Mill Valley (2009)
Monterey City (2009)
Monterey County (2010)
MorganHill (2014)
Mountain View (2014)
Newport Beach (2008)
Novato (2013)
Oakland (2007)
Ojai (2014)
Orange County (2006)
Pacific Grove (2008)
Pacifica (2010)
Palo Alto (2010)
Pittsburg (1993)
Portola Valley (2012)
RedwoodCity (2013)
Richmond (2014)
Salinas (2011)
San Bruno (2010)
San Carlos (2012)
San Clemente (2011)
San Francisco (2007)
San Jose (2014/2015)
San Juan Capistrano (2004)
San Leandro (2012)
San Mateo City (2013)
San Mateo County (2008/2011)
San Rafael (2013)
Santa Clara County (2013)
Santa Cruz City (2012)
Santa Cruz County (2012)
Santa Monica (2007)
Sausalito (2008)
Scotts Valley (2009)
Seaside (2010)
Sonoma City (1989)
Sonoma County (1989)
South San Francisco (2008)
Sunnyvale (2013)
Ventura County (2004)
Walnut Creek (2014)
Watsonville (2009/2014)
WestHollywood (1990)
Yountville (1989)
SS1 - 13
Attachment 1
PH1 - 21
Polystyrene Business Survey
1 11
38.46%5
61.54%8
Q1 Has your business ever used or does it
currently use polystyrene or Styrofoam™
for food or drink containers?
Answered:13 Skipped:0
Total 13
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes
No
Attachment 2
SS1 - 14
Attachment 1
PH1 - 22
Polystyrene Business Survey
2 11
60.00%3
40.00%2
Q2 Do you still use polystyrene or
Styrofoam™for food ordrink containers?
Answered:5Skipped:8
Total 5
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes
No
SS1 - 15
Attachment 1
PH1 - 23
Polystyrene Business Survey
3 11
50.00%1
50.00%1
0.00%0
0.00%0
Q3 What was your main reason for
switchingto another product?
Answered:2 Skipped:11
Total 2
Owner/managemen
t preference
Customer
preference
Environmental
concerns
Health concerns
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Owner/management preference
Customer preference
Environmental concerns
Health concerns
SS1 - 16
Attachment 1
PH1 - 24
Polystyrene Business Survey
4 11
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
50.00%1
0.00%0
0.00%0
50.00%1
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
Q4 What was the approximate percentage
increase in costs associated with
switching?
Answered:2 Skipped:11
Total 2
No increase
10%or less
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40-50%
50-60%
60-70%
70-80%
80-90%
90-100%
More than 100%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
No increase
10%or less
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40-50%
50-60%
60-70%
70-80%
80-90%
90-100%
More than100%
SS1 - 17
Attachment 1
PH1 - 25
Polystyrene Business Survey
1 1
Q5 Has the change hadany positive or
negative effects on your business?
Answered:2 Skipped:11
Responses Date
1 Pros cons Attractiveto environmental conscience customers but increased costs 8/17/2014 4:29 PM
2 raised prices 8/7/2014 4:41 PM
SS1 - 18
Attachment 1
PH1 - 26
Polystyrene Business Survey
6 11
100.00%1
100.00%1
100.00%1
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
100.00%1
100.00%1
Q6 Please provide your contact
information if you'd like to stay updated on
the status of the City's research on this
topic.
Answered:1 Skipped:12
Answer Choices Responses
Name:
Company:
Address:
Address 2:
City/Town:
State:
ZIP:
Country:
Email Address:
PhoneNumber:
SS1 - 19
Attachment 1
PH1 - 27
Polystyrene Business Survey
7 11
100.00%5
20.00%1
0.00%0
Q7 What are your main reasons for using
polystyreneor Styrofoam™for food or
drink containers?
Answered:5Skipped:8
Total Respondents:5
Less expensive
than...
Alternative
productsdo
No interest in
switching
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Less expensive thanalternatives
Alternativeproducts do not meetneeds
No interest in switching
SS1 - 20
Attachment 1
PH1 - 28
Polystyrene Business Survey
1 1
Q8 What concerns would you have should
an ordinance be passed?
Answered:3 Skipped:10
Responses Date
1 Taking away freedom of choice.8/17/2014 4:30 PM
2 Increased Costs 8/6/2014 8:19 PM
3 More regulations on privet business.8/1/2014 9:33 AM
SS1 - 21
Attachment 1
PH1 - 29
Polystyrene Business Survey
9 11
100.00%1
100.00%1
100.00%1
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
100.00%1
100.00%1
Q9 Please provide your contact
information if you'd like to stay updated on
the status of the City's research on this
topic.
Answered:1 Skipped:12
Answer Choices Responses
Name:
Company:
Address:
Address 2:
City/Town:
State:
ZIP:
Country:
Email Address:
PhoneNumber:
SS1 - 22
Attachment 1
PH1 - 30
Polystyrene Business Survey
10 11
81.82%9
36.36%4
36.36%4
9.09%1
Q10 Do you have any specific reasons for
notusing polystyreneor Styrofoam(TM)
food and drink containers?
Answered:11 Skipped:2
Total Respondents:11
Owner/managemen
t preference
Customer
preference
Environmental
concerns
Health concerns
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Owner/management preference
Customer preference
Environmental concerns
Health concerns
SS1 - 23
Attachment 1
PH1 - 31
Polystyrene Business Survey
11 11
100.00%2
100.00%2
100.00%2
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
100.00%2
100.00%2
Q11 Thank you for taking the time to
complete this survey.Please provide your
contact information if you'd like to stay
updated on the status of the City's
research on this topic.
Answered:2 Skipped:11
Answer Choices Responses
Name:
Company:
Address:
Address 2:
City/Town:
State:
ZIP:
Country:
Email Address:
PhoneNumber:
SS1 - 24
Attachment 1
PH1 - 32
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of May 18, 2015, 1:27 PM
As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily
representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of May 18, 2015, 1:27 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2708
Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers and Products
What do you think of the proposed ordinance to regulate the use of expanded polystyrene food containers and
products?
Attachment 2
PH1 - 33
As of May 18, 2015, 1:27 PM, this forum had:
Attendees:62
All Statements:25
Hours of Public Comment:1.3
This topic started on April 30, 2015, 12:00 PM.
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of May 18, 2015, 1:27 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2708 Page 2 of 7
Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers and Products
What do you think of the proposed ordinance to regulate the use of expanded polystyrene food containers and
products?
Attachment 2
PH1 - 34
Name not available (unclaimed)May 13, 2015, 4:53 PM
I think it's another opportunity for SLO to prove that we are moving towards a sustainable community. We have
been a leader in so many environmental efforts. Let's add another to our list of accomplishments. Good
substitutes exist and will contribute greatly to a cleaner community/planet. It's time and I am all for it!
Jackie Crane, SLO
Name not available (unclaimed)May 13, 2015, 3:43 PM
Yes, get rid of these products for our children's future. Help our environment.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 (on forum)May 13, 2015, 3:16 PM
I am all for this ordinance. There really is no reason anyone should be using these items when alternatives are
available. We should all be doing what we can to keep our planet clean.
Name not available (unclaimed)May 13, 2015, 3:14 PM
This is long overdue. In a town where I can't get a plastic bag (good call), it feels stupid filling up my styrofoam
cup with soda when I'm out for lunch.
Name not available (unclaimed)May 13, 2015, 2:29 PM
I'm Alex from chili peppers and I am against the foam ban. The decision wold hurt my business because I'm
already paying so many taxes. Intstead of hurting businesses, why don't we promote businesses? The city
should look for. A solution that works for both of us like allowing us to recycle the foam instead.
Name not available (unclaimed)May 13, 2015, 2:27 PM
I'm Alex from chili peppers and I am against the foam ban. The decision wold hurt my business because I'm
already paying so many taxes. Intstead of hurting businesses, why don't we promote businesses? The city
should look for. A solution that works for both of us like allowing us to recycle the foam instead.
Name not available (unclaimed)May 7, 2015, 3:07 PM
There's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't happen. It is not a sustainable product nor recyclable, and
Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers and Products
What do you think of the proposed ordinance to regulate the use of expanded polystyrene food containers and products?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of May 18, 2015, 1:27 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2708 Page 3 of 7
Attachment 2
PH1 - 35
there's plenty of alternatives. Businesses can retort there's an issue with costs, but I think customers would be
happy to pay 5-10 cents more so they don't get their food in polystyrene. I will actually avoid taking out at
restaurants if I know they use polystyrene. Chili Peppers actually warms up your food in polystyrene, so I have
stopped going there. Banning these food containers is a positive step forward, and one that is in sync with what
makes SLO, SLO!
Name not available (unclaimed)May 7, 2015, 12:44 AM
Thank you addressing this pollutant. 'Cheap' doesn't solve societal issues, good planning and foresight is our
focus. Please support this new regulation.
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods (on forum)May 6, 2015, 9:06 PM
I support this ordinance. We all need to do more to cut down on trash that goes into the landfill, especially if it
does not break down.
Name not available (unclaimed)May 6, 2015, 5:07 PM
I'm so glad this passed and that the regulations will reflect the Council approval of the strictest kind of ban. I just
wish other cities in the County were on board, but we'll work on that after the regulations are passed.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 5 (on forum)May 6, 2015, 2:09 PM
I believe this is a good idea the City should adopt to work in conjunction with the plastic bag ban as we all
become more "green".
However, I would suggest that for every new regulation passed, another regulation that is deemed to be
ineffective, unnecessary, or cost/time prohibitive be removed from the books.
The genius of this strategy is that it will eliminate the worst regulations, even if only to create new ones. It would
diminish and/or stop the increase in regulation and that would be a huge step in the right direction.
Name not available (unclaimed)May 6, 2015, 1:33 PM
This is a no-brainer. Now how to get the entire county on board. I bring my own container when eating out so if I
have left overs I do not need to ask for a container. Please educate the county on this.
Barry Rands inside Neighborhood 12 (on forum)May 6, 2015, 10:40 AM
Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers and Products
What do you think of the proposed ordinance to regulate the use of expanded polystyrene food containers and products?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of May 18, 2015, 1:27 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2708 Page 4 of 7
Attachment 2
PH1 - 36
I am all for it. I try to avoid styrofoam products as much as possible, knowing that much of this horrible stuff
ends up in our creeks and oceans. And even if it is disposed of properly, it ends up in landfill, because it is not
recyclable. Bravo to the City Council for having the foresight to get this ban implemented!
Janine Rands inside Neighborhood 12 (on forum)May 6, 2015, 10:11 AM
I'm thrilled that our SLO CIty Council has fully endorsed the ban of Styrofoam! Being a coastal city, we should
not be contributing to the trash that feeds into our creeks, river and ultimately the Ocean. I have spoken to many
restaurants and people who serve/eat out of Styrofoam, and most are totally unaware why Styrofoam is bad to
eat out of: one of the components - Styrene, a known carcinogen, leaks into the food, particularly when it is hot,
acidic or oily. Along with the birds and wildlife, we too are being poisoned!
Janine Kennel Rands
SLO FOAM FREE Chair
Name not available (unclaimed)May 6, 2015, 9:36 AM
I'm thrilled we are finally going to potentially ban polystyrene containers! There are alternatives that are
sustainable, affordable, protect the environment, and ultimately our health. If any thing I would say we are
behind the curve, many cities have banned the use of polystyrene with little or no impact on commerce. This is
a no brainer.
Name not available (unclaimed)May 6, 2015, 9:19 AM
I am all for this sort of ordinance. Please take this action - it is environmentally responsible.
Name not available (unclaimed)May 6, 2015, 9:17 AM
No to Styrofoam! There are many better options: foil, cornstarch, even recyclable plastics are better than that
toxic stuff. Come on, SLO county - we can do better!
Name not available (unclaimed)May 6, 2015, 8:50 AM
I am all for the banning of polystyrene food containers in San Luis Obispo and believe it is in line with the ideals
of helping the local environment, and the health and well being of the citizens as a whole.
Mary Wood inside Neighborhood 10 (on forum)May 6, 2015, 8:32 AM
Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers and Products
What do you think of the proposed ordinance to regulate the use of expanded polystyrene food containers and products?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of May 18, 2015, 1:27 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2708 Page 5 of 7
Attachment 2
PH1 - 37
I am all for it. Thank you for taking this action.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 11 (on forum)May 6, 2015, 7:57 AM
I think this is a wonderful idea. We shouldn't be using materials that are non recyclable, and can damage our
environment further.
Jennifer randall outside Neighborhoods (on forum)May 6, 2015, 7:34 AM
This seems like a no brainer. There are alternative containers and products to use instead of something that is
clearly a polluting substance and not recyclable in this area!
I would gladly pay 10 cents more for a sustainable container, something recyclable when one is needed. Just
like bags.
These are important forward steps in a better community and healthier earth and population.
I always refuse styrofoam wherever I go.
If that's all a restaurant has, I usually go somewhere else or bring my own container.
Styrofoam is bad!
Nancy Terrell outside Neighborhoods (on forum)May 6, 2015, 7:31 AM
I absolutely agree with this proposal. It is a travesty to see all that styrofoam go in the trash. I actually think this
does not take it far enough, by allowing some companies to continue to use it. It should be gone altogether.
Unless we were able to start recycling it here. I know that is possible elsewhere, but not here for some reason.
My company switched many years ago and the cost increase was minimal. I think it actually encourages
customers we would not have had otherwise. I personally don't like take out from places that currently use
styrofoam. I think they are just uninformed and wouldn't mind switching if they knew the harm they were doing.
Name not available (unclaimed)May 6, 2015, 6:32 AM
I welcome the switch to products that replace the use or expanded polystyrene and am glad that our city is
looking into implementing an ordinance to require it.
Name not available (unclaimed)May 6, 2015, 6:17 AM
I am all for a ban on polystyrene. Many other communities have one so. This product is bad for people and
bad for our environment. It is also ugly and does not add to the experience of eating here in San Luis Obispo.
Having all restaurants be held to the same standard would make it more fair for all. Thank you for considering
this regulation.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 5 (on forum)May 5, 2015, 4:57 PM
Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers and Products
What do you think of the proposed ordinance to regulate the use of expanded polystyrene food containers and products?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of May 18, 2015, 1:27 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2708 Page 6 of 7
Attachment 2
PH1 - 38
Why not do this? There are a number of alternatives available and many businesses have already made the
switch. Protection of creeks and open spaces as well as environmental sustainability are core values for our
community and I'm glad to see policies come forward that support that. I'm fully in favor of this ordinance.
Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers and Products
What do you think of the proposed ordinance to regulate the use of expanded polystyrene food containers and products?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of May 18, 2015, 1:27 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2708 Page 7 of 7
Attachment 2
PH1 - 39
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PH1 - 40
Attachment 3
ORDINANCE NO. #### (2015 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADDING
CHAPTER 8.06 TO THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE
REGULATING EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE FOOD CONTAINERS AND
PRODUCTS
WHEREAS, The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) has the police power to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the community, including the ability to protect and enhance the
natural environment; and
WHEREAS, according to the California Department of Transportation, EPS comprises
approximately 15% of storm drain litter. A study published in 2011 found that 71% of all the
plastic flowing through the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers is foam. It is the second most
common form of beach debris in California, according to a study conducted in Orange County.
Also, several studies approximate that plastic products, including expanded polystyrene, make up
80-90% of floating marine debris; and
WHEREAS, the City is situated entirely within the 84 square mile San Luis Obispo
Creek Watershed. The City’s watershed and creek system are important natural resources as
exemplified in various policies of the City’s General Plan. As part of the City’s natural resource
program, the City performs regular creek clean-ups. During these clean-ups, the City finds and
discards a significant amount of expanded polystyrene products such as clamshell containers,
cups and plates. These products break apart into small pieces and ultimately flow to the Pacific
Ocean contributing to concerns related to water quality and habitat protection both within the
creek system as well as the marine environment; and
WHEREAS, items made from expanded polystyrene are not biodegradable,
compostable, or recyclable locally. Expanded polystyrene breaks into small pieces and because it
is lightweight, may be picked up by the wind even when it has been disposed of properly; and
WHEREAS, expanded polystyrene as litter is highly durable. Expanded polystyrene
litter is present in City parks and public places, streets and roads, waterways and storm drains
which may ultimately float, or be blown, into the Pacific Ocean; and
WHEREAS, marine animals and birds often confuse expanded polystyrene with pieces
of food, and when ingested, it can impact their digestive tracts, often leading to death; and
WHEREAS, expanded polystyrene is manufactured from petroleum, a non-renewable
resource; and
WHEREAS, expanded polystyrene is not recycled at the Cold Canyon Landfill and there
are no current plans to recycle it;
WHEREAS, take-out food packaging that is biodegradable, compostable, and recyclable
is the most responsible and sustainable choice for the City’s tourist economy, its citizenry and its
PH1 - 41
Attachment 3
environment. When products are recycled, natural resources are spared, less energy is used for
the production of new products, and landfill space is preserved; and
WHEREAS, regulating the use of expanded polystyrene products will maximize the
operating life of landfills; and
WHEREAS, regulating the use of expanded polystyrene products within the City will
help protect the City’s natural environment from contamination and degradation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a study session
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 2, 2014, and directed staff to develop an ordinance to prohibit the use of expanded
polystyrene food or drink containers and the retail sale of non-encased expanded polystyrene
products; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 2,
2015, for the purpose of considering the addition of Chapter 8.06 to the Municipal Code to
prohibit the use of expanded polystyrene food or drink containers and the retail sale of non-
encased expanded polystyrene products; and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein
by this reference as the findings of the City Council.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The proposed ordinance is exempt from the
environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because it can
be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a
significant effect on the environment. Further, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA on
the separate and independent ground that it is an action of a regulatory agency (the City) for the
protection of the environment because, among other things, it will regulate the use and sale of
expanded polystyrene products and reduce the amount of expanded polystyrene products that
enter local landfill and waterways. Thus, this Ordinance is categorically exempt from the
requirements of CEQA under Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as
an action by a regulatory agency for the protection of the environment.
SECTION 3. Action. Chapter 8.06, establishing regulations to prohibit the use of
expanded polystyrene food or drink containers and the retail sale of non-encased expanded
polystyrene products, is hereby added to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code as follows:
PH1 - 42
Attachment 3
Chapter 8.06 – EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE
8.06.010 - Definitions.
The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall have the meanings
defined in this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
A. “Affordable" means that a biodegradable, compostable or recyclable product may cost up to
15 percent more than the purchase cost of comparable EPS alternatives.
B. “ASTM Standard” means meeting the standards of the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) International Standards D6400 or D6868 for biodegradable and compostable
plastics, as those standards may be amended.
C. “Biodegradable” means Compostable (separately defined) or the ability of organic matter to
break down from a complex to a more simple form through the action of bacteria or to undergo
this process.
D. “City Facility” means any building, structure or vehicle owned and operated by the City of
San Luis Obispo, its agents, agencies, and departments.
E. “City Contractor" means any person or entity that enters into an agreement with the City to
furnish products or services to or for the City.
F. “Compostable” means all the materials in the product or package will break down, or
otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g. soil-conditioning material, mulch). Compostable
disposable food containers must meet ASTM Standards for compostable materials.
G. “Disposable Food Container" is interchangeable with “to go” packaging and “food packaging
material” and means all containers that are used to hold Prepared Food or drinks. Disposable
Food Containers include clamshells, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, and cups that are intended for
single use, including without limitation, food containers for takeout foods and/or leftovers from
partially consumed meals prepared by Food Providers. This does not include single-use
disposable items such as straws, cup lids, or utensils, nor does it include single-use disposable
packaging for unprepared foods.
H. “Events Promoter” means an applicant for any event permit issued by the City or any City
employee(s) responsible for any City-organized event.
I. “Expanded Polystyren e” or EPS means blown expanded and extruded polystyrene or other
plastic foams which are processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to,
fusion of monomer spheres (expanded bead plastic), injection molding, foam molding, and
extrusion-blown molding (extruded foam plastic). Expanded polystyrene and other plastic foam
is generally used to make cups, bowls, plates, trays, clamshell containers, meat trays, ice chests,
shipping boxes and packing peanuts.
PH1 - 43
Attachment 3
J. “Expanded Polystyrene Products” means any item such as coolers, ice chests, cups, bowls,
plates, clamshells containers, shipping boxes, or any other merchandise made from expanded
polystyrene that is not wholly encapsulated or encased by a more durable material.
K. “Food Provider” Means any establishment located within the City, that is a retailer of
Prepared Food or beverages for public consumption including, but not limited to any store,
supermarket, delicatessen, restaurant, shop, caterer or mobile food vendor.
L. “Person” means an individual, business, Event Promoter, trust, firm, joint stock company,
corporation, non-profit, including a government corporation, partnership, or association.
M. “Prepared Food” means food or beverages, which are served, packaged, cooked, chopped,
sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed or otherwise prepared within the City. Prepared Food
does not include raw, butchered meats, fish and/or poultry sold from a butcher case or similar
food establishment.
N. “Recyclable” means any material that is specified in the franchise agreement with the City’s
solid waste removal provider including, but not limited to aluminum, tin and bi-metal cans, clear
and colored glass containers, High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Polyethylene Terephthalate
(PET), clear or rigid polystyrene, corrugated cardboard and mixed paper.
O. “Vendor” means any store or business which sells or offers goods or merchandise, located or
operating within the City of San Luis Obispo, including those referenced in and “Food Provider.”
8.06.020 – Expanded Polystyrene Disposable Food Containers Prohibited.
A. Food Providers within the City of San Luis Obispo may not provide Prepared Food in or
provide separately any Disposable Food Container made from Expanded Polystyrene ,
except as exempted in Section 8.06.050.
B. Disposable Food Containers made from Expanded Polystyrene are prohibited from use in
all City Facilities.
C. City Contractors in the performance of City contracts and Events Promoters may not
provide Prepared Food in Disposable Food Containers made from Expanded Polystyrene.
8.06.030 - Required Biodegradable, Compostable, or Recyclable Disposable Food
Containers.
A. All Food Providers within the City utilizing Disposable Food Containers shall use
Biodegradable, Compostable or Recyclable products.
B. All City Facilities utilizing Disposable Food Containers shall use Biodegradable,
Compostable or Recyclable products.
C. City Contractors and Events Promoters utilizing Disposable Food Containers shall use
Biodegradable, Compostable, or Recyclable products while performing under a City
contract or permit.
PH1 - 44
Attachment 3
8.06.040 - Prohibited Sales.
No Vendor or Events Promoter in the City may sell or otherwise provide any Expanded
Polystyrene Product which is not wholly encapsulated or encased within a more durable material,
except as exempted in Section 8.06.050. This specifically includes, but is not limited to, cups,
plates, bowls, trays, clamshells and other products intended primarily for food service use, as
well as coolers, containers, ice chests, shipping boxes, packing peanuts, or other packaging
materials.
8.06.050 – Exemptions.
A. The City Manager or designee, may exempt a Food Provider from the requirements set forth
in section 8.06.020(A) of this ordinance for a one-year period upon the Food Provider
showing, in writing, that this ordinance would create an undue hardship or practical difficulty
as evidenced by no alternatives being available or such alternatives are not Affordable. The
City Manager or designee shall put the decision to grant or deny a one-year exemption in
writing, and the decision shall be final.
B. Exemptions to allow for the sale or provision of Expanded Polystyrene Products may be
granted by the City Manager or designee, if the vendor can demonstrate in writing a public
health and safety requirement or medical necessity to use the product. The City Manager or
designee shall put the decision to grant or deny the exemption in writing and the decision
shall be final.
C. An exemption application shall include all information necessary for the City Manager or
designee to make a decision, including but not limited to documentation showing factual
support for the claimed exemption. The City Manager or designee may require the applicant
to provide additional information.
D. The City Manager or designee may approve the exemption application in whole or in part,
with or without conditions.
E. Foods prepared or packaged outside the City and sold inside the City are exempt from the
provisions of this chapter.
F. Raw meat, fish and other raw food trays are exempt from the provisions of this chapter.
G. Products made from Expanded Polystyrene which are wholly encapsulated or encased by a
more durable material are exempt from the provisions of this chapter. Examples include
surfboards, life preservers, and craft supplies which are wholly encapsulated or encased by a
more durable material, and coolers encased in hard plastic.
H. Construction products made from Expanded Polystyrene are exempted from this ordinance if
the products are used in compliance with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Title 15
Buildings and Construction and Chapter 12.08 Urban Storm Water Quality Management and
PH1 - 45
Attachment 3
Discharge Control and used in a manner preventing the Expanded Polystyrene from being
released into the environment.
I. In a situation deemed by the City Manager to be an emergency for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health or safety, City Facilities, Food Providers, City
Contractors and Vendors doing business with the City shall be exempt from the provisions of
this chapter.
J. Expanded Polystyrene packaging products which have been received from sources outside
the City may be reused to be kept out of the waste stream.
8.06.060 Violations.
A. Any violation of the provisions of this chapter by any person is subject to administrative
fines as provided in Chapter 1.24 of this code, which may be appealed pursuant to the
procedures in that Chapter 1.24.
B. For the first violation, the City Manager or designee may allow the violating Food Provider,
in lieu of payment of the administrative fine, to submit receipts demonstrating the purchase
after the citation date, of Biodegradable, Compostable, or Recyclable products in an amount
equal to the amount of the citation.
C. Food Providers or Vendors who violate this chapter in connection with City permitted special
events shall be assessed fines as follows:
1. A fine not to exceed $200 for an event of 1 to 200 Persons
2. A fine not to exceed $400 for an event of 201 to 400 Persons
3. A fine not to exceed $600 for an event of 401 to 600 Persons
4. A fine not to exceed $1,000 for an event of 600 or more Persons
B. In addition to other remedies provided by this chapter or by other law, any violation of this
chapter may be remedied by a civil action brought by the city attorney, including but not
limited to administrative or judicial nuisance abatement proceedings, civil or criminal code
enforcement proceedings, and suits for injunctive relief. The remedies provided by this
chapter are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the
remaining portions of this ordinance, or any other provisions of the city’s rules and regulations.
It is the city’s express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of
the fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared
invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 5. Effective Dates. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage,
in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of six (6) months after its final passage. A copy of the full text of this
PH1 - 46
Attachment 3
ordinance shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk on and after the date following
introduction and passage to print and shall be available to any member of the public.
INTRODUCED on the _____ day of _____________ 2015, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by
the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _____ day of ____________ 2015, on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH1 - 47
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PH1 - 48
THENewspaper of the Central Coast
MBUNE
I
MAY 2 6 2015 �
I O CIfr �'r is Ci d
I I
3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406 -0112 • (805) 781 -7800
In The Superior Court of The State of California
In and for the County of San Luis Obispo
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
AD # 1746440
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss.
County of San Luis Obispo
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not
interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at
all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned
was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of
THE TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general Circulation,
printed and published daily at the City of San Luis
Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice
at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was
published in the above -named newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit;
MAY 22, 2015 that said newspaper was duly and
regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of
general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior
Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on
June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code
of the State of California.
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
(Signatu of Principal Clerk)
DATED: MAY 22, 2015
AD COST: $145.20
0WRLMOSisPo
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
,The San Luis Obispo City Council invites
ail interested persons to attend a public
hearing on Tuesday, June 2, 2015, at
4:00 p.m. In the City Hall Council Cham-
ber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
Callfornla, relative to the following:
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE
REGULATit JG Ei[PANDED POLYSTYR
.... _...-. -- STY
ENE FOOD CONTAINERS AND PROD-
UCTS
A public hearing to consider adoption of ah
ordinance adding Chapter 8.06 to the San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code prohibiting the
use of expanded polystyrene food and
drink containers and the retail sale of non -
encased expanded polystyrene products,
For more information, you are invited to
contact Greg Hermann of the City's Corn -
munity Development Department at (805)
781 -7194 or by email at gh,®rmanrlgslaekty
-prg_
The City Council may also discuss other
hearings or business items before or after
the Items listed above. If you challenge the
proposed projects In court, you may be lim-
ited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing
descrtbad in this notice, or in written corre-
spartdence delivered to the City Council at,
or prior to, the public hearings.
Reports for this meeting will be available
for review in the City Clark's Office and on-
llne at www.Stoctly qrg on Wednesday,
May 27, 2015. Please call the City Clerk's
Office at (805) 781 -7100 for more informa-
tion. The City Council meeting will be tele-
vised live ord Charter Cable Channel 20
and live streaming on www.slocitv.orci.
Anthony J. Mejia
City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
May 22, 2015 1746440
Expanded Polystyrene Food
Containers and Products
City Council – June 2nd, 2015
1
Recommendation
Introduce an Ordinance adding Chapter 8.06 to the
Municipal Code prohibiting the use of expanded
polystyrene food or drink containers and the retail sale
of non-encased expanded polystyrene products.
2
Background
March 2014 - City Council direction to explore
regulations for expanded polystyrene
General Plan, Climate Action Plan, storm water
regulations
September 2014 - City Council Study Session
Policy review
Approaches from other agencies
Ordinance options
3
Council Direction
Develop a city-wide ordinance to regulate the use of
EPS products including:
All food and drink containers
The retail sale of other non-encased EPS products
Exemptions for undue hardship
4
Polystyrene
Expanded Polystyrene
Not recycled
Clear/rigid Polystyrene
Recycled
5
Expanded Polystyrene (EPS)
Lightweight
material
Breaks down into
small pieces
Difficult and
expensive to clean
up
Persists in the
environment
6
7
8
Business Impacts
9
Material Cups Plates Clamshell
Container
EPS $0.035 $0.056 $0.09
Rigid Plastic $0.026 $0.083 $0.25
Paper $0.055 $0.02 $0.28
Molded
Natural Fiber
n/a $0.064 $0.22
Compostable
Plastic
$0.07 $0.15 $0.33
Alternative Food Ware Packaging Report, City of San Jose, 2012
Environmental Benefits
Santa Cruz documented a 50% decrease in EPS food
and drink containers picked up during annual beach
and river cleanups between 2007-2012.
San Francisco’s litter audit showed a 36% decrease in
EPS litter one year after the implementation of their
ordinance.
10
Community Outreach
Foam Free SLO (7/29/14, 2/25/15, 4/25/15)
Surfrider Foundation
Sierra Club
Business Survey (8/2014)
Business Forum with the Chamber of Commerce (4/2/2015)
Chamber of Commerce Issues Evaluation Committee (4/9/2015)
Notification to food providers (5/1/2015)
Open City Hall (5/4-15/15)
Individual meetings and phone calls
Key Elements
EPS food and drink containers
Prohibits retail food providers within the City from
providing food or drink in containers made from EPS
Includes City facilities and permitted special events
Use sustainable alternatives (biodegradable, compostable
or recyclable)
Key Elements
Retail sale of EPS
Prohibits the retail sale of EPS products which are not
wholly encapsulated or encased within a more durable
material
Key Elements
Exemptions – Food Providers
Business may be exempted for undue hardship if:
Alternatives are not available
Alternatives are not affordable
15% more than an EPS product
Meat and fish trays
Foods prepared or packaged outside of the City
Key Elements
Exemptions – Retail Sales
Products containing EPS which are wholly encased within
a more durable material
Construction materials
Public health and safety concerns or for medical
necessity
Reused packing materials
Implementation & Enforcement
Implementation
The ordinance will take effect six months after final
adoption
Warnings will take place for an additional six months
Informational webpage and brochure
Enforcement
Complaint-based
Follow administrative violation process
First violation: warning, 30 days to resolve
Second violation: fine not exceeding $100
Option of $100 purchase of acceptable product
Recommendation
Introduce an Ordinance adding Chapter 8.06 to the
Municipal Code prohibiting the use of expanded
polystyrene food or drink containers and the retail sale
of non-encased expanded polystyrene products.
17
Expanded Polystyrene Food
Containers and Products
City Council – June 2nd, 2015
18
Acceptable Alternatives
Recyclable
Plastics #1-7
Cardboard
Paper (coated or non-coated)
Aluminum foil
Compostable/biodegradable
Products that meet ASTM Standards
THENewspaper of the Central Coast
�UNE
JUN! rp(116
SLO CT Y CA_CRK
3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406-0112 • (805) 781 -7800
In The Superior Court of The State of Cal ifornia
In and for the County of San Luis Obispo
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
AD # 1779013
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Luis Obispo
10, CMOF
&MLIMSOBIM
ORDINANCE NO. 1617 (2015 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.
CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 8.06
TO THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL
ss. REGULATING EXPANDED POLYSTYR-
ENE FOOD CONTAINERS AND PROD-
UCTS
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not
interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at
all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned
was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of
THE TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general Circulation,
printed and published daily at the City of San Luis
Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice
at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was
published in the above -named newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit;
JUNE 10, 2015 that said newspaper was duly and
regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of
general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior
Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on
June 9; 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code
of the State of California.
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true Qand correct.
(SignatUIVOf Principal Clerk)
DATED: JUNE 10, 2015
AD COST: $149.60
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, Call -
lomla, at Its Regular Meeting of June 2,
2016, introduced the above titled ordinance
upon a motion. by CounclI Member Christi-
anson, second by Vice Mayor Ashbau9b,
and on the following roll call vote,
AYES: Council Member Carpenter, Christi-
anson, Rlvoire, Vice Mayor Ashbaugh, and
Mayor Marx
NOES: None
Drdlnsnrp_- No,_1_51,7 (2015 Series) - This. is
a C1ty Ordinance to add Chapter 8.06 to
the Municipal Code to prohibit the use of
expanded polystyrene food or drink contain-
ers and the retail safe of non - encased ex-
panded polystyrene products. This Ordi-
nance also includes exemptions for the re-
tall sale of certain expanded polystyrene
products and an undue hardship exemp-
tion for food providers.
A full and complete copy of the afommen-
Iloned Ordinance is available for inspection
and copy in the City Clerk's Office, located
at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CaN-
fomia, or you may call (805) 781 -7100 for
more information.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN
that the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo will consider adopting the aforemen-
tioned Ordinance at its Regular Meeting of
June 16, 2015 at 6'00 p.m., which will be
held in the Council Chamber, located at
g90 Palm Street, San Luls Obispo, Califor-
nia.
Anthony J. Melia
City Clerk
Jurne 10, 2015 1779013