HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-2017 Item 14 Review of Single-Use Plastic Water Bottle and Water Bottle Filling Station Regulations Meeting Date: 1/3/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Marcus Carloni, Special Projects Manager
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF SINGLE -USE PLASTIC WATER BOTTLE AND WATER
BOTTLE FILLING STATION REGULATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive a presentation on single-use plastic water bottle and water bottle filling station
regulations and policy options; and
2. Provide direction to staff regarding any changes to current policies and practices.
REPORT IN BRIEF
At the February 2, 2016 City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to agendize a
Study Session related to regulations for single-use plastic water bottles (“plastic bottles”) and the
addition of water bottle filling stations in the City. In particular, the City/County of San
Francisco’s Ordinance was directed to be used as a model. (Attachment A, City Council Meeting
Minutes). The purpose of this study session is for the City Council to provide specific policy
direction to staff so that additional outreach can occur and staff can craft an ordinance and
complete environmental review, as required dependent on the ultimate scope of the project.
Community members who spoke at the meeting cited concerns regarding the environmental
impacts associated with the resources required to manufacture plastic bottles which are used
once and subsequently end up as litter, in a landfill, or at a processing facility for recycling.
City Council discussion focused on having a Study Session to review plastic bottle regulations
and water bottle filling station efforts implemented in San Francisco as well as nationally. The
research section of the report focuses on a discussion of San Francisco’s regulations and also
provides an analysis and summary table of common policy elements found in four other
communities’ regulations.
Most agencies, including San Francisco, focus on environmental concerns throughout the
lifecycle of a plastic bottle as the basis for their regulations. The effort focuses on reducing
consumption of plastic bottles due to their associated natural resource depleting impacts during
manufacture/transportation as well as reducing the impacts associated with waste that ends up in
the landfill, as litter, or is recycled. The communities which were reviewed address regulating
plastic bottles in different ways, but the commonality is a limitation on the sale/use of single-use
plastic water bottles (referring to those constructed with recyclable Polyethylene Terephthalate
or PETE) by restricting the spending of city funds. The regulations also typically included a
concomitant commitment to the installation of water bottle filling stations.
This report also provides relevant City policies, information on state and local plastic bottle
Packet Pg. 277
14
recycling, discusses current City practices related to purchasing of plastic bottles and use of
water bottle filling stations, and also summarizes the results of a survey that was sent to
potentially affected businesses/events. The report concludes by providing questions to facilitate
City Council discussion and direction, should Council want to pursue policy and/or operational
changes.
CITY POLICY REVIEW
When considering new regulations, it is necessary to first review existing plans and policies to
determine if there is guidance within those items that can inform discussion and potential action
on new policies.
General Plan Policies
The General Plan does not specifically address the use of plastic bottles or water bottle filling
stations, but does have a number of related policies/goals (provided below) which recognize the
City’s responsibility for efficient use of materials and recycling while also acknowledging its
role in encouraging residents and businesses to do so as well.
1. Conservation & Open Space Element (COSE) Policy 2.2.5. Model City. The City will be
a model of pollution control efforts. It will manage its own operations to be as pollution
free as possible. The City will work with other agencies and organizations to help educate
citizens in ways to prevent air pollution.
2. COSE Policy 4.6.3. Sustainable design in City facilities. Incorporate conservation and
sustainable energy sources and features in existing and new City facilities.
3. COSE Goal 5.2: Efficient use of materials. The City will use materials efficiently in its
buildings and facilities, services and operations, and encourage others to do the same
4. COSE Policy 5.4.1. Best available practices. The City will employ the best available
practices in materials procurement, use and recycling, and will encourage individuals,
organizations and other agencies to do likewise. “Best available practices” means
behavior and technologies that, considering available equipment, life-cycle costs, social
and environmental side effects, and the regulations of other agencies: A. Use the least
amount of newly refined materials for a desired outcome; B. Direct the largest feasible
fraction of used materials to further use; C. Avoid undesirable effects due to further use
of materials.
5. COSE Policy 5.4.2. Material recycling in City facilities and operations. The City will set
a community example for waste diversion and material recycling in City facilities,
services and operating systems to achieve a goal of 100 percent recycling of paper,
bottles and cans and require similar goals in contracts and procurement for public goods
and services and capital improvements.
6. COSE Policy 5.5.2. Promote City materials reuse and recycling. The City will manage its
Packet Pg. 278
14
operations to foster reuse and recycling by: A. Avoiding use of inks, papers, and plastics
that inhibit recycling or that produce pollutants in preparation for recycling.
7. COSE Policy 5.5.3. Coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts. The City will
coordinate local, and participate in regional, household and business waste-reduction and
recycling efforts.
Climate Action Plan
The San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a policy document that provides a road map
to achieve the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. According to the CAP, the majority of
local emissions reductions come from building efficiency, transportation, and waste reduction
strategies. Although not specifically contemplated as a strategy in the CAP, decreasing plastic
bottle usage and increasing the use of reusable alternatives decrease the GHG emissions
associated with manufacture and transport of single use bottles.
Additionally, reduced consumption of single-use plastic bottles can reduce the amount of plastic
bottles that end up as litter or in the landfill, consistent with the CAP’s Solid Waste Chapter
which has an ultimate goal of reducing the amount of waste that ends up in the landfill. The solid
waste chapter identifies strategies to increase the community’s waste diversion rate; the amount
of material diverted from the landfill which can then be recycled, composted or reused. These
strategies help reduce the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with transport
and decomposition of waste.
Revenue and Finance (Municipal Code Title 3)
Title 3 of the City’s Municipal Code provides purchasing policies for “environmentally preferred
purchases” (Municipal Code Section 3.24.075) which indicate the intent of the City Council that
the City take a leadership role in recycling its waste products as well as the purchase of recycled
products for use in the delivery of City services. Specifically, section E (below) requires the
purchase of equipment, supplies, and services that result in less harm to the natural environment.
Section 3.24.075.E. City departments shall examine their purchasing specifications and, where
feasible, purchase equipment, supplies, and services that result in less harm to the natural
environment. This involves the purchase of equipment, supplies, and services in a manner that
uses less harmful materials, employs recycled or recovered materials (where appropriate and
available), and utilizes techniques intended to result in less impact on the environment than other
available methods
Packet Pg. 279
14
-San Francisco Quick Facts-
Ban on drinking water
bottles
21 ounces or less
Locations: (not citywide)
- City/County Property:
offices, facilities, parks,
streets, sidewalks
- Events on City/County
Property (when permit is
required with
attendance exceeding
100 persons)
Exceptions:
- Participants in
“Participant Athletic
Events” (e.g. marathon)
- Infeasible, no reasonable
alternative, undue
hardships.
Policy to increase
availability of drinking
water in public areas
(filling stations, drinking
fountains, water hook-
ups).
Phased implementation
timeline (2014 to 2018)
RESEARCH
San Francisco Ordinance No. 28-14 (Attachment B)
Adopted in 2014, San Francisco amended their environmental
code to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic water bottles (21
ounces or less) on City/County property only (e.g. facilities,
parks, streets and sidewalks); including events held on City
property. The Ordinance did not include any restrictions for
businesses or events on private property (i.e. not a city/county-
wide ban. This is accomplished by barring the use of
City/County funds for purchase of bottled water and placing
restrictions on new leases, permits, or other agreements on
City/County property awarded by the City and County of San
Francisco.
The Ordinance also modified City/County policy to increase the
availability of drinking water in public areas, especially public
parks frequently used for special events. The modified policy
requires capital improvement projects in parks, plazas,
playgrounds, or other public spaces to install bottle-filling
stations, drinking fountains, and/or potable water hook-ups for
public use, as feasible and proximate with the scale/scope of the
project. The policy also encourages the inclusion of bottle-filling
stations/drinking fountains for public use in privately-owned
public open spaces. Currently San Francisco has about 40 bottle
filling stations installed or planned for installation in public
areas.
Consistent with the majority of other plastic bottle regulations, San Francisco cites
environmental reasons for implementing the ban, specifically reducing the production of waste
from plastic bottles. The San Francisco Ordinance strives to reduce consumption of plastic
bottles due to the “tens of millions of single-use plastic water bottles from San Francisco that end
up in the recycling stream, or landfill annually.” The Ordinance further indicates environmental
impacts from the petroleum, energy, and pollution associated with production, transportation,
and processing (e.g. recycling) of the bottles. San Francisco also notes the regulation and quality1
of San Francisco’s tap water supply and the lower cost of tap water as compared to bottled water.
1 San Francisco Ordinance No. 28-14. Section 2. Finding (h): “In the United States, public water is regulated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which requires multiple daily tests for bacteria and makes results
available to the public. The Food and Drug Administration, which regulates bottled water, only requires weekly
testing and does not share its findings with the EPA or the public.
Packet Pg. 280
14
Approaches from Other Agencies
In addition to San Francisco, a range of communities with adopted plastic bottle regulations were
reviewed to study the scope and methods for implementation and enforcement. Four
communities were selected for further discussion herein due to the amount of information
available on their regulations; the full text of each is provided in Attachment C. A breakdown of
common elements found in these regulations is provided below which is preceded by a summary
table which compares the key elements of the different regulations. Furthermore, a table of
communities which have implemented bans across the United States is provided for reference in
Attachment D.
Most communities focus on the environmental concerns of natural resource depletion and
associated plastic bottle waste at a national and local level as the basis for an ordinance
including:
1. Producing bottles for American consumption requires an estimated equivalent of more
than 17 million barrels of oil, not including the energy for transportation, requiring 3
liters of water to produce each single liter of bottled water, and producing more than 2.5
million tons of carbon dioxide (Seattle, WA).
2. Depletion of water from aquifers used to fill plastic water bottles (Concord, MA)
3. Americans purchase of 31 billion liters of water (2006) mostly sold in PET bottles
requiring nearly 900,000 tons of plastic produced from fossil fuels (Seattle, WA).
4. Reducing dependence on plastics that end up in the waste stream; estimated to end up as
litter or in the landfill more often than they are recycled (Concord, MA)
5. An estimated two million tons of plastic water bottles end up in landfills each year (San
Francisco).
6. High number of plastic bottles ending up in the landfill take several hundred years to
decompose (San Francisco)
7. Local policies associated with reducing waste and greenhouse gas emissions such as San
Francisco’s “zero waste” policy.
8. Use of reusable bottles, drinking fountains, and water bottle filling stations produce an
insignificant amount of waste as compared to single-use bottles (San Francisco).
Most ordinances have several common/key elements including:
1. Focus: The majority of communities regulate plastic water bottle sale/use on their own
property by restricting use of their funds for purchase of bottles and prohibiting the use at
certain special events
2. Phasing: a period of time is given to allow time for affected businesses to adjust to the
requirements before a ban is in effect.
3. Exemptions: Waivers and exclusions are authorized by those with authority to issue
permits and are provided to allow flexibility in locations, such as parks, that do not
currently have convenient access to safe drinking water. Exemptions are also provided to
ensure public health, safety, and welfare during times of emergency (including
degradation to the public water supply). San Francisco, in particular, requires annual
reporting of all issued exemptions.
Packet Pg. 281
14
4. Water Bottle Filling Stations: Encourage additional drinking fountains and water bottle
filling stations in community buildings and throughout the community.
5. Fines: Fine structures are established for those who do not comply with the restrictions of
the ban. Generally, the structure begins at a warning with subsequent escalating fines.
Some communities have additional elements which further specify the scope of their regulations
including:
1. Focus on the use/sale of plastic water bottles of varying sizes (21 to 34 ounces and less).
2. Regulations do not include a ban of soda or flavored/carbonated beverages contained in
plastic bottles (note: these bottles are manufactured with the same type of plastic as water
bottles) (note: research indicates this may be due to the ability to provide alternative
access to water (e.g. water bottle filling stations) and also because certain communities
had already implemented a tax on soda).
Other considerations addressed by communities include:
1. Toronto exempted all authorized special events in City facilities and parks from the ban.
2. Concord, MA is the only community in the United States to ban the retail sale of water in
plastic bottles. The towns ban took effect in January 2013 and regulates the retails sale of
single-use plastic (PETE) bottles of 34 ounces or less.
3. Chicago, IL instituted a tax in January 2008. The $0.05 per bottle tax applies to the retail
sale of bottled water (plastic and glass) sold within City limits.
Outcomes of Regulation
There is relatively little data on the outcomes of plastic water bottle regulations. However,
commonly occurring criticism of the regulations include concerns related to restricting the
sale/use of the “healthy option” (i.e. water) rather than restricting the sale/use of the “less
healthy” option (i.e. soda and other sugar-sweetened bottled beverages) and that reducing
availability of the healthy option increases consumption of the less healthy option. This topic
was a part of a focused study conducted at the University of Vermont by the American Journal of
Public Health in July 2015 (see Attachment G).
The subject study examined how the removal of bottled water on a university campus, along with
the implementation of a minimum healthy beverage requirement, affected the purchasing
behavior, healthiness of beverage choices, and consumption of calories and added sugars of
university campus consumers. Utilizing shipment data for all bottled beverages sold to the
university, the study reviewed consumption habits over three semesters (Spring 2012: before the
regulations, Fall 2012: during transition to a 30% healthy beverage availability requirement,
Spring 2013: bottled water removed as an option).
The study found that when bottled water was banned, the per capita number of bottles shipped to
campus increased significantly; indicating that the ban did not reduce the number of bottles
entering the waste stream from the university. The study also suggests that consumers not only
continued to buy bottled beverages but also made less healthy beverage choices after the
regulations were in place. It should be noted that the University of Vermont made an effort to
provide alternative water sources by retrofitting sixty drinking fountains with spouts to fill
Packet Pg. 282
14
reusable bottles, accompanied by a marketing campaign. Also, as noted in the study, it is limited
by the short duration of data collection (only collecting one semester of data during full
implementation of the bottled water ban) and further research would be needed to better
understand whether consumers adjust their behavior over time to make healthier beverage
choices. The long-term observations may reveal that the potential negative impact of banning
bottled water is a short-term setback.
Packet Pg. 283
14
The chart below compares the key elements of ordinances from the agencies selected for research.
Packet Pg. 28414
Plastic Bottle Recycling
According to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in 2013 there
were approximately 21 billion California Refund Value (CRV) eligible containers that were sold,
more than 18 Billion of which were recycled. The remaining 3 billion end up in landfills or as
litter. CalRecycle indicates that recycling reduces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in
the air by limiting the need to manufacture new products from raw materials; for every 10
pounds of clear plastic water or soda bottles, 3.3 pounds of carbon emissions disappear.
Beverages sold in plastic bottles (water, soda, or other) are made of PETE (also PET) which
stands for Polyethylene Terephthalate and is a form of polyester.2 PETE is commonly made
(recycled) into flakes and pellets which are used in carpet, fiberfill/geotextiles, strapping,
molding compounds, and food/non-food containers.3 At the local level, CalRecycle estimates4
that within the City of San Luis Obispo approximately 13,306,000 PETE bottles were purchased
in fiscal year 2015-16 with 5,404,000 (or 41%) of those bottles being recycled; indicating that a
large number of PETE plastic bottles purchased within the City end up as litter or in the landfill.
Countywide, the recycling rate of PETE increases to 52%.
CURRENT CITY PRACTICES
Use of City Funds for Purchase of Bottles. Current City policy does not explicitly restrict the
usage or sale of single-use plastic water bottles on City property or at City events. Generally
plastic water bottles and soda bottles/cans are purchased for use at City events (workshops or
other gatherings), advisory body and City Council meetings, and are vended in some City
offices.
Water Availability. The majority of City buildings have water available from drinking fountains
or from water fillers attached to a break-room sink.
At least one drinking fountain can be found in all City parks with the exception of approximately
8 of the smallest parks (e.g. Cheng Park located at Santa Rosa Street and Marsh Street).
Water Bottle Filling Stations. The Public Works Department (Parks Maintenance and Facilities
Maintenance) has a current practice to install water bottle filling stations in City parks and
facilities as feasible. For example: when existing park-located drinking fountains reach the end
of their useful life they are replaced with a fountain with a typical drinking fountain and a water
bottle filling station. Currently the City has four water bottle filling stations as pictured below:
2 National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR), PET Sustainability, 2015. Available at:
http://www.napcor.com/PET/sustainability.html
3 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Plastics Recycling - Polyethylene
Terephthalate, 2016. Available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Plastics/Markets/PETEProfile.htm
4 Estimate based on PETE bottles sold throughout California in fiscal year 2015 -16 with per capita sales applied to
San Luis Obispo’s City/County population. Recycling rate based on PETE from recycling centers and Cold Canyon
Processing Facility.
Packet Pg. 285
14
LOCAL BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE
A bottled water ban
similar to that of San
Francisco could impact
businesses/events in San
Luis Obispo that operate
on City property;
including streets,
sidewalks, parks, and
City buildings. This
would include businesses
that operate at Farmer’s
Market and events such
as Concerts in the Plaza
and the SLO Marathon.
To aid the City Council
in decision making, staff designed a survey, using San Francisco’s Ordinance as a model. The
survey was sent to businesses/event purveyors (with 63 responses) that would be potentially
affected by plastic water bottle regulations. The results of the survey are provided as Attachment
E and a summary is provided below. Note: totals exceed 100% because respondents were
allowed to select more than one option.
Seven core questions were asked of the respondents with intent to obtain an understanding of 1)
the types/sizes of plastic bottles being used, 2) if the sale of beverages in plastic bottles was a
significant component of the business/event, and 3) if the respondent would be concerned with
restrictions on the sale of plastic bottles at City events/on City property.
1) The majority of respondents (60%) did not sell beverages contained in plastic bottles.
Select all that apply. Currently my business sells (or plans to sell in the future)
the following:
Water Soda Flavored/ Carbonated
water or similar
We don’t sell
beverages in
plastic bottles
Santa Rosa Park (2) City Hall Police Station (retrofit)
Packet Pg. 286
14
2) 37% sold water contained in plastic bottles
3) The majority of bottles sold (including water, soda, and other types) ranged from 12 to 16
ounces.
4) The majority of respondents (68%) indicated the success of their business did not depend on
the sale of beverages contained in plastic bottles while 16% indicated “yes” and 16%
indicating “somewhat."
5) Respondents were split between being concerned and not being concerned with the passage
of regulations banning the sale of plastic bottles at City events/on City property:
a) 45% were not concerned with the passage of a ban
b) 43% were concerned with passage of a ban
c) 12% were neutral
6) The general reasons provided in the survey for being concerned with passage of a ban are
paraphrased below:
a) Costumers want to buy the product/Bottled water sale is a notable portion of the profit
margin
b) Athletic type events have participants who need access to water
c) Less convenient/No convenient alternative
d) Recycling addresses the problem
e) Too many local regulations
f) Eliminating drinking water bottles encourages consumption of a less healthy
alternative (e.g. soda).
It is also important to note that, although not expressed in the survey responses, non-profit
groups use city facilities to host fundraisers and a potentially significant portion of the revenue
generated during these events may arise from the sale of bottled water.
IMPLEMENTATION
If the City Council’s direction is to prepare regulations limiting the use/sale of single-use plastic
water bottles on City property/at City events and encouraging the use of water bottle filling
stations similar to that of San Francisco’s Ordinance, the additional steps needed to complete the
project are as provided below:
1. Focused Outreach and Meetings. Debrief after receiving City Council direction and
obtain input from interested parties and impacted Departments.
2. Create Initial Draft Language. Hold meetings to obtain internal input and create draft
regulation language.
3. Community Outreach. Broad public outreach to review and discuss proposed language
using the City of San Luis Obispo’s Public Engagement and Noticing Manual.
4. Draft Final Language. Create draft regulations for review at Council Hearing.
5. City Council Review. City Council review of draft regulations.
Public Engagement and Noticing Manual (PEN Manual)
The City’s PEN Manual is designed to improve communication efforts and increase public
participation on topics that affect them; providing steps to take for broadening public outreach.
Packet Pg. 287
14
The subject project is identified as a “consult” project in the PEN Manual’s Action Plan Matrix
(see Attachment F) which provides the level of complexity and communication objective
depending on the project type. A consult project includes a number of outreach tools with
strategies to implement said tools. Outreach tools for consult include, but are not limited to,
official legal notification (e.g. newspaper), electronic notification and website posting, public
survey, focus groups/public input meetings, working with key contacts/liaisons, and study
session(s). See Attachment F for all “expectation” and “additional” outreach tools provided in
the consult category).
FOCUS QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
Staff has provided the following focused questions to facilitate City Council direction to help
guide the City Council in their deliberations:
Questions for City Council direction
Yes No
(Focus) Restrict the use/sale of single-use plastic water bottles
1. At City facilities only (e.g. City offices, City Council meetings)
2. On all City owned property (e.g. facilities, parks, structures on city owned
land)
a. Include streets and sidewalks in definition of City property
3. At events held on City property
a. Only events held by the City
b. Only events that require a permit from the City
(Filling Stations) Modify the current practice for installation of water
bottle filling stations
1. Increase the number available within City facilities
2. Increase the number available within City parks
3. Modify requirements for filling stations in private developments with
public spaces
4. Include water bottle filling stations as feasible in appropriate Capital
Improvement Projects
(Phasing) Establish a phased approach to implementing regulations
(e.g 3-months for City departments to phase out bottled water purchases, 6-
months for outreach to businesses/events, 6-months enforcement without fines)
(Exemptions) Establish waivers and exclusions to allow flexibility
(e.g. locations with limited access to water, undue hardship, emergencies)
(Fines) Establish fine schedule for compliance
(e.g. follow typical administrative fine schedule)
The staff presentation at the Study Session will include a similar decision matrix to help focus
Council direction.
Packet Pg. 288
14
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Upon City Council direction staff will review the project’s consistency with the California
Environmental Quality Act and provide an environmental determination for City Council review.
For reference, San Francisco determined their Ordinance is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act per section 15060(c)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines which indicates that
“a project is not subject to CEQA if the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
The work to prepare regulations using the traditional outreach and public engagement approach
can be absorbed through existing resources.
If the City Council decides to increase the number of water bottle filling stations beyond the
current practice, there would be an additional cost. The typical park water bottle filling station
with attached drinking fountain (similar to that installed at Santa Rosa Park) has an installed cost
ranging from $4,000 to $5,000. The higher number includes an estimated variable cost increase
if the drinking fountain does not have an existing water line or sanitary sewer line for the
drinking fountain (some of the older drinking fountains used a “sump style” draining system
which is no longer compliant with modern Health and Safety Codes). Modifying an indoor wall
mounted drinking fountain to include a water bottle filling station (similar to that installed in the
Police Station) has an approximate installed cost of $2,500.
Costs for implementation, on-going enforcement, and installation, and replacement are
dependent on City Council direction and the scope of regulations and may require additional
budget and resources. It should be noted that through careful outreach and thoughtful and
deliberate roll out, the City has been able to achieve good compliance with the City’s Expanded
Polystyrene (EPS) Ordinance through use of existing resources.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the study session if more information is necessary in order to provide direction to
staff on preparing an ordinance.
2. Direct Staff to return with an ordinance to the City Council as soon as possible and limit
public outreach efforts. This is not recommended as the City’s public outreach efforts
bring valuable input to the Ordinance preparation process and have become an integral and
expected component of any such effort and will help with eventual roll out of an ordinance.
Packet Pg. 289
14
Attachments:
a - City Council Meeting Minutes
b - San Francisco Ordinance No 28-14
c - Regulations from Other Agencies
d - Table of Communities with Plastic Bottle Regulations
e - Survey_City of San Luis Obispo Local Business Perspective
f - PEN Manual Action Plan Matrix
g - American Journal of Public Health Study - University of Vermont
Packet Pg. 290
14
sir
Council Minutes
City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday,
February 2, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor
Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and John Paul Maier, Assistant City Clerk; were present
at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as
indicated in the minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with uncommon structured buildings that
satisfy tourists' interests; inquired about the City Council's allegiance to developers and high
profile projects; voiced concerns regarding the City's water resources for development projects.
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section
54956.9:
No. of potential cases: One.
San Luis Obispo Page 1Packet Pg. 291
14
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 2, 2016 Page 2
A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the local agency
on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a
significant exposure to litigation against the local agency. The existing facts and
circumstances exposing the City to litigation include allegations by ARH Quicky
Investments, LLC regarding ownership of a well located at 1460 Calle Joaquin, San Luis
Obispo. A letter, dated January 21, 2016, from the property owner's attorney is on file
with the City Clerk.
ADJOURN TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 2, 2016
Packet Pg. 292
14
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 2. 2016 Page 3
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday,
February 2, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Dan Carpenter, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor
John Ashbaugh, and Mayor Jan Marx.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager; and
John Paul Maier, Assistant City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff
members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Christianson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Dietrick stated that there was no reportable action, noting that the City Council
directed staff to agendize Item A for consideration in open session at the February 16, 2016 City
Council meeting.
INTRODUCTION
1. MIGUEL BARCENAS - UTILITIES ENGINEER AND MICHELLE BULOW -
SUPERVISING ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
Utilities Director Mattingly introduced Supervising Administrative Assistant Bulow and
Utilities Engineer Barcenas and provided brief introductions.
PRESENTATION
2. PRESENTATION BY JOHN FOWLER PRESIDENT & CEO OF PEOPLE'S SELF-
HELP HOUSING, REGARDING AN UPDATE ON LOCAL HOUSING MARKET
John Fowler, President and CEO of People's Self -Help Housing narrated a PowerPoint
presentation entitled "Local Update Regarding and State Housing and Community
Development Programs, Initiatives and Budgets" and responded to City Council inquiries.
Packet Pg. 293
14
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 2 2016 Pa<,c a
3. PRESENTATION BY FIRE CHIEF OLSON AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
GRIGSBY REGARDING WINTER STORM PREPAREDNESS
Fire Chief Olson and Public Works Director Grigsby narrated a PowerPoint presentation
entitled "City of San Luis `El Nino' Preparation" and responded to City Council inquiries.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Barbara Frank, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns regarding the Rental Housing Inspection
Program; opined that surrounding counties do not have an inspection program; stated that most
cities inspect properties when there is a citizen complaint.
William Derrin er, San Luis Obispo, distributed a packet regarding his dogs Shadow and
Pebbles; voice concerns about the City's open space policy; opined that aggressive dogs should
not be off leash in City parks, revealing that an aggressive dog that was not on a leash attacked
his dog.
Jeff Eideliiian, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of a letter submitted to the California State
University (CSU) about limiting the number of students that will be attending Cal Poly in the
future; requested that the City Council agendize an item at a future City Council Meeting,
relating to limiting the enrollment of students at Cal Poly.
Pamela Werth, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns regarding the use of dangerous or toxic
poisons at City parks; opined that the City did not provide adequate signage waring the public of
poisons being used to control ground squirrels at the park; stated that a feral cat and her nursing
kittens died after the mother cat ingested a dead ground squirrel.
Odile Aural, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns about the number of students at Cal Poly; urged
the City Council to agendize a CSU petition to limit the number of students at Cal Poly.
Heidi Harrison, San Luis Obispo, requested that the City Council agendize an item related to the
bail of single use plastic water bottles and the creation of refill infrastructure in the City; opined
that the ban will align with the City's Major City goals.
Carol Winger, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns regarding the housing project at Slack Street
proposed by Cal Poly; stated that she attended numerous meetings at Cal Poly regarding its
future growth, noting that this project was never mentioned.
Harry Busselen, San Luis Obispo, commended staff regarding the bicycle marking lanes on the
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Santa Rosa Street; voiced the importance of these markings,
indicating that it will help to reduce the number of accidents; suggested adding markings to
Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, spoke about the catastrophe in Los Angeles, relating to a large
gas leak; opined that the disaster was due to fracking.
Packet Pg. 294
14
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 2, 2016 Page 5
Jaiiinc Rands, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of "SLO Refills NOT Landfills'; encouraged
the City to install rehydration stations; recommended that the City Council ban the sale of single
use water bottles under twenty-one ounces.
Cory Jones, San Luis Obispo, urged the City Council agendize an item related to the ban of
single use plastic water bottles at City Events; encouraged the implementation of refill stations
throughout the City; opined that there is only one refill station in the City currently.
Linda White, San Luis Obispo, spoke about the City's neighborhood wellness; opined that
ordinances have been adopted to improve the quality of life in the neighborhoods; urged the City
Council to agendize a CSU petition to limit the number of students at Cal Poly.
Sharon Whitney, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the petition regarding limiting the number
of students at Cal Poly; encouraged the City Council to agendize this matter at a future meeting.
Helene Finger, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns regarding Meadow Street near the South
Hills Open Space; stated that the there is a fence blocking the public access to the open space;
requested that the City Council contact the property owner to remove the fence or agendize an
item to discuss any changes to the current City public easement that is in place.
Mayor Marx advised that Ms. Finger contact the City Attorney to discuss the public easement
matter.
Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo, spoke about a shelter crisis in the City; requested that the
City Council find a way to help assist the homeless who are in need of a shelter; noted that the
costs associated with providing a shelter are minimal.
Mila Vujovich-La Barre, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of endorsing the refillable water
stations in the City, the senior care facility proposed by the Madonna family on Froom Ranch
and the petition to limit the number of students at Cal Poly.
Kyle Jordan, San Luis Obispo, spoke about his experience being student in the City; voiced
concerns regarding the costs for housing in the City; opined that residents do not want students to
live in their neighborhood; requested that the City Council prioritize student housing.
In response to public comment, City Attorney Dietrick addressed Ms. Franks concerns regarding
the Rental Housing Inspection Program; stated that the City is aware of a case in Ohio, noting
that there was a ruling that the ordinance issued was unconstitutional based on a Federal and
Supreme Court precedent; noted that the ordinance adopted by the City Council was based on a
California Court of Appeals case.
In response to public comment, Assistant City Manager Johnson explained that San Francisco
was the first jurisdiction to ban the use of single use water bottles on city property and at city
events; noted that universities throughout the nation have taken a similar stance on this ban;
stated that this ban was not contemplated in our City's Climate Action Plan, noting that there are
efforts to reduce the overall waste stream; voiced that some City events use the single use water
bottles as a source of revenue for nonprofits that sell water at the events.
Packet Pg. 295
14
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 2 2016 Paize 6
In response to public comment, Assistant City Manager Johnson explained that the City has
several hydration stations installed throughout the City; stated that when a water fountain needs
replacing in the City, the Public Works department looks to see if a hydration system can be
installed.
In response to public comment, Public Works Director Grigsby addressed Ms. Werth's concerns
regarding poison used to control ground squirrels at City parks; stated that staff will provide Ms.
Werth and the City Council a response regarding the City's protocol and practices relative to the
use of chemicals at City parks in two weeks.
In response to public comment, Community Development Director Codron provided an update
regarding the City's housing project; stated the staff is in the process of preparing the
Environment Impact Report (EIR) for the Cal Poly Master Plan; noted that the draft EIR is not
ready for review at this time; stated that staff will proved an update to the City Council when it is
ready for review.
Mayor Marx reopened Public comment; indicated that the public comment period was not open
during the Winter Storm Preparedness presentation, Item 3; stated that there were two speaker
slips submitted for this item.
Steve Barasch, San Luis Obispo, submitted a speaker card and was not present during Public
Comment.
Harry Busselen, San Luis Obispo, spoke on Item 3; voiced concerns regarding the City's creeks,
flooding of creeks and fire protection; stated that flooding accumulates lots of debris in the
City's creeks; suggested that the City include in their utility billing inserts information about
flooding awareness along with fire protection awareness.
By consensus, the City Council directed staff to agendize a study session to consider approaches
to regulation of single use plastic water bottles, including work program and resource
prioritization impacts and desired scope of potential regulations.
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Consent Calendar Items 4 thru 6.
4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as
appropriate.
Packet Pg. 296
14
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of February 2 2016 Page 7
5. TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE & ON-CALL TRAFFIC MODELING SERVICES
STUDY RE VEST FORQUALIFICATIONS; SPECIFICATION NO. 91434
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to:
I. Approve the issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide "Traffic Model
Update & On-call Modeling Services, Specification No. 91434"; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to award a contract is within the proposed budget of
180,000; and
3. Authorize the Finance Director to execute and amend purchase orders for on-call
traffic modeling services purchase orders in an amount not -to -exceed the authorized
budget.
6. CALTRANS SPONSOR APPLICANT AGREEMENT WITH RACE SLO
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of support ("Support Letter") for the
2016 SLO Marathon + Half, and
2. Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a CalTrans Sponsor Application Agreement
Agreement") and supporting document ("Authorization Letter") with Get Off The
Couch, Potato Sports Productions, LLC authorizing the City of San Luis Obispo to serve
as the Sponsor Applicant for the CalTrans encroachment permit for the 2016 SLO
Marathon + Half.
BUSINESS ITEMS
7. ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL_ FINANCIAL REPORT.
SINGLE AUDIT REPORT, AND ANNUAL AUDIT OF TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FOR 2014-15
Glenn Burdette CPA Principal Allen Eschenbach, Assistant City Manager/Finance and IT
Director Johnson, and Senior Accountant Warner narrated a PowerPoint presentation
entitled "New Pension Accounting and Reporting Summary," and responded to the City
Council's inquiries.
Following discussion, MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, CARRIED 5-0 to receive and file the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report, Single Audit Report, and annual audit of the Transportation
Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 2104-15.
Packet Pg. 297
14
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of Februa 2 2016 Rage 8
LIAISON REPOR
Council Member Ashbaugh reported on a conference and other City activities.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 4:00
p.m., and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room and Council Chamber, respectively 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 03/15/2016
Packet Pg. 298
14
Packet Pg. 299
14
Packet Pg. 300
14
Packet Pg. 301
14
Packet Pg. 302
14
Packet Pg. 303
14
Packet Pg. 304
14
Packet Pg. 305
14
Packet Pg. 306
14
Packet Pg. 307
14
Packet Pg. 308
14
Packet Pg. 309
14
Packet Pg. 310
14
Packet Pg. 311
14
Packet Pg. 312
14
Concord, Massachusetts
Bylaw Article 32 and FAQ Sheet
Packet Pg. 313
14
TOWN OF CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS
SALE OF DRINKING WATER IN SINGLE-SERVE PET BOTTLES BYLAW
Section 1. Sale of Drinking Water in Single-Serving PET Bottles
It shall be unlawful to sell non-sparkling, unflavored drinking water in single-serving polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) bottles of 1 liter (34 ounces) or less in the Town of Concord on or after January
1, 2013.
Section 2. Exemption for Emergencies
Sales occurring subsequent to a declaration of an emergency adversely affecting the availability
and/or quality of drinking water to Concord residents by the Emergency Management Director or
other duly-authorized Town, Commonwealth or United States official shall be exempt from this
Bylaw until seven days after such declaration has ended.
Section 3. Enforcement Process
Enforcement of this Bylaw shall be the responsibility of the Town Manager or his/her designee.
The Town Manager shall determine the inspection process to be followed, incorporating the process
into other town duties as appropriate. Any establishment conducting sales in violation of this Bylaw
shall be subject to a non-criminal disposition fine as specified in Appendix A of the Regulations for
the Enforcement of Town Bylaws under M.G.L. Chapter 40, §21D and the Bylaw for Non-Criminal
Disposition of Violations adopted under Article 47 of the 1984 Town Meeting, as amended. Any
such fines shall be paid to the Town of Concord.
Section 4. Suspension of the Bylaw
If the Town Manager determines that the cost of implementing and enforcing this Bylaw has
become unreasonable, then the Town Manager shall so advise the Board of Selectmen and the
Board of Selectmen shall conduct a Public Hearing to inform the citizens of such costs. Subsequent
to the Public Hearing, the Board of Selectmen may continue this Bylaw in force or may suspend it
permanently or for such length of time as they may determine.
And to amend Appendix A of the Non-Criminal Disposition Bylaw by adding the following:
Bylaw Fine Schedule Fine Allowed Enforcement
Agency
Drinking Water in
Single-Serving PET
Bottles Bylaw
1st offense
2nd offense
3rd & each
subsequent offense
Warning
$25.00
$50.00
Town Manager’s
Designee
Passed by Counted Majority Vote
(403 voting in favor; 364 opposed)
Annual Town Meeting, April 25, 2012
Approved by Attorney General –September 5, 2012
Packet Pg. 314
14
Frequently Asked Questions about Interpretation and Enforcement of the Drinking Water in Single-
Serve PET Bottles Bylaw. Updated January 9, 2013
1. What is the effective date of the bylaw?
The bylaw becomes effective January 1, 2013.
2. How do I know which bottles are made of PET?
Almost all clear plastic bottles in which beverages are sold are made of polyethylene
terephthalate, also called PET or PETE. Bottles made of PET will have the number 1 and/or PETE
with the recycling symbol on the bottle. Recently, some beverages are starting to be sold in
clear bottles made of other plastics; these bottles do not have the number 1 and PETE included
in their recycling symbol.
3. What types of bottles are prohibited from sale under the bylaw?
The bylaw prohibits the sale of non-sparkling, unflavored drinking water in PET bottles of 1 liter
(34 ounces) in size or less.
Only bottles made from PET are prohibited from being sold. The sale of water in bottles made
from other types of plastics is allowed.
Only the sale of non-sparkling, unflavored drinking water in bottles of 1 liter or less in size is
prohibited. The sale of juice beverages, flavored waters, and sparkling water, in bottles of any
size, is allowed. Examples of these types of beverages include flavored waters such as
Vitaminwater®; sports drinks such as Gatorade®; energy drinks; seltzers and other sparkling
drinks; soda; juice; juice-flavored and artificially-flavored beverages; and bottled teas.
4. May unflavored water with added electrolytes or minerals be sold?
There are several brands of bottled non-sparkling water to which electrolytes and/or minerals,
but no flavoring, have been added. These brands include, but are not limited to, OWater and
SmartWater. If the water is unflavored, non-sparkling, and in bottles of 34 or less, it may not be
sold.
OWater and SmartWater (and possibly other brands) also produce electrolyte-added or mineral-
added water that is flavored. Bottles of flavored water products may be sold, regardless of size.
5. May cases of bottled water (for example, cases of 12 1-liter bottles or 24 12 oz. bottles) be
sold?
No. The sale of cases of small (<34 oz.) bottles of water is still a sale of “water in single serving
[PET] bottles …” regardless of how the bottles are packaged and labeled. If the individual
Packet Pg. 315
14
bottles in the case are 1 liter or less, and the product being sold is non-sparkling, unflavored
drinking water, the sale is prohibited, even though the bottles are packaged in case quantities.
6. May bottled water be offered for sale in vending machines?
No, not if the bottles are 1 liter in size or less and the product being sold is plain, non-sparkling,
unflavored drinking water in PET bottles.
7. May bottled water be offered for sale at civic events such as sports events, road races,
festivals, theater performances, catered events, and similar situations?
No, not if the bottles are 1 liter in size or less and the product being sold is plain, non-sparkling,
unflavored drinking water in PET bottles.
8. May bottles of water or cups of water be offered for free to patrons?
Yes. Only the sale of bottled drinking water is prohibited. Water may be provided for free in
any form.
9. May businesses to give away bottles of water but post a sign or put out a container asking
customers if they would like to make a voluntary donation?
No. By soliciting donations, a business is essentially asking for payment for the water, regardless
of whether the transaction is characterized as a sale or a donation.
10. How will the bylaw be enforced?
The Town Manager has designated the Health Division as the primary town agency who will
ensure compliance with the bylaw. Early in January 2013, Health Division staff will begin
inspections of retail stores, restaurants, and other venues that are likely to be selling bottled
beverages. Health Division staff will determine whether bottled water of 1 liter or less is being
offered for sale. If so, upon first inspection the business will be issued a written warning. Re-
inspection of businesses violating the bylaw will occur within one week. If bottled water is
being sold at the time of the second inspection, a Non-Criminal Citation with a fine of $25 will be
issued to the business. On the third and subsequent inspections, a Non-Criminal Citation with a
fine of $50 will be issued to the business if bottled water is being sold in violation of the bylaw.
11. What is the appeal process if I believe a Non-Criminal Citation has been issued to my business
in error?
The Town’s Bylaw Providing For Non-Criminal Disposition Of Violations Of Town Bylaws, and
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40, section 21D outlines the appeal process. Any person
who wishes to contest a Non-Criminal Citation may, within 21 days of receiving such citation, file
a written request for a hearing at District Court.
Packet Pg. 316
14
Seattle, Washington
Mayor’s Executive Order 02-08 and Implementation Guidelines
Packet Pg. 317
14
~ fflce of the Mayor
ity of Seattle
regory J. Nickels, Mayor
Executive Order: 02-08
Restrictions on Bottled Wiater
An Executive Order, directing that after December 31, 2008, City of Seattle funds may
no longer be used to purchase bottled water. To reduce the environmental impacts of
bottled water, the Executiv'e Order directs departments to eliminate the purchase and
se of single.;.serving and large-volume bottled water dispensers in most circumstances,
given the high-quality municipal water available.
WHEREAS, Americans bought a total of 31.2 billion liters of water in 2006 sold in
qottles, mostly made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), requiring nearly 900,000 tons
qf the plastic produced from fossil fuels; and,
WHEREAS, in 2006 it is estimated that producing the bottles for American consumption
~ qUired the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil, not including the energy for
t ansportation, requiring 3 liters of water to produce each single liter of bottled water,
nd producing more than 2.!5 million tons of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Seattle, Seattle Public Utilities, provides some of the highest-
9uality water in the nation e(~ual to or exceeding the quality of bottled water; and,
WHEREAS, the average pri(~e for bottled water is approximately $1 per pint (16 oz.)
bottle or $8 per gallon and the average price for Seattle water is only 1/3 of 1 cent a
~allon; and,
WHEREAS, bottled water is approximately 2,400 times more expensive than tap water;
~nd,
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2005, I launched the US Mayors Climate Protection
~greement to advance the goals of the Kyoto Protocol to address climate disruption by
nacting policies and programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction
t rget suggested for the Uni1:ed States in the Kyoto Protocol --7% reduction from 1990
levels by 2012,
executive Order 02-08
~estrictions on Bottled Water
1
Packet Pg. 318
14
order that, after December 31, 2008, City funds no longer be used to purchase bottled
water for use in City of Seattle facilities or at City of Seattle events.
FURTHERMORE, City implementation guidelines will be developed by the Fleets and
Facilities Department.
FURTHERMORE, upon request, Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) will inspect water quality
at City of Seattle facilities;
FURTHERMORE, by September 30, 2008, the Fleets and Facilities D~partment, or
other departments responsible for managing specific City of Seattle facilities, will
conduct an assessment for phasing out and replacing bottled water dispensers with thel
most environmentally responsible alternative that addresses any water-quality issues
that may exist in some facilities.
FURTHERMORE, exceptions may be made to this policy, in cases \ivhere there are no
reasonable alternatives to access safe drinking water; when there are hydration
requirements for employees working outside of City facilities; or othE~r legal or other
contractual reasons are present.
Executive Order 02-08
Restrictions on Bottled Water
2
Packet Pg. 319
14
IfURTHERMORE,
SPU will develop and execute an education campaign for City of
peattle employees and SPU customers on the economic and environmental benefits of
I~rinking water from the City's water supply and moving away from bottled water.
For inquiries regarding this Executive Order please contact SPU at 684-5800, option 2
l~atedthis~~~Of k~-~
,2008
Efxecutive Order 02-08
~estrictions on Bottled Water
3
Packet Pg. 320
14
Revised Bottled Water Implementation Guidance (10-29-08) 1
Revised Implementation Guidelines
for
Restrictions on Bottled Water
This document provides guidance to departments for the implementation of restrictions on bottled water, as
directed in the Executive Order 02-08 issued by Mayor Greg Nickels on March 13, 2008.
Bottled Water Restrictions
As directed by Executive Order 02-08:
Effective January 1, 2009, City of Seattle funds may not be used to purchase bottled water for City facilities
or events;
Departments are required to eliminate the use of single-serving and/or large-volume bottled water
dispensers (i.e., water coolers);
Departments that are responsible for managing specific City of Seattle facilities are required to conduct an
assessment for phasing out the purchase and use of bottled water/dispensers with the most
environmentally responsible alternative (see Appendix A) that addresses any water quality issues that may
exist in some facilities;
Departments that currently purchase bottled water or have a bottled water dispenser are required to phase
out the purchase and use of bottled water/dispensers by December 31, 2008.
Exceptions to these restrictions include:
Where there are no reasonable alternatives to access safe and drinkable water,
When there are hydration requirements for employees working outside of City facilities (i.e., fieldwork),
When legal or other contractual reasons are present, and/or
For emergency supplies or in the event of emergencies that affect access to potable water.
The Executive Order:
DOES NOT restrict City employees from privately purchasing bottled water for individual personal use;
however, it does not allow private purchase of water service for the office, unless otherwise authorized.
City employees are encouraged to take advantage of the City’s high quality water.
DOES NOT require departments to have bottled water removed from vending machines contracted by the
department.
Implementation Guidelines
If the department has concerns about replacing existing bottled water use with an environmentally responsible
alternative, the department should have its water tested to determine whether it is safe for drinking. If the water
is safe for drinking, the department should inform employees and proceed with discontinuing bottled water use.
If water is not safe for drinking the department will be responsible for incurring the cost of providing safe drinking
water to staff, and must utilize an environmentally responsible alternative to bottled water (see alternatives on
page 3, Appendix A). If an environmentally responsible alternative does not meet the needs of the department
or the department’s needs fall under one of the exceptions listed above, the department may request to be
waived from restrictions outlined in Executive Order 02-08.
Below are the steps for departments to implement the restrictions on bottled water in City facilities:
1. Assess existing bottled water purchasing and use practices.
Please use the questionnaire in Appendix B to assess the department’s existing use. Give a copy of the
completed questionnaire to Fleets & Facilities and the property manager(s) of your building(s), if
different.
2. Where appropriate and needed, determine whether your facility’s water is safe for drinking.
Please contact Seattle Public Utilities’ Water Quality Lab at 684-7834. The lab will determine whether
your building’s tap water needs to be tested or if it has been tested in the recent past and what the test
results were.
Packet Pg. 321
14
Revised Bottled Water Implementation Guidance (10-29-08) 2
3. Eliminate bottled water, or, as necessary, determine an environmentally responsible alternative.
If the tap water is determined to be safe for drinking and there are no significant aesthetic issues
(e.g., discoloration and/or unpleasant taste and odor), no further action is required of the department
and the department should discontinue bottled water use.
If tap water is determined to be unsafe for drinking, the department is responsible for providing safe
drinking water to staff and incurring the cost. The department must choose an environmentally
responsible alternative listed in Appendix A on page 3, unless alternatives do not meet the
department’s needs or needs fall under one of the exceptions listed on page 1. Departments should
choose the alternative that addresses the contaminants identified by SPU’s water quality test and is
appropriate for their business operations or needs.
If the tap water has significant aesthetic issues (e.g., discoloration or unpleasant taste or odor),
departments may implement an environmentally responsible alternative listed in Appendix A on page
3. Use the exemption request form in Appendix B to report to Fleets & Facilities and to property
management, if the property is not managed by Fleets & Facilities.
Bottled Water at City Events
Per Executive Order 02-08, City funds may not be used to purchase bottled water for any City events. It is
recommended that departments utilize pitchers or jugs of tap water at events.
Bottled Water for Field Work
To avoid heat-related illnesses in the outdoor environment, departments may continue to purchase bottled water
for employees working in the field where safe drinking water is not readily accessible. Washington
Administrative Code 296-62-09540 requires employers to provide and make at least one quart per employee per
hour of drinking water readily accessible when heat-related illness hazards are present. Jugs of tap water or
other alternatives should be considered.
More Information
For more information on the effects of using bottled water and the quality of Seattle’s tap water, see:
Water Quality: http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Water_System/Water_Quality/SPU03_001885.asp
Impact of Bottled Water: http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/News/News_Releases/SPU01_003484.asp
Help
If you need assistance with complying with the Mayor’s Executive Order, contact the Fleets & Facilities
Department, Facility Operations Division, Scott Minnix, Director, at 684-0142.
Packet Pg. 322
14
Revised Bottled Water Implementation Guidance (10-29-08) 3 Appendix A: Environmentally Responsible Alternatives The table below lists the acceptable environmentally responsible alternatives to bottled water. Departments should choose the alternative that addresses the contaminants identified by the SPU’s water quality test and is appropriate for their business operations or needs. Any filters should be replaced according to manufacturer directions/recommendations. For additional information regarding treatment methods and systems, please visit the National Sanitation Foundation drinking water treatment website at http://www.nsf.org/consumer/drinking_water/dw_treatment.asp?program=WaterTre or Green Guides article comparing treatment products at http://thegreenguide.com/reports/product.mhtml?id=23 Alternative (treatment system) Treatment Method Approximate Costs Recommended for: Carafe (e.g., Brita or PUR) Uses an adsorption filter (i.e., carbon, charcoal, KDF, or ceramic) to absorb contaminants or trap particles (greater than .2 microns) as water passes through. Carbon removes lead, chlorine byproduct, radon, solvents, and some pesticides, herbicides, and organic chemicals. In addition, absorbs odor and tastes. Does not remove heavy metals, arsenic, nitrates, bacteria, and/or microbes. Ceramic removes Bacteria, parasites, asbestos, and sediments. Unit: $15-35 Filter: $7-15 each Installation: NA Filters typically need to be replaced after filtering 40 gallons of water. This alternative/treatment system is appropriate for individuals and small groups that would like to address odor/taste issues or any of the contaminants listed under treatment methods. How often the filter needs to be changed will depend on how many staff use it, how many gallons of water are being filtered, and the amount of contaminants in water. Faucet Mount (e.g., PUR and GE SmartWater) Uses an adsorption filter (i.e., carbon, charcoal, KDF, or ceramic) to absorb contaminants or trap particles (greater than .2 microns) as water passes through. Carbon removes lead, chlorine byproduct, radon, solvents, and some pesticides, herbicides, and organic chemicals. In addition, absorbs odor and tastes. Does not remove heavy metals, arsenic, nitrates, bacteria, and/or microbes. Ceramic removes Bacteria, parasites, asbestos, and sediments. Unit: $25-85 Filter: $15-25 each Installation: $300/device Maintenance: $225/filter change Filters typically need to be replaced after filtering 100 gallons of water. Maintenance costs represent the cost of having building maintenance staff replace the filter. Filters may be able to be changed by staff. This alternative/treatment system is appropriate for larger groups that would like to address odor/taste issues or any of the contaminants listed under treatment methods. How often the filter needs to be changed will depend on how many staff use it, how many gallons of water are being filtered, and the amount of contaminants in water. Under Counter/Sink (e.g., Culligan, Aquasana, Pentek, etc.) Treatment method depends on model. Generally an adsorption filter or reverse osmosis is used. Models with adsorption absorb or trap contaminants. Models with reverse osmosis push water through a membrane and then flush away a Unit: $35-250 Filter: $10-50 each Installation: $300/device Maintenance: $225/filter change Reverse osmosis models are only recommended for departments that have nitrate and perchlorate present in their tap water. Reverse osmosis models are not recommended as a general alternative because of significant amount of water wasted and contaminants are flushed back into the water supply. Packet Pg. 32314
Revised Bottled Water Implementation Guidance (10-29-08) 4 few gallons of contaminant-containing water for every gallon purified. For adsorption models, carbon removes lead, chlorine byproduct, radon, solvents, and some pesticides, herbicides, and organic chemicals. In addition, absorbs odor and tastes. Does not remove heavy metals, arsenic, nitrates, bacteria, and/or microbes. Ceramic removes Bacteria, parasites, asbestos, and sediments. Reverse osmosis based models remove Nitrates, perchlorate, industrial chemicals, heavy metals, chlorine byproducts, arsenic, and asbestos. For carbon based models, filters typically need to be replaced after filtering 500-1000 gallons of water, depending on model. For reverse osmosis models, filters typically are recommended to be replaced every 6-12 months depending on use and amount of contaminants. This alternative/treatment system is appropriate for larger groups that would like to address odor/taste issues or any of the contaminants listed under treatment methods. How often the filter needs to be changed will depend on how many staff use it, how many gallons of water are being filtered, and the amount of contaminants in water. Counter and Floor Dispensers (Bottleless) These systems are generally plumbed in or connected to existing faucets to filter tap water. Treatment methods vary by model, but generally use a combination of methods including carbon, distillation, and/or reverse osmosis (see above options for info on carbon and reverse osmosis). Distillation boils water into steam and then condenses it back into water in a separate chamber. Carbon removes lead, chlorine byproduct, radon, solvents, and some pesticides, herbicides, and organic chemicals. In addition, absorbs odor and tastes. Does not remove heavy metals, arsenic, nitrates, bacteria, and/or microbes. Ceramic removes Bacteria, parasites, asbestos, and sediments. Distillation kills microbes and removes trivalent arsenic, fluoride, lead, and mercury. Reverse osmosis remove nitrates, perchlorate, industrial chemicals, heavy metals, chlorine byproducts, arsenic, and asbestos. Rental: $35-85/mo Installation: depends on vendor Maintenance: part of contract Generally, filters typically are recommended to be replaced every 3-6 months depending on use and amount of contaminants. Because water is wasted and contaminants are flushed back into the water supply, reverse osmosis systems are only recommended for departments that have nitrates and perchlorate present in their tap water. Distillers require one kilowatt-hour to produce one liter of distilled water, which increases energy consumption. As such, systems utilizing distillation are only recommended for departments with bacteria and microbe contamination in their tap water. Generally, water dispensers, including bottleless, are discouraged because of the increased energy consumption to cool/heat filtered water. According to Energy Star, a standard hot & cold water cooler can use more energy than a large refrigerator. Increased energy consumption from water dispensers counteracts the City’s efforts to become more energy efficient, conserve resources, and reduce the impact of climate change. This alternative/treatment system is appropriate for larger groups that would like to address odor/taste issues or any of the contaminants listed under treatment methods. How often the filter needs to be changed will depend on how many staff use it, how many gallons of water are being filtered, and the amount of contaminants in water. Packet Pg. 32414
Belmont, California
Resolution No. 10014
Packet Pg. 325
14
Packet Pg. 326
14
Toronto, Canada
City Council Resolution PW20.1 and General Permit Information
Packet Pg. 327
14
Tracking Status
City Council adopted this item on December 1, 2008 with amendments.
This item will be considered by Public Works and Infrastructure Committee on November 12,
2008. It will be considered by City Council on December 1, 2008, subject to the actions of the
Public Works and Infrastructure Committee.
See also By-laws 356-2009, 478-2009, 560-2009
City Council consideration on December 1, 2008
PW20.1 ACTION Amended Ward:All
Proposed Measures to Reduce In-Store Packaging Waste and Litter,
Municipal Hazardous and Special Waste and Plastic Water Bottles
City Council Decision
City Council on December 1, 2 and 3, 2008, adopted the following motions:
Bottled Water:
17. The City of Toronto:
a. prohibit the sale or distribution of bottled water at Civic Centres immediately,
with due regard for any current contracts related to the purchase or sale of bottled
water;
b. authorize and direct appropriate staff from Solid Waste Management Services,
Parks, Forestry and Recreation, Facilities and Real Estate, Purchasing and
Materials Management, Toronto Public Health, Toronto Water and the bottled
water industry, to work together to develop and implement a program that
prohibits the sale and distribution of bottled water at all remaining City facilities
by December 31, 2011; and
c. authorize appropriate staff to prohibit plastic water bottle sales at each City
facility upon completion of improved access to tap water at all City facilities as
water bottled sales are phased out, having due regard to existing contracts and
unique public health and safety related situations and authorized special events in
City facilities, by December 31, 2011.
Packet Pg. 328
14
Packet Pg. 329
14
Key
Marker
Color Description
Blue Municipalities w/ limited city
spending
Yellow Ban on spending public funds on
bottled water by state gov.
Pink Univeristy Ban
Green Planned or imminent ban
Red
Ban of all sales and supply of
bottled water in a town or
community
Marker
Color Location Year Type
Blue Los Angeles, CA 2005
Restricted using City funds to
buy bottled water for
employees
Blue Liverpool, UK 2007 Banned bottled water from
council buildings
Blue Santa Barbara, CA 2007 Restricted use of city funds to
buy bottled water
Blue Charlottetown, Canada 2007
Restricted use of city funds to
buy bottled water for public
meetings
Blue Salt Lake City, UT 2007
Restricted use of City funds to
buy bottled water
Blue Ann Arbor, MI 2007 Restricted bottled water sold at
city‐sponsored events
Blue Blue Mountains Canada 2007
Bottled water is banned at
town events and meetings.
Blue Davis, CA 2007
Using city funding to buy
bottled water for city
operations and events
Blue Miami, FL 2007
Purschase of plastic water
containers that are less than
two liters
Blue Islington, UK 2007
Using city funds to supply water
at council buildings and
meetings
Packet Pg. 330
14
Blue New York, NY 2008 Using city funding to supply
water
Blue Seattle, WA 2008 Banned city purchases of
bottled water.
Blue Bolton, UK 2008
Banned bottled water from all
council run buildings, including
schools.
Blue London, Canada 2008
Banned bottled water sales in
council facilities.
Blue Takoma Park, MD 2008
Restricted use of City funds to
purchase bottled water
Blue Arlington, VA 2009
Restricted use of Country funds
to purchase single serve plastic
bottles of water.
Blue Nova Scotia, Canada 2010
Banning the purchase of bottled
water.
Blue Whistler, Canada 2010
Banned the sale of bottled
water
Yellow Illinois, 2007 Restricted use of State funds for
bottled water
Yellow New York 2009 Restricted use of State funds for
bottled water
Pink Washington University in St.
Louis 2009 Stopped sales of bottled water
on its main campus.
Pink University of Winnipeg Canada 2009
Ban the provision and supply of
bottled water.
Pink University of Leeds, UK 2009
Bans the sales of bottled water
in union outlets.
Pink The University of Canberra
Australia 2011 Ban on the sale of bottled
water across the whole campus
Green Toronto Canada 2008
Sale and distribution of bottled
water at all city facilities by the
end of 2011
Green Brandon University, Manitoba
Canada 2009 Ban the distribution and sale of
all botteled water
Green University of Ottawa, Canada 2010 Ban of the sale of bottled water
Red Concord, MA 2011 Ban bottled water sales
throughout the town
Red Bundanoon, Australia 2009
Ban the sale of plastic bottled
still water.
Packet Pg. 331
14
$%& '
(% )'
%('
&(% )'
"
*%
* *
# +
" , -
" , . /,*#
0 # 0
.
#
1234
5 65*
"
.7 %
8
9
%:
#
#%
#
%
;
0
#
" %%%
%<*#
# 0
.
%%%
$%& '
(% )' %('
&(% )'
" 9
!
"#! $
Packet Pg. 332
14
%'
%'
)%&'
%'
% '
%'
$%'
&8"
=*,# "
*#
$ $
8
9 $
)
+
-
>
"
%'
%')%&'
%' %'$%'
" 9
!
!
!
!
!
!%&
' !
(
Packet Pg. 333
14
)%)'
% '(
)%)'
% $'
2 *# 0
* *+ .
#
-?
8
@ /A
)%)'
% '
)%)'
% $'
" 9
)
*
+, !!
Packet Pg. 334
14
$%$'
% '(
%&'
%()'
$/,*
0 3 * 0
"
0 7
, "
*?
8
@ /A B /A
0
$%$'
% '
%&'%()'
" 9
)
*
+, -!
+,
Packet Pg. 335
14
&%('
)%)'
&%('
% '
)2 " ,*#
"
,# 0
.
# ?
8
@ "
/A
&%('
)%)'
&%('
" 9
)
*
+, !!
Packet Pg. 336
14
%)'
%&'
% '(
(: *"
0 ,
"
#
"
,
#
"
*
0
* *+ .
#
-?!
C
%
8
@ /A
%)'%&'
% '
" 9
)
*
+, !
.
Packet Pg. 337
14
&%'
$%('
%( '.
: *# 0 #
#
0
"
*?
8
@ /A
&%'
$%('
%( '
" 9
)
*
+, !!
Packet Pg. 338
14
INFORM CONSULT COLLABORATE
• One way communication –
outreach to citizens.
• Provide public with
balanced and objective
project/issue information to
increase awareness and/or
understanding of problems,
alternatives and solutions.
• Get ideas on finite number
of options / limited time
discussion.
• Take public feedback on
project or other issue
proposal.
• Interactive process
that incorporates
recommendations as much
as possible.
• Partner with the public to
develop alternatives and
identify preferred solutions.
• May be open ended.
STAFF LEVEL
Normal procedures,
existing program,
services delivery
DEPARTMENT HEADS,
CITY MANAGER
New program, expansion
of existing program
ADVISORY BODIES
(i.e., land use issues,
development projects)
CITY COUNCIL
New laws, major plans,
significant issues (i.e.
drought strategy)
Yes Maybe Not Required
1
1
2
3
4DECISIONMAKING: LEVEL OF COMPLEXITYCOMMUNICATION OBJECTIVE
Follow the steps below to find your outreach tool plan.
Cross tab the level of complexity with communication objective
ACTION PLAN MATRIX2.1
5
Packet Pg. 339
14
INFORM
CONSULT
COLLABORATE
EXPECTATION ADDITIONAL
Official notice (if legally required)
• Legal ad in newspaper
• Postcards to neighboring owners/tenants
• On-site signage
E-notification (including affected neighbors)
Website posting
Applicable advisory bodies
Key contacts, liaisons
Social media (if applicable and available)
Utilities billing insert – flyer
Community Calendar
Signage
Paid media (newspaper, radio, TV, social media,
digital, outdoor/transit)
Informational materials (should also be available
digitally on website, e.g. flyer, fact sheet, PowerPoint,
postcard, door hanger, banner, poster)
City website posting
Awareness Walk
Press release/Media notification
Neighborhood meetings
EXPECTATION ADDITIONAL
All of the “Inform” expectations listed above
Hearing (if legally required)
Social media (if applicable and available)
Utilities billing insert – survey
Mailed survey
Telephone survey
Study session
Focus group
Special events with opportunities for interaction
Awareness walk
Open City Hall (web based)
Neighborhood meetings
EXPECTATION ADDITONAL
All of the “Inform” and “Consult” expectations listed above
Open City Hall (web based)
Community Outreach Event (workshop, open house,
neighborhood meeting, etc.)
Utilities billing insert – survey
Mailed survey
Telephone survey
Study session
Focus group
Special events with opportunities for interaction
Awareness walk
Committee formation
Refer to glossary for tools descriptions
*Bold indicates detailed descriptions available on page 11.
OUTREACH TOOLS
6
Packet Pg. 340
14
TheUnintendedConsequencesofChangesin
BeverageOptionsandtheRemovalofBottled
WateronaUniversityCampus
Elizabeth R. Berman, BS, and Rachel K. Johnson, PhD, MPH, RD
Bottled water has gained the public’s attention
in recent years as towns and universities have
banned the sale of bottled water to be more
environmentally conscious. Americans use ap-
proximately 50 billion plastic bottles each year,
38 billion of which end up in landfills.1 Such
bans are instigated to reduce the number of
disposable bottles entering the waste stream by
convincing consumers to start carrying reus-
able water bottles or to drink from water
fountains instead of purchasing single-use
plastic water bottles.
1
More than 50 colleges and universities have
banned the sale of bottled water,
1 but little is
known about the environmental and health
impacts of such bans. According to indepen-
dent research by the Beverage Marketing
Corporation, approximately 73% of the growth
in bottled water consumption in recent years
has come from those who previously drank
caloric drinks, such as soft drinks, juices, and
milks.2 Another study by an International
Bottled Water Association member company
reported that on the basis of an Internet survey
of 13500 consumers, 63% would choose
a sugar-sweetened bottled beverage rather
than tap water if bottled water was removed
from the beverage offerings.
2 If these reports
are accurate, banning bottled water could lead
to an increase in consumers’calorie and added
sugar consumption.
Although the causes of excess weight gain
are multivariate, there is growing evidence that
added sugars, particularly added sugars from
sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), are large
contributors.3---5 Some studies have disputed
the connection between SSB consumption and
overweight, but the vast majority of research
supports an association.
6 A 20-ounce soft drink
has nearly 17 teaspoons of added sugars, far
exceeding the American Heart Association’s
recommended limit of 6 teaspoons per day for
women and 9 teaspoons per day for men.
7
According to National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey data, soft drinks alone are
the number1single source of calories in the US
diet and total SSB consumption contributes
46.2% of the added sugars in the US diet.
8,9
Ludwig et al. noted that among 548
schoolchildren, for each additional 12-ounce
serving of a SSB, the odds of becoming obese
increased by 1.6, whereas the increased con-
sumption of diet soda decreased the incidence
of obesity.
4 Other intervention studies have
tried to combat obesity by changing children’s
beverage environment. In intervention studies,
de Ruyter et al. and Ebbeling et al. found that
limiting the consumption of SSBs by providing
only bottled water or low-calorie beverages
reduced the body mass index (defined as
weight in kilograms divided by the square of
height in meters), skin-fold thickness, and fat
mass of children and adolescents compared
with a control group with no intervention.
3,10
Although such studies show promising results
when SSBs are replaced with low-calorie op-
tions,researchontheeffectsofremovingbottled
water from beverage offerings is limited.
3,10
We examined how the removal of bottled
water on a university campus, along with the
implementation of a minimum healthy bever-
age requirement, affected how many bottled
beverages consumers purchased, the healthi-
ness of their beverage choices, and their calorie,
total sugar, and added sugar consumption.
METHODS
Policy changes related to the types of bottled
beverages sold at the University of Vermont in
Burlington, Vermont, provided an opportunity
to study how changes in beverage offerings
affected the beverage choices as well as the
calorie and total and added sugar consumption
of consumers. First, inAugust 2012, all campus
locations selling bottled beverages were re-
quired to provide a 30% healthy beverage
ratio in accordance with the Alliance for a
Objectives.We investigated how the removal of bottled water along with
a minimum healthy beverage requirement affected the purchasing behavior,
healthiness of beverage choices, and consumption of calories and added sugars
of university campus consumers.
Methods.With shipment data as a proxy, we estimated bottled beverage
consumption over 3 consecutive semesters: baseline (spring 2012), when a 30%
healthy beverage ratio was enacted (fall 2012), and when bottled water was removed
(spring 2013) at the University of Vermont. We assessed changes in number and type
of beverages and per capita calories, total sugars, and added sugars shipped.
Results.Per capita shipments of bottles, calories, sugars, and added sugars
increased significantly when bottled water was removed. Shipments of healthy
beverages declined significantly, whereas shipments of less healthy beverages
increased significantly. As bottled water sales dropped to zero, sales of sugar-
free beverages and sugar-sweetened beverages increased.
Conclusions.The bottled water ban did not reduce the number of bottles
entering the waste stream from the university campus, the ultimate goal of the
ban. With the removal of bottled water, consumers increased their consumption
of less healthy bottled beverages. (Am J Public Health.2015;105:1404–1408. doi:
10.2105/AJPH.2015.302593)
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
1404 |Research and Practice |Peer Reviewed |Berman and Johnson American Journal of Public Health |July 2015, Vol 105, No. 7
Packet Pg. 341
14
Healthier Generation’s beverage guidelines.
11
Then, in January 2013, campus sales locations
were required to remove bottled water while
still maintaining the required 30% healthy
beverage ratio.
We used beverage shipment data as a proxy
for calorie, total sugar, and added sugar
consumption under the assumption that the
university ordered only drinks that con-
sumers were buying and people on campus
purchased only beverages that they intended
to consume. We collected shipment data for
all bottled beverages sold to the university
from the 9 beverage vendors who had con-
tracts with the university’s food service
management company 1 semester before
any changes were enacted (spring 2012),
the semester when beverage offerings were
changed to 30% healthy beverages (fall
2012), and the semester when bottled water
was removed from the beverage offerings
while maintaining the 30% healthy beverage
ratio (spring 2013).
We used the shipment data to create a data-
base of all beverages shipped to campus during
the 3 semesters. We combined the nutrition
information for each beverage with the ship-
ment data to determine changes in beverage
choices as well as calorie, total sugar, and
added sugar consumption overthe 3 semesters.
We scored beverages on the basis of their
nutrition information using the Nutrition
Environment Measures Survey-Vending
(NEMS-V) calculator, an online tool used to
calculate the healthiness of beverages.
12 We
categorized beverages into 1 of 3 NEMS-V
categories. Green beverages, which can be
consumed regularly, included water without
flavoring, additives, or carbonation, low-fat
(1%) and nonfat (skim) milk (in 8 oz. portions),
lactose-free and soy beverages,flavored milk
with no more than 22 grams of total sugars
per 8-ounce portion, and 100% fruit or low-
sodium vegetable juice in 8-ounce containers.
Yellow beverages, which can be consumed in
moderation, include nonfortified low-sodium
beverages with less than 5 calories per portion
as packaged (with or without nonnutritive
sweeteners, carbonation, or flavoring). Red
beverages, which should be limited or ex-
changed for healthier options, include all
beverages that do not fall in the green or
yellow category.
12
We organized beverages into beverage cat-
egories with similar characteristics, calories,
and added sugar content, which we used to
assess how consumer beverage choices changed
over the 3 semesters. These categories included
100% juice, sugar-free drinks (£10 kcal/8 oz),
low-calorie drinks (11---50 kcal/8 oz), SSBs
(>50 kcal/8 oz), milk and protein drinks, and
plain water.
We focused on campus consumers’con-
sumption of single-serving bottled beverages.
We did not consider beverages with more than
34 ounces per container to be single-serving
beverages, and we therefore excluded them
from the study. We considered measuring
fountain drinks and hot tea and coffee beyond
the scope of this study because they were not
bottled beverages, but ended up excluding them.
These exclusions made the study results conser-
vative estimates of the liquid calories and sugars
being consumed by the university population.
We conducted statistical analyses using
SPSS, version 22, predictive analytics software
(SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). We set significance
at P <.05 and considered P <.1 a trend. We
used the v2 test to compare the percentage of
beverages shipped to campus with a green,
yellow, and red NEMS-V rating over the 3
semesters. We also used the v2 test to compare
the percentages of beverages from different
beverage categories shipped to campus over
the 3 semesters. We then compared shipments
of beverages within each NEMS-V rating and
beverage category using a repeated measures
analysis of variance using linear mixed models
to determine if there was a significant overall
change in consumers’beverage choices when
the 30% healthy beverage ratio was enacted
and when bottled water was removed. We
used location as the subject (n=8 campus
locations), NEMS-V rating or beverage cate-
gory as the between subject effect, and semes-
ter as the repeated measure.
We divided the calories and total and added
sugars of beverages shipped to campus for each
semester by the campus population to deter-
mine the average per capita consumption of
calories and total and added sugars from
bottled beverages. The campus population in-
cluded the total number of students, faculty,
and staff present on campus during each
semester (spring 2012: n=16582; fall 2012:
n=16968; spring 2013: n=16220). We
also compared the per capita results with
a repeated measures analysis of variance using
linear mixed models. When significant changes
were indicated, we conducted the paired t test
on single beverage categories and NEMS-V
grades over the 3 periods to test for significant
variation.
RESULTS
Per capita shipments of bottled beverages
did not change significantly between spring
2012 and spring 2013 (P =.71) but did in-
crease significantly from 21.8 bottles per per-
son in fall 2012 to 26.3 bottles per person in
spring 2013 (P =.03; Table 1). Calories, total
sugars, and added sugars shipped per capita
also increased significantly between fall 2012
and spring 2013, as shown in Table 1 (P =.02,
P =.02, and P =.03, respectively). Calories per
bottle shipped increased significantly over the
3 semesters by an average of 8.76 calories per
bottle each semester (P <.001).
The comparison of beverages with NEMS-V
grades of green, yellow, and red across the 3
semesters showed a significant decrease in
the percentage of green beverages shipped
to campus over the 3 semesters (P <.001;
Table 2). Green beverages fell 6.6% between
spring 2012 and fall 2012 (P =.007) and an
additional 6.3% between fall 2012 and spring
2013 (P =.009), with an overall decrease of
TABLE 1—Changes in the Number of
Bottles, Calories, Total Sugars, and
Added Sugars Shipped per Capita to 8
Campus Locations Over 3 Semesters:
University of Vermont, 2012–2013
Variable
Spring
2012
Fall
2012
Spring
2013
Bottles 24.21
a,b 21.82a 26.27b
Calories, kcal 3248.91
a 3106.19a 3957.93b
Total sugars, g 714.11
a 675.77a 863.97b
Added sugars, g 528.45
a 492.26a 638.12b
Note. In spring 2012 the baseline campus
population=16582. In fall 2012, when the minimum
healthy beverage requirement was enacted, campus
population=16968. In spring 2013, when bottled
water was banned, the campus population=16220.
Values in a row with different superscripts were
significantly different (P <.05).
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
July 2015, Vol 105, No. 7 |American Journal of Public Health Berman and Johnson |Peer Reviewed |Research and Practice |1405
Packet Pg. 342
14
12.9% between spring 2012 and spring 2013
(P <.001). The decrease in green beverages
was accompanied by a significant increase in
red beverages across the 3 semesters (P <.001).
Red beverages shipped to campus increased
3.5% between spring 2012 and fall 2012
(P =.03), 5.0% between fall 2012 and spring
2013 (P =.004), and 8.5% between spring
2012 and spring 2013 (P <.001). There were
no significant changes in the percentage of
yellow beverages across semesters, although
there was a trend of increased shipments of
yellow beverages (P =.051).Asignificantly
higher percentage of red beverages than yellow
and green beverages were shipped to campus in
all 3 semesters (P <.001), and in spring 2013
there was a significantly higher percentage of
yellow beverages shipped to campus than green
beverages (P <.001).
We compared the percentage of beverages
shipped each semester across beverage cate-
gories (Table 3). The percentage of sugar-free
beverages (£10 kcal/8 oz) shipped was
significantly higher in spring 2013 than in
both fall 2012 and spring 2012 (P =.01 and
P =.008, respectively). There was a decrease
in the percentage of low-calorie beverages
(11---50 kcal/8 oz) between spring 2012 and
fall 2012 (P =.006), with no significant differ-
ences between spring 2013 and either spring
2012 or fall 2012. SSBs (‡50 kcal/8 oz)
trended toward an increase as a percentage
of total beverages shipped between spring
2012 and fall 2012 (P =.09) and significantly
increased between spring 2012 and spring
2013 (P =.03).
The percentage of water shipped to campus
decreased significantly from 17.6% of total
shipments to 13.2% between spring 2012 and
fall 2012 (P =.04) and dropped to zero with
the bottled water ban in spring 2013. As
Figure 1 shows, the increase in sugar-free
drinks and SSBs closely matched the decline
in bottled water consumption. Compared with
baseline (spring 2012), bottled water ship-
ments as a percentage of total shipments fell
5.2% in fall 2012 and 18.4% in spring 2013,
whereas sugar-free beverage and SSB ship-
ments increased 5.9% in fall 2012 and 15.7%
in spring 2013.
The number of bottles of water with flavor-
ing or carbonation, which were still permitted
to be sold following the bottled water ban,
increased significantly in spring 2013 com-
pared with spring 2012 (P =.002). In spring
2012, 3033 bottles of seltzer (flavored and
carbonated water) and flavored noncarbonated
water were shipped to campus. In fall 2012 the
number fell to 2652. Then, in spring 2013,
16824 bottles of seltzer and flavored water
were shipped to campus.
DISCUSSION
The number of bottles per capita shipped to
the university campus did not change signifi-
cantly between spring 2012 (baseline) and fall
2012, when the minimum healthy beverage
requirement was put in place. However, be-
tween fall 2012 and spring 2013, when bottled
water was banned, the per capita number of
bottles shipped to campus increased signifi-
cantly. Thus, the bottled water ban did not
reduce the number of bottles entering the
waste stream from the university campus,
which was the ultimate goal of the ban.
Furthermore, with the removal of bottled
water, people in the university community
increased their consumption of other, less
healthy bottled beverages.
The significant decrease in the percentage
of beverages shipped to campus that received
a green (healthy) NEMS-V rating and the
significant increase in beverages receiving
a red (unhealthy) NEMS-V rating when bottled
water was removed in spring 2013 as well as
the increase in calories per bottle suggest that
consumers not only continued to buy bottled
beverages but also made less healthy beverage
choices after the ban was in place.
The comparison of the percentage of bottles
shipped by beverage category helps to explain
the changes in NEMS-V grades. As the ship-
ments of water decreased to zero, most of the
beverage categories remained relatively con-
stant as a percentage of total shipments. How-
ever, the percentage of sugar-free beverages
and SSBs increased, closely matching the de-
crease in water. This, paired with the finding
TABLE 2—Change in the Percentage of Beverages Shipped by Nutrition Environment
Measures Survey-Vending Rating to 8 Campus Locations Across 3 Semesters: University of
Vermont, 2012–2013
Beverage Spring 2012, % Fall 2012, % Spring 2013, %
Green (consume regularly)23.52a 16.92b 10.58c
Yellow (consume in moderation)19.28a 22.37a 23.73a
Red (limit or exchange for healthier options)57.20a 60.71b 65.69c
Note. In spring 2012 the baseline campus population=16582. In fall 2012, when the minimum healthy beverage
requirement was enacted, campus population=16968. In spring 2013, when bottled water was banned, the campus
population=16220. Values in a row with different superscripts were significantly different (P <.05).
TABLE 3—Percentage of Beverages Shipped by Drink Category to 8 Campus Locations
Across 3 Semesters: University of Vermont, 2012–2013
Beverage Spring 2012, % Fall 2012, % Spring 2013, %
100% juice 15.3a 13.6a 15.1a
Sugar free (£10 kcal/8 oz) 11.9
a 14.5a 21.2b
Low calorie (£50 kcal/8 oz) 11.2
a 8.4b 9.4a,b
Sugar sweetened (>50 kcal/8 oz)28.2a 32.2a,b 35.3b
Milk and protein drinks 17.3a 20.6a 20.2a
Water 17.6a 13.2a 0.0b
Note. In spring 2012 the baseline campus population=16582. In fall 2012, when the minimum healthy beverage
requirement was enacted, campus population=16968. In spring 2013, when bottled water was banned, the campus
population=16220. Percentages in a row with different superscripts were significantly different (P <.05).
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
1406 |Research and Practice |Peer Reviewed |Berman and Johnson American Journal of Public Health |July 2015, Vol 105, No. 7
Packet Pg. 343
14
that overall shipments increased each semester,
suggests that many consumers who previously
drank bottled water replaced bottled water
with sugar-free or sugar-sweetened bottled
beverages (Figure 1).
Ideally, when bottled water was removed,
those who previously purchased bottled water
would have adjusted their behavior and started
carrying reusable water bottles. The university
made several efforts to encourage consumers
to carry reusable beverage containers. Sixty-
eight water fountains on campus were retrofitted
with spouts to fill reusable bottles, educational
campaigns were used to inform consumers about
the changes in policy, and free reusable bottles
and stickers promoting the use of reusable
bottles were given out at campus events.
Although these efforts may have influenced
some consumers, the ban does not appear to
have achieved its goal of decreasing the num-
ber of plastic bottles entering the waste stream
from the university campus.
Because it appears that many bottled water
consumers instead decided to purchase other
bottled beverages, the best result, nutritionally,
would have been for them to select calorie- and
sugar-free options, such as seltzer, unsweet-
ened tea, or diet soda. However, the data
suggest that some consumers increased their
consumption of calorically sweetened drinks,
such as soda and sports drinks, which could
add to their liquid calorie and added sugars
consumption, thus increasing the risk of weight
gain.
Our findings are consistent with those in the
literature, which has shown that consumption
of calories from beverages, especially SSBs, has
increased incrementally over the past several
decades. Research also suggests that people of
college age (19---39 years) have the highest
consumption of bottled beverages among all
age groups.
13---15 The removal of bottled water
seems to magnify the undesirable beverage
consumption patterns observed in the litera-
ture and may influence people to select less
healthy beverage options.
Our study was limited by the short duration
of data collection. Having additional data from
both before and after the campus beverage
options changed would be advantageous.
Additional data from before the ban would
help determine whether the incremental
increase in bottled beverage consumption
occurred only as beverage policies changed
or whether consumption was increasing before
the changes took place. Data from semesters
after spring 2013 could show whether con-
sumers changed their behaviors and began
carrying reusable water bottles over time as
the bottled water ban was in place longer.
Our study was also limited by the small
number of campus locations where beverages
were shipped (n=8), thus limiting the statistical
power of the analysis. However, despite the
limited power, significant associations were
apparent. Additionally, the necessity of using
shipment data as a proxy for consumption
may have resulted in an overestimation of
the actual calories and total and added sugars
consumed.
A further limitation was the dependence
on beverage companies for shipment records,
which could have led to inconsistent data. To
address this limitation, we compared trends in
the data across locations to identify possible
gaps in sales records. When we identified
missing data, we made every effort to obtain
complete records from the beverage compa-
nies. Furthermore, because of the observa-
tional nature of the research, no causalities
can be drawn between the removal of bottled
water and the increase in unhealthy beverage
consumption or in calorie and added sugar
consumption, although associations exist.
Despite these limitations, the study has many
strengths. We collected data on more than 1
million bottles that were shipped to campus
over the 3 semesters. The number of bottles
shipped to campus increased over the 3
semesters across all beverage companies, sug-
gesting that the increases were meaningful and
not merely anomalies. In addition, we collected
data on all shipments to all campus beverage
sale locations for the 3 semesters, allowing
a complete picture of the changes occurring
on campus during the bottled water ban.
Further research is needed on the long-term
implications of removing bottled water for
the health status of consumers to better un-
derstand whether consumers adjust their be-
havior over time to make healthier beverage
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Spring 2012 Fall 2012 Spring 2013Percent
Semester
100% Juice
Sugar free
Low calorie
Sugar sweetened
Milk/protein
Water
Note. In spring 2012 the baseline campus population=16582. In fall 2012, when the minimum healthy beverage
requirement was enacted, campus population=16968. In spring 2013, when bottled water was banned, the campus
population=16220.
FIGURE 1—Change in the percentage of beverages shipped by drink category over 3
semesters: University of Vermont, 2012–2013.
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
July 2015, Vol 105, No. 7 |American Journal of Public Health Berman and Johnson |Peer Reviewed |Research and Practice |1407
Packet Pg. 344
14
choices. Remembering to carry a reusable
water bottle, like any other behavior change,
takes time. Therefore, long-term observations
may reveal that the potential negative impact
of banning bottled water on health is merely
a short-term setback.
Our study raises questions about the overall
bottled beverage consumption patterns of the
university community. Our findings suggest
that per capita consumption of bottled bever-
ages, and especially SSBs, increased over time.
If this trend continues over the long term it may
have negative implications for the health and
weight status of the campus community. Addi-
tional research should be conducted in other
communities because both the young age of the
university community and the location in Bur-
lington, Vermont, a midsized city that is noto-
riously invested in both environmental and
physical well-being, may have affected the
beverage choices of consumers.j
About the Authors
Elizabeth R. Berman and Rachel K. Johnson are with the
Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of
Vermont, Burlington.
Correspondence should be sent to Rachel K. Johnson,
PhD, MPH, RD, FAHA, Bickford Professor of Nutrition,
Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Professor of
Pediatrics, College of Medicine, The University of Vermont,
Burlington, VT 05446 (e-mail: Rachel.johnson@uvm.edu).
Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking
the “Reprints”link.
This article was accepted January 16, 2015.
Contributors
E. R. Berman contributed to the data collection and
analysis and drafted the article. R. K. Johnson revised the
article. Both authors conceptualized and designed the
research, interpreted the data, and approved the final
version of the article.
Acknowledgments
Funding was provided by the University of Vermont
Summer Research Award Fund and the Bickford Scholar
Research Fund.
The authors would like to thank Caylin A. McKee for
her assistance with data collection and Alan B. Howard,
MS, for his assistance with the statistical analysis.
Human Participant Protection
This project was determined to be exempt from Univer-
sity of Vermont institutional review board review be-
cause the project did not involve human participants.
References
1. Ban the Bottle. Bottled water facts. Available at:
http://www.banthebottle.net/bottled-water-facts.
Accessed February 12, 2014.
2. International Bottled Water Association. Proposed
bottled water ban not in the best interest of San
Franciscans.2013. Available at: http://www.bottledwater.
org/proposed-bottled-water-ban-not-best-interest-san-
franciscans. Accessed February 12, 2014.
3. de Ruyter JC, Olthof MR, Seidell JC, Katan MB. A
trial of sugar-free or sugar-sweetened beverages and
body weight in children.N Engl J Med. 2012;367(15):
1397---1406.
4. Ludwig DS, Peterson KE, Gortmaker SL. Relation
between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and
childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis.
Lancet. 2001;357(9255):505---508.
5. Hu FB. Resolved: there is sufficient scientific
evidence that decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage
consumption will reduce the prevalence of obesity and
obesity-related diseases.Obes Rev. 2013;14(8):606---
619.
6. Malik VS, Schulze MB, Hu FB. Intake of sugar-
sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic
review.Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;84(2):274---288.
7. Johnson RK, Appel LJ, Brands M, et al. Dietary
sugars intake and cardiovascular health: a scientific
statement from the American Heart Association.Circu-
lation. 2009;120(11):1011---1020.
8. Ervin RB, Ogden CL.Consumption of Added Sugars
Among U.S. Adults 2005---2010. Washington, DC: US
Department of Health and Human Services; 2013.
9. Guthrie JF, Morton JF. Food sources of added
sweeteners in the diets of Americans.J Am Diet Assoc.
2000;100(1):43---51.
10. Ebbeling CB, Feldman HA, Chomitz VR, et al. A
randomized trial of sugar-sweetened beverages and
adolescent body weight.N Engl J Med. 2012;367(15):
1407---1416.
11. Alliance for a Healthier Generation. USDA smart
snacks in school beverage guidelines. Available at:
https://schools.healthiergeneration.org/_asset/wgrpk6/
07-267_BeverageGuidelines.pdf. Accessed February 12,
2013.
12. Nutrition Environment Measures Vending Survey.
Available at: http://www.nems-v.com. Accessed October
8, 2012.
13. Duffey KJ, Popkin BM. Shifts in patterns and
consumption of beverages between 1965 and 2002.
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007;15(11):2739---2747.
14. Bleich SN, Wang YC, Wang Y, Gortmaker SL.
Increasing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages
among US adults: 1988---1994 to 1999---2004.Am J Clin
Nutr. 2009;81(1):372---381.
15. Popkin BM. Patterns of beverage use across the
lifecycle.Physiol Behav. 2010;100(1):4---9.
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
1408 |Research and Practice |Peer Reviewed |Berman and Johnson American Journal of Public Health |July 2015, Vol 105, No. 7
Packet Pg. 345
14
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 346
14
1/4/2017
1
REVIEW OF SINGLE-USE PLASTIC
WATER BOTTLE AND WATER BOTTLE
FILLING STATION REGULATIONS
City Council Study Session – January 3, 2017
1
Recommendations
1.Receive a presentation on single-use plastic water bottle and
water bottle filling station regulations and policy options; and
2.Provide direction regarding any changes to current policies
and practices.
2
1/4/2017
2
Outline
1.Background
2.City Policy Review
3.Review Research
a)San Francisco Ordinance
b)Summary of approaches from other agencies
4.Current City Practice
5.Local Business Perspective (survey)
6.Focused Questions for Council Direction
3
Background
City Council Hearing (2-2-2016)
Public Comment:
Community members spoke at the hearing and cited concerns
regarding environmental impacts:
Resources required to manufacture single-use plastic bottles
Litter, landfill, or processing facility for recycling.
City Council Direction:
Agendize Study Session
Use San Francisco’s Ordinance as a model
Review regulations implemented nationally
4
1/4/2017
3
Many communities have implemented restrictions on the sale/use of
single use plastic water bottles.
Focus on plastic drinking water bottles (generally referring to
Polyethylene Terephthalate or PETE #1)
Restrictions on sale/use at public meetings
On City Property: e.g. City offices often including streets/sidewalks
At City events / events held on City property
Commitment to the consumption of tap water through use of water
bottle filling stations and encourage the use of reusable bottles (e.g.
Klean Kanteen, Nalgene)
Basis for regulations focus on environmental concerns throughout the
lifespan of a plastic bottle:
Reducing consumption
Natural resource depletion during manufacture/transportation
Reducing impacts associated with waste in the landfill, litter, or
processing of recycling.
Background
5
San Luis Obispo’s General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Purchasing
Policies provide guidance to inform discussion and potential action on new
policies.
General Plan: Policies/goals are located within Conservation and Open Space
Element and include guidance such as:
City will be model of pollution control efforts. City to help educate citizens in
ways to prevent air pollution
City will use materials efficiently in buildings and operations.
Coordinate/Participate in waste reduction/recycling efforts.
Climate Action Plan: Policies focus on GHG reduction. Solid waste chapter has
ultimate goal of reducing amount of waste that ends up in the landfill.
Reduced plastic bottle consumption decreases GHG emissions associated
with manufacture/transport
Lowered consumption can reduce number of plastic bottles that end up in
landfill.
Financial Management Manual: Purchasing policies for environmentally
preferred purchases.
Purchase equipment, supplies, and services that result in less harm to the
natural environment.
City Policy Review
6
1/4/2017
4
Within City/County facilities/offices
7
San Francisco Ordinance No. 28-14
Research
21 oz
Restricted
Item(s)Where?
Event’s that need a permit and exceed 100
persons
Event’s that need a permit and exceed 100
persons
How?ExceptionsWhy?
Most communities focus on environmental concerns at a national and
local level as the basis for their regulations.
Citing local policies associated with reducing waste and GHG
emissions
Examples:
An estimated 17M barrels of oil needed to produce plastic bottles for American
consumption, producing >2.5M tons of CO2 (Seattle, WA)
Reducing dependence on plastics that end up in the landfill more than they are
recycled (Concord, MA), an estimated two million tons of plastic water bottles end
up in landfills each year (San Francisco)
Alternatives such as reusable bottles, drinking fountains, and water bottle filling
stations produce an insignificant amount of waste as compared to single-use bottles
(San Francisco)
Research
Why?
A range of communities with plastic bottle regulations
were reviewed, their common/key elements include:
8
1/4/2017
5
Regulate plastic water bottles sale/use on their own property by
restricting use of funds
21 to 34 ounces or less
Regulations do not apply to soda or flavored/carbonated beverages in
plastic bottles
A range of communities with plastic bottle regulations
were reviewed, their common/key elements include:
Research
Focus
9
Phased implementation of the regulations to allow affected businesses
to adjust to requirements
Ranged from 4 months (Concord) to 4 years (San Francisco)
Research
Phasing
A range of communities with plastic bottle regulations
were reviewed, their common/key elements include:
10
1/4/2017
6
Allow flexibility in locations that don’t have convenient access to safe
drinking water
Provided to ensure public health, safety, and welfare during times of
emergency
Research
Exemptions
A range of communities with plastic bottle regulations
were reviewed, their common/key elements include:
11
Fine structures were established for those who don’t comply with the
restrictions.
San Francisco Administrative Fine Structure:
1st Violation: up to $500
2nd Violation within 12 months: up to $750
3rd and Subsequent within 12 months: up to $1000
Research
Fines
A range of communities with plastic bottle regulations
were reviewed, their common/key elements include:
12
1/4/2017
7
Encourage additional drinking fountains and water bottles filling
stations in community buildings and throughout the community
Provides alternative water source to bottled water
Research
Filling Stations
A range of communities with plastic bottle regulations
were reviewed, their common/key elements include:
13
Outcomes of Regulations
Relatively little data on outcomes of plastic water bottle
regulations
American Journal of Public Health Study at the University
of Vermont
Examined how removal of bottled water affected
purchasing behavior, healthiness of beverage choices, and
consumption of calories/added sugars of campus
consumers
Findings:
Increase in per capita number of bottles shipped to
campus (didn’t reduce bottles entering waste stream)
Consumption of less healthy options even with
implementation of filling stations
Study Limitations:
Duration
Time needed for behavior adjustment
14
1/4/2017
8
Majority of City buildings have potable water from drinking fountains or
water fillers attached to sinks.
At least one drinking fountain in all City parks (except 8 of the smallest
parks (e.g. Cheng Park).
Current City Practices
City policy does not explicitly restrict use/sale of single-use plastic
water bottles on City property or at City events
Water and soda bottles/cans purchased for city events, advisory
body/City Council meetings, and are vended in some City offices
Current PW Department practice to install filling station in City parks
and facilities as feasible
Currently have four filling stations
15
Current City Practices
City Hall Police Station Santa Rosa Skate Park Santa Rosa Hockey Rink
Current PW Department practice to install filling station in City parks
and facilities as feasible
Currently have four filling stations
16
1/4/2017
9
Impact of bottled water ban similar to San Francisco:
Businesses/events that operate on City Property; Streets, sidewalks,
parks and City Buildings
E.g. Farmer’s Market, Concerts in the Plaza, SLO Marathon
Local Business Perspective
17
Impact of bottled water ban similar to San Francisco:
Businesses/events that operate on City Property; Streets, sidewalks,
parks and City Buildings
E.g. Farmer’s Market, Concerts in the Plaza, SLO Marathon
Local Survey
Sent to businesses/event purveyors that may be affected by plastic water
bottle regulations similar to San Francisco
63 responses
7 core questions to obtain an understanding of:
1.Types/sizes of plastic bottles being used
2.If plastic bottle sales is a significant component of the business/event
3.If respondent would be concerned with plastic bottle regulations
Summary of survey:
Local Business Perspective
18
1/4/2017
10
Survey Summary
Currently my business sells (or plans to sell in the future) the following:
Water Soda Flavored/
carbonated
water
My business does
not sell beverages
contained in plastic
bottles
60% of respondents did not sell beverages contained in plastic bottles
37% sold water contained in plastic bottles
19
Survey Summary
Does the success of your business depend on the sale of beverages contained in plastic
bottles?
Majority indicated the success of their business did not depend on
sale of beverages in plastic bottles
20
1/4/2017
11
Survey Summary
Would you have concerns if an ordinance were passed that banned the sale of plastic
bottles associated with City events/on City property (including streets and parks)?
47% would not be concerned
42% expressed concern
21
Recommendations
1.Receive a presentation on single-use plastic water bottle and
water bottle filling station regulations and policy options.
2.Provide direction to staff regarding any changes to current
policies and practices.
22
1/4/2017
12
Questions for City Council direction
Yes No
(Focus)Restrict the use/saleof single‐use plastic waterbottles
1. At City facilities (e.g. City offices, City Council meetings)
2. On all City owned property(e.g. facilities, parks, structures on city owned land)
a. Include streets and sidewalks in definitionof City property
3. At events held on City property
a. Events held by the City
b. Events that requirea permit from the City
(Filling Stations) Modify the current practice for installation of water
bottlefilling stations
1. Increase the numberavailable within City facilities
2. Increase the numberavailable within City parks
3. Modify requirementsfor filling stations in privatedevelopments with public spaces
4. Include water bottle filling stations as feasible in appropriate Capital Improvement
Projects
(Phasing) Establish a phasedapproachto implementingregulations
(e.g 3‐months for City departments to phase out bottled water purchases, 6‐months for
outreach to businesses/events, 6‐months enforcement without fines)
(Exemptions)Establish waivers and exclusions to allow flexibility
(e.g. locations with limited access to water, undue hardship, emergencies)
(Fines) Establish fine schedule for compliance
(e.g. follow typical administrative fine schedule)
23
In 2013, 21B California Refund Value eligible containers were sold
18B were recycled
3B end up in landfills or as litter
Recycling reduces CO2 emissions and other GHGs by lowering the
need to manufacture new products from raw materials
10 pounds of clear plastic water/soda bottles recycled, removes 3.3
pounds of carbon emissions
In 2015-16, 41 % of purchased PETE bottles in the City of San Luis
Obispo were recycled (CalRecycle Estimate)
13.3M PETE bottles purchased / 5.4M being recycled
Large number of PETE plastic bottles ending up as litter/landfill
Plastic Bottle Recycling
State/Local
24
1/4/2017
13
Implementation
If City Council direction is to prepare regulations similar to San
Francisco’s, next steps would be:
1.Focused outreach and meetings
2.Create initial draft language
3.Community outreach
4.Draft final language
5.City council review
25
Survey Summary
The majority of bottles that my business sells are:
Majority of bottles sold ranged from 12 to 16 ounces
26