HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-2017 Item 10 - Public Hearing - Ordinance Introduction - Plastic Bottle Regulations and Water Bottle Filling Stations
Meeting Date: 10/24/2017
FROM: Greg Hermann, Acting Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Marcus Carloni, Sustainability Coordinator
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BOTTLES AND
ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS TO INCREASE AVAILABILITY OF
WATER BOTTLE FILLING STATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an Ordinance (Attachment A) to regulate the sale/distribution of plastic beverage
bottles on City property and at events on City property (including city facilities/office, streets ,
sidewalks, and parks), and establishing regulations to increase the availability of water bottle
filling stations in the City.
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
At the January 3, 2017 City Council Study Session, Council directed staff to prepare an
ordinance restricting the sale/distribution of all single-use plastic beverage bottles on City
property and events on City property (including city facilities/offices, streets, sidewalks, and
parks) and to increase the availability of water bottle filling stations in t he City. Council’s
direction is summarized below:
City Council Direction
1.
(Focus) Restrict the sale/distribution of single-use plastic bottles
a. On all City property including streets and sidewalks (e.g. city offices, parks, streets,
sidewalks)
b. At events on City property requiring a permit (e.g. the Farmer’s Market or a special
event at Mission Plaza)
2. (Filling Stations) Increase the availability of water bottle filling stations in City facilities, City parks,
private developments with public spaces, and in Capital Improvement Projects as feasible.
3. (Phasing) Establish a phased approach to implementing the regulations
4. (Exemptions) Establish waivers and exclusions to allow flexibility
5. (Fines) Establish a fine schedule for compliance
Packet Pg 215
10
BACKGROUND
For a detailed review/discussion on the following topics please see the City Council Study
Session Staff Report from January 3, 2017 provided herein as Attachment C.
1. City Policy Review
2. Current City Practices
3. Research of plastic water bottle regulations in other agencies
4. Outcomes of plastic water bottle regulations
5. Plastic Bottle Recycling
6. Local Business Perspective (survey sent to affected businesses and event purveyors)
DISCUSSION
Plastic Bottles vs. Aluminum Cans
Research presented at the Council study session showed that other agencies focused their efforts
on restricting the sale/distribution of plastic water bottles on City property, however, Council
directed staff to restrict the sale/distribution of all single use plastic beverage bottles on City
property in an effort to further reduce waste and environmental impacts associated with plastics.
With this direction, Council asked staff to research the environmental impacts of plastic bottles
vs. aluminum cans since restricting the sale/distribution of all plastic bottles on City property
(e.g. soda bottles) may increase the use of aluminum cans.
Research included discussions with representatives from SLO County Integrated Waste
Management Authority, CalRecycle, California Environmental Protection Agency, and the
American Beverage Industry which yielded inconclusive results. Representatives indicated that
life-cycle analyses of aluminum cans and plastic bottles with sufficient data/equivalent
methodology allowing a logical comparison of the environmental impacts of these materials has
not been performed. It was evident that the different material manufacturers (aluminum industry,
plastic industry, glass industry) performed their own life-cycle analyses, however, their
conclusions indicate that their respective products were better for their environment than their
competitor’s product, and each appeared to apply their data using different methodology.
A consistent theme in staff’s research was that aluminum appears to be more energy intense in its
production as compared to plastic bottles. However, many variables1 are involved in determining
the environmental impact of aluminum cans versus plastic bottles, yielding inconclusive
1 Variables include the location and process of obtaining virgin materials, shipping said materials to a manufacturing
facility, production intensity, production location, transporting the finished product to end users, recycling rates,
location of re-processing facility/transporting material to said facility, energy intensity of re -processing the recycled
material, amount of recycled content in end product, end use of recycled material (e.g. turning plastic b ottles back
into plastic bottles vs. using the recycled plastic in other materials such as carpeting), and number of times the
material can be recycled.
Packet Pg 216
10
research. Although aluminum cans appear to be more energy intense than plastic bottles during
the production process, the following bullets help to provide a better understanding of the life
cycle of aluminum cans and may indicate that environmental impact across the lifecycle of the
two materials is not significantly different – helping to show some of the potential benefits of
using aluminum cans as compared to plastic bottles. As such, staff has drafted the ordinance to
restrict the sale/distribution of all plastic beverage bottles as directed by Council.
1. Plastic bottles are commonly found littering creeks and beaches. According to ECOSLO
plastic bottles and plastic bottle caps have been in the top 10 of debris collected during
SLO County Beach Cleanup Day for at least the past three years. At the September 2017
Beach Cleanup Day ECOSLO reports collecting 2,504 plastic bottle caps (#5 on the top
10 list) and 1,989 plastic bottles (#7 on the top 10 list). Internationally, the Ocean
Conservancy reports that plastic beverage bottles (1,578,834 bottles) and plastic bottle
caps (1,578,834 plastic bottle caps) were the #2 and #3 most collected items at the 2016
International Coastal Cleanup which spans 112 countries.
2. More plastic bottles are produced/sold than aluminum cans. According to CalRecycle, in
2016 11.3 Billion plastic bottles (PETE #1) vs. 8 Billion aluminum cans were sold in
California.
3. Aluminum cans are recycled far more than plastic bottles. According to CalRecycle, in
2016 the recycling rate for aluminum cans was 91% vs. 76% for plastic bottles (PETE
#1). This means approximately 720 Million aluminum cans (91% recycling rate) vs. 2.7
Billion plastic bottles (76% recycling rate) are ending up in landfills or as litter
throughout California.
4. Recycling aluminum cans eliminates more carbon emissions than recycling plastic
bottles. According to IWMA, for every 10 pounds of aluminum recycled, 37 pounds of
carbon emissions are eliminated from the air and for every 10 pounds of clear plastic
water or soda bottles recycled, 3.3 pounds of carbon emissions are eliminated.
5. Far more plastic bottles are exported out of the United States for processing than
aluminum cans; adding to the carbon footprint of plastic bottles. According to
CalRecycle, in 2016 we exported 120,000 tons of plastic bottles (mainly to China) vs.
1,649 tons of aluminum cans.
6. Aluminum cans breakdown much faster in a landfill than plastic bottles. According to
CalRecycle, aluminum cans take approximately 80 to 100 years to breakdown in a
landfill vs. as long as 700 years for plastic bottles.
Proposed Ordinance
The proposed Ordinance is provided as Attachment A to this report. Key items to know about the
Ordinance include the following:
1. What?
Packet Pg 217
10
a. Restriction on the sale/distribution of single-use plastic beverage bottles less than
21 ounces in size.
b. Increase the availability of drinking water in public areas (e.g. water bottle filling
stations in City parks).
c. Increase the availability of drinking water systems in City facilities.
2. Where?
a. On City property and at events on City property. City property includes offices,
facilities, plazas, parks, streets, and sidewalks.
3. How?
a. City funds are not to be used to purchase single-use bottled beverages.
b. Place conditions on event permits issued by the city.
c. Place conditions on new or amended contracts, agreements leases, etc.
d. Enforce with administrative fine structure and tiered structure by size of event.
4. When?
a. The Ordinance will not take full effect until March 1, 2018.
5. Increasing Availability of Public Drinking Water
a. Creates City policy to increase availability of drinking water in public areas with
emphasis on providing water bottle filling stations.
b. Include in Capital Improvement projects when feasible
c. Encourage the inclusion of water bottle filling stations for public use in private
developments. Staff plans to include this effort in the current Zoning Regulations
update to encourage development projects to include water bottle filling stations
within publicly accessible spaces such as outdoor use areas and pedestrian routes.
6. Flexibility and Exceptions:
a. City permit issuer must find that the event location has sufficient and reasonable
access to reliable on-site water.
b. Use of plastic bottles allowed during situations to protect public health, safety and
welfare and during times of emergency.
c. When no reasonable alternative to plastic bottles exists and strict compliance
would create undue hardship.
CURRENT USE OF WATER BOTTLE FILLING STATIONS
Through the 2017-19 Financial Plan process the City Council allocated $60,000 to the CIP
budget for the installation of water bottle filling stations in the City. Public Works anticipates
being able to install approximately five water bottle filling stations per fiscal year (three in city
facilities and three outdoors). So far this year, Public Works has installed two new filling stations
in City Hall2 and one new station at Sinsheimer Park (adjacent to the newly remodeled
playground). Public Works is evaluating additional locations and in the remaining portion of this
2 The upstairs filling stations has saved 1,300 plastic bottles in the 1.5 months since installation and the downstairs
filling station has saved 4,350 plastic bottles in the 8.5 months since installation.
Packet Pg 218
10
fiscal year plans to install filling stations at the Ludwick Community Center, Sinsheimer
Stadium, Community Development/Public Works Department Offices (919 Palm), French Park,
and Mission Plaza. For fiscal year 2018-19, Public Works is evaluating filling stations at the
Higuera Street crosswalk near Ross and GAP, Laguna Lake Park, the Parks and Recreation
Department Office, the City’s Corporation Yard, and the Swim Center.
With the 2019-21 Financial Plan, Public Works staff will propose a Capital Improvement Plan
Project to implement additional water bottle filling stations in the City that the City Council and
community can evaluate and prioritize with the Financial Plan process.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Consistent with the adopted Public Engagement and Noticing Manual, staff created an Open City
Hall webpage to inform and engage community members and affected businesses. The webpage
was launched on September 18th and was sent to Open City Hall subscribers and website e-
notification subscribers. Staff also worked with the Downtown Association and Chamber of
Commerce to distribute information to local businesses. Forty-one statements have been received
as of October 12, 2017; an equivalent of 2.1 hours of public comment at three minutes per
statement. The feedback received through the Open City Hall page is provided herein as
Attachment B. If additional feedback is received through Open City Hall staff will distribute that
feedback as agenda correspondence.
The feedback received through the Open City Hall page is in support of the subject regulations.
A paraphrased summary of responses is provided below:
Supportive (41 Statements):
• Support for plastic water bottle and all plastic bottle regulations.
• Installing water bottle filling stations is important and will help people us use less plastic
bottles.
• Production and recycling use energy – we should be preventing use of the material in the
first place.
Concerns:
• This may have an impact on events like the Farmer’s Market.
• Filling stations may be expensive
Santa Rosa Park
(2)
City Hall
Police Station
City Hall
Sinsheimer Park
Packet Pg 219
10
• Filling stations may get dirty and need to be maintained
IMPLEMENTATION & ENFORCEMENT
The ordinance is designed to take effect approximately three months after final adoption to allow
time for staff to perform outreach and allow affected businesses to adjustment. If adopted by
Council, staff will send additional notification to affected businesses and make additional
information available on the City’s website regarding compliance with the ordinance. Staff will
also be working with two local organization (One with Natu re and ECOSLO) to develop
outreach materials and go to individual businesses to deliver the message about the new
regulations.
Enforcement of the recommended changes would continue through the existing operations and
resources of Code Enforcement - Community Development Department staff. An administrative
fine structure is included in the Ordinance, however, Code Enforcement practice is to educate the
business owner prior to issuing fines.
CONCURRENCES
A city-wide team of staff representing Administration, Public Works, Parks and Recreation and
Utilities Departments, participated in the development and review of the draft ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed ordinance is exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Further, the proposed
Ordinance is exempt from CEQA on the separate and independent ground that it is an action of a
regulatory agency (the City) for the protection of the environment because, among other things,
it will reduce the amount of single use plastic bottles that enter the local landfill or end up as
litter. Thus, this Ordinance is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA under
Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as an action by a regulatory
agency for the protection of the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed Ordinance adds additional regulations to the City’s Municipal Code. All
complaints of this type are currently investigated and enforced by Code Enforcement staff. At
this time, the impacts of implementing and enforcing the additional elements of the Ordinance
can be incorporated into existing resources. Additional resources may be required if further
outreach is desired during implementation.
Additionally, through the 2017-19 Financial Plan process the City Council allocated $30,000 per
year to the CIP budget for the installation of water bottle filling stations in the City.
Packet Pg 220
10
ALTERNATIVES
1. Amend the proposed ordinance. The City Council may modify the proposed
amendments to the Municipal Code. Specific direction should be given to staff regarding
any modifications.
2. Continue the proposed ordinance. The City Council may continue action, if more
information in needed. Direction should be given to staff regarding additional
information needed to make a decision.
3. Reject the proposed ordinance. The City Council may reject the proposed ordinance
although public testimony and current research demonstrate that an ordinance is needed.
Attachments:
a - Draft Ordinance
b - Open City Hall Feedback
c - Council Study Session Staff Report (January 3, 2017)
Packet Pg 221
10
O ______
ORDINANCE NO. #### (2017 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 8.07 TO THE SAN LUIS
OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING SINGLE-USE PLASTIC
BEVERAGE BOTTLES ON CITY PROPERTY LESS THAN 21 OUNCES
IN SIZE
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) has the police power to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the community, including the ability to protect and enhance the
natural environment; and
WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element has numerous
policies and goals related to efficient use of materials and recycling in the City including COS E
Policy 5.5.3 which indicates that the city will coordinate local waste-reduction and recycling
efforts in the community; and
WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element has policies
and goals related to the City employing best practices in City facilities and operations including
COSE Policy 5.4.2 which indicates that the City will set a community example for waste diversion
and material recycling in City facilities, services and operating systems and require similar in
contracts and procurement for public goods and services and capital improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Climate Action Plan Solid Waste Chapter has an ultimate goal of
reducing the amount of waste that ends up in the landfill which can reduce solid waste-related
greenhouse gas emissions associated with transport and organic decomposition of materials; and
WHEREAS, for the year 2016 the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle) indicates that 11.3 billion plastic bottles (PETE #1) were sold in California with 8.6
billion of those plastic bottles being recycled; the remaining 2.7 billion plastic bottles end up in
landfills or as litter; and
WHEREAS, CalRecycle estimates, using per capita rates, that within the City of San Luis
Obispo approximately 13,306,000 PETE plastic bottles were purchased in fiscal year 2015-16 with
5,404,000 of those bottles being recycled (41% recycling rate); indicating that a large number of
PETE plastic bottles purchased within the City end up as litter or in the landfill.
WHEREAS, the Ocean Conservancy reports that plastic beverage bottles (1,578,834
bottles) and plastic bottle caps (1,578,834 plastic bottle caps) were the number two and number
three most collected items at the 2016 International Coastal Cleanup which spans 112 countries;
and
WHEREAS, the City is situated entirely within the 84 square mile San Luis Obispo Creek
Watershed. The City’s watershed and creek system are important natural resources as exemplified
in various policies of the City’s General Plan. As part of the City’s natural resource program, the
City performs regular creek clean-ups. During these clean-ups, the City finds and discards a
Packet Pg 222
10
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
O ______
significant amount of plastic bottles and bottle caps. These products ultimately flow to the Pacific
Ocean contributing to concerns related to water quality and habitat protection both within the creek
system as well as the marine environment; and
WHEREAS, plastic beverage bottles take as long as 700 years to decompose in a landfill
and, while advances in water bottles have reduced packaging and weight of bottle containers that
ultimately reach waste facilities, alternatives to plastic bottles, such as reusable bottles produce an
insignificant amount of waste in comparison; and
WHEREAS, regulating the use of plastic beverage bottles will help to minimize waste
associated with plastic bottle usage and help to maximize the operating life of landfills; and
WHEREAS, regulating the use of plastic beverage bottles within the City will help protect
the City’s natural environment from contamination and degradation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a study session
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 3,
2017, and directed staff to develop regulations to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic beverage
bottles on City property and increase the availability of water bottle filling stations in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October
24, 2017 for the purpose of considering said regulations as an addition to Chapter 8.07 of the
Municipal Code; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by
this reference as the findings of the City Council.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The proposed Ordinance is exempt from the
environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect
on the environment. Further, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA on the separate and
independent ground that it is an action of a regulatory agency (the City) for the protection of the
environment because, among other things, it will regulate the sale and distribution of bottled
beverages and reduce the amount of said products that enter local landfill and waterways . Thus,
this Ordinance is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15308 of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as an action by a regulatory agency for the protection
of the environment.
SECTION 3. Action. Chapter 8.07, establishing regulations to restrict the sale/distribution
of plastic beverage bottles on City property and increase the availability of water bottle filling
stations in the city, is hereby added to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code as follows:
Packet Pg 223
10
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
O ______
Chapter 8.07 – PLASTIC BOTTLED BEVERAGES AND WATER BOTTLE FILLING
STATIONS
8.07.010 - Definitions.
The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined
in this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
A. “Bottled Beverage” means drinking water, sparkling water, enhanced water, soda, sport drinks,
juice, or other similar product in a Rigid Plastic Bottle having a capacity of 21 fluid ounces or less,
and intended primarily as a single service container.
B. “City Property” means real property, including buildings thereon, owned or leased by the City
of San Luis Obispo (“City”), and in the City’s possession or in the possession of any entity under
contract with the City. This includes but is not limited to City offices and facilities, plazas, parks,
and public right-of-way (sidewalks and streets).
C. “City Street” means the public right-of-way (e.g. streets, sidewalks, public alleys)
D. “Event” means any activity which requires a permit pursuant to Chapter 5.80 or Section
12.20.050.C of this code with three hundred or more persons in attendance or any event which
requires a permit pursuant to Chapter 5.80 or Section 12.20.050.C which is located at Mission
Plaza or the Jack House.
E. “Participant Athletic Event” means an event in which a group of people collectively walk, jog,
run, bicycle or otherwise participate in a sport or similar activity on City Property.
F. “Rigid Plastic Bottle” means any formed or molded container made of predominantly plastic
resin, having a relatively inflexible fixed shape or form, and intended primarily as a single service
container.
8.07.020 – Sale/Distribution of Single-Use Plastic Bottled Beverages (under 21 Ounces) on
City Property Restricted
On or after March 1, 2018, no person may sell or distribute bottled beverages at an event held
indoors or outdoors on City Property.
8.07.030 – New Leases, Permits, and Agreements
On or after March 1, 2018, the city shall not issue any new leases, contracts, permits, bid proposals,
solicitations, or other form of agreement allowing use of City Property for purposes that would
include the sale/distribution of bottled beverages. This provision shall apply to any such permit
renewed, extended, or materially amended as of March 1, 2017.
8.07.040 – Restricting Use of City Funds
Packet Pg 224
10
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4
O ______
A. City funds shall not be used to purchase bottled beverages except as exempted or allowed under
this ordinance. The City’s purchasing policies shall be amended for consistency with this
ordinance.
B. It shall be City policy not to have drinking water systems in City offices/facilities that use
bottled beverages of any size where sufficient alternatives exist and are feasible. City
offices/facilities shall conform drinking water system to this policy where reasonable.
8.07.050 – Increasing Availability of Public Drinking Water
A. It shall be City policy to increase the availability of drinking water for public consumption in
public areas by ensuring access to drinking fountains, potable water hook-ups, and with
particular emphasis on providing water bottle filling stations. City departments will take all
reasonable and appropriate steps to promote and facilitate achievement of the intent and
requirements of this ordinance.
B. It shall be City policy that Capital Improvement Projects in a park, plaza, playground, or other
public space shall install devices that provide appropriate availability of drinking water for
public consumption such as water bottle filling stations, drinking fountains, and/or potable
water hook-ups for public use, if the department finds the installation is proximate and feasible
with the scale and scope of the project.
C. It shall be City goal to encourage the inclusion of water bottle filling stations for public use in
privately-owned developments.
8.07.060 Exceptions
A. The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply where the City Manager or department finds
that relying on bottled beverages (e.g. bottled water) is necessary in a given situation to protect
the public health, safety and welfare, and no reasonable alternative will serve the same purpose.
B. The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to emergencies.
C. The City Manager or designee responsible for permitting an event or issuing a lease on City
Property may waive the requirements of this ordinance in full or in part if it is demonstrated to
the satisfaction of the City Manager or designee that strict compliance would not be feasible,
would create undue hardship or practical infeasibility, or that other reasonable circumstances
warrant waiving the requirements of this ordinance.
D. The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply where there are hydration requirements for
employees working outside (i.e. fieldwork) and no reasonable alternative to plastic beverage
bottles will serve the same purpose.
E. The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to the sale/distribution of bottled beverages to
participants of a participant athletic event.
F. The provisions of this Ordinance do not apply to an event where the applicant submitted a
complete application for review, or received approval, prior to the effective date of this
ordinance (November 23, 2017).
Packet Pg 225
10
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 5
O ______
G. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to impair a lease, contract, permit, bid proposal,
solicitation, or other form of agreement to which the City is a party on the effective date of this
Ordinance.
8.07.070 Implementation and Enforcement
A. Prior to March 1, 2018, the City and departments issuing permits and/or other agreements shall
take appropriate steps to update application checklists and other materials as well as educate
and inform the public about the requirements of this ordinance.
B. In addition to any other remedy available, any violation of the provisions of this ordinance by
any person is subject to following administrative fines pursuant to the procedures of Chapter
1.24:
1. A fine not to exceed $200 for an event of 1 to 200 persons;
2. A fine not to exceed $400 for an event of 201 to 400 persons;
3. A fine not to exceed $600 for an event of 401 to 600 persons; and
4. A fine not to exceed $1,000 for an event of 600 or more persons.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of
this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any other provisions of the city’s rules and regulations. It
is the city’s express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of
the fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared
invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 5. Effective Dates. A summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of
Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final
passage, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This Ordinance shall
go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage with phased implementation
as established herein. A copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be on file in the Office of the
City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall be available
to any member of the public.
INTRODUCED on the ____ day of ____, 2017, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of ____, 2017, on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
Packet Pg 226
10
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 6
O ______
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 227
10
All Registered Statements sorted chronologically
As of October 12, 2017, 4:25 PM
Open City Hall is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is
voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of
any government agency or elected officials.
All Registered Statements sorted chronologically
As of October 12, 2017, 4:25 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5433
Plastic Beverage Bottle Regulations and Water-Bottle Filling Stations
What do you think of the proposed regulations to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City
property and increase the availability of water bottle filling stations?
Packet Pg 228
10
As of October 12, 2017, 4:25 PM, this forum had:
Attendees: 84
Registered Statements: 20
All Statements: 41
Hours of Public Comment: 2.1
This topic started on September 18, 2017, 5:06 PM.
All Registered Statements sorted chronologically
As of October 12, 2017, 4:25 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5433 Page 2 of 6
Plastic Beverage Bottle Regulations and Water-Bottle Filling Stations
What do you think of the proposed regulations to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City
property and increase the availability of water bottle filling stations?
Packet Pg 229
10
carol Mortensen inside Neighborhood 7 October 12, 2017, 3:57 PM
We have a bottle deposit that we pay on plastic and glass bottles. Is there a program for the city to recoup these
funds? If not, we should not sell them; we should only sell refillable bottles. If this is impossible to supervise or
regulate, only allow glass bottles to be sold inside the city. Plastic bottles are not finding their way to recycling
facilities.
We could also charge an additional city recycling fee.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 October 12, 2017, 1:32 PM
Reducing plastic bottle waste is a good idea. Re-filling stations are a nice idea as well but who is going to pay
for them? Our city government already spends more than it should. I am not in favor of more taxes to pay for
things like this.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 October 11, 2017, 2:40 AM
It's a great idea! I'm all for it.
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods October 8, 2017, 11:16 AM
This is a great idea for the environment and the health of all species, including man. Perhaps businesses could
make up for potential lost revenue by selling reusable bottles.
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods October 8, 2017, 6:42 AM
I support the initiative to restrict plastic beverage bottles and increase the availability of water bottle filling
stations to reduce waste. I would like to see paper cups available or refillable bottles for sale close to the
refilling stations for the rare times one forgets to carry their own bottle.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 October 7, 2017, 5:47 PM
I support this initiative. It might be good to restrict and not fully ban the bottles at events. Bringing your own
bottle takes some foresight and it's very likely some otherwise environmentally aware people forget their bottle
or join the event on the spur, making a total ban probably unwise or even dangerous to public wellbeing at such
events. I could imagine a phase-in period coupled with public education about the availability (or lack of) of
single-use bottles.
Karin
Delia Horwitz outside Neighborhoods October 7, 2017, 2:05 PM
Plastic Beverage Bottle Regulations and Water-Bottle Filling Stations
What do you think of the proposed regulations to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City property and increase the availability of water bottle filling stations?
All Registered Statements sorted chronologically
As of October 12, 2017, 4:25 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5433 Page 3 of 6
Packet Pg 230
10
Yes, Banning the sale and use of one use plastic bottles at city events is the right thing to do, and I applaud our
city government leaders for championing this important action. Having water stations that have clean and
healthy water is a wonderful and appropriate civic service.
Justin Bradshaw inside Neighborhood 1 October 5, 2017, 11:26 AM
I support the idea of reducing plastic bottle waste by banning them on city property... and especially for refilling
stations.
I personally carry a reusable bottle everywhere I go and encourage others to do the same. This is a defensible
way for the city to do that.
My concerns are twofold:
1 - the straw ban will be met with ridicule and harm the efforts of the bottle ban. It seems like small effects
compared to the blowback.
2 - I want to see ways to buy reusable bottles next to some of the filing stations. Perhaps vending machines with
them should be available?
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods October 3, 2017, 7:36 PM
As an environmentally conscientious person I am thrilled that SLO City is taking drastic steps to alleviate plastic
on our streets and in our waste dumps. However, I am concerned that the so called "watering stations" to
replace bottled water is going to have it's own set of problems. SLO County Health Agency has already shown
that it cannot perform up to what is expected regulation wise by way of the many complaints lodged against it
over the past several years. Having watering stations will add one more item to the list to inspect and regulate
by a department that is already challenged. I think some more brain storming and long term planning needs to
be put in place before measures are taken to remove all plastic bottles away from entities using SLO City
property.
Linda Poppenheimer outside Neighborhoods September 29, 2017, 10:28 AM
I applaud the City of San Luis Obispo for tackling this issue. It takes more water to make the bottle, clean it, and
fill it than is actually in the bottle. Just because a package is recyclable does not mean that a. people will
recycle it and b. that is worth using resources to make it. Bottled water is a wasteful and socially unjust product.
Installing water refilling stations around town and promoting them will help people make the change. I hope the
City passes this regulation and that it expands throughout the County.
Krista Kolby outside Neighborhoods September 28, 2017, 5:05 PM
I definitely think this is a step in the right direction. I would like to see plastic bottle use eliminated as well as
straws. I would also like to see a ban on polystyrene use in SLO county. I actually think banning polystyrene is
Plastic Beverage Bottle Regulations and Water-Bottle Filling Stations
What do you think of the proposed regulations to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City property and increase the availability of water bottle filling stations?
All Registered Statements sorted chronologically
As of October 12, 2017, 4:25 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5433 Page 4 of 6
Packet Pg 231
10
more important than the plastic bottle issue because at least the bottles can be recycled whereas polystyrene
stays in the environment forever.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 10 September 21, 2017, 2:00 PM
Support. This is the way the world is heading, and we should not drag our feet.
Kelly McCleary inside Neighborhood 7 September 21, 2017, 7:47 AM
I support the City taking these steps to reduce the use of plastic beverage bottles on City property and to
increase the availability of water filling stations around the city.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 8 September 20, 2017, 5:55 PM
I fully support any regulation which reduces the availability of single-use plastic bottles and encourages re-filling
of reusable bottles. Recycling uses energy and is not the answer - preventing the use of this material is sorely
needed. People buy plastic bottles out of convenience, but they can also refill a container if it is made
convenient.
Roz Phillips inside Neighborhood 1 September 20, 2017, 12:15 PM
I support restricting the sale and distribution of single-use plastic beverage bottles on SLO city property. I also
feel that it is important to provide free water bottle filling stations.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 8 September 19, 2017, 10:40 AM
I am completely for the reduction of plastic bottle waste by regulating the sale and distribution of plastic bottles
on City property. My main concern when thinking out the practical details of implementing this, though, was how
events like Thursday night Farmers Market will be impacted. I believe that with the proper balance of installing
filling stations in proportion to the amount of restrictions of plastic bottles, Farmers Market vendors (and
vendors for similar events) will be able to adapt with little negative impact to the local economy. If we start
shifting the culture to a more sustainable way of living, we will all adapt. Also, with the rising popularity of
reusable and insulated water bottles, it seems like the culture is already shifting to accommodating less plastic
bottles (and thus less waste). Overall, I think limiting the sale and distribution of plastic bottles on City owned
property is a wonderful and very responsible idea. Go SLO!!
Jan Marx inside Neighborhood 2 September 19, 2017, 9:32 AM
Plastic Beverage Bottle Regulations and Water-Bottle Filling Stations
What do you think of the proposed regulations to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City property and increase the availability of water bottle filling stations?
All Registered Statements sorted chronologically
As of October 12, 2017, 4:25 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5433 Page 5 of 6
Packet Pg 232
10
Yes, I support this program.
Wendi Craig outside Neighborhoods September 19, 2017, 6:30 AM
I applaud the City of San Luis Obispo taking this step in discouraging the single use of plastic bottles. I am glad
the city plans to put in the water stations to provide an alternative. Thank you for taking this step to increase
awareness of this harmful and unncessary use of plastics. I am proud that our city is a leader in protecting the
health and beauty of our planet.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 September 18, 2017, 8:33 PM
I would support the increase in water refilling stations and restrictions on single use plastic water bottles, soda
and sports drinks. I also support a ban on plastic single use straws.
Dale Stoker inside Neighborhood 2 September 18, 2017, 8:09 PM
Yes, I'm in favor of the plastic bottle ban and I appreciate this isn't limited to water as initially proposed. Please
ensure there is a plan in place to create refill stations before fully banning bottles.
Plastic Beverage Bottle Regulations and Water-Bottle Filling Stations
What do you think of the proposed regulations to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City property and increase the availability of water bottle filling stations?
All Registered Statements sorted chronologically
As of October 12, 2017, 4:25 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5433 Page 6 of 6
Packet Pg 233
10
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 234
10
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 235
10
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 236
10
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 237
10
-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 238
10
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 239
10
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 240
10
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 241
10
The chart below compares the key elements of ordinances from the agencies selected for research.
Packet Pg 24210
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 243
10
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 244
10
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 245
10
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 246
10
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 247
10
Attachments:
a - City Council Meeting Minutes (see Council Reading File)
b - San Francisco Ordinance No 28-14 (see Council Reading File)
c - Regulations from Other Agencies (see Council Reading File)
d - Table of Communities with Plastic Bottle Regulations (see Council Reading File)
e - Survey_City of San Luis Obispo Local Business Perspective (provided below)
f - PEN Manual Action Plan Matrix (see Council Reading File)
g - American Journal of Public Health Study - University of Vermont (see Council
Reading File)
Packet Pg 248
10
$%& '
(% )'
%('
&(% )'
"
*%
* *
# +
" , -
" , . /,*#
0 # 0
.
#
1234
5 65*
"
.7 %
8
9
%:
#
#%
#
%
;
0
#
" %%%
%<*#
# 0
.
%%%
$%& '
(% )' %('
&(% )'
" 9
!
"#! $
ATTACHMENT E
Packet Pg 249
10
%'
%'
)%&'
%'
% '
%'
$%'
&8"
=*,# "
*#
$ $
8
9 $
)
+
-
>
"
%'
%')%&'
%' %'$%'
" 9
!
!
!
!
!
!%&
' !
(
Packet Pg 250
10
)%)'
% '(
)%)'
% $'
2 *# 0
* *+ .
#
-?
8
@ /A
)%)'
% '
)%)'
% $'
" 9
)
*
+, !!
Packet Pg 251
10
$%$'
% '(
%&'
%()'
$/,*
0 3 * 0
"
0 7
, "
*?
8
@ /A B /A
0
$%$'
% '
%&'%()'
" 9
)
*
+, -!
+,
Packet Pg 252
10
&%('
)%)'
&%('
% '
)2 " ,*#
"
,# 0
.
# ?
8
@ "
/A
&%('
)%)'
&%('
" 9
)
*
+, !!
Packet Pg 253
10
%)'
%&'
% '(
(: *"
0 ,
"
#
"
,
#
"
*
0
* *+ .
#
-?!
C
%
8
@ /A
%)'%&'
% '
" 9
)
*
+, !
.
Packet Pg 254
10
&%'
$%('
%( '.
: *# 0 #
#
0
"
*?
8
@ /A
&%'
$%('
%( '
" 9
)
*
+, !!
Packet Pg 255
10
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 256
10
THE Newspaper of the Central Coast
MBUNE
3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo,
In The Superior Court of The State of California
In and for the County of San Luis Obispo
AD #3332349
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss,
County of San Luis Obispo
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not
interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at
all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned
was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of
THE TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general Circulation,
printed and published daily at the City of San Luis
Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice
at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was
published in the above-named newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit;
OCTOBER 14, 2017 that said newspaper was duly and
regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of
general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior
Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on
June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code
of the State of California.
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
(Si Lure of Principal Clerk)
DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2017
AD COST: $218.08
OCT 18 2017
WIII;
Cyff OF
&M LUM OBISPO
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The San Luis Obispo City Council invites
D11 interested persons to attend a public
hearing on Tuesday, October 24, 2017,
at 6:00 p.m. in the. City Hall Council
Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obi-
spo, California, relative to the following:
1. REVIEW OF AN ORDINANCE THAT_
A public hearing to consider introducing an
ordinance that would regulate the
saWdistribulion of plastic beverage bottles
on City property and at events on City
property (including city facilities/offices,
streets, sidewalks, and parks), and In.
crease the availability of water bottle filling
stations in the City.
This meeting is a follow up to the January
City Council Study Session where the City
Council heard public comment, reviewed
research on similar ordinances In the Unit-
ed States, and provided direction to staff.
This hearing is another opportunity for pub-
lic input.
A public hearing to consider introducing an
Ordinance that would require businesses
serving single -use beverage straws to only
provide a straw to a customer upon re-
quest. This hearing is an opportunity for
public input.
For more information on both of these
items, you are invited to contact Marcus
Carloni of the City's Administration Depart-
ment at (805) 781-7151 or by email at
mcarlonl�stacltyLra
The City Council may also discuss other
hearings or business items before or after
the items listed above. If you challenge the
proposed project in court, you may be limit-
ed to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written corre-
spondence delivered to the City Council at,
or prior to, the public hearing.
Reports for this meeting will be available
for review in the Cily Clark's Office and on-
line at www.slocity.org on October 18,
2017. Please call the City Clerk's Office at
(805) 781-7100 for more information. The
City Council meeting will be televised live
on Charter Cable Channel 20 and live
slrearning on www.slocity.org.
le Gallagher
Clerk
of San Luis Obispo j
bor14,2017 3332349 li
SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BOTTLES AND WATER BOTTLE FILLING STATIONSCity Council Hearing – October 24, 20171Consideration of an Ordinance regulating the sale and distribution of single-use plastic bottles and establishing regulations to increase the availability of water bottle filling stations
RecommendationIntroduce an Ordinance (Staff Report Attachment A) to regulate the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City property and at events on City property (including city facilities/office, streets, sidewalks, and parks), and establishing regulations to increase the availability of water bottle filling stations in the City. 2
3Background/City Council DirectionCity Council Study Session (January 2017)Material presented:City policy reviewCurrent City practicesResearch of plastic water bottle regulations in other agenciesOutcomes of plastic water bottle regulationsPlastic bottle recyclingLocal business perspective (survey)Council Direction:Prepare an ordinance restricting the sale/distribution of allsingle-use plastic beverage bottles on City property and events on City propertyIncrease the availability of water bottle filling stations
4City Council Direction1.(Focus)Restrict the sale/distribution of single‐use plastic bottlesa. On all City property including streets and sidewalks (e.g. city offices, parks, streets,sidewalks)b. At events on City property requiring a permit (e.g. the Farmer’s Market or a special eventat Mission Plaza)2.(Filling Stations)Increase the availability of water bottle filling stations in City facilities, Cityparks, private developments with public spaces, and in Capital Improvement Projects asfeasible.3.(Phasing)Establish a phased approach to implementing the regulations4.(Exemptions)Establish waivers and exclusions to allow flexibility5.(Fines)Establish a fine schedule for complianceBackground/City Council Direction
Council asked staff to research environmental impacts of plastic bottles vs. aluminum cans“restricting use/sale of allplastic bottles may increase use of aluminum cans”Research yielded inconclusive resultsSLO County Integrated Waste Management AuthorityCalRecycleCalifornia Environmental Protection AgencyAmerican Beverage IndustryEach industry performs their own life-cycle analysisApply their data and analysis using different methodology“our product is the best for the environment”Plastic Bottles vs. Aluminum Cans5
6TransportationLocation of MaterialsAmount of Recycled ContentProduction IntensityRecycling RatesConsistent ThemeAluminum appears to be more energy intensive during production as compared to plastic bottlesHowever, there are many variables involved in determining environmental impacts - a reason for inconclusive research. Plastic Bottles vs. Aluminum CansProduction LocationIntensity to Re-processEnd Use of Recycled ContentObtain Virgin Materials
Although aluminum cans appear more energy intensive than plastic bottles during production, current data trends suggest that aluminum may be less environmentally impactful than plastic bottlesHelps show potential benefits of using aluminum over plastic bottlesPlastic Bottles vs. Aluminum Cans7Plastic Bottle Litter. 2,504 plastic bottle caps and 1,989 plastic bottles collected at 2017 Beach Cleanup Day (ECOSLO)Production. More plastic bottles are produced/sold than aluminum cans (11.3 Billion vs. 8 Billion in 2016)Recycling. Aluminum cans are recycled far more than plastic bottles (720 Million cans not recycled vs. 2.7 Billion plastic bottles not recycled in 2016)GHG Reduction. Recycling aluminum eliminates more carbon emissions than recycling plastic bottles (IWMA)Lifespan. Aluminum cans breakdown in 80 to 100 years in a landfill, plastic bottles take as long as 700 years.
What?Where?How?When?Proposed Ordinance8ProposedOrdinanceExceptions?
The Ordinance would:Make it City policy to increase availability of drinking water systems with emphasis on filling stationsInclude them in capital improvement projects as feasibleEncourage them in publicly accessible open space areas within private developments. Planned to be incorporated in the current Zoning Regulations update.Existing filling stations (6):9Santa Rosa Park (2)City HallPolice Station City HallSinsheimer ParkWater Bottle Filling Stations
Existing filling stations (6):10Santa Rosa Park (2)City HallPolice Station City HallSinsheimer ParkWater Bottle Filling StationsPublic Works anticipates installing approximately ten filling stations over the next two years – based on priority locations. FY 2017-18 Evaluating:Ludwick CenterSinsheimer Stadium919 Palm Street OfficesFrench ParkMission PlazaFY 2018-19 Evaluating:Higuera Street crosswalk (Gap/Ross)Laguna Lake ParkParks and Rec Department OfficesCity Corporation YardSwim Center
11Public EngagementKSBY News CoverageNews Item/E‐NotificationChamber of Commerce/Downtown AssociationNotified Event Vendors (P&R)Open City Hall Pagewith FeedbackSupportive (41 Statements)•Support for regulating all plastic bottles•Installing filling stations is important and will help people use less plastic•Production and recycling use energy – we should prevent unnecessary use of materialsConcerns•This may impact events like farmer’s market•Filling stations may be expensive
The Ordinance is designed to take effect 3 months after second reading.Allows time for staff to adjust to adjust to Ordinance (communicate internally, update purchasing policies, update special event application materials)Allows time to perform outreach and for affected businesses to adjustIf adopted, staff will be working with two local organizations to develop outreach materials and will go to individual businesses to deliver the message about the new regulations. Staff will also send additional notification to businesses and make information available on the City’s website. 12Public Engagement
RecommendationIntroduce an Ordinance (Staff Report Attachment A) to regulate the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City property and at events on City property (including city facilities/office, streets, sidewalks, and parks), and establishing regulations to increase the availability of water bottle filling stations in the City. 13