The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSS3 - Eliminating the Use of PolystyreneCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. SSs September 23, 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Kathlyn Bowden, AICP; Economic Development Coordinator 949/644 -3230 or kbowden(a)city newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: ORDINANCE ELIMINATING THE USE OF EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE WITHIN NEWPORT BEACH'S CORPORATE LIMITS ISSUE: Should the City Council pursue an ordinance eliminating the use of expanded polystyrene (EPS) commonly known as Styrofoam ® disposable food service ware? RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff. DISCUSSION: Background Over the last couple of years, the issue of restricting or eliminating polystyrene food containers has been raised several times. The issue was presented to the City Council in June 2007 with a request for policy direction (see Attachment 1). In response, the City Council approved increased enforcement of and penalties for littering and increased City actions to keep trash out of the storm drain system. In addition, Council prohibited City use of polystyrene at all City facilities, City- sponsored events and events needing a Special Event Permit, In April 2008, the City Council received presentations from students at Mariners' Elementary School and Newport Harbor High School regarding the environmental effects of polystyrene (Styrofoam 8), and a request for the City Council to ban its use. Non - Recyclable Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance September 23, 2008 Page 2 The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) also conducted its own research into the effects of polystyrene and actions taken by other cities to ban its use. At its meeting of May 19, 2008, EQAC unanimously approved a memorandum (see Attachment 2) to the Mayor and Council, recommending that "the City of Newport Beach take action to limit, and eventually ban, the local use of polystyrene food packaging materials." More specifically, EQAC recommended an ordinance that would take effect within one year. At their June 10, 2008 meeting, staff presented City Council with a report requesting direction to staff regarding EQAC's recommendations, and informed the Council that preparation of an ordinance would require staff time for additional research, coordination with the Newport Beach Restaurant Association, and analysis of economic impacts and means of enforcement. Council directed staff to draft an ordinance banning the use of disposable polystyrene food service ware. Analysis In preparing a draft ordinance, staff researched similar ordinances in various California cities. Specifically, staff contacted the City of Laguna Beach, the City of Santa Monica, and the City of Oakland regarding the success of their ordinances, their exemptions policy and process, and enforcement procedures. Staff was pleased to learn that all three communities have had little resistance to the ban of polystyrene food containers in their communities and have found it necessary to grant only a few limited exemptions to the ordinance. We also learned that staff in the cities of Santa Monica and Oakland undertook a significant educational effort prior to the implementation of their ordinances. This educational effort was believed responsible for smoothing the transition and significantly reducing the number of exemptions requested. Based on information gathered, staff prepared a draft ordinance (see Attachment 3). The draft ordinance eliminates polystyrene food ware use by food vendors and prohibits its use for locally packaged grocery products such as meat, fruit or vegetables. It originally contained a one -year educational period prior to enforcement. The delay in the effective date was to allow food vendors sufficient time to learn about the ordinance and locate alternative products, and deplete current inventories of material rather than having to dispose of them at a loss. Staff provided the preliminary draft ordinance to the Newport Beach Restaurant Association (NBRA) prior to their Board meeting of July 23, 2008. Staff attended the Board meeting to hear their comments on the proposed draft ordinance and answer questions. NBRA Board members raised concerns related to the enforcement of the ordinance, stating that enforcement measures should be evenly distributed among both large and small, franchised chains and "mom- and -pop" restaurants alike. It was Non - Recyclable Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance September 23, 2008 Page 3 suggested that a blanket standard condition be placed against all incoming restaurant use permits, stating that polystyrene shall not be used for the restaurant's take -out containers. The Board commented that the year "phase -in" period was more than adequate, and suggested a lesser period of six months. All agreed that a strong educational effort must be undergone before the ordinance takes effect and that the Restaurant Association should take the lead in the educational process, as staff has little to no industry expertise regarding appropriate take -out alternatives, vendor relationships, etc. The draft before you (Attachment 3) has only a six month delay of the effective date. Various NBRA Board members voiced concerns over the fact that the ordinance, as proposed, does not address all polystyrene food ware and allows local grocery, convenience, and discount stores to sell Styrofoam cups and plates. The City of Laguna Beach ordinance stops the sale of Styrofoam cups and plates but allows groceries to use Styrofoam for raw meat packaging. Members of the Restaurant Association felt that the ordinance as proposed targets one particular user of polystyrene (e.g. the restaurant industry), and therefore only addresses one portion of the polystyrene problem. They would support the City Council banning the sale of polystyrene food ware within the city limits. It was also suggested by the NBRA that the City install signage along its beaches requesting visitors not to bring polystyrene to Newport Beach. Administration of the Ordinance Staff has yet to finalize the implementation measures for exemption provisions of the proposed ordinance. As proposed, the City Manager or his designee may assume that responsibility with support from General Services. However, uncertainty remains as to what conditions constitute an undue hardship for a restaurant or retail food vendor. In addition, staff has yet to determine what department will be responsible for enforcement of the ordinance. The City of Laguna Beach uses its fats, oil, and gas (FOG) inspectors as their main enforcement mechanism. Staff has yet to determine whether enforcement of the ordinance would be better left to the City's business license inspectors or Code and Water Quality Enforcement (C &WQE) officers. Likely, staff will depend heavily on the public reporting violations. Arguments in Favor of Eliminating Polystyrene Both the students and EQAC made a good case for the elimination of Styrofoam based on its environmental impacts. EQAC's research highlighted a study by the California Integrated Waste Management Board that states; "There is no meaningful recycling of food service polystyrene ". In addition, since EPS does not naturally decompose, it has been postulated that the majority of EPS builds up in our landfills or pollutes the ocean. EQAC's research also cites a 2002 scientific review in the Marine Pollution Bulletin that documents the impact of plastic debris in the ocean and describes the effect as a "major threat to marine life ". Scientists continue to assess plastic particulate levels in the Non - Recyclable Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance September 23, 2008 Page 4 marine environment. If the City were to adopt an ordinance banning the use of polystyrene containers, it would join 28 California communities with some measure of EPS bans. Arauments in Favor of Allowina Polvstvrene Shortly after the City Council directed staff to develop a draft ordinance, staff was contacted by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The ACC by phone and the attached e- mail(s) (see Attachment 4) submitted information suggesting that banning EPS was not likely to produce the positive environmental impacts desired. The ACC information focused on four points. First, plastic- coated paperboard containers and plastic- coated paper cups with sleeves for hot beverages require 50% more energy to produce, create nearly twice as much solid waste by volume, nearly five times as much solid waste by weight, and nearly 50% more greenhouse gas emissions. According to the ACC, Chlorofluorocarbons are no longer an environmental concern as CFCs were eliminated from the EPS process in the early 1990's. Second, EPS food service ware is starting to be recycled. Thus, banning EPS could kill this emerging industry. Third, only food service ware made from compostable materials have much less overall impact on the environment and then only if communities have the capacity to compost these materials rather than landfill them. Lastly, the problem associated with polystyrene is its improper disposal (litter), a human behavior problem, as opposed to the substance itself. In addition, the ACC cited the California Restaurant Association's opposition to polystyrene foam bans, considering them nothing more than a de facto tax. Has a method of Recycling Polystyrene Emerged? Since embarking on this effort, the City has also learned of a company, Dart Container Corporation (Dart), whose polystyrene foam products are recyclable (Attachment 6). In an effort to expand foam container recycling as a viable option for the public, Dart has expressed an interest in partnering with various Orange County municipalities to make EPS recycling a reality. In its outreach effort, Dart has explained that most of the paper food container alternatives have a plastic/ wax lining which often makes their recycling cost prohibitive. As such, Dart claims that their polystyrene foam products compare favorably to many of the alternative food container products when the whole life cycle of the product is considered. Determining the feasibility of Dart's recycling program offer will take additional time. Their information on the recyclability of foam food service containers may lead to an alternative to the outright ban of EPS containers. However, the City of Roseville has recently launched an EPS recycling program with Dart. Roseville's program does not accept dirty food containers, and requires that all EPS recycling be "clean, dry, and uncontaminated with other materials ". Such a program may be more appropriate for other types of EPS waste that the proposed ordinance does not restrict, such as polystyrene foam packing materials. 21 Non - Recyclable Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance September 23, 2008 Page 5 ADDITIONAL CONCERNS Does CEQA reouire an EIR before adopting an Ordinance? In November 2006, the City of Santa Monica met opposition from the plastics industry prior to enacting its non - recyclable plastic disposable food service ware ban. The Polystyrene Packaging Council (PSPC), a trade organization representing the nation's resin suppliers, formally objected to the ban, stating that the City failed to conduct an environmental analysis they believe is mandated under CEQA. The study would have determined how other products used to replace Styrofoam and non - recyclable plastic could impact the environment. The City Attorney dismissed the charge, stating that the charges were misleading and erroneous. The City determined that an analysis would not be required under the general rule that CEQA does not apply to projects that do not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment exemption, and no litigation ensued. However, the industry has since become more assertive in filing lawsuits and the courts have been more receptive to their arguments. In April 2008, an Alameda County Superior Court Judge overturned Oakland's ban on plastic bags, finding that the City did not meet the CEQA standard that there is no possibility that the ordinance will cause a significant environmental effect (see Attachment 5). The challenger, the Coalition to Support Plastic Bag Recycling, produced substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that single -use paper bags are more environmentally damaging than single -use plastic bags. The Coalition challenged the ban on the grounds that Oakland did not comply with CEQA, which required public entities to document and consider the environmental impact of their decisions. The Coalition argued that neither the general rule nor the "categorical" exemption were grounds for exemption from CEQA review. The Superior Court Judge ruled in favor of the Coalition, stating that Oakland's ordinance was invalid as the City could not make the findings required for either exemption. In August 2008, the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of a plastic bag ban in Manhattan Beach. The City of Manhattan Beach plans to move forward with its ban, stating that their initial study provided sufficient grounds to claim exemption from CEQA. Staff believes that the industry will continue to threaten litigation against cities that do not perform an independent CEQA analysis on similar prohibitions. Staff therefore suggests that, based on the current case law and information provided by the ACC and Dart Corp., the City should conduct further environmental review prior to the adoption of the proposed ordinance so as to avoid exposure to legal action. 5 Non - Recyclable Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance September 23, 2008 Page 6 Level of Success Assuming that an environmental review supports restricting Styrofoam and that restrictions are implemented, staff remains concerned that by regulating only polystyrene foam and only that used in food service establishments, the proposed ordinance will not have as much of an effect as proponents would hope. Food service establishments could use other non - recyclable products that have their own environmental effects, and residents could still purchase Styrofoam products within Newport Beach and introduce them to the waste stream. Finally, a portion of litter found on the City's beaches comes from visitors and picnickers who bring disposable food service ware to the beach from home for personal use. These transported products will likely be composed of Styrofoam or some other non - recyclable material. Non - Recyclable Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance September 23, 2008 Page 7 STAFF DIRECTION Staff is seeking direction on the following questions: 1. Does the City Council wish to continue the pursuit of an ordinance for the elimination of polystyrene food ware within the City of Newport Beach? 2. If so, is the City Council willing to consider appropriating funds for environmental review, without which the City may expose itself to legal action? 3. Should the proposed ordinance include the elimination of: i. Polystyrene for locally packaged foods for sale (as currently written); and /or ii. The retail or wholesale sale of Styrofoam cups and plates within the City limits? iii. Disposable food service ware composed of other non - recyclable materials (e.g. plastic or wax- coated paper products)? 4. Should staff pursue talks with Dart Corp about recycling polystyrene? Prepared by: /KATHLYN BO EN Economic Development Coordinator Submitted by: SHARON Z. WOO Assistant City Ma er Attachments: City Council Staff Report, June 12, 2007 Memorandum from EQAC City Council Staff Report, June 10, 2008 Email and Attachments from the American Chemistry Council Information on Alameda County Superior Court decision Information from Dart Container Corporation Proposed Ordinance I THIS PAGE LEFT 'BLANK INTENTIONALLY. Attachment 1 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY ,o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. June 12, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager 9491644 -3002 or dkiff @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Policy Direction regarding Polystyrene Use in Newport Beach Il§SUE: What should be done to reduce or eliminate the amount of polystyrene that appears on our beaches and in our local waterways? RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to pursue one or more (or none) of the polystyrene reduction options listed in this staff report and to return at a future meeting with implementation language for additional consideration. DISCUSSION: In recent weeks, students at Newport Harbor High School have asked the City to consider a ban on polystyrene (also known as Styrofoam@) in our community, in order to attempt to reduce the amount of polystyrene in our waterways and on our beaches. Polystyrene is a commonly found waste product on our beaches, and does not decompose rapidly. It the Council is concerned about the quantity of polystyrene found in the community, it could do a variety of things to reduce the amount of it that end up as waste: Tier 1- Activities that Do Not involve a Ban A. Increase penalties for littering. S. Increase enforcement against tittering. C. Increase amount of street-sweeping where trash tends to accumulate. D. Expand the City's catch basin screen program, keeping as much trash out of our waterways by keeping it out of the storm drain system. E. Work within the National Pollutant Discharge Eltminanon System (NPDES) and with the Regional Water Board to encourage upstream cities to expand their catch basin screen programs (many cities don I have the programs at all), to better enforce ant-- IMerlaws, Polystyrene Options June 12, 2007 Page 2 and to add to the number of trash booms in key waterways that end up in Newport Bay or the Santa Ana River. F. Adopt a community recognition program for businesses, schools, and other entities that follow key trash reduction principles, including on -site recycling, participation in Coastal Clean -up Days, and ending or reducing the amount ofnon- bboVradable packaging products they use (including polystyrene) COMMENTS: Each of these Tier 1 ideas are relatively simple to enact, but could involve some small additional costs to purchase alternative products. According to General Services Director Mark Harmon, items 1 -C and 1 -D will involve significant cost increases, depending on the scope of the program expansion. Tier 2 - Polystyrene Prohibitions Relating to City Activities or Permitted Events A. Adopt a Council Policy prohibiting the City government from purchasing or using polystyrene. B. Adopt a Council Policy requiring that any City-sponsored special event (COM 5K, CC Marathon, etc) not use polystyrene. C. Direct staff to include language in all new concession contracts that prohibits concessionaires from using po"tyrene for food service or packaging and that requires a recycling program at the concession site. D. Adopt a Council Policy that requires any event needing a Special Event Permit (most activities that involve the rental or use of city facilities) to expresslyprohibit the use of polystyrene materials for the special event. COMMENTS: These Tier 2 ideas can be enacted without too much difficulty, provided that we are able to find comparable products (especially for food service and food warming) to replace polystyrene. It may be somewhat difficult to proactively enforce the Special Event Permit restrictions, so we may end up doing that on an after - the -fact basis. Holding back a deposit might be a way to make the enforcement aspect of this work. The ideas are generally symbolic in nature, but they could reduce the amount of polystyrene on our beaches to a small extent. In preparing this staff report, I surveyed several departments that may use polystyrene. Celeste Jardine -Haug of the OASIS Senior Center reports that -The daily meals program uses Styrofoam® plates and cups ... they would have to move to paper which might be more money. (As to the) ...Meals on Wheels (program), ...only a couple of things (they use) have Styrofoam®. (OASIS) uses cups only and could move to paper (cardboard). For special events we could use real plates and wash them (lots of time and staff needed) or find a stiffer paper type plate. I believe that would increase cost. All in all, it would be doable." Tier 3 - Outright Bans A. Amend the Municipal Code to prohibit the use of polystyrene by any food service establishment. B. Amend the Municipal Code to prohibit the use of polystyrene by any person using an ocean or bay beach. C. Amend the Municipal Code to prohibit the use of polystyrene by any business, school, government, or non-profit in Newport Beach's corporate limits. D. Amend the Municipal Code to prohibit the use or sale ofpolystyrene products by any business, school, or non -profit in Newport Beach's corporate limits. lZ Polystyrene Options June 12, 2007 Page 3 COMMENTS: These ideas in Tier 3 require greater enforcement resources and will be challenging to maintain over time. They may have some effect in reducing the amount of polystyrene that ends up in our waterways and on our beaches, but likely not as much of an effect as proponents think. Some (if not most) of the waste we see on our beaches and in our harbor comes from upstream sources or drifts onto our beaches from boats, other watersheds (including the Los Angeles River, the San Gabriel River, and more) after being transported by ocean currents . Each of these Tier 3 options should, as a courtesy, be discussed with local businesses, the Chamber of Commerce, and the restaurant association before further consideration. Council may wish to discuss these various alternatives, offer other alternatives not listed here, and direct staff to return with speck implementation of one or more options at a future Council meeting. Committee Action: This item has not been heard by any Committee. Environmental Review: The City Council's approval of this Agenda Item does not require environmental review. Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the item). 0 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Attachment 2 { THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY fi 23 May 2008 To: Ed Selich, Mayor, City of Newport Beach From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Committee (EQAC) Subject: Limitations on use of polystyrene packaging in Newport Beach CC: Councilmembers: Curry, Daigle, Gardner, Henn, Rosansky, Webb Polystyrene is used in packaging of food, electronics and a wide variety of consumer products commonly available in our community. Styrofoam (an air - blown, expanded form of polystyrene) is commonly used in beverage cups, "peanut' packaging filters, pre - formed electronics shipping containers and super market food packages, but some form of polystyrene can be found in the packaging of a majority of the products we buy. Hundreds of tons of such material are produced and used in California each year with Newport Beach using its proportionate share. Although some of the material finds its way into landfills and recycling centers, a large portion is used and discarded in such a way as to find its way into our storm drains, rivers, streams, bay and ocean or onto our beaches. Based on our population, Newport Beach alone could be using and disposing of over 300 tons per year of polystyrene in support of our local food service industry (reference 1). Since polystyrene does not naturally decompose, the majority of this builds up in our landfills or pollutes the ocean. This conclusion is supported by a study by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (reference 2, Executive Summary) that states: "There is no meaningful recycling of food service polystyrene ". This issue has been studied extensively by the Earth Resources Foundation and Newport Harbor High School Surf and Environmental Class. They have collected a significant inventory of technical articles and studies detailing the extent and severity of the problems. Reference 3 is a marine research technical report showing the extensive impact of plastic debris on the zooplankton in the Pacific Ocean off California, describing it as a "major threat to marine life ". Reference 4 is an Orange County Grand Jury Report that addresses effective control of debris in the Orange County in watershed and harbors, and suggests in recommendations 7 & 8 (pg. 11) that the County and cities should implement procedures to "prohibit the use of disposable plastics and Styrofoam" and "encourage businesses ....to reduce the use and sale of disposable plastic and Styrofoam ". Elimination of these materials will require that some businesses change their packaging approaches. To assist them in this task, Reference 5 is a list of 32 distributors of biodegradable and recyclable food service containers that can be used as substitutes for current containers. Many California municipalities have already recognized the situation and enacted ordinances either banning or severely limiting the local use of polystyrene food packaging (reference 6). In most cases, these ordinances have been limited to "takeout food packaging" with adequate lead -time provisions to allow affected vendors to find alternative, affordable packaging approaches. In most cases the municipalities have preceded the ordinances with self - imposed restrictions on city operations to demonstrate viability and to allow for time to prepare. Over 30 communities are listed in the reference 6 article including Long Beach, Los Angeles, Santa Monica and Laguna Beach (where Municipal Code Section 7.05, "Disposable Food Containers" goes into effect July 1, 2008). Recognizing the significance of this problem, BQAC believes that it is now reasonable for the City of Newport Beach to take action to limit, and eventually ban, the local use of polystyrene food packaging materials. Our stewardship of the local waterways, beaches and ocean demands it, and a large number of other communities have successfully paved the way for us. We recommend that preparation of an appropriate ordinance should proceed with the objective of implementation within one year from now. 1$ REFERENCES "Environmental Effects of Polystyrene Production and Disposal ", 3/1/07, Californians Against Waste, www.cawrecyclables.orp,/issues/e-ps environmental effects 2. "Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California ", Dec. 2004, Report to California Legislature by California Integrated Waste Management Board, www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/Plastics/43204003.p "Density of Plastic Particles found in Zooplankton Trawls from Coastal Waters of California to the North Pacific Central Gyre ", by C.J. Moore, G. L. Lattin, A. F. Zellers, Algalita Marine Research Foundation, 148 N. Marina Drive, Long Beach, CA 90803, USA www.alizalita.org,/pdf/Density`/`2OoP/`2OParticles%2Osvellchkdl 1- 05_ ;ndf 4. "The Rainy Season's `First Flush' Hits the Harbors of Orange County", Orange County 2000 Grand Jury Report and Recommendations, www. ocRrandiury .org /ndfs /GJFirstFlush.pdf 5. "Distributors of Biodegradable and Recyclable Food Service Containers ", City of Santa Monica, Environmental Programs Division, www.smepd.org /container 6. "List of Local Food Packaging Ordinances ", 4/25/08, Californians Against Waste, www. cawrecyc lables.org /issuesJpolysbgene ordinances list 11 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 2l- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 30 June 10, 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Managers Office Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 949 - 644 -3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Recommendation from Regarding Limitations Materials Environmental Quality Affairs Committee on Use of Polystyrene Food Packaging ISSUE: Should Newport Beach prohibit the local use of polystyrene food packaging materials? RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff. DISCUSSION: Background: The City Council has received presentations from students at Mariners' Elementary School and Newport Harbor High School (NHHS) regarding the environmental effects of polystyrene (Styrofoam), and requests for the City Council to ban its use. When this issue was presented to the City Council in June 2007, staff provided the attached report requesting policy direction. The City Council approved Tier f and Tier 2 actions, with an exemption for OASIS. Tier 1 includes activities such as increased enforcement of and penalties for littering and increased City actions to keep trash out of the storm drain system. Tier 2 is a prohibition on City use of polystyrene, including purchase, use at City- sponsored events and use at events needing a Special Event Permit. The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) has received presentations similar to those made to the City Council, and EQAC members have conducted their own research into the effects of polystyrene and actions taken by other cities to ban its use. At their meeting of May 19, 2008, EQAC unanimously approved the attached memorandum to the Mayor and Council. It discusses research on the effects of 23 Recommendation from EGAC Regarding Limitations on Use of Polystyrene Food Packaging Materials June 10, 2008 Page 2 polystyrene and actions taken by other cities in California, and recommends that "the City of Newport Beach take action to limit, and eventually ban, the local use of polystyrene food packaging materials." More specifically, EQAC recommends an ordinance that would take effect within one year. This recommendation is consistent with Tier 3 in the June 12, 2007 report. Anal sis: Staff views working with local restaurants and food serving establishments to eliminate their use of polystyrene as something that has strong potential to have an effect on the overall impacts from this material. As examples, attached to this report are ordinances adopted by the Cities of Laguna Beach and Oakland, and a draft prepared by the NHHS Surf and Environmental Class. Should the City Council be interested in a ban on such products, while that sounds like a responsible action for the City Council to take, it is not without its issues. Minimal Reduction in Local Beach Litter The NHHS students talked about the product ending up on our beaches and the environmental damage it can do to sea life, in addition to the beach litter it creates. Staff estimates that more than ninety percent (90 %) of our beach visitors live in other cities, and very few stop in Newport Beach to purchase their food and drink prior to going to the beaches. Most start out their trip with food and drink already packed. Therefore, the effect of a local polystyrene ban might not be noticeable in reduced litter on our beaches. The effort to educate these beach users would require a non - ending effort to be effective. Enforcement A ban on polystyrene is not a regulation that would be enforced by the beach lifeguards, nor by the Police. If it were left up to our Park Patrol staff to enforce, that enforcement would be sporadic, given the other responsibilities of the position and the little time our Park Patrol people spend on the beaches. Enforcement by Code and Water Quality Enforcement staff would also be sporadic, unless additional overtime for weekend enforcement was used. Therefore, there is the issue of a regulation being put in place with adequate signage, but with no direct enforcement follow -up. The City did ban smoking on the beach without active enforcement, so there is a precedent for doing so. However, such lack of enforcement can cause frustration on the part of those people who take the ban seriously and want others to respect it, setting up situations for potential conflict among beach users. A Recommendation from EQAC Regarding Limitations on Use of Polystyrene Food Packaging Materials June 10, 2008 Page 3 Public Notice The best method to notify people, especially visitors from outside Newport Beach, that a ban on polystyrene products is in force is problematic. This could be handled by incorporating an enforcement message on existing signs. However, signs already contain a list of beach regulations that, unless someone takes the time to read them, may be lost to beach users. Additional signage has the potential to cause beach signage clutter. Restaurant Impacts A representative of the Earth Resources Foundation has met with the Restaurant Association Board of Directors and shared information on alternative materials that could be used in place of polystyrene products. White the Board did not take action on the matter and expressed concerns about costs to their industry, they recognized that a polystyrene ban may be inevitable and expressed willingness to assist in its implementation, if that is the direction taken by the City Council. Staff Time Preparation of an ordinance appropriate for Newport Beach will require staff time for additional research, coordination with the Newport Beach Restaurant Association, and analysis of economic impacts and means of enforcement. Submitted by: Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. City Council Staff Report, June 12, 2007 2. Memorandum from EQAC 3. Laguna Beach Ordinance 4. Oakland Ordinance 5. NHHS Draft Ordinance 2-S THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 9 ,i, Chapter 7.05 DISPOSABLE FOOD CONTAINERS Page I of 3 Laguna Beach Municipal Code Up Previous Rent Main Collapse Search Print No Frames 1"d 7 HEALTH AN SkRlTATION Chapter 7,05 QIS70SABLE FOOD CONTAINERS_ -- - -- __,_-- _--_--- - -. -- --- --- _.- -- _ —, --� 7.05.010 Definitions. "City facilities" means any building, structure or vehicle owned, leased or operated by the city, its agents, agencies, departments and franchisees. "Customer" means any person obtaining prepared food or beverages from a restaurant or retail food vendor. "Disposable food service ware" means all single -use disposable products for serving or transporting prepared food or beverages, including without limitation takeout foods and/or leftovers from partially consumed meals prepared by a restaurant or food vendor. Disposable food service ware includes containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, ice chests, lids, straws, forks, spoons, knives, and other items and utensils. "Food vendor" means any restaurant or retail food vendor located or operating within the city. " Nonrecyclable plastic" refers to any plastic that cannot be feasibly recycled by a municipal recycling program in the State of California, including polystyrene and expanded polystyrene. "Polystyrene foam" means and includes blown polystyrene and expanded and extruded forms (sometimes called Styrofoam, a Dow Chemical Co. trademarked fort of polystyrene foam insulation), which are thermoplastic petrochemical materials utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques, including without limitation fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding and extrusion -blown molding (extruded foam polystyrene). Polystyrene foam is generally used to make cups, bowls, plates, trays, clamshell containers, meat trays, egg cartons, and ice chests. "Prepared food" means food or beverages served, packaged, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed or otherwise prepared on the food vendor's premises or within the city. Prepared food may be eaten either on or near the premises, also known as "takeout food." "Recyclable food packaging" means any food packaging including glass, cans, cardboard, paper, or other items which can be recycled, salvaged, composted, processed, or marketed by means other than land filling or burning, whether as fuel or otherwise so that they can be returned to use by society. "Restaurant" means any establishment located within the city that sells prepared food for consumption on, near or off its premises by customers. Restaurants for purposes of this chapter includes itinerant restaurants, pushcarts and vehicular food vendors as those terms are defined in Chapters 7.04. "Retail food vendor" means any store, shop, sales outlet or other establishment, including a grocery store or a delicatessen, other than a restaurant, located within the city that sells prepared food. (Ord. 1480 § 1, 2007). 7 05,.020 Food.packa9.1q and sales - prohibitions for disposable food service ware. ------------ (a) Retail food vendors are prohibited from dispensing prepared food or beverages to customers in disposable food service ware made from expanded polystyrene foam or nonrecyclable plastic. (b) Retail food vendors are prohibited from retail sales of expanded polystyrene foam or nonrecyclable plastic products used as disposable food service ware. (c) All city facilities, city- managed concessions, city- sponsored events, city- permitted events and http://qcode.us /codes /tagunabeach/view.pbp? topic =7- 7_05 &showAll =l &frames =on 06/03/2008 91 Chapter 7.05 DISPOSABLE FOOD CONTAINERS Page 2 of 3 all franchisees, contractors and vendors doing business with the city are prohibited from using disposable food service ware made from expanded polystyrene or non - recyclable plastic within the city. (d) The prohibitions set forth in this section shall not apply to containers, plates or trays for raw, butchered meats, fish and/or poultry sold from a butcher case or similar retail appliance. (Ord. 1480 § 1, 2007). 7 05.030 Exceptions (a) The city manager or his/her designee may exempt a food vendor or retail food vendor from the requirements of this chapter for a one -year period, upon a showing by the applicant that the conditions of this chapter would cause undue hardship. An "undue hardship" may consist of: (1) Situations unique to the food provider where there are no reasonable alternatives to expanded polystyrene or nonrecyclable plastic food service ware and compliance with this chapter would cause a severe economic hardship to that food provider; (2) Situations where no reasonably feasible available alternative exists to a specific and necessary expanded polystyrene or nonrecyclable plastic. (b) A food provider granted an exemption must reapply prior to the end of the one -year exemption period and demonstrate continued undue hardship, if it wishes to have the exemption extended. Extensions may only be granted for intervals not to exceed one year. (c) An exemption application shall include all information necessary for the making of a decision on the application, including, not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the claimed exemption. The applicant may be required to provide additional information to permit the determination of facts regarding the exemption application. (d) An exemption application may be approved in whole or in part, with or without conditions. (e) The city manager or his/her designee may also determine to exempt from the requirements of this chapter the procurement of supplies or services in the event of a proclaimed emergency or when otherwise deemed necessary by the city manager for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety or general welfare. (Ord. 1480 § 1, 2007). 7.05.040 Enforcement and notice of violations. (a) The city manager or his/her designee shall have primary responsibly for enforcement of this chapter and shall have authority to issue citations for violation of this chapter. The city manager or his/her designee is authorized to establish regulations or administrative procedures and to take any and all actions reasonable and necessary to further the purposes of this chapter or to obtain compliance with this chapter, including, without limitation inspection of any vendor's premises to verify compliance in accordance with applicable law. (b) Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter or of any regulation or administrative procedure authorized by it shall be guilty of an infraction. (c) The city attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or any other relief to enforce this chapter and any regulation or administrative procedure authorized hereby. another. (d) The remedies and penalties provided in this chapter are cumulative and not exclusive of one (e) Administrative Remedies. �2_& http: / /gcode.usl codes /lagunabeachlview.php?topic =7- 7_05 &showAll —1 &frames =on 06/03/2008 Chapter 7.05 DISPOSABLE FOOD CONTAINERS Page 3 of 3 (1) For the first violation, the city manager or his/her designee, upon determination that a violation of this chapter has occurred, shall issue a written warning notice in the form of a courtesy citation to the food provider that will specify the violations and the appropriate penalties in the event of future violation. (2) A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars for the first violation following the issuance of a warning notice. (3) A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars for the second violation following the issuance of a warning notice. (4) A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars for the third and any subsequent violation that occurs following the issuance of a warning notice. (5) Fines are cumulative and each day that a violation occurs shall constitute a separate violation. (Ord. 1480 § 1, 2007). 7.l)S, OSO,l:ffeCtlye This ordinance will be effective on July 1, 2048. (Ord. 1480 § 1, 2007). Z°1 http: / /gcode.us/ codes /lagunabeach/view.php?topic =7- 7_05 &showAll =1 &frames =on 06/032008 OFHCE:''!IF,CirvC°_ Approved as to Form aM Legastr 2006 JIUM 2 G ai! 9: 32 Introduced by Couriclmember .. QUAN FUENTE ME rF P.PPUCAGLES Oakland Qiy Attomeys Oflica —. _.OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL. Ordinarroe No. 12747 c.m.s. AN ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF POLYSTYRENE FOAM DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE AND REQUIRE THE USE OF BIODEGRADABLE OR COMPOSTABLE DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE BY FOOD VENDORS AND CITY FACILITIES This ordinance will institute two distinct practices by ail food vendors and City Facilities in Oakland. The first is that the use ofpolystyrene foam disposable food service wale will be prohibited. The second is that all disposable food service ware will be required to be biodegradable or compostable, as long as it is affordable. WHEREAS, the City of Oakland has a duty to protect the natural environment, the economy, and the health of its citizens; and WHEREAS, effective ways to reduce the negative environmental impacts of throw- away food service ware include reusing food service ware and using compostable and biodegradable take-out materials made from renowablc resources such as paper, cots starch and sugarcane; and WHEREAS, polystyrene foam is a common environmental pollutant as well as a non - biodegradable substance that is commonly used as food service ware by food vendors operating in the City of Oakland; and WHEREAS, that continues to be no meaningful recycling of polystyrene foam food service ware and biodegradable or compostable food service ware is an affordable, safe, root e ecologically sound alternative; and WHEREAS, affordable biodegradable or compostable food service ware products are increasingly available for several food service applications such as cold cups, plates and hinge, containers and time products are more ecologically sound than polystyrene foam materials and can be turned into a compost product; and WHEREAS, the Oakland Coliseum has successfully replaced its cups with biodegradable corn starch cups and bas shown an overall cost savings due to organics recycling; and f�kDo� Z.r 1 f4 WHEREAS, over 155 businesses in Oakland engage in organics recycling and it has been demonstrated that the use of biodegradable or compostable food service ware can reduce waste disposal costs wben the products are taken to composting facilities as part of au organics recycling program rather than disposed in a landfill; and WHEREAS, the natural compost product from these biodegradable or compostable materials is used as fertilizer for firms and gardens, thereby moving towards a healthier zero wastes tem; and WHEREAS, disposable food service ware constitutes a large portion of the litter in Oakland's estuary, streets, parks and public places and the cost of managing this litter is high and rising; and WHEREAS, polystyrene foam is notorious as a pollutant that breaks down into smaller, non - biodegradable pieces that are ingested by marine life and other wildlife thus harming or frilling them; and WHEREAS, due to the physical properties of polystyrene, the EPA states "that such materials can also have serious impacts on human health, wildlife, the aquatic environment and the economy." and WHEREAS, a 1986 EPA report on solid waste named the polystyrene manufacturing process as the fifth largest creator of hazardous waste in the United States; and WHEREAS, in the product manufacturing process as well as the use and disposal of the products, the energy consumption, greenhouse gas effect, and total environmental effect, Polystyrene's enviroulnental.impacts were second highest, behind aluminum, according to the California Integrated Waste Management Board; and WHEREAS, styrene, a component ofpolystyrene, is a known hazardous substance that medical evidence and the flood and Drug Administration suggests leaches from polystyrene containers into food and drink; and WHEREAS, styrene is a suspected carcinogen and neurotoxin which potentially threatens human health; and WHEREAS, styrene has been detected in the fat time of every man, woman and child tested by the EPA in a 1986 study, and WHEREAS, the general public is not typically warned of any potential hazard, particularly in the immigrant and non - English - speaking community; and WHEREAS, due to these concerns nearly 100 cities have banned polystyrene foam food service ware including several California cities, and many local businesses and several national corporations have successfully replaced polystyrene foam and other non- biodegradable food service ware with affordable, safe, biodegradable products; and WHEREAS, restricting the use of polystyrene foam food service ware products and replacing non - biodegradable food service ware with biodegradable food service ware �l ©4�Drx L z16 Products in Oakland will Ri tber protect the public health and safety of tare residents of Oakland, the City of Oakland's natural environment, waterways and wildlife, would advance the City's 9031 of Developing a Sustainable City, advance the City's goal of Zero Waltz by 2020 and fulfill Article I0 of the Environmental Accords, whereby Oakland partnered with other cities across the globe in sing a commitment to eliminate or restrict the use of one chemical or environmental hazard every year, 8.07 OF THE MUMCIPAL CODE SHALL BE: Section 8.07.010 Detluldens "Affordable" means purchasable by the Food Vendor for same or less purchase cost than the non - Biodegradable, nom- Poiystyrenepoam alternative. "ASTM Standard" means meeting the standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International standards D6400 or D6868 for biodegradable and campostable, plastics. 'Biodegradable" means the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature, i.e., decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably short pe nod of time after customary disposal. "Compostabie" means all materials in the product or package will break down into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil- conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and timely manner in an appropriate composting program or facility, or in a home compost pile or device. Compostablo Disposable Food Service Ware includes ASTM- Standard Bio- Plastics (plastic-like products) that are clearly labeled, preferably with a color symbol, such that any compost collector and processor can easily distinguish the ASTM Standard Compostable plastic from non -ASTM Standard Compostabie plastic. "City Facilities" means any building, structure or vehicles owned or operated by the City of Oakland, its agent, agencies, departments and franchisees. "Customer" means any person obtaining Prepared Food from a Restaurant or Retail Food Vendor. "Disposable Food Service WaW'means all containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, lids, straws, forks, spoons, knives and other items that are designed for one-time use and on, or in, which any Restaurant or Retail Food Vendor directly places or packages Prepared Foods or which are used to consume foods. This inctudes, but is not lunited to, service ware for Takeout Foods and/or lefloven from partially consumed meals prepared at Restaurants or Retail Food Vendors. "Food Vendor" means any Restaurant or Retail Food Vendor located or operating within the City of Oakland. �7a1c.Dmc.2 3�E "Polystyrene Foam" means and includes blown polystyrene and expanded and extruded foams (sometimes called Styrofoam, a Dow Chemical Co. trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation) which are thermoplastic petroclteazical materials utilizing a styrene monomer and Processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion -blow molding (extntdcd foam polystyrene). Polystyrene Foam is generally used to make cups, bowls, plates, trays, clamshell containers, meat trays and egg cartons, "Prepared Food" means Food or Beverages, which are served, packaged, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed or otherwise prepared on the Food Vendor's premises OT within the City of Oakland. For the purposes of this ordinance, Prepared Food does not include raw, butchered meats, ft and/or poultry sold from a butcher case or similar retail appliance. prepared Food may be eaten either on or off the premises, also known as `takeout fond ". "Restaurant" means any establishment located within the City of Oakland that sells Prepared Food for consumption on, near, or off its premises by Customers. Rsstewant for purposes of this Chapter includes Itinerant Restaurants, Pushcarts and Vehicular Food Vendors as those teems are defined in sections 5.44, UA, 804 of the City of Oakland Municipal Code. "Retail Food Vendor" means any store, sbop, sales outlet, or other establishment, including a grocery store or a delicatessen, other than a Restaurant, lowtedwitkun the City of Oakland that sells Prepared Food, Section 8.09.040 Prohibited Food Service Ware A. Except as provided in Section 8.07.042, Food Vendors are prohibited from providing Prepared Food to Customers in Disposable Food Service Ware that uses Polystyrene Foam. B. All City Facilities are prohibited from using Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Ware and all City Departments and Agencies will not purchase or acquire Polystyrarte Foam Disposable Food Service Ware for use at City Facilities. C. City franchises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City shall be prohibited from using Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Ware in City facilities or on city projects within the City of Oakland. Section &07.041 Required Biodegradable and Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware A. All Food Vendors using any Disposable Food Service Ware will use Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware unless they can show an Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable product is not available for a specific application. Food Vendors are strongly encouraged to reuse Food Service Ware in place of using Disposable Food Service Ware. in instances that Food Vendors wish to use a Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware Product that is not Affordable, a Food Vendor may charge a `take out fee" to customers to cover the cost difference. 9A Opp. Dac `IA B. All City Facilities vrill use Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware unless they can show an Affourdable Biodegradable or Compostable product is not available for a specific application. C. City $anchises, contractors and ve adore doing business with the City will use Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service W are unless they can show an Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable product is not available for a specific applieWOM Section 8.07.042 Exemptions A. Prepared Foods prepared or packaged outside the City of Oakland are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Purveyors of food prepared or packaged outside the City of Oakland are encouraged to follow the provisions of this Chapter. B. Food Vendors will be exempted from the provisions of this Chapter for specific items or types of Disposable Food Service Ware if the City Administrator or his/her designee finds that a suitable Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable alternative does not exist sad/or that imposing the requirements of Eris Chapter on that item or type ofDisposable Food Service Ware would cause undue hardship. C. Polystyrene Fosm coolers and ice chests that are intended for reuse are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. D. Disposable Food Service Ware composed entirely of aluminum is exempt from tine provisions of this Chapter. E. Emergency Supply and Services Procurement: in a situation deemed by the City Administrator to be an emergency for the immediate preservation of the public peace,, health or safety, City Facilities, Food Vendors, City fi'auehises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City shalt be exempt fmsn the provisions of this Chapter. Settion 07.043 Liability said FAlloreement A. The City Administrator or his/her designee will have primary. responsibility for enforcement of this Chapter. The City Administrator or his/her designee is authorized to promulgate regulations and to take any and an other actions reasonable and necessary to M&= this Chapter, iucluding, but not %Tdied it, mrtering the premieres of any Food V eadw to veer* compliance. B. Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chopta will be. guilty of an intiwtion pursuant to Chapter 1.28 O.M.C. C. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this Chapter. Orme- floe' -5/c Section 8.07.044 Violations - penalties I . if the City Administrator or his/her designee determines that a violation of this Chapter occurred, he/she will issue a written warning notice to the Food Vendor that a violation has occurred. 2. Iftiti= Food -Venduthas gubsequentvioliuions of this Chapter; the following penalties will Z*Y: a. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first violation after the warning notice is given. b. A fine riot exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00) for the second violation after the warning notice is given. c. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500,00) for the third and any future violations attar the warning notice is given. 3, Food Vendors may request an administrative hearing to adjudicate any penalties issued under this Chapter by filing a written request with the City Administrator, or his or her designee. The City Administrator, or his or her designee, will promulgate standards and procedures for requesting and conducting an administrative hearing under this Chapter. Any determination from the administrative hearing on penalties issued under this Chapter will be final and cnnelnSive. Section 8.07.045 Study One Year after the effective date of this Chapter, the City Administrator will conduct a study on the effectiveness of this Chapter. i Section &07.0456 Effective Date This Chapter will become effective' January 1, 2007. IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, am 1-1 2008 PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES - BRUNNER, KERNIGHAN, NADEL, QUAN, , REID, CHANG, AND PRESIDENT DE LA FUENTE NOES — I, �rpoks ABSENT -,&- ABSTENTION — ATTEST: LA MOM SIMMQNS City Clerk and Clerk dF the Council of the City of Oakland �S OAIc,c 2 6A DRAFT —PROPOSAL DEVELOPED BY NEWPORT HARBOR HIGH SCHOOL SURF ANA ENVIRONMENTAL CLASS City Council Meeting Newport Beach, CA ORDINANCE NUMBER =S) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BANNING NON - RECYCLABLE PLASTIC DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE CONTAINERS WHEREAS, there are currently over 300 individual restaurants and food service businesses in Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, many of these businesses use disposable food containers made from expanded polystyrene (EPS) and other non - recyclable plastics; and WHEREAS, EPS is not biodegradable and as a result persists in the environment for hundreds and possibly thousands of years; and WHEREAS. EPS material easily breaks down into smaller pieces and is so light that it floats in water and is easily carried by the wind, even when it has been disposed of properly; and WHEREAS, numerous studies have documented the prevalence of EPS debris in the environment, including in storm drains and on beaches, causing Newport Beach residents to pay thousands of dollars in clean -up costs; and WHEREAS, marine animals and birds often confuse EPS for a source of food and the ingestion of EPS often results in reduced appetite and nutrient absorption and possible death by starvation of birds and marine animals; and WHEREAS, recycling of EPS products is not currently economically viable; and WHEREAS, there are several alternatives to EPS disposable food service containers available in Newport Beach from existing food packaging suppliers; and WHEREAS, an important goal of any city's sustainable city plan Is to procure and use sustainable products and services; and WHEREAS, it is the City's desire to reduce the amount of beech litter and marine pollution and to protect local wildlife, both of which increase the quality of life to Newport Beach residents and visitors, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION t. Chapter 5.44 is hereby added to the Newport Beach Municipal Code as follows: 5.44.010 Definitions (a) "Biodegradable" refers to the ability of a material to decompose into elements norma8y found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after disposal. (b) "City Facilities" refers to buildings and structures owned or $eased by the City of Newport Beach. (c) "Disposable Food Service Container" means single -use disposable products used in the restaurant and food service industry for serving or transporting prepared, ready -to- consume food or beverages. This includes but is not limited to plates, cups, bowls, trays and hinged or lidded containers. This does not include single -use disposable items such as straws, cup lids, or utensils, nor does it include single -use disposable packaging for unprepared foods. (d) "Expanded Polystyrene" (EPS) means polystyrene that has been expanded or "blown" using a gaseous blowing agent into a solid foam. (e) "Food Provider" means any establishment, located or providing food within the City of Newport Beach, which provides prepared food for public consumption on or off its premises and includes without limitation any store, shop, sales outlet, restaurant, grocery store, super market, delicatessen, catering truck or vehicle, or any other person who provides prepared food; and any organization, group or individual which regularly provides food as a part of its services. (f) "Non - Recyclable Plastic" refers to any plastic which cannot be feasibly recycled by a municipal recycling program in the State of California, including polystyrene and expanded polystyrene. %0(i DRAFT— PROPOSAL DEVELOPED BY NEWPORT HARBOR HIGH SCHOOL SURFAND ENVIRONMENTAL CLASS (g) "Polystyrene" means and includes expanded polystyrene which is a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, form molding, and extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). The term "polystyrene" also includes clear or solid polystyrene which is known as "oriented polystyrene "_ (h) "Prepared Food" means any food or beverage prepared for consumption on the food provider's premises, using any cooking or food preparation technique. This does not include any raw uncooked meat, fish or eggs unless provided for consumption without further food preparation. (i) "Recyclable Plastic" means any plastic which can be feasibly recycled by a municipal recycling program in the State of California. Recyclable plastics comprise those plastics with the recycling symbols #1 through #5 including polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE), and polypropylene (PP). 5.44.020 Prohibition on the Use of Non - Recyclable Plastic Disposable Food Service Containers A. Except as provided in Section 5.44.030, food providers are prohibited from dispensing prepared food to customers in disposable food service containers made from expanded polystyrene. B. Except as provided in Section 5.44.030, food providers are prohibited from dispensing prepared food to customers in disposable food service containers made from non - recyclable plastic. C. All City Facilities, City- managed concessions, City sponsored events, and City permitted events are prohibited from using disposable food service containers made from expanded polystyrene or non - recyclable plastic. 5.44,030 Exemptions (a) The Director of the Environmental and Public Works Management Department (EPWM), or his /her designee, may exempt a food provider from the requirements of this ordinance for a one year period, upon showing by the food provider that the conditions of this ordinance would cause undue hardship. An "undue hardship" shall be found in: .1. Situations unique to the food provider where there are no reasonable alternatives to expanded polystyrene or non - recyclable plastic disposable food service containers and compliance with this Chapter would cause significant economic hardship to that food provider; 2. Situations where no reasonably feasible available alternatives exist to a specific and necessary expanded polystyrene or non - recyclable plastic food container. A food provider granted an exemption by the City must re- apply prior to the end of the one year exemption period and demonstrate continued undue hardship, if it wishes to have the exemption extended. Extensions may only be granted for intervals not to exceed one year. (b) An exemption application shall include all information necessary for the City to make its decision, including but not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the claimed exemption. The Director may require the applicant to provide additional information to permit the Director to determine facts regarding the exemption application. (c) The Director may approve the exemption application, in whole or in part, with or without conditions. (d) Exemption decisions are effective immediately and final and are not subject to appeal. 5.44.040 Enforcement and Notice of Violations A. The Director of EPWM or his/her designee shall have primary responsibility for enforcement of this ordinance and the Director of EPWM or his/her designee shall have authority to issue citations for violation of this Chapter. The Director of EPWM or his /her designee is authorized to establish regulations or administrative procedures and to take any and all actions reasonable and necessary to further the purposes of this chapter or to obtain compliance with this chapter, including, but not limited to, inspecting any vendor's premises to verify compliance in accordance with applicable law. B. Anyone violating or fatting to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter or of any regulation or administrative procedure authorized by it shall be guilty of an infraction. 221 DRAFT— PROPOSAL DEVELOPED BY NEWPORT HARBOR HIGH SCHOOL SURF AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLASS C. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or any other relief to enforce this chapter and any regulation or administrative procedure authorized by it. D, The remedies and penalties provided in this chapter are cumulative and not exclusive of one another. 5.44.050 Penalties and Fines for Violations Violations of this ordinance shall be enforced as follows: A. For the first violation, the Director of EPWM or his/her designee, upon determination that a violation of this chapter has occurred, shall iesue a written warning notice to the food provider which will specify the violation and the appropriate penalties in the event of future violations. B. Thereafter, the following penalties shall apply: 1. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first violation following the issuance of a warning notice. 2. A fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) for the second and any other violation that occurs following the issuance of a warning notice. C. Fines are cumulative and each day that a violation occurs shall constitute a separate violation. 5.44.60 Effective Dates A. No food provider shall distribute or utilize disposable food service containers containing expanded polystyrene or non - recyclable plastic on or after one year following the adoption of this ordinance by the City Council. B. No City facilities, City managed concessions, City sponsored events or City permitted events shall distribute or utilize disposable food service containers containing expanded polystyrene or non- reoyclable plastic on or after the effective date of this ordinance SECTION 2. Any provision of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or appendices thereto Inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Councif hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same ;o be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBIN CLAUSON City Attorney * *' * *nfs is a draft — developed by students X27 Jun 10 08 03:21P Laura 9497218039 P.1 "RECEIVED Fi GEND PR1NTED.#1 To: Newport Beach City Council Date: June 10, 2008 From: Laura Dietz, Corona del Mar Subject: Comments from Santa Monica Experience for Review on Considering a %rofoacn Ban in Newport Beach In June 2006, two years ago, the attached article reviewed the Styrofoam issue and provided some data: (a) at the bottom of page two it reads, "City officials note that 92% of foam pollution comes from runoff that streams into the bay through storm drains from around the county' ; (b) at that time, Santa Monica City staff was directed to review the ordinance in two years to evaluate its success and its level of compliance (page 3). The latter suggests perhaps a more comprehensive approach involving multiple municipalities in the County relative to runoff. As a former member of the packaging industry (glass), I've learned it is very important to address this issue with sufficient reliable facts and data, and consider the impact on local businesses. Good intentions notwithstanding more data may be needed. Attachment el Jun 10 08 03:21p Laura 9A97218039 P•2 ..w.w ..ay...v....l'..., vvauay.. ✓ua.n v.� iviw"u, i ipJ{lly uN4�" L /11r W WC Uldilrur Ctf,�jC 1 UL J Tne� Lookt"Du� newsl Council Bans Styrofoam, Plastic, though Impacts are Unclear By Olin Ericksen staff writer, June 15 -- Uncertain about the impact on pollution and profits, the City Council Tuesday night banned the use of Styrofoam and non recyclable plastic containers for businesses in Santa Monica. While not a "magic bullet," City officials hope other cities, such as Los Angeles, will follow suit and help reduce beach and ocean pollution. "If we do this tonight, I think the rest of Los Angeles will follow to the tremendous benefit of Santa Monica Bay," said Council member Kevin McKeown, who sponsored a broader motion than staff had recommended to include non - recyclable plastics along with Styrofoam. The impact of these products on the environment is rmi9� said n Kubanl, the City's acting environmental program manag 8- term effects are dramatic. "This is one of the most prominent forms of pollution on Sawa Monica beaches," Kubani said. "It persists in the environment for decades, be said, noting that it harms both the environment and animals, such as fish and birds, which swallow the ton- recyclable foam After listening to arguments by officials from food, packaging, and chemical industry groups who said more public outreach and investments in drainage and containment of the trash may have a greater impact than a product ban, the council sided with staffand cuvitonmental groups. "We feel more (than public outreach) needs to be done," Kubani said. Heal the Bay Director Mark Gold noted that Styrofoam and non - recyclable plastic containers accounted for 37 percent of all trash the non -profit collected during nearly 250 beach dean-Ws• But the ban will not come without a price. After a similar ban was enacted in Malibu local businesses reported the switch cos them nearly $30,000. Santa Monica City officials readily admitted they had a hard time gauging the ban's impact on local merchants. Estimates based on surveys of between 150 and 200 businesses, futnid that switching to more recyclable packaging products, such as paper, plastic and http :! /www.sur&Ani=onica.com/ssm siWthe lookouU news / News- 2006/7uue- 2006106_15... 6/10 /2008 Il Jun 10 08 03:21p Laura 9497218039 P•3 tinfoil, would cost businesses anywhere from nothing to nearly 300 percent more each month. The merchants hardest hit by the Iran would be mostly fast -food restaurants, which could pay as much as $1 g0 more per rnovib. Those estimates, however, are uncertain. Anecdotal evidence presented by Council member Bobby Shriner indicated that at least one local McDonald's owner suggested the fast food restau ant may have to spend as much as 58,000 a year make the switch. Because businesses and Styrofoam makers were reluctant to release fmancial information, Kubani said he "would not be is a position to argue with" claims that the ban could have a deeper impact. Indeed, some local business — such as Frino Misto on Colorado Avenue, which notes that a third of its business is take- out -- said the ban could impact sales because hot food may not retain heat during a customer's trip home. °If quality of product is not what they want, we are worried about sales," said Melinda Amaya, Fritto Nfisto's general manager. At least one eatery owner, who goes by the name lanabai, had a different take- in the ban's impact on Euphoria, the restaurant she runs on Main Street.. lanabai has always used biodegradable products for take out, which she estimates accounts for nearly 80 percent of Euphoria's business. In fact, she believes the restaurant is more popular because it is environmentally friendly. "We've passed on the value to our consumers," she said. "From a high - dollar tourist prospective, we need to take a lead or someone else will." rCity will provide a hardship exemption for impacted, although there was no mention of ow that would work_ While the ban's economic impacts are uncertain, it is also unclear what, if any, effect it will have on pollution on Santa Monica beaches. "This will not clean up the beach," said Shriver, who argued greater regional cooperation on the issue is needed. City officials are unclear how much trash would be reduced, because much of the foam waste on Santa Monica beaches comes from Los Angeles and surrounding communities, which are not considering a ban. In fact, City officials note that 92 percent of local foam pollution comes from runoff that streams into the bay through storm drains from around the county. d v✓ httpJlwww.surfsantamommcowlsnn sttehhe lookoutlnewslNews- 20MIJune- 2006106_15._. 6!10!2008 Jun 10 08 03:22p Laura 9497218039 F•4 .. w.•.r ••.v.uv.•.. ..w .v..•uay.. uu.w V.)SVS.w�y a auJUY� HNU�11L1kI6YU NY UIIYICAI CAgG J VA.? Due to its uncertain impacts, the council directed staff to review the ordinance in two years to evaluate its success and level of compliance. '='�toonour Copyright 1999 -2008 surbantamonica.com. All Rights Reserved• Cp4tEWL httpJ /www.surfsantamonka.comissrn sitehhe lookoutlnews/News- 2oo&luae- 2006!06 15... 61101ZQ08 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY y� Page 1 of 2 Bowden, Katie From: De Santis, Leigh Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:17 PM To: Wood, Sharon; Bowden, Katie Subject: FW: Styrofoam Ban Attachments: City of Fremont - Polystyrene PP.ppt Seattle Public Utilities Report.pdf; Santa Barbara Staff Report.pdf, 060308 Carmel staff report.pdf; CousteauLetter.pdf; Facts About Polystyrene Foam Foodservice Products.doc The opposing view from the industry lobbyist. Economic Development Administrator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Phone (949) 644 -3207 FAX (949) 644 -3224 LDeSantis@dty.newport-beach.ca.us From: Kenny, Ryan [mailto: Ryan _Kenny @americanchemistry.comj Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:11 PM To: De Santis, Leigh Subject: Per our discussion Hello Leigh, Thank you for taking the time to discuss the proposed polystyrene foodservice ban proposal that will begin winding its way through the process. I know there are competing views, and I appreciate your consideration of the information attached on behalf of our members and those businesses which use the material. I have attached just third -party information that I think would be useful as the process moves forward: 1. City of Fremont PowerPoint presented during a May city council study session 2. Seattle staff report showing that a ban would harm the environment 3. Santa Barbara staff report concluding that a ban wouldn't make a difference without an industrial composting facility 4. City of Carmel staff report stating that after 20 years, their ban didn't make any difference (they replaced their ordinance with a model ordinance from their county waste district, which also won't make a difference because they do not have an industrial composting facility. They would be trading one type of litter for another.) 5. Jean - Michel Cousteau op-ed: Founder of the Oceans Future Society and son of the famed explorer, he simply states, "Bans don't work." 6. Important facts from third -party studies on the environmental trade -offs of other products. Also, fyi, the City of Union City just rejected a ban proposal because they didn't think a ban would make any difference and that it would negatively impact the business community. I understand that the restaurant 09/17/2008 44S Page 2 of 2 association is supportive, but the California Restaurant Association is against any such ban, as they believe it is a de facto tax. One such cost estimate that we've done at Costco is that for a case of 1,000 foam cups, there was a de facto tax of $50 to choose the next least- expensive alternative. Again, thanks for considering this information. Ryan Kenny Manager, State Affairs and Grassroots American Chemistry Council 1121 L Street, Suite 609 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone(916)448 -2581 Fax (916) 442 -2449 Cell (916) 606 -5772 www americanchemistW from 09(17(2008 41 (V Regulating Polystyrene Containers Presentation to City Council May 6, 2008 rei�ont Background ■ Councilmember referral Jan 22, 2008 ■ Staff research ■ Wide range of possible approaches ■ Approaches will impact stakeholder reaction Work Session Goals ■ Report on findings ■ Discuss possible approaches ■ Obtain Council feedback ■ Next steps • Engage stakeholders • Return to Council Presentation Format ■ Discuss polystyrene containers and plastic bags separately ■ Product information • Lifecycle • Alternatives ■ Approaches • city • State • Fremont options Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) &Polystyrene (I'S) There are two types of polystyrene: ■ EPS ❑ Foam commonly known as Styrofoam IL P5. V7 *� (IFF) i'm ?�,4 �+t ❑ Solid EPS: The Pros and the Cons ■ Pros ❑ Durable ❑ Inexpensive ❑ Takes less resources to produce compared to alternatives Cons • Litter/ Pollution • Harm to wildlife/ marine life ❑ Production creates GHG's ❑ Possible human health issue ❑ Derived from petroleum EPS Alternatives: Pros and Cons Aluminum Corn Starch derived cup Plastic (otherI Paper to go container Compostable Clam Shell Paper ■ Pros ❑ Biodegradable ❑ Recyclable if clean ■ Cons ❑ Resource Intensive ❑ Production results in GHG ■ Consideration ❑ Petroleum derived lining ❑ No benefit unless composted n Compostables ■ Pros Biodegradable L Made from a renewable resource ■ Cons ❑ Resource Intensive ❑ Production results in GHG ❑ May contaminate recycling stream ■ Consideration ❑ No benefit unless composted Plastic Pros u Recyclable Cons u Petroleum derived Li Production results in GHG emissions u Non compostable ■ Consideration Li Potential contamination if not clean Aluminum Pros u Recyclable Cons u Most resource Intensive Li Production results in GHG emissions u Non compostable ■ Consideration u Potential contamination if not clean 12 10 Lei M OR M �Q�\eC 0c e e G° ■ Landfill/ Diversion p Human/ Environmental Health o GHG/ Net Energy SON It i2AV t ME Tq P 71,1%1`1,114 IMRMIII� State Legislation -Pending . W, ,: •�d ■ Prohibits a food provider from distributing disposable food packaging unless the packaging is o compostable or ❑ recyclable ❑ AB 1972 ■ Tighten standards for items labeled compostable California City and County Approaches ■ Approximately 14 California Cities and 4 Counties have bans u Laguna Beach will be the 14th city with a ban effective July 1, 2008 ■ 5 Cities and 2 Counties are in consideration of a ban u South San Francisco has a voluntary phase out of foamed polystyrene take out packaging ■ 1 City declined to regulate u Focusing on program measures California City Approaches (continued) ■ Majority of Cities (11) ban Expanded Polystyrene only ■ Recyclability/ compostability requirement ■ Financial impact to businesses ■ Alternative packaging affordability requirements ■ Implementation ■ Majority of enforcement is complaint driven �J Considerations ■ Desired Goal ❑ Landfill diversion ❑ Green House Gas (GHG) reduction ❑ Pollution prevention ❑ Reduction in product demand • Financial impact to businesses • City resources required Options for Further Consideration Dive into Approaches Proceed with Caution • Ban ■ Ban at City events Polystyrene ■ Voluntary program • Ban Expanded ■ Outreach Polystyrene ■ Commercial food scrap expansion q, t3 Alternatives to Disposable Shopping Bags and Food Service Items Volume I Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities January 2008 The shaded fields in the Table ES -3 show those strategies with highest reductions in each of the economic cost and environmental burden categories, compared to the status quo. An ARF on all disposable shopping bags provides the most environmental gains (except for litter), and provides for much higher overall economic gains when compared to all strategies. With an ARF on all bags, consumers experience slightly less costs than with a plastic only ARF (due to an anticipated increase in reusable bags), and the region experiences much more economic cost (due to decreased paper production). Again, the City and retailers may both benefit from revenue under either a plastic only or an all -bag ARF Disposable Food Service Items The strategies to address disposable food service items were narrowed to the following five for further life cycle cost/beaefit and environmental assessment: Enhanced education: Begin a public outreach, education and promotional campaign specifically focused on owners /managers of restaurants, cafes, and coffee shops to encourage replacement of disposable food service items with recyclable or compostable alternatives managed through recycling and food waste composting programs. This would become part of SPU's ongoing reduce- reuse - recycle messaging. Expanded polystyrene (BPS) products would be especially discouraged. Enhanced education plus ban on expanded polvstvrene (EPS) products: Implementation of mandatory ban on EPS food service items only at all food vendors in Seattle. Ban to be phased in plus a later deadline for all food service items to be compostable or recyclable with restaurants enrolled in composting or recycling programs. Enhanced education plus advanced recovery fee (ARF) on expanded polystyrene (EPS) products only. The ARF (likely range, 10 to 25 cents) could be remitted entirely to the City, split by the City and merchants who would use their share: to promote reusable alternatives and recycling, or retained entirely by merchants for promotion and administrative costs. Enhanced education plus advanced recovery fee (AR Y) on all non - cmpostable and non - recyclable food service ware items. The ARF (likely range, 10 to 25 cents) could be remitted entirely to the City, split by the City and merchants who would use their share to promote reusable alternatives and recycling, or retained entirely by merchants for promotion and administrative costs. Table ES -4 shows a comparison between all environmental categories and the NPV economic costs and benefits calculated earlier. These results were derived from a. case study of hot food "clamshell" type containers and may not apply in other cases. (See page 6 -23 for the assumptions regarding vendor and consumer behavior when required to switch products.) ry >1 �a3101�1Sa �hen+rztArsro J(yw.mMe dmpY- rr�+.doc Herrera Environmental Consultants ES -S January 29, 2008 t Table ES -4. Economic and.environmental costs and beneilts normalized to status quo. Notes: 1. Environmental category units produced summed over a 30 -year time frame 2. (NPV) economic costs and benefits over a 30 -year time frame Ben on EPS has most negative 3. Discount rate: 3 percent Greenhouse gas effects - - ;The, shaded fields ,in TWO ES 4 show that all strategies have nc[eases to eacn or me economic; cost a nd'egvironniental burden ` categories ,- compared to the 'status quo;; However, the permanence of plastic in the environment dictates its use be minimized. An ARF on all non- compostable, non - recyclable clamshells reflects the least environmental impacts among bans and ARFs. This is due primarily to the incentive toward compostables (e.g., polylactic acid, PLA), which results in lower impacts than paper and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) in the environmental categories considered. The exception is in eutrophication potential, due to nitrogen and phosphorus runoff in agriculture, Higher composting rates for compostable products, and the potential increase in organics composted with compostable food service products, would likely provide additional energy and greenhouse gas benefits, and cost savings. . r me.alwrioorw�enrro + °ak.n .Ru January 29, 2008 ES -9 Herrera Environmental Consultants (Ps Status Units Quo Education Ban EPS ARF on EPS ARF on All Types NPV $ 1190/0 169% 176% 199% Non - Renewable Energy Megajoules (M.J) 105% 214% 173% 156% GHG Emissions kg CO2 eq. 105% 234% 185% 162% Ozone g ethylene eq. 100% 134% 120% 105% Acidification kg SO2 eq. 104% 179% 149% 142% Eutrophication kg PO4 eq. 101% 104% 103% 108% Waste Generated Tons 105% 240% 189% 162% Notes: 1. Environmental category units produced summed over a 30 -year time frame 2. (NPV) economic costs and benefits over a 30 -year time frame Ben on EPS has most negative 3. Discount rate: 3 percent Greenhouse gas effects - - ;The, shaded fields ,in TWO ES 4 show that all strategies have nc[eases to eacn or me economic; cost a nd'egvironniental burden ` categories ,- compared to the 'status quo;; However, the permanence of plastic in the environment dictates its use be minimized. An ARF on all non- compostable, non - recyclable clamshells reflects the least environmental impacts among bans and ARFs. This is due primarily to the incentive toward compostables (e.g., polylactic acid, PLA), which results in lower impacts than paper and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) in the environmental categories considered. The exception is in eutrophication potential, due to nitrogen and phosphorus runoff in agriculture, Higher composting rates for compostable products, and the potential increase in organics composted with compostable food service products, would likely provide additional energy and greenhouse gas benefits, and cost savings. . r me.alwrioorw�enrro + °ak.n .Ru January 29, 2008 ES -9 Herrera Environmental Consultants (Ps CITY OF SANTA BARBARA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AGENDA DATE: March 11, 2008 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Environmental Services Division, Finance Department SUBJECT: Update On Proposed Ban Of Expanded Polystyrene RECOMMENDATION: That Council receive a report from staff detailing the results of a recent study evaluating the merits of banning expanded polystyrene, commonly referred to as "Styrofoam," in the food service sector in the City of Santa Barbara. DISCUSSION: Expanded polystyrene (EPS), commonly known as "Styrofoam," is used by restaurants, grocery stores and other food - serving establishments because it is inexpensive, strong and durable, and has excellent insulation properties. However, due to its fly -away tendencies, EPS often winds up on City streets and beaches as litter. in addition, a large amount of this material makes its way to the ocean and is ingested by sea life, which is having significant impacts to the marine environment worldwide. For these reasons, EPS has been banned in a number of communities, and is being considered by many others. In April 2007, staff provided Council with an update on its Solid Waste Strategic Plan. The plan included a proposed ban of EPS applicable only to take -out food service businesses in the City. Staff Indicated that more analysis was needed to evaluate the logistics, practicality and feasibility of imposing a ban in the City of Santa Barbara. The City Council directed staff to move forward with the analysis, present the results of staffs analysis to the Council's Solid Waste Committee for review and consideration, and provide a final report to the City Council. REVIEWEO BY: Finance Aeamay _Name of Addl@onel Depaf7nenl(s) That Need to ReNew CAR Agenda Item No. �I � Council Agenda Report Update On Proposed Ban Of Expanded Polystyrene March 11, 2008 Page 2 In November 2007, staff presented a report to the Solid Waste Committee based on our analysis. The report discussed staffs evaluation of alternative food service ware that could be used to replace EPS, including food service ware made from paper, plastic, aluminum and compostable products. In addition, staff presented the results of several outreach meetings conducted with community stakeholders, which included owners and managers of local restaurants, individuals representing the food packaging industry, and local environmental organizations. Based on the analysis, staff concluded that alternatives to EPS likely to be used had comparable environmental impacts. For example, the use of service ware made from plastic, aluminum or virgin paper has different, but equally significant, impacts when considering the resources required for extracting and manufacturing them. In addition, due to contamination, many of these materials would not be recyclable and therefore would have to be disposed of in the local landfill. However, food service ware made from compostable materials has a much less overall impact to the environment. Specifically, It is often made from organic material, such as potato or corn starch; requires significantly less resources to produce than plastic or virgin paper; is not petroleum- based; and can be easily be recycled into compost. The use of food service ware made from compostable materials has other benefits: It would significantly reduce the volume of material being landfilled (i.e., more diversion); 2. It reduces the organic fraction of the waste stream disposed of in a landfill, which is the leading man -made source of methane gas production, a potent greenhouse gas contributing to climate change; and 3. Compost is a product used by farmers to enrich and provide nutrients to the soil, helping to conserve water, and preventing soil erosion. Based on the above findings, staff concluded that a ban on EPS would only be effective and have a net benefit to the environment if it either required, or otherwise strongly encouraged, the use of food service ware made from compostable material. However, these benefits could only be realized with a citywide organics collection and composting program already In place. Without this program in place, the use of compostable food service ware would only result in those materials winding up in the landfill; and in the same way food does, compostable material would also breakdown quickly and result in the production of methane gas. �1 Council Agenda Report Update On Proposed Ban Of Expanded Polystyrene March 11, 2008 Page 3 Staffs proposal, therefore, is to first implement an organics collection and composting program sector by sector, starting with the business sector, where the largest volume of foodscraps are generated, followed by the single - family and multi - family residential sectors. Once the program was implemented citywide, the City could then implement a ban on EPS, requiring or strongly encouraging the use of food service ware made from compostable material. This would establish a collection system, Including containers designated for organic materials, to support the use of compostable products. Staff estimates that an ordinance banning EPS in the City would be implemented in late 2010. On January 29, 2008, staff presented a newly updated action plan to the Solid Waste Committee, including proposed staff changes, to advance the various projects and initiatives. The action plan incorporated the recommended approach and timing for implementing a ban on EPS as discussed in this report. The Solid Waste Committee was supportive of the recommended approach, and expressed an overall desire to implement all elements of the action plan in an expeditious manner. Note that staffs proposed work plan and staff changes will be presented to the City Council on the same day as a companion agenda item. PREPARED BY: Robert Samario, Assistant Finance Director SUBMITTED BY: Robert D. Peirson, Finance Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office Meeting Date: June 3, 2008 61 Prepared by: Rich Guillen City Council Agenda Item Summary Name: Consideration of an Ordinance of the City Council of Carmel -by -the -Sea amending Section 8.68 of the Municipal Code regarding Chlorofluorocarbon and Similar Packaging Material Restrictions Description: On March 21, 2008, the Monterey Regional Waste Management District ( MRWMD) Board of Directors unanimously approved a model ordinance directed at eliminating the use of polystyrene (Styrofoam) fast -food take -out packaging. The intent of the policy is to reduce the volume of polystyrene litter found on area roadways, waterways and beaches. The MRWMD has asked that all area cities adopt policies to address this problem. Overall Cost: The City of Carmel -by -the -Sea was much in the vanguard of the movement to reduce food packaging litter, becoming the second California city (after Berkeley) to adopt an ordinance aimed at reducing take -out waste materials, back in 1989. Since then, the problem of food packaging waste litter has not improved, but there has been a new array of alternative, recyclable and compostable materials available to food service providers. Although Section 8.68 of the Carmel -by -the -Sea Municipal Code is 19 years old, the basic premises remain solid. The suggested amendments to the original ordinance merely strengthen and modernize it by adding more information about polystyrene (Styrofoam) packaging and adding specific penalties for noncompliance. City Funds: None Grant Funds: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that City Council approve the amendments to Chapter 8.68 of the Municipal Code. Important Considerations: As written, there would be a six -month grace period after adoption of the ordinance for food service providers to use up their stock of noncompliant materials. Decision Record: Ord. 89 -14, 1989 Reviewed by: Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date l 62 ATTACHMENT "A!' LOCAL STYROFOAM -FREE LIST Among the known local restaurants, lodging establishments, and businesses that have adopted Styrofoam -free policies are: Doubletree /Portola Carmel Valley Coffee Roasting Pebble Beach Company East Village Coffee Lounge - Monterey Brew Bar Acme Coffee Roasting Sardine Factory Chris' Classic Confections Billy Lee restaurants Caf6 Lumiere Country Club Catering Parker - Lusseau Volcano Grill The Works Coffee Shop Crazy Horse Marriott Estaban Old Fisherman's Grotto Casa Munras Fish Hopper Wills Cafe Fina Bernardus Randy's Fishing Michaels' Catering Community Hospital- Monterey Peninsula Laguna Seca CSU- Monterey Bay Poppy Hills Defense Language Institute Wild Thyme Whole Foods Passionfish Monterey Bay Aquarium Hyatt Chartwell School McDonald's (all) Carmel Mission Basilica Taco Bell (all) Monterey Institute of Intl. Studies Jack in the Box (all) Monterey Regional Waste Management Enzo's Pizza Monterey Farmer's Market Baldemiro's Taco Shop PG Farmer's Market Cuppers Coffee House York School Patch's Sandwich Shop Big Brothers Big Sisters El Guadalajara Deli KRXA Radio Mom's Home Cooking Delaware North Parks and Resorts Hula's Asilomar State Beach/Conference Grounds Red House Cafe Martella Printing Tarpy's Forest Hill Auto Rio Grill Pacific Motor Services Willy's BBQ Hans Auto Repair Montrio Light and Motion Office Cibo Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Bird on a Wire Renovations 110 63 CITY OF CARMEL -BY- THE -SEA CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 2008- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL -BY -THE -SEA AMENDING SECTION 8.68 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CHLOROFLUOROCARBON AND SIMILAR PACKAGING MATERIAL RESTRICTIONS WHEREAS, the City has taken a leadership role among California cities in enacting legislation to protect the environment from the deleterious effects of food and consumer packaging litter caused by harmful materials such as chlorofluorocarbons and polystyrene; and WHEREAS, industrial technology has advanced to include an array of alternative, recyclable, and compostable materials available to food service; and WHEREAS, the City joins with other neighboring cities in further strengthening environmental protection of area roadways, fields, waterways and beaches. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL- BY -THE- SEA DOES ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 8.68 CHLOROFLUOROCARBON, POLYSTYRENE AND SIMILAR PACKAGING MATERIAL RESTRICTIONS Sections: 8.68.010 Findings and Purposes. 8.68.020 Definitions. 8.68.0+0 Prohibited Food Packaging. 8.68.040 Degradable and Recyclable Food Packaging. 8.68.050 Regulation of Suppliers and Food Vendors. 8.68.060 Inspection of Records — Proof of Compliance. 8.68.070 Exemptions. 8.68.080 Existing Contracts. 8.68.090 City Purchases Prohibited. 8.68.100 Separate Food Packaging Waste Receptacles. 8.68.1 l0 City Administrator's Power. 8.68.120 Liability and Enforcement. -11 64 8.68.010 Findings and Purposes. A. Solid waste that is nondegradable or nonrecyclable poses an acute problem for any environmentally and financially responsible solid waste management program. Such waste covers the City's streets, parks, public places and open spaces and results in environmental damage and disruption of the ecological balance. B. Products which are degradable or recyclable offer environmentally sound alternatives to nondegradable and nonrecyclable products currently used. By decaying into their constituent substances, degradable products, compared to their nondegradable equivalents, are less of a danger to the natural environment and less of a permanent blight on the City's landscape. C. The release of chlorofluorocarbons ( "CFCs ") into the environment may endanger public health and welfare by causing or contributing to significant depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. CFCs are manufactured chemicals that remain in the atmosphere for decades, slowing migrating upwards without reacting with any other chemicals. D. Stratospheric ozone shields the Earth's surface from dangerous ultraviolet radiation. When CFC molecules react with ultraviolet light in the atmosphere they break down, freeing chlorine atoms which catalyze the destruction of ozone. A national and international consensus has developed that unabated use of CFCs is resulting in depletion of stratospheric ozone. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that as stratospheric ozone levels drop, penetration of ultraviolet radiation will increase resulting in potential health and environmental harm. Direct effects are likely to include increased incidence of skin cancer and cataracts, suppression of the immune response system and damage to crops and aquatic organisms. E. In the troposphere (the lower atmosphere), CFCs, along with other chemicals, absorb infrared radiation, warming the Earth. Scientists predict that global warming may melt polar ice, raise sea levels and flood low -lying coasts. It may also disrupt agriculture due to shifts in global temperature and rainfall patterns. F. CFCs are widely used in blowing agents in the manufacture of plastic food packaging. Moreover, while other foam products store or bank much of the CFCs within them, food service products emit most of the CFC used in their manufacture during the manufacture, use and disposal of the products. G. The widespread use of CFC - processed food packaging poses a threat by the introduction of toxic by- products into the atmosphere and environment of the City. Restricting the sale of CFC - processed food packaging in retail food establishments in the City would contribute to slowing ozone loss and greenhouse gas buildup, thereby protecting the public health. H. In addition to emitting CFCs, plastic food service items take hundreds of years to decompose and cannot be recycled. However, these food packaging items can be and are made from other materials, such as recycled or virgin paper, and other biodegradable products which are not made using CFCs. 1. Polystyrene foam is a petroleum processing by- product. Oil is a nonrenewable resource obtained by increasingly hazardous methods including off -shore drilling, which poses significant dangers to the environment. Alternative products which are degradable or recyclable pose less overall hazards than continued and expanded reliance on oil -based products. _1Z_ 66 J. Evidence indicates that all blowing agents currently used or proposed in connection with the manufacture of polystyrene foam pose dangers to the environment. Beyond the acknowledged dangers of CFCs, other blowing agents also create dangers. K. Take -out food packaging constitutes the single greatest source of litter in the City and is a significant contributor to the total amount of waste entering the City's waste stream. Reducing the amount of litter will further the health, safety and welfare of the City. L. Reduction of the amount of nondegradable and nonrecyclable waste that enters the waste stream and encouraging the use of recyclable containers further this goal. M. The City borders the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, a federal preserve that supports one of the most diverse and delicate ecosystems in the world. Eliminating the use of chlorofluorocarbons polystyrene and other harmful materials from all establishments with the City will help protect this Sanctuary NU. This chapter is consistent with the California Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972 (Government Code Section 66700 et seq.). (Ord. 89 -14, 1989). 8.68.020 Definitions. Except as otherwise defined or where the context otherwise indicates, the following defined words shall have the following meaning: A. "Affordable" means that a biodegradable compostable or recyclable product may cost up to 15 percent more than the purchase cost of the non- biodegradable, non- compostable or non - recyclable altemative(sl. B. "ASTM Standard" means meeting the standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials International Standards D6400 or D6868 for biodegradable and corn stable plastics as those standards may be amended. C. `Biodegradable" means the ability of organic matter to break down from a complex to a more simple form. A D. "CFC- processed food packaging" means food packaging which uses chlorofluorocarbons as blowing agents in its manufacture. R. E. "Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC)" means the family of substances containing carbon, fluorine and chlorine and having no hydrogen atoms and no double bonds. F. "City Facility" means anybuilding, structure or vehicle owned and operated by the cam, its agents, agencies and departments G. "City Contractor" means any person or entity that has a contract with the city for work or improvement to be performed for a franchise concession for grant monies goods and services or supplies to be donated or to be purchased at the expense of the city. -1� l ^11 H. " Compostable" means all the materials in the product or package will break plastic -like product must be clearlti labeled preferably with a color symbol to allow proper identification such that the collector and processor can easily distinguish the ASTM standard compostable plastic from non -ASTM standard compostable In astic. G. L "Customer" means any person purchasing food from a restaurant or retail food vendor. D.J. "Degradable food packaging" means food packaging which substantially reduces to its constituent substances through degradation processes initiated by natural organisms whose end products are substantially, but not necessarily entirely, carbon dioxide and water; and plastic items designed to degrade when exposed to ultraviolet light. Degradable food packaging does not include cellulose -based items which have a synthetic or plastic coating comprising more than five percent of the total volume of the item. prepared ready -to- consume food or beverages. This includes but is not limited to plates, cups, bowls, trays and hinged and lidded containers. This does not include single -use disposable items such as plastic straws cup lids or utensils F. L. `Food packaging" means all food - related wrappings, bags, boxes, containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, lids, straws or drinking utensils, on which or in which food is placed or packaged on the retail food establishment's premises, and which are not intended for refuse. Food packaging does not include forks, knives or single - service condiment packages. M. Food Provider" means any vendor located or providing food within the city which provides prepared food for public consumption on or off its premises and includes without limitation any store shop sales outlet restaurant, grocery store sul2ermarket delicatessen catering truck or vehicle or any other person who provides prevared food• and any organization group or individual which regularly provides food as part of its services FLN. "Person" means an individual, a group of individuals, or an association, firm, partnership, corporation or other entity, public or private. G. O. "Polystyrene Foam" means " ... fbayfl like 1. and includes expanded polystyrene that is a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including but not limited to fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene) injection molding form molding and extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene) -14 67 L P. "Prepared Food" means , een€eetien e candimeet, of any a4iele wNeh is used -e: - rote° d fer use as a feed. food or beverage prepared for consumption on the food preparer's premises using anY preparation. It is a policy-goal of this cif to encourage supennarkets and other vendors to eliminate the use of polystyrene foam for packaging unprepared food Q "Recyclable food packaging" means any food packaging including glass, cans, cardboard, paper, mixed paper or other items which can be recycled, salvaged, composted, processed or marketed by any means other than landfilling or burning, whether as fuel or otherwise, so that they are returned to use by society. It includes any material that is accepted by the special district recycling program including but not limited to paper, glass aluminum cardboard and plastic bottles, Jars and tubs Recyclable plastics comprise those plastics coded with recycling symbols #1 through #5. K-. R. "Restaurant" means any establishment located within the City selling prepared food to be consumed on or about its premises by customers. & S. "Retail Food vendee" Establishment meaRs any store, shop sales et4le or efl-ef establishment, including a g eeery st„ee e: a del:eatessen, ether dlf e ,.t...._ani ia,,ated , a.u:_ the City, whiek sells «. ce eta fee shall include but is not limited to, any place where food is prepared to include any fixed or mobile restaurant drive -in coffee shop public food market produce stand or similar place which food and drink is prepared for sale or for service on the premises or elsewhere. T. "Special Events Promoter" means an applicant for any special events permit issued by the City or any City employee(s) responsible for a City-organized special event. #k U. "Supplies" means any person selling or otherwise supplying food packaging to a restaurant or retail food vendor. 1, V. "Take -out Food" means prepared foods or beverages requiring no further preparation to be consumed and which are generally purchased for consumption off the retail food vendor's premises. O. "Wholesaler" means any person who acts as a wholesale merchant, broker, jobber or agent, who sells for resale. (Ord. 89 -14, 1989). 8.68.030 Prohibited Food Packaging. A. Restaurants. 1. Except as provided on CMC 8.68.070 and 8.68.080, no restaurant shall provide prepared food to its customers in CFC- processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, nor shall any restaurant purchase, obtain, keep, sell, distribute, provide to customers or otherwise use in its business any CFC - processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging. 2. As to any food packaging obtained after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, each restaurant shall obtain from each of its suppliers a written statement executed by the supplier, or by a responsible agent of the supplier, stating that the supplier will not supply any CFC - processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging to that restaurant, that the supplier will note on each invoice for food packaging -1'5-1 M supplied to that restaurant that the packaging covered by the invoice is not CFC- processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, and the identity of the packaging's manufacturer. 3. All contracts between a restaurant and a supplier entered into after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall include provisions that the supplier will not supply any CFC - processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging to that restaurant, that the supplier will note on each invoice for food packaging supplied to that restaurant that the packaging covered by the invoice is not CFC - processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, the identity of the packaging's manufacturer; and that failure to comply with such provisions shall constitute a material breach of the contract. 4. Restaurants shall retain each supplier's written statement for 12 months from the date of receipt of any food packaging from that supplier. B. Retail Food Vendors. 1. Except as provided in CMC 8.68.070 and 8.68.080, no retail food vendor shall sell take -out food in CFC - processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, nor shall any retail food vendor purchase, obtain, keep, sell, distribute or provide to customers or otherwise use in its business any CFC - processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging. 2. All retail food vendors shall segregate, in their warehouses or other storage areas located within the City, food packaging used in their take -out food operations from other food packaging. Take -out food packaging containers or boxes shall be labeled as such and shall indicate that they contain food packaging which is not CFC - processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging. 3. As to take -out food packaging obtained or purchased after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, each retail food vendor shall comply with the requirements of subsection (A)(2) and (A)(4) of this section. 4. All contracts for the purchase of take -out food packaging entered into after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall comply with the provisions of subsection (A)(3) of this section. C. Wholesalers. 1. No wholesaler located and doing business within the City shall sell, distribute or provide to customers or keep within the City any CFC - processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, except as provided in CMC 8.68.070 and 8.68.080. 2. As to any food packaging sold, distributed or provided to customers after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, each wholesaler shall obtain from each of its suppliers a written statement executed by the supplier, or by a responsible agent of the supplier, stating that the supplier will not supply any CFC - processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging to that wholesaler, that the supplier will note on each invoice for food packaging supplied to that wholesaler that the packaging covered by the invoice is not CFC - processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, and the identify of the packaging's manufacturer. -IMP 69 3. As to food packaging obtained or purchased after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, each wholesaler shall comply with the requirements of subsections (A)(2) and (A)(4) of this section. 4. All contracts for the purchase of take -out food packaging entered into after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall comply with provisions of subsection (A)(3) of this section. (Ord. 89 -14, 1989). 8.68.040 Degradable and Recyclable Food Packaging. A. Restaurants. 1. At least 50 percent by volume of each restaurant's food packaging, in which prepared food is provided to customers, or which is kept, purchased or obtained for this purpose, shall be degradable and recyclable or reusable. 2. Each restaurant shall maintain written records evidencing its compliance with this section. B. Retail Food Vendors. I. At least 50 percent by volume of each retail food vendor's packaging, in which take -out food is provided to customers, or which is kept, purchased or obtained for this purpose, shall be degradable, recyclable or reusable. 2. Each retail food vendor shall maintain written records evidencing its compliance with this section. (Ord. 89 -14, 1989). 8.68.050 Regulation of Suppliers and Food Vendors. A. It shall be unlawful for any supplier to make any misstatement of material fact to any food vendor or to the City Administrator, or her/his agents, regarding the degradable or recyclable nature of, or the use of or nonuse of, CFC- processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging supplied to any food vendor or to the City. B. Food vendors shall state that they are in compliance with this chapter on their annual business license renewal forms. (Ord. 89 -14, 1989). 8.68.060 Inspection of Records — Proof of Compliance. All statements and documents required by this chapter shall be made available for inspection and copying by the City Administrator, or her/his designated representative. It shall be unlawful for any person having custody of such documents to fail or refuse to produce such documents upon request by the City Administrator, or her/his designated representative. (Ord. 89 -14, 1989). 8.68.070 Exemptions. The City Administrator, or her/his designated representative, may exempt an item or type of food packaging from the requirements of this chapter, upon a showing that the item or type has no acceptable non -CFC- processed food packaging or peiystyrene feam equivalent and that imposing the requirements of this chapter on that item or type would cause undue hardship. No exceptions shall be approved for the use of polystyrene Said documentation shall include a list of suppliers contacted to determine the nonavailability of such alternative packaging. (Ord. 89 -14, 1989). 8.68.080 Existing Contracts. 1 U11 Food packaging required to be purchased under a contract entered into prior to December 31, 1989, is exempt from the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 89 -14, 1989). 8.68.090 City Purchases Prohibited. The City shall not purchase any CFC- processed food packaging or polystyrene foam food packaging, nor shall any City- sponsored event utilize such packaging. At least 50 percent by volume of food packaging which the City, or any City - sponsored event, utilizes shall be degradable or recyclable. (Ord. 89 -14, 1989). 8.68.100 Separate Food Packaging Waste Receptacles. Each food vendor shall establish separate waste receptacles for each type of recyclable food packaging waste generated on- premises, including, but not limited to, glass, cans, cardboard, newspapers and mixed paper. (Ord. 89 -14, 1989). 8.68.110 City Administrator's Power. The City Administrator is authorized to promulgate regulations and to take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this chapter, including, but not limited to, inspecting any food vendor's premises to verify compliance with this chapter and any regulations adopted thereunder. (Ord. 89 -14, 1989). 8.68.120 Liability and Enforcement. A. ARy persen violating er failing to B. The Gity Attemey may seek legal; G. The femedies afld penalties provide exclusive. (Ord. 89 14, 1989). A. Violations of this Ordinance may be enforced with Chapter 8.68.120 of this Code B. The City officer shall be responsible for enforcing this Chapter and shall have authority to issue citations for violations. C. Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction. D. The City Attorney may seek legal iniunctive or other relief to enforce the provisions of this Chapter. E. The remedies and penalties provided in this Chapter are cumulative and not exclusive of one another. F. The Citv in accordance with anMicab_I_e law. may inspect the vendor or G. Food vendors shall state that they are in compliance with the ordinance on their annual business license renewal forms. Violations of this ordinance shall be enforced as follows: 1. For the first violation City Administrator or designee shall issue a written warning to the food provider specifying that a violation of this chapter has occurred and which further notified the food provider of the -116 71 gppropriate penalties to be assessed in the event of future violations. The food vendor will have 30 days to comply. 2. The following_ penalties will apply for subsequent violations of the ordinance: a. A fine not exceeding $100 for the first violation 30 days after the first waming. The Cijy Administrator or designee may allow the violator in lieu of a payment of a fine to submit receipts demonstrating the purchase after the citation date, of at least $100 worth of biodegradable compostable_ or recyclable products appropriate as an alternative disposable food service ware for the items which led to the violation. b. A fine not exceeding $200 for the second violation 60 days after the first warning. C. A fine not exceeding_ $500 for the third violation 90 days after the first wamingand for each additional 30 -dav period in which the food provider in not in compliance. 3. Food providers who violate this ordinance in connection with commercial or non - commercial special events shall be assessed fines as follows: a. A fine not to exceed $200 for an event of one to 200 persons. b. A ftne not to exceed $400 for an event of 201 to 400 persons. c. A fine not to exceed $600 for an event of 401 to 600 persons. d. A fine not to exceed $1,000 for an event of 600 or more persons. Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect with a six -month voluntary period to allow vendors to use up any remaining stock of prohibited product The first month following the six - month voluntary period this ordinance shall be mandatory. -iq PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL- BY -THE- SEA this 3rd day of June 2008 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: SIGNED: SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR ATTEST: Heidi Burch, City Clerk 72 'S • Ventura County Star: Opinion Ventura County Star To print this page, select Fite then Print from your browser URL: http: / /www. venturacountystar. com / vcs / opinion / article /0,1375,VCS_125_4324020,00.htmi Target litterbugs, not products, to clean beaches By Jean- Michel cousteau December 18, 2005 Page 1 of 2 Efforts are under way in Ventura, Los Angeles and Orange counties to ban various plastic products to reduce litter on beaches. That's like banning food because people are overweight. California's beaches are a natural treasure and we need the public's help to protect them. But history teaches an important lesson: Bans don't work. If a community bans Styrofoam and plastic carry-out containers, coffee cups, picnic ware and similar Items, we know what will happen: individuals and businesses will switch to other disposable products, such as glass, aluminum, and wax - covered cardboard. The amount of litter will not change, only its composition. That's why bans are overly simplistic and don't get to the real cause of the problem. I have spent my entire life protecting our oceans and beaches, and trusting education will ultimately produce the best safeguards for our environment. But I'm also a realist. I understand human behavior and realize that good intentions are not good enough. To solve a problem, we must understand it. The products we use aren't the problem; people who litter are. It's a matter of thoughtless behavior. - Research shows that beach litter comes from many sources: local residents, tourists and "day trippers," and people who live, work and commute many miles away, whose litter is picked up by drainage systems, washed out to sea and redeposited on our beaches. Litter is a serious problem. According to the California Coastal Commission, the more than 40,000 volunteers who participated in Coastal Cleanup Day in September picked up nearly 800,000 pounds of trash from the Golden State's 1,100 miles of coastline. We need to do something to reduce this. But approaching the problem by banning certain materials -- as Ventura County and Malibu have done -- won't work and may actually give citizens the false hope that they've "solved" the problem. For example, Malibu's early September decision to adopt a citywide ban on serving food and drinks in Styrofoam containers does not stop visitors from bringing other throw -away products -- including plastics -- to the beach. Ventura County's resolution that no plastics of any kind can be used during county - sponsored events similarly does not stop vendors from using other disposable containers. Public officials who are serious about cleaning up their beaches and protecting the environment are not without options. First, they can enhance and enforce existing anti -litter laws. Littering is illegal in California. But only law enforcement officers are allowed to give out tickets and they generally have higher priorities. Besides, many judges consider the current $1,000 fine excessive. So the law isn't uniformly enforced and isn't the deterrent it was intended to be. The dynamics here have to change. For starters, beach communities should consider "deputizing" public works employees -- such as beach sanitation workers, lifeguards and parking meter attendants -- to cite littering offenders. Lawmakers and judges also have a role. 3udges need to understand that littering is a serious problem, and perhaps be less tolerant of offenders by levying the $1,000 fine. Stricter enforcement would send a very real http: / /www. venturacountystar. com / vcs /cda/article_print /0, 1983,VCS_125_4324020_ARTI... 1/5/2006 Ventura County Star: Opinion Page 2 of 2 message to would -be offenders: Litter and you will pay the price. Public officials also can increase their support for public education efforts designed to discourage littering and encourage recycling. The focus of these initiatives should include all types of products found in debris: plastics, aluminum, paper, glass and other materials. Several private organizations, such as Keep California Beautiful, already are doing this successfully and their efforts should be lauded and expanded. Additionally, some industries are sponsoring a program called "Bring It Back Plus," encouraging people not only to pick up their own trash as they depart the beach, but to pick up some of what was left behind by others who were less responsible. As my father once observed, "People protect what they love." Public education and stricter enforcement of existing litter laws, with appropriate penalties, would help remind both our fellow Californians and the thousands of visitors who come here each year that It is their personal responsibility and civic duty to keep California clean. Unfortunately, there will always be litterbugs among us. Bans have no effect at all on such people. Irresponsible human behavior cannot be addressed by eliminating products in society. People need to be aware that what they do -- or don't do -- can harm the planet where we all reside. -- Jean- Michel Cousteau, son of the famed ocean explorer Jacques Cousteau, Is the founder of the California - based Oceans Future Society. Comment (0) 1 Trackback (0) Copyright 2005, Ventura County Star. All Rights Reserved. http:// www. venturacountystar. com/ ves /cda/article _print/0,1983,VCS_125 4324020_ARTI... 1/5/2006 i Qmer'can Ch j elrstry yulncil Info Sheet Contact: Mike Levy (703) 741 -5647 Email: mike_levy @americanchemistry.com FACTS ABOUT POLYSTYRENE FOAM FOODSERVICE PACKAGING Polystyrene (PS) and the entire plastics industry are part of the solution. The industry has made significant progress over the past decade in reducing content through manufacturing source reduction, and discouraging litter and improper disposal of trash. A Positive Environmental Alternative: Coffee and tea customers who believe they are doing something "good for the environment' by choosing to use a plastic - coated paperboard cup with a sleeve for one hot beverage instead of a single polystyrene foam cup will be surprised to learn what a peer reviewed life cycle study has shown (2006 Franklin Associates report.) According to this data, for the average plastics- coated paperboard cup versus the average polystyrene foam cup, a plastic - coated paperboard cup with a sleeve results in 50% more energy to produce, nearly twice as much solid waste volume, nearly five times as much solid waste by weight, and nearly 50% more greenhouse gas emissions. • Bans are likely to hurt locally -owned businesses because they limit choice and increase costs. PS is one of the most cost - effective material for foodsenrice containers used by small businesses. When the City of Malibu enacted a polystyrene ban, the local yogurt shop was forced to raise prices to counter the higher cost of paper cups — an annual cost increase of over $30,0001 • In reality, bans are really just a hidden tax on shop owners, who must pass the cost on to their customers. It is believed that any restriction — be it a ban or tax — ignores the real concern, which is litter, • No CFCs: No chlorofluorocarbons are used in foodsenrice polystyrene manufacturing today. CFCs were a very small portion of the polystyrene foodsenrice industry, and voluntarily phased out in the early 1990s. • Many local businesses are willing to do their part to reduce litter — to work collaboratively with the city and anti - litter advocates to implement programs developed to address this important issue. americanchemistry.com 1300 Wilson Boultward, Arlington, VA 222091 (703)741.5000 0. 63 (Polystyrene Foodservice Packaging, continued) PS foodservice ware is being recycled in California and elsewhere — no other foodservice materials (paperboard, composite paper /plastics, or biomaterials) can make that claim. PS recycling is an emerging market and ordinances that ban this material stifle such end -use potential benefits. • Paper and paperboard make up the highest percent of municipal solid waste (trash) in the waste stream (33.9°/x), according to the most recent 2006 EPA report. The percentage of other materials in U.S. municipal landfills include food (12.4°/x); plastics (11.7°/x), metals (7.6%); and all polystyrene (0.7%.) Very little of the waste in today's modern, highly engineered landfills (including paper, plastic, food) actually biodegrades. Since degradation of materials can create potentially harmful liquid and gaseous by- products that could contaminate groundwater and air, today's landfills are designed to minimize contact with air and water required for degradation to occur, thereby practically eliminating the degradation of waste. The industry recognizes and agrees that any foodservice packaging is a blight to the community when it is disposed of improperly. The environmentally beneficial approach to address the issue is to focus on preventing litter in the first place — through implementing anti -litter programs aimed at affecting behavioral changes that result in measurable overall litter reduction, and involving all stakeholders in the community. business, government, schools, and citizen groups. Bans may change the composition of litter, but they do not reduce the amount of litter since litterbugs do not discriminate between materials. Behavioral change — not a ban or any other product restriction — is a key component to any successful litter reduction program. If the goal is to reduce coastal and waterborne waste, then solutions should focus on measurable, replicable, and objective results. amerlcanchemistry.COm 1300 Wilson Bxu levazd, Arlington, VA22209I (703) 7415000 0,,11 i "4 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY a cbs5.com - Judge Blocks Oakland Plastic Bag Ban Judge Blocks Oakland Plastic Bag Ban Environment & The Green Beat OAKLAND (BCN) —A judge who reviewed an Oakland ordinance that would have banned plastic shopping bags has told the city to bag it. In an injunction against the ordinance that he issued late Thursday, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch said that the city failed to conduct a full review of how the ban would affect the environment. The Oakland City Council approved the plastic bag ordinance last July 17 and it was scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 17, but city officials delayed enforcing it pending a hearing and Roesch's ruling on a lawsuit filed by the Coalition to Support Plastic Bag Recycling last August. The group includes plastic bag manufacturers and recyclers and individuals. A similar ban on plastic bags took effect in San Francisco on Nov. 20 and is still in place. Oakland City Attorney spokesman Alex Katz said today that his office will ask the City Council next week whether its members want to contest Roesch's ruling or do a full environmental review of the ordinance. Michael Mills, the attorney for the Coalition to Support Plastic Bag Recycling, said he believes that the city's recommended alternatives, such as compostable plastic bags and paper bags are at least equally as harmful to the environment as plastic bags and possibly more harmful. Mills said the manufacturing process for paper bags causes air pollution and water pollution and consumes more fuel to truck because they're bulkier and weigh more than plastic bags. He said they also take up more space in landfills. In his ruling, Roesch said, "It is because of that evidence in the record and the unanimity of the uncertainty whether paperbags are less (or more) environmentally friendly than plastic bags that the city cannot assert that there is 'no possibility' of any significant environmental effect caused by the ban." In a statement, Keith Christman, senior director of the American Chemistry Councirs plastics division, said, "Like many who have been waiting for this decision, we are pleased with the judge's ruling." Christman said, "Banning plastic bags would dramatically increase energy use, double greenhouse gas emissions and increase waste. Recycling plastic bags is the right approach and makes plastic bags the environmentally responsible choice." He said, "We encourage the city to help Oakland residents improve the recycling of plastic bags consistent with AB 2449, California's state -wide recycling program," said Christman:' Page 1 of 2 http: / /cbs5.com/ environment/ oakland .plastic.bags.2.703597.html 09/17/2008 S1 cbs5.com - Judge Blocks Oakland Plastic Bag Ban Page 2 of 2 Christman said, 'Plastics are a valuable resource -too valuable to waste —and we betteve effective implementation of the state's recycling program Is the best and fastest way to steward environmental resources and reduce litter by recycling these bags." Mills said internal a -mails between Oakland officials last year indicate that they admit that compostable plastic bags aren't any better for the environment than are regular plastic shopping bags. Mills said he believes Oakland officials only approved the ordinance for "feel -good public relations spin" (® CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Bay City News contributed to this report.) hup: / /cbs5.com/ environment/ oakland .plastic.bags.2.703597.html 09/17/2008 VV THE SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION TO THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA FORMAL OBJECTIONS BY THE SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION TO PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CLAIMS OF EXEMPTION REGARDING PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 2115 TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF PLASTIC CARRY -OUT BAGS, AND TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE The Save The Plastic Bag Coalition (the "Coalition') is an unincorporated association of plastic bag manufacturers and distributors. The members include (but are not limited to) Grand Packaging, Inc. and Crown Poly, Inc. which are manufacturers and Elkay Plastics Co., Inc. which is a manufacturer and distributor. Members of the Coalition supply plastic carry-out bags to businesses covered by the proposed ordinance and would be adversely affected by its adoption. The Coalition hereby responds to the June 12, 2008 Notice Of Intent To Adopt Negative Declaration and asserts the objections herein. GROUNDS FOR EXEMPTION CITED BY THE CITY 14 CCR § 15061(b)(3) and § 15308 are cited by the city in the proposed ordinance as the bases for exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the requirement that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared. 14 CCR § 1506l(b)(3) is known as the "common sense exemption." It states as follows: The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. [Emphasis added] Citing 14 CCR §15061(b)(3), the proposed ordinance states that the activity will not result in direct or indirect or reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect physical change to the environment. 14 CCR §15308 is a "categorical exemption." It states that the following category of actions is exempt from CEQA; [A]ctions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the I'M environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption. 14 CCR §15300.2(c) states an exception to all categorical exemptions, as follows. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Citing 14 CCR §15308, the proposed ordinance states that the ordinance is exempt as it is a regulatory program designed to protect the environment. THE SCOTTISH REPORT In 2005, the Scottish Government issued a full environment impact assessment on the effects of a proposed plastic bag levy (the "Scottish Report"). A copy of the Scottish Report is provided herewith. The Scottish report states: If only plastic bags were to be levied (scenarios I and IB), then studies and experience elsewhere suggest that there would be some shift in bag usage to paper bags (which have worse environmental impacts.) The Scottish Report compared plastic and paper bags and made the following findings: [A] paper bag has a more adverse impact than a plastic bag for most of the environmental issues considered. Areas where paper bags score particularly badly include water consumption, atmospheric acidification (which can have effects on human health, sensitive ecosystems, forest decline and acidification of lakes) and eutrophication of water bodies (which can lead to growth of algae and depletion of oxygen). [Note: Eutrophication means the process by which a body of water becomes rich in dissolved nutrients, thereby encouraging the growth and decomposition of oxygen - depleting plant life and resulting in harm to other organisms.] 2 Paper bags are anywhere between six to ten times heavier than lightweight plastic carrier bags and, as such, require more transport and its associated costs. They would also take up more room in a landfill if they were not recycled. The Scottish Report contains the following comparison of the environmental metrics of plastic bags and paper bags which is taken from the study done by the French company Groupe Carrefour. The lightweight plastic bag has been given a score of 1 in all categories as a reference point. The report states: A score greater than 1 indicates that another bag ('bag for life' or paper) makes more contribution to the environmental problem than a lightweight plastic bag when normalised against the volume of shopping carried. A score of less than 1 indicates that it makes less of a contribution, i.e. it has less environmental impact than a lightweight plastic bag." [Emphasis added] The indicators take account of emissions which occur over the whole lifecycle. They can therefore occur in different locations depending on where different parts of the lifecycle are located. For global environmental problems such as climate change, the location of the emission is not important in assessing the potential environmental impact.... Indicator of environmental impact HDPE bag lightweight Paper bag single use Consumption of non - renewable primary energy 1.0 1.1 Consumption of water 1.0 4.0 Climate change (emission of greenhouse gases) 1.0 3.3 Acid rain (atmospheric acidification) 1.0 1.9 Air quality (ground level ozone formation) 1.0 1.3 Eutrophication of water bodies 1.0 14.0 Solid waste production 1.0 2.7 Risk of litter 1.0 0.2 Scottish Report at page 22 -23. R1 THE ULS REPORT In March 2008, use - less -stuf .com ( "ULS ") issued an updated "Review Of Life Cycle Data Relating To Disposable, Compostable, Biodegradable, And Reusable Grocery Bags" (the "ULS Report"). A copy of the ULS Report and the one -page ULS media release announcing the report are provided herewith. ULS made the following findings which are contained in the report: 1. Plastic bags generate 39% less greenhouse gas emissions than uncomposted paper bags, and 68% less greenhouse gas emissions than composted paper bags. The plastic bags generate 4,645 tons of CO2 equivalents per 150 million bags; while uncomposted paper bags generate 7,621 tons, and composted paper bags generate 14,558 tons, per 100 million bags produced. 2. Plastic bags consume less than 6% of the water needed to make paper bags. It takes 1004 gallons of water to produce 1000 paper bags and 58 gallons of water to produce 1500 plastic bags. 3. Plastic grocery bags consume 71 % less energy during production than paper bags. Significantly, even though traditional disposable plastic bags are produced from fossil fuels, the total non - renewable energy consumed during their lifecycle is up to 36% less than the non - renewable energy consumed during the lifecycle of paper bags and up to 64% less than that consumed by biodegradable plastic bags. 4. Using paper sacks generates almost five times more solid waste than using plastic bags. 5. After four or more uses, reusable plastic bags are superior to all types of disposable bags -- paper, polyethylene and compostable plastic -- across all significant environmental indicators. ULS Report at pages 3 -4. The ULS report concludes as follows: Legislation designed to reduce environmental impacts and litter by outlawing grocery bags based on the material from which they are produced will not deliver the intended results. While some litter 4 12, reduction might take place, it would be outweighed by the disadvantages that would subsequently occur (increased solid waste and greenhouse gas emissions). Ironically, reducing the use of traditional plastic bags would not even reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, as paper and biodegradable plastic bags consume at least as much non - renewable energy during their full lifecycle. ULS Report at pages 5 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS As stated in my letters dated June 3 and 10, 2008, there are other environmental impacts of a shift to paper bags. It takes approximately ten times more diesel fuel to transport paper bags than plastic bags, because they are heavier and bulkier. It takes as much as eighty -five times more energy to recycle a paper bag than a plastic bag. The manufacture of paper bags generates approximately 70 percent more air pollutants than plastic bags. Approximately 13 to 17 million trees are chopped down each year to make paper bags, which will multiply if plastic bags are banned. Logging has an impact on climate change. Trees absorb and store CO2. Logging releases stored CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is increasing the acidification of the oceans and threatening the ecosystem and entire species of marine life. A comprehensive review of the impact of the paper industry on the environment is contained in a report entitled "The State of the Paper Industry" by the Environmental Paper Network the "Paper Report"). It can be downloaded at: www.environmentalnaDer. ore/ stateoftheDaDerindustry /confirm.htm. The following findings are stated in the Paper Report [T]he paper industry's activities - and our individual use and disposal of paper in our daily lives - have enormous impacts. These include loss and degradation of forests that moderate climate change, destruction of habitat for countless plant and animal species, pollution of air and water with toxic chemicals such as mercury and dioxin, and production of methane - a potent 5 W greenhouse gas - as paper decomposes in landfills, to name just a few. (Page iv) One of the most significant, and perhaps least understood, impacts of the paper industry is climate change. Every phase of paper's lifecycle contributes to global warming, from harvesting trees to production of pulp and paper to eventual disposal. (Page v) The climate change effects of paper carry all the way through to disposal. If paper is landfilled rather than recycled, it decomposes and produces methane, a greenhouse gas with 23 times the heat - trapping power of carbon dioxide. More than one -third of municipal solid waste is paper, and municipal landfills account for 34 percent of human related methane emissions to the atmosphere, making landfills the single largest source of such emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified the decomposition of paper as among the most significant sources of landfill methane. (Page v) Plastic bags are often criticized on the ground that they do not decompose in landfills. In fact, as we can see from the Paper Report, that is a positive attribute of plastic bags, not a negative one. THE OAKLAND CASE The issue of the applicability of CEQA to the banning of plastic bags has already been litigated. Coalition To Support Plastic Bag Recycling v. City of Oakland et al., Alameda Superior Court, Case No. RG07- 339097 (hereinafter the "Oakland Case "). The City of Oakland passed an ordinance banning plastic bags, citing 14 CCR §15061(b)(3) and §15308 as reasons for not preparing an EIR. The court ruled that the ordinance was invalid as the city could not make the findings required under either section. A copy of the court's ruling is provided herewith. In the Oakland Case, the court referred to the Scottish Report and an earlier version of the ULS Report. The court ruled as follows regarding 14 CCR §15061(b)(3): The findings of the Scottish report raise a reasonable inference that an outright ban on single -use 100% petroleum plastic bags may result in increased use of paper bags. 3 014 This evidence is sufficient to defeat the assertion of the "common sense exemption" because, with such evidence as part of the record, the City cannot meet the standard that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will cause a significant environmental effect.... It is because of this evidence in the record and unanimity of the uncertainty whether paper bags are less (or more) environmentally friendly than plastic bags that the City cannot assert that there is "no possibility" of any significant environmental effect caused by the ban of the 100% petroleum plastic bags. Having found evidence to support a fair argument regarding the significant adverse effects of the Ordinance claimed by Petitioner, and no evidence that would permit the City to conclude to a certainty that Petitioner's concerns are unfounded, City's reliance on the common sense exemption was an abuse of discretion. Ruling at 9 -10. The court ruled as follows regarding 14 CCR §15308: [T]here are exceptions to the categorical exemptions. The City cannot rely on a categorical exemption for a project where there is a "reasonable possibility" that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to "unusual circumstances." (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c).) The City's determination whether the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment is reviewed under the fair argument standard. [Citation] The question is whether "on the basis of the whole record, there was no substantial evidence that there would be a significant [environmental] effect" [Citation] [Emphasis in original] A shift in consumer use from one environmentally damaging product to another constitutes an "unusual circumstance" of an activity that would otherwise be exempt from review under CEQA as activity undertaken to protect the environment. [Citation] The court also finds that substantial evidence in the record supports at least a fair argument that single -use paper bags are more environmentally damaging than single -use plastic bags. [Referring to the Scottish Report, the ULS Report, and other documents.].... 7 &s Although City points to evidence in the record that contradicts evidence cited by Petitioner, the court does not address it except to note that none of this evidence negates the evidence cited by petitioner. "If such evidence [supporting a fair argument of significant environmental impact] is found, it cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary." [Citation] Ruling at 11 -12. CEOA OBJECTIONS Based on the foregoing and the documents provided herewith, the Coalition objects to the proposed negative declaration and the proposed ordinance on the following grounds: A. Based on the Scottish and ULS Reports and common sense, it is clear that the prohibition on the distribution of plastic carry -out bags in Manhattan Beach would result in an increase in the number of paper carry -out bags that would have significant adverse environmental effects. Consequently, the City of Manhattan Beach cannot meet the standard that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance will cause a significant environmental effect. B. The IES addresses paper bags. The city concedes in the IES that the banning of plastic bags in Manhattan Beach "may result in an increase in paper bag usage." (Page 15) The city also concedes in the IES that "it is well documented that the manufacture and recycling of paper generates more wastewater than plastic bags. The increased use of energy could have an impact on the environment by increasing emissions from paper mills and recycling plants." (Page 15) The city is thereby conceding that there is a fair argument and a possibility that the proposed ordinance will have a significant environmental effect. C. The City Attorney admitted at the June 3, 2008 Council hearing that the Coalition had made a "fair argument' in its June 3, 2008 letter. Re stated: "They have raised in their [June 3, 20081 letter what's called in CEQA terminology a fair argument that in fact there could be a negative impact from adopting this ordinance." D. The city states in the IES that Manhattan Beach is a small city with only 217 licensed retail establishments that might use plastic bags. (Page 15) The city concludes as follows: "It appears that any increase in the total use of paper bags resulting from the proposed ban on plastic bags ... would be relatively small with a minimal or nonexistent increase in pollutants generated from production and recycling." (Page 16) (Emphasis added) This is a bare assertion that is not supported by any facts or evidence in the IES. In any case, the U 96# word "appears" is a concession by the city that it is possible that the ordinance will have significant environmental effect. E. The size of the city and the number of retail outlets have nothing to do with whether the activity in question may have a significant negative effect on the environment. If it were otherwise, then each small city could avoid the preparation of an EIR, but the cumulative effect of many small cities doing the same thing would be large. The Coalition hereby makes a. fair argument that it is possible that banning plastic bags in a city with 217 retail outlets would have a significant negative effect on the environment caused by a shift to paper bags. F. The IES does not satisfy the requirements of 14 CCR § 15063 for an Initial Study as it does not state all of the possible negative environmental effects of an increase in the number of paper carry-out bags, including those identified herein and in the Scottish and ULS Reports (which are incorporated in these objections by reference) and the Coalition's letters dated June 3 and 10, 2008. G. There is substantial evidence in the record that supports a. fair argument and a reasonable possibility that single -use paper bags are more environmentally damaging than single -use plastic bags, including this document and the Scottish and ULS Reports. Therefore, it cannot be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant negative effect on the environment. This obiection cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary. 14 CCR § 15061(6)(3); Oakland Case at 12; Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 CalApp.3d 1337, 1348 ( "If such evidence [supporting a fair argument of significant environmental impact] is found, it cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary. "). H. There is substantial evidence in the record that supports a. fair argument and a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to "unusual circumstances." A shift in consumer use from one environmentally damaging product to another constitutes an "unusual circumstance." This objection cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary. 14 CCR §15308, §15300.2(c); Oakland Case at 12; Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 CalApp.3d 1337, 1348 ( "If such evidence [supporting a fair argument of significant environmental impact] is found, it cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary. "). Each of the above objections is a separate and independent ground. r7 oil FURTHER OBJECTIONS The Coalition further objects to the proposed ordinance on the following grounds: Pursuant to California Public Resources Code § §42250 -42257 (also known as "AB 2449 "), stores (as defined in §42250(e)) are required to install special recycling bins for plastic bags. AB 2449 was intended to address and constitute the state's solution to the perceived problems of plastic carry -out bags, including but not limited to recycling, litter, marine debris, and environmental sustainability issues. It occupies the field and preempts any potential city or county action to address those issues by enacting a plastic bag ban. AB 2449 contains no provision permitting a city or county to ban plastic bags. AB 2449 only reserves the right of cities and counties to adopt, implement, and enforce laws governing curbside or drop off recycling programs for plastic bags. §42250(c). 2. California cities and counties have no right or authority to ban a product simply because it is not recycled to a degree deemed satisfactory by the city or county. 3. California cities and counties have no right or authority to ban a product simply because the product sometimes becomes litter. 4. California cities and counties have no right or authority to ban a product simply because the product sometimes becomes marine debris. 5. California cities and counties have no right or authority to ban a product simply because they believe that it would be the best option for the sustainability of the environment. 6. A California city or county has no right or authority to ban plastic bags on environmental grounds. Other cities and counties may decide to pass laws banning paper bags rather than plastic bags. This would result in a patchwork of competing and conflicting environmental schemes that would cancel each other out and defeat the purposes of such laws. Assuming that it is not exclusively a federal matter under the Commerce Clause, only the California Legislature can enact such a ban. Each of the above objections is a separate and independent ground. 10 is REQUESTS FOR INCLUSION IN THE RECORD It is requested that the following documents be made part of the record and the Staff Report: 1. This document. 2. The Oakland Case ruling provided herewith. 3. The Scottish Report provided herewith. 4. The ULS Report provided herewith. 5. The ULS media release provided herewith. 6. The London Times report provided herewith. 7. My letters dated June 3 and 10, 2008 on behalf of the Coalition provided herewith. CONCLUSION In the event that the city adopts the proposed ordinance, the Coalition and /or some or all of its members intend to file a lawsuit challenging its validity. The grounds will include (but may not be limited to) the points and objections stated herein and in my June 3 and 10, 2008 letters. No arguments or objections are waived. All rights are reserved. We request an opportunity for the Coalition to provide oral testimony at the public hearing. Dated: June 18, 2008 STEPHEN L. JOSEPH Law Offices of Stephen L. Joseph P.O. Box 221 Tiburon, CA 94920 -0221 Telephone: (415) 577 -6660 Facsimile: (415) 869 -5380 E -mail: sljoseph.law@.earthlink.net Attorney for the Save The Plastic Bag Coalition 11 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page I of 2 Bowden, Katie From: Riles, Andrea Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 1:06 PM To: Bowden, Katie Subject: FW: Dart Foam Recycling Partnership Expires: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:00 AM Attachments: M -301 EnvFacts.pdf, M -376 Life Cycle.pdf; densifier_pc.jpg; Green firm fits into mould.pdf From: Knapp, Christine [OCWR] [mailto:Christine.Knapp @iwmd.ocgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:07 PM To: Aalders, Mark; Allen, Heather; AULT, DAVE; Avila, Liz; Balliet, Mike; Beckman, Chris; Beimer, Rae; Boelter, Pearl [HCA]; BRODOWSKI, DOUG; BYRNE, MIKE; Cao, Ann; Carson, Jason; Castro, Antonia; Chay, Julie [OCWR]; Corbin, Chet; Crumby, Sean; Delgadillo, Dora; Denning, Chrystal; Domer, Ken; Eustice, Melanie; Farnsworth, Nate; FAUTH, TOM; Gauthier, Terra; Gonzales, Mary; Gordon, Sue; Hauerwaas, Steve; Henderson, Jeff; Howard, A.J.; Importuna, Patrick; Jay Ware; Jubinsky, Deborah; Kakutani, Maria; Kha, Irene; Lane, Christine [HCA]; Lazzaro, James; Leticia Mercado; Maria Lazaruk; Matson, Denise; Mattert, Lisa; May, Stephen; Mazboudi, Ziad; MCGEE, MARK; McIntosh, Danna; Meyers, Joe; Monaco, Chip [CEO]; Montgomery, Ken; Moon, Rita; Morris, Rosalie; Nic Castro; Noce, Jan; Ooten, Bob; Palmer, Nancy; Reilly, Doug; Reynolds, David; Riles, Andrea; Rios, Isabel; Ruffridge, Dean; 5hubin, Don; 5tubbler, Traci; Trevor, Blythe; Valenzuela, Daniel; Wager, Jake; Ware, Jay; Ware, Judy; Warren, Gregory; Wolf, 5hanna; Yee, Kristin; 2505 (DART Nic Morrell), 9043 (L.A. CSD /DART), 9044 (L.A. C5D /DART) - L.Mendoza; 5012, 5024,5030,9005 (Taomina.LLC Import), 97003, & 97053 REPUBLIC - D. Ault; 5016, 97002, 97052 CR &R - B. Scottini; 5019, 5070, 5091 WM - L.Patino; 5032 CR &R, 9040 (Solag) - R.Pantoja; 5035 EDCO - Park Disposal; 5087, 5402 - RAINBOW - Jacobs; 5141, 5716 - 5OCWA - Rosales; 5332 WM of Orange - (Sunset Environ.), 5336 (Transfer), 9048 & 9049 WM - K.Feeney; 5354, 5408 - FEDERAL DISPOSAL - 5hubin; 5400, 90054, 97004, 97054 - TIERRA VERDE, 9053 (Burrtec /EDCO, Paramount) - K. Kazarian; 5403 - CR &R - D.Otting; 5416 - JOSE ARVIZU - IPA Assoc.; 5635 - NEWPORT BCH (Gen.Svs.), 5637 (Utilities)- M. Eldridge; 9025 - ESCONDIDO DISPOSAL - V. Tobiason; 9026 - EDCO Efrain Ramirez ; 9026 - EDCO Steve South; 9029 (West Valley), 9030 (Agua Mansa MRF, SanBernadino) - BURRTEC /EDCO - C. Rutter; 9031 (Burrtec/EDCO, Signal Hill Disposal) - CR &R - M.Planck; 9038 - Burrtec/EDCO (Allied /BFI) - J.O'Neal; 9046 - WM - D.Becker; 9050 - WM, 9052 (WM of Southgate) - B.Grimm; 9051 - Burrtec/EDCO (Potential, Ind.) - D. Domonoske; 9054 - Burrtec/EDCO (Innovative Waste Control) - T. Griffiths; 9055 - Universal Waste - M. Blackburn; 97005 - GREENCYCLE - G.Jones; 97007 - HARVEST LANDSCAPING (formerly 55&K); WARE, JAY Cc: Michael .Westerfield -GAED @dart.biz; Brajdic, Marlene [OCWR]; aultd @repsrv.com Subject: Dart Foam Recycling Partnership Dear Recycling Coordinators and Haulers: For your information and consideration, this company makes interior mouldings out of Styrofoam. Please note the name, Dart, is not related to Downey Area Recycling and Transfer. As you know, the County does not endorse any companies. But I do try to get as much information out to all of you regarding new recycling opportunities. Thanks, 09/17/2008 0 Page 2 of 2 Manager of Recycling Programs Government and Community Relations OC Waste & Recycling 320 North Flower Street, Suite 400 Santa Ana, CA 92703 work: (714) 8344165 From: Michael.Westerfield -GAED @dart.biz (mailto: Michael . Westefiield- GAED @dart.biz] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 3:09 PM To: Information [OCWR] Subject: Fw: Dart Foam Recycling Partnership Christine, Thank you for your interest in recycling foam. My company, Dart Container Corporation, is a leading producer of plastic food service products including foam cups, foam hinged trays, and foam plates (These items have also been referred to as "Styrofoam "). As you are probably aware, there are a lot of misperceptions about our products relative to alternative food service disposables. In reality, our products compare favorably from an environmental standpoint to many of the alternatives when the whole life cycle of products is considered. For example, most people do not realize that our products are recyclable unlike most of the paper alternatives (The plastictwax lining on paper cups makes it cost prohibitive to recycle them). With this in mind, my company feels we need to do a better job of making the recycling of foam cups and containers a viable option for the public. To advance our recycling efforts, we are interested in oartnerina_ with large end -users municipalities and material recovery facilities to make EPS recycling a reality. Two challenges with recycling foam are the collection of foam in a recyclable condition and the transportation of the foam. Since it is not feasible for us to go to each house to collect foam, one option would be to let residents co- mingle the foam in their current recycling bin and then to sort it at local Material Recovery Facilities (MRF). Another option would be to offer a bin on city property where the public can drop -off their foam (In a recyclable condition). Once the product is at the MRF or drop -off site (Or both locations), we could provide a densifier that would compact the foam so that it can be transported by Dart to be recycled. While we only make food service containers, we would be willing to accept "Shape" or "Molded" foam as part of the program. The benefit to you is that you would be able to maximize your Landfill Diversion Rate. If we can agree to a mutually beneficial program, we would provide the densifier on a "$0.00 lease basis." Fyi, the City of Roseville is currently recycling their foam and the product is being made into various types of wood and sold to the Home Depot by a company in Stockton named Timbron. Below, I have attached a copy of the Environmental Facts on Foam, a Life Cycle Study on foam, a picture of the Dart densifier, and an article about Timbron. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this program further. Regards, Michael Michael Westerfield West Coast Director of Recycling & Sustainability Dart Container Corporation Government Affairs and the Environment Phone (909) 793 -2729 Fax (909) 793 -2739 www.dart.biz 09/17/2008 � p 4 Most paper foodservice products are coated with wax, polyethylene plastic, or other non- biodegradable materials and are, therefore, essentially no more degradable than foam. Polystyrene foam, like most plastics, does not biodegrade.' The lack of biodegradation may be a Positive feature of plastics, according to Dr. William L. Rathje, an archaeologist with the University of Arizona's Garbage Project and one of the nation's foremost authorities on solid waste and landfills. "The fact that plastic does not biodegrade, which is often cited as one of its great defects, may actually be one of its great virtues," Dr. Rathje has writlen.' In fact; biodegradation can toad to the release of harmful methane gas or leachate., which can contaminate groundwater.' The manufacture of polystyrene foam hot beverage cups requires less energy than the manufacture of comparable plastic - coated paperboard hot cups with sleeves, and the manufacturing of polystyrene foam cold beverage cups requires less enerav than the manufacture Green Care: Environmental Facts about Dart Foam Products Plastic- coated paperboard cups don't insulate as efficiently as foam cups. Plastic- coated paper cup users frequently use two cups together for hot beverages to protect their hands. This "double cupping" of an average - weight polyethylene (PE) Plastic- coated paperboard cup results in over twice as much energy use and solid waste by volume, over five times as much solid waste by weight. and nearly twice as much greenhouse eas emissions as the use of asingle average- weight polystyrene.. cup.' The manufacture of Dart polystyrene foam products does not deplete the ozone layer. Dart polystyrene foam products are not manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons .(CFCs) or any other ozone - depleting chemicals. Moreover, Dart Container Corporation never used. CFCs in the manufacture of foam cups. Those foodservice manufacturers of polystyrene foam that employed. CFCs in their manufacturing processes . ceased using them. by 1990. Polystyrene foam can be recycled as part of an integrated solid waste Polystyrene foam is composed of carbon and hydrogen. When properly incinerated polystyrene foam leaves only carbon dioxide, water, and trace amounts of ash.' In modem waste -to- energy incinerators, the energy generated by the incineration of polystyrene foam cups and other solid waste . can provide heat and light for neighboring communities.10 Polystyrene foam foodservice products do not "clog" landfills. Polystyrene foam foodservice . products constitute less than t percent, by both weight and volume, of out- Country's municipal solid waste." Notes ' The Polystyrene Packaging Council, Polystyrene And Its Raw Material, Styrene: Manufacture and Use, November 1993, p. 1. 2 William L. Rathje, "Rubbish!' The Atlantic Monthly, December 1989, p. 103. 'William Rathje and Cullen Murphy, "Five Major Myths About Garbage, and Why They're Wrong," Smithsonian, July 1992, p. 5. 4 Franklin Associates, Ltd -, Final Peer - Reviewed Report: Life Cycle Inventory of Polystyrene Foam, Bleached Paperboard, and Corrugated Paperboard Foodservice Products (Prepared for The Polystyrene Packaging Council, March 2006), Table 2 -2, p. 2 -7. ' Ibid, Table 2 -3, p. 2 -8. 6lbid, pp. 2 -7, 2 -23, 2 -43, 2 -60. ' Judd H. Alexander, In Defense of Garbage (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1993) p. 55. ' The rate of recovery for recycling of polystyrene disposables and protective packaging more than doubled from 1989 to 1994. Since 1994, outlets for recycling polystyrene foam have declined for a number reasons, including poor economics and an increasing awareness by many consumers that other methods of solid waste management exist. For example, foam loosefill packing material may be reused and polystyrene and other plastic products can be easily and safely incinerated. Franklin Associates, Ltd., Waste Management and Reduction Trends in the Polystyrene Industry, 1974 -1994. June 1996, pp. 17 -18; Updated August 1999. 'The Polystyrene Packaging Council, Polystyrene and Its Raw Material, Styrene: Manufacture and Use, November 1993, pp. 27 -28. 1' In past years, waste -to- energy has been viewed negatively by persons concerned about the environmental effects of incinerations. As technology has improved, however, modern incinerators have become a safe and effective method of handling many post - consumer materials. According to Franklin Associates, Ltd., a leading solid waste consulting firm, "At some point after 2000. the use of finite resources, e.g. fossil fuels, may lead to a more welcoming climate for expansion of waste -to- energy as an alternative ,solid waste management technique." Franklin Associates, Ltd., Solid Waste Management at the Crossroads, December 1997, p. 1 -24. U Moreover, according to a 1998 report by Franklin Associates, Ltd., polystyrene and other plastic products do not comprise the largest volume of material within the waste stream. Indeed, the report concludes that paper and yard trimmings together constitute about 51.6 percent of generation. Thus, while it may be preferable to divert all materials from landfills whenever possible, polystyrene foam does not present the paramount problem for municipal solid waste or, for that matter, landfill capacity. In fact, when polystyrene foam products are buried in landfills, they are as stable and harmless as rocks, concrete, and other inert . materials. William Rathjc and Cullen Murphy, "Five Major Myths About Garbage, and Why They're Wrong," Smithsonian, July 1992, p. 3. See also: Franklin Associates, Ltd., Waste Management and Reduction Trends in the Polystyrene Industry, 1974 -1994, June 1996, p. 7; Updated August 1999; and Franklin Associates, Ltd., Municipal Solid Waste in the United States 2003 Facts and Figures (Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April, 2005). M -301 (11{2007) DART CONTAINER CORPORATION The Industry Standard of Exce/lence Mason, Michigan 48854 U.S.A. Ph: 800 - 2485960 • Fax: 517- 676 -3883 Email: sales ®dart.biz • U .dart.biz Printed on recycled paper WN7 oar carom"., oa, .re (0(p Foodservice Packaging Life mm Cle Inventory This new peer-reviewed study from Franklin Associates Ltd. provides an extensive and comparative look at the energy and environmental performance of foodservice packaging products made with polystyrene foam, bleached paperboard or corrugated paperboard, including hot and cold beverage cups and sandwich "clamshells." Known as a life cycle inventory, or simply LCI, the study offers a cradle -to -grave picture of a product's environmental attributes, from raw material extraction and manufacturing to post -use recovery or disposal. The 2006 Foodservice Packaging LCI evaluated products across the full range of resource and energy use, solid waste generation, atmospheric emissions and waterborne emissions. Comparisons between systems were summarized for four key performance areas: energy, solid waste (weight), solid waste (volume), and greenhouse gas emissions. The full report, Franklin Associates, Ltd., Final Peer - Reviewed Report: Life Cycle Inventory of Polystyrene Foam; Bleached Paperboard, and Corrugated Paperboard Foodservice. Products (Prepared for The Polystyrene Packaging Council, March 2006), may be downloaded at www.dartbiz. This LCI meets international standards (ISO 14040) and has been independently peer- reviewed. More information on the peer- review can be found on page PR -3 of the full report. About Life Cycle Studies —What is an LCI? A Life cycle approach means we recognize how our choices influence what happens at each of these points so we can balance trade -offs and make informed choices that can help reduce overall burdens on the environment. In this regard, LCI studies are an essential source of information for government, scientists, manufacturers and retailers, and individuals who want to make an educated environmental choice. An LCI is a compilation and quantification of the inputs and outputs of a given product system. In this case. foodservice packaging products, including hot and cold beverage clips, plates and sandwich, clamshells,' were reviewed. LCI studies conduct a system analysis that begins with extracting raw materials from the ground for use as material feedstocks or fuels. Materials and energy use, as well as releases to the environment, are then assessed throughout product manufacturing, transportation, use, and management at the end of the product's useful life. In Public Policy LCI studies are particularly important in the public arena, . where they can help policymakers arrive at well-informed decisions and avoid the shortcomings of focusing on a single environmental performance attribute. The 2006 Franklin LCI provides comparative information on au; water, solid waste and energy as well as a complete range of post -use options, such as recycling, composting, landhlling' and waste -to- energy incineration. This enables policymakers to evaluate these factors in the broader context of other important environmental attributes spanning the product life cycle. In the Foodservice Industry Similarly, decision makers in the foodservice industry can assess the study's findings in combination with other important criteria. such as cost, convenience and product performance, to make better - informed choices about the products they use. Foodservice Packaging Life Cycle Inventory (cons.) Report Highlights Comparisons between systems were summarized for four key performance areas: energy, solid waste (by weight), solid waste (by volume), and greenhouse gas emissions. In the four key areas, the LCI study demonstrates that in most cases the alternative products studied have environmental burdens that are higher than or comparable to polystyrene foam products. These include plastic - coated paperboard cups for hot beverages (both with and without a corrugated sleeve), plastic - coated and wax - coated cups for cold beverages, and fluted paperboard clanishells (p. ES -l6; pp. 2 -60 through 2 -63). The report will disappoint gourmet coffee customers who believe they are doing something "good for the environment" by choosing to use two plastic- coated paperboard cups for one hot beverage instead of a single polystyrene foam cup. According to the data (derived from pp. 2- 7, 2 -23, 2 -43, and 2 -60) for the average plastic - coated paperboard cup and average polystyrene foam cup, this practice of "double- cupping" results in over twice as much energy use and solid waste by volume, over five times as much solid waste by weight, and nearly twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as the use of a single polystyrene cup. An average- weight polystyrene hot beverage cup requires less than half as much energy to produce as an average-weight polyethylene (PE) plastic- coated paperboard hot beverage cup with a corrugated cup sleeve (Table 2 -2, p. 2 -7). • An average- weight polyethylene (PE) plastic - coated paperboard hot beverage cup produces almost three times as much total waste by weight as an average- weight polystyrene hot beverage cup (Table 2 -10, p. 2 -23). • An average - weight polyethylene (PE) plastic - coated paperboard hot beverage cup with a corrugated cup sleeve produces almost five times as much total waste by weight as an average - weight polystyrene hot beverage cup (Table 2 -10, p. 2 -23). • An average- weight polystyrene cold beverage cup requires just over one third as much energy to produce as a representative- weight wax- coated paperboard cold beverage cup (Table 2 -3, p. 2 -8). • An average - weight polyethylene (PE) plastic- coated paperboard cold beverage cup produces almost two and one -half times as much total waste by weight as an average - weight polystyrene cold beverage cup (Table 2 -11, p. 2 -24). • A representative- weight wax - coated paperboard cold beverage cup produces almost five times as much total waste by weight as an average- weight polystyrene cold beverage cup (Table 2 -11, p. 2 -24). Sources Franklin Associates, Ltd. Final Peer - Reviewed Report Life Cycle Inventory of Polystyrene Foam, Bleached Paperboard, and Corrugated Paperboard Foodservice Products. (Prepared for The Polystyrene Packaging Council, March 2006) DART CONTAINER CORPORATION The industry Standard of Excellence Mason, Michigan 48854 U.S.A. Ph: 300 -248- 5960•Fax: 517- 676 -3883 Email: saleSOdart.biz - w ,dart.biz M -376 rev. 10/2007 Printed on recycled paper ozoo� ow c•ma'nerw�p•nm� � r THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Timbron turns used coffee cups into interior mouldings BY NOKKA GORILOVSKAYA San Francisco Business Times Conlribulor Not all recyclables are created equal. Non - biodegradable polystyrene, used to make packaging for printers and hot beverage cups, is the least desired of the lot. But Timbron International has succeeded turn- ing what many people still consider garbage into tree - free interior mouldings. With $10.2 million in revenue last year, the Walnut Creek company is weathering the housing slump by supplying green products for Home Depot and continu- ing its ambitious R&D agenda. "My best decision was getting involved in an industry that is in its infancy and that is not only doing some great social good, but that as a business has unlimited upside," said Robert Telles, chairman of the board and majority owner. Timbron's white mouldings are made out of 90 percent recycled polystyrene, 75 percent of which is post- consumer. Ten million cubic feet of potysty- rene were recycled by Timbron last year and the company boasts to have collected enough since 2000 to fill the Empire State Building. Comparable in price to its wood competitors. Timbron mould- ings are marketed as being the greener, waterproof and hug- resistant choice. Timbron casts the net far and wide for cheap raw ee.® urlacl n. aua.KV e.o.N b.epnk 1914-2 material. The white stuff arrives from Danish fish- ermen and their polystyrene fishboxes. Samsung's television facility in Slovakia and even landfills to Timbron's manufacturing plant in Stockton. Recycling of polystyrene requires pricey machin- ery to compress, deliver and upgrade it before pro- cessing. In the early years, 'Timbron resorted to purchasing virgin polystyrene because it couldti t cope with the demand for its mouldings using domestic recyclables. So President and CEO Steve Lacv looked abroad, where about half of Timbron's polystyrene comes from today. Mexico is an important supplier because of the numerous manufacturing plants along the border and Europe is alluring because of manda- tory government recycling schemes in countries like Germany. "Europe is 25 years ahead of us in terms of recycling A big part of our learning curve is to understand how they are doing it and to begin to try to duplicate it here," Telles said- -The United States is our biggest opportunity." Timbron plans to collect more California polystyrene by striking deals with municipal governments. Last year, Los Angeles began to accept polystyrene in its blue bins and Timbron receives part of that, paying for the freight costs. The company is also talking with San Francisco about a polystyrene drop -oft center. The idea, said Telles, is to close the recycling loop by 2 of Account 2655 (94) saw Page 1 of 3 ,1 d Cate: Thursday. February 28, 2008 Qd /LQ.11.!!Ld t!b Socatlon. SAN FRANCISCO CA Try ("1 [`1 �(r ['1 Circulation (DMA): 23.548 (5) Bj' S][ j� UJ�� \)J \v /lr Type (Frequency) Magazre(W) ■�� "� Page'. 25 Keyword Dan Container Corporaton Timbron turns used coffee cups into interior mouldings BY NOKKA GORILOVSKAYA San Francisco Business Times Conlribulor Not all recyclables are created equal. Non - biodegradable polystyrene, used to make packaging for printers and hot beverage cups, is the least desired of the lot. But Timbron International has succeeded turn- ing what many people still consider garbage into tree - free interior mouldings. With $10.2 million in revenue last year, the Walnut Creek company is weathering the housing slump by supplying green products for Home Depot and continu- ing its ambitious R&D agenda. "My best decision was getting involved in an industry that is in its infancy and that is not only doing some great social good, but that as a business has unlimited upside," said Robert Telles, chairman of the board and majority owner. Timbron's white mouldings are made out of 90 percent recycled polystyrene, 75 percent of which is post- consumer. Ten million cubic feet of potysty- rene were recycled by Timbron last year and the company boasts to have collected enough since 2000 to fill the Empire State Building. Comparable in price to its wood competitors. Timbron mould- ings are marketed as being the greener, waterproof and hug- resistant choice. Timbron casts the net far and wide for cheap raw ee.® urlacl n. aua.KV e.o.N b.epnk 1914-2 material. The white stuff arrives from Danish fish- ermen and their polystyrene fishboxes. Samsung's television facility in Slovakia and even landfills to Timbron's manufacturing plant in Stockton. Recycling of polystyrene requires pricey machin- ery to compress, deliver and upgrade it before pro- cessing. In the early years, 'Timbron resorted to purchasing virgin polystyrene because it couldti t cope with the demand for its mouldings using domestic recyclables. So President and CEO Steve Lacv looked abroad, where about half of Timbron's polystyrene comes from today. Mexico is an important supplier because of the numerous manufacturing plants along the border and Europe is alluring because of manda- tory government recycling schemes in countries like Germany. "Europe is 25 years ahead of us in terms of recycling A big part of our learning curve is to understand how they are doing it and to begin to try to duplicate it here," Telles said- -The United States is our biggest opportunity." Timbron plans to collect more California polystyrene by striking deals with municipal governments. Last year, Los Angeles began to accept polystyrene in its blue bins and Timbron receives part of that, paying for the freight costs. The company is also talking with San Francisco about a polystyrene drop -oft center. The idea, said Telles, is to close the recycling loop by 2 of Account 2655 (94) saw Page 1 of 3 ,1 d using the mouldings produced for building within the city. Packaging from Apple Inc., Styrofoam cups from Raft Container Corp. and grape boxes from Styrotek Inc. already make it to Stockton from across the state. Timbron's green credentials got a boost in 2006 when its mouldings were selected. among the top 10 green building products by GreenSpec. "It is a very durable product. it is a very polished product," said Andrea Jones, editor of Raising Spaces, a green building web site based in Alberta, Canada. Polystyrene recycling has Its detractors among envi- ronmentalists. Bryan Early, a policy associate at the Sacramento -based nonprofit Californians Against Waste, said that while Timbron makes 'an interesting product," he wants computer and other manufacturers to do away with polystyrene and use biodegradable paper packag- ing instead. Early is concerned about the greenhouse emissions resulting from transporting polystyrene to Stockton and argues that blue bin collections amount to the taxpayers "subsidizing a problem material" that has "negative scrap value." Timbron was founded in 1996, after a -group of U.S. investors purchased the company from Great Britain's Glynwed International PLC. Telles oversaw the deal as lawyer and helped raise the seed capital. Along with Lacy, a former sales and marketing manager at Pabco Gypsum. Telles bought out the founders in 2002. The company was struggling financially in 2002 and the biggest challenge was keeping the business of Home Depot, Timbron's biggest customer. "We were falling, and we were on the verge of losing Home Depot," Telles said. Between 2002 and 2003, Timbron's team inspected hundreds of Home Depot stores, CEO Lacy said. The strategy paid off: the number of Home Depot stores carrying Timbron more than tripted to almost 2,000 today. At a tough time for the building industry. Timbron enjoyed above - average January sales, rebounding from lower- than - expected revenue in the latter halt of 2007. The goat is to hit S1S mil- lion in revenue in 2008, Lacy said, with lit percent growth within Home Depot and $3 million to $4 million outside of It. Lacy sees Timbron's mission as "harvesting the plastic forest." Timbron plans to recycle plas- tic from waste carpet and manufacture window shutters in the near future: There's even talk of a Timbron skateboard. sanfrancisco.bizjournals.cam ■ Page 2 of 3 � �YrSWrz000 mmucnaevv+v Cuvlmnva u•c. Vkaee ca— 0lb Nb ¢Mr Eee6tlY fa r¢V,nh. All flk1hs aMl " 3 al 6 Account: 2655 (94) av 1914-3 117— Date: Thursday, Febmary28.2006 lLO�1P.f.1.Bt°.6 Y(`r1�`i'��(i('t /(1-'ti("( Location: Circulation (DMA): SAN FRANCISCO. CA. 23.548 (S) BT }- +A� \j \J I \{{."f {1 \7 U� \JJ� TI Typo (Frequency): magazine (W) ■F..{n \ Page: 25 Keyword: Dart Container Corporation using the mouldings produced for building within the city. Packaging from Apple Inc., Styrofoam cups from Raft Container Corp. and grape boxes from Styrotek Inc. already make it to Stockton from across the state. Timbron's green credentials got a boost in 2006 when its mouldings were selected. among the top 10 green building products by GreenSpec. "It is a very durable product. it is a very polished product," said Andrea Jones, editor of Raising Spaces, a green building web site based in Alberta, Canada. Polystyrene recycling has Its detractors among envi- ronmentalists. Bryan Early, a policy associate at the Sacramento -based nonprofit Californians Against Waste, said that while Timbron makes 'an interesting product," he wants computer and other manufacturers to do away with polystyrene and use biodegradable paper packag- ing instead. Early is concerned about the greenhouse emissions resulting from transporting polystyrene to Stockton and argues that blue bin collections amount to the taxpayers "subsidizing a problem material" that has "negative scrap value." Timbron was founded in 1996, after a -group of U.S. investors purchased the company from Great Britain's Glynwed International PLC. Telles oversaw the deal as lawyer and helped raise the seed capital. Along with Lacy, a former sales and marketing manager at Pabco Gypsum. Telles bought out the founders in 2002. The company was struggling financially in 2002 and the biggest challenge was keeping the business of Home Depot, Timbron's biggest customer. "We were falling, and we were on the verge of losing Home Depot," Telles said. Between 2002 and 2003, Timbron's team inspected hundreds of Home Depot stores, CEO Lacy said. The strategy paid off: the number of Home Depot stores carrying Timbron more than tripted to almost 2,000 today. At a tough time for the building industry. Timbron enjoyed above - average January sales, rebounding from lower- than - expected revenue in the latter halt of 2007. The goat is to hit S1S mil- lion in revenue in 2008, Lacy said, with lit percent growth within Home Depot and $3 million to $4 million outside of It. Lacy sees Timbron's mission as "harvesting the plastic forest." Timbron plans to recycle plas- tic from waste carpet and manufacture window shutters in the near future: There's even talk of a Timbron skateboard. sanfrancisco.bizjournals.cam ■ Page 2 of 3 � �YrSWrz000 mmucnaevv+v Cuvlmnva u•c. Vkaee ca— 0lb Nb ¢Mr Eee6tlY fa r¢V,nh. All flk1hs aMl " 3 al 6 Account: 2655 (94) av 1914-3 117— What N ba: Rec anterior mouldings COMPOA begun: /nation w CEO OEYlmll M the M tA17 $it m rimwN: E9. m6 rwsww: 39 TAW UMYi: 19£ I!n^^es and gang $20 m*on fiom N amber din*" Vkb sft W W W.irT O cyr.nmr�oa a..ee am..w. Rulembu ne ni,,u ve A w e.w.n.• aKy M �•w•n M fy+� RwraG 1914-4 4016 Account M5 (W) i9ar Page 3 of 3 a Date: Thursday, February 28, 2006 �A.Q.✓l./- !CQ.P.B location, SAN FPANCISCO, CA � ,I ('� Circulation (DMA) 23.54615) l��r BUSINESS TI Typo (Frequency) MagazineJM "� Page: 25 Keyword. Dart Container Corporation What N ba: Rec anterior mouldings COMPOA begun: /nation w CEO OEYlmll M the M tA17 $it m rimwN: E9. m6 rwsww: 39 TAW UMYi: 19£ I!n^^es and gang $20 m*on fiom N amber din*" Vkb sft W W W.irT O cyr.nmr�oa a..ee am..w. Rulembu ne ni,,u ve A w e.w.n.• aKy M �•w•n M fy+� RwraG 1914-4 4016 Account M5 (W) i9ar Page 3 of 3 a City of Roseville, California - EPS Recycling Page 1 of 2 City of Roseville, California EPS Recycling Starting November 19, 2007, the City of Roseville's Environmental Utilities Department will launch a pilot program to begin collecting and recycling Expanded Polystyrene (EPS). The pilot program, a first for the region, provides EPS recycling bins at selected recycle drop -off sites throughout the city. The pilot program will also collect EPS at participating retail sites within Roseville. The pilot program's launch is timed to capture the high volume of EPS generated during the holiday season as stores stock their shelves and gifts are unwrapped. The EPS collected by the city is condensed and transported to companies who pay for the collected EPS to be recycled and made into items such as baseboards, crown molding, lightweight concrete and packaging. As a resident, where can 1 take my EPS to be recycled? For residents, EPS recycling bins have been placed at the following locations starting November 19: Maidu Park at 1550 Maidu Dr., Roseville Washington Boulevard (across from All American Raceways) at 800 All American City Blvd., Roseville Mahany Park adjacent to Bear Dog Park at 1575 Pleasant Grove Blvd„ Roseville What types of EPS are accepted as part of the pilot program? To make the program viable and to recycle the collected EPS, we need your help in ensuring that only clean EPS is deposited in the recycle bins. Please follow these guidelines when bringing your EPS to one of our recycle drop -off sites: - Bring only EPS that is clean, dry and uncontaminated with other materials - Remove any foreign materials such as tape, stickers, labels, paint and cardboard. - Contain the EPS in a bag, bundle or box for easy loading and unloading. However, please only place EPS in the bin. - Make sure the material is actually EPS — look for the #6 recycling symbol. The city will not accept: - Dirty food containers, meat trays, disposable cups, etc- - Packing peanuts http: / /www.roseville.ca.us /eu/solid_ waste_ utility /recycling/eps_recycling.asp 09/17/2008 I j I City of Roseville, California - EPS Recycling Bubble wrap Where can I take packing peanuts to be reused? Although packing peanuts are not accepted as part of this pilot program, they are accepted and reused at most shipping and packing stores in the Sacramento area. The closest store to Roseville that accepts packing peanuts is: Postnet 2230 Sunset Blvd., # 330 Rock Creek Plaza/Next to Safeway Rocklin, CA 95765 (916) 772 -7766 Other locations in the Sacramento area that accept packing peanuts for reuse can be found by going to the Plastic Loose Fill Council website. I own a business in Roseville. How can we participate in the EPS collection pilot program? To make the program viable, we highly encourage businesses in Roseville to participate in this pilot program. Placement and hauling of the EPS recycling bin is free and may reduce the amount of waste in your regular trash bin. The city placed its first EPS recycling bin for commercial use at Ashley Furniture located at 384 N. Sunrise Ave. in Roseville. The city is working with other retailers to place EPS recycling bins at other major retail centers in Roseville. Businesses in Roseville interested in participating in the EPS recycling pilot program are encouraged to contact Chris Uhercik, Refuse Supervisor, at (916) 774 -5786 for more information. Quick Facts About EPS In 1999, an estimated 300,000 tons of EPS was landfilled in California at an estimated cost of $30 million. Due to its light weight. EPS is a large source of litter both on land and in waterways. Cities bear the cost of cleaning up this material with clean -up costs for litter estimated at over one dollar per pound. Collecting EPS and directing it towards recycling helps save money and is good for the environment. About Environmental Utilities Environmental Utilities is Roseville's provider of water, wastewater and refuse utility service. Environmental Utilities also provides environmentally friendly programs for Roseville's residents and businesses that help promote recycling, water conservation, stormwater management and proper disposal of household hazardous waste. These programs help our customers become good environmental stewards and continue to foster an amazing lifestyle and place to do business in a manner that is sustainable. Page 2 of 2 http : / /www.rosevdie.ca.us/eu/solid waste_ utility /recycling/eps_recycling.asp 09/17/2008 115 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY W THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY ORDINANCE 2008- Chapter 6.05.010. Definitions. A. "Biodegradable" refers to the ability of a material to decompose into elements normally found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after disposal. B. "City Facilities" means any building, structure or vehicles owned or operated by the City of Newport Beach, its agent, agencies, departments and franchisees. C. "Customer" means any person obtaining prepared food from a restaurant or retail food vendor. D. "Disposable Food Service Ware" means all containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, and other items that are designed for one -time use and on, or in, which any restaurant or retail food vendor directly places or packages prepared foods or which are used to consume foods. This includes, but is not limited to, service ware for takeout foods and/or leftovers from partially consumed meals prepared at restaurants or retail food vendors. E. Expanded Polystyrene" (EPS) means polystyrene that has been expanded or "blown" using a gaseous blowing agent into a solid foam. EPS is sometimes called "Styrofoam "; a Dow Chemical Co. trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation. F. "Food Vendor" means any restaurant or retail food vendor located or operating within the City of Newport Beach. G. "Polystyrene" means and includes expanded polystyrene which is a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). H. "Prepared Food" means food or beverages, which are served, packaged, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed or otherwise prepared on the food vendor' s premises or within the City of Newport Beach. For the purposes of this ordinance, "prepared food" includes raw, butchered, ground, chopped, or sliced meats, fish and/or poultry sold from a butcher case or similar retail appliance. Prepared food may be eaten either on or off the premises, also known as "takeout food ", or taken home and cooked. 1. "Restaurant" means any establishment located within the City of Newport Beach that sells prepared food for consumption on, near, or off its premises by customers. "Restaurant," for purposes of this Chapter, includes mobile food preparation units as defined in chapters 6.08.120 and 6.08.130 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. J. "Retail Food Vendor" means any store, shop, sales outlet, or other establishment, including a grocery store or a delicatessen, other than a restaurant, located within the City of Newport Beach that sells prepared food. I I A Chapter 6.05.020. Prohibited food service ware. A. Except as provided in section 6.05.030 of this Chapter, food vendors are prohibited from providing prepared food to customers in disposable food service ware made from expanded polystyrene. B. All City Facilities, City- managed concessions, City sponsored events, and City permitted events are prohibited from using disposable food service containers made from expanded polystyrene. Chapter 6.05.030. Exemptions. A. Prepared foods prepared or packaged outside the City of Newport Beach are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. B. Emergency Supply and Services Procurement: In a situation deemed by the City Manager to be an emergency for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, City facilities, food vendors, City franchises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Chapter 6.05.040. Undue Hardship. A. The City Manager or his /her designee may exempt a food provider from the requirements of this ordinance for up to a one year period, based upon a written request from the applicant containing sufficient information to determine that the conditions of this ordinance would cause undue hardship. An "undue hardship' shall be found in the following situations: 1. Situations unique to the food provider where there are no reasonable alternatives to expanded polystyrene disposable food service ware and compliance with this Chapter would cause significant economic hardship to that food provider; 2. Situations where no reasonably feasible available alternatives exist to a specific and necessary expanded polystyrene food service ware. A food vendor granted an exemption by the City must reapply prior to the end of the exemption period and demonstrate continued undue hardship, if it wishes to have the exemption extended. Extensions may only be granted for intervals not to exceed one year. B. An exemption application shall include all information necessary for the Assistant City Manager or his /her designee to make his /her decision, including but not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the claimed exemption. The Assistant City Manager or his /her designee may require the applicant to provide additional information to permit the Director to determine facts regarding the exemption application. C. The Assistant City Manager or his /her designee may approve the exemption application, in whole or in part, with or without conditions. 0 D. Exemption decisions are effective within thirty (30) days, unless appealed to the City Manager within fifteen (15) days. The City Manager's decision shall be final. Chapter 6.05.050. Enforcement A. Any person violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction pursuant to Section 1.04.010, and shall be subject to citation and fines pursuant to Chapter 1.05, Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this Chapter. 121 American ` Chemistry Council September 18, 2008 The Honorable Edward D. Seiich Mayor, Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Selich: RFCPiv 2U2 SEP 19 AN 7: 58 Ci - r'( CITY 7rr ; n- Because it is a very complicated public policy issue affecting many people, the Plastics Food Packaging Group of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) would like to bring the following important key points to your attention as you consider an ordinance to ban polystyrene foodservice products. recycling and improve the environment. However, we are opposed to policies that would ban the use of safe and environmentally sustainable products like expanded foodservice polystyrene cups and containers. Simply substituting one food packaging material for another does not address the root cause of litter or marine debris. ACC /a committed to working with your coiieagues Dart Contalrrar Corporation and city staff to idWA and Implement solutions that will prevent litter, regardless of the material type As you delve in to this issue, we would like to offer the following comments and observations relative to polystyrene foodservice packaging: 1. Jean - Michel Cousteau — "Bans Don't Work" In a December 2005 opinion- editorial to the Ventura County Star, the founder of the California -based Oceans Future Society and son of famed ocean explorer, Jacques Cousteau, wrote: California's beaches are a natural treasure and we need the public's help to protect them. But history teaches an important lesson: bans don't work [emphasis added.] if a community bans Styrofoam and plastic carry-out containers, coffee cups, picnic ware and similar items, we know what will happen: individuals and businesses will switch to other disposable products, such as glass, aluminum, and wax - covered cardboard. The amount of litter will not change, only its composition. That's why bans are overly simplistic and don't get to the real cause of the problem ... I have spent my entire life protecting our oceans and beaches, and trusting education will ultimately produce the best safeguards for our environment. 2. City of Carmel — "...thtt problem of food packaging waste litter has not improved..." Staff confirmed in a June 3, 2008 staff report that since the inception of its 1989 ordinance to ban polystyrene foodservice, "...the problem of food packaging waste litter has not improved..." It goes on to state that today a city could take advantage of alternative products perceived to be more environmentally friendly. However, their region will not realize any benefit of com�ble products because a local industrial compostina facility does not exist 3. Santa Barbara Staff Report — An EPS Ban Will Not Help the Environment No alternatives to EPS will benefit the environment without a composting infrastructure americanchemistr corn ,15 . y Il. 1 L Svcct. Atitc fp9, $a.runem,� r.A �,��{ k I (91u) idn 2551 Y The Santa Barbara City Council directed staff to evaluate the merits of banning EPS foodservice products. Staff found through their research that a ban on EPS would only be effective and have a net benefit to the environment if the foodservice ware was made from compostable material and that any benefits could oniv be realized with a citywide organics collection and composting program- -which the city does not have. As you are aware, Newport Beach also doesn't have the large -scale composting infrastructure needed to accommodate the increase in compostable material that an EPS ban would create. 4. Seattle, Washinaton City Staff - Research Found that a Ban Leads to Negative Environmental Impact Seattle Public Utilities, responding to a request by the mayor, conducted empirical research into disposable foodservice products — analyzing the tradeoffs between plastics like polystyrene foam foodservice, compostables, and degradables, and coated bleached paperboard. Their research shows that a ban on EPS would increase and a significant amount of waste would be generated. 5. Solid Waste Association of North America - Don't Ban Without a Plan The most respected and leading professional association in the solid waste management field, Solid Waste Association of North America, advises in their 2008 Work Plan that they will: Advocate for legislation that would prohibit any State agency from promulgating regulations or policies that would ban materials from landfill disposal" without first reviewing scientific studies on the impacLt4 public health or the anvirontnQ2t, and that a replacement Dian needs to be in place before a ban is implemented. Contrary to what the professional association for solid waste management recommends, some cities have proceeded with a ban even though not one scientific study supporting their position for a ban has been produced. In addition, a commercial composting facility must be in place to handle the increase in compostable products that a ban would produce, a fact which many cities have ignored. 6. Nature Works - Compostable Products Cannot be Composted in a Backyard_ Composter A commercial producer of compostable products, their web site states: "PLA Products are intended for industrial -based composts which very carefully regulate temperature, moisture and fuming. Due to the variability in home composting, NatureWorks LLC does not recommend PLA for use in home composting." We have not found any scientific evidence looking at the environmental properties of various products which suggests that PLA and other compostable products degrade in the "natural environment." A statement to the contrary would incorrectly suggest that these products will somehow eventually "degrade" if littered. 7. Additional Facts to Consider All foodservice products — regardless of the material from which they are made — require the use of various natural resources (i.e. energy, water, etc.) across their product life cycle in the manufacturing process. A 2006 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) study by Franklin and Associates ( http:// www. plasticsfoodservicepackaciinq .ofq) showed that polystyrene foam foodservice products, when compared to other foodservice containers, are very efficient in terms of minimizing air emissions, energy used in the manufacturing process and in reducing the amount of waterborne waste generated during the manufacturing process. A city policy that would arbitrarily ban one material type without examining or considering the life -cycle impacts of polystyrene manufacturing and falsely assumes that those replacement products are somehow manufactured in a vacuum without the use of any raw materials, energy, or water, fuel to deliver the product, etc. Consider these key facts: Polystyrene cups have a lighter footprint than alternatives — they weigh anywhere from two to five timss less than comparable paper packaging products which means fewer air emissions when transporting products. Polystyrene foam products are energy savers. A energy to produce than a similarWasdc- coasted energy usage is considered one way to slow globe According to Life Cycle Inventory analysis, in most cases the alt motive products studied have environmental burdens that are higher than or comparable to polystyrene foam products. As we advocate and fund partnerships to reduce litter, increase recycling and education without product bans on safe and useful foodservice products like EPS foam foodservice, we appeal to the City of Newport Beach to consider all the information presented above — and make plastics, including polystyrene foam foodservice, pert of the solution and not an isolated problem. We respectfully urge you to lock at all available information and take time to loam from the business community, and direct your staff to work with us on further solutions to help Newport Beach with this complex Issue. Thank you, and please contact us should you have questions or need additional information. Mike Levy, Director Plastics Foodservio a Packaging Group (PFPG) American Chemistry Council cc: Mayor Pro Tern Leslie Daigle Councilmember Keith D. Curry Councilmember Nancy Gardner Councilmember Michael F. Henn Councilmember Steven Rosansky Councilmember Don Webb Ryan Kenny Manager, Western Region American Chemistry Council DART °RECEIVED AFTER AGE DA DART CONTAINER CORPORATION MASON MICHIGAN 48654 • I ELEPHONE (5t 7) 6763803. September 21, 2008 Leigh DeSantis, Economic Development Administrator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Leigh: I sent an e -mail to Katie Bowden on Saturday and received an "Out of Office" response that referred me to you. As you know, Katie generated a report for the City of Newport Beach to consider regarding polystyrene foam. In the report, Katie references that my company, Dart Container Corporation, is offering recycling programs that include post- consumer food service containers and I want you to know that we are eager to work with Newport Beach on such a program. One option would be to let your residents co-mingle the foam in their current recycling bin and then to sort it at a local Material Recovery Facilities (MRF). Another option would be to offer a bin on city property where the public can drop -off their foam (In a recyclable condition). Once the product is at the MRF or drop -off site (Or both locations), we would provide a densifier that would compact the foam so that the MRF/Newport Beach can sell it to a third party of your choosing to be recycled. While we only make food service containers, we would be willing to accept "Shape" or "Molded" foam as part of the program. The benefit to you is that you would be able to maximize your Landfill Diversion Rate. If we can agree to a mutually beneficial program, we would provide the densifier on a "$0.00 lease basis." This is a significant benefit because the vast majority of single use food service containers take the form of landfill waste, not litter. This program would allow you to divert your foam food service containers to your recycling bins along with all of your shape and molded foam. Since the plastictwax lining on the alternative paper cups makes it cost prohibitive to recycle them, banning polystyrene foam has the unintended consequence of increasing your landfill waste without reducing litter (The same people that litter foam will litter paper that is lined with plastic). Thus, our program creates a real solution for Newport Beach. I will be in Canada this week and will have limited access to my e- mails/phone. I will return on September 29. Feel free to respond to me via e-mail or phone and 1 will respond as soon as possible. Thank you, in advance, for your willingness to partner with us! Regards, - N Michael Westerfield' West Coast Director of Recycling & Sustainability ^ Dart Container Corporatist Government Affairs and the Environment Phone(909)793 -2729 Fax(909)793 -2739 Mrcntgan • Pennsylvania • Oros • Gewrlia • California • Fla,da • Washington • texas • Kentucky • Misammop • Nort', Carolina Ca ,,aaa • Mexico • Un'led Kingdom • Australia • Argantma In addition to Polystyrene Foam's environmental benefit, it is: functional and versatile; economical; sanitary, sturdy and safe (FDA Accepted); environmentally friendly as well as resource efficient. at Aluminum Costs 1.8 times more; weighs 1.6 times more Molded Fiber Starch Costs 2.7 times Costs 2.9 times more; more; weighs 2.5 times weighs 2.6 times more more pp Costs 2.4 times more; weighs 3.4 times more Estimated Cost Differences PLA Costs 3 times more: weighs 2.4 times more vow Paper Costs 3.1 times more: weighs 2.5 times more Take another look ... Environmental Facts About Polystyrene Foam ■ Life Cycle Inventory Studies' prove that polystyrene foam foodservice products have a favorable environmental impact compared to common alternatives. ■ Polystyrene foam bans force restaurants to use alternatives that often have a higher environmental burden? ■ There is no evidence that polystyrene foam bans reduce litter. A recent study of results from a ban on polystyrene foam in Portland, Oregon, shows that the ban has not been successful and should be repealed.' ■ Litter is litter. Banning polystyrene foam only ■ replaces one material with another. Recycling and reducing all forms of waste are the best solution to litter. The environmental impact of alternatives needs to be studied and carefully considered. Polystyrene foam is recyclable and, thus, has a favorable environmental impact. Energy Usage ig Greenhouse Gas Potential Material Usage Greenhouse Gas emissions are significantly less with polystyrene foam. Replacing polystyrene foam By replacing polystyrene foam plates with poly coated paper with paper alternatives in Los Angeles County. GHG plates in Los Angeles County emissions will increase an will increase the energy usage amount equivalent to adding by the equivalent BTU's of '.350 mid -size cars onto 500,000 gallons of gasoline! California roads each year. s Polystyrene foam plates are 90 %i, air and use 2.5 times less material. The material in 100 polystyrene foam plates is equal to the weight of 40 paper plates.' Solid Waste .a., - The solid waste impact of polystyrene foam is significantly less. Polystyrene foam foodservice packaging accounts for less than 1 % by weight and volume of land- filled materials. Final Peer-Ravi nead Report : life Cycle loyenrory of Polystyrene Foe., Stanched Paperboard and Corrugated Paper Foodiervice Prw dunce. Franklin Associates, Lld.. March 2006 "Final Peer- Revieved Report. Life Cycle Inventory of Foam and Cooled Paperboard Plates, Franklin Associates, Ltd.. May 2008 'Sustainable Failure: Why Pornard's Polystyrene Foa. Ban Shoud Be Repeated. Cascade Policy Institute, November 2007, . basc2deCNiCV.oro 'eased on 124,0o0 BTU equivalensl tar a U.S. gallon of gasoline, and -280 BTU's per altematw dale", and 221.000,CO pates replaced in LA County, fa' Y conripare Cho 'Based an average annual automobile mileage of 12,00. and - 680lbs 002 emissions increase per 10.000 alternative plates', cunu band t t- Harkless, LaVonne From: Andrew Casana [andrew @englanderpr.comj "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 5:37 PM PRINTED:" SS 3 To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: Polystyrene Ban Hello, "This is an opposition letter for agenda item 553 to be heard on Sept 23, 2008" I am writing you on behalf of my client the California Restaurant Association. The CRA is opposed to bans because the industry is aggressively researching alternative food packaging for to go food or take out. We are aware that the NBRA supports the EPS /Expandable Polystyrene ban and since the NBRA is a CRA member we will not oppose this issue before city council on Sept 23. We respectfully ask the Newport Beach City Council implement a voluntary EPS ban for to go food packaging. Thank you for your time, Respectfully, Andrew P. Casana Partner Englander and Associates 310- 741 -1500 Office 310 - 800 -4734 Cel. 09/23/2008 _ m EV m to 0 09/23/2008 Harkless, LaVonne From: stephanie [ stephanie .barger @earthresource.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:13 PM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: FW: Polystyrene Ban Importance: High "RECEIVE AFTER AGEN A PRINTED: J S Attachments: NBRA Polstyrene Food Service Alternatives.doc; Styrofoam Cost Analysis.xls, Container _Distributors_List.pdf; Cater Green Price List.pdf; ERF Zero Waste Services.doc Please provide for study session today Please provide the below email. I do have to say that we are very disappointed that Earth Resource and the students were not contacted as soon as you knew it would be on the study session. We have been emailing the City Council for months but we are VERY VERY happy they are moving forward. Please tell them thank you for their leadership Stephanie Barger, Executive Director Earth Resource Foundation P.O. Box 12364 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 949 -645 -5163 www.earthresource.org stephanie. bargercaearthresource.org Sustainabiliry: To move ourselves with elegance and jay within certain limits. Paolo Guarnaccia - Zero Wast ly O Z y t REGISTER TODAY: "No Plastic Left Behind" Saturday, October 14 2008 Costa Mesa, CA - A pign A,rinsf Plastic Plague (CAPP) wwwearthresource.org c ^� From: stephanie [mailto: stephanie .barger @earthresource.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:06 PM (� To: 'lesliejdaigle @aol.com'; 'Gardnerncy @aol.com' - N Cc: Jack Skinner, MD (JSkinnerMD @aol.com) to Subject: Polystyrene Ban Importance: High Dear Honorable Mayor Unfortunately, I am out of town and this will be a short reply. We STRONGLY support the recommendation for the staff to draft an ordinance to ban polystyrene TODAY! Our Newport Harbor High School students, community and businesses owners have asked for this ordinance for over a year most recently and have been asking for over three years. Please USE the ordinance that Laguna Beach, Santa Monica, Calabasas, Malibu and many other cities have implemented. This has proven to be very successful for decreasing pollution, increasing REUSABLES at restaurants, decreasing waste disposable (requires all disposables to recyclable or compostable). am attaching our letter of request and the background information. There are many successful businesses ALREADY in Newport Beach who have eliminated Styrofoam and gone to reusables, recyclable and compostables — namely Gina's Pizza, Quiet Woman and Kean Coffee. I think we can all agree these are the types of restaurants and community leaders we WANT in our city. We strongly encourage you to DO the right thing and take action TODAY!!!! Our beaches, oceans and children cant wait another day. Once again Styrofoam was one of the top threes items found on our beaches this last Saturday for Coastal cleanup and according to Capt Moore's most recent study of the Pacific Gyre there is now 48 times MORE plastic than plankton up from 6 times less than 5 years ago. We have an extensive list of affordable alternative products and encourage you and all businesses to contact us. With the most respect for your leadership and knowing you will do the RIGHT thing, 09/23/2008 Stephanie Barger, Newport Beach resident and Executive Director of Earth Resource Foundation respresenting 100s of students and voters in Newport Beach! Stephanie Barger, Executive Director Earth Resource Foundation P.O. Box 12364 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 949 -645 -5163 www. ea rth resou rce. o rg st pbanie,bargerDc earthresource.org Sustainability: To move ourselves with elegance and joy within certain limits. Paolo Guarnaccia - Zero Waste Italy REGISTER TODAY: "No Plastic Left Behind" Saturday, October 11, 2008 Costa Mesa, CA -A Campaign Against the Plastic Plague (CAPP) www.earthresource.org 09/23/2008 Dear Newport Beach Restaurant Association We have been working with the Surf & Environmental Class as Newport Harbor High School for the last several yeas on environmental stewardship. Polystyrene (Styrofoam) is one of the most numerous items the students have found on our beaches. Because of their efforts, they have eliminated polystyrene at their schools and initiated the City of Newport Beach to eliminate it in their facilities. Now, they are requesting your help in helping keep our beaches, marine wildlife and bodies free of polystyrene and more importantly have a more environmentally responsible city. We hope that you will take the time to evaluate your food service products. We understand the challenge of providing food in convenient, affordable and appealing containers which are not damaging to our environment, health and economies. We truly appreciate the time you are taking to meet with us and your interest in being part of the solution. This is a process and we are here to help guide, provide resources and work through the challenges together so we can all live in a world that is harmonious with the natural environment, our communities and future generations. Our goal at Earth Resource Foundation is to provide you with the resources you need. Through our "Zero in on Zero Waste" business program, we are able to help reduce your waste to landfill, incineration and the environment by becoming more efficient with your processes and therefore saving lots of money! The goal for food service products is to: Reduce the amount purchased and used (does everyone need a straw, do plastic utensils need to be wrapped in plastic) Reusable products (the cost of transportation, purchasing disposables, trash hauling outweighs the use of water and staff costs for reusables) Recycle and compost— close the loop by buying products made from recycled paper or plastic and which can then be recycled into the same product or composted to renew our soils. In order for us to truly understand and find solutions to food service products, here are a few facts and ground rules to start the decision making process: 1) Polystyrene (commonly known as Styrofoam) food service products are the CHEAPEST product available. We can NOT find a product that competes with polystyrene and this is the biggest challenge for the environment, government and businesses. 2) Polystyrene is one of the top three items found on our beaches according to the California Coastal Commission (cigarette butts are number one). There is six times more plastic than plankton by weight in the Pacific Gyre (www.algalita.org) and 86% of ocean trash is plastic. 3) Polystyrene is made from natural gas and oil which are nonrenewable resources. It also contains the toxic chemical styrene (see attached health report). If you ingest things out of Styrofoam cups and containers four times a day for about three years, you'll also have eaten the equivalent of an entire take- out cup. Styrene builds up in the tissues of the brain and affects the nervous system. Styrene molecules travel into your food faster when the food is hot and high in fat. 4) Polystyrene is very difficult to recycle (especially when contaminated with food). 25,000,000,000 styrofoam cups are thrown away each year! It is lightweight which makes it hard to transport and contain. It breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces, takes 100s of years to biodegrade and very hard to pick up on our beaches. Less than 3% of all plastic is recycled. 5) Over 1,000,000 birds and sea mammals die every year from plastic ingestion or entanglement. There are enough chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) embedded in a single styrofoam cooler to destroy all the ozone over an area the size of 20 football fields. The styrofoam cups Americans use each year could form a chain that would circle the Earth 436 times. 6) As for health effects, styrene can mimic estrogen in the human body. This means that it could possibly contribute to hormone problems, thyroid problems, breast cancer and prostate cancer. The World Health Organization considers styrene to be a carcinogen. 7) THIS IS AMORAL QUESTION! We cannot find a product that is cheaper than polystyrene but we can find lots of products and Zero Waste processes that will save you money in purchasing, waste hauling and good public relations. Polystyrene has many hidden cost to our environment, health and communities — future generations are already paying the costs of our decisions we are making today. THE NEXT STEPS Review the cost of alternatives in the attach spreadsheet. This information is basic and provides you an overview of the different alternatives and pricing. Pricing will vary based on the quantity you are purchasing and your relationship with the manufacturer /distributor. We do know that the pricing for the alternatives are coming down every day as demand grows. THIS IS WHERE YOU CAN BE PART OF THE SOLUTION — be the demand for green products! Contact your current supplier of food service products and explain to them your goals. It is their objective to provide you with the materials you need. Most of the large ones such as Sysco and Smart & Final already carry many of the .'good" products. Attached is a list of distributors and manufacturers for you to contact. Companies such as Cater Green and Biopak are more than happy to meet with you to determine the best products and pricing structure. Commit to a Zero Waste goal to obtain a comprehensive and holistic view of your environmental impact and opportunities (i.e., you might be spending more on environmentally friendly food service products but you have eliminated your waste bill and are contributing to renewing soils by composting)I Earth Resource Foundation offers educational training for top management and employees; environmental audit and baseline studies and the development of a comprehensive plan to start the Zero Waste process. All proceeds from our consulting services fund our youth programs. Just like launching any new product or service it is very important to understand the entire system and to get buy -in from all your employees, stakeholders and top management. Earth Resource Foundation is hereto help you save money, protect the environment and engage your employees and community — the Triple Bottom Line. I look forward to meeting with you on March 19th in creating more green for the environment and your company. I am available at 949-645 -5163 or Stephanie. baroerC8earthresource.org to answer any questions and provide assistance. Yours in Zero Wasting, Stephanie Barger Executive Director Earth Resource Foundation - Food Service Price Com arison Sheet ** Price per 1,000 - click on the red triangle for sourced and detailed information. This is a small sampling of distributors. Better pricing can be obtained on ecofriendly products by contacting the distributors directly - contact us for list. This list has been compiled by Earth Resource Foundation volunteers and students www,earthresource.org 949 - 645 -5163 as of Feb 7, 2007 WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT: This list is a rough estimate to give business, schools and governments an idea of the difference between polystyrene (Styrofoam) products and environmentally friendly products. The purpose of this list to agree that environmentally friendly are more expensive. But we are all paying the price through our health, environmental damages *, economic sustainability and moral responsibility by buying polystyrene, non recycled plastic and virgin /bleached paper. *over 1,000,000 marine animals die every year from plastic/ 86% of ocean trash is plastic/ there is 6 times more plastic than plankton in the Pacifc Ocean Like any new product, the more people who support the product the more available and economically feasible it will become. For detailed information on these issues, please visit our website or contact us at info @earthresource.org or 949- 645 -5163. THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION NOT THE PROBLEMI Please help support our many youth in their "Youth Against Styrofoam" campaign to ensure a clean, healthy,and thriving environment. What are you leaving behind? Foam Polystyrene Hard Polystyrene Plastic Recycled Plastic Paper: Virgin & Bleached Paper (some recycled) Bio Plastic Biodegradable 8 oz. Cups 42.49 n/a 98.08 70.00 84.00 8 oz. Cup Lids n/a 32.19 63.00 59.00 8 oz Cold Cup 40.00 84.00 9 oz. Cold Cup 40.00 62.90 170.00 74.00 10 oz. Cold Cup 63.00 65.90 80.00 88.00 16 oz. Cold Cup 62.00 56.90 52.90 87.00 108.00 Cold Lids 57.00 20.00 n/a n/a 40.00 40.00 9" Plates 60.00 282.88 11.18 114.00 10" Plates 799.33 132.00 86.32 238.00 133.80 10" Compartmental Plates 74.00 123.96 188.00 133.80 Hinge Containers Small 179.90 77.52 142.00 Hinge Containers Medium 86.90 155.92 337.50 190.00 Hinge Containers Large 89.90 179.92 337.50 240.00 Hinge Containers Jumbo 169.90 8 oz Soup /Deli Container 37.80 142.00 12 oz. Sou /Deli Container 66.00 70.41 16 oz Sou /Deli Container 63.60 12 oz. Soup bowls 31.80 58.00 1 83.00 80.00 3 -Piece Cutle n/al 73.80 53.551 1 n/a n/a 96.001 138.00 ** Price per 1,000 - click on the red triangle for sourced and detailed information. This is a small sampling of distributors. Better pricing can be obtained on ecofriendly products by contacting the distributors directly - contact us for list. This list has been compiled by Earth Resource Foundation volunteers and students www,earthresource.org 949 - 645 -5163 as of Feb 7, 2007 WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT: This list is a rough estimate to give business, schools and governments an idea of the difference between polystyrene (Styrofoam) products and environmentally friendly products. The purpose of this list to agree that environmentally friendly are more expensive. But we are all paying the price through our health, environmental damages *, economic sustainability and moral responsibility by buying polystyrene, non recycled plastic and virgin /bleached paper. *over 1,000,000 marine animals die every year from plastic/ 86% of ocean trash is plastic/ there is 6 times more plastic than plankton in the Pacifc Ocean Like any new product, the more people who support the product the more available and economically feasible it will become. For detailed information on these issues, please visit our website or contact us at info @earthresource.org or 949- 645 -5163. THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION NOT THE PROBLEMI Please help support our many youth in their "Youth Against Styrofoam" campaign to ensure a clean, healthy,and thriving environment. What are you leaving behind? City of Santa Monica �J Distributors of Biodegradable and Recyclable Food Service Containers Advisory: All of the companies below sell biodegradable and recyclable products as well as non - recyclable products. Be sure to specify biodegradable and recyclable." If you would like to suggest additions or corrections, please call the Environmental Programs Division at 310.458.4925 or visit us at www smepd.org /container. A & R Paper & Packaging www amaper win David Townsend 310 -768 -8055 Allen Janitorial www allentan torial corn Max Saleh 310.399.5251 Amenran Paper and Plastics. Inc. www ar)pinc.com Steven Silver 310.409.5076 Ameradine wwwameradine.com Jeanette Rcmualdi 714.237,9978 BioCorp www.blocoroaavc.com Kelly Lehmann 800.348.8348 Biodegradable Food Service LLC www biodeoradablefoodservice.com Kevin Duffy 541.593.2191 BioPak -GSD Packaging waw osdoackaging com Jim Keitges 559.441.1181 California Recycles, Inc. www cal formarecvdes.com Elham Eton 310.478.3001 x101 Cater Green www.wtergreen.com Allan Haskell 323.663.7747 EarthSmart LLC www.earthsimartfic.com Anthony Russo 310.930.2712 Eco Products wevr.ecoomducts.com Order online 303.449.1876 Excellent Packaging and Supply www excellentpaokaoing.com Steve Levine 800.317.2737 Giancola Brothers, Inc, oancolabrosingnamail.gom Jennifer Giancola 3111450 -1464 Green Earth Office Supply http7lstore vahoo cem /gteenearthofficesupply/ Order online 800.327.8449 Green Wave by Western Pacific Assoc. http:l /greenwave.us.com/ Joe Batting 562.208.6695 The Individual Group www.iheindgm.com Richard Zionts 323.981.2800 Nat -ur Store www.nat- urslore.com Edene Cabezas 310.676 -5000 Pak West Paper www.oakwest.com Chris Smith 714.481.3846 Paper Company www thepaoercomoanv.net Mike Madden 714.444.2171 P & R Paper Supply www orpaper coM Dionne Marie Stewart 951.316.7800 Recyclaholics her)' // cvdah lics cem /foodsernce htm Order online 612.521.5667 Renewable Products http llwww a wattle - products con/ Bob Pondo 612.521.5667 Smart and Final - Venice www.smartandfinal.com Enrique Perez 310.392.4954 Smart and Final - W. Los Angeles www_smartandfinal.com Evan Howell 310.473.0344 Stalk Market wwwstalkmarkel.ner Order online 503.295.4977 Superior Paper & Plastic www sucerlomaoer con Mourice & Mark Penhasian 323.581.5555 Sysco Food Service www sysco.com Phillip Waring 800.800.1199 x3039 Trade Supplies www iradesuppliesinc.com Aaron Fishbain 323.581.3250 United Natural Foods waw.unfiw.com Jeffrey Lorenzen 800.679.6733x53984 US Food www usfood.com Minam Corver 800.379.5633 x6147 Viele and Sons www vieleandsons.com Kathy Hoemer 800.454.5728 WoddCentric Store wwwwoddcentncoral8grelindex.htm Order online 650.283.3797 Msdaimer Reference to any commercial business. aganireaon, or produd does not conatltute nor Imply endorsement or recammaneanon. lest updated 2/ 8 distributors list final 2 6 08.xls Allan & Herminia Aater4reen' www.catergreen.com � info @catergreen.com 5ro Waste Solutions tel 323.663.7747 TATERWARE: The first 100% Biodegradable hot -cup Lid - long awaited - this lid is made out of non - GMO potato resin... You won't be drinking petroleum with your coffee anymore! Fits Most Comercial Hot Cups Case Price Unit Price 10, 12, 16, and 20oz. 1000 $59.00 $0.06 ECOTAINER: 100% Biodegradable & Compostable, Chlorine -free, FSC certified paper and coated with a PLA corn -based resin (rather than petroleum). Paper Hot Cup Case 8oz. 1000 10oz. 1000 12oz. 1000 16oz 1000 20oz 500 Price Unit Price $84.00 $0.08 $88.00 $0.09 $92.00 $0.09 $108.00 $0.11 $62.00 $0.12 We also carry hot cup sleeves and cup carriers... Please call to inquire prices for these items. BAGASSE: Made out of Sugarcane fiber is 100% Tree Free, Renewable, Compostable /Biodegradable Is Oil, Water, & Heat resistant (can handle hot foods up to 190F), freezer safe, Non - Toxic! and a great replacement for Expanded Polystyrene products. CORNTAINERS: Made from corn is 100% Compostable /Biodegradable, Non -Toxic and used as a substitute for its petroleum -based counterparts. It is heat resistant up to 110F - USE ONLY for cold drinks and cooler foods, if heat exeeds 11OF it will warp. Clear Cup Bagasse Hinged Boxes Case Price Unit Price 1000 Burger Box 6x6x3 500 $66.00 $0.13 $80.00 Med 1 Compartment 7x8x2.5 200 $38.00 $0.19 $0.09 Med 3 Compartment 7x8x2.5 200 $38.00 $0.19 20oz. Large 1 Compartment 9x9x3.4 200 $48.00 $0.24 600 Large 3 Compartment 9x9x3.4 200 $48.00 $0.24 �1 Bagasse Bowls Fits 10oz. 2500 $100.00 $0.04 12oz. Bowl 500 $40.00 $0.08 Fits 16oz and 24oz. Bagasse Plates $57.00 $0.06 6" Round plate 1000 $49.00 $0.05 IWAL 7" Round Plate 1000 $64.00 $0.06 9" Round Plate 500 $57.00 $0.11 9" Round Plate - 3 Compartment 500 $57.00 $0.11 10" Round Plate 500 $71.90 $0.14 R 10" Round Plate - 3 Compartment 500 $71.90 $0.14 10 "x8.5 Tray - 5 Comparment 500 $69.00 $0.14 CORNTAINERS: Made from corn is 100% Compostable /Biodegradable, Non -Toxic and used as a substitute for its petroleum -based counterparts. It is heat resistant up to 110F - USE ONLY for cold drinks and cooler foods, if heat exeeds 11OF it will warp. Clear Cup Case Price Unit Price 9oz. 1000 $74.00 $0.07 10oz. 1000 $80.00 $0.08 IN 12oz. 1000 $87.00 $0.09 16oz. 1000 $97.00 $0.10 20oz. 1000 $119.00 $0.12 24oz. 600 684.00 $0.14 Lids Case Price Unit Price Fits 10oz. 2500 $100.00 $0.04 Fits 9/12 and 20oz. 1000 $57.00 $0.06 Fits 16oz and 24oz. 1000 $57.00 $0.06 It A Deli Corntainers- Please call for sizes and price. COMPOSTABLE UTENSILS: Made from renewable resources such as corn and potatoes. Each material has different heat resistance. The potato utensils are the best choice for "hot" foods. Dome Lid fits 9/12 and 20oz. 1000 $63.50 $0.06 �""?�■ Dome Lid fits 16oz. and 24oz. 1000 $63.50 $0.06 Straws 1000 $32.00 $0.03 �••� 8" unwrapped 4000 $52.00 $0.01 8" wrapped 4000 $60.00 $0.02 6.25" unwrapped 4000 $50.00 $0.01 a 6.25" wrapped 4000 $58.00 $0.01 Versapack 1000 $46.00 $0.05 8oz w /Lids 250 $50.00 $0.20 12oz w /Lids 250 $55.00 $0.22 - 16oz w /Lids 250 $58.00 $0.23 24oz w /Lids 250 $65.00 $0.26 32oz w /Lids 250 $68.00 $0.27 48oz Deli Deep w /Lids 125 $51.00 $0.41 64oz Deli Deep w /Lids 125 $54.00 $0.43 Clamshell- Hinged Burger Box 6 "x6 "x3" 250 $55.00 $0.22 �- Med Shallow 160 $54.00 $0.34 ys Med Deep 8'x8 "x3" 160 $54.00 $0.34 , Med Deep 8'x8 "x3" 3 Compartment 160 $56.00 $0.35 Loaf 9 "x5 "x3.5" 250 $69.00 $0.28 Lg. Deep 9.5x9.5x3 150 $58.00 $0.39 It A Deli Corntainers- Please call for sizes and price. COMPOSTABLE UTENSILS: Made from renewable resources such as corn and potatoes. Each material has different heat resistance. The potato utensils are the best choice for "hot" foods. PAPER GOODS 100% Recycled Green Seal & FSC Certified: Please call for Prices Marcal Luncheon, Dinner & Cocktail Napkin Toilet Paper Dispenser Towels Biodegradable Bags and Liners: Please Call for Prices Liners T -Shirt Bags Dogie Poop Bags Custom Made Bags THE SOLAR WEB: Host your website on a server that is power by Solar Energy, family owned and in California- Reliable and Affordable. For more information on hosting plans go to www.thesolarweb.com Utensils 140F - PLA Case Price Unit Price �""?�■ Forks 1000 $32.00 $0.03 Spoons 1000 $32.00 $0.03 �••� Knives 1000 $32.00 $0.03 Utensils 220F - Potato Forks 1000 $46.00 $0.05 a Spoons 1000 $46.00 $0.05 Knives 1000 $46.00 $0.05 TaterWare - 220F Forks 1000 $46.00 $0.05 Spoons 1000 $46.00 $0.05 Knives 1000 $46.00 $0.05 PAPER GOODS 100% Recycled Green Seal & FSC Certified: Please call for Prices Marcal Luncheon, Dinner & Cocktail Napkin Toilet Paper Dispenser Towels Biodegradable Bags and Liners: Please Call for Prices Liners T -Shirt Bags Dogie Poop Bags Custom Made Bags THE SOLAR WEB: Host your website on a server that is power by Solar Energy, family owned and in California- Reliable and Affordable. For more information on hosting plans go to www.thesolarweb.com EARTH RESOURCE FOUNDATION'S ZERO IN ON ZERO WASTE: "Don't Let Your Bottom Line Go to Waste" ERF's "Zero in on Zero Waste" Training and Consulting Services "Is Your Bottom Line Going to Waste ?" Introductory Workshop This 2 -hour introductory workshop speaks to the hearts and minds of your staff to gain understanding and motivation for achieving zero -waste. Within the workshop, you will not only learn how waste impacts your company, your employees and the planet but you will learn practical methods to apply zero -waste principles. You will learn from the best - practices of zero -waste companies; discover how zero -waste principles apply to your organization; and evaluate and prioritize zero-waste opportunities. At the end of the workshop, your organization will have an actionable plan to move towards zero -waste and reap the benefits for your "triple bottom line." "How Much of Your Waste Are you Wasting ?" Audit and Baseline Report "How Much of Your Waste Are you Wasting" provides an initial audit to determine the current waste - state of your business and identify initial zero -waste targets. ERF will evaluate the current waste - production cycle and recommend zero -waste targets. ERF will work with management and staff to recommend improved systems and strategies for realizing zero -waste goals. ERF is confident that there will be proven financial, environmental and employee benefits from undertaking this process "Stopping Waste In It's Tracks" Your business now understands the true costs of waste and has identified areas to enhance your triple - bottom line. ERF will work directly with managers and staff to implement the business process changes necessary. Our team of highly skilled consultants supports businesses throughout the entire process. We will partner with you to implement business process changes, provide employee training and set up systems for continuous improvement and measurement, as well as assist in employee communications. At the end of the implementation phase, we will conduct a final audit to determine the costs and benefits of your zero -waste efforts. Companies achieving a 90% reduction in waste creation will be eligible for Zero - Waste Certification. Eliminating Waste saves dollars, saves resources and saves lives. Zero -Waste companies realize financial benefits as well as improvements in employee morale and community goodwill. Don't Waste Time —get started today! SAVE THE DATE: Thursday, June 5, 2008 ZERO IN ON ZERO WASTE: "Don't Let Your Bottom Line Go to Waste" Third Annual Orange County Zero Waste Business Conference