HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 13576 (Grand Jury Response; Holding the Bag)RESOLUTION NO. 13576
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN RAFAEL APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
RESPONSE TO THE 2012-2013 MARIN COUNTY GRAND
JURY REPORT ENTITLED `HOLDING THE BAG"
WHEREAS, pursuant to Penal Code section 933, a public agency which receives a Grand
Jury Report addressing aspects of the public agency's operations, must comment on the Report's
findings and recommendations contained in the Report in writing within ninety (90) days to the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court with a copy to the Foreperson of the Grand Jury; and
WHEREAS, Penal Code section 933 specifically requires that the "governing body" of the
public agency provide said response and, in order to lawfully comply, the governing body must
consider and adopt the response at a noticed public meeting pursuant to the Brown Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael has received and reviewed the
2012-2013 Marin County Grand Jury Report, dated May 1, 2013, entitled "Holding the Bag" and
has agendized it at this meeting for a response.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San
Rafael hereby:
1. Approves and authorizes the Mayor to execute the City of San Rafael's response to
the 2012-2013 Marin County Grand Jury Report entitled "Holding the Bag," copy attached hereto.
2. Directs the City Clerk to forward the City's Grand Jury Report response to the
Presiding Judge of the Marin County Superior Court and to the Foreperson of the Marin County
Grand .fury.
I, Esther Beime, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the San Rafael
City Council held on the 15"' day of July, 2013, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers: Colin, Connolly. Heller. McCullough & Mayor Phillips
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
----___._.-ESTHER C. BFIRNE, Cite Clerk
RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM
Report Title: Holding the Bag
Report Date: May 8, 2013
Public Release Date: May 14, 2013
Response By: City of San Rafael
FINDINGS
■ We agree with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F3 and F4.
■ We disagree with wholly or partially with the findings numbered; NONE.
RECOMMENDATIONS
■ Recommendations numbered: NONE have been implemented.
■ Recommendations numbered: NONE have not yet been implemented, but will be
implemented in the future.
■ Recommendations numbered: R1, R2, and R3 require further analysis.
See attached explanations.
■ Recommendations numbered: NONE will not be implemented because it is not
warranted or are not reasonable.
DATED: 7/4.2/2013
ATTEST:'+,`w I,�.W•a..-
Esther Beirne, City Clerk
Number of ��� yes attached;, t
Signed:
ATTACHMENT I
RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO GRAND JURY REPORT
"HOLDING THE BAG"
EXPLANTIONS REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS
■ Explanation for Recommendation R1:
The JPA is in the process of preparing a Model Ordinance and associated CEQA
analysis for use by all of Marin's Cities and Towns. Their stated intention is to
encourage consistency between all cities and towns in Marin. However, as
mentioned above, the CEQA analysis will explore the impacts of ordinances that
ban single use plastic bags at all retailers, including restaurants, and under a
variety of circumstances. Each local jurisdiction such as San Rafael may therefore
adopt specific measures based on the CEQA analysis that best match their
Councils' desires. The JPA has stated their desire to promote bag ordinances that
are highly beneficial to the environment. However, the Grand Jury does not specify
what the "strictest rules possible" are, therefore, this cannot be adequately
addressed. The JPA anticipates completion of the CEQA review by
October/November 2013. City of San Rafael adoption and implementation timeline
is To Be Determined.
■ Explanation for Recommendation R2:
The JPA has stated their intention to facilitate a well-designed, comprehensive
educational campaign that will involve as many outreach channels as possible
including schools, stores, farmers markets and various other public events. The
City of San Rafael has already shown its commitment to an outreach process such
as this, when it convened the Single Use Plastics Advisory Committee in 2011.
The City currently works with the JPA on zero waste outreach programs such as
the Zero Waste Grant program, and will continue to do so. The JPA anticipates
completion of the CEQA review by October/November 2013. City of San Rafael
adoption and implementation timeline is To Be Determined.
Explanation for Recommendation R3:
One of the JPA's goals in developing a Model Ordinance is to promote consistency
amongst jurisdictions. However because each City and Town needs to adopt an
ordinance individually, there is no guarantee there will be absolute consistency
between the ordinances. San Rafael may desire to have a more aggressive
ordinance than others, especially considering the City Council's earlier direction to
consider phasing in other retailers beyond those covered by the County ordinance.
The JPA anticipates completion of the CEQA review by OctoberlNovember 2013.
City of San Rafael adoption and implementation timeline is To Be Determined.
Marin County Civil Grand Jury
Date: May 1, 2013
Nancy Mackie, San Rafael City Manager
1400 Fifth Avenue, P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
Re: Grand Jury Report: Holding the Bag
Report Date: May 1, 2013
Dear Nancy Mackie,
Enclosed please find an advance copy of the above report. Please note that Penal Code Section 933.05(f) specifically prohibits any
disclosure of the contents of this report by a public agency or its officers or governing body prior to its release to the public, which
will occur on May 7, 2013.
The Grand Jury requests that you respond in writing to the Findings and Recommendations contained in the report pursuant to
Penal Code Section 933.05 (copy enclosed). The Penal Code is specific as to the format of responses. The enclosed Response to
Grand Jury Report Form should be used.
Governing bodies should be aware that the comment or response from the governing body must be conducted in accordance with
Penal Code section 933 (c) and subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. The
Brown Act requires that any action of a public entity governing board occur only at a noticed and agendized meeting.
The Penal Code is also specific about the deadline for responses. You are required to submit your response to the Grand Jury within
60 days of the report date:
1 hard copy to: The Honorable Judge James Ritchie
Marin County Superior Court
P.O. Box 4988
San Rafael, CA 94913-4988
1 hard copy to: Rich Treadgold, Foreperson
Marin County Grand Jury
3501 Civic Center Drive, Room #275
San Rafael, CA 94903
Responses are public records. The clerk of the public agency affected must maintain a copy of your response. Should you have any
questions, please contact me at 415-286-6494 or at the above address.
Sincerely,
Rich freadgold, Foreperson
2012/2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury
Enclosures: Summary of Penal Code sec. 933.5; Penal Code Sec. 933.05; Response Form
3501 Civic C,'enterAive, Room 275, San ILafaeZ CA 9490 IiI 415--499-61.32
RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM
Report Title:
Report Date:
Public Release Date:
Response By:
FINDINGS
Holding the Bag
May 8, 2013
May 14, 2013
City of San Rafael
• We. agree with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F3 and F4.
• We disagree with wholly or partially with the findings numbered: NONE
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Recommendations numbered: NONE have been implemented.
• Recommendations numbered: NONE have not yet been implemented, but will be
implemented in the future.
® Recommendations numbered: R1, R2, and R3 require further analysis.
See attached explanations.
Recommendations numbered: NONE will not be implemented because it is not
warranted or are not reasonable.
DATED: 712212013
ATTEST:
Esther Beirne, City Clerk
Number q1LRq_Q ached:
ZGARjY VILLJfF" S, Mayor
i
A'I'TACUMENJ B
ATTACHMENT I
RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO GRAND JURY REPORT
"HOLDING THE BAG"
EXPLANTIONS REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS
■ Explanation for Recommendation R1:
The JPA is in the process of preparing a Model Ordinance and associated CEQA
analysis for use by all of Marin's Cities and Towns. Their stated intention is to
encourage consistency between all cities and towns in Marin. However, as
mentioned above, the CEQA analysis will explore the impacts of ordinances that
ban single use plastic bags at all retailers, including restaurants, and under a
variety of circumstances. Each local jurisdiction such as San Rafael may
therefore adopt specific measures based on the CEQA analysis that best match
their Councils' desires. The JPA has stated their desire to promote bag
ordinances that are highly beneficial to the environment. However, the Grand
Jury does not specify what the "strictest rules possible" are, therefore, this cannot
be adequately addressed. The JPA anticipates completion of the CEQA review
by October/November 2013. City of San Rafael adoption and implementation
timeline is To Be Determined.
■ Explanation for Recommendation R2.-
The
2:
The JPA has stated their intention to facilitate a well-designed, comprehensive
educational campaign that will involve as many outreach channels as possible
including schools, stores, farmers markets and various other public events. The
City of San Rafael has already shown its commitment to an outreach process
such as this, when it convened the Single Use Plastics Advisory Committee in
2011. The City currently works with the JPA on zero waste outreach programs
such as the Zero Waste Grant program, and will continue to do so. The JPA
anticipates completion of the CEQA review by October/November 2013. City of
San Rafael adoption and implementation timeline is To Be Determined.
- of the goals developing odel Ordinance is to promote
needs-
to-onsistency amongst jurisdictio"s. Howe, ver because each City arid Town,
guarantee there will be absolute
consistency • _ the ordinances.Rafaemay l desire to have a more
aggressive ordinance than others, especially considering the City Council's
earlier direction to consider phasing in other retailers beyond those covered by
the County ordinance. The JPA anticipates completion of the CEQA review by
OctoberlNovemberRafael adoption
timeline is o Be Determine0.
ATTAC'IIMENT C
2012/2013 MARIA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND ,JURY
Holding the [bag
Report Date -May 1, 201.E
Public Release Pate --May 7, 2013
r*
COUNTY of MARIN '.
' Marin County Civil Grand Jury
HOLDING THE BAG
SUMMARY
As the garbage truck tipped its load, hundreds of plastic bags wafted from the opening
and sailed across the flat plains of the dump. There is so much incoming plastic waste
that many landfills set Lip trash nets and employ a fulltime person just to catch the sailing
bags and papers before they escape into the surrounding environment.
Plastic bags
adrift at the
Redwood
Landfill
A global movement to ban or discourage the use of plastic bags is growing and many
communities are starting to take action. Plastic bags use up natural resources, consume
energy to manufacture, create litter, choke marine life and add to landfill waste. Since
plastic bags essentially never break down, once they are littered, they become a permanent
environmental problem.
Scientific results from a voyage led by a group of graduate students from Scripps Institute
of Oceanography at UC San Diego reveal the infiltration of human pollution in an area of
the ocean commonly referred to as the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch." During their 2009
voyage aboard the Scripps research vessel, New Horizon, the students collected fish
specimens, water samples and marine debris at depths ranging from the. sea surface to
thousands of feet depth. "About ttitie percent ol'exarttinec1. fi,shcs c°otttainecl plastic in their
stomach. That is an uncleresth ale of the true ingestion rate because a fish waY
regttt;gitate or pass etplastic itc-nt, or even clie_ ft•otti eating it. 61, e clicii7'l ttzeasan-e those
May 1, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page I of 20
Holding the Bag
rates, so our nine pereent figure is too Imi, by an unknown atnount, " said Davison, one of
the main Scripps researchers.I
Members of the Marin County Civil Grand Jury were aware of the potential for
environmental damage from plastics, but during our field trip to the Redwood Landfill,
the sight of plastic bags blowing in the wind really brought the message home. We
wondered what Marin County was doing to stem the tide of plastic bags, and how serious
a problem they pose.
Trash -catching net in action
We found that although the problems posed by plastic bags are only part of a much larger
problem of worldwide waste and the consequent environmental damage, they are
problems that we can address at our local level.
As a result of our research, we found a lot of local interest in banning not just plastic
carry -out bags, but all single -use bags^. The Town of Fairfax, citing its "duty to protect
the natural environtnetrt, the economy, and the health of'its citizens, "3 was the first town
in California to enact a plastic bag ban through a community effort ballot measure. The
Fairfax ordinance became effective. May 2009 and amended the town code to: "(I) require
the use of recyclable paper andior reusable checkout bags / ly all shops, stores, eating
places, food vendors and retail.food vendors located in the Town of'Fairfax, and (2)
provide penalties for violations. " For Marin's unincorporated areas, Marin County
banned plastic carry -out bags at grocery stores, pharmacies and convenience stores of at
least 10,000 square feet and imposed a 5 -cent fee on paper bags in January 2012. We
have learned that most of the remaining towns and cities in Marin plan to adopt their
version of a single -use bag ordinance in the near future.
May L. 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 2 of 20
Holding the Bag
The Grand Jury strongly advocates the adoption of ordinances throughout Marin County
to eliminate all single -use plastic carry -out bags. In addition, the Grand Jury
recommends extending the ban as far as realistically possible to all commercial
establishments regardless of size.
BACKGROUND
California, through the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, mandated a goal of
50% diversion of its disposed waste stream by 2000 for each city and county in
California. The Marin Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority (JPA) was
formed in 1996 to ensure Marin's compliance with the California Integrated Waste
Management Act and its waste reduction mandates. The JPA is comprised of 12 Member
Agencies. Belvedere, Corte Madera, Fairfax, Larkspur, Mill Valley, Novato, Ross, San
Anselmo, San Rafael, Sausalito, Tiburon and unincorporated Marin County. The
Regional Agency status of the JPA allows Member Agencies to report to the State as one
political body instead of 12.
In 2006, the JPA began an initiative calledwith the goal of
reaching zero waste disposal by 2025. (Zero waste is defined as a 94% diversion rate
with only 6% remaining waste.) The JPA prepared the "Zero Waste Feasibility Study"'
to establish programs and policies to strengthen the countywide framework for meeting
its Zero Waste Goal. Efforts to reduce or eliminate single use bags, plastic or otherwise,
will help the JPA meet that goal.
According to Californians Against Waste (CAW), Californians use approximately 14
billion plastic bags every year,5 which equates to about 400 bags per second. Plastic bags
are a primary solace of litter because they are light and aerodynamic. Plastics, including
plastic bags, essentially never biodegrade; instead, they break down into tiny particles
that become part of the soil and water. Only about 3°'o of the plastic bags used in
California are recycled.v
There has been extensive news coverage lately about plastic bags and waste reduction.
Due to a growing concern over litter and marine debris, many communities are taking a
stand against single -use plastic carry -out bags. To date, 72 California cities or counties
have adopted ordinances to ban or restrict the use of plastic carry -out bags. The City and
County of San Francisco became the first in the nation to adopt a ban on plastic shopping
bags in April 2007, and in February 2012, voted to expand the ordinance to include all
May 1, 20 ) 3 Marisa County Civil Grand Jury Page 3 of 20
Holding the Bag
retailers citywide. More recently, several cities, including Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park
and Mountain View, have adopted ordinances, effective 4/22/13, to prohibit stores from
using single -use plastic carry -out bags and allow stores to charge a small fee for paper or
reusable bags. The following CAW website lists each California jurisdiction along with
the synopsis of its action as every new ordinance is passed:
htto://www.cawrecv,cles.or-,,'issues/plastic campaign/plastic 17ag5/local
The Grand Jury was interested to learn what has been done and what is being considered
to reduce plastic bag litter in Marin County. We wanted to know the extent of the
problem and what options are available at the local level to reverse the effects of plastic
bag pollution.
Although we found reason for environmental concern over the littering of all types of
plastic bags and containers, this investigation is primarily concerned with the effects of
single -use plastic carry -out bags. We believe that the elimination of these types of bags
may open the door to broader bans in the future.
The Grand .fury:
■ Interviewed members of the JPA to determine not only what Marin County is
doing to reduce waste, but also to determine the JPA's interest and position on the
issue of plastic single use carry -out shopping bags.
® Contacted the administrative body of each City and Town in klarin County to
determine what, if anything, each plans to do to reduce the use of single use carry-
out plastic bags.
• Researched various websites, papers, and agencies for the history and extent of
problems caused by single use bags in the v orld. in California, and in Marin.
® Compared the properties of various types of shopping hags.
1.1ay 1, 2013 Marin County Citi it Grand Jury Page 4
Holding the Bag
DISCUSSION
In 2008, California undertook a Statewide Waste Characterization Study'to detennine the
types and amounts of waste entering California's waste stream. Plastics make up
approximately 9.6% of California's overall disposed waste stream, as indicated in Exhibit
1 below.
The 9.6% plastic waste stream was fi►rther broken down into types of plastic. Plastic
bags compose approximately 1.2 % of California's total waste stream. This could be
considered a small amount when compared to the overall quantity of waste. However,
many properties of plastic bags make them especially harmful for the environment.
Exhibit 1 Figure from California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study
1?ignre 3: Overview of California's Overall Disposed Waste Stream
HHW
0.3%
Inerts ant
Other
29.10,E
Special Waste Mixed Residue
3.9% 0.8%
Paper
17 'A& -
Glass
1,4%
Metal
4.6%
Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding.
Electronics
0.5%
Plastic
9.6^0
>r Organic
32.4%
aterial classTpercent
Paper
l
17.3%
Glass
1.4%
Metal
4,15%
Electronics
0,51%
Plastic
9.6%
Other Organic
E 32.4%
Inerts and Other
29.1%
HHW
0.3%
Special Waste
3.9%
Mixed Residue
0.81k
Total 100%
Note: HHW under Material Class in the figure above stands for Household Hazardous Waste
Plastic bags can be recycled for other uses, such as plastic lumber, but only a small
percentage is actually recycled. Estimates of the recycle rate range from Mo (per CAW)
to 9°,n from the US Envirosunental Protection Agency (EPA) of the 14 billion plastic bags
distributed annually in California. The rest end up in landfills or as litter on land or in the
ocean.
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 5 of20
Holding the Bag
The concerns most often cited by local governments as reasons to restrict or ban plastic
bags are discussed below.
Reasons given by governmental bodies for adopting restrictions:
■ Harm to wildlife
Plastic bags are now ubiquitous in our environment, and strangle, choke and kill
animals both on land and in water. Plastic bags are one of the most common
debris item found on beaches, according to the Ocean Conservancy. During the
2009 International Coastal Cleanup Day, 1,126,774 plastic bags were picked up
on ocean beaches worldwide.
Planet Ark, an international environmental group, estimated that worldwide,
100,000 whales, seals, turtles and other marine animals are killed each year by
consuming plastic garbage. Plastic bags still containing food will attract animals,
and many will eat the plastic along with the waste food. Plastics cannot be broken
down by the stomach, so they can build up inside the animal and give a false
sense of fullness, leading to malnutrition and death by starvation. Animals can
also choke to death if the plastic blocks their airflow.
In 2011, the death of a whale in Puerto Rico was blamed on plastic bag
pollution8. Biologists found over 10 pounds of plastic in the whale's stomach
and believed the plastic caused the animal to die of starvation or malnutrition.
Plastic bags are the fifth most common debris
item found on beaches.
Holding the Bag
■ Litter on land and in the ocean
Marine litter poses environmental, economic, health, and aesthetic problems
globally. Most marine litter has a very slow rate of decomposition, leading to a
gradual, but significant accumulation in the coastal and marine environment.
"Marine litter is stimptomatic of'a wider malaise: namely, the wasteful use and
persistent poor management of natural resources. The plastic bags, bottles, and
other- debris piling up in the oceans and seas could be dramatically reduced b_v
improved tivaste reduction, waste mcrnageinent and recycling initiatives, " said
Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment
Programme. "Some of the litter, like thin film single -arse plastic bags, tirlrich choke
marine life, should be banned or phased out rapidly ever-ywhere—there is simply
zero justification, for manufactarring them anymore, anywhere. "
According to information provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), plastic coinprises the vast majority of marine debris.
Scientists have collected up to L9 million bits of plastic per square mile of the
Great Pacific Garbage Patch. (The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, also known as
the North Pacific Gyre, is a swirling sea of plastic bags, bottles and other debris
that is trapped in the central North Pacific Ocean by the vortex of ocean
currents.)
Plastic debris in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch has increased 100 times over
in the past 40 years. Two graduate students with the Scripps Environmental
Accumulation of Plastic Expedition (SEAPLEX) found evidence of plastic waste
in more than 9% of the stomachs of fish collected during their scientific voyage to
study garbage accumulation in the North Pacific Gyre.`'' 10
May t. M13 Mario County Cit i1 Cirarlcfi .fury Page 7 of 20
Holding the Bag
In a November 2008 report," the California Ocean Protection Council (OPQ
stated that 80% of the ocean litter problem comes from land based sources and
that the majority of ocean litter is composed of plastic. OPC calls for actions to
prevent and control ocean litter. One of the four Priority Actions in the report,
Priority Action #2, calls for a fee on or the prohibition of single -use products such
as single -use plastic bags and other packaging where a more feasible and less
damaging alternative is available.
Plastic bag use is now so prolific around the world that the bags have become a
major source of litter. Plastic bags blowing around streets in China were so
common they earned the name "white pollution." 12 And in South Africa, the bags
littering the countryside are called "national flowers." In some African areas,
people are even "harvesting" the plastic bags to make bags, hats and other crafts.
m High costs to clean up
Plastic bags have been one of the top
items collected on California Coastal
Cleanup Day.
The EPA estimates that West Coast cities spend $13 per resident to combat and
clean up trash, much of which would otherwise end up as marine debris. 13 For
California, the overall cost to protect our waters from litter is over $412 million
cacti year.
Holding the Bag
Between 8% and 25% of the litter is attributable to plastic bags alone, according
to clean up data from San Jose and Los Angeles County. Based on this
information, an estimated S33 million to $103 million is spent each year to
manage plastic bag litter in our state.
Moreover, cities and other recyclers spend an exorbitant amount of time and
money removing plastic bags from their recyclables stream. Plastic bags often
jam recycling machinery, thus adding to the manual labor costs of recycling.
After estimated losses of $1 million each year for plastic -bag related repairs to
machinery in their recycling facility, the City of San Jose no longer collects
single -use plastic bags at curbside. And in early 2013, it was reported that
workers in Sacramento's waste transfer station shut down their machinery
multiple times a day to remove bags clogging the conveyors. 15
® Depletion of natural resources
The most common plastic bags arc made from polyethylene. This material is
made from crude oil and natural gas, both non-renewable resources. The
manufacture of plastic bags contributes to our consumption of diminishing
natural resources and to ongoing damage to the environment from petroleum
extraction.
It takes the equivalent of 12 million barrels of oil to produce the estimated 100
billion plastic shopping bags the US uses per year.I6 Reducing plastic bag
production means reducing our dependence on petroleum.
The free rider problem
A free rider is a party who enjoys a benefit earned from a collective effort, but who
contributes little or nothing to the effort. A ban enacted by one local government but not
enacted by surrounding areas can attract lawsuits and negative publicity to that
conumulity. And if surrounding areas keep a stream of plastic flowing, a free -rider
problem is created in which the community enacting the ban pays for the environmental
benefits while other neighboring communities enjoy the benefits at no cost.
The California Grocers Association cautions that some cities with bans have experienced
a loss of grocery business when neighboring communities do not have bans. 'When we do
see stares that are close to these jurisdictioncil litres, we care seeing consu mors flocl; to the
non-r'e gulated stores, " said Tint Jaines, the association's manager of local government
relations. The president and chief executive of the California Grocers Association, Ron
Holding the Bag
Fong, was quoted in a 2/22/13 Los Angeles Times article as supporting statewide
regulation of carry -out bags. "Our- industry supports efforts to achieve a statewide
solution to single -use earn -out bag regulation in California, " Fong said. "With a
patchwork of more than 60 local ordinances, compliance becomes a challenge for
grocery retailers, and consumers become confused about their options at the check
stand. "
Many local governments would like a unified regulation of plastic carry -out bags that
applies the same rules to all of California. However, attempts to ban or reduce plastic
bags on a statewide level have been met with opposition from the Save the Plastic Bag
Coalition and the American Chemistry Council (ACC). Despairing of a solution, many
local communities are acting independently.
Comparison of bag alternatives
There are alternatives to single -use plastic bags. This section of the report compares the
pros and cons of single -use plastic bags with these alternatives.
Single -use plastic bads are made from nonrenewable resources such as petroleum and
natural gas, and provide an inexpensive, lightweight, and convenient way to carry goods.
Plastic bags do not biodegrade, but photodegrade into microscopic granules when
exposed to ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Scientists are not sure if these granules
ever degrade fully into carbon dioxide, water and inorganic molecules (a process called
mineralization). Based on research to date, plastic bags do not mineralize in the ocean
but instead break down into smaller and smaller pieces. Some scientists fear that the
buildup of such particles in marine and terrestrials environments will lead to an
infiltration of toxic plastic particles into every step of the food chain.
Plastic bags can be recycled, and materials from post -consumer plastic bags and product
Many plastic bags
become litter. Their
light weight makes
them often land in
trees or
waterways.
kl,v 1, 2013 Marin Couury Civil Grand Tung Pale. 10 of 20
Holding the Bag
wraps are used to make lumber for backyard decks and fences, lawn and garden products,
pallets, crates, containers, piping, automotive applications and new plastic bags. The
recycling process mandates the exclusive use of dry, clean, and empty bags, and any bag
exposed to food cannot be recycled. Some plastic bags are recycled, but most ultimately
end up in landfills or as litter on land and waterways.
The ACC, one of the major proponents of plastic bag manufacture and use, recently
reported an increase in plastic bag recycling of 27% in 2010 over 2009.1 7 But this figure
is dwarfed by the EPA's reported 220 million pound growth in plastic bag generation
during the same period.14
Exhibit 2 RATE OF PLASTICS GENERATION EXCEEDS RATE OF RECOVERY
Floure 9. Plastics veneration and r weoveryR, 4960 to 2010
From Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States
(Tables and Figures for 2010)
The cost of energy to recycle plastic bags is more than the value of the recycled bag and
is also more than the cost of making new bags. It costs roughly $4,000 to process and
recycle one ton of plastic bags, which can then be sold for only $32 on the commodities
market.19 Also, as plastic bags are melted down for re -casting, the polymer chains often
break, leading to a tower quality plastic. When high cost and low quality outcomes are
Ol U Vati ,a.ti Poi,on:;ua:er P]„stic Nae an” f,;1ir Rccyehnr_ Pctrost. prepnae6 113 KS,K e Recvclicy A .,i c ai r Inc. fo.
the An'.ar;can C•hori,try Coainci.7rr,i;a.^;
1 t'A !btrintcipat Su:i(i vk;;tlt(e Generata.nt, Pccyc;;: g. ural Di%pco,a6 in t:;e Unitcd :S<u'es; fable, am, fignm" liar 201:1
Office of Re,ou cc Cors..n'atinii ar.d Recoecr:, Norm fier 2011
C'le:n-. Air Couricii, 1 `.;ate and Rc n „ine f ac.;_ h_?yrr;',
May 1. 2013 %Marin County Ci\'il Grand Jury Page 11 of 20
Holding the Bag
added to other problems associated with the recycling process, such as the tendency of
plastic bags to jam machinery, recycling plastic bags becomes even less desirable.
_Biodegradable_plastic bags are often made from farm products like cornstarch, which
will break down relatively quickly under the right conditions,. To meet international
standards, bags must compost within 12 weeks and filly biodegrade within 6 months.
According to the Biodegradable Plastics Society, when these plastics are composted, they
break down into water and carbon dioxide. However, independent research is needed to
confirm whether this is true under all environmental conditions.
It is possible that biodegradable plastics do not break down fully, especially under
conditions that are not ideal for composting and leave non -degradable constituents, some
of which may be equally, if not more, hazardous. 20 And, as noted in a study sponsored by
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), developing " litter -friendly"
materials will send the wrong signal to people, and go against efforts to change
behaviors. VJ'contaminating the enviromnent with 'litter -friendly" wa,stc is considezed
acceptable, it will be difficult to draw the line and accomplish an -y consistent change in
attitude- and behavior. X21 Biodegradable bags are costly to produce and are not suitable
for recycling.
Compostable bags are very similar to biodegradable bags but "greener." For plastic to
be considered compostable, it must be able to break down into carbon dioxide, water and
biomass at the same rate as paper. It should look like compost, should not produce any
toxic material and should be able to support plant life. Compostable plastic (also called
"bioplastic") is made from plant materials such as corn, potato, cellulose, soy and sugar.
One of the problems involved with creating bioplastics is the amount of energy needed in
production, which is more than what is necessary to create an equivalent petroleum based
plastic product. Compostable bags cost three to six time more than "traditional" plastic
bags. Three times the raw materials are used to produce a Uuly compostable bag (one
that biodegrades in compost)." Also, the rate at which bioplastics break down is too fast
to be included with the plastics sold to the recycling market, and too slow to be
considered suitable for composting.
Reusable bans are made from renewable materials, and conserve resources by
replacing paper and plastic bags. Such reusable bags are convenient and come in a
variety of sizes, styles and materials. The average reusable bag has a lifespan equivalent
to using seven hundred disposable plastic bags. Over an average lifetime, use of reusable
bags by just one person would save:. over 22,000 plastic bags.
Del-,iis in ._... !?':,r1::2. C) .a;e , Olz EENPFACE
Pan ti ilaIi;,e Lit;<<r An, "1! alytica3 i-',tif_r ic.v, 1004; 2031 t i,_ited Natio ,F ?'r i.i>F ,; cr•, N: r.Y,can,ntc
Hiocc^^ra?abie Fiaae C ,n1i st 8s Public. 1 cb; L,.-; 2G0X a_
.11'9 1', or, iIiUcft ,a ail,
Y
MaN, 1, 2013 ,1 arisz Cotizzty Civil Grand Jury Page: 12 of20
Holding the Bag
Paper bags, which many people consider a better alternative to plastic bags, result in
their own set of environmental problems. For example, according to the American Forest
& Paper Association, the U.S. alone uses around 10 billion paper grocery bags each year,
representing a lot of trees. 23
The plastic industry maintains that plastic bags are better for the environment than paper
bags. And this appears to be partly true. We are no better off (and may actually be worse
off) using paper bags rather than plastic ones. According to the EPA, (1) paper bags are
more likely to be recycled (nationwide, about 20% of paper bags are recycled, compared
to about 9% of plastic bags 2d), and (2) the trees from which paper bags are made are a
renewable resource, whereas plastic bags are made from non-renewable resources.
However,
pounds, whereas 2,000 paper bags weight 280 pounds).
Paper bags in landfills do not break down much faster than plastic bags
(because they're not exposed to water, light, oxygen and other elements that
they need to biodegrade).25
® It takes more than 4 times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag as it
does a plastic bag.26
It takes 98 percent less energy to recycle a pound of plastic than it takes to
recycle a pound of paper.27
■ The manufacture and distribution of paper bags generate 70 percent more air
pollution and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic
Therefore, it is not necessarily better to switch from plastic bags to
paper ones. Paper bags still account for a huge amount of wasted
energy and excess refuse.
This figure is attributed to the. American Forest & Paper Association (AF& PA). C'turrt;t data from the Ah YA is difficedt to iitid,
as the AF&PA is interested in promoting its tecychne success to the public ovct its production figures.
May 1, 2013 Marin CIotinty Civil Grand Riry Page 13 of 20
Holding the Bag
Neither paper nor plastic
Is it better to use paper or plastic? The best answer is neither. Both paper and plastic
bags come at a cost to the environment. The production, shipping and disposal of both
kinds of bags contribute to resource depletion and the pollution of land and water. Both
paper and plastic bags use up a lot of energy and a lot of natural resources. Proper
recycling of both requires attention and diligence from consumers, waste collectors, and
recycling companies. The potential for lack of interest, knowledge, or attention by any
party along the recycling route, creates many potential barriers that can lead to low
recycling rates.
In our opinion, the best alternative is the combination of reusable bags and education.
Many organizations have created educational materials about the problems created by
plastic bags as well as possible solutions. Just a few examples are websites and
publications by the Smithsonian, 29 L1NEP,3O and JPA .31 Marin governmental agencies
can find solid, reliable information to assist them to educate and encourage the public to
stop using carry -out plastic bags and start using cloth or other reusable bags. Most of the
recent bag ban ordinances in California ban carry -out plastic bags and charge a fee for
paper bags. This encourages reusable bags and reduces the total number of single -use
carry -out bags provided. By choosing reusable bags, consumers can save thousands of
plastic or paper bags. Education is vital. In 2011, the City of San Rafael conducted a
survey of local merchants to obtain feedback on a potential citywide ban on single -use
carry -out bags. Opinions were mixed, with slightly more in support than in opposition
toward the idea of the ban. Some objections against a ban were actually objections
against governmental regulations: "Too n7itch 'Big Brother'. " call the city tell
yoll what to Charge jbr?" "TOO iniac l government intervel lion on trivial thil?gs. "3;
A part of the solution to a global problem
Plastic bags are just one part of a larger problem. A very low percentage of the products
we buy are still in use 6 months after purchase. Even though California's local
governments have made extensive recycling efforts to reach our current 581,'% diversion
rate, state residents still sent about the same amount of waste to the landfill in 2009 as
they did in 1990 - 40 million tons.
Smithsonia-n N;,tionai Muscum of Natwal IIjsb isy 'rttr;:"•"ct;c,r:z..,. ,:?:?!i r, •>;;;r_atic : _vo!,',V&or
f[a:it<'ti?v;'st; .• Iiz,.irc;> tt;crsiPr. ^_rarE'ri
"PIIi :n;a ..I;nt,trr._ttiot; de1F lu' v+{,
1ari._.iPA.Zi_R.OGI',lsTE1a",RIN ;rt=--.-_`."'v•:_.r, r2r,ur•,,i;t1.-_ t_.xJ.,._f;+.
Cit•: of Sa'I Rafuei Sla fl, RCpor: for i•tci:eit 5. 2 0I?. Stia iu Session can Si;,q'.e-C,'se PiaSti,:a. Ar;tlySis of t1?e1:iri%0 Appri 3C) S u.
Eii;ilivativ:g si;,,t,__at ,_ Nastics
May 1. 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 14 of 20
Holding the Bag
The Grand Jury recognizes that action is required at the local level through the adoption
of a Zero Waste Strategy that aims to progressively reduce all waste streams. The
ultimate end goal of such a strategy is to have no material discarded. Fundamental
components would include a program of waste reduction, reuse and recycling as well as a
call for producer responsibility. The best solution is to prevent waste from being
generated in the first place unless it can be reused or recycled. Widespread adoption of
the Zero Waste Strategy would contribute to ongoing reductions of all garbage, including
plastics.
Hawaii is the first state in the nation to have a statewide ban on plastic bags at checkout.
When the Honolulu County Council approved a ban in 2011, it joined its neighbor island
counties, and made Hawaii the only state where every county has plastic bag legislation.
Supporters of the Hawaiian ban believe that Hawaii may be more directly exposed to the
impacts of plastic pollution and the damage it does to the environment, as the islands are
in an accumulation area for marine debris from sources across the greater Pacific Ocean.
What is happening in California?
Virtually every California municipality adopting a bag ban was sued or threatened with
litigation by groups related to the plastic bag industry (primarily, the Save the Plastic Bag
Coalition). The lawsuits were brought by the groups in the "public interest" - arguing that
the municipality is required to complete an EIR under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) before a plastic bag ban can be enacted. These suits delayed the
enactment of bans as well as intimidated local municipalities, Because EIRs are often
prohibitively expensive, the suits effectively eliminated many local plastic bag bans.
San Francisco In 2007, San Francisco enacted the Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinance
(Ordinance), which became the nation's first ban on non-compostable carry -out plastic
bags in large supermarkets and pharmacies. 33 The Ordinance was expanded in October
2012 to ban plastic bags at all retail stores and impose a 10 -cent fee for each bag
provided to customers. (Restaurants, bakeries, and take-out establishments are included
in the Ordinance beginning October 2013.) The Ordinance is citywide and covers any
retail establishment located within the geographical limits of the City and County of San
Francisco.
Adoption of the Ordinance expansion followed close on the heels of a September 2012
ruling by Superior Court Judge Teri Jackson upholding it. Judge Jackson rejected the
Save the Plastic Bag Coalition's argument that a full EIR was required prior to adoption
of the Ordinance. There are ongoing issues concerning the Ordinance. including a lack of
uniformity with the law due, to permissible exceptions such as packaging for dry cleaning,
bulk candy and "doggy bags" used to take home leftover fond at restaurants.
State California state law- preempts municipalities from charging a fee for plastic bags
at checkout, leaving local governments attempting to stop the overflow of plastic bags no
sae. Fral isco F,-:vi:on v.c Cod--, Ghapur F: P, ;'.c B:xi Rcdnct}nn 0)d�naucc, Sections 1701-1701)
May 1. 2013 Marin County Civil Grand ,fury Page 15 of 20
Holding the Bag
alternative other than to ban the bags outright. Most governmental agencies within
California express a preference for a statewide ban over enacting separate local
legislation. California has backed away from taking the lead in this issue, but there are
several current proposals before the legislature that may help lead to a statewide
reduction in plastic bag use. In January 2013, Assemblyman Marc Levine, D -San
Rafael, announced a proposal to ban all single -use plastic bags in California grocery
stores. Levine's proposal, AB 158, revives a similar proposal that passed the Assembly in
2010 but failed in the Senate.
State Senator Alex Padilla, D -Pacoima, has introduced legislation that would prohibit
large retail stores throughout California from providing single -use carry -out bags to
customers, starting in 2015. Starting in July 2016, the ban would extend to convenience
food stores, food marts and other smaller businesses under SB 405.
Another legislative proposal, SB 529, introduced in February 2013 by State Senator Mark
Leno, D -San Francisco, would prohibit fast food facilities from distributing disposable
food packaging or single -use bags to customers on and after Julyl, 2016.
What is happening in Marin?
Both Fairfax and the unincorporated area of Marin County have approved plastic bag
bans. Other cities and towns are exploring their options.
Fairfax The Town of Fairfax adopted a plastic bag ban in August 2007. A group that
called itself the North Bay Coalition to Support Plastic Bag Recycling (NBCSPR) sued
the town. Fairfax circumvented CEQA requirements by adopting a ban via voter
initiative in November 2008.
Marin County On January 2.5, 2011, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved an
ordinance banning plastic bag distribution in the unincorporated areas of the County. The
ban applies to most grocery stores, pharmacies and convenience stores and requires a fee
of five cents for paper bags. The County's ordinance was adopted with a categorical
exemption under CEQA, finding that it would have no environmental impact. Litigation
was filed against the County's action, with the County prevailing in Superior Court, but
the case is currently under appeal.
JPA In an effort to promote consistency countywide, the Joint Powers Agency (JPA) is
developing a model ordinance for single use bags that can be used (and modified to lit, if
desired) by each city and town in Marin. The current schedule indicates that the
Ordinance will be available in late 2013. Adoption of the Ordinance opens the possibility
for the entire Count\, to be on the same playing field. The JPA will also prepare a
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document to address the impacts of the
Ordinance. The JP<J antic°i7rates that the 01-dh7c111c-e° Wilk
® Apply to all retail establishments, including grocery stores, department stores,
retail businesses and convenience stores, but not to restaurants.
Niay 1, 2013 Marin Comity Civil Grand Jury Pa(Te 16 of 20
Holding the Bag
■ Prohibit the distribution of single -use carry -out plastic bags.
■ Place a fee on carry -out paper bags to be charged to the customer.
■ Allow for some variation in local interpretation, since each member agency may
wish to customize the Ordinance for its community.
■ Be considered by 10 of the 12 members of the JPA (excluding Marin County and
the City of Fairfax as these members have existing bag ordinances in effect).
Other Marin Cities and Towns The Grand Jury contacted all JPA members to find out
what each was doing or planned to do regarding reduction of waste due to single use or
throw -away bags. A majority responded that they will consider and probably enact a
single -use bag ordinance based on the JPA Ordinance. Exhibit 3 below lists each Marin
County agency and briefly shows what action each plans for adoption of a ban on single -
use carry -out bag.
Exhibit 3 CURRENT AND FUTURE BAG ORDINANCES IN MARIN COUNTY
AGENCY_
ORDINANCE
FUTURE PLANS REGARDING SINGLE -USE BAGS
IN PLACE?
_
Unincorporated
YES
Helping fund the JPA Ordinance
I
MARIN COUNTY
Has had plastic bag ban since January 2012
FAIRFAX I
YES
I Has had plastic bag ban since May 2009
BELVEDERE
NO
None -
CORTE
MADERA
NO
I JPA model once completed
LARKSPUR
NO
j� Staff "anticipate presenting an ordinance to the Larkspur Council that is similar
j to the one adopted by the County"
MILL VALLEY
NO
Ban AFTER lawsuit is resolved; working with JPA on model; watching Levine's
State efforts
NOVATO
NO
Will participate in JPA Model Ban
ROSS
NO
I Has only one store in Ross and plans no plastic bags policy
SAN ANSELMO
NO
Expects to participate in JPA's model single use bag project
SAN RAFAEL I)
NO
II Will adopt ordinance similar or same as JPA Ordinance
WOULD LIKE A STATEWIDE SOLUTION
SA USALITO
NO
Expects to participate in the JPA Ordinance
TIBURON `)
NO
Town Council may revisit the issue once JPA Ordinance is available
The Grand Jury strongly supports the adoption of an ordinance to ban single -use plastic
carry -out bags that will apply to all establishments of all sizes across all areas of Marin
County.
May I ?t:}13 __Maritl {: ounty Civil Orand Jury Page 17 of 20
Holding the Bag
FINDINGS
F1. Single -use plastic carry -out bags cause harm to the environment and wildlife.
F2. Reduction or ban of single -use plastic carry -out bags will help Marin County reach
its zero waste goal.
F3. Reduction or ban of single -use plastic carry -out bags will help keep the land and
waters of the County cleaner.
F4. Most Marin County governments do not currently have bans against single -use
plastic carry -out bags. However, most are responsive to enacting policies against
single -use plastic carry -out bags.
The Grand Jury recommends that:
RL The Marin Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority (JPA) prepare the
Model Single -Use Bag Ordinance to implement the strictest rules possible and
encourage all agencies to adopt the Ordinance with minimal changes. A ban on
single -use plastic carry -out bags should be imposed in all grocery stores,
convenience stores, pharmacies and restaurants within the County and apply to all
establishments, no matter how large or small.
R2. Marin Countv and The Marin Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority
(JPA) Members educate the public on the benefits of reusable bags. Marin County
and Marin County and The Marin Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers
Authority (JPA) Members develop standardized educational guides for all public
schools showing the environmental harm done by plastic single -use carry -out bags.
Marin County and The Marin Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority
(JPA) Members develop educational materials and distribute there at public events
such as fanners' markets and street fairs.
R3. Marin Towns and Cities adopt an ordinance to ban all single -use plastic carry -out
bags using the Model Single -Use Bag Ordinance with minimal, or no, changes, in
order to create a true County -wide. ordinance.
Pursuant to Penal code section 933.05, the grandjury requests responses as follows:
From the following individuals:
is Deputy Director, Department of Public ANV'orks-W astc Management Division to
All Findings and Recommendations
May 1, 2013 Maria County Citi it Grand Jury Page 18 of 20
Holding the Bag
■ Program Manager Department of Public Works -Waste Management Division to
All Findings and Recommendations
From the following governing bodies:
■ Marin County Environmental Health Services to all Findings and
Recommendations
■ Marin County Board of Supervisors to all Findings and Recommendations
■ The Marin Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to all
Findings and Recommendations
■ City of San Rafael to all Findings and Recommendations
■ Town of Ross to all Findings and Recommendations
■
City of Larkspur to all Findings and Recommendations
■ City of Sausalito to all Findings and Recommendations
■ Town of Tiburon to all Findings and Recommendations
■ City of Belvedere to all Findings and Recommendations
■ City of Novato to all Findings and Recommendations
■ Town of Corte Madera to all Findings and Recommendations
■ City of Mill Valley to all Findings and Recommendations
■ Town of San Anselmo to all Findings and Recommendations
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of
the governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting
requirements of the Brown Act.
Californians Against Waste (CAW)
http �'/Wvv_w.cawrecy_cles.orc�'
California Coastal Commission
California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study Produced by C:'ascadia
Consulting Group under contract with CA Integrated Waste Management Board
htti)://NV«,,kN_.calr. Acle.ca.�4oN/,PtihlicationsiDoctitnents'General°05C2009023.odf
http:i /NN�ww.calrecycle.ca.govf
Cons of Using Plastic Bags June 5, 2010 by A,L, Kennedy, Livestrong l com
May 1, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jur} Page t9 of 20
Holding the Bag
Earth Resource Foundation httr).;r_'/earthresource.org'
EPA Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States
Tables and Figures for 2010, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery November 2011
An Implementation Strategy for the California Ocean Protection Council Resolution to
Reduce and Prevent Ocean Litter, Prepared by: California Ocean Protection Council in
consultation with California Marine Debris Steering Committee and Gordon
Environmental Consulting, November 20, 2008
httr):,I/www.of)c.c.gov�webmasteriftp,�/pdf opc_ ucean_,titter final strategy..pdf
JPA website and Final Draft Zero Waste Feasibility Study, Marin County Hazardous and
Solid Waste Management JPA, Presented by R3 Consulting Group, December 2009
btto:,'/wkNikr.iiiariiirecvcles.org/'
Marine Litter, A Global Challenge, UNEP, April 2009
httrr:iIV_wcv_une17.org_,regionalseasimarinelitterlpuhlications!docs/Mariiie Litter AGloba
I Challenge.pdf
Marin Litter, An Analytical Overview, UNEP 2005
hitp://www.cobsea.ore/documetitsiTariile°i 201.itter°",2nAnalytical°in20Overvicdv.pdf
2010 National Postconsumer Plastic Bag and Film Recycling Report
Prepared by Moore Recycling Associates Inc. for the American Chemistry Council
January 2012
Plastic Debris in the World's Oceans GREENPEACF,
Authors: Michelle Allsopp, Adam Walters, David Santillo, and Paul Johnston
http;//www.unepo)�g/regionalseasimarinelittex/publications/docs/Mastic ocean reported
Preliminary Study, West Coast Communities' Cost of Managing Marine Debris, EPA
lit
tp ti",�vw_.epa.gc>v regioj19,'tn.ifine- febris/ptif_Westf_,o�i_stC'oniiiisC'o`it�_
'�'Iu�y?vlarincl)t✓bris.pdf
A Sea Change to Change the Sea: Stopping the Spread of the Pacific Garbage Patch with
Srnall-Scale Environmental Legislation, William and Mary Law Review 51 (April 2010)
luttl�_//��_rs_llavvrcviciv.or�;/Ii1c..sr'Cc}ulte1;�toi.e final.pzlf
Si AI'L ". Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California, San Diego
Reports issued by the Civil Grand .lura do not identify indil iduais interviewed. Pewd codc section 929 requires that
reports of the Grand Jw} not contain the name of any pk2r,son or facts leading to the identity of any person ��ho
provides ifJ61-Inatioi to the Ci` it Grand Jury.
stay 1. 2013 Matin County Civil Grand Jury Paye 20 of 20
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
DATE: July 27, 2011
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob Brown, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Staff Report for August 1, 2011 Study Session on Single -
Use Plastics
SINGLE -USE PLASTICS POLICY ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Background
Reasons for the Studv
Marin is a recognized national leader in waste recycling, reaching a countywide
diversion rate of 72% in 2006. Although recycling rates in Marin have increased
significantly over the past two decades, the amount of waste going to the landfill has
also increased. The following chart from Marin Sanitary Services shows total waste
generation has increased 75%
between 1995 and 2006.
Recycled material more than
doubled, but landfill disposal -- ------—------�"`"-
increased by 30%. T,
Redwood Landfill currently is
projected to reach capacity in
2024.
As a result of these trends and -®
challenges, the Marin Hazardous
and Solid Waste Management
JPA prepared a Zero Waste
Feasibility Study in December
2010 which identified goals of
achieving 80% waste diversion by - --
2012 and 94% diversion by 2025.
All Marin jurisdictions are being encouraged to adopt a Model Zero Waste Resolution
committing to these reduction goals. The ZW Feasibility Study proposes 28 programs to
reduce waste generation, including Program 11 which states, "Promote countywide
sales and/or disposal ban on single -use plastics."
The City of San Rafael's Climate Change Action Plan (2009) determined that waste
disposal was responsible for 14% of the city's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and
that waste reduction could achieve over half of the city's GHG reduction goals by 2020.
The Plan includes eight programs related to waste reduction, including Program LF -17
which states, "Investigate options for banning nonrecyclable single -use items such as
plastic bags and polystyrene takeout food containers."
ATTACHNIENT D
Municipal Collaboration and Committee Process
Currently two Marin jurisdictions (Fairfax and the County) have adopted regulations
banning single -use carryout bags and four jurisdictions have ordinances which restrict
the types of plastic take-out food containers provided by food service establishments
(Fairfax, Mill Valley, Sausalito and the County).
As stated in the Marin Zero Waste Feasibility Study, "Undertaking product sale and/or
disposal bans are most effective when all Member Agencies simultaneously adopt them
rather than each jurisdiction implementing different bans. Unless all the jurisdictions in
the County adopt the ordinance on consistent terms, bans could result in unintended
economic impacts to the businesses that are required to provide the reusable or paper
bags."
For these reasons the City of San Rafael offered in early 2011 to facilitate a process
involving interested public agencies, community groups and merchants in evaluating
options for reducing single -use plastics. In addition to San Rafael, five cities elected to
participate: Novato, Mill Valley, San Anselmo, Tiburon and Sausalito. The intent was to
recommend a common approach to reducing single -use plastics in the form of plastic
bags and take-out food containers which could be adopted by all or most of Marin's
jurisdictions.
A Single -Use Plastics Advisory Committee (SUPAC) process was initiated in February,
2011, held six meetings, and concluded its work in May, 2011. Over 60 people
participated in the discussions including numerous community groups (Marin
Conservation League, Sustainable San Rafael, Sustainable Fairfax, Teens Turning
Green, Green Sangha, Marin Youth Commission, Promotoras Verdes, the Canal
Alliance, Clean Water Action, Save the Bay and the Environmental Forum of Marin),
industry groups (California Grocers Association, California Restaurants Association,
American Chemistry Council, San Anselmo Chamber of Commerce and Marin Sanitary
Services) and numerous local grocers and restauranteurs. Their principal findings,
recommendations and alternatives are discussed below.
Existing Policv and Regulatory Framework
Ordinances banning single -use carryout bags are becoming increasingly popular
throughout the world (Ireland, Italy, Belgium, Hong Kong, Bangladesh, Switzerland,
Germany) and in the United States (Washington D.C.; Edmonds, Washington;
Brownsville and South Padre Island, Texas; Telluride, Colorado; Hooper Bay, Alaska;
Westport, Connecticut). California in particular has a high proportion of cities and
counties taking action to ban single -use bags, largely because legislative action at the
state level has repeatedly failed to pass due to intense lobbying by the plastics industry.
A summary of bag ban laws is attached as Exhibit 1.
AB2449 was enacted in 2006 which required grocery stores and pharmacies to provide
a plastic bag collection bin to collect used bags for recycling and to keep records of
collection. In exchange, the State legislature precluded cities and counties from
imposing a fee on single -use carryout bags. For that reason, most of the recent bag ban
ordinances adopted in California by local jurisdictions ban both plastic and paper
carryout bags but allow the sale of paper bags to customers for a minimum fee to
discourage the use of non reusable carryout bags.
There have been a number of CEQA lawsuits filed and threatened by the Save the
Plastic Bag Coalition in response to local agencies adopting bag ban ordinances without
the preparation of an EIR. Most recently the County of Marin was sued over its
ordinance adoption which utilized a CEQA exemption to not prepare an environmental
analysis, and will most likely be adjudicated by the end of this year. The City of
Manhattan Beach's lawsuit over preparing a Negative Declaration instead of an EIR was
decided by the California Supreme Court on July 14, 2011. The Supreme Court
determined that the preparation of a Negative Declaration by Manhattan Beach was
appropriate due to the level of potential impacts.
Save the Plastic Bag Coalition believes that paper bags have greater environmental
impacts than plastic bags and should not be favored. This has been borne out by the
preparation of lifecycle analyses of the energy and resources needed to manufacture,
transport and recycle plastic and paper bags. For that reason as well, most of the recent
bag ban ordinances in California ban plastic and impose a fee on paper bags to
encourage reusable bags and significantly reduce the total number of single -use
carryout bags provided to consumers. These anticipated reductions are discussed
below.
There are also a number of major cities in the United States which have banned the use
of extended polystyrene foam (EPS, known as Styrofoam) take-out food and beverage
containers (Chicago, Illinois; Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Suffolk County,
New York; Freeport, Maine) and 48 California jurisdictions (see Exhibit 2 for a summary).
All of these ordinances ban EPS containers, and some require that compostable
alternatives be used instead. Some of the ordinances requiring compostable alternative
packaging include a waiver if the compostable alternatives exceed a certain price
differential.
Major Findings:
Much of the information below was obtained from EIRs prepared by the cities of San
Jose and Santa Monica and the County of Los Angeles, and from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Impacts of Single -Use Disposable Plastics
■ Plastics make up about 10% of Marin's waste stream, and plastic bags by weight do
not constitute a large percentage of disposal tonnage.
• It is estimated that about 128 million plastic carryout bags are distributed by retailers
in Marin each year and about 15 million paper carryout bags. That equates to about
600 bags per person per year.
• Because of their shape and light weight, plastic bags and EPS food containers are
highly windblown throughout the urban environment and into creeks, wetlands and
the Bay.
• Municipal costs to pick-up plastic bags and containers are substantial. The City of
Los Angeles determined that one-quarter of storm drain debris was composed of
plastic bags.
• The Redwood Landfill employs a full-time position to pick up windborne plastic bags.
• 60-80% of man-made marine debris is plastic.
• Plastic bags were the second -most common item collected during worldwide Coastal
Cleanup Day in 2009.
• Plastic bags and EPS containers degrade into smaller pieces which are more difficult
to remove from the environment and are consumed by wildlife,
■ The manufacture, transport and recycling of paper bags creates over 3 times more
greenhouse gases than plastic bags, consumes twice as much energy and four times
as much water and create almost 3 times more solid waste.
■ The manufacture, transport and recycling of reusable bags use far less natural
resources than either plastic or paper disposable bags.
■ On June 10, 2011 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released its
Report on Carcinogens, and included styrene (contained in EPS products) in a list of
6 chemicals which may cause cancer in humans. While advising consumers to avoid
contact with styrene, the report but also indicated that styrene is found in such low
levels in consumer products that cancer risks are low.
Recvclinq Potential
■ Only 9% of all plastic bags and product wraps were recycled in 2009.
■ Only 7% of all plastic waste generated in 2009 was recycled.
■ The costs of collecting and separating plastics for recycling far exceed the fluctuating
sales prices, requiring substantial financial subsidies in local waste franchise
agreements. A recent study found that processing plastic bags for recycling cost
$536/ton while the market price was $32/ton.
■ Virtually all plastic recycling is processed in China due to relaxed environmental
standards and low wages. While there are no definitive statistics on the amount of
plastics shipped to China that are actually recycled, there is substantial evidence that
a high proportion ends up being incinerated or landfill, with serious human and
environmental health consequences.
■ Recycled plastic bag are "down cycled" into less useful compounds, having only one
additional use before becoming landfill. The most common use of recycled plastic
bags is plastic lumber (e.g.,Trex).
The Difficulties with Compostable Alternatives
■ The most surprising finding of the Committee's investigations surrounds the use of
plant -based plastics (called "bioplastics") which are said to be compostable. These
bags and containers are becoming increasingly popular with consumers wishing to
reduce non -recyclable waste. Unfortunately, bioplastics are considered
contaminants in both the recycled plastic waste stream and in commercial
composting operations. The bioplastic containers are made to break down over
time, so cannot be included with more stable plastic products sold to the recycling
market. At this time they do not degrade rapidly enough to be included in organic
waste that is now being diverted to large-scale composting operations. The
Committee's strong conclusion is that bioplastics should not be encouraged.
® Bioplastics and even compostable paper products such as cups contain proprietary
chemical compounds to make them waterproof, rigid or flexible. Environmental
organizations have serious concerns about specific chemicals being used and their
toxicity to humans and in the soil.
FA Representatives from both the County and Mill Valley, which have ordinances
requiring that businesses shift to compostable take-out containers, have not enforced
those provisions due to concerns about bioplastics, and recommend that such
alternatives not be required at the present time.
Effects of a Single -Use Carrvout Baq Ban
■ The City of San Jose EIR estimates that a ban on both paper and plastic carryout
bags and an allowance to purchase a recycled content paper bag for a minimum of
10¢ would reduce the use of plastic carryout bags by 95%. It would initially double
the use of paper bags, but this would decrease as customers switch to reusable
bags. The overall significant reduction in total disposable bag use was found to have
a positive environmental impact.
■ The County of Marin estimated that its proposed 5¢ minimum paper bag charge
would reduce overall disposable bag use by 60%.
Results of Merchant Survev on a Sinqle-Use Carrvout Baa Ban
As part of the Advisory Committee process, we surveyed 250 San Rafael retailers by
mail to obtain their feedback about a potential carryout bag ordinance, similar to that
adopted by the County, but applied to all retailers. We received 85 returned surveys, a
response rate of 34%. The results are shown in the following charts, with the chart on
the left showing all categories of responses, and the chart on the right with categories
combined.
1. Whether the business would support or oppose such an ordinance:
The survey also encouraged written comments, which are attached as Exhibit 3. Many
of the retailers who were opposed to the ordinance expressed a philosophical objection
to government's involvement in regulating business practices.
Recommendations
Single -Use Carrvout Baqs
The Committee recommends adoption of an ordinance to reduce single -use carryout
bags similar to that adopted by Marin County, believing that consistency among
jurisdictions in Marin is very important for both the public and merchants. Adoption
would not occur until pending CEQA litigation at the California Supreme Court and in
Marin County has concluded, and the level of required environmental analysis has been
determined.
This ordinance would:
■ Ban stores from providing free plastic or paper carryout bags,
■ Allow stores to sell recycled content paper bags to customers for a minimum of
5¢, to be retained by the merchant, both to compensate the merchant for the cost
of the paper bags but also to send a price signal to consumers to encourage use
of reusable bags,
■ Apply only to grocery stores, pharmacies and convenience stores,
■ Exempt non -handled meat, produce and pharmacy bags,
■ Exempt customers who participate in the State Supplemental Food Program,
allowing them to receive paper carryout bags at no cost, and
■ Allow retailers to give free reusable carryout bags as part of a promotion.
The Committee also recommended that the ordinance include:
■ An option which could be adopted by the jurisdiction which would apply the
ordinance to all retailers a year after its effective date for grocers, pharmacies and
convenience stores, and
• A statement that the agency will reconsider the level of the minimum paper bag
fee when it evaluates the effectiveness of the ordinance after implementation to
assure that it is sufficient to cause a major reduction in total disposable carryout
bag use and whether to apply it to all retailers if the agency chooses not to include
the option above.
Implementation
The County of Marin has offered to jurisdictions which adopt this model ordinance by the
end of 2011 that they will provide at least initial enforcement through regular on-site
inspections by the Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures as part of their
normal annual inspections of scales and registers. Depending upon the number of
Marin cities which elect to adopt the model ordinance, the participating cities and County
may need to request some additional funding from the Marin County Hazardous and
Solid Waste Management JPA for expanded outreach efforts to affected businesses.
As part of enforcement of the ordinance, the County would notify the stores of the
ordinance requirements and verify compliance through a subsequent inspection. The
County has a sliding fee schedule for reinspections due to non-compliance. An M.Q.U.
between the County and each participating city would be necessary for this delegation of
enforcement and to define the desired progressive enforcement protocols and fines.
Businesses which do not comply after repeated notifications and fines would be
identified to the local city for ultimate enforcement of their ordinance. It is important to
note that cities that have enacted plastic bag bans have experienced very little
noncompliance from retailers.
The County has also offered to facilitate preparation of both educational outreach
materials to retailers and the public and a reusable bag "guidance document" providing
durability standards for reusable bags.
Plastic Take -Out Containers
The Committee recommends adoption of an ordinance to eliminate expanded
polystyrene (EPS) take-out food containers, the most impactful disposable food
packaging on both the environment and municipal clean-up costs.
This ordinance would:
■ Ban restaurants and retail food vendors from providing EPS take-out food
containers (cups, plates, "clamshells"),
■ Ban EPS containers from a city's facilities and sponsored events, and
■ Exempt meat packaging trays, which do not typically become litter.
Implementation
The County of Marin has offered to jurisdictions which adopt this model ordinance by the
end of 2011 that they will provide at least initial enforcement through regular on-site
inspections through the County Environmental Health Service as part of their normal
annual inspections of food purveyors. The County would notify the food vendors of the
ordinance requirements and verify compliance through a subsequent inspection.
Businesses which do not comply after repeated notifications would be identified to the
local city for ultimate enforcement of their ordinance. As noted above, an M.O.U.
between the County and participating cities would be necessary for such enforcement.
Other Options
Take -Out Food Containers
The Committee extensively discussed means of reducing the amount of waste
generated by take-out food containers, and acknowledged that there do not seem to be
existing regulatory models at present that we could analyze and recommend. Some of
the proposals discussed by the Committee included:
Durable Food Ware for On -Site Consumption
A possible ordinance requiring that restaurants and retail food vendors ask customers if
they intend to dine -in or take-out food, and provide all dine -in customers with durable
food ware (non -disposable plates, cups, silverware, etc.) was discussed.
Representatives of the California Restaurant Association, the California Grocers
Association and Burger King Corporation raised objectives, noting that such a regulation
would have a severe impact on fast -service establishments, necessitating increases in
interior space and capital costs for dishwashing equipment and storage of durable food
ware, and in labor costs.
It is possible that such a requirement could be applied to only beverage purveyors, such
as coffeehouses or smoothie shops, since some of these purveyors already offer such
choices and which would involve a lower volume of durable food ware for on-site
consumption, although narrowly defining such businesses from other food purveyors that
offer broader menu choices could be difficult.
Since the consensus of the city representatives was that they would not recommend
such an ordinance for adoption to their agencies, some Committee members have
indicated an intention to attempt to work with a local fast-food restaurant to have them
voluntarily implement such a policy.
Mandatory Fillinq of Reusable Food Containers
A possible ordinance requiring that restaurants and retail food vendors provide take-out
food or beverages into a customer's reusable food container or cup was discussed.
Representatives of the California Restaurant Association, the California Grocers
Association and several local markets and restaurateurs raised objectives, citing great
concerns over the potential for cross contamination between the customer -provided
container and the food purveyor's preparation surfaces and utensils. A representative of
the County Health Department stated that the state food code does not prohibit the filling
of a customer's container, and that this could be accomplished without public health
problems with certain defined protocols. However, the fear of the consequences to a
business of infecting numerous customers caused some of the industry representatives
and local merchants to state they could only refill containers that they had first washed
and sterilized, which would not be practical, particularly for high-volume establishments.
The Committee also discussed whether such an ordinance would be more reasonably
applied to take-out beverages only, since there is a much lower potential for
contamination with hot beverages or with common soda dispensers, and since this
practice is also common at many coffeehouses. Since the consensus of the city
representatives was that they would not recommend such an ordinance for adoption to
their agencies, some Committee members have indicated an intention to attempt to work
with a selected coffeehouse to have them voluntarily implement such a policy.
Fee on Take -Out Food Containers
A possible ordinance requiring that restaurants and retail food vendors charge a
minimum fee for all take-out food containers was discussed. One local restaurateur
informed the Committee that she charges customers a $1 fee for take-out orders,
including "doggy bags," as a means of offsetting the costs of higher -priced take-out
containers made from more environmentally preferable materials. She indicated that
this fee did not seem to dissuade customers from paying the price for the take-out
option. The Committee therefore concluded that the price point to change customer
behavior was most likely higher than the Committee felt comfortable recommending at
this time.
Opportunities for Continued Collaboration
The Single -Use Plastics Advisory Committee process confirmed that there are several
community groups willing to devote time and energy to waste reduction efforts. It was
also apparent that there are significant misconceptions among the public about the best
ways to reduce plastic waste (such as the purchase use of bioplastics as compostable
alternatives) and by some merchants in terms of reasons to reduce use of plastic bags.
The County has offered to facilitate further work on educational outreach materials, and
the County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management JPA, the participating cities and
community groups could assist greatly in disseminating this information.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Summary of bag ban ordinances
Exhibit 2: Summary of EPS ban ordinances
Exhibit 3: Merchant comments from San Rafael bag ban survey
Exhibit 4: Agendas and summaries of Single -Use Plastics Advisory Committee
meetings
California Single -Use Bag Ordinances
Current Status, January 2812
By Jennie Romer, PlasticBag Laws. org
CURRENT ORDINANCES
Implemented
1. Citv and Countv of San Francisco (CatEx)
• plastic ban
• applies to supermarkets and large chain pharmacies
2. Citv of Malibu (CatEx)
• plastic ban
• applies to all retailers and restaurants
3. Town of Fairfax (voter initiative)
• plastic ban
• applies to all retailers and restaurants
4. Citv of Palo Alto (MitNegDec)
• plastic ban
• applies to supermarkets
5. Unincorporated Los Anqeles Countv (EIR) ***
• plastic ban, min 10 -cent charge for paper
• applies to all supermarkets, large pharmacies, and retailers that sell food
• Prop 26 lawsuit pending, but ordinance in effect
6. Citv of Calabasas (relied on LA County EIR)
• plastic ban, min 10 -cent charge for paper
• applies to all supermarkets, large pharmacies, and retailers that sell food
7. ON of Lonq Beach (addendum to LA County EIR)
• plastic ban, min 10 -cent charge for paper
• applies to all supermarkets, large pharmacies, and retailers that sell food
8. Citv of Santa Monica (EIR)
• plastic ban, min 10 -cent charge for paper
• applies to all retailers and restaurants, with exemption for take-out food
9. ON of San Jose (EIR)
• plastic ban, min 10 -cent charge for paper (increases to 25 cents)
• applies to all retailers, with exemption for charitable organizations
10. Unincorporated Santa Clara Countv (NegDec)
• plastic ban, min 15 -cent charge for paper
• applies to all retailers, with exemption for charitable and social organizations
Exhibit 1 (Updated 1,'21012)
11. Unincorporated Marin Countv (CatEx) ***
• plastic ban, min 5 -cent charge for paper
• applies to all supermarkets, large pharmacies, and retailers that sell food
12. Citv of Manhattan Beach (NegDec)
• plastic ban
• applies to all retailers and restaurants
• operative date 1/14/12 for large retailers & 7/14/12 for small
Adopted, Not Implemented
1. Unincorporated Santa Cruz Countv (MitNegDec) ***
*plastic ban, min 10 -cent charge for paper (increases to 25 cents)
• applies to all retailers and restaurants
• operative date of 3/13/12
2. Citv of Pasadena (addendum to LA County EIR)
• plastic ban, min 10 -cent charge for paper
• applies to all supermarkets, large pharmacies, and retailers that sell food
• operative date 7/1/12 for large retailers & 12/31/12 for small
3. Citv of Monterev (NegDec)
• plastic ban, min 10 -cent charge for paper (increases to 25 cents)
• applies to all supermarkets, large pharmacies, and retailers that sell food
• operative date 6/6/12
4. Citv of Sunnvvale (EIR)
• plastic ban, min 10 -cent charge for paper (increases to 25 cents)
• applies to all supermarkets, pharmacies, and retailers that sell food
• operative date 6/20/12 for large retailers & 3/20/13 for small
5. San Luis Obispo Countv Intearated Waste Management Authoritv (CatEx)
• plastic ban, min 10 -cent charge for paper
• applies to all supermarkets, pharmacies, large stores, and convenience stores
• applies to all of SLO County (incorporated & unincorporated areas)
• operative date 9/1/12 for plastic bag ban & 12/1/12 for paper charge
Adopted. Invalidated by Lawsuit
1. Citv of Oakland (CatEx)
• plastic ban
• would have applied to all large retailers
** lawsuit pending
Exhibit 1 (Updated 1/21,112)
Official Hearina re: Adoption Scheduled
1. City of Milbrae (Neg Dec)
• draft ordinance language not available
• applies to all supermarkets, pharmacies, and retailers that sell food
• first reading 1/24/12
2. Countv of Alameda (EIR)
• plastic ban, min 10 -cent charge for paper and reusable bags
• applies to all supermarkets, pharmacies, and retailers that sell food
• second reading 1/24/12
3. City and Countv of San Francisco (expansion of current ordinance) (CatEx)
• plastic ban, min 10 -cent charge for paper
• applies to all retailers and restaurants
• hearing continued to 2/7/12
Under Discussion (formaliv and informally)
1. City of Belmont
26. City of Milpitas
2. City of Berkeley
27. County of Napa
3. City of Burbank
28. City of Pacific Grove
4. City of Capitola
29. City of Palm Desert
5. City of Carpenteria
30. City of Pinole
6. City of Chico
31. City of Richmond
7. County of Contra Costa (West
32. City of Sacramento
County)
33. County of Sacramento
8. City of Culver City
34. City of Salinas
9. City of Daly City
35. City of San Clemente
10. Citv of Dana Point
36. County of San Mateo
11. City of Davis
37. City of San Pablo
12. City of EI Cerrito
38. City of Santa Rosa
13. City of Encinitas
39. City of San Rafael
14. City of Fremont
40. City of San Ramon
15. City of Glendale
41. City of Santa Barbara
16. City of Hayward
42. City of Santa Clara
17. City of Hercules
43. City of Santa Cruz
18. County of Humboldt Waste
44. City of Scotts Valley
Management Authority
45. City of Solana Beach
19. City of Huntington Beach
46. County of Sonoma
20. City of Indio
47. City of South Lake Tahoe
21. City of Inglewood
48. City of South Pasadena
22. City of Laguna Beach
49. City of South San Francisco
23. City of Los Angeles
50. Town of Tiburon
24. County of Mendocino
51. City of West Hollywood
25. City if Mill Valley
52. City of Ukiah
From
Exhibit 1 (Updated 1 `21112)
Polystyrene Bans in California
Compiled by Clean Water Action (2011)
City of Alameda - Enacted January 2008
• Prohibits vendors from providing disposable food service ware made of EPS and requires disposable food service
ware to be biodegradable or compostable.
• All City facilities are prohibited from using polystyrene foam disposable food service ware and all city departments
and agencies will not purchase or acquire polystyrene foam disposable food service ware for use at city facilities.
• Food vendors are strongly encouraged to provide reusable food service ware in place of disposable food service
ware. In instances where food vendors decide to use a biodegradable or compostable disposable food service
ware product to hat is not affordable, a food vendor may charge a "take out fee" to customers to cover to he cost
difference (enforced on July 1, 2008).
• t_in t to orclinanc,e (pdf)
City of Albany - Enacted September 1, 2008
• The ban prohibits to he use of polystyrene foam take out food containers at all food service facilities within to he
City.
• !. nk to ordinance
City of Aliso Viejo - Effective July 1,2005
• All polystyrene products are not allowed to be used by food vendors etc.
• Ordinance # 2004-060
City of Berkeley - Adopted January 1990
• Prohibits restaurants and retail food vendors from serving prepared food in EPS products (both on premises and
take-out); requires >/= 50% (by volume) of food packaging at restaurants and retail food vendors to be comprised
of recyclable or degradable material. It also prohibits to he City of Berkeley from purchasing any EPS food
packaging, or utilizing such packaging at City -sponsored events and requires >/= 50% (by volume) of to he food
packaging which to he City, or any City -sponsored event to be recyclable or degradable.
• Penalty = guilty of an infraction according to Berkeley municipal code; City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or
other equitable relief as enforcement.
• Li;-, to ordinance (Title .11.; 8 and .I'I.60)
City of Burlingame, CA - Enacted May 2011
• Prohibits food vendors from using expanded polystryrene disposable foodservice ware
• Does not include straws, utensils, cups, lids, or packing of unprepared foods
• The Envrionmental Health Division can grant a one year exemption if the food vendor can demonstrate undue
hardship
• Penatly: first violation = $100 fine; second violation = $200 fine; thrid violation = $500 fine
• i...iSs.. "M Oidinc nE.=r
City of Calabasas, CA - Effective July 1, 2007
• Prohibits sale or distribution of EPS food packaging from restaurants and retail food vendors. Prohibits sale or
distribution of EPS food packaging at City facilities or City events. Exemptions due to high cost of alternatives and
contractual obligations are allowed if approved by to he City Manager.
• Penalty: guilty of an infraction according to Calabasas municipal code. City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or
other equitable relief as enforcement.
City of Capitola, CA - Adopted December 2009
• Prohibits to he use of EPS food packaging from restaurants and retail food vendors. Requires use of compostable
or recyclable food packaging by restaurants and retail food vendors, as long as it is more affordable.
• Penalty: after to hree months of effective date first = written warning; second violation = fine not to exceed $100; to
third violation = fine not to exceed $200; fourth and subsequent violations = fine not to exceed $500.
• After challenge from to he Restaurant Association, to he food packaging ordinance was reaffirmed by council in
June 2007.
• Ordinance # 939 became effective 5/23109
City of Carmel, CA - Adopted 1989
• Prohibits food vendors from providing take-out food packaging made from EPS.
• Prohibits wholesalers doing business within to he city from selling EPS food packaging.
• Link to ordinance (Title &68,
City of Del Rey Oaks- Adopted December 2009
• Does not apply to single -use plastic straws, cup lids and utensils.
• Permits food service operators to sell pre-packaged food to hat food service operators buy and resell to customers.
• Requires food service operators to use biodegradable, compostable or recyclable products. It defines recyclable
plastics as plastics coded with resin identification codes of 1-5 and recyclable as any material to hat is accepted by
to he City of special district recycling program, including, but not limited to, paper, glass, aluminum, cardboard and
plastic bottles, jars and to ubs.
• i.. ink to orfinance (Page 85) (pdf)
City of Emeryville, CA - Adopted March 2006
• Prohibits to he use of polystyrene foam disposable food service ware
• Disposable food service ware must be biodegradable/compostable or recyclable, unless to here is no available
biodegradable/compostable or recyclable alternative,
• Link to ordinance
City of Fairfax, CA - Adopted in 1993
• Prohibits EPS food packaging for all restaurants and food retail vendors.
•
Link to orda'in,,,Ince (Tittle 8.15)
City of Fremont, CA - Effective January 1, 2011
• Prohibits EPS disposable foodware from vendors within to he city. Vendors would be required to use recyclable or
compostable material instead.
• Lir;k to ordinance
City of Half Moon Bay, CA - Enacted May 2011
• Prohibits food vendors from using expanded polystryrene disposable foodservice ware
• Does not include straws, utensils, cups, lids, or packing of unprepared foods
• The Envrionmental Health Division can grant a one year exemption if the food vendor can demonstrate undue
hardship
• Penatly: first violation = $100 fine; second violation = $200 fine; thrid violation = $500 fine
• i_i, k t,) ()rr i l i c':: (it -in �'0}
City of Hayward, CA - Effective July 1, 2010
• Prohibits EPS disposable foodware from being used by food vendors or city facilities.
• Alternatives must be recyclable or compostable products.
• Link to staif rf:°j.^W to h t ill-1cl=.1des ordWiaC)Ce (pdf)
City of Hercules, CA - Adopted May 2008
• Bans all EPS beverage cups, takeout containers and other food service utensils in restaurants and at city facilities.
s Penalties: A first offense would result in a written notice of violation; a second, in a $100 fine; and subsequent
violations, a $250 fine
. y. x, rar '•,n r, . -1 l -r yn,(C 7�'%Y ..
• i_!i t,. iii i.r i;., �'�c.,ll.. ,. ,ti o'`lr, ':"v i'tJ,`',r, .. .,:f. . _%lS... .:i}
City of Huntington Beach - Adopted January 2005
• Prohibits City from purchasing/acquiring EPS food service products in City buildings and City sponsored events;
contracting parties should prevent use of EPS food service products by attendees or vendors. Exempts to he City's
Senior Nutrition Program.
• '..'„Ck4 ):L i;i iii r;' .=' �1r:;;,tr' 19- (pdf)
City of Laguna Beach - Adopted December 2007; Effective July 1, 2008.
Mild +
• Prohibits local food establishments from serving customers disposable food service ware made from EPS and non-
recyclable plastic, including polystyrene.
• This prohibition applies tall restaurants, shops, retail stores, grocery stores, delicatessens, or food coaches located
within to he City of Laguna Beach.
• Prohibits use of single use EPS containers and kitchen ware at city facilities and sponsored events, restaurants,
and retail food vendors.
• Precludes to he use of EPS or non-recyclable plastic at all city facilities and related uses
• Enforcement: written notice for first violation, fines of $100, $200, and $500 for subsequent violations.
• Link, to to he ordinance (T.t,', ,05)
City of Laguna Hills - Adopted April 2008
• EPS prohibited at municipal facilities
City of Laguna Woods - Adopted May 2004
• Prohibits to he use of polystyrene food service products within city facilities and at city-sponsored events.
• Link to ordinance
City of Livermore, CA - Enacted October 2010
• Prohibits all food vendors from using expanded polystyrene food packaging and requires food vendors to provide
recyclable or compostable disposable foodservice ware. Straws, untensils, and cup lids are not included.
• One year exemptions granted by Environment and Energy Committee if the food vendor can deomnstrate undue
hardship.
• Does not apply to prepackaged food and emergency supplies.
• Penalty: first violation =$100 fine; second violation = $200 fine; thrid violation = $500 fine.
• t i ' i; ro OI-dinance
City of Los Angeles, CA - Adopted July 22, 2008,
• EPS ban at all city facilities and ban on plastic carryout bags.
County of Los Angeles, CA - June 2008,
• EPS ban at all county facilities in phase I and investigating feasibility of expanding ban tall retailers for phase
• (. nk o oroin;.anC`.) (pdf)
City of Malibu, CA - Adopted February 2005
• Prohibits all restaurants, retail food vendors and non-profit food providers from serving or packaging food, meat,
eggs or bakery products in EPS containers. Does not apply to items packaged outside Malibu, but sold within City
boundaries.
• Penalty: first violation = written warning; second violation = $100 fine; to third violation = $200 fine; to third and
subsequent violations = $5,p00 fine.
• ii { t,3 or dinan� ,-, : itis, _ 24
• li '; iRi C)i" ."icu'tC`; l...t {i£�r }?C; „atC,'t'ir aE';CE (pdf)
City of Millbrae, CA - Adopted October 2007
• Prohibits food vendors from providing prepared food to customers in foam or solid polystyrene disposable food
service ware. Provisions also apply to individuals or entities using City facilities; purchases by City departments or
agencies are also prohibited. Exemptions include food prepared or packaged outside to he City, if specific items or
types of food service ware do not exist for a specific application or for undue hardship.
• Violators will receive a written warning: subsequent violations may include penalties established in to he Municipal
Code; administrative hearings may be held to adjudicate penalties.
County of Marin- Adopted October 2008; effective January 2010
• Bans expanded polystyrene and requires to he use of "biodegradable" foodware
• "i!{ .t .,., i'''';,Ss?`ts: , (pdf)
County of Monterey, CA - Adopted April 2010; effective [november 2010
• Prohibits take out PS foam packaging in unincorporated areas of Monterey County.
• 1_ink to ordinance
City of Monterey - Adopted February 2009
• Prohibits food providers from dispensing prepared food to customers made from non -recyclable plastic and
expanded polystyrene (EPS).
• Prohibits all City facilities, City -managed concessions, and City sponsored and permitted events from non -
recyclable plastic and EPS food service containers.
• Penalty: set forth in city's administrative fine resolution
• Link to c. dinance (par)
City of Newport Beach, CA - Adopted October 14, 2008; Effective April 29, 2009
• Bans all polystyrene food packaging containers at all restaurants, food vendors, and all city facilities and city -
sponsored events.
• i_ink to ordinance (Title 6 Section 5)
City of Oakland, CA - Adopted June 2006
• Prohibits food vendors from providing prepared food in EPS to customers. Prohibits all City franchises, contracts,
and vendors from using EPS food service containers at City facilities or on City projects. Requires all food vendors
using any disposable food service ware to use biodegradable or compostable disposable food service ware unless
to hey can show an affordable biodegradable or compostable product is not available for a specific application.
When biodegradable or compostable disposable food service ware is not affordable, a food vendor may charge a
"take out fee" to customers to cover to he cost difference. Food vendors are further encouraged to reuse food
service ware in place of using disposable food service ware. to he City will conduct an effectiveness study by
1/1/08.
• Penalty: first violation = written warning; second violation = a fine not to exceed $100.00; to third warning = a fine
not to exceed $200.00; fourth warning = a fine not to exceed $500.00.
• i InK to ordinance 5 la 8.07
County of Orange, CA - Adopted 2006/7
• Bans to he possession, sale, or distribution of EPS as disposable food packaging at all county -owned facilities
City of Pacific Grove, CA - Adopted May 2008
• Ban on EPS food packaging and requires food service ware to be biodegradable or compostable.
• Lir* `o ardii'anl-R (paf)
City of Pacifica, CA - As of September November 2009,
• Council passed an ordinance banning EPS from restaurants and supermarkets EPS take-out containers.
• L_'Ok to ordlnan .,
City of Palo Alto, CA - Adopted April 2009; Goes into Effect April 22, 2010
• Ban on EPS and non -recyclable food containers from retail food vendors and city facilities and vendors
•1 ! P d'ddi' n,,-; r, c,.
City of Pittsburg, CA - Enacted 1991
• Requires restaurants to phase out EPS
• Requires at least 50% of food packaging to be made from recyclable material.
• ,li'i.'. Yy1 irvE!',;: ,ii.tr';'. ie.".,?,'.?.2',
City of Richmond, CA - Adopted October 20, 2009; Effective April 2009
• Bans all disposable foodware, except biodegradable or compostable and aluminum
• Strong preference for reusable foodware, especially at city facilities and with city events and vendors
• Subject to misdemeanor violation penalties in Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 2.62
ce
City of San Bruno, CA - Adopted January 27, 2009; Goes into effect April 1, 2010
• Prohibits to he use of EPS and PS foodware, including lids, straws and utensils
• Allows use of biodegradable, compostable, and recyclable foodware
• Violations may result in fines according to the Municipal Code:
o 1st = warning, 2nd = $100, 3rd = $200, 4th = $500.
o Enforcement is by to he City of San Bruno, not to he County Health Inspector
• Link, to, the ordinance (pdf)
City of San Clemente, CA - Adopted March 2004; expanded December 2010
• Expands original action from 2004 to hat prevented city vendors from using EPS
• Prohibits businesses from using EPS food service ware.
• Went into effect July 2010.
• Link to ondinance
City and County of San Francisco, CA - Adopted November 2006
• Prohibits to he use of EPS food service ware and requires to he use of biodegradable/compostable or recyclable
alternatives by restaurants, retail food vendors, City departments, and City contractors and lessees, unless to here
is no affordable alternative.
• Penalty: first violation - written warning; second violation = fine not to exceed $100; to third violation = fine not to
exceed $200; all subsequent violations = fine not to exceed $250, with annual violations not to exceed $500.
• Unk to ordinar,,(;e (pdf)
City of San Jose - Adopted November 2009
• Prohibits vendors' use of polystyrene foam at specified public events
• Link to spec-lal Events POIi f (pdf)
City of San Juan Capistrano - Adopted April 2004
• Prohibits City from purchasing/acquiring EPS food service products in City buildings and City sponsored events;
contracting parties should prevent use of EPS food service products by attendees or vendors. Encourages
businesses, NGOs, groups, and other governmental entities to cease purchase of EPS food service products.
• Penalty: forfeit of rental contractor's or permittee's security deposit.
• _.ink to or di?'ic. nce
San Mateo County, CA - Enacted April 22,2008
• Bans EPS and "non -recyclable plastic" disposable food service ware at all county facilities. Requires all county
facilities and departments to use compostable or biodegradable food service ware.
• ;_ink to ordin.,,,nce
City of Santa Monica - Adopted February 2007
• Prohibits food providers from dispensing prepared food to customers made from non -recyclable plastic and
expanded polystyrene (EPS).
• Prohibits all City facilities, City -managed concessions, and City sponsored and permitted events from non -
recyclable plastic and EPS food service containers.
• Penalty: first violation = written warning; second violation = $100 fine; to third and subsequent violations = $250
fine; fines are cumulative and each day to hat a violation occurs shall constitute a separate violation.
• it lc", crdinance (pdf)
City of Santa Cruz - Adopted January 2008
• Prohibits EPS and requires biodegradable, compostable, or recyclable alternatives.
County of Santa Cruz, CA- Enacted January 2008
• Ail food vendors are prohibited from distributing EPS packaging.
• Requires to hat at least 5W'O of each retailer's food packaging be biodegradable or compostable.
• f_.f; i; a ,, or',lit',", ,., (pdf)
City of Scotts Valley, CA - Adopted June 2008; Effective June 17, 2009
• Bans EPS food containers at all retail food vendors and requires to he use of biodegradable and compostable food
container and service ware.
• Penalties: first violation ($100); second violation ($200) to third violation ($500) and fines for food providers in
connection with a commercial or non-commercial special event.
• i_',''I'F, fi.x tl??liil�!:;p r E art.."' .. C,.,x ,fYf,�,.i ;�
Exhibit 2
City of Seaside, CA - Effective 8/4/10
• Doesn't specify what businesses are impacted.
• Bans PS foodware, allows biodegradable food packaging.
County of Sonoma, CA - Adopted June 1989
• Prohibits any person from willfully possessing, giving, receiving, lending, offering or exposing for sale, delivering,
furnishing, transferring or disposing of polystyrene foam food packaging on county premises.
• Penalty: an infraction is punishable by a fine not exceeding $250.
• _ink to ordii,aric c, (Gliapter I0 5.'I)
City of South San Francisco, CA - Effective October 1, 2008
• Green Foods Packaging ordinance
• Applies to food providers, city facilities, projects and events.
• Bans polystyrene foam disposable food service ware.
• City Manager issues written warning, 30 days to comply.
• Penalties are first violation $100, second violation $200, and to third violation $500
•
Link to ordinance
County of Ventura, CA - Adopted October 2004
• Prohibits the use of EPS food service products at to he County harbor, parks, Government Center, and County -
sponsored events by vendors, franchisees, lessees, contractors or other commercial food and beverage purveyors.
Encourages businesses, NGOs, groups, and other governmental entities to cease purchase of EPS food service
products.
• Link to ordinance (pd#)
City of West Hollywood, CA - Adopted 1990
• Prohibits polystyrene food packaging for all retail food vendors and restaurants.
• _ini to oidl nance
j '?Fig^. .. st 7Y"•:"�" Y'T%,'� i'is d'Y •�t' �+.".:• f? ^T� C
From
Exhibit 2
Shigle-Use Carryout Bag Survey
Written 001"ments
A What took [lie citi(yS - o long? jut. Who :a all die Eurapa',in ,bar don't use pliuic
Vve%-'ll pr'C'
'I dlunli"'ak "vitil vcnt';() caps to allow ga-,ou) escape to nted pJasuic bags in char situadon,
I'd kki> to ;r,c Mat it) C,'nt inty br,� a load, -,r if) this bag
* Abcluct:ly mvpid. lin-ticiflL uso c"f J.-J"Astic' but paper? HOW Can the Orly tin -11 you Whatto cllarg('. for?
* i d1i nk it is a good and d-iould be emll syToiwd by (,u<tonwrs il I crus
* U.w, fi,rw tmgs lititwo-faldn'L fool comfol riblo Charging
* Mo gers the nioney?
* A lot of pecipW ciin't ifford tr, 1,,4)Y a C;� llolltofc'sr" early for thein?
* 'Big 5'Cfuves jikt' Sife-,vay ek"Wr' coslli.: t;J' v'idf a "N"iy to '0'_vc" ;vvvay and Cr'F:Ati-: ml ont".tir plqing fiMlt
* GaVc Aiwdd Nna thisir divulvenwin how I trian mW opmom nq UwAcm.
* Fus dwr ib itymine rw== Midy t4set at ina,ca%rd fowl prio--. who fi?ti-'i Strongly
dli, bring 0v--ir cwvn 11.a a:; to
* Von do not cury papc'r P'Lv�tic ;ire N( -)I' 8a,t they ire niorc ivcyclab1c rhan juipM!
* Why AM be "Wis city tuxurcils nrwd Mir One and rewurvs on hvil&j onmil Eudn"s not hm tog A
* Mic bags ermis 1110 odw; don i papu bag ducs awl We tqi Us qmcu W in oqvfn mid WON which h,
VAOM both WW up Mjw,a '<.
* Don't You have nlorc- ifliport'-ult thh"s U) 1Vun7 abots? SaWAY n"n don way 40 grml cutol vis", M"
and Twyed Good CA Of!
.1 Nocippkabkoro tuxlers.gracul and My stays i, , eilcs ra'o;if(-r;uWg die IMS Inign Papershvilik
litambRewy,
* We wmdd be W fawx of WnA g phot
* Wc sell iMfle unordi iTuSe u an%kctlonn whkh sonwdoms rv,,quiv('si, hig to cofiudri. Wonf.i r,.,cycklk.
PANC Q's 010Y.
* I woAM hve an Aemasm 1 cWd Om a ham hn Wt W muism dian i Iva,
* Too ;wK Q EToW."
* Poor covehng stON - cuumiers do not brinz, dwr Own clod, bags Mom umv W cmWer "M; U.J a.
pbsk Q kr vifow vid dw weigin of our1.',,voducts are not conduci'v-."; LO p:`t�)Cr
Wc,re in process of ptfrch.4�..irlg papn.'rb;'q' lql,- lAivc i4 ii.r'.;nI forbod'.
0 Too nowh gait Aw"umbn on K&A 4Aq,,;,
* Flur "Our ".-m-.'nuan on imp.mum stimus, the cnal; coA of pips alld pbsk 4 rho num'=,
0 M mWpy :stir (ustanurs with vniom cams bags {V}:ud whMnog Nr ww Qt Rx 004 smTkv 11q,
OMMM to my dfi-;q-nfr'lf- - '�i for our 1:iu'%inos5.
. (IT Won,: Nigs Worod dinlown pa" Maw ousionwK
i'ltol in pit'' to Hie
WwAM bqs will ion vAn Mw Kyle, We uncre wdy ; qNsWi that will Ciw;kU., i'C
dur rount be AWL or Qq'MH MANK.
k k halt* raw 111 -it
Pe!p!e ari'? alr,'ad� ate ofto rcT;sUng Ws 4 nvadat M next 1u=v4xy is va- qMnl'
f* mc-ve tC". '.0-il tOW"",
Owl M iy"Twk Wh R 1 W00W was Wd rinnql!
i'{'
jr,,.j-pc: frc-afl �',ur ;kn'o
Y.0
af c-timin",!'co�,ts and swowiOng custuamrs to bring Mew nvni b,
cif is� ucl "In,'J no bWQ %Wv a &f r'za n ��o to
i'toigt� i'c'
nq"."r?.
Exhibit 3
Single -Use PlasticsAdvisory
Agenda
Tuesday, February 22, 2011; 1:00-3:00pm
Community Development Conference Room
1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael
Purpose of the Meeting
Education regarding impacts of single -use carryout bags
IL Educational Presentations
Topic
1. Local impacts of plastic bags
2. Impacts of paper vs. plastic bags
3. Recycling potential of plastic bags &
take-out food containers;
"Compostability" of bio -plastics
4. Effects of eliminating plastic bags
5. What other cities/counties are doing
6. Overview of the Marin County Bag Ban
Ordinance and process
7. Education and intended ordinance
enforcement
8. Legal issues — CEQA and Prop. 26
V. Next Steps
Speakers
Cory Bytof — San Rafael Volunteer Coordinator
Jessica Jones — Waste Management District Mgr.
Bob Brown — San Rafael Community Dev. Director
Marin Sanitary Services
Bill Daniels — Owner, United Markets
Kim Scheibly-Jones — Marin Sanitary Services
Maureen Parton — Marin County, Aide to Supervisor
McGlashan
Stacey Carlsen — Marin County, Director
Agriculture/Weights & Measures
David Zaltsman — Marin County Counsel
Next meeting: Tuesday, March 8, 1-3pm — Discussion of Policy Options and
Educational Outreach
Contacts: Bob Brown: (415) 485-3090 bob. brown@cityofsanrafael.org
Kim Scheibly-Jones: kimscheibiy@comcast.net
Meeting Notes
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Purpose of the Meeting: Education regarding impacts of single -use carryout bags
. •,, .,,
w_ducatioxal Presentations
1. Local impacts of plastic bags
Bob Brown, City of San Rafael, reported that the annual bayfront/creek clean-up events find that
plastic bags are the second -most frequently retrieved object. The City of Los Angeles' Public
Works department determined that plastic bags constituted the
Jessica Jones, District Manager for Waste Mangement (operators of the Redwood Landfill),
commented that single -use plastics are problematic for the landfill operations since it breaks apart
with UV exposure, becomes windblown and doesn't break down. She indicated that a full-time
position is required at the landfill to retrieve windblown plastic bags. Bioplastics cannot be
included in organic material for composting.
2. Recycling potential of plastic bags & take-out food containers; "Compostability" of bio -
plastics
Patty Garbarino, President of Marin Sanitary Services, stated there are great misconceptions
about recycling plastic bags. A high proportion are contaminated by food and cannot be resold.
Plastic bags frequently jam machinery causing recycling lines to be shut down. Plastic bags which
are recycled are "down -cycled" — used just one more time in a product like Trex lumber which
can't be recycled. Resold plastics are shipped to Asia where environmental and labor laws are
less stringent. A study by the Integrated Waste Board six years ago found the cost of processing
plastic bags for resale was $536/ton while the resale price was $32/ton.
Bioplastics cannot be included with recycled plastics, and are often composed of both plant -based
and petroleum-based materials, resulting in small pieces of non -degradable plastic as the natural
materials decompose.
Tim James of the California Grocers Association noted that AB 2498 made supermarkets
responsible for recycling plastic film, and that the materials deposited in grocery stores is generally
clean which increases its recycling potential. He agreed that bioplastic bags are considered a
contaminant.
3. Effects of eliminating plastic bags
Bill Daniels, owner of United Markets, reported that eliminating plastic carryout bags at his stores
has been a success. Paper bags are still available, but consumption of paper bags did not
increase. Patrons return with paper bags or bring renewable bags. Paper bags cost him about
100 each., and plastic bags only 1¢ each. He strongly encouraged regulations that give the
shopper a choice of purchasing a paper bag if needed.
4. Impacts of paper vs. plastic bags
Bob Brown, San Rafael Community Development Director, summarized information from a
number of recent EIRs on bag ban ordinances, including Los Angeles County, San Jose and
Santa Monica. Some key points:
An estimated 128 million plastic carryout bags and 15 million paper bags are given out each
year by retailers in Marin (about 570 per person, per year).
® Product life -cycle analyses of plastic vs. paper bags conclude that paper bag production and
distribution is more energy and resource intensive than plastic bags (3x more greenhouse gas
emissions, 4x more water consumption, 3x more solid waste, and double the energy
consumption).
® Life -cycle analyses of reusable bags show they are far superior environmentally.
• A ban on plastic bags and charging 10¢ for paper bags is estimated to immediately reduce
plastic bags by 95% and double paper bag volume in the short term. Overall the ordinance
would reduce the volume of carryout single -use bags 75%.
5. What other cities/counties are doing
Kim Scheibly-Jones, Outreach Coordinator for Marin Sanitary Services, summarized bag bans in
place and in process internationally, nationally and within California (see summary PowerPoint).
6. Overview of the Marin County Bag Ban Ordinance and process
Maureen Parton, Aide to Supervisor McGlashan, summarized provisions of the recently adopted
Marin County bag ban ordinance and the process used to draft it. Maureen agreed with Bill
Daniels that grocers asked for an ordinance that offered choice to customers. They decided on a
ban on all free carryout bags, but allow customers to purchase paper bags (made from recycled
content) for a 5¢ minimum fee. Product bags (produce, pharmacy) would be exempt. Maureen
stated that a 5¢ charge was selected to reimburse the merchant with the cost of the bag, and to
send an economic signal to consumers. The ordinance will be effective on Jan. 1, 2012 in the
unincorporated area and only affects grocers, pharmacies and convenience stores. The County
chose to not apply the ordinance to all retailers since sufficient outreach to retailers had not been
accomplished. Supervisor McGlashan plans to pursue a process with retailers to expand the
ordinance.
7. Education and intended ordinance enforcement
Maureen stated that their outreach efforts in the development of the ordinance touched 5,300
individuals.
Stacy Carlsen, Division of Agricultural Weights and Measures, indicated that his division will
enforce the ordinance as part of their annual inspection process, and offered to do so for cities
that adopt the same regulations and enter into an MOU (memorandum of understanding) with the
County. He indicated that warnings would initially be issued, with progressive fines for
noncompliance. Funding for enforcement efforts might come from the County Hazardous and
Solid Waste Management JPA.
8. Legal issues — CEQA and Prop. 26,
David Zaltsman, Marin County Counsel, said their assessment of the bag ban ordinance
concluded there would be a net improvement in environmental impacts. Their legal conclusion
was that and EIR wasn't necessary and that using a CEQA Categorical Exemption was more
legally defensible than a Negative Declaration.
As to compliance with Proposition 26, Mr. Zaltsman explained that the fee for paper bags would
be retained by the merchants and is equivalent to the cost of the bags.
Next meeting: Tuesday, March S, 1-3pm — Discussion of Policy Options and
Educational Outreach
Agenda
Tuesday, March 8, 2011; 1:00-3:00pm
Community Development Conference Room
1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael
Purpose of the Meeting
Discussion and recommendations for policies and actions to limit single -use
carryout bags
I
111. Discussion of Policy Matrix re: Single -Use Carryout Bags
Ill. Committee Recommendations re: Single -Use Carryout Bags
N. Discussion of Effects of County Litigation
Contacts: Bob Brown: (415) 485-3090 bob.brown@cityofsanrafae1.org
Kim Scheibly-Jones: kimscheibly@comcast.net
Meeting Notes
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Purpose of the Meeting: Discussion and recommendations for policies and actions to limit
single -use carryout bags
Introductions
Bob Brown, City of San Rafael, walked the Committee through the policy matrix document, which
was intended to identify potential policy options and to stimulate identification of other options for
discussion.
III. Committee Recommendations re: Single -Use Carryout Bags
Most of the Committee members agreed that consistency with the County's adopted ordinance
has significant advantages. Tim James, representing the Calif. Grocers Association, supported
establishing a consistent standard across jurisdictions for common understanding by both
merchants and consumers, and Jennifer Goldfinger, representing the City of Novato, noted the
County's commitment to provide enforcement of the ordinance in participating jurisdictions if
consistent regulations are adopted.
There were three principal areas of discussion concerning the policy options:
1. Tim James suggested that the regulations should apply to all retailers, both to create a more
level playing field among merchants and to increase the effectiveness of the bag reduction.
Roger Roberts, representing the Marin Conservation League, suggested that the ordinance could
initially be applicable to grocers/pharmacies, consistent with the County ordinance, and then
subsequently include other retailers.
2. Regarding standards for reusable bags, Maureen Parton, Aide to Supervisor McGlashan,
indicated that County Weights and Measures is evaluating possible detailed administrative
standards for reusable bags. Tim James and Roger Roberts suggested consideration of the
reusable bag standards contained in the AB 1998, the bag ban legislation that did not pass the
state legislature in 2010.
3. Concerns were raised by Connie Rogers, Director of the San Anselmo Chamber of
Commerce, about the exemption in the County ordinance to provide free paper bags to
participants in the California Special Supplemental Food Program. Maureen Parton clarified that
privacy of participants is maintained at checkout through use of the program swipe cards. Tim
James questioned whether not exempting the food stamp program participants, thereby making
them pay for paper bags, might create conflicts with program eligibility criteria. He indicated that
providing program participants free bags might be easier for retailers than having to process
separate transactions for food items covered by the program and charges for bags which would
not be allowed program purchases. Jennifer Goldfinger suggested that free reusable bags might
be provided to new participants signed up for the food program. Finally, Tim James suggested
that provisions be included to allow retailers to only provide free reusable bags for limited time
promotional purposes.
The Committee discussed possible educational opportunities to familiarize the public with an
ordinance, including information through schools, public service announcements on the local
cable public access channel, provision of text for organization newsletters (including waste
haulers) and the use of advocates, such as Teens Turning Green.
The Committee also discussed possible assistance to retailers to understand and implement an
ordinance. Tim James indicated that it would be difficult to assist grocers on internal employee
training. Maureen Parton indicated that County Weights and Measures would already be
notifying and working with retailers to understand the ordinance requirements.
IV. Discussion of Effects of Count' Litigation
Bob Brown described his discussions with County Counsel regarding the timing of the CEQA
lawsuit filed against the County's ordinance. David Zaltsman estimates that the litigation will take
8-10 months to wind its way though superior court. He also indicated that cities moving ahead
with their individual ordinances would, not affect the County litigation, provided that information
about the anticipated shift in bag utilization as a result of a similar ordinance was consistent with
the County's findings. Bob suggested that each participating city determine whether it would
choose to wait for local adoption until the County litigation has been concluded, or whether they
would be interested in moving ahead with an ordinance, using a draft EIR prepared by San
Rafael forjoint use.
V. election of Upcoming Meeting Dates
Feedback from the Committee members dictated a change in future meeting times from 1:30-
3:30pm. The next meeting dates will be March 22 and April 5.
Agenda
Tuesday, March 22, 2011; 1:30-3:30pm
Community Development Conference Room
1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael
Purpose of the Meeting
Education regarding impacts of plastic take-out food containers
Introductions
Educational Presentations
Topic
1. Impacts of plastic take-out food
containers
2. Recycling potential of take-out food
containers; "Compostability" of bio -
plastics
3. Mill Valley ordinance and implementation
experience
4. Marin County ordinance and
implementation experience
5. County Health Department issues related
to reusable food containers
6. Effects of reducing plastic take-out food
containers
7. Effects of reducing plastic take-out food
containers
Speakers
Miriam Gordon — Calif. Director of Clean Water
Action
Devi Perry — Marin Sanitary Services
Carol Misseldine — Director of Green Cities California
Leslie Alden — Aide to Supervisor McGlashan
David Smail — Marin County Supervising
Environmental Health Specialist
Debra McKnight Higgins — Owner, Whippersnapper
Restaurant
Jennifer DeBonis — Production Manager, Woodlands
Market
III. Committee Q&A
IV. Committee Requests for Additional Information
V. Next Steps
Next meeting: Tuesday, April 5, 1:30-3:30pm — Discussion of Policy Options
and Educational Outreach
Contacts: Bob Brown: (415) 485-3090 bob. brown Q cityofsan rafael. org
Exhibit
111 Fill
11111 11111111111111111
51, •, �;
Meeting Notes
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Purpose of theMeeting: Education regarding impacts of plastic take-out food containers.
1. Local impacts of plastic take-out food containers
Miriam Gordon, California Director of Clean Water Action, stated that the ultimate solution to
proliferation of plastic refuse is source reduction, not better recycling. Compostable alternatives
are not preferable since they redirect vital food production and entail the use of petrochemicals in
agricultural production. There are also undisclosed toxic additives to Compostable bioplastics
which are released into the environment as they degrade.
Miriam recommends that disposable foodware be precluded when dining on-site and a charge for
disposable containers based on disposal costs. She also recommends a requirement that
restaurants include dishwashing facilities for reusable ware used for on-site food consumption. If
these requirements seem too much to enact at this time, she suggested that starting with
beverage containers alone would be a first step.
2. Recycling potential of take-out food containers; "Compostability" of bio -plastics
Devi Peri of Marin Sanitary Services reiterated some information from the February 22 meeting
that recycling of plastics is challenging in terms of variable markets for recycled plastics, limited
reuse potential (mostly "down -cycling" into non -recyclable products) and questions about the
environmental and societal impacts of separating recyclable materials which occurs mostly in
China. She stated that polystyrene foam ("Styrofoam") is most problematic due to its light weight
and degradation into small pieces as it ages, causing litter problems. She clarified that
polystyrene foam can technically be compressed and reused, but it is an expensive process and
has a very low rate of recycling. Non -expanded foam polystyrene materials (i.e., coffee cup lids)
can be recycled.
Tim James of the California Grocers Association noted that AB 2498 made supermarkets
responsible for recycling plastic film, and that the materials deposited in grocery stores is generally
clean which increases its recycling potential. He agreed that bioplastic bags are considered a
contaminant.
3. tiVllill Valley ordinance and implementation experience
Carol Misseldine, Director of Green Cities California, wrote the Mill Valley ordinance adopted in
November, 2009, which ban polystyrene foam (with exceptions for meat packaging) and mandates
biodegradable take-out food packaging if not greater than 15% more costly than plastic packaging.
She noted that the shift to compostable packaging has not occurred since in almost all cases it is
more than 15;u more costly. Starbucks was given an exemption from the ordinance with a
commitment to ask customers if the products were for on-site or off-site consumption, use of
durable mugs for on-site consumption, asking if lids were desired, prominent display of durable
mugs and customer incentives for bringing reusable cups. She recommended the banning of
polystyrene foam containers and encouraging restaurants to use durable ware for on-site
consumption.
4. Marin County ordinance and implementation experience
Wl 1. 1
Leslie Alden, Aide to Supervisor McGlashan, agreed that our out-of-sight/out-of-mind approach to
plastics recycling is not a good solution, and that extended producer responsibility'with full .
lifecycle analysis to reduce or take -back packaging and design products for repair rather than
discard is the ultimate solution. However, until we reach that ultimate goal, she recommends
tackling one issue at a time.
The County's ordinance went into effect in 2009, banning polystyrene foam containers and
requiring compostable alternatives. Her conclusion is that the ordinance was too aggressive, and
that greater consistency among Marin jurisdictions is needed.
5. County Health Dept. issues related to reusable food containers
David Smail, Supervising Environmental Health Specialist, discussed provisions of the California
Retail Food Code. The code does not prohibit food purveyors from filling reusable food containers
brought in my customers for take-out food. However, there are requirements related to the use
and cleaning of utensils used to fill the reusable containers to avoid cross -contamination. He
indicated that the department could provide an educational document to restaurants on ways to
avoid cross -contamination.
6. Effects of reducing plastic take-out food containers
Debra McKnight Higgins, owner of the Whippersnapper Restaurant in San Rafael, spoke of their
efforts to reduce non -recyclable take-out food containers. They have largely shifted to
compostable alternatives, which are about 30% more costly. They add $1 to each take-out order,
including taking out an uneaten portion of their meals. They have not experienced customer
complaints from this practice. They encourage diners to bring their own containers to take-out
unfinished food, but allow the customers to place the food into their own containers to avoid cross
contamination in the kitchen. For catering they use durable ware with a deposit for return of the
containers. After hearing about the problems with compostable containers in the waste stream,
she strongly recommended education for restaurateurs on best recycling practices and would
appreciate information on collective purchasing of take-out containers.
Jennifer DeBonis, Production Manager at Woodlands Markets, spoke about their on-going efforts
to reduce take-out packaging waste. Their cafe uses compostable containers. The effects of
take-out container types on food quality (reheating potential, shelf life and appearance) is a
concern, as is cross -contamination fro reusable containers. Storage space would be a problem
for offering reusable take-out containers that could be returned for reuse (such as party platters).
Tim James, representing the California Grocers Association, stated that many of his members
have been able to shift from polystyrene take-out containers, but he reiterated the concerns
expressed by Jennifer DeBonis about the practicality of compostable alternatives (cost, food shelf
life and appearance) and potential liability from cross -contamination if forced to refill reusable
take-out containers from customers. He indicated that refilling beverage containers would likely
be less a concern re: cross -contamination than food items.
Next meeting: Tuesday, April 5, 1:30-3:30pm — Recommendations re: take-out
food containers
I If
Agenda
Tuesday, April 5, 2011; 1:30-3:30pm
Community Development Conference Room
1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael
Purpose of the Meeting
Discussion and recommendations for policies and -actions to limit take-out
food containers
1. Introductions
111. Update on Issues with Compostable Packaging (Kim Scheibly-Jones
and Miriam Gordon)
III. Discussion of Policy Matrix re. Take -Out Food Containers
IV. Committee Recommendations re: Take -Out Food Containers
V. Discussion of Plastic Bag Survey of Merchants
VI. Meeting evaluation
V11. Next meeting date: April 19
Contacts: Bob Brown: (415) 485-3090 bob.brown@cityofsanrafael.org
Kim Scheibly-Jones: kimscheibly@comcast.net
•.,
Meeting Notes
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Purpose of the Meeting: Discussion and recommendations for policies and actions
to limit take-out food containers
Introductions
Update on Issues with Compostable Packaging
Kim Scheibly-Jones reported on her attendance at the Northern California Recyclers Association
conference. There is agreement among recyclers and waste haulers that bioplastics
(compostable materials) are complicating recycling efforts since they contaminate and decrease
the value of recyclable plastics. Because they decompose slowly, bioplastics cannot be included
in collection of yard/food waste for composting.
Miriam Gordon, Calif. Director of Clean Water Action reported on her meeting with County
officials and the purveyor of compostable bioplastics. Compostable plastics must contain
chemical additives to give it the same characteristics (waterproof, flexible or rigid) as plastic
containers, but manufacturers typically won't disclose these additives. There is concern about
the contamination of compost from these additives as bioplastics break down.
III. Discussion of Policy Matrix re: Take -Out Food Containers
Bob Brown walked the Committee through the Policy Matrix, focusing on two principal questions:
1) Beyond banning expanded foam polystyrene (EPS) due to its high litter potential and poor
recycling potential, is there a desire to require a shift to compostable alternatives, and 2) How to
encourage the use of durable, rather than disposable, foodware?
Committee Recommendations re: Take -Out Food Containers
Most of the Committee members agreed that EPS should not be allowed for takeout food
containers due to its litter potential and minimal recyclability. In response to a question about
whether there are good alternate packaging materials for meats, Tim James, representing the
Calif. Grocers Association, stated that such a restriction would focus on the problem of litter
reduction, and that EPS meat trays do not commonly end up as discarded litter. There was
general agreement that an exception should be included for meat containers, which is consistent
with most EPS -ban ordinances.
There was discussion about whether EPS foodware (cups, plates, clamshell containers) should
be precluded from being sold in Marin. It was agreed that more information was necessary to
assess the impacts of banning all sales of EPS foodware.
The remaining discussion centered on possible requirements for food service providers to serve
food for on-site dining on durable foodware or, alternatively: requiring food providers to charge a
take-out container fee for food taken out.
Tim James noted that grocery stores increasingly have in-store dining but are not set up for
washing and storing durable foodware, bussing tables, etc. He also questioned how this might be
accommodated by fast food outlets.
Some Committee members suggested that there may be a way to distinguish between
restaurants and other outlets that have on-site dining as a minor percentage of total sales or floor
area.
Discussing the idea of charging for take-out food packaging, Tim James asked whether an in-
house bakery at a grocery store would have to charge for plastic packaging they use for baked
muffins. He pointed out the potential for unintended consequences.
It was decided that additional input from food purveyors was necessary before the Committee
could reach a conclusion.
IV. Discussion of Plastic Dag Survey of Merchants
Bob Brown described the intended survey of San Rafael merchants regarding a possible ban of
plastic carryout bags. He stated that they would send surveys to all grocers and pharmacies, and
approximately 10% of the 2,000+ retailers in the City's business license data base. The survey is
intended to be very succinct to encourage completion by busy retailers.
V. Selection of Upcoming Meeting Dates
The Committee decided to meet again on April 26 from 1:30 to 3:30pm to try to reach closure on
recommendations for take-out food containers.
'I C! 1111111111111111 1111]''! 111 illpill 11, 11111111111111111111111111111111111 11'' 11 "1
Agenda
Tuesday, April 26, 2011; 1:30-3:30pm
Community Development Conference Room
1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael
Purpose of the Meeting
Discussion and recommendations for policies and actions to limit take-out
food containers
1. Introductions
II. Further Discussion of Policy Options:
.a. Possible prohibition of retail sales of EPS foodware (cups, plates,
clamshells, etc.)
b. Possible requirement for durable foodware for on-site dining
c. Possible requirement to fill reusable beverage or all food containers
for take-out
d. Possible fee for take-out food containers
Ill. Results • Plastic Bag Survey • Merchants
V11. Selection of next meeting date
Contacts: Bob Brown: (415) 485-3090
Kim Scheibly-Jones:
bob.brown@cityofsanrafael.org
kimscheibly@comcast.net
Meeting Notes
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Purpose of the Meeting: Discussion and recommendations for policies and actions
to limit take-out food containers
Introductions
ini
a. Possible prohibition of retail sales of EPS foodware (cups, plates,
clamshells, etc.)
Tim James of the California Retail Grocers Assoc. questioned whether banning the retail sale of
EPS items would respond to the primary issue being raised of reducing litter since these items
are usually used in the workplace and home and don't end up being discarded outdoors. He also
asked if shifting purchases from EPS materials to single -use plastic alternatives is preferable.
Kay Karchevski pointed out that EPS supplies are often used outdoors at picnics, and Roger
Roberts questioned whether EPS "peanuts" for packing are also being discussed. Jennifer
Goldfinger, representing the City of Novato, suggested that the group focus on the key issues of
concern to make the recommendations most palatable to local government.
b. Possible requirement for durable foodware for onsite dining
Several restaurateurs were in attendance, some of which use durable foodware for on-site dining,
Others described difficulties they would encounter with this requirement, including the energy,
water, staffing and space requirements for washing and storing all foodware.
Johnise Downs, representing the California Restaurant Association, stated the quick -service
restaurants don't have the facilities, space and staff to use durable foodware. This type of
requirement would radically change their business practices.
Miriam Gordon, Calif. Director of Clean Water Action, responded that college dining hails are a
good model of shifts from disposable to durable foodware. She also suggested that this type of
requirement could be applied only to new businesses so they can prepare for the change, Bob
Brown, City of San Rafael, noted that most new restaurants take over existing facilities, which
may not provide sufficient flexibility to reconfigure the space for dishwashing and foodware
storage.
Tim James shared some cost estimates necessary for a food purveyor, such as a grocery store
deli, to shift to durable foodware including commercial dishwashing equipment, operating costs,
permits and purchase of durableware, totaling between $9,400 and $15,000.
Miriam noted that Starbucks completed a study which concluded that a shift to reusable cups for
on-site beverages would yield a cost savings.
c. Possible requirement to fill reusable beverage or all food containers
for take-out
Jennifer Debonis from Woodland Market stated their concerns about refilling customers'
containers. They can't know who these containers have been sterilized, which could then
contaminate the store's counters, scales, and would require rewashing serving utensils after each
use, wasting paper covering of scales, etc. If contarnination did occur, it would be very difficult to
track and could have devastating effects on a businesses' reputation. She indicated that
beverage containers aren't as problematic compared with other foods since the liquids are hot
and serving utensils aren't involved.
A few restaurateurs indicated they allow customers to transfer take-out food into their reusable
containers at the table, which avoids the potential of kitchen contamination, and some allow
customers to use reusable cups for refills of coffee or soda beverages.
Miriam estimated that about half of beverage purveyors (such as coffee houses) refill reusable
containers, and half do not.
Tim James stated that strict compliance with Cal Code requires that even reusable beverage
containers be washed prior to filling.
d. Possible fee for take-out food containers
Debra McKnight -Higgins from Whippersnapper Restaurant stated that their restaurant charges $1
for takeout orders to compensate for more expensive compostable take-out containers. In the
very few instances where customers object, they remove the extra charge.
Miriam Gordon suggested a charge be imposed for disposable cups with the funds used to
educate customers to encourage reusable containers. Bob Brown indicated that this would likely
be problematic under Proposition 26.
Roger Roberts, representing the Marin Conservation League, noted that Pete's Coffee provides a
small discount for bringing a reusable mug and not taking a disposable cup.
Kim Scheibly-Jones stated that research indicates that a price signal in roughly the $2 range is
necessary to change consumer behavior. Liz Dunn, representing the City of Novato, agreed that
a higher fee than a few cents would be necessary to change behavior and noted the difference
with the plastic bag issue where customers have an easy alternative with reusable bags, but
reusable food containers are more problematic. Tim James agreed that with bags there are no -
cost options for customers.
Roger Roberts said there was nothing wrong with sending a price signal to consumers of
disposable items, even if small. This would cover some costs of restaurants using more
environmentally preferable take-out containers.
Tim James also suggested that staff from County Health be consulted to determine if food
purveyors would be required to pre -wash reusable beverage containers prior to filling.
.` .MIT. :..
Bob Brown provided an update of data from the survey of retailers regarding possible single -use
carryout bags as follows:
10
I
5
f 0
Strongly
Opposed
Oppose/Support j
I
i
i4
ii
i
i
Somewhat Neutral In Support Strongly In `Ja4
Opposed Support
i
25
20
15
10
5
0
Severe Significant
V. Selection of Upcoming Meeting Dates
'The Committee decided to hold a final meeting on May 26 from 1:30 to 3:30pm to reach closure
on recommendations for single -use carryout bags and take-out food containers.
amII III I I I I I I I I I'' �.' •.j " � A- M f f
Agenda
Thursday, May 26, 2011; 1:30-3:30pm
Community Development Conference Room
1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael
Purpose of the Meeting
Discussion and final recommendations for policies and actions to limit single -
use carryout bags and take-out food containers
llvnff�- ��
1XII �111111
a. Single -Use Carryout Bags
b. Take -Out Food Container
V1. Next Steps
Contacts: Bob Brown: (415) 485-3090
Kim Scheibly-Jones:
bob.brown@cityofsanrafael.org
kimscheibly@comcast.net