Loading...
CC 2016-01-26_12a Supplemental Info. No. 2• - . TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM 12.a. — JANUARY 26, 2016 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REGULATING EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE FOOD CONTAINERS AND PRODUCTS; LOCATION — CITYWIDE; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DATE: JANUARY 26, 2016 Attached is a comment letter received on the proposed project. cc: City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Public Review Binder em w , M0, iK214-a' k �, a �'. M t t [ sa'"` ;: F.= Conserving Resources. Preventing Pollution. Protecting the Environment. January 26, 2016 Mayor Jim Hill & City Council Members City of Arroyo Grande 300 E. Branch St. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: Expanded Polystyrene Ban - SUPPORT Dear Mayor Hill & City Council Members, Californians Against Waste (CAW) is an environmental policy and advocacy organization with thousands of members across Southern California, and we respectfully urge your support for the expanded polystyrene ordinance scheduled to come before the City Council tomorrow. Polystyrene takeout food packaging is a major, and easily preventable, source of pollution. Light, easily airborne, and prone to break into small pieces, it can be easily transported by wind and rain into the environment even when "properly" disposed of. With Californians using 165,000 tons of polystyrene each year for packaging and food containers, it's no surprise that beach cleanup studies show polystyrene to be one of the most common forms of litter. Plastic pollution has killed thousands of marine birds, sea turtles and other species, and threatens both human health as well as California's multi - billion dollar ocean -based economy. According to the US EPA, local governments in California spend as much as $411 million each year to prevent plastic food packaging and other commonly littered items from ending up in streets, storm drains, beaches, rivers and the ocean. 'Those opposed to polystyrene alternatives due to cost differences don't take into account the burden and hidden cost of cleaning it up after use. Recycling of this problem material is not a viable option. Despite decades of promises from the plastic industry for a comprehensive recycling infrastructure, no widespread recycling scheme for polystyrene has ever been successfully implemented over the long term. Along with limited recycling opportunities, food contamination issues and the lightweight quality of the material make it difficult to successfully recycle. Less than 1 % is recycled. Moreover, due to the low market value of recycled polystyrene, recyclers can actually lose money. Plastic pollution is a global problem with local solution. Ninety cities and counties, including dozens of coastal communities, have already banned polystyrene. Such an accomplishment is a proven solution for combating waste as well as the costs associated with cleanup. We commend the City's leadership and urge you to adopt the polystyrene ordinance. Sincerely, Mark Munav Executive Director 921 1 1th Street. Suite 420 o Sacramento, CA 95814 o (916) 443 -5422 FAX: (916) 443 -3912 e www.cawrecycles . org