City Council Staff Report & Ordinance
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE CARMEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO BAN THE DISTRIBUTION OF SINGLE-USE
PLASTIC BAGS FROM RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
OR, IN THE ALTERNATE-DEFER ACTION AND DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH THE BUSINESS
COMMUNITY
Related News Article: Council adopts ban on plastic bags - No mandatory charge for paper bags, MARY SCHLEY, TheCarmel Pine Cone, June 8, 2012
Plastic Bags: Local Ordinances, Californians Against Waste
Elements of a Successful Single-Use Bag Ordinance, Californians Against Waste
NOTES: Santa Cruz County
On September 13, 2011, the County Board
The Monterey City Council unanimously passed an ordinance on
December 6, 2011. The ordinance bans plastic bags and places an initial 10 cent
minimum price requirement on paper bags for the first year (25 cents after).
March 2010
Executive Summary
Overview of Findings
Single-Use Plastic Bags: Nearly 20 billion single-use high
density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic grocery bags are used annually in California ; most end up
in landfills or as litter. Of the four types of bags considered, plastic bags
had the greatest impact on litter.
Single-Use Paper Bags: Kraft paper bags are recycled at a
significantly higher rate than single-use plastic bags. Still, over its
lifetime, a single-use paper bag has significantly larger greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and results in greater atmospheric acidification, water consumption,
and ozone production than plastic bags.
Single-Use Biodegradable Bags: Although biodegradable bags
are thought to be an eco-friendly alternative to HDPE plastic bags, they have
greater environmental impacts at manufacture, resulting in more GHG emissions
and water consumption than conventional plastic bags. In addition,
biodegradable bags may degrade only under composting conditions. Therefore,
when littered, they will have a similar impact on aesthetics and marine life as
HDPE plastic bags.
Reusable Bags: Reusable bags can be made from plastic or
cloth and are designed to be used up to hundreds of times. Assuming the bags
are reused at least a few times, reusable bags have significantly lower
environmental impacts, on a per use basis, than single-use bags. Some of the
reviewed LCAs indicate that use of the non-woven plastic reusable bag results
in particularly large environmental benefits.
Effects of Policy Options on Single-Use Bags: In other
regions of the world, fees and bans on bags have resulted in dramatic drops in
consumption. For instance, the Irish plastic bag tax immediately resulted in a
greater than 90% reduction in use. Due to California law AB2449, no fee program on
plastic bags can be introduced. However, bans on single-use plastic bags, as
well as fees on other single-use bags, may be implemented to minimize use.
SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION MEMORANDUM
FROM: Stephen L. Joseph, Counsel
TO: California cities and counties
RE: Restaurant bags
DATE: April 27, 2012
SUMMARY
The California Retail Food Code preempts any local
regulation or ban of plastic bags at restaurants and other “food facilities.” Save The Plastic
Bag Coalition (“STPB”) will sue every city or county that adopts an ordinance
that bans, restricts, limits, or requires a charge for plastic bags at any
restaurant or “food facility.”
The City and County
of San Francisco and the City of Carpinteria have adopted ordinances
banning plastic bags at restaurants. STPB has filed lawsuits against San Francisco and
Carpinteria to invalidate their restaurant bag bans.
All other cities and counties that have banned plastic bags
have exempted restaurants, including Alameda
County , Los
Angeles County , Marin County ,
Santa Clara County ,
the City of Dana Point, the City of Laguna Beach ,
the City of Long Beach , the City of Ojai , the City of San Jose ,
and the City of Santa Monica .
Santa Cruz County
and the City of Manhattan Beach
initially banned plastic bags at restaurants, but they have amended their
ordinances and now exempt restaurants.
NOTE: Proposed
Carmel-by-the-Sea Ordinance: Restaurants: There have been lawsuits filed over
the adoption of plastic bag bans in other California communities. One of the arguments
has been that plastic bags are safer to carry hot carryout food from
restaurants. For this reason, Monterey
and other communities have exempted restaurants from their proposed ordinances.
Staff is also proposing to exempt restaurants at this time.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
CITY OF MANHATTAN
BEACH, Defendant and Appellant.
SUMMARY:
The Court considered two questions, namely (1) What are the
standing requirements for a corporate entity to challenge a determination on
the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR)? (2) Was the city of Manhattan Beach required
to prepare an EIR on the effects of an ordinance banning the use of plastic
bags by local businesses? The court
ruled that the Plaintiff, a coalition of plastic bag manufactures and
distributors, had standing. And “On the
merits, the courts below ruled that the city had to prepare an EIR before
implementing a ban on plastic bags. We disagree. Substantial evidence and
common sense support the citys determination that its ordinance would have no
significant environmental effect. Therefore, a negative declaration was
sufficient to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.).1 Accordingly, we
reverse the Court of Appeals judgment.”
NOTE: Manhattan
Beach
The Manhattan
Beach City council voted in July 2008 to ban plastic bags. The CA Supreme Court overturned a
legal challenge to the ordinance in July 2011
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF
SANTA CRUZ
SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
October 17, 2011
UPDATE:
Santa Cruz County (Ban on plastic bags, 10 cent price
requirement on paper bags in year 1, 25 cents thereafter - Mitigated Negative
Declaration): This lawsuit does not discuss CEQA requirements and pertains to
the ordinance's banning of plastic bags provided by restaurants. In February
2012, the County agreed to exempt restaurants as part of the settlement terms
to prevent implementation delay. Restaurants may be reconsidered for future
inclusion.
THE GARBAGE PATCH IN THE OCEANS: THE PROBLEM AND POSSIBLE
SOLUTIONS
Marzia Sesini
Advisors: Louise Rosen, Professor Nickolas J. Themelis,
Professor Marco J. Castaldi
Master of Science in Sustainability Management
Earth Institute
August 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A study was conducted to assess the size and impact of a
Garbage Patch in the Oceans. The findings from the study were compiled from a
combination of mathematical and physical models estimates and data from
expeditions (Table 1).
The primary findings are:
There are potentially five
Garbage Patches scattered globally, located in the North and South Pacific Ocean; North and South Atlantic Ocean; and Indian Ocean .
The total amount of plastic
garbage estimated is 36,000 ton, unequally dispersed. The data results in 9,064 ton of garbage plastic in the North Atlantic and 20,240 ton in North Pacific.
The model estimation results
in 2,590 ton of marine plastic debris in the South Atlantic Ocean, 2,860 ton in the South
Pacific Ocean , and 2,185 ton in the Indian Ocean, which are in alignment with the data.
This total quantity of plastic debris in the earth’s oceans
amounts to approximately 0.125% of all plastic produces in the US in 2009.
However the ecological impacts of the Garbage Patch range from over a million
of sea-birds and one hundred of thousand marine mammals killed by ingestions of
plastics or entanglement, to economic impacts estimated between US$1000million
and US$ 3000 million in beach cleanups (excluding volunteering efforts), tourism
losses, and damages to fishing and aquaculture industries.
1 comment:
The significance of the California Supreme Court’s decision (7/14/11) in SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, Defendant and Appellant, is that cities with populations equal to or less than Manhattan Beach (33,852 according to the 2000 census) are not legally required to prepare an EIR on the effects of an ordinance banning the use of plastic bags because the Court found that “Substantial evidence and common sense support the city’s determination that its ordinance would have no significant environmental effect. Therefore, a negative declaration was sufficient to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.).”
Interestingly, the initial study conducted by Manhattan Beach stated:
“Reducing the use of plastic bags in Manhattan Beach will have only a modest positive impact on the migration of plastic refuse into the ocean. However, as a coastal City the imposition of the ban is likely to have some modest impact on improving water quality and removing a potential biohazard from the marine environment.” The study recognized that a switch from plastic to paper bags would have some negative environmental consequences. More energy is needed to manufacture and distribute paper bags, and more wastewater is produced in their manufacture and recycling. However, the study concluded that the impacts of a plastic bag ban would be less than significant…”
The Court also addressed the SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION use of “life cycle” impacts stating that “this case serves as a cautionary example of overreliance on generic studies of “life cycle” impacts associated with a particular product.” And “common sense leads us to the conclusion that the environmental impacts discernible from the “life cycles” of plastic and paper bags are not significantly implicated by a plastic bag ban in Manhattan Beach.”
Carmel’s Ordinance banning the distribution of single-use plastic bags from retail establishments levies no charge for paper bags and exempts restaurants. While the draft ordinance imposed a small fee on paper bags of at least 40-percent recycled content and the final ordinance has no fee for paper bags, the City exempted restaurants. Given the SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION’S MEMO of April 27, 2012, it appears that despite Mayor Jason Burnett's statement that “I doubt that [the plastics industry] would be stupid enough to engage our community in a legal battle,” the City exempted restaurants because of the City’s fear of a lawsuit filed against the City by the SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION.
Post a Comment