CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: July 9, 2020 UNFINISHED BUSINESS

SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF REUSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE AND WASTE REDUCTION DRAFT ORDINANCE

FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager

BY: Patrick M. Tallarico, Office of Sustainability

SUMMARY

The Office of Sustainability has been working with the Sustainability Commission to develop a comprehensive ordinance to reduce disposable food service ware and reduce the use of certain . This effort emerged from recommendations of the Sustainability Commission to ban certain types of plastic food service. City Council will discuss this topic, explore potential impacts, hear what other cities are doing, and review options for an ordinance. The response to COVID-19 and its impact on businesses adds a new dimension to this conversation, and references to these potential impacts has been included in the staff report.

RECOMMENDATION

Direct staff as appropriate.

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, over 400 million tons of plastic products are produced each year. About half of this total is composed of consumer products destined for disposal after only a single use. These "throw-away" products include straws, liquid stirrers, , , expanded (EPS) food , disposable plates, eating utensils, and shopping .

Many of these items are small and are not easily recycled, so they often end up as trash in landfills or as in waterways and streets. These materials never fully degrade but rather degenerate into "microplastic" material that accumulates in the ocean, contaminates food supplies, or gets ingested by animals. Scientists have even found in the air. Scientists recorded a daily rate of 365 microplastic particles per

\J NFIN 1.Stf€P 40-. ITEM NO. e,us,Ne,s u City Council Staff Report July 9, 2020 - Page 2 Discussion of Potential Ban on Single-use Plastic Food Ware square meter falling from the sky in pristine areas of southern France where there were no other sources. 1

The Sustainability Commission researched the growing threat of plastic waste and specifically focused on straws, polystyrene-composed packaging, and food service ware. A report by the Sustainability Commission Subcommittee on Waste Reduction in November 2018 (included as Attachment A) provides additional details on the problems associated with single-use plastics used by food service facilities.

Research conducted by the Sustainability Commission indicated that municipal bans are more effective than voluntary efforts. Some cities have seen a 40-60% reduction in certain types of plastic-related litter following implementation of their ordinances - higher rates for plastic bans. The City of Santa Cruz tried for 18 years to reduce plastics throughout the city on a voluntary basis but were not able to achieve their goals. They are one example of a city that ultimately decided to adopt mandatory requirements.

This research prompted the Sustainability Commission to pass a motion at its meeting on December 18, 2018, that recommended prohibiting the use of certain plastic and EPS (aka Styrofoam) items by commercial food providers. Specifically, the motion states:

Motion: Food or beverage products supplied by commercial food providers shall not be sold, packaged, distributed, or consumed with food service ware made of EPS foam, rigid polystyrene #6, and non-recyclable and non­ compostable material in the City of Palm Springs.

The Sustainability Commission also recommended the best way to implement this prohibition was for the City to develop an ordinance that bans the use of items such as plastic straws, single-use food and beverage containers made of certain types of plastic, and non-recyclable or non-compostable material used for prepared food distribution.

Since that time, the Office of Sustainability has been working with Sustainability Commission members and an outside consulting firm, Upstream, to conduct research and develop a draft ordinance based on the recommendations of the Sustainability Commission and the new information gathered during the ordinance development process. The draft ordinance as presented at Sustainability Commission meetings on October 15, 2019, December 17, 2019, and January 21, 2020. The resulting draft reflected their input after each presentation.

Finally, the Office of Sustainability along with some volunteers and Sustainability Commission members conducted surveys of over 100 local food vendors to determine their current food ware situation. The results of this survey are included in Attachment B.

1 Leahy, Stephen, Microplastics are Raining Down from the Sky. National Geographic, April 15, 2019 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/microplastics-pollution-falls-from-air-even­ mountains/

2 City Council Staff Report July 9, 2020 - Page 3 Discussion of Potential Ban on Single-use Plastic Food Ware

It is important to note that this effort is taking place in a rapidly changing environment. New information about materials, recyclability, compostability, materials processing capabilities, and consumer interest is a moving target, and this report reflects best information available at the time. The COVID-19 response, in particular, has had significant impacts on laws aimed at reducing single-use plastics and disposable food ware. A variety of misleading information about the potential risk that reusable food ware and other products have in spreading COVID-19 has prompted many cities and states to suspend or postpone implementation of disposable foodware and single use plastics bans.

STAFF ANALYSIS

State Context The State of California started moving forward with limited plastic food ware bans in 2018. AB 1884 was passed in September 2018 required full service (dine-in) restaurants to have a plastic straw-upon-request-only policy. Although it experienced a slow start, most restaurants seem to finally be complying with this law.

In September 2018, Governor Brown signed SB-1335, which requires food service facilities located in a state-owned facility, operating on or acting as a concessionaire on state-owned property, or under contract to provide food service to a state agency to dispense prepared food using food service packaging that is reusable, recyclable, or compostable. CalRecycle must adopt regulations by January 1, 2021 to clarify terms, specify criteria, and outline a process for determining the types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable. The process for developing the parameters for this regulation are important for others considering similar bans in that it will hopefully provide more clarity and consistency for terms like "recyclable," "compostable" and "reusable."

In October 2019, the State passed AB 1162 that will ban single-use plastic for toiletries starting in 2023 for larger hotels and 2024 in smaller establishments. Most of the major hotel brands have already committed doing this even faster than the State requires. As with other reusable and bulk dispensing approaches, hotels are finding that they save money by making this switch.

Other bills were being considered at the State level in 2019 but were not passed. Senate Bill 54/Assembly Bill 1080 would have set goals to reduce waste from single-use packaging and products - including banning polystyrene foam - and ensure the remaining items are effectively recycled. AB 792 would have increased recycled content requirements. Although these bills were not successful last year, similar efforts are likely to emerge.

SB 1383 regulations will be finalized by the state early this year. These requirements, among other things, mandate that each City have a comprehensive organics management program for commercial and residential customers. This service will include

3 City Council Staff Report July 9, 2020 - Page 4 Discussion of Potential Ban on Single-use Plastic Food Ware food waste and yard waste, so it will represent a significant expansion of our current service. And, because everyone will need to participate, it will be much more widespread than the system now, which is focused on commercial food service.

Finally, in response to COVID-19, the State issued a 60-day emergency order suspending the State-wide ban on single-use plastic bags at stores and has issued guidance that allows for use of disposable menus and disposable food ware if cleaning and disinfecting is not possible. Many businesses embraced these disposable allowances. Some grocery stores no longer allow customers to use reusable bags out of an abundance of caution to protect workers. The State has since ended its suspension of the State's ban, but stores still may be reluctant to allow use of reusable bags.

What Other Cities are Doing

Over 100 cities in California have instituted some sort of restrictions on disposable food ware. The descriptions below are a snapshot in time as many cities are considering new or expanded requirements. Sustainability staff have summarized some examples of these restrictions and grouped them into three categories - Basic, Moderate, and Progressive programs.

Basic Programs Some cities have chosen to implement limited restrictions that focus on a single product. For example: • Cathedral City restricts plastic straws to on-request only and expands this restriction over the state requirements to include all food establishments, not just dine-in restaurants. • Del Mar banned all plastic straws and stirrers. Biodegradable, or reusable straws can be made available upon request. • El Segundo restricts plastic straws, stirrers and utensils to on-request only.

Moderate Programs These cities have chosen a more robust approach and includes restrictions on multiple products and specifies acceptable disposable alternatives. For example: • Carmel banned plastic straws and utensils and now requires that all disposable food ware (e.g., straws, cups, lids, etc.) be biodegradable/compostable or recyclable. • Avalon has banned the use of all polystyrene food ware and requires that other disposable food ware be recyclable or compostable. It prohibits the sale or distribution of plastic straws, plastic stirrers, and any polystyrene food ware within the city. It also encourages all businesses to not use polystyrene foam packaging. • Davis restricts plastic straws to on-demand only for dine-in service consistent with state law. Davis also passed a disposable food ware reduction law that bans polystyrene foam food ware and only allows food ware that is recyclable or biodegradable. Davis also encourages businesses to not use polystyrene foam packaging.

4 City Council Staff Report July 9, 2020 - Page 5 Discussion of Potential Ban on Single-use Plastic Food Ware

• Alameda encourages businesses to switch to reusable food ware voluntarily, bans all polystyrene food ware, limits single use straws to on-request only (or self­ service stations), and requires all disposable food ware to be compostable. Alameda also allows food vendors to charge a fee to recover the cost of the difference between the compostable food ware and their current food ware if more expensive.

Progressive Programs the Promote Reusables in Food Service The most progressive programs have a more comprehensive approach that includes an emphasis on promoting reusable food ware. Below is a summary of the key features of four city ordinances. While there are certain exceptions or fine points, the table below provides a perspective on the types of things that are included.

Provision Berkley Fairfax San Anselmo Arcada Reusable food ware required for on-site X X X X food consumption Disposable charge ($.25) X X X X Food ware accessories are on request X X X X only or in a food service area Accessories must be on-request only X X X X across all ordering platforms Polystyrene foam food ware is banned X X X X Requirement that disposable food ware X X X X be compostable and free of fluorinated chemicals Broader ban on polystyrene foam to X X X include sale or use and/or non-food ware items Front of house and composting X X required Recommendation for use of bulk X X condiment dispensers on site

Recommended Key Components of Draft Ordinance and Rationale The Office of Sustainability has been working with the Sustainability Commission and a consultant, UPSTREAM, to develop draft ordinance language to restrict disposable food service ware here in Palm Springs. The key features of this draft ordinance are drawn from the more progressive programs described above and are reflective of the current state of our recycling and infrastructure. Each element is presented along with a rationale and option for Council's consideration.

5 City Council Staff Report July 9, 2020 - Page 6 Discussion of Potential Ban on Single-use Plastic Food Ware

1} Broad prohibition on the use and retail sale of food ware made of polystyrene and expanded polystyrene foam food ware.

Styrene used to manufacture polystyrene products is identified by the State of California as a human carcinogen under Proposition 65 chemicals. The State advises that individuals limit consumption of hot food and beverages from polystyrene containers.2 Polystyrene foam food and beverage service ware is a distinctive litter concern because it is lightweight, easily blown into streets and waterways, and floats in water. It also breaks apart easily into small pieces, is difficult to collect, and is often mistaken as food by birds, fish, and wildlife.

While limiting the use of polystyrene foam food ware by food vendors would make an impact on our local environment, Sustainability staff observed significant polystyrene use by individuals in parks. Often these materials get blown into the fences and accumulate around the park perimeter and beyond. A total ban on retail sales and use by food vendors may be a more effective way to more universally prevent this type of litter.

In California, 65 local jurisdictions have enacted bans on use of foam polystyrene foodware in food service. Increasing numbers of jurisdictions are expanding this to include all types of polystyrene, due to health concerns.

Survey results indicated that about a third of the restaurants in Palm Springs still use some EPS food ware, primarily for takeout orders. Given the limited use of EPS food ware at restaurants, the requirement will likely have more of an impact on local retailers such as Smart and Final, Walmart, and the .99¢ store that sell to restaurants and to other bulk buyers. When Sustainability staff reached out to some of these retailers earlier this year, they indicated that they have not considered ceasing sales and are not actively looking into alternatives. Retailers such as Ralphs seem to have a variety of potential alternatives for the more occasional consumer.

Because the ban includes rigid polystyrene, not just the foam version, it would include all plastics marked with a #6, including products such as the iconic "Red Solo Cup" and other plates, cups and utensils.

Potential Alternative: This requirement could be limited in two ways - eliminate the retail requirement and/or focus only on EPS foam in the near term.

2) Food vendors that use disposable food ware that is compostable must use food ware that is certified by the Biodegradable Products Institute and is free of added fluorinated chemicals.

Compostable and biodegradable are terms that are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same. Biodegradable is used to describe materials that can ultimately decompose with the help of bacteria and fungi and turn into water, carbon dioxide, and

2 https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/fact-sheets/styrene

6 City Council Staff Report July 9, 2020 - Page 7 Discussion of Potential Ban on Single-use Plastic Food Ware biomass as a result. is a process that occurs without human interference and within no specific time frame.

Composting, on the other hand, is "human-controlled degradation." Items that are compostable are also biodegradable, but they break down in a much shorter time frame determined by the composting facility - usually around 80 days. One purpose of composting is to produce nutrient rich soil for agricultural production.

Most materials will biodegrade eventually in the environment, although for plastic in oxygen depleted and marine environments, this may not be true. However, not all products meet the standards of compostability identified in ASTM D6400 or D6868. It is important that, if food vendors are going to make the switch to compostable materials, they should change to something that will be accepted into our planned organics management program. The management of organics is one of the City's biggest future challenges, and, unfortunately there are still many uncertainties.

In addition to meeting the standard for compostability, the material should be free of fluorinated chemicals such as per- and poly-fluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS). These chemicals are used to improve performance of fiber-based food ware, but they are known as "forever chemicals" because they are persistent and toxic pollutants that can contaminate groundwater, surface water, compost and then edible crops grown in compost. These chemicals are associated with cancer, endocrine disruption, and a wide range of other human health impacts.

Although there is not a broader requirement that food vendors move to compostable materials at this time, the Sustainability staff have been working with Palm Springs Disposal Services to better understand what facilities we have available that will accept compostable food service ware. The current facility that Palm Springs Disposal uses for organics management is reluctant to take it because of the extra time it takes to decompose as compared to regular yard and food waste. We have received feedback from a new facility being planned by Burrtec at Edom Hill that they may be able to take this material. That facility plans to open this fall.

There is no potential alternative to this requirement.

3) Straws will be non-plastic and available only on request.

Straws have been the focus of many ordinances and much media attention. Because they are often hard to collect and are not recyclable, the best approach is to reduce their availability and ensure that that non-plastic alternatives are used so that when they are released to the environment, their threat is minimized.

This is addressed in the draft ordinance in two ways - it specifies that any straws are non­ plastic and that all straws are available only upon request or in a self-service area.

7 City Council Staff Report July 9, 2020 - Page 8 Discussion of Potential Ban on Single-use Plastic Food Ware

To addressed accessibility concerns, the ordinance would include an allowance for businesses to retain some plastic straws for patrons that need them.

Because of the state law and the media attention around this issue, many businesses have already made a switch and are more likely to ask patrons if they want straws before handing one to them. Given the exception in the state law for bars and fast food, these things are still happening at some food vendor locations that would be covered by the new ordinance.

There are no particular alternatives being put forward at this time.

4) Reusable food service ware is required for on-site food consumption.

This goal of this ordinance is not just to reduce plastics in our environment but also to reduce waste. Although some disposable alternatives - such as those made from compostable and recyclable materials - seem preferable to traditional plastic, they are still disposable and associated with a wide range of environmental impacts, such as greenhouse gas emissions, water and , resource extraction, habitat destruction, as well as contributing to landfill waste and litter. Moving away from disposables is the only way to reduce waste, and reusable products always have a lower environmental footprint after a number of uses, ranging generally from 5 to 200 uses, depending on the material.

Reusable food service ware for onsite food consumption saves businesses money while significantly reducing their waste generation. Re Think Disposable is a program dedicated to promoting reusables in food service. Operating in partnership with several cities and counties in California, the program has worked with over 300 food businesses and institutions in California that voluntarily converted from disposable to reusable food ware. For the 166 businesses that have enabled the program to collect data, the results show they eliminate 17.8 million disposable items while preventing 203,311 pounds of waste every year, and have achieved a cumulative annual cost savings of $548,851 (about $3,000 per business on average) after the payback period for the initial investments like reusable food ware and infrastructure to support the new operation. In every single , food businesses demonstrated cost savings. Almost every participant incorporated reusable food ware into their existing staffing and dishwashing capacity; few businesses ever have to add dishwashing capacity. For example, of the 80 businesses that participated in ReThink Disposable in the City of Alameda, only two opted to lease dishwashers to increase washing efficiency. These businesses are projected to still save money annually even after taking the cost of the dishwasher rental into account from the avoided costly ongoing single-use food ware procurement.

Based on the results of the City's restaurant survey, this onsite reusable requirement would mean that about 20% of food vendors would have to change their in-house dining practices. This 20% primarily includes fast food restaurants (e.g., Panera, McDonalds, Subway, Carl's Jr) and small establishments (e.g., Teryaki Yogi, Townie Bagel, Koffi).

8 City Council Staff Report July 9, 2020 - Page 9 Discussion of Potential Ban on Single-use Plastic Food Ware

Some chains that are in locations that have passed similar requirements are actively seeking ways to adapt their operations.

The City recognizes that some food items need to be wrapped or contained in ways that may not lend themselves to reusable food ware (e.g., burritos). In these cases, non­ reusable paper food wrappers, sleeves and bags; foil wrappers; paper napkins; and paper tray and plate-liners are allowed for on-site food consumption.

Although Reusable options are preferred, Prepared Food Vendors may use Non-reusable straws, stirrers, cocktail sticks, and toothpicks that are not Plastic for on-site food consumption.

Potential Alternative: Given that this requirement would typically affect small businesses, one alternative would be to phase delay implementation for small businesses and provide a robust technical assistance program to help them implement a program that will ultimately help them save money. To avoid impacts on existing businesses altogether, the Council could make this requirement applicable to only new businesses, so that a reusable food ware system could be incorporated into the restaurant design.

5.) For takeout food, food ware accessories are provided only upon request, including through online delivery platforms.

The proliferation of food ware accessory waste is challenging because there are limited options for non-plastic alternatives, they can't really be recycled in our current recycling system, and they are often given out automatically at restaurants. Although some businesses have started to change their practices and provide them only on request, some restaurants are concerned about customer dissatisfaction if they don't include them and the customer needs them later.

The goal of this provision is to eliminate the practice of automatically giving customers accessories that they don't need. Many customers that take out or get delivery are consuming meals at home or work where they already have napkins, utensils, condiments, etc. and don't need the accessories. In a waste-conscious culture, the default should be not to provide these disposable items unless the customer needs them.

Like the move to reusables, this practice will also save businesses money because they will buy less products - many of which customers aren't using.

There is a condition that this "on-demand" system extend to virtual ordering tools as well as in-person or on the phone situations. Some online services like GrubHub have already incorporated this due to restrictions that are emerging in other parts of the State.

There is no potential alternative to this component. This particular requirement could also save businesses money in a post-COVID environment. Given the rise in take-out, if they only had to provide accessories on request, it would likely reduce their costs to provide accessories with every order as is the common practice.

9 City Council Staff Report July 9, 2020 - Page 10 Discussion of Potential Ban on Single-use Plastic Food Ware

6) With limited exceptions, do not specify acceptable disposable alternatives at this time.

The current draft ordinance language being developed generally does not mandate specific types of acceptable disposable food ware. This is contrary to the resolution passed by the Sustainability Commission and the approach many other cities are taking. Specifically, many cities are requiring "recyclable" or "compostable" products as substitutes for polystyrene and other plastics.

Specifying recyclable material is problematic for two reasons. First, just because something is labeled as recyclable doesn't mean it is being recycled in the local waste management program. For example, if a "recyclable" PET cup has a or logo printed on it can be made unrecyclable because of that addition. Also, recyclable food or beverage packaging often becomes non-recyclable once it is contaminated with food materials. For example, cups and clamshells that could be recycled are generally collected in the recycling stream but then diverted to landfill if they are visibly soiled with food, heavy syrups, or oily contents that make them too contaminated to be recycled, such as stained cardboard pizza .

Compostable material can also be a challenge. Assuming materials are certified compostable, the ASTM standards used by third party certifiers, like BPI, ensures products will degrade in compost within 180 days. However, the typical composting processing time at most facilities is 60-90 days. This means that many composting facilities view compostable food ware as a contaminant and often screen it out and dispose of it. If it does make it through the process, composters may limit the amount they process because it adds no value to the compost material. For these reasons, most commercial compost facilities will not accept any compostable plastics and many don't accept food and beverage packaging at all.

For these reasons, the draft ordinance language has only limited references to preferred alternatives. Unlike some cities that may have more robust organics management capabilities, Palm Springs does not currently have a robust system in place to broadly collect organic materials and process them. This will be changing with the introduction of SB 1383 requirements - most likely in 2022. At that time, the City will be in a better position to process compostable materials and this may be a more viable option.

7) Charge for disposable cups and containers.

The problem of disposable food ware is as much dependent on individual choice as it is on the decisions of food vendors. Some of the more progressive programs have adopted or are planning a charge for disposable food ware such as cups and containers. Similar to the charge for plastic bags, the additional fee is intended to encourage customers to bring their own cups and containers.

The potential ordinance draft includes a charge of $.25 per . Given that other cities are just trying this approach, there is a condition in the draft ordinance for the

10 City Council Staff Report July 9, 2020 - Page 11 Discussion of Potential Ban on Single-use Plastic Food Ware city to monitor these charges so that it can determine whether or not it is effective in reducing disposable cup use over time.

Given that reusable cups are becoming more standard practice, the cup fee is intended to start when the ordinance is passed. A charge of $.25 per disposable food (up to $.50) would start two years after ordinance adoption - after a culture of reuse is more widely accepted. An emerging business sector of third party reusable cup and container businesses that offer cafes and food businesses a reusable and returnable cup or container to lend to their customers will make it easier for food service operators to offer reusable food containers to their customers. Companies like Spark! (formerly GO-) and Dispatch Goods, operating the SF Bay Area are growing in popularity and likely to spread in communities that adopt the charges. Similarly, there are a number of reusable cups systems, like Vessel, Muuse, and CupClub, launched in the Bay Area that will become more popular in places with disposable take-out cup charges.

Charging for disposables is also consistent with a "carbon tax" concept in that it charges citizens for the contribution they make to the City's carbon footprint.

The fees collected through this process would remain with the food vendor - in theory to offset some of the expenses that might be associated with upgrading their disposable food ware to non-polystyrene or compostable alternatives or for enhancing reusable options. As such, it would not be considered a tax by the City.

One of the questions that is often asked is whether reusable cups and food ware are allowed under the current health code. There was a condition added to the State Health Code that does allow for refilling reusable cups as long as certain procedures are in place (e.g., the lip does not touch the dispenser) that is fairly common practice across restaurants now.

Concerns about filling a customer's personal container have emerged due to Corona Virus. Businesses can address this problem by lending customers a clean, sanitized reusable cup or container. Third party reusable cup and container systems provide a good alternative as these products are sanitized in commercial systems.

Potential Alternatives: • Require business to provide a reusable cup or container. • Provide a washing station for personal cups and containers. • Do not incorporate the charge and work with vendors to establish incentives for customers that bring reusable cups or containers. • Delay implementation until businesses begin to allow use of customer-provided cups and containers. Given the current COVID response and the reluctance by most businesses to allow use of reusable cups, near-term implementation of the cup/container charge would be difficult because of a lack of readily available alternatives.

11 City Council Staff Report July 9, 2020 - Page 12 Discussion of Potential Ban on Single-use Plastic Food Ware

8) Condiments must be in bulk dispenser or individual paper packaging for onsite consumption. Individual plastic condiment packages are prohibited for on-site use.

This component helps to eliminate impossible to recycle materials such as creamer containers, jam and jelly containers, and ketchup packets when used for on-site dining. Although it does not eliminate the challenge of their use for takeout orders, it does help limit onsite disposables. This is already done at many food vendors to varying extents.

The Cities of Fairfax and San Anselmo include this as a recommended practice and the County of Marin has proposed it.

Potential Alternative: Include this as a recommended practice given the impact from these materials is fairly small. This alternative would be more acceptable in a post-CO VI D environment where many businesses have returned to single-use condiment packages for in-house dining.

9) No single-use plastic bags for food delivery or takeout.

The City's current single-use plastic bag restrictions do not currently apply to food vendors for prepared food. (See PSMC 6.09.050 paragraph C). This exception would be eliminated, and all food vendors would be required to use paper bags for takeout food and delivery orders.

10) Exceptions for undue hardship and other reasons.

The Sustainability Commission recognizes that there may be necessary exceptions to the potential requirements described above. Waivers or exceptions would be provided for the following types of situations: • Cup and container charges would not apply to customers receiving state assistance • Feasibility based hardships (e.g., they are unable to accommodate storage of reusable food ware). • Financially prohibitive (e.g., vendors demonstrate that alternatives are prohibitively expensive) • Undue hardship is created by one or more requirements that generally don't apply to others in a similar situation.

Potential Future Areas of Focus In addition to the current focus on food ware, the Sustainability Commission has discussed potential future restrictions on single use materials. Specific areas that could result in additional progress in trash and litter reduction include the following:

12 City Council Staff Report July 9, 2020 - Page 13 Discussion of Potential Ban on Single-use Plastic Food Ware

• Dry cleaners - eliminating unnecessary plastic accessories such as collar stays and clips for cuffs and requiring all cleaners to offer and accept reusable clothing bags. • Expanding polystyrene foam ban to include products such as coolers and pool noodles.

Summary of Options for Consideration Based on the information presented and being considered by the Sustainability Commission, this section summarizes a few different options that the Council could take based on the alternatives presented and to reflect the current state of response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Option 1: Support the Full Scope

Under this option, the Council could support all of the components outlined, and the Sustainability Commission would move forward with outreach to the impacted stakeholders in the coming months to finalize the draft ordinance language and present it back to Council.

To recap, this would include the following parameters:

• A ban on polystyrene food ware sale, use and distribution within the city limits. • A requirement to use certified compostable material, if compostable material is used. • Prohibition on plastic straws and requirement that all straws are on demand only. • Requirement to use reusable food ware for on-site dining. • On-site condiments in bulk dispensers and prohibition on plastic condiment packages on site. • Require disposable food ware accessories such as straws, utensils, etc. be provided only on demand or in a food service area. • Disposable cup charge ($.25) and future charge for disposable food containers ($.25 per container up to $.50) • Prohibition on single use plastic bags for takeout food.

Given the focus on business reopening, it may be difficult to get the attention of affected businesses. In addition, some of the actions above will likely result in increased costs to food vendors. Without incentives to support these changes, implementation may be delayed and likely not supported by impacted businesses.

Option 2: Support a Limited Scope with Phased-in, Optional. or Incentive-based Approaches in Line with a post-COVID environment

Under this option, the Council would support a more limited set of requirements and phase in other requirements over time. Based on the alternatives presented above, this could include the following:

13 City Council Staff Report July 9, 2020 - Page 14 Discussion of Potential Ban on Single-use Plastic Food Ware

Requirements:

• Prohibit plastic straws (except for those with accessibility issues) and require compostable alternatives. Provide them on demand only. • Limit other disposable food ware accessories to on-demand only or make them available in a self-service area. • Require reusable food ware for on-site food consumption for new food businesses. Encourage this for existing businesses.

Requirements for Future Phase:

• Prohibit the use of polystyrene food ware by food vendors only • Prohibit single-use plastic bags. • Ensure that all food vendors allow for the use of reusable cups and food ware consistent with health code parameters. • Recommend bulk condiment containers or condiments served in individual reusable container and non-plastic condiment packages. • Institute a cup or container charge when alternatives are readily available.

FISCAL ANALYSIS:

Depending on how Council decides to move forward, costs to implement any new policy would be associated with desired levels of outreach and community education. Enforcement of the new policy could range from no additional costs (utilizing current Code Compliance staff) to increased costs of additional enforcement staff.

There may also be some increased costs to the City in terms of implementing requirements. These costs would depend on the requirements selected.

More feedback from Council is needed to more clearly define the elements of an ordinance to more accurately articulate fiscal impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

There is no City Council action being considered at this time. It is likely that any such ordinance, if developed, would be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (See 14 CCR Section 15061(b)(3); see also 14 CCR Sections 15307 and 15308.)

14 City Council Staff Report July 9, 2020 - Page 15 Discussion of Potential Ban on Single-use Plastic Food Ware

SUBMITTED:

p Marcus Fuller, PE, PLS Manager, Office of Sustainability Assistant City Manager

David H. Ready, Esq., Ph.D. -,:___ _ City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Standing Subcommittee on Waste Reduction Report, November 2018 B. Restaurant Survey Results

15 ATTACHMENT A: STANDING SUBCOMMITTEE ON WASTE REDUCTION REPORT, NOVEMBER 2018

16 Subcommittee Report - November 2018

Standing Subcommittee on WASTE REDUCTION (SSCowR) REPORT

TO: The Palm Springs Sustainability Commission

Palm Springs City Council

SUBJECT: Report on municipal bans of straws and polystyrene­ composed packaging and food-service ware by food service facilities when providing prepared foods for on-site or take-away consumption.

DATE: Nov 29, 2018

SUMMARY

This report provides background information on municipal bans on plastic straws and expanded polystyrene-composed packaging and food-service ware. The report covers history, impact, and best-practices associated with such bans to assist with development and acceptance of a similar ban by the City of Palm Springs.

BACKGROUND

Plastic Waste

Worldwide, over 400 million tons of plastic products are produced each year. About half of this total is composed of consumer products destined for disposal after only a single use. These "throw-away" products include straws, liquid stirrers, cups, lids, expanded polystyrene (EPS) food containers, disposable plates, eating utensils, and shopping bags. Due in part to serious barriers to recycling this material (see Footnote 1), approximately 80% of it ends up either in landfills or as litter. There, most of the waste photodegrades into particles of 5 mm or less. Being 1

17 Subcommittee Report- November 2018

nonbiodegradable, this "microplastics" material then accumulates in our planet's various "collection bins'', such as our oceans, where over 8 million tons of plastic waste is added every year. It has been estimated that the sea now contains some 51 trillion microplastics particles, and if this amount is not reduced, there will be more plastic than fish by 2050, and 99% of all the seabirds on the planet will have consumed some.

The ecological threat posed by microplastics is not limited to the oceans. For land-locked communities, such as Palm Springs, studies have estimated that fully one-third of microplastic waste material ends up in soils, lakes and riverbeds [1]. Among other results of this ground-based accumulation, there is already evidence that microplastics are contaminating human food supplies. It's not only fish and other marine wildlife that are ingesting thrown-away plastic waste. It's us!

Efforts to Reduce Plastics Waste

The environmental threat posed by plastic waste has been recognized for decades, and concrete steps to reduce the amount generated and then disposed of have been taken across the world. Last year, the United Nations declared war on ocean plastic with a "CleanSeas" campaign. Thirty countries have now joined the campaign, including the UK, Canada, France, Indonesia, Sierra Leone, Brazil, Norway, Italy, Costa Rica, Kenya and Peru. In June of this year, over 40 prominent companies in the United Kingdom signed the UK Plastics Pact, pledging (among other things) to "eliminate difficult or unnecessary single-use plastic packaging through redesign, innovation, or alternative delivery models". Notwithstanding these international efforts, the bulk of the effort to reduce plastics waste has been at more local levels. In the United States, 150 cities and counties have adopted ordinances banning or restricting the use of plastic consumer products, over 100 of these initiatives in California alone. These municipal ordinances typically prohibit food and food-service businesses from providing plastic straws (except, in some cases, on request), using EPS (brand name Styrofoam) containers for take-out food, and utilizing plastic cups, stirrers, plates, utensils, cupholders, and related forms of food ware.

2

18 Subcommittee Report - November 2018

Effectiveness.

Studies indicate that municipal bans are quite effective at reducing plastics waste. For example, quoting from a 2017 study carried out by California's Center for Sustainable Energy, "San Francisco experienced a 41 percent decrease in EPS litter over the three years following passage of its ordinance. In a case study of the City of San Leandro, it found there was a 61 percent decrease in EPS food container litter after the passage of their ordinance." [2].

Plastics Waste in Palm Springs.

Extrapolating from national figures, approximately 75,000 plastic straws, and over 10,000 EPS (Styrofoam) cups, are used and discarded in Palm Springs every day. The total amount of disposable food service ware generated by the City is approximately 500 tons per year. 1 Nationwide, estimates are that 90% of such waste ends up either in landfills or is injected directly into the environment in the form of litter. The corresponding figure for the City of Palm Springs, however, is fully 100 per cent, as even the plastic material that residents and businesses source-separate into their recycle bins is currently going to landfill [3]. 2 Meanwhile, in stark contrast to Palm Springs' stated goal of being a model community for sustainability, most local food-service providers, ranging from high volume fast-food outlets such as Panda Express to prominent full-service sit-down restaurants such as Billy Reeds, continue . to package take-home food in EPS (Styrofoam) containers.

NEED FOR AN ORDINANCE

The simplest and easiest way to reduce plastic waste would be for the public to "refuse to use" single-use plastic straws for their beverages, and for food and beverage-serving (FBS) businesses to voluntarily switch to biodegradable or compostable alternatives to plastic food containers and

1 Although 500 tons is only 1% of the total stream by weight, plastics materials are largely lightweight containers, and therefore contribute disproportionally to the volume of material that goes into landfill (see footnote 2). Some estimates are that plastics cans, bottles, and the like represent up to 30% of a municipal waste stream by volume [4]. Volume, rather than weight, is the critical metric when calculating how long it will take to fill up our landfill facilities. 2 This is due to the fact that there is currently no customer for plastic and other recyclable products, and the warehouses where this material is being stored are getting full. Thus, plastics material collected from both trash and recycle containers is going to landfill. 3

19 Subcommittee Report - November 2018 other plastic food-service related ware. Although public attitudes to plastic straws are changing [5], the high daily volume of plastic straw usage in this country reflects the fact that members of the public still rarely turn down plastic straws when provided. Meanwhile, although some Palm Springs FBS businesses have started using alternatives to plastics products, they are the exception rather than the norm. This is largely due to the simple fact that plastic products are generally less expensive than the more environmentally friendly alternatives. Not surprisingly, therefore, the track record of municipal efforts to convince businesses to switch to non-plastic products voluntarily is not encouraging. For example, the City of Santa Cruz, CA established a voluntary program to encourage local FBS businesses to switch from EPS takeout food service containers to more environmentally friendly alternatives. Although the program featured extensive ongoing education and outreach, after 18 years of effort, the voluntary reductions did not meet the target goals. The City then decided to adopt mandatory restrictions. [2]

Conclusion: Adapting a municipal ordinance to ban plastics products from food-service businesses in the City of Palm Springs would provide many benefits, including:

• Assisting the City with complying with increasingly stringent state requirements and City goals to reduce the volume of city waste that ends up in landfill.

• Reducing the amount of plastics in our litter stream.

• Reducing the buildup of microplastics in our soils and waterways.

• Promoting the City's reputation as a leader in sustainability practices and policies.

OBJECTIONS

In general, organizations representing FBS businesses have objected, sometimes strongly, to the adoption of anti-plastics ordinances. [2]. The core of their objection is that alternatives to plastic materials are sufficiently more expensive than plastics that the bans will levy an undue economic hardship on businesses that already operate on razor-thin 4

20 Subcommittee Report - November 2018

profit margins.

This concern deserves serious consideration, particularly in light of the fact that Palm Springs hosts a largely tourist-based economy with a disproportionate number of FBS businesses. That being said, existing analyses of the economic impact of plastics bans indicate that the actual impact on their bottom line is smaller than FBS business owners often fear [2]. For example, in 2015, the City of Tacoma Park, Maryland passed a comprehensive ban on food service facilities' use of plastics products. In advance of the ban, the City conducted a comprehensive comparison of the costs of seven common plastics products (food containers, cups, and utensils) versus readily-available biodegradable alternatives [6]. The bottom line from the study was that

"Switching from polystyrene to the cheapest alternative material product resulted in an average increase of $2.04 per 100 units purchased".

These numbers may be even lower in California today. In an informal survey of high-volume California retailers (such as Costco) by a SSCoWR member the week of November 25, bulk purchases of plastic straws were found to be available for less than one cent per straw. The cheapest environmentally-friendly alternative, straws made of paper, were selling for just over 2 cents per straw. Three-compartment styrofoam "clamshells" (take-home food containers), of the sort used by Panda Express, were selling for 9 cents per container at OfficeSupply.com, while the online retailer WebrestaurantStore.com was offering an equivalent 3-compartment takeout container, made of biodegradable, compostable sugarcane/bagasse, for 19 cents each.

While these numbers verify that environmentally friendly alternatives to plastics products cost more than plastics, the cost differentials are not dramatic in an absolute sense. The record shows that businesses have been able to absorb these costs with little disruption. For example, San Francisco passed a plastics ban in 2004, affecting 4,500 business. In follow-up inspections involving 4,200 of those establishments, the City discovered that only 150 were not in compliance, for a compliance rate of over 96%. Similarly, the City of Seattle, whose 2009 ordinance affected 4,000 businesses, reported two years later that less than five percent of those businesses were out of compliance, only six establishments had

5

21 Subcommittee Report- November 2018 been fined, and did not observe any establishments going out of business due to the ordinance. [7]

"Best Practices"

With literally decades of experience with crafting and implementing and assessing plastics bans on food ware, there are now clear guidelines for how to craft an ordinance that minimizes the impacts on businesses. In a nutshell, these 'best practices" are:

• Community outreach and education. Cities with high compliance rates attribute the success of their ordinances in large part to outreach efforts to stakeholders. For example, the City of San Francisco undertook a diverse and comprehensive campaign to educate business owners via mail and media, but also "direct contact with food vendors at community meetings held at various targeted neighborhoods as well as site visits to all 4,000+ establishments over the course of four years with the assistance of volunteers." [7]

• Phased implementation. Most municipal bans in California start with city­ affiliated functions and contractors, then expand the ban to encompass large sit-down restaurants, and extend again to encompass all FBS establishments.

• Encourage and facilitate co-ups where city FBS establishments can reduce prices for environmentally-friendly single-use products by joining forces for bulk purchases. A good model for such an enterprise is GreenTown Los Altos, a co-op set up in 2011 for that Silicon Valley city through which FBS businesses who join the co-op can purchase environmentally friendly alternatives to plastic ware from online retailer World Centric. World Centric offers members of GreenTown a 25 percent discount on their purchases. The power of cooperative buying brings the cost of biodegradable straws down to approximately 1.5 cents per straw for co-op members, and three-compartment clamshells made of wheatstraw down to 23 cents per container. Most major restaurants in the town have now signed on with the co-op.

• Establish and maintain an online website where businesses can access information on the ban, on environmentally friendly alternatives to plastics products, where to purchase them, and what they cost. 6

22 Subcommittee Report - November 2018

If these measures are followed, the impact to businesses will be minimized, and the experience of Palm Springs businesses should follow the thousands of food-and-beverage serving-businesses (FBSB) that survived the implementation of bans elsewhere. Since the ordinance applies to all businesses, passing the additional cost on to consumers won't put an individual business at a competitive disadvantage with others.

Plastic Straws: Outright Ban or "On Request Only"?

Should a Palm Springs ordinance ban plastic straws outright, or mandate a "plastic straws on request only" policy? On-request policies are relatively effective; for example, the Alamo Drafthouse Theatre Chain reported recently that adoption of a "request-only" policy in their Denver movie theaters cut plastic straw usage by a full 75%. However, given the high number of straws discarde~ in the City daily, even a 75% reduction would leave more than 20,000 plastic being discarded daily. Given the modest cost differential (on the order of one cent each) between plastic straws and the least expensive available alternatives, the SSCoWR recommends that the ordinance include a full ban on plastic straws.

CURRENT LEGISLATION

California AB 1884 passed in September 2018, but only requires full service (dine-in) restaurants to have a plastic straw-upon-request-only policy. Most municipal bans go much further to reduce plastic waste.

Recommendation:

The SSCowR recommends that an ordinance similar to the ordinance recently passed by the City of Long Beach (Appendix A) be drafted and submitted to City Council for vote and approval.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Robert Mccann, Roy Clark

7

23 Subcommittee Report- November 2018

REFERENCES

1. Land-based pollution with microplastics an underestimated threat. Online article published Feb 5, 2018 on Phys.Org website. https://phys.org/news/2018-02-land-based-pollution-microplastics­ underestimated-threat. html

2. Heverley, S., Lu, J., Middleton, A., & Ghai, S. Recommendation for Reducing or Banning Foam Food Service Containers: An analysis of Economic and Environmental Impacts of Polystyrene Policies. Equinox Project: Center for Sustainable Energy. March, 2017.

https://energycenter.org/sites/default/files/Guide for Polystyrene Reductio n Policies.pdf

3. Personal communication, Chris Cunningham, Palm Springs Disposal Services, November 26, 2018.

4. Chandra, Manu, Kohn, Colin, Pawlitz, Jennifer, and Powell, Grant. The Real Cost of Styrofoam. Presented to St. Louis Earth Day, November 22, 2016.

https://greendiningalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/real-cost-of­ styrofoam written-report. pdf

5. Americans in Favor of Limiting Use of Plastic Straws. Online article, August, 2018.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/ Attitudes-Toward-Plastic-Straws

6. Takoma Park Polystyrene Ban: Alternative Material Cost Analysis.

https://documents-takomapark.s3.amazonaws.com/public­ works/polystyrene-ban/PW-20150624-cost-analysis-hand-out. pdf

7. Nguyen, L. An Assessment of Policies on Polystyrene Food Ware Bans. San Jose State University Master's Thesis, 2012.

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.goog le.com/&httpsredir=1 &article=1265&context=etd_projects

8

24 Subcommittee Report - November 2018

Appendix 1: City of Long Beach Ordinance 34 and Supporting Documents.

9

25 Subcommittee Report - November 2018

ORD-34 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Long Beach, California

CHARLES PARKIN CityAttornl!Y ~J .Andman Clr,n,laM, C.olt MICHAELI-MAIS h,.,.C.Laltj,ne Ass/mud CJJyAJ!omry

MONTEH.MACHll' t>b! 'I }; i t.-!J .11ss1s11mtc;,y AJ!onr., 1

C.:Geolf,cyA/Jrtd JlkJtatd'F.Att/Mny April 17, 2018 WiUuunR. lll!ffg J,t!iuhi,N. C'""'!J HnlfflR. Jenkins Monlm /. KilaUa Nidrc!M. j. M-,r, l>tuunAMritt1aoli HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Borl,ara}. M&Tig11c City of Long Beach I.m,,.,.E.Misltjcm K.ilrilfil K.Pld:rlt California Httll Arturo D. S.nmez Vlct.Jrla.ilSilCDlt RECOMMENDATION: UmluT.Vu .1!11.1y/l..Wcb/,cr ThcodaroB. Accept categorical exemption No. CE 18-035, and ~

Declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 8.63 regulating the use of single~use food and beverage containers made of expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam, rigid polystyrene #6 and non­ recyclable and non-compostable material for prepared food distribution in the City of Long Beach, read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading. (Citywide)

DISCUSSION

At its meeting of October 17, 2017, the City Council requested the City Attorney to develop an ordinance regulating the use of single-use food and beverage containers made of expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam, rigid polystyrene #6 and non-recyclable and non-compostable material for prepared food distribution in the City of Long Beach, and to complete any required review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to submitting the ordinance.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA}, categorical exemption No. CE-18-035 was prepared and issued. (See Attachment.)

The ordinance is intended to reduce the environmental impacts related to single-use food and beverage containers made of expanded polystyrene foam and non­ recyclable and non-compostable material for prepared food distribution in the City of Long Beach.

The ordinance's provisions include the following:

C i!y 1-1!!'1~33 West Ocean lloulcvard, Eleventh Floor, Long Beach, California !10802-4664 (562) 570-2200 Fax(S62) 436-157!1 !•V,,,·kr.;·,· f:,;,1:f'::,!,11/i,,,, EighthFloor (562)570~2245 Fax{562.) 570-2220

10

26 Subcommittee Report - November 2018

April 17, 2018 Page2

• Prepared food or beverages shall not be sold or distributed in any food service ware made of made of EPS foam, rigid polystyrene #6 and non­ recyclable and non-compostable material in the City of Long Beach. The ban does not apply to food prepared or packaged outside of the City, provided such food is not altered or repackaged within the City. The ban does not apply to food brought by individuals for personal consumption to City facilities, such as City parks, nor does it apply to raw, uncooked meat, poultry, fish or eggs, unless provided for consumption without further food preparation, nor to fresh produce provided for consumption without food preparation or repackaging.

• Compliance with the ordinance will be phased in. Phase 1 applies to City facilities and City-permitted events three months after adoption (except those with multi-year permits, who must comply within one year of ordinance adoption). Phase 2 takes effect nine mon·ths after ordinance adoption, and applies to "large" food providers, defined as seating 101 persons or more, including franchises. Phase 3 applies to establishments seating 100 persons or fewer, and takes effect eighteen months after ordinance adoption.

• The ordinance will ban retail sales of polystyrene ice chests, polystyrene bean bags and polystyrene craft materials eighteen months after ordinance adoption.

• "Food Provider" means a person or place that provides or sells food within the City to the general public, including but not limited to grocery stores, supermarkets, restaurants, drive-throughs, cafes, coffee shops, snack shops, public food markets, farmers' markets, convenience stores, mobile food vendors, caterers and food trucks.

• Utensils (forks, knives, spoons and the like) and straws for take-away food items may be provided by food establishments only upon request.

• The Health Department will check establishments for compliance as part of their inspection process.

• An exemption may be granted for a maximum of one year upon a finding that compliance would create an undue hardship.

The Council's October 17, 2017 action also called for the City to conduct a study during implementation regarding the impacts of the ban; to study the purchase of "Big Belly -type trash cans; and to explore incentive programs for compliance.

11

27 Subcommittee Report - November 2018

April 17, 2018 Page3

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Approve recommendation.

Very truly yours,

:~~~~:~:~:

Deputy City Attorney

ARW:bg A1 B-03399 L:\Apps\Clylaw32\WPDocs\D005\P030\DOB4B641.doc Attachments: Ordinance City of Long Beach Categorical Exempt~on No. CE 18-035

12

28 ATTACHMENT B: RESTAURANT SURVEY RESULTS

29 Restaurant Survey Results In the fall of 2019, the Office of Sustainability staff, a few members of the Sustainability Commission, and a few volunteers reached out to nearly 100 local food vendors to gather data on their use of disposable food ware. These food vendors represent about a quarter of the businesses listed in the City's business license database as having food-related operations. The survey questions are included below along with a summary of. the responses.

About how many seats does this establishment have?

RESPONSE NUMBER PERCENTAGE YES 72 73% NO 10 10% RESPONSE Number Percentage NO SEATING -TAKEAWAY ONLY 9 9% LESSTHAN SO 42 43% 50 OR MORE 47 48% Of the restaurants surveyed, there were about half that were considered large (with 50 or more seats) while the remainder were considered small with less than 50 seats (about 43%) or no seating at all (about 10%).

Does this establishment use durable, reusable food service ware for in-house dining?

RESPONSE NUMBER PERCENTAGE YES 167 68% NO 31 31% These results indicate that large and smaller restaurants -nearly 70% of the total - use durable food service ware. Of the 30% that do not, about 30% are takeaway only, so only about 20% of the total number of restaurants may be impacted by a reusable on-site requirement. Only 4 of the larger restaurants do not use reusable food ware. These were fast food chains.

Does this facility have any dishwashing facilities on site?

RESPONSE NUMBER PERCENTAGE YES 82 83% NO 11 11% DON'T KNOW 5 5% Most restaurants have some sort of dishwashing capabilities - even those that only do takeaway service. This may not be a dishwasher but rather a sink with appropriate washing basins.

Single-use plastic food ware used at the facility?

RESPONSE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NONE 3 3% UTENSILS 66 67% CUPS 66 67% LIDS 72 73% STRAWS 67 60% FOOD CONTAINERS 58 59%

1

30 Most restaurants still use disposable plastic food ware at their facilities, primarily for takeout orders or leftovers. Very few have moved to compostable material as illustrated in the next table. The survey did not assess the types of plastics used, so it is unclear how much of this material would be rigid polystyrene that could be banned under the recommended approach.

Any products made of compostable or "" material?

RESPONSE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NONE 57 58% UTENSILS 7 7% CUPS 7 7% LIDS 3 3% STRAWS 13 13% CONTAINERS 13 13% These results indicate that many restaurants have not made the switch to compostable food ware. Straws and containers are leading the way.

Any products made of polystyrene foam?

RESPONSE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NONE 63 64% CUPS 19 19% CONTAINERS 25 26% PLATES 2 2% DON'T KNOW 2 2% Over 60% of food vendors surveyed have moved away from polystyrene foam. This means that a polystyrene foam ban might impact less than 40% of vendors. Of the vendors that still use polystyrene foam, about 30% of the food vendors had less than 50 seats or were takeout only. This means a majority that are still using polystyrene are larger restaurants that are probably using it for leftovers or takeout.

What types of bags are used for takeout service?

RESPONSE NUMBER PERCENTAGE PLASTIC 55 56% PAPER 56 57% DON7KNOW 7 7% Many restaurants use either plastic or paper and can use one or the other based on the type or size of order being filled. These results also indicate that eliminating plastic is possible. Of those food vendors still using plastic bags, about half were large (more than 50 seats) and about half were small or takeaway-only facilities.

Which of the following best describes the establishment's disposable food ware accessories approach?

RESPONSE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NOT OFFERED 4 4% AVAILABLE IN SELFSERVICE AREA 22 22% AVAILABLE ONLY UPON REQUST 38 39% PROVIDED TO ALL CUSTOMERS WITHOUT INQUIRY 22 22%

2 31 The results of this survey question indicate that over half (about 60%) of food vendors already have an on-request only or self-service system in place already for food ware accessories. Those restaurants that still include accessories in every order will be able to save money by moving to an on-request only system, although there will be a learning curve for customers. Some the restaurants surveyed that still provide them to customers with every order mentioned that they are concerned that customers will be angry if they get home and find the utensils missing because they forgot to ask for them.

3

32