San Diego joined 119 other California cities on Monday by banning polystyrene food and beverage containers, which have been blamed for poisoning fish and other marine life and damaging the health of people who eat seafood.
Critics of the ban, which the City Council approved in a 5-3 vote, said it would financially damage many small restaurants by forcing them to use more expensive paper containers when they’re already coping with recent minimum wage hikes.
Such concerns prompted the city to include waivers of up to two years for businesses that can demonstrate a financial hardship and a one-year grace period for any business with annual gross income of less than $500,000.
Nearly all national and regional restaurant chains long ago stopped using polystyrene, commonly called Styrofoam, in response to lobbying by environmental groups and backlash from customers concerned that foam isn’t biodegradable. But many taco shops, pizza parlors, convenience stores and other small businesses continue to use foam products to save money.
Supporters said the ban, which won’t take effect until April to give businesses time to adjust, would help keep polystyrene out of local landfills.
That would help the city meet the goals of its ambitious and binding climate action plan, which includes a “zero waste” provision requiring the city to produce no waste that can’t be recycled by 2040.
Critics said the ban wouldn’t provide significant relief to landfills because the mixed paper products restaurants would be forced to use instead are as difficult to recycle as polystyrene.
In addition to food containers used by restaurants, the ban would apply to polystyrene egg cartons, coolers, ice chests, pool toys, dock floats and mooring buoys.
The legislation also requires restaurants to make plastic utensils and straws available only upon request, a provision aimed at reducing the amount of single-use plastic products in local landfills.
Several small restaurant owners pleaded with the council not to approve the ban during a two-hour public hearing at City Hall, but some other restaurant owners said they’ve successfully made the switch and received praise from customers.
Environmental groups called the legislation long overdue, contending that a ban is particularly important in San Diego because it will reduce litter at the city’s iconic beaches and boost the wildlife there.
The local Surfrider Foundation chapter says it collected more than 20,000 pieces of polystyrene at San Diego beaches and waterways in 2017.
Critics, including the California Restaurant Association, said the city rushed the process of approving the legislation, didn’t gather enough data about its potential impact and failed to hold informational meetings with affected businesses.
The vote to approve the ban was nearly on party lines, with the three “no” votes coming from Republicans on the council and four of the five “yes” votes coming from Democrats, who were joined by Republican Lorie Zapf of Bay Ho.
“I just really feel we need to move forward with this to protect our oceans, our marine life and ourselves,” said Zapf, whose district includes the city’s beaches. “The idea that we are literally poisoning ourselves – we need to do something about that.”
Councilwoman Barbara Bry of La Jolla, a Democrat, said she thought about her grandchildren and the future they face when considering how to vote on the ban.
“It protects our environment and our food supply,” she said.
Councilman Scott Sherman of Allied Gardens, a Republican, said he opposed the ban partly because it would be intrusive.
“I’m never in favor of government reaching in and saying what people can and can’t do,” Sherman said.
Councilman Chris Cate of Mira Mesa, a Republican, criticized his colleagues for not empathizing enough with restaurant owners.
“If you are a restaurant that has done this voluntarily, good for you,” Cate said. “But $10 dollars a day is a lot of money to some of the restaurant owners in my district.”
It’s not clear how the city will enforce the ban. The Environmental Services Department says three full-time employees costing $150,000 a year would be needed, but money for those workers hasn’t been approved by the council.
Councilman Chris Ward, a Democrat from University Heights who spearheaded the legislation, said he was less focused on punishment and more on gaining compliance by educating businesses about the benefits to the environment.
“By passing this measure, the council has reaffirmed our role as a national leader in pursuit of a safe, sustainable future and has made San Diego the largest city in California to ban Styrofoam,” Ward said. “The negative impacts of Styrofoam are permanent and threaten the health of San Diegans, wildlife, and industries critical to our region.”
Three other local cities have approved similar bans: Encinitas, Solana Beach and Imperial Beach.
Fines would be $200 for a first offense. The fine would rise to $350 for a second offense within the same 12-month period, and to $500 for a third offense during that time frame.
Mayor Kevin Faulconer, who is also a Republican, has declined to take a position on the ban. He could veto it, requiring supporters to secure six votes on the council to override the veto and enact the ban.
Councilman David Alvarez of Logan Heights, a Democrat who was absent from Monday’s vote, has publicly expressed support for such a ban before, so he would likely be the sixth vote required to override a veto.
City rules require the council to consider approval of the ordinance a second time, which will happen at an upcoming meeting.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-foam-ban-20181015-story.html