The cost to develop a polystyrene ban is estimated to be $75,000. The annual cost to enforce a polystyrene ban is estimated to be $25,000 for Option One, the option selected by the Committee. These costs will be paid with Stormwater Utility Assessment funds. If the Board selects Option Two, the cost will be more than Option One to administer and enforce the ordinance; how much more is hard to determine given the variety of possible permutations of Option Two and the additional research required depending on the permutation. The Sheriff’s Office has estimated it will cost an additional $94,000 each year to switch from polystyrene food and beverage containers to an alternative material. This will be a direct increase to their operating budget. There will likely be an operational cost increase for the hospital and clinics as well.  

On November 8, 2018, the Committee considered the attached staff report on a proposed ban of polystyrene food and beverage containers, and the policy implications and objectives of such a ban. The staff report offered two options to consider, one a staff recommendation consistent with the majority of surrounding cities that have a polystyrene ban, and a second option that included additional polystyrene items to ban. Staff recommended Option One would ban the use of polystyrene food and beverage containers and apply to any business that sells, or prepares and sells, food or beverages to the public. Those impacted would include restaurants, stores, convenience markets, and other similar businesses.  
  
Option One is consistent with most of the 10 cities in the County that currently have a polystyrene ban. A few cities ban more than just the use of food and beverage containers. Richmond and San Pablo, for example, have ordinances with the most provisions, expanding the ban to include the sale of polystyrene products, such as ice chests, packaging material, and packing peanuts. The provisions in each city ordinance is shown on Exhibit 1 in the attached staff report, along with both Option One and Option Two. Option One is also consistent with what other counties are doing around the Bay Area, shown on the attached chart, which was not included in the staff report but was reviewed and discussed at the Committee meeting.   
  
The attached staff report includes extensive background information, the outreach effort that was involved in requesting comments on the proposed polystyrene ban, the various measures and goals in the County’s Climate Action Plan that would be enhanced with a polystyrene ban, key public comments received, and a detailed description of each policy consideration. One other key comment was received at the Committee meeting, the attached letter from Californians Against Waste, dated November 6, 2018, supporting the ban and recommending the items banned go beyond Option One to Option Two.  
  
After a presentation by staff and public testimony, the Committee considered the two options and decided Option One would be the best approach for the County’s polystyrene ban. The Committee felt consistency with other cities within the County and with other counties in the Bay Area was important, providing businesses a level playing field, especially businesses who operate adjacent to other cities. Consistency also provides common rules for those that do business in multiple jurisdictions. The Committee also requested staff include the Public Information Officer when implementing the ordinance and to report back to the Committee one year after approval, and suggested this item be brought up at the Mayors Conference to encourage all remaining cities to adopt a polystyrene ban.  
  
The Committee recommends Option One. However, if the Board elects to expand the ban beyond Option One, the Board should consider the recommended stipulations presented by staff at the Committee meeting for adding additional banned items or including combustible products:  

• Banned Items. Ban the items outlined in Option One.
  • Option Two: If this option is considered then specify additional items to be banned beyond Option One.
  • Option Two: If this option is considered, staff recommends the ban of additional items (beyond Option One) become effective 12 months after the ordinance is adopted, and enforcement is on a complaint basis.
• Compostables. Do not include compostable products at this time.
  • Conditional Adoption. If adding compostable products to the ordinance is considered, staff recommends the introduction of compostable products as an acceptable alternative material would occur after certain conditions are met, to be outlined in the board order adopting the ordinance:
    • Compatible with SB 1383 regulations
    • Adequate local compost operator capacity
    • Uniform compostable collection service

The proposed ban of polystyrene food and beverage containers would not move forward, as staff would have no direction on how to draft an ordinance.

DIRECTED staff to prepare an ordinance for subsequent Committee review and Board approval to ban polystyrene food and beverage containers, applicable to any business that sells, or prepares and sells, food or beverages to the public, and prohibit the retail sales of said containers; 

and REQUESTED the Office of Communications and Media work with staff to prepare a public service announcement explaining why the measures are needed to protect wildlife and prevent pollution of our waterways.