HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-02-2014 ss1 randsKremke, Kate
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 7:35 PM
To: Kremke, Kate
Subject: FW: Expanded Polystyrene Comments
Attachments: Barry Rands - response to EPS report at SLO CC.docx; Santa Cruz Styrofoam Ban.pdf
Agenda Correspondence for SS1 09/02/14. AGENDA
From: Barry Rands [mailto:bcrands @ gmail.com] CORRESPONDENCE
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 7:34 PM DatE' I tpm,
To: Mejia, Anthony
Subject: Expanded Polystyrene Comments
Please pass my comments from today's meeting along to City Council (attached)
Barry Rands, PE, LEED AP
81 Encanto Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805- 704 -1549 (cell)
805- 783 -2038 (home)
Madame Mayor and Members of the Council,
My name is Barry Rands, residing at 81 Encanto Dr., San Luis Obispo. I am a Professional Civil Engineer
and a member of the American Public Works Association and the American Society of Civil Engineers,
though I am speaking as an individual today.
I would like to make two brief comments:
FIRST: The staff report and survey go into some detail about the cost to businesses of various forms of
food service containers and that switching to alternative containers could cost more for businesses. But
no mention is made of the cost of clean -up and disposal of EPS, a real cost to the public and future
generations. Just one agency, Caltrans, spends $60 million annually to remove litter and debris from
roadsides and highways. If EPS comprises approximately 15% of that litter, then this one agency is
spending almost $10 million a year to clean up EPS. Add to this the hundreds of City and County Public
Works agencies that are responsible for doing similar cleanup. But the most significant cost is landfill
disposal. EPS that becomes litter is a terrible thing, but even if properly disposed of, the cost of
transporting it and containing it in landfills is enormous. Cold Canyon Landfill is currently undergoing an
expensive expansion to double its acreage and extend its life from 5 more years to 25. The bill for this
expansion is being footed by the public in the form of increased garbage fees. As EPS is a significant part
of the waste stream directed to landfill, by paying for disposal the public is essentially subsidizing
businesses that use cheap EPS containers. An EPS ban may add to the cost of food services, but let's not
forget how much money this will save the public by removing this hidden subsidy of unsustainable
business practices.
SECOND: The report mentions that "Santa Cruz amended and expanded initial ordinances to include a
wider range of items including the retail sale of polystyrene products." I would like to point out that
Santa Cruz County was featured on the cover of the March 2014 APWA Reporter and the article inside
explains why they expanded the ordinance. According to the article, they started with a prohibition of
EPS use in food service. But "when foam debris continued to appear on local beaches the county took a
first -in- the - nation step of banning retail sales of polystyrene cups, plates, coolers and other picnic items
to be sure that the harmful material wasn't making its way from local stores to the shores of the
Monterey Bay." I would urge the City Council to learn from this lesson and consider regulating not only
the use of EPS in food service establishments, but also the sale of this product in retail stores.