title
Sustainability - ACTION ITEM - (1) Discuss 4B Plastic Reduction Proposals from Ballona Creek Renaissance to Ban Single-Use Plastic Beverage Bottles, Balloons, Smoking, Astroturf, and Single-Use Bags not Exempted by California Public Resources Code; and (2) Advance Committee Recommendations to City Council.
body
Meeting Date: February 27, 2025
Contact Person/Dept: Sean Singletary/Public Works - EPO
Phone Number: (310) 253-6457
Fiscal Impact: Yes [ ] No [X] General Fund: Yes [ ] No [X]
Attachments: Yes [ ] No [X]
Public Notification: Email via GovDelivery (02/24/2025): Meetings and Agendas - Sustainability Subcommittee, Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Commission; Stay Informed - Community Gardening, Sustainability and Environmental Issues, Urban Forest Management, Environmental Programs and Events
Department Approval: Yanni Demitri, Director of Public Works, City Engineer
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Sustainability Subcommittee: (1) discuss 4B plastic reduction proposals received from Ballona Creek Renaissance to (a) prohibit single-use plastic beverage bottles; balloons; smoking; astroturf; and single-use plastic bags not exempted by the California Public Resources Code; and (2) advance Committee recommendations to the City Council.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On March 23, 2023, Ballona Creek Renaissance (BCR) presented to the City Council Sustainability Subcommittee four proposals aimed at removing pollutants from the region’s waterways. BCR presented a breakdown of items that are most commonly found in Coastal Cleanup events, showing that cigarette butts and plastic beverage bottles make up close to 40% of the debris that is collected from waterways.
The proposed restrictions were called the 4B plastic reduction proposals because each item began with a letter “B.”
• The first proposal is a ban prohibition on local sales and use of single-use plastic beverage bottles (“bottles”), which would amend the City’s existing Waste Reduction Regulations, Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) Chapter 5.07. This proposal would prohibit the sale and use of single-use plastic bottles for beverages, both water and otherwise.
• The second proposal would also amend CCMC Chapter 5.07 to prohibit the use and sale of balloons (“balloons”) in the City.
• The third proposal would amend CCMC Chapter 9.11 to expand the prohibition of outdoor smoking (“butts”) citywide and considers a prohibition of tobacco sales ban within the City.
• BCR’s fourth proposal would amend CCMC Chapter 11.16 to expand the prohibition of single-use plastic carryout bags (“bags”) not exempted by SB 270 and SB 1053, the State’s plastic bag bans.
After the BCR presentation, the Sustainability Subcommittee discussed the 4B proposals and recommended that all the proposals be brought to City Council for consideration.
On April 29, 2024, the proposals were presented to City Council. Council remanded all the proposals back to the Sustainability Committee for additional outreach, further discussion, and, if necessary, possible refining. City Council also requested that a fifth prohibition on astroturf be added to the ban proposals for study.
CEQA
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mandates an environmental assessment of government actions that may have an adverse effect on the environment. The 4B proposals are limited government actions that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and those actions have been declared to be exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Such exemptions include actions taken by a government agency to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for the protection of the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15308). The proposed regulations qualify for such exemption.
PUBLIC OUTREACH/SURVEYS
The Sustainability Subcommittee met four times in 2024 to allow for additional discussion and public feedback: July 22, August 22, October 10, and November 18, 2024.
Public Works/Environmental Programs & Operations (EPO) staff contracted with SGA to conduct an outreach campaign to gauge community sentiments and economic impacts, per Council’s direction.
• Online and in-person surveys of Culver City residents and businesses were conducted between August and October 2024 in both English and Spanish. 1,068 online surveys were conducted, broken down between 905 residential and 163 commercial responses, which is a high response rate. Additionally, 72 in-person business surveys were conducted.
• Online educational campaigns were conducted and resulted in 819,633 impressions and 12,217 clicks.
Specific survey results broken down by product are below:
Bottles: Sales and Use of Single-Use Plastic Beverage Bottles
93% of residents reported buying drinks in single-use plastic bottles (29% daily/weekly, 27% monthly, and 37% rarely). Of the residents reporting, 71% purchase water in small plastic bottles (under 20 ounces). Extrapolating from the survey responses, approximately 4 million plastic beverage bottles under 20 ounces are sold in Culver City annually and approximately 6.6 million single-use plastic beverage bottles of all sizes are sold annually.
Grocery stores are the most popular place to buy single-use plastic beverage bottles. When asked how they would change behavior if plastic beverage bottles were restricted, 47% of those surveyed reported that they would shop outside of Culver City, 30% would buy beverages in alternate materials, and 14% would opt for reusable, refillable bottles.
57% of residents reported they were likely to support or are neutral on the bans. Residents 24 years old and under were least likely to support the ban than other age group. In supporting the bans, residents cited environmental benefits, cleaner spaces, and long-term trends toward sustainable materials. Concerns raised were the need for plastic water bottles for emergency preparedness in the event of an earthquake or other natural disaster; inconvenience; and a lack of alternatives for certain products.
Of 35 retailers surveyed, 92% sold plastic beverage bottles daily and 62% currently sell beverages in alternative packaging. 76% of businesses surveyed anticipated the bans would negatively impact their business, and 76% were also unlikely to support the ban. Retailer concerns with banning plastic bottles were a lack of suitable alternatives; accessibility for businesses such salons that serve water to customers as required by State regulations; and a widespread desire for the City to address other issues.
Balloons: Sale and Use of Balloons
45% of residents reported buying balloons occasionally, the bulk of these (92%) purchased for birthdays. Party supply stores are where 80% of residents purchase balloons, with grocery stores, online retailers, and specialty stores also on the list.
If banned, 43% of respondents would shop outside of Culver City, but 47% would stop using balloon decorations or switch to paper decorations, flowers or other materials. 67% of residents are likely to support or are neutral on banning balloons, with residents under 24 least likely to support a ban. Residents supporting the bans stated that balloons are not necessary, and they are a legitimate environmental hazard.
Of the 7 retailers surveyed, 33% of these businesses reported that balloon sales were 10% or more of total revenue; 57% currently sell alternative products; 72% of these retailers anticipate the ban would negatively impact their businesses; and 71% would not be likely to support a ban on balloons. Retailers cited women and minority-owned businesses as significantly impacted.
Smoking: Prohibition of Outdoor Smoking and Tobacco Sales Ban
10% of residents surveyed reported that they or someone in their household smokes outdoors. 75% of respondents were likely to support or are neutral on the ban. Supporters cited human health; litter reduction; and enjoyment of public spaces as benefits of a ban on outdoor smoking.
15 retailers selling smoking products were surveyed. 20% reported they are considering selling alternative products like e-cigarettes or vapes; and 50% currently sell alternative products. 20% of the retailers surveyed receive 20% or more of their revenue from cigarettes. 70% of the retailers anticipate being impacted negatively and would not support the ban. 48 businesses with outside smoking areas were also surveyed and 56% anticipated business would be impacted by a ban. Businesses were concerned about the lack of personal freedom and the fact that marijuana and alcohol are not banned in the City.
Single-Use Plastic Bags: Prohibition of Single-Use Plastic Carryout Bags
87% of residents surveyed buy or receive single-use plastic bags, with 34% of these purchases being daily or weekly. 60% of these sources are grocery stores, while take-out/food delivery, retail stores, pharmacies, and liquor stores make up other sources. At the same time, 74% of respondents reporting bringing reusable bags with them to shop. If restricted, 59% of those surveyed would switch to reusables and 35% would use paper bags, while 5% would shop outside of Culver City.
72% of residents surveyed are likely to support the ban or were neutral. Many residents cited environmental benefits and the lack of necessity as reasons to support a ban. Residents that did not support the ban cited convenience, reusing the bags for home purposes such as trash liners or animal waste; and the fact that plastic bags are billed as recyclable.
40 retailers were surveyed: 48% cited that plastic bags are associated with 20% or more of their sales; 53% currently offer alternative products; 85% of businesses anticipate the ban will impact their business; and 77% would be unlikely to support the ban.
Astroturf: Sale and Use of Astroturf
12% of residents surveyed currently use astroturf and the bulk of this use (98%) is for landscaping. If restricted, 27% of those surveyed would switch to grass, while 19% would use alternative landscaping such as granite, dirt, or cement.
70% of residents surveyed reported they would support or be neutral on the bans. Residents cited heat-retention and shedding of microplastics as reasons to support banning astroturf. Other residents cited benefits such as water conservation, its utility for pet owners, and the cost savings of not having to hire a gardener to tend natural landscaping. There was widespread confusion over the fact that astroturf was pitched as a sustainable product in the past and concerns about whether existing astroturf would have to be removed.
Of 17 retailers selling astroturf they were surveyed, 65% already sell alternative products, and 76% report that astroturf makes up less than 5% of their sales. 53% of these retailers are unlikely to support a ban. Some retailers reported that their products are PFAS and lead free.
Additional Business Outreach
On January 15, 2025, the Culver City’s Economic Development Division hosted a Business Town Hall. Approximately 15 businesses attended, including Costco, Copenhagen Bakery, Pasta Sisters, Tito’s Tacos, Dollar Tree, the Farmer’s Market, and a few medical professionals, among others.
Costco reported a recent 81% increase in plastic bottle sales and emphasized its role in emergency relief efforts, having donated 13,000 units of water for fire relief. Small businesses worried that enforcement would be unfairly burdensome on them while large retailers might find ways around it. The Chamber of Commerce advocated for collaborative efforts over outright bans to avoid unintentional economic harm.
Culver City-based neurologists in attendance presented findings on the dangers of microplastics, which have been detected in human lungs, digestive systems, and even newborns. These tiny particles contribute to early puberty, strokes, and other health concerns. It was mentioned that previous bans, such as those on Styrofoam, had successfully reduced pollution levels in local creeks.
Small businesses expressed frustration over mounting regulations and compliance costs. Some businesses have reduced plastic use by implementing small fees on utensils, which led to a significant decrease in distribution. Other businesses shared that incentivizing reusable bag use has lowered their costs.
The discussion surrounding balloon regulations focused on distinguishing between banning mylar balloon releases versus banning their sale entirely. Representatives from the balloon and event industries, including florists and decorators, warned that a full ban would severely impact their businesses. Many suggested targeted restrictions on balloon releases rather than a blanket prohibition. Additionally, some attendees pointed out that California already has regulations under SB 54 aimed at creating a circular economy, and any new policies should align with those existing laws.
Attendees suggested more balanced solutions such as increasing public education on sustainable practices, improving local recycling infrastructure, and encouraging voluntary reductions rather than imposing strict bans. Other ideas included implementing fees on single-use plastic alternatives, promoting compostable materials, and working closely with businesses to develop feasible timelines for sustainability transitions. Some called for the City to collaborate with regional suppliers to increase access to affordable, sustainable packaging options.
On February 18, 2025, the Culver City Chamber of Commerce independently hosted a meeting that discussed the proposed prohibitions.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Due to the State of California’s focus on sustainability, there are many discussions and numerous actions currently moving forward at the legislative level to reduce and discourage plastic.
SB 54 is a sweeping legislation signed by Governor Newsom in 2022.
• SB 54 requires that by January 1, 2028, at least 30% of plastic items sold, distributed or imported into the state be recyclable. By 2032, that number rises to 65%.
• It also calls for a 25% reduction in single-use plastic waste by 2032 and provides CalRecycle with the authority to increase that percentage if the amount of plastic in the economy and waste stream grows.
• For expanded polystyrene (which is already banned in Culver City), that number needs to reach 25% by 2025.
The bill relies on Extended Producer Responsibility, which shifts the responsibility of waste from consumers and jurisdictions to companies manufacturing products with environmental impacts. It also gives plastics companies extensive oversight and authority in terms of the program’s management, execution, and reporting, via a Producer Responsibility Organization, which will be made up of industry representatives. These stakeholders are due to define the regulations governing the law by March 8, 2025.
SB 54 is a compromise to prevent environmental groups from proposing ballot measures to ban plastics, however, there is concern rising among environmentalists about the ability of the industry to properly self-regulate and whether CalRecycle will enforce its regulations.
Considerations
There is continued discussion regarding what ‘recyclable’ truly means, how much of what we separate is actually recycled, and growing concern about exporting these products to locations outside of the United States and what is the global footprint of American plastics. [Culver City works closely with refuse processors on understanding recycling rates and publishes information to residents about source reduction and reusables in order to avoid the need for these products in the first place.]
Replacements for plastic products may have foreseeable or unforeseeable unintended impacts. Short of a widespread reusability program, other disposable vessels (such as aluminum, glass, or other products for bottles and paper replacing plastic for bags) also have environmental impacts and costs, as well as variable utility and preference among customers. There are alternate products that may be marketed as recyclable but that are not accepted into Culver City’s recycling program due to plastic or wax linings. Different recycling processors may restrict different items, and if the City switches processors, it could create confusion and consternation for residents when they are told ‘sustainable’ items are no longer accepted. For example, customers who put their recyclables in plastic bags.
A final legislative note is that regulations at the federal level may impact consumer attitudes about the costs of recycling locally. An example is the current administration’s executive order undoing the ban on plastic straws on federal property. The biggest buyer of straws in America is the federal government, and the federal ban put considerable pressure on industry to come up with alternatives. That pressure no longer exists and could impact innovation that would help Californians find straw alternatives at a similar price point to plastic straws.
Other Municipal/Agency Action
Staff has conducted extensive interviews with many agencies with similar bans in place, including Irvine, Hermosa Beach, Laguna Beach, and South Lake Tahoe. Many agencies reported that self-enforcing is the main compliance structure and that proactive enforcement is rare. In many cases, just having the ordinances in place provided social pressure to self-enforce.
The following is a summary of existing local legislation around the product restrictions posed.
Single-Use Plastic Beverage Bottles
• Only one municipality in the nation has banned plastic beverage bottles. Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts banned single-use beverage bottles smaller than 34 ounces in 2022.
• Agencies banning bottles: San Francisco International Airport (August 2019) banned all plastic bottles; and Los Angeles International Airport (June 2023) has banned plastic water bottles. Airports are able to easily achieve compliance because customers are not able to bring these items past security checkpoints.
• The City of South Lake Tahoe and Town of Truckee, both banned plastic water bottles in 2024. These are relatively remote locations (like Martha’s Vineyard), which prevents customers from easily buying these items outside of jurisdictional limits.
• Locally, the City of Los Angeles has banned plastic water bottles at City facilities and events and encouraged the installation of water refill stations in public spaces. Santa Monica goes a step further by banning all single-use plastic bottles at City facilities, parks, and events.
Balloons
Balloon regulation has taken a multi-pronged path because some agencies are focused on stormwater/litter and others on fire prevention.
• The County of Los Angeles restricts the use of floating metallic balloons outdoors.
• Laguna Beach and Manhattan Beach prohibit the sale, distribution, and use of all balloons on public property and City facilities, as well as restricting the release of helium balloons.
• Long Beach prohibits the sale, distribution, and use of mylar balloons specifically, and bans the release of all balloons filled with helium.
• Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach ban the release of balloons, and Hermosa Beach goes further by banning the sale of mylar balloons and use of all balloons at City events.
Smoking
• The City of Manhattan Beach has banned the sale of tobacco and vape products and has banned smoking in all public places and in multi-family housing.
• Hermosa Beach bans public smoking and requires businesses to purchase an annual tobacco license to control the sale of smoking products to minors.
• Beverly Hills has banned the sale of most smoking products and does not allow smoking in public spaces or multi-family housing.
Plastic Bags
Most agencies have modeled their plastic bag bans on the State’s ban, which was recently strengthened with SB 1053, which bans single-use plastic bags offered at grocery check-outs.
Astroturf
Culver City, Long Beach, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica prohibit artificial turf in most public and private landscaping projects with exceptions for recreational uses.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION
At the November 18, 2024 Sustainability Subcommittee meeting, the Subcommittee asked staff to return with proposals on how to implement the bans, with particular emphasis on implementation horizons, phase-in plans, carve-outs, and grandfathering as options. The Subcommittee also requested a robust educational plan to build coalitions around a sustainable community, as well as research into any grants that would support the transition.
Listed below are potential options for each ban proposal for Subcommittee consideration. In addition to these options, for each product, the Subcommittee can also opt to not restrict sale or use but instead encourage their reduction through education.
Plastic Single-Use Beverage Bottles
• Option 1: Ban the sale and use of plastic single-use beverage bottles within the City (as proposed by Ballona Creek Renaissance).
• Option 2: Ban the sale and use of plastic single-use beverage bottles under one gallon within the City.
• Option 3: Ban the sale and use of plastic single-use beverage bottles except water within the City.
• Option 4: Expand the current Waste Reduction Regulations to ban any single-use plastic beverage bottle from use or distribution in City facilities or City-sponsored events.
• Option 5: Require an additional fee for the purchase of single-use plastic beverage bottles to offset the cost of climate initiatives in the City.
Balloons
• Option 1: Ban the sale and use of balloons within the City regardless of material, fill, or location of use (as proposed by Ballona Creek Renaissance).
• Option 2: Ban the use of balloons in the public spaces regardless of material or fill.
• Option 3: Ban the release of balloons regardless of material or fill.
• Option 4: Ban the use of fill that is lighter than oxygen and require additional weights and tethers.
Smoking
• Option 1: Ban all outdoor smoking citywide.
• Option 2: Ban outdoor smoking outside of specific smoking zones with appropriate receptacles to mitigate litter.
Plastic Carry-Out Bags
• Option 1: Ban the sale/distribution and use of all plastic carry-out bags citywide (not just grocery stores and those restricted by SB 1053).
• Option 2: Ban the sale/distribution of all plastic carry-out bags citywide (allowing use of existing bags by shoppers).
• Option 3: Match the state regulations in SB 1053 banning carry-out bags in grocery stores, retail stores with a pharmacy, convenience stores, food marts, and liquor stores.
Astroturf
• Option 1: Ban the sale and use of astroturf on any property type citywide.
• Option 2: Ban the sale and use of astroturf and require the removal of existing astroturf citywide within a prescribed period of time.
Enforcement
Due to the sweeping breadth of the proposals and the already expanding landscape of state and local regulations, any passage would require additional staffing at both the inspector level and management level to properly manage and enforce the program in a proactive way. Since, not all of these programs would fall under EPO’s umbrella, additional staffing may be required across departments, including Code Enforcement.
A useful enforcement tool to consider is the use of private legal action, which gives citizens the opportunity to file suit against a business or citizen who is out of compliance. This enforcement action is how the City’s existing smoking ban is currently structured and reduces the need for additional City staffing.
Timeline
For balloons, carry-out bags, smoking and astroturf, bans on these products exist in other neighboring jurisdictions, and full or partial bans can be enacted with implementation as quickly as Council wishes. There are several options, however, for a more phased-in approach. With adequate funding, EPO staff can start by planning and rolling out enhanced educational campaigns for all products, focusing on the impacts to stormwater specifically. The educational phase can be as short as six months and as long as three years to allow residents and businesses to plan for any adjustments to behavior and to exhaust existing product and procure compliant alternatives.
Banning single-use plastic beverage bottles would be ground-breaking legislation with potentially wide-ranging impacts to residents and businesses. The City can implement a ban on these products that is effective in the shorter term (6 months to 1 year) or set a longer-term goal such as 2, 5, or 10 years to allow innovation to produce more alternatives and for an educational campaign.
Costs to Businesses
It is extremely challenging to determine an economic impact from any one or all of these potential bans to businesses and the to City.
Sales tax data is not readily available by specific business, and even if it were, extracting the cost of lost revenue and sales tax would be based on assumptions of the percentage of banned items that were sold or self-reporting by businesses. One business that was willing to proactively share data about sales tax revenues, Party City, recently announced a nationwide closure.
Cost of providing alternative products is variable depending on the marketplace, which alternatives are chosen, and whether alternatives exist. Consumer behavior is unpredictable, and a city like Culver City with irregular boundaries bordered by many commercial areas outside our jurisdiction provides multiple opportunities for customers to buy these products nearby.
Within the City’s existing Waste Reduction Regulations, one business that was targeted with enforcement for offering plastic items for dine-in lodged extensive protests about the regulations driving them out of business before eventually closing before enforcement could be completed.
There is mixed feedback on whether moving to sustainable products is more costly to businesses or offers an ultimate cost savings. This strongly correlates with whether alternative products exist that are offered at a similar price point and the type of business. Any additional cost to businesses is likely passed on to consumers.
There is a regional trend toward sustainability, and all of our neighboring jurisdictions have robust programs and plans to reduce single-use plastics in the short and long term. Despite our survey results showing that younger respondents were less inclined to support the ban, there is evidence that younger consumers would support moves toward sustainability.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
There is no fiscal impact to the City associated with the discussion of this item. Should Council direct the City Manager to begin the process of preparing ordinances for any or all of the bans, additional funding will be required for public and business outreach and educational campaigns, and for proactive enforcement.
ATTACHMENTS
None.