HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 202-08TO:HONORABLE CITY COUN-CIL
of Palo Alto
anager s
15
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APRIL 28, 2008 CMR:202:08
STAFF RECONLMENDATION FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION ON A THREE
MONTH STUDY REGARDING A SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAG
REDUCTION PROGRAM INCORPORATING THE INCREASED USE OF
REUSABLE BAGS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to:
Work with supermarket and pharmacy represematives during April, May and June 2008 to
develop a single-use plastic bag reduction program incorporating the increased use of
reusable bags; and
Remm to Council as soon as practical after June 30, 2008 with recommendations for a
comprehensive program and ordinance incorporating those recommendations.
BACKGROUND
The Palo Alto Zero Waste Operational Plan identified the need to contro! waste associated with
single-use carryout bags. In addition, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
is considering imposing new requirements for cities to control litter which ends up in creeks and San
Francisco Bay. On March 17, 2008, staff summarized the problems associated with single-use bags
for Council (CMR: 158:08).
Single-use plastic carryout bags made from polyethylene consume resources, create waste and litter,
and negatively impact natural ecosystems. The fact that polyethylene plastic bags break dowaa slowly
in the natural environment makes them the least desirable option among all t3q3es of bags for
protection of ecosystems. Reusable bags are the preferable alternative and are readily available and
currently in use.
Bring Your Own Bag Campaign
The City of Palo Alto Public Works Recycling Program has conducted education campaigns about
reusable bags, including their distribution, since the 1990’s. The City is coordinating a !ocal Bring
Your Own Bag (a.k.a. BYOBag!) campaign with retail stores from April-December 2008 and is
collaborating in a Bay Area-wide campaign in April 2008. The BYOBag! Campaign is an outreach
and education effort with the goal of increasing shoppers’ use of reusable bags whenever and
CMR:202:08 Page 1 of 3
wherever they shop in Palo Alto. In February 2008, shopping bag preferences of grocery and retail
pharmacy shoppers were observed, indicating that shoppers used reusable shopping bags less than
10% of the time. The BYOBag! Campaign’s goa! is to increase reusable shopping bag use to 30%,
with a concerted effort extending April through December2008. Community events will include a
BYOBag! Campaign presence (e.g., May Fete Parade, Chili Cook-oft~. The Campaign is designed
so the corm~amnity works together toward this goa!, engaging multiple sectors of the coromaunity
including residents, businesses, nonprofit organizations, schools, and faith-based ga’oups. For the
duration of the Campaign, the BYOBag! message will be woven into the lives and activities of the
Palo Alto community. For example:
Palo Alto retailers can become BYOBag! Cmnpaign Parmers, at no charge, by committing to
actions at their store (e.g., placement of campaign signs/posters, offering incentives, selling
reusable bags) to reinforce the BYOBag! message with shoppers. Retailers are rewarded
with a mention in Campaign advertising.
Shoppers are rewarded with incentives (e.g., cash back, discounted purchases, entry into
drawings) when shopping at BYOBag! Campaign Partner stores.
Non-retail businesses are becoming Cormmunity Parmers (e.g., by distributing reusable bags
to employees who pledge to use them).
Nonprofits are volunteering to help uq_’th outreach to shoppers and businesses and
incorporating the BYOBag! message into their activities (e.g., children’s art activity at the
upcoming Palo Alto Festival of the Arts).
Ordinance Development
Palo Alto’s first initiative to reduce the use of plastic bags was taken in 1988 when Chapter 5.35 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code (P~_MC) was enacted, t~i-lnJs Chapter was designed to ensure that
stores offered paper bags to customers as an option so that customers were not, in effect, forced to
take plastic bags. Staff has developed a draft Ordinance (Attachment A) to replace the existing
Chapter 5.35 with new provisions requiring large supermarkets and pharmacies (as defined by the
Ordinance) to phase out single-use plastic checkout bags within 6 months. The draft Ordinance
would also strongly encourage the promotion of reusable bags. The draft Ordinance would still
allow plastic bags at produce and meat departments at the affected supermarkets but would strongly
encourage the stores to offer recycling of those bags. _The draft Ordinance would only apply to
approximately 12 large supermarkets and pharmacies in Palo Alto. However, staff is researching
similar restrictions for other stores.
DISCUSS!ON
Staff has explained the draft Ordinance (Attachment A) to the affected supermarkets and large
pharmacies by visiting each store. In addition, the draft Ordinance was discussed at an April 3, 2008
meeting with representatives from almost all affected stores. The meeting participants requested
more time to work on a comprehensive approach to transitioning to reusable bags. Most store
representatives felt that adopting the Ordinance restricting plastic bags now would result in an
undesirable immediate shift to paper bags. Participants expressed the strong desire to establish a
stakeholder’s group to develop companion programs to the Ordinance to help minimize the shift to
paper and maximize the shift to reusable bags. Individuals volunteered for the stakeholder’s group
and a first meeting time was established.
CMR:202:08 Page 2 of 3
Staff is therefore recommending that the adoption of the draft Ordinance be defe~ed to allow the
stakeholder’s group established on April 3, 2008, to work on a comprehensive approach dm-ing
April, May, and June, a three-month period. Following that, staff would prepare new
recommendations and remm to Council as soon as practical.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The recommended series of meetings will not have signific.~t resource impacts.
POLICY I1VIPLICATIONS
The recommendations are consistent with the City’s Zero Waste Operational Plan, Climate
Protection Plan, Clean Bay Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan. They help implement policies
articulated in those plans.
ENVIRONtvlENTAL REVIEW
Although the draft Ordinance is not being recormmended for adoption at this time, it should be noted
that the City of Palo A!to conducted an environmental review under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consisting of an initia! Stud)" followed by a Negative
Declaration (Attachment B). The Negative Declaration identified that the adoption of the draft
Ordinance would not result in any significant negative environmental impacts. Tiffs ~,~!1 be more
fially discussed when the draft Ordina_nce is recommended for adoption.
ATTAC!iMtENTS
A~achment A: Proposed Ordinance
Attachment B: Envirov_rnenta! Checklist Form 0",Iegative Declaration)
DEP.~_RTMENT P~.AD:
C!TY M~*~NAGER ~%’~PROVAL:
PHIL BOBEL
M ,~a~ager, Enviromunental Compliance Division
~LE~ S. ROBERTS
D~eo~o~ o~ PubEo Works
Assist~t City M~ager
CIV-~:202:08 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
DFLAFT 3120108 - NOT YET APPROVED
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
REPEAJ~ING CHAPTER 5.35 ("RETAIL SALES - REQUIREMENT FOR
PAPER BAGS" AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 5.35 (’RETAIL SALES -
REUSABLE BAGS") TO TITLE 5 ("HEALTH AND SANITATION") OF
THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
The Counci! of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN" as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 5.35 (Retai! Sales - Requirement for Paper Bags) of Title 5
(Health and Sanitation) of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and a
new Chapter 5.35 is added to read as follows:
Chapter 5.35
RETAIL SALES - REUSABLE BAGS
Sections:
5.o5.010
5.35.020
5.05.000
5.35.040
5.35.050
5.35.060
5.35.070
Findings and purpose.
Definitions
Types of Checkout Bags Permitted at Retail Stores
Promotion of Reusable Bags and Recycling
Availability of Reusable Bags at Checkout
Operative Dates
Severability
5.35.010 Findings and purpose.
The council finds and declares as follows:
(a)
(b)
The use of polyethylene plastic carryout bags has increased dramatically in recent
years. Many of these bags end up littering the landscape and contaminating
waterways. According to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention
Pro~am, 60 percent of the litter found in Bay Area creeks is plastic.
Palo Alto’s land-based debris, including litter (mostly bags, packaging and single-use
disposable products) is conveyed through storm drains to local creeks, into San
Francisco Bay and into the Pacific Ocean. Plastic does not completely biodegrade in
the marine environment as paper does, instead breaking down into smaller and
smaller pieces, accumulating toxins and harming marine animals when it is mistaken
for food. As a result, plastic carryout bags have been found to adversely impact many
wildlife species that ingest or become entangled in them.
080410 syn 6050406A
3/20/0 - NOT YET APPROVED
(c)Polyethylene plastic bags represent an unnecessary use of a nonrenewable resource.
Reusable carryout bags represent the sustainable alternative to single use bags of all
~rpes.
(d)Even with the emphasis on recycling of plastics in the last several decades, the plastic
carryout bag recycling rate in California remains at approximately 5% or less,
according to the California Integrated Waste Management Board.
(e)The City discourages a!! types of single-use carryout bags, because single-use bags
consume more resources and produce more waste than reusable bags. However
plastic carryout bags are the least desirable type of all single-use bags because they
are made from polyethylene, consume a non_renewable resource, degrade very slowly
and harm marine life. Recyclabte paper bags and compostable plastic bags degrade
more rapidly and are therefore not as undesirable as plastic carryout bags.
Reusable carryout bags are considered worldwide to be the best option to reduce
waste and litter, protect wildlife and conserve resources. Reusable bags have lower
associated greenhouse gas emissions than single use bags and are readily available
and affordable for the consumer.
(g)It is the intent of the Counci! to reduce the negative impacts of polyethylene plastic
carryout bags and encourage the use of reusable carryout bags through the
implementation of this Ordinance.
5.35.029 Def’mifions.
(a)"ASTM Standard" means the _American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)’s
International standard D6400 for compostable plastic, as that standard may be
amended.
(19)"Cam, out Bag" means any bag used to carryout food or merchandise from a retail
establishment.
(c)"Checkout Bag" means a carryout bag that is provided by a retail store at the point of
sale. Checkout bags do not include bags provided solely for meat or produce at a
meat or produce department within a retail store.
(d)"Compostable Plastic BAR" means a plastic bag that (1) conforms to California
labeling law (Public Resources Code Section 42355 et seq.), which requires meeting
the current ASTM-Standard Specifications for compostability; (2) is certified and
labeled as meeting the ASTM-Standard by a recogrfized verification entity such as the
Biodegradable Product Institute.
(e)’~Lar~e Pharmacy" means a retail establishment that has over 10,000 square feet of
retail space that generates sales on use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform
Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division
2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and has a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter
2
080410 syn 6050406A
3/20/08 - NOT YET APPROVED
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(J)
(k)
5.35.030
(a)
(b)
9 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions
Code.
"Plastic Carryout Bag" means a carryout bag made predominately of polyethylene or
similar petroleum hydrocarbons for the purpose of transporting food or goods fi:om a
retail establishment.
"Recyclable Paper Bag" means a paper bag that meets all of the following
requirements: (1) contains no old growth fiber, (2) is 100% recyclable overall and
contains a minimum of 40% post-consumer recycled content, and (3) displays the
word "Recyclable" on the outside of the bag.
"Retail Store" means any retail establistmaent within the City of Palo Alto that sells
merchandise and is one of the following: (1) a Supermarket; (2) a Large Pharmacy.
"Reusable Bag" means a bag .with handles that is specifically desig-ned and
manufactured for multiple reuse and is either (1) made of cloth or other machine
washable fabric, and/or (2) made of durable plastic that is at least 2.25 mils thick.
,Single Use Checkout Bag" means any checkout bag which is not a reusable bag.
,Supermarket" means a full-line, self service grocery store witbAn the City of Palo
Alto with gross annual sales of two million ($2,000,000.00) or more which sells
several lines of dry grocery, canned goods, perishable food, produce and meat and
some nonfood items. The City shall use the annual updates of the Progressive Grocer
Marketing Guidebook and any computer printouts developed in conjunction with t_he
guidebook.
Types of Checkout Bags Permitted at Retail Stores.
All retail stores within the City of Palo Alto shall provide only the following as
checkout bags to customers: reusable bags, recyclable paper bags, and/or
compostable plastic bags.
Nothing in this Chapter shall be read to preclude retail stores from making reusable
bags available for sale to customers.
5.35.040 Promotion of Reusable Bags and Recycling
(a)All retail stores are strongly encouraged to educate their staff to promote reusable
bags as the best option for carryout bags and to post signs encouraging customers to
use reusable bags.
(b)Any supermarket within the City of Palo Alto that provides plastic carryout bags to
customers in its meat or produce department is strongly encouraged to place within
the supermarket a plastic carryout bag collection bin that is visible, easily accessible
3
080410 syn 6050406A
D _FT 3/20/08 - NOT YET APPROVED
to the consumer, and clearly marked for the purpose of collecting and recycling
plastic carryout bags. Recycling of the plastic carryout bags collected in the bin is
strongly encouraged.
5.35olt5t)Availability of Reusable Bags at Checkout.
A!I Supermarkets and Large Pharmacies shall make reusabie bags prominently available at
checkout.
5.35o~)60 Operative Dates.
All retail stores must comply with the requirements of this Ordinance ~thin 6 months of
its effective date.
5.35.070 Severability.
If any provision or clause of this chapter is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise
invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other
provisions of this chapter, and clauses of this chapter are declared to be severable.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is subject to
environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines, ("Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated
Negative Declaration"). A Negative Declaration was prepared and identified that the adoption of
this ordinance would not result in any significant environmental impacts. The Negative
Declaration was made available for public review beginning March 21, 2008 through Apri! 21,
2008.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
080410 syn 6050406A
Mayor
4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:APPROVED:
Deputy City- Attorney City Manager
Director of Public Works
Director of Administrative
Services
080410 s.vn 6050406A
5
ATTACHMENT B
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
o
PROJECT TITLE
Reusable Bag Ordinance
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Public Works
2501 Embarcadero Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Clare Campbell
Planner, City of Palo Alto
(650) 329-3191
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS
Public Works Department
City of Palo Alto
2501 Embarcadero Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
PRO~CT LOCATION
The proposed project would be applicable to all affected stores within the City of Palo Alto. The affected
stores are Supermarkets and Large Pharmacies. Supermarkets are full service grocer5’ stores with ~oss
annual sales of two million dollars ($2,000,000) or more, Large Pharmacies are pharmacies with over
10,000 square fee of store space.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION
The cit)~’ide project is consistent with the Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. The policies most
directly supporting are N-21 and N-34. Policy N-21 is to reduce non-point source pollution to
water,rays. Policy N-34 is to reduce the amount of waste disposed in the City’s landfill.
7.ZONING
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 1 Negative Declaration
The city~;ide project does not conflict with existing zoning development standards and allowable uses.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a proposed Ordinance which would reduce the use of Polyethylene (PE) plastic bags in
Palo Alto thereby reducing the number of them that are released to the natural environment and the
number that are disposed of in Palo Alto’s landfill. The Ordinance would prohibit Supermarkets and
Large Pharmacies from making PE bags available at checkout stands. (Supermarkets are full service
grocery stores with goss annual sales of two million dollars ($2,000,000) or more. Large Pharmacies are
pharmacies with over 10,000 square fee of store space.) PE bags would still be allowed in the produce and meat
departments of supeI~narkets. The restrictions would be effective 6 months from the date of adoption.
9.OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
¯CounD~ of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1)
2)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).]
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
sig~aificant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,
an EIR is required.
4)
5)
"(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
than Si~onificant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, progam EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 2 Negative Declaration
6)
7)
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identi~, which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8)The explanation of each issue should identify.:
a) The si~fificance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identi~, enviromnental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and
a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
Ao
a)
AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Substantially degade the existing visual
character or qualiW of the site and its
surroundings?
Sources Potentially
Significant
Unless
5,6,7,8,
9, 10,15,
17
1 ,~,.~, 4.5,
6,7,8,9,
!0,15, 17
!7
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
b)Have a substantial adverse effect on a X
public view or view corridor?
C)Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within Xa state scenic highway?
d)Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 17 X
policies regarding visual resources?
e)Create a new source of substantial light or 17 X
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
f)Substantially shadow public open space 17 X
(other than public streets and adjacent
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 3 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
MitigationIncorporated.Would the project:
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21 ?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
DISCUSSION:
A "Reusable Bag Ordinance" is being proposed by the City of Palo Alto because polyethylene (PE) plastic bags
have been found in litter on land and in the marine environment and therefore have a significant existing negative
aesthetic impact. By proposing an ordinance that seeks to promote reusable carryout bags and ban certain PE
plastic carryout bags, the Cib, of Palo Alto seeks to create a regulation that will reduce an existing negative
environmental impact. Plastic litter collection for beaches, state highways, cities and counties costs the State of
California $303.2 million each year. This not only creates an unsightly environment, but has been found to be
harmful to marine life. PE plastic carryout bags have captured global concern because a portion then migrate to
the ocean environment. The City of Palo Alto can be a source of this Ocean contamination because its creeks and
sloughs ultimately flow to the Ocean.
The governors of California,, Oregon and Washin~on signed a Resolution, dated February 9, 2007, entitled:
"Resolution of the California Ocean Protection Council on Reducing and Preventing Marine Debris". This
resolution states that "60 to 80 percent of all marine debris and 90 percent of floating debris is plastic; and comes
from land-based sources...plastic and other debris litters our beaches, and represents a threat to California’s $46
billion ocean-dependant, tourism-oriented economy and in certain instances may pose a public health threat..."
The governors have asked that we "Reduce the sources of plastic marine debris..." The City of Palo Alto’s
proposed Ordinance is an initial step to reduce the source of plastic bags in the natural environment including the
marine environment.
While the intent of the Ordinance is to effect a transition to reusable bags, some switching to paper and/or
compostable plastic bags will occur before full conversion to reusable bags occurs. However the litter situation
will still be improving because these bags will degade more quickly in the natural environment than PE plastic
bags. Therefore, the Ordinance will improve, not decade, the visual character of Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to a~icultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may’
refer to the California A~’icultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on a~’iculture and farmland.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
Sources
17
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 4 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
6)
c)
Would the project:
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-a~ricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for a~icultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing
enviromnent which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland. to non-agricultural use?
Sources
17, 18-
Map L9
17
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
DISCUSSION:
Palo Alto is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area,
as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency. The proposed Ordinance will not cause the conversion of farmland to non-aKicultural use.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
a)
b)
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Conflict with or obstruct with implementation of the
applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay Area Air
Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation indicated by the following:
i. Direct and!or indirect operational emissions
that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air
pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons
per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive
organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate
matter of less than 10 microns in diameter
(PM~0);
ii.Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO)
concentrations exceeding the State Ambient
Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million
(ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for
one hour( as demonstrated by CALINE4
modeling, which would be performed when a)
project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per
day or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway links
Sources
17
i Potentially
I Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
No
Impact
X
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 5 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources
operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F
or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or
c) project would increase traffic volumes on
nearby roadways by 10% or more)?
c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of
toxic air contaminants?
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds
10 in one million
ii.Ground-level concentrations of non-
carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard
index greater than one (1) for the MEI
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Not implement all applicable construction emission
control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air
QualiO, Management District CEQA Guidelines?
g)Alter the air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
d)17
X
17
X
17
X
e) 17 X
f)17 x
12,17 X
No
Impact
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto uses the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) thresholds of
significance for air quality impacts.
Long Term Impacts:
In the long term, the Ordinance is anticipated to convert the use of certain PE plastic bags to reusable bags at
approximately 12 stores in Palo Alto (large ~oceries and pharmacies). Ultimately, this will result in less air
emissions both within Palo Alto and outside Palo Alto. This is true because reusable bags take less energy to
produce per bag-use and would need to be hauled to Palo Alto stores in smaller amounts once reusables are fully
implemented. Thus, both emissions at the point of manufacturing and on the streets of Palo Alto would be
reduced. This reduction would occur for the pollutants listed in (b) and (c) above and for carbon dioxide (CO_,), a
greenhouse gas.
Short Term Impacts:
During the transition to reusable bags, it is anticipated that there will be some conversion to paper (from PE
plastic), and possibly some conversion to compostable plastic (although none of the affected stores currently offer
compostable plastic). The City of San Francisco’s implementation results to date (with respect to a similar
ordinance) suggest that conversion to reusable bags will be substantial, conversion to paper will be the dominate
short term response, and that conversion to compostable plastic will be small.
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 6 Negative Declaration
The exact short term conversion that will occur is not known. However, City of Palo Alto Staff have prepared a
most likely scenario of this conversion based on a survey of currently Palo Alto uses and the experience of the
City of San Francisco’s recent implementation of similar restrictions. Immediately following the effective date of
the Ordinance, Staff estimates the following use percentages at Palo Alto’s affected stores (large groceries and
pharmacies):
TABLE 1
Type of Caro’out Bag Percent of Patrons
(who take a bag)
Reusable !30%
Paper i 70%
Compostable Plastic I Negligible
The City of Palo Alto has conducted education campaigns promoting reusable bags, including the distribution of
reusable bags, since the 1990’s. Palo Alto is coordinating a local BYOBag campai~a and is collaborating in a
Bay Area regional education campaign in April 2008. This campaign (with the addition of the proposed
Ordinance) is expected to increase Palo Alto shoppers short term usage of reusable bags by 20% to a total of 30%.
This estimate is also based on the fact that the City of San Francisco found that 30% of their uocery shoppers
were using reusable bags immediately following implementation of their Ordinance.
Associated air emissions within Palo Alto primarily come from motor vehicles from the shipping of bags to Palo
Alto stores. If the proposed Palo Alto Ordinance is adopted, the current practice of shipping carryout bags into
Palo Alto via truck would not change. Presently, carryout bags, whether they are PE plastic, compostable plastic,
paper or reusable are shipped by distributors via truck to Palo Alto’s stores. (Compostable plastic bags are not
currently offered by the affected stores in Palo Alto.) The air emissions within the City of Palo Alto associated
with the short term conversion are negligible, being on the order of 1 trip per day distributed throughout the City.
Somewhat larger emission levels would occur outside the City limits as the bags arrive from manufacturing
locations. Other emissions would occur from the manufacturing process itself.
Palo Alto staff have estimated the total CO: emissions associated with the short term conversion from PE plastic
bags to the alternatives shown in Table 1. The estimates are contained in Table 2 below.
Table 2
Reusable
PE Bags
Paper Bags
Compostable Bags
Total
COa Equivalent Emissions from Short-Term Conversion
[Metric Tons/Year of CO,. for all Palo Alto Households]
Current CO2 Emissions [ Future CO2 Emissions [ Change in CO2 Emissions
10 130 1+20
159 {0 1-159
225 {416 I+191
0 {0 I0
394 446 t52
The change in CO2 emissions (+52 tons/year) is negligible when compared to the total City of Palo Alto emissions
of 793,621 Metric Tons, representing only 0.0066% of the total. The Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan is
designed to achieve substantially greater reductions which would offset an increase of that amount. More
importantly, the estimated increases are only temporary and would be reduced over time as reusable bags gain
acceptance.
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 7 Negative Declaration
The other air emissions associated with the short term conversion are also negligible and would not result in a
deterioration of air quality, or new exceedances of standards.
Palo Alto is conducting an intensive awareness campai~a to promote the usage of reusable bags for Palo Alto
shoppers. This will result in greater use of reusable bags and decrease the use of all b, pes of single-use bags. Palo
Alto is also implementing its Climate Protection Plan, which will result in geater CO2 reductions than the
anticipated short term increase associated with the Ordinance.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
D.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department offish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, including federally,
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migatory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migatory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nurser?, sites?
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or as defined by the City of
Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.1%?
e)Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
1 ,~,~,4,5
6,7,8,10,
15, 17
!,~,~,4,5
6,7,8,!0,
15,17
17
17
!7
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 8 Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
A "Reusable Bag Ordinance" is being proposed by the City of Palo Alto because plastic bags have been found by
the thousands in litter on land and in the marine environment and are therefore a significant existing negative
impact. By proposing an ordinance that seeks to promote reusable retail carryout bags and ban plastic bags at
specified stores within its jurisdiction, the City of Palo Alto seeks to create a regulation that will reduce an
existing negative impact on wildlife.
The Governors of California, Oregon and Washin~on si~aed a Resolution, dated February 9, 2007, entitled:
"Resolution of the California Ocean Protection Council on Reducing and Preventing Marine Debris." This
resolution states that "60 to 80 percent of all marine debris and 90 percent of floating debris is plastic; and comes
from land-based sources...plastic and other debris litters our beaches, and represents a threat to California’s $46
billion ocean-dependant, tourism-oriented economy and in certain instances may pose a public health threat..."
The governors have asked that we "Reduce the sources of plastic marine debris..." The City of Palo Alto’s
proposed Ordinance will reduce PE plastic bags in the marine environment.
Paper carryout bags, an alternative carryout bag, break down in the environment. Certified compostable bags,
another alternative, would break down somewhat more rapidly than PE plastic in the natural environment.~-~
Therefore, the proposed project will not have significant impacts on biological resources.
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
E.CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
a)
Would the project:
Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City. Council
resolution?
Sources
17, 18-
Map L8
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the 17, 18-
significance of an archaeological resource Map L8 Xpursuant to 15064.5?
c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 17, 18-
paleontological resource or site or unique Map L8 X
geologic feature?
d)Disturb any human remains, including those 17, 18-X
interred outside of formal cemeteries?Map L8
e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 17, 18-
eligible for listing on the National and!or Map L7 X
California Register, or listed on the City’s
Historic Inventory?
f)Eliminate important examples of major periods 17 X
of California history or prehistory?
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 9 Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would have no impact in the category of cultural resources as it involves no construction
work or physical changes.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Unless Significant Impact
Would the project:Issues Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a)
17
17
17
17
b)17
c)17
d)17
e)
Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, inju~,, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic wound shaking?
iii) Seismic-related wound failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Result in substantial, siltation?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
Expose people or property to major geologic
hazards that cannot be mitigated through the
use of standard engineering design and seismic
safer5, techniques?
f)
g)
17
17
17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 10 Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would not have an impact on the Ci~ of Palo Alto’s geolo~,, soils and seismiciD; as it
involves no construction work or physical changes.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
G.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS 5/L~TERIALS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially
Would the project:
Significant
Issues
a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed schoo!?
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject
to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
e)Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safer5, hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, inju~, or death involving wild land
fires, including where wild lands are adjacent
17
!7
17
17
17
17
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
h)17
t X
i) 17
X
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page "I ~i Negative Declaration
I
k)17 ~
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wild lands?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and gound water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project will not involve or affect the handling, transportation, use, disposal, or emission of
hazardous materials.
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources I Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project:Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) 17
b)17
c)
Violate any water qualib, standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
goundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been ganted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
17
d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?.
Otherwise substantially degade water qualib,?
17
!7
X
X
X
X
X
Xi!
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 12 Negative Declaration
g)
h)
~)
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Bounda~, or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
17
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involve flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam or being located within a 100-year
flood hazard area?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Result in stream bank instabilit-y?
i17
X
X
X
j) 17 x
k)t17 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project wi!l not negatively impact hydrology or water qualib’.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
I.LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
a)
b)
c)
Would the project:
17
17
Physically divide an established community?
Conflict with an?, applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal pro~am, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Substantially adversely change the type or
intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
Conflict with established residential,
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
17
d)17
e)17
f)17
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 17farmland ofstatewide importance (farmland) to
non-a~icultural use?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 13 Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is consistent with existing City code and policies and enhances the City’s sustainability
polices in its reduction of the use of plastic bags and the promotion of reusable bags.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
J.MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
a)Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local genera! plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
Sources
17
17
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources in Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
wound borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
17
17
17
17
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 14 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
e)For a project located within an airport land use plan 17 X
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 17 X
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 17 X
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing
residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below
60 dB?
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an ! 7 X
existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in
the area to exceed 60 dB?
i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing 17 X
residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60
dB?
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 17 X
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of geater than 50 17 X
dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with
an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater?
I) Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime 17 X
background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or
more?
No
Impact
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would have no effect on the noise levels in the commumtT.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
a)
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Sources
Would the project:
Induce substantial population ~owth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existin~
t7
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X
b)t17 I ! X
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 15 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project:Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c)Displace substantial numbers of people,17 X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
d) Create a substantial imbalance between 17 X
employed residents and jobs?
e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local 17 X
population projections?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Ordinance would not add population or induce population ~owth, nor will it displace housing or
people. The proposed Ordinance will result in no impact on population or housing.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
M.PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources No Impact
a)
Would the project:
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
17
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 16 Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would have no impact on public services.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
N.RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
a)Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Sources
17
!7
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would have no effect on the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities and does not include construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
O.TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
a)Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b)Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
12,13,14,17
17
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No Impact
X
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 17 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
designated roads or highways?
c)Result in change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffc levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d)Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g.: farm equipment)?
e)Result in inadequate emergency access?
f’)Result in inadequate parking capacitT?
g)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection
to deteriorate below Level of Sen’ice (LOS)
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capaci) ratio (V!C) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
k)
l)
m)
Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F
or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of
segment capacity." to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
Cause any change in traffic that would
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
Cause queuing impacts based on a
comparative analysis between the design
queue len~h and the available queue storage
capacit);? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project
access locations; queues at turn lanes at
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.
Sources
17
!7
17
12,13,14,17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
5litigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 18 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
n)Impede the development or function of
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
o)Impede the operation of a transit system as a
result of congestion?
I P) Create an operational safety., hazard?
Sources
17
17
!7
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
I Significant
Impact
I No Impact
X
X
DISCUSSION:
If the proposed Palo Alto "Reusable Bag Ordinance" is adopted, the current practice of shipping carryout bags
into Palo Alto via truck would not change. Presently, retail carD, out bags, whether they be plastic, paper or
reusable, are shipped by distributors via truck to Palo Alto’s retail stores. As discussed above under "Air
Quality,"’, a short term impact of the proposed Ordinance would be the conversion of some PE plastic bag use to
other ty, pes of bags. This conversion may result in a slight increase in truck traffic in Palo Alto, but would be on
the order of one trip per day within Palo Alto and would not be significant.
Palo Alto is conducting an intensive awareness campaign to promote the usage of reusable bags for Palo Alto
shoppers. This will reduce the conversion to other single use bags and lessen the impact noted above.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
P.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project:Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) 17
X
b)17
x
c)
d)
e)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Qualib,
Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity., to serve the project’s projected
17
17
17
X
X
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 19 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
prqject’s solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Result in a substantial physica! deterioration
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
f)17
X
g)17 x
h) ~7
x
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, or use
resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Sources Potentially
Would the project:
a)Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c)Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
17
1
8,9,10,11,
12,13,14,15,
17
1 .-.~.4.5.6,7
8,9,10,11,
12,13,14,15,
17
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
No Impact
X
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 20 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Ordinance involves no construction or physical changes and will not impact wildlife. The proposal
Ordinance is not part of a series of past or future actions which would have cumulative impacts.The anticipated
environment impacts are positive: fewer PE plastic bags would be released to the environment.
Palo Alto’s companion program of promoting reusable bags will lead to a conversion from PE plastic to reusable
bags, saving resources and reducing plastic litter. Some conversion to paper and/or compostable plastic bags will
occur in the interim. However paper is more readily recycled, and both degrade more quickly than PE plastic in
the natural environment.
SOURCE REFERENCES
1.AB 2449, Chapter 845, Statutes of 2006, an act to add and repeal Chapter 5.1 (conmaencing with
Section 42250 to Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code.
2.California Integrated Waste Management Board, (Updated 11-17-07) "Recycle Plastic Grocery
Bags",http:/A~a,~.zerowaste.ca.gov!PlasticBags/default.htm Retrieved 02/17/08
3.Brow~, Vance & Associates, Inc. & MGM Management (05/18/07); The City of San Francisco
STREETS LITTER AUDIT 2007, p.33
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program; (September 2007) Trash BMP Too1
Box "Proportion of Trash Pieces, by category, observed during Rapid Trash Assessments of San
Francisco Bay Creeks" Section 2, Figure 2-2;
http :i/~,~,.v.waterbo ards. ca. ~ov/rwqcb2iswampiswan~pthrashreport .pdf
California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program;
(April 2007)A Rapid Trash Assessment Method Applied to Waters of the San Francisco Bay
Region: Trash Measurement in Streams
6.City of Palo Alto City Manager Report:158:08 (March 2007)
7.City of Palo Alto Water Quality Department, (March 2007) Analysis of the Issues Regarding Single-
Use Retail Carryout Bags (Attachment A to CMR 158:08)
8.Resolution of the California Ocean Protection Council on Reducing and Preventing Marine Debris,
(February-8, 2007) http:iiresources.ca.~ov/copc!
9.Resolution 2007-139(Revised), California Integrated Waste Board, Agenda Item 14, attachment 3,
Board Meeting, June 12, 2007
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 21 Negative Declaration
10.The Marine Debris Team, Columbia University, (Surma~er 2005) Marine Debris Research,
Prevention and Reduction Act: A Policy Analysis. New York, New York
11.City of Palo Alto Community Profile, (July 2005) In 2000, there were 25,216 households in the City
of Palo Alto; hrtp:ii’a-a;w.citvofpaloalto.orai
12.Eggleston, Brad; (March 12, 2007) Memorandum to Phil Bobel, City of Palo Alto °~Short Term C02
Emissions Impact of Restricting Polyethylene Plastic Carryout Bags" (Available from the City of
Palo Alto)
13. Schidlowski, R., Public Works City of San Francisco, Personal Communication February 13, 2008
14.City of Palo Alto Staff Surveys and Discussions with Grocery Store Ov,~ers and Pham~acy Staff
(February and March, 2008)
15.Barton, Tom (March 3, 2007) Memorandum to Phil Bobel, City of Palo Alto "Comparison of
Compostable and HDPE Shopping Bags" (Available from the City of Palo Alto)
t6. City of Palo Alto (December 3, 2007) Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan, p. 25
17.Project Manager’s knowledge of the project: Phil Bobel, Manager of Environmental Compliance,
Public Works
18. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 22 Negative Declaration
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLA1L&TION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENWIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENWIRONMENTAL LMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
X
Planner Date
Director of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
Date
Reusable Bag Ordinance Page 23 Negative Declaration