Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 3065
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3065) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/11/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability Summary Title: 1st Reading: Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance and EIR Approval Title: Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 5.35 to Expand Plastic Bag Ban to Retail and Food Establishments, Require Retailers to Charge Fee for Paper Bag Use and Provision of Phased Implementation From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1) Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (Attachment B) which is a requirement for this project as a result of the City’s 2008 settlement with the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition and 2) Adopt the proposed Retail and Food Service Establishment Checkout Bag Requirements Ordinance (Attachment A). Draft Motion: Move to Certify the FEIR and Adopt Ordinance included as Attachment A to Staff Report. Executive Summary The proposed Retail and Food Service Establishment Checkout Bag Requirements Ordinance (Bag Ordinance)would restrict all retail services including food service establishments (any place that sells prepared or ready-to-consume food including City of Palo Alto Page 2 supermarkets, delicatessens, restaurants, catering trucks, etc.) from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) for a recyclable paper or reusable checkout bag until one year after ordinance implementation and twenty-five cents ($0.25) thereafter. Food service establishments would not be required to charge for a recyclable paper checkout bag. It would also revise the definition of “reusable bag” in the existing ordinance to include only bags that are longer-lasting and more durable. Background Plastics account for 60% of the litter found in local creeks and a recent Scripps Institution of Oceanography study reports that the amount of plastic debris in an area of the Pacific Ocean known as the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" has grown a hundredfold over the past four decades. Local cities are required by the stormwater Municipal Regional Permit to reduce trash by and in local creeks by 100% by 2022, with cities implementing plastic bag bans as one of the actions to achieve these requirements. Extensive local and regional efforts to meet this need over the years include accelerated street sweeping, annual creek clean up events, curbside recycling, truck tarping requirements, creek booms used to collect floating debris, extensive public outreach, and the 2009 ordinance restricting large grocery stores from distributing single-use plastic bags. Plastic bags continue to blow into creeks and streets and across city boundaries despite these efforts. In 2012, staff found approximately 350 single use plastic checkout bags in and around local Palo Alto creeks and streets during a combination of two creek clean up events and an informal “bag sighting” survey performed by staff volunteers over a one month period. Palo Alto adopted an ordinance restricting single-use plastic bags at large grocery stores which became effective on September 18, 2009 (Municipal Code 5.35). This ordinance was a first step in addressing the negative impacts of plastic bags in the natural environment during a time when few community bans on plastic bags existed. In November 2009, staff promised to return in the future with a recommendation for further controls including implementing a store charge for single-use paper bags (CMR:401:09). This was also a recommendation of the City of Palo Alto Page 3 Reusable Bag Task Force which had advised staff during the drafting of the first ordinance. The Reusable Bag Task Force was co-sponsored by the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and comprised of representatives from Palo Alto grocery stores, reusable bag manufacturers, retail owners and community members. Their final recommendations to staff advised that the City should: Apply the (2009) ordinance to all retail; Enact the ordinance to all businesses at the same time; and Require a store charge for paper bags to deter their use which also have negative environmental impacts associated with their manufacture and disposal. Because of the economic climate at that time, staff proposed the ordinance (that is currently in effect) which does not require a store charge for paper and which applies only to large grocery stores, the highest users of plastic bags. Staff is returning to Council now with the expanded ordinance which factors in all of the key Task Force Recommendations as well as additional revisions based on information gathered during the last three years since the ordinance took effect. Discussion Since Palo Alto adopted its ordinance in 2009 approximately 65 cities and counties throughout California have followed with similar ordinances and 24 cities on the Bay Area Peninsula are considering similar ordinances in 2013. Most of these same cities now or will soon also require a store charge for paper and reusable bags. Typical bag charges are between ten ($0.10) and twenty-five cents ($0.25) per bag. Although large grocery stores in Palo Alto have complied with the City’s existing ordinance, plastic litter, including plastic bags, continues to be found in local creeks. Staff has conducted annual surveys of paper, plastic and reusable bag use at large grocery stores and pharmacies in Palo Alto since 2008. As of March 2013, City of Palo Alto Page 4 the percentage of grocery store customers using reusable bags increased from nine percent to 24% following implementation of the 2009 ordinance and the number of customers requesting “no bag” has increased from eight percent to 20%. Despite extensive and long-term public outreach these percentages have not continued to increase for either option. The goals of the proposed ordinance are to: Reduce the environmental impacts of pollution associated with single-use plastic checkout bags in local creeks, baylands, public parks and open spaces, in the San Francisco Bay, in the marine environment, and in landfills (particulary Kirby Canyon Landfill) Reduce the number of all single-use bags (paper and plastic) distributed by retailers and food service establishments to Palo Alto customers Promote a shift toward the use of long-lasting and durable reusable bags by retail customers in Palo Alto Help the City meet strict stormwater permit requirements Help move the City towards its vision of Zero Waste It is estimated that adopting the proposed ordinance would reduce total single- use plastic and paper bag usage by almost 20,000,000 bags per year. The proposed ordinance would: Prohibit the use of single-use plastic bags at all retail and food service establishments; Require a store charge of (first) ten cents ($0.10) for paper or reusable bags at retail, increasing to twenty-five cents ($0.25) one year later. The charge would be retained entirely by the retail establishment and would not be taxable. Food service establishments could continue to provide paper checkout bags free of charge; Strengthen durability standards for reusable bags using industry testing requirements; City of Palo Alto Page 5 Provide a one-year exemption for participants in state or federal supplemental food programs. The above changes are a result of both staff and community input received to date. It should be noted that based on the 2010 City of San Jose Final Environmental Impact Report for that city’s ordinance, it is estimated that ten cent charges for paper bags result in about 65% of retail customers converting to reusable bags; 25 cent charges result in 89% of customers switching to reusable bags. Communities such as the District of Columbia, Los Angeles County and the City of San Jose have seen actual conversion of customers requesting reusable bags between 62% to 94% depending on the charge and the economic demographics of the region. Inclusion of Food Service Establishments in the Ordinance The proposed ordinance differs from those adopted or considered by surrounding communities in that it includes restrictions for food service establishments. The additional requirement of disallowing single-use plastic bags at food service establishments would reduce an estimated 1.3 million plastic bags used that could be released into the environment. Several other California cities and counties are now considering including food service establishments as a next step. Encouragingly, a 2012 Palo Alto survey showed that one-third of all Palo Alto food service establishments already use paper exclusively across all restaurant types from take-out and food trucks to fine dining, and even more use a combination of paper and plastic. To address concerns raised by that California Restaurant Association (CRA) and the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition (STPBC) about hot liquid items potentially spilling in paper bags which would not be able to contain liquids, the proposed ordinance would allow “product bags”—plastic bags without handles and therefore not considered a checkout bag as defined by the ordinance—to be used around individual containers of soups or stews. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Additionally, Palo Alto’s proposed ordinance would not require a charge for paper bags at food service establishments or require the use of reusable bags. Charging for paper assumes that reusable bags are available for use as a preferred option for food take out. The CRA has opposed requiring reusable bag use citing hygiene concerns and provides statements on this topic that are very similar to that of the the STPBC. These presented claims have not been evaluated for actual risk to the consumer. However, the proposed ordinance addresses the concern by not requiring reusable bags, but does not prohibit their use thereby allowing the discretion of consumers and food service establishments. This discretion is offered based on the CRA request that food service establishments be allowed to make the determination of which bags are best to use at their business and the relatively high number of food service establishments in Palo Alto that already use paper bags exclusively for food takeout. While extension of the plastic bag ban has met resistance by STPBC and CRA, there are a few cities that have expanded their bans to include food service establishments.. The cities of Malibu and Fairfax have prohibited single-use plastic checkout bags at food service establishments for several years and report no health, safety or compliance problems to date with this requirement. More recently San Francisco and the County of Santa Cruz have adopted plastic bag bans that apply to food service establishments. Lawsuits Challenging Bag Bans The Plastic bag industry has filed numerous lawsuits against cities that have enacted local bag bans. So far these lawsuits have focused on three legal theories: (1) CEQA compliance; (2) Proposition 26 and (3) Retail Food Code preemption. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition filed lawsuits against the first generation of bag ban ordinances (including Palo Alto’s) asserting that cities should prepare Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) prior to enacting local bag bans. STPBC claimed that elimination of plastic bags resulted in the increased production and distribution of paper bags which in turn could result in increased greenhouse gases triggering a potentially significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). To avoid litigation, cities began preparing EIRs City of Palo Alto Page 7 or relying on Master EIRs prepared by others. In 2011, the California Supreme Court in Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach held that Manhattan Beach’s plastic ban was exempt from CEQA reasoning: “common sense leads us to the conclusion that the environmental impacts discernible from the ‘life cycles’ of plastic and paper bags are not significantly implicated by a plastic bag ban in Manhattan Beach.” The court, however, warned that larger cities may have to do additional environmental analysis. Second generation bag bans attempted to further reduce both paper and plastic by placing a minimum fee of 10 cents on paper bags in addition to banning plastic bags. In addition some cities have expanded the plastic bag ban to restaurants. Currently, there are two major lawsuits challenging these types of bans. The first case to test the validity of a paper bag fee was brought against the County of Los Angeles in a case titled Schmeer v. County of Los Angeles. County of Los Angeles’ ordinance required store owners to charge a 10 cents fee on paper bags, and plaintiffs sued on the grounds that the fee violated Proposition 26. Proposition 26 prohibits any new general or special tax imposed by local government without prior approval by the voters. On February 21, 2013, the Court of Appeal ruled that since this fee was charged by store owners and no portion of it was remitted to the County it did not constitute a “tax” under Proposition 26. This decision is not yet final and it is likely that it will be appealed to the California Supreme Court. STPBC has also sued over bag bans that have been expanded to restaurants and other food establishments. So far, STPBC has filed lawsuits against Santa Cruz County, Carpinteria and San Francisco on the grounds that restaurant bans are preempted by the Retail Food Code, a state law regulating health and sanitation standards for retail food operations. Carpinteria elected to settle by exempting restaurants, while San Francisco and County of Santa Cruz have chosen to litigate. In September 2012, San Francisco’s local restaurant ban was upheld by the trial court which held that the Retail Food Code did not preempt the local ban. STPBC has announced it will appeal. So far there has been no final trial court ruling on the County of Santa Cruz restaurant ban. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Timeline Staff proposes the following timeline should Council approve the proposed ordinance and final draft EIR: Month/Year Project Milestones March 2013 Council approvalof EIR First ordinance reading April 2013 Second ordinance reading Notice of EIR Preparation (NOP) Posted/30 day challenge period April - July 2013 Public outreach to retail, food service establishments and residents July 1, 2013 Proposed ordinance effective date for retail November 1, 2013 Anticipated ordinance effective date for food service establishments Fall 2014 Council Report on Ordinance Impacts Ongoing Monitoring and ordinance enforcement Resource Impact No significant additional financial or staff resources will be necessary to implement this ordinance. Public education is already included within the Wastewater Treatment Funds FY 2013 operating budget, and staff who are City of Palo Alto Page 9 currently managing this project will continue to work on implementation and enforcement of the ordinance. While initial implementation and enfocement of the ordinance will require a large amount of staff time, it is expected that this will taper after the ordinance is fully implemented in 2014. Enforcement at food service establishments will be provided by staff already assigned to inspect these locations for compliance with the City’s fats, oil and grease program. Policy Implications Expansion of the current ordinance is fully consistent with the City’s Plastics Reduction Policy, Zero Waste Plan, Clean Bay Plan, Sustainability Plan, and stormwater regulatory requirements. Environmental Review An EIR was conducted for this project. This was done as required by a 2008 settlement with the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition (STPBC), a group representing manufacturers of plastics and plastic bags, which claimed that restricting the use of plastic bags would lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions because paper takes more energy to manufacture than plastic. However, a Palo Alto analysis conducted at that time concluded that even assuming the bag production figures provided by STPBC were correct, there would be no greenhouse gas increase because there would be a sufficient switch to reusable bags to offset any switch to paper. Palo Alto’s analysis was a basis for a Mitigated Negative Declaration which was prepared to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition initiated litigation over this issue as it has done with cities throughout California who attempt to pass similar legislation without undergoing the time consuming and sometimes expensive EIR process. Although the Palo Alto analysis answered the substantive issue raised in the litigation, Palo Alto settled the case in order to save taxpayers the costs of a trial and to avoid consuming City Staff and City Council time. The settlement left the current Ordinance to be enforced as adopted but required the City to prepare an EIR for any future ordinances which restrict single-use plastic bags at other stores. City of Palo Alto Page 10 As part of the required EIR, the currently proposed project was evaluated along with six additional alternatives including a “no project” alternative. Alternatives were based on feedback received during public scoping meetings and staff input. Both the main project and all project options demonstrated a beneficial or less than significant impact. Based on the information shown in the EIR, best practicies for bag ordinances used in other cities and observations of staff since the current ordinance has been in effect, staff reccommends proceeding with the proposed ordinance at this time and will return to Council with an evaluation of ordinance impacts in Fall 2014, one year after full ordinance implementation has occurred. Attachments: Attachment A-Draft Ordinance: Retail and Food Service Establishment Checkout Bag Requirements (PDF) Attachment B: Final Draft EIR (PDF) CCM 3-11-2013 Item 3 (PDF) Not Yet Approved 1 130306 jb 0131041 Attachment A Ordinance No. ______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 5.35 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Retail and Food Service Establishment Checkout Bag Requirements The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds as follows: (a) Single use plastic bags have environmental effects as many of these bags are conveyed across land or through storm drains into local creeks, the San Francisco Bay and into the Pacific Ocean. Studies have shown that 70% of the litter found in storm drains and at clean up events is plastic (bags, packaging, single‐use disposable products). (b) Plastic bags that enter the marine environment have been found to adversely impact many wildlife species that ingest or become entangled in them. Paper bags tend to break down faster and do not pose the same risks for ingestion and entanglement. (c) Eighty percent of ocean debris originates from land. Plastic debris does not completely biodegrade in the marine environment; instead plastics break down into smaller and smaller pieces, absorbing toxins, which in turn harm marine animals when they are mistaken for food. The Pacific Ocean contains a huge accumulation of plastic debris. Some scientists estimate that the density of plastic can be as great as one million pieces of plastic per square mile and plastic debris has increased over 100 fold in the past 40 years. (d) Plastic and paper checkout bags represent an unnecessary use of a nonrenewable resource. Reusable bags represent the sustainable alternative to single‐use bags of all types, because they consume less resources overall and produce less waste. (e) Even with the emphasis on recycling of plastics in the last several decades, the plastic bag recycling rate in California as of 2008 remains at approximately five percent or less, according to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. (f) The City discourages the use of all types of single‐use checkout bags, because single‐use bags consume more resources and produce more waste than reusable bags. However, plastic bags are the least desirable type of all single‐use bags, because they consume a nonrenewable resource, degrade very slowly and harm creek and marine life. It is the City's intent to address all types of single‐use checkout plastic bags, including compostable and biodegradable ones, because all types consume non‐renewable resources and can harm creek and marine life. Not Yet Approved 2 130129 jb 0131041 (g) Expanding the current ordinance supports the City’s goal of Zero Waste by 2021 by reducing distribution of both plastic and paper bags. Ordinance expansion would reduce residuals contamination in municipal compost. A majority of compost contamination is comprised of plastic film and must be disposed as garbage. (h) Paper bags are more successfully recycled than plastic bags given current technologies. Therefore, diverting paper bags from landfill disposal is more attainable than it is for plastic bags. However, recyclable paper checkout bags do cause negative environmental impacts such as air, land and water pollution during resource extraction, manufacturing, transportation and ultimately in their disposal as even recycling paper bags consumes energy and causes pollution. (i) Reusable 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 customer. (j) In 2012, despite an existing ban on single use plastic bags in grocery stores over 10,000 square feet, approximately 350 bags were found in the lower Palo Alto watershed. 130 of these bags were found on streets and in storm drains by a small number of volunteers during a one month tally, and an additional 220 plastic bags were removed from Adobe and Matadero Creeks during annual volunteer creek clean‐up events. (k) Given public awareness of the harm caused by single‐use plastic bags, one‐third of Palo Alto food establishments already use paper bags exclusively to carry home food, and have voluntarily eliminated the use of single‐use plastic bags without harm or public complaint. This includes the full range of food establishments from take‐out to fine dining establishments. (l) Despite the positive impacts of the existing ordinance approximately fifty‐seven percent of combined grocery store and pharmacy checkout bags in Palo Alto are single‐use paper or plastic based on a 2012 survey. Therefore, further incentives are needed to decrease single‐ use checkout bags. (m) The City has given away more than 14,500 reusable checkout bags to Palo Alto residents to encourage their use. (n) Many cities in Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco and Alameda counties in connection with single‐use bag ordinances have initiated charges on single‐use paper bags in order to offset the cost to retailers of this program and as an additional incentive for customers to use their own reusable bags. (o) Local cities are required by the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) for storm water to reduce trash by 40% by 2014, 70% by 2017 and 100% by 2022, with cities Not Yet Approved 3 130129 jb 0131041 implementing plastic bag bans as one of the actions to achieve these requirements. Palo Alto’s short term trash reduction plan complying with the MRP is claiming a 6% reduction of trash with the current single use bag ban, however, cities with more comprehensive bans are claiming 12% reduction, assisting them in meeting this strict requirement in a cost‐effective manner. (p) Due to the negative environmental effects and the need to comply with regulatory requirements to reduce trash, it is therefore in the best interest of public health, safety, and welfare to restrict single‐use bag distribution within the boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. (q) It is the intent of the Council to reduce negative impacts of single‐use checkout bags through implementation of this Ordinance by continuing the requirement for grocery stores to not provide single‐use plastic checkout bags and expanding that requirement to include all Retail Service and Food Service Establishments, while implementing a charge to allow customers to purchase a single‐use paper bag or a reusable bag if the customer wants a bag and has not brought a reusable bag. SECTION 2. Sunset of Ordinance 5032. Ordinance 5032 adding Chapter 5.35 (Retail Sales – Requirement for Paper Checkout Bags and Limited Prohibition on Single‐Use Plastic Checkout Bags) to the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall sunset and be of no further force and effect on June 30, 2013. SECTION 3. New Provisions. Effective July 1, 2013, Ordinance 5032 shall be superseded by a new Chapter 5.35 to read as follows: Chapter 5.35 Retail and Food Service Establishment Checkout Bag Requirements. Sections: 5.35.010 Definitions 5.35.020 Types of Checkout Bags Permitted at Retail Service and Food Service Establishments 5.35.030 Checkout Bag Charge for Paper or Reusable Bags at Retail Service Establishments. 5.35.040 Operative Dates 5.35.050 Exemptions 5.35.060 Severability 5.35.070 Penalties Not Yet Approved 4 130129 jb 0131041 5.35.010 Definitions. (a) “Checkout Bag” means a bag that is provided by a Retail Establishment at the checkstand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment. Checkout Bags do not include Produce or Product bags as defined in this Chapter. (b) “Food Service Establishment” means any establishment, located or providing food within the City of Palo Alto, which provides prepared and ready‐to‐consume food or beverages, for public consumption including but not limited to any Retail Service Establishment, Eating and drinking service (as defined in Chapter 18), Take‐ out service (as defined in Chapter 18), supermarket, delicatessen, restaurant, food vendor, sales outlet, shop, cafeteria, catering truck or vehicle, cart or other sidewalk or outdoor vendor or caterer. (c) “Produce or Product Bag” means: i. any bag without handles provided to a customer to carry produce meats, bulk food, or other food items to the point of sale inside a store; ii. to hold prescription medication dispensed from a pharmacy; iii. to protect food or merchandise from being damaged or contaminated by other food or merchandise when items are placed together in a Reusable bag or Recyclable paper checkout bag; iv. a bag without handles that is designed to be placed over articles of clothing on a hanger. (d) “Recyclable Paper Checkout Bag” means a paper bag that meets one of the following criteria: i. Pre‐Approved Standard. 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; 3. displays the word “Recyclable” on the outside of the bag; and 4. the manufacturer, the location (country) where manufactured and the percentage of post‐consumer recycled content in an easy‐ to‐read size font. ii. Alternative Materials. The Superintendent is authorized to approve alternate materials or testing methods meeting this section’s requirements provided that the Superintendent finds that the proposed materials or testing standards satisfactorily complies with the intent, quality and effectiveness in order to meet the purposes of this Chapter. The particulars of any approval made by the Superintendent under this Not Yet Approved 5 130129 jb 0131041 subsection shall be entered upon the records of the Public Works Department and a signed copy shall be furnished to the applicant. iii. Alternative Standard. Any other published uniform Recyclable Paper Bag standard as approved by the Superintendent. (e) “Retail Service Establishment” means any establishment providing retail sale, rental, service, processing, or repair of items primarily intended for consumer or household use, including but not limited to the following: groceries, meat, vegetables, dairy products, baked goods, candy, and other food products; liquor and bottled goods, household cleaning and maintenance products; drugs, cards, and stationery, notions, books, tobacco products, cosmetics, and specialty items; flowers, plants, hobby materials, toys, household pets and supplies, and handcrafted items; apparel, jewelry, fabrics, and like items; cameras, photography services, household electronic equipment, records, sporting equipment, kitchen utensils, home furnishing and appliances, art supplies and framing, arts and antiques, paint and wallpaper, carpeting and floor covering, interior decorating services, office supplies, musical instruments, hardware and homeware, and garden supplies; bicycles; mopeds and automotive parts and accessories (excluding service and installation); cookie shops, ice cream stores and delicatessens. (f) “Reusable Checkout Bag” shall mean a bag with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse which can be washed or wiped clean and meets one of the following criteria: i. Pre‐approved materials. The bag meets all of the following requirements: 1. EcoLogo ATP‐001 standards for durability (including future amendments or any successor legislation): a. Capacity Test ‐ minimum of 15 liters b. Dynamic Test ‐ minimum of 5 sets of 300 cycles (1,500 cycles total). 2. Is 2.25 mils thick or greater as measured according to ASTM D6988‐08 or ISO 4593:1993 or ISO 4591:1992 standards (for embossed film) (including future amendments or any successor legislation). 3. To Confirm Heavy Metal Content: a. State methods used for preparing and for testing samples of each unique bag component following the Model Toxics in Packaging Legislation, and; Not Yet Approved 6 130129 jb 0131041 4. Is labeled in an easy‐to‐read sized font with the name of the manufacturer, the country of origin where manufactured, the material from which it is manufactured, the percentage of post‐consumer recycled content, and a statement that the bag does not contain heavy metals. ii. Alternative Materials. The Superintendent is authorized to approve alternate materials or testing methods meeting this section’s requirements provided that the Superintendent finds that the proposed materials or testing standards satisfactorily complies with the intent, quality and effectiveness in order to meet the purposes of this Chapter. The particulars of any approval made by the Superintendent under this subsection shall be entered upon the records of the Public Works Department and a signed copy shall be furnished to the applicant. iii. Alternative Standard. Any other published uniform bag standard as approved by the Superintendent. (g) “Single‐Use Plastic Checkout Bag means any bag made predominately of plastic derived from natural gas, petroleum or a biologically‐based source, such as corn or other plant sources, which is provided to a customer at the point of sale which does not meet the definition of a Reusable Checkout Bag. (h) "Superintendent" means the Assistant Director of Environmental Services for Public Works, his or her designee or such other person as may be designated by the City Manager. 5.35.020 Types of Checkout Bags Permitted at Retail Service and Food Service Establishments (a) Retail Service Establishments within the City of Palo Alto shall provide or make available to a customer only Reusable Bags or Recyclable Paper Checkout Bags for the purpose of carrying away goods or other materials from the point of sale, subject to the terms of this Chapter. i. Single‐Use Plastic bags exempt from the ordinance include those integral to the packaging of the product, Produce or Product Bags, newspaper bags, door‐hanger bags, or bags sold in packages containing multiple bags intended for use as garbage, pet waste or yard waste bags. ii. Farmers Markets may provide Produce or Product Bags to hold produce or bulk items. Checkout bag charges for these bags are not required at Farmers Markets unless Checkout Bags used to hold Produce or Product Bags are provided. Not Yet Approved 7 130129 jb 0131041 (b) Effective November 1, 2013, Food Service Establishments shall provide or make available to a customer only Recyclable Paper Checkout Bags or Reusable Bags, at their discretion, for the purpose of carrying away goods or other materials from the point of sale, subject to the terms of this Chapter. i. Produce or Product Bags without handles may be used at Food Service Establishments to hold containers of food items that are free liquids such as soups or stews that might be susceptible to spilling. (c) The City of Palo Alto encourages, but does not require in‐store public education and encouragement to customers about the use of reusable bags. In‐store education for Retail Service and Food Service Establishments is available at www.cityofpaloalto.org/plastics. (d) Nothing in this Chapter prohibits customers from using bags of any type that they bring to the establishment themselves or from carrying away goods that are not placed in a bag at point of sale, in lieu of using bags provided by the establishment. (e) A Retail Service or Food Service Establishment may provide a Reusable Bag at no charge if it is distributed as part of an infrequent and limited time promotion. Infrequent and limited time promotions shall not exceed a total of 14 days in any consecutive 12 month period. 5.35.030 Checkout Bag Charge for Paper or Reusable Bags at Retail Service Establishments. (a) Effective July 1, 2013, no Retail Service Establishment shall provide a Recyclable Paper Checkout Bag or Reusable Bag to a customer at the point of sale, unless the store charges the customer a checkout bag charge of at least ten cents ($0.10) per bag to cover the costs of compliance with the ordinance, the actual costs of providing recyclable paper bags, educational materials or other costs of promoting the use of reusable bags. (b) Effective, July 1, 2014, no Retail Service Establishment shall provide a Recyclable Paper Checkout Bag or a Reusable Bag to a customer at the point of sale, unless the establishment charges the customer a checkout bag charge of at least twenty‐ five cents ($.25) per bag. (c) Retail Service Establishments shall establish a system for informing the customer of the charge required under this section prior to completing the transaction. This system can include store Clerks inquiring whether customers who do not present their own reusable bag at point of checkout want to purchase a checkout bag. Not Yet Approved 8 130129 jb 0131041 (d) The checkout bag charge shall be separately stated on the receipt provided to the customer at the time of sale and shall be identified as the Checkout Bag Charge. Any other transaction fee charged by the Retail Service in relation to providing a Checkout Bag shall be identified separately from the Checkout Bag Charge. The checkout bag charge may be completely retained by the Retail Service and used for public education and administrative enforcement costs. (e) Retail Services Establishments shall keep complete and accurate records of the number or the dollar amount collected from Recyclable Paper and Reusable Checkout Bags sold each month. This information is required to be made available to City staff upon request up to three times annually and must be provided within seven days of request. Reporting false information, including information derived from incomplete or inaccurate records or documents, shall be a violation of the Ordinance. Records submitted to the City must be signed by a responsible agent or officer of the establishment attesting that the information provided on the form is accurate and complete. 5.35.040 Delayed Implementation for Food Service Establishments. All Food Service Establishments shall comply with the requirements of Section 5.35.020 of this Ordinance beginning November 1, 2013. 5.35.050 Exemptions. (a) Undue Hardship. The City Manager, or his or her designee, may exempt a Retail Service or Food Service Establishment from the requirements of this Chapter for a period of up to one year, upon sufficient evidence by the applicant that the provisions of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. An undue hardship request must be submitted in writing to the City. The phrase “undue hardship” may include, but is not limited to, the following: i. Situations where there are no acceptable alternatives to Single‐Use Plastic Checkout Bags for reasons which are unique to the Retail Service or Food Service Establishment. ii. Situations where compliance with the requirements of this Chapter would deprive a person of a legally protected right. (b) Retail Service Establishments shall not enforce the 10 cent or 25 cent store charge for customers who participate in the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP–formerly food stamps). This provision will expire on June 30, 2014. Not Yet Approved 9 130129 jb 0131041 5.35.060 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. 5.35.070 Penalties. (a) Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction as set forth in Chapter 1.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (b) Each violation of this Chapter shall be considered a separate offense. (c) The remedies and penalties provided in this Section are cumulative and not exclusive. SECTION 4. CEQA. The Department of Public Works prepared an Environmental Impact Report for this Ordinance, which confirmed that the Ordinance does not have the potential to result in a significant impact on the environment and results in only beneficial or less than significant impacts. The EIR was available for public review beginning November 15 through December 31 and was certified by the City Council on March 11, 2013. SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision or clause of this Ordinance 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 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective on July 1, 2013. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Not Yet Approved 10 130129 jb 0131041 ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Public Works ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH #2012062037 November 2012 Attachment B Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH #2012062037 Prepared by: City of Palo Alto 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, California 94303 Contact: Julie Weiss, Environmental Specialist (650) 329-2117 Prepared with the assistance of: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003 November 2012 This report is printed on 50% recycled paper with 30% post-consumer content and chlorine-free virgin pulp. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Table of Contents City of Palo Alto i Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. ES-1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Project Background............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority........................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Scope and Content ............................................................................................................. 1-3 1.4 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies ...................................................................... 1-4 1.5 Environmental Review Process ....................................................................................... 1-4 2.0 Project Description 2.1 Project Applicant ................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Existing Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4 Proposed Bag Ordinance Characteristics ....................................................................... 2-6 2.5 Anticipated Bag Use as a Result of the Bag Ordinance ................................................ 2-7 2.6 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................... 2-9 2.7 Required Approvals and Permits .................................................................................... 2-9 3.0 Environmental Setting 3.1 Regional Setting .................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Cumulative Projects Setting .............................................................................................. 3-1 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis of Proposed Project ................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 4.1-1 4.2 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 4.2-1 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 4.3-1 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................... 4.4-1 4.5 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................... 4.5-1 5.0 Other CEQA Discussions 5.1 Growth Inducing Impacts.................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Irreversible Environmental Effects ................................................................................... 5-2 6.0 Alternatives 6.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative ............................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Alternative 2: Restaurants Exempt: Proposed Bag Ordinance in Place for Retail, But Excludes Restaurants Entirely .................................................................. 6-3 6.3 Alternative 3: $0.25 Store Charge for Recyclable Paper Bags at Retail Services But No Charge at Food Service Establishments ................................................... 6-8 6.4 Alternative 4: $0.10 for Recyclable Paper Bags at Both Retail Services and Food Service Establishments, No Plastic at Either ........................................ 6-14 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Table of Contents City of Palo Alto ii 6.5 Alternative 5: $0.25 Fee for Recyclable Paper Bags at Both Retail Services and Food Service Establishments, No Plastic at Either ........................................ 6-19 6.6 Alternative 6: Restaurants Only: Ban Plastic Bags at Restaurants Only, No Ban At Retail (except Supermarkets), No Fee for Paper Bags ........................ 6-25 6.7 Alternative 7: No Plastic, No Paper at Both Retail Services and Food Service Establishments.......................................................................................... 6-31 6.8 Summary of Environmental Impacts for Project Alternatives ................................... 6-36 6.9 Alternatives Considered But Rejected ........................................................................... 6-37 6.10 Environmentally Superior Alternative ....................................................................... 6-38 7.0 EIR Assumptions ............................................................................................................................. 7-1 8.0 References and Report Preparers 8.1 References ............................................................................................................................ 8-1 8.2 Agencies/Individuals Contacted ................................................................................... 8-10 8.3 Report Preparers ............................................................................................................... 8-10 List of Figures Figure 2-1 Regional Location................................................................................................ 2-2 Figure 2-2 City of Palo Alto Aerial ...................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 4.2-1 Sensitive Animals and Natural Communities Reported by the California Natural Diversity Database .......................................................................... 4.2-4 List of Tables Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts ...................................................................................... ES-5 Table ES-2 Impact Comparison and Ranking of Project Alternatives ......................... ES-9 Table 2-1 Estimated Single-Use Plastic Bag Use in Palo Alto ........................................ 2-5 Table 2-2 Plastic Checkout Bag Replacement Assumptions in Palo Alto .................... 2-8 Table 3-1 Planned and Pending Carryout Bag Ordinances in California .................... 3-2 Table 4.1-1 Current Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ...................... 4.1-2 Table 4.1-2 Ambient Air Quality Data .............................................................................. 4.1-3 Table 4.1-3 Current Emissions from Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Carryout Bags in Sunnyvale ............................... 4.1-6 Table 4.1-4 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Checkout Bags in Palo Alto ....... 4.1-10 Table 4.1-5 Operational Emissions Associated with Proposed Bag Ordinance ........ 4.1-12 Table 4.2-1 Coastal/Marine Special-Status Species ........................................................ 4.2-3 Table 4.3-1 Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Single-Use Plastic Checkout Bags in Palo Alto .............................................................................................. 4.3-7 Table 4.3-2 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Checkout Bags in Palo Alto with Implementation of the Proposed Bag Ordinance ............................. 4.3-13 Table 4.3-3 Proposed Bag Ordinance Consistency with the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan ............................................................................................... 4.3-14 Table 4.3-4 Proposed Bag Ordinance Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Team Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies ............................ 4.3-16 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Table of Contents City of Palo Alto iii Table 4.3-5 Proposed Bag Ordinance Consistency with Applicable Attorney General Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures ........................................................ 4.3-17 Table 4.5-1 Water Supply and Demand Projections for the City of Palo Alto ............ 4.5-2 Table 4.5-2 Water Consumption Due to Existing Plastic Checkout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data .................................................................................................... 4.5-3 Table 4.5-3 Water Consumption Due to Existing Plastic Checkout Bags Based on Boustead Data ................................................................................................... 4.5-3 Table 4.5-4 Wastewater Due to Existing Plastic Checkout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data .................................................................................................................... 4.5-4 Table 4.5-5 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities ....................................................................... 4.5-5 Table 4.5-6 Solid Waste Due to Existing Plastic Checkout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data .................................................................................................................... 4.5-6 Table 4.5-7 Solid Waste Due to Existing Plastic Checkout Bags Based on Boustead Data .................................................................................................................... 4.5-6 Table 4.5-8 Water Use From Reusable Bag Cleaning ...................................................... 4.5-8 Table 4.5-9 Proposed Bag Ordinance’s Percentage of the City’s Existing and Projected Supply and Demand ...................................................................... 4.5-8 Table 4.5-10 Solid Waste Due to Checkout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data ................... 4.5-11 Table 4.5-11 Solid Waste Due to Checkout Bags Based on Boustead Data .................. 4.5-11 Table 6-1 Estimated Bag Use: Proposed Ordinance versus No Project Alternative ........................................................................................................ 6-2 Table 6-2 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Alternative 2 .................................. 6-3 Table 6-3 Estimated Emissions that Contribute toe Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Alternative 2 .................................. 6-4 Table 6-4 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................... 6-5 Table 6-5 Operational Emissions Associated with Alternative 2 ............................... 6-6 Table 6-6 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative 2 ........................ 6-7 Table 6-7 Estimated Bag Use: Proposed Bag Ordinance versus Alternative 3 ........ 6-9 Table 6-8 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Alternative 3 .................................. 6-10 Table 6-9 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................... 6-11 Table 6-10 Operational Emissions Associated with Alternative 3 ............................... 6-11 Table 6-11 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative 3 ........................ 6-12 Table 6-12 Estimated Bag Use: Proposed Bag Ordinance versus Alternative 4 ........ 6-14 Table 6-13 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Alternative 4 .................................. 6-15 Table 6-14 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of Alternative 4 ..................................................................................................... 6-16 Table 6-15 Operational Emissions Associated with Alternative 4 ............................... 6-16 Table 6-16 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative 4 ........................ 6-18 Table 6-17 Estimated Bag Use: Proposed Bag Ordinance versus Alternative 5 ........ 6-20 Table 6-18 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Alternative 5 .................................. 6-21 Table 6-19 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of Alternative 5 ..................................................................................................... 6-22 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Table of Contents City of Palo Alto iv Table 6-20 Operational Emissions Associated with Alternative 5 ............................... 6-22 Table 6-21 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative 5 ........................ 6-23 Table 6-22 Estimated Bag Use: Proposed Bag Ordinance versus Alternative 6 ........ 6-26 Table 6-23 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Alternative 6 .................................. 6-27 Table 6-24 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of Alternative 6 ..................................................................................................... 6-28 Table 6-25 Operational Emissions Associated with Alternative 6 ............................... 6-28 Table 6-26 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative 6 ........................ 6-29 Table 6-27 Estimated Bag Use: Proposed Bag Ordinance versus Alternative 7 ......... 6-31 Table 6-28 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Alternative 7 .................................. 6-32 Table 6-29 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of Alternative 7 ..................................................................................................... 6-33 Table 6-30 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative 7 ........................ 6-34 Table 6-31 Impact Comparison and Ranking of Project Alternatives ......................... 6-41 Appendices Appendix A: NOP, Initial Study, NOP Comment Letters Appendix B: Air Quality URBEMIS Results/Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Estimates Appendix C: Utilities Calculations Appendix D: Proposed Draft Ordinance Appendix E: List of Potential Retailers in Palo Alto Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary City of Palo Alto ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed Bag Ordinance and the significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts associated with the proposed Bag Ordinance. PROJECT SYNOPSIS Project Sponsor City of Palo Alto 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 Contact: Julie Weiss, Environmental Specialist (650) 329-2117 Project Characteristics The proposed Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance (the “Bag Ordinance”) would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single- use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) for a recyclable paper or reusable checkout bag until one year after ordinance implementation and twenty-five cents ($0.25) thereafter. Food service establishments would not be required to charge for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The proposed Bag Ordinance would also revise the definition of “reusable bag” in the existing ordinance to include only bags that are longer-lasting and more durable. The existing ordinance, adopted in 2009, prohibits the distribution of single-use plastic checkout bags at grocery stores with more than two million dollars in annual sales and requires retailers to provide only paper or a choice between paper and plastic. The intent of the proposed Bag Ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, the San Francisco Bay, and the marine environment, as well as to reduce plastic bag contributions to landfills. It is anticipated that by prohibiting single-use plastic checkout bags and requiring a store charge for each paper and reusable bag distributed by retailers, the proposed Bag Ordinance would promote a shift to the use of reusable bags by retail customers and reduce the number of single- use plastic and paper checkout bags within Palo Alto. In the proposed Bag Ordinance, single-use plastic checkout bags are defined as bags made from petroleum or bio-based plastic that are less than 2.25 mils thick (or 0.00225 inches) and meet certain standards for durability. The proposed Bag Ordinance would prohibit retail services and food service establishments in Palo Alto from distributing, both petroleum and bio-based single-use checkout plastic bags, at the point of sale. The proposed Bag Ordinance would not prohibit the distribution of disposable bags provided solely for produce, bulk food or meat at a produce, bulk food or meat department within a grocery store, supermarket, produce or other similar retail services. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary City of Palo Alto ES-2 As noted above, the proposed Bag Ordinance would require regulated retail services to impose a mandatory charge for each recyclable paper checkout bag provided. Food service establishments would not be required to charge for each recyclable paper checkout bag. The checkout bag charge would be separately stated on the receipt and provided to the customer at the time of sale and shall be identified as the “Checkout Bag Charge.” Any other transaction fee charged by the retailer in relation to providing a checkout bag shall be identified separately from the Checkout Bag Charge. The Checkout Bag Charge would be completely retained by the affected retailers to compensate for increased costs related to compliance with the proposed Bag Ordinance, actual costs associated with providing recyclable paper checkout bags or reusable bags, and costs associated with a store’s educational materials or education campaign encouraging the use of reusable bags. The complete Draft Ordinance is contained in Appendix D. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The City’s objectives for the proposed Bag Ordinance are to: Reduce the environmental impacts of pollution in local creeks, baylands, public parks and open spaces, in the San Francisco Bay, in the marine environment, and in landfills (particulary Kirby Canyon Landfill) related to single-use plastic checkout bags Reduce the number of single-use bags distributed by retailers and food service establishments that are used by customers in Palo Alto Promote a shift toward the use of long-lasting and durable reusable bags by retail customers in Palo Alto Deter the use of paper bags by customers in Palo Alto Reduce waste and move toward zero waste within Palo Alto ALTERNATIVES As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines a range of alternatives to the proposed project that feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives. These alternatives are described and evaluated in Section 6.0, Alternatives. Studied alternatives include: Alternative 1: No Project - The No Project alternative assumes that the proposed Bag Ordinance would not be adopted. Thus, the use of checkout bags at retail stores in Palo Alto would not change compared to current conditions. The City’s existing Plastic Bag Restriction Ordinance would still be in place and would continue to require “supermarkets” to provide only reusable bags and/or recyclable paper bags to customers at the point of sale (but would not require them to charge for reusable or paper bags). However, under the No Project alternative, only seven stores (plus two stores that were under construction at the time of this analysis as described in Section 2.0, Project Description) would be required to adhere to the existing ordinance. Thus, under this alternative, single-use plastic and paper carryout bags would continue to be available free-of-charge to customers at most retail stores in Palo Alto. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary City of Palo Alto ES-3 Alternative 2: Food Service Establishments (FSE) Exempt: Proposed Bag Ordinance in Place for Retail, But Excludes FSE Entirely - This alternative assumes the proposed Bag Ordinance would prohibit all Palo Alto retail services (including supermarkets) from providing single-use plastic bags to customers at the point of sale and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) for a recyclable paper or reusable checkout bag until one year after ordinance implementation and twenty-five cents ($0.25) thereafter. However, under this alternative, food service establishments would be exempt from the Ordinance. In other words, food service establishments would be permitted to distribute single-use plastic bags and paper bags free-of-charge to customers in Palo Alto. As a result of the exclusion of food service establishments from the ban on single-use plastic bags, it is anticipated that this alternative would increase the use of single-use plastic bags and decrease the use of recyclable paper and reusable bags compared to the Proposed Bag Ordinance. Alternative 3: $0.25 Store Charge for Paper Bags at Retail But No Paper Charge at Food Service Establishments, No Plastic at Either - This alternative would prohibit all Palo Alto retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single- use plastic bags to customers at the point of sale, but would increase the mandatory charge for a recyclable paper or reusable checkout bag at retail services from $0.10 to $0.25 initially rather than one year after ordinance implementation. As a result of the subsequent $0.15 mandatory charge increase per paper bag at retail services, it is anticipated that this alternative would further promote the use of reusable bags since customers would be deterred from purchasing paper bags due to the additional cost. Please note that similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, under this alternative food service establishments would not be required to charge for paper bags. Alternative 4: $0.10 for Paper Bags at Both Retail Services and Food Service Establishments, No Plastic at Either – Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would prohibit retailers and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale. However, under this alternative, mandatory charge of $0.10 for recyclable paper bags would apply to food serve establishments as well as retail establishments in the City. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, under this alternative, no plastic bags would be distributed at the point of sale in Palo Alto. As a result of the mandatory charge for paper bags at all retailers and food service establishments, it is anticipated that this alternative would further promote the use of reusable bags or not using bags since customers at all retail establishments (including food service establishments) would be deterred from purchasing paper bags due to the cost. Alternative 5: $0.25 Fee for Recyclable Paper Bags at Both Retail Services and Food Service Establishments, No Plastic at Either – Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would prohibit retailers and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale. However, under this alternative, a mandatory charge of $0.25 for recyclable paper bags would apply to food serve establishments as well as retail establishments in the City. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, under this alternative, no plastic bags would be distributed at the point of sale in Palo Alto. As a result of the $0.25 mandatory charge for recyclable paper bags at all retailers and food service establishments, it is anticipated that this Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary City of Palo Alto ES-4 alternative would further promote the use of reusable bags since customers at all retail services and at food service establishments would be deterred from purchasing paper bags due to the cost. Alternative 6: Food Service Establishments Only: Ban Plastic Bags at FSE Only, No Ban At Retail (except Supermarkets), No Fee for Paper Bags – This alternative assumes that the Bag Ordinance would restrict food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags at the point of sale but would not apply to other retail services (except supermarkets as they are already prohibited from providing single-use plastic bags under the existing ordinance). In addition, similar to the proposed Bag Ban Ordinance, under this alternative, food service establishments would not be required to charge a fee for the use of paper bags. In other words, food service establishments would not be permitted to distribute single-use plastic bags, but would be permitted to distribute paper bags free-of-charge to customers in Palo Alto. As a result of the inclusion of food service establishments from the ban on single-use plastic bags, it is anticipated that this alternative would decrease the use of single-use plastic bags at food service establishments and increase the use of recyclable paper bags, since food service establishment customers would be more likely to use a paper bag at no cost. Alternative 7: No Plastic or Paper at Either Retail or Food Service Establishments - Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would prohibit retailers and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale. However, this alternative would also prohibit retailers and food service establishments from providing paper carryout bags to customers at the point of sale. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, under this alternative, no plastic bags would be distributed at the point of sale in Palo Alto. In addition, because paper bags would also be prohibited from being distributed at all retailers and food service establishments, it is anticipated that this alternative would further promote the use of reusable bags (or not using a bag), since customers at all retail services and at food service establishments would be required to either bring their own bag, purchase a reusable bag or simply not use a bag at all. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED BAG ORDINANCE Table ES-1 includes a brief description of the environmental issues relative to the proposed Bag Ordinance, the identified significant environmental impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts. Impacts are categorized by classes. Class I impacts are defined as significant, unavoidable adverse impacts which require a statement of overriding considerations to be issued pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines §15093 if the project is approved. Class II impacts are significant adverse impacts that can be feasibly mitigated to less than significant levels and which require findings to be made under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. Class III impacts are considered less than significant impacts, and Class IV impacts are beneficial impacts. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary City of Palo Alto ES-5 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation AIR QUALITY Impact AQ-1 The proposed Bag Ordinance could potentially alter processing activities related to checkout bag production, which has the potential to increase air pollutant emissions. However, the proposed Bag Ordinance is expected to substantially reduce the number of single-use plastic checkout bags, thereby reducing the amount of total bags manufactured and overall emissions associated with bag manufacture and use. Therefore, air quality impacts related to alteration of processing activities would be Class IV, beneficial. Mitigation is not required. The impact would be beneficial without mitigation. Impact AQ-2 Implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance would generate air pollutant emissions associated with an incremental increase in truck trips to deliver paper and reusable checkout bags to local retailers. However, emissions would not exceed BAAQMD operational significance thresholds. Therefore, operational air quality impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Mitigation is not required. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact BIO-1 The proposed Bag Ordinance would incrementally increase the number of paper and reusable bags within Palo Alto. However, the reduction in the amount of single-use plastic bags would be expected to reduce the amount of non biodegradable plastic entering coastal and marine habitats, thus reducing litter-related impacts to sensitive species. This is a Class IV, beneficial, effect. Mitigation is not required. The impact would be beneficial without mitigation. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Impact GHG-1 Implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance would incrementally increase GHG emissions compared to existing conditions. However, emissions would not exceed thresholds of significance. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Mitigation is not required. The impact would be less than significant without mitigation. Impact GHG-2 The proposed Bag Ordinance would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Mitigation is not required. The impact would be less than significant without mitigation. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary City of Palo Alto ES-6 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY Impact HWQ-1 Although the proposed Bag Ordinance would incrementally increase the number of recyclable paper and reusable bags used in Palo Alto, the overall reduction in the total amount of checkout bags would incrementally reduce the amount of litter and waste entering storm drains, improving water quality. This would be a Class IV, beneficial, effect. Mitigation is not required. The impact would be beneficial without mitigation. Impact HWQ-2 The proposed Bag Ordinance could potentially alter processing activities related to bag production, which could potentially degrade water quality in some instances and locations. However, bag manufacturers would be required to adhere to existing regulations including NPDES Permit requirements, AB 258 and the California Health and Safety Code. Therefore, impacts to water quality from altering bag processing activities would be Class III, less than significant. Mitigation is not required. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Impact U-1 The increased use of reusable bags within Palo Alto as a result of the proposed Bag Ordinance would incrementally increase water demand due to the washing of reusable bags. However, sufficient water supplies are available to meet the demand created by reusable bags. Therefore, water supply impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Mitigation is not required. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. Impact U-2 Water use associated with washing reusable bags would incrementally increase wastewater generation in the City. However, projected wastewater flows would remain within the capacity of the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system, and would not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Mitigation is not required. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary City of Palo Alto ES-7 Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Impact U-3 The proposed Bag Ordinance would alter solid waste generation associated with bag use in Palo Alto. However, projected future solid waste generation would remain within the capacity of local landfills. Impacts would therefore be Class III, less than significant. Mitigation is not required. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Considerations: The total bag numbers assumed for the proposed Bag Ordinance are first year estimates only. In the second year, the bag numbers and positive impacts for Alternative 3 apply. Charging a larger fee on paper checkout bags typically results in a more significant decrease in the use of single-use checkout bags and resulting decrease in potential impacts. Air Quality: Air quality impacts from the various alternatives are related to bag manufacture and truck trips for delivery of bags. Except for No Project alternative and Alternative 6, the alternatives have a beneficial impact on ozone and atmospheric acidification. While there is some minor variation among the alternatives for the number of truck trips, neither the proposed Bag Ordinance nor any of the alternatives exceed any Bay Area Air Quality Management District thresholds of significance. Biological Resources: The impact on biological resources relates to single-use bag litter entering the environment and causing impacts, including ingestion by and entanglement of wildlife. The proposed Bag Ordinance and all alternatives except the No Project alternative, have a beneficial impact on biological resources. The alternatives that ban plastic bags have a greater beneficial impact (proposed Bag Ordinance, Alternative 3, 4, 5 and 7). Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Greenhouse gas emissions relate to the manufacture, use, and disposal of bags. The proposed Bag Ordinance and all alternatives have less than significant impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. As paper bags have a higher per bag estimate of greenhouse gas impacts, increase in paper bag use results in slight increases of greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, Alternative 3 (also the second year of the proposed Bag Ordinance) and Alternative 5, both of which increase the checkout bag fee to $0.25, as well as Alternative 7 which bans both plastic and paper bags, show a net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed ordinance results in 0.006 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary City of Palo Alto ES-8 metric tons CO2E per person per year. In comparison, one car produces 4.6 metric tons of GHG emissions per year. 1 Hydrology/Water Quality: Hydrology/Water Quality impacts relate both to the production of bags and the potential for litter. All alternatives have less than significant impacts on water quality relating to the production of bags. With respect to litter, the proposed Bag Ordinance and Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 7 have a beneficial impact on water quality by reducing plastic bag litter and its impacts on water quality. Water and Wastewater: Water and Wastewater impacts relate to the water demand and increase in wastewater from washing reusable bags. The impacts for the proposed Bag Ordinance and the alternatives that increase reusable bag use (alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7) slightly increase water demand and wastewater discharge due to bag washing, however, the impacts are less than significant. Solid Waste: The estimate of solid waste generation changes, resulting from the proposed Bag Ordinance and the alternatives, is based on two data sets. One of the datasets estimates a reduction in solid waste, while the other estimates an increase in solid waste, both incorporating recycling rates but including different estimates of bag weights. The EIR is based on the worst case scenario from the data set that shows a potential increase in solid waste from the proposed Bag Ordinance. Even using the conservative data and assumptions, the proposed Bag Ordinance and the alternatives have a less than significant impact on solid waste generation. Alternatives 3 (also second year of proposed ordinance) and 5 result in an estimated net decrease of solid waste due to the reduction of paper bag use caused by the higher checkout fee of $0.25. And, Alternative 7 results in an estimated net decrease of solid waste due to prohibiting both plastic and paper carryout bags at all retailers and food service establishments. Table ES-2 includes a comparison of impacts for each of the seven alternatives evaluated. 1 The annual use of an automobile driving an average of 12,000 miles per year and with an average 22.9 miles per gallon (MPG) consumption emits 4.6 metric tons of CO2E per year (one metric ton is equivalent to 2,205 pounds). Households that have a sport utility vehicle (SUV) or light duty truck drive and drive an average of 14,500 miles per year with an average MPG of 16.2 emit 7.9 metric tons per year ( SAIC, Public Transportation’s Contribution to U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reduction, September 2007). Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary City of Palo Alto ES-9 Table ES-2 Impact Comparison and Ranking of Project Alternatives Compared with Current Ordinance/”No Project” Alternative Issue Proposed Bag Ordinance Retail: No plastic bags, 10 cent store charge for paper, 25 cent after one year;1 FSE: No plastic, no charge for paper Values below show absolute value and net change (either increase or decrease) compared to existing conditions Alt 1: No Project Current ordinance remains, i.e., no plastic bags at grocery stores, no charge for paper. FSE exempt Values below are all existing conditions. Alt 2: FSE Exempt: Proposed Bag Ordinance in Place for Retail, But Excludes FSE Entirely* Alt 3: $0.25 Store Charge for Paper Bags at Retail But No Paper Charge at FSE, No Plastic at Either* Foregoes first step $0.10 cent retail charge Alt 4: $0.10 for Paper Bags at Both Retail Services and FSE, No Plastic at Either* No increase to $0.25 for retail or FSE Alt 5: $0.25 Fee for Recyclable Paper Bags at Both Retail Services and FSE, No Plastic at Either* Alt 6: FSE Only: Ban Plastic Bags at FSE Only, No Ban At Retail (except Supermarkets), No Fee for Paper Bags* Alt 7: No Plastic or Paper at Either Retail or FSE * Air Quality Ozone 282 kg per year Atmospheric Acidification 19,745 kg per year Reduces emissions from existing conditions for Ozone by 314 kg and Atmospheric Acidification by 8,356 kg Net increase of truck trips (32) and thus mobile emissions Ozone 596 kg per year Atmospheric Acidification 28,101 kg per year 13 Truck Trips per Year Ozone 273 kg per year Atmospheric Acidification 18,480 kg per year Reduces emissions from existing conditions for Ozone by 323 kg and Atmospheric Acidification by 9,621 Net increase of truck trips (26) and thus mobile emissions Ozone 100 kg per year Atmospheric Acidification 7,317 kg per year Reduces emissions from existing conditions for Ozone by 496 kg and Atmospheric Acidification by 20,784 kg Net increase of truck trips (4) and thus mobile emissions Ozone 244 kg per year Atmospheric Acidification 17,156 kg per year Reduces emissions from existing conditions for Ozone by 352 kg and Atmospheric Acidification by 10,945 kg Net increase of truck trips (26) and thus mobile emissions Ozone 81 kg per year Atmospheric Acidification 6,022 kg per year Reduces emissions from existing conditions for Ozone by 515 kg and Atmospheric Acidification by 22,079 kg Net increase of truck trips (1) and thus mobile emissions Ozone 605 kg per year Atmospheric Acidification 29,639 kg per year Increases emissions from existing conditions for Ozone by 9 kg and Atmospheric Acidification by 1,538 kg Net increase of truck trips (5) and thus mobile emissions Ozone 16 kg per year Atmospheric Acidification 1,621 kg per year Reduces emissions from existing conditions for Ozone by 580 kg and Atmospheric Acidification by 26,480 kg Net decrease of truck trips (8) and thus decrease mobile emissions Biological Resources No plastic bags allowed, thus no plastic bag litter affecting marine resources. Plastic bag litter from both retail services and food service establishments Approximately 26 million plastic bags used which if littered may affect marine resources. Although fewer than existing conditions, would allow FSEs to distribute plastic bags (estimated 1,296,193 per year) which may become litter and affect marine resources. No plastic bags allowed. Fewer paper bags than proposed Bag Ordinance (6.22 million fewer paper bags). Thus less paper litter. No plastic bags allowed. Fewer paper bags than proposed Bag Ordinance (1.3 million fewer paper bags. Thus less paper litter. No plastic bags allowed. Fewer paper bags than proposed Bag Ordinance (6.87million fewer paper bags. Thus less paper litter. No plastic bags allowed at FSEs. Increase of paper bags compared to existing conditions 1.3 million more paper bags. No plastic bags allowed. No paper bags allowed (9.07 million fewer paper bags allowed than proposed Bag Ordinance). Thus less paper litter. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1,112 metric tons CO2e A net increase of 421 metric tons CO2e compared to existing conditions. 691 metric tons CO2e 993 metric tons CO2e A net increase of 302 metric tons CO2e compared to existing conditions. 385 metric tons CO2e A net decrease of 306 metric tons CO2e compared to existing conditions. 960 metric tons CO2e A net increase of 269 metric tons CO2e compared to existing conditions. 309 metric tons CO2e A net decrease of 382 metric tons CO2e compared to existing conditions. 811 metric tons CO2e A net increase of 120 metric tons CO2e compared to existing conditions. 52 metric tons CO2e A net decrease of 639 metric tons CO2e compared to existing conditions. Hydrology/Water Quality No plastic bag litter thus improvement to litter/waste that enters storm drains. Increased production of paper bags (9,073,352 additional paper bags) which may increase water quality impacts associated with production and manufacturing. Some plastic bag litter and waste enters storm drains. Production of plastic and paper bags has some less than significant water quality impacts. Some plastic bag litter as 1,296,193 plastic bags per year would still be in City. Increased production of paper bags (7,777,159 additional paper bags) which may increase water quality impacts associated with production and manufacturing. No plastic bag litter thus improvement to litter/waste that enters storm drains. Increased production of paper bags (2,851,625 additional paper bags) which may increase water quality impacts associated with production and manufacturing. No plastic bag litter thus improvement to waste that enters storm drains. Increased production of paper bags (7,777,159 additional paper bags) which may increase water quality impacts associated with production and manufacturing. No plastic bag litter thus improvement to waste that enters storm drains. Increased production of paper bags (2,203,528 additional paper bags) which may increase water quality impacts associated with production and manufacturing. No plastic bag litter from FSEs thus improvement to waste that enters storm drains compared to existing conditions. Increased production of paper bags (1.3 million additional paper bags) which may increase impacts associated with production and manufacturing. No plastic bag litter thus improvement to waste that enters storm drains. Decreased production of paper bags as none would be distributed within City. However, increased production of reusable bags (174,488 additional reusable bags) which may increase impacts associated with production and manufacturing. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary City of Palo Alto ES-10 Table ES-2 Impact Comparison and Ranking of Project Alternatives Compared with Current Ordinance/”No Project” Alternative Issue Proposed Bag Ordinance Retail: No plastic bags, 10 cent store charge for paper, 25 cent after one year;1 FSE: No plastic, no charge for paper Values below show absolute value and net change (either increase or decrease) compared to existing conditions Alt 1: No Project Current ordinance remains, i.e., no plastic bags at grocery stores, no charge for paper. FSE exempt Values below are all existing conditions. Alt 2: FSE Exempt: Proposed Bag Ordinance in Place for Retail, But Excludes FSE Entirely* Alt 3: $0.25 Store Charge for Paper Bags at Retail But No Paper Charge at FSE, No Plastic at Either* Foregoes first step $0.10 cent retail charge Alt 4: $0.10 for Paper Bags at Both Retail Services and FSE, No Plastic at Either* No increase to $0.25 for retail or FSE Alt 5: $0.25 Fee for Recyclable Paper Bags at Both Retail Services and FSE, No Plastic at Either* Alt 6: FSE Only: Ban Plastic Bags at FSE Only, No Ban At Retail (except Supermarkets), No Fee for Paper Bags* Alt 7: No Plastic or Paper at Either Retail or FSE * Utilities and Service Systems Water and Wastewater AFY = Acre feet per year Water: 18.52 AFY Wastewater: 16,541 gallons per day Water: 0 AFY Wastewater: 0 gallons per day (no increase in the number of reusable bags, therefore no increase in water/wastewater) Water: 18.52 AFY Wastewater: 16,541 gallons per day Water: 25.55 AFY Wastewater: 22,661 gallons per day Water: 20.52 AFY Wastewater: 17,864 gallons per day Water: 26.07 AFY Wastewater: 23,285 gallons per day Water: 0 AFY Wastewater: 0 gallons per day (zero (0) increase in the number of reusable bags, therefore no increase in water/wastewater compared to existing conditions) Water: 28.5 AFY Wastewater: 25,448 gallons per day Solid Waste Estimates utilize the more conservative Boustead data as a worst case scenario 0.59 tons per day Net increase of 0.27 tons per day 99 more tons per year 0.32 tons per day 128 tons per year 0.5 tons per day Net increase of 0.18 tons per day 66 tons per year 0.18 tons per day Net decrease of 0.14 tons per day 51 less tons per year 0.5 tons per day Net increase of 0.179 tons per day 65 more tons per year 0.14 tons per day Net decrease of 0.18 tons per day 66 less tons per year 0.39 tons per day Net decrease of 0.07 tons per day 26 less tons per year 0.00003 tons per day Net decrease of 0.319 tons per day 117 less tons per year Bags Plastic 0 25,923,864 1,296,193 0 0 0 24,627,671 0 Paper 9,073,352 3,108,000 7,777,159 2,851,625 7,777,159 2,203,528 1,296,193 0 Reusable 324,048 111,000 324,048 443,697 348,975 456,160 0 498,536 Total 9,397,400 29,142,864 9,397,400 3,295,322 812,6134 2,659,688 25,923,864 498,536 1After the first year this alternative would have benefits of Alternative 3 All numbers are annual unless otherwise noted. Impacts assume results after one year of ordinance implementation. FSE=Food Service Establishment (e.g., restaurants, food trucks, etc.) * Values show absolute value and net change (either increase or decrease) compared to existing conditions Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary City of Palo Alto ES-11 ASSUMPTIONS This EIR is based on existing and best available data. A detailed study of Palo Alto would have been cost-prohibitive and was not performed, because existing data sets contain conservative assumptions intended as a general assessment of potential impacts. Even with conservative assumptions, the EIR concludes that impacts of the proposed Bag Ordinance are either beneficial or not significant. Specifically, the EIR is conservative in its assumptions in the following ways: 1. No Bag Option: The EIR does not account for customers choosing not to use a bag, which may be a common occurrence when faced with a fee and not having a reusable bag at their disposal. Preliminary surveys at Palo Alto grocery stores indicate that approximately 21% percent of customers do not use a bag (City of Palo Alto Annual Survey of Paper, Plastic and Reusable Bag Use, Updated 2012) . It is also likely that restaurant customers would forgo a bag if charged. Due to limited scientifically accepted data, however, the EIR does not address these issues and conservatively assumes a shift towards reusable bag use. As a result, the water use impact, air quality and GHG emissions impacts for reusable bags may be overstated. 2. Bag Washing: The EIR assumes that reusable bags are washed separately weekly from other laundry, which may not actually occur, as consumers would likely include bags with regular washes. This results in a conservative estimate of water used for bag washing. 3. Reusable bag use: While the definition in the ordinance includes a statement that reusable bags must be able to be used 125 times, the EIR assumes 52 uses to be conservative. This conservative assumption would overestimate solid waste and other impacts as a result of reusable bags. 4. Bag Sizes: The EIR assumes a standard grocery paper checkout bag as the size for all paper checkout bags, as well as a one-to-one replacement ratio of plastic bags with paper checkout bags for approximately 35% of the bags. Paper bags used at food service establishments and retail stores may vary considerably in size, however, no data exists to reliably estimate the impact of these various sizes. In addition, plastic checkout bags are smaller than paper grocery bags and the one-to-one replacement assumption overestimates the number of paper bags used. The bag size assumption results in a very conservative and likely overestimated solid waste generation, greenhouse gas emissions, and air quality emissions impact analyses as a result of paper bags usage. 5. Existing Bag Use: Based on an informal survey of food service establishments, about one third of Palo Alto food service establishments already use paper bags, as do many retail stores. This results in a higher estimate of future paper bag use in the EIR, which affects the air quality, greenhouse gas, and solid waste estimates. 6. Paper Bag Recycling and Composting: Paper bags in Palo Alto are likely recycled or, as part of the commercial and future residential program, may be composted and would not increase solid waste estimates. Plastic bags, however, while accepted in the Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Executive Summary City of Palo Alto ES-12 Palo Alto’s recycling program, are not as likely to be recycled or composted and cause operational issues for solid waste handling equipment. Assuming that paper bags become solid waste, results in the solid waste impacts of the project and the alternatives to be very conservative and likely overstated. 7. Food Service Establishment use of Plastic Bags: Plastic bag use by food service establishments was assumed to be approximately 5% of total plastic bag use. This assumption is consistent with the rates used in the County of San Mateo Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program EIR, SCH#2012042013, October 2012 and the Sunnyvale Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH#2011062032, December 2011. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 1.0 Introduction City of Palo Alto 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance (the “Bag Ordinance”) in the City of Palo Alto. The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) for a recyclable paper or reusable checkout bag until one year after ordinance implementation and twenty-five cents ($0.25) thereafter. Food Service Establishments would be exempt from the paper bag charge. The intent of the proposed Bag Ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single- use plastic and paper bags to reduce waste overall, as well as to reduce pollution in local creeks, in the San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. The proposed Bag Ordinance is described in greater detail in Section 2.0, Project Description. This section discusses: The project background; The legal basis for preparing an EIR; The scope and content of the EIR; Lead, responsible, and trustee agencies; and The environmental review process required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto adopted an ordinance restricting single-use plastic bags on March 30, 2009 (CMR 138:09). This existing Plastic Bag Restriction Ordinance became effective on September 18, 2009 and requires that “supermarkets,” as defined by the ordinance, shall provide only reusable bags and/or recyclable paper bags to customers at the point of sale. Thus, supermarkets in Palo Alto are currently restricted from providing single-use plastic checkout bags. In November 2009, staff promised to return to Council with a recommendation to implement a fee system for single-use paper bags (CMR:401:09). This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a requirement of a settlement with the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition (STPBC-an industry organization referred to as Savetheplasticbag.org in previous City reports) per 2009 litigation brought against the City following adoption of the City’s 2009 ordinance. Palo Alto completed a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in 2009, which was prepared to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Although the MND addressed the substantive issues raised in the litigation by STPBC, Palo Alto settled the case in order to save taxpayers the cost of a trial. The settlement, however, requires the City to prepare an EIR prior to extending the ordinance to include other stores. This EIR has been prepared to comply with this agreement. However, in preparing this EIR the City does not intend to waive its right to argue in any subsequent litigation that the proposed Bag Ordinance is exempt from CEQA under both prior and recently decided case precedent. Although large grocery stores in Palo Alto have complied with the City’s existing ordinance, plastic litter, including plastic carryout bags, continues to be found in local creeks. In a recent City-sponsored creek clean up 85 plastic bags were picked up along a one-mile stretch of Matadero Creek, a majority of which were single use checkout bags (personal communication, Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 1.0 Introduction City of Palo Alto 1-2 Julie Weiss, June 2012). Bags are easily blown into waterways, across City boundaries, and from freeways, and are consistently found during creek cleanups. Plastic carryout bags are designed to hold products for a short period of time, and essentially do not decompose in natural environments. In addition, local cities are required by the Municipal Regional Permit for stormwater to reduce trash by 40% by 2014, 70% by 2017 and 100% by 2022. Plastic bag bans are one of the actions that cities can implement to comply with these stringent requirements in a cost-effective manner. The short-term trash reduction plan submitted by Palo Alto claims a 6% trash reduction with the current single use bag ban (which applies only to supermarkets); however, cities with more comprehensive bans are claiming 12% reduction of trash. Given the ubiquitous presence of plastic bags and their negative contribution to pollution in the local and global environment, City staff seeks to expand the plastic carryout bag ban to include all retail and food service establishments and to establish a store charge for paper bag use with the goal of incentivizing consumers to use reusable bags in lieu of single-use paper or single- use plastic. City staff has prepared a draft Bag Ordinance consistent with the Council’s direction. This EIR analyzes the proposed Bag Ordinance’s environmental impacts in accordance with CEQA. In addition to Palo Alto, several cities and counties in California have previously considered or passed similar ordinances. Thirty-six agencies have either adopted or are considering such ordinances in the San Francisco Bay Area region including the Cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Fairfax, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Jose, San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Watsonville, Woodside, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Mountain View. Participating Counties include: Alameda, Marin, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Sonoma. 1.2 PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY The proposed Bag Ordinance requires the discretionary approval of the City of Palo Alto City Council. Therefore, it is subject to the requirements of CEQA. In accordance with Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of this EIR is to serve as an informational document that: ...will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. This EIR has been prepared as a Project EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Project EIR is appropriate for a specific development project. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines: This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project, including planning, construction, and operation. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 1.0 Introduction City of Palo Alto 1-3 This EIR is to serve as an informational document for the public and City of Palo Alto decision-makers. The process will culminate with City Council hearings to consider certification of a Final EIR and approval of the Bag Ordinance. Section 2.6 in Section 2.0, Project Description, provides a detailed description of approvals that may be necessary for the Bag Ordinance. 1.3 SCOPE AND CONTENT This EIR addresses the issues that the City of Palo Alto determined could potentially have significant effects. The issues addressed in this EIR include: Air Quality Biological Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hydrology/Water Quality Utilities and Service Systems This EIR addresses the issue areas referenced above that were identified in an Initial Study as having potentially significant environmental impacts. The Initial Study is included in Appendix A. The EIR references pertinent City policies and guidelines, certified EIRs and other adopted CEQA documents, and background documents prepared by the City in preparing the proposed Bag Ordinance. A full reference list is contained in Section 7.0, References and Report Preparers. The alternatives section of the EIR (Section 6.0) was prepared in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines. The alternatives discussion evaluates the CEQA-required “no project” alternative and six alternative scenarios for the Bag Ordinance. It also identifies the environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives assessed. The level of detail contained throughout this EIR is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and applicable court decisions. The CEQA Guidelines provide the standard of adequacy on which this document is based. The CEQA Guidelines state: An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. (Section 15151) A Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR was prepared for the proposed Bag Ordinance and distributed on June 12, 2012 for agency and public review for a 30-day review period. The City received four letters in response to the NOP. The City also conducted two public scoping meetings during the NOP comment period. These took place on June 26 and June 28, 2012. The Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 1.0 Introduction City of Palo Alto 1-4 comments received during the NOP comment period primarily related to alternative projects including a “No Food Service Establishment” alternative (See Alternative #2 in Section 6.0, Alternatives), a “$1.00 fee for paper bags” alternative (see Section 6.6, Alternatives Considered but Rejected), a “ban on both plastic and paper bags” alternative (see Section 6.6, Alternatives Considered but Rejected), and a “fee for both plastic and paper bags” alternative (see Section 6.6, Alternatives Considered but Rejected). The NOP, Initial Study, and NOP comment letters for the project are presented in Appendix A. 1.4 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES The CEQA Guidelines define lead, responsible and trustee agencies. The City of Palo Alto is the lead agency for the project because it holds principal responsibility for approving the ordinance. A responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval over the project, and a trustee agency refers to a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project. There are no responsible or trustee agencies for the proposed project. 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The major steps in the environmental review process, as required under CEQA, are outlined below. The steps are presented in sequential order. 1. Notice of Preparation (NOP). After deciding that an EIR is required, the lead agency must file an NOP soliciting input on the EIR scope to the State Clearinghouse, other concerned agencies, and parties previously requesting notice in writing (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; Public Resources Code Section 21092.2). The NOP must be posted in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days. The NOP may be accompanied by an Initial Study that identifies the issue areas for which the proposed project could create significant environmental impacts. 2. Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The DEIR must contain: a) Table of contents or index; b) Summary; c) Project description; d) Environmental setting; e) Discussion of significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth-inducing and unavoidable impacts); f) Discussion of alternatives; g) Mitigation measures; and h) Discussion of irreversible changes. 3. Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability of Draft EIR. A lead agency must file a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse when it completes a Draft EIR and prepare a Public Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR. The lead agency must place the Notice in the County Clerk’s office for 45 days (Public Resources Code Section 21092) and Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 1.0 Introduction City of Palo Alto 1-5 send a copy of the Notice to anyone requesting it (CEQA Guidelines Section 15087). Additionally, public notice of Draft EIR availability must be given through at least one of the following procedures: a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation; b) posting on and off the project site; and c) direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous properties. The lead agency must solicit input from other agencies and the public, and respond in writing to all comments received (Public Resources Code Sections 21104 and 21253). The minimum public review period for a Draft EIR is 30 days. When a Draft EIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period must be 45 days unless the Clearinghouse (Public Resources Code 21091) approves a shorter period. 4. Final EIR. A Final EIR must include: a) the Draft EIR; b) copies of comments received during public review; c) list of persons and entities commenting; and d) responses to comments. 5. Certification of Final EIR. Prior to making a decision on a proposed project, the lead agency must certify that: a) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency; and c) the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final ElR prior to approving a project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090). 6. Lead Agency Project Decision. A lead agency may: a) disapprove a project because of its significant environmental effects; b) require changes to a project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or c) approve a project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043). 7. Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead or responsible agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either: a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; b) changes to the project are within another agency's jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency's decision. 8. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. When an agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects. 9. Notice of Determination. An agency must file a Notice of Determination after deciding to approve a project for which an EIR is prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094). A local agency must file the Notice with the County Clerk. The Notice must be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone previously requesting notice. Posting of the Notice starts a 30-day statute of limitations on CEQA legal challenges (Public Resources Code Section 21167[c]). Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 1.0 Introduction City of Palo Alto 1-6 This page intentionally left blank Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 2.0 Project Description City of Palo Alto 2-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section describes the proposed project, including information about the project applicant, project location, a description of the major project characteristics, project objectives, and a list of discretionary approvals needed for project approval. 2.1 PROJECT APPLICANT City of Palo Alto 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 Contact: Julie Weiss, Environmental Specialist (650) 329-2117 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance (the “Bag Ordinance”), referred to as the Expanded Plastic Bag Restriction ordinance in the Notice of Preparation, focuses on plastic bags as a first step in total single-use bag reduction and would apply to retail services and food service establishments located throughout Palo Alto’s corporate limits. Palo Alto is located in Santa Clara County and is approximately 26 square miles in size, of which approximately one- third is open space. The City‘s boundaries extend from San Francisco Bay on the east to the Skyline Ridge of the coastal mountains on the west, with Menlo Park to the north and Mountain View to the south. Palo Alto contains a variety of land uses, including residential (single- and multi-family), commercial, industrial, office, and public facilities. Figure 2-1 illustrates the location of Palo Alto in its regional context, and Figure 2-2 shows an aerial of the City and surrounding communities. 2.3 EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS 2.3.1 Checkout Bags in Palo Alto Palo Alto adopted an ordinance restricting single-use plastic bags on March 30, 2009 (CMR 138:09). This existing Plastic Bag Restriction Ordinance became effective on September 18, 2009 and requires that “supermarkets,” as defined by the ordinance, shall provide only reusable bags and/or recyclable paper bags to customers at the point of sale. Thus, supermarkets in Palo Alto are currently restricted from providing single-use plastic checkout bags. There are currently seven full service grocery stores that meet the Supermarket definition: JJ&F Food Store, Piazza's Fine Foods, Mollie Stone's Supermarkets, Whole Foods Market, Country Sun, Trader Joe’s and Safeway ). In addition, two new stores (the Fresh Market and Miki’s Farm Fresh Produce) are currently being built, though as of the finalization of this document they are not yet complete and open for business. The existing ordinance also requires that all retail establishments within the City shall provide the following to customers: paper bags only, or a choice between paper or plastic bags. In November 2009, staff promised to return to Council with a recommendation of implementing a fee system for single-use paper bags (CMR:401:09). City of Palo Alto Regional Location Figure 2-1 ± Basemap Source: ESRI Data, 2004, and USGS/CDFG, 2002. ^_ P A C I F I CO C E A N ±Imagery provided by National Geographic Society,ESRI and its licensors, 2012. Section 2.0 Project DescriptionDisposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR 0 84 Miles P A C I F I CO C E A N Project Location City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Aerial Figure 2-2 ± Bing Maps Hybrid: (c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers. Additionalbaselayer data from San Mateo County Information Services Department, May 2012. Section 2.0 Project DescriptionDisposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR 0 31.5 MilesProject Location (City of Palo Alto Boundary) Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 2.0 Project Description City of Palo Alto 2-4 Based on existing conditions, it is estimated that the proposed Bag Ordinance would apply to approximately 1,270 retailers and 278 food service establishments located within Palo Alto (also known as the “Study Area”). A list of potential stores is included in Appendix E. Types of Checkout Bags. Single-use disposable plastic grocery bags are typically made of thin, lightweight high density polyethylene (HDPE) (Hyder Consulting, 2007). For consumers, they offer a hygienic, odorless, waterproof and sufficiently sturdy (for short-term use) carrying sack, but are intended for a single use before disposal. Currently, almost 20 billion of these plastic grocery bags are consumed annually in California (CIWMB, 2007). Conventional single-use plastic bags are a product of the petrochemical industry. It is also claimed that conventional single-use plastic bags are manufactured by independent manufacturers who purchase virgin resin from petrochemical companies or obtain non-virgin resin from recyclers or other sources and that 85% of plastic bags used in the United States are made in the United States (Stephen L. Joseph, July 22, 2010). Their life cycle begins with the conversion of crude oil or natural gas– non-renewable resources–into hydrocarbon monomers, which are then further processed into polymers (Herrera et al, 2008; County of Los Angeles, 2009). These polymers are connected with heat to form plastic resins, which are then blown through tubes to create the air pocket of the bag. Once cooled, the plastic film is stretched to the desired size of the bag and cut into individual bags. Typical single-use plastic bags are approximately five to nine grams in weight, and can be purchased in bulk for approximately two to five cents per bag (AEA Technology, 2009). Single-use plastic bags can be reused by customers, are accepted in Palo Alto’s recycling program and are recyclable once, into products such as plastic lumber for which there are scant or no second recycling options. Approximately 5% of single-use plastic bags in California are currently recycled (US EPA, 2005; Green Cities California MEA, 2010; and Boustead, 2007). Like plastic grocery shopping bags, single-use paper bags are typically distributed free of charge to customers at grocery stores, and are intended for a single use before disposal. However, paper bags are readily recyclable and can be reused by customers. Approximately 21% of paper bags nationwide are recycled (CIWMB, 2009). Paper grocery bags are typically produced from kraft paper and weigh between 50 and 100 grams, depending on whether or not the bag includes handles (AEA Technology, 2009). These bags can be purchased in bulk for approximately 15 to 25 cents per bag (City of Pasadena, 2008). Kraft paper bags are manufactured from a pulp that is produced by digesting a material into its fibrous constituents via chemical and/or mechanical means (FRIDGE, 2002). Kraft pulp is produced by chemical separation of cellulose from lignin (Environmental Paper Network, 2007). Chemicals used in this process include caustic sodas, sodium hydroxide, sodium sulfide, and chlorine compounds (Environmental Paper Network, 2007). Processed and then dried and shaped into large rolls, the paper is then formed into bags, baled, and then distributed to grocery stores. Reusable bags can be made from plastic or a variety of cloth such as vinyl or cotton. These bags differ from the single-use bags in their weight and longevity. Built to withstand many uses, they typically cost approximately three dollars wholesale, weigh at least ten times what an HDPE plastic bag weighs and two times what a paper bag weighs, and require greater material consumption on a per bag basis than HDPE plastic bags (ExcelPlas Australia, 2004; City of Pasadena, 2008). Many types of reusable bags are available today. These include: (1) non- woven polypropylene (100% recyclable) ranging from $1-$2.50 per bag; (2) cotton canvas bags, which are approximately $5.00 per bag; (3) bags made from recycled water/soda bottles, which Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 2.0 Project Description City of Palo Alto 2-5 are approximately $6.00 per bag; (4) polyester and vinyl, which are approximately $10.00 per bag; and (5) 100% cotton, which are approximately $10.00 per bag (Green Cities California MEA, 2010; and, Santa Monica Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011). The production stages in reusable bag life cycles depend on the materials used. These bags are reused until worn out through washing or multiple uses, and then typically disposed either in the landfill or recycling facility. Palo Alto Checkout Bag Consumption. Based on statewide data, currently almost 20 billion plastic grocery bags (or approximately 531 bags per person) are consumed annually in California (Green Cities California MEA, 2010; and CIWMB, 2007). As shown in Table 2-1, without the existing Plastic Bag Restriction Ordinance (in other words, prior to when the Plastic Bag Restriction Ordinance went into effect in September of 2009) retail customers in Palo Alto used about 34.8 million plastic bags per year. However, since the existing Plastic Bag Restriction Ordinance bans the use of plastic bags at seven supermarkets1 in the City (which would use an estimated 1.48 million plastic bags per year per store if not restricted), it is anticipated that the existing plastic checkout bag use in Palo Alto is approximately 25.92 million bags per year. Retail customers in Palo Alto may include residents of other communities and residents of Palo Alto may not necessarily be customers of retailers in the City. However, for this analysis, in order to estimate the existing number of plastic bags used per year in Palo Alto, the statewide data was utilized to apply the number of bags used per person per year rate to the number of residents in Palo Alto. This estimate is considered reasonable and conservative for the purposes of this analysis. Table 2-1 Estimated Single-Use Plastic Checkout Bag Use in Palo Alto Area Population* Number of Plastic Checkout Bags Used per Person** Total Plastic Checkout Bags Used Annually City of Palo Alto 65,544 531 34,803,864 Reduction of Plastic Bag Use as a Result of Existing “Plastic Bag Restriction Ordinance” (6 stores total)¹ (8,880,000) Total with implementation of Existing Plastic Bag Restriction Ordinance 25,923,864 * California Department of Finance, “City/County Population and Housing Estimates” (2012). **Based on annual statewide estimates of plastic bag use from the CIWMB (2007) - 531 bags per person = 20 billion bags used statewide per year (CIWMB, 2007) / 37,678,563 people statewide (California’s current population according to the State Department of Finance, 2012). ¹ Reduction is based on Existing Ordinance applying to six supermarkets which would have utilized approximately 1.48 million plastic bags per year per store (City of Santa Monica Nexus Study contained in the Santa Monica Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011). Please note that this does not take into account the Trader Joe’s store as it is store policy to only distribute paper bags (thus prior to the existing ordinance Trader Joe’s did not use plastic bags and the two stores currently (as of June 2012) being built (the Fresh Market and Miki’s Farm Fresh Produce) since these supermarkets have not yet opened for business at the time of this analysis and therefore are not currently distributing plastic bags. 1 Please note that prior to the implementation of the existing Ordinance, the Trader Joe’s store did not distribute plastic bags as part of the in-store policy. Therefore since plastic bags were not used, the existing Ordinance did not reduce plastic bags at this store but reduced plastic bag use at six stores as described in Table 2-1. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 2.0 Project Description City of Palo Alto 2-6 2.3.2 Regulatory Setting In 2006, California enacted AB 2449 (Chapter 845, Statutes of 2006), which became effective on July 1, 2007. The statute states that stores providing plastic carryout bags to customers must provide at least one plastic bag collection bin in an accessible location to collect used bags for recycling. The store operator must also make reusable bags available to shoppers for purchase. AB 2449 applies to retail stores of over 10,000 square feet that include a licensed pharmacy and to supermarkets with gross annual sales of $2 million or more that sell dry groceries, canned goods, nonfood items or perishable goods. Stores are required to maintain records of their AB 2449 compliance and make them available to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) or local jurisdiction. AB 2449 further require the manufacturers of plastic carryout bags to develop educational materials to encourage the reducing, reusing, and recycling of plastic carryout bags, and to make the materials available to stores. Manufacturers must also work with stores on their at- store recycling programs to help ensure the proper collection, transport, and recycling of plastic bags. Finally, AB 2449 restricts the ability of cities (including charter cities) and counties to regulate single-use plastic grocery bags through imposition of a fee. Public Resources Code Section 42254(b) provides as follows: Unless expressly authorized by this chapter, a city, county, or other public agency shall not adopt, implement, or enforce an ordinance, resolution, regulation, or rule to do any of the following: (1) Require a store that is in compliance with this chapter to collect, transport, or recycle plastic carryout bags. (2) Impose a plastic carryout bag fee upon a store that is in compliance with this chapter. (3) Require auditing or reporting requirements that are in addition to what is required by subdivision (d) of Section 42252, upon a store that is in compliance with this chapter. AB 2449 expires under its own terms on January 1, 2013. SB 1219 extends the in-store recycling requirement of AB 2449 until 2020. 2.4 PROPOSED BAG ORDINANCE CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance (the “Bag Ordinance”) would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single- use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) for a recyclable paper or reusable checkout bag until one year after ordinance implementation and twenty-five cents ($0.25) thereafter Food service establishments would not be required to charge for a recyclable paper checkout bag. It would also revise the definition of “reusable bag” in the existing ordinance to include only bags that are longer-lasting and more durable. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 2.0 Project Description City of Palo Alto 2-7 The intent of the proposed Bag Ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce waste overall, as well as to reduce pollution in local creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the marine environment. It is anticipated that by prohibiting single-use plastic checkout bags and requiring a store charge for each paper bag distributed by retailers, the proposed Bag Ordinance would promote a shift to the use of reusable bags by retail customers and reduce the number of single-use plastic and paper checkout bags within Palo Alto. In the proposed Bag Ordinance, single-use plastic checkout bags are defined as bags made from petroleum or bio-based plastic that are less than 2.25 mils thick (0.00225 inches). The proposed Bag Ordinance would prohibit retail services and food service establishments in Palo Alto from distributing both petroleum and bio-based single-use checkout plastic bags at the point of sale. The proposed Bag Ordinance would not prohibit the distribution of disposable bags provided solely for produce, bulk food or meat at a produce, bulk food or meat department within a grocery store, supermarket, produce or other similar retail services. As noted above, the proposed Bag Ordinance would require regulated retail services to impose a mandatory charge for each paper checkout bag provided. Food service establishments would not be required to charge for each recyclable paper checkout bag. The checkout bag charge would be separately stated on the receipt and provided to the customer at the time of sale and shall be identified as the “Checkout Bag Charge.” Any other transaction fee charged by the retailer in relation to providing a checkout bag shall be identified separately from the Checkout Bag Charge. The Checkout Bag Charge would be completely retained by the affected retailers to compensate for increased costs related to compliance with the Bag Ordinance, actual costs associated with providing recyclable paper checkout bags or reusable bags, and costs associated with a store’s educational materials or education campaign encouraging the use of reusable bags. The staff-prepared working draft of the Bag Ordinance is contained in Appendix D. It is expected that minor modifications to the Bag Ordinance may be made by the Council following additional public outreach and hearings. In addition, the alternatives chapter analyzes the environmental impacts of other more substantive potential changes to the Bag Ordinance that can reasonably be anticipated at this point. 2.5 ANTICIPATED BAG USE AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED BAG ORDINANCE The analysis in this EIR assumes that as a result of the proposed Bag Ordinance 100% of the volume of plastic bags currently used in Palo Alto (25,923,864 plastic bags per year) would be replaced by recyclable paper bags (approximately 35%) and reusable bags (approximately 65%), as shown in Table 2-2. Thus, for this analysis, it is assumed that an estimated 9,073,352 recyclable paper bags would replace 35% of the plastic bags currently used in Palo Alto. This 1:1 replacement ratio is considered conservative, because the volume of a single-use paper carryout bag (20.48 liters) is generally equal to approximately 150% of the volume of a single-use plastic bag (14 liters), such that fewer paper bags would ultimately be needed to carry the same number of items. In addition, there are people that decline receiving a bag of any kind. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 2.0 Project Description City of Palo Alto 2-8 Preliminary surveys indicate that approximately 25% percent of customers do not use a bag (City of Palo Alto Annual Survey of Paper, Plastic and Reusable Bag Use, Updated 2012). In order to estimate the number of reusable checkout bags that would replace 16,850,512 plastic bags (65% of the estimated number of plastic checkout bags currently used annually in Palo Alto), it is assumed that a reusable carryout bag would be used by a customer once per week for one year (52 times). This is a conservative estimate as a reusable bag, as required by the proposed Bag Ordinance, must have the capability of being used 125 times. Based on the estimate of 52 uses, 16,850,512 single-use plastic bags that would be removed as a result of the Bag Ordinance would be replaced by 324,048 reusable bags. This amounts to about five reusable bags per person per year based on Palo Alto’s current population of 65,544. As shown in Table 2-2, this analysis assumes that the approximately 25.92 million single-use plastic checkout bags currently used in Palo Alto annually would be reduced to approximately 9.4 million total bags as a result of the Bag Ordinance. Table 2-2 Plastic Checkout Bag Replacement Assumptions in Palo Alto Type of Bag Replacement Assumption Bags used Post-Ordinance Explanation Single-use Plastic All removed 0 Because the proposed Bag Ordinance would apply to all retailer services and food establishments, no plastic bags would remain in circulation. Recyclable Paper 35%¹ 9,073,352 Although the volume of a single-use paper carryout bag is generally 150% of the volume of a single-use plastic bag, such that fewer paper bags would be needed to carry the same number of items, it is conservatively assumed that paper would replace plastic at a 1:1 ratio. Reusable 65%¹ 324,048 Although a reusable bag is designed to be used hundreds of times (Green Cities California MEA, 2010; Santa Monica Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, 2011), it is conservatively assumed that a reusable bag would be used by a customer once per week for one year, or 52 times. Total 9,397,400 ¹ Rates utilized in the City of San Jose Final EIR, SCH # 2009102095, October 2010. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 2.0 Project Description City of Palo Alto 2-9 2.6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The City’s objectives for the proposed Bag Ordinance are to: Reduce the environmental impacts of pollution in local creeks, baylands, public parks and open spaces, in the San Francisco Bay, in the marine environment, and in landfills (particulary Kirby Canyon Landfill) related to single-use plastic checkout bags Reduce the number of single-use bags distributed by retailers and food service establishments that are used by customers in Palo Alto Promote a shift toward the use of long-lasting and durable reusable bags by retail customers in Palo Alto Deter the use of paper bags by customers in Palo Alto Reduce waste and move toward zero waste within Palo Alto 2.7 REQUIRED APPROVALS and PERMITS The proposed Bag Ordinance would require an amendment to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (CMR 138:09) with discretionary approval by the Palo Alto City Council. The following approvals would be required: Certification of the Final EIR (City Council) Adoption of the Bag Ordinance amending the Municipal Code (City Council) No other agencies have discretionary approval authority over any aspect of the proposed Bag Ordinance. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 2.0 Project Description City of Palo Alto 2-10 This page intentionally left blank Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 3.0 Environmental Setting City of Palo Alto 3-1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the proposed Bag Ordinance. More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting germane to each environmental issue area can be found in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis. 3.1 REGIONAL SETTING Palo Alto is located in Santa Clara County and encompasses approximately 26 square miles, of which approximately one-third is open space. The City‘s boundaries extend from San Francisco Bay on the east to the Skyline Ridge of the coastal mountains on the west, with Menlo Park to the north and Mountain View to the south. Palo Alto contains a variety of land uses, including residential (single- and multi-family), commercial, industrial, office, and public facilities. Palo Alto has a current population of 65,544 (California Department of Finance, 2012). Like most of the San Francisco Bay area, Palo Alto has a Mediterranean climate, with mild, moist winters and comfortably warm, very dry summers. Average daytime summer temperatures are in the high 70s, and during the winter, average daytime high temperatures rarely stay below 50 °F. Palo Alto is in the south-eastern section of the San Francisco Peninsula. Palo Alto is crossed by several creeks that flow north to San Francisco Bay, from South to North: Adobe Creek, Barron Creek, Matadero Creek, and San Francisquito Creek. Residents in Palo Alto receive water from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System (RWS), operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities commission (SFPUC). This supply is mostly surface water supplies from the Sierra Nevada, delivered through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts. Electric and gas service within the majority of the City limits are provided by the City of Palo Alto. Wastewater draining from indoor sources in Palo Alto flows through sewer pipes that direct the wastewater to the City’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant for treatment before being discharged to the San Francisco Bay. Palo Alto is served by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (buses), San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) (service to San Mateo County to the north), the Stanford University Free Shuttle, the Palo Alto Free Shuttle, and the Caltrain commuter rail. The US 101, and I-280 freeways run through the City. A segment of State Route 82 also runs through the center of the City, following the path of historic El Camino Real. Based on existing conditions, it is estimated that the proposed Bag Ordinance would apply to approximately 1,270 retailers and 278 food service establishments located within Palo Alto (also known as the “Study Area”). A list of potential stores is included in Appendix E. 3.2 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SETTING CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual actions that, when considered together, are considerable or will compound other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are the changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project and other nearby projects. For example, traffic impacts of two nearby Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 3.0 Environmental Setting City of Palo Alto 3-2 projects may be insignificant when analyzed separately, but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. Cumulative impact analysis allows the EIR to provide a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects of a series of projects. Although CEQA analysis typically lists development projects in the vicinity of a project site, this document analyzes the environmental impacts associated with a proposed ordinance and does not include development or construction activity. As such, the cumulative significance of the proposed Bag Ordinance has been analyzed within the context of other bag ordinances that are approved or pending throughout California. Table 3-1 lists current adopted and pending ordinances in California. These ordinances are considered in the cumulative analyses in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis. Thirty-six agencies have either adopted or are considering such ordinances in the San Francisco Bay Area region including the Cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Fairfax, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Jose, San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Watsonville, Woodside, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Mountain View. Participating Counties include: Alameda, Marin, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Sonoma. While there may be additional jurisdictions who consider adoption of a similar bag ordinance in the future, the following list is intended to conservatively estimate cumulative impacts related to bag ordinances. Accounting for those jurisdictions who have not yet considered adoption of a bag ordinance would be speculative as there is no reasonable way to quantitatively estimate the impacts associated with those jurisdictions who have “as-yet to consider” such a proposal. Therefore, the following list is a conservative and reasonable estimate of the cumulative projects based upon the best available sources of information for this Draft EIR. Table 3-1 Adopted, Proposed and Pending Bag Ordinances in California Ordinance Location Proposed Action Status City of Calabasas This ordinance bans the issuance of plastic carryout bags and imposes a ten (10) cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags at regulated stores. Adopted February 2011 Effective July 2011 City of Carmel-by-the-Sea This ordinance is a plastic bag ban in all retail stores. Adopted July 2012 Effective February 2013 City of Carpinteria This ordinance is the first double bag ban in the state. Starting in July 2012, large retailers as specified are prohibited from distributing single-use paper and plastic bags. Starting in April 2013, plastic bags are banned in all other retail stores including food service establishments. Adopted March 12, 2012 Carpinteria’s 2012 bag ban was challenged by the Save The Plastic Bag Coalition (STPBC) March 20, 2012. They settled out of court with the agreement that the City would exempt restaurant carryout bags from the ordinance. City of Dana Point This ordinance places a ban on single-use plastic bags from all retail stores within city Adopted March 6, 2012 Effective in larger stores April 1, Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 3.0 Environmental Setting City of Palo Alto 3-3 Table 3-1 Adopted, Proposed and Pending Bag Ordinances in California Ordinance Location Proposed Action Status limits. 2013, and all other stores October 1, 2013. City of Fairfax This ordinance allows all stores, shops, eating places, food vendors and retail food vendors, to provide only recyclable paper or reusable bags as checkout bags to customers. Adopted August 2007 After legal challenge, adopted by voter initiative November 2008 City of Fort Bragg This ordinance bans plastic bags and requires a 10 cent paper bag charge in all retail stores. Adopted May 14, 2012 Effective in large stores December 10, 2012 and all other stores December 2013. City of Huntington Beach This ordinance would prohibit distribution of plastic carry-out bags in commercial point of sale purchases within Huntington Beach, and establish a ten (10) cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carry-out bags at all stores that meet at least one of the criteria listed below. A Draft EIR has been prepared and circulated in February 2012. City Council review of the ordinance and certification of the Final EIR is pending. City of Laguna Beach This ordinance requires a plastic bag ban in all retail stores. Grocery stores, pharmacies, and convenience/liquor stores must include a 10 cent minimum price requirement on paper bags distributed. Adopted February 2012 Effective January 1, 2013 City of Long Beach This ordinance bans plastic carryout bags at all supermarkets and other grocery stores, pharmacies, drug stores, convenience stores, food marts, and farmers markets and would place a ten (10) cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags by an affected store, as defined. The ordinance would also require a store to provide or make available to a customer recyclable paper carryout bags or reusable bags. Long Beach passed this ordinance in May 2011. But unlike LAC, Long Beach did not issue a statement of overriding consideration for the likelihood of passing the GHG emission threshold of significance. The suit was settled after Long Beach agreed to adopt the County’s Statement of Overriding Consideration in October 2011. Addendum to the County of Los Angeles Final EIR certified May 2011. The ordinance was also effective in larger stores starting August 2011, and will expand to others stores in 2012. City of Los Angeles The ordinance would prohibit provision of single-use plastic bags at supermarkets. Large markets are allowed to phase out plastic bags over 6 months and then provide free paper bags for 6 months. Smaller markets have a year to phase out plastic bags. After a year, paper bags would be allowed for a charge of 10 cents. Approved May 2012 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 3.0 Environmental Setting City of Palo Alto 3-4 Table 3-1 Adopted, Proposed and Pending Bag Ordinances in California Ordinance Location Proposed Action Status City of Malibu This ordinance bans the use of non-compostable and compostable plastic shopping bags for point-of-sale distribution. Adopted May 2008 Effective November 2009 City of Manhattan Beach This ordinance bans the distribution of plastic bags at the point-of-sale for all retail establishments in Manhattan Beach. Adopted July 2008 The California Supreme Court overturned a legal challenge to the ordinance in July 2011, ruling in favor of an appeal by the City of Manhattan Beach affirming the right of small local governments to phase out plastic grocery bags without an EIR. City of Millbrae This ordinance bans single-use bags and free paper carryout bags and would apply to all retailers. Stores can charge a minimum of 10 cents per bag, should a customer need to purchase one. Those paper bags sold must be comprised of at least 40 percent post-consumer recycled materials. Thicker reusable plastic bags are allowed but would also need to be imprinted showing the bag is made of at least 40 percent post-consumer recycled materials. Adopted February 2012. Certified a Negative Declaration. Effective September 1, 2012. City of Monterey This ordinance bans plastic bags and places an initial 10 cent minimum price requirement on paper bags for the first year, and 25 cents after. Adopted December 6, 2011 City of Ojai An ordinance bans plastic shopping bags and imposes a 10-cent fee on paper bags at grocery stores, supermarkets, convenience stores, liquor stores and gasoline mini-marts. Adopted April 2012. Effective July 1, 2012. City of Pasadena This ordinance bans plastic bags, and imposes a10 cent minimum price on paper bags. Adopted November 2011 Effective July 1, 2012 for large stores and supermarkets and December 2012 for convenience stores. City of San Francisco Retail stores governed by the ordinance can only provide the following types of bags: a. compostable plastic b. recyclable paper c. reusable bag of any material In February 2012, the ordinance was expanded to all retail and food establishments within the City and requires a minimum ten cent charge for reusable bags. Adopted April 2007 In February 2012, San Francisco expanded its bag ban and was sued by the STPBC. The two causes of action are related to CEQA compliance and the bag ban for food service establishments. In September 2012, the ruling was in favor of San Francisco on all counts which allows food service establishments to be included under San Francisco’s ordinance. City of San Jose This ordinance prohibits the distribution of single-use carryout paper and plastic bags at the Adopted January 2011 Effective January 2012 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 3.0 Environmental Setting City of Palo Alto 3-5 Table 3-1 Adopted, Proposed and Pending Bag Ordinances in California Ordinance Location Proposed Action Status point of sale (i.e., check-out) for all commercial retail businesses in San José except food service establishments. An exception is made for “green” paper bags containing at least 40 percent recycled content, accompanied by a charge of 10 cents to the customer, with the charge retained by the retailer. For the first two years, paper bags will be sold under this ordinance at 10 cents each; after two years the minimum price per paper bag is 25 cents each. City of Santa Cruz This ordinance bans plastic bags and places a 10 cent paper bag charge. Adopted July 2012 Effective April 2013 City of Santa Monica This ordinance: (1) prohibits retail establishments in Santa Monica from providing “single-use plastic carryout bags” to customers at the point of sale; (2) prohibits the free distribution of paper carryout bags by grocery stores, convenience stores, mini-marts, liquor stores and pharmacies; and (3) requires stores that make paper carryout bags available to sell recycled paper carryout bags to customers for not less than ten cents per bag. Adopted January 2011 Effective September 2011 City of Solana Beach This ordinance prohibits the provision of plastic bags (except at food service establishments) and allows purchase of paper bags for 10 cents. Adopted May 2012, amended July 2012 City of Sunnyvale This ordinance prohibits specified retail establishments in Sunnyvale from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale, and creates a mandatory 10 cent ($0.10) charge for each paper bag distributed by these stores. Adopted December 2011 Effective June 20, 2012 (grocery stores, convenience stores and large retailers) Effective March 2013 (all retailers) City of Ukiah This ordinance prohibits retail establishments (except eating establishments) in Ukiah from providing single-use bags. Recycled-content paper bags or reusable bags could be provided at a minimum charge of 10 cents per bag. Adopted May 2012 Effective in large stores 180 days after adoption and 545 days for all other stores. City of Watsonville This ordinance prohibits retail establishments from providing non-recycled paper or plastic bags and allows sale of recycled and recyclable paper bags for a 10 cent charge. Adopted May 2012 City of West Hollywood This ordinance prohibits retail establishments from providing non-recycled paper or plastic bags and places a 10 cent recyclable paper bag charge. Adopted August 2012 County of Alameda (Cities of Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Union This ordinance prohibits the distribution of single-use carryout paper and plastic bags at the point of sale (i.e., check-out) for all commercial retail businesses in Alameda County. Exception would be made for recycled paper or reusable bags containing a specified minimum percentage of recycled content, which can only be provided to customers for a nominal charge (ten cents on or before January 1, 2015 Adopted January 2012 Effective January 1, 2013 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 3.0 Environmental Setting City of Palo Alto 3-6 Table 3-1 Adopted, Proposed and Pending Bag Ordinances in California Ordinance Location Proposed Action Status City) and 25 cents on or after January 1, 2015) to cover the cost to the business of providing the bags. County of Los Angeles This ordinance bans the issuance of plastic carryout bags and imposes a ten (10) cent charge on the issuance of recyclable paper carryout bags at all supermarkets and other grocery stores, pharmacies, drug stores, convenience stores, and foodmarts, in unincorporated Los Angeles County. The ordinance requires a store to provide or make available to a customer only recyclable paper carryout bags or reusable bags. The ordinance would also encourage a store to educate its staff to promote reusable bags and to post signs encouraging customers to use reusable bags in the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles. Adopted November 2010 In October 2011, Hilex and some individuals filed a petition to void the LA County ordinance. They alleged that the 10-cent charge on paper bags is really a local special tax that requires voter approval as amended by Prop 26. In March 2012, the Court denied the petition and ruled that a paper bag charge was not a tax under Prop 26. Helix appealed the decision April 2012 and the case is still pending. County of Marin This ordinance prohibits the distribution of plastic carryout bags and would charge at least $0.05 for a recycled paper bag. Adopted January 2011 In September 2011, Marin County Superior Court found the ordinance “a reasonable legislative and regulatory choice” to protect the environment without causing a significant negative impact. The County had correctly determined the project to be exempt based on its actions to protect the environment and natural resources. STPBC filed an appeal of this decision on November 29, 2011 and the case is still pending. County of Mendocino This ordinance bans plastic bags with a 10 cent paper bag charge. Adopted June 12, 2012 Effective in large stores January 2013, and all other retailers January 2014 County of San Luis Obispo (City and County of San Luis Obispo, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, and Pismo Beach) The San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority adopted a plastic bag ban with a 10 cent minimum price requirement on paper bags. Adopted January 2012 It goes into effect on September 1, 2012 in all seven incorporated cities as well as unincorporated areas of the county. A petition was filed January 30, 2012. The SLO lawsuit had two causes of action, but the second cause was dropped in February. The first cause of action is CEQA compliance. The case is pending. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 3.0 Environmental Setting City of Palo Alto 3-7 Table 3-1 Adopted, Proposed and Pending Bag Ordinances in California Ordinance Location Proposed Action Status County of San Mateo (unincorporated) and 24 participating municipalities in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties This ordinance prohibits the provision of single use plastic bags and places a 10 cent (up to 25 cents in January 2013) charge on recycled paper bags. Approved by San Mateo County Board of Supervisors October 2012. Effective April 2013. County of Santa Clara This ordinance allows affected retail establishments to distribute either a ‘green’ paper bag or a reusable bag. Reusable bags may be given away or sold and are initially defined (until January 2013) as bags made of cloth or other machine washable fabric that has handles; or a durable plastic bag with handles that is at least 2.25 mils thick and is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple use. ‘Green’ paper bags may be sold to customers for a minimum charge of $0.15 and are defined as paper bags that are 100% recyclable and are made from 100% recycled material. Adopted April 2011 Effective January 2012 County of Santa Cruz The ordinance bans single-use plastic bags and places a 10 cent minimum price requirement on single-use paper bags throughout unincorporated county areas. Adopted September 13, 2011 The STPBC filed a lawsuit in October 2011. The case was settled out of court and in February 2012 the City repealed the ban of plastic bags used at food service establishments. County of Sonoma This ordinance by the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency would regulate the use of paper and plastic single use carryout bags within the geographical limits of Sonoma County, including the nine incorporated cities and town, starting July 1, 2013. The intent of the ordinance is to reduce the environmental impacts related to the use of single use carryout bags, and to promote a shift toward the use of reusable bags. An EIR is being prepared and is anticipated for release in December 2012. Source: Californians Against Waste, http://www.cawrecycles.org/issues/plastic_campaign/plastic_bags/local , accessed October 2012 ; Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, http://savetheplasticbag.com, accessed October 2012; San Luis Obispo County, Alameda County, City of Oakland, City of San Jose, City of Calabasas, City of Carpinteria, City of Dana Point, City of Fairfax, City of Laguna Beach, City of Palo Alto, City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, City of Malibu, City of Manhattan Beach, City of San Francisco, City of Solana Beach, City of Pasadena, Marin County, City of Santa Monica, Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz County, City of Long Beach, City of Ojai, City of Sunnyvale, City of Millbrae Homepages, October 2012. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 3.0 Environmental Setting City of Palo Alto 3-8 This page intentionally left blank Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis City of Palo Alto 4-1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS This section discusses the possible environmental effects of the proposed Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance for the specific issue areas that were identified through the Initial Study and NOP process as having the potential to experience significant impacts. “Significant effect” is defined by the CEQA Guidelines §15382 as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment, but may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.” The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of the setting relevant to that issue area. Following the setting is a discussion of the proposed Bag Ordinance’s impacts relative to the issue area. Within the impact analysis, the first subsection identifies the methodologies used and the “significance thresholds,” which are those criteria adopted by the City, other agencies, universally recognized, or developed specifically for this analysis to determine whether potential impacts are significant. The next subsection describes each impact of the proposed Bag Ordinance, mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of significance after mitigation. Each impact under consideration for an issue area is separately listed in bold text, with the discussion of the impact and its significance following. Each bolded impact listing also contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as follows: Class I, Significant and Unavoidable: An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved. Class II, Significant but Mitigable: An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings to be made. Class III, Not Significant: An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable. Class IV, Beneficial: An impact that would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards. Following each environmental impact discussion is a listing of recommended mitigation measures (if required) and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after the implementation of the measures. In those cases where the mitigation measure for a significant environmental impact could have a significant secondary impact in another issue area, this impact is discussed as a residual effect. The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects, which evaluates the impacts associated with the proposed Bag Ordinance in conjunction with other adopted and pending carryout bag ordinances. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis City of Palo Alto 4-2 This page intentionally left blank Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality City of Palo Alto 4.1-1 4.1 AIR QUALITY This section analyzes the proposed Bag Ordinance’s long-term impacts to local and regional air quality. The analysis focuses on air quality impacts associated with checkout bag manufacturing facilities and the impacts associated with truck trips that deliver checkout bags in Palo Alto. Impacts related to global climate change are addressed in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 4.1.1 Setting a. Characteristics of Air Pollutants. The City of Palo Alto is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Basin). The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional government agency that monitors and regulates air pollution within the Basin. Pollutants that are monitored within Santa Clara County and compared to State and Federal Standards include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and suspended particulates. The general characteristics of these pollutants are described below. Ozone. Ozone is produced by a photochemical reaction (triggered by sunlight) between nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG). Nitrogen oxides are formed during the combustion of fuels, while reactive organic gases are formed during combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. Because ozone requires sunlight to form, it mostly occurs in concentrations considered serious between the months of April and October. Ozone is a pungent, colorless, toxic gas with direct health effects on humans, including respiratory and eye irritation and possible changes in lung functions. Groups most sensitive to ozone include children, the elderly, persons with respiratory disorders, and people who exercise strenuously outdoors. Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas that is found in high concentrations only near the source. The major source of carbon monoxide is automobile traffic. Elevated concentrations, therefore, are usually only found near areas of high traffic volumes. Carbon monoxide’s health effects are related to its affinity for hemoglobin in the blood. At high concentrations, carbon monoxide reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood, causing heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases, reduced lung capacity and impaired mental abilities. Nitrogen Dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a by-product of fuel combustion, with the primary source being motor vehicles and industrial boilers and furnaces. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOx. Nitrogen dioxide is an acute irritant. A relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis may exist, and an increase in bronchitis in young children at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm) may occur. NO2 absorbs blue light and causes a reddish brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. It can also contribute to the formation of PM10 and acid rain. Suspended Particulates. PM10 is particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter, while PM2.5 is fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter. Suspended particulates are mostly dust particles, nitrates and sulfates. Both PM10 and Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality City of Palo Alto 4.1-2 PM2.5 are by-products of fuel combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads, and are directly emitted into the atmosphere through these processes. Suspended particulates are also created in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. The characteristics, sources, and potential health effects associated with the small particulates (those between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter) and fine particulates (PM2.5) can be very different. The small particulates generally come from windblown dust and dust kicked up from mobile sources. The fine particulates are generally associated with combustion processes as well as being formed in the atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. Fine particulate matter is more likely to penetrate deeply into the lungs and poses a health threat to all groups, but particularly to the elderly, children, and those with respiratory problems. More than half of the small and fine particulate matter that is inhaled into the lungs remains there. These materials can damage health by interfering with the body’s mechanisms for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting as carriers of an absorbed toxic substance. b. Air Quality Standards. Federal and state standards have been established for six criteria pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulates less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5 respectively), and lead (Pb). California has also set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. Table 4.1-1 lists the current federal and state standards for criteria pollutants. Table 4.1-1 Current Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Federal Standard California Standard Ozone 0.075 ppm (8-hr avg) 0.09 ppm (1-hr avg) 0.07 ppm (8-hr avg) Carbon Monoxide 9.0 ppm (8-hr avg) 35.0 ppm (1-hr avg) 9.0 ppm (8-hr avg) 20.0 ppm (1-hr avg) Nitrogen Dioxide 53 ppb (annual avg) 100 ppb (1-hr avg) 0.030 ppm (annual avg) 0.18 ppm (1-hr avg) Sulfur Dioxide 75 ppb (1-hr avg) 0.04 ppm (24-hr avg) 0.25 ppm (1-hr avg) Lead 1.5 g/m3 (30 day avg) 1.5 g/m3 (calendar qtr) 0.15 g/m3 (rolling 3-month avg) Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 g/m3 (24-hr avg) 20 g/m3 (annual avg) 50 g/m3 (24-hr avg) Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 15 g/m3 (annual avg) 35 g/m3 (24-hr avg) 12 g/m3 (annual avg) ppm= parts per million ppb= parts per billion g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Source: California Air Resources Board (2012), accessed online April 2012 at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality City of Palo Alto 4.1-3 The BAAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the local air basin is classified as being in “attainment” or “non-attainment.” c. Current Air Quality. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin monitoring station located closest to Palo Alto is the Redwood City monitoring station, located at 897 Barron Avenue in Redwood City. No PM10 data is available from the Redwood City monitoring station; therefore, data for PM10 was taken from the next nearest monitoring station, located at 22601 Voss Avenue in Cupertino, approximately nine miles southeast of Palo Alto. Table 4.1-2 indicates the number of days that each of the state and federal air quality standards has been exceeded at these stations. As shown, the ozone concentration exceeded the state standard twice in 2010. The PM2.5 concentration exceeded federal standards on one day in 2010. There were no exceedances of either the state or federal standards for NO2, PM10 or CO from 2009 through 2011. Table 4.1-2 Ambient Air Quality Data Pollutant 2009 2010 2011 Ozone, ppm - Worst Hour 0.087 0.113 0.076 Number of days of State exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 0 2 0 Number of days of Federal exceedances (>0.12 ppm) 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide, ppm - Worst 8 Hours 1.76 1.72 1.67 Number of days of State/Federal exceedances (>9.0 ppm) 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide, ppm - Worst Hour 0.056 0.059 0.056 Number of days of State exceedances (>0.25 ppm) 0 0 0 Particulate Matter <10 microns, g/m3 Worst 24 Hoursb * 27.9 28.3 Number of samples of State exceedances (>50 g/m3 ) 0 0 0 Number of samples of Federal exceedances (>150 g/m3 ) 0 0 0 Particulate Matter <2.5 microns, g/m3 Worst 24 Hours 34.2 36.5 24.2 Number of samples of Federal exceedances (>35 g/m3 ) 0 1 0 bData collected for the Cupertino Monitoring Station Source: CARB, 2009, 2010, & 2011 Air Quality Data Statistics, Top Four Summary, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov . Data collected from the Redwood City Monitoring Station *Insufficient data available to determine a value d. Air Quality Management. Under state law, the BAAQMD is required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the District is in non-compliance. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) provides a plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health. The legal impetus for the CAP is to update the most recent ozone plan, the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, to comply with state air quality planning requirements as codified in the California Health & Safety Code. Although steady progress in reducing ozone Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality City of Palo Alto 4.1-4 levels in the Bay Area has been made, the region continues to be designated as non-attainment for both the one-hour and eight-hour state ozone standards. In addition, emissions of ozone precursors in the Bay Area contribute to air quality problems in neighboring air basins. Under these circumstances, state law requires the CAP to include all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors and reduce transport of ozone precursors to neighboring air basins (BAAQMD, September 2010). The Bay Area was recently designated as non‐attainment for the national 24‐hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standard, and the BAAQMD is required to prepare a PM2.5 State Implementation Plan (SIP) pursuant to federal air quality guidelines by December 2012. The 2010 CAP is not a SIP document and does not respond to federal requirements for PM2.5 or ozone planning. However, in anticipation of future PM2.5 planning requirements, the CAP control strategy also aims to reduce PM emissions and concentrations. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently reevaluating national ozone standards, and is likely to tighten those standards in the near future. The control measures in the CAP will also help in the Bay Area’s continuing effort to attain national ozone standards (BAAQMD, September 2010). e. Air Quality and Checkout Bags. Single-use bags can affect air quality in two ways: through emissions associated with manufacturing processes and through emissions associated with truck trips for the delivery of checkout bags to retailers. Each is summarized below. Manufacturing Process. The manufacturing process to make checkout bags requires fuel and energy consumption, which generates air pollutant emissions. These may include particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and odorous sulfur (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). The amount of emissions varies depending on the type and quantity of checkout bags produced. These emissions may contribute to air quality impacts related to acid rain (atmospheric acidification) or ground level ozone formation. Although manufacturing facilities may emit air pollutants in the production of checkout bags, manufacturing facilities are subject to air quality regulations, as described below, that are intended to reduce emissions sufficiently to avoid violations of air quality standards. For this EIR, the analysis is focused on the Bay Area Air Basin, the air basin in which Palo Alto is located. Truck Trips. Delivery trucks that transport checkout bags from manufacturers or distributors to the local retailers in Palo Alto also contribute air emissions locally and regionally. As discussed in the Transportation section of the Initial Study (see Appendix A), based on the estimated single-use plastic checkout bag use as shown in Table 2-2, retail customers in Palo Alto currently use an estimated 25,923,864 plastic bags per year. Assuming 2,080,000 plastic bags per truck load (City of Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011; refer to Appendix A), approximately 13 annual truck trips (an average of about 0.03 trips per day) would be needed to deliver these checkout bags. Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, composed of gaseous and solid material (ARB “Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust”, 2012). The visible emissions in diesel exhaust are known as particulate matter or PM, which are small and readily respirable. The particles Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality City of Palo Alto 4.1-5 have hundreds of chemicals adsorbed onto their surfaces, including many known or suspected mutagens and carcinogens. Diesel PM emissions are estimated to be responsible for about 70% of the total ambient air toxics risk. In addition to these general risks, diesel PM can also be responsible for elevated localized or near-source exposures (“hot-spots”) (ARB, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust”, 2012). Like manufacturing facilities, delivery trucks are also subject to existing regulations primarily related to diesel emissions, as described in subsection f. Regulations Applicable to Delivery Trucks. These regulations are intended to reduce emissions associated with fuel combustion. Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification. Various studies have estimated air emissions for the different checkout bags (single-use plastic, paper or reusable bags) to determine a per bag emissions rate. In order to provide metrics to determine environmental impacts associated with the proposed Bag Ordinance, reasonable assumptions based upon the best available sources of information have been established and are utilized in this EIR. Specific metrics that compare impacts on a per bag basis are available for single-use plastic, single-use paper and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) reusable bags. Air pollutant emissions associated with the manufacturing and transportation of one single-use paper bag result in 1.9 times the impact on atmospheric acidification as air pollutant emissions associated with one single-use plastic bag. Similarly, on a per bag basis, a reusable checkout bag that is made of LDPE plastic would result in 3 times the atmospheric acidification compared to a single-use plastic bag if the LDPE bag is only used one time. In addition, on a per bag basis, a single-use paper bag has 1.3 times the impact on ground level ozone formation of a single-use plastic bag. Finally, a reusable checkout bag that is made of LDPE plastic and only used one time would result in 1.4 times the ground level ozone formation of a single-use plastic bag (Stephen L. Joseph, 2010; Ecobilan, 2004; FRIDGE, 2002; and Green Cities California MEA, 2010, City of Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011). The above statistics use the LDPE checkout bag as a representation of reusable bags in evaluating air quality impacts. There is no known available Life Cycle Assessment that evaluates all types of reusable bags (canvas, cotton, calico, etc.) with respect to potential air pollutant emissions. However, the emissions from all types of reusable bags are lower than single-use plastic and paper checkout bags, because reusable bags are typically used at least one year, or 521 uses. Thus, the air pollutant emissions from these bags are expected to be comparable to the LPDE bag or lower. Table 4.1-3 lists the emissions contributing to ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification using the per-bag impact rates discussed above and the estimated number of existing single-use paper and plastic bags used in Palo Alto. The manufacturing and transportation of single-use plastic bags currently used in Palo Alto each year generates an estimated 596 kilograms (kg) of emissions associated with ground level ozone and 28,101 kg of emissions associated with atmospheric acidification. 1 This represents a conservative estimate. According to the March 2010 MEA on Single-use and Reusable Bags, reusable bags may be used 100 times or more. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality City of Palo Alto 4.1-6 Table 4.1-3 Current Emissions from Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Checkout Bags In Palo Alto Bag Type # of Bags Used per Year Ozone Emission Rate per Bag* Ozone Emissions (kg) per 1,000 bags** Ozone Emissions per year (kg) AA Emission Rate per Bag* AA Emissions (kg) per 1,000 bags*** AA Emissions per year (kg) Single-use Plastic 25,923,864 1.0 0.023 596.25 1.0 1.084 28,101.47 Total 596 Total 28,101 Source: * Impact rate per bag as stated in Stephen L. Joseph, 2010; Ecobilan, 2004; FRIDGE, 2002; and Green Cities California MEA, 2010; Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011. ** Emissions per 1,000 bags from Ecobilan, 2004; Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011. *** Emissions per 1,000 bags from FRIDGE, 2002 and Green Cities California MEA, 2010; Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011. f. Regulations applicable to Manufacturing Facilities. EPA Title V Permit. Title V is a federal program designed to standardize air quality permits and the permitting process for major sources of emissions across the country. The name "Title V" comes from Title V of the 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments, which requires the EPA to establish a national, operating permit program. Accordingly, EPA adopted regulations [Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1, Part 70 (Part 70)], which require states and local permitting authorities to develop and submit a federally enforceable operating permit programs for EPA approval. Title V only applies to "major sources." EPA defines a major source as a facility that emits, or has the potential to emit (PTE) any criteria pollutant or hazardous air pollutant (HAP) at levels equal to or greater than the Major Source Thresholds (MST). The MST for criteria pollutants may vary depending on the attainment status (e.g. marginal, serious, or extreme) of the geographic area and the Criteria Pollutant or HAP in which the facility is located (EPA Title V Requirement, accessed March 2010). Checkout bag manufacturing facilities that emit any criteria pollutant or HAP at levels equal to or greater than the MST of the local air quality management district would need to obtain, and maintain compliance with a Title V permit. Local Air Quality Management District’s Equipment Permits. Manufacturing facilities may also be required to obtain permits from the local air quality management district. A local air quality management district permit is a written authorization to build, install, alter, replace, or operate equipment that emits or controls the emission of air contaminants, such as NOx, CO, PM10, oxides of sulfur (SOx), or toxics. Permits ensure that emission controls meet the need for the local region to make steady progress toward achieving and maintaining federal and state air quality standards. The BAAQMD, the local air quality management district serving Palo Alto, requires operators that plan to build, install, alter, replace, or operate any equipment that emits or controls the emission of air contaminants to apply for, obtain and maintain equipment Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality City of Palo Alto 4.1-7 permits. Equipment permits ensure that emission controls meet the need for the Bay Area Air Basin to make steady progress toward achieving and maintaining federal and state air quality standards (as shown in Table 4.1-3). Permits also ensure proper operation of control devices, establish recordkeeping and reporting mechanisms, limit toxic emissions, and control dust or odors. In addition, the BAAQMD routinely inspects operating facilities to verify that equipment operates in compliance with BAAQMD rules and regulations. g. Regulations applicable to Delivery Trucks. On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use) Regulation. On December 12, 2008, the ARB approved a new regulation to significantly reduce emissions from existing on-road diesel vehicles operating in California. The regulation requires affected trucks and buses to meet performance requirements between 2011 and 2023. By January 1, 2023, all vehicles must have a 2010 model year engine or equivalent. The regulation is intended to reduce emissions of diesel PM, oxides of nitrogen and other criteria pollutants (ARB “Truck and Bus Regulation, updated March 2010). All trucks making deliveries of checkout bags in California will be required to adhere to this regulation. Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling Limit. The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other air contaminants by limiting the idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles. The regulation applies to diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles that operate in the State of California with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds that are or must be licensed for operation on highways. The in-use truck requirements require operators of both in-state and out-of-state registered sleeper berth equipped trucks to manually shut down their engines when idling more than five minutes at any location within California beginning in 2008 (ARB “Heavy- Duty Vehicle Idling Emission Reduction Program”, updated March 2009). All trucks making deliveries in Palo Alto are required to comply with the no-idling requirements. 4.1.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. The proposed Bag Ordinance does not include any physical development or construction related activities; therefore, the analysis focuses on emissions related to checkout bag manufacturing processes and truck trips associated with delivering checkout bags to retailers in Palo Alto. Operational emissions associated with the truck trips to deliver checkout bags to Palo Alto retailers were calculated using the using the URBEMIS 2007 v. 9.2.4 computer program2. The estimate of operational emissions by URBEMIS includes truck trips (assumed to be heavy trucks - 33,000 to 60,000 pounds) and utilizes the trip generation rates based on the traffic analysis contained in the Transportation/Circulation section of the Initial Study (see Appendix A). The proposed Bag Ordinance would create a significant air quality impact if it would: 2 Please note that the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which is normally recommended for use by the BAAQMD, was considered for use as part of the analysis. However, because the truck trips associated with carryout bags were so few compared to larger projects normally analyzed with CalEEMod, the emissions output in CalEEMod did not yield any relevant results (all emissions were listed as 0.0 pounds per day). The decision to continue using the URBEMIS model is up to the lead agency or other users (CalEEMod FAQ; www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/faq.htm). As such, the use of URBEMIS for this analysis is deemed reasonable and conservative. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality City of Palo Alto 4.1-8 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation 3. 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 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people 6. Not implement all applicable construction emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines The Initial Study (see Appendix A) concluded that only the second and third criteria could potentially result in a significant impact, while the proposed Bag Ordinance would result in no impact with respect to the first, fourth, fifth and sixth criteria. Hence, only the second and third criteria are addressed in this section. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds contained in the BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD Homepage, accessed May 2012). As such, lead agencies need to determine appropriate air quality thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Lead agencies may rely on the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures. However, the BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that these thresholds be used as a general measure of a project’s significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies may continue to rely on the Air District’s 1999 Thresholds of Significance and to make determinations regarding the significance of an individual project’s air quality impacts based on substantial evidence in the record for that project. For this EIR, the City of Palo Alto has determined that the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds in the updated May 2011 CEQA Guidelines for project operations within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are the most appropriate thresholds for use to determine air quality impacts of the proposed Bag Ordinance. First, Palo Alto has used the May 2011 BAAQMD thresholds in previous environmental analyses under CEQA and found them to be reasonable thresholds for assessing air quality impacts. Second, these thresholds have been utilized in another bag ordinance CEQA document in Santa Clara County (e.g., Sunnyvale Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance, Final Environmental Impact Report SCH#2011062032, December 2011). In addition, these thresholds are lower than the 1999 BAAQMD thresholds, and thus use of the thresholds in the May 2011 CEQA Guidelines is more conservative. Therefore, these thresholds are considered reasonable for use in this EIR. The proposed Bag Ordinance would result in a significant impact if emissions would exceed any of the following thresholds: 54 pounds per day of ROG 54 pounds per day of NOx 82 pounds per day of PM10 54 pounds per day of PM2.5 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality City of Palo Alto 4.1-9 b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Impact AQ-1 The proposed Bag Ordinance could potentially alter processing activities related to checkout bag production, which has the potential to increase air pollutant emissions. However, the proposed Bag Ordinance is expected to substantially reduce the number of single-use plastic checkout bags, thereby reducing the amount of total bags manufactured and overall emissions associated with bag manufacture and use. Therefore, air quality impacts related to alteration of processing activities would be Class IV, beneficial. The intent of the proposed Bag Ordinance is to reduce the amount of single-use checkout bags, and to promote the use of reusable bags by Palo Alto retail customers. The proposed Bag Ordinance would incrementally reduce the number of single-use plastic checkout bags that are manufactured and would incrementally increase the number of recyclable paper and reusable bags manufactured compared to existing conditions. As described in the Setting, emissions associated with single-use paper bag production result in 1.9 times the impact on atmospheric acidification as a single-use plastic bag. On a per bag basis, a reusable checkout bag that is made of LDPE plastic results in three times the atmospheric acidification compared to a single-use plastic bag. Reusable bags may be made of various materials other than LDPE, including cloths such as cotton or canvas. However, because LDPE reusable bags are one of the most common types of reusable bags and are of similar durability and weight (approximately 50 to 200 grams) as other types of reusable bags, this EIR utilizes the best available information regarding specific metrics on a per bag basis to disclose environmental impacts associated with the proposed Bag Ordinance. Further, given the high rate of reuse of all types of reusable bags (usually at least one year, or 52 times), the air pollutant emissions from these bags when compared to plastic and paper checkout bags are expected to be comparable or lower (Santa Clara County Single-Use Checkout Bag Initial Study, October 2010). Similarly, on a per bag basis, a single-use paper bag has 1.3 times the impact on ground level ozone formation compared to a single-use plastic bag and a reusable checkout bag that is made of LDPE plastic would result in 1.4 times the ground level ozone formation compared to a single-use plastic bag (Stephen L. Joseph, 2009; FRIDGE, 2002; and Green Cities California MEA, 2010). A reusable bag results in greater impacts to ground level ozone formation and atmospheric acidification than a single-use plastic bag on a per bag basis; however, unlike single-use plastic bags, reusable checkout bags are intended to be used multiple times (at least 125 uses as required by the proposed Bag Ordinance).3 Therefore, fewer total checkout bags would need to be manufactured as a shift toward the use of reusable bags occurs. As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, stores making available paper checkout bags would be required to sell recycled paper checkout bags made from 100% recycled material with a 40% post-consumer 3 For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that reusable bags would be used once per week for a year, or 52 times, before being replaced. However, for the purposes of the ordinance, reusable bags can be used as many as 125 times. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality City of Palo Alto 4.1-10 recycled content to customers for a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) for a recyclable paper or reusable checkout bag until one year after ordinance implementation and twenty-five cents ($0.25) thereafter. This mandatory charge would create a disincentive to customers to request paper bags when shopping at regulated stores and is intended to promote a shift toward the use of reusable bags by consumers in Palo Alto. The proposed Bag Ordinance may lead to some short-term increase in paper bag use as consumers would be unable to get a free plastic bag while shopping, but may be willing to pay a charge to use paper bags. As discussed in Table 2-2 of Section 2.0, Project Description, this analysis assumes that as a result of the Bag Ordinance, the approximately 25.92 million single-use plastic checkout bags currently used in Palo Alto annually would be reduced to approximately 9.4 million total bags (324,048 reusable bags plus 9,073,352 recyclable paper bags). Table 4.1-4 estimates emissions that contribute to the development of ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification that would result from implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance and compares these emissions to what occurs under current conditions. As shown, the increased use of reusable checkout bags in the City would reduce emissions that contribute to ground level ozone by approximately 314 kg per year (a 53% decrease) and would reduce emissions contributing to atmospheric acidification by approximately 8,356 kg per year (a 30% decrease). Table 4.1-4 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Checkout Bags in Palo Alto Bag Type # of Bags Used per Year* Ozone Emission Rate per Bag** Ozone Emissions (kg) per 1,000 bags*** Ozone Emissions per year (kg) AA Emission Rate per Bag** AA Emissions (kg) per 1,000 bags**** AA Emissions per year (kg) Single-use Plastic 0 1.0 0.023 0 1.0 1.084 0 Recyclable Paper 9,073,352 1.3 0.03 272 1.9 2.06 18,691 Reusable 324,048 1.4 0.032 10.4 3.0 3.252 1,054 Total 282 Total 19,745 Existing 596 Existing 28,101 Net Change (314) Net Change (8,356) Source: * Refer to Table 2-2. **Impact rate per bag as stated in Stephen L. Joseph, 2009; Ecobilan, 2004; FRIDGE, 2002; and Green Cities California MEA, 2010; Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011. *** Emissions per 1,000 bags from Ecobilan, 2004; Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011. **** Emissions per 1,000 bags from FRIDGE, 2002 and Green Cities California MEA, 2010; Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality City of Palo Alto 4.1-11 As discussed in the Setting, air pollutant emissions from manufacturing facilities are also regulated under the Clean Air Act and would be subject to requirements by the local air quality management district (in Santa Clara County, the BAAQMD). Either a paper bag manufacturing facility or a reusable checkout bag manufacturing facility that emits any criteria pollutant or hazardous air pollutant (HAP) at levels equal to or greater than the Major Source Thresholds (MST) of the local air quality management district would need to obtain and maintain compliance with a Title V permit. Adherence to permit requirements would ensure that a manufacturing facility would not violate any air quality standard. Manufacturing facilities would also be required to obtain equipment permits for emission sources through the local air quality management district which ensures that equipment is operated and maintained in a manner that limits air emissions in the region. Compliance with applicable regulations would ensure that manufacturing facilities would not generate emissions conflicting with or obstructing implementation of the applicable air quality plan, violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. As described above, the proposed Bag Ordinance would reduce emissions associated with ozone and atmospheric acidification. Therefore, the proposed Bag Ordinance would have a beneficial impact with respect to air quality. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation is not necessary as impacts would beneficial. Significance After Mitigation. The impact would be beneficial without mitigation. Impact AQ-2 Implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance would generate air pollutant emissions associated with an incremental increase in truck trips to deliver paper and reusable checkout bags to local retailers. However, emissions would not exceed BAAQMD operational significance thresholds. Therefore, operational air quality impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Long-term emissions associated with the proposed Bag Ordinance would include those emissions associated with truck trips to deliver checkout bags (paper and reusable) from manufacturing facilities or distributors to the local retailers in Palo Alto. The URBEMIS 2007 v.9.2.4 model was used to calculate emissions for mobile emissions resulting from the number of trips generated by the proposed Bag Ordinance. Trip generation rates were taken from the traffic analysis contained in the Transportation/Circulation section of the Initial Study (see Appendix A), which estimates that the change in truck traffic as a result of the proposed Bag Ordinance would be a net increase of 0.09 truck trips per day. Although the reduction in single- use plastic bag deliveries would reduce truck trips compared to existing conditions, the increase in single-use paper and reusable bags would cause the negligible net increase. Mobile emissions associated with such an increase in truck traffic are summarized in Table 4.1-5. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality City of Palo Alto 4.1-12 Table 4.1-5 Operational Emissions Associated with Proposed Bag Ordinance Emission Source Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Mobile Emissions (Truck Traffic) 0.01 0.16 0.02 0.01 Total Emissions 0.01 0.16 0.02 0.01 BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: URBEMIS 2007 calculations for Vehicle. See Appendix B for calculations As indicated in Table 4.1-5, daily ROG emissions are estimated at 0.01 pounds, daily NOX emissions are estimated at approximately 0.16 pounds, daily PM10 emissions would be approximately 0.02 pounds, and daily PM2.5 emissions would be 0.01 pounds. The incremental increases in ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions associated with the proposed Bag Ordinance would be substantially less than the BAAQMD thresholds of 54 pounds per day of ROG, NOx, or PM2.5, and 82 pounds per day of PM10. Because long-term emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds, impacts would not be significant. Mitigation Measures. Operational emissions associated with the increase in truck traffic as a result of the proposed Bag Ordinance would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Therefore, mitigation is not required. Significance after Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. c. Cumulative Impacts. Adopted and pending checkout bag ordinances, as described in Table 3-1 in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting, would continue to reduce the amount of single- use checkout bags, and promote a shift toward reusable checkout bags. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, such ordinances would be expected to generally reduce the overall number of bags manufactured and associated air pollutant emissions, while existing and future manufacturing facilities would continue to be subject to federal and state air pollution regulations (see the Setting for discussion of applicable regulations). Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, other adopted and pending ordinances would also be expected to incrementally change the number of truck trips associated with checkout bag delivery and associated emissions. Thirty-six agencies have either adopted or are considering such ordinances in the San Francisco Bay Area region including the Cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Fairfax, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Jose, San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Watsonville, Woodside, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Mountain View. Participating Counties include: Alameda, Marin, Santa Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality City of Palo Alto 4.1-13 Clara, San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Sonoma. However, based on the incremental increase in air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Bag Ordinance (increase of ¼ pound per day or less of each criteria pollutant), the other ordinances are not expected to generate a cumulative increase in emissions that would exceed BAAQMD thresholds or adversely affect regional air quality. Moreover, the increase in truck trips to deliver reusable bags would be at least partially offset by a reduction in trips to deliver single use plastic bags. Therefore, cumulative air quality impacts would not be significant. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.1 Air Quality City of Palo Alto 4.1-14 This page intentionally left blank Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources City of Palo Alto 4.2-1 4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section analyzes the proposed Bag Ordinance’s impacts to biological resources. Both direct impacts associated with the proposed Bag Ordinance and indirect impacts to off-site biological resources (including the San Francisco Bay) are addressed. 4.2.1 Setting a. City of Palo Alto Terrestrial Habitat. Palo Alto is located in the northern part of Santa Clara County, in the portion of the Bay Area known as the Mid-Peninsula. The City shares a boundary with San Mateo County and six cities. Palo Alto comprises 16,627 acres, or about 26 square miles. Approximately 40% of this area is in parks and preserves and another 15% consists of agriculture and other open space uses. The remaining area is nearly completely developed, with single family uses predominating. Less than one percent of the City’s land area consists of vacant, developable land (City of Palo Alto Land Use and Design Element, 2007). Palo Alto’s open space preserves are primarily located in the southern foothills but also extend along the San Francisco Bay shoreline, on the northeastern edge of the City. Along the San Francisco Bay shoreline, open space is contained in what is generally called the Palo Alto Baylands (City of Palo Alto Natural Environment Element, 2007). Twenty-four species of rare, threatened, or endangered plants have the potential to occur in the City. Several species, including the Point Reyes Bird’s Beak, are known to occur in the Palo Alto Baylands, as shown on Map N-1 of the City’s Natural Environment Element (2007). The potential locations for these species are primarily within the grassland and chaparral habitats in the foothills, and in the marsh habitat in the Palo Alto Baylands. Palo Alto’s open space areas provide habitat for a wide range of wildlife, including mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and insects. b. Special Status Species. Creeks are among Palo Alto’s most important natural resources. Adobe, Barron, Matadero, and San Francisquito Creeks support a wide variety of plant and animal life and are a defining element for several of the City’s neighborhoods. As discussed in Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, water quality in San Francisquito Creek is of particular concern because the creek is currently listed by the California State Water Resources Control Board as being impaired, and is habitat for steelhead trout, a federally - listed threatened species. Riparian corridors along the creeks, sometimes several hundred feet wide, provide migratory paths for wildlife, visual relief from the urban environment, and opportunities for hiking and biking trails (City of Palo Alto Natural Environment Element, 2007). Palo Alto encompasses part of four watersheds: Adobe, Barron, Matadero and San Francisquito Creeks. These watersheds drain an area where natural processes and human activity have created a complex landscape and eventually flow into the San Francisco Bay in both natural and channelized forms. Open space within these watersheds in Palo Alto includes the Palo Alto Baylands and the Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. Several special status plant and animal species are known to occur within the vicinity of Palo Alto and have the potential to occur if suitable habitat is present. These include northwestern Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources City of Palo Alto 4.2-2 pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata marmorata), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), alkali milk-vetch (Astragalus tener), and California seablite (Suaeda californica). While the coastal and marine habitat of San Francisco Bay has been altered due to human disturbance, a number of additional sensitive species have the potential to occur in these environments. Sensitive species that may inhabit the coastal and marine environment are listed in Table 4.2-1. The locations of special-status species, natural communities, and critical habitat documented in the vicinity of Palo Alto, as listed on the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), are mapped on Figure 4.2-1. c. Checkout Bags and Biological Resources. Checkout bags can affect biological resources as a result of litter that enters the storm drain system and local creeks, and ultimately coastal and marine environments. Single-Use plastic checkout bags enter the biological environment primarily as litter. This can adversely affect terrestrial animal species, and marine species that ingest the plastic bags (or the residue of plastic bags) or become tangled in the bag (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Based on the data collected for the Ocean Conservancy's Report from its September 2009 International Coastal Cleanup Day, approximately 11% of total debris items collected was plastic bags (Ocean Conservancy, April 2010). Over 260 species of wildlife, including invertebrates, turtles, fish, seabirds and mammals, have been reported to ingest or become entangled in plastic debris. Ingestion or entanglement may result in impaired movement and feeding, reduced productivity, lacerations, ulcers, and death (Laist, 1997; Derraik and Gregory, 2009). Ingested plastic bags affect wildlife by clogging animal throats and causing choking, filling animal stomachs so that they cannot consume real food, and affecting animals with toxins from the plastic (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). In addition to affecting wildlife through physical entanglement and ingestion, plastic debris in the marine environment has been known to absorb and transport polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), phthalates, and certain classes of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) (Mato, Y., Isobe, T., Takada, H., et al., 2001; and, Moore, C.J.; Lattin, G.L., A.F. Zellers., 2005). Single-use paper checkout bags are also released into the environment as litter. However, they generally have less impact on wildlife because they are not as resistant to breakdown as is plastic; therefore, they are less likely to cause entanglement. In addition, although not a healthy food source, if single-use paper bags are ingested, they can be chewed effectively and may be digested by many animals. Reusable bags can also be released into the environment as litter. However, because of the weight and sturdiness of these bags, reusable bags are less likely to be littered or carried from landfills by wind as litter compared to single-use plastic and paper bags (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). In addition, since reusable bags can be used up to 125 times (as defined in the proposed Bag Ordinance, although this number could be greater), reusable bags would be disposed of less often than single-use checkout bags. As such, reusable bags are less likely to enter the marine environment as litter. Thus, reusable bags are less likely to enter the environment as litter compared to single-use plastic or paper bags. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources City of Palo Alto 4.2-3 Table 4.2-1 Coastal/Marine Special-Status Species Scientific Name Common Name Current Federal/State Status Reptiles Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake FE/SE Emys marmorata Western pond turtle -/SSC Amphibians Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander FE/SE/SSC Rana draytonii California red-legged frog FT/SSC Invertebrates Euphydryas editha bayensis Bay checkerspot butterfly FT/- Lepidurus packardi Vernal pool tadpole shrimp FE Fish Acipenser medirostris Green sturgeon FT Hypomesus transpacificus Delta smelt FT Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho salmon-central California coast FE Oncorhynchus mykiss Central California Coastal & Central Valley steelhead FT Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Central Valley spring-run & winter-run Chinook salmon FT & FE Birds Brachyramphus marmoratus Marbled murrelet FT Rallus longirostris obsoletus California clapper rail FE/SE Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Western Snowy plover FT/SSC Sterna antillarum browni California least tern FE/SE Pelecanus occidentalis californicus Brown pelican FE/delisted Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl -/SSC Circus cyaneus Northern harrier -/SSC Mammals Reithrodontomys raviventris Salt-march harvest mouse FE/SE FT = Federally Threatened SSC = California Species of Special Concern FE = Federally Endangered SE = California Endangered MMPA = Protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act - = no status but included in Rarefind database as deserving of concern City of Palo Alto Sensitive Animals and Natural Communities Reportedby the California Natural Diversity Database Figure 4.2-1 ± Section 4.2 Biological ResourcesDisposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR 0 42 Miles Project Location 5-Mile RadiusAnimals Alameda song sparrow American badger Bay checkerspot butterfly California black rail California clapper rail California least tern California red-legged frog California tiger salamander Edgewood Park micro-blind harvestman San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat Santa Cruz kangaroo rat Yuma myotis bank swallow burrowing owl coho salmon - central California coast ESU hoary bat long-eared owl mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) monarch butterfly northern harrier pallid bat salt-marsh harvest mouse salt-marsh wandering shrew saltmarsh common yellowthroat short-eared owl snowy egret steelhead - central California coast DPS tricolored blackbird unsilvered fritillary western pond turtle western snowy plover white-tailed kite Natural Communities N. Central Coast Calif. Roach/Stickleback/Steelhead Stream North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River North Central Coast Steelhead/Sculpin Stream Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Serpentine Bunchgrass Valley Oak WoodlandCritical Habitat Steelhead CNDDB Suppressed Records in these quads- Alameda whipsnake, Alameda whipsnake, Americanperigrine falcon, San Francisco garter snake, and Townsend's big-eared bat. Call DFG to get thespecific location of these sensitive species. Basemap Sources: ESRI and its licensors, 2012, California Natural Diversity Database, July 2012,and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, November 4, 2011. Critical habitat shown is that most recentlyavailable from U.S. FWS. Check with U.S. FWS or Federal Register to confirm. Note - Map to beprinted in color, due to subtleties in symbology noticeable only on color version. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources City of Palo Alto 4.2-5 d. Regulatory Setting. Regulatory authority over biological resources is shared by federal, state, and local authorities under a variety of statutes and guidelines. Primary authority for general biological resources lies within the land use control and planning authority of local jurisdictions. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is a trustee agency for biological resources throughout the state under CEQA and also has direct jurisdiction under the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Under the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts, the CDFG and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) also have direct regulatory authority over species formally listed as Threatened or Endangered. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has regulatory authority over specific biological resources, namely wetlands and waters of the United States, under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The USACE also has jurisdiction over rivers and harbors through Section 10 of the CWA. Waters of the State fall under the jurisdiction of the CDFG through the CFGC and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) through Section 401 of the CWA. The RWQCB also has jurisdiction over isolated waters and wetlands through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Plants or animals have “special-status” due to declining populations, vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. Special-status species are classified in a variety of ways, both formally (e.g. State or Federally Threatened and Endangered Species) and informally (“Special Animals”). The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share responsibility for implementation of the federal Endangered Species Act, with the USFWS focused on terrestrial and freshwater species and the NMFS focused on marine species. The USFWS is also responsible for regulation of bird species listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 United States Code [USC] Section 703-711) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668). The CDFG protects a wide variety of special status species through the CFGC. Under the CFGC, species may be formally listed and protected as Threatened or Endangered through the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et. seq.). The CFGC also protects Fully Protected species, California Species of Special Concern (CSC), all native bird species (Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3511), and rare plants under the Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.). 4.2.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Chapter 1, Section 21001(c) of CEQA states that it is the policy of the state of California to: “Prevent the elimination of fish and wildlife species due to man’s activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities.” Environmental impacts relative to biological resources may be assessed using impact significance criteria encompassing checklist questions from the CEQA Guidelines and federal, state, and local plans, regulations, and ordinances. Project impacts to flora and fauna may be determined to be significant even if they do not directly affect rare, threatened, or endangered species. Based on the City of Palo Alto’s environmental checklist, the proposed Bag Ordinance would create a significant impact to biological resources if it would: Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources City of Palo Alto 4.2-6 1. Have a substantially 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 of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 2. 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; 3. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; 4. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10); or 5. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Initial Study (see Appendix A) concluded that only the first criterion could potentially result in a significant impact, while the proposed Bag Ordinance would result in no impact with respect to the second through fifth criterion. Hence, only the first criterion is addressed in this section. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Impact BIO-1 The proposed Bag Ordinance would incrementally increase the number of paper and reusable bags within Palo Alto. However, the reduction in the amount of single-use plastic bags would be expected to reduce the amount of litter entering coastal and marine habitats, thus reducing litter- related impacts to sensitive species. This is a Class IV, beneficial, effect. All checkout bags, including single-use plastic, paper, and reusable bags, have the potential to affect coastal habitats, such as San Francisco Bay, when bags are improperly disposed of. These bags can become litter that enters the storm drain system and creeks, and ultimately enters into coastal and marine environments. As described in the Setting, litter that enters coastal habitats can adversely affect sensitive species that inhabit coastal and marine environments, including sea turtles, seals, whales, otters, or bird species as a result of ingestion or entanglement. However, each type of checkout bag’s potential to become litter varies and is based on the number of bags disposed of as well as the bag’s weight and material. As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, typical single-use plastic bags weigh approximately five to nine grams and are made of thin (less than 2.25 mils thick) high density polyethylene (HDPE) (Hyder Consulting, 2007). Post-use from a retail store, a customer may reuse a single-use plastic bag at home, but eventually the bags are disposed in the landfill or recycling facility or discarded as litter. Although some recycling facilities handle plastic bags, most reject them, because they can get caught in the machinery and cause malfunctioning, or are contaminated after use. Only about 5% of the plastic bags in California and nationwide are Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources City of Palo Alto 4.2-7 currently recycled (US EPA, 2005; Green Cities California MEA, 2010; and Boustead, 2007). The majority of single-use plastic bags end up as litter or in the landfill. Even those collected by recycling and solid waste trucks and handled at transfer stations and landfills may blow away as litter due to their light weight (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Single-use plastic bags that become litter can enter storm drains and watersheds from surface water runoff or may be blown directly into the ocean by the wind. As described in the Setting, when single-use plastic bags enter coastal habitats, marine species can ingest them (or the residue of plastic bags) or may become entangled in the bag (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Ingestion or entanglement in single-use plastic bags can result in choking, reduced productivity, lacerations, ulcers, and death to sensitive species in the marine environment, including sea turtles, seals, whales, otters, or bird species. Single-use paper grocery bags also have the potential to enter the marine environment as litter. Paper grocery bags are typically produced from kraft paper and weigh anywhere from 50 to 100 grams, depending on whether or not the bag includes handles (AEA Technology, 2009). A paper bag weighs substantially more (by approximately 40 to 90 grams) than single-use plastic bags. Because of the weight, biodegradability of the materials, and recyclability, single-use paper bags are less likely to become litter compared to single-use plastic bags (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). In addition, because single-use paper bags are not as resistant to breakdown, there would be less risk of entanglement if entering the marine environment compared to single-use plastic bags. In addition, although not a healthy food source, if ingested, a single-use paper bag can be chewed effectively and may be digested by many marine animals (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Thus, although single-use paper bag litter may enter coastal habitats and affect sensitive species in the marine environment, the impacts would be less than those of single-use plastic bags. Reusable bags may also become litter and enter the marine environment; however, these bags differ from the single-use bags in their weight and longevity. Reusable bags can be made from plastic or a variety of cloth such as vinyl or cotton. Built to withstand many uses, reusable bags weigh at least ten times what a single-use plastic bag weighs and two times what a single-use paper bag weighs, therefore restricting the movement by wind. Reusable bags are typically reused until worn out through washing or multiple uses, and then typically disposed either in the landfill or recycling facility. Because of the weight and sturdiness of these bags, reusable bags are less likely to be littered or carried from landfills by wind as litter compared to single- use plastic and paper bags (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). In addition, since reusable bags can be used up to 125 times (as defined in the proposed Bag Ordinance), they would be disposed of less often than single-use checkout bags. As such, reusable bags are less likely to enter the marine environment as litter. Therefore, reusable bags would generally be expected to result in fewer impacts to sensitive species than single-use plastic and paper checkout bags. The proposed Bag Ordinance would reduce plastic bag usage by 100% compared to existing conditions (approximately 25.92 million plastic bags annually), and would reduce total bag use by an estimated 36% (to approximately 9.4 million single-use paper and reusable bags). This reduction in bags would be expected to generally reduce litter-related impacts to sensitive species. Therefore, sensitive species such as sea turtles, fish, and bird species would benefit from the proposed Bag Ordinance, which would reduce the amount of litter that could enter the marine environment. Impacts would be beneficial. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.2 Biological Resources City of Palo Alto 4.2-8 Mitigation Measures. As the impact would be beneficial, no mitigation is required. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts to sensitive species as a result of the proposed Bag Ordinance would be beneficial without mitigation. c. Cumulative Impacts. Adopted and pending checkout bag ordinances, as described in Table 3-1 in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting, would continue to reduce the amount of single- use checkout bags, and promote a shift toward reusable checkout bags. This shift would generally have beneficial effects with respect to sensitive biological resources. Thirty-six agencies have either adopted or are considering such ordinances in the San Francisco Bay Area region including the Cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Fairfax, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Jose, San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Watsonville, Woodside, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Mountain View. Participating Counties include: Alameda, Marin, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Sonoma. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, these other adopted and pending ordinances could reduce the number of plastic bags entering the environment, including the San Francisco Bay, as litter. These other ordinances would be expected to have similar beneficial effects. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts related to biological resources. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-1 4.3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section analyzes the proposed Bag Ordinance’s impacts related to global climate change. The analysis focuses on manufacturing, transportation and disposal of checkout bags as these are the largest contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to bags. 4.3.1 Setting a. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases. Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. The term “climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but “climate change” is preferred to “global warming” because it helps convey that there are other changes in addition to rising temperatures. The baseline against which these changes are measured originates in historical records identifying temperature changes that have occurred in the past, such as during previous ice ages. The global climate is continuously changing, as evidenced by repeated episodes of substantial warming and cooling documented in the geologic record. The rate of change has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed acceleration in the rate of warming during the past 150 years. Per the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007), the understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has led to a high confidence (90% or greater chance) that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures, since the mid-20th century, is likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (IPCC, 2007). Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off- gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Man-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (California Environmental Protection Agency [CalEPA], 2006). Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWPs). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emissions, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2E), and is the amount of a GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. CO2 has a GWP of one. By Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-2 contrast, CH4 has a GWP of 21, meaning its global warming effect is 21 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (IPCC, 1997). The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat trapping effect of GHG, Earth’s surface would be about 34° C cooler (CalEPA, 2006). However, it is believed that emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations. The following discusses the primary GHGs of concern. Carbon Dioxide. The global carbon cycle is made up of large carbon flows and reservoirs. Billions of tons of carbon in the form of CO2 are absorbed by oceans and living biomass (i.e., sinks) and are emitted to the atmosphere annually through natural processes (i.e., sources). When in equilibrium, carbon fluxes among these various reservoirs are roughly balanced (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], April 2011). CO2 was the first GHG demonstrated to be increasing in atmospheric concentration, with the first conclusive measurements being made in the last half of the 20th Century. Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have risen approximately 40% since the start of the industrial revolution. The global atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 parts per million (ppm) to 391 ppm in 2011 (IPCC, 2007; Oceanic and Atmospheric Association [NOAA], 2010). The average annual CO2 concentration growth rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995–2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year) than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960– 2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year), although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates (NOAA, 2010). Currently, CO2 represents an estimated 82.7% of total GHG emissions (Department of Energy [DOE] Energy Information Administration [EIA], December 2008). The largest source of CO2, and of overall GHG emissions, is fossil fuel combustion. Methane. CH4 is an effective absorber of radiation, though its atmospheric concentration is less than that of CO2 and its lifetime in the atmosphere is limited to 10 to 12 years. It has a global warming potential (GWP) approximately 21 times that of CO2. Over the last 250 years, the concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere has increased by 148% (IPCC, 2007), although emissions have declined from 1990 levels. Anthropogenic sources of CH4 include enteric fermentation associated with domestic livestock, landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, wastewater treatment, stationary and mobile combustion, and certain industrial processes (USEPA, April 2011). Nitrous Oxide. Concentrations of nitrous oxide (N2O) began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution and continue to increase at a relatively uniform growth rate (NOAA, 2010). N2O is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions that occur in fertilizers that contain nitrogen, fossil fuel combustion, and other chemical processes. Use of these fertilizers has increased over the last century. Agricultural soil management and mobile source fossil fuel combustion are the major sources of N2O emissions. N2O’s GWP is approximately 310 times that of CO2. Fluorinated Gases (HFCS, PFCS and SF6). Fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and SF6, are powerful GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances such Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-3 as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and halons, which have been regulated since the mid-1980s because of their ozone-destroying potential and are phased out under the Montreal Protocol (1987) and Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Electrical transmission and distribution systems account for most SF6 emissions, while PFC emissions result from semiconductor manufacturing and as a by-product of primary aluminum production. Fluorinated gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities than CO2, CH4, and N2O, but these compounds have much higher GWPs. SF6 is the most potent GHG the IPCC has evaluated. State Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Worldwide anthropogenic emissions of GHGs were approximately 40,000 million metric tons (MMT) CO2E in 2004, including ongoing emissions from industrial and agricultural sources, but excluding emissions from land use changes (i.e., deforestation, biomass decay) (IPCC, 2007). CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use accounts for 56.6% of the total emissions of 49,000 million metric tons CO2E (includes land use changes) and all CO2 emissions are 76.7% of the total. Methane emissions account for 14.3% of GHGs and N2O emissions account for 7.9% (IPCC, 2007). Total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,633.2 million metric tons CO2E in 2009 (USEPA, April 2011). While total U.S. emissions have increased by 7.3% from 1990 to 2009, emissions decreased by 427.9 million metric tons CO2E, or 6.1%, from 2008 to 2009 (DOE EIA, Table 12.1, August 2010). This decrease was primarily due to: (1) a decrease in economic output resulting in a decrease in energy consumption across all sectors; and (2) a decrease in the carbon intensity of fuels used to generate electricity due to fuel switching as the price of coal increased, and the price of natural gas decreased substantially. Since 1990, U.S. emissions have increased at an average annual rate of 0.4%. The transportation and industrial end-use sectors accounted for 33% and 26%, respectively, of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2009. Meanwhile, the residential and commercial end-use sectors accounted for 22% and 19%, respectively, of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2009 (USEPA, 2011). Based upon the California Air Resources Board (ARB) California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2008 (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm), California produced 478 MMT CO2E in 2008. The major source of GHGs in California is transportation, contributing 36% of the state’s total GHG emissions. Electricity generation is the second largest source, contributing 24% of the state’s GHG emissions (ARB, June 2010). California emissions are due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. Another factor that reduces California’s per capita fuel use and GHG emissions, as compared to other states, is its relatively mild climate. ARB has projected statewide unregulated GHG emissions for the year 2020, which represent the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions, will be 596 MMT CO2E (ARB, 2007). b. Effects of Climate Change. Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources through potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21st century than were observed during the 20th century. Scientists have projected that the average global surface temperature could rise by 1.0-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next 50 years, and the increase may be as high as 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century. In addition to these projections, there are Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-4 identifiable signs that global warming is currently taking place, including substantial ice loss in the Arctic (IPCC, 2007). According to the CalEPA’s 2010 Climate Action Team Biennial Report, potential impacts of climate change in California may include loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (CalEPA, April 2010). Below is a summary of some of the potential effects that could be experienced in California as a result of climate change. Sea Level Rise. According to The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast, prepared by the California Climate Change Center (CCCC) (May 2009), climate change has the potential to induce substantial sea level rise in the coming century. The rising sea level increases the likelihood and risk of flooding. The study identifies a sea level rise on the California coast over the past century of approximately eight inches. Based on the results of various global climate change models, sea level rise is expected to continue. The California Climate Adaptation Strategy (December 2009) estimates a sea level rise of up to 55 inches by the end of this century. Air Quality. Higher temperatures, which are conducive to air pollution formation, could worsen air quality in California. Climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. If higher temperatures are accompanied by drier conditions, the potential for large wildfires could increase, which, in turn, would further worsen air quality. However, if higher temperatures are accompanied by wetter, rather than drier conditions, the rains would tend to temporarily clear the air of particulate pollution and reduce the incidence of large wildfires, thereby ameliorating the pollution associated with wildfires. Additionally, severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the state (CEC March, 2009). Water Supply. Analysis of paleoclimatic data (such as tree-ring reconstructions of stream flow and precipitation) indicates a history of naturally and widely varying hydrologic conditions in California and the west, including a pattern of recurring and extended droughts. Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of climate change on future water supplies in California. However, the average early spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada decreased by about 10% during the last century, a loss of 1.5 million acre-feet of snowpack storage. During the same period, sea level rose eight inches along California’s coast. California’s temperature has risen 1°F, mostly at night and during the winter, with higher elevations experiencing the highest increase. Many Southern California cities have experienced their lowest recorded annual precipitation twice within the past decade. In a span of two years, Los Angeles experienced both its driest and wettest years on record (California Department of Water Resources [DWR], 2008; CCCC, May 2009). This uncertainty complicates the analysis of future water demand, especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well understood. The Sierra snowpack provides the majority of California's water supply by accumulating snow during wet winters and releasing it slowly when water is needed during dry springs and summers. Based upon historical data and modeling DWR projects that the Sierra snowpack will experience a 25 to 40 percent reduction from its historic average by 2050. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-5 Climate change is also anticipated to bring warmer storms that result in less snowfall at lower elevations, reducing the total snowpack (DWR, 2008). Hydrology. As discussed above, climate change could potentially affect: the amount of snowfall, rainfall, and snow pack; the intensity and frequency of storms; flood hydrographs (flash floods, rain or snow events, coincidental high tide and high runoff events); sea level rise and coastal flooding; coastal erosion; and the potential for salt water intrusion. Sea level rise may be a product of climate change through two main processes: expansion of sea water as the oceans warm and melting of ice over land. A rise in sea levels could result in coastal flooding and erosion and could jeopardize California’s water supply due to salt water intrusion. Increased storm intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood-control facilities, including levees, to handle storm events. Agriculture. California has a $30 billion agricultural industry that produces half of the country’s fruits and vegetables. Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, water demand could increase; crop-yield could be threatened by a less reliable water supply; and greater air pollution could render plants more susceptible to pest and disease outbreaks. In addition, temperature increases could change the time of year certain crops, such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thereby affect their quality (CCCC, 2006). Ecosystems and Wildlife. Climate change and the potential resulting changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on a global and local scale. Increasing concentrations of GHGs are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists project that the average global surface temperature could rise by 1.0-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next 50 years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with substantial regional variation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level could rise as much as two feet along most of the U.S. coast. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals: (1) timing of ecological events; (2) geographic range; (3) species’ composition within communities; and (4) ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and storage (Parmesan, 2004; Parmesan, C. and H. Galbraith, 2004). While the above-mentioned potential impacts identify the possible effects of climate change at a global and potentially statewide level, in general scientific modeling tools are currently unable to predict what impacts would occur locally with a similar degree of accuracy. In general, regional and local predictions are made based on downscaling statewide models (CEC, March 2009). c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Checkout Bags. Checkout bags have the potential to contribute to the generation of GHGs either through emissions associated with manufacturing process, truck trips delivering checkout bags to retailers or through disposal during landfill degradation. Each is summarized below. Manufacturing Process. The manufacturing process to make checkout bags requires fuel and energy consumption. This generates GHG emissions, including CO2, CH4, N2Ox, fluorinated gases, and ozone. In addition, fertilizers that are used on crops for resources such as cotton or pulp, which are then utilized in the manufacture of checkout bags, also have the potential to Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-6 emit N2Ox. The amount of GHG emissions varies depending on the type and quantity of checkout bags produced. Compared to truck trips and disposal, the manufacturing process is the largest emitter of GHGs due to the high volume of fuel and energy consumption that is used during the process. Truck Trips. Delivery trucks that transport checkout bags from manufacturers or distributors to Palo Alto local retailers also create GHG emissions. GHG emissions from truck trips result primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels and include CO2, CH4, and N2O.. As discussed in the Transportation section of the Initial Study (see Appendix A), based on the estimated single-use plastic checkout bag use as shown in Table 2-2, retail customers in Palo Alto currently use an estimated 25,923,864 plastic bags per year. Assuming 2,080,000 plastic bags per truck load (City of Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011; refer to Appendix A), approximately 13 annual truck trips (an average of about 0.03 trips per day) would be needed to deliver these checkout bags. Disposal/Degradation. Once disposed of by customers, checkout bags that are not recycled are deposited to a landfill where they are left to decompose and degrade. Depending on the type and materials used, a checkout bag will degrade at various rates. When checkout bag materials degrade in anaerobic conditions at a landfill, CH4 is emitted. This contributes to climate change (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). GHG Emission Rates per Bag. Various studies have estimated GHG emissions for the different checkout bags (single-use plastic, paper or reusable bags) to determine a per bag GHG emissions rate. The Boustead Report (2007) compared single-use plastic and paper checkout bags and assumed that one paper bag could carry the same quantity of groceries as 1.5 plastic bags. Based on the Boustead Report (2007), 1,500 single-use plastic bags would generate 0.04 metric tons of CO2E as a result of manufacturing, transport, and disposal. Based on the Scottish Report (AEA Technology, 2005), GHG emissions associated with the manufacture, use, and disposal of a single-use paper bag are 3.3 times greater than the emissions generated by the manufacture, use and disposal of a single-use plastic bag. Thus, based on the single-use plastic bag GHG emissions rate of 0.04 metric tons CO2E per 1,500 from the Boustead Report, single- use paper bags would emit 0.132 metric tons CO2E per 1,000 bags (0.04 x 3.3=0.132). If only used once, the manufacture, use and disposal of a reusable LDPE checkout bag results in 2.6 times the GHG emissions of a single-use HDPE plastic bag (AEA Technology, 2005). Therefore, reusable LDPE checkout bags would emit 0.104 metric tons CO2E per 1,000 bags (if used only once) (Stephen L. Joseph, 2010; AEA Technology, 2005; Ecobilan, 2004; Green Cities California MEA, 2010; and, City of Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011). If used 20 times, a reusable LDPE checkout bag results in 10% of the GHG emissions of a single- use HDPE plastic bag (AEA Technology, 2005). The analysis uses the above LDPE checkout bag as a representation of reusable bags in evaluating GHG impacts. There is no known available Life Cycle Assessment that evaluates all types of reusable bags (canvas, cotton, calico, etc.) with respect to potential GHG emissions. However, given the high rate of reuse by all types of Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-7 reusable bags (100 times or more1), overall GHG emissions associated with these bags are expected to be comparable to an LPDE bag or lower. Table 4.3-1 lists the current GHG emissions associated with the manufacture, transport, and disposal of single-use plastic bags in Palo Alto using the per bag GHG emissions rates discussed above and the estimated number of checkout bags currently used. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, based on the estimated single-use plastic checkout bag use as shown in Table 2-2, retail customers in Palo Alto currently use an estimated 25,923,864 plastic bags per year. As shown in Table 4.3-1, overall GHG emissions associated with Palo Alto single-use plastic bag use are 691 metric tons of CO2E per year, or approximately 0.011 metric tons CO2E per person. Table 4.3-1 Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Single-Use Plastic Checkout Bags in Palo Alto Bag Type Existing Number of Bags Used per Year GHG Impact Rate per Bag CO2E (metric tons) CO2E per year (metric tons) CO2E per Person³ Single-use Plastic 25,923,864 1.0 0.04 per 1,500 bags** 691 0.011 Total 691 0.011 CO2E = Carbon Dioxide Equivalent units Source: ** Based on Boustead Report, 2007; Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011. ***Based on AEA Technology “Scottish Report, 2005; Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011. ³ Emissions per person are divided by the current Palo Alto population – 65,544 (California Department of Finance, May 2012) d. Regulatory Setting. The following regulations address both climate change and GHG emissions. International and Federal Regulations. The United States is, and has been, a participant in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since it was produced by the United Nations in 1992. The objective of the treaty is “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” This is generally understood to be achieved by stabilizing global GHG concentrations between 350 and 400 ppm, in order to limit the global average temperature increases between 2 and 2.4°C above pre-industrial levels (IPCC 2007). The UNFCC itself does not set limits on GHG emissions for individual countries or enforcement mechanisms. Instead, the treaty provides for updates, called “protocols,” that would identify mandatory emissions limits. 1 Green Cities California. March 2010. Master Environmental Assessment on Single-use and Reusable Bags. Prepared by ICF International. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-8 Five years later, the UNFCC brought nations together again to draft the Kyoto Protocol (1997). The Protocol established commitments for industrialized nations to reduce their collective emissions of six GHGs (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons) to 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2012. The United States is a signatory of the Protocol, but Congress has not ratified it and the United States has not bound itself to the Protocol’s commitments (UNFCCC, 2007). The United States is currently using a voluntary and incentive-based approach toward emissions reductions in lieu of the Kyoto Protocol’s mandatory framework. The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) is a multi-agency research and development coordination effort (led by the Secretaries of Energy and Commerce) that is charged with carrying out the President’s National Climate Change Technology Initiative (USEPA, December 2007). The voluntary approach to address climate change and GHG emissions may be changing. The United States Supreme Court in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S. 05-1120) held that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate motor-vehicle GHG emissions under the federal Clean Air Act. California Regulations. Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (2002), referred to as “Pavley,” requires ARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its GHG emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Pavley I took effect for model years starting in 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, which is now referred to as “LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG” will cover 2017 to 2025. Fleet average emission standards would achieve a 22% reduction by 2012 and a 30% reduction by 2016. In 2005, the governor issued Executive Order S-3-05, establishing statewide GHG emissions reduction targets. Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 provides that by 2010, emissions shall be reduced to 2000 levels; by 2020, emissions shall be reduced to 1990 levels; and by 2050, emissions shall be reduced to 80% of 1990 levels (CalEPA, 2006). In response to EO S-3-05, CalEPA created the Climate Action Team (CAT), which in March 2006 published the Climate Action Team Report (the “2006 CAT Report”) (CalEPA, 2006). The 2006 CAT Report identifies a recommended list of strategies that the state could pursue to reduce GHG emissions. These are strategies that could be implemented by various state agencies to ensure that the emission reduction targets in EO S- 3-05 are met and can be met with existing authority of the state agencies. The strategies include the reduction of passenger and light duty truck emissions, the reduction of idling times for diesel trucks, an overhaul of shipping technology/infrastructure, increased use of alternative fuels, increased recycling, and landfill methane capture, etc. California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies the Statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15% reduction below 2005 emission levels; the same requirement as under S-3-05), and requires ARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-9 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires ARB to adopt regulations for reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. After completing a comprehensive review and update process, the ARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 MMT of CO2E. The Scoping Plan was approved by ARB on December 11, 2008, and includes measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures. The Scoping Plan includes a range of GHG reduction actions that may include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms. Executive Order S-01-07 was enacted on January 18, 2007. The order mandates that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (“LCFS”) for transportation fuels be established for California to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020. Senate Bill (SB) 97, signed in August 2007, acknowledges that climate change is an environmental issue that requires analysis in CEQA documents. In March 2010, the California Resources Agency (Resources Agency) adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted guidelines give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. SB 375, signed in August 2008, enhances the State’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing ARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from vehicles for 2020 and 2035. SB 375 directs each of the state’s 18 major Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On September 23, 2010, ARB adopted final regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. The Bay Area’s SCS is currently under development titled “Plan Bay Area”, which is due for adoption in April 2013. Consistent with the ARB’s regional targets, the Bay Area is required to reduce emissions by 7% by 2020 and by 15% by 2035. ARB Resolution 07-54 establishes 25,000 metric tons of GHG emissions as the threshold for identifying the largest stationary emission sources in California for purposes of requiring the annual reporting of emissions. This threshold is just over 0.005% of California’s total 2004 GHG emissions inventory. In April 2011, the governor signed SB 2X requiring California to generate 33% of its electricity from renewable energy by 2020. For more information on the Senate and Assembly bills, Executive Orders, and reports discussed above, and to view reports and research referenced above, please refer to the following websites: www.climatechange.ca.gov and http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm. Local Regulations and CEQA Requirements. Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the Resources Agency has adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted CEQA Guidelines provide general Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-10 regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, but contain no suggested thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. Instead, they give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. The general approach to developing a threshold of significance for GHG emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move the state towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, its contribution to cumulative impacts would be considered significant. To date, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) have adopted quantitative significance thresholds for GHGs. As noted in Section 4.1, Air Quality, on March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the air quality and GHG emissions thresholds contained in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (Updated May 2011). The court did not determine whether the thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA and therefore determined that the BAAQMD was required to do CEQA analysis on the thresholds. In light of the court’s order, lead agencies will need to determine appropriate air quality and GHG thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. The Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan was adopted in December 2007, and suggests a variety of possible actions to reduce GHG emissions in each of six general categories, including utilities, sustainable purchasing, transportation and sustainable land use, green building, zero waste, and education and motivation. The Climate Protection Plan includes a baseline inventory of the City’s municipal and community (businesses, residents and workers) emissions, citywide emissions reduction targets, and a number of goals and strategies for obtaining those targets. The City’s reduction targets for municipal and community emissions are as follows: By 2009, the City will reduce emissions by 5 percent from 2005 emission levels for a total reduction of 3,266 metric tons of CO2. By 2012, the City and Community will reduce emissions by 5 percent from 2005 emissions levels for a total reduction of 39,702 metric tons of CO2. By 2020, the City and Community will reduce emissions by 15 percent of 2005 levels, equal to 119,140 metric tons of CO2. With the goals listed above, it is intended that the Climate Protection Plan will bring the community in line with State reduction goals of 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in 2020. In the absence of other local GHG thresholds of significance, for this analysis, the proposed Bag Ordinance is evaluated based on a project-based threshold of 4.6 metric tons CO2E per service population (defined to include both residents and employees) per year. The City of Palo Alto does not recommend adoption of that threshold for any other purpose at this time, but it is used for this analysis for the following reasons. First, the 4.6 metric tons CO2E per service population threshold was adopted by the BAAQMD as a quantitative GHG emissions threshold for project- Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-11 level analysis (BAAQMD, “California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines” (June 2010). This threshold has been utilized in certified CEQA documents for similar bag ordinances, including in the City of Sunnyvale (FEIR, SCH #2011062032, December 2011) and the County of San Mateo (Draft EIR, SCH#2012042013 which are both also located in the BAAQMD, and the City of Huntington Beach (Draft EIR, SCH #2011111053, February 2012) located in the SCAQMD. Second, this threshold has been used by Palo Alto in other project level environmental analyses under CEQA and was determined to be a reasonable quantitative threshold for assessing GHG impacts. The BAAQMD derived the recommended “efficiency” metric from statewide compliance with AB 32. Other air pollution control districts have also recommended a similar “Efficiency Threshold”. For example, the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District recommends a 4.8 metric tons per person per year Efficiency Threshold (SLO APCD, Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Supporting Evidence, March 2012). Staff at the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has proposed a project-level threshold of 4.8 metric tons CO2E per service population (defined to include both residents and employees) per year for use in the South Coast region (SCAQMD, “Proposed Tier 4 Performance Standards: Option #3: SCAQMD Efficiency Target”, September 2010 and personal communication Ian MacMillan, Program Supervisor - CEQA Intergovernmental Review, SCAQMD on December 29, 2011). Based on the above, the 4.6 metric tons per person per year threshold was considered most reasonable for use in this EIR analysis. 4.3.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions in March 2010. These guidelines are used in evaluating the cumulative significance of GHG emissions from the proposed project. According to the adopted CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant if the proposed Bag Ordinance would: Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; and/or Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project- specific impact through a direct influence to climate change; therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). For future projects, the significance of GHG emissions may be evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds, or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan (such as the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan). For this EIR, the proposed Bag Ordinance is evaluated Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-12 based on the project-level threshold of 4.6 metric tons CO2E per service population (defined to include both residents and employees) per year (BAAQMD, “California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines” (June 2010). A significant impact related to climate change would occur if GHG emissions associated with implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance would exceed 4.6 metric tons of CO2E units per service population (residents and employees) per year. In addition, impacts would be significant if the proposed Bag Ordinance would be inconsistent with any applicable GHG emissions reductions strategies such as the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan, the 2006 CAT Report or the 2008 Attorney General’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Impact GHG-1 Implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance would incrementally increase GHG emissions compared to existing conditions. However, emissions would not exceed thresholds of significance. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. The intent of the proposed Bag Ordinance is to reduce the use of single-use checkout bags and promote the use of reusable bags by Palo Alto retail customers. As such, the proposed Bag Ordinance would reduce the number of single-use plastic checkout bags that are manufactured and increase the number of recyclable paper and reusable bags that are manufactured, transported, and disposed of within Palo Alto. As described in the Setting, through manufacture, transport, and disposal, each single-use paper bag generates 3.3 times more GHG emissions than the manufacture, transport, and disposal of a single-use plastic bag. If only used once, the manufacture, use, and disposal of a reusable LDPE checkout bag results in 2.6 times the GHG emissions of a single-use HDPE plastic bag (Stephen L. Joseph, 2009; AEA Technology, 2005; Ecobilan, 2004; and Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Thus, on a per bag basis, single-use plastic bags have less impact than single-use paper and reusable checkout bags. However, reusable checkout bags are intended to be used multiple times. With reuse of checkout bags, the total checkout bags that would be manufactured, transported and disposed of would be reduced. As described in Section 2.0 Project Description, implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance would result in replacement of single-use plastic bags currently used in Palo Alto (estimated at 25,923,864 million annually) with an estimated 9.07 million recyclable paper bags and 324,048 reusable bags (refer to Table 2-2). Table 4.3-2 provides an estimate of GHG emissions that would result from the change in the makeup of checkout bags in Palo Alto resulting from implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance. Although the total number of checkout bags would be reduced by approximately 16.52 million bags per year, the projected increase in the use of recyclable paper bags is expected to increase overall GHG emissions associated with the manufacture, transport, and disposal of checkout bags by approximately 0.006 CO2E per person per year compared to current conditions. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-13 Table 4.3-2 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Checkout Bags in Palo Alto with Implementation of the Proposed Bag Ordinance Bag Type Estimated Number of Bags Used per Year* GHG Impact Rate per Bag CO2E (metric tons) CO2E per year (metric tons) CO2E per Person³ Single-use Plastic 0 1.0 0.04 per 1,500 bags** 0 0 Single-use Paper 9,073,352 2.97¹ 0.1188 per 1,000 bags¹ 1,078 0.016 Reusable 324,048 2.6 0.104 per 1,000 bags*** 34 0.0005 Total 1,112 0.017 Existing 691 0.011 Net Change (Total minus Existing) 421 0.006 CO2E = Carbon Dioxide Equivalent units * refer to Table 2-2 in Section 2.0, Project Description. ¹ 10% reduction (from a rate of 3.3) based on Santa Clara County Negative Declaration, October 2010 based on Environmental Defense Fund’s Paper Calculator. ** Based on Boustead Report, 2007; Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011. ***Based on AEA Technology “Scottish Report, 2005; Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011. ³ Emissions per person are divided by the existing population in Palo Alto - 65,544 (Department of Finance May 2012) Implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance would result in a net increase of approximately 0.006 metric tons CO2E per person per year within Palo Alto. However, both the increase in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions and the total emissions after implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance would be less than 4.6 metric tons CO2E per person per year. Impacts related to the GHG emissions would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation is not required since the impact would not be significant. Significance after Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. Impact GHG-2 The proposed Bag Ordinance would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. The proposed Bag Ordinance would be generally consistent with applicable regulations or plans addressing GHG reductions. As indicated above, the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-14 suggests a variety of possible actions to reduce GHG emissions, including utilities, sustainable purchasing, transportation and sustainable land use, green building, zero waste, and education and motivation. These actions are intended to bring the community in line with the AB 32 Statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15% reduction below 2005 emission levels). In addition, the CAT published the Climate Action Team Report (the “2006 CAT Report”) in March 2006. The CAT Report identifies a recommended list of strategies that the State could pursue to reduce climate change GHG emissions. The CAT strategies are recommended to reduce GHG emissions at a statewide level to meet the goals of the Executive Order S-3-05. These are strategies that could be implemented by various State agencies to ensure that the Governor’s targets are met and can be met with existing authority of the State agencies. In addition, in 2008 the California Attorney General published The California Environmental Quality Act: Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level (Office of the California Attorney General, Global Warming Measures Updated May 21, 2008). This document provides information that may be helpful to local agencies in carrying out their duties under CEQA as they relate to global warming. Included in this document are various measures that may reduce the global warming related impacts of a project. Tables 4.3-3, 4.3-4 and 4.3-5 illustrate that the proposed Bag Ordinance would be consistent with the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan, the GHG reduction strategies set forth by the 2006 CAT Report and the 2008 Attorney General’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures. Table 4.3-3 Proposed Bag Ordinance Consistency with the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan Goals and Actions Project Consistency Zero Waste Expand efforts in waste prevention through legislation, policies, ordinances, outreach and technical assistance Consistent The proposed Bag Ordinance is a waste prevention ordinance that is intended to reduce the number of single-use plastic bags and to deter the use of paper bags distributed by retailers and used by customers and to promote a shift toward the use of long-lasting, durable, reusable bags by retail customers in Palo Alto, which would reduce the amount of solid waste generated in the form of single-use checkout bags. Work with residents, businesses, community organizations, Bay Area Product Stewardship Council, Bay Area Zero Waste Communities, Bay Friendly Regional Coalition and other such groups to further the City’s Zero Waste efforts. Consistent As part of the proposed Bag Ordinance, the City would continue the promotion of the City sponsored “Bring Your Own Bag” (BYOBag) outreach campaign to educate consumers about the benefits of using reusable checkout bags following the implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance. The City would also work with the affected stores to help facilitate employee training on the benefits of using reusable checkout bags so the employees can better educate their customers. In addition, the City would work with affected retail and food service establishments to develop promotional activities to increase the use of reusable bags by their customers following the implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance. Expand collaborative efforts with targeted businesses to reduce the use of disposable items such as plastic shopping bags and take-out containers. Consistent The proposed Bag Ordinance would target businesses to reduce the use of plastic checkout bags and would promote a shift toward the use of long-lasting, durable, reusable bags by retail customers in Palo Alto. The proposed Bag Ordinance Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-15 Table 4.3-3 Proposed Bag Ordinance Consistency with the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan Goals and Actions Project Consistency would expand upon the City’s existing ordinance by applying the ban to all retailers and food service establishments and would also require retail services to charge a minimum fee for recyclable paper bags, which is intended to deter customers from simply switching from plastic to paper. Rather, the fee is intended to help promote the use of reusable bags which reduces waste as fewer plastic and paper bags would end up in the landfill. Build on collaborative efforts with targeted businesses to reduce disposable items. Consistent As described above, the proposed Bag Ordinance expands on the City’s existing ordinance. The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) for a recyclable paper or reusable checkout bag until one year after ordinance implementation and twenty-five cents ($0.25) thereafter for a recyclable paper checkout bag. Food service establishments would not be required to charge for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The proposed Bag Ordinance would assist in reducing disposable items such as single-use plastic checkout bags and would promote a shift toward the use of long-lasting, durable, reusable bags by retail customers in Palo Alto. Propose possible product bans or fees to reduce the use of products such as plastic bags and bottled water. Consistent As described above, the proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would promote a shift toward the use of reusable bags by retail customers in Palo Alto. In addition, the Bag Ordinance is intended to deter the use of paper bag by requiring retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) for a recyclable paper or reusable checkout bag until one year after ordinance implementation and twenty-five cents ($0.25) thereafter for a recyclable paper checkout bag. Zero Waste by 2021 (78 – 90% diversion of waste from landfill) – estimated GHG emissions reduction of 25,251 metric tons CO2E. Consistent The proposed Bag Ordinance would assist in achieving the goal of 78-90% diversion from the landfill by reducing the number of single-use plastic bags distributed by retailers and used by customers in Palo Alto and by promoting reusable checkout bags, thus reducing the amount of solid waste generated in the form of single-use checkout bags. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-16 Table 4.3-4 Proposed Bag Ordinance Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Team Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies Strategy Project Consistency California Air Resources Board Vehicle Climate Change Standards AB 1493 (Pavley) required the state to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost- effective reduction of climate change emissions emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Regulations were adopted by the ARB in September 2004. Consistent The trucks that deliver checkout bags to and from Palo Alto retailers on public roadways would be in compliance with ARB vehicle standards that are in effect at the time of vehicle purchase. Diesel Anti-Idling The ARB adopted a measure to limit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicle idling in July 2004. Consistent Current State law restricts diesel truck idling to five minutes or less. Diesel trucks operating from and making deliveries to Palo Alto retailers are subject to this state-wide law. Alternative Fuels: Biodiesel Blends ARB would develop regulations to require the use of 1 to 4% biodiesel displacement of California diesel fuel. Consistent The diesel vehicles that deliver checkout bags to and from Palo Alto on public roadways could utilize this fuel once it is commercially available. Alternative Fuels: Ethanol Increased use of E-85 fuel. Consistent Truck drivers delivering checkout bags could choose to purchase flex-fuel vehicles and utilize this fuel once it is commercially available regionally and locally. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission Reduction Measures Increased efficiency in the design of heavy duty vehicles and an education program for the heavy duty vehicle sector. Consistent The heavy-duty trucks that deliver checkout bags to and from Palo Alto retailers on public roadways would be subject to all applicable ARB efficiency standards that are in effect at the time of vehicle manufacture. Achieve 50% Statewide Diversion Goal Achieving the State’s 50% waste diversion mandate as established by the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, (AB 939, Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989), will reduce climate change emissions associated with energy intensive material extraction and production as well as methane emission from landfills. A diversion rate of 48% has been achieved on a statewide basis. Therefore, a 2% additional reduction is needed. Consistent As of 2006, the City of Palo Alto was diverting 62% of their solid waste (CalRecycle, Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary, Accessed July 2012), thereby complying with the standards established by AB 939. Any disposal of checkout bags would be required to adhere to the existing standards. The proposed Bag Ordinance would also assist by promoting reusable checkout bags, thus reducing the amount of solid waste generated in the form of single-use checkout bags. Zero Waste – High Recycling Efforts to exceed the 50% mandate would allow for additional reductions in climate change emissions. Consistent As described above, the City of Palo Alto currently exceeds the 50% goal of recycling. The proposed Bag Ordinance would assist by promoting reusable checkout bags, thus reducing the amount of solid waste generated in the form of single-use checkout bags. The proposed Bag Ordinance would also shift single-use bag consumption from plastic to paper. This would increase recycling of single-use bags, because paper bags are recycled by services provided to each residence and workplace in Palo Alto. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-17 Table 4.3-4 Proposed Bag Ordinance Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Team Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies Strategy Project Consistency Energy Commission (CEC) Fuel-Efficient Replacement Tires & Inflation Programs State legislation established a statewide program to encourage the production and use of more efficient tires. Consistent Checkout bag delivery drivers could purchase tires for their vehicles that comply with state programs for increased fuel efficiency. Alternative Fuels: Non-Petroleum Fuels Increasing the use of non-petroleum fuels in California’s transportation sector, as recommended as recommended in the CEC’s 2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Reports. Consistent Checkout bag delivery drivers could purchase alternative fuel vehicles and utilize these fuels once they are commercially available regionally and locally. Table 4.3-5 Proposed Bag Ordinance Consistency with Applicable Attorney General Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Strategy Project Consistency Transportation-Related Emissions Diesel Anti-Idling Set specific limits on idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery vehicles. Consistent Currently, the ARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling restricts diesel truck idling to five minutes or less. Diesel trucks delivering checkout bags to Palo Alto retailers are subject to this state-wide law. Solid Waste and Energy Emissions Solid Waste Reduction Strategy Project construction shall require reuse and recycling of construction and demolition (C&D) waste. Consistent As described above, the City of Palo Alto currently exceeds the 50% mandate and diverts approximately 62% of solid waste. Single-use checkout bags make up a portion of C&D waste. The proposed Bag Ordinance would also assist by promoting reusable checkout bags, thus reducing the amount of C&D waste attributed to single-use checkout bags. Any disposal of checkout bags would be required to adhere to the existing standards. The proposed Bag Ordinance would be consistent with the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan, the CAT strategies and measures suggested in the Attorney General’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Report as discussed in tables 4.3-3, 4.3-4 and 4.3-5. Therefore, the proposed Bag Ordinance would be consistent with the objectives of AB 32, SB 97, and SB 375. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation is not required since the impact would not be significant. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Palo Alto 4.3-18 Significance after Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. c. Cumulative Impacts. Adopted and pending checkout bag ordinances, as described in Table 3-1 in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting, would continue to reduce the amount of single-use plastic checkout bags, and promote a shift toward reusable checkout bags. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, such ordinances would be expected to generally reduce the overall number of bags manufactured and associated GHG emissions. Thirty-six agencies have either adopted or are considering such ordinances in the San Francisco Bay Area region including the Cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Fairfax, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Jose, San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Watsonville, Woodside, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Mountain View. Participating Counties include: Alameda, Marin, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Sonoma. However, based on the incremental increase in per capita emissions associated with the proposed Palo Alto Bag Ordinance, the other ordinances are not expected to generate a cumulative increase in GHG emissions. For these reasons, cumulative significant impacts associated with implementation of checkout bag ordinances throughout the state are not anticipated. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality City of Palo Alto 4.4-1 4.4 HYDROLOGY and WATER QUALITY This section analyzes the proposed Bag Ordinance’s potential to adversely affect hydrology and water quality. 4.4.1 Setting Checkout bags are manufactured at various facilities, which may or may not be located in Palo Alto or in Santa Clara County. Therefore, impacts to hydrology and water quality are not limited to the local watershed. However, for this analysis the local watershed and hydrologic conditions are discussed and used as an example of the types of effects that may occur as a result of the manufacturing and disposal of checkout bags. a. Surface Water Drainage and Checkout Bags. Palo Alto is located within the Santa Clara Basin, which drains directly to San Francisco Bay. The Santa Clara Basin includes the portion of the Bay south of the Dumbarton Bridge and the 840-square mile area of wetlands that drains into it (Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, March 2003). It is bounded by the Dumbarton Bridge to the north, the crest of the Diablo Mountains to the east, and the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west and south. The Basin is comprised of 13 watersheds. Palo Alto is crossed by several creeks that flow north to San Francisco Bay, from South to North: Adobe Creek, Barron Creek, Matadero Creek, and San Francisquito Creek.. San Francisquito Creek and its tributaries drain a funnel-shaped area covering 47.5 square miles on the eastern San Francisco Peninsula. Within this small area, natural processes and human activity have created a landscape of tremendous variety and complexity (San Francisquito Watershed Council, June 2012). Adobe Creek is a 14.2-mile-long northward-flowing stream originating on Black Mountain in Santa Clara County. It courses through the cities of Los Altos Hills, Los Altos, and Palo Alto and is joined by Barron Creek, before eventually draining in San Francisco Bay. Matadero Creek is a stream originating in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The creek flows in a northeasterly direction until it enters the Palo Alto Flood Basin (Santa Clara Valley Water District, Watersheds, Accessed July 2012). Urban runoff within Palo Alto consists of stormwater runoff from rainfall as well as non- stormwater runoff from human activities such as over-irrigation of landscapes. Runoff from streets, parking lots, commercial businesses, and private yards may contain oil, grease, pesticides and herbicides, heavy metals, paints and household chemicals, construction materials, sediment and eroded soil. Urban runoff is collected and transported through the City’s storm drain system and ultimately discharged to local waterways such as San Francisquito Creek, Matadero Creek, Barron Creek, Adobe Creek and the San Francisco Bay, where they have caused substantial water quality degradation over the past century (City of Palo Alto Natural Environment Element, 2007). Checkout bags that enter the storm drain system may affect storm water flow by clogging drains and redirecting flow. As described in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, typical single-use plastic bags weigh approximately five to nine grams and are made of thin (less than 2.25 mils Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality City of Palo Alto 4.4-2 thick) high density polyethylene (HDPE) (Hyder Consulting, 2007). Post-use from a retail store, a customer may reuse a single-use plastic bag at home, but eventually the bags are disposed in the landfill or recycling facility or discarded as litter. Although some recycling facilities handle plastic bags, most reject them because they get caught in the machinery and cause the machines to malfunction, or are contaminated after use. Only about 5% of the plastic bags in California and nationwide are currently recycled (Green Cities California MEA, 2010; and Boustead, 2007). The majority of single-use plastic bags end up as litter or in the landfill. Even those collected by recycling and solid waste trucks and handled at transfer stations and landfills may blow away as litter due to their light weight (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Single-use plastic bags that become litter can enter storm drains and may clog catch basins or be transported to the local watershed or the San Francisco Bay. Single-use paper grocery bags also have the potential to enter the storm drains as litter. However, as described in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, because of the weight, biodegradability of the materials, and recyclability, single-use paper bags are less likely to become litter compared to single-use plastic bags (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). In addition, because single-use paper bags are not as resistant to breakdown, there is less potential to clog catch basins compared to single-use plastic bags. Thus, although single-use paper bag litter may enter storm drains and affect hydrologic flow of surface water runoff, the potential to enter storm drains and cause hydrologic affects is less than with single-use plastic bags. Reusable bags may also become litter and enter storm drains; however, these bags differ from the single-use bags in their weight and longevity. Reusable bags can be made from plastic or a variety of cloth such as vinyl or cotton. Built to withstand many uses, reusable bags weigh at least ten times what a single-use plastic bag weighs and two times what a single-use paper bag weighs, therefore restricting the movement by wind. Reusable bags are typically reused until worn out through washing or multiple uses, and then typically disposed either in the landfill or recycling facility. Because of the weight and sturdiness of these bags, reusable bags are less likely to become litter or be carried from landfills by wind as litter compared to single-use plastic and paper bags (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Therefore, reusable bags are less likely to enter the storm drain system as litter. b. Water Quality and Checkout Bags. The City of Palo Alto participates in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program with 12 other cities in Santa Clara County, the County of Santa Clara, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. As part of the Stormwater NPDES permit, the City has two designated hot spots for trash, one on Matadero and one on Adobe Creek. Clean-ups engaging volunteers are conducted twice a year at both locations. Plastic bags are one of the items found frequently in clean ups. Water quality may be affected by checkout bags in two different ways: litter from checkout bags and the use of materials for processing activities. As described above in Surface Water Drainage and Checkout Bags, litter that enters the storm drain system may clog storm drains and could result in contamination or may be transported into the local watershed or coastal habitat, violating waste discharge requirements (as described below in the Regulatory Setting). In addition, manufacturing facilities may utilize materials that, if released in an uncontrolled manner, could degrade the water quality in local waterways. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality City of Palo Alto 4.4-3 While single-use plastic bags are more likely to affect water quality as a result of litter, the manufacturing process utilizes “pre-production plastic,” which may degrade water quality if released either directly to a surface water body or indirectly through storm water runoff. Single-use paper checkout bags have less litter-related effects on water quality than single-use plastic bags; however, the manufacturing process for paper bags may utilize various chemicals and materials and may also require the use of fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals for production of resources (such as pulp). This may increase the potential for higher natural concentrations of trace metals, biodegradable wastes (which affect dissolved oxygen levels), and excessive major nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus if discharged into water bodies, either directly or indirectly through storm water runoff. If released into the environment, these potential pollutants can degrade water quality in local water bodies and contribute to regional as well as global water pollution. Reusable checkout bags are less likely to affect water quality. Because of the weight and sturdiness of these bags, reusable bags are less likely to be littered or carried from landfills by wind as litter compared to single-use plastic and paper bags (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). However, similar to single-use paper checkout bags, the manufacturing process for reusable bags can utilize materials such as chemicals or fertilizer for production of resources (such as cotton) that if released, either directly to a stream or indirectly via storm water runoff, could degrade water quality in local water bodies. c. Regulatory Setting. The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the California Ocean Plan are the primary mechanisms through which pollutant discharges are regulated in California. The CWA established minimum national water quality goals and created the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system to regulate the quality of discharged water. All dischargers must obtain NPDES permits. Beginning in 1991, all municipal and industrial storm water runoff is also regulated under the NPDES system. Of the 126 “priority contaminants” (metals and organic chemicals) established by the CWA, the California Ocean Plan has established effluent limitations for 21 of those pollutants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary Federal agency responsible for implementing the CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is the primary state agency responsible for implementing the CWA and the state’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act within State waters. The RWQCB is also responsible for water quality regulation through its work in preparing and adopting the California Ocean Plan and the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan. Local agencies also have responsibility for managing wastewater discharges. All are required to meet criteria set forth in their NPDES permits, monitor their discharges, and submit monthly reports to the RWQCB and the EPA. Assembly Bill (AB) 258 was enacted in 2008 to address problems associated with releasing “preproduction plastic” (including plastic resin pellets and powdered coloring for plastics) into the environment. The bill enacted Water Code Section 13367, requiring the State Water Resource Control Board and RWQCBs to implement a program to control discharges of preproduction plastic from point and nonpoint sources (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Program control measures must, at a minimum, include waste discharge, monitoring, and reporting requirements that target plastic manufacturing, handling, and transportation facilities. The program must, at a minimum, require plastic manufacturing, handling, and transportation Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality City of Palo Alto 4.4-4 facilities to implement best management practices to control discharges of preproduction plastics. This includes containment systems, careful storage of pre-production plastics, and the use of capture devices to collect any spills. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB, 2010) reports that it is taking the following actions to comply with Section 13367: “State and Regional Water Board staff has conducted and are continuing to conduct compliance inspections of various types and scales of preproduction plastic manufacturing, handling, and transport facilities enrolled under California's Industrial General Permit (IGP) for storm water discharges…Collectively these inspections will help State and Regional Water Board staff to develop cost-effective regulatory approaches (including compliance-evaluation procedures and appropriate best management practices) for addressing this pollution problem. “The State Water Board has issued an investigative order to all plastic-related facilities enrolled under the IGP to provide the State Water Board with critical information needed to satisfy the legislative mandates in AB 258 (Krekorian). Facilities subject to this order must complete an online evaluation and assess their points of potential preproduction plastics discharge and means of controlling these discharges. Data gathered as a result of this effort will be used to help the State Board understand the California plastics industry and ultimately develop appropriate regulation of these facilities to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act.” The City of Palo Alto is among the 76 co-permittees listed under a regional municipal stormwater permit for San Francisco Bay. The Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) for Phase I communities in the San Francisco Bay (Order R2-2009-0074) was adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for Region 2 on October 14, 2009. This permit regulates discharges from municipal separate storm drain systems into waterways under each co-permittee’s jurisdiction. Provision C.10 of the MRP (Trash Load Reduction) requires permittees to reduce trash from their Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) by 40% before July 1, 2014 by implementing control measures and other actions to reduce trash loads (RWQCB: San Francisco Bay Region: Order R2-2009-0074, October 2009; and, EOA Inc., February 2011). This requirement increases to 70% by 2017 and 10% by 2022. Permittees implementing a control measure for a single-use plastic bag ordinance would potentially receive a load reduction credit of 6-12% (Table CR-1.1, EOA Inc., February 2011). As one of 15 co-permittees of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (Program), the City of Palo Alto supports the Program by actively working to understand the sources, extent and effects of urban runoff pollution; and develops and implements methods for pollution reduction and control. Since 2002, the Program has prioritized the evaluation, management and reduction of trash as a pollutant associated with urban runoff. Permittees were required to submit short term trash load reduction plans to comply with the MRP requirements. The key elements of Palo Alto’s Short-Term Plan are: 1. Current Single-use Carryout Plastic Bag Ban 2. Polystyrene Foam Food Service Ware Ban 3. Public Education and Outreach Programs Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality City of Palo Alto 4.4-5 4. Activities to Reduce Trash from Uncovered Vehicle Loads 5. Improved Trash Bin/Container Management 6. Enhanced Street Sweeping 7. Installation of Full-Capture Treatment Devices to filter and capture trash from the municipal storm drain system 8. Installation of a Litter Boom across Matadero Creek upstream of Highway 101 to capture trash before the creek flows into the Palo Alto Flood Basin in the Baylands. 9. Volunteer Creek Clean-Ups 4.4.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Based on the City of Palo Alto’s environmental checklist, the proposed Bag Ordinance would create a significant hydrology or water quality impact if it would: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements 2. 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 groundwater 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 granted) 3. 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 4. 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 5. Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems in a manner which could create flooding or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality 7. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map 8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or being located within a 100- year flood hazard area 10. Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow 11. Result in stream bank instability The Initial Study (see Appendix A) concluded that only the first, second and sixth criteria could potentially result in a significant impact, while the proposed Bag Ordinance would result in no impact with respect to the third through fifth and seventh through eleventh criteria. Hence, only the first, second and sixth criteria are addressed in this section. The second criterion is addressed in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service Systems. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality City of Palo Alto 4.4-6 b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Impact HWQ-1 Although the proposed Bag Ordinance would incrementally increase the number of recyclable paper and reusable bags used in Palo Alto, the overall reduction in the total amount of checkout bags would reduce the amount of litter and waste entering storm drains and creeks, improving water quality. This would be a Class IV, beneficial, effect. As a result of the proposed Bag Ordinance, existing plastic bags used in Palo Alto (25.92 million annually) would be replaced by an estimated 9.1 million single-use paper bags and 324,048 reusable bags (refer to Table 2-2 in Section 2.0, Project Description). This represents a 100% reduction in single-use plastic bags and a reduction of approximately 16.5 million total checkout bags. Each type of checkout bag’s potential to become litter is based on the bag’s weight, material and quantity of bags used within Palo Alto. As described in Impact BIO-1 in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, the majority of single-use plastic bags end up as litter or in the landfill. Even those collected by recycling and solid waste trucks and handled at transfer stations and landfills may blow away as litter due to their light weight (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Single-use plastic bags that become litter may enter storm drains from surface water runoff or may be blown directly into local waterways by the wind. Single-use plastic bag litter that enters the storm drain system can block or clog drains resulting in contamination (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Based on the statewide data that currently almost 20 billion plastic grocery bags (or approximately 533 bags per person) are consumed annually in California (Green Cities California MEA, 2010), retail customers in the City of Palo Alto currently use approximately 25,923,864 plastic bags per year.1 Similarly, single-use paper grocery bags also have the potential to enter storm drains and local waterways as litter. However, as described in Impact BIO-1 in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, due to the weight, biodegradability of the materials, and recyclability, single-use paper bags are less likely to become litter compared to single-use plastic bags (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). In addition, because single-use paper bags are not as resistant to breakdown, they would be less likely to block or clog drains compared to single-use plastic bags and would therefore be less likely to result in storm drain blockage or contamination. Due to the weight and sturdiness of reusable bags made for multiple uses, reusable bags are less likely to be littered or carried from landfills by wind as litter compared to both single-use plastic and paper bags (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Reusable bags are less likely to become litter compared to single-use plastic and paper checkout bags. Therefore, shifting toward greater use of reusable bags would improve water quality and reduce the potential for storm drain blockage. 1 Reduction is based on Existing Ordinance applying to six supermarkets which would have utilized approximately 1.48 million plastic bags per year per store (City of Santa Monica Nexus Study contained in the Santa Monica Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011). Please note that this does not take into account the Trader Joe’s store as it is store policy to only distribute paper bags (thus prior to the existing ordinance Trader Joe’s did not use plastic bags and the two stores currently (as of June 2012) being built (the Fresh Market and Miki’s Farm Fresh Produce) since these supermarkets have not yet opened for business and therefore are not currently distributing plastic bags. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality City of Palo Alto 4.4-7 As described in Section 4.1, Air Quality, and Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed Bag Ordinance is anticipated to reduce the overall number of checkout bags used in Palo Alto per year by approximately 16.5 million bags. Therefore, the proposed Bag Ordinance would reduce the amount of litter associated with single-use plastic checkout bags. Consequently, water quality would benefit from the proposed Bag Ordinance, which would be expected to reduce the amount litter that could enter storm drains and local waterways, thus improving water quality and reducing the potential for storm drain blockage. In addition, the proposed Bag Ordinance will contribute towards meeting the stringent future trash reduction targets of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) as described above in the setting. Mitigation Measures. Water quality and storm drains and associated hydrological conditions would benefit from the proposed Bag Ordinance, because the ordinance would be expected to reduce the amount of litter that enters the storm drain system and local waterways, thereby improving water quality. Therefore, mitigation is not required. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts to water quality and storm drain operation from litter entering storm drains and local waterways would be beneficial without mitigation. Impact HWQ-2 The proposed Bag Ordinance could potentially alter processing activities related to bag production, which could potentially degrade water quality in some instances and locations. However, bag manufacturers would be required to adhere to existing regulations including NPDES Permit requirements, AB 258 and the California Health and Safety Code. Therefore, impacts to water quality from altering bag processing activities would be Class III, less than significant. The manufacturing process for single-use plastic, single-use paper, and reusable checkout bags utilizes various chemicals and materials. Single-use plastic bag manufacturers utilize “pre- production plastic.” As discussed in the Setting, single-use paper checkout bags and reusable checkout bag manufacturers may utilize various chemicals and materials and may also require the use of fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals for production of resources (such as pulp or cotton) which may increase the potential for higher concentrations of trace metals, biodegradable wastes (which affect dissolved oxygen levels), and excessive major nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. If released into the environment, these pollutant materials from the processing activities for checkout bags could degrade water quality. The intent of the proposed Bag Ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, in San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. It is anticipated that by prohibiting single-use plastic checkout bags and requiring a store to charge for each paper bag distributed by retailers, the proposed Bag Ordinance would promote a shift to the use of reusable bags by retail customers and reduce the number of single-use plastic and paper checkout bags within the City. The proposed Bag Ordinance is anticipated to reduce single-use plastic bags in Palo Alto by 100% and reduce the use of all types of bags (including plastic, single-use paper, and reusable) by approximately 16.5 million bags. These shifts in the types and number of checkout bags used Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality City of Palo Alto 4.4-8 could potentially alter processing activities related to bag production. The manufacturing impacts of each bag type and the anticipated changes in use are described below. Single-use Plastic Bags. Conventional single-use plastic bags are a product of the petrochemical industry and are typically produced by independent manufacturers who purchase virgin resin from petrochemical companies or obtain non-virgin resin from recyclers or other sources. Single-use plastic bags begin the manufacturing process with the conversion of crude oil or natural gas into hydrocarbon monomers, which are then further processed into polymers. These polymers are heated to form plastic resins, which are then blown through tubes to create the air pocket of the bag. Once cooled, the plastic film is stretched to the desired size of the bag and cut into individual bags (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). As described in the Setting, the plastic resin pellets are a concern when accidentally released (from spilling into storm drains during use or transport) into aquatic environments. AB 258 was enacted to address these concerns by implementing program control measures that require plastic manufacturing, handling, and transportation facilities to implement best management practices to control discharges (accidental release from spilling) of preproduction plastics. These measures include containment systems, careful storage of pre-production plastics, and the use of capture devices to collect any spills. Products used in the process to manufacture single-use plastic bags, such as petroleum and natural gas, also have the potential to be released as result of an accident during transport or use. However, regulatory agencies such as the EPA set forth Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for various pollutants in soil, air, and tap water (USEPA Region IX, Preliminary Remediation Goals Tables, 2004). PRG concentrations can be used to screen pollutants in environmental media, trigger further investigation, and provide initial cleanup goals resulting from an accident or spill of petroleum or natural gas at a single-use plastic bag manufacturing facility. Single-use Paper Bags. The majority of single-use paper bags are made from Kraft paper, which is manufactured from a pulp that is produced by digesting a material into its fibrous constituents via chemical and/or mechanical means. Kraft pulp is produced by chemical separation of cellulose from lignin. Chemicals used in this process include caustic sodas, sodium hydroxide, sodium sulfide, and chlorine compounds (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Processed and then dried and shaped into large rolls, the paper is then printed, formed into bags, baled, and then distributed to grocery stores. The paper bag manufacturing process may utilize fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals in the production of resources such as pulp. These pollutants may increase the potential for higher concentrations of trace metals, biodegradable wastes (which affect dissolved oxygen levels), and excessive major nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, causing eutrophication as a result of surface water runoff. A single-use paper bag has 14 times the impact of one single-use plastic bag on eutrophication, which is caused when nitrate and phosphate are emitted into water, stimulating excessive growth of algae and other aquatic life (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Eutrophication reduces the water quality and causes a variety of problems such as a lack of oxygen in the water (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). However, direct discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States are not allowed, except in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program established in Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality City of Palo Alto 4.4-9 Single-use paper bag manufacturers are required to comply with the local plans and policies of the SWRCB and the RWQCB, which regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, regulate waste disposal sites, and require clean up of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. For example, in the City of Palo Alto, single-use paper bag manufacturers would be required to adhere to the Palo Alto Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP), which specifies BMPs to reduce the presence of pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. Single-use paper bag manufacturing facilities would be required to implement BMPs, reducing the likelihood that pollutants would enter storm drains and other aquatic environments. There are currently no known single-use bag manufacturers in the City of Palo Alto or Santa Clara County. Reusable Bags. Reusable bags can be manufactured with various materials, including polyethylene (PE) plastic, polypropylene (PP) plastics, multiple types of cloth (cotton canvas, nylon, etc.), and recycled plastic beverage containers (polyethylene terephthalate, or PET), among others (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Depending on the type of material used in the manufacturing process, reusable bags have various impacts to water quality. A single reusable low density polyethylene (LDPE) bag has 2.8 times the impact of a single-use plastic bag on eutrophication as result of the release of pollutants during the manufacturing process (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). In addition, other types of reusable bags, such as cotton canvas, may require the use of fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals in the production process. These pollutants may increase the potential for higher natural concentrations of trace metals, biodegradable wastes (which affect dissolved oxygen levels), and excessive major nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus causing eutrophication as a result of surface water runoff. However, with reuse of a LDPE or cotton canvas bag as intended, overall impacts to eutrophication would be lower in comparison to a single-use plastic bag and a single-use paper bag since reusable bags are intended to be used “hundreds of times” (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). Therefore, each reusable bag would be expected to replace hundreds of single-use plastic or paper bags, more than offsetting the increased impacts associated with each individual bag. As with other types of checkout bags, reusable bag manufacturers would not be allowed to directly discharge pollutants into waters of the United States, except in accordance with the NPDES program established in Section 402 of the CWA. Reusable bag manufacturers may be required to obtain an “Individual” NPDES Permit and/or would need to adhere to an existing “General” NPDES Permit of the local area. An Individual NPDES permit regulates and limits the particular discharge at the manufacturing facility. The permit limits are based on the type of activity, nature of discharge and receiving water quality. Manufacturing facilities would need to apply for and obtain a permit prior to the start of manufacturing operations. In addition, as part of the Individual Permit, a manufacturing facility would be required to monitor and report its discharges to the local Regional Water Quality Control Board to demonstrate that the facility’s discharges are not in violation of any water quality standards. Manufacturing facilities would also be required to adhere to existing General Permits that specify local discharge requirements for municipal storm water and urban runoff discharges. For example, in Palo Alto, reusable bag manufacturers would be required to obtain and adhere to Industrial General Permits issued by the Regional Water Board.. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality City of Palo Alto 4.4-10 Although reusable bags may utilize various materials, reusable checkout bag manufacturers that utilize plastics in their production (for example, production of LPDE reusable bags) would also be required to adhere to pending requirements specified in AB 258, which addresses the release of “preproduction plastics” as described in the Setting. In addition, the California Health and Safety Code (Section 25531-25543.3) establishes a program for the prevention of accidental releases of regulated substances. With adherence to Health and Safety Code Section 25531- 25543.3, reusable checkout bag manufacturing facilities would be required to prepare and update a Risk Management Plan (RMP). This would further reduce the potential for a release of substances that may be washed into and through the storm drainage systems, local waterways, and ultimately to the San Francisco Bay. Anticipated Changes in Bag Use. As discussed in Table 2-2 of Section 2.0, Project Description, this analysis assumes that as a result of the proposed Bag Ordinance, the approximately 25.92 million single-use plastic checkout bags currently used in Palo Alto annually would be reduced to approximately 9.4 million total bags (324,048 reusable bags plus 9,073,352 recyclable paper bags). Although the proposed Bag Ordinance would be expected to incrementally increase the use of single-use paper bags and reusable bags in Palo Alto, it would also eliminate approximately 16.5 million single-use plastic bags per year. With implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance, approximately 9.4 million checkout bags (including single-use paper and reusable bags) would be manufactured for use in Palo Alto – a decrease of 16.5 million bags compared to existing conditions. Because the proposed Bag Ordinance would reduce the overall number of checkout bags manufactured, it would reduce the overall impacts to water quality associated with bag manufacturing. Furthermore, any existing or potential manufacturing facilities would be required to adhere to existing federal, state and local regulations which are intended to protect water quality, as described above. Therefore, impacts to water quality related to the potential change of processing activities as a result of the proposed Bag Ordinance would not be significant. Mitigation Measures. Because the impact would not be significant, no mitigation is required. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts to water quality related to the potential change of process activities would be less than significant without mitigation. c. Cumulative Impacts. Adopted and pending checkout bag ordinances, as described in Table 3-1 in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting, would continue to reduce the amount of single- use checkout bags, and promote a shift toward reusable checkout bags. As discussed above, the hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the proposed Bag Ordinance would not be significant and would generally be beneficial. Thirty-six agencies have either adopted or are considering such ordinances in the San Francisco Bay Area region including the Cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Fairfax, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Jose, San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Watsonville, Woodside, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Mountain View. Participating Counties include: Alameda, Marin, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality City of Palo Alto 4.4-11 Sonoma. These ordinances would be expected to result in similar reductions in the amount of litter entering storm drains, local creeks or watersheds, thereby improving water quality. In addition, the overall reduction in bag manufacturing expected to occur as a result of implementation of these ordinances would be expected to generally reduce water quality impacts associated with bag manufacturing. In addition, all single-use paper and reusable bag manufacturing facilities would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to preservation of water quality, including AB 258 and the California Health and Safety Code, as discussed in Impact HWQ-2. For these reasons, cumulative significant impacts associated with implementation of checkout bag ordinances throughout the state are not anticipated. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality City of Palo Alto 4.4-12 This page intentionally left blank Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.5 Utilities and Service Systems City of Palo Alto 4.5-1 4.5 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS This section discusses potential impacts of the proposed Bag Ordinance on utilities, including water supply and distribution, wastewater collection and treatment, and solid waste. 4.5.1 Setting a. Water Supply. City Water Supplies. Palo Alto receives water from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System (RWS), operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). This supply is predominantly surface water supplies from the Sierra Nevada, delivered through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts, but also includes treated water produced by the SFPUC from its local watersheds and facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties. The primary source of water supply in the City of Palo Alto is provided by the SFPUC. The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) was created in 2003 to represent the interests of 26 cities and water districts, and two private utilities, in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties that purchase water on a wholesale basis from the San Francisco Regional Water System. BAWSCA provides these customers with an ability to work with SFPUC on an equal basis to ensure reliable operation of the regional system and collectively and efficiently meet local responsibilities. Palo Alto is located in Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is the groundwater management agency in the County. The groundwater quality of the City’s wells is considered fair to good quality, though significantly less desirable in comparison to the imported SFPUC supply (City of Palo Alto Utilities Urban Water Management Plant, June 2011). The groundwater is approximately six times higher in total dissolved solids (TDS) and hardness than the imported SFPUC supply (City of Palo Alto Utilities UWMP, June 2011). In January 2011, the Palo Alto City Council approved a new Water Shortage Implementation Plan to allocate water between the BAWSCA members. This plan includes the ability to transfer water allocated to the BAWSCA agencies between BAWSCA members during drought periods. As of April 2011, all the BAWSCA agencies have unanimously adopted the plan. The City’s wastewater is treated at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). Some of this wastewater is recycled and used for activities such as irrigation, but does not meet the standards for potable use. Table 4.5-1 shows the existing (2010) water supply and demand along with the City’s supply and demand projections. As shown in Table 4.5-1, the City has sufficient supplies to meet demand through the year 2025. However, the City could potentially face a supply shortage in year 2030. As is discussed in the City’s UWMP, the need for supplemental supplies may be less than anticipated depending on further implementation of water conservation measures and the supply reliability of San Francisco’s RWS (June 2011). The City is continuing to evaluate other water supply alternatives as part of its ongoing Water Integrated Resource Plan. Currently, the City is in the construction phase of the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project and is in the environmental review phase of the Palo Alto Phase 3 recycled water project (City of Palo Alto Utilities UWMP, June 2011) which would increase the City’s supply for years beyond 2025. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.5 Utilities and Service Systems City of Palo Alto 4.5-2 Table 4.5-1 Water Supply and Demand Projections for the City of Palo Alto Year Supply (AFY) Demand (AFY) 2010 13,065 11,236 2015 15,103 14,201 2020 15,007 14,970 2025 15,203 14,970 Source: City of Palo Alto Utilities, 2010 UWMP, June 2011. AFY=acre-feet per year Water Use for Checkout Bags. Various studies have estimated water use related to manufacturing of the different checkout bags (single-use plastic, paper or reusable bags) to determine a per bag water use rate. In order to provide metrics to determine environmental impacts associated with the proposed Bag Ordinance, reasonable assumptions based upon the best available sources of information have been established and are utilized in this EIR. Specific metrics that compare impacts on a per bag basis are available for single-use plastic, single-use paper and low density polyethylene (LDPE) reusable bags. However, water use for paper bags varies depending on which Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) data is utilized. The Ecobilan LCA study determined that per 9,000 liters of groceries, manufacturing of plastic bags use 52.5 liters of water, paper bags use 173 liters of water, and reusable bags (used 52 times) use 1.096 liters of water (Ecobilan, 2004; County of Los Angeles Final EIR, 2010). Similarly, using slightly different assumptions and data, the Boustead LCA study determined that water use from manufacturing checkout bags would require approximately 58 gallons of water for 1,500 plastic bags and approximately 1,004 gallons of water for 1,000 paper bags. The Boustead data does not include estimates for reusable bags. Utilizing the data from these two different studies, tables 4.5-1 and 4.5-2 summarize the existing water use from manufacturing of plastic bags used in Palo Alto. As shown in Table 4.5-2, based on the Ecobilan LCA data, the water demand from manufacturing facilities that currently supply the approximately 25.9 million plastic checkout bags used in the City is approximately 0.56 million gallons per year, or 1,535 gallons per day [0.002 million gallons per day (MGD)]. As shown in Table 4.5-3, based on the Boustead LCA data water demand for the plastic bags used in Palo Alto is approximately one million gallons per year or 2,746 gallons per day (0.003 MGD). Although water use is calculated below, because no plastic bag manufacturing facilities are located within Palo Alto or Santa Clara County, these facilities would not affect the existing water supply in the City. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.5 Utilities and Service Systems City of Palo Alto 4.5-3 Table 4.5-2 Water Consumption Due to Existing Plastic Checkout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data Number of Plastic Bags Water Consumption Liters of Water per 9,000 liters of Groceries Gallons of Water Per Day* Millions of Gallons per Year 25,923,8641 52.5 1,535 0.56 *Calculations are contained in the Utility Worksheets contained in Appendix C Source: Ecobilan. February 2004. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic, Paper, and Biodegradable Material. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France. 1 Reduction is based on the Existing Ordinance applying to six supermarkets, which would have utilized approximately 1.48 million plastic bags per year per store (City of Santa Monica Nexus Study contained in the Santa Monica Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011). These six stores do not include Trader Joe’s store as it is their store policy to only distribute paper bags, and thus they did not use plastic bags prior to the existing ordinance. Two new grocery stores–Fresh Market and Miki’s Farm Fresh Produce– are currently being built and have not yet opened for business and are therefore not currently distributing plastic bags. Table 4.5-3 Water Consumption Due to Existing Plastic Checkout Bags Based on Boustead Data Number of Plastic Bags Water Consumption Gallons of Water per 1,500 plastic bags Gallons of Water Per Day* Millions of Gallons per Year 25,923,8641 58 2,746 1.00 *Calculations are contained in the Utility Worksheets contained in Appendix C Source: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. 2007. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic; Compostable, Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyclable Paper. Prepared for Progressive Bag Affiliates. 1 See Table 4.5-2 for further clarification on the existing number of plastic bags in Palo Alto. b. Wastewater Collection and Treatment. City Wastewater System. The City operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater treatment plant, which serves the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, the cities of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, and Palo Alto; and Stanford University. The RWQCP serves the entire City of Palo Alto. Wastewater from these communities is treated by the RWQCP prior to discharge to the San Francisco Bay. The RWQCP is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) award winning Class V tertiary treatment facility. The quality of the water leaving the Plant approaches the standards for drinking water, but requires an upgrade to meet established standards for potable drinking water (City of Palo Alto Utilities UWMP, June 2011). The RWQCP has an average dry weather flow design capacity of 39 million gallons per day (MGD) with full tertiary treatment, and a peak wet weather flow capacity of 80 MGD with full secondary treatment. All of the wastewater treated at the RWQCP can potentially be recycled. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.5 Utilities and Service Systems City of Palo Alto 4.5-4 The Plant currently treats approximately 22 MGD of wastewater generated by the service area’s 220,000 residents (City of Palo Alto Public Works Department Wastewater Treatment Plant Homepage, June 28, 2012). The Plant already has some capability to produce recycled water that meets the Title 22 unrestricted use standard (approximately 4.5 MGD of capacity of which 4.5 MGD is presently available) (City of Palo Alto Utilities UWMP, June 2011). The RWQCP capacity is sufficient for current dry and wet weather loads and for future load projections. There are no plans to increase the capacity of the Plant. Wastewater for Checkout Bags. Wastewater generation from checkout bags results from the manufacturing process as well as that which is generated by washing resusable bags. As discussed below in Section 4.5.2 (b), Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, incremental amounts of wastewater are generated when washing reusable bags. Various studies have estimated wastewater related to manufacturing of the different checkout bags (single-use plastic, paper or reusable bags) to determine a per bag wastewater use rate. The Ecobilan LCA study determined that per 9,000 liters of groceries, the manufacturing of a plastic bag would generate 50 liters of wastewater, while a paper bag would generate 130.7 liters of wastewater and a reusable bag (used 52 times) would generate 2.63 liters of wastewater. Based on the Ecobilan LCA data, Table 4.5-4 displays the existing wastewater from manufacturing the approximately 25.9 million plastic bags used in Palo Alto. As shown therein, current manufacturing of plastic bags results in approximately 0.53 million gallons of wastewater per year or approximately 1,459 gallons per day (or 0.001 MGD). Similar to water use, since no manufacturing facilities are located in Palo Alto or Santa Clara County, wastewater currently generated by plastic checkout bag manufacturing is not treated at the Water Quality Control Plant. Table 4.5-4 Wastewater Due to Existing Plastic Checkout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data Number of Plastic Bags Wastewater Liters of Wastewater per 9000 liters of Groceries Gallons of Water Per Day* Millions of Gallons per Year 25,923,8641 50 1,459 0.53 *Calculations are contained in the Utility Worksheets contained in Appendix C Source: Ecobilan. February 2004. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic, Paper, and Biodegradable Material. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France. 1 See Table 4.5-2 for further clarification on the existing number of plastic bags in Palo Alto. c. Solid Waste. City Solid Waste Service. Source-separated municipal solid waste collected by the City of Palo Alto’s exclusive hauler, Green Waste, is transferred to the regional Sunnyvale Material and Recovery Transfer (SMaRT) Station. At the SMaRT Station, waste is sorted to remove recyclable goods for sale at market rates. Waste that cannot be recycled is deposited at the Kirby Canyon Landfill in San Jose. The Kirby Canyon Landfill takes in approximately 545 tons per day of solid waste (Sharon Clute, Environmental Inspector, Personal Communication, July 18, 2012). In addition to the solid waste hauled by Green Waste, a small fraction of solid waste from Palo Alto self-haulers dispose of materials at other regional landfills including the Altamont Landfill in Alameda County, the Keller Canyon Landfill in Contra Costa County, the Ox Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.5 Utilities and Service Systems City of Palo Alto 4.5-5 Mountain Landfill in San Mateo County, and the Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County (City of Palo Alto, June 2007). Table 4.5-5 summarizes the permitted throughput, estimated capacity, and estimated closure date for the landfill facilities serving the City. Table 4.5-5 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Facility Permitted Daily Throughput (tons/day) Estimated Remaining Capacity (CY)* Estimated Closure Date SMaRT Station 1,500 N/A N/A Kirby Canyon Landfill 2,600 57,271,507 2022 Altamont Landfill 2,000 45,720,000 2025 Keller Canyon Landfill 3,500 63,408,410 2030 Ox Mountain Landfill 3,598 44,646,148 2018 Potrero Hills Landfill 4,330 13,877,000 2048 Source: California Department of Resources Recycling and RecoveryWebsite(CalRecycle), accessed on June 28, 2011http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/Search.aspx . N/A = Not Available * Remaining capacity estimates are based on reported estimated closure date minus the annual average throughput since date of reported remaining capacity. cy=cubic yards Palo Alto has embarked on a number of programs to reduce the amount of waste its citizens generate. Some of these programs became priorities after the State passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act in 1989 (AB 939). The City has completed a comprehensive Source Reduction and Recycling Element in compliance with AB 939, which required every city in California to reduce the waste it sends to landfills by 50% by the year 2000. As of 2010, the City was recycling or otherwise diverting 80% of its solid waste, thereby complying with the standards established by AB 939 (City of Palo Alto Public Works Department Diversion Rate, June 28, 2012). The City also adopted a Zero Waste Operational Plan in 2007, which identifies the policies, programs and facilities that will be needed to reach the goal of zero waste by 2021 (City of Palo Alto, June 2007). Solid Waste Rates for Checkout Bags. Various studies have estimated solid waste rates related to the different checkout bags (single-use plastic, paper or reusable bags) to determine a per bag solid waste rate. Using EPA recycling rates and the Ecobilan data, it was determined that a plastic bag would generate 0.0065 kilograms (kg) of solid waste per bag, while a paper bag would generate 0.0087 kg of waste per bag, and a reusable bag (used 52 times) would generate 0.001 kg of waste per bag. Using the Boustead data along with EPA recycling rates, it was determined that plastic bags would produce 0.004 kg waste per bag, while a paper bag would result in 0.021 kg of waste per bag. The Boustead data does not estimate the solid waste from reusable bags. Tables 4.5-6 and 4.5-7 estimate the amount of solid waste associated with plastic bags currently used in Palo Alto based on the Ecobilan and Boustead studies. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.5 Utilities and Service Systems City of Palo Alto 4.5-6 Table 4.5-6 Solid Waste Due to Existing Plastic Checkout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data Number of Plastic Bags Solid Waste Solid Waste per Bag per bag (kg) Solid Waste Per Day (tons)* Solid Waste per Year 25,923,8641 0.0065 0.51 186 *Calculations are contained in the Utility Worksheets contained in Appendix C Source: Ecobilan. February 2004. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic, Paper, and Biodegradable Material. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France. 1 See Table 4.5-2 for further clarification on the existing number of plastic bags in Palo Alto. Table 4.5-7 Solid Waste Due to Existing Plastic Checkout Bags Based on Boustead Data Number of Plastic Bags Solid Waste Solid Waste per Bag per bag (kg) Solid Waste Per Day (tons)* Solid Waste per Year 25,923,8641 0.004 0.32 118 *Calculations are contained in the Utility Worksheets contained in Appendix C Source: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. 2007. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic; Compostable, Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyclable Paper. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. 1 See Table 4.5-2 for further clarification on the existing number of plastic bags in Palo Alto. As shown in Table 4.5-6, based on current EPA recycling rates, the Ecobilan data determined that approximately 0.51 tons per day or 186 tons per year result from use of plastic bags used in Palo Alto. Based on the Boustead data (Table 4.5-7), plastic bags used in Palo Alto account for 0.32 tons of solid waste per day and approximately 118 tons of solid waste per year. 4.5.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. To analyze impacts to utilities, the anticipated increase of water, wastewater and solid waste as a result of implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance was compared to the available capacity of facilities that serve Palo Alto. Based on the City of Palo Alto’s environmental checklist, a significant impact related to utilities and service systems would occur if the proposed Bag Ordinance: 1. Exceeds wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; 2. Requires or results in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.5 Utilities and Service Systems City of Palo Alto 4.5-7 3. Requires or results in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; 4. Has insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed; 5. Results in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments; 6. Is not served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs; 7. Does not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste; or 8. Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project. The Initial Study (Appendix A) determined that all of the above criteria should be discussed in this EIR except impacts related to stormwater drainage facilities (item 3), were determined to have a no impact since by eliminating the potential for plastic bags to affect storm water flow, the proposed Bag Ordinance would incrementally improve the effectiveness of the stormwater drainage systems in Palo Alto. In addition, impacts related to water quality in storm water drainage systems are discussed in Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality. Impacts related to water, wastewater, and solid waste are discussed below. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact U-1 The increased use of reusable bags within Palo Alto as a result of the proposed Bag Ordinance would incrementally increase water demand due to the washing of reusable bags. However, sufficient water supplies are available to meet the demand created by reusable bags. Therefore, water supply impacts would be Class III, less than significant. The proposed Bag Ordinance would increase the use of reusable bags as a result of banning plastic bags and requiring a mandatory charge for paper bags. Manufacturing facilities of checkout bags are not known to be located within Palo Alto or Santa Clara County. Therefore, manufacturing facilities would not utilize water supplies in Palo Alto. In addition to water use from manufacturing checkout bags, reusable bags, as required by the Bag Ordinance, would be machine washable or made from a material that can be cleaned or disinfected. Washing reusable bags used in Palo Alto would utilize the City‘s water supplies. It is anticipated that most bag users would simply include reusable bags in wash loads that would occur with or without the bags. Nevertheless, for a conservative estimate, this analysis assumes that in order to maintain hygiene of reusable bags washing of bags (either by washing machine or rinsing) would increase the demand for water. This analysis assumes that approximately half of the reusable bags would be cleaned by rinsing and sanitizing and the other half would be machine washable. Assuming that all new reusable checkout bags require monthly cleaning in either a washing machine or by rinsing, the total increase in water demand (as shown in Table 4.5-8) would be approximately 18.52 AFY. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.5 Utilities and Service Systems City of Palo Alto 4.5-8 Table 4.5-8 Water Use From Reusable Bag Cleaning # of Additional Reusable Bags from proposed Bag Ordinance that Require Washing¹ Number of times washed per year (monthly)² # bags per Wash Load³ # of Loads per Year Gallons of Water per Wash Load* Total Gallons per Year Acre Feet Year (AFY) 162,024 (machine wash) 12 19 102,331 40 4,093,240 12.56 162,024 (hand wash) 12 1 162,024 1 1,944,288 5.96 Total 18.52 ¹ Assumes that 50% of reusable bags would be machine washable and 50% would be hand washed/sanitized. ² Assumes that each bag is washed once a month. ³ Assumes an average washer capacity of 8 pounds per load and 6.8 ounces per bag (as measured on 8/10/2010 by Rincon Consultants, Inc.) Source: California Energy Commission: Consumer Energy Center, 2010; City of Santa Monica Carryout Bag Final EIR, January 2011. Table 4.5-9 shows the proposed Bag Ordinance’s water demand, relative to the City’s existing and projected supply and demand. Table 4.5-9 Proposed Bag Ordinance’s Percentage of the City’s Existing and Projected Supply and Demand City’s Demand (AFY) Proposed Bag Ordinance Water Demand Plus City’s Demand (AFY) City’s Supply Exceed Supply? Existing (2010) 11,236 11,254.52 13,065 No Projected (2025) 14,970 14,988.52 15,203 No Source: City of Palo Alto Utilities, 2010 UWMP, June 2011 (refer to Table 4.5-1). AFY=acre-feet per year As shown in Table 4.5-9, the proposed Bag Ordinance would account for approximately 0.16% and 0.12% of the City’s existing and projected water supply, respectively. This incremental increase in the amount of water usage would not be anticipated to exceed the existing or projected supply of water and thus the proposed Bag Ordinance would not cause significant impacts to the City’s existing or projected water supplies. As mentioned in the Setting, the City has the water supply necessary to meet demand projections through the year 2025, but may experience a water supply shortage in 2030. However the need for supplemental supplies may Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.5 Utilities and Service Systems City of Palo Alto 4.5-9 be less than anticipated depending on further implementation of water conservation measures and the supply reliability of San Francisco’s RWS (City of Palo Alto Utilities UWMP, June 2011). Furthermore, the City is continuing to evaluate other water supply alternatives as part of its ongoing Water Integrated Resource Plan. Currently, the City is in the construction phase of the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project and is in the environmental review phase of the Palo Alto Phase 3 recycled water project (City of Palo Alto Utilities UWMP, June 2011).Therefore, the City has the potential to develop water supply alternatives that may be sufficient to meet the 2030 demand projections. Thus, the potential incremental increase in water demand due to implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance is within the capacity of the City’s water supplies and impacts would be less than significant. It should again be noted that the estimated water demand associated with implementation of the Bag Ordinance is conservative insofar as it assumes that 50% of reusable bags would be washed in separate washing machine loads rather than included in existing wash loads. Mitigation Measures. Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. Impact U-2 Water use associated with washing reusable bags would incrementally increase wastewater generation in the City. However, projected wastewater flows would remain within the capacity of the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system, and would not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. The proposed Bag Ordinance would not require additional sewer connections or an increase in the service population; however, the proposed Bag Ordinance may increase water use associated with cleaning reusable bags and, therefore, would incrementally increase wastewater generation in the City. As stated in the Setting, the RWQCP has an average dry weather flow design capacity of 39 MGD with full tertiary treatment, and a peak wet weather flow capacity of 80 MGD with full secondary treatment. The RWQCP currently processes approximately 22 MGD of wastewater. As a conservative estimate, this analysis compares wastewater generation as a result of the proposed Bag Ordinance to the Plant’s average dry weather flow design capacity of 39 MGD. Thus, the Plant has available capacity of 17 MGD.2 Manufacturing of checkout bags would produce wastewater (as described above in the Setting); however, because no manufacturing facilities are located within Palo Alto or Santa Clara County, there would be no impacts to the wastewater treatment requirements at the City’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant. The use of reusable bags in the City would require periodic washing of bags for hygienic purposes by retail customers. Assuming that 100% of the water used to wash reusable bags would become wastewater, approximately 6,037,528 gallons (equal to 18.52 AFY) of wastewater, or approximately 16,541 gallons of wastewater per day, would require treatment at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. This represents 0.10% of 2 39 MGD capacity – 22 MGD currently treated = 17 MGD capacity remaining Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.5 Utilities and Service Systems City of Palo Alto 4.5-10 the remaining capacity (approximately 17 MGD) at the RWQCB. Thus, there is adequate capacity to treat the additional wastewater that would result from the proposed Bag Ordinance and no new facilities would be necessary. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures. Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. Impact U-3 The proposed Bag Ordinance would alter solid waste generation associated with bag use in Palo Alto. However, projected future solid waste generation would remain within the capacity of local landfills. Impacts would therefore be Class III, less than significant. The majority of the solid waste generated within Palo Alto is taken to the SMaRT Station, which is owned and operated by the City of Sunnyvale. After separation of recyclable materials in the materials recovery facility (MRF), non-recyclable/solid waste are transferred to the Kirby Canyon Landfill in San Jose. As discussed in Section 4.5.1c, Solid Waste, the Kirby Canyon Landfill currently takes in approximately 545 tons per day of solid waste. As shown in Table 4.5-5, the Kirby Canyon Landfill has a maximum daily capacity of 2,600 tons/day. Therefore, the landfill has a surplus daily capacity of 2,055 tons/day. The proposed Bag Ordinance does not involve any physical development. However, use of checkout bags would require disposal at the end of use and would alter existing solid waste generation. Tables 4.5-10 and 4.5-11 estimate the anticipated change in solid waste generation that would result from the proposed Bag Ordinance based on the Ecobilan (Table 4.5-10) and the Boustead (Table 4.5-11) data. As shown in Table 4.5-10, based on the Ecobilan data, the proposed Bag Ordinance would result in a reduction of approximately 99 tons per year of solid waste. However, based on the Boustead data shown in Table 4.5-11 there would be an increase of approximately 96 tons per year of solid waste, primarily due to the projected increase in paper bag use. Both studies are included in the analysis to provide a reasonable estimate of solid waste. However, as demonstrated below, the life cycle assessment models have some variability associated within them. Additionally, paper bags are easily recycled in the existing City recycling programs, composted in its current commercial program and will be accepted in future residential organics collection programs. For this analysis, the Ecobilan Data would represent a more likely scenario in Palo Alto as it takes into account reusable bag solid waste in addition to plastic and paper bags. As described above, under the Ecobilan Data, the proposed Bag Ordinance would reduce solid waste. However, the Boustead Data, which although unlikely for Palo Alto, represents a conservative worst case scenario under CEQA and therefore is included in this analysis. For the proposed Bag Ordinance, using the worst case scenario (the Boustead data in Table 4.5-9), the increase of solid waste (96 tons per year or 0.27 tons per day) represents 0.02% of the permitted daily throughput, and would not exceed the 1,500 tons per day capacity of the SMaRT Station. When disposed, this amount of solid waste would not exceed the surplus daily capacity of 2,055 tons/day, nor would it exceed the maximum daily capacity for the Kirby Canyon Landfill (daily capacity of 2,600 tons/day) or any of the other Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.5 Utilities and Service Systems City of Palo Alto 4.5-11 potential landfills serving the City of Palo Alto. The impact to solid waste facilities as a result of the proposed Bag Ordinance would be less than significant. Table 4.5-10 Solid Waste Due to Checkout Bags Based on Ecobilan Data Type of Bags Number of Bags Solid Waste Solid Waste per Bag per day (kg) Solid Waste Per Day (tons)* Solid Waste per Year (tons) Plastic 0 0.0065 0 0 Paper 9,073,352 0.0087 0.24 87.31 Reusable (used 52 times) 324,048 0.001 0.00002 0.007 Total 0.24 87.32 Existing1 0.51 186 Net Change -0.27 -98.68 *Calculations are contained in the Utility Worksheets contained in Appendix C Source: Ecobilan. February 2004. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags: An Analysis of the Life Cycle of Shopping Bags of Plastic, Paper, and Biodegradable Material. Prepared for: Carrefour Group. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France. 1Existing figures from Table 4.5-6 above. Table 4.5-11 Solid Waste Due to Checkout Bags Based on Boustead Data Type of Bags Number of Bags Solid Waste Solid Waste per Bag per day (kg) Solid Waste Per Day (tons)* Solid Waste per Year (tons) Plastic 0 0.004 0 0 Paper 9,073,352 0.021 0.59 214.28 Total 0.59 214.28 Existing1 0.32 118 Net Change 0.27 96.28 *Calculations are contained in the Utility Worksheets contained in Appendix C Source: Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. 2007. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic; Compostable, Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyclable Paper. Prepared for: Progressive Bag Affiliates. **Please note that the Boustead data does not estimate solid waste from reusable bags. 1Existing figures from Table 4.5-6 above. Mitigation Measures. As specified above, impacts would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. c. Cumulative Impacts. Adopted and pending checkout bag ordinances, as described in Table 3-1 in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting, would continue to reduce the amount of single-use checkout bags, and promote a shift toward reusable checkout bags. Cumulative impacts from this development are discussed below by impact area. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.5 Utilities and Service Systems City of Palo Alto 4.5-12 Water. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, such ordinances would be expected to generally reduce the overall number of bags manufactured and associated water use from these facilities. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, other adopted and pending ordinances could incrementally increase water use associated with cleaning reusable bags for hygienic purposes. Thirty-six agencies have either adopted or are considering such ordinances in the San Francisco Bay Area region including the Cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Fairfax, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Jose, San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Watsonville, Woodside, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Mountain View. Participating Counties include: Alameda, Marin, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Sonoma. However, based on the incremental water use associated with the proposed Bag Ordinance (increase of approximately 18.52 AFY per year), the other ordinances are not anticipated to generate an increase in water that would exceed water supplies in their respective regions. Therefore, cumulative water impacts would not be significant. Wastewater. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, other checkout bag ordinances would be expected to generally reduce the overall number of bags manufactured and associated wastewater from these facilities. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, other adopted and pending ordinances could incrementally increase wastewater associated with cleaning reusable bags. Thirty-six agencies have either adopted or are considering such ordinances in the San Francisco Bay Area region including the Cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Fairfax, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Jose, San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Watsonville, Woodside, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Mountain View. Participating Counties include: Alameda, Marin, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Sonoma. However, based on the incremental increase in wastewater associated with the proposed Bag Ordinance (approximately 11,659 gallons per day), the other ordinances are not anticipated to generate an increase in wastewater that would exceed the capacity of a wastewater treatment plant or require new or expanded facilities within their respective regions. Therefore, cumulative wastewater impacts would not be significant. Solid Waste. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, other checkout bag ordinances would be expected to generally reduce the overall number of bags manufactured and associated wastewater from these facilities. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, other adopted and pending ordinances could incrementally increase solid waste associated with checkout bags. Thirty-six agencies have either adopted or are considering such ordinances in the San Francisco Bay Area region including the Cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Fairfax, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Jose, San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Watsonville, Woodside, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Mountain View. Participating Counties include: Alameda, Marin, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Sonoma. As described in Impact U-3, these ordinances may actually result in a reduction of solid waste according to the Ecobilan study. However, using the more conservative Boustead data, based on the incremental increase in solid waste associated with Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.5 Utilities and Service Systems City of Palo Alto 4.5-13 the proposed Bag Ordinance (approximately 0.27 tons per day), the other ordinances are not anticipated to generate an increase in solid waste that would exceed the capacity of a local landfill or require new or expanded facilities within their respective regions. Therefore, cumulative solid waste impacts would not be significant. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 4.5 Utilities and Service Systems City of Palo Alto 4.5-14 This page intentionally left blank Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 5.0 Other CEQA Discussions City of Palo Alto 5-1 5.0 OTHER CEQA DISCUSSIONS This section discusses additional issues required for analysis under CEQA, including growth inducement and significant irreversible environmental effects. 5.1 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of a proposed project’s potential to foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to growth. Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment. However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in significant adverse environmental effects. Therefore, the proposed Bag Ordinance’s growth-inducing potential is considered significant if it could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental issue areas. The most commonly cited example of how an economic effect might create a physical change is where economic growth in one area could create blight conditions elsewhere by causing existing competitors to go out of business and the buildings to be left vacant. 5.1.1 Economic and Population Growth The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten centsg ($0.10) for a recyclable paper or reusable checkout bag until one year after ordinance implementation and twenty-five cents ($0.25) thereafter. Food service establishments would not be required to charge for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The intent of the proposed Bag Ordinance is to reduce the environmental impacts of pollution related to single-use plastic checkout bags in local creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the marine environment, and to promote a shift toward the use of reusable bags by retail customers in Palo Alto. The proposed Bag Ordinance would not include development of any physical structures or involve any construction activity. Plastic checkout bag production and distribution would decline as a result of the proposed Bag Ordinance. However, employment patterns in Palo Alto would not be affected as there are no known plastic bag manufacturing facilities in the City. In addition, recyclable paper bag use is anticipated to increase incrementally. However, similar to plastic checkout bag manufacturing, employment patterns in the region would not be affected by the proposed Bag Ordinance as there are no known paper bag manufacturing plants in Palo Alto. There is a paperbag manufacturing plant in Buena Park, California (County of San Mateo Draft EIR, June 2012). Demand for reusable bags is anticipated to increase. Nevertheless, incremental increases in the use of paper and reusable bags in the region is not anticipated to significantly affect long-term employment at reusable bag manufacturing facilities or increase the region’s population. Revenues generated by the sale of paper bags would remain with the affected stores and are intended to offset the costs of implementing the proposed Bag Ordinance. The Bag Ordinance is not expected to generate substantial economic growth. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 5.0 Other CEQA Discussions City of Palo Alto 5-2 Based on the above, the proposed Bag Ordinance would not be growth-inducing as it would not affect significantly long-term local or regional employment patterns or increase the region’s population. 5.1.2 Removal of Obstacles to Growth The proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve any physical development. As such, it would not necessitate any improvements to water, sewer, and drainage connection infrastructure. No new roads would be required as the only change in traffic patterns would involve deliveries of paper and reusable bags to existing businesses. Because the proposed Bag Ordinance would not include any physical development or construction activities and would not involve the extension of infrastructure into areas that otherwise could not accommodate growth, it would not remove an obstacle to growth. 5.2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs reveal the significant environmental changes that would occur with project development. CEQA also requires decisionmakers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. This section addresses non-renewable resources, the commitment of future generations to the proposed Bag Ordinance, and irreversible impacts associated with the proposed Bag Ordinance. As an ordinance, the project would not include development of any physical structures or involve any construction activity. Therefore, the proposed Bag Ordinance would not alter existing land uses or cause irreversible physical alterations related to land development or resource use. To the contrary, the express purpose of the Bag Ordinance is to reduce the wasteful use of resources and associated environmental impacts. As discussed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, air pollutant emissions would not be increased beyond BAAQMD thresholds and with anticipated reductions in the overall number of plastic bags used in Palo Alto, emissions would be reduced compared to existing conditions. Similarly, as discussed in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, although the proposed Ordinance would result in net increase of GHG emissions (approximately 0.006 CO2e/person/year) compared to existing conditions, this increase would not exceed any thresholds of significance and the proposed Bag Ordinance would be consistent with applicable plans, policies and regulations related to reducing GHG emissions, including the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan. Thus, the proposed Bag Ordinance would not result in any significant impacts related to air quality and GHG emissions. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-1 6.0 ALTERNATIVES As required by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, this section examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. The following seven alternatives are evaluated: Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 2: Food Service Establishments (FSE) Exempt: Proposed Bag Ordinance in Place for Retail, But Excludes FSE Entirely Alternative 3: $0.25 Store Charge for Paper Bags at Retail But No Paper Charge at Food Service Establishments, No Plastic at Either Alternative 4: $0.10 for Paper Bags at Both Retail Services and Food Service Establishments, No Plastic at Either Alternative 5: $0.25 Fee for Recyclable Paper Bags at Both Retail Services and Food Service Establishments, No Plastic at Either Alternative 6: Food Service Establishments Only: Ban Plastic Bags at FSE Only, No Ban At Retail (except Supermarkets), No Fee for Paper Bags Alternative 7: No Plastic or Paper at Either Retail or Food Service Establishments This section also includes a discussion of the “environmentally superior alternative” among those studied and a discussion of alternatives considered but ultimately rejected. 6.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT 6.1.1 Description The No Project alternative assumes that the proposed Bag Ordinance would not be adopted. Thus, the use of checkout bags at retail stores in Palo Alto would not change compared to current conditions. The City’s existing Plastic Bag Restriction Ordinance would still be in place and would continue to require “supermarkets” to provide only reusable bags and/or recyclable paper bags to customers at the point of sale (but would not require them to charge for reusable or paper bags). However, under the No Project alternative, only seven stores (plus two stores under construction at the time of this analysis as described in Section 2.0, Project Description) would be required to adhere to the existing ordinance. Thus, under this alternative, single-use plastic and paper carryout bags would continue to be available free-of-charge to customers at most retail stores in Palo Alto. This alternative assumes that the existing plastic bags used in Palo Alto, including the reductions of plastic bags as result of the existing ordinance, would remain the same (including approximately 5% of the total plastic bags used at food service establishments). Thus this alternative (as described in Table 2-1), would result in a reduction of 8,880,000 plastic bags per year compared to previous conditions where there was no bag ordinance. Under this alternative, it is assumed that of the 8,880,000 plastic bags that would be reduced, 65% would shift to reusable, and 35% would shift to single-use paper bags, respectively. These assumptions are based on the rates used in the County of San Mateo Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program EIR, SCH#2012042013, October 2012, the Sunnyvale Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH#2011062032, December 2011, and the City of San Jose Final Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-2 EIR, SCH # 2009102095, October 2010. Table 6-1 summarizes the changes in bag distribution as a result of this alternative compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Table 6-1 Estimated Bag Use: Proposed Bag Ordinance versus No Project Alternative Bag Type Bags Used Annually Proposed Ordinance* No Project** Single-use Plastic 0 25,923,864* Recyclable Paper1 9,073,352 3,108,000 Reusable 324,048 111,000 Total 9,397,400 29,142,864 * Refer to Table 2-2 in Section 2.0, Project Description. ** Based on the assumption that 65%, and 35% of the 8,880,000 reduction in plastic bag use would shift to reusable, and would shift to paper bags, respectively. 1It should be noted that the No Project alternative would continue the distribution of single-use paper bags, as opposed to the proposed Bag Ordinance which requires that paper bags be recyclable. 6.1.2 Impact Analysis No change in environmental conditions would occur under this alternative because the existing ordinance would not be expanded to include all retail services and food service establishments in Palo Alto. In addition, a mandatory charge for carryout bags would not be imposed. Thus, Palo Alto retail customers would have no incentive to alter their existing checkout bag preferences. Because conditions would not change under this alternative, none of the impacts or benefits in the studied issue areas associated with the proposed Bag Ordinance would occur. This alternative would not result in the change in truck trips associated with delivering reusable and recyclable paper bags that would occur with implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance and would therefore eliminate impacts associated with such trips. In addition, because the No Project alternative would not facilitate a shift to reusable bags, the proposed Bag Ordinance’s less than significant impacts related to water and wastewater demand from washing reusable bags would be eliminated. On the other hand, this alternative would not achieve the proposed Bag Ordinance’s beneficial effects relative to air quality, biological resources (sensitive species), and hydrology and water quality, nor would it result in the general benefits with respect to litter accumulation that are expected to result from implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance. Solid waste generation would not change from existing conditions and there would therefore be no impact related to solid waste. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-3 6.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS (FSE) EXEMPT: PROPOSED BAG ORDINANCE IN PLACE FOR RETAIL, BUT EXCLUDES FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS ENTIRELY. 6.2.1 Description This alternative assumes the proposed Bag Ordinance would prohibit all Palo Alto retail services (including supermarkets) from providing single-use plastic bags to customers at the point of sale and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) during the first year of the ordinance and twenty-five cents ($0.25) thereafter for a recyclable paper or reusable checkout bag. However, under this alternative, food service establishments would be exempt from the Ordinance. In other words, food service establishments would be permitted to distribute single-use plastic bags and paper bags free-of-charge to customers in Palo Alto. As a result of the exclusion of food service establishments from the ban on single-use plastic bags, it is anticipated that this alternative would increase the use of single-use plastic bags and decrease the use of recyclable paper compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, since food service establishment customers would be more likely to use a single-use plastic or paper bag at no cost as they currently do under existing conditions. As this alternative would not apply to food service establishments, it is assumed that 5% of existing single-use plastic bags (approximately 1,296,193 plastic bags per year) would remain in use and that the remaining 95% of plastic bags currently used in Palo Alto (approximately 24,627,671 plastic bags per year) would be replaced by approximately 30% paper bags (compared to 0% plastic and 35% paper assumed for the proposed Bag Ordinance). The number of reusable bags would remain unchanged compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance (65% of the total number of plastic bags used in the City or 324,048 reusable bags). These assumptions are based on the rates used in the County of San Mateo Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program EIR, SCH#2012042013, October 2012, the Sunnyvale Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH#2011062032, December 2011, and the City of San Jose Final EIR, SCH # 2009102095, October 2010. Table 6-2 summarizes the changes in bag distribution as a result of this alternative compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Table 6-2 Estimated Bag Use: Proposed Bag Ordinance versus Alternative 2 Bag Type Bags Used Annually Proposed Ordinance* Alternative 2** Single-use Plastic 0 1,296,193 Recyclable Paper 9,073,352 7,777,159 Reusable 324,048 324,048 Total 9,397,400 9,397,400 * Refer to Table 2-2 in Section 2.0, Project Description. ** Based on an assumption of 5% existing plastic bag use in Palo Alto (approximately 1,296,193 plastic bags per year) to remain, 30% conversion of the volume of existing plastic bag use in Palo Alto to paper bags and 65% conversion to reusable bags (based on 52 uses per year). Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-4 6.2.2 Impact Analysis a. Air Quality. As described in Section 4.1, Air Quality, it is estimated that the proposed Bag Ordinance would replace the total volume of single-use plastic bags currently used in Palo Alto with approximately 35% paper bags and 65% reusable bags (as shown in Table 6-2 above). This alternative would permit food service establishments in Palo Alto to continue the distribution of single-use plastic bags to their customers free-of-charge, and would therefore promote a smaller shift toward recyclable paper bags. Consequently, this alternative would increase the number of single-use plastic bags, decrease the number of recyclable paper bags, and result in the same number of reusable bags used compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Overall bag use under Alternative 2 would be the same as under the proposed Bag Ordinance (approximately 9,397,400 single-use plastic, recyclable paper, and reusable bags). As described in Section 4.1, Air Quality, emissions associated with recyclable paper bag production result in 1.9 times the impact on atmospheric acidification as a single-use plastic bag. As Alternative 2 would result in fewer recyclable paper bags, air pollutant emissions associated with bag manufacture, transport, and disposal would therefore be decreased when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Table 6-3 estimates emissions that contribute to the development of ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification that would result from implementation of Alternative 2, as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Table 6-3 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Alternative 2 Bag Type # of Bags Used per Year* Ozone Emission Rate per Bag Ozone Emissions (kg) per 1,000 bags Ozone Emissions per year (kg) AA Emission Rate per Bag AA Emissions (kg) per 1,000 bags AA Emissions per year (kg) Single-use Plastic 1,296,193 1.0 0.023 30 1.0 1.084 1,405 Recyclable Paper 7,777,159 1.3 0.03 233 1.9 2.06 16,021 Reusable 324,048 1.4 0.032 10 3.0 3.252 1,054 Alternative 2 Total 273 Alternative 2 Total 18,480 Proposed Bag Ordinance 282 Proposed Bag Ordinance 19,745 Difference (9) Difference (1,265) Current Total (with Existing Ordinance) 596 Current Total (with Existing Ordinance) 28,101 Net Change of Alternative 2 (Alternative 2 Total minus Existing Total) (323) Net Change (9,621) Source: Refer to Table 4.1-4 in Section 4.1, Air Quality. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-5 As shown in Table 6-3, because this alternative would decrease the number of recyclable paper bags used in the City, the contribution to ground level ozone would decrease by approximately 9 kg per year (a 3% decrease) and the contribution to atmospheric acidification would decrease by approximately 1,265 kg per year (a 6% decrease) when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. To estimated mobile emissions resulting from Alternative 2, the number of truck trips per day was calculated using the assumptions outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix A). As shown in Table 6-4, Alternative 2 would result in an estimated 39.33 truck trips per year, or 0.11 truck trips per day, which is lower than under the proposed Bag Ordinance. Table 6-4 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of Alternative 2 Bag Type Number of Bags per Year Number of Bags per Truck Load* Truck Trips Per Year Truck Trips per Day Single-use Plastic 1,296,193 2,080,000 0.62 0.002 Recyclable Paper 7,777,159 217,665 35.73 0.10 Reusable 324,048 108,862 2.98 0.008 Alternative 2 Total 39.33 0.11 Truck Trips from Proposed Bag Ordinance 45 0.123 Difference (5.67) (0.013) Current Total for Plastic Bags (with Existing Ordinance) 13 0.04 Net Change of Alternative 2 (Alternative 2 Total minus Current Total) 26.33 0.07 *City of Santa Monica Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR (SCH #2010041004), January 2011. Refer to Appendix A. Based on the estimated truck trips for Alternative 2, mobile emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS model. As indicated in Table 6-5, this alternative would reduce daily emissions compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. As with the proposed Bag Ordinance, mobile emissions associated with this alternative would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Based on the above and Table 6-5 below, Alternative 2 would slightly reduce air quality impacts compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Impacts resulting from bag manufacture and use (ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification) would continue to be Class IV, beneficial, while impacts relating to an increase in truck trips would continue to be Class III, less than significant. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-6 Table 6-5 Operational Emissions Associated with Alternative 2 Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Mobile Emissions: Proposed Ordinance <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 Mobile Emissions: Alternative 2 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: URBEMIS 2007 calculations for Vehicle. See Appendix B for calculations b. Biological Resources. Unlike the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would permit food service establishments in Palo Alto to continue the distribution of single-use plastic bags to customers free-of-charge, thereby incrementally increasing the amount of single-use plastic bag litter that could enter the marine environment and affect sensitive species. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, however, this alternative would slightly decrease the amount of paper bag litter that could enter the marine environment. As discussed in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, paper bags are less likely to become litter compared to single-use plastic bags. Therefore, the increase in single-use plastic bags associated with this alternative would result in more overall litter entering the marine environment. As a result, impacts to marine species from Alternative 2 would incrementally increase as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, but would still be reduced as compared to existing conditions. Impacts would remain Class IV, beneficial. c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would be expected to increase the number of single-use plastic bags by approximately 1.3 million bags and decrease the number of recyclable paper bags by the same number (approximately 1.3 million bags). As noted in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gases, the manufacture, transport, and disposal of each recyclable paper bag results in 3.3 times the emissions of a single-use plastic bag, while the manufacturing, transportation, and disposal of each reusable bag results in approximately 2.6 times the emissions of a single-use plastic bag. Therefore, this alternative would slightly reduce GHG emissions as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Table 6-6 on the following page provides an estimate of GHG emissions that would result from implementation of Alternative 2. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, GHG emissions under Alternative 2 would decrease by approximately 0.002 metric tons CO2e per person per year and would not exceed the 4.6 metric tons CO2e per person per year threshold. Thus, the GHG impacts from Alternative 2 would be slightly reduced as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance and would continue to be Class III, less than significant. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-7 Table 6-6 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative 2 Bag Type Estimated Number of Bags Used per Year GHG Impact Rate per Bag CO2e (metric tons) CO2e per year (metric tons) CO2e per Person Single-use Plastic 1,296,193 1.0 0.04 per 1,500 bags 35 0.0005 Recyclable Paper 7,777,159 2.97 0.1188 per 1,000 bags 924 0.014 Reusable 324,048 2.6 0.104 per 1,000 bags 34 0.0005 Alternative 2 Total 993 0.015 Proposed Bag Ordinance 1,112 0.017 Difference (119) (0.002) Existing Total (with Existing Ordinance) 691 0.011 Net Change of Alternative 2 (Alternative 2 Total minus Existing Total) 302 0.004 CO2e = Carbon Dioxide Equivalent units Source: Refer to Table 4.3-2 in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. d. Hydrology and Water Quality. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would reduce the number of single-use plastic bags used in Palo Alto, thereby incrementally reducing the amount of plastic litter and waste entering storm drains compared to existing conditions. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, however, this alternative would slightly increase the number of single-use plastic bags (by approximately 1.3 million bags), and would reduce the number of recyclable paper bags by the same number (approximately 1.3 million bags). As a result, this alternative would result in a proportional increase in litter compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. As with the proposed Bag Ordinance, an incremental reduction in the amount of litter that could enter storm drains and local waterways (compared to existing conditions) would improve water quality and reduce the potential for storm drain blockage. Therefore, like the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would result in Class IV, beneficial, effects to water quality. Overall benefits would be somewhat reduced under this alternative. This alternative would be expected to result in the use of more single-use plastic carryout bags in Palo Alto than implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance. As with the proposed Bag Ordinance, single-use plastic bag manufacturing facilities would be required to adhere to NPDES Permit requirements, AB 258 and the California Health and Safety Code reducing impacts to water quality. Impacts to water quality from altering bag processing activities would be the same as the proposed Bag Ordinance and would be Class III, less than significant. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-8 e. Utilities and Service Systems. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would be expected to increase the number of single-use plastic bags by approximately 1.3 million and reduce the number of recyclable paper bags by the same number (approximately 1.3 million bags). The number of reusable bags would not change under this alternative. Because the number of reusable bags would be the same under this alternative as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, water demand and wastewater generation related to washing reusable bags would also be the same as under the proposed Bag Ordinance. This equates to an estimated 18.52 AFY of water and 16,541 gallons per day of wastewater. As noted in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service Systems, there are sufficient water supplies available to meet this demand, and sufficient capacity within the City’s wastewater distribution and treatment system. Therefore, impacts would be the same as those of the proposed Bag Ordinance and would be Class III, less than significant. As described in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service systems, both the Ecobilan and Boustead studies are included in the analysis to provide a reasonable estimate of solid waste. However, as noted, the life cycle assessment models have some variability associated within them. For this analysis, the Ecobilan Data, which would show a reduction of solid waste compared to existing conditions, would represent a more likely scenario in Palo Alto as it takes into account solid waste from reusable bags in addition to plastic and paper bags. However, the Boustead Data, which, although is unlikely for Palo Alto, represents a conservative worst case scenario under CEQA and therefore is included in this analysis. Using the solid waste generation rates from Boustead (as shown in Table 4.5-11 in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service systems), this alternative would generate 0.50 tons/day of solid waste (calculations are contained in Appendix C). In comparison, the proposed Bag Ordinance would generate 0.59 tons/day. Therefore, Alternative 2 would generate 0.09 tons/day less solid waste than the proposed Bag Ordinance (a 15% decrease). Therefore, solid waste impacts would be slightly reduced when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. As with the proposed Bag Ordinance, impacts would be Class III, less than significant. 6.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: $0.25 STORE CHARGE FOR PAPER BAGS AT RETAIL BUT NO PAPER CHARGE AT FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS 6.3.1 Description This alternative would prohibit all Palo Alto retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic bags to customers at the point of sale, but would increase the mandatory charge for a recyclable paper bag at retail services from $0.10 to $0.25 initially rather than one year after the ordinance implementation date. As a result of the $0.15 increase in the mandatory charge per paper bag at retail services, it is anticipated that this alternative would further promote the use of reusable bags, since customers would be deterred from purchasing paper bags due to the additional cost. Please note that similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, under this alternative food service establishments would not be required to charge for paper bags. Based on a cost requirement of $0.25 per recyclable paper bag at retail services, it is assumed that the total volume of plastic bags currently used in Palo Alto (approximately 25,923,864 plastic bags per year) would be replaced by approximately 11% paper bags and 89% reusable Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-9 bags1 under Alternative 3 (compared to 35% paper and 65% reusable assumed for the proposed Bag Ordinance). Table 6-7 summarizes the anticipated changes in bag distribution as a result of a $0.25 mandatory charge under this alternative compared to the $0.10 charge under the proposed Bag Ordinance. Table 6-7 Estimated Bag Use: Proposed Ordinance versus Alternative 3 Bag Type Bags Used Annually Proposed Ordinance* (Initial $0.10 Charge for Recyclable Paper Bags at Retail Services) Alternative 3** (Initial $0.25 Charge for Recyclable Paper Bags at Retail Services) Single-Use Plastic 0 0 Recyclable Paper 9,073,352 2,851,625 Reusable 324,048 443,697 Total 9,397,400 3,295,322 * Refer to Table 2-2 in Section 2.0, Project Description. ** Based on an assumption of 100% replacement of plastic bag use in Palo Alto (approximately 25,923,864 plastic bags per year) with 11% conversion of the volume of existing plastic bag use in Palo Alto to paper bags and 89% conversion to reusable bags (based on 52 uses per year). 6.3.2 Impact Analysis a. Air Quality. As shown in Table 6-7, Alternative 3 would result in approximately 6.10 million fewer bags (including paper and reusable) than the proposed Bag Ordinance. Air pollutant emissions associated with bag manufacture, transport, and disposal would therefore be reduced when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Table 6-8 estimates emissions that contribute to the development of ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification that would result from implementation of Alternative 3, as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Because this alternative would reduce the number of paper bags in Palo Alto, the contribution to ground level ozone would decrease by approximately 182 kg per year (a 65% decrease) and the contribution to atmospheric acidification would decrease by approximately 12,428 kg per year (a 63% decrease) when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. 1 Rates from City of San Jose Final EIR, SCH # 2009102095, October 2010. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-10 Table 6-8 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Alternative 3 Bag Type # of Bags Used per Year Ozone Emission Rate per Bag Ozone Emissions (kg) per 1,000 bags Ozone Emissions per year (kg) AA Emission Rate per Bag AA Emissions (kg) per 1,000 bags AA Emissions per year (kg) Single-use Plastic 0 1.0 0.023 0 1.0 1.084 0 Recyclable Paper 2,851,625 1.3 0.03 86 1.9 2.06 5,874 Reusable 443,697 1.4 0.032 14 3.0 3.252 1,443 Alternative 3 Total 100 Alternative 3 Total 7,317 Proposed Bag Ordinance Total 282 Proposed Bag Ordinance Total 19,745 Difference (182) Difference (12,428) Current Total (with the Existing Ordinance) 596 Current (with Existing Ordinance) 28,101 Net Change of Alternative 3 (Alternative 3 Total minus Existing Total) (496) Net Change (20,784) Source: Refer to Table 4.1-4 in Section 4.1, Air Quality. To estimate mobile emissions resulting from Alternative 3, the number of truck trips per day was calculated using the assumptions outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix A). As shown in Table 6-9, Alternative 3 would result in an estimated 17.1 truck trips per year, or 0.05 truck trips per day, which is lower than the proposed Bag Ordinance. Compared to existing conditions (with the existing ordinance), this alternative would result in an estimated 4.1 net new truck trips per year or approximately 0.01 truck trips per day. Based on the estimated truck trips for Alternative 3, mobile emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS model. As indicated in Table 6-10, this alternative would reduce daily emissions compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Like the proposed Bag Ordinance, mobile emissions associated with this alternative would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Based on the above, Alternative 3 would reduce air quality impacts compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Impacts resulting from bag manufacturing and use (ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification) would continue to be Class IV, beneficial, while impacts relating to a truck trips would continue to be Class III, less than significant. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-11 Table 6-9 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of Alternative 3 Bag Type Number of Bags per Year Number of Bags per Truck Load* Truck Trips Per Year Truck Trips per Day Single-use Plastic 0 2,080,000 0 0 Recyclable Paper 2,851,625 217,665 13.1 0.04 Reusable 443,697 108,862 4 0.01 Alternative 3 Total 17.1 0.05 Proposed Bag Ordinance Total 45 0.123 Difference (27.9) (0.073) Current Total for Plastic Bags (with Existing Ordinance) 13 0.04 Net Change of Alternative 3 (Alternative 3 Total minus Current Total) 4.1 0.01 *City of Santa Monica Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR (SCH #2010041004), January 2011. Refer to Appendix A. Table 6-10 Operational Emissions Associated with Alternative 3 Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Mobile Emissions: Proposed Bag Ordinance <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 Mobile Emissions: Alternative 3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: URBEMIS 2007 calculations for Vehicle. See Appendix B for calculations ( ) = reduction of emissions compared to existing conditions. b. Biological Resources. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would prohibit all Palo Alto retailers (including supermarkets and food service establishments) from distributing single-use plastic carryout bags, thereby incrementally reducing the amount of single-use plastic bag litter that could enter the marine environment and affect sensitive species. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would also further reduce the amount of paper bag litter that could enter the marine environment. Although paper bags are less likely to become litter compared to single-use plastic bags (refer to Section 4.2, Biological Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-12 Resources), the net reduction of all bag types associated with this alternative would result in overall less litter entering the marine environment. As a result, the Class IV, beneficial, effects to marine species from Alternative 3 would be increased as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would increase the number of reusable bags used in the City by an estimated 119,649. This would slightly increase GHG emissions. On the other hand, this alternative would reduce the number of paper bags to a greater extent (approximately 6.22 million bags), which would reduce GHG emissions associated with paper bag use. Table 6-11 provides an estimate of GHG emissions that would result from the reduction of checkout bags as a result of implementation of Alternative 3. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, GHG emissions under Alternative 3 would decrease by approximately 0.0113 CO2e per person per year. In addition, compared to existing conditions, this alternative would reduce GHG emissions by approximately 306 metric tons per year, or approximately 0.0053 CO2e per person per year. Therefore GHG impacts from Alternative 3 would be reduced when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance and would be Class IV, beneficial, compared to existing conditions. Table 6-11 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative 3 Bag Type Estimated Number of Bags Used per Year GHG Impact Rate per Bag CO2e (metric tons) CO2e per year (metric tons) CO2e per Person Single-use Plastic 0 1.0 0.04 per 1,500 bags 0 0 Recyclable Paper 2,851,625 2.97 0.1188 per 1,000 bags 339 0.005 Reusable 443,697 2.6 0.104 per 1,000 bags 46 0.0007 Alternative 3 Total 385 0.0057 Proposed Bag Ordinance Total 1,112 0.017 Difference (727) (0.0113) Current Total (with Existing Ordinance) 691 0.011 Net Change of Alternative 3 (Alternative 3 Total minus Current Total) (306) (0.0053) CO2e = Carbon Dioxide Equivalent units Source: Refer to Table 4.3-2 in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-13 d. Hydrology and Water Quality. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would reduce the number of single-use plastic bags used in Palo Alto, thereby incrementally reducing the amount of plastic litter and waste entering storm drains. In addition, this alternative would further reduce the number of paper bags compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance (by approximately 6.22 million bags), replacing them instead with approximately 119,649 reusable bags. As a result, this alternative would reduce overall litter compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. As with the proposed Bag Ordinance, an incremental reduction in the amount of litter that could enter storm drains and local waterways would improve water quality and reduce the potential for storm drain blockage. Therefore, like the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would result in Class IV, beneficial, effects to water quality. Overall benefits would be somewhat greater under this alternative, since fewer paper bags would be used in Palo Alto. As noted above, this alternative would be expected to result in the use of fewer recyclable paper carryout bags in Palo Alto as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. However, it would not completely eliminate paper bags. As with the proposed Bag Ordinance, paper bag manufacturing facilities would be required to adhere to NPDES Permit requirements, AB 258 and the California Health and Safety Code reducing impacts to water quality. Impacts to water quality from altering bag processing activities would be the same under as the proposed Bag Ordinance and would be Class III, less than significant. e. Utilities and Service Systems. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would be expected to reduce the number of paper bags by approximately 6.22 million and increase the number of reusable bags by approximately 119,649. The number of single-use plastic bags would not change under this alternative. Because 37% more reusable bags would be used under this alternative as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, water demand and wastewater generation related to washing reusable bags would also increase by 37%. This equates to a net increase of an estimated 7.03 AFY of water and a net increase of an estimated 6,120 gallons per day of wastewater. As noted in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service Systems, there are sufficient water supplies and wastewater facility capacity to meet this demand. Therefore, impacts would be slightly greater than those of the proposed Bag Ordinance, but would remain Class III, less than significant. As described in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service systems, both the Ecobilan and Boustead studies are included in the analysis to provide a reasonable estimate of solid waste. However, as noted, the life cycle assessment models have some variability associated within them. For this analysis, the Ecobilan Data which would show a reduction of solid waste compared to existing conditions would represent a more likely scenario in Palo Alto, as it takes into account solid waste from reusable bags in addition to plastic and paper bags. However, the Boustead Data, which, although is unlikely for Palo Alto, represents a conservative worst case scenario under CEQA and therefore is included in this analysis. Nevertheless, using the solid waste generation rates from Boustead (as shown in Table 4.5-11 in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service systems), this alternative would generate a net decrease of 0.14 tons/day of solid waste (calculations are contained in Appendix C) compared to existing conditions. In comparison, the proposed Bag Ordinance would generate a net increase of 0.27 tons/day compared to existing conditions. Therefore, Alternative 3 would generate less solid waste than the proposed Bag Ordinance, would reduce solid waste compared to existing conditions, and would not exceed the existing Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-14 capacity at area landfills. Solid waste impacts would be reduced when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance and would be a Class IV, beneficial impact. 6.4 ALTERNATIVE 4: $0.10 FEE FOR PAPER BAGS AT BOTH RETAIL SERVICES AND FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, NO PLASTIC AT EITHER 6.4.1 Description Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would prohibit retailers and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale. However, under this alternative, the mandatory charge of $0.10 for recyclable paper bags would apply to food serve establishments as well as retail establishments in the City. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, under this alternative, no plastic bags would be distributed at the point of sale in Palo Alto. As a result of the mandatory charge for paper bags at all retailers and food service establishments, it is anticipated that this alternative would further promote the use of reusable bags (or no use of bags2) since customers at all retail establishments (including food service establishments) would be deterred from purchasing paper bags due to the cost. Based on a cost requirement of $0.10, it is assumed that the total volume of plastic bags currently used in Palo Alto (approximately 25,923,864 plastic bags per year) would be replaced by approximately 30% paper bags and 70% reusable bags under Alternative 4 (compared to 35% paper and 65% reusable assumed for the proposed Bag Ordinance). The total estimate of bag use under this alternative, compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, is summarized in Table 6- 12. Table 6-12 Estimated Bag Use: Proposed Bag Ordinance versus Alternative 4 Bag Type Bags Used Annually Proposed Ordinance* Alternative 4** Single-use Plastic 0 0 Recyclable Paper 9,073,352 7,777,159 Reusable 324,048 348,975 Total 9,397,400 8,126,134 *Refer to Table 2-2 in Section 2.0, Project Description. ** Based on assumptions of 30% conversion of the volume of existing plastic bag use in Palo Alto to paper bags and 70% conversion to reusable bags (based on 52 uses per year). 2 While it is possible that some consumers would choose not to purchase a bag, this alternative conservatively assumes that consumers would shift to reusable bags, rather than choose to use no bag at all. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-15 6.4.2 Impact Analysis a. Air Quality. This alternative would apply a $0.10 mandatory charge for recyclable paper bags at all retail services and food service establishments in Palo Alto and would therefore eliminate an additional 1.3 million recyclable paper bags as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. However, it would increase reusable bag use by an estimated 24,927. In total, Alternative 4 would result in approximately 1.3 million fewer bags used in the City as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Air pollutant emissions associated with bag manufacture, transport, and disposal would therefore be reduced when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Table 6-13 estimates emissions that contribute to the development of ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification that would result from implementation of Alternative 4, as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. As shown, because this alternative would reduce the use of recyclable paper bags in the City, the contribution to ground level ozone would decrease by approximately 38 kg per year (a 13% decrease) and the contribution to atmospheric acidification would decrease by approximately 2,589 kg per year (a 13% decrease) when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Table 6-13 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Alternative 4 Bag Type # of Bags Used per Year Ozone Emission Rate per Bag Ozone Emissions (kg) per 1,000 bags Ozone Emissions per year (kg) AA Emission Rate per Bag AA Emissions (kg) per 1,000 bags AA Emissions per year (kg) Single-use Plastic 0 1.0 0.023 0 1.0 1.084 0 Recyclable Paper 7,777,159 1.3 0.03 233 1.9 2.06 16,021 Reusable 348,975 1.4 0.032 11 3.0 3.252 1,135 Total 244 Total 17,156 Proposed Bag Ordinance 282 Proposed Bag Ordinance 19,745 Difference (38) Difference (2,589) Current Total (with Existing Ordinance) 596 Current Total (with Existing Ordinance) 28,101 Net Change of Alternative 4 (Alternative 4 Total minus Current Total) (352) Net Change (10,945) Source: Refer to Table 4.1-4 in Section 4.1, Air Quality. To estimate mobile emissions resulting from Alternative 4, the number of truck trips per day was calculated using the assumptions outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix A). As shown in Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-16 Table 6-14, Alternative 4 would result in 39 truck trips per year (0.11 trips per day), which is a 13% reduction in truck trips as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Table 6-14 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of Alternative 4 Bag Type Number of Bags per Year Number of Bags per Truck Load* Truck Trips Per Year Truck Trips per Day Single-use Plastic 0 2,080,000 0 0 Recyclable Paper 7,777,159 217,665 36 0.10 Reusable 348,975 108,862 3 0.01 Alternative 4 Total 39 0.11 Truck Trips from Proposed Bag Ordinance 45 0.123 Difference (6) (0.013) Current Total for Plastic Bags (with Existing Ordinance) 13 0.04 Net Change of Alternative 4 (Alternative 4 Total minus Current Total) 26 0.07 *City of Santa Monica Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR (SCH #2010041004), January 2011. Refer to Appendix A. Based on the estimated truck trips for Alternative 4, mobile emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS model. As shown in Table 6-15, this alternative would reduce daily emissions compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, mobile emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Table 6-15 Operational Emissions Associated with Alternative 4 Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Mobile Emissions: Proposed Ordinance <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 Mobile Emissions: Alternative 4 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: URBEMIS 2007 calculations for Vehicle. See Appendix B for calculations Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-17 Based on the above, impacts resulting from bag manufacturing and use (including ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification) would continue to be Class IV, beneficial, while impacts relating to an increase in truck trips would continue to be Class III, less than significant. b. Biological Resources. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would prohibit all retail establishments and food service establishments from providing single- use plastic checkout bags, thereby reducing the amount of single-use plastic bag litter that could enter the marine environment and affect sensitive species. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would also further reduce the amount of paper bag litter that could enter the marine environment. Moreover, this alternative would require both retail services and food service establishments to charge $0.10 for recyclable paper bags, thereby further promoting the use of reusable bags (or doing without bags) within the City. Reusable bags can also be released into the environment as litter. However, because of the weight and sturdiness of these bags, reusable bags are less likely to be littered or carried from landfills by wind as litter compared to single-use plastic and paper bags (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). In addition, since reusable bags can be used up to 125 times (as defined in the proposed Bag Ordinance), reusable bags would be disposed of less often than single-use carryout bags. Therefore, the impact to sensitive species as a result of litter entering the marine environment from Alternative 4 would be reduced compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, impacts would be Class IV, beneficial. Overall benefits would be somewhat greater than those of the proposed Bag Ordinance. c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would be expected to reduce the number of recyclable paper bags by approximately 1.3 million bags and increase the number of reusable bags by approximately 24,927. The decrease in the number of recyclable paper bags would result in a net decrease of GHG emissions compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. However, this alternative would result in a net increase in reusable bag use as a result of the reduction in the number of recyclable paper bags. Table 6-16 provides an estimate of GHG emissions associated with implementation of Alternative 4. As discussed in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gases, if used 20 times, a reusable low density polyethylene (LDPE) carryout bag results in 10% the GHG emissions of a single-use high density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic bag (AEA Technology, 2005). Alternative 4 would result in a net decrease of GHG emissions compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance and an incremental increase in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, GHG emissions under Alternative 4 would decrease by approximately 0.002 CO2e per person per year. Therefore, GHG impacts from Alternative 4 would be reduced when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, and would be a Class III, less than significant, impact compared to existing conditions. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-18 Table 6-16 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative 4 Bag Type Estimated Number of Bags Used per Year GHG Impact Rate per Bag CO2e (metric tons) CO2e per year (metric tons) CO2e per Person Single-use Plastic 0 1.0 0.04 per 1,500 bags 0 0 Recyclable Paper 7,777,159 2.97 0.1188 per 1,000 bags 924 0.014 Reusable 348,975 2.6 0.104 per 1,000 bags 36 0.001 Alternative 4 Total 960 0.015 Proposed Bag Ordinance 1,112 0.017 Difference (152) (0.002) Current Total (with Existing Ordinance) 691 0.011 Net Change of Alternative 4 (Alternative 4 Total minus Current Total) 269 0.004 CO2e = Carbon Dioxide Equivalent units Source: Refer to Table 4.3-2 in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. d. Hydrology and Water Quality. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would reduce the number of single-use plastic bags used in the City, thereby incrementally reducing the amount of plastic litter and waste entering storm drains. In addition, this alternative would further reduce the number of paper bags compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance (by approximately 1.3 million bags), replacing them instead with approximately 24,927 reusable bags. However, because of the weight and sturdiness of these bags, reusable bags are less likely to become litter or be carried from landfills by wind as litter compared to single-use plastic and paper bags (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). As a result, this alternative would reduce overall litter compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. As with the proposed Bag Ordinance, an incremental reduction in the amount of litter that could enter storm drains and local waterways would improve water quality and reduce the potential for storm drain blockage. Therefore, like the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would result in Class IV, beneficial, effects to water quality. Overall benefits would be somewhat greater under this alternative since fewer paper bags would be used in the City. As noted above, this alternative would be expected to result in the use of fewer recyclable paper carryout bags in the City as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. However, it would not completely eliminate paper bags. As with the proposed Bag Ordinance, paper bag manufacturing facilities would be required to adhere to NPDES Permit requirements, AB 258 and the California Health and Safety Code reducing impacts to water quality. Impacts to water Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-19 quality from altering bag processing activities would be the same as under the proposed Bag Ordinance and would be Class III, less than significant. e. Utilities and Service Systems. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would be expected to reduce the number of paper bags by approximately 1.3 million and increase the number of reusable bags by approximately 24,927. Because 8% more reusable bags would be used under this alternative as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, water demand and wastewater generation related to washing reusable bags would also increase by 8%. This equates to a net increase of 2 AFY of water and a net increase of 1,323 gallons per day of wastewater. However, as noted in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service Systems, there are sufficient water supplies and wastewater facility capacity to meet this demand. Therefore, impacts would be slightly greater than those of the proposed Bag Ordinance, but would remain Class III, less than significant. As described in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service systems, both the Ecobilan and Boustead studies are included in the analysis to provide a reasonable estimate of solid waste. However, as noted, the life cycle assessment models have some variability associated within them. For this analysis, the Ecobilan Data, which would show a reduction of solid waste compared to existing conditions, would represent a more likely scenario in Palo Alto, as it takes into account solid waste from reusable bags in addition to plastic and paper bags. However, the Boustead Data, which although is unlikely for Palo Alto, represents a conservative worst case scenario under CEQA and therefore is included in this analysis. Using the solid waste generation rates from Boustead (as shown in Table 4.5-11 in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service systems), this alternative would generate a net increase of 0.18 tons/day of solid waste (calculations are contained in Appendix C) compared to existing conditions. In comparison, the proposed Bag Ordinance would generate a net increase of 0.27 tons/day. Therefore, Alternative 4 would generate less solid waste than the proposed Bag Ordinance and would not exceed the existing capacity at area landfills. Solid waste impacts would be reduced when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance and would remain Class III, less than significant. 6.5 ALTERNATIVE 5: $0.25 FEE FOR RECYCLABLE PAPER BAGS AT BOTH RETAIL SERVICES AND FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, NO PLASTIC AT EITHER 6.5.1 Description Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would prohibit retailers and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale. However, under this alternative, a mandatory charge of $0.25 for recyclable paper bags would apply to food serve establishments as well as retail establishments in the City. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, under this alternative, no plastic bags would be distributed at the point of sale in Palo Alto. As a result of the $0.25 mandatory charge for recyclable paper bags at all retailers and food service establishments, it is anticipated that this alternative would further promote the use of reusable bags (or not using a bag), since customers at all retail services and at food service establishments would be deterred from purchasing paper bags due to the cost. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-20 Based on a cost requirement of $0.25 at both retail services and food service establishments, it is assumed that the total volume of plastic bags currently used in Palo Alto (approximately 25,923,864 plastic bags per year) would be replaced by approximately 8.5% paper bags and 91.5%3 reusable bags under Alternative 5 (compared to 35% paper and 65% reusable assumed for the proposed Bag Ordinance). The total estimate of bag use under this alternative, compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, is summarized in Table 6-17. Table 6-17 Estimated Bag Use: Proposed Bag Ordinance versus Alternative 5 Bag Type Bags Used Annually Proposed Ordinance* Alternative 5** Single-use Plastic 0 0 Recyclable Paper 9,073,352 2,203,528 Reusable 324,048 456,160 Total 9,397,400 2,659,688 *Refer to Table 2-2 in Section 2.0, Project Description. ** Based on assumptions of 8.5% conversion of the volume of existing plastic bag use in Palo Alto to paper bags and 91.5% conversion to reusable bags (based on 52 uses per year). 6.5.2 Impact Analysis a. Air Quality. This alternative would apply a $0.25 mandatory charge for recyclable paper bags at all retail services and food service establishments in Palo Alto and would therefore eliminate an additional 6.87 million recyclable paper bags as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. However, it would increase reusable bag use by an estimated 132,112. In total, Alternative 5 would result in approximately 6.73 million fewer bags used in the City as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Air pollutant emissions associated with bag manufacture, transport, and disposal would therefore be reduced, when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Table 6-18 estimates emissions that contribute to the development of ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification that would result from implementation of Alternative 5, as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. As shown, because this alternative would reduce the use of recyclable paper bags in the City, the contribution to ground level ozone would decrease by approximately 201 kg per year (a 71% decrease) and the contribution to atmospheric 3 Please note that this breakdown utilizes the Rates from City of San Jose Final EIR, SCH # 2009102095, October 2010 and assumes that approximately 5% of total bag use in the City is from food service establishments and that by applying a $0.25 fee on recyclable paper bags at both retail services and food service establishments approximately half of the total takeout bags at food service establishments (2.5% of 25,923,864 total bag use) would be recyclable paper bags and the other half would be purchased reusable bags. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-21 acidification would decrease by approximately 13,723 kg per year (a 70% decrease) when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. To estimate mobile emissions resulting from Alternative 5, the number of truck trips per day was calculated using the assumptions outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix A). As shown in Table 6-19, Alternative 5 would result in 14 truck trips per year (0.039 trips per day), which is a 69% reduction in truck trips as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Table 6-18 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Alternative 5 Bag Type # of Bags Used per Year Ozone Emission Rate per Bag Ozone Emissions (kg) per 1,000 bags Ozone Emissions per year (kg) AA Emission Rate per Bag AA Emissions (kg) per 1,000 bags AA Emissions per year (kg) Single-use Plastic 0 1.0 0.023 0 1.0 1.084 0 Recyclable Paper 2,203,528 1.3 0.03 66 1.9 2.06 4,539 Reusable 456,160 1.4 0.032 15 3.0 3.252 1,483 Total 81 Total 6,022 Proposed Bag Ordinance 282 Proposed Bag Ordinance 19,745 Difference (201) Difference (13,723) Current Total (with Existing Ordinance) 596 Current Total (with Existing Ordinance) 28,101 Net Change of Alternative 5 (Alternative 5 Total minus Current Total) (515) Net Change (22,079) Source: Refer to Table 4.1-4 in Section 4.1, Air Quality. Based on the estimated truck trips for Alternative 5, mobile emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS model. As shown in Table 6-20, this alternative would reduce daily emissions compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, mobile emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Based on the above and the tables below, impacts resulting from bag manufacturing and use (including ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification) would continue to be Class IV, beneficial, while impacts relating to an increase in truck trips would continue to be Class III, less than significant. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-22 Table 6-19 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of Alternative 5 Bag Type Number of Bags per Year Number of Bags per Truck Load* Truck Trips Per Year Truck Trips per Day Single-use Plastic 0 2,080,000 0 0 Recyclable Paper 2,203,528 217,665 10 0.028 Reusable 456,160 108,862 4 0.011 Alternative 5 Total 14 0.039 Truck Trips from Proposed Bag Ordinance 45 0.123 Difference (31) (0.084) Current Total for Plastic Bags (with Existing Ordinance) 13 0.04 Net Change of Alternative 5 (Alternative 5 Total minus Current Total) 1 0.0027 *City of Santa Monica Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR (SCH #2010041004), January 2011. Refer to Appendix A. Table 6-20 Operational Emissions Associated with Alternative 5 Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Mobile Emissions: Proposed Ordinance <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 Mobile Emissions: Alternative 5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: URBEMIS 2007 calculations for Vehicle. See Appendix B for calculations b. Biological Resources. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would prohibit all retail establishments and food service establishments from providing single- use plastic checkout bags, thereby reducing the amount of single-use plastic bag litter that could enter the marine environment and affect sensitive species. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would further reduce the amount of paper bag litter that could enter the marine environment, because both retail services and food service establishments would be required to charge $0.25 per recyclable paper bag. Moreover, this alternative would also Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-23 promote the use of reusable bags within the City. Reusable bags can also be released into the environment as litter. However, because of the weight and sturdiness of these bags, reusable bags are less likely to be littered or carried from landfills by wind as litter compared to single- use plastic and paper bags (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). In addition, since reusable bags can be used up to 125 times (as defined in the proposed Bag Ordinance), reusable bags would be disposed of less often than single-use carryout bags. Therefore, the impact to sensitive species as a result of litter entering the marine environment from Alternative 5 would be reduced compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, impacts would be Class IV, beneficial. Overall benefits would be somewhat greater than those of the proposed Bag Ordinance. c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would be expected to reduce the number of recyclable paper bags by approximately 6.87 million bags and increase the number of reusable bags by approximately 132,112. The decrease in the number of recyclable paper bags would result in a net decrease of GHG emissions compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. However, this alternative would result in a net increase in reusable bag use as a result of the reduction in the number of recyclable paper bags. Table 6-21 provides an estimate of GHG emissions associated with implementation of Alternative 5. Table 6-21 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative 5 Bag Type Estimated Number of Bags Used per Year GHG Impact Rate per Bag CO2e (metric tons) CO2e per year (metric tons) CO2e per Person Single-use Plastic 0 1.0 0.04 per 1,500 bags 0 0 Recyclable Paper 2,203,528 2.97 0.1188 per 1,000 bags 262 0.004 Reusable 456,160 2.6 0.104 per 1,000 bags 47 0.0007 Alternative 5 Total 309 0.0047 Proposed Bag Ordinance 1,112 0.017 Difference (803) (0.012) Current Total (with Existing Ordinance) 691 0.011 Net Change of Alternative 5 (Alternative 5 Total minus Current Total) (382) (0.006) CO2e = Carbon Dioxide Equivalent units Source: Refer to Table 4.3-2 in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-24 As discussed in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gases, if used 20 times, a reusable low density polyethylene (LDPE) carryout bag results in 10% the GHG emissions of a single-use high density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic bag (AEA Technology, 2005). Alternative 5 would result in a net decrease of GHG emissions compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance and decrease in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, GHG emissions under Alternative 5 would decrease by approximately 0.017 CO2e per person per year. In addition, compared to existing conditions, this alternative would reduce GHG emissions by approximately 382 metric tons per year, or approximately 0.006 CO2e per person per year. Therefore GHG impacts from Alternative 5 would be reduced when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance and would be Class IV, beneficial, compared to existing conditions. d. Hydrology and Water Quality. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would reduce the number of single-use plastic bags used in the City, thereby incrementally reducing the amount of plastic litter and waste entering storm drains. In addition, this alternative would further reduce the number of paper bags compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance (by approximately 6.87 million bags), replacing them instead with approximately 132,112 reusable bags. However, because of the weight and sturdiness of these bags, reusable bags are less likely to become litter or be carried from landfills by wind as litter compared to single-use plastic and paper bags (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). As a result, this alternative would reduce overall litter compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. As with the proposed Bag Ordinance, an incremental reduction in the amount of litter that could enter storm drains and local waterways would improve water quality and reduce the potential for storm drain blockage. Therefore, like the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would result in Class IV, beneficial, effects to water quality. Overall benefits would be somewhat greater under this alternative since fewer paper bags would be used in the City. As noted above, this alternative would be expected to result in the use of fewer recyclable paper carryout bags in the City as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. However, it would not completely eliminate paper bags. As with the proposed Bag Ordinance, paper bag manufacturing facilities would be required to adhere to NPDES Permit requirements, AB 258 and the California Health and Safety Code reducing impacts to water quality. Impacts to water quality from altering bag processing activities would be the same as under the proposed Bag Ordinance and would be Class III, less than significant. e. Utilities and Service Systems. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would be expected to reduce the number of paper bags by approximately 6.87 million and increase the number of reusable bags by approximately 132,112. Because 41% more reusable bags would be used under this alternative as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, water demand and wastewater generation related to washing reusable bags would also increase by 41%. This equates to a net increase of 7.55 AFY of water and a net increase of 6,744 gallons per day of wastewater. However, as noted in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service Systems, there are sufficient water supplies and wastewater facility capacity to meet this demand. Therefore, impacts would be slightly greater than those of the proposed Bag Ordinance, but would remain Class III, less than significant. As described in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service systems, both the Ecobilan and Boustead studies are included in the analysis to provide a reasonable estimate of solid waste. However, as noted, Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-25 the life cycle assessment models have some variability associated within them. For this analysis, the Ecobilan Data, which would show a reduction of solid waste compared to existing conditions, would represent a more likely scenario in Palo Alto, as it takes into account solid waste from reusable bags in addition to plastic and paper bags. However, the Boustead Data, which, although is unlikely for Palo Alto, represents a conservative worst case scenario under CEQA and therefore is included in this analysis. Nevertheless, using the solid waste generation rates from Boustead (as shown in Table 4.5-11 in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service systems), this alternative would generate a net decrease of 0.18 tons/day of solid waste (calculations are contained in Appendix C) compared to existing conditions. In comparison, the proposed Bag Ordinance would generate a net increase of 0.27 tons/day. Therefore, Alternative 5 would generate less solid waste than the proposed Bag Ordinance, would reduce solid waste compared to existing conditions, and would not exceed the existing capacity at area landfills. Solid waste impacts would be reduced when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance and would be a Class IV, beneficial impact. 6.6 ALTERNATIVE 6: FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS ONLY: BAN PLASTIC BAGS AT FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS ONLY, NO BAN AT RETAIL (EXCEPT SUPERMARKETS), NO FEE FOR PAPER BAGS. 6.6.1 Description This alternative was provided to clarify bag contribution assumptions resulting from food service establishments and to address a request that arose during the EIR scoping meetings. This alternative assumes that the Bag Ordinance would restrict food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags at the point of sale but would not apply to other retail services (except supermarkets as they are already prohibited from providing single- use plastic bags under the existing ordinance). In addition, similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, under this alternative, food service establishments would not be required to charge a fee for the use of paper bags. In other words, food service establishments would not be permitted to distribute single-use plastic bags, but would be permitted to distribute paper bags free-of-charge to customers in Palo Alto. As a result of the inclusion of food service establishments from the ban on single-use plastic bags, it is anticipated that this alternative would decrease the use of single-use plastic bags at food service establishments and increase the use of recyclable paper bags, since food service establishment customers would be more likely to use a paper bag at no cost. As this alternative would only apply to food service establishments, it is assumed that 5% of existing single-use plastic bags (approximately 1,296,193 plastic bags per year) would be replaced by 100% paper bags and 0% reusable bags (compared to 0% plastic and 35% paper assumed for the proposed Bag Ordinance). In addition, since other retailers would not be required to ban single-use plastic bags, approximately 95% of the plastic bags currently used in Palo Alto would remain in use. The number of reusable bags would be reduced compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, since customers would not have to pay a fee for paper bags and thus have no financial incentive to bring their own reusable bag. Table 6-22 summarizes the changes in bag distribution as a result of this alternative compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-26 Table 6-22 Estimated Bag Use: Proposed Bag Ordinance versus Alternative 6 Bag Type Bags Used Annually Proposed Ordinance* Alternative 6** Single-use Plastic 0 24,627,671 Recyclable Paper 9,073,352 1,296,193 Reusable 324,048 0 Total 9,397,400 25,923,864 * Refer to Table 4.1-4 in Section 4.1, Air Quality. ** Based on an assumption of 5% existing plastic bag use at food service establishments in Palo Alto (approximately 1,296,193 plastic bags per year) to be converted to paper bags and 95% plastic bags used at other retail services to remain in use. Please note this is the incremental change compared to existing conditions. 6.6.2 Impact Analysis a. Air Quality. As described in Section 4.1, Air Quality, it is estimated that the proposed Bag Ordinance would replace the total volume of single-use plastic bags currently used in Palo Alto with approximately 35% paper bags and 65% reusable bags (as shown in Table 6-2 above). This alternative would restrict food service establishments in Palo Alto from distributing single-use plastic bags to their customers, and would therefore promote a shift toward recyclable paper bags. Consequently, this alternative would decrease the number of single-use plastic bags, increase the number of recyclable paper bags, and result in the same number of reusable bag use compared to existing conditions (incremental change is zero as shown in the table). Overall bag use under Alternative 6 would be the same as under the current conditions (approximately 25,923,864 single-use plastic, recyclable paper, and reusable bags). As described in Section 4.1, Air Quality, emissions associated with recyclable paper bag production result in 1.9 times the impact on atmospheric acidification as a single-use plastic bag. As Alternative 6 would result in more recyclable paper bags, air pollutant emissions associated with bag manufacture, transport, and disposal would therefore be increased when compared to existing conditions. Table 6-23 estimates emissions that contribute to the development of ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification that would result from implementation of Alternative 6, as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance and to existing conditions. As shown in Table 6-23, because this alternative would increase the number of recyclable paper bags used in the City compared to existing conditions, the contribution to ground level ozone would increase by approximately 9 kg per year (a 2% increase) and the contribution to atmospheric acidification would increase by approximately 1,538 kg per year (a 5% increase) when compared to existing conditions. Therefore under this alternative, there would not be beneficial impacts related to ozone and atmospheric acidification. The impact would be less than significant as the increase in emissions compared to existing conditions would be minimal. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-27 Table 6-23 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Alternative 6 Bag Type # of Bags Used per Year* Ozone Emission Rate per Bag Ozone Emissions (kg) per 1,000 bags Ozone Emissions per year (kg) AA Emission Rate per Bag AA Emissions (kg) per 1,000 bags AA Emissions per year (kg) Single-use Plastic 24,627,671 1.0 0.023 566 1.0 1.084 26,696 Recyclable Paper 1,296,193 1.3 0.03 39 1.9 2.06 2,670 Reusable 0 1.4 0.032 0 3.0 3.252 0 Alternative 6 Total 605 Alternative 6 Total 29,639 Proposed Bag Ordinance 282 Proposed Bag Ordinance 19,745 Difference 323 Difference 9,894 Current Total (with Existing Ordinance) 596 Current Total (with Existing Ordinance) 28,101 Net Change of Alternative 6 (Alternative 6 Total minus Existing Total) 9 Net Change 1,538 Source: Refer to Table 4.1-4 in Section 4.1, Air Quality. To estimate mobile emissions resulting from Alternative 6, the number of truck trips per day was calculated using the assumptions outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix A). As shown in Table 6-24, Alternative 6 would result in an estimated 39.33 truck trips per year, or 0.11 truck trips per day, which is lower than under the proposed Bag Ordinance. Based on the estimated truck trips for Alternative 6, mobile emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS model. As indicated in Table 6-25, this alternative would reduce daily emissions compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. As with the proposed Bag Ordinance, mobile emissions associated with this alternative would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Based on the above and the tables below, Alternative 6 would slightly increase air quality impacts compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Impacts resulting from bag manufacture and use (ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification) would slightly increase from a beneficial impact to a Class III, less than significant, impact, while impacts relating to an increase in truck trips would continue to be Class III, less than significant. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-28 Table 6-24 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of Alternative 6 Bag Type Number of Bags per Year Number of Bags per Truck Load* Truck Trips Per Year Truck Trips per Day Single-use Plastic 24,627,671 2,080,000 12 0.03 Recyclable Paper 1,296,193 217,665 6 0.016 Reusable 0 108,862 0 0 Alternative 6 Total 18 0.049 Truck Trips from Proposed Bag Ordinance 45 0.123 Difference (27) (0.073) Current Total for Plastic Bags (with Existing Ordinance) 13 0.04 Net Change of Alternative 6 (Alternative 6 Total minus Current Total) 5 0.014 *City of Santa Monica Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR (SCH #2010041004), January 2011. Refer to Appendix A. Table 6-25 Operational Emissions Associated with Alternative 6 Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Mobile Emissions: Proposed Ordinance <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 Mobile Emissions: Alternative 6 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: URBEMIS 2007 calculations for Vehicle. See Appendix B for calculations b. Biological Resources. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would restrict food service establishments in Palo Alto from distributing single-use plastic bags to customers, thereby incrementally reducing the amount of single-use plastic bag litter that could enter the marine environment and affect sensitive species. However, compared to the existing conditions, this alternative would slightly increase the amount of paper bag litter that could enter the marine environment. As discussed in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, paper bags are Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-29 less likely to become litter compared to single-use plastic bags. Therefore, the decrease in single- use plastic bags associated with this alternative would result in less overall litter entering the marine environment compared to the existing conditions. As a result, impacts to marine species from Alternative 6 would incrementally reduce as compared to the existing conditions, though not to the level of reduction associated with the proposed Bag Ordinance. Impacts would remain Class IV, beneficial. c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Compared to existing conditions, this alternative would be expected to increase the number of recyclable paper bags by approximately 1.3 million bags. As noted in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gases, the manufacture, transport, and disposal of each recyclable paper bag results in 3.3 times the emissions of a single-use plastic bag. Therefore, this alternative would slightly increase GHG emissions as compared to the existing conditions. Table 6-26 provides an estimate of GHG emissions that would result from implementation of Alternative 6. Table 6-26 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative 6 Bag Type Estimated Number of Bags Used per Year GHG Impact Rate per Bag CO2e (metric tons) CO2e per year (metric tons) CO2e per Person Single-use Plastic 24,627,671 1.0 0.04 per 1,500 bags 657 0.01 Recyclable Paper 1,296,193 2.97 0.1188 per 1,000 bags 154 0.002 Reusable 0 2.6 0.104 per 1,000 bags 0 0 Alternative 6 Total 811 0.012 Proposed Bag Ordinance 1,112 0.017 Difference (301) (0.005) Existing Total (with Existing Ordinance) 691 0.011 Net Change of Alternative 6 (Alternative 6 Total minus Existing Total) 120 0.001 CO2e = Carbon Dioxide Equivalent units Source: Refer to Table 4.3-2 in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Compared to the existing conditions, GHG emissions under Alternative 6 would increase by approximately 0.001 metric tons CO2e per person per year and would not exceed the 4.6 metric tons CO2e per person per year threshold. Thus, the GHG impacts from Alternative 6 would be slightly increased as compared to the existing conditions and would continue to be Class III, less than significant. d. Hydrology and Water Quality. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would reduce the number of single-use plastic bags used in Palo Alto, thereby Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-30 incrementally reducing the amount of plastic litter and waste entering storm drains and local waterways compared to existing conditions. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, however, this alternative would proportionally increase the number of single-use plastic bags (as it would not apply to retail services other than supermarkets and food service establishments), and would increase the number of recyclable paper bags by approximately 1.3 million bags. As a result, this alternative would result in an overall slight decrease in litter compared to the existing conditions. As with the proposed Bag Ordinance, an incremental reduction in the amount of litter that could enter storm drains and local waterways (compared to existing conditions) would improve water quality and reduce the potential for storm drain blockage. Therefore, like the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would result in Class IV, beneficial, effects to water quality. Overall benefits would be somewhat reduced under this alternative. This alternative would be expected to result in fewer single-use plastic carryout bags in Palo Alto than existing conditions but would increase the number of paper bags used in Palo Alto. As with the proposed Bag Ordinance, paper bag manufacturing facilities would be required to adhere to NPDES Permit requirements, AB 258 and the California Health and Safety Code reducing impacts to water quality. Impacts to water quality from altering bag processing activities would be the same as the proposed Bag Ordinance and would be Class III, less than significant. e. Utilities and Service Systems. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would be expected to increase the number of recyclable paper bags by approximately 1.3 million bags compared to existing conditions. The increase in the number of reusable bags used under this alternative would be zero (0) since it is assumed that because there would be no fee for recyclable paper bags at food service establishments, customers would not have an incentive to use a reusable bag and therefore would simply use a free recyclable paper bag. Because there would be no increase in the number of reusable bags under this alternative compared to existing conditions, water demand and wastewater generation related to washing reusable bags would be the same as under the existing conditions. Thus there would be no increase in water or wastewater as a result of this alternative. Therefore, there would be no impact. As described in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service systems, both the Ecobilan and Boustead studies are included in the analysis to provide a reasonable estimate of solid waste. However, as noted, the life cycle assessment models have some variability associated within them. For this analysis, the Ecobilan Data, which would show a reduction of solid waste compared to existing conditions, would represent a more likely scenario in Palo Alto as it takes into account solid waste from reusable bags in addition to plastic and paper bags. However, the Boustead Data, which, although is unlikely for Palo Alto, represents a conservative worst case scenario under CEQA and therefore is included in this analysis. Using the solid waste generation rates from Boustead (as shown in Table 4.5-11 in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service systems), this alternative would generate 0.39 tons/day of solid waste (calculations are contained in Appendix C). In comparison, the proposed Bag Ordinance would generate 0.59 tons/day and existing conditions generate approximately 0.32 tons/day. Therefore, Alternative 6 would generate 0.07 tons/day more solid waste than existing conditions. However, like the proposed Bag Ordinance, this Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-31 slight increase would not exceed the daily capacity of any area landfills. As with the proposed Bag Ordinance, impacts would be Class III, less than significant. 6.7 ALTERNATIVE 7: NO PLASTIC OR PAPER AT EITHER RETAIL OR FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS 6.7.1 Description Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would prohibit retailers and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale. However, this alternative would also prohibit retailers and food service establishments from providing paper carryout bags to customers at the point of sale. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, under this alternative, no plastic bags would be distributed at the point of sale in Palo Alto. In addition, because paper bags would also be prohibited from being distributed at all retailers and food service establishments, it is anticipated that this alternative would further promote the use of reusable bags (or not using a bag), since customers at all retail services and at food service establishments would be required to either bring their own bag, purchase a reusable bag or simply not use a bag at all. While it is possible that some consumers would choose not to purchase or use a reusable bag, this alternative conservatively assumes that consumers would shift to reusable bags, rather than choose to use no bag at all. Thus all the existing plastic bags currently used in Palo Alto would be replaced by reusable bags. The total estimate of bag use under this alternative, compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, is summarized in Table 6-27. Table 6-27 Estimated Bag Use: Proposed Bag Ordinance versus Alternative 7 Bag Type Bags Used Annually Proposed Ordinance* Alternative 7** Single-use Plastic 0 0 Recyclable Paper 9,073,352 0 Reusable 324,048 498,536 Total 9,397,400 498,536 *Refer to Table 2-2 in Section 2.0, Project Description. ** Based on assumptions of 100% conversion of the volume of existing plastic bag use in Palo Alto to reusable bags (based on 52 uses per year). Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-32 6.5.2 Impact Analysis a. Air Quality. This alternative would replace the plastic bags currently used at all retail services and food service establishments in Palo Alto with reusable bags and would therefore eliminate an additional 9.07 million recyclable paper bags as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. However, it would increase reusable bag use by an estimated 174,488 bags. In total, Alternative 7 would result in approximately 8.9 million fewer bags used in the City as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Air pollutant emissions associated with bag manufacture, transport, and disposal would therefore be reduced, when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Table 6-28 estimates emissions that contribute to the development of ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification that would result from implementation of Alternative 7, as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. As shown, because this alternative would reduce the use of both plastic and recyclable paper bags in the City, the contribution to ground level ozone would decrease by approximately 266 kg per year (a 94% decrease) and the contribution to atmospheric acidification would decrease by approximately 18,124 kg per year (a 92% decrease) when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Table 6-28 Estimated Emissions that Contribute to Ground Level Ozone and Atmospheric Acidification (AA) from Alternative 7 Bag Type # of Bags Used per Year Ozone Emission Rate per Bag Ozone Emissions (kg) per 1,000 bags Ozone Emissions per year (kg) AA Emission Rate per Bag AA Emissions (kg) per 1,000 bags AA Emissions per year (kg) Single-use Plastic 0 1.0 0.023 0 1.0 1.084 0 Recyclable Paper 0 1.3 0.03 0 1.9 2.06 0 Reusable 498,536 1.4 0.032 16 3.0 3.252 1,621 Total 16 Total 1,621 Proposed Bag Ordinance 282 Proposed Bag Ordinance 19,745 Difference (266) Difference (18,124) Current Total (with Existing Ordinance) 596 Current Total (with Existing Ordinance) 28,101 Net Change of Alternative 7 (Alternative 7 Total minus Current Total) (580) Net Change (26,480) Source: Refer to Table 4.1-4 in Section 4.1, Air Quality. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-33 To estimate mobile emissions resulting from Alternative 7, the number of truck trips per day was calculated using the assumptions outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix A). As shown in Table 6-29, Alternative 7 would result in 5 truck trips per year (0.012 trips per day), which is a 89% reduction in truck trips as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. This alternative would also reduce truck trips compared to existing conditions by approximately 8 trips per year or approximately 62%. Because Alternative 7 would actually reduce truck trips compared to existing conditions, this alternative would therefore reduce mobile emissions compared to existing conditions and thus would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Table 6-29 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of Alternative 7 Bag Type Number of Bags per Year Number of Bags per Truck Load* Truck Trips Per Year Truck Trips per Day Single-use Plastic 0 2,080,000 0 0 Recyclable Paper 0 217,665 0 0 Reusable 498,536 108,862 5 0.012 Alternative 7 Total 5 0.012 Truck Trips from Proposed Bag Ordinance 45 0.123 Difference (40) (0.11) Current Total for Plastic Bags (with Existing Ordinance) 13 0.04 Net Change of Alternative 7 (Alternative 7 Total minus Current Total) (8) 0.02 *City of Santa Monica Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR (SCH #2010041004), January 2011. Refer to Appendix A. Based on the above, impacts resulting from bag manufacturing and use (including ground level ozone and atmospheric acidification) would continue to be Class IV, beneficial, while impacts relating to truck trips would be improved to Class IV, beneficial, since truck trips and the associated mobile emissions would actually be reduced compared to existing conditions. b. Biological Resources. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would prohibit all retail establishments and food service establishments from providing single- use plastic checkout bags, thereby reducing the amount of single-use plastic bag litter that could enter the marine environment and affect sensitive species. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would also reduce the amount of paper bag litter that could enter the marine environment, because both retail services and food service establishments would be prohibited from providing both plastic and paper carryout bags to customers at the point of sale. Moreover, this alternative would also promote the use of reusable bags within the City. Reusable bags can also be released into the environment as litter. However, because of the weight and sturdiness of these bags, reusable bags are less likely to be littered or carried from Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-34 landfills by wind as litter compared to single-use plastic and paper bags (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). In addition, since reusable bags can be used up to 125 times (as defined in the proposed Bag Ordinance), reusable bags would be disposed of less often than single-use carryout bags. Therefore, the impact to sensitive species as a result of litter entering the marine environment from Alternative 7 would be reduced compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, impacts would be Class IV, beneficial. Overall benefits would be greater than those of the proposed Bag Ordinance. c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would be expected to reduce the number of recyclable paper bags by approximately 9.07 million bags and increase the number of reusable bags by approximately 174,488 bags. The decrease in the number of recyclable paper bags would result in a net decrease of GHG emissions compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. However, this alternative would result in a net increase in reusable bag use as a result of the reduction in the number of recyclable paper bags. Table 6-30 provides an estimate of GHG emissions associated with implementation of Alternative 7. Table 6-30 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative 7 Bag Type Estimated Number of Bags Used per Year GHG Impact Rate per Bag CO2e (metric tons) CO2e per year (metric tons) CO2e per Person Single-use Plastic 0 1.0 0.04 per 1,500 bags 0 0 Recyclable Paper 0 2.97 0.1188 per 1,000 bags 0 0 Reusable 498,536 2.6 0.104 per 1,000 bags 52 0.0008 Alternative 7 Total 52 0.0008 Proposed Bag Ordinance 1,112 0.017 Difference (1,060) (0.016) Current Total (with Existing Ordinance) 691 0.011 Net Change of Alternative 7 (Alternative 7 Total minus Current Total) (639) (0.01) CO2e = Carbon Dioxide Equivalent units Source: Refer to Table 4.3-2 in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As discussed in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gases, if used 20 times, a reusable low density polyethylene (LDPE) carryout bag results in 10% of the GHG emissions of a single-use high density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic bag (AEA Technology, 2005). Alternative 7 would result in a net decrease of GHG emissions compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance and a net decrease Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-35 in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, GHG emissions under Alternative 7 would decrease by approximately 0.016 CO2e per person per year. In addition, compared to existing conditions, this alternative would reduce GHG emissions by approximately 639 metric tons per year, or approximately 0.01 CO2e per person per year. Therefore GHG impacts from Alternative 7 would be reduced when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance and would be Class IV, beneficial, compared to existing conditions. d. Hydrology and Water Quality. Similar to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would reduce the number of single-use plastic bags used in the City, thereby incrementally reducing the amount of plastic litter and waste entering storm drains and local waterways. In addition, this alternative would further reduce the number of paper bags compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance (by approximately 9.07 million bags), replacing them instead with approximately 174,488 reusable bags. However, because of the weight and sturdiness of these bags, reusable bags are less likely to become litter or be carried from landfills by wind as litter compared to single-use plastic and paper bags (Green Cities California MEA, 2010). As a result, this alternative would reduce overall litter compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. As with the proposed Bag Ordinance, an incremental reduction in the amount of litter that could enter storm drains and local waterways would improve water quality and reduce the potential for storm drain blockage. Therefore, like the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would result in Class IV, beneficial, effects to water quality. Overall benefits would be somewhat greater under this alternative since fewer paper bags would be used in the City. As noted above, this alternative would be expected to result in the use of fewer recyclable paper carryout bags in the City as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance since both plastic and paper bags would be banned in the City. This alternative would eliminate paper bags and thus impacts related to paper bag manufacturing facilities would be improved under this alternative compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. However, this alternative would increase the manufacturing and production of reusable bags. Like the proposed Bag Ordinance, reusable bag manufacturing facilities would also be required to adhere to NPDES Permit requirements, AB 258 and the California Health and Safety Code. Thus, impacts to water quality from altering bag processing activities, under this alternative, would be similar to those of the proposed Bag Ordinance and would be Class III, less than significant. e. Utilities and Service Systems. Compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, this alternative would be expected to reduce the number of paper bags by approximately 9.07 million and increase the number of reusable bags by approximately 174,488. Because more reusable bags would be used under this alternative as compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance, water demand and wastewater generation related to washing reusable bags would also increase. This equates to a net increase of 9.98 AFY of water and a net increase of 8,907 gallons per day of wastewater. However, as noted in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service Systems, there are sufficient water supplies and wastewater facility capacity to meet this demand. Therefore, impacts would be slightly greater than those of the proposed Bag Ordinance, but would remain Class III, less than significant. As described in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service systems, both the Ecobilan and Boustead studies are included in the analysis to provide a reasonable estimate of solid waste. As noted, the life cycle assessment models have some variability associated within them. For this analysis, the Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-36 Ecobilan Data, which would show a reduction of solid waste compared to existing conditions, would represent a more likely scenario in Palo Alto, as it takes into account solid waste from reusable bags in addition to plastic and paper bags. For this particular alternative, the Boustead Data would not be warranted since it only calculates solid waste associated with plastic and paper bags and therefore shows a reduction simply because of the reduction of plastic and paper bags since this alternative would ban both plastic and paper bags at retailers and food service establishments in Palo Alto. Thus, using the solid waste generation rates from Ecobilan which does calculate solid waste from reusable bags (as shown in Table 4.5-10 in Section 4.5, Utilities and Service Systems), this alternative would generate 0.011 tons per year (0.00003 tons per day) a net decrease of 0.319 tons/day of solid waste (calculations are contained in Appendix C) compared to existing conditions. In comparison, the proposed Bag Ordinance would generate a net increase of 0.27 tons/day. Therefore, Alternative 7 would generate less solid waste than the proposed Bag Ordinance, would reduce solid waste compared to existing conditions, and would not exceed the existing capacity at area landfills. Solid waste impacts would be reduced when compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance and would be a Class IV, beneficial impact. 6.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Considerations: The total bag numbers assumed for the proposed Bag Ordinance are first year estimates only. In the second year, the bag numbers and positive impacts for Alternative 3 apply. Charging a larger fee on paper checkout bags typically results in a more significant decrease in the use of single-use checkout bags and resulting decrease in potential impacts. Air Quality: Air quality impacts from the various alternatives are related to bag manufacture and truck trips for delivery of bags. Except for No Project alternative and Alternative 6, the alternatives have a beneficial impact on ozone and atmospheric acidification. While there is some minor variation among the alternatives for the number of truck trips, neither the proposed Bag Ordinance nor any of the alternatives exceed any Bay Area Air Quality Management District thresholds of significance. Biological Resources: The impact on biological resources relates to single-use bag litter entering the environment and causing impacts, including ingestion by and entanglement of wildlife. The proposed Bag Ordinance and all alternatives except the No Project alternative, have a beneficial impact on biological resources. The alternatives that ban plastic bags have a greater beneficial impact (proposed Bag Ordinance, Alternative 3, 4, 5 and 7). Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Greenhouse gas emissions relate to the manufacture, use, and disposal of bags. The proposed Bag Ordinance and all alternatives have less than significant impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. As paper bags have a higher per bag estimate of greenhouse gas impacts, increase in paper bag use results in slight increases of greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, Alternative 3 (also the second year of the proposed Bag Ordinance) and Alternative 5, both of which increase Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-37 the checkout bag fee to $0.25, as well as Alternative 7 which bans both plastic and paper bags, show a net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed ordinance results in 0.006 metric tons CO2E per person per year. In comparison, one car produces 4.6 metric tons of GHG emissions per year. 4 Hydrology/Water Quality: Hydrology/Water Quality impacts relate both to the production of bags and the potential for litter. All alternatives have less than significant impacts on water quality relating to the production of bags. With respect to litter, the proposed Bag Ordinance and Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 7 have a beneficial impact on water quality by reducing plastic bag litter and its impacts on water quality. Water and Wastewater: Water and Wastewater impacts relate to the water demand and increase in wastewater from washing reusable bags. The impacts for the proposed Bag Ordinance and the alternatives that increase reusable bag use (alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7) slightly increase water demand and wastewater discharge due to bag washing, however, the impacts are less than significant. Solid Waste: The estimate of solid waste generation changes, resulting from the proposed Bag Ordinance and the alternatives, is based on two data sets. One of the datasets estimates a reduction in solid waste, while the other estimates an increase in solid waste, both incorporating recycling rates but including different estimates of bag weights. The EIR is based on the worst case scenario from the data set that shows a potential increase in solid waste from the proposed Bag Ordinance. Even using the conservative data and assumptions, the proposed Bag Ordinance and the alternatives have a less than significant impact on solid waste generation. Alternatives 3 (also second year of proposed ordinance) and 5 result in an estimated net decrease of solid waste due to the reduction of paper bag use caused by the higher checkout fee of $0.25. And, Alternative 7 results in an estimated net decrease of solid waste due to prohibiting both plastic and paper carryout bags at all retailers and food service establishments. 6.9 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED As required by Section 15126.6 (c) of the CEQA Guidelines, this subsection identifies those alternatives that were considered but rejected by the lead agency because they either did not meet the objectives of the project or could not avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. Three alternatives that were considered were rejected. The first alternative involved a suggestion from a commenter that would charge $1.00 for customers who use paper bags at retail services. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6 requires that an EIR consider a range of reasonable 4 The annual use of an automobile driving an average of 12,000 miles per year and with an average 22.9 miles per gallon (MPG) consumption emits 4.6 metric tons of CO2E per year (one metric ton is equivalent to 2,205 pounds). Households that have a sport utility vehicle (SUV) or light duty truck drive and drive an average of 14,500 miles per year with an average MPG of 16.2 emit 7.9 metric tons per year ( SAIC, Public Transportation’s Contribution to U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reduction, September 2007). Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-38 alternatives to a proposed project, which would feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. While this alternative would achieve the objectives of the proposed Bag Ordinance as outlined in Section 2.0, Project Description, this alternative was rejected, because it was found to be infeasible due to cost. A “$1.00” charge for paper bags would put a heavy financial burden on the customers and retail services would generate revenue on the sale of paper bags. Further, as discussed above, this analysis considers two different alternatives (Alternative # 3 and Alternative #5 that evaluate a $0.25 fee on paper bags) which demonstrate at least a 90% reduction of paper bag use compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. The second alternative that was considered but ultimately rejected was to apply a fee to single- use plastic bags and paper bags. However, California Assembly Bill (AB) 2449, passed in 2006, forbids cities from requiring stores that comply with AB 2449 to charge for single-use plastic bags. Such a fee would be legally infeasible, and was therefore rejected as a viable alternative to the proposed Bag Ordinance. A third alternative, which was considered but ultimately rejected, was the specific exclusion of compostable single-use plastic check-out bags from the proposed Bag Ordinance. Compostable plastic bags are designed to biodegrade as part of compost in an anaerobic digester. While these bags ultimately will biodegrade in the natural environment, this process is not immediate. Therefore, compostable single-use plastic bags will present the same impacts as conventional single-use plastic bags to storm drain systems, local creeks and waterways, and aquatic life. Additionally, compostable single-use plastic bags present handling challenges for recyclers since these bags are incompatible with other plastic film and cannot be recycled. Compostable bags used to contain yard waste and/or food scraps destined for municipal compost facilities are available, for purchase at grocery and other supply stores but are not used as check-out bags. Under the proposed Bag Ordinance, compostable plastic product bags could still be used for loose fruits and vegetables, meats and bulk food items at grocery stores, farmers and produce markets so long as they were not used as checkout bags. 6.10 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE This subsection identifies the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 7, the “No Plastic or Paper at Either Retail or Food Service Establishments” alternative would be considered environmentally superior among the alternatives, as it would have more environmental benefits compared to the proposed Bag Ordinance. In addition, this alternative would result in beneficial effects to the environment compared to existing conditions in the areas of air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology/water quality and utilities (solid waste). This alternative would also meet the project objectives, including: Promote a shift toward the use of long-lasting, durable, reusable bags by retail customers in Palo Alto Reduce the number of single-use plastic distributed by retailers and used by customers in Palo Alto Deter the use of paper bags by customers in Palo Alto Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-39 Reduce the environmental impacts of pollution in local creeks, in San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment related to single-use plastic checkout bags Please note that the proposed Bag Ordinance would not have any significant impacts; therefore, adopting Alternative 7 (No Plastic or Paper at Either Retail or Food Service Establishments) rather than the proposed project would not avoid any significant environmental effects. Table 6-32 compares the impacts for each of the alternatives. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-40 This page intentionally left blank. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-41 Table 6-31 Impact Comparison and Ranking of Project Alternatives Compared with Current Ordinance/”No Project” Alternative Issue Proposed Bag Ordinance Retail: No plastic bags, 10 cent store charge for paper, 25 cent after one year;1 FSE: No plastic, no charge for paper Values below show absolute value and net change (either increase or decrease) compared to existing conditions Alt 1: No Project Current ordinance remains, i.e., no plastic bags at grocery stores, no charge for paper. FSE exempt Values below are all existing conditions. Alt 2: FSE Exempt: Proposed Bag Ordinance in Place for Retail, But Excludes FSE Entirely* Alt 3: $0.25 Store Charge for Paper Bags at Retail But No Paper Charge at FSE, No Plastic at Either* Foregoes first step $0.10 cent retail charge Alt 4: $0.10 for Paper Bags at Both Retail Services and FSE, No Plastic at Either* No increase to $0.25 for retail or FSE Alt 5: $0.25 Fee for Recyclable Paper Bags at Both Retail Services and FSE, No Plastic at Either* Alt 6: FSE Only: Ban Plastic Bags at FSE Only, No Ban At Retail (except Supermarkets), No Fee for Paper Bags* Alt 7: No Plastic or Paper at Either Retail or FSE * Air Quality Ozone 282 kg per year Atmospheric Acidification 19,745 kg per year Reduces emissions from existing conditions for Ozone by 314 kg and Atmospheric Acidification by 8,356 kg Net increase of truck trips (32) and thus mobile emissions Ozone 596 kg per year Atmospheric Acidification 28,101 kg per year 13 Truck Trips per Year Ozone 273 kg per year Atmospheric Acidification 18,480 kg per year Reduces emissions from existing conditions for Ozone by 323 kg and Atmospheric Acidification by 9,621 Net increase of truck trips (26) and thus mobile emissions Ozone 100 kg per year Atmospheric Acidification 7,317 kg per year Reduces emissions from existing conditions for Ozone by 496 kg and Atmospheric Acidification by 20,784 kg Net increase of truck trips (4) and thus mobile emissions Ozone 244 kg per year Atmospheric Acidification 17,156 kg per year Reduces emissions from existing conditions for Ozone by 352 kg and Atmospheric Acidification by 10,945 kg Net increase of truck trips (26) and thus mobile emissions Ozone 81 kg per year Atmospheric Acidification 6,022 kg per year Reduces emissions from existing conditions for Ozone by 515 kg and Atmospheric Acidification by 22,079 kg Net increase of truck trips (1) and thus mobile emissions Ozone 605 kg per year Atmospheric Acidification 29,639 kg per year Increases emissions from existing conditions for Ozone by 9 kg and Atmospheric Acidification by 1,538 kg Net increase of truck trips (5) and thus mobile emissions Ozone 16 kg per year Atmospheric Acidification 1,621 kg per year Reduces emissions from existing conditions for Ozone by 580 kg and Atmospheric Acidification by 26,480 kg Net decrease of truck trips (8) and thus decrease mobile emissions Biological Resources No plastic bags allowed, thus no plastic bag litter affecting marine resources. Plastic bag litter from both retail services and food service establishments Approximately 26 million plastic bags used which if littered may affect marine resources. Although fewer than existing conditions, would allow FSEs to distribute plastic bags (estimated 1,296,193 per year) which may become litter and affect marine resources. No plastic bags allowed. Fewer paper bags than proposed Bag Ordinance (6.22 million fewer paper bags). Thus less paper litter. No plastic bags allowed. Fewer paper bags than proposed Bag Ordinance (1.3 million fewer paper bags. Thus less paper litter. No plastic bags allowed. Fewer paper bags than proposed Bag Ordinance (6.87million fewer paper bags. Thus less paper litter. No plastic bags allowed at FSEs. Increase of paper bags compared to existing conditions 1.3 million more paper bags. No plastic bags allowed. No paper bags allowed (9.07 million fewer paper bags allowed than proposed Bag Ordinance). Thus less paper litter. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1,112 metric tons CO2e A net increase of 421 metric tons CO2e compared to existing conditions. 691 metric tons CO2e 993 metric tons CO2e A net increase of 302 metric tons CO2e compared to existing conditions. 385 metric tons CO2e A net decrease of 306 metric tons CO2e compared to existing conditions. 960 metric tons CO2e A net increase of 269 metric tons CO2e compared to existing conditions. 309 metric tons CO2e A net decrease of 382 metric tons CO2e compared to existing conditions. 811 metric tons CO2e A net increase of 120 metric tons CO2e compared to existing conditions. 52 metric tons CO2e A net decrease of 639 metric tons CO2e compared to existing conditions. Hydrology/Water Quality No plastic bag litter thus improvement to litter/waste that enters storm drains. Increased production of paper bags (9,073,352 additional paper bags) which may increase water quality impacts associated with production and manufacturing. Some plastic bag litter and waste enters storm drains. Production of plastic and paper bags has some less than significant water quality impacts. Some plastic bag litter as 1,296,193 plastic bags per year would still be in City. Increased production of paper bags (7,777,159 additional paper bags) which may increase water quality impacts associated with production and manufacturing. No plastic bag litter thus improvement to litter/waste that enters storm drains. Increased production of paper bags (2,851,625 additional paper bags) which may increase water quality impacts associated with production and manufacturing. No plastic bag litter thus improvement to waste that enters storm drains. Increased production of paper bags (7,777,159 additional paper bags) which may increase water quality impacts associated with production and manufacturing. No plastic bag litter thus improvement to waste that enters storm drains. Increased production of paper bags (2,203,528 additional paper bags) which may increase water quality impacts associated with production and manufacturing. No plastic bag litter from FSEs thus improvement to waste that enters storm drains compared to existing conditions. Increased production of paper bags (1.3 million additional paper bags) which may increase impacts associated with production and manufacturing. No plastic bag litter thus improvement to waste that enters storm drains. Decreased production of paper bags as none would be distributed within City. However, increased production of reusable bags (174,488 additional reusable bags) which may increase impacts associated with production and manufacturing. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives City of Palo Alto 6-42 Table 6-31 Impact Comparison and Ranking of Project Alternatives Compared with Current Ordinance/”No Project” Alternative Issue Proposed Bag Ordinance Retail: No plastic bags, 10 cent store charge for paper, 25 cent after one year;1 FSE: No plastic, no charge for paper Values below show absolute value and net change (either increase or decrease) compared to existing conditions Alt 1: No Project Current ordinance remains, i.e., no plastic bags at grocery stores, no charge for paper. FSE exempt Values below are all existing conditions. Alt 2: FSE Exempt: Proposed Bag Ordinance in Place for Retail, But Excludes FSE Entirely* Alt 3: $0.25 Store Charge for Paper Bags at Retail But No Paper Charge at FSE, No Plastic at Either* Foregoes first step $0.10 cent retail charge Alt 4: $0.10 for Paper Bags at Both Retail Services and FSE, No Plastic at Either* No increase to $0.25 for retail or FSE Alt 5: $0.25 Fee for Recyclable Paper Bags at Both Retail Services and FSE, No Plastic at Either* Alt 6: FSE Only: Ban Plastic Bags at FSE Only, No Ban At Retail (except Supermarkets), No Fee for Paper Bags* Alt 7: No Plastic or Paper at Either Retail or FSE * Utilities and Service Systems Water and Wastewater AFY = Acre feet per year Water: 18.52 AFY Wastewater: 16,541 gallons per day Water: 0 AFY Wastewater: 0 gallons per day (no increase in the number of reusable bags, therefore no increase in water/wastewater) Water: 18.52 AFY Wastewater: 16,541 gallons per day Water: 25.55 AFY Wastewater: 22,661 gallons per day Water: 20.52 AFY Wastewater: 17,864 gallons per day Water: 26.07 AFY Wastewater: 23,285 gallons per day Water: 0 AFY Wastewater: 0 gallons per day (zero (0) increase in the number of reusable bags, therefore no increase in water/wastewater compared to existing conditions) Water: 28.5 AFY Wastewater: 25,448 gallons per day Solid Waste Estimates utilize the more conservative Boustead data as a worst case scenario 0.59 tons per day Net increase of 0.27 tons per day 99 more tons per year 0.32 tons per day 128 tons per year 0.5 tons per day Net increase of 0.18 tons per day 66 tons per year 0.18 tons per day Net decrease of 0.14 tons per day 51 less tons per year 0.5 tons per day Net increase of 0.179 tons per day 65 more tons per year 0.14 tons per day Net decrease of 0.18 tons per day 66 less tons per year 0.39 tons per day Net decrease of 0.07 tons per day 26 less tons per year 0.00003 tons per day Net decrease of 0.319 tons per day 117 less tons per year Bags Plastic 0 25,923,864 1,296,193 0 0 0 24,627,671 0 Paper 9,073,352 3,108,000 7,777,159 2,851,625 7,777,159 2,203,528 1,296,193 0 Reusable 324,048 111,000 324,048 443,697 348,975 456,160 0 498,536 Total 9,397,400 29,142,864 9,397,400 3,295,322 812,6134 2,659,688 25,923,864 498,536 1After the first year this alternative would have benefits of Alternative 3 All numbers are annual unless otherwise noted. Impacts assume results after one year of ordinance implementation. FSE=Food Service Establishment (e.g., restaurants, food trucks, etc.) * Values show absolute value and net change (either increase or decrease) compared to existing conditions City of Palo Alto 7-1 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 7.0 EIR Assumptions 7.0 EIR ASSUMPTIONS This EIR is based on existing and best available data. A detailed study of Palo Alto would have been cost-prohibitive and was not performed because existing sets results contain conservative assumptions intended as a general assessment of potential impacts. Even with conservative assumptions, the EIR concludes that impacts of the proposed Bag Ordinance are either beneficial or not significant. Specifically, the EIR is conservative in its assumptions in the following ways: 1. No Bag Option: The EIR does not account for customers choosing not to use a bag, which may be a common occurrence when faced with a fee and not having a reusable bag at their disposal. Preliminary surveys at Palo Alto grocery stores indicate that approximately 21% percent of customers do not use a bag (City of Palo Alto Annual Survey of Paper, Plastic and Reusable Bag Use, Updated 2012) . It is also likely that restaurant customers would forgo a bag if charged. Due to limited scientifically accepted data, however, the EIR does not address these issues and conservatively assumes a shift towards reusable bag use. As a result, the water use impact, air quality and GHG emissions impacts for reusable bags may be overstated. 2. Bag Washing: The EIR assumes that reusable bags are washed separately weekly from other laundry, which may not actually occur, as consumers would likely include bags with regular washes. This results in a conservative estimate of water used for bag washing. 3. Reusable bag use: While the definition in the ordinance includes a statement that reusable bags must be able to be used 125 times, the EIR assumes 52 uses to be conservative. This conservative assumption would overestimate solid waste and other impacts as a result of reusable bags. 4. Bag Sizes: The EIR assumes a standard grocery paper checkout bag as the size for all paper checkout bags, as well as a one-to-one replacement ratio of plastic bags with paper checkout bags for approximately 35% of the bags. Paper bags used at food service establishments and retail stores may vary considerably in size, however, no data exists to reliably estimate the impact of these various sizes. In addition, plastic checkout bags are smaller than paper grocery bags and the one-to-one replacement assumption overestimates the number of paper bags used. The bag size assumption results in a very conservative and likely overestimated solid waste generation, greenhouse gas emissions, and air quality emissions impact analyses as a result of paper bags usage. 5. Existing Bag Use: Based on an informal survey of food service establishments, about one third of Palo Alto food service establishments already use paper bags, as do many retail stores. This results in a higher estimate of future paper bag use in the EIR, which affects the air quality, greenhouse gas, and solid waste estimates. City of Palo Alto 7-2 6. Paper Bag Recycling and Composting: Paper bags in Palo Alto are likely recycled or, as part of the commercial and future residential program, may be composted and would not increase solid waste estimates. Plastic bags, however, while accepted in the Palo Alto’s recycling program, are not as likely to be recycled or composted and cause operational issues for solid waste handling equipment. Assuming that paper bags become solid waste, results in the solid waste impacts of the project and the alternatives to be very conservative and likely overstated. 7. Food Service Establishment use of Plastic Bags: Plastic bag use by food service establishments was assumed to be approximately 5% of total plastic bag use. This assumption is consistent with the rates used in the County of San Mateo Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program EIR, SCH#2012042013, October 2012 and the Sunnyvale Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH#2011062032, December 2011. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers City of Palo Alto 8-1 8.0 REFERENCES AND REPORT PREPARERS 8.1 REFERENCES AEA Technology. 2005. Proposed Plastic Bag Levy - Extended Impact Assessment (Scottish Report), 2005. AEA Technology. 2009. Single Use Bag Study. Final report prepared for the Welsh Assembly Government, August 2009. Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents. June 29, 2007. Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Water Quality and Streamflow Monitoring of San Francisquito and Los Trancos Creeks at Piers Lane, and Bear Creek at Sand Hill Road, Water Year 2010, Longterm Monitoring and Assessment Program, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, California. July 2012. Retrieved from: http://lbre.stanford.edu/sem/sites/all/lbre- shared/files/docs_public/sem_balanceWY2010_report.pdf. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. June 2010, Updated May 2011. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Retrieved From: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQ MD%20CEQA%20Guidelines_December%202010.ashx Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Adopted September 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Homepage: CEQA Guidelines. Accessed May 2012. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA- GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). May 27, 2010. Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy Phase I Scoping Report. Retrieved from: http://bawsca.org/docs/BAWSCA_Strategy_Final_Report_2010_05_27.pdf. Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. 2007. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic; Compostable, Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyclable Paper. Prepared for the Progressive Bag Alliance. Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant. Personal Communication with Engineer, May 25, 2012. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. January 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). California Air Resources Board. Updated February 7, 2012. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers City of Palo Alto 8-2 California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Emission Control Fact Sheet, 2007. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/factsheets/cc_newfs.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2009, 2010, & 2011 Air Quality Data Statistics. Top Four Summary. Retrieved From: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html. California Air Resources Board. October 2011. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data – 2000 to 2008. Retrieved From: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. California Air Resources Board Homepage. Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust. Accessed April 2012. Retrieved From: http://www.arb.ca.gov California Air Resources Board. Updated March 2009. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling Emission Reduction Program. Avaliable at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/truck- idling.htm California Air Resources Board. Updated March 22, 2012. Truck and Bus Regulation.” On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use) Regulation. Avaliable at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol. January 2009. Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1. California Climate Change Center. 2006. Climate Scenarios for California. California Climate Change Center. May 2009. The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast. California Department of Finance. May 2012. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2010-2012, with 2010 Benchmark.” California Department of Resources Recycling andRecovery (CalRecycle). Solid Waste Information System (SWIS). Accessed June 28, 2012. Available online: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/43-AA-0009/Detail/. California Department of Water Resources. October 2008. Managing an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Adaption Strategies for California’s Water. Retrieved From: http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/ClimateChangeWhitePaper.pdf. California Department of Water Resources. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California’s Water Resources. July 2006 California Energy Commission: Consumer Energy Center, 2010. Water Use Rates for Washing Machines. Accessed May 2012. Available at: http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/appliances/washers.html California Energy Commission, February 2006. Scenarios of Climate Change in California: An Overview. CEC-500-2005-186-SF Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers City of Palo Alto 8-3 California Energy Commission. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004. Staff Final Report. CEC-600-2006-013-SF. December 2006 California Energy Commission. Inventory Draft 2009 Biennial Report to the Governor and Legislature. Staff Draft Report. March 2009. California Environmental Protection Agency. April 2010. Climate Action Team Biennial Report. Final Report. California Environmental Protection Agency. March 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. Retrieved From: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006-04- 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT_EXECSUMMARY.PDF California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 2009. California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study. Prepared by Cascadia Consulting Group. August 2009. California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 2007. Resolution, Agenda Item 14, June 12, 2007 Board Meeting. CalRecycle. Jurisdictional Waste Stream Profiles, Accessed May 2012. Available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DataTools/Reports/DivDispRtSum.htm California Natural Resources Agency. December 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaption Strategy. Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CNRA-1000-2010-010/CNRA- 1000-2010-010.PDF. California Natural Resources Agency. 2007. CEQA Guidelines. http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) San Francisco Bay Region. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit: Order R2-2009-0074. NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. October 14, 2009 California Water Resources Control Board. 2010. Preproduction Plastic Debris Program website. Retrieved From: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/plasticdebris.shtml Californians Against Waste. “Plastic Bags: Local Ordinances.” Accessed April, 2012. http://www.cawrecycles.org/issues/plastic_campaign/plastic_bags/local Cayan, D., A.L. Luers, M. Hanemann, G. Granco, and B. Croes. Scenarios of Climate Change in California: An Overview. California Climate Change Center, State of California. White Paper, CEC-500-2005-203-SF. March 2006 Cayan, D., E. Maurer, M. Dettinger, M. Tyree, K. Hayhoe, C. Bonfils, P. Duffy, and B. Santer. Climate Scenarios for California: Climate Action Team Reports to the Governor and Legislature. 2006. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers City of Palo Alto 8-4 City of Campbell. Adopted November 6, 2001. General Plan. Retrived from: http://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/Planning/Forms&Reports/GeneralPlanFinalVersion2002.p df. City of Cupertino. Adopted November 15, 2005. City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020. Retrieved from: http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/government/planning/plan_general.asp. City of Daly City. Wastewater Homepage. Accessed May 25, 2012. Available at: http://www.dalycity.org/City_Hall/Departments/wwr/wastewater.htm City of East Palo Alto. Adopted June 21, 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Retrieved from: http://www.ci.east-palo- alto.ca.us/publicworks/pdf/Water_System_Master_Plan.pdf. City of Huntington Beach. February 2012. Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH #2011111053. City of Los Altos. Adopted November 2002. Los Altos General Plan 2002-2020. Retrieved from: http://www.ci.los-altos.ca.us/commdev/planning/generalplan/index.html. City of Millbrae. June 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Retrieved from: http://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2954. City of Milpitas. Updated January 2002. Milpitas General Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/government/planning/plan_general.asp. City of Mountain View. 1992. General Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.ci.mtnview.ca.us/city_hall/community_development/planning/plans_regul ations_and_guidelines/general_plan.asp. City of Palo Alto. Annual Survey of Paper, Plastic and Reusable Bag Use – 2008 – 2012. Updated July 2012. City of Palo Alto. Zero Waste Operational Plan. Adopted June 2007. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=10289. City of Palo Alto. 2007. Comprehensive Plan. Land Use and Design Element. Adopted 1998. Revised July 17, 2007. Available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/city_projects/land_use/comprehensive_plan.a sp. City of Palo Alto. 2007. Comprehensive Plan. Natural Environment Element. Adopted 1998. Revised July 17, 2007. City of Palo Alto Utilities. 2010 Urban Water Managemenet Plan (UWMP). June 2011. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers City of Palo Alto 8-5 City of Palo Alto Public Works Department. Zero Waste. Interact With Us. Progress Report. Diversion Rate. Accessed June 28, 2012. Available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/zero_waste/interact/progress_report.asp. City of Palo Alto Public Works Department. Wastewater Treatment Plant Homepage. Accessed June 28, 2012. Available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/rwqcp.asp. City of Palo Alto. April 2012. Interim Draft Report of the Long Range Facilities Plan. City of Palo Alto. February 2012. Baseline Trash Load and Short-Term Trash Load Reduction Plan. City of Pasadena. 2008. Plastic Bag Reduction Program Research. Presented to Environmental Advisory Commission. City of Redwood City. October 11, 2010. Redwood City General Plan. Infrastructure. City of San Bruno. Waste Water Division Homepage. Accessed May 25, 2012. Available at: http://sanbruno.ca.gov/pw_utility_wastewater.html City of San Jose. May 2011. Environmental Services. San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant. Last Updated May 24, 2011. Retrieved From: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/esd/wastewater/water-pollution-control-plant.asp. City of San Jose. Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH # 2009102095. October 2010. City of Santa Monica. January 2011. Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance. Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2010041004). City of South San Francisco. Public Works Homepage. Accessed May 25, 2012. Available at: http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?nid=643 City of Sunnyvale. December 2011. Sunnyvale Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2011062032). County of Los Angeles. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2009111104). Certified by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors November 16, 2010. County of San Mateo. Understanding Your Sewer System and What You Pay For. Accessed April 2012. Retreived From: http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/Attachments/publicworks/PDFs/Brochure-English.pdf. County of San Mateo. 2011. Department of Public Works. Flood Control, Lighting, Sewer and Water. County Maintained Sewer and Sanitation Districts. Last Updated December 2011. Retreived From: http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/portal/site/publicworks/menuitem.a4bfacf14e50a00d8243 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers City of Palo Alto 8-6 9054d17332a0/?vgnextoid=3e7d4b3a4b71f110VgnVCM1000001d37230aRCRD&vgnextfmt= DivisionsLanding. County of San Mateo. 2011. Department of Public Works. Waste Management and Environmental Services. Accessed April 2012. Retrieved From: http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/portal/site/publicworks/menuitem.a4bfacf14e50a00d8243 9054d17332a0/?vgnextoid=c49e4b3a4b71f110VgnVCM1000001d37230aRCRD&vgnextchann el=a49e4b3a4b71f110VgnVCM1000001d37230a____&vgnextfmt=DivisionsLanding. County of San Mateo. November 8, 2005. San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission Background Report: San Mateo County Water Providers. Retrieved From: http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/vgn/images/portal/cit_609/50/41/542581320water_coun ty_bkgrnd.pdf. County of San Mateo. November 1986. General Plan. General Plan Background and Issues. Chapters 1-16. Retrieved From: http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/planning/genplan/index.html. County of Santa Clara. October 2010. Initial Study for Single-use Carryout Bag. County of Santa Clara. Adopted December 20, 1994. Santa Clara County General Plan, Charting a Course for Santa Clara County’s Future: 1995-2010. Retrieved From: http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/Plans%20- %20Programs/General%20Plan/Documents/GP_Book_A.pdf. County of Santa Clara. September 1994. Santa Clara County General Plan Draft EIR. SCH # 94023004. Retrieved From: http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/Plans%20- %20Programs/General%20Plan/Documents/1994_GP_DEIR.pdf. County of Los Angeles. 2010. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2009111104), November 2010. Derraik, J.B., and M.R. Gregory. 2009. Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings- entanglement, ingestion, smotherings, hangers-on, hitchhiking, and alien invasions. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 364. Ecobilan. 2004. Environmental impact assessment of Carrefour bags. Report prepared for Carrefour by Ecobilan. February 2004. Environmental Paper Network. 2007. “The State of the Paper Industry: Monitoring the Indicators of Environmental Performance.” Environmental Protection Agency. Innovative Energy Management Workshop South Point Hotel and Conference Center, Napa Room C, Las Vegas, NV October 5, 2010. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/region9/waterinfrastructure/training/energy-workshop/energy- workshop-nv/pdfs/fog-energy-lunchB.pdf Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers City of Palo Alto 8-7 EOA, Inc. Trash Load Reduction Tracking Method. Prepared for Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). February 1, 2011. ExcelPlas Australia. 2004. “The Impacts of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia.” Centre for Design at RMIT, and NOLAN-ITU. Fund for Research into Industrial Development, Growth and Equity (FRIDGE). 2002. Socio- Economic Impact of the Proposed Plastic Bag Regulations. Green Cities California. March 2010. Master Environmental Assessment on Single-use and Reusable Bags. Prepared by ICF International. Herrera et al. 2008. “Alternatives to Disposable Shopping Bags and Food Service Items. Volume I and II. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities. January 2008. Hyder Consulting. 2007. Comparison of existing life cycle analyses of plastic bag alternatives. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. [Kroeze, C.; Mosier, A.; Nevison, C.; Oenema, O.; Seitzinger, S.; Cleemput, O. van; Conrad, R.; Mitra, A.P.; H.U., Neue; Sass, R.]. Paris: OECD, 1997. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. International Paper. NOP Comment Letter to the County of San Mateo from Cynthia Leon, Regional Manager, Government Relations. Dated April 30, 2012. See Appendix A for complete letter. James and Grant. 2005. “Lifecycle Assessment of Compostable Plastic Bags.” Centre for Design, Melbourne Institute of Technology. Joseph, Stephen L. Letter to the City of Santa Monica: RE: Santa Monica single-use carryout bag ordinance: comments on and objections to Draft Environmental Impact Report. July 22, 2010. Kiparsky, Michael and Peter H. Gleick, 2003. Climate Change and California Water Resources: A Survey and Summary of the Literature. California Energy Commission Report 500-04-073 Kirk, Allison. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Senior Environmental Planner. Personal communication conducted on May 17, 2012. Laist, D.W. 1997. Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In Marine Debris :sources, impacts and solutions (eds J.M. Coe & B.D. Rogers), pp.99-141. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers City of Palo Alto 8-8 McMillan, Ian. South Coast Air Quality Management District Program Supervisor - CEQA Intergovernmental Review. Personal communication conducted on December 29, 2011. Moore, C.J., Lattin, G.L., Zellers, A.F. 2005a. A Brief Analysis of Organic Pollutants Sorbed to Pre and Post-production Plastic Particles from the Los Angeles and San Gabriel River Watersheds. Agalita Marine Research Foundation, Long Beach, CA. Mato Y., Isobe T., Takada H., et al. 2001. Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium of toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environmental Science & Technology. Volume 35. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Annual Greenhouse Gas Index. September 2010. Retrieved From: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/. Ocean Conservancy. April 2010. Trash Travels: 2010 Report. International Coastal Cleanup Day. Pacific Clean Energy.org. Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Plant Profile. December 2011. Available at: http://www.pacificcleanenergy.org/PROJECTPROFILES/pdf/BurlingameWastewaterTre atment.pdf Parmesan, C. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. 2004. Parmesan C, Galbraith H. Observed Ecological Impacts of Climate Change in North America. Arlington, VA: Pew Cent. Glob. Clim. Change. 2004. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. October 2003. Water Quality Protection and Nonpoint Source Pollution Control in San Francisco Bay. Retrieved from: http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/pdf/planning/reports/water_quality_nonpoint_source.pdf. San Francisquito Watershed Council. About the Watershed. Accessed June 2012. Available online: http://www.sanfrancisquito.org/watershed/index.htm. San Mateo County RecycleWorks. 2012. Diversion Rates of San Mateo County Jurisdictions. Accessed May 2012. Retrived from: http://www.recycleworks.org/div_rates.html. Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative. March 2003. Watershed Characteristics Report. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Website. 2011. http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/ws_sunnyeast.shtml. Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). 2010. Urban Water Management Plan 2010. Retrieved From: http://www.valleywater.org/Services/UWMP2010.aspx. Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside Homepage. Accessed May 25, 2012. Available at: http://www.samcleanswater.org/techinfo/design.htm Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers City of Palo Alto 8-9 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working GroupMeeting #15: “ Proposed Tier 4 Performance Standards: Option #3: SCAQMD Efficiency Target”, September 2010. State Water Resources Control Board. 2010. Website: Preproduction Plastic Debris Program. Retrieved From: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/plasticdebris.shtm l. Town of Los Gatos. January 7, 2011. Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.lggeneralplanupdate.org/files/files/Documents/Final%202020%20General %20Plan/00_Cover.pdf. The Royal Society. “Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.” June 30th 2005. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. August 2007. Available: http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/status_of_ratification/applicati on/pdf/unfccc_conv_rat.pdf. URBEMIS Model, Version 9.2.2. 2007. United States Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review from the U.S. Government. August 2010. http://www.eia.gov/aer/envir.html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). About Pesticides. Types of Pesticides. Updated May 9, 2012. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/types.htm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP). December 2007. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/cctp.html. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:1990-2009. USEPA #430-R-11-005. April 2011. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. U.S. EPA. Laws and Regulations. Federal Law-Clean Air Act. Title V of 1990 Amendments (Operating Permits). Late Updated December 19, 2008. Accessed April 2012. Retrieved From: http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/title5.html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Updated November 2011. Region IX’s Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG) Table, 2004. Retrieved From: http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/prg/files/04usersguide.pdf U.S. EPA. 2005. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste. Table 7. As reported in County of Los Angeles, 2007. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers City of Palo Alto 8-10 8.2 AGENCIES/INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED Clute, Sharon. Environmental Inspector. City of San Jose. Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. Personal Communication. July 18, 2012. 8.3 REPORT PREPARERS This EIR was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc., under contract to the City of Palo Alto. Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below. Rincon Consultants, Inc. Joe Power, AICP, Principal Matt Maddox, MESM, Senior Program Manager Megan Jones, Senior Planner Jessica Tibbett Hamill, MAIEP, Associate Environmental Planner Carie Wingert, Associate Biologist Kathy Babcock, Graphics Technician Katherine Warner, Graphics Technician Katie Stanulis, Production Coordinator Appendix A NOP Initial Study NOP Comment Letters Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 1 Initial Study Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Initial Study Prepared for the City of Palo Alto June 19, 2012 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 2 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 3 II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ..................... 7 A. AESTHETICS ......................................................................................................... 8 B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES ................................................ 9 C. AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................... 10 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 12 E. CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 13 F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY .............................................................. 14 G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................... 16 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................. 16 I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................... 18 J. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................ 20 K. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 21 L. NOISE .................................................................................................................... 21 M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................... 23 N. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................. 24 O. RECREATION ...................................................................................................... 25 P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ................................................................ 26 Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................. 28 R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................... 30 III. SOURCE REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 32 IV. DETERMINATION....................................................................................................... 33 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 3 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. PROJECT TITLE Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Julie Weiss, Environmental Specialist City of Palo Alto (650) 329-2117 4. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 5. APPLICATION NUMBER TBD 6. PROJECT LOCATION The Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance (the “Bag Ordinance”) would apply to retail services and food service establishments located throughout the City of Palo Alto’s corporate limits. Palo Alto is located in Santa Clara County and is approximately 26 square miles in size, of which approximately one-third is open space. The City‘s boundaries extend from San Francisco Bay on the east to the Skyline Ridge of the coastal mountains on the west, with Menlo Park to the north and Mountain View to the south. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 4 Initial Study 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance (the “Bag Ordinance”) would apply to retail services and food service establishments located throughout the City of Palo Alto’s corporate limits. As such, the proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve any development that would be subject to a specific general plan designation within the City’s 2010 Comprehensive Plan. 8. ZONING The study area is the City of Palo Alto. Similarly to that of a General Plan designation, the proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve any development that would be subject to specific zoning codes. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background Palo Alto adopted an ordinance restricting single-use plastic bags on March 30, 2009 (CMR 138:09). This existing Plastic Bag Restriction Ordinance became effective on September 18, 2009 and requires that “supermarkets,” as defined by the ordinance, shall provide only reusable bags and/or recyclable paper bags to customers at the point of sale. Thus, currently in Palo Alto, supermarkets are restricted from providing single-use plastic checkout bags. There are currently seven full service grocery stores that meet the Supermarket definition: JJ&F Food Store, Piazza's Fine Foods, Mollie Stone's Supermarkets, Whole Foods Market, Country Sun, Trader Joe’s and Safeway. In addition, two new stores (the Fresh Market and Miki’s Farm Fresh Produce) are currently being built, though as of June 2012 they are not yet complete and open for business. The existing ordinance also requires that all retail establishments within the city shall provide the following to customers: paper bags only, or a choice between paper or plastic bags. In November 2009, Council then directed that Staff return to with a recommendation of implementing a fee system for single-use paper bags (CMR:401:09). Based on existing conditions, it is estimated that the proposed Bag Ordinance would apply to approximately 1400 retailers and 300 restaurants located within Palo Alto (also known as the “Study Area”). Table 1 shows the estimated use of single-use plastic checkout bags within the City of Palo Alto. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 5 Initial Study Table 1 Estimated Single-Use Plastic Checkout Bag Use in Palo Alto Area Population* Number of Plastic Bags Used per Person** Total Bags Used Annually City of Palo Alto 65,544 531 34,803,864 Reduction of Plastic Bag Use as a Result of Existing Plastic Bag Restriction Ordinance (6 stores total)¹ (8,880,000) Total 25,923,864 * California Department of Finance, “City/County Population and Housing Estimates” (2012). **Based on annual statewide estimates of plastic bag use from the CIWMB (2007) - 531 bags per person = 20 billion bags used statewide per year (CIWMB, 2007) / 37,678,563 people statewide (California’s current population according to the State Department of Finance, 2012). ¹ Reduction is based on Existing Ordinance applying to six supermarkets which would have utilized approximately 1.48 million plastic bags per year per store (City of Santa Monica Nexus Study contained in the Santa Monica Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR, January 2011). Please note that this does not take into account the Trader Joe’s store as it is store policy to only distribute paper bags (thus prior to the existing ordinance Trader Joe’s did not use plastic bags and the two stores currently (as of June 2012) being built (the Fresh Market and Miki’s Farm Fresh Produce) since these supermarkets have not yet opened for business and therefore are not currently distributing plastic bags. Based on statewide data, currently almost 20 billion plastic grocery bags (or approximately 531 bags per person) are consumed annually in California (Green Cities California MEA, 2010; and CIWMB, 2007). As shown in Table 1, without the existing Plastic Bag Restriction Ordinance (in other words, prior to when the Plastic Bag Restriction Ordinance went into effect in September of 2009) retail customers in the City of Palo Alto would use about 34.8 million plastic bags per year. However, since the existing Plastic Bag Restriction Ordinance bans the use of plastic bags at seven supermarkets1 in the city (which would use an estimated 1.48 million plastic bags per year per store if not restricted), it is anticipated that the existing plastic checkout bag use in Palo Alto is approximately 25.92 million bags per year. Retail customers in Palo Alto may include residents of other communities and residents of Palo Alto may not necessarily be customers of retailers in the City. However, for this analysis, in order to estimate the existing number of plastic bags used per year in Palo Alto, the statewide data was utilized to apply the number of bags used per person per year rate to the number of residents in Palo Alto. This estimate is considered reasonable and conservative for the purposes of this analysis. Proposed Project The proposed Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance (the “Bag Ordinance”) would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single- use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. Food service establishments would not be required to charge 1 Please note that prior to the implementation of the existing Ordinance, the Trader Joe’s store did not distribute plastic bags as part of the in-store policy. Therefore since plastic bags were not used at this store, the existing Ordinance did not reduce plastic bags at this store. Therefore the existing Ordinance reduced plastic bag use at six stores as described further in Table 2-1. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 6 Initial Study for a recyclable paper checkout bag. It would also revise the definition of “reusable bag” to make them longer-lasting and more durable. The intent of the ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, in San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. It is anticipated that by prohibiting single-use plastic checkout bags and requiring a store charge for each paper bag distributed by retailers, the proposed Bag Ordinance would promote a shift to the use of reusable bags by retail customers and reduce the number of single-use plastic and paper checkout bags within the city. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING Palo Alto contains a variety of land uses, including residential (single- and multi-family), commercial, industrial, office, and public facilities. 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED The Expanded Ordinance would require an amendment to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (CMR 138:09) with discretionary approval by the Palo Alto City Council. The following approvals would be required: Certification of the Final EIR (City Council) Adoption of the Expanded Ordinance amending the Municipal Code (City Council) No other agencies have discretionary approval authority over any aspect of the proposed Bag Ordinance. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 7 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) 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).] 2) 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 significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “(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 Significant 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). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program 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. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify 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. 6) 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. 7) 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 significance 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. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 8 Initial Study DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed Bag Ordinance 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. A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1,2,4 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a public view or view corridor? 1,2,4 X c) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1,2,4 X d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan policies regarding visual resources? 1,2,4 X e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1,2,4 X f) Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? 1,2,4 X DISCUSSION: The proposed Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance (the “Bag Ordinance”) would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The intent of the ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, in the San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. The ordinance would not involve any physical development or construction activities. As such, the ordinance would not create new sources of light, glare, or shadows. In addition, the proposed Bag Ordinance would not have an adverse effect on a public view or view corridor as it would not involve development of any kind. As such, the ordinance would be consistent with policies related to visual resources such as Policy L-3 of the City’s 2010 Comprehensive plan, which calls for the preservation of views of the foothills and East Bay hills. Moreover, as a result of the proposed Bag Ordinance, it is anticipated that litter associated with plastic bags would be reduced which would improve the visual character, natural scenic qualities and/or scenic views of areas within the Study Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 9 Initial Study Area compared to existing conditions. Therefore, there would be no impact related to these issues and further analysis in an EIR is not warranted. Mitigation Measures: None Required. B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1,4 X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 2-Land Use Designation Map X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)2) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 45263)? 1,4 X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1,4 X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or 1,4 X 2 PRC 12220(g): "Forest land" is land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. 3 PRC 4526: "Timberland" means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after consultation with the district committees and others. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 10 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? DISCUSSION: The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The ordinance would not include any physical development or change any existing land uses currently protected under the Williamson Act. Furthermore, the ordinance would not involve any development that would conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or result in the loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur and further discussion of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. Mitigation Measures: None Required C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? 1,4 X b) 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 (PM10); 1,4 X 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 operating at Level of Service (LOS) 1,4 X Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 11 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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)? 1,4 X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? 1,4 X i. Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 10 in one million 1 X ii. Ground-level concentrations of non- carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEI 1 X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1 X f) Not implement all applicable construction emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? 1 X DISCUSSION: The proposed project involves minimal construction activity and therefore will not conflict with any applicable air quality plans, expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants, add any objectionable odors to the neighborhood, nor would it be required to implement construction emission control measures. Palo Alto is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), this regional agency regulates air pollutant emissions from stationary sources and through its planning and review process. All development in Palo Alto is subject to the BAAQMD regulations. Although the proposed Bag Ordinance is intended to reduce the amount of single-use plastic and paper bags in Palo Alto, a potential change in the number of truck trips associated with delivering carryout bags to retailers and the additional use of reusable bags could generate pollutants that will violate existing air quality standards and increase long-term operational emissions. In addition, although overall carryout bag use is anticipated to decline as a result of the proposed Bag Ordinance, the EIR will also analyze whether the shift toward reusable bags could potentially alter processing activities in Palo Alto related to bag production, which may increase air emissions. Impacts related to long-term emissions are potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 12 Initial Study D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,2,4 X 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? 1,2,4 X c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1 X 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 8.10)? 1,2,3,4 X e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1,2,4 X DISCUSSION: a) The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The intent of the ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, in the San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. Although there is low potential for adverse effects to wildlife resources or their habitat, by promoting a shift toward the use of reusable bags, the proposed Bag Ordinance could potentially affect wildlife species or sensitive habitats if reusable bags are improperly disposed of and become litter that enters the storm drain system and ultimately into coastal and marine environments. The proposed Bag Ordinance’s impact related to sensitive species or habitats is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 13 Initial Study b) The proposed Bag Ordinance would not include any physical development or construction activity and; therefore, would not alter or remove any existing riparian habitat or natural communities in the Study Area. As such, the proposed Bag Ordinance would not adversely affect any state listed or any federally listed rare or endangered species of plant life, nor would it affect any federally protected wetlands. No impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. c) The intent of the ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, in the San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. As such, it is anticipated that litter associated with plastic bags would be reduced which would be beneficial to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. d) The proposed Bag Ordinance is intended to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, in the San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. The ordinance would not involve any physical development or construction activities that would conflict with the City of Palo Alto Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10). No impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. e) The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. As such, the ordinance would not involve any development that would conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? 1,2,4 X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? 1,2,4 X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1,2,4 X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1,2,4 X Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 14 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory? 1,2,4 X f) Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 1,2,4 X DISCUSSION: The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The intent of the ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, in the San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. The ordinance would not involve any physical development or construction activities that would require grading. As such, the ordinance would either directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource or destroy a unique paleontological resource or geologic feature. In addition, the proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve any development activities that would disturb human remains, cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, adversely affect a historic resource within the City, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history. No impact would occur and further analysis of these issues in an EIR is not warranted. Mitigation Measures: None Required F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, 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. 4,6 X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,2,4 X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1,2,4 X iv) Landslides? 1,2,4 X Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 15 Initial Study b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1,2,4 X c) Result in substantial siltation? 1,2,4 X d) 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? 1,2,4 X e) 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? 1,2,4 X f) 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? 1,2,4 X g) Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? 1,2,4 X DISCUSSION: The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The intent of the ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, in the San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. The ordinance would not involve any physical development or construction activities. As such, the ordinance would not involve activities that would expose people of structures to rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction, or landslides. Additionally, the proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve physical development that would be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, be located on expansive soil, be located on soils that are incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Moreover, the proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve physical development that would expose people or property to major geologic hazards. No impact would occur and further analysis of these issues in an EIR is not warranted. Mitigation Measures: None Required Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 16 Initial Study G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1,4 X b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 1,4 X DISCUSSION: The proposed Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance would not involve any physical development, construction activities, or land use changes that would contribute greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed ordinance is intended to reduce the amount of single-use plastic and paper bags used by Palo Alto retail customers and to promote a shift toward reusable bags. Although overall carryout bag use is anticipated to decline as a result of the proposed ordinance, the EIR will analyze whether the shift toward reusable bags could potentially alter traffic patterns in Santa Clara County related to transport of single-use and reusable bags as well as processing activities in Santa Clara County related to bag production and disposal of carryout bags which may increase greenhouse gas emissions. The EIR will analyze whether a shift toward reusable bags in Palo Alto would generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. In addition, the EIR will analyze whether the proposed ordinance would conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions are potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR. H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,2,4 X 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? 1,2,4 X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1,4 X d) Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials 1,4 X Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 17 Initial Study 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? 1,2,4 X 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 safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1,4 X 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? 1,4 X h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1,2,4 X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 1,2,4 X j) 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 ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? 1,4 X DISCUSSION: The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The intent of the ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, in the San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. The ordinance would not involve any physical development or construction activities; therefore, the ordinance would not transport, use, dispose of, emit, or handle hazardous materials. In addition, the proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve physical development that would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites, be located within an airport land use plan, be located within the vicinity of a private air strip. Moreover, the ordinance would not involve physical development or construction activities that would expose people of structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires, nor would it involve physical development that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination. No impact would occur and further analysis of these issues in an EIR is not warranted. Mitigation Measures: None Required Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 18 Initial Study I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1,2,4 X b) 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 groundwater 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 granted)? 2-MapN2 X c) 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? 1,4 X 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? 1,4 X 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? 1,4 X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,4 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 2,4 X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 2-MapN6 X i) 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? 2-MapN8 X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2-MapN6 X k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,4 X DISCUSSION: A,f) The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 19 Initial Study on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The intent of the ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, in the San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. It is anticipated that the reduction of single-use carryout bags would incrementally reduce the amount of litter in the City that enters storm drains, thereby improving water quality. However, the increased use of reusable bags could also potentially affect water quality if reusable bags are improperly disposed of and become litter that enters the storm drain system. In addition, although overall carryout bag use is anticipated to decline as a result of the proposed ordinance, the EIR will also analyze whether the shift toward reusable bags and paper bags could potentially affect water quality as a result of processing activities related to bag production. Consequently, impacts related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR. b) The intent of the ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, in the San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. The proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve any physical development or construction activities. However, the proposed Bag Ordinance would be expected to lead to an increase in the number of reusable bags consumed in the City of Palo Alto. Washing reusable bags for sanitary purposes (either in a washing machine or rinsing and wiping) by customers may incrementally increase wastewater generation in the City and could result in adverse impacts to water quality. The impact to water supply and any impacts associated with groundwater supplies as a result of the increase in water use associated with the proposed Bag Ordinance is potentially significant and will be analyzed in an EIR. c-e) The proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve any physical development or construction activities. As such, the ordinance would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed Bag Ordinance would not alter the course of any stream or other drainage and would not increase the potential for flooding. Because the proposed Bag Ordinance does not involve any new buildings or other physical development, no stream or river would be altered and the rate or amount of surface runoff would not change compared to existing conditions. Therefore, there would be no impact and further analysis of these issues in an EIR is not warranted. g-k) The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve any physical development or construction activities. As such, the ordinance would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, expose people or structures to a significant risk related to flooding, inundation by seiche, tsunami, mudflow, nor would it result in stream bank instability. No impact would occur and further analysis of these issues in an EIR is not warranted. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 20 Initial Study J. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? 1,4 X b) Conflict with any 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 program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1,2,3,4 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1,2 X d) Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? 1,4 X e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? 1,4 X f) Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? 1,4 X g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to non-agricultural use? 1,2 Map L-9,3 X DISCUSSION: a-b) The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The ordinance would require an amendment to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. However, it would not involve any new development or construction activities. No new through-streets are proposed and no through-streets would be abandoned. As a result, the proposed ordinance would not divide an established community or conflict with any land use plan or policy, including the general plan, specific plan, and zoning ordinance. No impact would occur and further analysis of these issues in an EIR is not warranted. c-g) The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The proposed Bag Ordinance would not include any physical development or change any existing land uses. As such, the ordinance would not change the type or intensity of existing or planned land uses, be incompatible with adjacent land uses, nor would it conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses. Furthermore, the proposed Bag Ordinance would not introduce new development that would conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community plan. Moreover, the proposed Bag Ordinance would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or convert prime Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 21 Initial Study farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance to a non-agricultural use. No impact would occur and further discussion of these issues in an EIR is not warranted. Mitigation Measures: None Required K. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? 1,2 X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1,2 X DISCUSSION: The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve any physical development or construction activities that would result in the loss of availability of a known or locally important mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Moreover, as discussed in the Natural Environment Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Palo Alto does not contain any mineral deposits of regional significance. No impact would occur and further analysis of these issues in an EIR is not warranted. Mitigation Measures: None Required. L. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? 1,2,7 X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels? 1,2,7 X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1,2,7 X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2,7 X Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 22 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 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? 1 X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1 X g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? 1 X h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? 1 X i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? 1 X j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? 1 X k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? 1 X l) Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? 1,7 X DISCUSSION: a-d) The proposed Bag Ordinance would apply throughout the City of Palo Alto. However, the ordinance would not involve any physical development or construction activities. As such, the proposed ordinance would not create new noise sources that would expose persons to noise levels in excess of existing noise standards. The Bag Ordinance would not expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, nor would the proposed ordinance create a substantial increase in permanent or temporary ambient noise levels. The ordinance could incrementally alter travel patterns associated with transport of single use and reusable bags; however, this incremental change would not create any audible change in the noise environment in any neighborhoods in or around the City. Therefore, impacts related to noise levels would be less than significant and further analysis of these issues in the EIR is not warranted. e-f) The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The proposed Bag Ordinance would Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 23 Initial Study not involve any physical development or construction activities that would be located within the vicinity of a private air strip or within an airport land use plan. As such the proposed Bag Ordinance would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels resulting from a nearby airport. Therefore, no impact would occur and further analysis of these issues in an EIR is not warranted. g-l) The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The intent of the ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, in the San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. The proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve any physical development or construction activities of any kind. As such, the ordinance would not generate construction noise exceeding the background Leq by ten dBA or more, nor would it cause the existing Ldn to increase by three dBA or more in an existing residential area. Moreover, the proposed Bag Ordinance would not result in residential development that would exceed interior noise standards of 45 dBA or exterior noise standards as established in the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. Therefore, no impact would occur and further analysis of these issues in an EIR is not warranted. Mitigation Measures: None Required M. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1,4 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1,4 X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1,4 X d) Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? 1,4 X e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections? 1,4 X DISCUSSION: The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The intent of the ordinance is to Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 24 Initial Study increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, in the San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. The ordinance would not involve any physical development, such as residential units, and would not alter any existing land uses. As such, the ordinance would not induce population growth, displace existing housing, displace existing residents, create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs, or cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections. There would be no impact related to population and housing and further analysis of these issues in an EIR is not warranted. Mitigation Measures: None Required N. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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: a) Fire protection? 1,2,4 X b) Police protection? 1,2,4 X c) Schools? 1,2,4 X d) Parks? 1,2,4 X e) Other public facilities? 1,2,4 X DISCUSSION: a-b) Police and fire protection services in Palo Alto are provided by the Palo Alto Police Department and the Palo Alto Fire Department, respectively. The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The intent of the ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, in the San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. The proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve any new development or land use changes, nor would the ordinance result in an increase in population or employment in the City. Therefore, the project would not place an additional burden on the City’s Police or Fire Departments. The ordinance would not result in the need to construct new or altered fire protection or police facilities. There would be no impact and further analysis of these issues in an EIR is not warranted. c) Palo Alto’s public schools are operated by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). PAUSD operates one preschool, 11 elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, a continuation school, a self-supporting adult school, the Children’s Hospital School at Lucile Salter Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 25 Initial Study Packard Children’s Hospital, and a summer school. The proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve any new development or land use changes within the City. In addition, the Bag Ordinance would not result in an increase in population or employment; therefore, the project would not place an additional burden on existing schools in the PAUSD. The proposed Bag Ordinance would not result in the need for new or altered public schools. There would be no impact and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. d) The City owns and operates 29 neighborhood and district parks that total approximately 190 acres. The proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve the construction of residences or other facilities that would directly affect parks or increase demand for recreational services; therefore, the ordinance would not increase the demand for parks in the City. The proposed project would not result in the need for new or altered parks. There would be no impact and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. e) The proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve any new development or land use changes within the City. In addition, it would not result in an increase in population or employment; therefore, the project would not require the provision of new of physically altered government facilities. There would be no impact and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. Mitigation Measures: None Required O. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? 1,4 X 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? 1,4 X DISCUSSION: Police and fire protection services in Palo Alto are provided by the Palo Alto Police Department and the Palo Alto Fire Department, respectively. The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The intent of the ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, in the San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. The proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve the construction of residences. Therefore, the project would not increase the demand for recreation facilities, nor would it alter Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 26 Initial Study existing recreation facilities or require the construction for any new facilities. There would be no impact and further analysis of these issues in an EIR is not warranted. Mitigation Measures: None Required P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 1,4 X b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1,4 X c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1,4 X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1,4 X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,4 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,4 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)? 1,2,4 X h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more? 1,4 X i) Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average 1,4 X Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 27 Initial Study 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? 1,4 X k) 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? 1,4 X l) Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? 1,4 X m) Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? 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. 1,4 X n) Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 1,4 X o) Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion? 1,4 X p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,4 X DISCUSSION: The intent of the proposed Bag Ordinance is to reduce the environmental impacts related to the use of single-use plastic bags, and to promote a shift toward the use of reusable bags by retail customers. The ordinance would not involve any physical development or construction activities. As such, the proposed Bag Ordinance would not cause or result in noticeable changes in pedestrian patterns, vehicular traffic patterns or volumes, nor would the ordinance cause a noticeable increase in pedestrian traffic. Implementation of the proposed Bag Ordinance would not reduce, sever, or eliminate pedestrian or bicycle circulation or access, or preclude future planned and approved bicycle or pedestrian circulation. A Bag permanent increase in recyclable paper bag and reusable bag use might lead to an increase in the frequency of truck trips needed to deliver a greater number of these bags to stores in Palo Alto. However, any increase in truck trips related to recycled paper and reusable bag delivery would be partially offset by the reduction in truck trips related to single-use plastic carryout bag delivery since under the proposed Bag Ordinance, single-use plastic carryout bags would be banned and therefore truck delivery would not be required. Nevertheless, as shown in Table 1, assuming a worst-case scenario that as a result of the proposed Bag Ordinance the volume of existing single-use plastic bags would be replaced by approximately 35% recycled paper bags and 65% reusable bags, the net increase in truck traffic resulting from the change in bag use would be less than one truck trip per day. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 28 Initial Study Truck trips would be expected to primarily utilize major regional transportation facilities (such as the Bayshore Freeway (U.S. 101), Junipero Serra Freeway (Interstate 280), and major arterials in Palo Alto (such as El Camino Real). Delivery trucks may periodically travel on residential streets, but an increase of less than one truck trip per day in the entire region (in Palo Alto and the surrounding Bay Area) would not cause a significant traffic impact at any existing intersections or street segments in Palo Alto. Therefore, impacts related to the existing traffic load and the carrying capacity of the street systems would be less than significant and further analysis in an EIR is not warranted. Table 1 Estimated Truck Trips per Day Following Implementation of the Proposed Single-use Bag Ban Ordinance Bag Type Number of Bags per Year Number of Bags per Truck Load** Truck Trips Per Year Truck Trips per Day Single-use Plastic 0* 2,080,000 0 0 Single-use Paper 9,073,352* 217,665 42 0.11 Reusable 324,048* 108,862 3 0.008 Total 45 0.123 Existing Truck Trips for Plastic Bags 13 0.04 Net New Truck Trips 32 0.09 *Based on worst case scenario estimate of 35% conversion of the volume of existing plastic bag use to recyclable paper bags and 65% conversion to reusable bags (based on 52 uses per year). Based on City of San Jose Final EIR, SCH # 2009102095, October 2010 **City of Santa Monica Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR (SCH #2010041004), January 2011; and City of Sunnyvale Carryout Bag Ordinance EIR (SCH#2011062032), December 2011. Mitigation: None Required Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1,2,4 X b) 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? 1,2,4 X c) Require or result in the construction of new 1,4 X Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 29 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1,2,4 X e) 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 demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1,2,4 X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1,2,4 X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1,2,4 X h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? 1,4 X DISCUSSION: a,b,e) The City operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater treatment plant, for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford University. Wastewater from these communities is treated by the RWQCP prior to discharge to the San Francisco Bay. The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve any new buildings or other physical development and, therefore, would not directly cause an increase in the amount of wastewater generated. However, increased washing of reusable bags (for sanitary purposes) by City residents may incrementally increase wastewater generation. This increase of wastewater may exceed the City’s contractual entitlement for flows to the RWQCP. Therefore, the ordinance could significantly affect the City’s wastewater conveyance system. Impacts related to wastewater conveyance and treatment would be potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR. c) The proposed Bag Ordinance would not involve any physical development or construction activities. As such, it would not increase impervious surface area that would create or contribute runoff water exceeding the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Further, by eliminating the use of plastic bags in Palo Alto, the ordinance would incrementally reduce the amount of plastic bag litter that enters the storm drain systems. Plastic bags that enter the storm drain system may affect storm water flow by clogging drains and redirecting flow. By eliminating the potential for plastic bags to affect storm water flow, the proposed Bag Ordinance would incrementally improve the Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 30 Initial Study effectiveness of the stormwater drainage systems in Palo Alto. Therefore, the proposed Bag Ordinance would not require any new storm water drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. No impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. d) Palo Alto receives water from various sources: the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System (RWS), operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), local groundwater, and recycled water produced at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant for non- potable use. The first two sources meet all State and Federal drinking water quality standards. Recycled water is used to meet strict State requirements for non-potable use wherever feasible to irrigate landscaping and meet any other acceptable watering needs under our permit with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The proposed Bag Ordinance would be expected to lead to an increase in the number of reusable bags consumed in Palo Alto. Washing reusable bags for sanitary purposes (either in a washing machine or rinsing and wiping) by customers may incrementally increase water use in the City. The impact to water supply would be potentially significant and the potential for the increase in water use to exceed available supplies will be analyzed in an EIR. f-h) The majority of the City’s waste stream is transferred to the regional Sunnyvale Material and Recovery Transfer (SMaRT) Station. There, waste is sorted to remove recyclable goods for sale at market rates. Waste that can not be recycled is deposited at the Kirby Canyon Landfill in San Jose. The intent of the ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, in the San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. The proposed Bag Ordinance does not involve any physical development or construction activities. The shift toward reusable bags would reduce the amount of single-use plastic carryout bags sent to local landfills. However, the ordinance may result in a temporary increase in the number of paper bags and a permanent increase in the number of reusable bags that are currently used in the City. As such, the proposed Bag Ordinance may incrementally increase the amount of solid waste generated related to these types of bags. Impacts to the City’s solid waste collection and disposal system would be potentially significant and this issue will be further analyzed in an EIR. R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? 1,2,3,4 X Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 31 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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)? 1,4 X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1,4 X DISCUSSION: a) As discussed in Section D, Biological Resources, the proposed Bag Ordinance could potentially affect wildlife species or sensitive habitats if reusable bags are improperly disposed of and become litter that enters the storm drain system and ultimately into coastal and marine environments. The proposed Bag Ordinance’s impact related to sensitive species or habitats is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR. b) As discussed above, the proposed Bag Ordinance could have potentially significant impacts related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, and utilities and service systems. The proposed Bag Ordinance’s impacts related to the aforementioned issue areas is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR. c) The proposed Bag Ordinance would restrict all retail services (including supermarkets) and food service establishments from providing single-use plastic checkout bags and would require retail services to charge a minimum of ten cents ($0.10) until April 21, 2014 and twenty-five cents ($0.25) on or after April 22, 2014 for a recyclable paper checkout bag. The intent of the ordinance is to increase the use of reusable bags and decrease the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to reduce pollution in local creeks, in the San Francisco Bay and in the marine environment. However, as discussed above, the proposed Bag Ordinance could have potentially significant impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and hydrology and water quality which could affect human beings. The proposed Bag Ordinance’s impacts related to the aforementioned issue areas is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 32 Initial Study SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Project Planner’s knowledge of the study area and the proposed project 2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 3. Palo Alto Municipal Code 4. Draft Ordinance 5. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 10 6. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10-Noise Ordinance 7. City of Santa Monica. January 2011. “Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance.” Final Environmental Impact Report. October 2010. 8. County of Santa Clara. October 2010. Initial Study for Single-use Carryout Bag 9. California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011 and 2012, with 2010 Benchmark. Sacramento, California. May 2012. Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Page 33 Initial Study 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 DECLARATION 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 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. ___________________________________ _________________________ Project Planner Date July 10, 2012 Honorable Mayor and Council Members c/o Julie Weiss City of Palo Alto 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY Re: Ordinance to expand plastic bags ordinance to include all retail establishments and food establishments located in the city of Palo Alto and– Oppose unless Restaurants are Exempted. Dear Mayor and City Council: The California Restaurant Association is the definitive voice of the food service industry in California and is the oldest restaurant trade association in the nation. On behalf of our restaurant members in Palo Alto, we submit this letter of opposition regarding a proposed ordinance to ban the use of plastic bags in all retail and food establishments. As providers of prepared food, restaurants take their responsibility to provide food in a safe and unadulterated manner seriously and devote a tremendous amount of effort to ensure food safety. If plastic bags are banned the only bag options left for restaurants are reusable bags or paper bags. These options pose serious public health and safety risks as well as operational challenges for restaurants. For these reason as well as the reasons explained below, we ask the City Council to exempt restaurants and other food service establishments from this ban. Restaurants are generally exempted from bag ordinances due to food safety concerns with using reusable bags for prepared food to-‐go. Most recently, the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County have exempted restaurants from their ordinances. Other California jurisdictions that have passed bag ordinances with an exemption for restaurants include Calabasas, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, City of Los Angeles, Marin County, Oakland, San Jose, Santa Clara County, and Santa Monica. For example: o Santa Monica’s ordinance provides: “5.45.040 Exemptions (a)(1): Single-‐use plastic carry out bags may be distributed to customers by food providers for the purpose of safeguarding public health and safety during the transportation of prepared take-‐out foods and liquids intended for consumption away from the food provider’s premises.”1 1 City of Santa Monica Bag Ordinance at http://qcode.us/codes/santamonica/view.php?topic=5-‐5_44-‐5_45-‐ 5_45_040&frames=on 2 City of San Jose Bag Ordinance Development, February 2010. o San Jose provided that “Restaurants and food establishments would not be subject to the ban for public health reasons. Reusable bags are considered impractical for these purposes.”2 According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, “Harmful bacteria are the most common cause for food poisoning” or foodborne illness. 3 To safeguard against foodborne illness, restaurants must follow strict food safety standards in food handling under Cal Code, the California retail food code. Restaurants are regularly inspected by their county environmental health department under these guidelines. Food safety and food borne illness prevention is a top priority for restaurants, but no matter what precautions are taken by the restaurant to prevent cross contamination, it can all be in vain if people use contaminated reusable bags to transport restaurant food. People use reusable bags for various purposes, not just to transport food. They use reusable bags to carry dirty clothes, shoes, pet items and any number of personal items. The co-‐mingling of non-‐food items with perishable, food items can expose food to germs and bacteria. Additionally, many people do not wash their reusable bags. Bags are often kept in car trunks for convenience; an environment that can be a breeding ground for bacteria. Any potential risk of cross contamination is taken very seriously and cause for concern. This risk exists with reusable bags. (See research by University of Arizona and Loma Linda University, Center for Food Industry Excellence at Texas Tech University, and Health Canada). o Health Canada warns: “When you are using reusable bags and bins, the biggest food safety concern is cross-‐contamination. Because these kinds of grocery bags and bins are used frequently, they can pick up bacteria from foods they carry.”4 o In a study by University of Arizona and Loma Linda University, a total of 84 reusable bags were collected from consumers (25 Los Angeles, 25 San Francisco, and 34 from Tucson). 97% of persons interviewed did not clean their reusable bags on a regular basis. Coliform bacteria were detected in 51% of bags tested; E.coli was identified in 12% of bags tested.5 o International Center for Food Industry Excellence at Texas Tech University tested 11 reusable bags – 8 used and 3 new. Half of the used bags indicated coliform contamination, while a quarter of the used bags tested positive for generic E. coli contamination.6 2 City of San Jose Bag Ordinance Development, February 2010. 3 US Department of Health and Human Services atwww.FoodSafety.org 4 Health Canada at http://www.hc-‐sc.gc.ca/fn-‐an/securit/kitchen-‐cuisine/reusable-‐bags-‐sacs-‐reutilisable-‐eng.php and http://www.halifax.ca/districts/dist08/documents/BeaconSept09.pdf. 5 Assessment of the Potential for Cross Contamination of Food Products by Reusable Shopping bags, Charles P. Gerba, David Williams and Ryan G. Sinclair (June 9, 2010) at http://uanews.org/pdfs/GerbaWilliamsSinclair_BagContamination.pdf 6 Research by the International Center for Food Industry Excellence at Texas Tech University at http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/12_for_action/reusable-‐bags-‐may-‐carry-‐contamination The use of reusable bags by restaurant patrons increases the owner’s/operator’s liability because there is a potential for cross-‐contamination. Any allegation of suspected foodborne illness is detrimental to a restaurant’s reputation. These allegations can be easily spread by word of mouth, social media (e.g. Facebook), customer reviews (e.g. Yelp, Trip Advisor), and coverage by traditional media, not to mention an investigation by Environmental Health. Even if it turns out the restaurant was not responsible, the stigma that goes along with such allegations can irreversibly hurt a restaurant’s reputation and hurt the business. Unlike food purchased at the grocery store, restaurant food is typically not prepackaged or sealed. There can be spills and not all food is completely wrapped up or enclosed in a container (e.g. fries at quick service restaurants). Using a new, clean bag is the best way to ensure food is safely transported from the restaurant. Restaurants should have the freedom of choice to determine what type of bag works best to maintain the integrity of their product. Paper bags are not always the most practical choice for restaurants. Plastic bags are superior to paper bags in protecting against accidental spills and leaks during transport, whereas the content would just seep through a paper bag. Customers become disgruntled when food from the bag leaks onto their car, carpet, clothes, etc. In addition, some types of containers don’t fit as well in paper bags. Whereas plastic bags conform to the size of the container, paper bags do not. The bottom of paper bags is generally rectangular-‐shaped which doesn’t work when you have a standard, large square container. Restaurants will tightly pack up food in a plastic bag and use the handles to tie the bag so as to prevent the food from moving around and spilling. You can’t do this with a paper bag. We respectfully urge the City Council to carefully consider these public health reasons for why restaurants are in a unique situation and exempt restaurants and other food service establishments from the ordinance. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 408.416.6344 or jgonzalez@calrest.org. Sincerely, Javier M. González Director, Local Government Affairs Government Affairs + Public Policy California Restaurant Association 7/10/12 To: Julie Weiss City of Palo Alto From: Darrell Costello Roplast Industries Inc. Re: EIR and Bag Ordinance Response/Feedback 1) We request that retail stores that do not sell a “limited line of food” be categorized and reviewed separately in the EIR process, similar to how restaurants are being separated. This would give you three types of businesses: Grocery/Pharmacy (stores that sell lines of food), Restaurants, and General Merchandise/Department stores that do not carry food to be sold as grocery. a. This request is made because we believe that the business practices and types of transactions of these stores are substantially different than stores that sell grocery items which have a high number of daily transactions and bag usage. b. By separating out this classification of business, it will allow them to be addressed separately and specifically in the writing of the ordinance, if they are to be included. c. By not separating them in the EIR process, it will make it more difficult to address the difference among businesses once the EIR data is compiled. d. Since restaurants are being categorized as a “type” of business, we think the EIR would be more accurate and valuable in the writing of the ordinance if stores that do not sell food were also separated. e. Many municipalities have excluded stores that do not sell food, as well as restaurants, from their bag ordinances. Alameda County, L.A. County, Long Beach, and Santa Monica (modified) are among the largest municipalities to do so. The proposed State of California bag bill (Brownley) also does not include stores that do not sell food or restaurants. There is a clear recognition of the difference between grocery and non grocery stores. 2) If nonfood stores were separated from grocery stores, it would allow the option to apply a separate standard/rule for these stores in the ordinance under the premise that bags do not need to hold 22 pounds for nonfood transactions. To require a bag this heavy is a waste of natural resources and requires more transportation/emissions. It stands to reason that a bag used to protect and conceal clothing would not need to be of the same thickness as a bag used to carry heavy groceries. A lower gauged bag would still be highly reusable for clothing and future shopping trips to the clothing stores. If it was determined that nonfood stores needed to be included in the bag ordinance at all, we would argue that a minimum fee would be just as effective in reducing bag usage as would any increase in bag strength. If nonfood stores were Roplast Industries, Inc. 3155 South 5th Avenue Oroville, CA 95965 1-800-767-5278 www.roplast.com Darrell Costello Grocery Sales Manager dcostello@roplast.com separated and included in the ordinance, and if the definition of a reusable bag were changed, these stores could have a separate requirement of: a. No single use plastic or paper for free, reusable bags must be a minimum of 2.25 mil., and sold for a minimum fee (same fee as paper, likely 10 cents). i. This would accomplish your goal of eliminating single use bags at all stores, and would not allow free bags, would reduce bag usage, encourage reuse and not require over engineering of bags to hold lightweight or many small items. 3) We recommend that there is a sunset date on WIC/SNAP customers being provided free bags. This is an undue burden on stores to provide a higher priced bag to a percentage of customers, does not encourage reuse among these same customers, and does not decrease the number of bags being distributed to a percentage of the population. This is contrary to the goals of the ordinance. The San Jose bag ordinance has a sunset date for free bags to WIC/SNAP customers. 4) We discourage a minimum size/volume placed on reusable bags. A bag can be reusable at any size and using extra raw materials to make a bag larger than it needs to be is simply a waste of raw materials, energy, emissions, and is an unnecessary regulation of a consumer product. 5) If “alternatives” that will be evaluated will include changing the definition of a reusable bag, such as the “walk test” (22 lbs, over 175 feet, 125 times) we highly recommend fully understanding the meaning of a new definition in terms of: 1. bag engineering (such as gauge), 2. explaining why these particular targets are being selected, and 3. explaining how the City will certify bags that meet these standards. If a reusable bag would have to be thicker to pass the new requirements, shouldn’t the environmental effects of this be outlined or addressed in the EIR? If not, they definitely should be defended or justified in a proposed ordinance. We are opposed to vague definitions such as the walk test that does not have testing that correlates to the language of the ordinance. Such important interpretations should not be left to staff to determine at a later date, but should be properly vetted through the public process. Considering this now, will force foresight as to how the ordinance is to be monitored, policed and written. If a City chooses to regulate bags, each has a duty a to write a fair, balanced and comprehensive ordinance, as the language of your laws will surely be replicated in other geographic areas, just as you are using language from ordinances that passed before yours. The diligence of each process is crucial to consistency among bordering cities, national store chains, legal challenges and the validity of bag ordinances in general. We encourage you to write the best and most comprehensive ordinance to date. We appreciate the opportunity to give feedback and offer our assistance and expertise going forward. From: Stephen L.Joseph [mailto:savetheplasticbag@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:03 PM To: Plastics Subject: Restaurant bags Mr. Bobel: We object to any ordinance that bans or imposes a fee on plastic bags at other restaurants and food facilities. Such bans are preempted and prohibited by the California Retail Food Code. See attached legal memorandum. See also attached decision of the Santa Barbara Superior Court. Although it is labeled a "Tentative Decision," it was adopted as the final decision of the court on May 15, 2012. We will file a lawsuit to invalidate any ordinance that bans or imposes a fee on plastic bags at other restaurants and food facilities. Please confirm that you have received this e-mail. Regards, Stephen L. Joseph, Counsel SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION 350 Bay Street, Suite 100-328 San Francisco, CA 94133 Phone: (415) 577-6660 Fax: (415) 869-5380 Website: www.savetheplasticbag.com E-mail: savetheplasticbag@earthlink.net FOLLOW US ON TWITTER: http://twitter.com/saveplasticbag# SUBSCRIBE TO OUR RSS FEED: http://tinyurl.com/4vlc9cr NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose them to anyone. Please notify the sender and delete them. Thank you. SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION 350 Bay Street, Suite 100-328 San Francisco, CA 94133 Phone: (415) 577-6660 Fax: (415) 869-5380 E-mail: savetheplasticbag@earthlink.net Website: www.savetheplasticbag.com MEMORANDUM FROM: Stephen L. Joseph, Counsel TO: California cities and counties RE: Restaurant bags DATE: April 27, 2012 SUMMARY The California Retail Food Code preempts any local regulation or ban of plastic bags at restaurants and other “food facilities.” Save The Plastic Bag Coalition (“STPB”) will sue every city or county that adopts an ordinance that bans, restricts, limits, or requires a charge for plastic bags at any restaurant or “food facility.” The City and County of San Francisco and the City of Carpinteria have adopted ordinances banning plastic bags at restaurants. STPB has filed lawsuits against San Francisco and Carpinteria to invalidate their restaurant bag bans. All other cities and counties that have banned plastic bags have exempted restaurants, including Alameda County, Los Angeles County, Marin County, Santa Clara County, the City of Dana Point, the City of Laguna Beach, the City of Long Beach, the City of Ojai, the City of San Jose, and the City of Santa Monica. Santa Cruz County and the City of Manhattan Beach initially banned plastic bags at restaurants, but they have amended their ordinances and now exempt restaurants. THE SAFETY ISSUE The City of Santa Monica explained its restaurant exemption as follows: Restaurants and other food vendors may provide single-use plastic carryout bags to customers only for the transportation of take-out food and liquids intended for consumption off of the food provider’s premises. This exemption is included as a public health safeguard based on input from restaurant owners who expressed concern that some hot and liquid foods could leak from take-out containers and potentially cause paper bags to weaken and fail. 2 The City of San Jose explained its restaurant exemption as follows: Restaurants and food establishments would not be subject to the ban for public health reasons. Reusable bags are considered impractical for these purposes. Restaurants sell freshly cooked foods that may contain extremely hot liquid, grease, oil, sauce, or soup. Oil is heated in fryers to 375 degrees. Hot soup and other foods may be served at 180 degrees or more. Plastic is obviously safer than paper for transporting such foods. Plastic is a waterproof and greaseproof material. Paper is not. Plastic bag handles can be tightly tied. Paper bags cannot be tied at the top. Liquids are far less likely to seep out of tied plastic bags. Chinese food is often placed in cardboard containers that are placed in plastic carryout bags that are tied at the top to prevent hot soups and juices from spilling and causing scalding or burns. When liquids spill inside a paper bag, the bag can break. That does not happen to a plastic bag. Plastic bags may be transparent. Paper bags cannot be transparent. It may be important for consumers to be able to see what is inside a bag without opening it, especially if there are hot liquids or grease that could cause scalding or burns. Checkout bags from food establishments are often opened in moving vehicles, so proper packaging is essential. One can imagine the impact on a child of hot liquid or hot oil seeping or spilling from a paper bag in a vehicle onto his or her lap or legs. The Burn Center at the University of Florida states: (Exh. 1) Examples of hot liquids which can cause burns include hot water, coffee, grease and hot soup. The Burn Center at Saint Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco states as follows on its website: (Exh. 2) Hot liquids can cause life threatening burn injuries and are the leading cause of burn injuries in children under the age of 4 years. The experts in burn treatment at Saint Francis Memorial Hospital's Both Burn Center want you to know: Coffee, tea, soup and hot tap water can be hot enough to cause serious burn injury… 60-70% of all pediatric patients seen in the Bothin Burn Center have a scald injury. 3 The lady who sued in the McDonald’s hot coffee case was burned so severely that her doctors didn’t think she would live. The movie about the hot coffee case shows horrific photographs of her injuries. http://hotcoffeethemovie.com/. Photographs of the her injuries are contained in Exhibit 3. They may cause distress to people sensitive to such images. The plaintiff’s cotton sweatpants absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, burning her thighs, buttocks, and groin. She suffered third-degree burns on 6% of her skin and lesser burns over 16%. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, she lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds. Two years of medical treatment followed. From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s received more than 700 reports of people burned by its coffee. Another incident is related in the following news story: (Exh. 4) A Miami-Dade woman says that the soup she bought from Subway scalded her thigh, hip, and buttocks so extensively that she had to rush to the hospital -- and undergo emergency treatment for second-degree burns, according to a recently filed lawsuit. On July 30, Claudia Vargas purchased soup and a sub from the Hollywood sandwich store, located at 6582 Taft St. When she returned to her car, she tried to take the soup out of the bag. But the container was too full and the lid was not attached correctly, so the soup spilled on her lap, Vargas says. Because the soup was extremely hot, 23-year old Vargas says that she suffered from second-degree burns that will leave her with permanent scarring. Richard Lydecker, the lawyer representing Subway, says that his client did nothing wrong. “The investigation is still ongoing, but this soup was not any hotter than soup served normally,” Lydecker tells the Pulp. “There was nothing special about this soup.” Lydecker insists that the soup was cooked and served at a reasonable temperature. “I mean, soup is hot. And people want their soup hot. You're not supposed to spill it on yourself. My client just wanted to serve a good tasting, hot soup. He looks forward to exonerating himself in court.” Still, Vargas stands by her claim, and insists that Subway was negligent in how it prepped, marketed, and served her the soup. Medical records furnished to the Pulp by Vargas' representative confirm that Vargas had to go to the emergency room after the 4 accident, where she was given antibiotics, a tetanus shot, and topical ointment for the wounds. Vargas thinks that this could have been avoided if Subway hadn't served overly hot soup -- or if she'd had some kind of warning that the soup would be scalding and hazardous. Vargas is suing Subway, in hopes of getting money for her medical bills. A plastic surgeon who examined Vargas shortly after the accident has said that chances for full recovery are grim: The burns will take at least 6 months to heal. And, “despite laser intervention, the patient will always have some residual scarring,” medical documents note. A restaurant owner has the legal right and duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent such injuries. It is for the restaurant owner, not a government entity, to decide whether plastic or paper is the safest for its food. Denying restaurant owners the discretion to determine the safest option for a particular type of food could have disastrous consequences. It just takes one tragic incident! Claudia Vargas’s burns caused when taking hot soup out of a carryout bag 5 CALIFORNIA STATE LAW PREEMPTION The State of California regulates food safety in the California Retail Food Code. (Health and Safety Code Div. 104, Part 7.) Health and Safety Code § 113705 states as follows: Legislative intent to preempt local standards The Legislature finds and declares that the public health interest requires that there be uniform statewide health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities to assure the people of this state that the food will be pure, safe, and unadulterated. Except as provided in Section 113709, it is the intent of the Legislature to occupy the whole field of health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities, and the standards set forth in this part and regulations adopted pursuant to this part shall be exclusive of all local health and sanitation standards relating to retail food facilities. Health and Safety Code § 113709 states as follows: Authority to establish local requirements This part does not prohibit a local governing body from adopting an evaluation or grading system for food facilities, from prohibiting any type of food facility, from adopting an employee health certification program, from regulating the provision of consumer toilet and handwashing facilities, or from adopting requirements for the public safety regulating the type of vending and the time, place, and manner of vending from vehicles upon a street pursuant to its authority under subdivision (b) of section 22455 of the Vehicle Code. Health and Safety Code § 113789 defines a “food facility” as follows: (a) “Food facility” means an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food for human consumption at the retail level, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) An operation where food is consumed on or off the premises, regardless of whether there is a charge for the food. (2) Any place used in conjunction with the operations described in this subdivision, including, but not limited to, storage facilities for food-related utensils, equipment, and materials.(b) “Food facility” includes permanent and nonpermanent food facilities, including, 6 but not limited to, the following: (1) Public and private school cafeterias. (2) Restricted food service facilities. (3) Licensed health care facilities. (4) Commissaries. (5) Mobile food facilities. (6) Mobile support units. (7) Temporary food facilities. (8) Vending machines. (9) Certified farmers' markets, for purposes of permitting and enforcement pursuant to Section 114370. (10) Farm stands, for purposes of permitting and enforcement pursuant to Section 114375. [§ 113789(c) contains exclusions from the above definition.] Health and Safety Code § 113914 defines “single-use” articles as including single-use “carry-out utensils” and “bags” and “wrappers.” The statute uses the word “bags,” leaving no room for doubt that local bans of plastic bags are preempted. “Carryout-out utensil” includes any “container used in the storage, preparation, transportation, dispensing, sale, or service of food.” (§ 113934) Health and Safety Code § 113914 defines “single-use” articles as including single-use “carry-out utensils” and “bags” and “wrappers.” The words “carry-out” and “bags” leave no room for doubt that the Retail Food Code covers carryout bags. Health and Safety Code § 113934 defines “carryout-out utensils” (the term used in § 113914) as including any carryout “container used in the storage, preparation, transportation, dispensing, sale, or service of food.” A bag is a container. Health and Safety Code § 114081 states that “single-use articles [including carryout bags] shall not be “reused.” Health and Safety Code § 114130(a) states that “utensils [including carryout bags] shall be designed and constructed to be “durable” and “retain their characteristic qualities under normal use conditions.” 7 Health and Safety Code §§ 114130.1 and 114130.2 state that “materials” that are used to make single-use articles and utensils [including carryout bags] shall not allow the migration of deleterious substances or impart colors, odors, or tastes to food and under normal use conditions shall be durable, nonabsorbent, safe and clean. The above standards mean, among other things, that a bag must not become soggy or break apart when hot liquid is spilled inside. Paper does not always satisfy the standard. The materials, durability, safety, are reuse bag of carryout bags are subject to the foregoing standards in the Retail Food Code. A plastic bag ban applicable to restaurants directly conflicts with the state standard that the determination of what kind of bag may be used depends on durability and safety. A city or county cannot make that determination by eliminating plastic as an option. In any event, there is field preemption. The fact that cities and counties may wish to ban plastic bags at restaurants for environmental purposes is irrelevant. In California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 52 Cal.4th 177, the Supreme Court decided a case concerning Retail Food Code preemption and stated as follows: Express field preemption turns on a comparative statutory analysis: What field of exclusivity does the state preemption clause define, what subject matter does the local ordinance regulate, and do the two overlap? (Id. at 188.) Purpose alone is not a basis for concluding a local measure is preempted. While we and the Courts of Appeal have occasionally treated an ordinance’s purpose as relevant to state preemption analysis, we have done so in the context of a nuanced inquiry into the ultimate question in determining field preemption: whether the effect of the local ordinance is in fact to regulate in the very field the state has reserved to itself. Fn4. To rest preemption analysis solely on considerations of purpose would generate the anomalous circumstance, rejected by the United States Supreme Court, that one jurisdiction’s measure might survive preemption, while another identical measure passed in a different jurisdiction might fall, “merely because its authors had different aspirations.” (Id. at 190, emphasis added.) While the purpose of banning plastic bags at restaurants may be to protect the environment, the effect is to intrude into an area that the State of California has reserved to itself. 8 The Supreme Court confirmed that “the state alone” may regulate “food transportation, storage, and preparation,” “how food should be handled or transported,” and “food display and service.” These are fields preempted by the Retail Food Code and are subject to “exclusive state regulation.” (Id. at 189.) Based on the foregoing, the banning of plastic bags at restaurants by any city or county is preempted and invalid. CONCLUSION Cities and counties are requested and urged not to ban plastic bags at any establishment. However, if they choose to do so, restaurants and all other “food facilities” must be exempted. STPB will sue cities and counties to enforce state preemption. All rights are reserved. Please contact Stephen Joseph, counsel for STPB, by phone or e-mail if you have any questions. Phone: (415) 577-6660. E-mail: savetheplasticbag@earthlink.net. 11/18/11 8:08 AMShands at the University of Florida Page 1 of 2http://www.shands.org/hospitals/UF/service/burn/types.asp Find a Doctor Shands at UF Healthcare Services For Patients & Public Giving Careers Types of Burns The following are common types of burns: chemical burns electrical burns thermal burns Chemical burns Chemical burns are tissue damage caused by exposure to a strong acid or alkali, such as phenol, creosol, mustard gas or phosphorus. Chemical burns result from the conversion of chemical energy to thermal energy. Emergency treatment includes washing the surface of the wound with large amounts of water to remove the chemical. As long as the chemical is in contact with the skin, the burn usually continues to progress. back to top Electrical burns An electrical injury occurs when an electrical current from an external source runs through the body as heat. Electrical burns are the result of tissue damage from heat of up to 5,000 degrees Celsius generated by an electric current. The heat causes extensive damage and usually follows the current, but it can damage other structures such as muscle and bone. This electrical current usually flows along the blood vessels and nerves. This type of electrical current can cause the following three burns: contact burn injury flash burn flame burn The points of entrance and exit on the skin are burned, along with the muscle and subcutaneous tissues through which the current passes. It is possible that fatal cardiac arrhythmia may result. In this situation contact your local burn center or emergency room immediately. back to top Burn Center Navigation Admissions Burn Injuries Contact us Degrees of Burns Employment First Aid Skin and Wound Healing Research at the Burn Center Southeast Burn Foundation Types of Burn Injuries Make an Appointment To make a new patient appointment or find out more information about the Burn Center at Shands at the University of Florida, pleasecall 352.265.0943 . You may also email our Consultation Center(consult@shands.ufl.edu) or use our secureonline form. Home Stay Healthy For Healthcare Professionals News Calendar Site Index Contact Us Search: Search 11/18/11 8:08 AMShands at the University of Florida Page 2 of 2http://www.shands.org/hospitals/UF/service/burn/types.asp Thermal burns Thermal burns are the most common types of burns. These often occur from residential fires, automobile accidents, playing with matches, improperly stored gasoline, space heaters, electrical malfunctions, or arson. Flame burns are often deep burns, causing partial- to full-thickness burns. Hot liquid burns are not as deep as flame burns, but they can still produce deep burns. Examples of hot liquids which can cause burns include hot water, coffee, grease and hot soup. Burns from touching hot objects vary in depth, since people's reflexes cause them to react quickly. These burns can be caused by touching a stove, skillet or grill. Flash injuries are burns that involve exposed parts of the skin and vary in depth depending on the proximity on the flash and the intensity. Automobile, gas tank and airplane explosions are causes of flash burns. Sunburns can be extremely painful, but the pain is relieved as the wound is soothed and injury progression is stopped. Sunburns are usually superficial burns or first-degree burns. back to top 1600 S.W. Archer Road • Gainesville, FL 32608 • 352.265.0943 © 2006 Shands HealthCare. All rights reserved. | Terms & Privacy | Contact Us 3/15/12 2:39 PMPrinter Friendly View Page 1 of 1 Saint Francis Bothin Burn Center Safety Facts on Scalding Injuries Hot Liquids Burn Like Fire Hot liquids can cause life threatening burn injuries and are the leading cause of burn injuries in children under the age of 4 years. The experts in burn treatment at Saint Francis Memorial Hospital's Both Burn Center want you to know: Scalds and burn accidents frequently occur when parents or caregivers are in a hurry, angry, or under a lot of pressure or stress Coffee, tea, soup and hot tap water can be hot enough to cause serious burn injury Scald and steam burns are often associated with microwave oven use When tap water reaches 140 degrees Fahrenheit, it can cause a third degree (full thickness) burn in just five seconds Hot tap water accounts for 17% of all childhood scald hospitalizations 60-70% of all pediatric patients seen in the Bothin Burn Center have a scald injury. The Bothin Burn Center staff recommends you take the following steps to prevent scald injuries: Provide continuous supervision of children in the kitchen and bathroom Keep all hot liquids at a safe distance from children - keep pot handles turned toward the back of the stove Test all heated liquid/food before giving it to a child or placing it within his/her reach Never hold a child while drinking a hot liquid Purchase appliances with short cords, and keep all cords from dangling over counter edges Before placing a child into the bath or getting into the tub yourself, test the temperature of the water by moving your hand rapidly through the water for several seconds. The temperature should not exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit (a child's delicate skin burns more quickly than an adult's). Never leave a child unattended in the bathroom or tub Use extreme caution bathing a child in a kitchen sink with a single-lever faucet - these are easy for a child to turn on Adjust your thermostat setting on your water heater to produce a water temperature of 120-125 degrees or less HOT WATER CAUSES THIRD DEGREE BURNS: in 1 second at 156 degrees in 2 seconds at 149 degrees in 5 seconds at 140 degrees in 15 seconds at 133 degrees If you have questions regarding burn care or treatment, call the Bothin Burn Center staff at (415) 353-6255. © 2012 Catholic Healthcare West WARNING THE FOLLOWING PAGES CONTAIN PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES IN THE HOT COFFEE CASE. THEY ARE DISTURBING AND MAY CAUSE DISTRESS TO PEOPLE SENSITIVE TO SUCH IMAGES. 2 3 4 11/18/11 7:16 AMSubway Soup Severely Burns Woman, Lawsuit Claims - Broward/Palm Beach News - The Daily Pulp Page 1 of 6http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/09/subway_soup_burn_lawsuit.php Blogs Claudia Vargas, 23, says she was burned bysoup. Subway Soup Severely Burns Woman, LawsuitClaims By Victoria Bekiempis Sat., Sep. 10 2011 at 10:15 AM Comments (15) Share 2Like 0 StumbleUpon3retweet 118 digg Law Categories: Law A Miami-Dade woman says that the soup she bought from Subway scalded her thigh, hip, and buttocks so extensively that she had to rush to the hospital -- and undergo emergency treatment for second-degree burns, according to a recently filed lawsuit. On July 30, Claudia Vargas purchased soup and a sub from the Hollywood sandwich store, located at 6582 Taft St. When she returned to her car, she tried to take the soup out of the bag. But the container was too full and the lid was not attached correctly, so the soup spilled on her lap, Vargas says. Because the soup was extremely hot, 23-year old Vargas says that she suffered from second-degree burns that will leave her with permanent scarring. The Pulp has acquired a photo of Vargas' injuries, but has posted it after the jump because of the disturbing nature of the image. Most Popular Stories Atheist Group's New Florida Billboards About to Piss Off a Whole Bunch of Jesus Fans Allen West Says He Was in a "White Supremacist Motorcycle Gang" Florida DOT's Method of Increasing Pedestrian Safety: Video of People Being Nailed by Cars Oba Chandler Executed; Left Behind a Sheisty Last Statement Casey Anthony Probation Update: Still No Job or Money, Now Says She Hasn't Been Boozing More Most Popular... Viewed Commented Recent TOPblog STORIES Morning Poll Rick ScottPredicts"Obamacare"Will Be a Loser ... By Matthew Hendley Allen West Broward Poll:Allen West LessFavorable ThanDebbie WassermanSchultzBy Matthew Hendley Crime Vietnam Veteran,Killed Inside HisFort LauderdaleHome By Matthew Hendley Election Herman CainMakes a Stop inBroward By Matthew Hendley Search Broward-Palm Beach New Times Most Popular | Most RecentBrowse Voice Nation Log inSign up 11/18/11 7:16 AMSubway Soup Severely Burns Woman, Lawsuit Claims - Broward/Palm Beach News - The Daily Pulp Page 2 of 6http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/09/subway_soup_burn_lawsuit.php Tags:lawsuit, sandwiches, soup, stew, Subway Comments (15) Write Comment Email to Friend Print Article 2Like Florida Ranks Very High in Economic Study; Unfortunately, It's About People Being Poor October 4, 2011 Veterans Hunt Gators to Heal War Wounds (Video) November 11, 2011 Florida Democratic Party's New Fundraising Technique: Identifying the "Rickpublicans" October 25, 2011 The Justin Bieber Meat Mask: Eat His Face Off November 16, 2011 Allen West: Occupy Movement Is a Commie "Gang" Full of "the Bad People" October 21, 2011 More About: Claudia Vargas Like Vargas' burns. Richard Lydecker, the lawyer representing Subway, says that his client did nothing wrong. "The investigation is still ongoing, but this soup was not any hotter than soup served normally," Lydecker tells the Pulp. "There was nothing special about this soup." Lydecker insiststhat the soup was cooked and served at a reasonable temperature. "I mean, soup is hot. And people want their soup hot. You're not supposed to spill it on yourself. My client just wanted to serve a good tasting, hot soup. He looks forward to exonerating himself in court." Still, Vargas stands by her claim, and insists that Subway was negligent in how it prepped, marketed, and served her the soup. Medical records furnished to the Pulp by Vargas' representative confirm that Vargas had to go to the emergency room after the accident, where she was given antibiotics, a tetanus shot, and topical ointment for the wounds. A plastic surgeon who examined Vargas shortly after the accident has said that chances for full recovery are grim: The burns will take at least 6 months to heal. And, "despite laser intervention, the patient will always have some residual scarring," medical documents note. Vargas thinks that this could have been avoided if Subway hadn't served overly hot soup -- or if she'd had some kind of warning that the soup would be scalding and hazardous. Vargas is suing Subway, in hopes of getting money for her medical bills. Follow The Pulp on Facebook and on Twitter: @ThePulpBPB. Related Content buy, sell, trade (8,740)musician (1,104) rentals (2,995)jobs (1,532) personals (1,261)adult entertainment (14,927) Harry Potter Night by Art Nouveau @ Respectable Street Hermain Cain Makes a Stop in Broward Tommy Tony April Charlie Daniel The Pulp on Facebook 316 people like The Pulp. Like Facebook social plugin Broward/Palm BeachClassifieds Slideshows Sign up for free stuff, news info & more! enter email TENTATIVE RULING Judge Thomas Anderle Department 3 SB-Anacapa 1100 Anacapa Street P.O. Box 21107 Santa Barbara, CA 93121-1107 CIVIL LAW & MOTION Save the Plastic Bag Coalition vs City of Carpinteria Case No:1385674 Hearing Date:Tue May 15, 2012 9:30 Nature of Proceedings: Demurrer Demurrer of City of Carpinteria to Complaint Ruling: For the reasons set forth herein, the demurrer of defendant City of Carpinteria to the complaint is overruled. Defendant shall file and serve its answer to the complaint on or before May 25, 2012. Background: On March 12, 2012, the City of Carpinteria adopted Ordinance No. 655 (the “Ordinance”), enacting chapter 8.51 in the Carpinteria Municipal Code entitled “Single-Use Bag Regulations.” “The purpose of these provisions is to promote: “A. The protection of unique coastal resources found in Carpinteria and identified for protection in policies of the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Plan, including the Carpinteria ‘El Estero’ Salt Marsh, Beaches, Tidelands, and Offshore Reefs, Harbor Seal Hauling Grounds, and Creekways and Riparian Habitat; “B. Compliance with federal and state mandates for Clean Water (including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program and waste stream reduction (AB 939 and AB 341)); “C. A reduction in the amount of plastic and paper material that is manufactured, transported, handled/processed, and discarded, and the impacts associated with such activities. “D. A reduction in the amount of waste/debris in City parks, public open spaces, creeks, estuary, tidelands and the ocean, and the amount of material going to landfills;” (Carpinteria Mun. Code, § 8.51.020.) The Single-Use Bag Regulations prohibit the dispensing of single-use bags as follows: “A. Commencing on July 11, 2012 large commercial establishments are prohibited from dispensing to any customer at the point of sale a single-use bag. “B. Commencing on April 11, 2013 small commercial establishments are prohibited from dispensing to any customer at the point of sale a single-use bag, except gift bags or paper bags, as defined in this chapter.” (Carpinteria Mun. Code, § 8.51.040.) Under the Single-Use Bag Regulations, a “‘Large Commercial Establishment’ is a commercial establishment with over $5,000,000 in annual gross retail sales volume” or is a grocery store of greater than 500 square feet in area. (Carpinteria Mun. Code, § 8.51.030, subds. (A), (B), (F).) A “‘Small Commercial Establishment’ is a food provider or a commercial establishment that does not qualify as a large commercial establishment.” (§ 8.51.030, subd. (C).) “Food providers” include restaurants. (§ 8.51.030, subd. (D).) When the prohibitions become effective, both large and small commercial establishments are prohibited from dispensing “a single-use bag” “at the point of sale.” “‘Single-Use Bag’ means any bag that is provided to customers for carryout purchases by a commercial establishment, excluding gift bags, product bags, and reusable bags ….” “‘Point of Sale’ means the location in the commercial establishment where purchase is made.” A “Reusable Bag” is a bag that is “specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse” and is made of cloth or other machine washable fabric or is made of other durable material “including plastic that is at least 2.25 mils thick.” “‘Paper Bag’ means any paper bag that has a post-consumer recycled content of at least 40 percent and is 100 percent recyclable.” On March 20, 2012, plaintiff Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, an unincorporated association, consisting of suppliers of plastic bags to restaurants and other food facilities in Carpinteria, filed its complaint for invalidation of the Ordinance based upon preemption by the California Retail Food Code. Plaintiff alleges: “[T]he Ordinance is invalid as it bans plastic bags at restaurants and other ‘food facilities’ as defined by H&S Code § 113789. The Ordinance intrudes into an area that the State of California has reserved to itself.” Defendant City of Carpinteria (“City”) demurs to plaintiff’s complaint. City argues that plaintiff does not state a cause of action in its complaint because the Ordinance is not preempted by the Retail Food Code. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer, arguing that the California Supreme Court in California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 52 Cal.4th 177 explained the scope of preemption by the Retail Food Code as including “how food should be handled or transported” and that the Ordinance is therefore preempted. Analysis: “The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (Ingram v. Flippo (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1283.) “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed. [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. [Citation.]” (Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 6, internal quotation marks omitted.) “If the complaint states a cause of action under any theory, regardless of the title under which the factual basis for relief is stated, that aspect of the complaint is good against a demurrer.” (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38.) Request for Judicial Notice City requests that the court take judicial notice of four documents: (Exhibit A) the Ordinance; (Exhibit B) a copy of the City’s Staff Report for City Council Meeting on December 12, 2011; (Exhibit C) a copy of the City’s Staff Report for City Council Meeting on February 27, 2012; and (Exhibit D) a copy of the City’s Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 12, 2012. The court will grant City’s request as to Exhibit A, the Ordinance, which is also attached as exhibit A to plaintiff’s complaint. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (b), (c).) Plaintiff objects to judicial notice being taken of exhibits B, C and D. City states that the purpose for its request for judicial notice of these exhibits is that the “Staff Reports will assist the Court in interpreting the intent of City Council in adopting the single-use bag regulations.” (RJN, at p. 2.) The court notes that city staff reports may, like other legislative history, be the subject of judicial notice to ascertain the purpose of the legislative enactment. (Bravo Vending v. City of Rancho Mirage (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 383, 404-405.) However, the purpose of the Ordinance, to the extent it is relevant, is stated in the Ordinance directly. This stated purpose is not disputed by plaintiff in this demurrer. The staff reports elaborate on this stated purpose, but the staff reports do not provide any additional material that is relevant or useful to the court’s disposition of this demurrer. The City’s request for judicial notice of exhibits B, C and D will be denied. (See Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063.) Plaintiff’s Cause of Action Plaintiff styles its complaint as seeking “invalidation of plastic bag ban ordinance based on state retail food code for preemption; request for declaratory and injunctive relief.” (Complaint, at p. 1, capitalization altered.) In its prayer for relief, the first remedy plaintiff seeks is a “judgment declaring that the Ordinance is invalid as it is preempted and prohibited by the California Retail Food Code.” (Complaint, at p. 9.) Although plaintiff does not expressly cite the statute, it appears from these statements in the complaint that plaintiff seeks declaratory relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1060. “Any person … who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another, … may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action or cross-complaint in the superior court for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises ….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1060.) “It is well established that parties may seek declaratory relief with respect to the interpretation and application of local ordinances.” (Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1250.) “A complaint for declaratory relief is legally sufficient if it sets forth facts showing the existence of an actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties … and requests that these rights and duties be adjudged by the court.” (Maguire v. Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc. (1944) 23 Cal.2d 719, 728.) “If these requirements are met, the court must declare the rights of the parties whether or not the facts alleged establish that the plaintiff is entitled to a favorable declaration.” (Tiburon v. Northwestern P. R. Co. (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 160, 170.) The California Retail Food Code Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the Ordinance is invalid because it is preempted by the California Retail Food Code, Health and Safety Code section 113700 et seq. The Retail Food Code’s preemption provision is set forth in Health and Safety Code section 113705, which provides: “The Legislature finds and declares that the public health interest requires that there be uniform statewide health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities to assure the people of this state that the food will be pure, safe, and unadulterated. Except as provided in Section 113709, it is the intent of the Legislature to occupy the whole field of health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities, and the standards set forth in this part and regulations adopted pursuant to this part shall be exclusive of all local health and sanitation standards relating to retail food facilities.” Section 113709 provides narrow exceptions: “This part does not prohibit a local governing body from adopting an evaluation or grading system for food facilities, from prohibiting any type of food facility, from adopting an employee health certification program, from regulating the provision of consumer toilet and handwashing facilities, or from adopting requirements for the public safety regulating the type of vending and the time, place, and manner of vending from vehicles upon a street pursuant to its authority under subdivision (b) of Section 22455 of the Vehicle Code.” By their terms, these exceptions do not apply to the Ordinance as challenged by plaintiff in its complaint. Plaintiff argues, and City does not appear to contest, that “retail food facilities” as defined by the Retail Food Code include “food providers” as defined in the Ordinance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 113789, subd. (a); Carpinteria Mun. Code, § 8.51.030, subd. (D).) Plaintiff cites to a number of provisions in the Retail Food Code to demonstrate that the Retail Food Code regulates the single-use bags prohibited by the Ordinance, including: “‘Single-use articles’ mean utensils, tableware, carry-out utensils, bulk food containers, and other items such as bags, containers, placemats, stirrers, straws, toothpicks, and wrappers that are designed and constructed for one time, one person use, after which they are intended for discard.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 113914.) “Single-use articles shall not be reused.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 114081, subd. (d).) “Materials that are used to make single-use articles shall not allow the migration of deleterious substances or impart colors, odors, or tastes to food, and shall be safe and clean.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 114130.2.) “‘Utensil’ means a food-contact implement or container used in the storage, preparation, transportation, dispensing, sale, or service of food, such as kitchenware or tableware that is multiuse, single-service, or single-use, gloves used in contact with food, temperature sensing probes of food temperature measuring devices, and probe-type price or identification tags used in contact with food.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 113934.) Because plastic bags are used in the transportation of food, plaintiff argues, these above- quoted sections apply to preempt local standards, including an outright ban, on plastic bags. The California Grocers Case Both parties cite to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 52 Cal.4th 177 as supporting their respective arguments. At issue in California Grocers was an ordinance adopted by the City of Los Angeles that required grocery stores of a specific size that undergo a change of ownership to retain current employees and take certain actions during a 90-day transition period. Plaintiff California Grocers Association filed an action seeking to invalidate the ordinance on various grounds, including preemption under the Retail Food Code. The trial court and the court of appeal agreed that the ordinance was preempted by the Retail Food Code. The Supreme Court, however, reversed, finding no preemption. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court began its discussion of preemption under the Retail Food Code by stating general principles: “Local ordinances and regulations are subordinate to state law. [Citation.] Insofar as a local regulation conflicts with state law, it is preempted and invalid. [Citations.] ‘A conflict exists if the local legislation “duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication.”’ [Citations.]” (California Grocers, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 188, internal quotation marks omitted.) “Only the last of these bases for conflict, field preemption, is at issue here. ‘Local legislation enters an area “fully occupied” by general law when the Legislature has expressly manifested its intent to fully occupy the area or when it has impliedly done so in light of recognized indicia of intent.’ [Citation.] ... Express field preemption turns on a comparative statutory analysis: What field of exclusivity does the state preemption clause define, what subject matter does the local ordinance regulate, and do the two overlap?” (Id. at p. 188.) The Court then summarized the sweep of preemption under the Retail Food Code: “Thus, the state alone may adopt ‘health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities.’ [Citation.] The remainder of the statutory scheme demonstrates by way of example the precise scope of exclusive state regulation, comprehensively detailing standards for, e.g., employee training on health matters ([Health & Saf. Code], §§ 113947–113947.3), employee health and hygiene (id., §§ 113949–113978), food transportation, storage, and preparation (id., §§ 113980–114057.1), food display and service (id., §§ 114060–114083), food labeling (id., §§ 114087–114094), the design and sanitizing of food preparation areas and utensils (id., §§ 114095–114185.5), and the design and cleanliness of food facilities (id., §§ 114250–114282).” (California Grocers, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 189, footnote omitted.) The Court focused upon the scope of the field of exclusivity, rejecting the argument that the purpose in enacting the local ordinance determines preemption: “We may accept for the sake of argument that the promotion of health and safety was one of the City’s purposes in passing the Ordinance. That the Ordinance is preempted does not, however, follow. Purpose alone is not a basis for concluding a local measure is preempted. While we and the Courts of Appeal have occasionally treated an ordinance’s purpose as relevant to state preemption analysis [citations], we have done so in the context of a nuanced inquiry into the ultimate question in determining field preemption: whether the effect of the local ordinance is in fact to regulate in the very field the state has reserved to itself.” (California Grocers, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 190, footnote omitted.) Applying these principles, the Court reasoned that the Los Angeles ordinance was not preempted: “The Retail Food Code does not preempt all laws that have as their purpose the promotion of food health and safety; it preempts only those that establish ‘health and sanitation standards’ for retail food establishments, so as to ensure uniformity for such facilities. [Citation.] The Retail Food Code itself dictates those uniform standards, but does not specify by whom they are to be carried out; as far as state law is concerned, a retail food store may employ whomever it likes, so long as those it employs comply with the state’s standards for distributing food in a safe and healthful manner. For its part, the Ordinance … regulates only who may be hired to engage in certain work, and though it may have been intended in part to reduce violations of state law by those workers, it does not itself add to or subtract from the state’s uniform standards of conduct for whoever engages in that work.” (California Grocers, supra, 52 Cal.4th at pp. 191-192.) “The Retail Food Code establishes standards for what certain employees, particularly one certified owner or supervising food service employee, must know or be taught, but does not regulate who must be hired; the Ordinance regulates the pool of nonsupervising, nonmanagerial employees from which a new owner temporarily must hire, but imposes no standards concerning what the hired employees must know or be taught about food safety.” (Id. at p. 192.) Both parties find support in the California Grocers opinion. Plaintiff relies upon the statements that the Retail Food Code exclusively governs food transportation, storage, and preparation. City relies upon the statements that no preemption existed because the Los Angeles ordinance imposed no standards concerning health and sanitation. City thus argues that the “Ordinance simply regulates the bags a cashier can provide at check-out, and does not set any health and sanitation standard for retail food facilities.” (Demurrer, at p. 10.) Purpose of the City’s Ordinance City goes to some length to discuss and argue the importance of the Ordinance in addressing environmental concerns of significant local concern. As discussed above in the context of the request for judicial notice, the Ordinance itself sets forth those concerns as being a basis for its enactment. The stated purpose of the Ordinance is not challenged by plaintiff. However, as California Grocers makes clear, the legal analysis to determine whether or not state law expressly preempts local law depends upon the scope of the state’s exclusivity. “To rest preemption analysis solely on considerations of purpose would generate the anomalous circumstance, rejected by the United States Supreme Court, that one jurisdiction’s measure might survive preemption, while another identical measure passed in a different jurisdiction might fall, ‘merely because its authors had different aspirations.’” (California Grocers, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 190, fn. 4, quoting Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P. A. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2010) 559 U.S. ___, ___ [130 S. Ct. 1431, 1441, 176 L. Ed. 2d 311].) Preemption Analysis Where, as here, the issue is express field preemption, the court must answer three questions: “What field of exclusivity does the state preemption clause define, what subject matter does the local ordinance regulate, and do the two overlap?” (California Grocers, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 188.) The field of state preemption defined by the Retail Food Code is “health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 113705.) “[T]he standards set forth in this part … shall be exclusive of all local health and sanitation standards relating to retail food facilities.” (Ibid.) The subject matter of the Ordinance is the prohibition of dispensing to consumers at the point of sale a single-use bag, as defined therein. (Carpinteria Mun. Code, § 8.51.040.) The final question then is whether the state’s health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities overlap the City’s prohibition of dispensing plastic bags. Plaintiff argues that there is overlap between the Ordinance’s prohibitions and the Retail Food Code because the state alone may regulate “food transportation, storage, and preparation,” “how food should be handled or transported,” and “food display and service.” These statements, repeated from California Grocers, are accurate generalizations, but are not sufficient by themselves to determine overlap. (See Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1152-1157 [extent of the field of express preemption determined by scope and interpretation of preempting statutes].) Instead, the question of overlap can be most simply addressed by determining in the first instance whether both the Retail Food Code and the Ordinance contain standards that regulate point of sale bags. Point of sale bags fall within two definitions set forth in the Retail Food Code. The Retail Food Code defines a “utensil” as “a food-contact implement or container used in the storage, preparation, transportation, dispensing, sale, or service of food.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 113934.) A bag is a container. (Webster’s 3d New Internat. Dict. (1986) p. 162 [definition of “bag”].) A point of sale bag, as discussed herein, is used in the sale of food. Thus, at least to the extent there is “food-contact,” a point of sale bag is a “utensil.” For example, if a customer bought an apple and the seller put the apple in a plastic bag at the point of sale for transportation of the apple home, that bag would be a “utensil” under the Retail Food Code. At the same time, the bag, if made of single-use plastic, would be a “single-use bag” as defined and prohibited by the Ordinance. A wrinkle in this example of buying an apple is the timing and purpose of the use of the bag. The Ordinance excludes “product bags” from the definition of “single-use bag.” (Carpinteria Mun. Code, § 8.51.030, subd. (K).) A “Product Bag” is “any bag provided to a customer within a commercial establishment for the purposes of transporting items to the point of sale.” (Id., subd. (H).) If the apple in the above example is first put into a bag and that bag is given to the customer to take to the cashier (i.e., the point of sale), that bag would be a “product bag” and not prohibited by the Ordinance even if the bag were made of plastic. However, if at the point of sale the product bag were placed inside another single-use bag, the outer bag would be subject to the prohibitions of the Ordinance, but the inner bag would not. The second definition applicable to point of sale bags is “single-use articles.” The Retail Food Code defines “single-use articles” as “utensils, tableware, carry-out utensils, bulk food containers, and other items such as bags, containers, placemats, stirrers, straws, toothpicks, and wrappers that are designed and constructed for one time, one person use, after which they are intended for discard.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 113914.) The bag used to carry the apple in the first example would qualify as a “utensil” and therefore that single-use bag would fall within the definition of “single-use articles.” The definition of “single-use articles” encompasses more items than “utensils” and specifically includes “bags.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 113914.) “Utensil,” as defined in Health and Safety Code section 113934, is by its terms limited to items in contact with food. However, “single-use articles” include items such as “placemats” which by their nature do not necessitate direct or immediate contact with food. Moreover, placemats, like plastic bags dispensed by restaurants, mitigate the impact of post-sale food spillage. (See Complaint, ¶¶ 21-24.) Consequently, the definition of “single-use articles” is sufficiently broad to include single-use bags dispensed by food providers at the point of sale. The Retail Food Code provides standards for materials that are used to make single-use articles, namely, that the materials must be safe, clean and do not affect the food. (Health & Saf. Code, § 114130.2.) Thus, for example, it would be a violation of the Retail Food Code if the type of plastic used in a bag gave off a noxious odor permeating the food contained in the bag. The Ordinance also provides standards for materials that used to make “single-use bags.” Where the Retail Food Code states its standards both affirmatively (safe and clean) and negatively (may not impart colors, odors or tastes to food), the Ordinance provides standards only negatively: No “single-use bags” may be dispensed by small establishments except for gift bags and paper bags. “‘Paper bag’ means any paper bag that has a post- consumer recycled content of at least 40 percent and is 100 percent recyclable.” (Carpinteria Mun. Code, § 8.51.030, subd. (I).) The effect of the Ordinance is to regulate the materials used to make “single-use bags” by permitting some materials and by prohibiting other materials. Returning to the central question of whether there is overlap between the Retail Food Code and the Ordinance, the above discussion demonstrates that in some respects the Ordinance provides standards for materials used in statutorily defined “single-use articles” that are different from the standards provided in the Retail Food Code. Under the Ordinance, single-use plastic bags are never allowed; paper bags are allowed only if they contain sufficient post-consumer recycled content. The Retail Food Code allows single-use plastic bags and paper bags, but only if the materials used in those bags meet the qualitative requirements set forth in the statute. Consequently, the Retail Food Code and the Ordinance contain overlapping standards for acceptable materials used in making “single use articles.” In order to state a cause of action for declaratory relief, plaintiff must allege a justiciable controversy. The court concludes that plaintiff has alleged a substantial controversy as to whether the Ordinance is in some part preempted by the Retail Food Code. Plaintiff has therefore adequately alleged a cause of action for declaratory relief and the City’s demurrer will be overruled. The Extent of This Disposition The court must emphasize that City’s demurrer raises the issue only of whether or not plaintiff has alleged a judicially recognizable cause of action. The court’s determination that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a cause of action does not determine whether plaintiff is ultimately entitled to a favorable declaration. The court notes, for example, that neither party has argued or provided legislative history that may shed further light on the intended scope of preemption set forth in the Retail Food Code. The court recognizes that the parties argue important public policy questions regarding health, safety and the environment in support of their respective positions. Public policy choices, such as whether or not a plastic bag ban is a good idea, are inherently legislative decisions made in the political process and are not judicial decisions to be made in court. “[T]he judicial role in a democratic society is fundamentally to interpret laws, not to write them.” (California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 627, 633, internal quotation marks and citation omitted.) As a consequence, “[c]ourts do not sit as super-legislatures to determine the wisdom, desirability or propriety of statutes enacted by the Legislature.” (Estate of Horman (1971) 5 Cal.3d 62, 77.) The court’s role here is strictly limited to applying the law to this controversy. Appendix B Air Quality URBEMIS Results Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Estimates 7/12/2012 2:07:45 PM Page: 1 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Palo Alto Bag Ordinance.urb924 Project Name: Palo Alto Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Project Location: Santa Clara County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds/Day) TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.57 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.57 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 7/12/2012 2:08:05 PM Page: 1 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.57 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.57 Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 Analysis Year: 2012 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 0.12 1000 sq ft 1.00 0.12 0.89 0.12 0.89 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Light Auto 0.0 0.5 99.3 0.2 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Palo Alto Bag Ordinance.urb924 Project Name: Palo Alto Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance Project Location: Santa Clara County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) 7/12/2012 2:08:05 PM Page: 2 Other Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 0.0 62.1 37.9 0.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motor Home 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 0.0 1.7 95.8 2.5 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 0.0 0.5 99.5 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 Trip speeds (mph)35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Rural Trip Length (miles)16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6 Urban Trip Length (miles)10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial 7/12/2012 2:08:05 PM Page: 3 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 2.0 1.0 97.0 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial Operational Changes to Defaults 7/9/2012 2:32:33 PM Page: 1 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Palo Alto Alt 2.urb924 Project Name: Palo Alto Alternative 2 Project Location: Santa Clara County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds/Day) TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 7/9/2012 2:32:57 PM Page: 1 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 Analysis Year: 2012 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 0.01 1000 sq ft 1.00 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.07 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Light Auto 0.0 0.5 99.3 0.2 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Palo Alto Alt 2.urb924 Project Name: Palo Alto Alternative 2 Project Location: Santa Clara County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) 7/9/2012 2:32:57 PM Page: 2 Other Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 0.0 62.1 37.9 0.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motor Home 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 0.0 1.7 95.8 2.5 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 0.0 0.5 99.5 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 Trip speeds (mph)35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Rural Trip Length (miles)16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6 Urban Trip Length (miles)10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial 7/9/2012 2:32:57 PM Page: 3 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 2.0 1.0 97.0 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial Operational Changes to Defaults 7/12/2012 11:52:05 AM Page: 1 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Palo Alto Alt 3.urb924 Project Name: Palo Alto Alternative 3 Project Location: Santa Clara County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds/Day) TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.08 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.08 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 7/12/2012 11:52:35 AM Page: 1 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.08 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.08 Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 Analysis Year: 2012 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 0.07 1000 sq ft 1.00 0.07 0.52 0.07 0.52 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Light Auto 0.0 0.5 99.3 0.2 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Palo Alto Alt 3.urb924 Project Name: Palo Alto Alternative 3 Project Location: Santa Clara County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) 7/12/2012 11:52:35 AM Page: 2 Other Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 0.0 62.1 37.9 0.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motor Home 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 0.0 1.7 95.8 2.5 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 0.0 0.5 99.5 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 Trip speeds (mph)35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Rural Trip Length (miles)16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6 Urban Trip Length (miles)10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial 7/12/2012 11:52:35 AM Page: 3 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 2.0 1.0 97.0 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial Operational Changes to Defaults 7/12/2012 2:03:01 PM Page: 1 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Palo Alto Alt 4.urb924 Project Name: Palo Alto Alternative 4 Project Location: Santa Clara County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds/Day) TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.08 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.08 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 7/12/2012 2:03:38 PM Page: 1 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.08 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.08 Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 Analysis Year: 2012 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 0.07 1000 sq ft 1.00 0.07 0.52 0.07 0.52 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Light Auto 0.0 0.5 99.3 0.2 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Palo Alto Alt 4.urb924 Project Name: Palo Alto Alternative 4 Project Location: Santa Clara County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) 7/12/2012 2:03:38 PM Page: 2 Other Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 0.0 62.1 37.9 0.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motor Home 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 0.0 1.7 95.8 2.5 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 0.0 0.5 99.5 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 Trip speeds (mph)35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Rural Trip Length (miles)16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6 Urban Trip Length (miles)10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial 7/12/2012 2:03:38 PM Page: 3 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 2.0 1.0 97.0 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial Operational Changes to Defaults 7/25/2012 9:27:22 AM Page: 1 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Palo Alto Alt 5.urb924 Project Name: Palo Alto Alternative 5 Project Location: Santa Clara County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds/Day) TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 7/25/2012 9:27:48 AM Page: 1 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 Analysis Year: 2012 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 0.01 1000 sq ft 1.00 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.07 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Light Auto 0.0 0.5 99.3 0.2 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Palo Alto Alt 5.urb924 Project Name: Palo Alto Alternative 5 Project Location: Santa Clara County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) 7/25/2012 9:27:48 AM Page: 2 Other Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 0.0 62.1 37.9 0.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motor Home 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 0.0 1.7 95.8 2.5 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 0.0 0.5 99.5 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 Trip speeds (mph)35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Rural Trip Length (miles)16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6 Urban Trip Length (miles)10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial 7/25/2012 9:27:48 AM Page: 3 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 2.0 1.0 97.0 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial Operational Changes to Defaults 7/31/2012 1:10:39 PM Page: 1 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Palo Alto Alt 6.urb924 Project Name: Palo Alto Alternative 6 Project Location: Santa Clara County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds/Day) TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 7/31/2012 1:11:13 PM Page: 1 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 Analysis Year: 2012 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 0.01 1000 sq ft 1.00 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.07 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Light Auto 0.0 0.5 99.3 0.2 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\MMaddox\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Palo Alto Alt 6.urb924 Project Name: Palo Alto Alternative 6 Project Location: Santa Clara County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) 7/31/2012 1:11:13 PM Page: 2 Other Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 0.0 62.1 37.9 0.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Motor Home 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 0.0 1.7 95.8 2.5 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 0.0 0.5 99.5 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 Trip speeds (mph)35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Rural Trip Length (miles)16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6 Urban Trip Length (miles)10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial 7/31/2012 1:11:13 PM Page: 3 Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance 2.0 1.0 97.0 Travel Conditions Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Residential Commercial Operational Changes to Defaults Appendix C Utilities Calculations City of Palo Alto Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR liters to gallons 0.26417205 Kg to short tons 0.00110231 MJ to kWh 0.27777778 Plastic Bag Size (liters)14 Paper Bag Size (liters)20.48 Reusable bag size (liters)37 Number of plastic bags used in Palo Alto per year 25,923,864 Number of plastic bags used in particpating jurisdictions per day 71,024 Ordinance - Assume 100% switch to paper/reusable Number of Plastic bags still in (0% of existing)0 Number of paper bags per day with 35% conversion 24,858 Number of reusable bags per day with 65% conversion 888 Conversions Water Use - Ecobilan Existing Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times Liters water per 9000 liters groceries 52.6 52.6 173 2.634615385 Liters water per bag per day 0.081822222 0.081822222 0.393671111 0.010831197 Liters water in Study Area per day 5811.364825 0 9786.073208 9.615974902 Gallons per day 1535.200159 0 2585.207021 2.540271803 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.0015352 0 0.002585207 2.54027E-06 MGD per year 0.560348058 0 0.943600563 0.000927199 Increase in water use per year (MGD) Increase as a result of Ordinance - Million gallons per year 0.384179704 Wastewater - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times Liters water per 9000 liters groceries 50 50 130.7 2.634615385 Liters water per bag per day 0.077777778 0.077777778 0.297415111 0.010831197 Liters water in Study Area per day 5524.11105 0 7393.293458 9.615974902 Gallons per day 1459.315741 0 1953.101489 2.540271803 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.001459316 0 0.001953101 2.54027E-06 MGD per year 0.532650245 0 0.712882044 0.000927199 Increase in water use per year (MGD) Increase per day (MGD) Increase as a result of Ordinance - per year Million gallons 0.181158997 Solid Waste - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times 2007 recycle rate kg waste per 9000 liters groceries (w/EPA recycling)4.19356 4.19356 3.83624 0.252115385 plastic bags 11.90% kg waste per bag per day 0.006523316 0.006523316 0.008729577 0.001036474 paper bags 36.80% kg waste in City per day 463.3138227 0 217.0041935 0.920185627 Tons per day (w/recycling)0.51071546 0 0.239205893 0.00002 Tons per year 186.4111429 0 87.31015079 0.007119815 Increase in solid waste per year (MGD)-99.10099208 -186.4040231 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/year -99.09387226 Energy - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times MJ per 9000 liters groceries 286 295 15.48076923 MJ per bag per day 0.444888889 0.671288889 0.063643162 MJ in Study Area per day 31597.91521 16687.23466 56.50262625 kWh in Study Area per day 8777.198739 4635.342998 15.69517408 million kWh in Study Area per day 0.008777199 0.004635343 1.56952E-05 Increase in million kWh per day -0.004141856 -0.008761504 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Million kWh -0.004126161 Increase in kWh -4126.160566 Water Use - Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Gallons per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic bags)58 58 1004 Gallons per bag 0.038666667 0.038666667 1.004 Gallons water in Study Area per day 2746.272351 0 24957.93372 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.002746272 0 0.024957934 MGD per year 1.002389408 0 9.10964581 Increase in water use per year (MGD)8.107256402 Increase in water per day 0.022211661 Solid Waste -Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times 2007 recycle rate kg waste per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic bags)6.20224 6.20224 21.4248 plastic bags 11.90% kg waste per bag per day 0.004134827 0.004134827 0.0214248 paper bags 36.80% kg waste in Study Area per day 293.6731073 0 532.5883849 Tons per day 0.323718803 0 0.587077503 Tons per year 118.1573631 0 214.2832884 Increase in solid waste per year (MGD)96.12592538 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/day 0.2633587 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/year 96.12592538 Energy - Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times MJ per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic)763 2622 MJ per bag per day 0.508666667 2.622 0 MJ in Study Area per day 36127.68627 65178.98628 0 kWh in Study Area per day 10035.46849 18105.27411 0 million kWh in Study Area per day 0.010035468 0.018105274 0 Increase in million kWh per day 0.008069806 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Million kWh 0.008069806 Increase in kWh 8069.805624 City of Palo Alto Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR- Alternative 2 liters to gallons 0.26417205 Kg to short tons 0.00110231 MJ to kWh 0.27777778 Plastic Bag Size (liters)14 Paper Bag Size (liters)20.48 Reusable bag size (liters)37 Number of plastic bags used in Palo Alto per year 25,923,864 Number of plastic bags used in particpating jurisdictions per day 71,024 Ordinance - Assume 100% switch to paper/reusable Number of Plastic bags still in (5% of existing)3,551 Number of paper bags per day with 30% conversion 21,307 Number of reusable bags per day with 65% conversion 888 Conversions Water Use - Ecobilan Existing Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times Liters water per 9000 liters groceries 52.6 52.6 173 2.634615385 Liters water per bag per day 0.081822222 0.081822222 0.393671111 0.010831197 Liters water in Study Area per day 5811.364825 290.5682412 8388.062749 9.615974902 Gallons per day 1535.200159 76.76000795 2215.891732 2.540271803 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.0015352 7.676E-05 0.002215892 2.54027E-06 MGD per year 0.560348058 0.028017403 0.808800482 0.000927199 Increase in water use per year (MGD) Increase as a result of Ordinance - Million gallons per year 0.277397026 Wastewater - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times Liters water per 9000 liters groceries 50 50 130.7 2.634615385 Liters water per bag per day 0.077777778 0.077777778 0.297415111 0.010831197 Liters water in Study Area per day 5524.11105 276.2055525 6337.108678 9.615974902 Gallons per day 1459.315741 72.96578703 1674.086991 2.540271803 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.001459316 7.29658E-05 0.001674087 2.54027E-06 MGD per year 0.532650245 0.026632512 0.611041752 0.000927199 Increase in water use per year (MGD) Increase per day (MGD) Increase as a result of Ordinance - per year Million gallons 0.105951218 Solid Waste - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times 2007 recycle rate kg waste per 9000 liters groceries (w/EPA recycling)4.19356 4.19356 3.83624 0.252115385 plastic bags 11.90% kg waste per bag per day 0.006523316 0.006523316 0.008729577 0.001036474 paper bags 36.80% kg waste in City per day 463.3138227 23.16569114 186.0035945 0.920185627 Tons per day (w/recycling)0.51071546 0.025535773 0.205033622 0.00002 Tons per year 186.4111429 9.320557144 74.83727211 0.007119815 Increase in solid waste per year (MGD)-111.5738708 -186.4040231 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/year -102.2461938 Energy - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times MJ per 9000 liters groceries 286 295 15.48076923 MJ per bag per day 0.444888889 0.671288889 0.063643162 MJ in Study Area per day 31597.91521 14303.34399 56.50262625 kWh in Study Area per day 8777.198739 3973.151141 15.69517408 million kWh in Study Area per day 0.008777199 0.003973151 1.56952E-05 Increase in million kWh per day -0.004804048 -0.008761504 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Million kWh -0.004788352 Increase in kWh -4788.352423 Water Use - Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Gallons per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic bags)58 58 1004 Gallons per bag 0.038666667 0.038666667 1.004 Gallons water in Study Area per day 2746.272351 137.3136175 21392.51462 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.002746272 0.000137314 0.021392515 MGD per year 1.002389408 0.05011947 7.808267837 Increase in water use per year (MGD)6.855997899 Increase in water per day 0.018783556 Solid Waste -Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times 2007 recycle rate kg waste per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic bags)6.20224 6.20224 21.4248 plastic bags 11.90% kg waste per bag per day 0.004134827 0.004134827 0.0214248 paper bags 36.80% kg waste in Study Area per day 293.6731073 14.68365537 456.5043299 Tons per day 0.323718803 0.01618594 0.503209288 Tons per year 118.1573631 5.907868153 183.6713901 Increase in solid waste per year (MGD)65.51402703 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/day 0.195676425 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/year 71.42189518 Energy - Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times MJ per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic)763 2622 MJ per bag per day 0.508666667 2.622 0 MJ in Study Area per day 36127.68627 55867.70253 0 kWh in Study Area per day 10035.46849 15518.80638 0 million kWh in Study Area per day 0.010035468 0.015518806 0 Increase in million kWh per day 0.005483338 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Million kWh 0.005483338 Increase in kWh 5483.337893 City of Palo Alto Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR- Alternative 3 liters to gallons 0.26417205 Kg to short tons 0.00110231 MJ to kWh 0.27777778 Plastic Bag Size (liters)14 Paper Bag Size (liters)20.48 Reusable bag size (liters)37 Number of plastic bags used in Palo Alto per year 25,923,864 Number of plastic bags used in particpating jurisdictions per day 71,024 Ordinance - Assume 100% switch to paper/reusable Number of Plastic bags still in (0% of existing)0 Number of paper bags per day with 11% conversion 7,813 Number of reusable bags per day with 89% conversion 1,216 Conversions Water Use - Ecobilan Existing Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times Liters water per 9000 liters groceries 52.6 52.6 173 2.634615385 Liters water per bag per day 0.081822222 0.081822222 0.393671111 0.010831197 Liters water in Study Area per day 5811.364825 0 3075.623008 13.16648871 Gallons per day 1535.200159 0 812.4936351 3.478218314 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.0015352 0 0.000812494 3.47822E-06 MGD per year 0.560348058 0 0.296560177 0.00126955 Increase in water use per year (MGD) Increase as a result of Ordinance - Million gallons per year -0.262518332 Wastewater - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times Liters water per 9000 liters groceries 50 50 130.7 2.634615385 Liters water per bag per day 0.077777778 0.077777778 0.297415111 0.010831197 Liters water in Study Area per day 5524.11105 0 2323.606515 13.16648871 Gallons per day 1459.315741 0 613.8318966 3.478218314 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.001459316 0 0.000613832 3.47822E-06 MGD per year 0.532650245 0 0.224048642 0.00126955 Increase in water use per year (MGD) Increase per day (MGD) Increase as a result of Ordinance - per year Million gallons -0.307332053 Solid Waste - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times 2007 recycle rate kg waste per 9000 liters groceries (w/EPA recycling)4.19356 4.19356 3.83624 0.252115385 plastic bags 11.90% kg waste per bag per day 0.006523316 0.006523316 0.008729577 0.001036474 paper bags 36.80% kg waste in City per day 463.3138227 0 68.20131797 1.259946475 Tons per day (w/recycling)0.51071546 0 0.075178995 0.00003 Tons per year 186.4111429 0 27.44033311 0.00974867 Increase in solid waste per year (MGD)-158.9708098 -186.4013942 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/year -158.9610611 Energy - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times MJ per 9000 liters groceries 286 295 15.48076923 MJ per bag per day 0.444888889 0.671288889 0.063643162 MJ in Study Area per day 31597.91521 5244.559465 77.3651344 kWh in Study Area per day 8777.198739 1456.822085 21.49031528 million kWh in Study Area per day 0.008777199 0.001456822 2.14903E-05 Increase in million kWh per day -0.007320377 -0.008755708 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Million kWh -0.007298886 Increase in kWh -7298.886338 Water Use - Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Gallons per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic bags)58 58 1004 Gallons per bag 0.038666667 0.038666667 1.004 Gallons water in Study Area per day 2746.272351 0 7843.922028 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.002746272 0 0.007843922 MGD per year 1.002389408 0 2.86303154 Increase in water use per year (MGD)1.860642132 Increase in water per day 0.00509765 Solid Waste -Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times 2007 recycle rate kg waste per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic bags)6.20224 6.20224 21.4248 plastic bags 11.90% kg waste per bag per day 0.004134827 0.004134827 0.0214248 paper bags 36.80% kg waste in Study Area per day 293.6731073 0 167.384921 Tons per day 0.323718803 0 0.184510072 Tons per year 118.1573631 0 67.34617637 Increase in solid waste per year (MGD)-50.8111867 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/day -0.139208731 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/year -50.8111867 Energy - Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times MJ per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic)763 2622 MJ per bag per day 0.508666667 2.622 0 MJ in Study Area per day 36127.68627 20484.82426 0 kWh in Study Area per day 10035.46849 5690.229007 0 million kWh in Study Area per day 0.010035468 0.005690229 0 Increase in million kWh per day -0.004345239 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Million kWh -0.004345239 Increase in kWh -4345.239482 City of Palo Alto Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR- Alternative 4 liters to gallons 0.26417205 Kg to short tons 0.00110231 MJ to kWh 0.27777778 Plastic Bag Size (liters)14 Paper Bag Size (liters)20.48 Reusable bag size (liters)37 Number of plastic bags used in Palo Alto per year 25,923,864 Number of plastic bags used in particpating jurisdictions per day 71,024 Ordinance - Assume 100% switch to paper/reusable Number of Plastic bags still in (0% of existing)0 Number of paper bags per day with 30% conversion 21,307 Number of reusable bags per day with 70% conversion 956 Conversions Water Use - Ecobilan Existing Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times Liters water per 9000 liters groceries 52.6 52.6 173 2.634615385 Liters water per bag per day 0.081822222 0.081822222 0.393671111 0.010831197 Liters water in Study Area per day 5811.364825 0 8388.062749 10.35566528 Gallons per day 1535.200159 0 2215.891732 2.735677326 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.0015352 0 0.002215892 2.73568E-06 MGD per year 0.560348058 0 0.808800482 0.000998522 Increase in water use per year (MGD) Increase as a result of Ordinance - Million gallons per year 0.249450946 Wastewater - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times Liters water per 9000 liters groceries 50 50 130.7 2.634615385 Liters water per bag per day 0.077777778 0.077777778 0.297415111 0.010831197 Liters water in Study Area per day 5524.11105 0 6337.108678 10.35566528 Gallons per day 1459.315741 0 1674.086991 2.735677326 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.001459316 0 0.001674087 2.73568E-06 MGD per year 0.532650245 0 0.611041752 0.000998522 Increase in water use per year (MGD) Increase per day (MGD) Increase as a result of Ordinance - per year Million gallons 0.079390028 Solid Waste - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times 2007 recycle rate kg waste per 9000 liters groceries (w/EPA recycling)4.19356 4.19356 3.83624 0.252115385 plastic bags 11.90% kg waste per bag per day 0.006523316 0.006523316 0.008729577 0.001036474 paper bags 36.80% kg waste in City per day 463.3138227 0 186.0035945 0.990969137 Tons per day (w/recycling)0.51071546 0 0.205033622 0.00002 Tons per year 186.4111429 0 74.83727211 0.007667493 Increase in solid waste per year (MGD)-111.5738708 -186.4034754 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/year -111.5662033 Energy - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times MJ per 9000 liters groceries 286 295 15.48076923 MJ per bag per day 0.444888889 0.671288889 0.063643162 MJ in Study Area per day 31597.91521 14303.34399 60.84898211 kWh in Study Area per day 8777.198739 3973.151141 16.90249517 million kWh in Study Area per day 0.008777199 0.003973151 1.69025E-05 Increase in million kWh per day -0.004804048 -0.008760296 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Million kWh -0.004787145 Increase in kWh -4787.145102 Water Use - Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Gallons per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic bags)58 58 1004 Gallons per bag 0.038666667 0.038666667 1.004 Gallons water in Study Area per day 2746.272351 0 21392.51462 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.002746272 0 0.021392515 MGD per year 1.002389408 0 7.808267837 Increase in water use per year (MGD)6.805878429 Increase in water per day 0.018646242 Solid Waste -Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times 2007 recycle rate kg waste per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic bags)6.20224 6.20224 21.4248 plastic bags 11.90% kg waste per bag per day 0.004134827 0.004134827 0.0214248 paper bags 36.80% kg waste in Study Area per day 293.6731073 0 456.5043299 Tons per day 0.323718803 0 0.503209288 Tons per year 118.1573631 0 183.6713901 Increase in solid waste per year (MGD)65.51402703 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/day 0.179490485 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/year 65.51402703 Energy - Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times MJ per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic)763 2622 MJ per bag per day 0.508666667 2.622 0 MJ in Study Area per day 36127.68627 55867.70253 0 kWh in Study Area per day 10035.46849 15518.80638 0 million kWh in Study Area per day 0.010035468 0.015518806 0 Increase in million kWh per day 0.005483338 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Million kWh 0.005483338 Increase in kWh 5483.337893 City of Palo Alto Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR- Alternative 5 liters to gallons 0.26417205 Kg to short tons 0.00110231 MJ to kWh 0.27777778 Plastic Bag Size (liters)14 Paper Bag Size (liters)20.48 Reusable bag size (liters)37 Number of plastic bags used in Palo Alto per year 25,923,864 Number of plastic bags used in particpating jurisdictions per day 71,024 Ordinance - Assume 100% switch to paper/reusable Number of Plastic bags still in (5% of existing)0 Number of paper bags per day with 8.5% conversion 6,037 Number of reusable bags per day with 91.5% conversion 1,250 Conversions Water Use - Ecobilan Existing Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times Liters water per 9000 liters groceries 52.6 52.6 173 2.634615385 Liters water per bag per day 0.081822222 0.081822222 0.393671111 0.010831197 Liters water in Study Area per day 5811.364825 0 2376.617779 13.5363339 Gallons per day 1535.200159 0 627.8359907 3.575921076 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.0015352 0 0.000627836 3.57592E-06 MGD per year 0.560348058 0 0.229160137 0.001305211 Increase in water use per year (MGD) Increase as a result of Ordinance - Million gallons per year -0.32988271 Wastewater - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times Liters water per 9000 liters groceries 50 50 130.7 2.634615385 Liters water per bag per day 0.077777778 0.077777778 0.297415111 0.010831197 Liters water in Study Area per day 5524.11105 0 1795.514126 13.5363339 Gallons per day 1459.315741 0 474.3246473 3.575921076 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.001459316 0 0.000474325 3.57592E-06 MGD per year 0.532650245 0 0.173128496 0.001305211 Increase in water use per year (MGD) Increase per day (MGD) Increase as a result of Ordinance - per year Million gallons -0.358216538 Solid Waste - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times 2007 recycle rate kg waste per 9000 liters groceries (w/EPA recycling)4.19356 4.19356 3.83624 0.252115385 plastic bags 11.90% kg waste per bag per day 0.006523316 0.006523316 0.008729577 0.001036474 paper bags 36.80% kg waste in City per day 463.3138227 0 52.70101843 1.295338229 Tons per day (w/recycling)0.51071546 0 0.05809286 0.00003 Tons per year 186.4111429 0 21.20389376 0.010022509 Increase in solid waste per year (MGD)-165.2072491 -186.4011204 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/year -165.1972266 Energy - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times MJ per 9000 liters groceries 286 295 15.48076923 MJ per bag per day 0.444888889 0.671288889 0.063643162 MJ in Study Area per day 31597.91521 4052.614132 79.53831233 kWh in Study Area per day 8777.198739 1125.726157 22.09397582 million kWh in Study Area per day 0.008777199 0.001125726 2.2094E-05 Increase in million kWh per day -0.007651473 -0.008755105 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Million kWh -0.007629379 Increase in kWh -7629.378606 Water Use - Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Gallons per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic bags)58 58 1004 Gallons per bag 0.038666667 0.038666667 1.004 Gallons water in Study Area per day 2746.272351 0 6061.212476 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.002746272 0 0.006061212 MGD per year 1.002389408 0 2.212342554 Increase in water use per year (MGD)1.209953146 Increase in water per day 0.00331494 Solid Waste -Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times 2007 recycle rate kg waste per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic bags)6.20224 6.20224 21.4248 plastic bags 11.90% kg waste per bag per day 0.004134827 0.004134827 0.0214248 paper bags 36.80% kg waste in Study Area per day 293.6731073 0 129.3428935 Tons per day 0.323718803 0 0.142575965 Tons per year 118.1573631 0 52.04022719 Increase in solid waste per year (MGD)-66.11713587 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/day -0.181142838 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/year -66.11713587 Energy - Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times MJ per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic)763 2622 MJ per bag per day 0.508666667 2.622 0 MJ in Study Area per day 36127.68627 15829.18238 0 kWh in Study Area per day 10035.46849 4396.995141 0 million kWh in Study Area per day 0.010035468 0.004396995 0 Increase in million kWh per day -0.005638473 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Million kWh -0.005638473 Increase in kWh -5638.473347 City of Palo Alto Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR- Alternative 6 liters to gallons 0.26417205 Kg to short tons 0.00110231 MJ to kWh 0.27777778 Plastic Bag Size (liters)14 Paper Bag Size (liters)20.48 Reusable bag size (liters)37 Number of plastic bags used in Palo Alto per year 25,923,864 Number of plastic bags used in particpating jurisdictions per day 71,024 Ordinance - Assume 100% switch to paper/reusable Number of Plastic bags still in (5% of existing)67,473 Number of paper bags per day with 5% conversion 3,551 Number of reusable bags per day with 0% conversion 0 Conversions Water Use - Ecobilan Existing Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (95%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times Liters water per 9000 liters groceries 52.6 52.6 173 2.634615385 Liters water per bag per day 0.081822222 0.081822222 0.393671111 0.010831197 Liters water in Study Area per day 5811.364825 5520.796584 1398.010458 0 Gallons per day 1535.200159 1458.440151 369.3152887 0 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.0015352 0.00145844 0.000369315 0 MGD per year 0.560348058 0.532330655 0.13480008 0 Increase in water use per year (MGD) Increase as a result of Ordinance - Million gallons per year 0.106782677 Wastewater - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times Liters water per 9000 liters groceries 50 50 130.7 2.634615385 Liters water per bag per day 0.077777778 0.077777778 0.297415111 0.010831197 Liters water in Study Area per day 5524.11105 5247.905498 1056.18478 0 Gallons per day 1459.315741 1386.349954 279.0144984 0 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.001459316 0.00138635 0.000279014 0 MGD per year 0.532650245 0.506017733 0.101840292 0 Increase in water use per year (MGD) Increase per day (MGD) Increase as a result of Ordinance - per year Million gallons 0.07520778 Solid Waste - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (95%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times 2007 recycle rate kg waste per 9000 liters groceries (w/EPA recycling)4.19356 4.19356 3.83624 0.252115385 plastic bags 11.90% kg waste per bag per day 0.006523316 0.006523316 0.008729577 0.001036474 paper bags 36.80% kg waste in City per day 463.3138227 440.1481316 31.00059908 0 Tons per day (w/recycling)0.51071546 0.485179687 0.03417227 0.00000 Tons per year 186.4111429 177.0905857 12.47287868 0 Increase in solid waste per year (MGD)3.152321541 0 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/year 3.152321541 Energy - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times MJ per 9000 liters groceries 286 295 15.48076923 MJ per bag per day 0.444888889 0.671288889 0.063643162 MJ in Study Area per day 31597.91521 2383.890666 0 kWh in Study Area per day 8777.198739 662.1918569 0 million kWh in Study Area per day 0.008777199 0.000662192 0 Increase in million kWh per day -0.008115007 0 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Million kWh -0.008115007 Increase in kWh -8115.006882 Water Use - Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (95%)Paper bag Gallons per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic bags)58 58 1004 Gallons per bag 0.038666667 0.038666667 1.004 Gallons water in Study Area per day 2746.272351 2608.958733 3565.419104 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.002746272 0.002608959 0.003565419 MGD per year 1.002389408 0.952269938 1.301377973 Increase in water use per year (MGD)1.251258502 Increase in water per day 0.003428105 Solid Waste -Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (95%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times 2007 recycle rate kg waste per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic bags)6.20224 6.20224 21.4248 plastic bags 11.90% kg waste per bag per day 0.004134827 0.004134827 0.0214248 paper bags 36.80% kg waste in Study Area per day 293.6731073 278.9894519 76.08405499 Tons per day 0.323718803 0.307532863 0.083868215 Tons per year 118.1573631 112.2494949 30.61189835 Increase in solid waste per year (MGD) Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/day 0.067682275 0.323718803 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/year 24.7040302 Energy - Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (95%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times MJ per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic)763 2622 MJ per bag per day 0.508666667 2.622 0 MJ in Study Area per day 36127.68627 9311.283755 0 kWh in Study Area per day 10035.46849 2586.46773 0 million kWh in Study Area per day 0.010035468 0.002586468 0 Increase in million kWh per day -0.007449001 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Million kWh -0.007449001 Increase in kWh -7449.000758 City of Palo Alto Disposable Checkout Bag Ordinance EIR- Alternative 7 liters to gallons 0.26417205 Kg to short tons 0.00110231 MJ to kWh 0.27777778 Plastic Bag Size (liters)14 Paper Bag Size (liters)20.48 Reusable bag size (liters)37 Number of plastic bags used in Palo Alto per year 25,923,864 Number of plastic bags used in particpating jurisdictions per day 71,024 Ordinance - Assume 100% switch to paper/reusable Number of Plastic bags still in (none allowed)0 Number of paper bags per day (none allowed) 0 Number of reusable bags per day with 100% conversion 1,366 Conversions Water Use - Ecobilan Existing Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times Liters water per 9000 liters groceries 52.6 52.6 173 2.634615385 Liters water per bag per day 0.081822222 0.081822222 0.393671111 0.010831197 Liters water in Study Area per day 5811.364825 0 0 14.79380754 Gallons per day 1535.200159 0 0 3.908110465 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.0015352 0 0 3.90811E-06 MGD per year 0.560348058 0 0 0.00142646 Increase in water use per year (MGD) Increase as a result of Ordinance - Million gallons per year -0.558921598 Wastewater - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times Liters water per 9000 liters groceries 50 50 130.7 2.634615385 Liters water per bag per day 0.077777778 0.077777778 0.297415111 0.010831197 Liters water in Study Area per day 5524.11105 0 0 14.79380754 Gallons per day 1459.315741 0 0 3.908110465 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.001459316 0 0 3.90811E-06 MGD per year 0.532650245 0 0 0.00142646 Increase in water use per year (MGD) Increase per day (MGD) Increase as a result of Ordinance - per year Million gallons -0.531223785 Solid Waste - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times 2007 recycle rate kg waste per 9000 liters groceries (w/EPA recycling)4.19356 4.19356 3.83624 0.252115385 plastic bags 11.90% kg waste per bag per day 0.006523316 0.006523316 0.008729577 0.001036474 paper bags 36.80% kg waste in City per day 463.3138227 0 0 1.415670196 Tons per day (w/recycling)0.51071546 0 0 0.00003 Tons per year 186.4111429 0 0 0.010953562 Increase in solid waste per year (MGD)-186.4111429 -186.4001893 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/year -186.4001893 Energy - Ecobilan Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times MJ per 9000 liters groceries 286 295 15.48076923 MJ per bag per day 0.444888889 0.671288889 0.063643162 MJ in Study Area per day 31597.91521 0 86.9271173 kWh in Study Area per day 8777.198739 0 24.14642167 million kWh in Study Area per day 0.008777199 0 2.41464E-05 Increase in million kWh per day -0.008777199 -0.008753052 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Million kWh -0.008753052 Increase in kWh -8753.052317 Water Use - Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Gallons per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic bags)58 58 1004 Gallons per bag 0.038666667 0.038666667 1.004 Gallons water in Study Area per day 2746.272351 0 0 Millions gallons per day (MGD) in Study Area 0.002746272 0 0 MGD per year 1.002389408 0 0 Increase in water use per year (MGD)-1.002389408 Increase in water per day -0.002746272 Solid Waste -Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times 2007 recycle rate kg waste per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic bags)6.20224 6.20224 21.4248 plastic bags 11.90% kg waste per bag per day 0.004134827 0.004134827 0.0214248 paper bags 36.80% kg waste in Study Area per day 293.6731073 0 0 Tons per day 0.323718803 0 0 Tons per year 118.1573631 0 0 Increase in solid waste per year (MGD)-118.1573631 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/day -0.323718803 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Tons/year -118.1573631 Energy - Boustead Plastic bag Proposed Plastic Bag Use (0%)Paper bag Reusable bag used 52 times MJ per 1000 paper bags (1500 plastic)763 2622 MJ per bag per day 0.508666667 2.622 0 MJ in Study Area per day 36127.68627 0 0 kWh in Study Area per day 10035.46849 0 0 million kWh in Study Area per day 0.010035468 0 0 Increase in million kWh per day -0.010035468 Increase as a result of Ordinance. Million kWh -0.010035468 Increase in kWh -10035.46849 Appendix D Proposed Draft Ordinance Not Yet Approved 1 121106 jb 0131015 Ordinance No. ______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 5.35 (“Retail Sales and Food Service Establishments ‐ Requirement for Paper Bags”) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Place a Limited Prohibition of Single‐Use Plastic Checkout Bags The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds as follows: (a) Single use plastic bags have environmental effects as many of these bags are conveyed across land or through storm drains into local creeks, the San Francisco Bay and into the Pacific Ocean. Studies have shown that 70% of the litter found in storm drains and at clean up events is plastic (bags, packaging, single‐use disposable products). (b) Plastic bags that enter the marine environment have been found to adversely impact many wildlife species that ingest or become entangled in them. Paper bags tend to break down faster and do not pose the same risks for ingestion and entanglement. (c) Eighty percent of ocean debris originates from land. Plastic debris does not completely biodegrade in the marine environment; instead plastics break down into smaller and smaller pieces, absorbing toxins and forming high toxin concentrations, which in turn harm marine animals when they are mistaken for food. The Pacific Ocean contains a huge accumulation of plastic debris. Some scientists estimate that the density of plastic can be as great as one million pieces of plastic per square mile and plastic debris has increased over 100 fold in the past 40 years. (d) Plastic and paper checkout bags represent an unnecessary use of a nonrenewable resource. Reusable bags represent the sustainable alternative to single‐use bags of all types because they consume less resources overall and produce less waste. (e) Even with the emphasis on recycling of plastics in the last several decades, the plastic bag recycling rate in California as of 2008 remains at approximately five percent or less, according to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. In addition, plastic bags pose collection, sorting and handling difficulties, limiting their recyclability. (f) The City discourages the use of all types of single‐use checkout bags, because single‐use bags consume more resources and produce more waste than reusable bags. However, plastic bags are the least desirable type of all single‐use bags because they consume a nonrenewable resource, degrade very slowly and harm creek and marine life. It is the City's intent to address all types of single‐use checkout plastic bags, including compostable and biodegradable ones, because all types consume non‐renewable resources and can harm creek and marine life. Not Yet Approved 2 121106 jb 0131015 (g) Expanding the current ordinance supports the City’s goal of Zero Waste by 2021 by reducing distribution of both plastic and paper bags. Plastic film has finite recyclability and is made from a nonrenewable natural resource. Ordinance expansion would reduce residuals contamination in municipal compost. A majority of compost contamination is comprised of plastic film and must be disposed as garbage. (h) Paper bags are more successfully recycled than plastic bags given current technologies. Therefore, diverting paper bags from landfill disposal is more attainable than it is for plastic bags. However, recyclable paper checkout bags do cause negative environmental impacts such as air, land and water pollution during resource extraction, manufacturing, transportation and ultimately in their disposal as even recycling paper bags consumes energy and causes pollution. (i) Reusable 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 customer. (j) Fifty‐seven percent of combined grocery store and pharmacy checkout bags in Palo Alto are single‐use paper or plastic based on a 2012 survey; therefore, further incentives are needed to decrease single‐use checkout bags. (k) The City has given away more than 14,500 reusable checkout bags to Palo Alto residents to encourage their use. (l) Local cities are required by the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) for storm water to reduce trash by 40% by 2014, 70% by 2017 and 100% by 2022, with cities implementing plastic bag bans as one of the actions to achieve these requirements. Palo Alto’s short term trash reduction plan complying with the MRP is claiming a 6% reduction of trash with the current single use bag ban, however, cities with more comprehensive bans are claiming 12% reduction, assisting them in meeting this strict requirement in a cost‐effective manner. (m) Due to the negative environmental effects and regulatory requirements to reduce trash, it is therefore in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to restrict single‐use bag distribution within the boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. (n) It is the intent of the Council to reduce negative impacts of single‐use checkout bags through implementation of this Ordinance by continuing the requirement for grocery stores to not provide single‐use plastic checkout bags and expanding that requirement to include all Retail Service and Food Service Establishments, while implementing a charge to allow customers to purchase a single‐use paper bag or a reusable bag if the customer wants a bag and has not brought a reusable bag. Not Yet Approved 3 121106 jb 0131015 SECTION 2. Chapter 5.35 (Retail Sales – Requirement for Paper Bags) of Title 5 (Health and Sanitation) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and restated to read as follows: Chapter 5.35 RETAIL SALES AND FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS‐ REQUIREMENT FOR PAPER CHECKOUT BAGS AND LIMITED PROHIBITION ON SINGLE‐USE PLASTIC CHECKOUT BAGS Sections: 5.35.010 Definitions 5.35.020 Types of Checkout Bags Permitted at Retail Establishments 5.35.030 Types of Checkout Bags Permitted at Supermarkets 5.35.040 Operative Dates 5.35.050 Exemptions 5.35.060 Severability 5.35.070 Penalties 5.35.010 Definitions. (a) “Checkout Bag” means a bag that is provided by a Retail Establishment at the checkstand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment. Checkout Bags do not include bags provided solely for produce, bulk food or meat at a produce, bulk food or meat department within a grocery store, Supermarket, produce or meat market or other similar retail establishmentproduce or product bags (see 5.35.010(c)). (b) “Food Service Establishment” means any establishment, located or providing food within the City of Palo Alto, which provides prepared and ready‐to‐consume food or beverages, for public consumption including but not limited to any Retail Service Establishment, supermarket, delicatessen, restaurant, food vendor, sales outlet, shop, cafeteria, catering truck or vehicle, cart or other sidewalk or outdoor vendor or caterer. (c) “Produce Bag” or “Product Bag” means 1) any bag typically without handles provided to a customer to carry produce meats, bulk food, or other food items to the point of sale inside a store 2) to hold prescription medication dispensed from a pharmacy, 3) to protect food or merchandise from being damaged or contaminated by other food or merchandise when items are placed together in a Not Yet Approved 4 121106 jb 0131015 Reusable bag or Recyclable paper checkout bag; 4) a bag without handles that is designed to be placed over articles of clothing on a hanger (d) “Recyclable Paper Bag” or “Recyclable Paper Checkout 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., and (4) Is labeled with the name of the manufacturer, the location (country) where manufactured and the percentage of post‐consumer recycled content in an easy‐ to‐read size font. (e) “Retail Service Establishment” means any establishment commercial business facility providing retail sale, rental, service, processing, or repair of items primarily intended for consumer or household use, including but not limited to the following: groceries, meat, vegetables, dairy products, baked goods, candy, and other food products; liquor and bottled goods, household cleaning and maintenance products; drugs, cards, and stationery, notions, books, tobacco products, cosmetics, and specialty items; flowers, plants, hobby materials, toys, household pets and supplies, and handcrafted items; apparel, jewelry, fabrics, and like items; cameras, photography services, household electronic equipment, records, sporting equipment, kitchen utensils, home furnishing and appliances, art supplies and framing, arts and antiques, paint and wallpaper, carpeting and floor covering, interior decorating services, office supplies, musical instruments, hardware and homeware, and garden supplies; bicycles; mopeds and automotive parts and accessories (excluding service and installation); cookie shops, ice cream stores and delicatessens. engaged in the sale of goods to consumers for ultimate consumption. (f) “Reusable Checkout Bag” sold at a retail store means a bag with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse and meets all of the following requirements: i. Is made of durable material so that it can be washed or disinfected at least 100 times ii. Has a minimum lifetime capacity of 125 or more uses carrying 22 or more pounds over a distance of at least 175 feet iii. Meets the standards of the California Toxics in Packaging Prevention Act (Cal. Health &Safety Code 25214.11‐25214.26) as amended or any successor legislation (g) “Single‐Use Plastic Checkout Bag” means any Checkout Bbag made predominately fromof plastic, deprived from either petroleum or a biologically‐based source, such as corn or other plant sources, which is provided to a customer at the point of sale which does not meet the definition of a reusable bag. excluding Reusable Bags.is Not Yet Approved 5 121106 jb 0131015 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 and is suitable for reuse. “Single‐Use Plastic Checkout Bag” means any Checkout Bag made from plastic, excluding Reusable Bags. “Supermarket” means a full‐line, self service grocery store within the City of Palo Alto with gross annual sales of two million dollars ($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 the guidebook to determine gross annual sales. 5.35.020 Types of Checkout Bags Permitted at Retail Service and Food Service Establishments (a) Beginning April 22, 2013, aAll Retail Service Establishments within the City of Palo Alto shall provide or make available to a customer only Reusable Bags or Recyclable Paper checkout Bags for the purpose of carrying away goods or other materials from the point of sale, subject to the terms of this Chapter. i. Single‐Use Plastic bags exempt from the ordinance include those integral to the packaging of the product, newspaper bags, door‐hanger bags, or bags sold in packages containing multiple bags intended for use as garbage, pet waste or yard waste bags. (b)ii. Farmers Markets may provide reusable, paper or plastic product bags without handles to hold produce or bulk items. Retail Establishment charges are not required at Farmers Markets unless Checkout Bags used to hold Product Bags are provided..the following as Checkout Bags to customers: Paper bags only, or a choice between paper or plastic bags. If the Retail Establishment offers customers a choice of paper or plastic bags at the checkstand, cash register or other point of departure, the customer shall be asked whether he or she requires or prefers that the goods purchased be placed in paper or plastic bags. The goods shall be placed in the type of bag requested by the customer. (b) Beginning October 1, 2013, all Food Service Establishments shall provide or make available to a customer only Reusable Bags or Recyclable Paper Checkout Bags for the purpose of carrying away goods or other materials from the point of sale, subject to the terms of this Chapter. i. Product Bags without handles may be used at Food Service Establishments to hold containers of food items that are free liquids such as soups or stews that might be susceptible to spilling.Nothing in this Section shall be read to Not Yet Approved 6 121106 jb 0131015 preclude Retail Establishments from making Reusable Bags available for sale to customers (c) The City of Palo Alto encourages, but does not require in‐store public education and encouragement to customers about the use of reusable bags. In‐store education for Retail Service and Food Service Establishments is available at www.cityofpaloalto.org/plastics. (d) Nothing in this Chapter prohibits customers from using bags of any type that they bring to the establishment themselves or from carrying away goods that are not placed in a bag at point of sale, in lieu of using bags provided by the establishment. (e) A Retail Service or Food Service Establishment may provide a Reusable Bag at no charge if it is distributed as part of an infrequent and limited time promotion. Infrequent and limited time promotions shall not exceed a total of 14 days in any consecutive 12 month period.This Section shall not apply to Supermarkets as defined in Section 5.35.010(f). 5.35.030 Charge for Paper or Reusable Bags at Retail Service EstablishmentsTypes of Checkout Bags Permitted at Supermarkets. (a) Beginning April 22, 2013 no Retail Service Establishment shall provide a Recyclable Paper Checkout Bag or Reusable Bag to a customer at the point of sale, unless the store charges the customer a checkout bag charge of at least ten cents ($0.10) per bag. All Supermarkets within the City of Palo Alto shall provide only the following as Checkout Bags to customers: Reusable Bags and/or Recyclable Paper Bags. (b) Beginning April 22, 2014 no Retail Service Establishment shall provide a Recyclable Paper Checkout Bag or a Reusable Bag to a customer at the point of sale, unless the establishment charges the customer a checkout bag charge of at least twenty‐ five cents ($.25) per bag. Nothing in this Chapter shall be read to preclude Supermarkets from making Reusable Bags available for sale to customers. (c) Clerks must ask customers who do not present their own reusable bag at point of checkout if they want to purchase a checkout bag. All Supermarkets are strongly encouraged to educate their staff to promote Reusable Bags as the best option for Checkout Bags and to post signs encouraging customers to use Reusable Bags. (d) The checkout bag charge shall be separately stated on the receipt and provided to the customer at the time of sale and shall be identified as the Checkout Bag Charge. Any other transaction fee charged by the Retail Service or Food Service Establishment in relation to providing a Checkout Bag shall be identified separately Not Yet Approved 7 121106 jb 0131015 from the Checkout Bag Charge. The checkout bag charge will be completely retained by the Retail Service and is nontaxable. (e) Effective on the Ordinance start‐date all Retail Services Establishments shall keep complete and accurate records of the number or the dollar amount collected from Recyclable Paper Checkout Bags sold each month This information is required to be made available to City staff upon request up to twice annually and must be provided within seven days of request. Reporting false information, including information derived from incomplete or inaccurate records or documents, shall be a violation of the Ordinance. Records submitted to the City must be signed by a responsible agent or officer of the establishment attesting that the information provided on the form is accurate and complete. 5.35.040 Operative dates. (a) All Retail Service Establishments and Supermarkets shall comply with the requirements of this Ordinance by September 18, 2009April 22, 2013. (b) All Food Service Establishments shall comply with the requirements of the Ordinance by October 1, 2013. 5.35.050 Exemptions. The City Manager, or his or her designee, may exempt a Supermarket Retail Service or Food Service Establishment from the requirements of this Chapter for a period of up to one additional year after the operative date of this Ordinance, upon sufficient showing evidence by the applicant that the provisions of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. This request must be submitted in writing to the City within 60 days of the effective date of this Chapter. The phrase “undue hardship” may include, but is not limited to, the following: (a) Situations where there are no acceptable alternatives to Single‐Use Plastic Checkout Bags for reasons which are unique to the SupermarketRetail Service or Food Service Establishment. (b) Situations where compliance with the requirements of this Chapter would deprive a person of a legally protected right. (c) Retail Service Establishments shall not enforce the 10 cent or 25 cent store charge for customers who participate in the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code, or in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 15500) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.” Not Yet Approved 8 121106 jb 0131015 i. This provision will expire two years after ordinance effect date. 5.35.060 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. 5.35.070 Penalties. (a) Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction as set forth in Chapter 1.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (b) The remedies and penalties provided in this Section are cumulative and not exclusive. SECTION 3. 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”). The Department of Planning and Community Environment prepared an Initial Study for this Ordinance, which confirmed that the Ordinance does not have the potential to result in a significant impact on the environment, with appropriate mitigation. Consequently, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, made available for public review beginning February 4, 2009____________ through February 23, 2009____________, and is hereby adopted. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty‐first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Not Yet Approved 9 121106 jb 0131015 ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Public Works ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services Appendix E List of Potential Retailers in Palo Alto Businesses Full Address Food Service 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE 340 PORTAGE AV A1 LIQUORS 3866 EL CAMINO REAL ABUNDANT AIR CAFE 1901 EMBARCADERO RD, # 103 ACE OF SANDWICHES, THE 3866 EL CAMINO REAL ADLAI E STEVENSON HOUSE 455 CHARLESTON RD AMARIN THAI CUISINE 407 LYTTON AV ANATOLIAN KITCHEN 2323 BIRCH ST ANTONIO'S NUT HOUSE 321 CALIFORNIA AV AQUARIUS THEATER 430 EMERSON ST ASAP CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 136 AVENUE, THE 403 UNIVERSITY AV BABBO'S 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 717 BAJA FRESH MEXICAN GRILL 3990 EL CAMINO REAL BARBEQUES GALORE 2080 EL CAMINO REAL BARRON PARK SHELL 3601 EL CAMINO REAL BASKIN ROBBINS ICE CREAM 2615 MIDDLEFIELD RD BAUME FRENCH CUISINE MODERNE 201 CALIFORNIA AV BAY CAFE & GOURMET DELI 1875 EMBARCADERO RD BEE CAFE 2479 BAYSHORE RD, # 708 BISTRO ELAN 2363 BIRCH ST BISTRO ELAN 448 CALIFORNIA AV BISTRO MAXINE 548 RAMONA ST BISTRO PASTIS 447 CALIFORNIA AV BLOOMINGDALE'S #31 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 1 BON APPETIT @ AFFYMAX 4001 MIRANDA AV BON APPETIT @ WM WARE 3401 HILLVIEW AVE., BLDG. C BON VIVANT CAFÉ 535 Bryant St BOSTON MARKET #2418 3375 EL CAMINO REAL BRAVO FONO 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 99 BUCA DI BEPPO 643 EMERSON ST CABANA-CROWN PLAZA 4290 EL CAMINO REAL CAFE 220 220 UNIVERSITY AV, # B CAFE A LA CARTE 730 WELCH RD CAFE BRIOCHE 445 CALIFORNIA AV CAFÉ DEL DOGE 419 UNIVERSITY AV CAFÉ EPI 405 UNIVERSITY AV CAFE PIAZZA 3000 EL CAMINO REAL, BLDG. 1 CAFE PRO BONO 2437 BIRCH ST CAFE RENAISSANCE / MISUNO 321 HAMILTON AV CAFE SOPHIA 2706 MIDDLEFIELD RD CAFFE DEL DOGE 419 UNIVERSITY AV CAFFE RIACE 200 SHERIDAN AVE., # 102 CALAFIA 855 EL CAMINO REAL CALIFORNIA CAFE BAR & GRILL 700 WELCH RD CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN 531 COWPER ST CELIA'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT 3740 EL CAMINO REAL CHEESECAKE FACTORY 375 UNIVERSITY AV CHEESESTEAK SHOP 2305 EL CAMINO REAL CHINA DELIGHT 461 EMERSON ST CHINA MEI 3781 EL CAMINO REAL CHIPOTLE 2675 EL CAMINO REAL Chipotle @ SSC 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 15A CHO'S RESTAURANT 213 CALIFORNIA AV CIBO RESTAURANT & BAR 3398 EL CAMINO REAL CINE ARTS AT PALO ALTO SQUARE 3000 EL CAMINO REAL, # 2 CLASSIC RESIDENCE BY HYATT 620 SAND HILL RD CLUB ILLUSIONS 260 CALIFORNIA AV CLUB ILLUSIONS 401 WAVERLEY ST COCONUTS 642 RAMONA ST COLD STONE CREAMERY 855 EL CAMINO REAL, # 9 COMO ESTA TAQUERIA 2605 MIDDLEFIELD RD, # A COUNTER, THE 369 CALIFORNIA AV COUPA CAFE 538 RAMONA ST COWPER INN 705 COWPER ST CREPEVINE 367 UNIVERSITY AVE. CROSSROADS WORLD MARKET 720 SAN ANTONIO AV DA SICHUAN BISTRO 3781 EL CAMINO REAL DARBAR INDIAN CUISINE 129 LYTTON AV DIAZ MARKET STOP 3487 EL CAMINO REAL DINAH'S POOLSIDE COFFEE SHOP 4261 EL CAMINO REAL DOMINO'S PIZZA 240 CAMBRIDGE AVE., B DOUCE D'FRANCE 855 EL CAMINO REAL, # 104 DRIFTWOOD MARKET 3450 EL CAMINO REAL ELBE RESTAURANT & RUDY'S PUB 117 UNIVERSITY AV EMPIRE TAP ROOM 651 EMERSON ST EQUINOX FITNESS CLUB 435 ACACIA AV ESPRESSO BAR #5802 795 EL CAMINO REAL, # 2 EUROMART 3707 EL CAMINO REAL EVVIA 420 EMERSON ST FAMBRINI'S TERRACE BISTRO 2600 EL CAMINO REAL FISH MARKET THE 3150 EL CAMINO REAL FLEMING'S STEAKHOUSE 180 EL CAMINO REAL FRAN'S MARKET 499 LYTTON AV FRESH TASTE CHINESE GARDEN 2111 EL CAMINO REAL FUKI SUSHI 4119 EL CAMINO REAL GARDEN FRESH 460 RAMONA ST GATEAU ET GANACHE 3261 ASH ST, B2 GODIVA CHOCOLATIER 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 301 GOOD EARTH CAFE & BAKERY 1520 PAGE MILL RD GOOD EARTH PATIO CAFE 1899 PAGE MILL RD GORDON BIERSCH BREWERY RESTAURANT 640 EMERSON ST GOURMET FRANKS 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 199 GREEN ELEPHANT GOURMET 3950 MIDDLEFIELD RD GYROS GYROS 498 UNIVERSITY AV HAAGEN-DAZS 180 EL CAMINO REAL HAAGEN-DAZS 203 UNIVERSITY AVE., # 230 HAMILTON, THE 555 BYRON ST HAN 452 UNIVERSITY AV HAPPY DONUTS 3916 EL CAMINO REAL HOBEE'S 855 EL CAMINO REAL, # 67 HOBEE'S RESTAURANT 4224 EL CAMINO REAL HOLLYWOOD VIDEO #005-592 3903 EL CAMINO REAL HOMMA'S BROWN RICE SUSHI 2363 BIRCH ST, #B HONEY BAKED HAM 4113 EL CAMINO REAL HOUSE OF BAGELS 526 UNIVERSITY AV HOWIE'S ARTISAN PIZZA 855 EL CAMINO REAL, # 60 HUNAN GARDEN RESTAURANT 3345 EL CAMINO REAL HYDERABAD HOUSE 448 UNIVERSITY AV IL FORNAIO 520 COWPER ST INDOCHINE 2710 MIDDLEFIELD RD IZZY'S BROOKLYN BAGELS 477 CALIFORNIA AV J J & F FOOD STORE 520 COLLEGE AV JACK IN THE BOX 2280 EL CAMINO REAL JADE PALACE 151 CALIFORNIA AVE., E101 JAMBA JUICE Store #3 855 EL CAMINO REAL, # 69 JAMBA JUICE Store #325 3990 EL CAMINO REAL , # 2 JANTA INDIAN CUISINE 369 LYTTON AV JAPANESE TAPAS & RAMEN 799 SAN ANTONIO AV JIN SHO 454 CALIFORNIA AV JING JING RESTAURANT 443 EMERSON ST JOANIE'S CAFÉ 405 CALIFORNIA AV JOYA 339 UNIVERSITY AV KARA'S CUPCAKES KIRK'S STEAKBURGERS 855 EL CAMINO REAL, # 75 KOREAN BBQ 855 EL CAMINO REAL L&L HAWAIIAN BBQ 3890 EL CAMINO REAL LA BAGUETTE 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 170 La BODEGUITA 463 CALIFORNIA AV LA COMIDA 450 BRYANT ST LA MORENITA RESTAURANT 800 EMERSON ST LA STRADA 355 UNIVERSITY AV LAVANDA 185 UNIVERSITY AV LOTUS THAI BISTRO 425 CALIFORNIA AV LOVING HUT 165 UNIVERSITY AV LUNCHSTOP @ LOCKHEED MARTIN #206 3251 HANOVER ST, # 206 LYFE 167 HAMILTON AV LYTTON AVE COFFEE ROASTING CO 401 LYTTON AV MACARTHUR PARK 27 UNIVERSITY AV MADAM TAM 180 EL CAMINO REAL,# 399 MANDARIN GOURMET 420 RAMONA ST MANGO CARIBBEAN RESTAURANT 435 HAMILTON AV MANTRA RESTAURANT 636 EMERSON ST MAX'S OPERA CAFE 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 711 MAYFIELD BAKERY & CAFÉ 855 EL CAMINO REAL MCDONALD'S 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 190 MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT #3094 3128 EL CAMINO REAL MEDITERRANEAN WRAPS 433 CALIFORNIA AV MELT, THE 180 EL CAMINO REAL MICHAEL'S GELATO CAFE 440 UNIVERSITY AV MIKE'S CAFE ETC 2680 MIDDLEFIELD RD MING'S VILLA 1700 EMBARCADERO RD MIYAKE 140 UNIVERSITY AV MONIQUE'S CHOCOLATES 539 BRYANT ST. MOUNTAIN MIKE'S PIZZA 3918 MIDDLEFIELD RD NEIMAN-MARCUS RESTAURANT 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 400 NEW YORK PIZZA 325 HAMILTON AV NOLA'S RESTAURANT 535 RAMONA ST NORDSTROM #422 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 550 O SUSHI HOUSE 403 UNIVERSITY AV OLD PRO 545 RAMONA ST OLIVE GARDEN RESTAURANT 2515 EL CAMINO REAL OSTERIA 247 HAMILTON AV PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES 100 Hamilton Ave., Ste. 300 PALO ALTO BAKING COMPANY 381 CALIFORNIA AV PALO ALTO CAFE 2675 MIDDLEFIELD RD, # A PALO ALTO CHEVRON 3897 EL CAMINO REAL PALO ALTO CITY HALL CAFE 250 HAMILTON AV PALO ALTO CREAMERY AT STANFORD 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 2A PALO ALTO ELKS LODGE 4249 EL CAMINO REAL PALO ALTO GOLF COURSE BAY CAFÉ 1875 Embarcadero Rd PALO ALTO HILLS GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB 3000 ALEXIS DR PALO ALTO PIZZA CO.2434 PARK BL PALO ALTO SHELL 2200 EL CAMINO REAL PALO ALTO SOL 408 CALIFORNIA AV PALO ALTO UNOCAL 835 SAN ANTONIO AV PAMPAS 529 ALMA ST PANACHE CATERING 3261 ASH ST, #B PANDA EXPRESS 2310 EL CAMINO REAL PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA 3898 EL CAMINO REAL PAPA MURPHYS 2730 MIDDLEFIELD RD PASTA D'ANGELO 326 UNIVERSITY AV PATIO @ RUDY'S, The 412 EMERSON ST PATXI'S CHICAGO PIZZA 441 EMERSON ST PEET'S COFFEE & TEA 153 HOMER AV PEET'S COFFEE & TEA 855 EL CAMINO REAL, # 77 PEET'S COFFEE & TEA #111 3904 MIDDLEFIELD RD PENINSULA CREAMERY DAIRY FOUNTAIN 900 HIGH ST PENINSULA FOUNTAIN & GRILL 566 EMERSON ST PF CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO 180 EL CAMINO REAL, #900 PIZZA CHICAGO 4115 EL CAMINO REAL PIZZA MY HEART 220 UNIVERSITY AV PLUTO'S 482 UNIVERSITY AV POMMAND CAFE 3163 MIDDLEFIELD RD PRINTERS CAFE 320 CALIFORNIA AV PROLIFIC OVEN THE 550 WAVERLEY ST R&B SEAFOOD RESTAURANT 2209 EL CAMINO REAL RAMONA'S PIZZA 2313 BIRCH ST RANGOON RESTAURANT 565 BRYANT ST RANGOON RUBY'S 445 EMERSON ST REPOSADO 236 HAMILTON AVE RICK'S ICE CREAM 3950 MIDDLEFIELD RD ROJOZ WRAPS 3906 MIDDLEFIELD RD ROSE & CROWN PUB 547 EMERSON ST ROUND TABLE PIZZA 702 COLORADO AV ROUND TABLE PIZZA #15 263 UNIVERSITY AV S O S FINE FOODS 949 EMERSON ST SAFEWAY #1682 2811 Middlefield Rd SANCHO'S TAQUERIA 491 LYTTON AV SAP CAFÉ D-BON APPETIT 3410 HILLVIEW AV SAP CAFETERIA 3450 HILLVIEW AV SAP CAFETERIA-BON APPETIT 3475 DEER CREEK RD SAP-BON APPETIT 3412 HILLVIEW AV SCOTT'S SEAFOOD GRILL & BAR 855 EL CAMINO REAL,# 1 SCOTTY'S BAR 548 EMERSON ST SEE'S CANDIES #45 180 EL CAMINO REAL, #680 SHERATON PALO ALTO 625 EL CAMINO REAL SHOKOOLAT 516 UNIVERSITY AV SIAM ORCHID 496 HAMILTON AV SIAM ROYAL AUTHENTIC THAI CUISINE 338 UNIVERSITY AV SIMPLY SANDWICHES 2431 ASH ST SLIDEBAR 324 UNIVERSITY AV SMOG PROS ARCO #1326 840 SAN ANTONIO AV SO GONG DONG TOFU HOUSE 4127 EL CAMINO REAL, #A SOME KIND OF PLACE- A KOREAN BBQ 855 EL CAMINO REAL, # 85 SPALTI RISTORANTE 417 CALIFORNIA AV SPOT-A-PIZZA PLACE 115 HAMILTON AV SPROUTS 168 UNIVERSITY AV ST MICHAEL'S ALLEY 806 EMERSON ST STANFORD GRILL 198 Junipero Serra Blvd STANFORD TERRACE INN 531 STANFORD AV STARBUCKS #5555 2775 MIDDLEFIELD RD STARBUCKS #9870 361 CALIFORNIA AV STARBUCKS COFFEE #2822 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 79 STARBUCKS COFFEE #2886 4131 EL CAMINO REAL, # 101 STARBUCKS COFFEE #5541 2000 EL CAMINO REAL STRAITS CAFE PALO ALTO 3295 EL CAMINO REAL SU HONG 4256 EL CAMINO REAL SUBWAY #27048 421 CALIFORNIA AV SUBWAY #30816 4131 EL CAMINO REAL SUBWAY #32950 2717 MIDDLEFIELD RD SUNDANCE MINE COMPANY 1921 EL CAMINO REAL SUSHI HOUSE 855 EL CAMINO REAL, # 158 SUSHI TOMO 201 UNIVERSITY AV SUSHI TOMO 4131 EL CAMINO WY SZECHWAN CAFE 406 CALIFORNIA AV TACO BELL #2297 910 CHARLESTON RD TAIPAN PALO ALTO 560 WAVERLEY ST TAMARINE RESTAURANT 546 UNIVERSITY AV TANDOORI OVEN 365 CALIFORNIA AV TAQUERIA AZTECA 321 CALIFORNIA AVE., # 2 TAQUERIA EL GRULLENSE 3636 EL CAMINO REAL TAVA INDIAN 855 El Camino Real TEA TIME-TEA LOVERS SHOP TEAVANA # 26 260 CALIFORNIA AV TEUSCHER CHOCOLATE OF SWITZERLAND 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 151 THAI CITY RESTAURANT 3691 EL CAMINO REAL THAIPHOON RESTAURANT 543 EMERSON ST THREE SEASONS RESTAURANT 518 BRYANT ST TIBCO-BON APPETIT 3307 HILLVIEW AV TRADER VIC'S 4269 EL CAMINO REAL UNIVERSITY CAFÉ 271 UNIVERSITY AV UNIVERSITY CLUB OF PALO ALTO 3277 MIRANDA AV UZUMAKI SUSHI 451 CALIFORNIA AV VALERO OF PALO ALTO 1963 EL CAMINO REAL VERO 530 BRYANT ST VILLAGE CHEESE HOUSE INC 855 EL CAMINO REAL, # 157 VIN VINO WINE 437 CALIFORNIA AV VINO LOCALE 431 KIPLING ST WEBSTER HOUSE 401 WEBSTER ST WEST FRESH 2237 EL CAMINO REAL WESTERN DINING @ CPI 811 HANSEN WY WESTIN PALO ALTO 675 EL CAMINO REAL WINE ROOM, THE 520 RAMONA ST YUCCA DE LAC 180 EL CAMINO REAL ZIBIBBO'S 430 KIPLING ST ZYME & DINE CAFE 925 PAGE MILL RD Retail 2B MOM 855 EL CAMINO REAL 3 G'S CAFE 456 CAMBRIDGE AVE 3ID 3427 THOMAS DR 45WALL DESIGN 3729 HERON WAY 57TH & LUXE 855 EL CAMINO REAL #13A388 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE 520 COWPER ST, # 2 A & A AUTO REPAIR 1963 EL CAMINO REAL A & P INTERIOR DESIGNS 2450 WATSON CT A BALLOON ABOUT TOWN 3079 WAVERLEY ST A LITTLE SECRET 505 BARRON AVE A100 US 529 BRYANT ST AA AUTO GLASS 744 SAN ANTONIO RD #C27 AANANTA KASHMIR VALLEY ART BTQ 180 EL CAMINO REAL #1 ABBEY'S DINER 209 UNIVERSITY AVE ABC VACUUM & SEWING 408 FLORENCE ST ABERCROMBIE & FITCH 180 EL CAMINO REAL #V840 ABLER ENTERPRISES 3718 GROVE AVE ABRAMS FINE ARTS 542 HIGH ST ACCENT ARTS 392 S CALIFORNIA AVE ACME BIOSCIENCE 3941 E BAYSHORE RD ACME PARTY BOX COMPANY 1528 BYRON ST ACROSS THE LINE CARDS 916 MORENO AVE ADDISON ANTIQUE 100 ADDISON AVE ADINA MAGILL 888 AMES AVE ADMCADIAM 3375 ALMA ST #374 ADORNMENTS BY SUSAN SCHAPS 944 BOYCE AVE ADVANCE HAIR THERAPY 200 S CALIFORNIA AVE #190 ADVANCE PROSTHETICS 2237 ALMA ST AFFYMAX RESEARCH INSTITUTE 4001 MIRANDA AVE AIM 626 GLENBROOK DR AKINS BODY SHOP 3045 PARK BLVD AKSESARE 610 MIDDLEFIELD RD ALAN HUTCHINGS INSTALLATION 285 RINCONADA AVE ALAN JAMES CLARK 126 WALTER HAYS DR ALDO SHOES 180 EL CAMINO REAL #L200 ALEXANDERS DOG GROOMING 2415 ASH ST ALISON BAKERY 4131 EL CAMINO REAL #104 ALTA MESA MEMORIAL PARK 695 ARASTRADERO RD ALYSSA LEVITAN DESIGNS 2326 WEBSTER ST AMBASSADOR TOYS 855 EL CAMINO REAL #33 AMBER DHARA 150 UNIVERSITY AVE AMBIANCE INTERIORS 1027 ALMA ST A-MED HEALTH CARE 777 WELCH RD #J AMER CANCER SOCIETY 50 EMBARCADERO RD AMER.EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATD SVC 250 UNIVERSITY AVE AMERICAN APPAREL 170 UNIVERSITY AVE ANA PAULA QUIRINO SIMOES 3275 KIPLING ST ANATOLIAN ART 532 RAMONA ST ANDERSON HONDA 1766 EMBARCADERO RD ANDREA EDELMAN 2195 COLUMBIA ST ANDREA SPIRA INTERIORS 2025 TASSO ST ANN TAYLOR 180 EL CAMINO REAL #C18 ANNA BRIDGET KALAR 418 COLERIDGE AVE ANNA TEEPLES DESIGNS 129 CHURCHILL AVE ANNE GRAFF 210 EL CARMELO AVE ANNE LOUISE KLOCKO 777 EMBARCADERO RD ANNFER 226 ELY PL ANTHONY A. MONTANINO 400 PEPPER AVE A-PLUS AUTO GLASS 744 SAN ANTONIO RD #27 APPLE STORES 180 EL CAMINO REAL #183 APPLE STORES 451 UNIVERSITY AVE APPLEBITE WORKS 455 E CHARLESTON RD #A309 APRIL JOY HOCKING 350 LOMA VERDE AVE ARCO AM/PM MINI MARTS 840 SAN ANTONIO RD ARLENE G KLAINER 100 ADDISON AVE ARLENE G KLAINER 4195 OAK HILL AVE ARNOLDI JEWELERS 255 UNIVERSITY AVE ART CRAFT LINOLEUM CARPET SHOP 858 SAN ANTONIO RD ART DIRECTIONS 419 SEALE AVE ARTHUR ANTHONY KIRSCH JR.4160 BYRON ST #B ARTLINE 3441 THOMAS DR ART'S BODYCRAFT 280 LAMBERT AVE ASTOR GIFT & HOME 855 EL CAMINO REAL #109 AT OPHTHALMIC 779 MAPLEWOOD AVE ATHERTON ANTQUE GALLERY 100 ADDISON AVE ATREVO 2160 YALE ST ATRIUM HAIR SALON 250 UNIVERSITY AVE #103 AUDREY PETERS INTERIOR DESIGN 912 WAVERLEY ST AVALON ART & YOGA CENTER 370 S CALIFORNIA AVE AVENUE FLORIST 347 S CALIFORNIA AVE AV-EXPRESSIONS 947 ILIMA WAY AVIATION SUPPLIES 1903 EMBARCADERO RD #B AVY ANIMAL CLINIC 461 PAGE MILL RD A-X ARMANI EXCHANGE 180 EL CAMINO REAL #D122 AZEEM LAKHA DMD 720 COWPER ST AZNFLIX 4380 MILLER CT B & P FLORIST & PLANTS 3880 EL CAMINO REAL B.D. STRATTON BUSINESS SERVICE 3022 WAVERLEY ST BAHRAM BEHROOZI 100 ADDISON AVE BALANCE CENTER 560 OXFORD AVE BANANA REPUBLIC 180 EL CAMINO REAL #172 BARBARA J.SEBASTIAN 777 EMBARCADERO RD BARBARA S.KOLLIN 2327 RAMONA ST BARBARA WOLFE INTERIORS 539 MADISON WAY BARBEQUES GALORE 2080 EL CAMINO REAL BARE ESCENTUALS BEAUTY 180 EL CAMINO REAL #830 BARGAIN BOX 341 S CALIFORNIA AVE BARRAGAN GLASS WORKS 857 ROBB RD BARRY JOHNSON DESIGN 853 ALMA ST BAS DESIGNS 901 ALMA ST BATH & BODY WORKS 180 EL CAMINO REAL BAUME 201 S CALIFORNIA AVE BAY NUTRITION CENTER 2248 PARK BLVD BAYWATER PUBLISHING 2200 GENG RD BCBG MAX AZRIA 180 EL CAMINO REAL #D120 BEADSHOP.COM 3716 STARR KING CIR BEADY DIVA 479 DYMOND CT BEARY NICE GIFTS 920 BOYCE AVE BEAU JOUR DESIGNS 165 FOREST AVE #24 BEAUTY SPA BY EREEDA 200 S CALIFORNIA AVE #190 BEAUTYLAND BEAUTY SUPPLY 180 EL CAMINO REAL #242 BEAVERTOOTH TOOLS 490 GARY CT BELLA BEAUTY SALON 585 BRYANT ST BELL'S COLLEGE BOOK SHOP 536 EMERSON ST BESPOKE 855 EL CAMINO REAL #135 BETTER CHINESE 640 WAVERLEY ST BETTER HEARING CENTER OF PALOA 480 LYTTON AVE BETTER WORLD PRESS 543 JACKSON DR BETTY ANN BRYANT 4270 TERMAN DR #205 BETTY P J LEE 1106 HAMILTON AVE BEYOND INTERIORS 500 E MEADOW DR BICKER & COMPANY CPAS 2221 EL CAMINO REAL BILLE ET PLUME 65 KIRBY PL BILLIE MOFFITT DESIGN 1437 HAMILTON AVE BIOENERGY BALANCING CENTER 1239 CEDAR ST BIRDCAGE PRESS 853 ALMA ST BIRKETT HOUSE DESIGN 2130 YALE ST BLACK DIAMOND SPORTS 162 UNIVERSITY AVE BLANKA ABELIN 200 S CALIFORNIA AVE #190 BLOOM 2820 ROSS RD BLOOMINGDALE'S 180 EL CAMINO REAL #A1 BLOOMS BY NICOLE 3733 CARLSON CIR BLOSSOM BIRTH SERVICES 299 S CALIFORNIA AVE #120 BLOSSOM DECOR 3062 WAVERLEY ST BLUE KITE BRAND SOULTIONS 318 EMERSON ST #2 BLUE SKY - OUTDOOR 230 PORTAGE AVE BLUMOON BAMBOO 4250 EL CAMINO REAL #C325 BODY KNEADS 810 SAN ANTONIO RD BODY KNEADS SPA AND SALON 810 SAN ANTONIO RD BOGNER PRODUCTIONS 544 GREER RD BON APPETIT MANAGEMENT CO. 100 Hamilton Ave., Ste. 400 BONNIE BROCK LANDSCAPE DESIGN 948 CLARA DR BONSALL'S SHOES 3783 EL CAMINO REAL BOOK DEVELOPERS 930 FOREST AVE BOOKS & THINGS 1853 EDGEWOOD DR BOOKS INCORPORATED 855 EL CAMINO REAL BOSE FACTORY STORE 180 EL CAMINO REAL #H-145 BOTTLENOTES 555 HAMILTON AVE #125 BOUM! JEWELRY 2376 BRYANT ST BPI 900 WELCH RD #205 BPVENTURES 342 HIGH ST BRAD LOZARES GOLF SHOP 1875 EMBARCADERO RD BRAFF DESIGNS 805 GARLAND DR BRAUER MEDICAL CLINIC 630 UNIVERSITY AVE BRENDA LEBANC SKIN CARE 345 SHERIDAN AVE #223 BRIGHT SPOTS 3351 ALMA ST #201 BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES 180 EL CAMINO REAL #F180 BROOKS BROTHERS 180 EL CAMINO REAL #M383 BROOKSTONE GIFTS 180 EL CAMINO REAL #D91 BRUCE CAMENZIND ENTERPRISES 792 MONTROSE AVE BRYANT STREET GALLERY 532 BRYANT ST BUCKLES SMITH ELECTRIC 796 SAN ANTONIO RD BURBERRYS LIMITED 180 EL CAMINO REAL #130 BYTE CLOTHING 765 SAN ANTONIO RD #58 C M WASSON COMPANY 423 CHAUCER ST C V THERAPEUTICS 3172 PORTER DR CA PINBALL COMPANY 759 KENDALL AVE CABINETS BY DESIGN 864 SAN ANTONIO RD CACHE 180 EL CAMINO REAL #D124 CAFE' TAXIM 423 UNIVERSITY AVE CALIFORNIA BACH SOCIETY 555 WAVERLEY ST CALIFORNIA PAINT COMPANY 360 S CALIFORNIA AVE CALIFORNIA SHOE/LUGGAGE REPAIR 556 EMERSON ST CALIFORNIA STATE AUTO ASSOC. 430 FOREST AVE CALIFORNIA YOGA CENTER 541 COWPER ST #C CALVIN TRAN 540 UNIVERSITY AVE #150 CAMENZIND DREDGING 792 MONTROSE AVE CAMENZIND DREDGING INC 792 MONTROSE AVE CAMILLA OLSON 805 MELVILLE AVE CAMILLE'S FLOWERS 3716 ORTEGA CT CANARY FOUNDATION 1501 S CALIFORNIA AVE #2500 CANTERBURY LANE 1470 SAND HILL RD #408 CAPAY VALLEY FARM SHOP 100 FOREST AVE CARINA'S CREATIONS JEWELRY 1022 WEBSTER ST CARLOS RUIZ 933 EMERSON ST CARLSEN MOTOR CARS 1730 EMBARCADERO RD CARLSEN SUBARU 4180 EL CAMINO REAL CARNESCO 378 CAMBRIDGE AVE #M CAROL ANN PULLIAM 3176 MADDUX DR CAROL BLUMBERG 620 SAND HILL RD #405A CAROL J. JENSEN 4009 ORME ST CAROL SIMONE 1011 FULTON ST CAROLINE ADLER 2484 BRYANT ST CAROLYN HOFSTETTER 850 WEBSTER ST #920 CAROLYN IRENE BOOTH SANTO 933 EMERSON ST CARPETWORKS 4017 FABIAN WAY CARROLL HOWELL HARRINGTON 830 MELVILLE AVE CARYN WHITE PHOTOGRAPHY 2875 EMERSON ST CASSIS 206 HOMER AVE CATHOLIC CHARITIES CYO 3000 ALEXIS DR CATHY GANNES PHOTOGRPHY FRMNG. 2195 AMHERST ST CECILIA ANN HOOTON 1661 MARIPOSA AVE CEDIDE OLCAY 315 HAMILTON AVE CEIBA DESIGNS 2390 HANOVER ST CELMA QUEIROZ KIRKWOOD 428 GUINDA ST CENTER FOR CONTINUING STUDY 132 HAMILTON AVE CENTURY THEATRES 3000 EL CAMINO REAL CENTURY WINE & LIQUOR 3163 MIDDLEFIELD RD CENTURY WINE & SPIRITS 3163 MIDDLEFIELD RD CHABAD OF GREATER SOUTH BAY 3070 LOUIS RD CHARLSETON SHOPPING CENTER 121 Spear Street, Ste. 250 CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS 3897 EL CAMINO REAL CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS 3972 EL CAMINO REAL CHICO'S 388 UNIVERSITY AVE CHINESE CULTURE & ART HER. FDT 1010 CORPORATION WAY CHRISTIAN SCIENCE READING ROOM 459 S CALIFORNIA AVE CHRISTINA PAHL 909 RAMONA ST CHRISTOPHER H. JOY, D.M.D.668 HOMER AVE CHRISTOPHER JOHN MACIE 4161 EL CAMINO WAY #A CHRISTOPHER S.& ADRIENNE F.AMM 1621 CHANNING AVE CHRISTOPHER'S CRYSTAL GEMS 100 ADDISON AVE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY 150 GRANT AVE #C CIELO 475 UNIVERSITY AVE CIELO 477 UNIVERSITY AVE CIGAR HOUSE 393 S CALIFORNIA AVE CINDY S MATTESON DR 540 UNIVERSITY AVE CIRRUS PRESS 171 BRYANT ST #J CITRUS LANE 3170 WAVERLEY ST CITY OF PALO ALTO 250 HAMILTON AVE CLARE MALONE PRICHARD 1000 ELWELL CT #150A CLASSIC KITCHENS 4335 EL CAMINO REAL CLASSIC PLUMBING FIXTURES 475 JAMES RD CLASSIC RESIDENCE BY HYATT 600 SAND HILL RD CLAUDIA HUBER TOMPERT 514 HIGH ST #6 CLEAR SKIN CLINIC 4020 FABIAN WAY #305 CLOTHING BY R.W. SCHWOCK 3875 PARK BLVD #2 CLUB ONE 3921 FABIAN WAY CMK AUTOMOTIVE 906 INDUSTRIAL AVE COACH STORES 180 EL CAMINO REAL #361 COHO CATERING 459 LAGUNITA DR #1 COLBURN DESIGN 1944 WAVERLEY ST COLBY SYSTEMS 2991 ALEXIS DR COLDWATER CREEK 180 EL CAMINO REAL #850 COLLECTIVE CREATIONS 4335 EL CAMINO REAL #201 COLLECTIVE CREATIONS 844 E CHARLESTON RD COLLINS AND KRIEG 1212 FULTON ST COLOR BURST FLOWER MARKET 477 FOREST AVE COMMITTEE OF 100 FOR TIBET 527 HALE ST COMMON GROUND GARDEN SUPPLY 559 COLLEGE AVE COMMUNITY SKATING 3009 MIDDLEFIELD RD COMPANY FOOD 3343 SAINT MICHAEL CT COMPASS GROUP 901 S CALIFORNIA AVE COMPASS GROUP 925 PAGE MILL RD CONNIE HO, MD, PC 882 EMERSON ST #B CONTINENTAL CATERERS 918 INDUSTRIAL AVE CONTROLLED THERMAL PROCESSING 2415 EMBARCADERO WAY CONVIVIALITY BY JESSA 1618 SAND HILL RD #312 COOPER & COOPER PUBLISHING 1101 MIDDLEFIELD RD CORE STUDIO 2695 MIDDLEFIELD RD COREY B KATZ 529 MATADERO AVE #2 CORINNA MORI DESIGN 841 SYCAMORE DR CORKSCREW.COM 3717 ORTEGA CT COUNTRY SUN NATURAL FOODS 440 CALIFORNIA AVE. COUPA COSAS CORPORATION 536 RAMONA ST CRAIG DESIGN ASSOCIATES 101 WAVERLEY ST CRATE & BARREL 180 EL CAMINO REAL #530 CREATE IT CERAMICS & MOSAIC ST 855 EL CAMINO REAL #108 CREATIVE DESIGNS 900 WELCH RD #402 CREATIVE WORKS 3747 REDWOOD CIR CROSSFIT PALO ALTO 327 KINGSLEY AVE CROSSROAD WORLD MARKET 720 SAN ANTONIO RD CROWNE PLAZA CABANA HOTEL 4290 EL CAMINO REAL CSG/BETTER HEARING CENTER 480 LYTTON AVE CULTURE ORGANIC FROZEN YOGURT 340 S CALIFORNIA AVE CVS #3935 855 EL CAMINO REAL CVS #9984 2701 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD CVS/PHARMACY 352 UNIVERSITY AVE CVS/PHARMACY 855 EL CAMINO REAL CYNTHIA DENISE CHIN-LEE 666 WILDWOOD LN CYPRESS NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE 359 MIDDLEFIELD RD D & M MOTORS 190 CHANNING AVE D MCCLUNG ESTATE & JEWELRY 700 WELCH RD #102 DADOO KIDS 619 TENNYSON AVE DALIS 970 PALO ALTO AVE DANCE CONNECTION 4000 MIDDLEFIELD RD #L5 DANIEL ALEXANDRU WAGNER 1613 MARIPOSA AVE DAR AMPLIFICATION 940 HIGH ST DARRELL ALOYSIUS DANG 500 MIDDLEFIELD RD DAVE'S AUTO REPAIR 830 E CHARLESTON RD DAVID BACHELDER SISSON 469 FERNANDO AVE DAVID L.& BONNIE POLLARD 2450 SOUTH CT DAWNING DAY MUSIC 3858 TIMLOTT CT DAY ONE CENTERS 855 EL CAMINO REAL DE NOVO FINE JEWELRY 250 UNIVERSITY AVE DEA BURMEISTER 541 COWPER ST #C DEAN W.CLARK,DDS 2875 MIDDLEFIELD RD DEBORAH ELIZABETH WERTER 777 WELCH RD #B DEBORAH'S COLLECTION 100 ADDISON AVE DEE DEE RANCH 934 RAMONA ST DELIGHT 2323 BIRCH ST DENNIS IRWIN ILLUSTRATION/DSNG 1251 COLLEGE AVE DESIGN STAGES 2190 BARBARA DR DESIGN WITHIN REACH 447 UNIVERSITY AVE DESIGNER IDEAS 644 MAYBELL AVE DESIGNER PURSES BY JODEE 2599 EMERSON ST DESIGNS BY DAVINA 3525 GREER RD DESIGNS BY MYRNA 833 HAMILTON AVE DESIGNS BY NANCY 1011 HUTCHINSON AVE DESTINO DAY SPA 4335 EL CAMINO REAL #A DI MODA 125 UNIVERSITY AVE #90 DINAH'S MOTOR HOTEL 4261 EL CAMINO REAL DINEH'LADY DESIGN 295 GALVEZ ST DIVERSIFIED DRAPERY PRODUCTS 3801 MIRANDA AVE DIVERSIFIED DRAPERY PRODUCTS 50 EMBARCADERO RD DOG-GONE GOOD! 466 RUTHVEN AVE DOHATSUTEN 799 SAN ANTONIO RD DON ENGLISH 650 GILMAN ST DONALD DOUGLAS HENRIETAS SKIN 611 COWPER ST DONNA M KILIAN 229 HAMILTON AVE DORIS HELGA FISCHER-COLBRIE 812 SEALE AVE DOROTHY JANNINK 661 COWPER ST DOUGLAS L PECK PHOTOGRAPHY 854 RORKE WAY DOWNING DESIGNS 1400 HAMILTON AVE DOWNTOWN PALO ALTO FARMRS MRKT 229 BRYANT ST DR. KENNETH OWYANG 442 RAMONA ST DREAKIYA 261 EL DORADO AVE DREAMTIME DESIGNS 100 ADDISON AVE DRIFTWOOD DELI & MARKET 3450 EL CAMINO REAL DS NEWMAN SALON 2699 MIDDLEFIELD RD DUET PLASTIC SURGERY A MED COR 1515 EL CAMINO REAL #D DUTTON DESIGNS 507 HOMER AVE DUXIANA PALO ALTO 534 BRYANT ST EARLY LEARNING INSTITUTE 2800 W BAYSHORE RD EDGE HAIR SALON 250 UNIVERSITY AVE #103 EDITH SOMMER 3492 JANICE WAY EDITH V.ZITELLI 770 NORTHAMPTON DR EDWARD M.HOLLIS 876 WARREN WAY EDWARDS LUGGAGE 180 EL CAMINO REAL #C9 EFFECTS 418 WAVERLEY ST EILEEN FISHER 180 EL CAMINO REAL #D114 EL CAMINO ANIMAL HOSPITAL 2951 EL CAMINO REAL ELAINE GOLDMAN 3332 MIDDLEFIELD RD ELBE RESTAURANT/RUDY'S PUB 117 UNIVERSITY AVE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INST. 3420 HILLVIEW AVE ELEMENTAL STYLE 3790 EL CAMINO REAL #105 ELENA LAINE ADAMS 562 KENDALL AVE #16 ELI'S MARKET 3487 EL CAMINO REAL ELITE AUTO PERFORMANCE 1963 EL CAMINO REAL ELIZABETH ANN CODY 4030 TRANSPORT ST ELIZABETH FERGASON 100 ADDISON AVE ELIZABETH GAMBLE GARDEN CENTER 1431 WAVERLEY ST ELIZABETH WEAL 3481 JANICE WAY ELIZABETH WONG COMPANY 1849 WEBSTER ST ELKS LODGE 1471 4249 EL CAMINO REAL ELLEN JOANNE GUST 755 MAYVIEW AVE EMPIRE VINTAGE CLOTHING 443 WAVERLEY ST ENDOCRINE THERAPEUTICS 350 CAMBRIDGE AVE #250 ENERGY WEAR 435 ACACIA AVE ENERON 550 IRVEN CT ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN 2385 WAVERLEY ST EOC INSTITUTE 1520 SAND HILL RD #308 EPIFANIO JUAREZ DESIGN 437 KIPLING ST #200 EQUINOX FITNESS 435 ACACIA AVE ERGO WORKS 420 OLIVE AVE ERIN MCGARRY GALLERY 331 CURTNER AVE #K ERMENENGILDO ZENGA 180 EL CAMINO REAL #157A ERNA WENUS 2251 HIGH ST ERNEST N. KAPLAN M.D.1515 EL CAMINO REAL #D ERNIE'S WINE & LIQUORS 3866 EL CAMINO REAL ERNIE'S WINE LIQUOR 3870 EL CAMINO REAL ESTER WINDOW SYSTEMS 425 PORTAGE AVE ESTHER FEDER 455 GRANT AVE #7 ESTHER M GOKHALE 2439 BIRCH ST #1 EUROPEAN & ASIAN AUTO CENTER 111 HOMER AVE EUROPEAN COBBLERY 410 S CALIFORNIA AVE EVA PAAL ANTIQUES 100 ADDISON AVE EVC DESIGN ASSOCIATES 3130 ALEXIS DR EVEREST 940 INDUSTRIAL AVE EVOLVE ART STUDIO 2390 CARMEL DR EVOLVE DISCOVERY 3335 BIRCH ST EXIT STAGE RIGHT 1074 ARROWHEAD WAY EXPONENTIAL EDGE INC 228 HAMILTON AVE #300 EXPRESS STORES 180 EL CAMINO REAL #196 EYES OF THE AVENUE 479 UNIVERSITY AVE FAMILY FASHION CUTS 3709 EL CAMINO REAL FAMOUS BEAUTY SALON 3777 EL CAMINO REAL FASHION CLASSICS 3340 COWPER ST FASHION PASSION 180 EL CAMINO REAL #345 FASHION PASSION 425 UNIVERSITY AVE FAST REPAIR 2127 EL CAMINO REAL FEDEX OFFICE 249 S CALIFORNIA AVE FEDEX OFFICE 3000 EL CAMINO REAL FELICIA SNOW INTERIORS 1460 MIDDLEFIELD RD FIBRE ARTS DESIGN STUDIO 935 INDUSTRIAL AVE FIDDLESTICKS & IVORY MUSIC 3890 MAGNOLIA DR FIMBRES BROTHERS 906 INDUSTRIAL AVE FINANCIAL ENGINES 1804 EMBARCADERO RD FISKER 4190 EL CAMINO REAL FIVE STAR FORMULATORS 929 HIGH ST FIVE TEN 510 WAVERLEY ST FLORENCE A DE BRETAGNE 756 GARLAND DR FLORENCE CATANIA PHOTOGRAPHY 85 ROOSEVELT CIR FLOWERS BY EDIE 230 PARKSIDE DR FOLLETT BOOKSTORES 180 EL CAMINO REAL #150 FONO ART 180 EL CAMINO REAL #717 FOOT LOCKER 3225 EL CAMINO REAL FOOTHILL COMMUNITY COLLEGE 4000 MIDDLEFIELD RD FOOTHILLS TENNIS & SWIMMING 3351 MIRANDA AVE FOOTWEAR 463 UNIVERSITY AVE FOR EYES OPTICAL 855 EL CAMINO REAL #83 FOREST SPA BOUTIQUE 325 FOREST AVE FORM FITNESS 445 BRYANT ST FORMA JEWELRY 360 W CHARLESTON RD FORMS OF AMBER 755 MAYVIEW AVE FRANCESCA 48 1635 BRYANT ST FRETTE NORTH AMERICA 180 EL CAMINO REAL FRIENDLY TAKEOVERS 2721 MIDTOWN CT #110 FRIENDS PALO ALTO CHILDRENS 1305 MIDDLEFIELD RD FROM TEE TO GREEN 180 EL CAMINO REAL #78 FRY'S ELECTRONICS #1 855 EL CAMINO REAL, # 49 FULTUS CORP 1036 COLORADO AVE #2J FUTURE SOUND 3337 EL CAMINO REAL FX HOUSE ASSOCIATES 785 LOMA VERDE AVE G L DI CAPELLO 4155 EL CAMINO WAY #B GABRIEL DESIGN & INTERIORS 701 LA PARA AVE GALERIE D'ART SYLVIE PLATINI 1625 HAMILTON AVE GALLERY HOUSE 320 S CALIFORNIA AVE GAME PLAN 1532 EDGEWOOD DR GAMESTOP 370 UNIVERSITY AVE GAP KIDS 180 EL CAMINO REAL #L228 GARDEN CLUB 1431 WAVERLEY ST GARDEN COURT HOTEL 534 EMERSON ST GARRY BAILEY 101 S CALIFORNIA AVE #D100B GARY ZWEIG PHOTOGRAPHY 770 WELCH RD #380 GAYLE C.BRUGLER 100 ADDISON AVE GAYLE C.BRUGLER 2041 WEBSTER ST GELATO CLASSICO ITALIAN ICE 435 EMERSON ST GENERAL NUTRITION CENTERS 855 EL CAMINO REAL GEORGE W.COMMONS MEDICAL CORP 1515 EL CAMINO REAL GERALD MASTELLER 859 LA PARA AVE GERARDUS B.STAAL 635 MARION AVE GERI MCGILVRAY ART STUDIO 2533 MIDDLEFIELD RD GERTIE MELLON 4030 TRANSPORT ST GERTRUDE REAGAN 967 MORENO AVE GHILARDUCCI DESIGNS 2721 MIDTOWN CT #212 GIFTS & COLLECTIBLES 1421 DANA AVE GITANE 855 EL CAMINO REAL #88 GITANE-FREEDOM OF STYLE 855 EL CAMINO REAL #88 GITTI'S FINE LINGERIE 547 BRYANT ST GLEIM THE JEWELER 180 EL CAMINO REAL #111 GLEIM THE JEWELER 540 UNIVERSITY AVE #100 GLENDA'S GARDENS 1074 MORENO AVE GOING IN STYLE 180 EL CAMINO REAL BLVD #606 GOLDFINE'S 659 TENNYSON AVE GOLDSMITH 541 EMERSON ST GONE TO PIECES 229 HAMILTON AVE GOOD LIFE 544 OXFORD AVE GOOD SOUND PUBLISHING 295 OLIVE AVE GORDON E & BETTY I MOORE FOUND 1661 PAGE MILL RD GOULD DERMATOLOGY GROUP 750 WELCH RD #218 GRAVITY 544 EMERSON ST GREAT AMERICAN FRAMING COMPANY 229 HAMILTON AVE GREAT CLIPS FOR HAIR 3902 MIDDLEFIELD RD GREENCITIZEN 161 HOMER AVE GREENE 158 UNIVERSITY AVE GREENHOUSE INTERIORS 2160 BYRON ST GREGORY DEANE STUDIO 4075 TRANSPORT ST GRETCHEN SCHROEDER HAIRSTYLIST 611 COWPER ST GRYPHON STRINGED INSTRUMENTS 211 LAMBERT AVE GUNDERSON TAYLOR DESIGN 1415 HAMILTON AVE GYMBOREE STORE 180 EL CAMINO REAL #204 H & R BLOCK TAX SERVICES 2470 EL CAMINO REAL #1 HABITATCARE 871 BRUCE DR HAIR BY MONIQUE SIGLINGER 493 LYTTON AVE HAIR INTERNATIONAL 232 STANFORD AVE HAIR SHAPER'S CLUB 453 S CALIFORNIA AVE HAIR STYLING BY STEVE 2426 PARK BLVD HALO-A BLOW DRY BAR 855 EL CAMINO REAL #73 HAN 452 UNIVERSITY AVE HANDA DESIGNS 2899 SOUTH CT HANDWERKS 913 CLARA DR HANS IMPORTED CAR SERVICE 904 HIGH ST HAROLDS AUTO UPHOLSTERY 4074 FABIAN WAY #3 HASBAGS 4282 SUZANNE DR HEALTHSOUTH SPORTS REHAB CTRS. 730 WELCH RD #A HEARTWOOD WINDOW & DOOR 750 SAN ANTONIO RD HEATHER KRISTINE HARDING 619 CHANNING AVE HEDY'S SKIN NAIL & BODY CARE 421 ALMA ST HEINICHEN'S GARAGE 960 HIGH ST HEMINGWAY 480 UNIVERSITY AVE HENGEHOLD MOTOR COMPANY 762 SAN ANTONIO RD HENRY LEE WILLIAMS 180 EL CAMINO REAL HEPADNAVIRUS TESTING 706 BARRON AVE HEWETT BURKARD ASSOCIATES 100 ADDISON AVE HICKINGBOTHAM ENTERPRISES 868 LINCOLN AVE HIGH STREET AUTOMOTIVE 904 HIGH ST HIURA & HIURA DDS 689 COLORADO AVE HOLISTIC PHYSICAL THERAPY 2170 STAUNTON CT HOLLYPEARL 2246 HARVARD ST HOMES BY RENATE 606 SANTA RITA AVE HOMES REDEFINED 3179 GREER RD HONEYS AND HEROES 855 EL CAMINO REAL #120 HOTEL KEEN 425 HIGH ST HOTFLAG.COM, CAFEDVD.COM 2123 EL CAMINO REAL HOWARD'S SHOES FOR CHILDREN 180 EL CAMINO REAL #198 HUI DOU 734 DE SOTO DR HVS COLLECTIONS 100 ADDISON AVE IDEAL HEALTHSPAN 145 N CALIFORNIA AVE #2 I'M NOT JUST A GIRL 462 FERNE AVE IMPORTS WITHOUT BORDERS 524 PATRICIA LN IN FULL BLOOM 555 LYTTON AVE #3 IN HER SHOES 855 EL CAMINO REAL IN LADY'S BOUTIQUE 444 UNIVERSITY AVE IN2CHANGE 870 E CHARLESTON RD #210 INGEBORG INFANTE 1110 MIDDLEFIELD RD INGRID'S SUNTANNING 2417 PARK BLVD INSTAFOTOS 300 PASTEUR DR INTEGRITY OFFICE SOLUTIONS 2226 LOUIS RD INTERIORS BY CLARA SHARPLESS 777 LA PARA AVE INTERIORS BY KRISTINE 541 COWPER ST #B INTERIORS FOR MODERN LIVING 212 HIGH ST INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF THE PE 151 LAURA LN INTERNATIONAL SPORTS IMAGES 143 CHURCHILL AVE INTUITIVE CLIMATE CONTROL 2530 MARSHALL DR INVITING SPACES BY KIM 467 HAMILTON AVE #21 IPANTIES.COM 1115 COLORADO AVE IRENE ADELAIDE BEARDSLEY 1013 PARADISE WAY ISABELLE MARIE TRAINER 3491 THOMAS DR J & R ENTERPRISES 931 CELIA DR J CREW STORE 180 EL CAMINO REAL #317 J D L A 750 WELCH RD #104 J FOSS 250 UNIVERSITY AVE J JILL THE STORE 180 EL CAMINO REAL #607 J SALON 744 SAN ANTONIO RD #8 J.G. COLLECTIONS 804 FOREST AVE J.P. PETERS ART 1021 RAMONA ST JACK NADEL 2370 WATSON CT #100 JACKMANIA 3589 ARBUTUS AVE JACQUIES SEW & SEW 3427 ALMA ST JAMES COX, DDS 777 WELCH RD #H JAMIL ORIENTAL CARPETS 431 S CALIFORNIA AVE JANET B.WASSON 423 CHAUCER ST JAY ALAN COMPANY 855 EL CAMINO REAL #14 JB CONCEPTS 505 CHANNING AVE JEANESE ROWELL INTERIORS 308 BRYANT ST JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES/LEATHER 383 UNIVERSITY AVE JEROLD H LIPSON DDS MS 680 UNIVERSITY AVE JEWISH STUDY NETWORK 3626 EL CAMINO REAL JIFFY LUBE 4195 EL CAMINO REAL JIFFY LUBE 4201 MIDDLEFIELD RD J-INTERIORS 546 HILBAR LN JJ&F Food Store & Deli 520 College Ave JOANNA R WESTERFELD 1810 MIDDLEFIELD RD JOANNE KOLTNOW 317 LELAND AVE JOCELYN P.BAUM 909 HAMILTON AVE JOEL R.BERGQUIST & MARGARET 2085 EMERSON ST JOHN CHUNG'S HOBBIES 2468 INDIAN DR JOHN KAZUO NAKATA 965 COLORADO AVE JOHN THOMAS HAINES 332 TIOGA CT JOS. A BANK CLOTHIERS 270 UNIVERSITY AVE JOSEPHINE TERSINI SHUSTER 4250 EL CAMINO REAL #B414 JOST HVAC & SHEET METAL 412 OLIVE AVE JOY HANA IMAI 619 FULTON ST JOYE ENTERPRISE 470 ANTON CT JSDF HOBBIES 1494 PITMAN AVE JUDITH A.FROST & COMPANY 67 ENCINA AVE JUDITH G.KLEINBERG 722 ASHBY DR JUDITH MINNICK CONTENT 827 MATADERO AVE JUICY COUTURE STORE 180 EL CAMINO REAL JULIA NELSON-GAL FINE ARTS 400 MIDDLEFIELD RD JULIAN CHASE HAIR DESIGNS 2343 BIRCH ST JULIE JOMO 1409 DANA AVE JULIET C. ANDERSON 50 EMBARCADERO RD JUNNOON 150 UNIVERSITY AVE JUST A PARTY GIRL 3066 PRICE CT JUST TERRI 525 HAMILTON AVE #B JUST THE TOUCH 540 JACKSON DR JUST US CATERING 1310 BRYANT ST JVC ENTERPRISES 4290 EL CAMINO REAL K L COLLECTIONS 390 EVERETT AVE KALEIDOSCOPE INTERIORS 852 AMES AVE KANPAI 330 LYTTON AVE KARA 457 KINGSLEY AVE KAREN VANORSDOL WHITE 146 WALTER HAYS DR KATE SPADE 180 EL CAMINO REAL #153 KATHARINE G.& EDWARD T.SICKEL 418 PALM ST KATHERINE JANTZEN GLAZIER 1955 TASSO ST KATHERINE KLEIN 525 HAWTHORNE AVE KATHLEEN BOBICK 2603 ROSS RD KATHRYN DUNLEVIE 1303 WAVERLEY ST KATHRYN MARIE KERNS 1091 TANLAND DR #107 KATHRYN MARIE PERRY 513 ASHTON AVE KEEBLE & SHUCAT PHOTOGRAPHY 261 S CALIFORNIA AVE KEEBLE & SHUCAT PHOTOGRAPHY 290 S CALIFORNIA AVE KEELAN DESIGNS 339 MANZANITA AVE KELLY BARTHELEMY DESIGN 1929 CHANNING AVE KELLY MOORE PAINTS 411 PAGE MILL RD KEN'S GOOD BOOKS 4064 SUTHERLAND DR KIEHL'S SINCE 1851 180 EL CAMINO REAL #152 KIM GRANT TENNIS 3005 MIDDLEFIELD RD KIM'S NAIL CARE 540 EMERSON ST KIMURA GALLERY 482 HAMILTON AVE KINDRED SPIRITS 1868 BRET HARTE ST KITSCH COUTURE 435 UNIVERSITY AVE KMAS 1001 E CHARLESTON RD KMR DESIGN 2389 RAMONA ST KRAFT FURNITURE & SLEEP SHOP 3567 EL CAMINO REAL KROYMANN ASSOCIATES 1 SOMERSET PL KURTS & DORNS AUTO SERVICE 930 EMERSON ST KUSAMURA BONSAI CLUB 3800 MIDDLEFIELD RD KUSAMURA BONSAI CLUB 600 COLORADO AVE LA BELLE SKIN CARE SALON 855 EL CAMINO REAL #95 LA BODEQUITA DEL MEDIO 463 S CALIFORNIA AVE LA CREMA SPA BOUTIQUE 325 FOREST AVE LA JOLIE NAIL SPA 364 S CALIFORNIA AVE LA-BELLE EUROPEAN FACIAL SALON 180 EL CAMINO REAL #36 LACOSTE 180 EL CAMINO REAL #119 LAMBERT AVENUE RESTORATION 300 LAMBERT AVE LARRY S BABY SAFETY SERVICES 3888 GROVE AVE LAURA JACOBSON ART 4030 TRANSPORT ST #C32 LAUREN ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS 100 ADDISON AVE LAURIE CHESTNUTT FLORALS 463 LYTTON AVE #C LAURIKS & ASSOC. 3790 EL CAMINO REAL #103 LAVANYA 744 SAN ANTONIO RD #26 LAWRENCE YUEN CHIN 163 HAMILTON AVE LE GARAGE 4285 MIRANDA AVE LEAF & PETAL 439 S CALIFORNIA AVE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS 953 INDUSTRIAL AVE #113 LEE JOHNSON COMPANY 3580 LA MATA WAY LEEDER OF THE PACK 940 OLD TRACE RD LEGAR SALON 334 S CALIFORNIA AVE LEIKAM ENTERPRISES 530 KENDALL AVE #1 LES PETITS CADEAUX 415 UNIVERSITY AVE LESLIE LAMBERT 4030 TRANSPORT ST #G LETA MARIE HERMES 100 ADDISON AVE L'ETOILE SKIN CARE 845 LA PARA AVE LETTER PERFECT FINE STATIONERY 384 UNIVERSITY AVE LIDIA SKIN CARE STUDIO 437 KIPLING ST #150 LIFE OUTSIDE THE BOX 4161 EL CAMINO WAY #A LIFETIME POOLS INC. 910 SAN ANTONIO RD LILLIAN CHUN INTERIOR DESIGN 1357 PITMAN AVE LILLIAN LESNICK 731 CHRISTINE DR LINDA JAY DESIGNS 3184 WAVERLEY ST LINDA L.HOSFORD 100 ADDISON AVE LINDA LOUISE NANSEN 100 ADDISON AVE LIPPERT & LIPPERT DESIGN 580 HAWTHORNE AVE LISA'S COUNTER CULTURE 645 BARRON AVE LISHA LEE 2620 MARSHALL DR LITAI WENG NUTRITION CONSULTNT 995 N CALIFORNIA AVE LITTLE FUN & GAMES 2320 BRYANT ST LITTLEGREENCYCLO 1161 EMBARCADERO RD LITTLEGREENCYCLO 3500 DEER CREEK RD LJH ENTERPRISES 375 OLIVE AVE LND GLASS BEAD AND JEWELRY 3124 GENEVIEVE CT L'OCCITANE 180 EL CAMINO REAL #660 LORAL SPACE SYSTEMS 3825 FABIAN WAY LORINDA BADER REICHERT 81 KIRBY PL LOUIS SPIEGEL 3979 BIBBITS DR LOUIS VUITTON 180 EL CAMINO REAL #351 LOVEBIAN DESIGNS 619 CHANNING AVE LOY D.MARTIN FINE CUSTOM FURN. 150 GRANT AVE #F LSB PALO 180 EL CAMINO REAL #208 LUCKY BRAND DUNGAREES 180 EL CAMINO REAL #D83 LUCY 180 EL CAMINO REAL #D87 LUCY TRAEGER LTD 2300 WAVERLEY ST LULULEMON USA 432 UNIVERSITY AVE LULU'S 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 300 LUMPIAHHH 824 SAN ANTONIO RD LUX EYEWEAR 1805 EL CAMINO REAL #100 LUXE 100 ADDISON AVE LYDIA B ZAVERUKHA 3921 FABIAN WAY LYNDA LUMISH DESIGN 3872 GROVE AVE LYONS LIMITED ANTIQUE PRINTS 855 EL CAMINO REAL #10 M B SERVICES 880 SAN JUDE AVE MAACO AUTO PAINTING & BODYWORK 816 SAN ANTONIO RD MAC'S SMOKE SHOP 322 UNIVERSITY AV MACY'S DEPT STORES INC 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 395 MACY'S MEN'S STORE 180 EL CAMINO REAL #J50 MAEVE ELLEN GROGAN 1319 HOPKINS AVE MAEVE ELLEN GROGAN 609 COWPER ST #B MAHIN AND COMPANY 350 S CALIFORNIA AVE MAJESTIC GEMS INTERNATIONAL 180 EL CAMINO REAL #4 MANSOOR GORE JEWELERS 530 RAMONA ST MARCIA ELIZABETH REHMUS 620 SAND HILL RD #428D MARGERY SHARON MARGULIES 777 EMBARCADERO RD MARGO MONTGOMERY & DEANE 540 SEALE AVE MARGUERITE OLSON FLETCHER 197 BRYANT ST #3 MARIPAT K.WILKINS 2105 EMERSON ST MARJ PITCHON MISFELDT DESIGN 2216 AMHERST ST MARTHA BARRY INTERIORS 87 CRESCENT DR MARTHA CASTILLO 772 CLARA DR MARTHA S.WHITNEY 3170 MACKALL WAY MARTIN ALVIN ABRAM 620 SAND HILL RD #311D MARY K. STAHL FINE ART 425 CREEKSIDE DR MARY LOU MCCOURT 270 DAVENPORT WAY MASSAGE THERAPY CENTER 368 S CALIFORNIA AVE MATHEWS CARLSEN BODY WORKS 2480 FABER PL MATRA RAJ 450 MELVILLE AVE MAUREEN JANE MORAVICK 3125 STOCKTON PL MAURICIOARIAS.COM 304 BRYANT ST MAX MARA 180 EL CAMINO REAL #F187 MAXIMART PHARMACY 240 Cambridge Avenue MAXTON MEN 2333 WILLIAMS ST MCLAREN 4192 EL CAMINO REAL MCROSKEY AIRFLEX MATTRESS 220 HAMILTON AVE MECHINACA AUTOMOTIVE 788 SAN ANTONIO RD MEDALLION RUG GALLERY 323 UNIVERSITY AVE MEDICAL PLAZA PHARMACY 1101 WELCH RD MEET BOOKS 806 SEALE AVE MEISSNER AUTOMOTIVE 811 E CHARLESTON RD MERIDIAN I.D. 847 E GREENWICH PL MERIVALE 804 FOREST AVE MERLIN ANTIQUES 734 TORREYA CT MESA ASSOCIATES 2600 EL CAMINO REAL #224 MICHAEL KORS 180 EL CAMINO REAL #12 MICHAEL LUCICH INTERNATIONAL 460 UNIVERSITY AVE MICHAEL TOMPERT 514 HIGH ST MICHAELA'S FLOWER SHOP 453 WAVERLEY ST MICHAL SHALON DESIGNS 155 ISLAND DR MICHELLE B.FURBERSHAW 171 FOREST AVE MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRMNT 1820 EMBARCADERO RD MIDAS MUFFLER SHOP 4200 EL CAMINO REAL MIDORI STUDIO 971 CELIA DR MID-PENINSULA ACCESS 900 SAN ANTONIO RD MIDTOWN SHOE REPAIR 2796 MIDDLEFIELD RD MIKE'S BICYCLE CENTER 3001 EL CAMINO REAL MILLER STEIN INCORPORATED 4151 MIDDLEFIELD RD #100 MILLIE FLORES HAIR DESIGN 2343 BIRCH ST MILLS THE FLORIST 235 UNIVERSITY AVE MIMI & TAYLOR SALON 522 BRYANT ST MINA CONCEPTS 1037 RAMONA ST MINUTE KEY INC. 340 PORTAGE AVE MIRABELLE JEWELERS 550 HAMILTON AVE #226 MIRIAM E.& WILLIAM R.WEHREND 746 GREER RD MIRIAM'S WELL 3921 FABIAN WAY MISSION 6 SALON 460 CAMBRIDGE AVE MOBILEKANGAROO 2115 EL CAMINO REAL MODERN BOOK 494 UNIVERSITY AVE MOLDAW FAMILY RESIDENCE 899 E CHARLESTON RD MOLLIE STONE'S 164 S. California Ave MOMEL INCORPORATED 875 BLAKE WILBUR DR MONIKA STONE SKIN 1795 EL CAMINO REAL MONTOYA JEWERLY & GIFTS 101 S CALIFORNIA AVE MOONSTONE DREAMS 205 WILTON AVE MRS PEOPLES 2126 UNIVERSITY AVE MRS. MOSKOWITZ'S 1941 TASSO ST MURRAY ANN KOCH 1466 DANA AVE MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HERITAGE 351 HOMER AVE MVLA TREES 50 EMBARCADERO RD MY BLUE DOTS 262 SANTA RITA AVE MY DIRECTOR'S CUT 3239 EL CAMINO REAL #200 MY GYM PALO ALTO 2655 MIDDLEFIELD RD MYTE MEDIA CORPORATION 541 COWPER ST #D MYWIN CENTER 414 ALDER LN NAARTJIE CUSTOM KIDS 180 EL CAMINO REAL #210 NADINE PRIESTLEY PHOTOGRAPHY 1112 HAMILTON AVE NAIL N'JOY 453 S CALIFORNIA AVE NANCY BIEBEL ALEXANDER 435 SANTA RITA AVE NANCY COWALL CUTLER INTERIOR 435 SHERIDAN AVE #303 NANCY FAYE RIFE 25 CHURCHILL AVE NANCY MELTON INTERIORS 557 W CRESCENT DR NANOO 855 EL CAMINO REAL #34 NATALIE SALON IV 539 ALMA ST NATALYA BRENERMAN MINER 744 SAN ANTONIO RD #1 NATURAL HEALTH CALIFORNIA 616 UNIVERSITY AVE NATURAL HEALTH RESOURCES 145 N CALIFORNIA AVE #2 NATURE REFINE 4156 HUBBARTT DR NATURE'S ALLEY 2675 MIDDLEFIELD RD #C NEFERTARI 750 W GREENWICH PL NEIMAN MARCUS DEPARTMENT STORE 180 EL CAMINO REAL #401 NELSON ROBERT HOLCOMB 1433 ALMA ST NEW URBAN GARDENS 667 KENDALL AVE NEWTON PARK PUBLISHING 2225 E BAYSHORE RD #200 NIKE WOMEN 180 EL CAMINO REAL #6C NINA BOGDAN 3921 SABIAN WAY NINE MINUTE OIL & LUBE 3839 EL CAMINO REAL NO. CALIF. 9/11 TRUTH ALLIANCE 4060 VERDOSA DR NOERR PROGRAMS CORP. 180 EL CAMINO REAL #660 NORDSTROM DEPARTMENT STORE 180 EL CAMINO REAL #550 NORWELL 2250 PARK BLVD NORZIN COLLECTIONS 486 UNIVERSITY AVE NOTO MOTORS 906 INDUSTRIAL AVE NOUVELLE BRIDAL BOUTIQUE 3705 EL CAMINO REAL NTT SKIN 460 S CALIFORNIA AVE #100 OBD INCORPORATED 210 HIGH ST OFJCC 3921 FABIAN WAY OIL CHANGERS 780 SAN ANTONIO AVE ONCOMDX LABORATORIES 2454 EMBARCADERO WAY ONE INTERIORS 1181 LINCOLN AVE ONE MILLION LIGHTS INC. 1461 DANA AVE OPAL'Z 719 COLORADO AVE OPPORTUNITIES 4275 MCKELLAR LN #9 OPULENCE HAIR LOUNGE 412 FLORENCE ST OREN'S HUMMUS SHOP 261 UNIVERSITY AVE OUT PATIENT CLINIC PHARMACY 300 PASTEUR DR #A100 P2PVENDING SERVICES 755 PAGE MILL RD #B PACIFIC NATUROPATHIC 4153 EL CAMINO WAY #B PACIFIC SKYLINE COUNCIL 1305 MIDDLEFIELD RD PACIFIC SUNWEAR 180 EL CAMINO REAL #206 PACIFICOTTON 515 COWPER ST PADRAC 101 ALMA ST #105 PALO ALTO AERO SERVICE 1901 EMBARCADERO RD #1 PALO ALTO ART CLUB 668 RAMONA ST PALO ALTO AUTO REPAIR 3508 EL CAMINO REAL PALO ALTO BICYCLES 171 UNIVERSITY AVE PALO ALTO BIMMER 799 ALMA ST PALO ALTO CAR WASH 841 EL CAMINO REAL PALO ALTO CLINIC 795 EL CAMINO REAL PALO ALTO CLUB 567 MELVILLE AVE PALO ALTO COMMUNITY CHILD CARE 3990 VENTURA CT PALO ALTO COMMUNITY CHURCH 3391 MIDDLEFIELD RD PALO ALTO CONCOURS D'ELEGANCE 800 SAN ANTONIO RD #6 PALO ALTO CULTURAL CENTER 1313 NEWELL RD PALO ALTO DENTAL SURGERY 4157 EL CAMINO WAY #B PALO ALTO DOWNTOWN SHOPPING AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 400 Mitchell Lane PALO ALTO EYEWORKS 461 S CALIFORNIA AVE PALO ALTO FINE GOODS 606 CHIMALUS DR PALO ALTO FUEL SERVICE 1901 EMBARCADERO RD #13 PALO ALTO GERMAN CAR CORP 3939 EL CAMINO REAL PALO ALTO HARDWARE 875 ALMA ST PALO ALTO HILLS COUNTRY CLUB 3000 ALEXIS DR PALO ALTO HISTORICAL ASSOC. 1213 NEWELL RD PALO ALTO LASER & SKIN CARE 151 FOREST AVE PALO ALTO MED FNDTN FOR HLTH 795 EL CAMINO REAL PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION 795 EL CAMINO REAL Palo Alto Medical Foundation Pharmacy 795 El Camino Real PALO ALTO PLUMBING HEATING A/C 716 SAN ANTONIO RD #F PALO ALTO RUG GALLERY 500 UNIVERSITY AVE PALO ALTO SPEEDOMETER & A/C 718 EMERSON ST PALO ALTO SPORT SHOP & TOYS 526 WAVERLEY ST PALO ALTO TOY SHOPPE 542 HILBAR LN PALO ALTO TROPHY/T-SHIRT STOP 4074 FABIAN WAY PALO ALTO VIOLINS 345 S CALIFORNIA AVE #7 PAMELA GARLICK 100 ADDISON AVE PAMELA GARLICK 340 LOWELL AVE PAMELA PENNINGTON STUDIOS 947 INDUSTRIAL AVE PAPER PIZZAZZ 4150 MIDDLEFIELD RD PAPERWHIRL 230 UNIVERSITY AVE PAPYRUS 180 EL CAMINO REAL #11 PARADISE VALLEY SPAS 2001 EL CAMINO REAL PARASOL BEAUTY ATELIER 470 HAMILTON AVE PARENTS LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE 555 WAVERLEY ST #23 PARK AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE 3040 PARK BLVD PARK AVENUE MOTORS 3241 PARK BLVD PARROT CELLULAR 476 UNIVERSITY AVE PARTNERSHIPS FOR A SUSTAINABLE 1023 CORPORATION WAY PASSION FLOWER STUDIO 1554 WALNUT DR PATAGONIA 525 ALMA ST PATIO @ RUDY'S 412 EMERSON ST PATRICIA A.JARMAN 2580 EMERSON ST PATRICIA WONG MD 735 COWPER ST PATRICK JAMES 855 EL CAMINO REAL #40 PAUL INTERIORS 780 SEALE AVE PAUL'S EUROPEAN COBBLERY 410 S CALIFORNIA AVE PC DESIGN 228 FULTON ST PEAK SURGICAL 2464 EMBARCADERO WAY PEMBROKE 4073 BEN LOMOND DR PENINSULA BEAUTY SUPPLY 250 UNIVERSITY AVE PENINSULA CHILDRENS CENTER 3860 MIDDLEFIELD RD PENINSULA HARDWARE 2676 MIDDLEFIELD RD PENINSULA MUSIC AND REPAIR 4333 EL CAMINO REAL PENINSULA OPTICAL 417 UNIVERSITY AVE PENINSULA PEACE & JUSTICE CTR. 625 HAMILTON AVE PENINSULA PIANO BROKERS 4333 EL CAMINO REAL PEONY 1844 HAMILTON AVE PERSPECTIVES IN WOOD 2417 EMBARCADERO WAY PET FOOD DEPOT 3127 EL CAMINO REAL PET FOOD EXPRESS 3910 MIDDLEFIELD RD PETE MOFFAT CONSTRUCTION 947 INDUSTRIAL AVE PETERSEN SUPPLY COMPANY 876 BOYCE AVE PFW ENTERPRISES 2140 COLUMBIA ST PHILHARMONIA BAROQUE ORCHESTRA 625 HAMILTON AVE PHOTOGRAPH & FRAME 2086 EL CAMINO REAL PHOTOGRAPHY RICK SAAL 896 ALTAIRE WALK PHYLLIS 540 RAMONA ST PIAZZA'S FINE FOODS 3922 Middlefield Rd PICABOO CORPORATION 654 HIGH ST #200 PICCADILLY PETS 512 HAMILTON AVE PIERCE COMPANY 1135 GUINDA ST PILLOW-POURRI 703 ADDISON AVE PINKBERRY 180 EL CAMINO REAL #C14 PLANTOYS 508 UNIVERSITY AVE PLUMITA JEWELRY 440 SEQUOIA AVE POLA 1050 N CALIFORNIA AVE POLO RALPH LAUREN 180 EL CAMINO REAL #650 POMEGRANATE 366 S CALIFORNIA AVE #24 POT OF GOLD 1560 SAND HILL RD #405 POTTERY BARN 180 EL CAMINO REAL #V800 POTTERY BARN KIDS 180 EL CAMINO REAL #D88 PRANITA SINGH 933 EMERSON ST PRECIOUS QUEST JEWELRY 3473 PARK BLVD PRECISION AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE 439 LAMBERT AVE PREMIER BOUTIQUE 534 RAMONA ST PREMIER PERSONAL TRAINING 744 SAN ANTONIO RD #2 PRESIDENT BARBER SHOP 490 UNIVERSITY AVE PRESTIGE 855 EL CAMINO REAL #37 PRESTON PIPELINES 1101 WELCH RD PRINTABLES 219 SEALE AVE PROJECT HAPPINESS 261 HAMILTON AVE #404 PROJECTJ CORPORATION 855 EL CAMINO REAL #350-5 PROMETHEUS ATHLETICS 716 SAN ANTONIO RD #L PROSPECTACLES OPTOMETRY 180 EL CAMINO REAL #605 PRS INTERNATIONAL 100 ADDISON AVE PURI DESIGN 974 VAN AUKEN CIR P-VERS CLOTHING LIFE 3275 ALMA ST PWC 962 VAN AUKEN CIR QUAIL HILL DESIGN 898 NORTHAMPTON DR QUANTUM AGE WATER 1239 CEDAR ST RACKET WEB 533 RAMONA ST #A RADHA SOAMI SOCIETY 461 FLORENCE ST RAMONA NAILS 530 RAMONA ST #B RAPHAEL DESIGNS 880 UNIVERSITY AVE RAS DESIGN AND FINE ART 759 TALISMAN CT RAT DOG INK 409 PRATT LN RC EFFECTS 528 UNIVERSITY AVE REACH FITNESS CLUB 707 HIGH ST READYBUZZ 2999 EL CAMINO REAL REBEL METTLE 4250 POMONA AVE REBUILDING TOGETHER PENINSULA 180 EL CAMINO REAL RED DOOR MOVIES 2123 EL CAMINO REAL RED MANGO 429 UNIVERSITY AVE RED THISTLE DANCERS 1750 UNIVERSITY AVE REGENCY TEAK 230 PORTAGE AVE RENINGER 817 COLORADO AVE REO & COMPANY 1519 BYRON ST RESALE DESIGN CONSULTANTS 1595 CHANNING AVE RESTORATION HARDWARE 281 UNIVERSITY AVE RESUMES BY LYNDA 4131 EL CAMINO REAL #8 REVETI JEWELS 851 MOANA CT RG PARTNERSHIP 3921 FABIAN WAY RGB LANDSCAPES 66 MORTON WAY RIBBONS 921 LINCOLN AVE RICE PAPER 38 ERSTWILD CT RICE THAI CUISINE 3924 EL CAMINO REAL RINA ZOLOTUSKY 3120 MIDDLEFIELD RD ROBERT KROHN SHOES 855 EL CAMINO REAL #20 ROBOTEX 1400 PAGE MILL RD #100 ROBYN HATCH CRUMLY 850 WEBSTER ST #723 ROCHELLE FORD METAL SCULPTOR 1155 WAVERLEY ST ROD SEARCEY PHOTOGRAPHY 3642 ARBUTUS AVE ROLLER HAPGOOD & TINNEY 980 MIDDLEFIELD RD ROMI 624 EMERSON ST RONALD A ANDREWS 481 NEVADA AVE RONALD MC DONALD HOUSE 520 SAND HILL RD ROSITA CORDERO VIGDOR 50 EMBARCADERO RD RUCHUN LIN 3260 MORRIS DR RUSKIN GARDENS COMPANY 174 WALTER HAYS DR RUTHANN RICHTER HAMMER 3512 RAMONA ST RUTH'S ANTIQUES 100 ADDISON AVE RUTI CLOTHING AND LIFESTYLE 2102 OLD PAGE MILL RD S. PREMA WYLIE 667 COWPER ST SABRA JEWELRY DESIGN 670 SAN ANTONIO RD #24 SAGE R&D 3161 ALMA ST SAINT MICHAELS ALLEY 140 HOMER AVE SAINT MICHAELS ALLEY 806 EMERSON ST SAMBA GLOW 520 BRYANT ST SAN ANTONIO AUTO SERVICE 699 SAN ANTONIO RD SANANTONIO CABINETS 716 SAN ANTONIO RD #H SANDRA HENNEMAN 972 HAMILTON AVE SANFORD RESS 253 SEALE AVE SANGHATI 739 ADDISON AVE SAY RAY FOREIGN AUTO SERVICE 3251 ASH ST SBSC CRAFTS 1095 CHANNING AVE SBSC CRAFTS 1140 COWPER ST SBSC CRAFTS 2621 GREER RD SBSC CRAFTS 670 E MEADOW DR SCANDIA DOWN SHOPS 180 EL CAMINO REAL #132 SCANDINAVIAN ARTISAN XCHANGE 2091 PARK BLVD SCHAUB'S MEAT FISH & POULTRY 221 UNIVERSITY AV SCIENCE OF THE SOUL 461 FLORENCE ST SEASON'S 440 PORTAGE AVE SELIX FORMAL WEAR 164 UNIVERSITY AVE SENTREHEART 2468 EMBARCADERO WAY SEPHORA 180 EL CAMINO REAL #355 SEQUOIA HOSPITAL GIFT SHOP 725 WELCH RD SEUNG K KIM, MD 1515 EL CAMINO REAL #F SF AUXILIARY FOR CHILDREN 400 HAMILTON AVE #340 SHADY LANE GALLERY 441 UNIVERSITY AVE SHALINI DESIGN 1022 N CALIFORNIA AVE SHANTI PRODUCTIONS 1081 MORENO AVE SHARLEEN ISACKSON FIDDAMAN 2255 WEBSTER ST SHARON CHINEN 814 RICHARDSON CT SHARON DOUGHERTY INTR DESIGNER 159 GREENMEADOW WAY SHASKA 472 UNIVERSITY AVE SHELL SERVICE STATIONS 1161 EMBARCADERO RD SHELL SERVICE STATIONS 2200 EL CAMINO REAL SHELL SERVICE STATIONS 3601 EL CAMINO REAL SHELLEY GEORGE JONES DESIGN 786 MELVILLE AVE SHEMAINE PAGE DESIGNS 826 WINTERGREEN WAY SHERATON HOTEL 625 EL CAMINO REAL SHERMANS AUTO SERVICE 710 SAN ANTONIO RD SHEYNA TRADING COMPANY 116 HAMILTON AVE SHOBANA 3000 ALEXIS DR SHREVE & COMPANY JEWELERS 180 EL CAMINO REAL #329 SHUTTER PUBLISHING GROUP 2456 W BAYSHORE RD #2 SIERRA CLUB LOMA PRIETA CHAPTR 3921 E BAYSHORE RD #204 SIGNOSTICS INC 1717 EMBARCADERO RD SIGONA FARMERS MKT 542 RAMONA ST SIKH FOUNDATION 580 COLLEGE AVE SILVER CINEMAS 430 EMERSON ST SILVERLEAF ANTIQUES 100 ADDISON AVE SIMPLY BE SALON 528 UNIVERSITY AVE SINGULARITY HUB 806 SEALE AVE SIZTO TECH CORPORATION 892 COMMERCIAL ST SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER 525 UNIVERSITY AVE #520 SKIN & BODY BY CHRISTINE 2750 MIDDLEFIELD RD #200 SKIN SPIRIT 701 EMERSON ST SKY MAGIC PRODUCTIONS/SKY MAGI 4377 MILLER AVE SKYLINE DESIGN STUDIO 4020 FABIAN WAY #301 SKYSHADES 2468 W BAYSHORE RD #10 SLEEP TRAIN MATTRESS CENTER 2098 EL CAMINO REAL SMART LOOK 156 HAMILTON AVE #A SMART TUBE 1229 CLARK WAY SMART-REG INT'L INC 990 SAN ANTONIO RD SMITH-ANDERSEN GALLERY 440 PEPPER AVE SNIP-ITS 855 EL CAMINO REAL #125 SNOWDROP ACCESSORY 275 VENTURA AVE #31 SOLE DI PARADISO 855 EL CAMINO REAL #65 SOLID ELECTRIC 265 S CALIFORNIA AVE SOLSTICE MARKETING CONCEPTS 180 EL CAMINO REAL #857 SONA HAVLIK DESIGN 892 NORTHAMPTON DR SONY STYLE 180 EL CAMINO REAL #359 SOO LING CHAN 3469 GREER RD SOOK JIN KIM 180 EL CAMINO REAL #6 SOULFUL MOON 329 RAMONA ST SOUTER STUDIOS 4189 BAKER AVE SOUTH BAY COURSE OFFICE 1101 EMBARCADERO RD SPAZIO TR INC.180 EL CAMINO REAL BLVD #385 SPIRIT HALLOWEEN SUPERSTORES 355 UNIVERSITY AVE SPORTISSIMO 855 EL CAMINO REAL SPORTS GALLERY 318 UNIVERSITY AVE SPRINT NEXTEL 499 UNIVERSITY AVE SQUAREHIT TENNIS 1121 SAN ANTONIO RD STA TRAVEL 267 UNIVERSITY AVE STANDFORD PHOTO 4250 EL CAMINO REAL #D337 STANFORD ARCO AUTO CARE 1963 EL CAMINO REAL STANFORD CANCER CENTER PHARMACY MC 5834 STANFORD ELECTRIC WORKS 301 HIGH ST STANFORD FLORAL DESIGN 433 HAMILTON AVE STANFORD FLORAL DESIGN 620 EMERSON ST STANFORD HOSPITAL 300 PASTEUR DR STANFORD MYOFASCIAL INSTITUTE 260 SHERIDAN AVE #B40 STANFORD PET CLINIC 4111 EL CAMINO REAL STANFORD THEATRE FOUNDATION 180 EL CAMINO REAL, # 3 STANFORD UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL 211 QUARRY RD #N121 STEPHANIE ANDERSON INTERIOR 1103 FOREST AVE STEPHEN EDWARD LONGSTRETH 2800 EMERSON ST STEPHEN HEALY JOYNES 2621 SOUTH CT STICH-TE NAKU WEAVING 4161 ALMA ST STRAVA 609 COWPER ST #A STREETFX CUSTOMS 748 SAN ANTONIO RD STREETWERKE 292 LAMBERT AVE STUDIO KICKS PALO ALTO 796 SAN ANTONIO RD SUANN M & KEVIN G KISER AUTHOR 356 GRANT AVE SUD WEST PARTNERS 1030 PALO ALTO AVE SUE YOUNG PARK 439 WAVERLEY ST SUMFRAME INC 628 EMERSON ST SUMMERWINDS NURSERY 725 SAN ANTONIO RD SUN SHADE OPTIQUE 180 EL CAMINO REAL BLVD #660 SUNDANCE FLYING CLUB 1901 EMBARCADERO RD #109 SUNDAY PRESS BOOKS 450 MONROE DR SUNGLASS HUT 180 EL CAMINO REAL #168 SUNGLASS HUT 180 EL CAMINO REAL #192 SUNGLASS HUT 250 UNIVERSITY AVE #104 SUNRISE OF PALO ALTO 2701 EL CAMINO REAL SUNRISE WEBSTER HOUSE 401 WEBSTER ST #60062 SUNWASHED 2323 HARVARD ST SUR LA TABLE 855 EL CAMINO REAL #57 SUSAN MURRAY DENNIS 1274 PITMAN AVE SUSTAINABLE HOME 471 MATADERO AVE SUZANNE MANTELL 1965 COWPER ST SWATCH WATCH 180 EL CAMINO REAL #151 SWEET BUDS FLORAL 339 KELLOGG AVE TAILOR MAID 180 EL CAMINO REAL #675 TALBOTS STORE 180 EL CAMINO REAL #820 TALY GERZBERG-KATZ 3729 ORTEGA CT TALY SHEMY 3921 FABIAN WAY TASHI GIFT SHOP 25 CHURCHILL AVE TED MOCK CREATIVE PHOTOGRAPHY 415 UNIVERSITY AVE TEMPLE WINDOW SYSTEMS 425 PORTAGE AVE TENNISTOWN & COUNTRY 855 EL CAMINO REAL #99B TERASCOUT 1852 BRET HARTE ST TERCERA GALLERY ONLINE 964 COLONIAL LN TESLA MOTORS 3500 DEER CREEK RD THE 3RD DOOR 131 LYTTON AVE THE ACE OF SANDWICHES 3864 EL CAMINO REAL THE BARF STORE.COM 350 MONROE DR THE BIKE CONNECTION 2011 EL CAMINO REAL THE BODY SHOP 180 EL CAMINO REAL #703 THE COIN BROKER 855 EL CAMINO REAL #91 THE CRESCENT COLLECTION 27 CRESCENT DR THE DECISION EDUCATION FOUNDTN 745 EMERSON ST THE DIGITAL GIRAFFE 932 BRYANT ST THE GAP 180 EL CAMINO REAL #F165 THE HEALING LAB 460 S CALIFORNIA AVE #102 THE INDUSTRY HAIR ARTISTS 2426 PARK BLVD THE MARTINDALE PRESS 345 FOREST AVE #406 THE MASTER COBBLER 855 EL CAMINO REAL #43 THE MAYFIELD HOUSE 855 EL CAMINO REAL #110 THE MODERN LIVING 524 UNIVERSITY AVE THE NATURAL MATTRESS STORE 135 UNIVERSITY AVE THE NORTH FACE 217 ALMA ST THE OUGHTRED SOCIETY 2160 MIDDLEFIELD RD THE PAPER DOLL HOUSE 2351 RAMONA ST THE PAPER SHAK 1736 OAK CREEK DR #415 THE PETER FOX PHOTOGRAPHY 2844 RAMONA ST THE PINK PILLOW 2751 BYRON ST THE PLAY STORE 508 UNIVERSITY AVE THE SCHOOL OF SLEEP MEDICINE 260 SHERIDAN AVE #100 THE TERRITORY AHEAD 180 EL CAMINO REAL #D71 THE UNEXPECTED GARDEN 461 MATADERO AVE THE UPS STORE 2625 MIDDLEFIELD RD THE UPS STORE 555 BRYANT ST THE UPS STORE 855 EL CAMINO REAL #13A THE VILLAGE COBBLER SHOP 825 EMERSON ST THE WALKING STORE 855 EL CAMINO REAL #20 THE WINE ROOM 520 RAMONA ST THE WORKSHOP BURGERS 233 UNIVERSITY AVE THERANOS 3200 HILLVIEW AVE THOMAS ANDREW FRANCO 2921 RAMONA ST THOMAS SOLOMON ANGELO 195 BRYANT ST #B THREE SISTERS FLOWERS 1048 COLORADO AVE THREE STORY STUDIO 761 SOUTHAMPTON DR TI GLOBAL PARTNERS 798 MONTROSE AVE TIFFANY & COMPANY 180 EL CAMINO REAL #149 TILE SOURCE 951 COMMERCIAL ST TITLE 9 SPORTS 208 HAMILTON AVE TL'S SALON 2720 MIDDLEFIELD RD TM CONSTRUCTION 716 SAN ANTONIO RD #K T-MOBILE 165 UNIVERSITY AVE T-MOBILE 2675 EL CAMINO REAL #B TODD DI PIETRO SALON 2307 BIRCH ST TOMMY BAHAMA 180 EL CAMINO REAL #D74 TOOTSIE'S 700 WELCH RD TORY BURCH 180 EL CAMINO REAL #181 TOTAL QUALITY MAINTENANCE 895 COMMERCIAL ST TOUS PALO ALTO 180 EL CAMINO REAL #A4 TOWN AND COUNTRY VILLAGE 855 El Camino Real TRADER JOES 855 EL CAMINO REAL TRAVELEX CURRENCY SERVICES 180 EL CAMINO REAL #606 TREASURE CENTER RESALE 843 ROSS CT TREASURE ISLAND STAMPS & COINS 3703 EL CAMINO REAL TRUE SALON 299 S CALIFORNIA AVE TRUNK SHOW COUTURE 540 BRYANT ST #100B T'S DESIGN 71 MORTON WAY TUTUSCHIC 3928 LOUIS RD TWITTER TWATTER MUSIC 2297 HARVARD ST TWRMI 315 HOMER AVE #303 U S S D 2675 MIDDLEFIELD RD #B U THREADS 855 EL CAMINO REAL UBER EYES OPTOMETRY OF PALO AL 2750 MIDDLEFIELD RD UFORIA STUDIOS 819 RAMONA ST UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY TOURS 3101 AVALON CT UNION 76 SERVICE STATIONS 835 SAN ANTONIO RD UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION USA 552 EMERSON ST UNIVERSITY ART CENTER 267 HAMILTON AVE UNIVERSITY CHIROPRACTIC INC. 540 BRYANT ST UNIVERSITY CLUB 3277 MIRANDA AVE UNIVERSITY OPTOMETRY 725 UNIVERSITY AVE #A UNIVERSITY VILLAGE STATIONERS 310 S CALIFORNIA AVE URBAN OUTFITTERS 180 EL CAMINO REAL #A313 URBAN WOODCRAFTS 1231 PARKINSON AVE US HINDI FOUNDATION (USHF) 4177 HUBBARTT DR USABLENDER.COM 788 MAYVIEW AVE VAE SUN 1560 PORTOLA AVE VALERO SERVICE STATIONS 1963 EL CAMINO REAL VALERO SERVICE STATIONS 705 SAN ANTONIO RD VAM! EVENTS HAPPENING 530 WEBSTER ST #7 VANCE BROWN 3197 PARK BLVD VANS 222 UNIVERSITY AVE VAUGH BROEDER LIGHTING 100 ADDISON AVE VCA ANIMAL HOSPITAL 4111 EL CAMINO REAL VDL 501 FOREST AVE #401 VECTRART 2079 EDGEWOOD DR VELO TECH CYCLES 732 EMERSON ST VELOLECTRIC EBIKES 855 EL CAMINO REAL VENCOA VENDING MACHINES 2600 EL CAMINO REAL #418 VERDANCE FINE GARDEN DESIGN 345 S CALIFORNIA AVE #6 VERIZON WIRELESS 219 UNIVERSITY AVE VERO 530 BRYANT ST VICTOR AVIATION SERVICES 2415 EMBARCADERO WAY VICTORIA'S SECRET 180 EL CAMINO REAL #N305 VIKING MOTOR BODY 2904 ASH ST VILLAGE FLOWER SHOPPE 2237 EL CAMINO REAL VINEYARD CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP 445 SHERMAN AVE #S VIOLET VON 365 FOREST AVE #2C VIRGINIA FERGUSON CERAMICS 2124 CORNELL ST VIRGINIA WADE 1020 MOFFETT CIR VISIBLE ENERGY INC 2666 E BAYSHORE RD #A VISIBLE RESULTS 3106 BANDERA DR VISUAL GROUP 345 S CALIFORNIA AVE #4 VITAL SIGNS HEALTH EDUCATION 801 MIDDLEFIELD RD #11 VIVIANE P.SCHUPBACH 270 STANFORD AVE VIVRE STUDIOS 611 EMERSON ST VM WARE 3401 HILLVIEW AVE VOLE LA NUIT 100 ADDISON AVE Walgreens #06869 2605 MIDDLEFIELD RD Walgreens #0781 300 UNIVERSITY AV Walgreens #12141 328 University Ave Walgreens #13596 300 University Ave Walgreens #2147 875 BLAKE WILBUR DR #CC1101 Walgreens #3344 4170 El Camino Real WALKABOUT GALLERY / ANZUS IMPO 901 HUTCHINSON AVE WATERCOURSE WAY SPA 165 CHANNING AVE WAVERLEY SURGERY CENTER 400 FOREST AVE WAYNE STEWART 661 COWPER ST WEST COAST GLASS 4020 FABIAN WAY #B WEST VALLEY AIRCRAFT SERVICES 1901 EMBARCADERO RD WESTERN DINING 607 HANSEN WAY WESTIN HOTEL & RESORT 675 EL CAMINO REAL WHITE HOUSE/BLACK MARKET 180 EL CAMINO REAL BLVD #608 WHOLE FOODS MARKET 774 EMERSON ST WIDMAR & STEWART 1580 WALNUT DR WILBY OPTICAL INC. 855 EL CAMINO REAL #102 WILKES BASHFORD 180 EL CAMINO REAL #450 WILLIAM BALDWIN GROUP 2190 SAINT FRANCIS DR WILLIAMS CUTLERY COMPANY 855 EL CAMINO REAL #15 WILLIAMS-SONOMA 180 EL CAMINO REAL #M379 WONG ELECTRIC INC. 4067 TRANSPORT ST WONG GREENTECH 241 FULTON ST WOOF AND WEAR 3633 SOUTH CT WRAP IT-NATURALLY 2751 LOUIS RD WRIGHT HALL SCHICKLI 913 CLARA DR YEAMAN AUTO BODY 2025 E BAYSHORE RD YEHSIR! 457 E MEADOW DR YES CATERING 739 COLORADO AVE YMCA 3412 ROSS RD YMCA 755 PAGE MILL RD #B YOSH SALON & SPA 240 UNIVERSITY AVE YOSUKE MAXWELL MIZUHARA 4072 SUTHERLAND DR YOUR ENERGY SYSTEMS 829 FOREST AVE YUMMY 3251 HANOVER ST ZARA MEDITERRANEAN RESTAURANT 260 S CALIFORNIA AVE ZEN GARDEN NAIL SPA 409 S CALIFORNIA AVE ZEN INTERIOR 100 ADDISON AVE ZHENYU QUI 368 S CALIFORNIA AVE ZOMBIERUNNER 429 S CALIFORNIA AVE ZUMO 700 EMERSON ST ZVART ALTERATIONS 855 EL CAMINO REAL #47 ZZEBRA 906 ADDISON AVE ZZS ACCESSORIES 151 JASMINE WAY Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Council Members: Bill Leikam <wcleikam@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:34 PM Council, City Palo Alto Disposable Bag Ordinance 13MAR -6 AM 8= f I \3 \ As a Palo Alto resident for the past 40 years, I heartily support the Palo Alto Disposable Bag Ordinance. Additionally, based on observations during my research on the gray foxes at the baylands,1 have seen instances where the fox's scat is laced with pieces of plastic bags. These fox get into dumpsters and will rip apart plastic bags to get at discarded, left-over food. I think it wise policy to pass the Palo Alto Disposable Bag Ordinance, not only to keep our city-scape free of these bags, but the local wild animal population will thank you for passing it too. Sincerely, Bill Leikam, aka The Fox Guy Director, Independent Urban Gray Fox Research Project Member: Urban Wildlife Research Project Website: www.uwrp.wordpress.com/documentary Volunteer: Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Public lectures and guided tours Phone: 650 -856 -3041 9 Gonsalves. Ronna CiTY CL.EiU\ 'S OFF ICE From: Phyllis Kidd < ptkidd@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 2:56 PM 13 MAR -4 AM 9: 26 To: Council, City Subject: Please Expand the Plastic Bags Ban and Require Stores Charge for Paper Bags Dear Members·of the City Council, I respectfully request you take action to expand the ban on single use plastic bags and place a fee on recycled paper bags in Palo Alto. I support this measure because it will encourage a shift toward re-usable bags. Plastic litter degrades our neighborhoods and local waterways. It is hazardous to public health, wildlife, and is difficult to collect once it becomes litter. As a taxpayer, I believe our budget for litter removal must be spent wisely. An expansion of the single use plastic bag ban will reduce spending taxpayer dollars on the cleanup of plastic debris. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Phyllis Kidd 2140 Bryant St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 87 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: To: Subject: Alma Phillips <alma482@pacbell.net> Friday, March 01, 2013 11:14 AM Council, City l., C' "RI-I 'S · '''1 L.t 1\ OFF ICf 13 HAR -4 AM ~: 27 Please Expand the Plastic Bags Ban and Require Stores Charge for Paper Bags Dear Members of the City Council, I respectfully request you take action to expand the ban on single use plastic bags and place a fee on recycled paper bags in Palo Alto, I support this measure because it will encourage a shifttoward re-usable bags, Plastic litter degrades our neighborhoods and local waterways. It is hazardous to public health, wildlife, and is difficult to ~ollect once it becomes litter. As a taxpayer, I believe our budget for litter removal must be spent wisely. An expansion ofthe single use plastic bag ban will reduce spending taxpayer dollars on the cleanup of plastic debris. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Alma Phillips 482 Ferne Ave. 482 Ferne Ave, Palo Alto 94306 Palo Alto, CA 94306 98 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: To: Subject: Mary Rodocker <mmr355@aol.com> Friday, March 01, 2013 11:00 AM Council, City ;3 MAR -4 M1 9: 27 Please Expand the Plastic Bags Ban and Require Stores Charge for Paper Bags Dear Members of the City Council, I respectfully request you take action to expand the ban on single use plastic bags and place a fee on recycled paper bags in Palo Alto. I support this measure because it will encourage a shift toward re-usable bags. Plastic litter degrades our neighborhoods and local waterways. It is hazardous to public health, wildlife, and is difficult to collect once it becomes litter. As a taxpayer, I believe our budget for litter removal must be spent wisely. An expansion of the single use plastic bag ban will reduce spending taxpayer dollars on the cleanup of plastic debris. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Mary Ro~ocker 355 Iris Way Pa 10 Alto, CA 94303 100 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: To: Subject: '-" '_. r! r'-K'S 6FF ICE Marilyn Hansen <phsen14@comcast.n~H '( u\...L r\ Friday, March 01, 2013 10:34 AM M~O -l ~.~ 'j: 28 Council, City \ 3 nh[\ ~ Please Expand the Plastic Bags Ban and Require Stores Charge for Paper Bags Dear Members of the City Council, I respectfully request you take action to expand the ban on single use plastic bags and place a fee on recycled paper bags in Palo Alto. I support this measure because it will encourage a shift toward re-usable bags. Plastic litter degrades our neighborhoods and local waterways. It is hazardous to public health, wildlife, and is difficult to collect once it becomes litter. As a taxpayer, I believe our budget for litter removal must be spent wisely. An expansion of the single use plastic bag ban will reduce spending taxpayer dollars on the cleanup of plastic debris. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Marilyn Hansen 4082 Ben Lomond Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94306 105 Gonsalves. Ronna From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Stepheny McGraw <stepheny@earthlink.net> Friday, March 01, 2013 10:11 AM activist@cieanwater.org Council, City Bags are needed! ," r ., VI ,.".~' ~.L . .TG, CA CITY CLEt(K'S OFFICE 13 MAR -4 M1 9: 28 I do NOT approve of this ban! Palo Altans are very litter conscious. We reuse this bags to line trashcans, collect dog and cat poop, or simply to tote leaky or wet things about. With this proposal, we now must buy commercially available and sadly, non-biodegradable bags for these purposes. A better solution would be to require that these bags be biodegradable. These would be good for the industry and good for the environment. . Stepheny McGraw On Mar 1,2013, at 8:00 AM, Samantha Meyer -Clean Water Action wrote: You canhelp expand the ban on single-use plastic bags in Palo Alto! Palo Alto was one of the first California cities to ban single-use plastic bags in 2009, but the city is falling behind California jurisdictions that have stricter bag bans. You can help us make sure the city updates and expands its ban -take action today! 1!1 ..... --.. --... --------- We need you now! Plastic bags litter city streets. Plastic debris absorbs toxins like PCBs and oil contaminants and they break apart into small pieces and end up in our waterways, plaguing the Bay and ocean. Our opponents in the plastics industry are working hard to fight plastic bag bans at the state and local level by telling elected officials that stores should recycle bags. State law has required plastic bag recycling since 2006 and there has been no measurable increase in the amount of plastic bags recycled or any decrease in ~ 1· 1 ... 106 We need you to email City Council and let them know you support the ordinance! Showing your support in person is fantastic! Clean Water Action will be there to testify and we would love to have your help. Join us at the Palo Alto City Council meeting on March 11 th! Palo Alto City Council Meeting Monday March 11, 2013 6:00pm 250 Hamilton, Palo Alto, CA Thanks for taking action! -Samantha Meyer, CA Zero Waste Program Coordinator :a::::. ~ ~ _ .. ~ ---~ -'~ ¥% ~ --- San Francisco Office III New Montgomery Street, Suite 600 I San Francisco, CA 941051415.369.9160 National Office 1010 Vermont Ave I Suite 400 1 Washington D.C. 1 20005 202.895.0420 You are receiving this message because you or someone using your e-mail address,stepheny@earthlinknet, gave us permission to send it. Not interested anymore? unsubscribe now. 107 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: To: Subject: tj~i' -;1' -t: t :-~J. L-~I ;\ L. r-u, C .L~ Michelle Cooper <coopermc7@yahoo.com>CiTY CL.E~~K'S OFFICE Friday, March 01, 2013 8:04 AM Council, City 13HAR -4 AM 9: 2~ Please Expand the Plastic Bags Ban and Require Stores Charge for Paper Bags Dear Members ofthe City Council, I respectfully request you take action to expand the ban on single use plastic bags and place a feeon recycled paper bags in Palo Alto. I support this measure because it will encourage a shift toward re-usable bags. Plastic litter degrades our neighborhoods and local waterways. It is hazardous to public health, wildlife, and is difficult to collect once it becomes litter. As a taxpayer, I believe our budget for litter removal must be spent wisely. An expansion ofthe single use plastic bag ban will reduce spending taxpayer dollars on the cleanup of plastic debris. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Michelle Cooper 870 Sharon ct. Palo Alto, CA 94301 117 Gonsalves, Ronna CITY CLEf{ ,'S (fFPICE From: C Price <Iprice@vcn.bc.ca> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 8:08 AM 13 MAR -4 A·1 9: 2 ~ To: Council, City Subject: Please Expand the Plastic Bags Ban and Require Stores Charge for Paper Bags Dear Members of the City Council, I respectfully request you take action to expand the ban on single use plastic bags and place a fee on recycled paper bags in Palo Alto. I support this measure because it will encourage a shift toward re-usable bags. Plastic litter degrades our neighborhoods and local waterways. It is hazardous to public health, wildlife, and is difficult to collect once it becomes litter. As a taxpayer, I believe our budget for litter removal must be spent wisely. An expansion ofthe single use plastic bag ban will reduce spending taxpayer dollars on the cleanup of plastic debris. Sincerely, C Price 350 Edlee Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 116 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynn C. Sanchez <lcsan@pacbell.net> Friday, March 01, 2013 8:10 AM Council, City C I; { i..i F ~ ". [ ~; r~ I 'j () c· ~ CITY CLERK'S OFF/'C E Please Expand the Plastic Bags Ban and Require Stores Charge for Paper Bags Dear Members of the City Council, I respectfully request you take action to expand the ban on single use plastic bags and place a fee oli recycled paper bags in Palo Alto. I support this measure because it will encourage a shift toward re-usable bags. Plastic litter degrades our neighborhoods and local waterWays. It is hazardous to public health, wildlife, and is difficult to collect once it becomes litter. As a taxpayer, I beli~ve our budget for litter removal must be spent wisely. An expansion ofthe single use plastic bag ban will reduce spending taxpayer dollars on the cleanup of plastic debris. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Lynn C. Sanchez 3427 South ct. Palo Alto, CA 94306 115 Gonsalves. Ronna From: Howard Cohen <howard@cohensw.com> '."I ! -', I M C ..! "u u,CA CITY CU::RK'S OFFI CE Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 8:12 AM To: Council, City 13 MAR -4 A ~l 9: 29 Subject: Please Expand the Plastic Bags Ban and Require Stores Charge for Paper Bags Dear Members of the City Council, I respectfully request you take action to expand the ban on single use plastic bags and place a fee on recycled paper bags in Palo Alto. I support this measure because it will encourage a shift toward re-usable bags. Plastic litter degrades our neighborhoods and local waterways. It is hazardous to public health, wildlife, and is difficult to collect once it becomes litter. As a taxpayer, I believe our budget for litter removal must be spent wisely. An expansion ofthe single use plastic bag ban will reduce spending taxpayer dollars on the cleanup of plastic debris. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Howard Cohen 3272 Cowper Street Palo Alto, CA94306 114 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: Prerana Vaidya <vaidya.prerana@gmail.com> Friday, March 01, 2013 8:20 AM 13 MAR -I.. A 1 9: 29 To: Council, City Subject: Please Expand the Plastic Bags Ban and Require Stores Charge for Paper Bags Dear Members of the City Council, I respectfully request you take action to expand the ban on single use plastic bags and place a fee on recycled paper bags in Palo Alto. I support this measure because it will encourage a shift toward re-usable bags. Plastic litter degrades our neighborhoods and local waterways. It is hazardous to public health, wildlife, and is difficult to collect once it becomes litter. As a taxpayer, I believe our budget for litter removal must be spent wisely. An expansion of the single use plastic bag ban will reduce spending taxpayer dollars on the cleanup of plastic debris. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Prerana Vaidya 3533 La Mata Way Palo Alto, CA 94306 113 Gonsalves. Ronna From: Sent: To: Subjed: Roland Hsu <rohsu@stanford.edu> Friday, March 01, 2013 8:22 AM Council, City 13MAR -4 AM 9=29 Please Expand the Plastic Bags Ban and Require Stores Charge for Paper Bags Dear Members of the City Council, I respectfully request you take action to expand the ban on single use plastic bags and place a fee on recycled paper bags in Palo Alto. I support this measure because it will encourage a shift toward re-usable bags. Plastic litter degrades our neighborhoods and local waterways. It is hazardous to public health, wildlife, and is difficult to collect once it becomes litter. As a taxpayer, I believe our budget for litter removal must be spent wisely. An expansion of the single use plastic bag ban will reduce spending taxpayer dollars on the cleanup of plastic debris. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Roland Hsu 3266 Ramona St. Palo Alto, CA 94306 112