Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3066 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3066) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/15/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability Summary Title: First Reading (Consent)-Disposable Bag Checkout Ordinance Title: 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 adopt the proposed Retail and Food Service Establishment Checkout Bag Requirements Ordinance (Attachment A). The proposed ordinance now includes revisions that were made at the request of Council at the March 11, 2013 City Council Meeting. Executive Summary At the Council meeting on March 11, 2013, the proposed Retail and Food Service Establishment Checkout Bag Requirements Ordinance and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which was required for the project were reviewed by City Council. Council adopted a Motion to approve staff’s recommendations, certify the Final EIR and establish the Ordinance as proposed by staff, with the following amendments which are reflected in the final ordinance submitted for approval in Attachment A: 1. Chapter 5.35, Section 5.35.010 Definitions, Subsection (f) i Pre- Approved Materials to allow smaller reusable bags for sale; 2. Remove the EcoLogo labeling requirement for reusable bags indicated in Subsection (d) Pre-Approved Standard, Numbers 3 and 4; City of Palo Alto Page 2 3. Amend Section 5.35.030, Section (b) to cap the fee for paper and reusable bags at 10 cents and have staff return to Council in 18-24 months for review on pricing policy; and 4. Have this Ordinance return as a first reading of the amended Ordinance on the Consent Agenda. Staff has made these requested changes (Attachment B highlights the specific changes that were made for ease of reference) and has also provided additional information about how staff revised the labeling requirement for reusable bags and an update on a legal challenge to the City of Cupertino from the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition (STPBC) in response to Cupertino’s attempt to cap the charge for paper bags at ten cents. Because Palo Alto City Council has directed staff to also cap the charge for paper (and reusable bags) at ten cents, additional information STPBC threat is discussed below. Reusable Bag Labeling Requirements Staff has removed the Reusable Bag labeling requirement at Council’s direction. Because staff needs to be able to confirm compliance with Reusable Bag standards, the ordinance has been restructured to allow merchants to either provide the information upon request with the existing bag reporting requirements and/or list the information on the bag. This allows staff the ability to ensure compliance, offers additional flexibility to the merchant in how that is achieved and meets Council’s request for not requiring labeling on all Reusable Bags. In addition, the revised ordinance retains the original option for the Director of Public Works to authorize alternative bag standards or materials as needed which includes the ability to waive or alter labeling requirements in unique cases where labeling proposes a problem. It should be noted that labeling is typically small and does not dominate other graphic elements of reusable bags and is often placed on the bottom of the bag. Legal challenge to Cupertino for foregoing the 25 cent charge for paper Palo Alto City Council directed Staff to remove the automatic increase to a 25 cent charge requirement for paper and reusable bags in the proposed Ordinance which would have occurred one year after Ordinance implementation. Instead, staff will review the impact of the ten cent charge on bag use 18-24 months after the Ordinance has been implemented and City of Palo Alto Page 3 make recommendations as to if an increase to 25 cents should be considered. Under threat of litigation from Save the Plastic Bag Coalition (STPBC), the City of Cupertino Council reversed a similar decision to cap the charge for paper bags at ten cents. STPBC stated that the EIR Cupertino used only evaluated the option for a ten cent charge with an automatic increase to 25 cents. While Cupertino staff believes that this analysis is inaccurate, Cupertino Council voted to automatically increase the charge to $0.25 on January 1, 2015 to avoid litigation. Palo Alto’s EIR, as opposed to the San Mateo County EIR relied on by Cupertino, allows for either keeping the paper/reusable bag charge at ten cents or increasing it to 25 cents. The EIR analyzed both scenarios and all impacts for each option were either less than significant and/or beneficial. Timeline Staff proposes the following timeline for ordinance implementation: Resource Impact No significant additional financial or staff resources will be necessary to Month/Year Project Milestones March 2013 Council approval of EIR (completed) April 15, 2013 First ordinance reading (consent) May 13, 2013 Second ordinance reading. April - July 2013 Public outreach to retail, food service establishments and residents July 1, 2013 Ordinance effective date for retail November 1, 2013 Ordinance effective date for food service establishments Spring, 2015 Council Report on Ordinance Impacts and pricing recommendations for Reusable and Recyclable Paper Checkout Bags Ongoing Monitoring and ordinance enforcement City of Palo Alto Page 4 implement this ordinance. Additional discussion on resource impact is discussed in Staff Report 3065, March 11, 2013. Policy Implications The proposed Retail and Food Service Establishment Checkout Bag Requirements Ordinance is fully consistent with the City’s Plastic Reduction Policy, Zero Waste Plan, Clean Bay Plan, Sustainability Plan, and stormwater regulatory requirements. Environmental Review An EIR was conducted for this project and certified on March 11, 2013 by Council. Discussion of the EIR is included in Staff Report 3065, March 11, 2013. Attachments:  A: Proposed Ordinance Retail and Food Service Establishment Checkout Bag Requirements (PDF)  B: Proposed Ordinance (Tracking Council Suggested Changes) Retail and Food Service Establishment Checkout Bag Requirements (PDF)  03-11-13 CC Excerpt Item 3 Plastic Bags (DOC) Not Yet Approved  1  130410 jb 0131056A  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 0131056A  (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 0131056A  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 0131056A  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 which provides prepared and ready‐to‐ consume food or beverages, for public consumption .     (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 Director of Public Works or his or her designee  is authorized to approve alternate materials or testing methods meeting  this section’s requirements provided that the Director or designee finds  that the proposed materials or testing standards satisfactorily comply  with the intent, quality and effectiveness in order to meet the purposes  Not Yet Approved  5  130129 jb 0131056A  of this Chapter. The particulars of any approval made by the Director of  Public Works or his or her designee 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 Recyclable Paper Bag  standard as approved by the Director of Public Works or his or her  designee.    (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 all of the following criteria:    i. Bags with a capacity of 15 liters or greater must meet  all of the following  requirements:  1. To confirm durability, bags must meet EcoLogo ATP‐001 standards  (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. To confirm bag thickness of2.25 mils thick or greater, bags will be  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 the absence of heavy metals causing environmental  hazards upon entering the solid waste stream, State methods  Not Yet Approved  6  130129 jb 0131056A  are to be used for preparing and for testing samples of each  unique bag component following the  Model Toxics in  Packaging Legislation, and;   4.  Is either:  a. 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, or  b. as an alternative, information about the manufacturer, the  country of origin where manufactured, the material from  which the bag is manufactured, the percentage of post‐ consumer recycled content, and a statement that the bag  does not contain heavy metals can be provided through  the reporting requirements set forth under 5.35.030 (d).    ii. Reusable bags that with a capacity of less than 15 liters must meet  all of  the following  requirements:  1. 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).  2. To confirm the absence of heavy metals causing environmental  hazards upon entering the solid waste stream, State methods are  to be used for preparing and for testing samples of each unique  bag component following the  Model Toxics in Packaging  Legislation, and;  3. Is either:  a. 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, or  b. as an alternative, information about the manufacturer, the  country of origin where manufactured, the material from  which the bag is manufactured, the percentage of post‐ consumer recycled content, and a statement that the bag  does not contain heavy metals can be provided through  the reporting requirements set forth under 5.35.030 (d).    iii. Alternative Materials. The Director of Public Works or his or her designee  is authorized to approve alternate materials or testing methods meeting  this section’s requirements provided that the Director or the designee  Not Yet Approved  7  130129 jb 0131056A  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  Director under this subsection shall be entered upon the records of the  Public Works Department and a signed copy shall be furnished to the  applicant.    iv. Alternative Standard. Any other published uniform bag standard as  approved by the Director of Public Works or his or her designee.      (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.       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. Food Service Establishments within Retail Stores must comply with those  requirements listed under 5.35.020(b); Food Service Establishments within  Retail Service Establishments do not need to comply with the broader  Retail Service Establishments requirements of this ordinance.  iii. 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.    (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.     Not Yet Approved  8  130129 jb 0131056A  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) 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.     (c) 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.    (d) Retail Services Establishments shall keep complete and accurate records of the  number and dollar amount collected from Recyclable Paper and Reusable  Checkout Bags sold each month and provide specifications demonstrating that  paper and reusable bags meet the standards set forth in Section 5.35.020 using  Not Yet Approved  9  130129 jb 0131056A  either the electronic or paper reporting format required by the City.   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 store charge for  customers participating in the California Special Supplemental Food Program for  Women, Infants, and Children, or in CalFresh, or in the Supplemental Nutrition  Assistance Program (SNAP–formerly food stamps). This provision will expire on  June 30, 2014.    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.    Not Yet Approved  10  130129 jb 0131056A  (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.    //    //    //    //    //    //    //    //    //    //    //    //  Not Yet Approved  11  130129 jb 0131056A    SECTION 6.  Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective on July 1, 2013.     INTRODUCED:    PASSED:    AYES:    NOES:    ABSENT:    ABSTENTIONS:    ATTEST:                  ____________________________     ____________________________  City Clerk             Mayor    APPROVED AS TO FORM:         APPROVED:    ____________________________     ____________________________  Senior Asst. City Attorney            City Manager                 ____________________________               Director of Public Works                 ____________________________               Director of Administrative                 Services    Not Yet Approved  1  130410 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, eEating 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 which provides prepared and ready‐to‐ consume food or beverages, for public consumption .     (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 Director of Public Works or his  or her designee is authorized to approve alternate materials or testing  methods meeting this section’s requirements provided that the  Superintendent Director or designee finds that the proposed materials or  testing standards satisfactorily complyies with the intent, quality and  Not Yet Approved  5  130129 jb 0131041  effectiveness in order to meet the purposes of this Chapter. The  particulars of any approval made by the Director of Public Works or his or  her designeeSuperintendent 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 Recyclable Paper Bag  standard as approved by the Director of Public Works or his or her  designeeSuperintendent..    (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 all of the following criteria:    i. Pre‐approved materials.  The Bags with a capacity of 15 liters or greater  must meet bag meets all of the following requirements:  1. To confirm durability, bags must meet 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. To confirm bag thickness ofIs 2.25 mils thick or greater, as bags  will be 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).  Not Yet Approved  6  130129 jb 0131041  a.3.  To Cconfirm the absence of heavy metals causing environmental  hazards upon entering the solid waste stream, Heavy Metal  Content: State methods are to be used for preparing and for  testing samples of each unique bag component following  the  Model Toxics in Packaging Legislation, and;  a.State methods used for preparing and for testing samples of each  unique bag component following the Model Toxics in  Packaging Legislation, and;  4.  Is either:  a. 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, or  b. as an alternative, information about the manufacturer, the  country of origin where manufactured, the material from  which the bag is manufactured, the percentage of post‐ consumer recycled content, and a statement that the bag  does not contain heavy metals can be provided through  the reporting requirements set forth under 5.35.030 (d).    ii. Reusable bags that with a capacity of less than 15 liters must meet  all of  the following  requirements:  1. 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).  2. To Cconfirm the absence of heavy metals causing environmental  hazards upon entering the solid waste stream,Heavy Metal  Content: State methods are to be used for preparing and for  testing samples of each unique bag component following  the  Model Toxics in Packaging Legislation, and;  3. Is either:  a. 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, or  b. as an alternative, information about the manufacturer, the  country of origin where manufactured, the material from  which the bag is manufactured, the percentage of post‐ consumer recycled content, and a statement that the bag  Not Yet Approved  7  130129 jb 0131041  does not contain heavy metals can be provided through  the reporting requirements set forth under 5.35.030 (d).    ii.iii. Alternative Materials. The Director of Public Works or his or her  designeeSuperintendent is authorized to approve alternate materials or  testing methods meeting this section’s requirements provided that the  Superintendent Director or the designee 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 Director  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.iv. Alternative Standard. Any other published uniform bag standard as  approved by the SuperintendentDirector of Public Works or his or her  designee.      (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.     "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. Food Service Establishments within Retail Stores must comply with those  requirements listed under 5.35.020(b); Food Service Establishments within  Retail Service Establishments do not need to comply with the broader  Retail Service Establishments requirements of this ordinance.  ii.iii. Farmers Markets may provide Produce or Product Bags to hold produce or  bulk items. Checkout bag charges for these bags are not required at  Not Yet Approved  8  130129 jb 0131041  Farmers Markets unless Checkout Bags used to hold Produce or Product  Bags are provided.    (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 ($0.10) per  bag to cover the costs of compliance with the ordinance, the actual costs of  providing recyclable paper bags, educational materials or other costs of promoting  the use of reusable bags.    Effective, July 1, 2014, no Retail Service Establishment shall provide a Recyclable Paper  Checkout Bag or a Reusable Bag to a customer at the point of sale, unless the establishment  charges the customer a checkout bag charge of at least twenty‐five cents ($.25) per bag.     (c)(b) 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  9  130129 jb 0131041    (d)(c) 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)(d) Retail Services Establishments shall keep complete and accurate records of the  number andor the dollar amount collected from Recyclable Paper and Reusable  Checkout Bags sold each month and provide specifications demonstrating that  paper and reusable bags meet the standards set forth in Section 5.35.020 using  either the electronic or paper reporting format required by the City..   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 participatinge in the California Special Supplemental Food  Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or in the CalFresh, or in the  Not Yet Approved  10  130129 jb 0131041  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP–formerly food stamps). This  provision will expire on June 30, 2014.    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.    //    //    //    //    //    //    Not Yet Approved  11  130129 jb 0131041    SECTION 6.  Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective on July 1, 2013.     INTRODUCED:    PASSED:    AYES:    NOES:    ABSENT:    ABSTENTIONS:    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 CITY COUNCIL EXCERPT Page 1 of 14 Regular Meeting March 11, 2013 3. 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 Council Member Berman recused himself as having a conflict, because he invested in a company that made reusable plastic bags. Julie Weiss, Environmental Specialist reported changes to the plastic bag Ordinance would assist with reducing plastic litter in creeks and the Bay. In the 1980s, the City required retail businesses to offer only paper bags or a choice between paper and plastic bags. Approximately five years ago, Staff implemented a Reusable Bag Task Force that recommended an Ordinance apply to all retail businesses, be implemented all at once, and require a charge for paper bags. Because of economic concerns, the Council prohibited the distribution of plastic bags at grocery stores and committed to extensive outreach to encourage use of reusable bags. Approximately 56 percent of people continued to use paper bags. Plastic litter remained a problem despite efforts to prevent litter and plastic pollution. Changes to the current Ordinance could address these problems. Staff proposed a prohibition of single-use plastic bags in all retail and food establishments and a charge of $0.10 to $0.25 for paper and reusable bags at retail businesses. The charge would drive behavior changes. Other jurisdictions saw reductions in bag usage when a fee was implemented. Staff proposed businesses show the bag charge on the receipt as another driver for behavior change. Stores should report bag sales in order to measure the impact of the Ordinance. Staff proposed updating the durability standards for reusable bags using the best standard available. By making these changes, approximately 26 million fewer single-use bags would be used by the end of the first year. In addition, these changes would assist the City with meeting storm water goals and Zero Waste goals. Staff proposed prohibiting plastic bags but not requiring a paper bag charge at restaurants, because the California Restaurant Association preferred not to utilize reusable bags at restaurants. In addition, restaurants could use product EXCERPT Page 2 of 14 City Council Meeting Excerpt: 3/11/13 bags for items that could spill. Both Malibu and Fairfax implemented this Ordinance and did not report any issues. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluated the proposed project and six alternatives. Utilizing conservative studies and assumptions, all alternatives were beneficial or had less than significant impacts for all evaluation categories. By the end of the second year, Staff anticipated a reduction of 26 million paper and plastic bags, and an 89 percent conversion from usage of paper bags to reusable bags. Staff recommended the Ordinance become effective for retail businesses on July 1, 2013, and for food service establishments on November 1, 2013. Messaging should be consistent with messaging of other cities. In making these changes, there would be a reduction of plastic litter and a reduction of environmental impacts from paper bags. Mayor Scharff returned to Council Members for questions and comments prior to public comments. Council Member Burt believed the Council's discussion after hearing public comments was better informed and resulted in an effective outcome. He inquired whether Council discussion was restricted. Mayor Scharff answered no. Council discussion would occur prior to and after public comment. Council Member Schmid inquired about Staff's recommendation not to use biodegradable bags. Ms. Weiss explained that compostable plastics did not breakdown in creek conditions. They were compostable only in hot, controlled municipal compost facilities. Use of compostable bags would not affect the problem. Council Member Schmid recalled a letter regarding use of paper bags. In response to the $0.25 charge for paper bags, households would purchase plastic bags to contain food and pet wastes, which would result in an increased number of plastic bags in landfills. That was not a green solution. Ms. Weiss explained the idea that bags would decompose in a landfill was not accurate. Essentially nothing biodegraded in a landfill due to the sealed environment. Alternatives to trash can liners and pet waste were produce and bread bags. If residents needed to purchase plastic bags, then the Ordinance would prevent the bags from being released into the environment. Council Member Schmid asked where biodegradable bags went after they were collected curbside in San Francisco. EXCERPT Page 3 of 14 City Council Meeting Excerpt: 3/11/13 Ms. Weiss stated the bags were taken to the composting facility. Council Member Schmid reported San Francisco was working on a system of Solano County farmers using biodegradable bags as part of soil. The City's proposed program would lead to plastic bags in landfill. Ms. Weiss was unsure whether San Francisco residents disposed of biodegradable bags as garbage, and would follow-up regarding San Francisco's process. Council Member Schmid believed the bags were placed in food waste carts. Ms. Weiss wanted to confirm San Francisco's process for compostable bags. Council Member Schmid asked if the City's trial garbage pickup of food waste included paper, but not plastic. Phil Bobel, Assistant Director of Environmental Services, replied yes. If the trial program expanded to the entire City, then residents would place compostable material in the green cart along with green yard trimmings. Staff would encourage the use of a compostable bag. For the trial area, waste would go to composting and would be separated from the green material. Council Member Schmid asked what was a compostable bag. Mr. Bobel explained it was similar to a biodegradable bag, but met a slightly different standard. Compostable meant ideally the bag would breakdown in the timeframe of normal compost. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the goal of garbage collection within a few years would be to use compostable bags. Mr. Bobel responded yes. Staff did not encourage residents to use compostable bags, because food scraps were not being composted. When food scraps were composted in the future, then the Council could reconsider this Ordinance to determine if compostable bags could play a larger role in composting. Residents in the pilot area could reuse compostable produce bags that some grocers were offering. Eventually he hoped residents would get a compostable produce bag at the grocer, fill it with food scraps, and place it in the green cart for composting. The City was not quite ready to link the two programs. EXCERPT Page 4 of 14 City Council Meeting Excerpt: 3/11/13 Council Member Schmid noted the Staff Report did not contain any of that information. He believed tonight's discussion would be an opportunity to prepare for the expiration of contracts with GreenWaste and Smart Station. Council Member Price requested the City Attorney comment on the Retail Food Code and its relationship to the proposed Ordinance. Molly Stump, City Attorney reported the State had the authority to determine that it would exclusively regulate an industry. The question was whether the State Legislature had done that by passing the Retail Food Code. The City received correspondence from an industry coalition asserting that the proposed Ordinance was preempted by the Retail Food Code. That issue was litigated at the trial court level in San Francisco. The Superior Court Judge determined that the State Code did not preempt the local regulation. The Court said the State Code focused on health and sanitation; the San Francisco plastic bag ban was an environmental regulation. The two could coexist harmoniously. The issue was appealed and would be addressed by the Court of Appeal. Council Member Price asked if there were different legal interpretations regarding this issue. Ms. Stump answered yes. The industry coalition maintained that State law prevented local regulation of restaurant use of plastic bags. The City's and other jurisdictions' position was that this type of regulation was lawful and not preempted by State law. Council Member Holman recalled a reference to bag usage decreasing from three to 0.3, and asked Staff to restate it. Ms. Weiss reported San Jose analyzed the impact of its Ordinance during the first year. The average number of bags used were three prior to the Ordinance. After implementation of the Ordinance with the $0.10 charge for paper bags in place, bag usage decreased to 0.3. Council Member Holman inquired whether bag usage decreased from three to 0.3 bags per week per person or per month per person. Ms. Weiss indicated per trip to the store. Council Member Holman referenced 5 percent or 1.3 million plastic bags came from food service establishments, and inquired whether that figure pertained solely to Palo Alto. EXCERPT Page 5 of 14 City Council Meeting Excerpt: 3/11/13 Ms. Weiss responded yes. Numbers were extrapolated from a study performed by the County of San Mateo. Council Member Holman asked if Staff could measure the impact of the bag charge on heightened awareness. Ms. Weiss inquired whether Council Member Holman meant the level of change created by a $0.10 charge versus a $0.25 charge. Council Member Holman stated that was one impact. A number of grocery stores not covered by the current Ordinance changed their practices with regard to bags. She inquired whether there was a means to gauge the impact on usage. Ms. Weiss noted Staff surveyed restaurants to determine that one-third of restaurants were using only paper products. Staff could perform the survey again with the same sample size at the end of one year with the $0.10 charge in place to determine if there had been any behavioral changes at restaurants. However, that would provide information about store behavior rather than individual behavior. Council Member Holman inquired whether requiring food service establishments to charge for plastic bags rather than prohibiting plastic bag usage was an option. Ms. Stump responded no. State law did not allow local jurisdictions to impose a fee on the use of plastic. Council Member Burt asked if State law allowed a charge for paper bags but not plastic bags. Ms. Stump answered yes. Council Member Burt believed the two goals for the Ordinance were preventing release of plastic litter into the environment and reducing landfill. Paper bags currently being used would go into paper recycling. He inquired about the net gain for the Zero Waste program by eliminating paper bags. Mr. Bobel agreed with his comments regarding the two goals. Although the City had recycling programs for paper and plastic bags, residents did not recycle all paper and plastic bags. A reusable bag was a good option to paper and plastic bags; therefore, it was logical to have an Ordinance to prohibit or restrict paper and plastic bag usage. EXCERPT Page 6 of 14 City Council Meeting Excerpt: 3/11/13 Council Member Burt stated the practical reality was residents would purchase plastic bags to replace paper bags as trash can liners. He asked what residents would use as trash can liners if they used only reusable bags when shopping. Mr. Bobel indicated Council Member Burt seized on the one legitimate complaint or criticism of Staff's proposal. An extremely small percentage of paper bags were used for trash can liners. Council Member Burt asked why Staff believed only an extremely small percentage of paper bags were reused. Mr. Bobel reported that was his personal experience. Council Member Burt felt there was a penalty amount between $0.10 and $0.25 that would encourage residents to obtain only the number of paper bags needed. Ms. Weiss noted the chief complaint was loss of free bags for use as trash can liners; however, bags were not really free. The Ordinance would require merchants to show the price of a bag on the receipt, and provide the option of not paying a charge or purchasing plastic trash can liners. Council Member Burt asked why consumers should pay $0.25 rather than $0.10. Mr. Bobel reported Staff attempted to strike a balance between having Palo Alto be a leader and being consistent with other cities. Most other cities charged $0.25. Retail businesses indicated inconsistent bag charges among cities were a problem. Council Member Burt did not understand the difficulty of different charges among cities for retail establishments. Mr. Bobel stated the public process indicated a consistent charge was important. Council Member Burt inquired whether pricing uniformity was as important as policy uniformity. Mr. Bobel responded yes. EXCERPT Page 7 of 14 City Council Meeting Excerpt: 3/11/13 Council Member Burt noted the Council had heard the rationale of incentivizing retail in Palo Alto in other issues. It was a question of striking a balance between that rationale and causing behavior change. Ms. Weiss reported a San Jose study estimated a $0.10 charge would cause about 65 percent of consumers to convert to reusable bags, and a $0.25 charge would cause approximately 89 percent to convert. Recent analysis confirmed those estimates. Council Member Burt believed an important second question was attitudinal change. At some point, the community could resent the imposition of a fee and, consequently, not support other issues. He requested Staff's rationale for delaying implementation of the fee for restaurants. Ms. Weiss explained the significant amount of Staff time devoted to education and compliance following adoption of the Ordinance was the reason for phasing implementation. Mayor Scharff agreed with Council Member Burt's comments. He inquired whether a $0.10 fee could be imposed first, Staff could determine behavior changes, and then the Council could consider implementing an increase to $0.25. He did not believe there was consistency among cities. Ms. Weiss reported largely Ordinances were consistent, but there were slight variations within Ordinance. Mr. Bobel indicated changing implementation was within the Council's prerogative. Staff could return at a later date with a second tier. Mayor Scharff noted Staff's analysis lacked the grocery stores' incentive of keeping funds from the bag charge. Mr. Bobel reiterated that grocers stated they wanted consistency among cities. Mayor Scharff inquired whether a compostable bag was prohibited under the proposed Ordinance . Ms. Weiss responded yes. No plastic bags would be allowed for distribution. The proposed Ordinance would allow purchase of plastic reusable bags, and would change the durability standard for reusable bags. Mayor Scharff assumed using compostable bags was environmentally friendly, and asked if that was true. EXCERPT Page 8 of 14 City Council Meeting Excerpt: 3/11/13 Ms. Weiss answered no. Any bag that was used to line a trash can would go to the landfill. Neither bag provided a benefit once it was in the landfill. Mayor Scharff stated if the trial garbage program was successful, then compostable bags would go to the composting facility. Ms. Weiss noted plastic bags currently distributed were not compostable. Mr. Bobel reported only produce bags were compostable. Mayor Scharff inquired whether bags were compostable, biodegradable, or neither. Ms. Weiss replied neither. Mr. Bobel stated bags currently being used were plastic. Eventually food scraps would be placed in compostable plastic bags; however, Staff was struggling with the type of container to be used for other kinds of garbage. Mayor Scharff inquired about the meaning of dynamic tests as part of durability standards. Ms. Weiss explained a dynamic test measured durability using simulation of actual usage. Mr. Bobel stated the bag was tested through stress. Mayor Scharff asked if durability standards would prevent usage of low- quality bags. Ms. Weiss indicated durability standards would allow consumers to move away from low-quality bags. Mayor Scharff inquired whether the low-quality bag Ms. Weiss demonstrated met EcoLogo standards. Ms. Weiss did not believe it would. Mayor Scharff inquired whether the Ordinance would require that bags indicate they met EcoLogo standards. Ms. Weiss reported the proposed Ordinance required quite a bit of information to be placed on the bottom of bags. EXCERPT Page 9 of 14 City Council Meeting Excerpt: 3/11/13 Mayor Scharff referenced the information required to be printed on bags, but did not find a requirement for the EcoLogo standard. Ms. Weiss noted that was not required but could be included as a requirement. Mayor Scharff expressed concerns about the amount of information required to be printed on bags, stating that would not benefit anyone and could cause less reusing of bags. Ms. Weiss reported that requirement was based on recommendations from a reusable bag manufacturer. Other bags could be sold in a store, but not at point of sale because behavior change was less likely to occur. Mayor Scharff inquired whether Staff had a reason not to delete the requirement for information on the bottom of the bag. Mr. Bobel indicated Staff again was attempting to be consistent with other communities' requirements. The Council could remove that requirement. This requirement fell under Staff's authorization to change an Ordinance where the change was not critical to the function of the provision. Staff would work with stores to meet substantive requirements but not labeling requirements for bags. Mayor Scharff inquired whether retail stores could distribute paper bags smaller than 15 liters in capacity. Ms. Weiss reported the EcoLogo standard required the 15-liter bag size. Under the proposed Ordinance, retailers could distribute any size of paper bag for the indicated fee. Mr. Bobel believed it was best to use standard definitions whenever possible, and the 15-liter capacity was part of the EcoLogo standard definition. Council Member Burt inquired about the benefit of a plastic bag being recycled as opposed to a cloth bag being placed in the trash. Ms. Weiss explained most plastics could only be recycled once, and then placed in the landfill. It was beneficial to recycle once; however, recycling was not a long-term solution. Mr. Bobel noted cloth could be donated to non-profit organizations. EXCERPT Page 10 of 14 City Council Meeting Excerpt: 3/11/13 William Rosenberg spoke to the Council in September 2012 regarding an extension of the plastic bag ban, and supported the proposed Ordinance. Single-use bags were not currently available that did not contribute to environmental pollution. The only remedy was to change the culture to reuse of bags through external motivation. Richard Gertman, Board Member of Californians Against Waste, reported the organization committed itself to reducing the amount of disposable single- use items in the environment. He supported programs to recover and promote reusable bags. Banning single-use bags would provide a significant environmental benefit. Javier Gonzalez, California Restaurant Association, opposed the ban because reusable bags lent themselves to cross-contamination and food-borne illnesses. Other jurisdictions in the area exempted the restaurant industry for those reasons. Plastic bags were better for holding multiple sizes of containers and for containing spills. He asked the Council to exempt the restaurant industry. Bruce Wolfe, Executive Officer of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board, reported the Water Board's 2009 Region-Wide Storm Water Permit required agencies to reduce trash in storm water by 40 percent by 2014, 70 percent by 2017, and 100 percent by 2022. The proposed Ordinance was a phased approach which would assist the City in reaching trash reduction requirements. Phasing out products regularly found in runoff was an effective method to engage the public. Robert Berman, Chairman of Roplast Industries and Member of the Reusable Bag Task Force, applauded Staff's efforts to promote the use of reusable grocery bags. The proposed Ordinance would encourage the use of reusable bags; however, expanding the ban to all retail could increase paper bag usage with the same negative environmental impact. For most non-food retailers, it would be logical to provide small paper bags rather than large reusable bags, which would undermine the City's goal of promoting reusable bags. He recommended retailers be allowed to sell reusable bags smaller than 30 inches in combined width and length without requiring the EcoLogo certification as long as bags met all other requirements. Peter Drekmeier felt the problems caused by plastic bags outweighed their convenience. The City made a great deal of progress since 2009, but the next step was needed. Palo Alto would be a part of changing the cultural norm. EXCERPT Page 11 of 14 City Council Meeting Excerpt: 3/11/13 Trish Mulvey supported the proposed Ordinance. Allowing restaurants to use plastic bags for liquid items addressed concerns of the California Restaurant Association. Currently, very little household trash needed to be placed in trash cans with liners. She preferred different sizes of reusable bags. Samantha Meyer, Zero Waste Program Coordinator at Clean Water Action, encouraged the Council to support the Ordinance, because it considered source reduction. Currently in Palo Alto, 24 percent of customers used reusable bags; whereas, in cities with bag fees, 62-94 percent of customers used reusable bags. Cedric de La Beaujardiere supported the Ordinance. As a user of reusable bags, he subsidized other shoppers' use of plastic and paper bags. Palo Alto's Ordinance should be consistent with other cities' Ordinances. He had used his own containers at restaurants for many years, had not been ill as a result, and often received a discount from the restaurant. Robert Moss stated many people used store bags as trash can liners, and the Council should consider some means of allowing this usage. He suggested no bag fee be implemented for a year or two in order to determine usage of reusable bags and to allow the City to remain competitive with other cities. The Council should be very careful about its message to the public regarding implementation of an Ordinance. Jason Lundgaard, Manager of State and Local Government Affairs for Apple, encouraged the Council to remove the requirement to label bags. The labeling requirement was unnecessary and counterproductive. Mike Francois suggested implementing incentives for returning plastic bags. Plastic bags were unsightly litter. He appreciated the Council's and public's comments. Council Member Holman asked why delicatessen was included as both retail service establishment and food service establishment. Ms. Weiss explained delicatessen included food bars in grocery stores and stand-alone businesses. Council Member Holman noted supermarket was included as a food service establishment. Ms. Weiss indicated that language could be streamlined, because supermarket was included under retail establishment. EXCERPT Page 12 of 14 City Council Meeting Excerpt: 3/11/13 Council Member Holman requested definitions of sales outlet and shop under food service establishment. Mr. Bobel reported Staff used existing definitions for this portion of the Ordinance, and attempted to include any type of business that might sell food. Council Member Holman noted the definition of superintendant was the Assistant Director for Environmental Services, and inquired why Staff utilized different names for the same position. Mr. Bobel indicated Staff utilized superintendant to link the proposed Ordinance with an existing Ordinance and existing structure. The Council could direct Staff to clarify that language within the Ordinance. Council Member Holman asked if Staff had a suggestion for that change. Mr. Bobel agreed one word would be better. Staff would need to review and revise the entire proposed Ordinance. Council Member Price noted a one-year exemption for participants in State or Federal supplemental food programs, and inquired whether Staff would monitor the exemption. Ms. Weiss indicated Staff had a reporting requirement for the number of people using bags under the exemption. MOTION: Council Member Price moved to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt the proposed Retail and Food Service Establishment Checkout Bag Requirements Ordinance as proposed by Staff. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to approve Staff recommendations to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt the proposed Retail and Food Service Ordinance, establish the Checkout Bag Requirements Ordinance as proposed by Staff, with the following amendments to the proposed Ordinance: 1) Chapter 5.35, Section 5.35.010 Definitions, subsection (f)i Pre-Approved Materials to allow smaller reusable bags; 2) not require EcoLogo label indicated in Subsection (d)i Pre- Approved Standard, Numbers 3 and 4; and 3) Section 5.35.030, Section (b) to make the fee for paper bags 10 cents. Staff will return to Council in 18- 24 months for review of pricing policy, and this item will return as a first reading of the amended Ordinance on the Consent Agenda. EXCERPT Page 13 of 14 City Council Meeting Excerpt: 3/11/13 Council Member Burt believed these were minor modifications in an attempt to strike a balance between a progressive program and a practical program. Mayor Scharff felt flexibility for smaller bags was important. He inquired whether Staff was directed to review the proposed Ordinance for consistency regarding the use of superintendant. Council Member Burt answered that term and any other inconsistency. Ms. Stump reported the Agenda Item would return with a first reading of the Ordinance on the Consent Agenda, followed by a second reading on the Consent Agenda. Council Member Schmid agreed with banning plastic bags and placing a $0.10 charge on paper bags. A $0.25 charge would create an incentive for residents to purchase plastic bags for household use, which was counterproductive. Palo Alto residents would be more likely to convert with smaller incentives. AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved to eliminate food service establishments from the Ordinance. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND Council Member Holman suggested supermarkets be included under retail service establishment. Mr. Bobel indicated Staff would carefully review the Ordinance for Council Member Holman's prior suggestions. Council Member Holman suggested farmers' market should be added in the appropriate location. Ms. Weiss indicated farmers market was included at the bottom of page 6. Council Member Holman inquired whether farmers' market should be included in the definitions of retail service or food service establishments. Mr. Bobel did not want to include farmers' market, unless the Council directed otherwise. Council Member Price felt the Ordinance was consistent with the community's values and beliefs. She preferred the discussion of a fee EXCERPT Page 14 of 14 City Council Meeting Excerpt: 3/11/13 increase return to the Council in less than 18-24 months. Because of the community's disposable income, she did not believe there would be resistance to a $0.25 fee. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Berman not participating, Klein, Kniss, Shepherd absent