Exhibit A of Attachment 1 - Part 2SECTION 4.0 SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND
IMPACTS
This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the project area, as well as
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The environmental checklist, as
recommended in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, identifies
environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented.
The right -hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The
sources cited are identified at the end of this section.
METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH
FOR IMPACT ANALYSIS
Most CEQA documents are prepared for development or planning projects, a condition in which a
project proponent or agency is proposing to build something that does not currently exist. On a
vacant project site, a new proposed project would create a land use and physical set of improvements
that did not exist before. If the site is already developed, then the new project would replace one set
of land uses and physical improvements with a new and different set. In both cases, the physical
impact - an increment of physical change - is clear and distinct when compared to the existing
environment.
The proposed project is the adoption and implementation of an ordinance intended to reduce the use
and disposal of single -use polystyrene foam food ware. The project will not eliminate single -use
food ware of all types, nor necessarily reduce the amount of food ware being used, but will reduce
quantities of these products composed ofpolystyrene foam currently being used in Santa Clara
County.
While the ordinance will phase -out a particular material type (PS foam), food vendors and retail
customers will be allowed to choose among other readily available substitute products for each of the
various food ware containers. Therefore, there will be a reasonably foreseeable shift away from EPS
foam products to substitute products made of materials that would not be subject to the phase -out.
The CEQA analysis in this Initial Study will focus on the environmental consequences associated
with the manufacture, transport, use, and disposal of the substitute products made from allowed
materials. In choosing to phase -out EPS foam food ware, each participating jurisdiction must be
informed as to whether any of the substitute products has its own unacceptable unintended
environmental consequences. Key questions include: to what degree will various substitute products
occupy the `void' left by banning EPS foam products, where and how are the substitutes made, are
they typically disposed in landfills, composted, or recycled, and are there particular environmental
issues or hazards (as compared to EPS foam products), if they become litter?
All- CEQA analyses require some degree of forecasting, and that is true of the analysis in this Initial -
Study. The project is the adoption and implementation of a model ordinance and the following
discussion of environmental impacts forecasts how businesses and consumers will comply with the
ordinance, and what changes those efforts to comply might make to the physical environment.
CEQA does not require that the environmental analysis engage in speculation, but that a good faith
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 16 July 2013
effort be made to identify and disclose the likely direct, and reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical
changes to the existing environment resulting from the project being approved.
Maximum Impact Scenario
This Initial Study analyzes the maximum impact scenario that could occur with the adoption of a
polystyrene foam food ware ordinance by jurisdictions in Santa Clara County (acknowledging such
an ordinance is already in effect in Palo Alto and unincorporated County areas). The maximum
impact scenario is a set of assumptions about the scope of the ordinance that would likely result in
the greatest amount of change, which would reasonably be assumed to result in adverse
environmental impacts, including full implementation by all jurisdictions and compliance by all of
the affected business vendors and other entities.' Failure to comply with the ordinance, for example,
would not cause any change from existing conditions and would not, therefore, result in any "impact'
from the project.
In addition to banning EPS foam food ware use at restaurants and other food vendors, two options for
additional regulation of EPS food ware products may also be adopted by one or more of the
participating cities or towns. Adoption of the model ordinance with both options, a restriction of
sales of EPS foam food service ware in stores and sales outlets and a restriction of sales of EPS
coolers or ice chests which are not wholly encapsulated or encased within a more durable material,
would represent the maximum impact scenario.
While the following discussion of environmental effects of the maximum impact scenario assumes
that all of cities and towns in Santa Clara County would adopt the ordinance with the two options as
described, the most basic purpose for preparing any CEQA analysis is to provide useful information
to the decision makers, who may subsequently choose to modify the project based on the Initial
Study or other information. An individual jurisdiction (e.g., city or town) might, for example,
decline to adopt the ordinance exactly as it is described in this Initial Study, or the various cities and
towns might each adopt slightly different ordinances. CEQA allows a lead or responsible agency to
approve a smaller or lesser impact project than that described in the Initial Study, or to approve a part
of the project described in the Initial Study. In addition, the project may be changed in order to
incorporate new elements that will further reduce or avoid adverse impacts, and it can still be covered
by the same environmental review (e.g., this Initial Study).
In the discussions that follow, impacts will be discussed in the context of the entire area covered by
the 134.4 cities and towns considering adoption of an EPS foam food ware ordinance. It also covers
amendments to existing ordinances in the City of Palo Alto, Town of Los Altos Hills, and
unincorporated Santa Clara County. As noted above, the maximum impact scenario will entail the
adoption of the model ordinance and both options by each jurisdiction. Any ordinance or set of
ordinances that is implemented by anything less than the 1344 cities and towns and modifications for
the threetive jurisdictions that cover the remainder of the County would (by definition) result in less
change from the existing conditions producing less impact (as well as reduced benefits in terms of
the amount of EPS litter reaching waterways), and those impacts would therefore be within the
impact parameters of the analysis completed in this Initial Study. If a potentially significant impact
from adoption of the model ordinance is identified countywide, the discussion will also disclose
S The maximum impact scenario is not the same thing as a "worst case ", which implies extreme conditions.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 17 July 2013
whether the impact could also be significant at the local jurisdictional level (i.e., would the impact
from a single city or town also be significant).
CEQA requires that an environmental impact analysis identify the impact of a proposed project upon
the existing physical conditions "on the ground ". "Existing" is usually defined as conditions which
existing at the time the environmental analysis begins. The environmental analysis for this project
was undertaken in Spring 2013. The date therefore defines the baseline period for this environmental
analysis.
Baseline EPS Foam Food Ware Use
PS foam is one of a number of materials used to manufacture disposable or single -use food service
ware. Precise information on the number of EPS foam cups, plates, clamshells and food trays used
or distributed within the project area (i.e., within each jurisdiction or cumulatively across Santa Clara
County) is not readily available from government agencies or other independent sources. In the
absence of precise data, an estimate for the project area can be derived in several ways from readily
available information on EPS foam food service ware: 1) manufacture, 2) occurrence in the waste
disposal stream and 3) as litter. Where information is for larger sample areas (e.g., national or state)
estimates are presented on a per capita basis. For smaller sample areas (e.g., an individual city or
town), projected baseline rates for the project area (i.e. incorporated jurisdictions in Santa Clara
County) are adjusted on both a per capita or per service population (residents + jobs) basis to reflect
the influence of both residents and the daytime population of employees (refer to Appendix B for a
detailed discussion of baseline estimates). As appropriate, per capita estimates for individual
jurisdictions are also provided for informational purposes. The purpose of this discussion is allow
for a big picture, or overall view, of the materials that would be replaced with substitute products if
the model ordinance is approved and implemented.
Baseline Estimates Based on EPS Foam Food Ware Production
Information on the number of single use EPS foam food ware containers (e.g., cups, bowls, plates,
clamshells and ice chests) used in the project area was not found to be readily available. Estimates of
EPS foam food ware use were assessed based upon available information on EPS foam production
and sales, waste characterization and litter studies (refer to Appendix B). EPS foam food ware used
in the project area consists of an unknown mixture of products, including plates, cups, trays and
clamshells. An equivalent number of items per pound for individual products can be estimated,
however. One pound of EPS foam food ware would be equivalent to about:
• 46 8 -inch clamshells or
• 53 9 -inch plates or
• 91 16 -ounce cups or
• 53 32 -ounce cups.
Based upon a review of the categories for polystyrene resin sales and production (in the U.S., Canada
and Mexico) in the 2012 Edition of The Resin Review, the baseline use of EPS foam food ware could
range from about 1.8 pounds per capita to a high of about seven (7) pounds per capita.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josh 18 July 2013
Baseline Estimates Based on Waste Characterization Studies
Waste characterization studies that cover some or all of the project area include both statewide
studies and studies conducted within the Cities of San Jos6, Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Palo
Alto. EPS foam food ware is a component of solid waste in the plastics category.
A waste characterization study for the residential and commercial sectors was conducted in the City
of San Jos6 in March 2008.6 Based on this waste characterization study, an estimate of annual EPS
foam food ware use (not accounting for materials improperly disposed of as litter and not collected)
would be up to 2,621 tons, or 5.3 pounds per capita and 3.9 pounds per service population.' This
estimate could be a conservatively high value for EPS food ware use as the total expanded
polystyrene subcategory includes some items, such as egg cartons and packing materials that would
not be affected by the model ordinance.
A 2010 waste characterization report found that EPSs food packaging makes up an estimated 689
tons per year of waste transferred to the landfill from the cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View
after materials recovery at the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station (SMaRT
Station @). This is about 0.5 percent of the total waste disposed.9 The EPS food packaging
subcategory specifically included clamshells, cups, plates, and bowls. Annually, this represents
approximately 6.4 pounds per year per capita or 4.1 pounds per year per service population of the
two cities. 10
Limited user surveys have been undertaken in the City of Milpitas and unincorporated Santa Clara
County of businesses that use single -use disposable food containers. In a survey of 25 businesses in
the City of Milpitas, about one -half (13) used EPS foam food containers. Of the businesses that use
polystyrene take -out containers, the majority estimated use of more than 2,000 pieces per month of
clamshells, soup cups with lids, hot drink cups, cold drink cups, plates, and other products.11 An
estimate of monthly use by food service businesses was not projected citywide, however.
Based upon local waste characterizations within Santa Clara County, EPS food ware appropriately
disposed of is conservatively about 4 pounds per service population. Service population is defined as
residents + jobs in a jurisdiction or area.
6 Cascadia Consulting Group. "City of San Jos6 Waste Characterization Study Final Report — DRAFT."
May 2008. Prepared for the City of San Jos6.
7 Based upon an estimated population of 985,307 and a service population of 1,354,757 (985,307 residents plus
369,450 jobs) for the City of San Jose in 2008. (Source: City of San Jos6. "Envision San Jos6 2040 General Plan
Final Program EIR." 2010.).
8 Note: In some studies, the term EPS refers to all EPS foam food ware, both expanded (e.g., cups) and extruded
foam (e.g., plates and clamshells). Unless otherwise noted, EPS categories in waste categorization studies includes
both types of EPS foam food ware.
B Cascadia Consulting Group. "City of Sunnyvale Waste Characterization Report." November 2010. Prepared for
the City of Sunnyvale.
10 Based upon a combined population for the cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View in 2010 of 214,147 persons
and a service population of 337,147 (residents +jobs). (Sources: 2010 Census data and Association of Bay Area
Governments. "Draft Plan Bay Area: Draft Forecast of Jobs, Population and Housing." March 2013)
1 Cascadia Consulting Group. "Expanded Polystyrene Food Service Take -Out Container Study." April 26, 2011.
Prepared for the City of Milpitas.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jos6 19 July 2013
Baseline Estimates Based on Litter Studies
Litter is waste that is improperly discarded. Due to the aesthetic, health, and environmental effects of
litter, a number of organizations and government agencies track and characterize trends in litter
generation, human behavior, and fate in the environment. It is important to note that it is difficult to
document and categorize litter because it is the result of human behavior (frequently impulsive
behavior) and littered materials are operated on by various environmental factors, such as wind,
sunshine, and rain. For example, the amount of a particular type of litter may vary on the street
versus in a storm drain due to the weight and transportability of the material (e.g., EPS easily blows
or washes away from a location where it is dropped). It is also difficult to compare study results
because there is no one standardized methodology that is appropriate for studies in all environments
(e.g, streets, highways, parks, waterways, and shorelines).
Street Litter Studies
The City of San Jose has conducted a number of trash characterization studies at locations throughout
the City that look at counts and/or the volume of litter found in the environment. Studies conducted
on city streets include:
• SAIC. The City of San Jose Streets Litter 2008. September 30, 2008. Prepared for City of
San Jose Department of Environmental Services.
• City of San Jose. Targeted Litter Assessment. 2009.
• City of San Jose. Litter Assessment Data. 2012. Spreadsheet.
The street litter assessments completed in San Jose range from a
random sampling of counted litter (2008 Streets Litter) to surveys
of litter "hot spots" with litter counts recorded.
The 2008 street litter survey counted items of litter found at 125
randomly selected sites. EPS foam cups were found to make up
0.65 percent of the "large litter" counted. EPS foam plates and
clamshells made up 0.1 and 0.05 percent respectively, for a total of
0.8 percent of EPS foam food ware. The 2009 and 2012 litter
assessments used similar methodology for counting, however, they
targeted areas known to accumulate litter. The 2009 targeted litter
assessment included litter counts at 48 sites in the City of San Jose
with relatively high concentrations of litter (e.g., litter "hot spots ").
A total of 7,917 pieces of litter were counted from the 48 sites for
an average of 165.5 items per site. At the targeted sites, the
percent of total "large litter" included 1.6 percent polystyrene foam
cups, 0.4 percent polystyrene foam food plates, and 0.2 percent
polystyrene clamshells. Polystyrene trays, which depending on
their use, may not be covered by the proposed ordinance made up
about 0.2 percent of the total large litter. In 2012, litter was
counted at 31 sites in the city where litter was known to
accumulate. Polystyrene food ware products made up about 3.5
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance
City of San Jos€ 20
Comparison with Street Litter
Studies Elsewhere
In a 2012 study underwritten by the
American Chemistry Council
Plastics Foodservice Packaging
Group, Environmental Resources
Planning LLC summarized the
results of a number of litter
characterization studies that
recorded amounts of polystyrene
foam food service products in urban
litter. This summary included the
2008 San Jose street litter study. A
median value of 1.5 percent of
"large" litter' (by count) was
reported to be EPS foam food ware,
based upon 19 surveys between
1994 and 2008 in jurisdictions in the
United States and Canada.
Initial Study
July 2013
percent of the total litter counts. The breakdown by polystyrene food ware type was 2.2 percent
polystyrene foam cups, 0.8 percent polystyrene foam food plates (rounded), and 0.1 percent
polystyrene clamshells (rounded). Polystyrene foam trays were approximately 0.5 percent of the
2012 total litter count (refer to Appendix B for more detail on the results of litter assessments).
EPS foam food ware generally makes up four percent or less of total litter by any of these measures.
EPS cups and plates appear to be more prevalent in these street litter assessments, where measured,
than EPS clamshells. Individual subcategories (e.g., EPS foam plates, clamshells) likely are less than
one percent of total litter by count. Total street litter loads citywide on an annual or other basis are
not available.
Stormwater System Studies
Based upon recent studies completed by the Santa Clam Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention
Program ( SCVURPP) in storm drain catch basins, approximately 3,900 cubic yards of trash that
could reach creeks through the storm sewer system in the San Francisco Bay Basin is estimated to be
generated annually. 12 SCVURPPP estimates that approximately eight (8) percent of this trash by
volume, or 311 cubic yards, is EPS foam food ware. 13 It is important to note that this study focused
on trash entering creeks via municipal storm drainage systems and does not include EPS foam litter
deposited directly in waterways via wind or direct dumping.
The stormwater system studies conducted by SCVURPP do not cover the area of Santa Clara County
south of Morgan Hill, including the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy, which drain to Monterey Bay.
Available information on litter reaching waterways in this area is limited and is based upon litter
collection efforts within creeks rather than the storm sewer system. Trash has been collected twice
per year along several local creeks in the Morgan Hill and Gilroy areas since 2007 and the weight of
trash (and recyclables) collected reported. 14 Tens of pounds to over 1,000 pounds of trash were
collected at individual sites. A breakdown of the composition of trash collected (e.g., plastics, paper,
EPS foam food ware) is not included in the past events results posted by the Creek Connections
Action Group, which organizes the annual cleanups.
Summary of Litter Study Results
Data collected in some recent street and storm sewer system litter surveys provides information on
the relative proportion of EPS foam food ware in litter. By all measures (volume and counts) the
proportion is generally less than 10 percent by volume in stormwater system litter and ranging from
less than one percent to 3.6 percent by count in street litter.
12 SCVURPPP. "Urban Runoff Trash Management: Reducing Impacts in Santa Clara Valley Creeks and San
Francisco Bay." February 2013. Available at: < httn: / /www.scvuropo- w2k.com/pdfs/1213 /Trash Factsheet 2012 -
Final Feb.ndf>. See Table 4.9 -2 in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study for a breakdown
of estimated trash loads in storm drain systems by jurisdiction for the SCVURPPP area (Santa Clara County north of
Morgan Hill).
11 CalRecycle lists the density of "Polystyrene blown, formed foam" as 9.62 pounds per cubic yard in a posted list of
conversion factors for various types of waste. Applying this factor, would yield about 3,000 pounds of EPS foam
food ware (refer to Appendix B).
14 Creek Connections Action Group. "Past Events Results ". Accessed April 24, 2013. Results for individual clean
ups Available at: < httpi// www. cleanacreek .orW?asteventsresults main %20roaee.asn >.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jose 21 July 2013
As noted previously, the SCVURPP litter characterizations do not include litter directly deposited in
waterways by wind or dumping and weight is generally not used in local litter studies as it does not
assist with the assessment of the visibility or persistence of different types of litter in the storm drain
systems and creeks.
In conclusion, the available baseline information for EPS food ware appearing as litter in Santa Clara
County is:
• Street Litter: about 0.8 -3.6 percent by count of large litter (four square inches in area or
more) on streets based upon citywide and hot spot street litter surveys in San Josh; and
• Stormwater System Litter:
— about eight (8) percent by volume based upon SCVURPP litter characterizations
(i.e., trash loading) in storm drain systems discharging to creeks and waterways. is
— about 311 cubic yards of EPS trash (roughly 3,000 pounds) per year in the SVURPP
area.
Users and Manufacturers of EPS Foam Food Ware
The proposed model ordinance would restrict the use of single -use disposable EPS foam food ware in
participating jurisdictions. A summary of the number of facilities and vendors with food handling
permits in Santa Clara County is provided in Table 4.0 -1. Food facilities covered by the County's
permit program include restaurants, markets, bakeries, liquor stores, bars, certified farmers' markets,
food service at fairs and festivals, catering trucks, hot dog carts, ice cream trucks, produce vehicles,
and food vending machines.
Provisions of the ordinance, including the sale of empty EPS foam food ware and ice chests, could
also apply to other vendors within the project area. The number and types of businesses and facilities
are summarized in Table 4.0 -2.
Secondary or Indirect Effects on Businesses
Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant effect on the environment as
"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. A social or economic change related to a physical
change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant."
"Refer to Table 4.9 -2 in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality for a breakdown by jurisdiction.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Stud
City of San JOSE 22 July 201
Table 4.0 -1: Permitted Food Vendors in Santa Clara County
Jurisdiction
Food
Services
Caterer
Mobile Food
Facility
Grocery
Stores
Other 2
San Jose
2,636
49
710
617
354
Campbell
188
14
6
42
54
Cupertino
230
2
4
28
36
Gilroy
188
0
31
66
19
Los Altos
89
1
2
15
30
Los Altos Hills
4
0
0
1
0
Los Gatos
157
3
4
37
31
Milpitas
347
3
5
55
40
Monte Sereno
0
0
0
0
0
Morgan Hill
154
0
6
39
21
Mountain View
380
4
50
70
159
Palo Alto
350
0
7
40
60
Santa Clara
568
13
144
102
57
Stanford
120
0
18
3
8
Saratoga
78
0
7
13
38
Sunnyvale
449
1
10
93
57
Unincorporated
Santa Clara
Count
56
0
118
15
67
Total
5,994
90
1,122
1,236
1,031
Source: County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health, Food Safety Permit Program (2013)
Food Service includes restaurants, cafes, delicatessens and other locations where food is prepared on -site (e.g.,
delicatessens in grocery stores).
2Other includes: food demonstrators and short-term events.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jose 23 July 2013
Table 4.0 -2
Summary of Businesses and Facilities That May Sell, Use
or Manufacture EPS Foam Food Ware
Information Category
Data
Sources
Consumption
Restaurants/Food
• 224 gas stations with
• U.S. Census Bureau. 2010
Service Vendors in
convenience stores
County Business Patterns.
Santa Clara County
2010.
• 8,237 permits for food service,
• County of Santa Clara
caterers, mobile food service,
Department of Environmental
and other
Health (refer to Appendix B,
Table B -1
Grocery Stores in
• 1,236 grocery stores
• County of Santa Clara
Santa Clara County
Department of Environmental
Health, Food Safety Permit
Program (refer to Appendix B,
Table B -1
Sporting Goods
• 123 sporting goods stores
• U.S. Census Bureau. 2009
Stores in Santa Clara
County Business Patterns.
County
2009.
Merchandise Stores in
• 42 department stores (includes
• U.S. Census Bureau. 2010
Santa Clara County
discount department stores)
County Business Patterns.
• 71 general merchandise stores
2010.
(includes warehouse clubs and
su ercenters
Retail/Pharmacy in
Santa Clara County
• 190 pharmacies and drug
stores
• U.S. Census Bureau. 2010
County Business Patterns.
2010.
Hardware Stores in
• 38 hardware stores
• U.S. Census Bureau. 2010
Santa Clara County
County Business Patterns.
2010.
Statewide Producers
PS Foam
• 77 polystyrene foam
• U.S. Census Bureau. Industry
Manufacturers
manufacturers in California
Statistics Sampler. 2007.
— 9.74 percent of value of
U.S. shipments
— 3,389 employees
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 24 July 2013
Indirect or secondary effects are impacts caused by a project that occur later in time or are farther
removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. to Secondary effects may include effects
related to induced changes in patterns of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related
effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. Effects analyzed under
CEQA must be related to a physical change in the environment.
The proposed project is a model ordinance that would limit the use and sale of single -use polystyrene
foam food ware and ice chests in Santa Clara County. Businesses that could be affected by the
ordinance include restaurants, cafes, cafeterias, limited service restaurants (such as delicatessens,
sandwich shops, fast food and drive- through restaurants), grocery and convenience stores, sporting
goods and drug stores (e.g., EPS foam ice chest sales), restaurant supply companies, stores that
currently sell or use EPS foam food ware and companies that manufacture these products.
As described by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., in Economic Impact Analysis of EPS
Foodware Costs prepared for the City of San Jose, there is currently a cost differential between EPS
foam food ware products and likely substitutes." The city includes a diversity of restaurants and
greater economic effects would be expected to be experienced by food vendors that currently have a
heavy use of EPS foam food ware for hot liquids and smaller lower revenue restaurants. As the cost
of EPS foam food ware is one of many variable costs at food related businesses, the analysis
concluded that it is unlikely that the ordinance would result in substantial business failures (e.g., that
in turn could result in economic blight with land use consequences).
To the extent demand for EPS foam food ware would drop within a major urban market in
California, production at manufacturing facilities, especially in California, could be affected. A drop
in demand from individual cities is unlikely to be substantial, however, the implementation
restrictions throughout the County, in combination with other EPS foam food ware bans elsewhere,
would be a noticeable change in demand. The possible cumulative indirect effects on the
environment associated with a reduction in demand for products produced at EPS foam food ware
manufacturing facilities are addressed in Section 4.18.3 Cumulative Impacts of this Initial Study.
Baseline Conclusions
In summary, the baseline estimates for the project area (Santa Clara County) are follows:
1. Baseline for EPS food ware used annually in Santa Clara County —
Counts for various products (cups, plates, clamshells) that could be applied countywide are
not readily available. Based upon a review of the categories for polystyrene resin sales and
production in the 2012 Edition of The Resin Review, the baseline use of EPS foam food ware
could conservatively range from about 1.8 pounds per capita to a high of about seven (7)
pounds per capita on an annual basis.
2. Baseline for EPS food ware appropriately disposed as waste annually in Santa Clara
County — Based upon waste local characterization studies within Santa Clara County, EPS
16 CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(a)(2).
Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. "Economic Impact Analysis of EPS Foodware Costs." November 2012.
Prepared for the City of San Josh.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jos€ 25 July 2013
food ware appropriately disposed of annually is conservatively 2.9- 4.1 pounds per service
population (residents+ jobs) or 5.3 -6.4 pounds per capita. The per capita estimate of about
six pounds per year is within the range of the estimate noted above for annual food ware use
(based upon production).
Baseline for EPS food ware appearing as litter in Santa Clara County — Based upon data
collected in some recent street and storm sewer system litter surveys:
• Street Litter: about 0.8 -3.6 percent by count of large litter (four square inches in area or
more) on streets based upon citywide and hot spot street litter surveys in San Josh; and
• Stormwater System Litter:
— about eight (8) percent by volume based upon SCVURPP litter characterizations
(i.e., trash loading) in storm drain systems discharging to creeks and
waterways. 18
— about 311 cubic yards of EPS trash (roughly 3,000 pounds) per year in the
SVURPP area.
4. Baseline for types of businesses and activities covered by the ordinance —
The ordinance would apply to a wide range of businesses and activities within the Santa
Clara County project area. Over 8,000 businesses or organizations have food handling
permits from the County of Santa Clara, including restaurants, cafes, mobile food service,
caterers, grocery stores, convenience stores, and special events. Other vendors whose sales
would be covered activities include several hundred restaurant and food service suppliers,
warehouse stores, retail /pharmacy stores, sporting goods and hardware stores.
Substitute Products
Under the proposed ordinance, food vendors and providers would be prohibited from distributing
EPS foam food service ware. Businesses and other establishments are expected to replace EPS foam
items with substitute products which are already in use today. These products are made from the
following materials:
Plastics
Hydrocarbon polymer resins such as polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET),
polycarbonate (PC), and polystyrene t9 (PS) can be used to manufacture disposable
foodservice ware products such as cold drinking cups, bowls, clamshells, plates, and trays.
Other plastics such as polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride could be used for these products,
but PP, PET, PC, and PS are already widely used by food vendors. Like EPS foam, these
materials are derived from petroleum refining and processing. Though some jurisdictions do
not accept soiled plastics, in general all of these plastic resins are recyclable in Santa Clara
County for both residential and commercial customers.
s Note: These studies do not include litter directly deposited in waterways by wind or dumping.
9 When a blowing agent is added, polystyrene can be turned into expanded polystyrene (EPS). The proposed
ordinance would only prohibit foamed polystyrene.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 26 July 2013
Bioplastics
Bioplastics are derived from plants and food by- products such as com, whey, and sugar
beets. The oils and starches of these plants can be separated from the plant and converted
through a series of refining processes to hydrocarbon polymer chains. The `bio' in bioplastic
refers to the plant feedstock, not to its biodegradability. That is, not all bioplastics are
biodegradable.
The most common bioplastic is polylactic acid, or PLA. PLA is similar to plastics such as
PP, PS, and PET and can be formed into resin pellets which are melted and molded into
products such as cold cups, plates, bowls, and clamshells. Another example of a bioplastic
made from the aforementioned feedstocks is polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA). The differences
between PHA and PLA, aside from their chemical structures, are the refining processes used
to make them. PLA is currently the most common bioplastic and is compostable in industrial
compost facilities. PLA is inert in landfills and is not designed to degrade in the marine
environment. PLA and PHA bioplastics are not recyclable.
Fiber - Paperboard/Molded Pulp
Photo 5: Examples of Paperboard and Molded Pulp Products
Many disposable food service products are
made from the fibers of trees, which are
processed into a pulp which can then be
formed into paper. Paperboard is a thick
paper material that is typically lined with
plastic or wax to prevent moisture absorption
and to increase product strength. It is
commonly used for hot and cold cups, soup
bowls, and plates, though it is possible that
food vendors might also use paperboard
clamshells, boxes and trays.
Molded pulp products can be made from virgin (newly - produced) or recycled paper fiber and
formed into clamshells, bowls, and trays. Molded pulp products are identifiable by their
rough texture and they are usually not lined. Some jurisdictions recycle fiber food service
products, but many dispose of them in landfills. Fiber food service ware is compostable in
industrial or municipal composting facilities regardless of the coating.20 It will degrade in a
water environment and may remain inert in a landfill.
Biodesrradable Plant Fiber
Many products that are made from wood fiber can also be made with fibers from sugar cane,
bulrushes, and wheat. Plant fibers such as bagasse, the fibers remaining from the sugar cane
pulping process, are extracted during plant processing and used to make products in ways
"Compost is decomposed organic material that can be incorporated with soil or fertilizers.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josh 27 July 2013
similar to those of molded paper products. Biodegradable products can be composted in
large scale municipal or industrial compost facilities and will degrade in a water
environment. For jurisdictions that do not offer composting services, plant -based
biodegradable products are disposed in landfills. Biodegradable plant fiber products may
remain inert in a landfill depending on the exposure to moisture.
Food vendors use a range of food service ware products made from different material types based not
only on price, but also the characteristics of the material. For example hot drinks are generally not
served in plastic cups because plastic cups do not insulate well and if the liquid is too hot, the cup can
lose its strength. As a result, food vendors typically use either EPS foam or lined paperboard to serve
hot liquids. That same food vendor may use plastic products for other foods such as salads for
reasons such as price, durability, and/or customer preference.
The following table outlines the products that are likely to be substituted for EPS foam products by
food vendors and retailers.
Table 4.0 -3
EPS Substitute Products
PS Foam Product
Substitutes'
Hot Cups - Coffee,
tea, hot chocolate
Light and insulating, EPS
Lined paperboard is the most
foam hot cups may come
likely substitute material. It is
with a plastic lid to
durable and light, but does not
prevent spilling. Once
insulate very well. As a result,
used, these cups are
r.
paperboard hot cups frequently
disposed in landfills. + -
, =`_ 3;,� --
come with a corrugated sleeve.
-
Paperboard can be composted or
(Note: Newby Island
landfilled, and some
Resource Recovery
jurisdictions do accept it for
recycles clean polystyrene
-`_..
recycling. Lined biodegradable
foam that is dropped of"
plant fiber materials could also
at the landfill. All other
be used to make these products,
facilities landfill EPS
though they are not widely
foam.).
available today.
Cold Cups - Soda, water, smoothies, milkshakes
Lined paperboard and plant fiber
PS foam cold cups
products as well as all plastic
"sweating," or
products can function as
condensation associated
substitute cold cups. Water
with the cool temperature
resistance is a necessary
Elminimize
of the liquid inside. They
characteristic of these products.
usually come with an
Other characteristics such as
opaque plastic lid and a
weight, durability, and insulation
straw. These cups may
are factors. Depending on the
only be disposed in a
material, they can be recycled,
- -
landfill.-
composted, of in some cases
must be landfilled.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jose 28 July 2013
Table 4.0 -3
EPS Substitute Products
PS Foam Product I Substitutes'
Bowls -Sous
and salads
As with hot drinks, plastic and
bioplastic materials would
generally not be used for soups,
except for lids. Paper hot food
bowls are possible substitutes.
PS foam bowls have
All materials could be used for
characteristics necessary
to support liquid and solid
bowls that do not hold hot
hot and cold food
liquids. Plastic bowls can be
including water
recycled and fiber bowls,
resistance, insulation, and
depending on the material, are
durability. EPS foam
;_t JdammughhL
recyclable or compostable. PLA
bowls are disposed in
bowls are compostable in
landfills.
industrial composting facilities.
Clamshells
PS foam clamshells offer
An exact replacement of a EPS
some durability and are
foam clamshell would likely be
-�
very low weight 5 -10
_
plastic or PLA, since foldable,
fiber
grams Clamshells
closable -based clamshells
typicalll y have one main
are not widely available. Food
compartment or three
vendors may also choose
compartments as seen
paperboard products similar to
the one shown here to substitute
here. EPS foam
for clamshell packaging. Plastic
clamshells must be
products would be recycled;
landfilled.
paper products would likely be
either landfilled or composted.
Plates
EPS foam plates are light-
va
Fiber -based plates are common
weight and water,,..
and would be a likely substitute
resistant, though their
},
for EPS foam plates. Some
limited durability can
paper plates such as the one
require users to stack two
shown here (top) are thin and are
plates to prevent spilling.
frequently stacked by users to
-
As with all EPS foam
,provide strength. Plastic or PLA
food service products,
plates can be used as a more
used EPS foam plates are
= ? '
durable, rigid alternative.
not recyclable or
Depending on the material, the
compostable.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 29 July 2013
Table 4.0 -3
EPS Substitute Products
PS Foam Product
Substitutes'
substitutes would be landfilled,
recycled, or composted.
Trays
Substitute food trays can be
made with paperboard, molded
PS foam trays are light,
"
pulp, biodegradable fibers,
stackable, and generally
tar
plastics, or PLA, though plastic
— - -
molded with multiple
offers more durability than fiber-
compartments. Used EPS
based products. Plastic food
be
foam trays are landfilled
trays could recycled and
fiber -based food trays either
composted or landfilled.
Ice
Chests
PS foam ice chests are
At this time there are no
light and offer good
identifiable disposable substitute
insulation, though they
ice chests. It is expected that the
break apart more easily
alternatives to EPS foam coolers
than the available
are durable multi -use ice chests
bags
substitutes. EPS foam ice
;:
or cooler such as the
chests are disposed
products shown here. These are
landfills, though if clean
typically made of plastic
may be accepted for
materials and offer insulation
recycling at some
and durability. Durable ice
recycling centers.
chests and coolers are not
recyclable or compostable.
Though the Substitutes column focuses mainly on plastic and paper products, plant -based plastics such as PLA
and plant -based fibers such as bagasse can also provide substitutes in the same ways that plastic and paper can,
respectively. Plastics are recycled when markets exist.
' Many images shown in this table were obtained through internet image searches and are not intended to promote
a particular product or brand name.
Post -ban Usage Estimates of Food Ware Substitutes
To arrive at the estimates of potential impact from the proposed ordinance, two basic pieces of
information are needed: (1) the current amount of polystyrene - foam -food ware used in -the project
area and (2) the amount of substitute single -use disposal food ware that will replace this food ware
after the ordinance takes effect. The current use of EPS foam food ware is the baseline, as discussed
above. The difference between those two numbers is the direct impact of the ordinance. Of
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San JosB 30 July 2013
necessity, all three of the numbers — existing, future, and the difference between them — are estimates
and approximations from readily available information.
As challenging as it is to establish a baseline for current EPS foam food ware use within Santa Clara
County, predicting the behavior of affected food vendors and retail customers once a ban is in effect
in a given jurisdiction is even more problematic. It is not anticipated that by banning EPS foam food
ware, the overall amount of single -use disposable food ware would be reduced. Rather, there should
be a shift away from EPS foam to containers made from the various substitute materials described
above. It is not possible to predict with certainty what future proportional share each substitute
material (e.g. rigid plastics, bioplastics, fiber, etc.) will occupy for a given container type (e.g.
clamshell, hot vs. cold cup, plate, bowl, etc.).
In evaluating its proposed food vendor ban, Palo Alto in 2009 assumed a shift to containers made
from substitute materials based on a 2008 study for the City of Seattle by Herrera Consulting, Inc.
evaluating the effects of a ban on EPS foam clamshells. Palo Alto projected no continued use of EPS
foam and therefore distributed the Herrera estimates from EPS foam to paper and recyclable plastic,
which includes compostable plastic. The City of San Jose, exercising reasonable discretion in its role
as the lead agency evaluating the proposed model ordinance, has chosen to rely upon the assumptions
developed in 2008 by Herrera Consulting, Inc. for the City of Seattle and employed by Palo Alto in
its environmental review for its EPS foam food ware ban. Table 4.0 -2 below is based on Table 6 -14
from Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. (pg.6 -23).
The actual shifts or split in composition between plastic and paper food containers in any of the
jurisdictions may be different than the 85 percent plastic versus 15 percent paper assumed (e.g., a
particular jurisdiction may experience a shift that is 81 percent plastic and 19 percent paper or 89
percent plastic and only 11 percent paper, or some other split that is predominantly plastic and to a
much lesser extent paper) and may change over time and from year to year. For example, in a
particular jurisdiction, the split may change from one year to the next from 81 percent plastic and 19
percent paper to 89 percent plastic and 11 percent paper. Shifts may be influenced by changes in
price, product availability and as new products enter the market. For the purpose of this analysis, the
assumptions used by the City of Palo Alto and in the City of Seattle provides the lead agencies'
anticipated predominant shift to recyclable plastic for disposable food containers overall.
The County of Santa Clara in 2012, in evaluating its proposed food vendor ban for unincorporated
areas, identified the range (consistent with Table 4.0 -1 above) of available EPS food ware substitutes,
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San JosB 31 July 2013
Table 4.0 -4
Antici ated
Shift to EPS Foam Substitutes
Projected Percent of Use of
Type of Disposable Food
Disposable Food Service
Service Container
Container
Expanded Polystyrene
0%
Recyclable Plastic'
85%
Paper
15%
'Note: PLA plastic, which is one type of plastic substitute, is not recyclable and is compostable in industrial
compost operations.
The actual shifts or split in composition between plastic and paper food containers in any of the
jurisdictions may be different than the 85 percent plastic versus 15 percent paper assumed (e.g., a
particular jurisdiction may experience a shift that is 81 percent plastic and 19 percent paper or 89
percent plastic and only 11 percent paper, or some other split that is predominantly plastic and to a
much lesser extent paper) and may change over time and from year to year. For example, in a
particular jurisdiction, the split may change from one year to the next from 81 percent plastic and 19
percent paper to 89 percent plastic and 11 percent paper. Shifts may be influenced by changes in
price, product availability and as new products enter the market. For the purpose of this analysis, the
assumptions used by the City of Palo Alto and in the City of Seattle provides the lead agencies'
anticipated predominant shift to recyclable plastic for disposable food containers overall.
The County of Santa Clara in 2012, in evaluating its proposed food vendor ban for unincorporated
areas, identified the range (consistent with Table 4.0 -1 above) of available EPS food ware substitutes,
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San JosB 31 July 2013
but did not attempt to quantitatively predict what shift (i.e. the increased amount of a substitute
material) would occur.
Life Cycle Analyses
There is a range of information available about single -use disposable food ware and its fate in the
environment. Much of the information is generated by people with an economic interest in one or
another of the products or groups with interests regarding litter in waterways and the ocean and/or
recycling and composting. There is also some technical analysis that has been done in the form of
life cycle analyses (LCAs) of various materials used in single -use disposal food ware. A LCA
assesses the raw material production, manufacture, distribution, use, and disposal (including all
intervening transportation steps) of a given product.
A review of the LCAs available on this topic is included in Appendix C. Information from these
analyses is discussed in relevant sections of the Initial Study, such as Section 4.3 Air Quality, Section
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Section 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems, along with limitations
on their use.
Project Effects
In general, the effects of implementation of the proposed ordinance would be indirect effects
experienced within Santa Clara County and the South San Francisco Bay Area. The proposed
ordinance could result in secondary or indirect effects at more distant locations as EPS foam food
ware use in the project area is transitioned to substitute materials. Project effects could include:
• Changes in criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants or greenhouse gas emissions at
manufacturing facilities, generally outside the San Francisco Bay Air Basin;
• Changes in water quality associated with waste water discharges from the manufacture of
substitute products;
• A reduction in polystyrene foam in waterways and an increase of substitute products.
These possible indirect or secondary effects are discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality, Section 4.7
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 4.9.
Hydrology and Water Quality.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 32 July 2013
4.1 AESTHETICS
4.1.1 Settine
4.1.1.1 Visual Character Overview
The visual character of the project area varies across the County and includes both densely developed
and open, natural landscapes. The nearly flat, densely developed valley floor is framed by mountains
to the east and west and San Francisco Bay to the north. Notable topographic and scenic features
include the Diablo Range and Santa Cruz Mountains, riparian vegetation along major waterways
including Coyote Creek, the Guadalupe River, Stevens Creek, Permanente Creek, and San
Francisquito Creek, and farmland and grazing land, predominantly between the southern border of
San Jose and Gilroy. The marshes ringing the San Francisco Bay shorelines from Palo Alto to San
Jos6 are a unique, low lying feature with a mosaic of gray -green vegetation, mud flats, and salt ponds
readily viewed from regional trails and some major roadways, such as segments of U.S. 101 and SR
237.
Urban development ranges from dense development in downtown areas, with moderate to high -rise
buildings punctuating the skyline in San Jos6, Palo Alto, and Mountain View, to low- density rural
residential areas at the edges of foothills in Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills, Cupertino, San Jose, Morgan
Hill and Gilroy. Most of the land within the Santa Clara Valley contains suburban and low -rise
residential, office, industrial and commercial buildings within grids of roadways. Parks, schools and
community centers provide open, landscaped areas within the developed areas of cities and towns.
Litter
Littering is illegal in California as defined and prohibited by California Penal Code Section 374.
Regulations of the various jurisdictions within the project area also prohibit littering in their
municipal codes, especially within public parks. The accumulation of litter on privately owned
property that can be viewed from other properties or public
streets is also generally prohibited.
Although littering is illegal, it is noticeably present in the
urban, suburban and rural environments within the project
area. Litter is clearly visibly from and within public road
rights -of -way and along local creeks. EPS foam, which is
generally white in color, can be a highly visible component
of litter (Photo 6). EPS is also very buoyant and
transportable so it tends to accumulate in collection points
(e.g., catch basins, creek vegetation, etc.).
Major roads and freeways pass through urban areas and
agricultural areas in southern Santa Clara County. The litter
that occurs in agricultural fields is likely thrown from
vehicles, escapes from trucks hauling garbage along these
roads and freeways, or is blown or travels in stormwater or
waterways from urban areas (e.g., Morgan Hill and Gilroy).
Photo 6. Light - colored food ware litter along creek.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jos6 33 July 2013
This rural litter, therefore, is anticipated to reflect the make -up of trash and litter found along
roadways and in the nearby urban areas.
From a regulatory standpoint, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board has
required all Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permittees (cities, counties and agencies) to reduce litter entering waterways through the
municipal separate storm sewer system. Some permit requirements relate to visual assessment of
waterways and attainment of no visible impact due to trash.
It is difficult to document and categorize litter because it is the result of human behavior (frequently
impulsive behavior) and the littered material is operated on by various environmental factors, such as
wind, sunlight, and rain. It is also difficult to compare study results because there is no one
standardized methodology that is appropriate for studies in all environments (e.g., streets, highways,
parks, waterways, and shorelines). Comparisons are further complicated by different systems or
categories used to identify the materials that are littered. For example, EPS foam food ware is a type
of plastic and may not be counted separately from other plastics or miscellaneous categories.
Littering Behavior and Local Characteristics of Litter
Litter is often discarded at transition points where pedestrians consuming a food (or tobacco
products) discard the product before entering." Litter also moves within the environment. In
addition to being found along roadways and around buildings and bus stops, litter also collects in
storm drains, loading docks, recreation areas, near construction sites and in retail districts.
Lightweight litter such as EPS foam is easily caught in light winds and may accumulate in sheltered
areas. Likewise, in urban waterways, floating litter is carried with runoff and may travel for miles or
become entangled in streamside vegetation or urban infrastructure (e.g., stormwater inlets, bridges).
The City of San Josd has conducted a number of trash characterization studies at locations throughout
the City that look at the volume and/or counts of litter found in the environment. The amount of EPS
varied, with differences observed in studies of street litter (on land) versus litter in the storm drain
system associated with aquatic environments. These studies appear to be applicable to urban areas in
adjacent jurisdictions and include:
• SAIC. The City of San Jose Streets Litter 2008. September 30, 2008. Prepared for City of
San Jose Department of Environmental Services.
• City of San Jose. Targeted Litter Assessment. 2009.
• City of San Jose. Litter Assessment Data. 2012. Spreadsheet.
The 2008 street litter survey counted items of litter found at 125 randomly selected sites. Litter was
categorized by size and material type. EPS foam cups were found to make up 0.65 percent of the
"large litter" counted. EPS foam plates and clamshells made up 0.1 and 0.05 percent respectively.
This study provides a snapshot of the composition of litter on a citywide basis.
21 Keep California Beautiful. Litter Facts. April 18, 2010. Accessed April 12, 2013. Available at:
<http: / /www.keepcabeauti ful. ore/facts/litter- facts.html >.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jose 34 July 2013
Given that littering behavior results in an uneven distribution of litter in urban, suburban, and rural
environments, subsequent studies in San Jose have focused on locations with relatively high
concentrations of litter, also referred to as litter "hot spots ". A 2009 street litter assessment which
targeted hot spots included litter counts at 48 sites in the City of San Jos6. A total of 7,917 pieces of
litter were counted from the 48 sites for an average of 165.5 items per site. Overall, about 12.4
percent of the items were classified as fast food items and 9.5 percent were cups. The assessment
also included sub - categories for several polystyrene food ware products. At the targeted sites, the
percent of total "large litter" included:
• 1.6 percent polystyrene foam cups
• 0.4 percent polystyrene foam food plates
• 0.2 percent polystyrene clamshells.
Polystyrene trays made up about 0.2 percent of the total large litter.
In 2012, litter was counted at 31 targeted sites in the City of San Jos6. Polystyrene food ware
products made up about 3.5 percent of the total litter counts. The breakdown by polystyrene food
ware type was:
• 2.2 percent polystyrene foam cups
• 0.8 percent polystyrene foam food plates (rounded)
• 0.1 percent polystyrene clamshells (rounded).
Polystyrene foam trays were approximately 0.5 percent of the 2012 total litter count in San Jos6.
As a part of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) issued by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board, litter audits have been completed for a regional study to
assess the types and amounts of trash transported via urban runoff over a larger area of Santa Clara
County. The trash characterization and loading in these waterways assessments, undertaken starting
in 2009, cover the portion of the project area that drains to San Francisco Bay (i.e., the jurisdictions
and area of the County roughly north of Morgan Hill). Approximately 3,900 cubic yards of trash that
could reach creeks in the San Francisco Bay Basin is estimated to be generated annually.
Approximately eight percent of this trash by volume, or 311 cubic yards, is EPS foam food ware.
As described in Appendix B, based upon litter studies undertaken in the City of San Jos6 and within
the area of the County that drains to San Francisco Bay, EPS foam food ware appearing as street
litter in Santa Clara County makes up about 0.8 -3.6 percent by count of large litter (four square
inches in area or more) on streets (on -land environment) and about eight (8) percent by volume
(uncompacted) in the storm sewer system (water environment).
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jos6 35 July 2013
4.1.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
2. Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ ❑ ❑
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
3. Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ® ❑
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
4. Create a new source of substantial light or ❑ ❑ ❑
glare which will adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
4.1.2.1 Aesthetic Impacts
Checklist
scurce(s)
Implementation of an ordinance banning use and/or sale of EPS foam food service containers would
not involve construction or modification of the physical environment that would affect a scenic vista,
scenic resource or create a new source of light or glare.
Effects on the Visual Character of Litter
Within the Project Area
The proposed ordinance would cause a reduction in EPS foam food ware use and is anticipated to
result in an increase in the use of plastic and fiber -based substitute materials. The ordinance is not
expected to cause a decline in overall consumption of disposable food service ware and consumers
are not expected to litter substitute containers at a higher rate than EPS foam. The project would
result in the cessation in use of a food ware material that can be highly visible, in buoyant in water,
and easily becomes airborne and/or breaks into pieces which are hard to collect.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a change in the composition of litter. The
City of San Jos& expects that about 85 percent of substitute products will be plastic and about 15
percent will be fiber - based.
Effects of Substitute Products on Litter Movement
As- described in Section -4.0 and Appendix C, substitute products for EPS foam food ware include
several types of plastics and fiber -based containers. Although lighter than similar fiber or paper
products, substitute plastic products, such as crystalline PS and PLA, are not as likely as EPS foam to
be transported by wind off haul truck loads and along streets if deposited as litter. Because the
substitute products do not crumble as readily as EPS foam and are not as likely to become airborne,
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jose 36 July 2013
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
significant
With
Significant No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
❑
❑
® ❑
vista?
2. Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ ❑ ❑
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
3. Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ® ❑
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
4. Create a new source of substantial light or ❑ ❑ ❑
glare which will adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
4.1.2.1 Aesthetic Impacts
Checklist
scurce(s)
Implementation of an ordinance banning use and/or sale of EPS foam food service containers would
not involve construction or modification of the physical environment that would affect a scenic vista,
scenic resource or create a new source of light or glare.
Effects on the Visual Character of Litter
Within the Project Area
The proposed ordinance would cause a reduction in EPS foam food ware use and is anticipated to
result in an increase in the use of plastic and fiber -based substitute materials. The ordinance is not
expected to cause a decline in overall consumption of disposable food service ware and consumers
are not expected to litter substitute containers at a higher rate than EPS foam. The project would
result in the cessation in use of a food ware material that can be highly visible, in buoyant in water,
and easily becomes airborne and/or breaks into pieces which are hard to collect.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a change in the composition of litter. The
City of San Jos& expects that about 85 percent of substitute products will be plastic and about 15
percent will be fiber - based.
Effects of Substitute Products on Litter Movement
As- described in Section -4.0 and Appendix C, substitute products for EPS foam food ware include
several types of plastics and fiber -based containers. Although lighter than similar fiber or paper
products, substitute plastic products, such as crystalline PS and PLA, are not as likely as EPS foam to
be transported by wind off haul truck loads and along streets if deposited as litter. Because the
substitute products do not crumble as readily as EPS foam and are not as likely to become airborne,
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jose 36 July 2013
they may be more easily removed by street sweeping or maintenance activities. They also are not as
buoyant in water as EPS foam. The substitute products, therefore, are not likely to be more visible
than EPS foam along roadways, in retail areas, or along creeks.
Fate of Substitute Products in Waterways
Fiber -based replacement products that reach waterways would decompose in water over a period of
weeks or months and would not tend to accumulate over time (also refer to Section 4.4.1.2 Plastic
Debris in the Environment). " Some plastic coatings in fiber cups and containers could take longer
to breakdown than the fiber material. These clear coatings would not be highly visible, however. To
the extent fiber or paper substitute products replace EPS foam food ware, the amount of plastic
materials reaching San Francisco Bay, Monterey Bay and the Pacific Ocean, would decrease.
Overall, fiber -based replacement products would not be as persistent in the environment as EPS foam
food ware.
The breakdown of plastic substitutes in water over time (due to physical action and/or sunlight)
would be similar to that of EPS foam, although EPS foam may break into pieces sooner than other
hard, non -foam plastic resin products. Overall, plastic substitutes would persist as visible litter for a
similar period, although initially the size of the pieces could remain larger. This could facilitate their
clean up, but they could be more apparent as litter.
Exnected Changes in the Visibility of Litter
As discussed in Section 4.9.1 Hydrology and Water Quality, by count and/or volume, EPS foam food
ware in the project area makes up about eight percent of litter by volume in stormwater systems, and
by count often less than two to three percent of street litter (on land). Wbile paper cups are usually
several times the weight of EPS foam cups, given the estimated percentage of EPS foam food ware in
litter, there would not be a substantial change in the count, volume or mass of litter in the
environment. Replacing EPS foam materials with substitute products (that are currently also found
in litter) would reduce the amount of EPS foam in litter; however implementation of a model
ordinance would not result in a substantial change in the number or volume of litter items or trash in
urban, suburban or rural areas or along waterways. To the extent substitute fiber -based products
would breakdown a period of months in water, visible litter in waterways could be reduced. As the
amount of visible litter is not anticipated to increase, the effect of the project would be less than
significant. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.1.3 Conclusion
The proposed ordinance phasing out EPS foam food ware use would not result in substantial adverse
effects to a scenic vista or degrade the existing visual character or qualities of the jurisdictions
implementing the ordinance. (Less Than Significant Impact)
" California Ocean Science Trust. "Plastic Debris in the California Marine Ecosystem." September 2011. Pages
23 -24. Available at: <httt): / /calost.org[pdf/ science - initiatives/ marine %20debris /Plastic " /o2OReport 10- 4- 11.ndt>.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 37 July 2013
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
4.2.1 Setting
The project area includes both urban and rural land uses, with most farmland located in central and
south Santa Clara County. The majority of the land in the incorporated limits of the participating
jurisdictions in Santa Clara County is designated Urban and Built -Up Land .23
As defined in Public Resources Code 12220, "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.
4.2.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
1. 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?
2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
3. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
4. Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non - forest use?
5. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non - agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than C7tecklis[
Significant with Significant No Impact Sources)
hnpact Mitigation Impact
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
� 11
El Z
El Z
El Z
El 0
" California Department of Conservation. "Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010." June, 2011.
1,4
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 38 July 2013
4.2.2.1 Impacts to Agricultural Resources
Litter is a contaminant that is found on agricultural land as well as in urban areas. Littered polystrene
foam (PS foam) can break into pieces and disperse in the environment by wind and by water. The
substitutes to EPS foam products do not break apart as readily and in the case of fiber -based
products, they decompose over time in organic environments.
The proposed ordinance would not affect any designated, planned, or important farmland. Since
there would be no land use development associated with the project, the project would not conflict
with a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project would reduce the prevalence of EPS foam in
the environment and would not adversely impact agricultural resources.
4.2.2.2 Impacts to Forest Resources
The use of paper fiber products is expected to increase as a result of the proposed project. The pulp
used to produce paper products in the United States typically comes from recycled paper and from
wood grown in managed forests for the purpose of paper product manufacturing. When trees are
removed from such land, the intended purpose of which is wood production, they are replanted.
Those lands are not converted to a "non- forest use," therefore the proposed project would not result
in any significant impacts to forest resources.
4.2.3 Conclusion
The proposed ordinance would reduce the amount of EPS foam in the environment, which would not
impact farmland of any type or conflict with Williamson Act contracts. The increased use of paper
products would not contribute to the conversion of forest land to non - forest uses. (No Impact)
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial I
City of San Jos€ 39 July
4.3 AIR QUALITY
4.3.1 Setting
4.3.1.1 Background
Air quality and the concentration of a given pollutant in the atmosphere are determined by the
amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The
major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and for
photochemical pollutants, sunshine. The project area (i.e. Santa Clara County) is within the southern
portion of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) is the regional government agency that monitors and regulates air pollution within the
air basin.
4.3.1.2 Topography and Climate
The South Bay has significant terrain features that affect air quality. The Santa Cruz Mountains and
Diablo Range on either side of the South Bay restrict horizontal dilution, and this alignment of the
terrain also channels winds from the north to south, carrying pollution from the northern San
Francisco Bay Peninsula toward San Jose and the rest of Santa Clara County.
The proximity of Santa Clara County to both the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay has a
moderating influence on the climate. Meteorological factors make air pollution potential in the Santa
Clara Valley quite high. Northwest winds and northerly winds are most common in the project area,
reflecting the orientation of the Bay and the San Francisco Peninsula.
4.3.1.3 Regional and Local Criteria Pollutants
Major criteria pollutants, listed in "criteria" documents by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARS) include ozone, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and suspended particulate matter (PM). These pollutants can have
health effects such as respiratory impairment and heart/lung disease symptoms.
Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are judged
for each air pollutant. The Bay Area as a whole does not meet State or Federal ambient air quality
standards for ground level ozone or State standards for PMto and PM2.5. The area is considered
attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants.
4.3.1.4 Local Community Risks/Toxic Air Contaminants and Fine Particulate Matter
Besides criteria air pollutants, there is another group of substances found in ambient air referred to as
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs),_ These contaminants tend to be localized and are found in relatively
low concentrations in ambient air, however, they can result in adverse chronic health effects if
exposure to low concentrations occurs for long periods.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jose 40 July 2013
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) is a complex mixture of substances that includes elements such as
carbon and metals; compounds such as nitrates, organics, and sulfates; and complex mixtures such as
diesel exhaust and wood smoke. Long -term and short-term exposure to PM2.5 can cause a wide range
of health effects.
Common stationary source types of TACs and PM2.5 include gasoline stations, dry cleaners, and
diesel backup generators which are subject to permit requirements. The other, often more significant,
common source is motor vehicles on freeways and roads.
4.3.1.5 Sensitive Receptors
BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups
(children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses
include residences, schools, playgrounds, child -care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes,
hospitals and medicinal clinics.
4.3.1.6 Regulatory Setting
Federal, state, and regional agencies regulate air quality in the Bay Area Air Basin. At the federal
level, the USEPA is responsible for overseeing implementation of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA).
The CARB is the state agency that regulates mobile sources throughout the state and oversees
implementation of the state air quality laws and regulations, including the California Clean Air Act.
The primary agency that regulates air quality in the project area is the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD
has permit authority over stationary sources, acts as the primary reviewing agency for environmental
documents, and develops regulations that must be consistent with or more stringent than, federal and
state air quality laws and regulations.
The BAAQMD prepared and adopted the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP). This CAP updates
the most recent ozone plan, the 2005 Ozone Strategy. Unlike previous Bay Area CAPS, the 2010
CAP is a multi - pollutant air quality plan addressing four categories of air pollutants:
• Ground -level ozone and the key ozone precursor pollutants (reactive organic gases and
nitrogen oxide), as required by State law;
• Particulate matter, primarily PM2.5, as well as the precursors to secondary PM2.5;
• Toxic air contaminants (TAC); and
• Greenhouse gases.
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are intended to serve as a guide for those who prepare
or evaluate air quality impact analyses for projects and plans in the San Francisco Bay Area. In June
2010, the Air District's Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of significance and an update
of their CEQA Guidelines. The updated CEQA Guidelines review and describe assessment
methodologies, and mitigation strategies for criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, odors, and
greenhouse gas emissions. The prior version of the guidelines was dated 1999 and the most recent
amendment to the updated guidelines was in May 2011 and May 2012.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 41 July 2013
In December 2010, the California Building Industry Association (BIA) filed a lawsuit in Alameda
County Superior Court challenging toxic air contaminants and PM2.5 thresholds developed by
BAAQMD for the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (California Building Industry Association v. Bay
Area Air Quality Management District, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG10548693).
One of the identified concerns is that the widespread use of the thresholds would inhibit infill and
smart growth in the urbanized Bay Area. On March 5, 2012, the Superior Court found that adoption
of thresholds by the BAAQMD in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines is a CEQA project and
BAAQMD is not to disseminate officially sanctioned air quality thresholds of significance until
BAAQMD fully complies with CEQA. No further findings or rulings were made on the thresholds
of the updated BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines, although BAAQMD has appealed the ruling. The
City understands the effect of the lawsuit to be that BAAQMD has to prepare an environmental
review document before adopting the same or revised thresholds. Given that the 2010 Guidelines are
based on best available information, but are not formally in effect, both the 1999 and 2010 sets of
thresholds are used in this analysis.
As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate
matter, BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for PM2.5, PMio, and ozone precursors
(ROG and NOx). The thresholds of significance are intended to accommodate a level of growth
within the air basin that would still allow the region to attain air quality standards.
4.3.1.7 Existing Patterns of EPSfoam Food Ware Use
As discussed elsewhere in this Initial Study, the analysis is based on the assumption that with a ban
in place in a given jurisdiction, there will be a shift away from EPS foam food ware to substitute
containers made of fiber /paperboard, bioplastics, and recyclable plastics. Current estimates are that
there are about four (4) pounds of EPS foam food containers used annually in the project area, per
service population (residents +jobs) or about six (6) pounds per capita, in the incorporated
jurisdictions in Santa Clara County that don't currently have a ban in place. This scenario constituteE
the environmental baseline against which physical changes caused by the project are to be measured
to identify project impacts.
4.3.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
hnpact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorpomted
Less Than
Significant
hnpact
No hnpact
���
source(s)
Would the project:
1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
❑
❑
®
❑ 1,5
the applicable air quality plan?
2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
❑
❑
®
❑ 1,5,6
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance
Initial Study
City of San JOSE
42
July 2013
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist
Significant with Significant No Impact Smurce(s)
Impact Mitigation impact
Would the project:
3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ ® ❑
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is classified as 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 ❑ ❑ Z ❑
pollutant concentrations?
5. Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑
substantial number of people?
1,5,6
Air quality impacts related to food ware (foam EPS and substitutes) include the release of emissions
during the extraction of virgin resources, materials processing and product manufacturing, transport,
and disposal.
4.3.2.1 Pollutant Emissions From Production
Emissions from resource extraction, materials processing, and manufacturing are released where
those activities are currently taking place, at locations outside the project area and the Bay Area air
basin. The ordinance would lead to an increase in the manufacture of substitute food ware containers
from allowed materials. The facilities in the U.S manufacturing these substitute containers are subject
to federal Clean Air Act regulations, as well as any applicable clean air regulations for that particular
state, and so any related increase in emissions from the substitute products manufactured in the U.S.
would be emissions that have been permitted in compliance with federal and any state regulations. At
those facility locations where EPS foam food ware is now produced, there would be a related
decrease in the emissions associated with production of foam EPS food ware containers.
A 2009 study completed by Franklin Associates on behalf of Los Angeles County found that the
large majority of energy used in the manufacturing process for food ware (both foam PS and
substitutes) is for electricity, and fuel for transportation is a minor source.24 According to the
Franklin Associates study, fiber /paperboard food ware requires slightly more energy than comparable
containers made from foam PS or rigid plastics, yet electricity generation emits (relatively) small
amounts of criteria pollutants, and so Franklin Associates concluded that a shift to food ware made
from fiber /paperboard would not result in a substantial increase in criteria pollutant emissions. To the
extent the ordinance results in increased use of food ware made from materials capable of being
recycled, there will be reduced air pollutants associated with resource extraction of virgin materials.
For these several reasons, the proposed foam EPS food ware ordinance would not be in conflict with
the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan and would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to any
air quality violation.
24 Franklin Associates, Ltd. "Life Cycle Inventory of 16 -Ounce Disposable Hot Cups." February 19, 2009.
Prepared for N icroGREEN Polymers. Pages 2 -7 to 2 -11.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San JosB 43 July 2013
4.3.2.2 Pollutant Emissions From Transport
There is a quantity of emissions generated from the delivery of all types of food ware containers to
restaurants, stores, and vendors, and further emissions associated with removing those that are
discarded as solid waste and with picking up those that end up as litter. Since the preparers of this
Initial Study were unable to identify any delivery system dedicated only to distribution to users of
food ware containers, the exact increment of energy use or pollution associated with their delivery to
the location where they are given away or sold to the public is unknown.
With a ban on foam EPS food ware in place, criteria pollutants will be emitted from the transport (in
the project area in Santa Clara County and elsewhere) of substitute containers made of allowed
materials. However, pollutants are not expected to significantly increase compared to current
emissions from the transport of EPS food ware containers, given no increase is foreseen in the overall
amount of food ware containers, rather there should be a shift to non -PS containers. Some of the
substitutes take up slightly less space than a comparable foamed EPS container (e.g. paper cups vs.
foam EPS cups) and can be transported in a more dense arrangement allowing more cups in a given
load. However, since the containers are likely to be transported to users in mixed loads with other
products, there may be no reduction in trips.
Increased use and disposal of the substitute containers would not affect the number of vehicles
associated with curb -side refuse pick -up in that the overall amount of food ware containers used in
the project area is not expected to change, rather there will be a shift to more containers made of
recyclable or compostable materials. Given there won't be a substantial change in the amount of
delivery or disposal traffic, there would not be substantial changes in localized ozone concentrations
nor emissions of vehicular TACs resulting from a EPS foam food ware ban.
The retail sales ban on foam EPS food ware and ice chests would have no impact on retail customer
travel patterns (and related vehicular emissions) in that the retail establishments that currently offer
foam EPS food ware and ice chests also now offer and are expected to continue to offer the various
substitutes once the ban is in place in a given jurisdiction. There is no reason to expect substantial
numbers of retail customers will regularly seek out foam EPS food ware and ice chests (rather than
switch to an available substitute container material) available for sale in non - participating
jurisdictions that may continue to allow their sale.
43.2.3 Odors
Foam EPS food ware does not degrade in landfills and without the presence of putresible waste in the
containers (such as food items), it does not generate odors. The substitute materials, if not recycled,
would either be composted or landfilled. Among the anticipated substitute materials, fiber
(paperboard/molded pulp), biodegradable plant -based materials (e.g. bagasse, bulrushes, and wheat),
and bioplastics (e.g. PLA) can be composted, and composting facilities can-be an odor source.
However, the anticipated increase in composting of substitute food ware would not require expansion
of an existing or construction of a new compost facility, as discussed in Section 4.17 Utilities and
Service Systems, therefore there would not be an increase in the exposure of sensitive receptors to
odors from (existing) compost facilities.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 44 July 2013
4.3.2.4 Construction Impacts
The project does not involve any construction, so there would be no reasonably foreseeable air
quality impacts associated with construction (e.g., dust, construction equipment engine exhaust
containing criteria pollutants or TACs, etc.), in San Josh, or elsewhere in participating jurisdictions in
Santa Clara County.
4.3.3 Conclusion
The proposed ordinance phasing out EPS foam food ware will have less than significant air quality
impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact)
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josh 45 July 2013
4.4 BIOLOGICAL
4.4.1 Settin¢
4.4.1.1 Biological Setting of Santa Clara County
The project area includes a wide variety of habitat and land cover types including but not limited to
grassland, serpentine, chaparral, scrub, woodland, forests, wetlands, and freshwater marshes.
Agricultural areas consist of orchards, vineyards, pastures, and row crops. Development ranges from
dense urban centers to suburban and rural residential areas.
The principal watersheds that drain to San Francisco Bay in Santa Clara County include the Lower
Peninsula Watershed, the West Valley Watershed, the Guadalupe Watershed and the Coyote
Watershed. In the southern Santa Clara Valley just northeast of Morgan Hill, the land tips and drains
south via Llagas Creek and Uvas- Camadero Creek (Uvas/Llagas Watershed) to the Pajaro River and
Monterey Bay.25 Major water bodies in the project area include Coyote, Pacheco, and Anderson
Lakes, Uvas, Almaden, Lexington, and Calero Reservoirs, and the southern end of the San Francisco
Bay estuary. See Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality for a full list of waterways and water
bodies in the project area.
These fresh and brackish water areas support ecologically valuable riparian vegetation that provides
food, cover, and nesting sites for birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals. They also serve as
migration corridors for wildlife. Marshes and wetlands located in the northern County, where
freshwater draining from the valley enters the San Francisco Bay estuary, provide high value biotic
resources to the region. The salt marshes, sloughs, and creeks near the Bay provide food and shelter
for fish and wildlife, improve water quality, and reduce flooding at times of high weather events.
Special- status species are supported by these wetlands as well as by many of the other habitat types
present in Santa Clara County. State and federally listed species including the California tiger
salamander, California clapper rail, California Coast steelhead, California red - legged frog, salt -marsb
harvest mouse, California least tern, and the salt -marsh wandering shrew are known to occur in or
near the waters of the Santa Clara Valley as well as the San Francisco Bay. Litter in these waterways
has the potential to negatively impact these special - status species.
4.4.1.2 Polystyrene Foam in the Environment
If disposed of properly, polystyrene foam (PS foam) ends in landfills where it remains inert. There
are no identifiable direct post - consumer environmental impacts of EPS foam food ware if properly
landfilled. There are air quality and noise impacts associated with the collection and transportation
of EPS foam to the landfill, but those impacts occur as part of broader waste collection services.
The bulk of the post- consumer environmental impacts of EPS foam occur when it ends up as litter
and makes its way into the marine environment. The prevalence of plastic debris in marine
environments around the world is well- documented. Generally speaking, marine debris is found
floating on the water surface, in the water column, on the sea floor, or washed up on beaches and
15 Sowers, Janet M. et al. "Creek and Watershed Map of Morgan Hill & Gilroy." 2009.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josh 46 July 2013
coasts. Proportionally, plastic (which includes EPS foam food service ware) makes up between 60
and 80 percent of total marine debris.26 There is not enough information available to say what
proportion of oceanic plastics are EPS foam, but due to its low density, it is reasonable to expect that
EPS foam that has not yet broken down in the marine environment is found on the surface or along
beaches.
PS foam enters the marine environment as terrestrial litter that runs off into creeks, streams, and
rivers. 2' A trash assessment compiled by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention
Program (SCVURPPP) found that of the approximately 677,500 gallons of trash enter Santa Clara
Valley creeks and shorelines each year from urban runoff. Based on data collected for this 2013
trash assessment, approximately eight percent of litter by volume is EPS foam food ware within the
SV VURPPP area (see Section 4.0 — Baseline Estimates Based on Litter Studies).
Plastics including EPS foam do not biodegrade in the same way that organic materials such as plants
and organisms do. Solar radiation and thermal oxidation causes plastic to break into smaller pieces
until it is microscopic and invisible to the human eye.28 The rate of this process depends on factors
such as the composition of the product and the surface temperature. As a point of reference, EPS
foam cups are estimated to take 50 years to degrade.29
4.4.1.3 Biological Impacts of Polystyrene Foam
Polystyrene foam is made by adding a blowing agent to polystyrene pellets and subjecting it to high
temperatures until the blowing agent expands and becomes the foamed product. When it degrades,
EPS foam degrades in ways similar to any other petroleum -based polymer such as unfoamed
polystyrene, polypropylene, and PET. In this way, studies that examine the biological effects of
plastics and degraded plastics reveal much about the impacts of polystyrene foam in the environment.
Plastic particles in the environment can impact organisms through mechanical interference or by
causing biological and chemical effects. According to a United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) 2011 report:
Physical habitat alteration is caused by the accumulation of debris in oceanic convergence
zones, on beaches, and submerged benthic habitats. As debris accumulates, habitat structure
may be modified, light levels may be reduced in underlying waters, and oxygen levels may
21 Derraik, J.G.B. "The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review." 2002. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 44 (2002) 842 -852. See Table 1.
41 SCVURPPP. "Urban Runoff Trash Management: Reducing Impacts in Santa Clara Valley Creeks and San
Francisco Bay." February 2013. Available at: <htti)://www.scvuipi)v-w2k.com/pdfs/1213/Trash Factsheet 2012 -
Final Feb.odf>.
21 California Ocean Science Trust. "Plastic Debris in the California Marine Ecosystem." September 2011. Page 3.
Available at: <htip• / /calost ore /ndf/ science - initiatives/ marine %20debris /Plastic %20Renort 10-4- 11.ndfl.
29 Ocean Conservancy. "Trash Travels." 2010. Page 23. Available at:
<httl):Hact oceanconservancv org/imagesi2010ICCReportRelease pressPhotos /2010 ICC Renort pdf>.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 47 July 2013
be depleted. These changes can undermine the ability of open water and benthic habitats to
support marine life.3o.31
Studies have also shown that organisms including birds, turtles, mammals, and fish ingest plastics. 32
Once ingested, plastic particles reduce food consumption and can block an organism's intestinal
tract, causing internal injury and possibly death. Entanglement is another mechanical interference
from plastics, though studies about entanglement tend to analyze products such as soda can rings,
fishing line, and plastic bags. EPS foam food service ware may not cause entanglement problems
since the products are light and break apart easily.
Plastics in the ocean can also expose organisms to persistent organic pollutants (POPS) that have
adsorbed to the surface of a plastic particle.33 Multiple studies have found that plastic fragments in
the ocean contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides such as DDT, and
poly - aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).34 The plastic particles did not necessarily contain these
pollutants when they entered the environment, but they provided a surface on which the POPS could
adsorb and transport in the marine environment. Other studies show that PCBs enter the food chain
this way.35 These contaminants, which can be released from plastics by breakdown of the plastic via
ultraviolet radiation, weathering, and ingestion, have negative effects on birds and marine wildlife
because they can cause reproductive failure, disease, and death .36
Plastic marine debris can lead to ecosystem impacts as well as impacts to individual organisms.
Bacteria and algae can be transported on plastics as ocean currents carry them to new locations. 37 At
any point these organisms can become detached from the plastic and if they do so in an area in which
the species does not already occur, there is potential for them to reproduce and become an invasive
species. This increases the risk to native species by creating new competition for habitat and
resources.
4.4.1.4 Pre - consumption Biological Effects (PS Foam Production)
So far the discussion of plastic and its presence in the environment has focused on litter and marine
pollution, both of which occur post - consumption. Pre- consumption processes associated with EPS
foam food service ware also have environmental impacts. Polystyrene is made from petroleum
products which require extraction, refining, and transportation. Each step of the production process
30 USEPA. "Marine Debris in the North Pacific." November, 2011. Page 9. Available at:
<http: / /www.gpa. gov /regi on9/ marine - debris/n df /MaiineDebris- NPacFina]Aprvd.pdfl.
" Bentbic habitats are found at the bottom of a body of water, such as the sand and sediment at the bottom of the
ocean.
31 See Derraik. "The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review." 2002. And: NOAA.
"Plastic Marine Debris." 2011. And: AMRF. "Pelagic Plastic." 2007.
33 Adsorption is the adhesion of molecules of gas, liquid, or dissolved solids to a surface. BTSC. "Glossary."
Accessed May 1, 2013. Available at: <hgp: / /www. brownfieldstsc .org //glossary.cfm ?Q =1 >.
;4 California Ocean Science Trust. "Plastic Debris in the California Marine Ecosystem." September 2011. Pages
23 -24. Available at: <htt�: / /calost.orglpdf/science- initiatives/ marine %20debris /Plastic %20Report YO-4 -1 1.1)
35 USEPA. "Marine Debris in the North Pacific." November, 2011. Page 8. Available at:
<http: / /www.ei)a.gov /reizion9 /marine- debris/ ndf /MarineDebris- NPacFinalAprvd.pdfl. And: Derraik. "The pollution
of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review." 2002.
36 Ibid, 2011.
37 Derraik, J.G.B. "The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review." 2002. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 44 (2002) 842 -852.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San JOSE 48 July 2013
uses energy and resources, which emits pollutants into the atmosphere and into the local
environment.
The European production process for polystyrene pellets, the precursors for EPS foam products,
emits carbon dioxide, CFCs, sulfur dioxide, phosphate, and particulate matter .38 Such emissions
contribute to global warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication, and human
respiratory illness, respectively. These environmental impacts would be similar to those caused by
production emissions in the United States because they are generally caused by combusting fossil
fuels for energy. Appendix C of this report contains more information about the pre - consumer
impacts as well as the full life cycle environmental impacts of both EPS foam products and their
substitutes.
Regardless of location, facilities emitting sulfur dioxide into the air or discharging phosphate into the
water are subject to federal regulations under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, respectively.
The use of hazardous materials in production of EPS foam products are also subject to federal and
state regulations (see Section 4.8.1.1 (Hazardous Materials) Regulatory Setting). The Environmental
Protection Agency permits a certain amount of pollution based on the size of the facility and the
environment in which it exists. It requires pollution control technologies and best practices, which
serve to reduce the emissions associated with the manufacturing activities.
4.4.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Would the project:
1. 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
Wildlife or US 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, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No Impact Checklist
Impact Mitigation hnpact Source(s)
U
FIN
J
X
a
//
El
1,2,7
1,2,7
3e PlasticsEurope. "Environmental Product Declarations of the European Plastics Manufacturers: General - Purpose
Polystyrene (GPPS) and High - Impact Polystrene (HIPS)." November 2012.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jost' 49 July 2013
Le Than i
Potentially Significant Less 7ban
Significant With Significant No Impact Checklist
hnpaa Mitigation Impact source(s)
W owu me prq)cct:
3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
❑
❑
®
❑
1,2,7
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?
4. Interfere substantially with the movement of
❑
❑
®
❑
1
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
❑
❑
❑
®
1,2,3
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
❑
❑
❑
®
1,7
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
The proposed ordinance would cause a reduction in EPS foam food service ware use and an increase
in the use of plastic and fiber -based substitute materials. The ordinance is not expected to cause a
decline in overall consumption of disposable foodservice ware or littering behavior.
As EPS foam products are replaced, an effect of the proposed project would be a change in the
composition of litter and of the waste and recycling streams. There is little to no available data about
how consumption has changed in other jurisdictions where EPS foam food service ware bans were
passed (e.g. San Francisco, Seattle, etc.), but the City of San Jose expects that the majority of
substitute products used will be plastic (about 85 percent), while about 15 percent will be fiber- based.
(See Post -ban Usage Estimates of Food Ware Substitutes in the introduction to Section 4.0 - Setting,
Environmental Checklist and Impacts)
4.4.2.1 Fate of Substitute Materials in the Environment
The lifetime of a substitute product in the environment depends on the product's material
composition, weight, and volume. Data from the Ocean Conservancy shows that newspapers
decompose in the ocean within six weeks, while cardboard boxes decompose within two months.39
Paper food service ware products are not thicker than cardboard, so it is reasonable to expect its
marine decomposition time to be approximately two months. On the other hand, paperboard
39 Ocean Conservancy. "Trash Travels." 2010. Page 23. Available at:
<http: / /act.oceanconservancy.or images /2010ICCRel)ortReleaseRressPhotos /2010 ICC Reoort.ndt>.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josh 50 July 2013
products are frequently lined with a plastic coating, which breaks down more slowly in the
environment, as described above.
The main difference between paper and plastic materials in the environment is that paper materials
are biodegradable. An object is biodegradable if it can be broken down by microorganisms,
especially bacteria, into natural components such as water, carbon dioxide, methane, and non -toxic
residues .4' Plastic does not biodegrade, it breaks into tiny pieces over time in the environment and
can be ingested by wildlife and cause impacts similar to those described in Section 4.4.1.3, above.
Since plastics can contain pollutants and also cause mechanical interference with wildlife, they stand
to cause negative indirect effects to fish and wildlife in ways that paper products do not.
A study funded by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
showed that certain PHA41 bioplastics meet the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)
biodegradation standard, which requires a material sample to convert more than 30 percent of the
carbon within it to carbon dioxide within six months .4' The polylactic acid (PLA) products tested for
the study did not meet the biodegradation requirements.
4.4.2.2 Impacts of Substitute Materials in the Environment
A much larger portion of the substitute products are expected to be plastic as opposed to fiber -based
and are likely to end up in landfills and waterways just as EPS foam products do. There is
insufficient information at this time to state conclusively that rigid plastics such as polypropylene,
polystyrene (unfoamed), or polyethylene terephthalate (PET) cause more or less harm in the
environment than EPS foam products. Ultimately, plastic products in waterways degrade into
microscopic plastic pieces that behave similarly to one another and cause biological impacts similar
to those described for EPS foam, above.
Some EPS foam products would be replaced with fiber -based or paper products. Since these
products do not cause the indirect biological effects that plastics ¢o (see 4.4.2.1, above), their use in
place of EPS foam would avoid the impacts that EPS foam products have in aquatic environments.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
4.4.2.3 Habitat Conservation PlanlWatural Communities Conservation Plan
Six agencies in Santa Clara County are partnering to implement the Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (HCP). These agencies include the
County of Santa Clara, the Cities of San Josh, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy, the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. On Friday, April 200, the Santa
Clara Valley Habitat Agency (SCVHA) was formed as the implementing agency for the plan.
"Merriam- Webster. `Biodegradable." 2013. Available at: <htti)://www.merriam-
webster .com/dictionary /biodeeradable>. And: European Commission. "Green Paper: On a European Strategy on
Plastic Waste in the Environment" March 7, 2013. Available at:
<http: / /ec.europa.eu/ environment / waste /pdf/ rg een Raper /greenRauer en.udfl.
41 PHA = polyhydroxyalkanoate
42 Greene, J. Report Topic: PLA and PHA Biodegradation in the Marine Environment. March 5, 2012. Prepared
for CalRecycle. Available at: <htti): / /www.calrecycle.ca.goy /publications/ Documents /1435/2012/20121435.pdfl.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance r Initial Study
City of San Jos€ 51 July 2013
SCVHA is in the process of obtaining incidental take permits to provide coverage for future
development in the plan area. The HCP will be in effect once the permits are issued and the fee
schedule adopted. The wildlife species covered in the HCP are listed in Table 4.4 -1. Plants species
covered in the HCP are primarily or exclusively found in serpentine habitats and include Federally
endangered species such as Tiburon Indian paintbrush, Coyote ceanothus, Santa Clara Valley
dudleya, and Metcalf Canyon jewelflower.
Table 4.4 -1
Wildlife Species Covered in the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan
Species
Scientific Name
Status
State
Federal
Bay checkers of butterfly
Eu h dras editha ba ensis
-
FT
California tiger salamander
Amb stoma call orniense
ST
FT
California red-legged frog
Rana dra tonii
CSC
FT
Foothill yellow-legged frog
Rana bo lii
CSC
Western pond turtle
Clemm s marmorata
CSC
Western burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia hypogea
CSC
MBTA
Least Bell's vireo
Vireo bellii usillus
SE
FE, MBTA
Tricolored blackbird
A elaius tricolor
CSC
MBTA
San Joaquin kit fox
Vul es macrotis mutica
ST
FE
Status:
FT Federal Threatened FE Federal Endangered MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
ST State Threatened SE State Endangered CSC California Special Concern
Species
Source: Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan. August 2012.
The substitution of plastic and paper -based products for EPS foam products would not have any
negative impacts on species covered by the HCP. Since plastics mimic the effects of EPS foam and
paper products biodegrade in the environment, the number of disposable food service items that are
plastic would decline and as a result, some of the impacts to species that might accidentally ingest or
otherwise be harmed by plastic products would be avoided. The ordinance, therefore, would not
conflict with the provisions of the adopted HCP. (No Impact)
4.4.2.4 Trees
For more information regarding the use of trees to produce paper products, see Section 4.2 —
Agricultural and Forest Resources. The exact effects of paper product manufacturing at unknown
locations cannot be quantified by the City of San Jose. The life cycle analyses summarized in
Appendix C show in some cases that paper products use more energy and result in higher greenhouse
gas emissions than EPS foam products do. None of the life cycle studies apply directly to the project
area, so making conclusions based on their results would be speculative.
Trees used to produce paper products are grown commercially in managed forests, where they are
systematically harvested and replanted. Local impacts of this process can include land erosion and
habitat loss, however due to the lack of biodiversity in managed forests, they are unlikely to provide
habitat for special - status or listed species.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josh 52 July 2013
Policies and ordinances related to tree preservation apply locally, in areas that do not have
commercially- managed forest resources. Local trees, which are not harvested for disposable food
ware products, would not be affected by an increase in paper product use. Therefore no local tree
preservation policies would be violated by the proposed project. (No Impact)
4.4.3 Conclusion
The proposed ordinance phasing out EPS foam food ware will have less than significant impacts to
sensitive natural communities and special status species. Unfoamed plastic and EPS foam products
have similar impacts and fates in the marine environment, so no new impacts are expected for those
products. The substitution of paper products for EPS foam products would avoid some of the
impacts to marine species currently caused by EPS foam products in the environment. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
The proposed ordinance would not conflict with an HCP/NCCP. Increasing the use of paper
products would have no effect on local trees or conflict with tree preservation policies. (No Impact)
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 53 July 2013
4.5 CULTURAL
4.5.1 Settine
Cultural resources are evidence of past human occupation and activity and include both historical and
archaeological resources. These resources may be located above ground, underground or underwater
and have significance in history, prehistory43, architecture or culture of the nation, State of California
or local or tribal communities. Cultural resources are found throughout the project area and are
generally identified in historic or cultural resources inventories maintained by the County of Santa
Clara and local cities and towns and on California Register of Historical Resources (California
Register) and the National Register of Historic Places (National Register).
Paleontological resources are fossils, the remains or traces of prehistoric life preserved in the
geological record. They range from the well know and well publicized fossils (such as mammoth
and dinosaur bones) to scientifically important fossils (such as paleobotanical remains, trace fossils,
and microfossils). Potentially sensitive areas with fossil bearing sediments near the ground surface in
the City of San Jose and surrounding areas of Santa Clara County are generally in or adjacent to
foothill areas rather than the younger Holocene age deposits on the valley floor .44
4.5.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Less Than
Potentially Significmt Less Thm Checklist
Significmt with Significmt No Impact some(s)
impact Mitigatim Impact
Would the project:
1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
❑
❑
❑
significance of an historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
❑
❑
❑
significance of an archaeological resource as
defined in § 15064.5?
3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
❑
❑
❑
paleontological resource or site, or unique
geologic feature?
4. Disturb any human remains, including those
❑
❑
❑
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The proposed project is adoption of a model ordinance that would regulate the use of single -use EPS
foam food ware within participating jurisdictions in Santa Clara County. The proposed ordinance
would cause a reduction in EPS foam food ware use and is anticipated to result in an increase in the
use of plastic and fiber -based substitute materials. The ordinance is not expected to cause a decline
43 Events of the past prior to written records are considered prehistory.
^' City of San Josd. "Final Program EIR for the Envision San Josh 2040 General Plan" 2011.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San JosE 54 July 2013
in overall consumption of disposable food service ware and consumers are not expected to litter
substitute containers at a higher rate than EPS foam.
Implementation of an ordinance phasing out use and/or sale of EPS foam food service containers
would not involve ground disturbance of native soils, building demolition, construction, or
modification of the physical environment that would affect existing historical resources,
archaeological resources, paleontological resources or other buried cultural resources, either directly
or indirectly. As a result the project would not result in impacts to cultural or paleontological
resources. (No Impact)
4.5.3 Conclusion
The proposed ordinance phasing out EPS foam food ware will have no impact on cultural resources.
(No Impact)
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 55 July 2013
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.6.1 Settin¢
4.6.1.1 Regional Geology
The Santa Clara Valley is located within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California; an
area characterized by northwest - trending ridges and valleys, underlain by strongly deformed
sedimentary and metamorphic rocks of the Franciscan Complex. Overlying these rocks are
sediments deposited during recent geologic times. The Santa Clara Valley consists of a large
structural basin containing alluvial deposits derived from the Diablo Range to the east and the Santa
Cruz Mountains to the west. Alluvial deposits are interbedded with bay and lacustrine (lake)
deposits in the north - central region. Valley sediments were deposited as a series of coalescing
alluvial fans by streams that drain the adjacent mountains. These alluvial sediments make up the
groundwater aquifers of the area. Soil types in the project area include clay in low -lying areas, loam
and gravelly loam in the upper portions of the valley, and eroded rocky clay loam in the foothills.
Landslides are geologic hazards in foothill areas and expansive with high shrink -swell behavior are
found on both the valley floor and in hillside areas. Weak soils, such as younger Bay Mud found in
the margins near San Francisco Bay, can compress under the weight of buildings and fill. Other
localized geologic hazards encountered within the project area include artificial fill that has not been
properly compacted and naturally- occurring asbestos in ultramafic rocks, such as serpentinite.
4.6.1.2 Regional Seismicity and Seismic Hazards
The San Francisco Bay Area is recognized by geologists and seismologists as one of the most
seismically- active regions in the United States. Significant earthquakes occurring in the Bay Area
are generally associated with crustal movement along well- defined active fault zones of the San
Andreas Fault system, which spans the Coast Ranges from the Pacific Ocean to the San Joaquin
Valley. Two other major active faults in the area the Hayward Fault and the Calaveras Fault, located
in the hills to the north and east of the Santa Clara Valley. Hazards associated with seismic activity
along regional and local faults include fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, differential seismic
settlement, and earthquake - induced landslides and waves in bodies of water.
4.6.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Tfian Checklist Significant With Significant No lanpact Checklist
hnpact Mitigation Impact
1. Expose people or structures to potential 1,2,8
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josh 56 July 2013
Would the project:
a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
described 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.)
b. Strong seismic ground shaking?
c. Seismic - related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
d. Landslides?
2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that will become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building
Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
No impact
0
El Z
El 0
■ -/1
El Z
Checklist
Sources)
1,2,9
1
1
1
The proposed project is adoption of a model ordinance that would regulate the use of single -use EPS
foam food ware within participating jurisdictions in Santa Clara County. The proposed ordinance
would cause a reduction in EPS foam food ware use and is anticipated to result in an increase in the
use of plastic and fiber -based substitute materials. The ordinance is not expected to cause a decline
in overall consumption of disposable food service ware or change littering behavior.
The ordinance does not propose or require construction of any kind and would not expose people or
structures to substantial adverse risk involving geologic hazards or conditions. For these reasons, the
project would not result in any geology and soils impacts. (No Impact)
4.6.3 Conclusion
The proposed ordinance phasing out EPS foam food ware will have no impact on the exposure of
people or structures to geologic, soils or seismic impacts. (No Impact)
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance - Initial Study
City of San Jost 57 July 2013
Lefts Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
impact
Incorporated
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
No impact
0
El Z
El 0
■ -/1
El Z
Checklist
Sources)
1,2,9
1
1
1
The proposed project is adoption of a model ordinance that would regulate the use of single -use EPS
foam food ware within participating jurisdictions in Santa Clara County. The proposed ordinance
would cause a reduction in EPS foam food ware use and is anticipated to result in an increase in the
use of plastic and fiber -based substitute materials. The ordinance is not expected to cause a decline
in overall consumption of disposable food service ware or change littering behavior.
The ordinance does not propose or require construction of any kind and would not expose people or
structures to substantial adverse risk involving geologic hazards or conditions. For these reasons, the
project would not result in any geology and soils impacts. (No Impact)
4.6.3 Conclusion
The proposed ordinance phasing out EPS foam food ware will have no impact on the exposure of
people or structures to geologic, soils or seismic impacts. (No Impact)
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance - Initial Study
City of San Jost 57 July 2013