Exhibit A of Attachment 1 - Part 34.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7.1 Setting
Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have local or regional impacts, emissions
of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have a broader, global impact. Global warming associated with the
"greenhouse effect" is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the atmosphere contribute to an
increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere. The principal GHGs contributing to global
warming and associated climate change are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N20), and fluorinated compounds. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are
attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial and
manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural sectors.
4.7.1.1 Regulatory Setting
Agencies at the international, national, state, and local levels are considering strategies to control
emissions of GHG that contribute to global warming. The following plans, polices, and regulations
apply to the project area.
California Assembly Bill 32
With the passage of AB 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006), the State of California made a
commitment to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, which represents a
30 percent decrease over "Business -as- Usual" conditions. CARB's Discrete Early Actions include
maximizing energy efficient building and appliance standards, pursuing additional efficiency efforts,
including new technologies and new policy and implementation mechanisms, and pursuing
comparable investment in energy efficiency by all retail providers of electricity in California
(including both investor -owned and publicly -owned utilities). In addition to AB 32, Executive Order
S -3 -05 established a reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
In December 2008, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved the Climate Change
Scoping Plan, which contains a comprehensive set of actions designed to diversify California's
energy sources, save energy, and enhance public health, among other goals. Per AB 32, the Scoping
Plan must be updated every five years to evaluate the AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on
track to achieve the 2020 GHG reduction goal. CARB expects to consider adoption of an updated
Scoping Plan document in November 2013.
California Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection
Act, was signed into law in September 2008. It builds on AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop
regional GHG reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020
and 2035 when compared to emissions in 2005. The per capita reduction targets for passenger
vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josh 58 July 2013
reduction by 2035.45 Consistent with the requirements of SB 375, the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission is partnering with the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission to prepare the
region's Sustainable Community Strategy, referred to as Plan Bay Area. A Draft Plan Bay Area was
released for public review in March 2013. The regional per capita reduction targets set by SB 375 do
not directly address emissions associated with the manufacture, transport, use, and disposal of
commonly used products such as disposable food ware.
2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan
The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) addresses air emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin. One of the key objectives in the CAP is climate protection. The 2010 CAP includes emission
control measures and performance objectives, consistent with the state's climate protection goals
under AB 32 and SB 375, designed to reduce emissions of GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020 and 40
percent below 1990 levels by 2035.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
BAAQMD identifies thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions from stationary
sources and land -use development projects in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. These guidelines
include recommended significance thresholds, assessment methodologies, and mitigation strategies
for GHG emissions. The guidelines do not, however, address emissions associated with the
manufacture, transport, use, and disposal of commonly used products such as disposable food ware.
Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan
The Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan includes a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy embedded
in its policies and programs that are designed to help the City sustain its natural resources, grow
efficiently, and meet State legal requirements for GHG emissions reduction. Multiple policies and
actions in the 2040 General Plan have GHG implications, including land use, housing,
transportation, water usage, solid waste generation and recycling, and reuse of historic buildings.
The City's Green Vision, as reflected in these policies, also has a monitoring component that allows
for adaptation and adjustment of City programs and initiatives related to sustainability and associated
reductions in GHG emissions. The GHG Reduction Strategy identifies GHG emissions reduction
measures to be implemented by the following recycling and waste reduction strategies:
RWR -Q. Extend recycling services - Green Vision Goal #5. As an estimate, divert an
additional 75% of waste beyond the baseline year (2006) by 2035. CO2e from landfilled
waste (2006) = 260,000 MT; 75% = 200,000 MT.
MS -6.5. Reduce the amount of waste disposed in landfills through waste prevention, reuse,
and recycling of materials at venues, facilities, and special events.
4s The emission reduction targets are for those associated with land use and transportation strategies, only. Emission
reductions due to the California Low Carbon Fuel Standards or Pavley emission control standards are not included
in the targets.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 59 July 2013
MS- 5.Divert 100% of waste from landfills by 2022 and maintain 100% diversion through
2040.
Among the other participating jurisdictions in Santa Clara County, the other cities /towns listed in
Table 4.7 -1, below, have adopted or are preparing Climate Action Plans /Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Strategies.
Table 4.7 -1
Relevant Greenhouse Gas Plans and Policies for Participating Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction
Planning
Document
Status
Relevant Policies
San Jose
Greenhouse Gas
Adopted. June
Green Vision Goal #5;
Reduction Strategy
2011
Implementation: Zero Waste
Strategic Plan. As an estimate,
divert an additional 75% of
waste beyond the baseline year
(2006) by 2035.
Gilroy
Climate Action Plan
Adopted. June 18,
SW4: Ban Styrofoam and other
2012
non - biodegradable food
containers in the City of Gilroy.
Los Altos
Climate Action Plan
In Progress
Los Gatos
Los Gatos
October 15, 2012
SW -9 — Develop policies,
Sustainability Plan
incentives, and design guidelines
that encourage the public and
private purchase and use of
durable and nondurable items,
including building materials,
made from recycled materials or
renewable resources.
SW -10 Additional Waste
Diversion: Aim to achieve the 75
percent waste diversion goal
established by AB 341.
Milpitas
Climate Action Plan
May 7, 2013
Measure 11.1: Waste Diversion -
A. Support the expansion of
existing food waste and
composting collection routes in
order to provide composting
services for interested residents
and businesses.
B. Encourage local restaurants to
compost food and provide
compostable to -go containers.
Morgan Hill
Climate Action Plan
In Progress
Mountain View
Greenhouse Gas
August 2012
A: Implement Zero -Waste Plan
Reduction Program
PW
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jose 60 July 2013
Table 4.7 -1
Relevant Greenhouse Gas Plans and Policies for Participating Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction
Planning
Status
Relevant Policies
Document
Santa Clara
Climate Action Plan
In Progress
Sunnyvale
Climate Action Plan
In Progress
LW -1.3. Ban the use of expanded
polystyrene (EPS) take -out
containers at restaurants and
fast food facilities
Other:
Planning
Status
Relevant Policies
Document
Palo Alto
Climate Protection
December, 2007
Expand collaborative efforts with
Plan
targeted businesses to reduce the
use of disposable items such as
plastic shopping bags and take-
out containers.
Propose possible product bans or
fees to reduce the use of products
such as plastic bags and bottled
water.
Implement approved material
bans and mandatory recycling
ordinances.
Unincorporated
Climate Action Plan
September 2009
Establish a 75% waste diversion
Santa Clara
— Operations and
goal for facilities and parks.
County
Facilities
(GHG reduction of 1,525
metric tons)
4.7.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
Less Than Checklist
Significant No Impact Checklist
impact
Would the project:
1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1,10
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1,2,10
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San JOSE 61 July 2013
4.7.2.1 Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Substitute Products
Prohibiting EPS foam food ware would not directly generate GHG emissions. Instead, the proposed
phasing out of EPS foam food ware would indirectly generate GHG emissions associated with
substitute container materials. Evaluating the greenhouse gas impacts of a disposable food service
product requires an examination of the product's full life cycle. GHGs are emitted when the
feedstock (e.g. petroleum or wood) is extracted, processed, manufactured into the product, and when
the product is used, collected, and disposed. There are also greenhouse gas emissions from the
transportation associated with each step of the product's life cycle. Because the calculation of GHG
emissions for these phases depends on location- specific factors such as transportation distance and
energy supply, there is an inherent uncertainty in the information available to the City of San Josh to
quantify the emissions from products used in the project area.
The life cycle assessments (LCAs) summarized in Appendix C reveal that the greenhouse gas
emissions of the substitute products are in some cases higher and in other cases lower than their EPS
foam counterparts. A 2011 study funded by the Plastic Foodservice Packaging Group (PFPG) found
that the life cycle of 10,000 16 -ounce expanded polystyrene (EPS) cups accounts for 723 pounds of
carbon dioxide. The same study found that 10,000 plastic -lined paper cups account for anywhere
between 147 and 1,215 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions, depending on to what extent they
decompose in landfills and whether or not a corrugated sleeve is used. 16
Another study, this one funded by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle), found that when all products were landfilled, the life cycle GHG emissions for 1,000
EPS clamshells were 53.6 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (kg CO2e). The emissions from
1,000 clamshells made from substitute materials such as unfoamed polystyrene, polyethylene
terephthalate (PET), polypropylene, and the biopolymer polylactic acid (PLA) were 51.8 kg, 80.7 kg,
61.1 kg, and 41.5 kg, respectively. 47 This study confirms that the GHG emissions of the substitute
products range from somewhat higher to somewhat lower than EPS foam.
Other studies summarized in Appendix C show similar results. A key issue with all of the LCAs is
that the assumed end of life scenario, or waste disposal path, is not consistent with the actual waste
collection infrastructure in the project area. How a product is disposed accounts for a substantial
portion of the product's greenhouse gas impacts, so the results of studies with end of life scenarios
differing from the actual waste disposal options in the project area are difficult to apply.
For example in the aforementioned PFPG - funded study, twenty percent of the 10,000 EPS cups were
assumed to be combusted for energy rather than landfilled. As a result, the EPS cups were given a
credit for displaced energy production. This assumption was based on a national waste recovery
average and does not reflect the circumstances in the project area. Of the waste collected in Santa
' Franklin Associates, Ltd. "Life Cycle Inventory of Foam Polystyrene, Paper - Based, and PLA Foodservice
Products." February 4, 2011. Prepared for The Plastic Foodservice Packaging Group. Available at:
< htti): / /Plasticfoodservicefacts.com/ Life -Cycl e- Inventory- Foodservi ce- Products >.
47 Kuczenski et al. "Plastic Clamshell Container Case Study." May 15, 2012. Prepared for CalRecycle. Available
at: <htty: / /www calrecycle ca gov /t)ublications/Detail asox ?PublicationlD=1431 >.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 62 July 2013
Clara County, only a small portion of the wood debris collected is incinerated for energy recovery. 48
No other types of waste collected in the project area, including plastics, are incinerated .49
The CalRecycle- funded study provides another example of the significance of the end of life scenario
in determining a product's greenhouse gas impacts. PET was the highest impact product at 80.7 kg
CO2e /1,000 clamshells. However when the emissions were calculated with the assumption that 100
percent of the PET clamshells were recycled, the PET emissions dropped almost 50 percent making
it one of the lowest impact products studied. PET is recyclable in all but one jurisdiction in the
project area (see Figure 4.17 -4 in Section 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems), which means that
insofar as PET would be used as a substitute for EPS foam, the emissions associated with those
products could increase or decrease depending on the rate at which they are recycled. In the project
area, emissions would likely be less than calculated in this study due to the wide availability of
recycling services.
These examples of the sensitivity of emissions to the end of life scenario demonstrate the
inapplicability of the available information to the proposed project. Quantitative greenhouse gas
analysis based on these LCAs would involve use of assumptions that are inconsistent with actual
practices in the project area. There is no definitive evidence that any of the substitute products would
account for significantly more greenhouse emissions than EPS foam products used in the project
area.
Another key issue that is not discussed in detail here is the transportation distance assumptions for
the products. Each LCA uses an average transportation distance based on a set of estimations for the
region and products studied. The City of San Josh does not have enough information to predict
exactly where the EPS foam and substitute products available in the project area come from.
Furthermore, any such information would be frequently changing based on market demand, price,
and the availability of supply at the time of purchase.
Therefore, the City of San Josh cannot conclude that replacing EPS foam food service ware with
substitute products would substantially increase greenhouse gas emissions, and if substitute materials
are commonly recycled, emissions may be reduced, as anticipated by the San Jose's GHG Reduction
Strategy.
4.7.2.2 Consistency with Statewide GHG Reduction Plans AB32 and SB 375
The Climate Change Scoping Plan provides a comprehensive strategy to reduce statewide GHG
emissions in the year 2020 consistent with the reduction targets established by A1332. Included
within that strategy are actions related to GHG emissions from solid waste. According to the
46 Samonsky, E. Associate Environmental Services Specialist. City of San Josh, Environmental Services Division.
Personal Communication. April 11, 2013. In calendar year 2012, 15,884 tons of San Josh 's residential yard
trimmings stream were treated as co- generation (hog) fuel. This represents 12 percent of San Josd 's residential yard
trimmings stream.
49Limited amounts of specific materials from the project area may be disposed of by incineration. For example, the
California Disposal Reporting System shows very small amounts of waste from Sunnyvale and otherjurisdictions
being burned at the Covanta waste -to- electricity plant at Crows Landing (Stanislaus County). Some amount was
illegal drugs destroyed for the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety. Waste from residential and food related
businesses is not routinely disposed of by incineration, however.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jos€ 63 July 2013
Scoping Plan, GHG emissions from waste in California are one (1) percent of overall total statewide
emissions.
Sconin2 Plan Recommended Action 15. Recvcline and Waste Reduce methane emissions at
landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting and other beneficial uses of organic materials, and
mandate commercial recycling. Move toward zero- waste.
This action strives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by turning waste into resources. By reducing
the substantial energy use associated with the acquisition of raw materials in the manufacturing stage
of a product's life - cycle, a large reduction in energy consumption should be realized. As stated in the
Scoping Plan, "re- introducing recyclables with intrinsic energy value back into the manufacturing
process reduces greenhouse gas emissions from multiple phases of product production including
extraction of raw materials, preprocessing and manufacturing. Additionally, by recovering organic
materials from the waste stream, and having a vibrant composting and organic materials industry,
there is an opportunity to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the indirect benefits
associated with the reduced need for water and fertilizer for California's Agricultural sector."
Consistency: Shifting away from EPS foam food ware to substitute containers made from recyclable
or compostable materials will help achieve the GHG emissions reductions assumed in the Scoping
Plan for the solid waste sector given the ability for those products to be recycled or composted within
the project area. To the extent food ware made from bioplastics (e.g. PLA) is landfilled rather than
recycled, the carbon fixed in those inert containers will be sequestered from the active carbon cycle.
As discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality and Section 4.16 Transportation, the shift to substitute
container materials will not result in a substantial increase in trips for delivery or disposal, so there
will not be a substantial increase in vehicle- generated GHG emissions, therefore the project would
not conflict with Bay Area's Sustainable Community Strategy's regional targets implementing SB
375. The per capita reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a
seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035, and the proposed ban would
have no effect on the region's ability to meet these targets for automobile and light truck sectors.
4.7.2.3 Consistency with Local GHG Reduction Strategies
The proposed ban would be consistent with San JoWs GHG Reduction Strategy by reducing the
amount of EPS foam food ware waste currently being disposed in landfills, and by causing a shift to
substitute materials capable of being composted or recycled. The proposed ban would also be
consistent with adopted GHG Reduction Strategies (or Climate Action Plans) in Gilroy, Los Gatos,
and Mountain View, and strategies /plans in development in Los Altos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Santa
Clara, and Sunnyvale. The additional restrictions on retail sales and EPS foam ice chests would be
consistent with adopted Climate Action Plans in Palo Alto and Santa Clara County. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
4.7.3 Conclusion
The proposed phase -out of EPS foam food ware would not directly or indirectly generate substantial
GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment, nor would the proposed
project conflict with statewide or local plans adopted to reduce GHG emissions. (Less than
Significant Impact)
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 64 July 2013
4,8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The following discussion addresses hazards to people related to single -use food ware use,
manufacture, and disposal. Hazardous materials, substances or materials that could adversely affect
the safety of the public, handlers or carriers during use, transportation, or disposal are also
specifically addressed. Environmental effects or hazards to the environment are also addressed in
Section 4.3 Air Quality, Section 4.4 Biological Resources, Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality,
and Section 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.
4.8.1 Settine
Hazardous materials include materials such as compressed gases, flammable liquids, oxidizers,
corrosives and toxics. Hazardous materials are used and stored in most urban, suburban, and rural
communities, including those within the project area. Examples of hazardous materials include
gasoline and other fuels, chlorine compounds, acids, and biocides. They include substances used at a
wide range of industries and businesses including manufacturing, automotive, medical and
electronics. Many products containing hazardous chemicals also are routinely used and stored in
homes; generally in small quantities. Hazardous materials are also shipped daily on highways,
railroads, and in pipelines.
Each year, Californians generate two million tons of hazardous waste.50 As discussed below under
Regulatory Setting, properly handling these wastes avoids threats to public health and degradation of
the environment. In addition, existing contamination from reported hazardous materials release sites
(such as leaking fuel tanks) can adversely affect the environment or human health and is tracked in
State of California databases, such as the GeoTracker database maintained by the State Water
Resources Control Board.
Landfill and solid waste facilities include landfills, transfer stations, material recovery facilities,
compositing sites, and closed disposal sites. The two environmental concerns related to landfills are
the generation and control of landfill gas and water moving through landfilled materials (leachate).
Transfer stations do not routinely handle materials classified as hazardous materials, although they
do encounter them in waste materials during sorting and have procedures for separating and properly
disposing of such materials when encountered. There are four active landfills within Santa Clara
County, including Newby Island, Kirby Canyon, Zanker and Guadalupe Mines in the City of San
Jose and transfer stations in the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and unincorporated Santa
Clara County (San Martin). Landfills and other solid waste facilities are also identified in the Solid
Waste Information System (SWIS) database maintained by CalRecycle.
Other hazards identified within Santa Clara County include safety zones for airports (e.g., Mineta
San Jose International Airport, Reid - Hillview Airport, Palo Alto Airport, South County Airport and
Moffett Federal Airfield in Mountain View) and very high severity hazards for wildfires in some
foothill areas of San Josh, Morgan Hill, Saratoga, Monte Sereno, Los Gatos, and unincorporated
so Department of Toxic Substances Control. "DTSC: Who We Are and What We Do". Accessed May 3, 2013.
Available at: <http,Owww dtsc ca .eov/lnformationResources/DTSC Overview.cfm >.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 65 July 2013
Santa Clara County.51 Safety zones for airports are identified in Comprehensive Land Use Plans
(CLUPs) for the public airports in the project area."
4.8.1.1 Health Hazards Associated with Food Ware Use and Manufacturing
Food Container Safety
The single -use food service ware products used by vendors and available for sale to the general
public within the project area are manufactured from a variety of plastic resins, paper materials,
paper materials lined with plastics, and bioplastics (e.g., plastic resins produced from materials
derived from plants). EPS foam is one of a number of materials used to manufacture disposable or
single -use food service ware. Many of these products are made from virgin materials (i.e. newly-
produced); many others contain pre- consumer and/or post - consumer recycled content. As discussed
under Regulatory Setting, below, environmental health concerns related to single - disposable food
ware include avoiding contamination of containers with heavy metals and toxic materials.
Hazardous Materials Used in Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing
Styrene
Styrene is a carbon containing compound that is converted to the polymer (chain of molecules)
polystyrene through a process known as polymerization. Styrene is produced from ethylene, a
flammable gas, and benzene, which is flammable and a carcinogen. Styrene is classified as
flammable and it has toxic properties if inhaled or ingested. In the work place, all of these
compounds have established exposure limits [e.g., Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH),
as defined by the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)] due to toxic
effects from inhalation or ingestion. 53
In addition to acute toxic effects, the literature and studies on cancer risks associated with styrene has
been reviewed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program
in its 12'f Edition Report on Carcinogens. The report is a congressionally mandated, science - based,
public health report that identifies agents, substances, mixtures, or exposures in the environment that
may potentially put people in the United States at increased risk for cancer. The report uses two key
categories for substances: 1) Known to be a Human Carcinogen and 2) Reasonably Anticipated to be
a Human Carcinogen. The June 2011 report identified styrene, the building block of polystyrene, as
"reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on limited evidence of carcinogenicity from
studies in humans, sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity firm studies in experimental animals, and
" Association of Bay Area Governments, Earthquake and Hazards Program. Wildland Urban Interface Fire
Threatened Communities. July 2009. Accessed April 11, 2013. Available at:
< http: / /2is3.abae.ca.gov/Website/Fire Threat W M viewer htm>
12 County of Santa Clara, Planning Office. "Airport Land -Use Commission ". Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at:
ss Occupational Health and Safety Administration. "Health and Safety Topics, Styrene ". Accessed May 3, 2013.
Available at: <http: / /www. osha .gov /SLTC /styrene/index.html >.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San JOSE 66 July 2013
supporting data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis ".54 A previous review by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that that there is limited evidence in humans and
experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of styrene and that overall, styrene is possibly
carcinogenic to humans. 55 Styrene is a substance that is reasonably anticipated by the National
Toxicology Program to be a human carcinogen and from a regulatory standpoint is not considered a
known carcinogen.
Polvstvrene
Polystyrene is classified as a combustible material. Polystyrene foams are produced using blowing
agents that expand the polystyrene resin into foam. In expanded polystyrene production, flammables
such as pentane, may be used as blowing agents. The production of extruded polystyrene may utilize
hydrofluorocarbons (ilF'C- 134a), which are regulated substances in part due to worker asphyxiation
hazards.
4.8.1.2 Regulatory Setting
Regulation of Food Container Health Hazards
The Office of Food Additive Safety (OFAS) at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA)
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) regulates the manufacturing industry to
ensure that food contact substances are safe.56 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
oversees the safety of food packaging products and chemical levels that are permitted to be used in
plastic food containers. Examples of food contact substances in takeout food containers include
polymers (plastic packaging materials), pigments and antioxidants used in polymers, adhesives,
materials used during the manufacture of paper and paperboard, and antimicrobial agents. Under the
FDA's authority, plastic packaging products must pass safety assessments that eliminate the potential
substances that could pose health risks, such as BPA57,SS to be leached into the food or beverages
being stored in containers. BPA is used to make certain plastics, including polycarbonate (Plastic
Recycling Symbol #7), and a variety of products, including infant and water bottles. Polystyrene and
polystyrene foam are not manufactured using BPA.
54 Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program. "12th Report on Carcinogens (RoC) ".
Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at: < hftp://ntl).nichs.nih.gov/?obiectid=03C9AF75-EIBF-FF40-
DBA9ECO928DF8BI5 .
Ss World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2002. IARC Monographs on the
Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. 2002. Available at:
<httR: / /monographs iarc fr/ENG/Monouaphs/vol82 /mono82 ndf>.
Se FDA. "Regulatory Report: Assessing the Safety of Food Contact Substances ". Accessed May 2, 2013. Available
at: <http• / /www fda gov/ Food/ InpredientsPacka2inglabel ing /PackaginvFCS /ucm064166.htm >.
51 BPA (Bisphenol A) is a chemical used in certain food contact materials and concerns have been raised about
BPA's long -term safety. Though the FDA considers current low levels of exposure as safe, it is "taking reasonable
steps to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply" and review of BPA studies by the FDA is continuing.
Source: FDA.'Sisphenol A (BPA): Use in Food Contact Application ". Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at:
<httR:/ /www fda gov/NewsEvents/ Pub licHealthFocus /ucm064437.htm >.
le BPA was recently removed from California's Proposition 65 List requiring notification to consumers. Source:
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. "Current Proposition 65 List (April 19, 2013) ".
Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at: < hfti),//www.oehha.ca.goy/Xroi)65/vrop65 list/Newlist.html >.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josh 67 July 2013
The FDA also has regulations for the recycling of plastics into new food containers. The concerns
about the safety of recycled plastics are focused on the potential for contaminants from the original
products to end up in the recycled products. Regulatory requirements are outlined in the FDA
prepared "Guidance for Industry: Use of Recycled Plastics in Food Packaging: Chemistry
Considerations" to regulate food packaging standards for recycled plastics.59 The FDA's main safety
concerns with the use of recycled plastic materials in food - contact articles are: 1) that contaminants
from the post - consumer material may appear in the final food - contact product made from the
recycled material, 2) that recycled post - consumer material not regulated for food - contact use may be
incorporated into food - contact packaging, and 3) that adjuvants (secondary or other agents) in the
recycled plastic may not comply with the regulations for food - contact use.
Fiber -based food containers are also regulated by the FDA. Manufacture of food - contact products
from reclaimed fiber must meet the criteria in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section
176.260 regarding suitable purity and other factors.
In addition to the federal regulations of the FDA, the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) is charged with implementing the requirements of the laws that are found in the California
Health and Safety Code (beginning at §25214.11). These regulations cover any packaging or
packaging component sold in California and prohibit the intentional introduction of toxic metals
(e.g, cadmium, lead, mercury, and hexavalent chromium) into packaging and the incidental
introduction of more than 100 parts per million by weight for all toxic metals.bo
California Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, was enacted
as a ballot initiative in November 1986. The purpose of Proposition 65 is to notify consumers that
they are being exposed to chemicals that are known to cause cancer and/or reproductive toxicity.
The State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment maintains a list of
chemicals, known as the Proposition 65 list. Neither the styrene monomer nor polystyrene are on the
current (April 19, 2013) Proposition 65 list.61
Regulation of Hazardous Materials Use, Disposal and Storage
There are a number of regulatory programs in place that are designed to minimize the chance for
unintended releases and/or exposure of people to hazardous materials from existing contamination
and/or accidental releases. Regulations include, but are not limited to:
California Building and Fire Codes
Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinances (Municipal and County Codes)
California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CaIARP)
59 FDA. "Recycled Plastics in Food Packaging ". Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at:
<http: / /www.fda.eov/ Food /IneredientsPackaein¢Labelin ackaeingFCS /Recyc]edPlastics/ucm093435 htm >.
bo DTSC. "Toxics in Packaging Law ". Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at:
<htti)://www.dtse.ca.2ov/toxiesinpackagin2/Tiplaw.cfm>.
"California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. "Current Proposition 65 List (April 13, 2013) ".
Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at: < httl)://www.ochha.ca.goy/i)roR65/j)rop65 list/Newlist html>
t.FS Yom Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 68 July 2013
• Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Program (e.g., hazardous waste, fuel storage
tanks, CaIARP oversight; cities of Gilroy, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and County of Santa Clara
Department of Environmental Health)
• Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response - Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (Cal/OSHA)
• State Water Code and Porter - Cologne Act (State Water Resources Control Board and
Regional Boards)
• Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and California Health and Safety Code
(California Department of Toxic Substances Control)
Some of these regulatory programs set forth standards and procedures for the handling and storage of
hazardous materials. Other programs set forth standards for the containment and/or neutralization of
any accidental releases of hazardous materials.
4.8.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 69 July 2013
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Checklist
Significant
With
Significant No Impact
Source(s)
Impact
Mitigation
impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
1. Create a significant hazard to the public or
❑
❑
® ❑
1,11
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
❑
❑
❑ ®
1
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
❑
❑
❑ ®
1
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one - quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
4. Be located on a site which is included on a list
❑
❑
❑ ®
1
of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, will it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
5. For a project located within an airport land
❑
❑
❑ ®
1
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, will the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 69 July 2013
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No Impact Checklist
Impact Mitigation Impact I Source(s)
Would the project:
6. For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑
airstrip, will the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
7. Impair implementation of, or physically ❑ ❑ ❑
interfere With, an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
8. Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
1,2
The ordinance does not propose or require construction of any kind. Therefore, the project would not
expose people or structures to substantial adverse hazards related to existing soil or groundwater
contamination, airport safety zones, or wildland fires, or impair implementation of emergency
response or evacuation plans.
4.8.2.1 Hazards Associated with Use of Substitute Products
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 and consumers are not expected to litter
substitute containers at a higher rate than EPS foam
As discussed in Appendix D, many plastic and fiber -based products already exist that could replace
polystyrene foam plates, bowls, beverage cups, and clamshells. A range of plastic and bio- plastic
resins can be used to manufacture these products, though the most common plastics used are
polypropylene (PP), general purpose polystyrene (GPPS, unfoamed), and PET (polyethylene
terephthalate).
Substitute products, including plastic and fiber -based single use food ware, are currently available on
the market and currently used for serving foods and beverages. The containers themselves are not
classified as hazardous substances under local, state or federal law, and substitution of these products
would not directly-involve the handling or transportation of hazardous materials. - -
The safety of the substitute products as food containers, like EPS foam food ware, is regulated by the
FDA and Department of Toxic Substance Controls. Plastic materials, such as polycarbonates, that
are reported to contain BPA, are not generally used in the types of single -use food ware that would
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jost 70 July 2013
be replaced (e.g., cups, bowls, clamshells, plates, and unencapsulated ice chests), and exposure to
this material and its reported associated health risks would not substantially increase under the
proposed project. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.8.2.2 Secondary Impacts. Hazardous Materials Use Associated with the Manufacture of
Substitute Products
The manufacture of single -use food ware, both plastic and fiber - based, involves the use of regulated
hazardous materials and the release of toxic chemicals into the environment. Substitute plastic and
fiber -based products produced in the United States are readily available in California and Santa Clara
County and are anticipated to be the primary substitute products used. Some containers may be
manufactured outside of the United States, however, a thorough review of industries and regulations
in other countries is beyond the scope of this environmental review. The basic processes of
manufacturing the substitute products would be the same.
Pulp used to make fiber -based substitute products is made by mechanically or chemically separating
the fibers in wood or other plant materials. In some chemical pulping processes, corrosives and
flammables such as sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide are used. Bleaching chemicals can include
chlorine gas, sodium hydroxide, calcium hypochlorite and peroxides. Coloring materials and
coatings may also be applied to paper materials. Hazardous wastes can include halogenated solvents
and other organic compounds used in degreasing and cleaning, corrosive waste, and ink waste.
Plastic substitutes, both petrochemically and biologically based, involve the production of plastic
resins from organic compounds and the manufacture of individual food ware products at multiple
facilities. As discussed previously for polystyrene, common input chemicals from petroleum
refiners used in the production of plastic resins include ethylene, propylene, and benzene among
other cyclic organic chemicals. Bioplastics use feedstock chemicals derived from renewable,
plant or food by- product based sources. After production of the chemical compounds and the
various plastic resins (e.g. polypropylene, general purpose polystyrene, PLA), the plastic resins
are subsequently manufactured into plastic products through forming or extrusion. The
hazardous materials used and waste produced at an individual facility or for a particular type of
plastic substitute will depend on the feedstocks, processes, equipment in use and maintenance
practices.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) maintains a Toxic Release Inventory, which
is a publicly available database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and waste
management activities reported annually by certain industries as well as federal facilities. The TRI
program also lists profiles of chemical use and releases related to the plastic and paper industry, the
most recent of those posted by the U.S. EPA, are discussed below. 62
According to the 1997 Profile of the Plastic Resin and Manmade Fiber Industries, plastic resin
manufacturing facilities released 64.1 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the environment and
transferred 192.4 million pounds to other facilities for the purpose of recycling, energy recovery,
treatment, or disposal, for a total of 256.5 million pounds in 1995. The top five chemicals released in
62 U.S. EPA. "Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Program: 2011 TRI National Analysis" Accessed: May 1, 2013.
Available at: <http / /www ena eov /tri /[rida[a/t rill /nationalanalvsis /index.htm >.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San JOSE 71 July 2013
terms of volume were ethylene, methanol, acetonitrile, propylene, and ammonia. Approximately 74
percent (48 million pounds) of the industry's releases were to the air, 21 percent (13.3 million pounds
of releases were by underground injection, and the remaining five percent were released as water
discharges and disposals to land. Since this profile was completed, recycling of plastic materials
such as PET has increased along with source reduction measures (e.g., reducing the amount of
material needed by making materials lighter) 63. These and other measures would tend to reduce the
overall waste stream of toxic materials associated with the production of virgin plastic resins on a per
unit basis.
As disclosed in the 2002 Profile of the Pulp and Paper Industry, 2nd Edition, the pulp and paper
industry released and transferred a total of approximately 263.1 million pounds of toxic chemicals in
2000. Methanol represented roughly 60 percent of all pulp and paper toxic chemical releases and
transfers. Other common chemicals released by the industry include ammonia, hydrochloric acid,
and sulfuric acid. The pulp and paper industry released 66 percent of its total Toxic Release
Inventory (by weight) to the air, approximately 22 percent to water and publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs, or in other words, wastewater treatment plants), and nine percent was disposed of on
land.
Single -use food ware would make up only a small portion of the discharges for the industries listed
above and any change in demand related to substitutes for EPS foam food ware would affect the
release of hazardous materials by these industries in an amount proportional to their occurrence. As
noted above, the plastic resin and pulp and paper industries both release and transfer toxic chemicals
as a result of their manufacturing activities.
Life -Cycle Assessments (LCAs) prepared for plastic and fiber -based products and summarized in
Appendix C, identify that various emissions occur in both the air and water discharged as a part
manufacturing of the various substitute materials. Unfortunately, no one LCA evaluated the use or
release of hazardous materials for plastic and fiber -based substitutes along with EPS foam, applying
the same methodology to each material type. Tabone et al. (2010) evaluated "percent of greatest
impact" for the production of a range of plastic polymers using EPA's TRACI methodology. They
included: petrochemical- sourced resins (including PET, general purpose polystyrene, PP, PC) and
biopolymers PHA and PLA. Of the plastic resins evaluated, PET and bio -PET were reported to be
highest impact for carcinogens, with general purpose polystyrene and polypropylene (PP) being in
the lower range. For non - carcinogenic health hazards, general polystyrene was listed has having the
greatest impact with PP having the lowest relative impact. The biopolymers PHA and PLA were
somewhat higher than PP in the noncarcinogen hazards category. What is not clear or easy to assess
is how the assessment tools in the TRACI methodology relate to actual emissions or discharges into
the environment and what types of compounds are related to the identified impact. A second LCA
which discussed emissions was prepared by Franklin Associates in 2006. It compared polystyrene
foam to bleached paperboard and corregated paperboard food service products and stated that no
" U.S. EPA. "Wastes - Resource Conservation - Common Wastes & Materials ". Accessed May 3, 2013. Available
at: <httv://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/plastics.btm#ho .
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josh 72 July 2013
overall conclusions can be made about air and waterborne emissions released from the manufacture
of these products because there is no "valid impact assessment methodology. "64
In conclusion, manufacturing of both EPS foam and substitute single use food ware products
involves the use, transport, storage and disposal of a range of hazardous materials, some of which
have toxic properties. No one LCA or EPA industry profile reviewed provides information to assess
whether, overall, one or more of the substitute products would result in the disposal or use of
substantially more regulated hazardous materials such that they could create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment through their routine transport, use, or disposal. As discussed in
Section 4.8.1.1. Regulatory Setting, there are a number of regulatory programs in place that are
designed to minimize the chance for unintended releases and/or exposure of people to hazardous
materials. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project and the use of substitute products is not
anticipated to result in a significant indirect or secondary hazards and hazardous materials impact.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
4.8.3 Conclusion
The proposed phase -out of EPS foam food ware would not create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (Less than
Significant Impact)
The proposed phase -out of EPS foam food ware does not propose or require construction of any kind.
Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse hazards related to
existing soil or groundwater contamination, airport safety zones, or wildland fires, or impair
implementation of emergency response or evacuation plans. (No Impact)
fi4 Franklin Associates. "Life Cycle Inventory of Polystyrene Foam, Bleached Paperboard, and Corrugated
Paperboard Foodservice Products." March 2006. Prepared for the Polystyrene Packaging Council, A Part of the
American Chemistry Council's Non - Durable Plastics Panel.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josd 73 July 2013
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9.1 Setting
4.9.1.1 Climate
The County of Santa Clara is located at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. The urban areas of
the County are primarily situated on an alluvial plain within the Santa Clara Valley, which extends
southward from San Francisco Bay to Hollister, south of Gilroy. The mountain ranges bordering the
alluvial plains ringing San Francisco Bay reach over 4,000 feet in elevation. Slopes vary from
essentially flat (zero to two percent) on the valley floor with steeper slopes over 15 percent in foothill
areas.
The climate is a semi -arid, Mediterranean -type climate with warm, dry weather from late spring to
early fall and cool, moist winters. Yearly precipitation varies, based largely on topography. The
mean annual precipitation is 14 -15 inches Downtown San Josh, increasing to 22 inches in the
foothills of eastern San Jos&. The wettest month of the year is usually January, with an average
rainfall of approximately three inches.
Annual rainfall can vary due to weather altering events, such as El Nino or periodic drought. El Niiio
can produce a significant increase over normal rainfall and extend the duration of the wet season. In
contrast, several droughts of five to seven years in duration have been documented in the San Jo&6
and greater County area over the last 100 years.
Evapotranspiration is defined as the combination of evaporation and transpiration of water from the
land's surface to the atmosphere. Average annual evapotranspiration in San Jose is approximately
50 inches per year with potential water loss through evapotranspiration substantially higher than the
mean annual precipitation.
4.9.1.2 Surface Water Drainage
Watersheds within the Project Area
A watershed is a land area from which water drains into a major body of water such as a stream, lake,
wetland, bay or estuary, the ocean, or percolates into groundwater. Local watersheds in each
jurisdiction are parts of larger, regional basins. 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- Catnadero Creek
(Uvas/Llagas Watershed) to the Pajaro River and Monterey Bay.' Each of these watersheds is made
up of one or more main creeks or a river, as well as many smaller tributaries, each with its own sub -
watershed. Watershed elements include not-only-these tributaries but also dams, reservoirs, and
groundwater recharge basins. A map of the principal watersheds in Santa Clara County is shown in
Figure 4.9 -1. The Lower Peninsula Watershed, West Valley Watershed, Guadalupe Watershed and
" Sowers, Janet M. et al. "Creek and Watershed Map of Morgan Hill & Gilroy." 2009.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San JOa6 74 July 2013
75
W
r
z
z
O
U
Q
Q
J
U
H
Z
Q
Z_
W
S
N
W
Q
J
Q
U
Z_
a
This page intentionally left blank
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
nrb roam r00a ware Urdmance Initial Study
City of San Jose 76
July 2013
Coyote Watershed are part of the Santa Clara Basin, which is a sub -basin of the larger San Francisco
Bay Basin. There are more than 800 miles of creeks and rivers in the Santa Clara Valley. A list of
the creeks in each jurisdiction is listed in Table 4.9 -1 by watershed.
Table 4.9 -1
Principal Watersheds and Creeks within Partici 'ne Jurisdictions
Principal Creeks, River, and Reservoirs within Jurisdictions within
Watershed Watershed Watershed
Lower Peninsula
Creeks:
Reservoirs:
Los Altos
Watershed
San Francisquito*
Stevens Creek
Los Altos Hills
(98 square miles)
Matadero
Felt Lake
Mountain View
Deer
Palo Alto
Barron
Sunnyvale
Adobe
Unincorporated Santa Clara
Permanente*
County
Stevens*
West Valley
Creeks:
Campbell
Watershed
Sunnyvale West
Wildcat Smith
Cupertino
(85 square miles)
Channel
Caves
Monte Sereno
Sunnyvale East
Booker
Los Gatos
Channel
Bonjetti
Monte Sereno
Calabazas
McElroy
Saratoga
Regnart
Sanborn
San Josh
Rodeo
Todd
Sunnyvale
San Tomas Aquino*
Reservoirs:
Santa Clara
Saratoga*
None
Guadalupe Watershed
River and Creeks:
Reservoirs:
Campbell
(170 square miles)
Guadalupe River*
Lexington
Los Gatos
Guadalupe Creek
Vasona
Monte Sereno
Los Gatos
Guadalupe
San Josh
Ross
Almaden
Santa Clara
Alamitos
Calero
Unincorporated Santa Clara
Canoas
Lake Elsman
County
Coyote Watershed
Creeks:
Milpitas
(322 square miles)
Los Buellis Creek
Cribari Creek
Morgan Hill
Arroyo Aguague
Sierra Creek
San Jose
North Babb Creek
Silver Creek -
Unincorporated Santa Clara
South Babb Creek
Upper
County
Wrigley -Ford Creek
Tularcitos Creek
Willow Springs
Crosley Creek
Creek
Norwood Creek
Berryessa Creek
Quimby Creek
Calera Creek
Fowler Creek
Ruby Creek
Evergreen Creek
Coyote Creek*
Yerba Buena
Fisher Creek
Creek
Los Coches Creek
Thompson Creek
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance mataM awuy
City of San Josd 77 July 2013
Table 4.9 -1
Princi
al Watersheds and Creeks within Participating
Jurisdictions
Principal
Creeks, River, and Reservoirs within
Jurisdictions within
Watershed
Watershed
Watershed
Silver Creek * -
Flint Creek
Lower
Penitencia East
Spring Creek
Channel
Splinter Valley
Las Animas Creek
Creek
Shingle Creek
Miguelita Creek
San Felipe Creek
Sweigert Creek
Packwood Creek
Piedmont Creek
Scott Creek
Penitencia Creek -
Cochrane Channel
Upper
Penitencia Creek -
Reservoirs:
Lower
Coyote
Hawk Creek
Anderson
ek
Lake Cunningham
shed
k
East Little Llagas
organ Hill
rLlagas
quare miles)
E
Creek
[Iroy
Jose
Llagas
Edmundson Creek
incorporated Santa Clara
Lions Creek
unty
annel
Little Uvas Creek
Crews Creek
Solis Creek
Miller Slough
Farman Creek
Pajaro River
Tilton Creek
Princevalle Drain Pescadero Creek
Uvas- Carnadero Eastman Canyon
Creek Creek
Pacheco Creek
New Creek
Sargent Creek Panther Creek
Corrallitos Creek Rucker Creek
Maple Creek San Ysidro Creek
Foothill Creek South Conallitos
Tenant Creek Creek
Tick Creek Skillet Creek
Public Law 566 - Little
Arthur Creek
Upper Bodfish Creek
Public Law 566 - Hayes Creek
Lower Machado Creek
Ortega Creek Paradise Creek
Burchell Creek South Morey
Croy Creek Channel
Sycamore Creek North Morey
Gavilan Creek Channel
Upper Llagas Creek Tar Creek
Lower Llagas Creek Dewitt Creek
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance
City of San Josh
Initial Study
78
July 2013
Table 4.9 -1
Principal Watersheds and Creeks within P"ci We
Principal Creeks, River, and Reservoirs within Jurisdictions within
Watershed Watershed Watershed
Alamias Creek
Heron Creek
Milias Creek
Lower Miller
West Branch Llagas
Slough
Creek
Upper Miller
Center Creek
Slough
San Martin Creek
Babbs Canyon
Church Creek
Creek
Day Creek
McLean Creek
Dexter Creek
Live Oak Creek
Reservoirs:
Chesbro
Uvas
Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District. "Watershed Information." Accessed April 24, 2013. Available at;
<htti)://www.vallevwater.org/ServicesfWatershedInformation aspx>.
* = Trash- impaired Creek under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act.
Stormwater and Urban Runoff
Stormwater is rainwater that flows across surfaces without being absorbed into soil. Urban runoff is
stormwater that combines with irrigation runoff, and water from other sources in an urban setting.
Hardscape (impervious) areas prevent water from being absorbed into the ground and causes
stormwater to flow more quickly and in larger qualities into the storm drain system. As stormwater
combines with runoff already in the system, it gathers additional volume, speed, force, and
contaminants. As a result, when the urban runoff is eventually released into a creek, river or bay it
can cause erosion, flooding and damage to wildlife habitat.
Stormwater runoff within the urbanized areas of the project area is discharged into local storm drains,
which, in turn, flow into local creeks and either San Francisco or Monterey Bays. Generally, each
local jurisdiction owns and maintains municipal storm drainage facilities within their boundaries.
Flooding and Flood Management
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is responsible for providing flood protection to
residences and businesses in the County from floods equal to or less than the "one percent flood."
The one percent flood, also referred to as the "100 -year flood" or the "base flood," is the flow of
water that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. This level of
risk, however, should not be confused with a flood that will occur once every 100 years, but one that
might occur once every 100 years or so, on average, over a very long period of time.
Areas subject to the one percent flood are designated as Zone AE, A, AH, or AO on the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps. In Santa Clara County, designated flood
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance
City of San Jost 79 July 2013
zones are generally located along the lower reaches of creeks and near San Francisco Bay (tidal flood
zones). Santa Clara County has had several damaging floods over the years, most notably in 1995
and 1997 along the Guadalupe River and smaller events along San Francisquito Creek. Other
waterways that are prone to flooding include, but are not limited to, Coyote Creek, Calabazas Creek,
Stevens Creek, Sunnyvale east and West Channels, and Fast and West Little Llagas Creeks."
The SCV WD has a flood management plan that involves an ongoing review of flood protection
needs on all creeks in the Santa Clara Valley. A number of flood protection projects are being
considered, including projects on San Francisquito Creek, tributaries of Coyote Creek (Berryessa,
Upper Penitencia, and Lower Silver Creeks), the middle reaches of the Guadalupe River, and Llagas
Creek. The SCV WD also maintains its flood control channels to ensure that the capacity of the
channels is not substantially reduced by accumulated debris or excessive growth of vegetation.
4.9.1.3 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater is an important source of water to urban and rural land uses in Santa Clara County and
nearly one -half of the water used in the County is pumped from groundwater. The Santa Clara
Valley Groundwater Basin is the source for all groundwater in the County, and is divided into three
sub - basins: the Santa Clara Valley, Coyote Valley, and Llagas Sub - basins. Groundwater levels
respond to changes in the balance between groundwater recharge67 and withdrawal,68 and indicate
the relative amount of water stored in an aquifer at a given point in time. The SCV WD operates and
maintains 18 major groundwater recharge facilities in the Santa Clara Valley and diverts water from
local reservoirs and imported water to in -stream and off -stream percolation areas. 69 Water
percolating in recharge ponds and creek channels enters the groundwater subbasins through these
recharge areas and undergoes natural filtration as it is transmitted into deeper aquifers.
4.9.1.4 Water Quality
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by
pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as
"non - point" source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other
exposed surfaces into storm drains. Surface runoff from roads in the project area is collected by
storm drains and discharged into creeks and ultimately conveyed to San Francisco Bay or Monterey
Bay. The runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g.,
leaves, dust, and animal feces), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these
pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain.
66 SCW VD. "Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2012 Flood Mitigation Mailer." Accessed April 24, 2013. Available
at: <httn: / /www.vallevwater ore/Programs /LIIIvIP as x>.
` Groundwater recharge refers to the water gains within a groundwater basin. Water can be gained from direct
surface water recharge (natural and artificial), deep percolation of precipitation, septic system discharges to
groundwater, and deep percolation of irrigation return water.
68 Groundwater withdrawal refers to the water uses or losses within the groundwater basin. Groundwater
withdrawal can occur from direct groundwater extractions (i.e., pumping), subsurface outflow to another
groundwater basin, discharges to surface water, direct consumption by plants, and direct evaporation of surface
water.
69 Santa Clara Valley Water District. "Groundwater Supply ". Accessed August 30, 2010.
<htto: / /www vallevwater ore /Services GroundwaterSupply askx>.
EPS Foam Food
City of San JOSE
uramance
80
July
Despite progress in reducing urban contributions to pollution of the waterways of the Bay Area, the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, SF Bay RWQCB recommended changes to the list
of water bodies in the state for which federal water quality standards are not attained. The US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved those recommendations in 2011, and now lists 26
Bay area waterways as "trash- impaired" under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act.
Within the project area these waterways include:
• Coyote Creek • San Tomas Aquino Creek
• Guadalupe River • Saratoga Creek
• Permanente Creek • Silver Creek
• San Francisco Bay, Lower (shoreline) • Stevens Creek
• San Franciscquito Creek
This listing requires implementation of locally funded remediation programs for the affected
waterways. A major component of the trash identified in waterways was "floatable debris ", which
includes quantities of EPS foam food ware.
Stormwater from the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill and unincorporated San Martin drain to Llagas
Creek, the Pajaro River and Monterey Bay. Pollutants of concern in these watersheds [as listed in
Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) for these jurisdictions] include sediment, nutrients,
heavy metals, floatables, pesticides, herbicides, non - sediment solids, pathogens, oxygen - demanding
substances, petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and trash.70 The Pajaro
River and Llagas Creek have been identified on the 3O3(d) list of impaired water bodies. Llagas
Creek has been identified as an impaired water body for chloride, low dissolved oxygen, pH, E.coli
and fecal coliform, electrical conductivity, sodium and total dissolved solids. The Pajaro River also
has been identified as an impaired water body due to boron.
Litter and Waterways
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.
Litter (or trash), including single -use food ware, is transported to local creeks and San Francisco Bay
shorelines through three primary pathways: 1) curbs/gutters, storm drain lines and open channels
that are part of storm water collection systems in urban areas; 2) wind; and 3) illegal dumping into
water bodies." It generally is not found uniformly throughout urban or rural environments, with
litter or trash "hot spots" being found at some locations due to human behavior and environmental
behaviors or conditions. 12 Trash that reaches creeks can be a result of littering by individuals along
roadways (motorists or pedestrians), wind blowing unsecured trash from waste containers or vehicle
70 Cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill and County of Santa Clara. 2010. Revised Regional Storm Water Management
Plan (S)hMP). Accessed May 8, 2013. Available at:
71 SCVURPP. "Urban Runoff Trash Management Reducing Impacts in Santa Clara Valley Creeks and San
Francisco Bay." February 2013.
77 SCVURPPP. "Trash Hot Spot Selection Final Report." 2010.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josh 81 July 2013
Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion ojlmpacts
loads, and from vehicles themselves (e.g., tires and vehicle debris), among other sources. 71 Dumping
directly into creeks or along roadways is also a source of litter. Littering rates can be higher at
transition points, such as a bus stops or going into or out of businesses in retail areas.
As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, EPS foam is a concern in the environment
because as a component of plastic debris, animals may mistake small pieces of EPS foam debris as
food. It floats on water, is highly visible, and is easily transported by wind. It also is friable (i.e., it
crumbles) and breaks into smaller pieces which can be more difficult to screen or pick up than
discarded containers that remain intact.
While recognizable and of concern in litter in urban and aquatic environments, the proportion of total
litter that is EPS foam is low (e.g., less than four percent by count for street litter and about eight
percent by volume in stormwater systems). Litter characterization studies conducted locally and on a
national basis have evaluated litter in the environment based upon the total count and/or volume of
litter broken down into material categories, such as paper, glass, and plastic, and subcategories, such
as PET beverage containers and expanded EPS food containers (refer to litter discussion in Appendix
B).
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, including two from San Jos6, that recorded amounts of polystyrene foam
food service products in urban litter. A median value of 1.5 percent of "large litter "74 (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. One of the studies referenced, a 2008 street litter survey counted
items of litter found at 125 randomly selected sites within the City of San Jose. 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 with an overall total of 0.8 percent EPS foam in the large litter
category. In the small litter category, EPS pieces made up 1.3 percent of the total. In more recent
street litter assessments within the City (2009 and 2012) the focus was on litter "hot spots ", streets or
public rights -of -way known to accumulate litter. Counts in the large litter category for these selected
sites found:
• 1.6 — 2.2 percent polystyrene foam cups
• 0.4 — 0.8 percent polystyrene foam food plates
• 0.1 - 0.2 percent polystyrene clamshells
• 0.2 -0.5 percent polystyrene trays.
Recently, as a part of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) issued by the San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, litter estimates have been completed for a regional study
to assess the types and amounts of trash transported via urban runoff. For the purposes of the study,
the amount of trash in the stormwater system for each jurisdiction was estimated on a volume basis.
" Schultz, P. Wesley, et al. "Littering in Context: Personal and Environmental Predictors of Littering Behavior."
2011. Environment and Behavior. 45(1) (2013): 35.
74 "Large Litter" in the San Josd and other litter studies referenced in the review generally consisted of litter greater
than or equal to four square inches in size.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jos6 82 July 2013
Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion ofJmpacts
Approximately 3,900 cubic yards of trash that could reach creeks in the San Francisco Bay Basin
from stormwater systems is estimated to be generated annually (refer to Table 4.9 -2). Approximately
eight percent of this trash by volume, or 311 cubic yards, or eight (8) percent, is estimated to be EPS
foam food ware. These values are projected, in part, based upon land use types in an effort to
identify baseline trash generation that is transported to waterways via urban runoff. The results of
studies will be presented to the SF Bay RWQCB in 2013.
For the purposes of this Initial Study and based upon a review of available litter studies (refer to
Appendix B), the environmental baseline for EPS foam food ware in within the project area is
assumed to be:
• 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. 75
— about 311 cubic yards of EPS trash (roughly 3,000 pounds) per year in the SVURPP
area.
Municipal and Community Litter Collection and Cleanup
Local jurisdictions within the project area conduct activities such as street sweeping and collection of
trash from public trash containers as a part of efforts control and limit litter within their communities.
Other activities includes organizing, publicizing or facilitating local cleanups of creeks and water
ways. Cleanup events are conducted on a single -day basis (e.g., clean up days, illegal dumping
response, homeless encampment removal) or throughout the year (e.g., street sweeping and routine
maintenance of parks and public trash collection). SCVURPP estimates that over 600,000 gallons
(80,000 cubic feet) of trash and recyclable were removed from Santa Clara Valley creeks and
shorelines over a five year period by 13,000 volunteers and municipal staff during more than 580
clean up events in the project area.76 Clean-up events sponsored by the Creek Connections Action
Group (administered by the Santa Clara Valley Water District), such as National River and Coastal
Cleanup Days, have removed trash from local water bodies, including approximately 60,00 gallons
(8,000 cubic feet) in 2011 -2012. Other private or community organizations that conduct cleanups of
roadways, lots or creeks include Beautiful Day (in association with Gary Richards/Roadshow and
Caltrans), San Jose Clean Community Coalition, Save the Bay, Keep America Beautiful (Great
American Clean Up), Friends of Coyote Creek, Friends of Five Wounds Trail, Save Our Trails,
Guadalupe River Park Conservancy, Meet Up to Clean Up, neighborhood associations, and service
clubs. 77, 78, 79
76 Refer to Table 4.9 -2 in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality for a breakdown by jurisdiction.
76 SCVURPPP. "Urban Runoff Trash Management Reducing Impacts in Santa Clara Valley Creeks and San
Francisco Bay." February 2013.
77 San Jose Mercury News. "Massive Litter Cleanup of South Bay Highways Planned November 19 -20." 2011.
Accessed April 29, 2013. Available at: <http / /www mercurvnews com traffic /ci 19278527 >.
"San Jose Clean Community Coalition. "Become Part of the Clean Community ". Accessed April 29, 2013.
Available at: <http' / /Dlastics americanchemistry com /Stand - Alone- Content/SJCC.html >.
" Save The Bay. "Volunteer with Save the Bay ". Accessed April 29, 2013. Available at:
<https,//www.savesfba.ore/peninsula-south-baj>.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San JOB6 83 July 2013
Section 4.0- Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion ofImpacts
rra romp ruou ware uromance Initial Study
City of San JosB 84 July 2013
Table 4.9 -2
Estimated Volume of Trash Reaching Storm Drain Inlets'
(Stormwater Trash)
Estimated
Volume of
Trash
Estimated Volume of EPS Foodware &
Generated
Beverageware Trash Generated Annually'
Jurisdiction
Annually[
Best Estimate
Low Estimate
Best
High Estimate
(Gallons)
(Gallons)
Estimate
(Gallons)
Gallons)
Campbell
17,186
1,025
1,367
1,709
Cupertino
25,292
1,509
2,012
2,515
Los Altos
10,393
620
827
1,034
Milpitas
38,302
2,285
3,047
3,809
Monte Sereno
426
25
34
42
Mountain View
44,736
2,669
3,559
4,449
Palo Alto
31,955
1,907
2,542
3,178
San Josh
302,474
18,048
24,064
30,080
Santa Clara
64,636
3,857
5,142
6,428
Saratoga
8,032
479
639
799
Sunnyvale
82,628
4,930
6,574
8,217
County of Santa
37,425
2,233
2,977
3,722
Clara
Los Altos Hills
835
50
66
83
Los Gatos
13,224
789
1,052
1,315
Totals (Gallons)
677,543
40,428
53,904
67,380
Totals (Cubic
3,904
233
311
388
Yards)
'As reported in Short-Term Trash Load Reduction Plans as a part of Baseline Trash Generation Rates
Characterization in the San Francisco Bay Area.
2Estimates based on the total amount of uncompacted trash/EPS measured in Storm Drain inlets and
CDS units (5 events) in San Jose and Sunnyvale. Best = percentage of EPS compared to all trash; High
and low assume measurement error of ( + / -) 25% when characterizing trash/EPS.
3 Simple mulitplication of annual trash load generated and percentage EPS (low = 6 percent, best
estimate = 8 percent, and high = 10 percent)
Source: Chris Sommers, EOA, Inc. for SCVURPPP. April 24, 2013.
rra romp ruou ware uromance Initial Study
City of San JosB 84 July 2013
4.9.1.5 Regulatory Setting
Section 4.0 — Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion oflmpacts
Water Quality
The federal Clean Water Act and California's Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the
primary laws related to water quality. Regulations set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board have been developed to fulfill the
requirements of this legislation. EPA's regulations include the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ( NPDES) permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into
the waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented
at the regional level by the water quality control boards, which for the San Jos6 and greater Santa
Clara County area north of Morgan Hill is the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SF Bay RWQCB). The area of the County south of Llagas Road and Cochrane Road in Morgan Hill
is regulated by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast
RWQCB).so, su
Basin Plans
The RWQCBs are also tasked with preparation and revision of a regional Water Quality Control
Plan, also known as the Basin Plan. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses, which the Regional
Board has specifically designated for local aquifers, streams, marshes, rivers, and the Bay, as well as
the water quality objectives, and criteria that must be met to protect these uses. The RWQCBs
implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements to control water
quality and protect beneficial uses.
The Basin Plan also describes water resource protection efforts using a watershed management
approach to regulating water quality. This approach represents an expansion of the primary focus of
the Basin Plan and water quality regulations from point sources of pollution to include more diffuse
sources, referred to as non -point sources, such as urban stormwater and agricultural runoff.
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) /C.10 Requirements
(SF Bay RWQCB -All Jurisdictions Except for Morgan Hill and Gilroy)
The SF Bay RWQCB has issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Permit Number
CAS612008) (MRP) for the area of Santa Clara County that drains to San Francisco Bay. In an
effort to standardize stormwater management requirements throughout the region, this permit
replaces the formerly separate countywide municipal stormwater permits with a regional permit for
77 Bay Area municipalities, including the all of the jurisdictions within the County of Santa Clara
except the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy, which are within the Central Coast RWQCB and are
covered by separate NPDES stormwater permits (see discussion below).
so State Water Resources Control Board. "State and Regional Water Boards ". Accessed April 18, 2013.
<hLtp,//www.waterboards.ca.2ov/waterboards mao.shtml >.
s' Historically, efforts to prevent water pollution focused on "point" sources, meaning the source of the discharge
was from a single location (e.g., a sewage treatment plant, power plant, factory, etc.). More recent efforts are
focusing on pollution caused by "non- point" sources, meaning the discharge comes from multiple locations. The
best example of this latter category is urban storm water runoff, the source of which is a myriad of impervious
surfaces (e.g., highways, rooftops, parking lots, etc.) that are found in a typical city or town.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance mmai °vwy
City of San Josd 85 July 2013
Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of/mpacts
Provision C.10.b. of the MRP requires each permittee to identify and select a required number of
trash hot spots in creeks or shorelines where annual trash assessments and cleanups are required."
The goal of Provision C.10. is for the permittees to reduce trash loads from municipal separate storm
sewer systems by 40 percent by 2014, 70 percent by 2017, and 100 percent by 2022. Provision
C.10. also requires the submittal of plans and studies, which currently is an on -going process. 83
Possible approaches to achieve these ambitious targets include, but may not be limited to:
• installation of additional trash capture devices,
• enhancement of street sweeping and inlet cleaning activities;
• additional maintenance of public litter cans;
• product stewardship and source reduction actions targeting highly littered items;
• public education and outreach; and
• increased enforcement of anti - littering laws.
Small MS4s NPDES Permits
(Central Coast RWQCB - Morgan Hill and Gilroy)
The cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara have prepared and adopted a
Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and been issued the NPDES Small MS4s General Permit
by the Central Coast RWQCB [Order Number 2003- 0005 -DWQ, Waste Discharge Identification
Number (WDID#) 3- 43MS03020]. These jurisdictions are designated by the EPA as Small MS4s,
meaning smaller municipal separate storm sewer systems serving less than 100,000 people. The
SWMP outlines a comprehensive five year plan to establish Best Management Practices (BMPs)
through six Minimum Control Measures (MCMs) to help reduce the discharge of pollutants into
waterways and to protect local water quality caused by storm water and urban run -off within the
corporate limits of Morgan Hill and Gilroy. BMPs include Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
measures for residential, municipal and industrial uses to reduce trash and litter in stormwater.
Program implementation under the SWMP also includes conducting trash clean up days.
NPDES Permits and Regulations for Industrial Facilities
Wastewater discharges from industrial sources may contain pollutants at levels that could affect the
quality of receiving waters. The NPDES permit program establishes specific requirements for
discharges from industrial sources, such as facilities that manufacture single -use food ware items
and/or materials. Depending on the type of industrial manufacturing facility, more than one NPDES
program may apply. For example, the stormwater that runs off from the property of an industrial
facility may require an NPDES permit under the stormwater program. An industrial facility may also
discharge wastewater to a municipal sewer system and be covered under the NPDES pretreatment
program. The industrial facility may also discharge wastewater directly to surface water and require
12 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. "Trash Hot Spot Selection Final Report." July
1, 2010.
83San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. "Provision C.10 - Trash Load Reduction." Accessed
April 24, 2013. Available at:
<btti)://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rWAcb2/water issues /proerams/stormwater/MRP/Prov C10 shtml >.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jose 86 July 2013
Section 4.0—Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion oflmpacts
an individual or general NPDES permit. Industrial facilities, whether they discharge directly to a
surface water or to a municipal sewer system, are covered by effluent limitation guidelines and
standards. 84
4.9.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist
Significant with Significant No impact Somec(s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Would the project:
1. Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑
discharge requirements?
2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there will be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre - existing nearby wells will drop to a
level which will not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
3. Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which will result in
substantial erosion or siltation on -or off -site?
4. Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
will result in flooding on -or off -site?
5. Create or contribute runoff water which will ❑
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
6. Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑
quality?
7. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard ❑
area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
El X
WEENELE]
❑ I 1, 11
® 1,2
/1
/1
® 1
❑
13
® 1
84 U.S. EPA. "NPDES Industrial and Commercial Facilities" Accessed April 30, 2013. Available at:
<httpi//cfoub.0a.gov/ni)des/home.cfm?i)ropram id =14 >.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josh 87 July 2013
Secdon4.0— Environmental Setting Checklist and Discussionoflmpacts
Less Thm
Potentially significant Less Tim Checklist
Significant With significant No Impact Checklist
Impact Mitigation hnpact
Would the project:
8. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑
structures which will impede or redirect flood
flows?
9. Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑
risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed project, which does not involve construction or development activities, would not
expose people or structures to flood or inundation hazards or alter drainage patterns. The following
discussion focuses on possible effects on water quality.
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.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a change in the composition of litter. As
discussed below, there is little to no available data about how consumption or litter has changed in
other jurisdictions where EPS foam food ware bans were passed (e.g., San Francisco, Seattle, Palo
Alto, etc.). The City of San Josh expects that about 85 percent will be plastic and 15 percent will be
fiber- based.
4.9.2.1 Possible Effects of an Ordinance on EPS foam Food Ware on Local Water Quality
and the Implementation of the Basin Plan and APDES MAP Requirements
As discussed in Section 4.9.1.4 Water Quality, nine waterways in Santa Clara County are considered
trash - impaired. In addition, under provision C.10 of the MRP, which covers 11 of the cities and
towns and portions of unincorporated Santa Clara County within the project area, permittees are
tasked with reducing trash loads from municipal separate storm sewer systems by 40 percent by
2014, 70 percent by 2017, and 100 percent by 2022. The following discussion addresses how the
proposed project could affect water quality from the perspective of trash in local waterways.
Only one study was found that measured EPS foam in litter after adoption of an ordinance regulating
the use of EPS foam food ware. These studies were conducted for the City of San Francisco during
the period 2007 -2009. In the one sample year after the ordinance (2009), the relative composition of
litter appeared to shift from polystyrene foam to substitute container types. Based upon this one
study, a change in the availability of EPS foam food ware for single use disposal containers would
shift the material composition, but not the amount (count), of street litter.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josh 88 July 2013
Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Dismssion of/mpacts
Substitute single -use food ware products are anticipated to be a mix of plastic [e.g., crystalline PS,
polypropylene (PP), PET (polyethylene terephthalate), PLA(polylactic acid)] and fiber products.
Substitutes for ice chests would be encapsulated EPS foam products or reusable coolers made of non-
foamed plastics, such as polypropylene.
Effects of Substitute Products on Litter Pathways to Waterways
Although lighter than similar paper products, substitute plastic products
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, they may be removed by street sweeping or
maintenance activities before entering the storm water collection system
or by screens or trash racks (see Photos 7a and 7b). The substitute
products, therefore, are not more likely to reach waterways if
inappropriately disposed of
Fate of Substitute Products in Waterways
Fiber or paper 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). ss
Some plastic coatings in fiber cups and containers could take longer to breakdown than the fiber
material. The breakdown of plastic substitutes in water would be similar to that of EPS foam,
although EPS foam may break into pieces sooner that other hard, non -foam plastic resin products.
Photo 7a: Trash Rack in Morgan Hill
Photo 7b: Trash Interceptor
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.
As discussed in Section 4.9.1, by count and volume, EPS foam food ware in the project area makes
up about eight percent of litter by volume in stormwater systems, and by count on city streets often
less than two to three percent. se While paper cups are usually several times the weight of EPS foam
cups, given the relatively small percentage of EPS foam food ware in litter, there would not be a
substantial change in the count, volume or mass of litter that could impact water quality of creeks and
waterways, including San Francisco and Monterey Bays. Replacing this material with substitute
products (that are currently also found in litter) would reduce the amount of EPS foam in litter,
however it would not result in a substantial change in the number, volume, or weight of litter items or
trash in waterways and would not interfere with implementation of regional plans or programs, such
as the Basin Plan or NPDES municipal stormwater permits designed to protect beneficial uses and
improve water quality. (Less Than Significant Impact)
B5 California Ocean Science Trust. "Plastic Debris in the California Marine Ecosystem." September 2011. Pages
23 -24. Available at: <h[tp / /calos[ ore/odf /science- initiatives /marine ° / 20debris/Plastic %20Renort 10-4 -] l .pdf>.
e° Street litter studies were done using litter counts and studies of litter in storm drain catch basins and the storm
drain system were done by volume, as part of compliance with the MRP NPDES permit.
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jost 89 July 2013
Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist and Discussion oflmpacts
4.9.2.2 Water Quality Impacts Associated with the Manufacture of Substitute Products
The proposed ordinance would result in a reduction in EPS foam food ware use and manufacture and
is anticipated to result in a proportional increase in the manufacture and use of plastic and fiber -based
substitute materials. Fiber and other plastic food ware products are currently manufactured in
California, the remainder of the U.S., and internationally. Since the City of San Jose cannot predict
exactly which materials would replace EPS foam in the local food service industry and where they
would be manufactured, the following discussion is provided to generally characterize the available
substitute types and to summarize what is known about their water quality impacts.
The locations of manufacturing facilities and any associated water quality impacts cannot be
determined with any certainty. Much of the manufacturing is likely to occur outside of Santa Clara
County, however, since there are no large petrochemical plastics or fiber processing industries in the
area.
As noted in Appendix C, production of certain substitute materials such as PLA and PET can lead to
increased eutrophication (i.e. increased nutrient loading) of water bodies from pollutants released
during the manufacturing process and during feedstock production (for bioplastics or biodegradable
fiber -based materials). See the Tabone et al., Madival et al., and the PlasticsEurope studies
summarized in Appendix C.
Paper production from virgin materials also has been reported to lead to increased eutrophication
(i.e., increased nutrient loading) of water bodies from pollutants released during the manufacturing
process. This would occur at manufacturing plants that do not treat all of their effluent.
Eutrophication can degrade water quality and lead to a decreased level of dissolved oxygen, resulting
in harmful impacts to wildlife. Paper manufactured with recycled content does not generate the same
quantities or types of pollution as paper manufactured from virgin materials, although it is important
to note that the use of recycled content may be limited in food ware due to concerns regarding
contamination. Chemicals used in paper manufacturing can also include chlorine, sodium hydroxide,
chloroform, acids, solvents (tetmchloroethylene, methylene chloride), and sodium sulfide.87
Since PLA plastic resin is produced from plant material, some of the same eutrophication issues as
paper or fiber manufacturing could apply if discharges to waterways are not controlled. Chemical
compounds that have toxic properties are associated with the manufacture of petrochemicals and
plastic products. Given their properties, the use and disposal of these compounds is highly regulated.
In the U.S. and a number of other countries, regulations limit industrial discharges of paper waste and
manufacturing chemicals, including those under the NPDES Industrial Discharge program (refer to
Section 4.9.1.5 Regulatory Setting). Given the relatively small shifts anticipated and existing laws
and regulations governing manufacturing, especially in the U.S. and Canada, the incremental
increases in throughput of substitute paper or plastic food ware products at facilities that meet current
national Clean Water Act standards for water discharged back into the environment would not result
in a significant impact on water quality. (Less Than Significant Impact)
"EPA. Paperindustry. EPA/530- SW- 90 -027c. Available at: <www.smallbiz-
enviroweb ore/Resources /sbopubs/cdocs/c25 ndf>
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Josh 90 July 2013
Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist and Discussion oflmpacts
4.93 Conclusion
The proposed phase -out on EPS foam food ware would not violate water quality standards, waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. (Less than Significant
Impact)
The proposed phase -out of EPS foam food ware does not involve construction that would expose
people or structures to flooding or inundation hazards or alter existing drainage patterns. (No
Impact)
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jose 91 July 2013
Se don 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist and Discussion oflmpacts
4.10 LAND USE
4.10.1 Settine
The 134.4 jurisdictions that are considering adoption of the model ordinance cover over 3209 square
miles, which is about one -third (32 percent) of the 1,029.1 square miles of Santa Clara County. The
estimated resident population as of January 2012 within these cities and towns was 1,656,561
1,66 4,698 (about 9192 percent of Santa Clara County) with about 819 053524,--"-23 jobs (91 percent
of jobs in the County).
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan
The City of San Jose and several other jurisdictions considering foam EPS food ware bans are
located within the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation
Plan (HCP/NCCP). The HCP/NCCP was developed through a partnership between Santa Clara
County, the Cities of San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD), Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The HCP/NCCP is intended to
promote the recovery of endangered species and enhance ecological diversity and function, while
accommodating planned growth in approximately 500,000 acres of southern Santa Clara County,
The HCP/NCCP, which has been approved by the local partners, is not yet effective pending
additional future actions by local, state, and federal agencies, anticipated to occur in the fall of 2013.
4.10.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Adoption of the model ordinance phasing out EPS food ware containers would lead to a shift away to
substitute containers made of recyclable or compostable plastics, or fiber. The proposed project
would not, therefore, physically divide established communities in participating jurisdictions
throughout Santa Clara County. The proposed ban would not conflict with any applicable plan,
tF i toatn rood Ware Ordmance Initial Stud
City of San Josd 92 July 201
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less 7ban
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less 7ban
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Checklist
Sources)
Would the project:
1. Physically divide an established community?
❑
❑
❑
®
1
2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
❑
❑
❑
®
1,2,10
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
3. Conflict with any applicable habitat
❑
❑
❑
®
1,7
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Adoption of the model ordinance phasing out EPS food ware containers would lead to a shift away to
substitute containers made of recyclable or compostable plastics, or fiber. The proposed project
would not, therefore, physically divide established communities in participating jurisdictions
throughout Santa Clara County. The proposed ban would not conflict with any applicable plan,
tF i toatn rood Ware Ordmance Initial Stud
City of San Josd 92 July 201
Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts
policy, or regulation adopted by any of the participating jurisdictions as no agencies are currently
understood to have policies or regulations promoting the use of EPS food ware or discouraging use
of any of the potential substitutes, many of which can be recycled or composted in certain sectors
(e.g. multi - family or commercial collection).
The proposed ban would not be a covered activity under the HCP/NCCP in that it does not involve
development or disturbance of land that results in loss of land cover that could be habitat to covered
species, nor would it conflict with the HCP/NCCP's conservation strategies which involve
protections for covered species' habitats. To the extent EPS food ware is currently appearing as litter
in the environment and being ingested by (or otherwise harming) wildlife including the HCP/NCCP's
covered species, a shift to substitute containers is not anticipated to create additional impacts to
wildlife, as discussed in more detail in Section 4.4 Biological Resources. (No Impact)
4.10.3 Conclusion
The proposed ordinance phasing out the use of foam EPS food ware would not result in land use
impacts. (No Impact)
EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study
City of San Jose 93 July 2013