The URL can be used to link to this page

Exhibit A of Attachment 1 - Part 4Section 4.0 — Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion oflmpacts 4.11 MINERAL, RESOURCES 4.11.1 Settine Mineral resources found and extracted in Santa Clara County include construction aggregate deposits such as sand, gravel, and crushed stone. The only area in the City of San Josh that is designated by the State Mining and Geology Board under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) as containing mineral deposits which are of regional significance is Communications Hill." 4.11.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource in Santa Clara County, the state, or elsewhere, in that the project does not involve development or reservation of a particular site containing mineral resources, rather the model ordinance, if adopted by a participating jurisdiction, will result in a shift away from EPS food ware containers to substitute containers made of recyclable or compostable plastics, or fiber. The proposed project would not, therefore, result in significant adverse impacts to mineral resources. 4.11.3 Conclusion The project would not result in impacts to known mineral resources. (No Impact) S8 City of San Jost. Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan. cra roam rooa ware uramance Initial Study City of San Josh 94 July 2013 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorpmated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist somce(s) Would the project: 1. Result in the loss of availability of a ]mown 13 E] ® 1 mineral resource that will be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 1,2 important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource in Santa Clara County, the state, or elsewhere, in that the project does not involve development or reservation of a particular site containing mineral resources, rather the model ordinance, if adopted by a participating jurisdiction, will result in a shift away from EPS food ware containers to substitute containers made of recyclable or compostable plastics, or fiber. The proposed project would not, therefore, result in significant adverse impacts to mineral resources. 4.11.3 Conclusion The project would not result in impacts to known mineral resources. (No Impact) S8 City of San Jost. Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan. cra roam rooa ware uramance Initial Study City of San Josh 94 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Check list, and Discussion ofimpacts 4.12 NOISE 4.12.1 Settine Several factors influence sound as it is perceived by the human ear, including the actual level of sound, the period of exposure to the sound, the frequencies involved, and fluctuation in the noise level during exposure. Noise is measured on a "decibel" (dB) scale which serves as an index of loudness. Because the human ear cannot hear all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the "A- weighted" decibel or dBA. Further, sound is averaged over time and penalties are added to the average for noise that is generated during times that may be more disturbing to sensitive uses such as early morning, or late evening. Since excessive noise levels can adversely affect human activities (such as conversation and sleeping) and human health, federal, state, and local governmental agencies have set forth criteria or planning goals to minimize or avoid these effects. The noise guidelines are almost always expressed using one of several noise averaging methods such as Ley, DNL, or CNEL. 89 Using one of these descriptors is a way for a location's overall noise exposure to be measured, realizing of course that there are specific moments when noise levels are higher (e.g., when a jet is taking off from an airport or a leafblower is operating) and specific moments when noise levels are lower (e.g., during lulls in traffic flows on I -880 or in the middle of the night). Noise in Santa Clara County related to single -use EPS foam food ware is primarily limited to truck noise from the transport of food ware to restaurants, other food vendors, and retailers. 4.12.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts 19 Laq stands for the Noise Equivalent Level and is a measurement of the average energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time such as the noisiest hour. DNL stands for Day -Night Level and is a 24 -hour average of noise levels, with 10 dB penalties applied to noise occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. CNEL stands for Community Noise Equivalent Level; it is similar to the DNL except that there is an additional five (5) dB penalty applied to noise which occurs between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Generally, where traffic noise predominates, the CNEL and DNL are typically within two (2) dBA of the peak -hour Lam. EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josh 95 July 2013 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less 11ma Significant Impact No Impact Checklist source(:) Would the project result in: 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 1,2 levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2. Exposure of persons to, or generation of, ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 1 excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? 19 Laq stands for the Noise Equivalent Level and is a measurement of the average energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time such as the noisiest hour. DNL stands for Day -Night Level and is a 24 -hour average of noise levels, with 10 dB penalties applied to noise occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. CNEL stands for Community Noise Equivalent Level; it is similar to the DNL except that there is an additional five (5) dB penalty applied to noise which occurs between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Generally, where traffic noise predominates, the CNEL and DNL are typically within two (2) dBA of the peak -hour Lam. EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josh 95 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion oflmpncts Less Them I Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Checklist Impact Mitigation Impact source(s) Would the project result in: 3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ® ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase ❑ ❑ ❑ in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 5. For a project located within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ airstrip, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed EPS foam food ware ordinance does not include physical development of any kind and would not expose persons to excessive noise or groundborne vibration levels. Based on existing patterns of distribution, it is unlikely that there would be a substantial increase in truck trips delivering substitute single -use food ware to food vendors or retail stores in the project area (see Section 4.16 Transportation). For a discernable increase in roadway noise to occur, generally traffic volumes must double. Any additional truck trips related to the transport of substitute food ware products would not occur in great enough quantities, if at all, to result in a measurable increase in noise levels on local roadways. In addition, increased use and disposal of the substitute containers would not affect the number of vehicles associated with curb -side refuse (or recycling) pick -up in that the overall amount of food ware containers used in the project areas is not expected to change. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.12.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed ordinance would not result in a measurable increase in noise or vibration. (Less Than Significant Impact) EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josh 96 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion ofimpacts 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.13.1 Setting According to the California Department of Finance estimates, the 2012 population of the 1344 participating jurisdictions was 1.656.561 1,664,589.90 The total 2012 population of Santa Clara County (134.4 participating jurisdictions plus Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills, and unincorporated Santa Clara County) according to these estimates was 1,816,486. 4.13.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant with Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation impact Would the project: 1. Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ ❑ area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed ordinance to prohibit the use of disposable EPS foam food service ware would not induce any population growth, nor would it displace any number of people or housing units. 4.13.3 Conclusion The proposed project would have no impact on population and housing. (No Impact) 90 California Department of Finance. "E -1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State — January 1, 2011 and 2012." May 2012. Available at: <http / /www dof ca env/ research/ demoarachic /reoortslestimates/e -1 / >. EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josh 97 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, andDismssion ojimpacts 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.14.1 Setting Public services such as police and fire protection, schools, parks, and public facilities, in the incorporated areas of Santa Clara County are operated and maintained by individual jurisdictions or by contracts with other public agencies. Services in the unincorporated areas are provided by Santa Clara County. 4.14.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts 1. adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governments] facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? Police Protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public Facilities? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Ihm Checklist Significant with Significant No hnpact Checklist Impact Mitigation hnpact ❑ ❑ ❑ ID ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The reduced use of EPS foam caused by the proposed ordinance would correspond with an increase in the use of substitute products. This would not be expected to affect the quantity of disposable food service products used and consumers are not expected to litter substitute containers at a higher rate than EPS foam. A change in the types of disposable products used would not affect recreational or school facilities. The proposed project would not increase the demand for police and fire services nor would it require the construction or expansion of any other public facilities. 4.14.3 Conclusion The proposed ordinance would have no adverse physical impacts on police and fire facilities, schools, parks, or other public facilities. It would not require the construction or expansion of any new or existing public facilities. (No Impact) EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josd 98 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion oflmpacts 4.15 RECREATION 4.15.1 Settine Parks and recreational facilities within the project area are operated and maintained by the jurisdictions within it as well as the County of Santa Clara. There are also State and federally -owned recreational areas in the project area (e.g., Henry Coe State Park). 4.15.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Soutce(s) Impact Mitigation Impact 1. Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility will occur or be accelerated? 2. Does the project include recreational facilities ❑ ❑ ❑ or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project would reduce and aim to eliminate the use of disposable EPS foam food ware in Santa Clara County. As a result, the use of substitute products made from paper, plastic, bioplastics, and other plant materials would increase. Consumers are not expected to litter substitute containers at a higher rate than EPS foam, so overall litter in the terrestrial environment is not expected to increase. Since litter would not increase, the proposed project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities. (No Impact) The proposed project would not increase the use of the existing neighborhood and regional parks or cause adverse physical impacts to recreational facilities. 4.15.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not increase the use of parks or recreational facilities or require the construction of new recreational facilities. (No Impact) EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San lose 99 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting Checklist and Discussion oflmpacts 4.16 TRANSPORTATION 4.16.1 Setting 4.16.1.1 Existing Transportation System The existing transportation system within the jurisdictions in Santa Clara County includes the roadway network (e.g., freeways, expressways, a Grand Boulevard, arterials, and neighborhood streets), transit systems (light rail, buses, heavy rail), bicycle routes, and trails and pathways for pedestrians and bicycles. The transportation system is owned and maintained by local cities and towns, Santa Clara County (county expressways), the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (light rail transit rights -of -way), the Santa Clara Valley Water District (some trails adjacent to waterways) and the State of California (highways and freeways and some railroad tracks). For CEQA analyses done in Santa Clara County, traffic conditions at study intersections affected by project traffic are evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free - flowing conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or oversaturated conditions with excessive delays. San Josh's policies, and those of a number of the local participating jurisdictions, identify LOS D or better as the acceptable standard for most local street operations. The Santa Clara County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) level of service standard for signalized intersections, which applies only to regional intersections designated in the CMP, is LOS E or better. The CMP methodology requires an impact analysis be done for any intersection to which a proposed project would add 10 or more vehicles per lane per hour. For freeways, the LOS standard is LOS E or better. The jurisdictions within Santa Clara County also have a range of policies and programs that encourage and/or plan for increased use of multi -modal transportation facilities such as transit, pedestrian sidewalks and trails, and bicycle facilities. 4.16.1.2 Delivery of EPS Foam Food Ware Products Single -use food ware is delivered in dedicated loads from manufacturers to regional or subregional distributors. They are then delivered to users, such as restaurants and retail outlets, as part of mixed loads of items. The vast majority of product deliveries to food service providers and retailers are provided by trucks. 4.16.13 Solid Waste and Recycling Collection in the Project Area Solid waste and recycling collection services for residences and businesses in the project area are provided by a number of waste and recycling haulers franchised by the individual jurisdictions. Solid waste and recycling is collected on a regular basis using established routes and days of collection. Waste collection is organized by land use sectors such as single - family residential, multi- family residential, commercial, and industrial. Industrial waste is not discussed in this Initial Study because it does not contain EPS foam food service products that would be affected by the project. EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San JOSE 7 0o July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion oflmpacts Waste collected in Santa Clara County is processed and/or landfilled at any of the following landfills and transfer stations: Newby Island Resource Recovery Park, Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company, Kirby Canyon Landfill, Mission Trail Waste Management Transfer Station, San Martin Transfer Station, and the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer (SMaRT) Station.91 Newby Island recycles clean polystyrene foam that is dropped off at the landfill. All other facilities landfill EPS foam. Other materials to be recycled are hauled by truck from transfer stations or landfills to off -site locations for shipping to recyclers or composting operations, generally during off -peak hours, to avoid heavy traffic periods. 4.16.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts 91 Center for the Development of Recycling. City Recycling and Garbage Services in Santa Clara County. 2013. Available at: http-//www.recyclestuff.org/Guides/CityGuide.pd EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Jost 101 July 2013 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than significant with Significant Impact Mitigation impact Incorporated No Impact Checklist Somce(s) Would the project: 1. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1,2 policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non- motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 2. Conflict with an applicable congestion ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ ® I including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 1 feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 5. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 1 91 Center for the Development of Recycling. City Recycling and Garbage Services in Santa Clara County. 2013. Available at: http-//www.recyclestuff.org/Guides/CityGuide.pd EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Jost 101 July 2013 Section 4.0 — Environmental Setting Checklist and Discussion oflmpacts Less mtam Potentially Significant Less lban Checklist Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I Sourao(s) Would the project: 6. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ❑ ❑ ® I 1,2 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. The ordinance does not propose modifications to the transportation network or construction of new development that would generate new vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian trips. 4.16.2.1 Impacts of Truck Trips for Delivery of Substitute Products Single -use food ware products are delivered in boxes or similar containers by truck to food vendors, restaurant and food service suppliers, and retail outlets throughout the project area by distributors, delivery service companies, and company fleet trucks from distribution centers. Deliveries generally are undertaken on a regular basis along with other products. Substitute food ware products identified in Section 4.0 (Substitute Products) and Appendix D are also currently delivered to businesses throughout Santa Clara County. Stacked food ware products with the same capacity (e.g., 16 ounce cups, nine -inch clamshells) may have different weights, however the overall volume of delivery boxes is anticipated to be similar for EPS foam and substitute products and differences in volume are not anticipated to result in the need to dispatch additional delivery trucks. Truck trips from independent delivery service companies and company fleet trips are not anticipated to change in number due to the substitution of one type of single -use food ware (PS foam) for another. Truck trips from individual distributors could shift depending on whether or not a distributor currently sells both EPS foam food ware and the substitute products. Overall, delivery track trips, especially during peak hours, are not anticipated to substantially increase. Therefore, the performance of the transportation system would not be adversely effected by changes in delivery truck traffic resulting from implementation of the proposed project. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.16.2.2 Impacts of Truck Trips for Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling The proposed ordinance would result in a shift in the composition of food service ware in the waste stream. EPS foam products would be replaced by products made from materials including: petroleum -based plastic, plant -based plastic, paperboard, molded pulp, and plant fibers. EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josd 102 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion oflmpacts As discussed in Section 4.0 (Baseline) and Appendix B, the percentage of EPS foam food ware in waste collected in San Jose and Sunnyvale is a small portion of the total collected solid waste. The use of substitute products would not increase the volume of single -use food ware in solid waste to the extent that additional truck trips would be required to collect waste or recyclable materials. The number of truck trips for solid waste and recycling collection would not change substantially with implementation of the ordinance. Project traffic impacts are considered significant if they conflict with city, town or County /CMP policies related to maintenance of intersection or freeway level of service or would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The project would not generate a substantial increase in peak hour traffic or modify public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities and therefore would not result in a significant adverse transportation impact. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.16.3 Conclusion The ordinance does not propose modifications to the transportation network or construction of new development that would generate new vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian trips or result in transportation hazards or inadequate emergency access. (No Impact) The proposed ordinance would not result in a significant transportation impact due to possible modifications to truck trips. (Less Than Significant Impact) EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San JOSE 103 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist and Discussion oflmpacts 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 4.17.1 Setting 4.17.1.1 Water Supply Water service within the project area is provided by private and municipal water suppliers. There are 13 water retailers in Santa Clam County and several special water districts. The water providers for each jurisdiction are listed in Table 4.17 -1, below. Table 4.17 -1 Water Retailers for Jurisdictions within Santa Clara Coun Jurisdiction Water Retailers/Public Water Utilities Campbell San Jose Water Company Cupertino California Water Service Company Gilroy Gilroy Water Los Altos California Water Service Comp—any Los Altos Hills Purissima Hills Water District, California Water Service Company Los Gatos San Jose Water Company Milpitas Milpitas Water Monte Sereno San Jose Water Company Morgan Hill Morgan Hill Water Mountain View Mountain View Water, California Water Service Company Palo Alto Palo Alto Water San Jose Great Oaks Water Company, San Jose Municipal Water System, San Jose Water Company Santa Clam Santa Clam Water Department Saratoga San Jose Water Company SMLvale Sunnyvale Water, California Water Service Com any Unincorporated Santa Clara County Purissima Hills Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District and other local districts Stanford University The Santa Clara Valley Water District manages the County's groundwater sub - basins to support pumping from aquifers which accounts for approximately 40 -50 percent of the County's water supply. 92 The District also operates water supply reservoirs and groundwater recharge facilities in local watersheds and import water from the State Water Project and San Felipe Division of the Federal Central Valley Project. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct is a third source of imported water available to eight of the water retailers in the County (e.g., Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose and Milpitas, Purissima Hills Water District, and Stanford University). " Santa Clara Valley Water District. "Urban Water Management Plan 2010." 2010. EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josh 104 July 2013 Section 4.0 — Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.17.1.2 Storm water Drainage Systems The cities, towns and County of Santa Clara are responsible for the development, operation, and maintenance of stormwater systems throughout their jurisdictions. Stormwater drainage systems convey runoff and prevent local flooding of streets and urban areas. They move water away from developed and rural areas to a local water body, such as a creek, river or bay. Stormwater sewer systems include stormwater inlets (storm drains) and gutters on streets as well as pipes and outfalls. Stormwater outfalls are, where the collected stormwater enters a local water body. Within the City of San Jose alone, there are about 30,000 storm drain inlets on City streets.93 The various stormwater systems collect runoff water from streets and developed properties and carry it to local creeks and rivers that ultimately drain into San Francisco Bay or Monterey Bay (e.g., Gilroy, Morgan Hill and portions of southern Santa Clara County). In some rural and less developed areas, storm water runoff is conveyed in open channels or overland prior to discharge in local waterways. Creeks and rivers in each jurisdiction are listed by watershed in Table 4.9 -1. Several permits and plans govern the design and operation of municipal stormwater systems within the project area. As discussed in Section 4.9.1.5 (Hydrology and Water Quality) Regulatory Setting, 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 includes all of the jurisdictions within the County of Santa Clara except the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy and southern portions of the County of Santa Clara, which drain to Monterey Bay and are within the Central Coast RWQCB and covered by a separate NPDES stormwater permit. An Urban Runoff Management Plan, intended to reduce polluted runoff from entering local waterways, has been adopted by the SCV WD, Santa Clara County and 13 cities and towns for the areas of the County that drain to San Francisco Bay. The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program's Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) consists of an area -wide plan and individual agency plans describing what the jurisdictions will do, collectively and individually, to reduce urban runoff pollution in accordance with the NPDES MRP permit. In the southern portion of the project area, the Cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara prepared and adopted a regional Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and were issued a NPDES Small MS4s General Permit by the Central Coast RWQCB. 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 effected by storm water and urban run -off. 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. 93 City of San Josd. "Watershed Maps ". Accessed May 1, 2013. Available at: <httl),//www.sanFoseca.gov/index.aspx?NDD--I 868>. EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josh 105 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting. Checklist. and Discussion 4.17.1.3 Wastewater Sanitary sewer service in Santa Clara County is the responsibility of municipalities and several service districts. Sewer service consists of the transmission of municipal and industrial wastewater to a treatment facility, treatment, and then disposal of the wastewater and residual waste solids. As with water service, a number of the cities in the County operate their own local sewage collection systems and contract with one of four wastewater treatment plants to treat the effluent (refer to Table 4.17. -2). Table 4.17 -2 Sani ary Sewer Service for Jurisdictions within Santa Clara Coun Served by Jurisdiction Collection Treatment Campbell West Valley Sanitation District San Jose -Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility RWP Cupertino Cupertino Sanitary District Rancho Rinconada San Jose -Santa Clara RWP Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant Cit of Gilro South Count Re ional Wastewater Authorit os Altos City of Los Altos Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (W CP os Altos Hills Cit of Los Altos artial Palo Alto Re Tonal W CP [Gilroy s Gatos West Valley Sanitation District San Jose -Santa Clara RWP il itas Ci of Mil itas San Jose -Santa Clara RWP onte Sereno West Valley Sanitation District San Jose -Santa Clara RWP Morgan Hill ity of Morgan Hill South County Regional Wastewater Authority Mountain View City of Mountain View Palo Alto Regional W CP Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Regional W CP San Jose City of San Jose San Jose -Santa Clara RWP Santa Clara City of Santa Clara San Jose -Santa Clara RWP Saratoga Cupertino Sanitary District San Jose -Santa Clara RWP Sunnyvale City of Sunnyvale Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant Unincorporated Santa Clara Count Various All four treatment plants and septic systems 4.17.1.4 Solid Waste Signed into law in 1989, the California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) requires cities and counties to adopt and implement waste diversion programs for source reduction, recycling, and composting. Waste haulers serving the jurisdictions within Santa Clara County include West Valley Collection and Recycling, GreenWaste Recovery, Recology, Specialty Solid Waste and Recycling, Mission Trail Waste System, GreenTeam of San Jose, and Garden City Sanitation. These haulers are EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San JOa6 106 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts responsible for providing waste processing services for the franchised waste stream in Santa Clara County, which includes landfilling, recyclables processing, composting, and management of household hazardous waste. All jurisdictions in Santa Clara County met the 50 percent waste diversion goal mandated by AB 939 in 2006, the most recent year for which the diversion rates received approval .94 In 2008, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (now the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, or CalRecycle) updated the system for determining diversion goals for each city. At present, per capita landfill disposal limits are determined each year and the jurisdictions work to meet their respective goals. Fines of up to $10,000 per day may be imposed if the State decides that good faith efforts are not being made to implement the approved plan or other actions to achieve the State mandated reduction in landfill disposal of trash. AB 939 established an integrated waste management hierarchy to guide the state and local agencies in its implementation, in order of priority: (1) source reduction, (2) recycling and composting, and (3) environmentally safe transformation and land disposal. That hierarchy was later abbreviated to "reduce, reuse, recycle ", with emphasis on the overarching goal of reducing materials that are sent to disposal. Signed in 2011, AB 341 amended AB 939 to set a goal of 75 percent solid waste diversion via source reduction, recycling, and composting, by 2020.95 AB 341 also requires businesses that generate more than four cubic yards of commercial solid waste per week and multifamily residential dwellings (five units or more) to obtain recycling services. To meet this requirement, AB 341 also requires jurisdictions to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs. Waste collection is organized by land use sectors such as single - family residential, multi - family residential, commercial, and industrial. Industrial waste is not discussed in this Initial Study because it does not contain EPS foam food service products that would be affected by the ordinance. Any EPS foam used by workers at an industrial facility would be disposed in a commercial waste stream, not among the byproducts of industrial processes (i.e. industrial waste). Waste collected in Santa Clara County is processed and/or landfilled at any of the following landfills and transfer stations: Newby Island Resource Recovery Park, Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company, Kirby Canyon Landfill, Mission Trail Waste Management Transfer Station, San Martin Transfer Station, and the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer (SMaRT) Station.96 For a list of which facilities serve the participating jurisdictions, see Table 4.17 -3 in Section 4.17.2.2 Impacts to Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling. 94 CalRecycle. "Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Progress Report." 2006. Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at: < http:// www. calrecycle .ca.sov /LGCentral/Ret)orisli urisdiction /diversiondisposal.asox >. 95 California, State of. Assembly Bill No. 341. 2011. Legislative Counsel's Digest. Available at: the Development of Recycling. City Recycling and Garbage Services in Santa Clara County. 2013. Available at: EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josd 107 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion ofimpacts Newby Island recycles clean polystyrene foam that is dropped off at the landfill. All other facilities landfill EPS foam. A waste characterization study sponsored by the City of San Jos6 found that in 2007, 0.7 percent of residential waste in San Jos6 was EPS foam and 0.8 percent was commercial waste. At the time of the study the City was trying to recycle expanded polystyrene for residential customers, so the study also found that 0.5 percent of residential recycling was EPS foam. 97 4.17.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Less Than Potentially Sigaificant Less Than Checklist Significant with significant No hnpact Impact Mitigation Impact I SaareC(s) 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ❑ the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 2. Require or result in the construction of new ❑ water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 3. Require or result in the construction of new storrnwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 7. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ *00050 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 1 ® 1 ❑ ® 1 ® ❑ 1 A-►01 1 1 The proposed project is adoption and implementation of an ordinance that would restrict the use of EPS foam food ware containers. The proposed ordinance would cause a reduction in EPS foam food 97 Cascadia Consulting Group. "City of San Jos6 Waste Characterization Study." May 2008. Prepared for the City of San Jos6. EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Jos6 108 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmenta1 Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 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. 4.17.2.1 Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Impacts The proposed restrictions on the use of EPS foam food ware and a shift to other types of single use food ware used in Santa Clara County would not result in substantial additional water use or wastewater generation. Plastic, but not fiber, containers that could be recycled would be rinsed by residents before placing in recycling bins. Indirect Effects on Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Related to Manufacture of Substitute Products Differential water demand and wastewater generation associated with the manufacture of substitute products are possible indirect effects of the proposed project. Substitute 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 Josh cannot predict where substitute products would be manufactured, the following discussion is provided to generally characterize the available substitute types and to summarize what is known about their water supply and wastewater treatment impacts. A 2011 study funded by the Plastic Foodservice Packaging Group found that EPS foam foodservice products use less water than comparable products made from paperboard or PLA. The authors note that the water use results of this study have a high level of uncertainty, however, due to a lack of water use data as well as an "inability to clearly differentiate between consumptive and non- consumptive uses of water." 98 Studies from the European plastics industry show that water used in the production of plastic resins (prior to product manufacturing, use, and disposal) ranges from 4.79 grams of water per kilogram of polypropylene to 4.8 kilograms of water per kilogram of PET (e.g., PET production requires about 1,000 times more water per kilogram of plastic than polypropylene). The production of one kilogram of polystyrene resin requires approximately 510 grams of water.99 See Table C -4 in Appendix C for further details on the results of these studies. Based on the results of these European life cycle inventories, the amount of water used to produce substitute plastic products can range approximately from one - hundredth of the water used to produce polystyrene to as much as ten times more. Given the lack of definitive evidence that any one of the substitute products uses more water than EPS foam and uncertainties about the type of plastic or fiber replacements, the City of San Jose " Franklin Associates, Ltd. "Life Cycle Inventory of Foam Polystyrene, Paper - Based, and PLA Foodservice Products." February 4, 2 -11. Prepared for the Plastic Foodservice Packaging Group. See Page ES -19/ 99 PlasticsEurope. `Environmental Product Declaritions of the European Plastics Manufacturers: PETh, 2011; PP, 2008; GPPS, 2012." Available at: <http• / /www plastieseuroRe ore/ plastics- sustainability /eco- profiles/browse -bv- list.asw EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josd 109 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion oflmpacts cannot conclude that the proposed project would result in a significant rise in demand for water resources, locally or in other areas. While the exact locations of where substitutes selected by food vendors would be produced is not known, much of the manufacturing is likely to occur outside of Santa Clara County, since there are no large petrochemical plastics or fiber processing industries in the area. The reduction of the use of EPS foam food ware and substitution with other available single use disposal food ware products would not substantially affect local water use or supply or wastewater generation or treatment for jurisdictions within the project area. Water use for manufacturing outside of Santa Clara County would be drawn from managed water resources and could involve water recycling or other measures to minimize water consumption. Similarly, wastewater generation and discharge to treatment facilities would be permitted and regulated to comply with local treatment capacity in other jurisdictions. Therefore, implementation of the project is not anticipated to result in substantial indirect water supply and wastewater treatment impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.17.2.2 Impacts to Storm water Drainage Systems As discussed in Section 4.9.1.4 Water Quality, litter in local communities can be transported into stormwater drainage systems. Litter (or trash), including single -use food ware, is transported to stormwater drainage systems and creeks 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. 11 Trash that reaches stormwater inlets can be a result of littering by individuals along roadways (motorists or pedestrians), wind blowing unsecured trash from waste Photo 8: Trash conveyed in stormwater and dumping in Coyote Creek. containers or vehicle loads, and from vehicles themselves (e.g., tires and vehicle debris), among other sources.101 The largest amounts of trash and debris are pushed into and through the storm drainage system at the end of the dry season, with the first heavy rain. Litter can form large accumulations in stormwater systems and urban creeks, which can impact water quality and potentially hinder flood control protection (Photo 8). As noted above, the proposed too SCViTRPP. 2013. Urban Runoff Trash Management Reducing Impacts in Santa Clara valley Creeks and San Francisco Bay. February 2013. 101 Schultz, P. Wesley, et al. 2011. Littering in Context: Personal and Environmental Predictors of Littering Behavior. Environment and Behavior 2013 45:35. EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Jos€ 110 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts ordinance would cause a reduction in EPS foam food ware use and is anticipated to result in an increase in the use of plastic and fiber -based substitute materials. The ordinance is not expected to cause a decline in overall consumption of disposable food service ware or change littering rates and the volume of litter on streets (e.g., cups and clamshells) would be similar to existing conditions. Substitute single -use food ware products are anticipated to be a mix of plastic (e.g., crystalline PS, PP, PLA) and fiber products. Substitutes for ice chests would be encapsulated EPS foam products or reusable coolers made of non - foamed plastics, such as PP. PS foam food ware makes up about eight percent of litter reaching local waterways by volume. Therefore, the characteristics of substitute plastic and fiber products would have a low to moderate effect on required maintenance and clogging of storm drains. As discussed in Section 4.9.2, there are several characteristics of substitute products that could influence how much of the substitute products reach storm drains and whether they persist to clog storm drain systems at a greater rate. Transport to Stormwater Inlets. Substitute plastic and fiber products do not break apart as easily as EPS foam food ware. 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 likejy 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 (refer to Photo 8). The substitute products, therefore, are not more likely to reach waterways if inappropriately disposed of Persistence within the Stormwater System. [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 in street litter surveys often less than two to three percent. While paper cups are usually several times the weight of EPS foam cups, given the proportion 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 stormwater drainage systems. 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 stormwater systems and would not interfere with implementation of regional plans or programs, such as the Basin Plan or NPDES municipal stom water permits designed to protect beneficial uses and improve water quality. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.17.2.3 Impacts to Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling The proposed ordinance would result in a shift in the composition of food service ware waste. EPS foam products would be substituted for products made from materials including: petroleum -based plastic, plant -based plastic, paperboard, molded pulp, and plant fibers. See the introductory language in Section 4.0 — Substitute Products as well as Appendix D for further information on the available substitutes. Whereas all EPS foam food ware products are landfilled, substitute products have a wide variety of waste disposal routes that they can follow based on the composition of the material and the waste EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance initial Study City of San JOa6 111 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting. Checklist, and Discussion oflmpacts hauler. These routes are summarized in Figures 4.17 -1 through 4.17 -6, below. A detailed table with the information represented in these figures can be found in Appendix D. Figures 4.17 -1 through 4.17 -6 show that while most jurisdictions recycle non -foam plastics, a smaller portion divert fiber -based materials to recycling or compost facilities, and those that compost bioplastics such as PLA generally only do so for certain sectors. The proposed project will reduce the quantity of EPS foam products disposed in landfills and will increase the proportion of substitute products that are recycled or composted. This is consistent with the main goals of AB 939 and AB 341, to reduce the sources of landfill trash and increase diversion via recycling, composting, and source reduction. Determining how the weight and volume of waste will change, not the quantity, is fundamental to evaluating the solid waste impacts of the proposed project. Waste and recycling facilities do not have unlimited capacity and they have permits that limit the amount of material they can accept daily. A potential environmental impact would arise if the proposed project caused one or more facilities to expand their operations. The capacity of solid waste facilities is not as affected by product volume as it is by product weight since not only are facilities permitted based on the weight of the solid waste they accept, but also because many facilities compact the waste before it is landfilled. Furthermore, according to a 2011 study funded by the Plastic Foodservice Packaging Group, the volume of solid waste for EPS foam products is in some cases greater and in others less than the volume of solid waste for substitute products.102 This study revealed that depending on the product type (e.g. 16 -ounce cup or 9 -inch plate), PLA or paperboard substitutes could result in a higher or lower volume of solid waste than EPS foam. That is, paperboard products were not consistently more or less voluminous than EPS foam, and neither were the other substitutes considered. Though the City of San Josh expects that approximately 85 percent of substitutes would be compostable or recyclable plastic and 15 percent would be fiber - based, disposable food ware already makes up such a small percentage of the waste stream that minor changes in the volume of food ware waste would not cause existing waste disposal facilities to expand or to approach their capacities. Based on measurements of various EPS foam products and their substitutes, as well as the product weights considered in many of the LCAs summarized in Appendix C, substitute products weigh between two and five times as much as their EPS foam counterparts.103 In general, lined paperboard and solid PLA products tend to be the heaviest substitute disposable food ware products. The City of San Josh conservatively estimates annual EPS foam use at four pounds per service population or about six pounds per capita (see Section 4 — Baseline EPSfoam Food Ware Use and Appendix B for further detail on this estimate). With a service population of 2,487,113 (excluding Palo Alto and Unincorporated Santa Clara County because they have already prohibited EPS foam food ware), the annual consumption of EPS foam food ware in the project area is approximately 5,000 tons. "I Franklin Associates. "Life Cycle Inventory and Foam Polystyrene, Paper - Based, and PLA Foodservice Products " February 4, 2011. See Figures ES -9, -10, -11, -12. 103 Product weight data from the following LCAs was used to contribute to the weight ratio estimate: Kuczenski et al., 2012. And; Franklin Associates, 2011. Additional measurements taken by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. showed a maximum weight ratio of 5:1 for substitute products to EPS foam products. EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San JOSB 112 July 2013 w r � D O LL f i i i f y I� 4- - r y" �++ ILI W {� O V � m LU W y O O �y ��riri O a J c U) f. m� g° o o 8° c O Ni ~I g E a yn Id ui " O W c 5 0 OZ U U CJ S6 (a 8 n J IL Section 4.0— Env4ronmen1al Setting, Checklist, and Discussion ofimpacts This page intentionally left blank EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josk 114 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting Checklist and Discussion oflmpacts This page intentionally left blank EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance - Initial Study City of San Jos€ 116 July 2013 Cl.) V W 0 LL U) H Z W W J a_ U W a U) J a U W 2i O U_ 2 Q a J a O a U) 0 w U) a 0 m m W CL a IL _ w w m Section4.0— Environmen1al Setting Checklist and Discassionoflmpacts This page intentionally left blank EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San JoS6 118 July 2013 119 Iq w O CO w O F- 0 W U) J J Q Q !L J Q O M U) 0 a a CL w a_ U H Q J IL w Section 4.0 — Environmental Setting Checklist and Discussion oflmpacts This page intentionally left blank nrb roam rood Ware Ordinance Initial City of San Josd 120 July r Q t' O� 9 � - m aD•. o ��x �9'0i m 0 In o a ° o °U o If 80 J' E o m 00, 121 r v w C7 LL J Q H Z W CD W LJ J LL J J_ LL W J IZ U) Q a Q 0 a CO 0 Q J a U U) Q J d LLJ J D7 F (n 0 a 0 U Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion ofImpacts This page intentionally left blank EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josh 122 July 2013 I 9 Ktea O O - % 1. cc OF � oz 0 CD w LL U) z W Lli W CL C/) w 2 2i 0 C) 0 M U) O CO -i CL W -j co 0 IL 2 0 C) ot2 m 6 8 1. cc OF � oz 0 CD w LL U) z W Lli W CL C/) w 2 2i 0 C) 0 M U) O CO -i CL W -j co 0 IL 2 0 C) Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion oflmpacts This page intentionally left blank EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josb 124 July 2013 Section 4.0- Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion oflmpacts Table 4.17 -3 Capacity of Waste Disposal and Diversion Facilities in Santa Clara County Throughput Capacity Range Available Jurisdictions Facility Range (Tons/Year) Capacity Served Tous/Year Tons/Year Landfills Guadalupe Recycling and 375,000 - 499,999 1000000- 1 499,999 625,000- 1,000,000 San Josh /Countywide Disposal Facility Sunnyvale, Kirby Canyon Recycling 500,000 - 749,999 750,000 - 999,999 250,000 Mountain View, Palo and Disposal Facility Alto Newby Island Sanitary 500,000 - 749,999 1,000,000- 500,000- 750,000 1 Milpitas, San Jose Landfill 1,499,999 Zanker Material Processing 5,000 - 24,999 100,000 - 199,999 95,000 - 175,000 Various Facility Recvcline 50,000 - 99,999 Facilities California Paperboard Cc 50,000 - 99,999 NA Various Graphic Packaging 100,000 - 249,999 100,000 - 199,999 NA Various International Inc. California Waste Solutions 50 000 - 99,999 100,000 - 199,999 50,000 -100 000 Various Golden State Fibers 10,000 - 19 999 20000-3 9,999 10,000 - 20 000 Various Green Team Materials 100;000 - 149,999 200,000 - 299,999 100,000 - 150 000 Los Altos Hills Recovery Various Lassen Solid Waste 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 - 199,999 50,000 - 100,000 Disposal Unincorporated Norcal MRF 10,000 - 24,999 20,000 - 49,999 10,000 - 25,000 Santa Clara County Recycled Fibers -Newark 20,000 - 49,999 40,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 50,000 San Jos6 and others Group San Josh Plant Smurfit -Stone Recycling 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 - 199,999 50,000 - 100 000 Various Mountain Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer 500,000 - 999,999 500,000 - 999,999 about 300,000' View, Sunnyvale, (SMaRT) Palo Alto Zanker Material Processing 150,000 - 249,999 300,000 - 499,999 150,000- 250,000 Various Facility . Compost Facilities South Valley Organic 40,000 - 80,000 50,000 - 100,000 10,000 - 20,000 TBD Composting Facility Los Altos Hills Z -Best Composting Facility 240,000+ 300,000 60,000 and others Source: CalRecycle. "Facility Information Toolbox: Facility List" 2013. Available at: htti),Hwww.calrecycle.ca.gov/FacIT/Facility/Search.aspx I The SMaRT Station has a permitted capacity of 1,500 tons per day. In a recent Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) inspection report for the facility, the peak tonnage day was 1,052 tons (April 1, 2013), indicating an excess weekday capacity of 448 tons per day. City of Sunnyvale staff estimates a theoretical excess capacity of 316,580 tons per year assuming seven day per week operation based upon the peak tonnage day in April 2013. EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josh 125 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Sexing, Checklist, and Discussion oflmpacts In the maximum impact scenario, all substitute products are assumed to be disposed of in a single waste disposal route (e.g. all substitutes are landfilled or 0 substitutes are recycled). Though unrealistic given the County's demonstrated compliance with California's 50 percent waste diversion requirement, use of the maximum impact scenario will demonstrate the effects of the project on the capacities of existing waste disposal facilities. If every substitute product weighed five times more than the EPS foam products they replaced, the maximum weight ratio found in preparation of this Initial Study (see Appendix C and Footnote 103 on Page 112), then the total weight of the substitute products disposed annually would not exceed 25,000 tons. Based on available capacities listed in Table 4.17 -1, even if all of these products were landfilled, composted, or recycled, the facilities in Santa Clam County have enough capacity for the maximum impact scenario. In the maximum impact scenario, in which 25,000 tons of substitute material are all disposed via a single waste disposal path, the facilities in Santa Clara County would have adequate capacity and would not require expansion. The potential increased weight of disposed products would not necessarily cause California Paperboard Corporation and Graphic Packaging International Inc. facilities, which according to CalRecycle have a throughput range that matches their capacity range, to expand. Both of these facilities purchase recycled paper as a feedstock to manufacture products, so they are not collectors dedicated to providing solid waste service to the participating jurisdictions. If they are at capacity at the time of waste collection, materials can be sold to other such manufacturers or sent to other recycling facilities with available capacity. Realistically, a portion of the substitute materials would be recycled, some would be composted, and the rest landfilled. Furthermore the estimation of annual EPS foam consumption (four pounds per service population) is made based on the high end of the available data, and the maximum weight ratio of the substitute products was used to calculate the weight of substitute product waste. This means that the 25,000 tons per year estimation represents the highest conceivable weight of disposed food service ware that would replace EPS foam products. Therefore based on the conservative estimate and the available capacity of the existing facilities in the County, the proposed project's impacts to solid waste services and waste diversion services would be less than significant. 4.17.3 Conclusion The proposed ordinance would not result in significant utilities and service systems impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josd 126 July 2013 Section 4.o— Environmental setting, Checklist, and Discussion oflmpacts 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant with Sigaificant No Impact somre(s) Impact Mitigation impact 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade Li El 0 ❑ 1 -14 the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 2. Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 -14 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 3. Does the project have the potential to achieve ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 -14 short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals? 4. Does the project have environmental effects ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 -14 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 4.18.1 Project Impacts As described in the specific sections of this report (refer to Section 4.0 Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion oflmpacts, Sections 4.1- 4.17), on pages 10 -113 of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts. The project would have no impacts in the areas of cultural resources, geology and soils, land use, minerals, population and housing, and public services. The project would have less than significant impacts in the areas of aesthetics, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems. Compared to current baseline conditions of EPS foam food ware use and disposal in the project area, the project (i.e., ban of EPS foam food ware and shift to food ware made from substitute materials) would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance - Initial Study City of San Jos4 127 July 2013 Section 4.0 — Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion oflmpacts animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. (Less Than Significant Impacts) 4.18.2 Short -term Environmental Goals vs Long -term Environmental Goals The proposed project would not frustrate or conflict with long -term environmental goals in that the shift to substitute food ware materials would substantially reduce the amount of EPS foam food ware occurring in the environment as litter and disposed in landfills. EPS foam food ware persists for decades in the environment as litter and is not readily recyclable and must be disposed in landfills (where it persists indefinitely), and therefore it is in conflict with long -term environmental goals of protecting water quality and maintaining landfill capacity through increased waste diversion. Most substitute materials will be recyclable and/or compostable in support of long -term environmental goals of converting solid waste to resources. (Less Than Significant Impacts) 4.18.3 Cumulative Impacts The analysis presented in this Initial Study evaluates adoption of an ordinance banning use of EPS foam food ware in all participating jurisdictions in Santa Clara County, including additional restrictions on retail sales and EPS foam ice chests in Palo Alto and unincorporated Santa Clara County (both jurisdictions already have bans on food vendor use of EPS foam food ware). Therefore, the analysis has accounted for the combined (cumulative) effects assuming participation by all jurisdictions in the county. Further, in completing the analysis for the project, the environmental analysis completed by numerous other jurisdictions was reviewed to determine whether a EPS foam food ware ban would lead to significant environmental effects in those jurisdictions. See Figure 2.3 -3 depicting jurisdictions in the region that have adopted EPS foam food ware bans, including Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Monterey counties. None of the jurisdictions with existing bans have found the restrictions on EPS foam food ware and shift to substitute food ware products would lead to significant environmental impacts, whether individually or in combination with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. The analysis in this Initial Study also supports the conclusion the project would cause no significant environmental impacts, whether individually, or in combination with the existing and proposed bans of other jurisdictions. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Impacts) Secondary or Indirect Effects on Manufacturine Facilities A drop in demand for EPS foam food service ware from Santa Clara County and other areas where bans or other limits on use are in place could result in several tomes of changes for manufacturing businesses. These changes may include a change in customers and target markets reductions in Production, shifts to manufacturing other products at the same facility, or in the most extreme cases potentially closing individual manufacturing facilities There are a number of companies that manufacture EPS foam food service ware that is used in California and they are not located or concentrated in one city, county or industrial district If a manufacturing facility for EPS foam food ware were to be shut down and become vacant due to a drop in demand, it would be a localized economic effect and would not be expected to lead to urban 1 --11 rwu ware v unance Initial Study City of San Josh 128 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Dscussion oflmpacts blight (an environmental impact) as a secondary effect As noted above an industrial building or buildings could be used for other p=oses. Even if a building was to remain vacant. it would not necessary result in urban blight or other effects than could be considered environment impacts. Property owners in communities are expected or required to maintain their properties when vacant. Therefore anticipated shifts in EPS foam food ware manufacturing associated with the protect and in combination with other existing and proposed bans would not result in reasonably foreseeable substantial environmental effects related to changes in demand or manufacturing of EPS foam food service ware. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Impacts) 4.18.4 Direct or Indirect Adverse Effects on Human Beings As discussed previously in this Initial Study (Sections 4.3 Air Quality, 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, and 4.12 Noise), the shift to food ware containers made from substitute materials will not adversely affect humans by emitting air pollutants, releasing toxic or hazardous materials, impairing drinking water supplies, and generating substantial noise. Compared to current baseline conditions involving manufacture, transport, use, and disposal of EPS foam food ware, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause significant effects on human beings. (Less Than Significant Impacts) CHECKLIST INFORMATION SOURCES 1. Professional judgment and expertise of the environmental specialist preparing this assessment, based upon a review of the project area and surrounding conditions, as well as a review of the draft model ordinance. 2. General Plans. a. City of San Jose. Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan b. County of Santa Clara. General Plan c. South County Joint Area Plan 3. Municipal and County Codes for jurisdictions within Santa Clara County 4. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010. Map. 5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15, 2010. 6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2011 and May 2012. 7. Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan. August 2012. EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Jo&6 129 July 2013 Section 4.0— Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion oflmpacts 8. State of California, Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, and County of Santa Clara Landslide & Fault Zone Maps. USDA, SCS. Soils of Santa Clara County. 10. Climate Action Plans/GHG Reduction Strategies (see Table 4.7 -1) 11. U.S. EPA Toxics Release Inventory and Industry Profiles. 12. California Ocean Science Trust. Plastic Debris in the California Marine Ecosystem. September 2011. 13. City of San Josh and SCVURPPP Litter Studies (2008 - 2013). 14. SCV WD. Urban Water Management Plan. 2010. EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Stud City of San Josd 130 y July 2013 Section 5.0 — SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES Algalita Marine Research Foundation. Pelagic Plastic. April 9, 2007. American Chemistry Council. Fast Facts. 2013. Accessed April 17, 2013. Available at: htti)://l)lasticfoodservicefacts.com/main/Fast-Facts.asj2x American Chemistry Council. The Resin Review: 2012 Edition. 2012. American Polymer Standards Corporation. Material Safety Data Sheet: Polylactic Acid." August 22, 2011. Association of Bay Area Governments. Building Momentum: Projections and Priorities 2009. 2009. Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. March 2013. Draft Plan Bay Area Draft Forecast of Jobs, Population and Housing. Available at: htti) / /onebayarea orp-/regional initiatives /plan -bay- area / draft -nlan -bay- area /Mylementar� reoorts.html British Plastics Federation. Plastipedia — The Plastics Encyclopedia: Polypropylene. 2010. Accessed March 29, 2013. Available at: htti)://www.bpfco.uk/i)lastii)edia/volymers/pi).asi)x Brownfields and Land Revitalization Technology Support Center (BTSC). Glossary. Accessed May 1, 2013. Available at: hLtR://www.brownfieldstse.org/%tlossary.cfin?ci=l Butler, K. How Clean Must Food Containers Be Before Recycling? February 21, 2011. Mother Jones. Available at: httu / /www motheriones com/blue- marble/ 2011 /02 /clean- food - containers - recycling California, State of. Assembly Bill No. 341. 2011. Legislative Counsel's Digest. Available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.izov/i)ub/11-12/bill/asm/ab 0301 - 0350/ab 341 bill 20111006 chantered.ndf California Coastal Commission. Eliminating Land -based Discharges of Marine Debris in California: A Plan of Action from the Plastic Debris Project. June 2006. Available at: htti)://www.plasticdebris.orp/CA Action Plan 2006.ndf California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010. June, 2011. Available at: • / /fti) consry ca gov /uub /dlrl)/FMMP /pdf /2010 /scll0 ndf California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). DTSC: Who We Are and What We Do. 2010. Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at: httn'/ /www dtse ca y_ov/lnformationResources/DTSC Overview.cfrn EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josh 131 July 2013 Section Toxics in Packaging Law. September 10, 2012. Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/toxicsinvackaeiny/Tlplaw.cfm California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Plastics White Paper: Optimizing Plastics Use, Recycling, and Disposal in California. May 2003. Available at: http: / /www.calrecycle ca izov/Publications/Detail asox ?PublicationlD =1010 Use and Disposal ofPolystrene in California: A Report to the California Legislature. December 2004. Available at: htti): / /www.calrecycle ca eov/Publications/Detail asi)x9PublicationM =1011 California Ocean Science Trust. Plastic Debris in the California Marine Ecosystem. September 2011. Available at: http: / /calost ore /pdf/ science - initiatives/ marine %20debris /Plastic %2Oftort 10-4-1 I pdf California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Current Proposition 65 List (April 19, 2013). April 19, 2013. Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at: htti)://www.oehha.ca.aov/t)roi)65/?)rOR65 list/Newlist.html CalRecycle. Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion /Disposal Progress Report: Santa Clara County. 2006. Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at: htty: / /www.calrecycle ca eov/ LGCentral/ Reports /iurisdiction/diversiondisnosal asyx Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Progress Report: Santa Clara County. 2013. Accessed March 25, 2013. Available at: htti): // www .calrecycle.ca.eov /I,GCentral/ Reports /iurisdiction/diversiondisposal aspx Diversion Study Guide, Appendix I: Conversion Factors: Glass, Plastic, Paper, and Cardboard. February 25, 2010. Accessed March 28, 2013. Available at: httv://www.calrecycle.ca.szov/LGCentral/Librarv/dsWmecycl.htm Facility Information Toolbox: Facility List. 2013. Accessed April 25, 2013. Available at: httv://www.calreevele.ca.gov/FacIT/Facility/Searcb.asi)x Solid Waste Material Type Definitions, Alphabetical. October 18, 2012. Accessed March 25, 2013. Available at: ht!R://www.calrecycle.ca.izov/WasteChar/MatDefs.htm Cascadia Consulting Group. California 2008 Waste Characterization Study. August 2009. Prepared for the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Available at: htty: // www. calrecycle .ca.goy /i)ublications/Documents /General %5C2009023 pdf City of San Jose Waste Characterization Study. May 2008. Prepared for the City of San Jose. EPS Food Service Ware Alternative Products. October 2012. Prepared for the City of San Jose. FPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josh 132 July 2013 Section 5.0— References Expanded Polystyrene Food Service Take -Out Container Study. Prepared for the City of Milpitas. April 26, 2011. Available at: b!W-//www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/resident/rec,vcle/res recvcle.asp Statewide Waste Characterization Study. December 2004. Prepared for CIWMB. Available at: http'/ /www calrecvcle ca eov /publications/ Documents /I,OcalAsst %5C34004005.pdf Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Groups. June 2006. Prepared for CIWMB. Available at: http'/ /www calrecvcle ca gov /publications/ Documents /Disposal ° /*5C34106006.i)df Center for the Development of Recycling. City Recycling and Garbage Services in Santa Clara County. 2013. Available at: httv7//www.recyclestuff.orjz Guides/CityGuide.vdf City of Palo Alto. Wastewater Plant. Accessed May 2, 2013. Available at: http / /www citvofoaloalto ore/eov /dents /owd/rwacp /default asp City of Milpitas. Sanitary Sewer. 2013. Accessed May 2, 2013. Available at: httv://www.ei.milpitas.ca.izovibusiness/desiwvsanitary.as1) City of Morgan Hill. Sewer Division. Accessed May 2, 2013. Available at: htti)i//www.morgan-hill.ca.jzov/index.asvx?NID=589 City of San Leandro. Understanding Plastics. N.d. Accessed March 28, 2013. Available at: httysi//www.sanleandro.orvJdei)ts/i)w/es/ui)lastics.asi) City of San Jos6. Disposal Path by Material Type and Sector - Santa Clara County & Incorporated Cities. Table. 2013. Litter Assessment Data. Spreadsheet. 2012. Restaurant Knock and Talk Preliminary Summary. 2013. San Jose -Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. N.d. Accessed May 2, 2013. Available at: http7//www.sanJoseca. eov /index.aspx ?NID =1663 Single -Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR. 2010. Stormwater Management: Annual Report 2011 -2012. September 2012. Available at: htti)://www.sanioseca.jzov/archives/160/StormwaterManagement FY2011- 12.pdf Trash Characterization Summary, Events 1 -4, Event 5. Table. 2013. EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josd 133 July 2013 Section 5. Watershed Maps. Accessed May 1, 2013. Available at: httv://www.sanioseca.gov/index.asRx?NID= 1868 City of Sunnyvale. About the Water Pollution Control Plant. 2012. Accessed May 2, 2013. Available at: http:// sunnwale. ca .gov/Departments/Environmenta] Services /WaterPollutionControlPlanY asx County of Santa Clara, Planning Office. Airport Land -Use Commission. 2013. Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at: http• / /www.sccaov or / sites/ pl annin2 /PlansPrograins /A-LUC/Paees /ALUC aspxx Cupertino Sanitary District. District Map. Accessed May 2, 2013. Available at: htti)://www�cuneitinosanitarydistrict.com/maps/mgps/dist frame htm Derraik, J.G.B. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. 2002. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44 (2002) 842 -852. Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. Economic Impact Analysis ofEPSFoodware Costs. Prepared for the City of San Josh. November 2012. Environmental Resources Planning, LLC. May, 2012. The Contribution of Polystyrene Foam Food Service Products to Litter. Underwritten by the American Chemistry Council. Available at: httv://www.gMlarining.com/uploads/Contribution of Polystyrene Foam Food Service Pro ducts to Litter.pdf EOA, Inc. Preliminary Baseline Trash Generation Rates for San Francisco Bay Area MS4s. February 1, 2012. Prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). Available at: hU://www.swrcb.ca.szov/rwqcb2/water issues /programs /stormwater/MRP /02 2012/BASMAA/Baseline Trash Loads pdf 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): / /t)lasticfoodservicefacts com/ Life - Cycle- InventoDLFoodservice Products 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. Available at: htti): / /i)lastics.americanchemistry com/1-ifeCycle- Inventory- of- Pol�stwene Foam Bleached and - Corrugated- Paperboard - Foodservice- Products EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Jos€ 134 July 2013 Section 5.0— References Life Cycle Inventory of 16 -ounce Disposable Hot Cups. February 19, 2009. Prepared for MicroGREEN Polymers. Available at: htti)://www.microgreeninc.com/media/filer public /2012 /08 /15 /lifecvcle analvsisreport.pdf Freedonia Group. Foodservice Disposables: U.S. Industry Study with Forecasts for 2015 & 2020 Brochure. August 2011. Available at: htti)://www.freedoniagroLip.com/brochure/27xx/2787smwe.12d f Geyer, R. & Kuczenski, B. Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Recycle - Content Product. May 2012. Prepared for CalRecycle. Available at: httu:/ /www calrecvcle ca eov / publications/ Documents /1432/2012/20121432.ydf Greene, J. Report Topic: PLA and PHA Biodegradation in the Marine Environment. March 5, 2012. Prepared for CalRecycle. Available at: http:/ /www calrecvcle ca eov /publications/ Documents /1435/2012/20121435.1)df HDR. 2009. The City of San Francisco Streets Litter Re -Audit 2009. September 2009. Prepared for the City of San Francisco, Environment Department. Available at: httys://docs.izoople.com/file/d/OB2Wzr4 cemD5d3BOaTJDZGYOcVU /edit Health Care without Harm. Choosing Environmentally Preferable Food Service Ware Reusable and Sustainable Biobased Products. Accessed April 12, 2013. Available at: htti)://www.deg.idaho.izov/media/415254-hwh food service ware.pdf, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Alternatives to Disposable Shopping Bags and Food Service Items: Volume I. January 29, 2008. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities. Available at: http: // www .seattlebagtax.orgJherreral.pdf Hocking, M.B. Is Paper Better Than Plastic? February 1, 1991. ' Science 251 (1991) 504 -505. Horvath, A. & Chester, M. Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers and Alternative Products Used in Los Angeles County. Prepared for the Center for the New American Dream, Responsible Purchasing Network. July 14, 2009. Available at: httl)://www.cleanwateraction.oriz/files/t)ublications/ca/RPN LA County LCA Report 2009 07 16.pdf Keep America Beautiful. Litter in America. 2010. Keep California Beautiful. Litter Facts. April 18, 2010. Accessed April 12, 2013. Available at: htto://www.keocabeautiful.oriz/facts/litter-facts.html Kuczenski, B., Geyer, R., & Trujillo, M. Plastic Clamshell Container Case Study. May 15, 2012. Prepared for CalRecycle. Available at: httv:/ /www calrecvcle ca eov / publications /Detail.asl)x ?PublicationlD =1431 EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San JOSE 135 July 2013 Section Madival, S., Auras, R., Singh, S.P., & Narayan, R. Assessment of the environmental profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell containers using LCA methodology. March 12, 2009. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2009) 1183 -1194. MB Public Affairs, Inc. 2013. Fiscal & Economic Impacts of a Ban on Plastic Foam Foodservice and Drink Containers in New York City. March 2013. Accessed April 19, 2013. Prepared for the American Chemistry Council. Available at: ht�www.ymewswire com/news- releases test/new study details economic and environmental- costs- of- nvc- polvstyrene -ban- 199167951 html MSW Consultants. 2009. 2009 National Visible Litter Survey and Litter Cost Study. September 18, 2009. Prepared for Keep America Beautiful, Inc. Available at: httv:// www.kab.org /site/DocServer/Final KAB Report 9 18 09 ndf National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Plastic Marine Debris: An in -depth look. August 2011. Available at: httv://marinedebris.noaa.goy/info/vdf/plasticdet.pdf Ocean Conservancy. Trash Travels. 2010. Available at: hgp://coastalcleanup.nus.edu.sg/download/Final`/`20Rgports/2010 ICC Report ndf Oregon Center for Environmental Health. Preferred Purchasing Information for Food Serviceware Options. Accessed April 12, 2013. Available at: http:/ /Yosemite eya. eov/ R10/ 0WCMNSF/ le9O59fc4619cec588256500005b5e9O /fd2ldd8l 30e4c6988257610007l d97a/ FILE /Prefen ad %2OPurchasine %20lh ormation i)df PE Americas. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Ingeo Biopolymer, PET, and PP Drinking Cups. December 12, 2009. Prepared for Starbucks Coffee Company and NatureWorks LLC. Available at: http: / /www.natureworksllc com/The- Inizeo- Joumey /Eco Profile and LCA/l,ife Cycle Analysis PlasticsEumpe. Environmental Product Declarations of the European Plastics Manufacturers: High density polyethylene (HDPE). November 2008. Available at: ht_ tp://www.plasticseuroye ore /plastics - sustainability /eco nrofiles/browse by list asnx General Purpose Polystyrene (GPPS) and High- Impact Polystyrene (HIPS). November 2012. Available at: http: / /www.ylasticseurope ore /plastics - sustainability /eco i)rofilesibrowse by list asi)x Low density polyethylene (LDPE). November 2008. Available at: http: / /www.plasticseurone org/plasties- sustainability /eco profiles/browse by list aWx Polyethylene Terephthalate — Bottle Grade (PETb). May 2011. Available at: htty: / /www.plastieseurope ore /plastics - sustainability /eco profiles/browse by list asnx EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San JosB 136 July 2013 Swtion 5.0 — Polypropylene (PP). November 2008. Available at: httu / /www plasticseurone ore/ nlasties- sustainability/ eco- l)rofiles/browse- bv- list.asl)x Rivera, Roland. City of Palo Alto. Personal Communication. April 30, 2013. SAIC. Streets Litter 2008, September 30, 2008. Prepared for the City of San Jos& Samonsky, Ella. Associate Environmental Services Specialist. City of San Jose, Environmental Services Division. Personal Communication. April 11, 2013. San Jose Clean Community Coalition. "Become Part of the Clean Community". Accessed April 29, 2013. Available at: http:/ /elastics americanchemistry com /Stand - Alone- Content/SJCC.html San Jose Mercury News. Massive Litter Cleanup of South Bay Highways Planned November 19 -20. 2011. Accessed April 29, 2013. Available at: httt)i//www.mercurynews.com/traffic/ci 19278527 Santa Clara Valley Habitat P1an1oca1 Partners. Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. August 2012. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP). Trash Hot Spot Selection Final Report. July 1, 2010. Available at: hU / /www swrcb ca gov /rwciccb2 /water issues /programs /stormwater /muni/mm /07- 2010 /Santa Clara/All City Submittals.pdf Urban Runoff Trash Management: Reducing Impacts in Santa Clara Valley Creeks and San Francisco Bay. February 2013. Available at: httv-//www.scvuri)pR-w2k.com/pdfs/1213/Trash Factsheet 2012 -Final Feb.pdf Santa Clara Valley Water District. Urban Water Management Plan 2010. 2010. Schultz, P.W., Bator, R.J., Large, L.B., Bruni, C.M., & Tabanico, J.J. Littering in Context: Personal and Environmental Predictors of Littering Behavior. July. 28, 2011. Environment and Behavior 45(1) (2013) 35 -59. State of California, Department of Finance. E -8 Historical Population and Housing Estimates, 2000- 2010 Report, by Year. Sacramento, California. November, 2012 Tabone, M.D., Cregg, J.J., Beckman, E.J., Landis, A.E. September 2, 2010. Environmental Science and Technology 44(21) (2010) 8264 -8269. Available at: http•/ /nubs acs or /doi /abs/10.1021 /esI01640n EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San JosB 137 July 2013 Section 5.0 Takada, H., Mato, Y., Endo, S., Yamashita, R., Zakaria, M.P. Pellet Watch: Global Monitoring of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS) Using Beached Plastic Resin Pellets. N.d. Available at: ht!p://www.i3elletwatch.orgLdocuments/takadaproceediniz.pdf United States Census Bureau. 2012 NAICS Definitions. 2012. Accessed April 19, 2013. Available at: httv:/ /www. census. gov /cgi- bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch ?chart =2012 American Fact Finder: 2009 Business Patterns. June 30, 2011. Accessed March 26, 2013. Available at: httv:// factfinder2 .census.goy /faces/nay /isf /napes /index xhtm] American Fact Finder: 2010 Business Patterns. June 26, 2012. Accessed March 26, 2013. Available at: htto: / /factfinder2. census.Rov /faces/nay /isf /paizes/index xhtm] American Fact Finder: 2010 Demographic Profile Data. 2010, Accessed April 23, 2013. Available at: httv:H factfinder2 .census.gov /faces/nay /isf/i)ages /index xhtml California: 2000. Census 2000 Profile. August 2002. Available at: htti)s://www.census.gov/census2OOO/states/ca.htm] Industry Statistics Sampler: NAICS 32614 Polystyrene foam product manufacturing. May 3, 2011. Accessed March 26, 2013. Available at: htti)://www.census.jzoviecon/industry/geo/g32614.htm State & County QuickFacts: Santa Clara County, California. March 11, 2013. Accessed April 25, 2013. Available at: httR://Quickfacts.census.jzov/gfd/states/06/06085.html United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Benzene. January 2012. Accessed April 23, 2013. Available at: hft2://www.ei)a.gov/ttnatwOl/hlthef/benzene.html Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 -2011. April 12, 2013. Available at: httv://www.gpa.gov/climatechange/emissions/Usinventoc=ort.html Marine Debris in the North Pacific. November, 2011. Available at: httv: / /www eya.gov /region9 /marine- debris /vdf/MarineDebris- NPacFinalAyrvd vdf -. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2010. 2010. Available at: http: / /www.ei3a. gov /osw /nonhaz/municii)al/vubs/msw 2010 rev factsheet pdf NPDES Industrial and Commercial Facilities. 2012. Accessed April 30, 2013. Available at: httv://cfl2ub.epa.gov/nt)des/home.cfm?vroizram id =14 Plastics. November 19, 2012. Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at: htti)://www.ei3a.gov/osw/conserve/materials/elastics.htm#how EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Josd 138 July 2013 Section 5.0 Profile of the Pulp and Paper Industry: 2nd Edition. November, 2002. Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at: hU:/ /www eva eov /compliance /resources /publications/ assistance /sectors /notebooks /nulvnas n.pdf Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life -Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. September 2006. Available at: http:/ /www 0a gov /cliinatechanize /wvcd/waste /downloads /fallEoort pdf United States Department of Human Health Services. Styrene. 2011. R_pe ort on Carcinogens. Twelfth Edition. Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at: http' / /ntp niehs nih gov /ntp /roc /twelfth/profiles /Styrene i) United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Bisphenol A (BPA): Use in Food Contact Application. March, 2013. Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at: htti)://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucmO64437.htm Recycled Plastics in Food Packaging. 2013. Accessed May 3, 2013. Available at: htti) / /www fda eov/ Food/ IngredientsPacka2ingLabeling/ PackaginOCS/RecycledPlastics /uc m093435.htm Regulatory Report: Assessing the Safety of Food Contact Substances. 2013. Accessed May 2, 2013. Available at: http:/ /www fda gov/ Food/ IngredientsPackaizingLabeling /PackaginizFCS /ucmO64166.htm WorldCentric. Energy Savings. 2013. Accessed April 1, 2013. Available at: htty:Hworldcentric oriz/sustainability /energy- savings Zabaniotou, A., & Kassidi, E. Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging made from polystyrene and recycled paper. October 25, 2002. Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (5) (2003) 549 -559. EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Jose; 139 July 2013 Section 60— Authors and Consultants SECTION 6.0 AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS Authors: City of San Josd Department of Environmental Services Keene Romanow, Director of Environmental Services Paul Ledesma, Supervising Environmental Services Specialist Ella Samonsky, Associate Environmental Services Specialist Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Joseph Horwedel, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement John Davidson, Senior Planner Consultants: David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultants and Planners Nora Monette, Principal Project Manager Akoni Danielsen, Principal Project Manager Matthew Gilliland, Assistant Project Manager Zachary Dill, Graphic Artist EPS Foam Food Ware Ordinance Initial Study City of San Jose 140 July 2013 Appendix A A -1: City of San Jose Draft Ordinance A -2: City of Sunnyvale Draft Ordinance THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RD:SSW:SSW 1/15/2013 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE AMENDING CHAPTER 9.10 OF TITLE 9 OF THE SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A NEW PART 17 TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF POLYSTYRENE FOAM DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE BY FOOD VENDORS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE: SECTION 1. Chapter 9.10 of Title 9 of the San Jose Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Part to be numbered and entitled and to read as follows: Part 17 Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Ware 9.10.3200 Definitions. The definitions set forth in this Section shall govern the application and interpretation of this Part 17. A. "Director" means the director of the environmental services department or his or her designee. B. "Disposable food service ware" means single -use disposable products used in the restaurant and food service industry for serving or transporting prepared foods and includes, but is not limited to, plates, cups, bowls, trays, and hinged or lidded containers, also known as clamshells. Disposable food service ware does not include straws, utensils or drink lids. C. "Food vendor' means any establishment located in the City of San Jose that sells or otherwise provides prepared food for consumption on or off its premises, and includes, but is not limited to, any shop, sales outlet, restaurant, bar, pub, coffee T- 251461937991 1 Council Agenda; - Item No.: DRAFT -- Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535.1260 or CityClerk@sanjoseca.gov for final document. RD:SSW:SSW 1/15/2013 shop, cafeteria, caterer, convenience store, liquor store, grocery store, supermarket, delicatessen, mobile food truck, vehicle or cart, or roadside stand. D. "Large food vendor" means a food vendor that is part of a chain or franchise of food vendors that have the same name, are substantially identical, and operate in more than one state. E. "Polystyrene foam" means the thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques, including but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, form molding, and extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). The term "polystyrene foam" also includes polystyrene that has been expanded or blown using a gaseous blowing agent into a solid foam (expanded polystyrene). Polystyrene foam does not include clear or solid polystyrene known as oriented polystyrene that has not been expanded or blown using a gaseous blowing agent. F. "Prepackaged food" means properly labeled processed food sold or otherwise provided by a food vendor that arrives at the premises of the food vendor in a container or wrapper in which the food is wholly encased, enclosed, contained or packaged and is not removed from such container or wrapper (other than an outer container or wrapper that encases, encloses, contains or packages multiple units of the food) before its sale or provision at the premises. G. 'Prepared food" means food or beverages that are serviced, packaged, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed or otherwise prepared. Prepared food does not include uncooked eggs, fish, meat or poultry unless provided for consumption without further food preparation. H. "Small food vendor" means a food vendor that is not a large food vendor. 9.10.3210 Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Ware Prohibited A. By January 1, 2014, no large food vendor shall sell or otherwise provide prepared food in polystyrene foam disposable food ware service. T- 25146\ 937991 2 Council Agenda: Item No.: DRAFT -- Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535 -1260 or CityClerk@sanjoseca.gov for final document. RD:SSW:SSW 1/15/2013 B. By January 1, 2015, no small food vendor shall sell or otherwise provide prepared food in polystyrene foam disposable food ware service. C. The prohibitions in paragraphs A and B do not apply to prepackaged food. 9.10.3220 Exemptions A. Undue hardship. The director may exempt a food vendor from the prohibitions in Section 9.10.3210 on a case -by -case basis for undue hardship. For purposes of this Section, "undue hardship" means (1) situations unique to the food vendor where a suitable alternative to polystyrene foam disposable food service ware does not exist for a specific application; and /or (2) situations where no reasonably feasible available alternative exists to a specific and necessary polystyrene foam product prohibited by this part. B. Financial hardship. The director may exempt a food vendor from the prohibitions in Section 9.10.3210 on a case -by -case basis for financial hardship. For purposes of this Section, "financial hardship" means a food vendor has been granted a financial hardship exemption from the payment of business license taxes from the director of finance pursuant to Section 4.76.345 of this code for the calendar year in which the vendor applies for an exemption from the provisions in Section 9.10.3210. C. Exemption request. 1. A food vendor seeking an exemption for undue hardship or financial hardship shall submit a written exemption request to the director. The written exemption request shall include all information and documentation necessary for the director to make a finding that imposition of this part would cause an undue hardship or financial hardship as defined in this Section. For purposes of documenting a financial hardship, a food vendor must provide evidence that it has been granted a financial hardship exemption from the city's director of finance pursuant to Section 4.76.345 of this code. T•25146 \937991 a Councll Agenda: Item No.: DRAFT -- Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535 -1260 or CityClerk @sanjoseca.gov for final document. RD:SSW:SSW 1/15/2013 2. The director may require the applicant to provide additional information in order to make a determination regarding the exemption request. 3. The director may grant an exemption request in whole or in part, with or without conditions, for a period of up to one year upon a finding that a food vendor seeking the exemption has demonstrated that strict application of the prohibitions in Section 9.10.3210 would cause undue hardship or financial hardship as defined in this Section. 4. If a food vendor who has been granted an exemption wishes to have the exemption extended, the vendor must re -apply for the exemption thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the exemption and demonstrate continued undue hardship or financial hardship. Extensions may be granted for a period not to exceed one year. 5. Exemption decisions are effective immediately and are final and not subject to appeal. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective on January 1, 2014, T- 25146 \937991 4 Council Agenda: Item No.: DRAFT -- Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535 -1260 or CityClerk@sanjoseca.gov for final document. RD:SSW:SSW 1/15/2013 PASSED FOR PUBLICATION of title this day of , 2013, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DISQUALIFIED: CHUCK REED Mayor ATTEST: TONI J. TABER, CIVIC Acting City Clerk T- 25146 \937991 5 Council Agenda: Item No.: DRAFT -- Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535 -1260 or CityClerk@sanjoseca.gov for final document. Chapter 5.39 ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE FOOD CONTAINERS AND SERVICE WARE Sections: 5.39.010 Definitions 5.39.020 Polystyrene foam food containers and service ware prohibited 5.39.030 Exemptions 5.39.040 Violations 5.39.010. Definitions. Unless otherwise expressly stated, whenever used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below: (a) "Customer" means a person obtaining prepared food from a food provider. (b) "Food container" means a container that is used, or is intended to be used, to hold prepared food. "Food container" includes, but is not limited to, a cup, bowl, plate, tray, carton, or clamshell container that is intended for single use. (c) "Food provider" means any vendor, business, organization, entity, group or individual located in the city of Sunnyvale that offers food or beverages to the public for consumption on or off premises, regardless of whether there is a charge for the food. "Food provider" includes, but is not limited to, restaurants, retail food establishments, caterers, cafeterias, stores, shops, sales outlets, grocery stores, delicatessens, itinerant restaurants, pushcarts, and vehicular food vendors. (d) "Food service ware" includes plates, bowls, cups, lids, straws, stirrers, forks, spoons, knives, napkins, trays, and other items primarily designed for use in consuming food. (e) "Polystyrene foam" means a container made of blown polystyrene, and expanded and extruded foams (sometimes called Styrofoamim) which are thermoplastic petrochemical materials utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of monomer spheres (expanded bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion -blown molding (extruded foam polystyrene), which is used, or is intended to be used, to hold prepared food. (f) "Prepared food" means any food, including beverages, that is served, packaged, cooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed, or otherwise prepared for consumption, including but not limited to ready -to -eat and takeout food. (g) "Vendor" means any store or business which sells or offers goods or merchandise, located or operating within the City of Sunnyvale. 5.39.020 Polystyrene foam containers and service ware prohibited. (a) On or after , 2013, a food provider shall not dispense prepared food to a customer in a polystyrene foam food container. (b) On or after , 2014, polystyrene foam food containers and polystyrene foam food service ware shall not be sold or provided by any vendor in the City of Sunnyvale. 5.39.030. Exemptions. The following are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter: (a) Raw eggs and raw, butchered meat, fish, or poultry that is sold from a butcher case or a similar retail appliance. (b) A food provider may dispense prepared food to a customer using polystyrene foam containers if that food provider demonstrates, in writing, to the satisfaction of the director of environmental services that compliance with the provisions of this Chapter will impose a unique problem, not generally applicable to other persons in similar circumstances, that will result in an undue economic hardship. The director of environmental services shall put the decision to grant or deny an exemption in writing and may exempt the food vendor pursuant to this subdivision until 2014, or not more than one year from the date of the demonstration, whichever date is sooner. The Director's decision shall be final. 5.39.040. Violations. (a) The director of environmental services has primary responsibility for enforcement of this chapter. The director of environmental services is authorized to promulgate regulations and to take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this chapter, including, but not limited to, investigating violations, issuing fines and entering the premises of any store during business hours. (b) If the director of environmental services determines that a violation of this chapter has occurred, he or she will issue a written warning notice to the operator of the vendor or food provider that a violation has occurred and the potential penalties that will apply for future violations. (c) Any vendor or food provider that violates or fails to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter after a written warning notice has been issued for that violation shall be guilty of an infraction. (d) If a vendor or food provider has subsequent violations of this chapter that are similar in kind to the violation addressed in a written warning notice, the following penalties will be imposed and shall be payable by the operator: (1) A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars for the fast violation after the written warning notice is given; (2) A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars for the second violation after the written warning notice is given; or (3) A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars for the third and any subsequent violations after the written warning notice is given. (e) A fine shall be imposed for each day a violation occurs or is allowed to continue. (f) All fines collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in the Wastewater Management Fund of the department of environmental services to assist the department with its costs of implementing and enforcing the requirements of this chapter. (g) Any vendor or food provider who receives a written warning notice or fine may request an administrative review of the accuracy of the determination or the propriety of any fine issued, by filing a written notice of appeal with the director of environmental services no later than thirty days after receipt of a written warning notice or fine, as applicable. The notice of appeal must include all facts supporting the appeal and any statements and evidence, including copies of all written documentation and a list of any witnesses, that the appellant wishes to be considered in connection with the appeal. The appeal will be heard by a hearing officer designated by the director of environmental services. The hearing officer will conduct a hearing concerning the appeal within forty-five days from the date that the notice of appeal is filed, or on a later date if agreed upon by the appellant and the city, and will give the appellant ten days prior written notice of the date of the hearing. The hearing officer may sustain, rescind, or modify the written warning notice or fine, as applicable, by written decision. The hearing officer will have the power to waive any portion of the fine in a manner consistent with the decision. The decision of the hearing officer is final and effective on the date of service of the written decision, is not subject to further administrative review, and constitutes the final administrative decision