Palo Alto sued over plastic bag ban

Lawsuit claims city failed to conduct adequate environmental analysis; calls for new ordinance to be invalidated

Palo Alto's crusade against plastic bags faced its first legal challenge Tuesday, when a coalition of groups filed a lawsuit claiming that the city acted too rashly when it banned plastic bags from local grocery stores last month.

The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday by a coalition led by the group, claims the city violated California law when it chose not to conduct a detailed Environmental Impact Report before it adopted an ordinance on March 16 banning plastic bags from grocery stores. Palo Alto's ban is slated to take effect Sept. 18.

Stephen Joseph, an attorney representing the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, argues in the lawsuit the city's ordinance will force shoppers to shift to paper bags and that the city has failed to adequately consider the environmental impacts of this shift. The basis for the plastic-bag ban, the suit argues, is rooted in misleading information spread by "anti-plastic bag activists."

"In their zeal to eliminate plastic bags, anti-plastic bag activists and the City and Council have willfully ignored and brushed aside the environmental impacts caused by increasing the use of paper," the complaint states.

Joseph had previously voiced these concerns at public hearings before the ordinance was adopted and threatened to sue the city should it proceed. The city's environmental study acknowledged short-term environmental impacts from increased paper-bag usage, but emphasized the city's aggressive efforts to promote reusable bags as an effective way to mitigate these impacts.

"What we object to is the misinformation that is being spread about plastic bags, as well as about paper bags and reusable bags," Joseph told the Weekly. "From the point of view of environmental truth, there should be a proper objective analysis or the merits of plastic, paper and reusable bags."

Palo Alto's ordinance, the suit argues, should be nullified. Joseph's group successfully used a similar argument in its lawsuit against the City of Manhattan Beach, which banned plastic bags from stores last year. In February, the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that Manhattan Beach should have conducted the environmental study and invalidated the ordinance. Manhattan Beach is currently appealing that ruling.

Besides, petitioners listed in the complaint include several plastic-bag manufacturers, a Los Angeles County-based maker of reusable bags, and several individuals whom the complaint says have no financial interests in the plastic-bag debate.

"All of petitioner's members identified above are concerned about the environmental misinformation being disseminated about plastic bags because such misinformation is harmful to the environment and contrary to the public interest," the lawsuit states. "They firmly believe that a switch to paper bags will cause environmental damage that should be avoided."

Tuesday's lawsuit didn't come as a surprise to Palo Alto officials. Even before the City Council adopted the ordinance on March 16 by an 8-1 vote (with John Barton dissenting), council members acknowledged that a lawsuit from plastic-bag proponents is all but inevitable. They argued, however, that the city should proceed with the ban anyway, largely to reduce environmental impact.

Councilwoman Yoriko Kishimoto, a proponent of the bag ban, reaffirmed the city's position Tuesday. The lawsuit doesn't change her belief that passing the ordinance was the right move, she said.

"As a city, we're not surprised that this lawsuit did happen," Kishimoto said. "Our basic stance is that you can't let the threat of a lawsuit stop you from doing the right thing."

City officials have also argued that Palo Alto has a stronger case than Manhattan Beach did because the city provided a "negative mitigated declaration" -- an environmental-impact study that is less comprehensive than an Environmental Impact Report but more detailed than the "negative declaration" that Manhattan Beach supplied before proceeding with its ordinance.

Assistant City Attorney Donald Larkin said Tuesday the city has a very strong case against the new (but largely expected) legal challenge. The city's negative mitigated declaration already addressed the issues Joseph brought up, Larkin said.

"We did look at the paper bags, and we did look specifically at some of the studies that Mr. Joseph has mentioned in his comments," Larkin said. "All those issues he raised initially -- we responded to them."


Like this comment
Posted by clear perspective
a resident of another community
on Apr 23, 2009 at 7:25 pm

Did you know that the Australian government actually retracted its quote that 100,000 marine animals are killed by plastic bags each year because the story actually states that plastic fishing debris (mainly abandoned nets) was the cause?

Web Link

The EPA was quoted in an interview saying…”consumers shouldn't stress too much, as long as they're recycling or reusing store bags, said Chris Newman, an environmental scientist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”

Web Link

Also did you know that the majority US plastic bags are made from natural gas and not oil?

For facts and links to the studies about plastic bags and the environment that started it all, as well as environmental shopping strategies and a survey of plastic bag knowledge...please visit

Watch a plastic recycling emercial at

Web Link

Like this comment
Posted by ImNotSurePlasticIsMyFriend
a resident of Shoreline West
on Apr 23, 2009 at 8:35 pm

I think our focus is better spent on banning styrofoam.

Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Whisman Station
on Apr 23, 2009 at 8:44 pm

These pro-plastic bag people need to find something to protect other than their egos and wallets. I wonder how much public money is being spent on defending these law suits.

Like this comment
Posted by Frances
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 23, 2009 at 11:11 pm

Glad to see the plastic bag lobby is here to share their thoughts (rolling eyes).

Like this comment
Posted by curious
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 24, 2009 at 10:04 am

What a waste of city taxpayers' money in the additional cost to people who buy groceries, i.e. everybody, and lawyer's fees. It would be interesting to find out how much the lawyers' fees for the city will be and to compare it to the cost of providing everyone with reusable bags. Those bags are cheap nowadays ~50 cents. You can pay for a lot of bags for one hour of a Page Mill Road lawyer's fee, which is probably about $500. So how many billable hours for this case? Probably in the 1000s.

Like this comment
Posted by Don Frances
Mountain View Voice Editor
on Apr 24, 2009 at 10:55 am

Don Frances is a registered user.

Every story we've run on this issue, within minutes of it being posted, has gotten a rote comment from "clear perspective" with links supporting use of plastic bags, plus a plug for "the truth about plastic bags dot com." The posts stray very close to violating our terms of use ("You agree not to make posts of a commercial nature that promote a business, product or service"), and in the future we will remove them when we see them.

Like this comment
Posted by USA
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 24, 2009 at 3:35 pm

Within minutes? Hmmm, sounds like an inside job.

Like this comment
Posted by USA
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 24, 2009 at 3:41 pm

Stores could reduce bag usage and cut their own costs, if they would not automatically bag single items, especially if the item is pocket-sized.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 10 comments | 3,298 views

Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,138 views

Couples: So You Married Mom or Dad . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,086 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 744 views