CC Resolution No. 13-011 Certifying the Addendum to the Final Program EIR County of San Mateo regarding reusable bagsRESOLUTION No. 13-011
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
f RESTATING THE DETERMINATION OF ADEQUACY FOR THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO AND FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED BY THE COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO AND APPROVING AN ADDENDUM AND FINDINGS OF FACT TO THE
FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IIPVIPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR ADDITION
OF CHAPTER 9.17 TO THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
REUSABLE BAGS
WHEREAS, single -use carryout bags constitute a high percentage of litter, which
is unsightly, costly to clean up, and causes serious negative environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City has a substantial interest in protecting its residents and the
environment from negative impacts from plastic carryout bags and single-use carryout
bags; and
WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo designated itself as the lead agency for
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, C Q . of a
reusable bag ordinance, addressing the impacts of an ordinance banning single-use,
carryout bags from stores, while requiring stores that provide recycled-content paper
bags to charge customers a minimum of ten cents .10 per bag; and
WHEREAS, on October 23rd , 2012 the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
certified a Program Environmental Impact Deport "Program EIR"") that analyzed the
impacts of the County of San Mateo's Reusable Bag ordinance if adopted in 2
jurisdictions (18 cities fi-t San Mateo County -arid 6 cities, including the City of
Cupertino, in Santa Clara County). The Program EIS. was adopted and certified
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section
21000 et seq. "CEQAw" and the C Q . Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title
1, Section 15000 et seq. and is incorporated by reference herein; and
WHEREAS, on Novem er " -,, 2012 the County adopted an ordnance banning
single -use carryout bags from stones, while requiring stores that provide reusable tags
to charge customers for such bags; and
WHEREAS, the City is participating as responsible agency in the Initial Study
and EIR that was certified by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors in connection
with the Co .nt y s adoption of the ordinance; and
Resolution loo. -011
Page
WHEREAS, the Count "s ordinance encouraged cities within and neighboring
the County to adopt similar ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City of u. ertin.o`s proposed ordinance "Regulation of Single-
Use Carryout Bags," adding section. 9.17 to the Cupertino Municipal Code, fits within
the scope of the County's EIR and has been modeled on the County's ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2013, the City of Cupertino City Council, reviewed
and carefully considered the information in the Draft and Final Program EIR and made
findings that the review under CEQA was adequate for the City's action to adopt an
ordinance regarding reusable bags, and conducted the first reading of the Cupertino
ordinance entitled "'Regulation of Single -Use Carryout Bags" and made minor language
modifications; and
WHEREAS, to ensure that the minor language modifications were adequately
addressed in the environmental review documents, but because the modifications do
not prise to the level of the conditions set forth. in Public Resources Code Section. 21166 or
Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental EIR, the City of Cupertino prepared an Addendum to the Final Program
EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has exercised its independent judgment in
reviewing and carefully considering the information in the Draft and Final EIR and the
Addendum, and hereby restates the findings it made with respect to the I EIR and FEII
on January 15, 2013 and makes the findings contained in this resolution with respect to
the Addendum.
STOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT consistent with section. 15096 of
the CEQ A guidelines and based upon the entirety of the record and independent
review of the I' EIR and FEIR and the Addendum to the EIR and all the evidence before
it, the City Council males the following findings:
1 The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
2 City has reviewed and considered the program EIR and environmental impacts of
the proposed ordinance shown in the EIR, and determines that the EIR prepared and
certified in accordance with the provisions of CE QA by the County of San Mateo for
adoption of a single -use bag ordinance in 24 jurisdictions in San Mateo and Santa Clara
Resolution No. 13-011
'age
Counties, specifically including the City of Cupertino, is adequate for the Council's
action on the single -use carryout bag ordinance.
3 Pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15096, the City as a responsible agency hereby
restates its fanuary 1, 2013 approval and adoption of the CEQA. Findings of Fact
related to the EIR, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference,
4) The City Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum to the EIR and finds
that it is complete, correct, adequate and prepared in accordance with the requirements
of CEQA, and hereby approves and adopts the Addendum and CEQA Findings of Fact
related to the Addendum, attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
5) Based on the information and analysis in the Program EIR and the Addendum, the
City Council finds that the proposed ordinance including modifications) will not result
in any significant environmental effect, and that there are no feasible alternatives or
H
mitigation measures that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the
project would have on the environment.
6) Adoption of the Regulation of Single -Use Carryout Bags ordinance and the
determination that the Program gram EI and Addendum are adequate for the City's use
reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Cupertino; and
7) None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 or 15163 are
applicable to adoption of the proposed Regulation of Single -lase Carryout Bags
ordinance including modifications), anal. adoption of the Regulation of Single -Use
Carryout Bags ordinance is an activity that is part of the program examined by the
County's Final Program EIR and is within the scope of the project described in the
Counter's Final Program EIR and the Addendum to the EIR. No further environmental
review is required.
8) A Notice of Determination shall be filed by the City of Cupertino pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines sections 15094 and 15096,
Resolution Igo. 13-011
Page
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special .e ting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 511, day of March, 2013, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
Ayes;
Mahoney, Wong, Chang, Santoro, Sh-.1 s
Noes:
Done
Absent:
None
Abstain.:
None
ATTEST: APPROVED:
2
3-0)
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk
Orrin Mahoney, Mayor, City of Cupertino
Exhibit
CEQA BINDINGS OF FACT
OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FOR THE
REUSABLE BAG ORDINANCES
October 23, 2012
1. OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION
These findings are made with respect to the" r j t Approvals" (as defined
below for the Reusable Bag Ordinances (the "Project") to be - ad p ted by the
..
County of San Mateo the "County") and various municipalities In the county and
in Santa Clara county and state the findings of the Board of Supervisor (the
"Board") of the county relating to the potential environmental effects of the
Project.
The following findings are required by the California Environmental duality Act
("CEQA'1 Public Resources code Sections 21081, 21081.5 and 21 o 1. , and
Title 14, California code of Regulations (the "CE QA Guidelines" ) Sections 15091
through 15093, for the Project.
Pursuant to Public Resources code Section 21081 and CE QA Guidelines Section
15091 # no public agency shall approve or carry out a project where an Environ-
mental Impact Deport "EIR" has been certified, which identifies one or more
significant impacts on the environment that would occur if the Project is approved
or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or more findings for each of
those significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale of
each finding. The possible findings, which rust be supported by substantial
evidence in the record, are:
a. changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project that mitigate or avoid the significant impact on the environment.
b. Charges or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by
that other agency.
C. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
E I RF
For those significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a level of signifi-
cance, the public agency is required to find that the specific overriding economic,
legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant
impacts on the environment. As discussed in detail belo w, the Project would not
result in any significant unavoidable effects; all potential impacts identified by Craft
Program E1R and Final Program EIR are either beneficial or less than significant
such that no mitigation measures are required.
The Project EIR determines that no significant impacts on the environment would
occur if the Project is approved or carried out and only identifies impacts that
would be considered less than significant without need for miti ation and it is
that mould be considered beneficial to the environment. Findings for each of the
2
impacts considered less than significant or beneficial, as accompanied by ar brief
explanation of the rationale of each finding, are provided below.
2. PROJECT CT SCRI TIO
The proposed Reusable Bag Ordinances "Proposed Ordinances") would
regulate the use of paper and plastic single -use carryout bags within the
participating municipalities. Participating municipalities include the County of Sari
Mateo and 24 cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties;
�.J!n
:.a
I - -
{ [.
.1 r
�; "-] 1
.�.�_ ry ■ ■r'. .'lF', rl�N -I:�� :!_`_ :M1 ?� s����'aui , ■�J "�y��j
Y }�J 4 ..
1 AA ■r y+l �l 4 r
9
— 5..
i. _ -
_s
San Mateo County
Beata Clara County
0 Belmont
0 Millbrae
Milpitas
9 Brisbane
0 Pacifica
Cupertino
a Burlingame
0 Pertela valley
Les Gatos
0 Clra
9 Redwood City
Los Altos
Daly City
6 San Bruno
. Campbell
0 East Palo Alto
0 San Carlos
Fountain View
• Foster City
0 San Mate
a Half Moon Bay
0 South San Francisco
• Menlo Park
a Woodside
For the purposes of the Program Ei, the geographical limits of unincorporated
San Mateo County and all of the participating municipalities listed above shall be
known as the "Study Area." The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the
Proposed Ordinance by the County and adoption of ordinances that are identical
or materially similar to the County's Ordinance by each municipality in the Study
Area, where the Proposed Ordinances would apply to all retail establishments
located within the limits of the Study Area, including those selling clothing, food,
and personal items directly to the customer. The Proposed Ordinances would not
apply to restaurants or non- profit charitable reuse organizations. The Proposed
Ordinances would 1 prohibit the free distribution of single -use carryout paper
and plastic bags and 2 require retail establishments to charge customers for
recycled paper bags and reusable bags at the point of sale. The minimum charge
ou Id b e ten cents ($0. 1 o per recycled paper bag until December 31, 2014, and
t wenty -five cents 0.2 per paper bag on or after January 1 � 2015.
For the County, the Project Sponsor is the Environmental Health Services Division
of the County of San Mateo Health System, where lean D. Peterson, Director, is
the project applicant.
11
I PROJECT APPROVALS
The Project Approvals constitute the "Project" for purposes of CE QA and CE QA
Guidelines Section 15378 and these determinations of the Board.
For unincorporated Sari Mateo County, the Proposed ordinance mould require an
amendment to the San Mateo County ordinance Code with discretionary approval
by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. The following approvals would
be required:
Certification of the Final Program EIf (Board of Supervisors)
Adoption of an ordinance amending the ordinance Code (Board of
Supervisors)
Subsequent to adoption of the ordinance, the County would file a [notice of
Determination (NOD), as set forth in Section 21152 of the California Public
Resources Code, with the San Mateo County Clerk.
For each of the 24 participating agencies, the Proposed Ordinances 'would require
an amendment to the city's municipal code with discretionary approval by the
municipality's city council. The following approvals would be required for each
municipality:
Consider the Final Program EIR (City Council)
Adoption of an ordinance amending the Ordinance Code (City Council) �..
Subsequent to adoption of the ordinance, each municipality would file a Notice of
Determination ination o similar to the NOD to be filed by the County as lead agency
after its adoption of the Ordinance.
4. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The County of San Mateo's and the participating cities' objectives for the
Proposed ordinances include:
Deducing the amount of single -use plastic bags in trash loads .g.,
landfills): in conformance with the trash load reduction requirements of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PDES) Municipal
Regional Permit.
Reducing the environmental impacts related to single -use plastic carryout
bags, such as impacts to biological resources (including marine environ-
ments), water quality and utilities e.g., solid waste).
Minimizing the use of paper bags by customers in the participating
jurisdictions.
51
Promoting ar shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail
customers in the participating jurisdictions.
Avoiding litter and the associated adverse irnpacts to st rmw t r systems,
aesthetics and the marine environment {Baru Francisco Bay and the Pacific
Ocean).
5. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CE QA and these findings, the Record of Proceedings for the
Project shall include, at a minimum, the following documents:
The Notice of Preparation " ") and all ether public notices issued by the
County in conjunction with the Project;
The single Use Bag Ban Ordinance Draft Program EIf (June 2012) and
Reusable Barg Ordinance formerly single Use Bag Ban Ordinance) Final
Program EIR (August 2012) and all documents cited or referred to therein;
All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the
45-day public comment period for the Draft Program EI1 ;
All comments nd correspondence submitted to the County with respect to
the Project, in addition to timely comments on the Draft Program EIF ;
All findings and resolutions adopted by County decision makers ers in connec-
tion with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein;
All reports, studies, memoranda, staff reports, maps, exhibits, illustrations,
diagrams or other planning materials relating to the Project prepared by the
County or by consultants to the County, the applicant, or responsible or
trustee agencies and submitted to the County, Frith. respect to the County's
compliance with the requirements of'CEQA and with respect to the County's
actions on the project;
All documents submitted to the County by ether public agencies or members
of the public in connection with the Project, up through the close of the
public hearing on October 23, 2012;
Minutes, as available, of all public meetings and public hearings held by the
County in connection with the Project;
Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the County at such
information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings;
Matters of common knowledge Arledge to the County, including, but not limited to,
those cited above; and
An other materials required to be in the record of Proceedings by Public
Any g
Resources Code Section 211 607.6, subdivision (e).
The custodian of the documents comprising the Record of Proceedings is the
County's Planning and Building Department, whose office is located at
455 County Center, Second Floor, Redwood City, CA 903.
The Board has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision
on the Project.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The County released an NOP of an EIR for the Project on April 6, 2012.
.inoon Consultants, Inc., prepared a Draft Program Ells entitled "Single Use Bag
Ban ordinance Draft Program EIR " under the direction of the County Planning and
Building Department. The Draft Program Ells consists of the Draft Program Elf
and Appendices, consisting of Appendix A through F. The Draft Program Ells is
dated June 2012.
A Notice of Completion and copies of the Draft Program EIR were delivered to the
State Clearinghou e (SCH No. 2012042013 on June 22, 2012. The Draft
Program EIR was circulated for a duly noticed -day public review period that
began on June 22, 2012 and ended on August O, 2012,
A Notice of Availability OA of the Draft Program EIR was posted by the County
Clerk on June 22, 2012, and published in the San Mateo Counter Times and San
Jose Mercury N (both newspapers of general circulation serving the area in
which the Project is located). The NOA of the Draft Program EIR was also sent by
nail and/or electronic mail to interested parties (those who had provided
comments on the OP ) and participating agencies. An electronic link to the Draft
Program EIR in ".pd' format was posted on the Counter's webite and copies of
the Draft Program EIR were made available for review at the County of San Mateo
Planning and Building Department nt and at the following libraries in the Study Area:
Serramonte Rain Library
40 Wembley Drive
Daly City, CA 94015
Millbrae Library
1 Library Avenue
Millbrae, CA 94030
no
San Mateo Main Library
5 Invest Third Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94402
Redwood City Downtown rn Library
1044 Middlefield Road
Redwood City, CA 9.063
Half Moon Bay Library
620 Correas street
Half Moon Bay, CA 9401
Mountain vier Library
585 Franklin Street
Mountain vier, CA 94041
Los Gatos Public Library
Town Civic Center
'loo villa Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 9030
Milpitas Library
160 North Main street
Milpitas, CA 9503
The County's Planning Commission held an informational public hearing on
July 11, 2012, to receive comments on the Draft Program EIR.
The County of San Mateo Planning and B ilding'Departrnent prepared a Final
Program EIR entitled "Reusable Bag Ordinance (formerly single Use Bag Ban
Ordinance) Final Program EIR." Pursuant to section 15132 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CE QA) Guidelines, this Final Program EIR consists of
(a) revisions to the Draft Program EIR., b a list of persons and organizations that
commented on the Draft Program EIR, comments received on the Draft EIR,
(d) the County's responses to significant environmental points raised in the review
and consultation process, and e any other information added by the County.
The Final Program EIR is dated August 2012.
The Final Program EIR was released and distributed to public agencies and other
commenters on the Draft Program EIR and for public review, on August 31, 2012,
more than 10 days in advance of the scheduled date of consideration of the
document for certification by the County Board of supervisors. Although not
required by CE A, a notice was sent by electronic mail to interested parties
(those who had provided comments on the Draft EIR) and participating agencies.
Copies of the Find Program EIR were made available for review at the County of
San Mateo Planning and Building Department and at libraries listed above, and an
electronic link to the Final Program EIR in ".pdf' format was posted on the
County's web site.
Copies of the Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR, including appendices,
studies, documents and reports_ referenced EIRs are available for public review
at the Planning and Building Department, 455 County Center, Second Floor,
Redwood City, CA 94063. Copies of the Draft Program EIR and Final Program
EIR can also be viewed online at the following website:
http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.US/DortaI/site/r)Iannina.
The County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on October 23, 2012 to
consider the Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR.. At the conclusion of the
Board of supervisors public hearing of October 23, 2012, the Board of Super -
visors certified the Final Program EIR (which incorporates the Draft Program EIR,
as corrected).
2
7. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance by the �.
County and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to the
County's Ordinance by each municipality in the Study Area. The following
references to "Proposed Ordinance '# refer to the adoption of an individual
Ordinance in each participating agency of the Final Program EI:
A. IMPACTS DECLARED TO BE BENEFICIAL (NO MITIGATION
REQUIRED)
Aar Quality Impacts:
Impact AQ -1: With a shift toward reusable bags, the Proposed
Ordinance is expected to substantially reduce the number of single-
use carryout bags, thereby reducing the total number of bags
manufactured turd and the overall air pollutant emissions associated with
bag manufacture, transportation and use. Therefore, air quality
impacts related to alteration of processing activities would be Class Ill,
beneficial, effect.
Biological Resource Impacts:
Impact 131 0-1: Although the Proposed Ordinance would incrementally
increase the number of recycled paper and -reusable bags within the
Stud y Area the reduction in the amount of single-use plastic bags .. ,
would be expected to reduce the overall amount of litter entering the
coastal and bay habitat, thus reducing litter - related impacts to
sensitive wildlife species and sensitive habitats. This is a Class III,
beneficial, effect.
Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts:
imp t HWQ-1: The Proposed Ordinance would incrementally
increase the number of recycled paper and reusable bags used in the
Study Area, but the reduction in the overall number of single-use
plastic bags used in the Study Area would reduce the amount of litter
and waste entering storm drains. This would improve local surface
water quality, a Class III, beneficial, effect.
B. IMPACTS DECLARED TO BE LASS THAN SIGNIFICANT (NO
MITIGATION REQUIRED)
The Board finds that the environmental impacts identified in the Final
Program EIR as being "less than significant„ or as having ff no impact" have
been described and analyzed accurately and are less than significant or will
have no impact for the reasons described in the Final Program EII .
Deference should be made to the Draft Program EIR and Final Program Ei
for a more complete des ription of the findings regarding these impacts.
Specifically, the Board makes the following findings as to the following
impacts:
Air Quality Impacts:
Impact A -2: With an expected increase in the use of recyclable
paper bags, the Proposed Ordinance would generate air pollutant
emissions associated with an incremental ental increase in tru ck -trips to
deliver recycled paper and reusable carryout bags to local retailers.
However, emissions would not exceed Bay Area Air Quality
Management District t AA M operational significance thresholds.
Therefore, operational air quality impacts would he Class 111, less than
significant.
Impacts Related to Greenhouse G s Emissions:
;Impact GHG -1: The Proposed Ordinance would increase the number
of recyclable paper bags used in the Study Area. Implementation of
the Proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase GHG emissions
over existing levels. However, emissions would not exceed thresholds
of significance. Therefore, impacts geld be Class III, less than
significant.
Impact GHG -2: The Proposed Ordinance would not conflict with any
agency's applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of G HGs. Impacts uld be Class 111, less
than significant.
Hydr l and Water Quality Impacts:
Imoact HWQ-2: A shift toward reusable bags and potential increase in
the use of recyclable paper bags could potentially increase the use of
chemicals associated with their production, which could degrade water
qualify in some instances and locations. F o'wever, bag manufacturers
would be required to adhere to existing regulations, including NPDES
Permit requirements,. AB 258, and the California Health and safety
Code. Therefore, impacts to water quality from increasing bag
processing activities would be Class 111, less than significant.
�J
Impacts to Utilities and Service systems:
Impact U-1: The increase of reusable bags within the study Area as
result of the Proposed ordinance would incrementally increase, by a
negligible amount, water demand due to washing of reusable bags.
However, sufficient grater supplies are available to meet. the negligible
increase in demand created by reusable bags. Therefore, grater
supply impacts would be Class 111, less than significant.
I m act -2: later- use associated with washing reusable bags would
increase negligibly in the Study Area, resulting in an increase in
wastewater generation. However, projected wastewater flows p roul.d
remain within the capacity of the wastewater collection and treatment
system of the Study Area, and would not exceed applicable waste-
rater treatment requirements of the r oCB. Impacts would be
Class l I I , less than significant.
Impact -3: The Proposed ordinance would alter the solid waste
generation associated with increased paper bag use in the Study
Area. However, projected future solid waste generation would remain
within the capacity of regional landfills. Impacts would therefore be
Class 111, less than significant.
ALTERNATIVES
The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed ordinance by the
County -and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to the
County's ordinance by each municipality in the study Area. The following
references to "Proposed ordinance" refer to the adoption of an individual
Ordinance in each participating agency of the Final Program FIFA:
As noted above, the Project would not result in any significant unavoidable effects.
All potential impacts identified by Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR are
either beneficial or less than significant such that no mitigation measures are
required. In order to select and analyze alternatives that would avoid or sub-
stantially lessen any of the Project's identified less than significant adverse
environmental effects, the following environmental topics for which less than
significant effects were identified in Final Program EIr were considered:
Air Qualifier: Pollutant emissions from paper bag manufacture and delivery.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Emissions from paper bag manufacture,
delivery, and degradation.
Hydrolo and Water Quality: Litter in storm. drains and waterways
associated with p lastic and paper bags.
4
r��
Utilities and Srvice systems: Water use from the manufacture of plastic
and paper bags and cleaning of reusable bags, as well as wastewater
generation from the cleaning of reusable bags. Solid waste from the
disposal of plastic, paper and reusable bags.
The following four alternatives are evaluated in the Final Program EIf :
0 Alternative 1: No Project
The no project alternative assumes that the Reusable Bag ordinance is not
adopted or implemented. Single -use plastic and paper carryout bags would
continuo to be available free -of- charge to customers at most retail stores
throughout the Study Area. In addition, reusable carryout bags would
continuo to be available for purchase by retailers. Thus, it Is assumed that
the use of carryout bags at study Area retail stores would not materially
change compared to current conditions.
Alternative 2:. Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags at all Retail Establishments
Similar to the proposed Reusable Bag ordinance, this alternative would
prohibit study Area retailers from providing single -use plastic carryout bags
to customers at the point of sale and create a mandatory $0. 1 o charge per
paper bag until December 31, 2014, and twenty-five cents $0.25 per paper
bag on or after January 1, 2015. However, under this alternative, the
Ordinance would apply to all categories of retail establishments, including
restaurants and non - profit, charitable retailers. A a result} under this
alternative, no single -use plastic carryout bags would be distributed at the
point of sale anywhere within the study Area.
Alternative 3: Mandatory Charge of $0.25 for Paper Bags
This alternative would continue to prohibit study Area retail establishments
from providing single -use plastic bags to customers at the point of sale, but
would increase the mandatory charge for a single -use paper bag from $0.10
to $0.25 initially rather than on or after January 1, 2015. As a result of the
$0.15 mandatory charge increase per paper bag, it is anticipated that this
alternative would further and more quickly promote the use of reusable bags
since customers would be deterred from purchasing paper bags due to the
additional cost.
Alternative : fan on both Single-Use Plastic and Paper Car out a s
This alternative would prohibit all study Area retail establishments (except
restaurants and nor- profit, charitable retailers) from providing single -use
plastic and paper carryout bags to customers at the point of sale. It is
10
anticipated that by also prohibiting paper carryout bags, this alternative
would significantly reduce single -use paper carryout bags within the Study
Area, and further promote the shift to the use of reusable bags by retail
5
customers. By banning both single -use plastic and paper bags, customers
would be forced to use reusable carryout bags. This is expected to increase
the number of reusable bags purchased within the study Area.
A. AL TERNA T V S ELIMINA TED FROM C NSIDE # l TION
The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance by the
County and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to
the County's Ordinance by each municipality in the Study Area= The
following references to "Proposed Ordinance" refer to the adoption of an
individual Ordinance in each participating agency of the Final Program EIR:
CEQA requires that all alternatives considered be described, but it does not
require a full analysis of alternatives that are infeasible, that do not meet the
Project objectives, or that do not potentially reduce environmental impacts.
ts.
Alternatives considered but eliminated from further consideration for these
reasons are addressed in Section 6.5 of the Draft Program EIR and are
summarized below.
Additional litter removal programs, education efforts, enforcement for
littering, and recycling programs for plastic bags: This alternative was
rejected because it does not achieve the Ordinance's objectives,
including reducing the use of paper bags and promoting a shift toward
the use of reusable bags.
Bain Styrofoam (polystyrene) in addition to banning single -use plastic
carryout bags: This alternative would not achieve the Proposed
Ordinance's objectives of reducing the environmental impacts is related
to single -use plastic bags or reduce any of the Proposed Ordinance's
environmental effects. Environmental impacts related to polystyrene
use are outside the scope and objectives of the proposed action.
Ban single -use plastic carryout bags, but not charge for paper bags at
retailers in the Study Area: This alternative was rejected because it
could not reduce customers' use of paper bags, which have greater
impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, and grater quality than
plastic bags on a per bag basis. In addition, this alternative would not
achieve the Proposed Ordinance's objective of promoting a shift
toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers to s
great a degree as would occur with the Proposed Ordinance.
Ban the use of single-use plastic carryout bags by retailers (except
restaurants), with the exception of plastic bags made with No-
1
degradable or compo t ble additives'. This alternative was rejected
from consideration because the environmental impacts associated
with using biodegradable and compostable additives are uncertain at
this time. Researchers at California State University Chico Research
Foundation tested the degradation of biodegradable bags in
composting conditions, and found that they did not degrade (CIWMB
200 7; Green cities California I EA, 2010). Furthermore, these bags
reduce the quality of recycled plastics when introduced into the
recycling stream and so must be Dept separate to avoid contaminating
the recycling stream clVM 2007; Green cities California IDEA,
2010). Therefore, it is unclear what environmental impacts may be
associated with switching to plastic bags made with biodegradable
additives or water- soluble bags. In addition, this alternative would not
achieve the objectives of reducing the amount of single -use plastic
bags in trash loads e.g., landfills), in conformance with the trash load
reduction requirements of the NPIDES Municipal Regional Permit,
promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail
customers, and avoiding litter and the associated adverse impacts to
tormwater systems, aesthetics and the marine environment (San
Francisco Bay and the Pacific ocean).
Ban the use of single -use plastic carryout bags by retailers (except
restaurants) and apply the ban to "doggie waste cleanup" bags at
public parrs: While plastic "doggie gate cleanup" bags may have
certain impacts to th-e environment, it is assumed that these types of
bags represent only a very small rcentage of total plastic bag use.
In contrast, the use of these types of bags promote the proper
disposal of-solid waste and benefit grater quality in reducing sources of
for w ter pollution. Thus, while this alternative would further reduce
the overall number of plastic bags produced and used, it would not
promote a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail
customers in the Study Area and could potentially increase impacts to
tormwater systems. Environmental impacts related to plastic "doggie
gate cleanup, bag use in the Study Area are outside the scope and
objectives of the Proposed Ordinance.
Implement an action targeting litter from homeless encampments near
water bodies: This alternative would not achieve the objectives of
reducing the amount of single -use plastic bags in trash loads e.g.,
landfills), in conformance with the trash load reduction requirements of
the NPIDES Municipal Regional Permit and promoting a shift toward
the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers.
Require retailers to offer incentives for customers to use reusable
bags (such as paying customer rather than banning single-use bags:
While this alternative may deter some customers from using single-
12
use plastic and paper hags, it may not promote the shift to reusable
carryout bags by retail customers as effectively and would place.a
financial burden on the Study Area retailers.
B. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT AL TERNA TIVES
CEQA only requires public agencies to rake findings regarding the
feasibility of project alternatives in limited circumstances. Public Resources
Code Section 21081 a provides that a public agency may not approve a
project unless it rakes findings, with respect to each significant project
effect, that 1 mitigation has been required to reduce the significant effect,
(2) mitigation to reduce the significant effect is within the jurisdiction of
another public agency and should be adopted by that agency, and 3 that
"[sipecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations
rake infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report." (Pub. ryes. Code § 21081 (a), emphasis
added, see also CEQA Guidelines § 15091 (a).)
In Mira Darr Mobile Community . Cif of Oceanside CH Oceanside) (2004.)
119 Cal. ppAth 477, 490 , the court of Appeals confirmed that, where the
city found that the only adverse impact of a project could be avoided through
the imposition of mitigation measures, "it was not required to make any
findings regarding the feasibility of proposed alternatives." (Citing Rio Vista
Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solaro (1 992) 5 Cal.App.th 351, 379
["CEQA does not require the agency to consider the feasibility of environ-
mentally superior project alternatives identified in the E1R if described
mitigation measures will reduce environmental impacts to acceptable
IeveIs "], L.a ure I He igh ts Impro vem ent A ss n v. Board of Supervisors 1 988)
Cal.3d 376, 402, and Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn v. City Council
(1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 1.
The Project would not result in any significant unavoidable effects. All
potential impacts identified by Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIS. are
either beneficial or less than significant such that no mitigation measure
are required. Accordingly, the County is not required to make findings
regarding the feasibility of the alternatives considered in the EIF .
C. SUMMARY F SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 112.2b of the CEA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe
any significant impacts which cannot be avoided. Eased on the analysis
contained in the Final Program Ells, implementation of the Project would not
result in any significant unavoidable environmental impacts.
13
GR WTH4NDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed ordinance by the
County and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to
the County's ordinance by each municipality in the Studer Area. The
following references to "Proposed ordinance" refer to the adoption of an
individual ordinance in each participating agency of the Final Program EI :
Section 15126.2(d) of the CE QA Guidelines requires a discussion of the
ways in which .a proposed action could be growth inducing. This includes
ways in which the Project would foster economic or population gro wth, or
the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the
surrounding environment.
Based on the analysis contained in the Draft Program EIR, the Project
would not be growth inducing as it would not affect long-term employment
opportunities or increase the region's population. Employment patterns in
the region would net he affected, as there are no known plastic bag
manufacturing facilities in the Study Area. In addition, recyclable paper hag
use is anticipated to increase Incrementally. However, similar to plastic bag
manufacturing, employment patterns in the region wound not he affected by
the Proposed ordinance, as there are no known paper hag manufacturing
plants in the Study Area. Ho wever, it should be noted that there is a paper
hag manufacturing plant in Buena Park, California. Also, demand for
reusable bags can be anticipated to increase. Nevertheless, incremental
increases in the use of paper and reusable hags in the region are not
anticipated to significantly affect long -term employment at these facilities or
increase the region's population.
Revenues generated by sales of paper bags would remain with the affected
stores. The proposed ordinance would not affect economic gro wth and
therefore would not be significant.
No improvements to water, ,server, and drainage connection infrastructure
would be necessary for Project implementation, No new roads would he
required. Because the Proposed ordinance would not include any physical
development or construction activities and would not involve the extension
of infrastructure into areas that otherwise could not accommodate gro wth, it
would not remove an obstacle to growth.
For these reasons, the Project would not result in significant growth-inducing
impacts.
1
E. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES TO THE ENVIRONMENT
The Program EIR assumes the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance by the T
County and adoption of ordinances that are identical or materially similar to
the County's Ordinance by each municipality in the Study Area. The
following references to "Proposed Ordinance" refer to the adoption of an
individual Ordinance in each participating agency of the Final Program Ells:
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that significant
irreversible environmental changes associated with a project shall be
discussed, including the following:
'l uses of non - renewable resources during the initial and continued
phases of the Project that may be irreversible because a largo
commitment of such resources males removal or non -use thereafter
unlikely;
(2) Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as
highway improvement that provides access to a previously
inaccessible area), which generally corns it future generations to
similar uses; and
(3) Irreversible damage that could result from environmental accidents
associated with the Project.
' S
The intent of the Proposed Ordinance is to reduce the environmental
impacts related to the use of single -use carryout bags, and to promote a
shift toward the use of reusable bags. As an Ordinance, the Project would
not include development of any physical structures or involve any
construction activity. Therefore, the Proposed Ordinance would not alter
existing land uses or cause irreversible physical alterations related to land
development or resource use. To the contrary, the express purpose of the
Ordinance is to reduce the wasteful use of resources and associated
environmental impacts. Therefore, the Project, as proposed, would net
result in significant irreversible environmental changes.
12. SUMMARY
Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record, it is
determined that:
All potential effects on the environment dine to the Project are either less than
significant, such that no mitigation is required, or beneficial to the environment.
1
1 . INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The Final Program EIR is hereby incorporated into these findings in its entirety.
Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the basis for
determining the significance f Impacts and the comparative analysis of
alternatives.
14. RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED
Minor changes to the Draft Program EIR have been made since its publication as
a result of comments received from organizations and individuals o.n the docu-
ment. staff- initiatt d changes include minor corrections and clarification to the text
to correct typographical errors. None of thc changes affect th analysis or
conclusions of the Draft Program EII .
The changes to the Draft Program EIR do not require recirculation of the Program
EIR because they do not result in any increased environmental effects that would
alter or modify the conclusions of significance contained in the Draft Program EI .
The corrections and additions do not identify any new significant impacts, , arid,
therefore, do not require additional mitigation measures or alternatives to the
proposed Project. These are minor changes that do not require recirculation of
the EII CEA Guidelines Section 1.b.
15. CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The Board finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report in evaluating the Project, that the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report is an accurate and objective statement that fully
complies with CE QA and the CE QA Guidelines, and that the Environmental
Impact Deport reflects the independent judgment of the Beard.
The Beard declares that no significant new impacts or information as defined by
CEA Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been received by the Board after the
circulation of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Deport that would require
recirculation. All of the information added to the Final Program Environmental
Impact Deport merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to an
already adequate EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(b).
The Beard of supervisors of the County of San Mateo hereby certifies the Final
Program Environmental Impact Report for the Project is adequate and complete in
that it addresses the environmental effects of the Project and fully complies with
the requirements of CE QA and CE QA Guidelines. The Final Program
Environmental Impact Report is composed of:
The backup file material for the Project.
The Notice of Preparation.
1
The Initial Study and the studies it relies upon.
0 The Draft Environmental Impact Deport dated June 2012. -
0 The comments on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report and
responses thereto as contained in the Final Program EIR dated August
2012.
0 The staff report for the public hearings before the Planning commission held
on July 11, 2012 and September 12, 201 -2.
0 The staff report for the public hearing before the Board of Supervisors held
on October 23, 2012.
0 The minutes of the hearings and all documentary and other testimonial
evidence submitted thereat.
0 The Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof.
Findings
CEQA Compli n e& As the decision - raking body for the Project, the Board has
reviewed and considered the information contained in the findings and supporting
documentation. The Board determines that the findings contain a complete and
accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The
Board finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEOA and applicable
State and county Guidelines and that the county complied with CE QA's proce"
dural and substantive requirements, such that the public was provided meaningful
opportunity to comment regarding potential environmental effects of the Project.
The -day public review period for the Draft Program EIR was June 22, 2012 to
August 6, 2012. The 1 0-day public review period for the Final Program EIR was
August 31, 2.01 2 to September 10, 2012. The EIR concludes that the Project, as
proposed, osed, gill result in impacts considered less than significant or beneficial to the
environment.
Review by the Decision Making Wady Prior to ppr v l: The Find Program
EIR was prepared and reviewed under the supervision and directions of the
County of San Mateo's Planning and Building Department staff. The Board is the
final decision - making body for approval of the Project. The Board has received
and reviewed the Final Program Environmental Impact report prior to certifying
the Final Program Environmental Impact report and prior to making any decision
to approve or disapprove the Project.
Independent Judgment of Lead Agencyp The Final Program Environmental
ental
Impact Report reflects the County's independent judgment. Public resources
Code Section 21082.1 requires any environmental impact report or draft
environmental impact report, prepared pursuant to the requirements of this
division, to be prepared directly bar, or under contract to, a public agency. The
County has exercised independent judgment in accordance with this section
retaining its own environmental consultant and directing the consultant in
preparation of the Draft and Final Program Environmental Impact Report.
rt.
1
Conclusions: The Project would not result in any significant unavoidable effects.
All potential impacts identified by Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR are
either beneficial or less than significant such that no mitigation measures are
required.
16, RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
All potential impacts identified by Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR are
either beneficial or less than significant such that no mitigation tion measures are
required. Therefore, no mitigation monitoring program is required or necessary.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this day of , 201Z
W
Te Y x .{,� P,'.,k •' ,ter
FN
hl A
'� ! �': '-[k ":. iii' '+�rl "yY: Y-J ,"Y'• _•t i HIM d
'I anti
Flo
}rte, i...::, _ alFe
JL
ILI
,�..,.:.
rtr -5 { � ;v {+f l� 1 {2� `F��` •yfY �`3 .S'�'x'� .5 =yj �'�.FY. 1�'{1' '- -+�.
'firL�.[�r�.
" 'y
Ed
,� 4';' .-
.4= ..,.f,.,' -r: fi ' rr. �.'� .i. *[i lfryU, #. ?I . -6'
0 Li
py
ZW
ad cl
� - i ,.3
i - M1M1
�. r'
Monti 0 ,x -Y
C _ y r;-
rr' Ei!_� Oiti '�[ , �' i�F., L. l s 4
4 k_
t�lJ #o .
x:
1.jn�1137� v
K
. i,. .. , . .. . . . . . __. ... . - - +r ' ' ' l _X.+ , r,r FSiz�i;17 F'�I ._._.. _ _.. - -" ::y�--
a..4?. V j?f?: i :.
_. F w, _ _ `r f � : ... .... r
. 71 .. {�_ __ _ 1 _r :A�'�r - ire +c{.3.1F /. '. - -�f,H :
1: .. i -f y' SPIUN
" , . N. ! 9L k
.61 Pir -M .� 1 .. f . 'h Kiwi 4T
3 ,. y 4l
�,,,,, . . % . / . . . . . . . . a . ' :�~
t'
.. ' .�;: _ %
..
:. k
r, , .. — — ._ ..._..
7 Q.. - 'x..' r f U 'I' '+ 11. I .,' 'f �'' , f..Y i 'IL
i'
{ a f # 4 4. '
t
�:'
I:
■ ■ ►'
. .. C+'. ..- 1 }... .. - ' .. .
� *„ _ i Vita: r
'.q:,' -r' 'r .'- , .
_ - .t'..''. t y + L r'„ '' ." r� ,',w` '•'` x .f'.: _ t'rf
{` { l,' _ _ '�� c.{ y�[y+�r�t ;.h5' a r� 55 4Yi.:J� yy.am�.
S
. < : i,,-r� yT .�. ' {� yam'..
. y{ :r: ..�, } 'J !r.'Vf# 13'x }r�,F:,%ii•- '�'y_.. {_ M, ' ,5. - ,r#��� Y w_ ��M1
yy,,�� '-Y� - . . 1. ti ' Y. , - - :�:•_�' • ::' k: y� - l _ �"+ -,JJ .. i
:_
::,
. -
. k 't - .. _ _ "� 9. yy
t f'i #' . . C.. ��F:'p. f -5i L.,'e . f � ' L) . i� y ++ ;• f:s , :e. 'r.rti y 4 %F
}I L �I -Y �. : Y :_ a ,i
[ ?'t \i x� �'4 r. :f' ! �L+ _ 1 a.. .,i`� ;.' _ r.a., sr - V'-,'..,'. #i 4 t' v
'. '.-.�, f 'QT Y }; ♦::i jam. .`' t+ %. r -_ { y,K..:. *Y- '. slr:' 'i''' "�'� .'gyp .
L'Sry rJk _'� w' -�* y{x :h; +a_� -•y �[ :J ,'l
t s- . - R4 i
. :'f * `� _ '•r Fes. 1- "{ 5K 4 +' Y' 'r1 _ - s_ .; _ �'.i . f. 5r {r'+i Y
v
}y_ �u
hi 4
' r : }j- i
. . ,
a �i
y . .
—{= `: �}
.. 'F F. I . _ ,ry R *ee4V�._. '4 �.s .iu4' [t r'} I- -w "f}F' '. .. l.• - yk. +F=' .Ir ''fi`f
1 _ `" _ i' �� I`J 4f: L�� ?�. _ �.._+'ryr. +�.ti rji., f .T1.�'.'_ �.t''.': /� _ {� .. .._ f
£ -- tr _ ' . .._ i „ "1 i '. "k+fii6e' . . k ;} ;F -+i : �' R Y 7' - ice. nci I. ,I x _ Qrj }` .. .1 r ' * r _ i % ' ~�" }.aa .'3is _.'4. Z�, .`-rlY.� ; 5 - -'- .a5�.'�.t ; �C�r".'fl�t'' _a`�i�. *l[?'.
4 _
• ,_
„ .,
- ' i,si , ' 1 # ' - . - :-tiJ'' _ . -1 �Y' .7�i. f_F.v., ..-Trk Y7a7 ? 1xa�' ir.�" 9�.� ' }�.' (". '.% p:i._ �{ .. 'i
- " Jy 1 Fry
V M1 O ` i ;I r �'r a '� r '#
J.
• t':
.: r
,■�.I k F.
.
+.
}.
Y �`'�Ry'r
:#
Y i
. , ' ' .._ t ' ? _.. . 1 LSe7
. . . . % .. 4 �f
7 'y. rc.. -k r� r •Fr� �- 1 * . f 1G i. _k.F
i _ _ _
' j # i d . R ! Til.y_.ri. . s r l _ L ' k4' 45' 'I %
' Jr"i . ' F : .'.iii - - + ' � ,-; e' k Y`.x ' .." // >.ti -` iY {'� I
yy // 1 _ k� � . 4' o-- - ' yy ... . _ }- '�.. '.�,� -Ss '�~' 'r -" r54".' ti` r °'4. x, rr�'1 .`r` . } _ _ .\ �.�
j. W4i-��y yY X.. f 1.= }.i i '2 _" .l ..ti .: k4 �'�C) r'. _'.+. J'4 r
r'y/.}:�iT _ ..{ :i' {{ hF2 _�}y - �.. _ - "'Y`. - +tii .''�M1 �t ""'S
tk kilfFi 3 1. -! �i. r i.: '. ` ice *% , A `% '+ '? . . %' a3 _~. °4 % :r el
"' c}LL5 i _ . _ . : " _ b � s , t F t .�: ape..!
'� _ x {'( .'} i = } ' ;7Fa x„f .. r . ._ r. ,_ .Y' _T" _-.. '1j `.
y�-��' j
I - "c -
i ya. } ._
.:. 1
M sp4 }'_4 _ +iT -- i -w - �...lii \L ' .o- ' h _ _ _ -4 .' f F .r14 1
% Li:' ;k I • -- -- J' k } .. . OJT_ Y+. °"r'. j ++ ''i x{ ' F .�.t _
' 1+ - r ��j +`yam `T ■� �y1 'i 4 .kL: '} ,
.l- + - }4 r�..�i _ IfYIiL,f# \i:l -I�-'Y .1' - ," I } t �„v -'L _ ''4 . -J
_rlf� ; rFS dC - s . -. ,.�' :k~ r 1. :+y''. ;' }}* 1.
:�.. � . ;_rte 'I .. �1 �' ;,., .
R F� +ti er }'J_ — f%pftt.R4 -- ,. . - .. ; .Y.. .�, a'- .,,';,. :- , i ' V - ':. 7.
v , SZ C)',�T �R..,. .. L _ rR 'M1I ' !-P. _
1. fE�t s , _+[' [ ' Y f r.:llY ' F. ! `i ; }° ? x 'r_ -k 1(. J'_ �": ,1 _ __ 1
_
yyy...
. R.'. _
ir, . {I _
:�
°y :r _ qy � "..
I . i t'.. :.. � -d % :
...
r _ 1
•:. . ', r
. . , ,.
`J ' .:
i
:
. -_
' .yY �1 4 _. .. •�,�c�.��,�1 ..1'.... ]£ -�'F y;,,ai�l+_,G{�. 1�J1�a�y _ _'S'� _ r-
4 t� ' ho!uxs tytS .. 'Y �i _ - -__
} t .�ti3�ki +1tVi5 .r'' r'. 4 � -.. . irrf Sri,,« r' SSGC7LF1111 ad; I.
_ .w- _ f. '
F E . irrkTit3r.7 r : "` _ F.,';} -. F : :.:_.__:.} {{�
{� }tl t� F. J ��'' r k !I :� r4�.. . . -S� : I kF
C 5iJ'e.f a J'� s' .. j E. f �,r.•''ry fi '4''M1 : ..' - - br
.. -
- _ �+ { +�I�
L _ . _ .. -
.+# I�nt £3re�3w+s f _ ` '. ?5! : .�7i_',� L, ' S_ x ; '�t..... 1=, .: % .,,...' . ,,,
-9. -.
- k 3Ci #f1 + €� -3 I�f�l ' .. '� ' -:7i I' I , �1. ' }. ,F'.+_. _ YJ.'f. _ J '1
_ �_ __ :�
0 r 4 r l� 'f i a �. -•---
i _ Y__r,.
.. try t ,I_yi *.. " "r' *�' .. ..Y M1I.1 -).$!? . - . . . . S' : . � . )�k , . . . - :. -:.-- .:. , ,
333 T - .. ' }; -' -I..
r'' s
. .:'.. 4 .kk
;��r .
. 1 �..
� +. :Y
' �nY.I--v -�:_..� . ,.l to ,r - fie_ j
' - .. . .
. ! ., .. i. t A# -. . ,. -..,.. .. . _. ... ..- .- ,. - _, ..- -__..i .. . . - .
Attachment C
CANT` OF SAN MATED
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: September 12, 2012.
TO: Planning Commission
ion
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: EXEC Tl E SUMMARY: Consideration of: 1 the certification of a Final
Program Environmental Impact Report .(Final Program Ells) that analyzes
the adoption of a Reusable Bag Ordinance (formerly Single-Use Bag Bari
Ordinance) by the County of San Mateo and by cities in San Mateo
Couhty Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, Eat Palo Alto,
Foster City, Half Moon day, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portela Malley,
Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco,
Woodside) and by cities in Santa Clara County Mi.lpita , Cupertino, Lo
Gatos, Los Altos, Campbell, Mountain main View); and 2 a proposed
Reusable Bag Ordinance Regulating the Distribution of Single -use
Carryout Bags by Detail Establishments (Except Restaurants).
PROPOSAL
The applicant, the County Environmental Health Services Division, proposes a
reusable .Bag Ordinance (Proposed Ordinance) to be implemented within areas of
unincorporated San Mateo County. The Proposed Ordinance will prohibit the distribu-
tion of plastic hags by retail establishments and require these establishments to charge
customers for recycled paper bags and reusable hags at the point of sale. The
minimum charge would he ten cents 0.1 per paper hag until December 31, 201
and -twenty -five cents $0.2 per paper bag on or after January 1, 2015. Affected
stores may retain the charges to compensate the stores for increased costs related to
compliance with the Proposed Ordinance, The Proposed Ordinance would not apply to
restaurants, tale -out feed establishments, or non- profit charitable reuse organizations.
The Proposed Ordinance exempts retail customers participating in the California
Special Supplement Food Programs and the CalFresh program from the paper bag
charge. The Proposed Ordinance would be effective on April 22, 2013, giving stores
and consumers time to comply with the Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of
Supervisors:
I . Certify the Final Program EI , and
2. Adopt the Reusable Bag Ordinance.
SUMMARY
It is estimated that retail customers within the County and participating municipalities f
San Mateo County consume approximately 386 million plastic bags per year. When the
other participating agencies in Santa Clara County are included, the number rises to
approximately 546 million plastic bags per year. According to the Master ter Environmental
Assessment on Single -Use and Reusable Bags prepared by Green Cities California in
March h 201 , most used plastic bags end up in landfills or as litter.
The Proposed Ordinance draws on ordinances from other cities in California e.g., City
of San Jere) and is the product of outreach and feedback from cities (specifically,
Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colima, Daly City, East Pale Alto, Foster City, Half
Boon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno,
San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and Woodside, all participating agencies
in the Final Program Ells) and business representatives .g., Chambers of Commerce,
Coral businesses) in San Mateo County. The objectives of the Proposed Ordinance are
to:
Reduce the amount of single -use plastic bags in trash loads, in conformance with
the trash load reduction requirements of the I P ES Municipal regional Permit.
Deduce environmental impacts related to single -use plastic carryout bags, such
as impacts to biological resources, water quality, and utilities.
Deter the use of paper bags by u tomer in the County.
a Promote use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers in the County.
Avoid litter and associated adverse impacts to storm at r systems, aesthetics
and the marine environment (San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean).
In addition to the County and 18 listed cities in San Mateo County, the County also
invited Santa Clara cities to participate in the County's Program Environmental Impact
Report (Program Ells) to encourage regional reusable bag use. Inclusion of a city in the
scope of the Program EIR would alloy that city to use the Program EIR to comply with
the California Environmental Quality Act in the adoption of their own bag ordinance.
The cities of Milpitas, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Los Altos, Campbell, and Mountain vier
choose to be included in the Program EI . The Final Program EIR analyzes the
potential environmental impacts of the adoption of an identical or similar ordinance in
the County and each of the 24 participating agencies.
The Draft Program EIR analyzes the following issue areas in which the adoption of the
Ordinance may result in potentially significant environmental 'impacts: Air Quality,
Biological Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology Water Quality, and
Utilities and Service Systems. The Craft Program EIR concludes that the Proposed
Ordinance may result in some negative environmental impacts in these issue areas, but
that these impacts would be less than significant such that no mitigation would be
needed, and that the Proposed Ordinance would also result in beneficial impacts in
these issue areas. l ��
� 3 -
Item #11 PL 1 -001
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: September 12, 201
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Consideration of: 1 the certification of a Final Program Environmental
Impact report (Final Program EIR , pursuant to the California Environ-
mental Quality Act CE A , that analyzes the adoption of a reusable Bag
Ordinance (formerly Single -lase Barg Ban Ordinance) by the County of San
Mateo and by cities in San Mateo County (Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame,
Coln , Daly City, East Pale Alto, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park,
Millbrae, Pacifica, Port la Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos,
San Mateo, South San Francisco, Woodside) and by cities in Santa Clara
County (Milpitas, , Cupertino, Los Gatos, Los Altos, Campbell, Mountain
View); and 2 a proposed Reusable Bag Ordinance (formerly Single-Use
Bag Ban Ordinance) that would amply to retail establishments including
those selling clothing, food, and personal items directly to the customer,
but would not apply to restaurants nor charitable reuse organizations) and
could 1 prohibit the free distribution of single -use carryout paper and
plastic bags and 2 require retail establishments to charge customers for
recycled paper bags and reusable bags at the point of sale (minimum
charge would be ten cents ($0. 1 until l eoember 31, 2 014 and t wenty-
fi e cents ($0.25) on or after January 1, 2015), within unincorporated
areas of San Mateo County.
County File Number: PLN 2012-00136
..:: 11i
Summary of rdinan e Ifovisions
The applicant, the County Environmental Health Services Division, proposes
Reusable Bag Ordinance (Proposed Ordinance) to be implemented within areas of
unincorporated San Mateo County. The Proposed Ordinance gill:
Prohibit the distribution of plastic bags by retail establishments. Whereas State
laver already restricts local jurisdictions from imposing a fee on single -use plastic
bags, the Proposed ordinance imposes a cost pass- throughl by prohibiting the
free distribution of single -use carryout paper and plastic bags.
customers for recycled paper bags and
Require retail establishments t charge
reusable bags at the point of sale. The minimum charge would be ten cents
($0. 1 o per paper bag until December 31, 2014 and twenty-five cents $0.2 per
paper bag on or after January 1, 2015.
• Allover the recycled bag charge to be retained by the 'affected stores to compensate
the stores for increased costs related to compliance with the Proposed Ordinance.
•
Define the .specificfactors (durability and washability ) thatgualify'a reusable bag.
• Exclude restaurants, take -out food establishments, or any other business that
receives 0% or more of its revenue from the sale of prepared food to be eaten on
or off its premises.
O - Exclude non - profit charitable reuse organizations.
Exempt retail customers participating in the California Special Supplement Food
Programs and the CalFresh 2 program from having to pay the charge for a paper
bag.
Ordinance Implementation
The Proposed Ordinance would:
Be effective on April 22, 2013, giving stores and consumers time to comply with
the ordinance and locate reusable begs as alternatives to carry purchases from
sto re s.
• require regulated retail establishments to keep complete and accurate records
(including documents of the purchase and sale of any recycled paper bag or
reusable bag) for a minimum period of three years from the date of purchase and
sale.
Be enforced by complaint response, as well as random compliance visits by
Environmental Health specialists.
• For stores out of compliance, the Environmental l health Services Division will
follow up with an educational letter for first time violations urging compliance e as
well as outlining re- inspection fees charged for subsequent re- inspection visits.
1 A cost - share system where some or all of the cost of a product is passed - through from the purchaser to
the receiver of the product.
The CallFresh (Feed Stamp) program provides electronic benefits for eligible low-income households to
buy food at most grocery stores.
�2_
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of
Supervisors:
1. Certify the Final Program EIR, and
2. Adopt th Reusable Bag ordinance.
BACKGROUND
Report Prepared By: Camille Leung, Project Planner
Applicant. Dean D. Peterson, Director- of Environmental Health Services, County of
San Mateo
Location: once adopted, the ordinance would apply to all of unincorporated San Mateo
County. The Study Area of the Final Program EIR considers a bag ordinance adopted
within unincorporated San Mateo County a s well as a similar ordinance within each of
the 1 participating cities irl San Mateo County and sic participating cities in Santa Clara
County.
Environmental Evaluation: The Draft Program EIR was issued with a 5-day public
review period from June 22, 2012 to August 6, 2012. The Final Program EI (which
Includes the Draft Program E I R by reference and corrections) was issued with a I 0-d ay
Public Review period from August 31, 2012 to September `Io, 2012.
Chronology:
Date Action
March 23, 201 2 - County enters into an Agreement with.Rincon Consultants,
Inc., to perform environmental consulting services, including
preparation of a Program Draft and Final. Environmental
Impact Report for the project.
April 6, 2012 - The County of San Mateo prepares a Notice of Preparation
(NOP)of a Draft Program EIR and distributes the NOP for
agency and public review for a 30-day review period.
April — May 2012 The County condu is seven public scoping meetings during
the NOP comment period, which take place in Half Moon Bay
(April 18), San Mateo (April 19), Mountain View (April 25),
South San Francisco (April 26), Campbell (May 2), Milpitas
(May 3 ) and Redwood City (May 3.
June 22, 2012 - Public release date of Draft Program EII .
-3-
July 11, 2012 Planning Commission Informational Public Nearing of the
Draft Program Elf.
August 6, 2012 - End of Draft Program EI -day Public Review and
Comment Period.
August 31, 2012 Public release date of Final Program EIR, Final Program EI
released with new name of "Reusable Bag Ordinance,„
formerly "single -Use Bag Ban Ordinance," to better
communicate the positive purpose of the ordinance.
September 1 , 2012 - End of Final Program EII . 10-day Public Review period.
September 12, 2012 Planning Commission public hearing.
DISCUSSION
A. IMPACTS OF CARRYOUT BAGS FROM THE GROCERY BAG I IEA
Many cities and counties that have adopted bang ordinances have relied on the
Master ter Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags (Grocery
Bag ME A), prepared by Green Cities California in March 2010, to determine the
significance of actions that they may take to cut back on the use of single -use
grocery bag S. The County's Reusable Bag Ordinance Draft Program EIR relies
on the Grocery Bag IIEA for information about single -use grocery bags including
existing regulations, life -cycle analysis, and potential impacts on the environment. ...
The following is an overview of findings on various types of carryout bags from the
Grocery Bag IDEA.
Sinal.e-Use Plastic g : dearly 20 billion single -use high density
polyethylene HI PE plastic grocery bags are used annually in California,
and most end up in landfills or as litter. In fact, of the four types of bags
considered, plastic bags had the greatest impact on litter.
Single-Use Paper : Kraft paper bags are recycled at a significantly
higher rate than single -use plastic bags. Still, over its lifetime, a single-use
paper bag has significantly larger greenhouse gays (GHG) emissions and
results in greater atmospheric acidification, grater consumption, and ozone
production than plastic bags.
The California Environmental Quality Act CE authorizes the use of Master Environmental
Assessments IEs "in order to provide information which may be used or referenced in Elms or
negative declarations" (CEQA Guidelines section 15169),
4 Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags, Green Cities California, March
2010, Page I,
M
Single -lase Biodegradable Bads: Although biodegradable bags are thought
to be an eo- friendly alternative to DOPE plastic bags, they have greater
environmental impacts at manufacture, resulting in more GHG emissions
and water consumption than conventional plastic bags. In addition,
biodegradable bags may degrade only under composting conditions.
Therefore, when littered, they will have a similar 'impact on aesthetics and
marine life as HPE plastic bags.
Reusable Bates: reusable bags can be made from plastic or cloth and are
designed to be used up to hundreds of times. Assuming the hags are
reused at least a fear times, reusable bags have significantly to wer
environmental impacts, on a per use basis, than single -use bags.
1. Cou_nLv_.B.ag Consumption and lmp t
As previously stated, almost 20 billion plastic grocery bags, or approximately
531 hags per person, are consumed annually in California.5 Based on this
estimate, retail customers within the County and participating municipalities
of San Mateo County consume approximately 386 million plastic bags per
gear. When the other participating agencies in Santa Clara County are
included (listed in Table 2 of this report), the number rises to approximat ly
54.6 million plastic bags per year.
At the County- level, single -use plastic carryout bags have been found to
contribute substantially to the litter stream and to have adverse effects on
marine wildlife. The prevalence of litter from plastic hags in the urban
environment compromises the efficiency of infrastructure systems designed
to channel storm water runoff, leading to increased clean -up costs for the
County.
The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System I PDES Municipal
Regional Permit (MRP) requires Permittees (including all municipalities
within San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties) to reduce trash loads from
municipal separate storm severer systems (MS 4s) by 40% by 2014 70% by
2017, and 100% by 2022. specifically, each Permittee is required to submit
a short -Term Trash Load Reduction tion Plan which must describe control
Treasures and hest management practices, including any trash reduction
ordinances that are currently being implemented or planned for implementa-
tion, to attain a 0% trash load reduction from its MS4 by July I , 2014. The
adoption of the Proposed ordinance is included in the County's Short- -Term
Trash Load Reduction tion Plan, submitted to the Water Board on February 1
Source, Green Cities California EA, 2010; and CIWMB, 2007,
Table 2 -1 of the craft Program EI.
7 United Nations 200 9, CIWMB 2007, County of Los Angeles 2007.
8 Baseline Trash Load and short - Terra Trash Load Reduction Plan, County of San Mateo, , February 1,
2012.
--
2012. The County of San Mateo will receive a 10% reduction credit for
Ordinance adoption.9
2. Effects of Foos on S -Use Bag use
Per the Grocery Bag M A, fees and bans on bags in the United States and
other regions of the world have resulted in dramatic. drops in consumption.
For instance, Washington, D.C., saw bag use drop almost % after
requiring a 5-cent charge for checkout bags, with % f businesses
reporting positive or n impact to their salos.1° Foos on single-use hags
reflect some or all of the actual production cost (approximately 2 to 5 cents
r plastic bag" and approximately 1 t 2 cents per paper bang 1 , as well
P p
as the environmental cost of the bags, and serge as ar disincentive for bag
purchase. Several cities and counties in California have previously con-
sidered or passed similar ordinances within their respective jurisdictions.
These include, but are not limited to, the Cities of San Francisco, Palo Alto,
San Jose, Sunnyvale, Berkeley, Millbrae, Fairfax, Manhattan Beach, Malibu,
Santa Monica, Calabasas, Huntington Beach, Dana Point, Laguna Beach
and Long Beach, and the Counties of Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Marin, and
Alameda.
B. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE
Basic Obiectives of the Ordinance
As listed in the Reusable able Bag Ordinance Final Program BI , the objectives
of the Proposed Ordinance are to:
Objective 1: Deduce the amount of single -use plastic bags in trash
loads e.g., landfills), in conformance with the trash lead reduction
requirements of the 1 P ES Municipal Regional Permit NPI ES
I P.
Nective 2: Deduce the environmental impacts related to single -use
plastic carryout bags, such as impacts to biological resources
(including marine environments), water quality, and utilities (solid
waste).
Objective 3: Deter the use of paper bags by customers in San Mateo
County.
9 B2seline Trash Load and Short -Term Trash Load Reduction Plan, County of San Mateo, February 1,
2012.
"Bag g ban is good, but let's change behavior," `i" ra Gallagher, Portland Tribune, August 01, 2012.
11 AEA Technology, 2009.
12 City of Pasadena, 2008.
WOE
2.
• Objective : Promote a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags
by retail customers in San Mateo County.
• Objective : Avoid fitter and associated adverse impacts to
stormw t r systems, aesthetics and the marine environment (San
Francisco Bay and the Pacific ocean).
Origin of a Region l - proach
On September 27, 2011, the Board of Supervisors held a workshop and
took comments from a number of individuals and business representatives
(e.g., chambers of commerce). At the conclusion of the workshop, the
Board provided direction to staff to meet with cities within the County and
develop an ordinance that could be implemented regionally'
On October 3, 2011, San Mateo County Supervisors Groom and Tissier
sent a letter (Attachment E to all city mayors in San Mateo County inviting
therm to participate in a Countywide working group to develop an ordinance
that would apply consistently across as many jurisdictions in San Mateo
County as possible. The working group focused primarily on four'element
of the ordinance: 1) which types f bags should be banned at the point-of-
sale; 2 ) whether, in conjunction with a ban on the issuance of single -use
carryout bags at the point -of -sale, to require a fee for paper bags; 3 which,
if any, types of establishments to exclude from the ordinances
requirements; and hover the ordinance would be enforced.
Many cities in the County participated in the Countywide working group,
including all cities that are now considering adoption of an identical or
similar ordinance to the County's Proposed ordinance, as listed below:
Table .
1�II� LJ I I I � i 1 1 ["1 1� h [ h . :J rl t1 r l r' r r -rit ] Hob It 1-Se r1li
. .DiVI 1 staff l ou:�d g'Uate lrr� I me' n' t .t-i -of .0rd�in� n �e
San Mateo County
0 Belmont
• Millbrae
• Brisbane bane
' Pacifica
0 Burlingame
• Portoia Valley
* Colma
° Redwood City
Daly City
• San Bruno
East Palo Alto
San Carlos
Foster City
• San Mateo
• Half Moon Bay
0 South San Francisco
Menlo Park
o Wood side
1WR
Working group discussions expressed a common desire to include all retail
establishments and not to include restaurants, non - profit charitable retailers,
nor protective product bags e.g., produce /meat bags).
3. County consultation with IndustEy Representatives
Environmental Health Services Division staff consulted with the California
Grocers Association (CGA) in order to gauge their membership's accep-
tance to a bag ordinance. The CGA encouraged a consistent regional
approach that applies to all retailers. Division staff also sent a letter to all of
the farmer's market managers informing them of the possible ordinance.
Division staff also spoke with several dry clearers and toured local dry
clearing plants. After reviewing the dry clearing process, it was determined
that a protective plastic cover was needed to ensure that clothes remained
clean and protected from lint and other material during storage. Feedback
from local plants underscored that a reusable garment bag is not econom-
ically feasible at this time and sparks concerns of contamination from used
bags. Further, the industry is making strides to reduce their use of plastic
and encourages their customers to recycle plastic protective coverings.
Further, creek and coastal cleanups do not report this type of plastic to be
an issue.
4. Basis of Policy Direction
Based on review of information collected from the working group, adopted '
bag ordinances in the Bay Area and in other- cities in the State, information
from the Grocery Bag MEA, and consultation from county counsel,
Environmental Health Services Division staff established the following
guiding principles for its Reusable Bag ordinance:
Include all retail establishments: Level playing field for all retail
establishments is critical for acceptance by retailers.
Bari single -use plastic bags only and apply fee to recycled_ paper bags:
Based on a comparison of pending and adopted bag ordinances in
California included as Attachment c, all of the listed ordinances, with
the exception of the city of Carpinteria's ordinance, apply a ban on
plastic single -use bags, not both plastic and paper single -use bags.
Most ordinances restrict the distribution of paper bags to recycled
paper bags and have imposed a fee it most cases, a Io -cent per bag
fee with some increasing to 25 cents after a set tire).
Include sirs le -use .biode raable bags.in bar based on the Groce
Bag l lEA. As stated previously, biodegradable bags have greater
environmental impacts at manufacture, resulting in more G G
M
emissions and water consumption than conventional plastic bags and
may degrade only under composting conditions. Therefore, when
littered, they will have a similar impact on aesthetics and marine life as
DOPE plastic bag's. Therefore, biodegradable bags are included in
the ban on plastic bags.
Exclude restaurants; 18 of the 25 ordinances listed in Attachment C
exclude restaurants from the requirements of the ordinance. It should
be noted that the city of San Francisco expanded its ordinance in
February 2012 to apply to restaurants and encountered strong
opposition by the Save the Plastic Bag coalition on this basis and
issues related to CEQA compliance.
Exclude n'n- rofit charitable retailers: - A handful of pending and
adopted ordinances in the region exempts this type of retail
establishment e.g,, Millbrae, Sunnyvale, San Jose, Monterey).
Additionally, by the nature of their business, these organizations
reduce the waste stream and use proceeds from purchases to fund
charitable efforts.
Exclude produce bags: Plastic produce bags (plastic bags with no
handles) are presently a best - practices tool In the prevention of food
cross contamination and to maintain the cleanliness of shopping carts
and checkout stands at retail establishments.
Based on the guiding principles listed above, Environmental Health services
Division staff decided to model San Mateo County's Proposed ordinance
after an ordinance adopted by the city of San dose. At a meeting con -
vened with representatives of 15 of the 20 incorporated cities in San Mateo
County, cities indicated support for this direction.
5. Outreach Plan
comprehensive outreach plan has been developed that will include
extensive outreach to retailers and the public. Outreach efforts have been
phased to address pre - adoption of the Ordinance, providing for extensive
outreach between Ordinance adoption and implementation, and then
ongoing outreach after Ordinance implementation. .county outreach efforts
in the pre - adoption phase have included support for participating agencies
through email updates, press releases to local media, public events and
appearances by the Bag Monster, websites, social media, as well as
CE -- related public scoping meetings. County outreach efforts between
Ordinance adoption and implementation will also involve press releases to
local media, public events, websites., social media, and will also include
support for participating agencies within the county through e- newsletters,
reusable bag give-aways, partnerships with non - profit environmental
agencies, and coordination with retailer for in-store campaigns. County
ongoing outreach after implementation will include continued support for
participating argen i within the County through - newsletters and
continued public campaigns through web sites and social media. Each
jurisdiction will he responsible to identify and lead additional outreach efforts
within their jurisdictions.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
IE
I . Type and Scope of EI
The Proposed Ordinance is discretionary project subject to the environ-
mental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA'). Therefore, County of San Mateo staff have prepared a Final
Program ElR (which includes the Draft Program EIR by reference including
corrections) examining the Ordinance's potential environmental impacts.
To increase the reach of the County's efforts to encourage regional reusable
hag use, the County invited 'Santa Clara cities to participate in the County's
EIR as 19parti iparting agencies." It should be noted that the Environmental
Health Services Division ion only has enforcement authority within San Mateo
County and that each cities outside of the County would be responsible for
enforcing their own ordinance. Inclusion of a city in the scope of the EII
would allow the city to use the EIR to comply with the California Environ-
mental Quality Act in the adoption of their own bang ordinance. 1 S 1 (6)
cities in Santa Clara County choose to be included in the Ells. Participating
cities, in addition to the County of San ( late , in the Program FEIR are
listed b e l over:
�-arti�pitl.:+ i11J.rtlplti:.; ::ap ' :E�:.. to .thurr`.. �ir.:-l�a�
jh r ya
,San Mateo County
Santa Clara Guys
0 Belmont
0 Millbrae
* Milpitas
6 Brisbane
0 Pacifica
a Cupertino
* Burlingame
0 Prtla Malley
• Los Gatos
O C lma
* Redwood d City
• Los Altos
• laxly City
San Bruno
0 Campbell
• East Palo Alto
O San Carlos
0 Mountain View
• Foster City
• San Mateo
Half Moon Bay
0 South San Francisco
Menlo Park
0 Woodside
13 The Program Ells does not preclude any requirement for individual participating cities to undergo
further environmental review.
1
The Final Program EIR analyzes the potential environmental l impacts of the
adoption of an identical or similar ordinance in the County and each of the
24 participating agencies. It should be noted that, consensus amongst all
the cities indicated support for the proposed ordinance language, with many
of the cities expressing that they did not feel comfortable expanding the
restrictions of the Ordinance within their own jurisdictions beyond that of the
City of San .Jose's ordinance. Further the proposed language was reviewed
by several Chambers of Commerce and business associations, all of whom
stressed that their support was contingent on consistency of local
ordinances region -wide.
2. S u n of E nvi ro mental Impacts
a. Plastic. B ..I la ement Assumptions
The Final Program EIR estimates that the total volume of plastic bags
currently used in the study area is 552 million plastic bags per year .1
The Final Program EIR assumes e a reduction in plastic bag use after
the adoption of the Ordinance, with assumptions that plastic bags
would be replaced by recycled paper bags and reusable bags in the
following proportions-
Ninety-five percent of the total volume of plastic bags currently
used in the study area (525 million plastic bags per year) would
be replaced by. recycled paper bags 30% of total) and reusable
bags 5% of total) as a result of the Reusable able Bari Ordinance.
Five percent of the existing single -use plastic bags used in the
study area (27 million plastic bags) would remain in use, as the
Proposed Ordinance does not apply to some retailers who
distribute single-use plastic bags.
Based on an estimate of 52 uses per reusable bag1 , 6.9 million
reusable bags would replace 359 million single -use plastic bags.
Based on the above assumption, the approximately ately 552 million
single -use plastic carryout bags currently used in the study area
annually would be reduced to approximately 200 million total bags, as
a result of the Proposed Ordinance.
14 Based on statewide data indicating an estimate of 531 bags used per person, multiplied by the
population of each participating municipality.
15 A reusable carryout bag would be used by a customer once per creek for on e year times). This is
conservative estimate -as a reusable bag: as required by the Proposed Ordinance, rust have the
capability of being used 125 tires.
- 11 -
b. Potential Environmental Impacts of Ordinance
The Initial Study included in Appendix A of the Draft Program EI
identifies issue areas in which the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance
would not result in any potential significant impact. Conversely, the
Final Program EIR identifies and analyzes the following issue areas in
which the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance may result in less than
significant or beneficial nvir n ntal impacts:
Air Quali t r: While the Proposed Ordinance would reduce the
total number of bags manufactured and the overall air pollutant
emissions associated with bang manufacture, the Proposed.
Ordinance would generate air pollutant emissions associated
with an incremental increase in truck trips to deliver r y l d
paper and reusable carryout bags to local retailers.
Biological Resources: The Proposed Ordinance would reduce
the amount of single -use plastic bags which would be ptd
to reduce the overall amount f litter entering the coastal and
bay habitat, thus, reducing litter-related impacts to sensitive
wildlife species and sensitive habitats.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: The Proposed Ordinance
would increase the number of single-use paper bangs used in the
Study `
Area, resulting �n an incremental increase in GHG
emissions compared to existing conditions.
Hydr l ,qy/ Wat r Qu li While the Proposed Ordinance would
incrementally increase the number of recycled paper and
reusable bags used in the Study Area, which may result in an
increase in the use of chemicals associated with their production
and associated water quality impacts, bag manufacturers -w uld
be required to adhere to existing water quality regulations. Also,
the Proposed Ordinance would reduce the overall number of
single -use plastic bags used in the study Area, reducing the
amount of litter and waste entering storm drains.
Utilities and service s sterns: While the Proposed Ordinance
would increase the number of reusable bags within the study
Area, resulting in an incremental increase in water demand and
wastewater generation by a negligible amount duo to rashing of
reusable bags, projected wastewater flows would remain within
the capacity of the wastewater collection and treatment system
of the study Area. Also, the Proposed Ordinance would
12-
increase paper bag use and related solid gate generation in
the Study Area. However, projected future solid waste genera -
tion would remain within the capacity of regional landfills.
Attachment D of this staff report includes a more detailed description
of the environmental issues relative to the Proposed ordinance, the
identified significant environmental impacts and residual project
impacts. In summary, the Final Program EIR concludes that the
Ordinance may result in some negative environmental impacts in the
above issue areas, but that these impacts would be considered less
than significant without need for mitigation or the ordinance may result
in beneficial impacts in these issue areas. As the Final Program EIR
does not identify any significant impacts requiring mitigation, no
mitigation measures ure are included in the Final Program EIR.
It should be noted that minor revisions were made to the Proposed
Ordinance after the release of the Draft Program EIR. These
changes, as h wn in tracked changes in Attachment B, clarify that
dry cleaning bags would not be subject to the requirements of the
Ordinance and adds a fee exemption for CalFre h (Food Stamp)
program participants. These revisions to the Proposed ordinance
would not result in any change in the level of , project - related
environmental impact as analyzed in the Final Program EIR for the
project.
C. Project Alternatives
As required by c QA, the Final Program EIR examines a range of
alternatives to the Proposed Ordinance (Project) that feasibly attain
most of the basic project objectives. A brief summary of each
alternative is provided below.
Alternative 1.._....N.p.....P — The no project alternative assures
that the Reusable Bag Ordinance would not occur. The existing
retail establishments would continue to provide single -use bags
free of charge to the customers. Under Alternative 1 , the
Proposed ordinance's less than significant impacts related to
grater and wastewater demand from washing reusable bags
would be eliminated, however, this alternative would not achieve
the Proposed Ordinance's beneficial effects relative to air
quality, biological resources (sensitive species), and hydrology/
water quality, nor would it result in litter reduction.
-13-
Alternative 2: Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags at All Retail
Establishments — This alternative would prohibit all retail
establishments in the Study Area from providing single -use �.
plastic bags to customers at the point of sale including
restaurants and other retailers not covered by the Proposed
Ordinance. under Alternative 2, the Ordinance would eliminate
distribution of all single -use plastic carryout bags within the
Study Area. It is assumed that the additional plastic bags that
would be removed under this alternative would be replaced by
recyclable paper backs. Compared to the Proposed ordinance,
Alternative 2 would result to equal or reduced impacts in the
areas of biological resources and hydrology/water quality, due to
the reduction in the use of single -use plastic bags. Alternative 2
would result in equal or increased impacts compared to the
Proposed Ordinance in the areas of air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions and utilities and service systems, due to the
increased use and disposal of paper bags.
Alternative 3: llandat char e of $0.25 for Paper Bags
Alternative 3 is identical to the Project except that it would
increase the mandatory charge from $0. 10 to $0.25 per recycled
paper bag. Alternative 3 would further promote the use of
reusable bags since customers would be deterred from pur-
chasing paper bags due to the additional cost. Alternative 3
would result in equal or reduced impacts compared to the
Proposed Ordinance in the areas of biological resources,
hydrology /water quality} and utilities and service systems, due to
reduced paper bag use. Similarly, compared to the Proposed
Ordinance, Alternative 3 would result in reduced impacts in the
areas of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Alternative : Bain on Both Single-Use Plastic and Pa er
carryout Bag — Alternative 4+ is identical to the Project except
that it would p rohibit retail establishments from providing both
single -use plastic and paper carryout bags to customers at the
point of sale. Alternative 4 would be considered environmentally
superior among the alternatives, as it would have greater overall
environmental benefits compared to the Proposed Ordinance.
This alternative would result in beneficial effects to the environ-
ment compared to existing conditions in the areas of air quality,
biological resources, GHG emissions, hydrology/water quality
and utilities and service systems.
--
These alternatives are described and evaluated in detail in Section
6.0, Alternatives, of the Draft Program EI . Environmental Health
Services staff has discussed the possibility of implementing
Alternatives 2 through 4 with each of the participating agencies.
majority of the jurisdictions made it clear that they would not be willing
to consider a different policy direction, due to factors outlined in the
"Basis of Policy Direction's in Section B.4 of this staff report.
Therefore, since the original project has been shown to result in less
than significant impacts which do not require mitigation and beneficial
impacts in some areas, the applicant has decided not to pursue any of
the alternatives and remain with the proposed language.
d. Summ r _ of Comments Deceived During the Public Comment Period
During the 5 -day comment period for the Draft Program EIR, the
County received 29 comments, The following is a summary of the
cornmenter
ip Twenty -tiro comments were received from individual members
of the public 10 from San Mateo County residents, 3 from Santa
Clara County residents, and 9 unknown).
Four comments were received from participating agencies with
questions regarding the CEQA process or corrections to the
Draft Prograrn EIR.
•
One comment was received from a retailer e.g., IKEA), in
support of the Proposed Ordinance.
Two comments were received from environmental organizations
in support of the Ordinance or one of the Project Alternatives
e.g., the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club supports
Alternative 2).
Eleven of the 29 comments expressed opposition to the Proposed
Ordinance, for reasons including the following'.
Five comments stated that plastic bags are currently being
reused or recycled.
Four comments suggested that the fee for recycled bags is too
high or would hurt the economy.
-1 -
Three comments stated that use of reusable bags may pose
health and sanitation risks, due to lack of washing,
r.
Other commenters expressed the opinion that the ordinance is
over-regulation and/or places a burden on businesses.
D. SCHEDULE FOR REUSABLE SA LE BAG ORDINANCE
.H Arl r :: S .� .:.:...: :.: :.......... :. = : .
.
Public Release e Date of Draft Program EIR
June 22, 2012
Planning Commission Informational Public Hearing
July 11, 201
End of4 -day Draft Program EIR Public Review and Comment
Period
August 6, 2012
Public Release Date of Final Program EIR
August 31, 2012
End of 10-d any Fi na I Program El is Public Review r and Cornment
Period
September 10, 2012
Second Planning Commission Public Hearing for Consideration
of the Final Program EIR and the proposed ordinance
September 12, 2012
Board of Supervisor Public Dearing to certify Final Program
E R and adopt ordinance 1 st reading)
October 23, 201
Tentative
Board of Supervisor Public Hearing to certify Final Program
EIR and adopt ordinance (2nd reading)
October 30, 201
(Tentative)
:n . :"1 l u l
. N s
Proposed effective date of ordinance
April 22, 2013
minim urn charge would be ten cents ($0.10) per recycled paper
bag
April 22, 201
December 31, 2014
Minimum charge would be twenty-five cents 0.2 per
recycled paper bag
January 1, 201
ATTACHMENTS
TS
Copies of the Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program Ells are available at the following
locations:
County of San Mateo Health System Environmental Health Services, 2000
Alameda de ]as Pulga , Suite loo, San Mateo, California, 94403 and
electronically at http://www.smchealth.orq/BagBan;
2. County Planning Department, 455 County Center, Se . and Floor, redwood City,
California, 94063 and electronically at http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/planniDg;
and
!film
3. At the following libraries.
Sorrnono Main Library
40 Wembley y Drive
Daly City, CA 9401
Millbrae Library
I Library Avenue
Millbrae, CA 94030
San Mateo Main Library
5 West 3.rd Avenue
San Mateo,. CA 94402
Redwood ood City Downtown Library
1 044 Middlefield Road
Redwood City, CA 94063
Half Moon n Bay Library
620 Co rroa s Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 9401
Mountain View Library
585 Franklin Street
Mountain view, CA 94041
Los Gatos Public Library
Town C ivi .0 n to r
loo villa Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Milpitas Library
160 North In Street
Milpitas, CA 95035
A. Reusable Barg Ordinance Final Program EIR Study Area Map
B. Proposed Draft Ordinance, dated August 9, 2012
C. Comparison of Pending and Approved Bag Ordinances in California, updated
August 2012
D. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Me s.ures, and
Residual Impacts from Final Program EI
E. Letter from San Mateo County Supervisors Groom and Ti sier, dated October 3,
2011
CL :pay - CICILv o —WP .l oCX
�1 -
� �'''} _ '�� _ ,_ 4' i-t�y �fM• -- ,�1, .F� #'
ism
who
��.'r ti•.. '_�ti� �'�' �' �L.} •o- ,•. _ 'a F� � :�'. qtr.. }y .
M ., -� F {:r �-:. J •� .� '�' -t "K _* _ - f.s l -:. '` 4i. ��'�a'� GXr� ���_ i
x• 7+ � � � `�'�± ..� � ��t'�t} _ ,�. :'�' t.�,.:-.a'� � + y.,.5 ail `A � �`_'4
' S �� 3 x / i�r+f F' � �e� �.T -- �y �2{j _ ry f 4r - +• l �~° �r � .� �y
. - ryF � � l - � - R+�3•� •!�'� '�StY'. Y* #o- t :xi-�.� �+ �l' -._ }�_� '
;M1L 'F♦ �.' �%i '/ x�F7 41�`j
POOL
fly? � I M1 y��%l ��� �' 4 ._ �:'�':t �,�L _ � � #� i .. - _,ter. ' "f }x�+ i4•_ ;<�!` • .5
H!; �:fy. l .•::i. J _ fir
1
4,X
' �4r �'' y��Cw S� ?}+• '��,.yi 1�y � �� � '.� _� Y f +i} = • }': • l Ri+ + . �"x'r . � +y Jam..
ounWn V i
IM.:'. 1., h.�
F C }1 Yiri_IILF,#++
IL;
Id
IT
toga
it
Qj
_.. ' . t ,. � � � yam,,, `• •�' .
i'
' .,. .
OCEAN _
A i
,` ��' � *��'•+F ���1i1'FiJ�S:FI 11R1�1F �. r - .. s•! � f?�L
r .. . . t .. . . ... _ "f. - - -- -1 r t., - .-- .aufa0,4i Y.fYk .. - , . _ Y's
y. . . } - "
'_ � 3
' . 'r i.f - I 0�,[':' ." , Yom. fir. f�'
;
{ f'. . ft F _ ..
j
.. iE`
F a, k - .,
O -Aft - " _ -�i.. .
,� j
(J ��: �ti'
' :���1�,� ,r _ _may ..
= Ares : r
. ,k; r a' l
', .
Y
j■
}•
". 4 , ..
7r
_ ,i11 lilt
:. .. -
r _
i I l,E 1,y*,�{+5'F if Jr - +1_. iF,'15 "f
,, "�' 1, .l �y
. ' 4 },wr . ;*i. v�. , �' ,�+ *_L /,'' �� .1tiJ�`++rr" I 5~ Y� s.{ '
? /.. r'ti' Y �k ,s RR f - * ~i. ,Y :Y r' F` . 4(i �`r "I r __ 1 "C + t° .. t v :r
r 4 f f i. } 5. 4- Y f.. . .�+ . =Y._1 rr� f . s. Y
L'a} ■ rtjj� -I i - +F 'i; FllW Frs+. * {�fw- r'" .k4_ `�r yYs�• f. ir' .. r#
k _i
�s,l. r:. -.:r;l'! w�..r F'�,:'`r� �.'r. c !'�- "tt
_ f ' iCf/ i `5LL ?�.s� ! 'f ". F+r ,t - 3 ", Eik' }� ".C? 2'J
M M -ti . C'`�� ,}i" -/ry �J�`,R . J *." ,* S # 7; ' t' t � , '•�W `+ t # . - , } . * _. 4 - i.- +J "T, : }- III
Y { -r F II Y r ' s ` �t E. 7 . . j "T Y`ari + i,` r ]. 6 +y i
•` .. i` , +'iM1 :_ "' 7 i_S.F��. .a 'a'. I` • �.t '. .. -` }',�s y- 'Ic :MF'is -^ -. .'t. +: `L .r. ry� t
j� _ 1 _
s: f
{.�li yf+.�� .,*y., f +" l 51 J�� 'o- _ "� . }a �ti4 •xy,- :: s _ :y'. 'j i
f ".I I M_�.,1 , #.I} iii• =: ��li L *~ jAF � �� "r-m { v� kk # SM M1 : ¢ }
. i!% _ r M' ' -r-.�_ Mx9 #..,r;4 Vs'F a A.�J {` ..J:M1 #Sr ,. i�, _ .. .. 3
_. _
-- 5 : A # ,
_ y
_ f
_ r
' '� _ .f _ ,
yl ,
U r } +�r, ODES { }mt,'L M:. hd M r z �'
_ } -'-F -. _ - ti'3.�' 1.
;# ." ,.• L . '[ -f i1 J :� 2 wy� : r ? °;�ffC$ ifi 1+�rTa! rr *. :' "` ` - .
'r Fr+�•a#�- . f Ll �j L "T��l ,F � { x i'f i• ', �}��ir 1P�'�1'} ' 4M`.. � sMI Mz _ �• "f
t+kf #Fryti i;Sxlt ��!�.a ^i, yi *.. �s P f k+
CCC
}
`�
}. a
w,.
" \.
', �-y
y
. -rk ' T _
:, ::
L
r'
r
11
y
.. #t '�' .. ', . , ; p .ice M :.. .. - 'i n� . iy J }' . f 5 �,-� _ � � x � � _
L". J . -F .r•6 -4� - ry "r'r.v f`n MM ----v rS. .i-.' !'A1 . + k+r4 X�. ,kr y�_ v
i it i��3R} . f} .... L b"� �i " - � , I .. y. �4 5 4! .. x :.
ti.. ..
r i.. a f
r
...
:. v _
��' VT' f'
di e� _
.. .. j
I }
} -
_ ry :.
r .. .v .�.. :" :. .U*
„� - ? `may' i tir. �r ,.3- r+. 3 <' ,7b _ F ;F'+J ^ - - F.. ` ,
..i..f,�'2 5 , r _ J t �. #"�7 rAl° ,+ i +x ,r - r. -. -i 'k. F
. -- :, * ti ff i .
�? rfi;3 k r : . . i I r s a , # : II- I M0 Jr�Erb� d{. �_ �` : y'. Is � �, � . . ,� `', f
i4} #':r , li Jtkr ''���amrSJ3T+r+-'T'ti+1!iF +Lf' Ili +J�y - -+ I. M:
Sy . , ',. 'e, ' .O, a - ] E#Y -- ..:,+F -: �.. -# - J�J'3' �'"4: : - . =.. s. {pr" Y� , y 4... � _ri _. �
10 J`jFjC�rft1]•,�!.��`{'��} �_r }� } - r :!- F`•_ ' LLx :'l }.5 *�"
�y�r # Y {t� I tlRFti ^ .'M1 - �y` }2F" ��..rJIi�A� '1' rAN'� I 4' -f F� iL }:. * }
F .. �1 ttijp� �
3i1�'S' 'r ;. t, ��' . � i1 i i .., ` { .'{ �r -- "; - .r' �.� ry r'T• y,
S�,'� i�/ . �, ' _ >',: _ ice**• '
{ { ik �f0'ce .� � "" .J /�r�'�, p,y{ �Y F. i,,,s 5, �{� �k, _rE� �l _� - 4��,, '
yyyy 4k I 4,Y_ArLS��_. tI 5 _. 4 # '�} -: k; "' .I1+ Ir .. i X- .. "i - L - .G ^F .M }
i '"'' I ." I —. .. ? I,-, 'dpi R$ y;
T� - - -
t.
k I i< i :: i. �r f ... •; f. .:; 'I ..' 41 `� 'a.`., �{31_
!� Cil.5 .r '-_" YS,' :r . .. :tl' ._ '2 ' -# yF !3aT.'_ .. "�Tc�
2'' mI. . 4 +y F 7N ? 4 Jl X!, ti+Ei Fj� 1� s .ski I F' F rys
PSG 'f! „ .. _ - .. * r , # - -.. - ?
+ , -
�. �f t.1i:1,; 1�" : $fTlllaiili �tS _ ., '.'
s I j J :' r �.T ,� ..
E rl ' i _ -
�..krt.P
VT
.
,' : .
r _
:,:
:. _
} `J .. .. ,... _ ..ri
*,r y�
. {µ" v} t+�r{- Rw �F, ,�y'Lr��Cy�� ..:_'.5 .:i] �i .. yam} }�I'� +}
i .. i:']� It�4i��ir{} . ". .. ¢.' {y�/iJYfi' -rte f -�� i.`� �i+r�} F7� ,21i
r
C�s�l�� R c4 53a -j, €.,; �. s '. : �'1 f AT �'. ., f t � r f ''� . : _ _ -� . ` ;
J - 'f 4r i a� . d .x :" ,_,,:,:.4 . , ~j a,r _
IYF�y ; }+'Y: L }.5 -; ." T-I'�.. - l l~. .I' F.' I
{� QIEiV�;�ir '] fS , -,r} 4.- _'Y�',ry 1. I { I " '��} hT�F 4
#cY��( i '
;
. . -user' ::} . ,. irr �'# ,L
;. � .4 t :
ref rs' w5 ti� �� _., ". j. C_ _ , ] -'
z
�; {r?t; Lr� { iii .... . �_ � '`{}
J �`�'� f �4 :.-dry _ }:. } ; '
! A.
. _" -.
.r " F., -
' l U
I
-. ,_
t•
k -. .. . .'. .. .'. . -. Y"�.. . . .. .. ti` .! _ . . . . rte,. , -. ., — . . ..._ . .. . -. . . ,.., �.,J.." . .r ".. . .- ... .:
^�Y'
C b.� h
Attachment
eus able Bag Ordinance — Draft Ordinance Language
nF C., 9 August 9,..2012 ..
e mitt s
A. "Customer(, means ,s any person obtaining goods from a retail establislu ent.
B. "Garment " weans a travel bag e of pliable, dpLAble material with or without a
- . d used to _ arm suits, dresses, coats* off' the like
handle, desrxed. to hang straight � Fold double and
without crushing or wrin1ding -the same,
B.
"Nonprofit charitable re user" means �'lantable or a za-io �, s de ed in Section
(c.) (3) o f the Internal Revenue Code of 19 8 6.. :or a, -distinct opera fi .unit or division of the
charitable organization, that reuses and recycle: ..d.dhated goods or mat r l .. and receives more
than fib percent of its revenues from the han lin " %and sale of those donated--goods or materials.
C. t'Person jeans any natural. p ers m, firrr -i, Corp.6t a o ;- partnership, or other organiz ation
or group however organized.
D. "Prepared food' meal-is foods o b verage.:-which are prop r d on the premises by
cooling, chopping, slicing, -inixing, freezing; ...or squeezing,... and which require no ffirther
preparation to be cons u1n `` +eared o :.does : in � :e 'raw, u.rIeoo ked meat product '.
or fruits or vegetable- ..which are di Aped, s 1 . -, or mixed:`
E. "Recycled e :b. tf r rea . --a. p .per bag' �r4ovided at the cheep stand, cash register,
point of sa -e,.. - Other. point �f. p.a ur eior: the purp.:s.e of transporting food or m rchandise out
of the e tabhs'- luuent'tha contain .no old l vth." fiber and a minin um of Forty pereent post -
consumer recycled content' -is one hundred erc iit recyclable; and has printed In a highly visible
marmer n'the outside of the bag t ''Wo r s "Reusable" and "Recyclable," the naine arid. location
of the Manufacturer, w -id the nt .ge'-. �' .ost- consur er recycled content.
F. "Publie eating establishment" means a rest ur it, tale -out food est l lisle ent, or any
other business that r eves ninety - ereent or more of its revenue from the sale of -prepared food
to be eaten on or off its p r 'Mi .
G. "Retail establishment" means any commercial establisl rent that sells perishable or
nonperishable goods including, but not limited to, clothing, food., and personal it.erns directly to
the customer; and is located within or doing business within the geographical limits of the
County of San Mateo. "Retail establislu -rent" sloes not include public eating establishments or
nonprofit charitable reusers.
H6- "Reusable bags, means either a bag nu de of Cloth or other machine washable fabric
that has handles, or a durable plastic bag with handles that is at least 2.25 rail thief alid is
specifically designed and manufactured. for multiple reuse. A gannent bag that meets the above
criteria regardless if it has handles. or not.
1# "Single-use ear #r -out " means a bag other than a reusable bag pro i t the h 1
stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of depar uie, including departr- .cents within
store, for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establislunent. "Single -use
carry -out bags" do not include bags without handles provided to the customer: 1 to transport
prepared food, produce, bulb food or meat from a department within a store to the point of sale;
(2) to bold prescription medication dispensed from a pharmacy; or to segregate food or
merchandise that could dmnage or contaminate other food or merchandise when placed together
in a reusable bag or recycled paper; bag
,Single -use carry-out bag,,
A. No retail establishment shall provide a single-use ,may- out bag to a customer, at the
check stand, cash register, point o f sale or other point of depdr, t re for the uij o se of transporting
food or merchandise out of the establishment except as provided in this section.
B. on or before December 31, 2014 a retail establislu-nent nay finale available for sale to
a customer a recycled paper bag or a reusable ..ag. for a minlr wai charge.-o f. ten cents.
C. on or after January 1, 2015 a retail establisbnawnt. inay make available .. or sale to a
customer a recycled paper bag or a reusable bag for a r :lriiii -i-c i charge of twenty-five eel -its.
D. Notwithstanding this section, no.reta. l e tablisl -a -ne' .t may make available for sale
recycled paper bag or a reusable bag untes --s. the' n at of the -sale of such bag is separately
itemized on the sale receipt.,
E. .. retail est bl sbment xa' rovid one or.-more recycled paper bags at no cost to any
the foll 3Dn find vidual .:a Gusto iaer: particlpat ag xra the Califor is special Supplement food
Program for Women, In a nt ,and ChIldren pur sua.nt .to Article 2 commencing with Section
12 x,75) o.f'Chapt r 1. of Part .2 '. f' . V1 106 of fl�e: c ltl� and safety bode; �- customer
ar icipat r g iii the pup le ental o pr ga pursuant to Chapter 1 commencing with
Sections 1 5500) of Pant 3 o ' lvlslo:n 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, w A &tw
llaA
_ and a custoin er participating
in Calfresh pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1 8900 of Dart 6 of i ision 9 of
the California Welfare and Institutions Cod.
Re ordkeephIg and 'spec io .'
Every retail establislua -ient shall beep connplete and accurate record or documents of the
purchase and sale of any recycled paper bag or reusable bag by the retail establislu ent, for a.
i inirnur period of three years from the date of purchase uld sale, which record shall be
available for inspection at no cost to the county during regular business hours by any county
employee authorized to enforce this hart. Unless an alternative location or method of review is
mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be available at the retail establishment
address. The provision of false information including incomplete records or documents to the
county shall be a violation of this section.
Administrative fine.
(a) Grounds for Fine. A fine may be imposed upon findings nude by the Director of the
nviror - rental Health Division, or his or her designee, that any retail establisluia nt has provided
a single -use carry -out bag to a custonner in violation of this. Chapter.
(b) Arnotmt of Fine. Upon findings made under sub..se c Lion (a), th .%retail establishment shall be
subject to an administrative fine as follows:
(1) A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($4 00.00) for a first violation;
(2) fine not exceeding two hundred dollars 200.00 . for :end violation;
(3) A fine not exceeding five laundred dollars {$500} for the third and subsequent violations;
(4) Ea.eli day that a retail establislurnent leas: provided: si.ngle -use carry --out bags to a customer
constitutes a separate violation.
(c) Fine Procedures. Notice of the -fine shall b .served on the retail establislu -rent. The notice
shall contain an advisement of the right to request , a hearing before the Director of the
Environmental Health ivisio"n r.his . r::her d si gn ... contesting the in-iposition of the fine. The
grounds f ' the c6nt st shall b that the r tail.: stabli'sh rent slid. not provide a single -use carry -
out bag-. - .ny customer.. .:Said heap.ng inust be' re quested within ten days of the date appearing
on the notice of the fine. The decision of-the Director of the Environs- nental Health Division shall
be b ased upon ' . finding that the above liked ground for a contest has been met and shall be a
final administrative order, with no-�adnainistr ative right of appeal.
(d) Failure to Pay Fine.. If said fine is not paid within 30 days from the date appearing on the
notice of the fine or of the notice of deten-nination of the Director of the nvironnnent l Health
Division or his or her designee after the hearing, the fine shall be referred to a collection. agency.
Scr.bilit.
If any provision of this chapter or the application of such provision to any person or in any
eirorunstances shall be held invalid, the remainder of this chapter, or the application of such
provision to person or in circumstances other tha n tl os s to which it is held invalid,, shall not
be affected thereby.
Enforcement of this chapter when adopted.
The Enviroiunental Health Division is hereby directed to enforce Chapter 4.114 of Title 4 within
an incorporated area of the C wity of San Mateo if the v rain body of that incorporated area
does each of the following:
(a) Adopts, and makes last of its municipal code:
(1) Chapter 4.114 of Title 4 in its enti
Comparison of Fending and Adopted Bag Ordinances in California
City of San Jose X -- -- 10 cents /per N All Retail Nonprofit
paper bag; up to Charitable
25 cents in 2014 Reusers
Ij 81 4'
l%�, j�''�! 1r�'r1 I Y
-
Exemptiwis
r
sin On' title
Vt V-
i '
: '.M. ' ni i � alit ..
..
Pla C.
" ape
.� Cl'lOU1l
.
.
'Oh" ly
:.
.. ..
taurar� ......
''SAY AREA ..:...
:
_
y
City of Millbrae
x
10 vents /per
ll Detail
Nonprofit
paper bag
Charitable
Feusers
Y.
.
Counter of Santa
x
15 cents /per
N
All Retail
WIC
St
Clara
paper bag
et(
out[
resi
env
ber
reu:
arc
M01
reu:
City of Sunnyvale
x
10 cents /per
N
All Detail over
Nonprofit
paper bag; up to
$2M/ r•
Charit k,`+
cents in 2014
Feuser,
City of San Jose X -- -- 10 cents /per N All Retail Nonprofit
paper bag; up to Charitable
25 cents in 2014 Reusers
Comparison of Pending and Adopted Bag ordinances in California
{
no n 1� = .
t C'
Exemptions
-_ .n.
Di in ent re : =.:,:: ,
�4 {4. Both - - n i. i
�� Fee amount)
JJa-tio P r
Only, n y R e'ta' 11 e r''s,: &
etau rnt type
City of Palo Alto
X
N
lion-
Hardship
supermarkets
Supermarkets
only
shall offer
paper and
plastic or paper
only
ity and-County-of San Fran-cis.-Go.
City of San Francisco
Non —
10 cents /per
Y
Y2 All Retail
Unknow
I u
oornpostable
paper bang
outs
plastic only
eml
ous
City of Fairfax
X
Fines for violators
Y
All retail
County of Marin � X � -- I --
I 5 cents /per paper N
bag
All Retail over ICI
$2M/yr., store
with pharmacy
over IOK sq.
ft., stores
selling
TO
bad
roi
BY(
dad
stor
Comparison f Pending and Adopted Bag ordinances in California
Y .
-
- - dris
Inen� / .. ':,r.�� �.._ .:non. .. ;:..._..:-
Dj8d - - - tc
..v
.. _. _ -... \. _.. .. :... I..... z � i .:tai ....- { ., Yt •. j�.._.' trti l4:. ':Y''� � `` _ _
:if:.�� *.S{- '>"'�+
-.._. _.- :... -..u.. _._3__... - �n1. {': zk.*
.sue
�11s
' "L, : -ti.: -- ''I'v;o-rti t -:ice
Re
un�c� ��t Y. :...: ::(Fe
...... .
?la.
:' ... :..:n l r :..' . o.n :. =. OWJ1 rS':: &
Res -a n s-
ypes
perishable con
items fesl
Farr
mi
gra.
ec
con
and
volt
pll.
d tf
sup
d o
mei
S EI n tar Cr'UZ C ubly
County of Santa Cruz
X
10 cents/per
Y
All Detail
wic
Sign
paper bag; after
plc
1 year increase
lots
to 25 cents /per
shot
bag no charge
' ,..their
for restaurants
hen
stor(
The
gavE
reus
durir
after
ban
I oca
and
Comparison of Pending and Adopted Bag ordinances in California
4
e «r _ _
rat = :: :I: I..
nw - r�_ tons
S
.. D�slnerltllles �: =� _ ["
Y
-�IlunIi � alit�� � � � - _ _ - ..
PCti paper.
Fee a. ou nt {{ =ff v
O nl i Only.
:Fetii r: .
:. I e ur nts .. types
City of Santa Cruz X 10 cents /per N All Retail WIC
paper bag
Alameda County.
County of Alameda
X
--
--
10 cents /per
N
All Detail over
WIC
paper bag; up to
Ilyr., store
Charitable
cents in 2015
with pharmacy
Ceusers,
-
a
cents /per bag
over I OK sq.
III
City of Carpinteria
X (small
X (large
N/A
ft.,tores
Both for large
hardship
retailers)
retailers)
selling
(Over $5M),
y
perishable
only plastic
items
banned for
Monterey Coun�y _
City of Monterey
X
--
--
10 cents /per
N
All Detail
Nonprofit
paper bag, after
Stores, if
Charitable
1 yr. up to 25
Ceusers,
-
a
cents /per bag
III
'ity of Calabasas
10 cents /paper
N
Food & Drug
WIC
bag
Stores, if
/yr., over
-
a
1 o K sf
City of Carpinteria
X (small
X (large
N/A
Y
Both for large
hardship
retailers)
retailers)
(Over $5M),
y
only plastic
banned for
-
small
City of Dana Point
X
Fines for
N
All Detail over
Hardship
�4
f
'
Comparison of Pending and Adopted Bag Ordinances in California
......
-Exem �=ryrY
.�f
,
�s'!h.' �'l'
n� �4
n'i d �a�l �t
ee ao fi.
ly
violator $4M/yr.
includes non- -
profit
City of Laguna Beach X
10 cents /per
N
All Retail ail
hardship
pa per bag
City of Long Beach x
10 cents /per
paper bag
N
All Retail over
2M/yr., store
WIC
with pharmacy
over 10K sq.
ft•,tores
selling
perishable
items
City of Les Angeles x
Free for 1 yr., 10
cents /per paper
bag after
N
All Retail
Unknown.-.-",
:
F esi
feu
GVE
Eves
cult
harp(
City of Malibu x -- --
None
Y
All Detail
Hardship
w
Comparison of Pending and Adopted Bag Ordinances in California
fi
t
�5 C.:,"
•r
x „ }Y
= !' "S
:.r..
{ry
�f roe r�t�e�� E-���l� �_ry� :� �'��:= _���:.:�:
� _ - .� � - E�r�i tin
*I�
Di n ntivo
:. ::;_
' � "fr "�
. I:��lil a11t -
Peas Pa r
-B'ot h e:ta-i i e rs "
fly
:.:. O n : n
City of Manhattan X None Y All F etaiI Hardship
Beach
City of Ojai X --
-- 10 cents /per
N
All Retail
WIC
paper bag
City of Pasadena X
10 cents /per
N
All retail over
No charge
paper ba.g
$2M/yr., store
for paper at
with pharmacy
Farmer's
over I OK sq .
Markets,
ft. ,stores
city
selling
faoi I iti es
perishable
and events,
items
food
stamps
program,
Jty of Santa Monica a X
10 cents/per
Y (but
All Retail
WIC
paper bag
exemption
for take --out)
T
County of Los X
10 cents /per
N
All Retail over
WIC
EdL
Angeles
paper bag
2M/ rr, store
stal
with pharmacy
re -L
over I OK sq F
an
ft. stores
en
selling
CUS
Comparison f Fending and Adopted Bag Ordinances in California
..... - � . . ... ..: � -- "�.. - ..•-"f ..�- � �- .�, J.._,.. • -r � '�s-� � - -. yf, � � _ � - ..r.'. %:t,k ^':'Yr'.i = x�_�': �Y�i..r - - '�ri= - - ��
.-- �� � �'^ ��v.. t �.,r... ,.. ..,:.-�,k: °'- -: x:'��^ - _0._i ;y. - - _ ':7•- .C' �:i 'i�� �. �.
- x - —
k_S _k= ....MFY
k. - ....... v...z:
.. ti,. 'rr�: Sri �.n�
rloen
:•:l. iF
. -i i•: :,: =s,__: _:• -. __r- .mow:__'..= f= 1� -_�Y- f.� ":�. �N'.r•_a _�,?:,:::.7v _ {< *.
.y o
.
.. .. _ ..
k x ^_�xz�gS. -l.,- 7�w �' }u.�,�_'•'{ -.y �.. .�ac'r _.. ::t- -• �5,��%4;2 w: ��.,���:
kk s�Y.rvr -r
..
unibi
Piano. P er
ee
:(F
iler
perishable use
items ba
County of San Luis
x
10 cents /per
N
Supermarkets
None
Obispo City and
paper bag
over 2M /yr.,
County of San Luis
stores over
Obispo, J tasoadero,
I OK sq.
Grover Beach, Morro
ft.,pharmaies,
Bay, Paso Robles,
stores selling
and Pismo Beach
perishable
items
Note: This table does not include all pending or adopted bag ordinal7oes in California. Staff has only summarized outreach efforts for cities where information
Source: Californians Against Waste, htt : lw w.oawrecy le s. orgElissueslplastl oampaignlplasti bagE llooal, accessed August 2012; w bsites of individual cc,
4 ..
Attachment
Environmental Impact Classes:
Class l Impacts are defined as significant, unavoidable adverse impacts which
require a statement of overriding considerations to be issued pursuant to the
CEQA Guidelines §1 5093 if the project is approved.
Class 11 Impacts are significant adverse impacts that can be feasibly mitigated to
less than significant levels and which require findings to be made under Section
15091 of the CEA Guidelines.
0 Class ll[ impacts are considered less than significant impacts.
Class Ill Impacts are beneficial impacts.
Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
(Table S- from FEIR)
Impact
Otigati on
Siqnxi icance
Measures
After Mitigation
ation
A-JR .,Q UALI T
Impact AQ-1
Mitigation is not
The impact would
With a shift toward reusable bags, the Proposed
required.
be beneficial
Ordinance is expected to substantially reduce the number
without mitigation.
action.
of single-use carryout bags, thereby, reducing the total
number of bags manufactured and the overall air pollutant
emissions associated with baggy manufacture and use,'
Therefore, air quality impacts related to alteration of
processing activities would be Class IV, beneficial.
Impact .x2
litigation is not
impacts would be
With an expected increase in the use of paper bags, the
required.
less than
Proposed ordinance would generate air pollutant
significant without
emissions associated with an incremental increase in truck
mitigation,
trips to deliver recycled paver and reusable carryout bags
to local retailers. however, emissions would not exceed
BAAQMD operational significance thresholds. Therefore,
operational air quality impacts would be Class 111, less than
-significant.
.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 1310-1
Mitigation is not
The impact would
Although the Proposed Ordinance would incrementally
required.
be beneficial
increase the number of recycled paper and reusable bags
without mitigation.
within the Study Area, the reduction in the amount of
single-use plastic bags would be expected to reduce the
overall amount of litter entering the coastal and bay
habitat, thin, reducing litter - related impacts to sensitive
wildlife species and ,sensitive habitats. This is a Class IV,
Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
(Table ES-1 from FEIR)
Impact
Wtigation Significance
Measures After Mitigation
beneficial.
Gi'G8i'EMISSIONS'HOUSE.
.7
Impact GHQ
Mitigation is not The impact would
The Proposed Ordinance would increase the number of
required. be less than
single-use paper bags used in the Study Area.
significant without
Implementation of the Proposed Ordinance would
mitigation.
incrementally increase GHG emissions compared to
existing conditions. However, emissions would not exceed
thresholds of significance. Impacts would be Class 111,
less than qi gnfficant.
Impact GHG-2
Mitigation is not The impact would
The Proposed Ordinance would not conflict with any
requiredp be less than
applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted
significant without
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
mitigation.
Impacts would be Class 111, less than significant.
-'HYDPOLOGYMATER QUA L.1 TY -
Impact HWQ-1
Mitigation is not The impact would
The Proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase the
required. be beneficial
number of recycled paper and reusable bags used in the
without mitigation.
Study Area, but the reduction in the overall number of
single-use plastic bags used in the Study Area would
reduce the amount of litter and waste entering storm
drains. This would improve local surface water quality, a
Class IV, beneficial.
Impact HWQ-2
Mitigation is not Impacts would be
A shift toward reusable bags and potential increase in the
required. less than
use of recyclable paper bags could potentially increase the
significant without
use of chemicals associated with their-production, which
rnifigationp
could degrade water quality in some instances and
locations. However, bag manufacturers would be required
to adhere to existing regulations, including NPIDES Permit
requirements, AB 258, and the California Health and
Safety Code. Therefore, impacts to water quality from
altering bag processing activities would be Class 111, less
than signfficant.
UTILITIES ANUSERVICE SYSTEMS
Im pact U-1
Mitigation is not Impacts would be
The increase of reusable bags within the Study Area as a
required. less than
result of the Proposed Ordinance would incrementally
significant without
increase water demand by a negligible amount due to
mitigation.
washing of reusable bags. However, sufficient water
supplies are available to meet the demand created by
Summary of Significant Environmental impacts,
Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
(Table ES- I from FEIR)
act iti 4 ati n
Significance
Measures
Mitigation
......After
reusable bags. Therefore, water suppler impacts would be
Class 111, less than significant.
Impact U-2 Mitigation is not
Impacts would be
Water use associated with washing reusable bags would required.
less than
increase negligible resulting in an increase in wastewater
significant without
generation in the Studer Area. Projected wastewater flogs
mitigation.
could remain within the capacity of the wastewater
collection and treatment system of the Studer Area, and
could not exceed applicable wastewater treatment
requirements of the 111 0 . Impacts would be Class Ill,
less tl7an si ni cant.
Impact -3 Mitigation is not
Impacts would be
The Proposed Ordinance would alter the solid waste required.
less than
generation associated with increased paper bag use in the
significant without
Studer Area. However, projected future solid waste
mitigation.
generation would remain within the capacity of regional
landfills. Impacts would therefore be Class 111, less than
County of San Mateo
Attachment
Planning & Building Department
4.55 County Center, 2nd Floor . mail Drop PLNI
Redwood City, California 94063 p1 b1d smog , r ;
650/363-4161 fax: 650/363 -4849 www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/plaiiiiin
-Se tem er 18, 2012
Dean D. Peterson, Director
for
Environmental Health Series
2000 Alameda de las Pul.ga ,. Suite 100
San Mateo, CA 94403 -
Dear Mr. Peterson:
SLlb e t: NbT- :0.18[0
File Number: FILN2012-00136
Location, Unincorporated San Mateo County
On September 12, 2012, the San. Mateo County Planning Commission considered: 1 the
certification of a Final Program Environmental Impact e of EI , pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act C Q l that analyzes the adoption of a Reusable ask le Bag ordinance
(formerly Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance) by the County of Sari Mateo and by cities in San
Mateo County eir -ont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, F sterCity,
Half Moon Bay, Menlo Farb, Millbrae, ie, l acifica, l ortcla Valley, Redwood City, San BrUno,
San Carlos, San Mateo, South S,an Francisco, Woodside) and by cities in Santa Clara
County (Mllpitas, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Los Altos, Campbell, Mountain View); and 2 a
ro o ed Reusable Bag r in-ano (formerly Single Use Bad. Ban r in nce that would
apply to retail estaNsh ent (including those selling clothing, food, and personal items
directly to the custorner, but would not apply to restaurants nor charitable rouse
organizations) and would 1 prohibit the free di tri. ution of single use carryout paper and
plastic bags and 2 require retail establishments to charge customers for recycled paper
bags and reusable bags at the point of sale 0-ninimum charge would be ten cents ($0.10) until
December 31, 2014 and -twenty -five cents ($0.25) on or after January 1, 2015), within
unincorporated areas of San Mateo CoL111ty, .
Dean D. Peterson, Director
September 18, 201
Page 2
Based on [nformation provided by staff and evidence presented at the hearing, the Planning
Commission recor m nded (4-0-0-0) tki t the Board of Supervisors: 1 Certify the Final
Program 1R and Adept the Reusable Bag Ordinance, The Commission also
recommends -the following requirements to he added in the applicant's report to the Board of
Supervisors: That, at the end of 12 months from the effective date of the Ordinance, the
applicant provide a. report to the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission lon on the
performann,e of the Ordinance in meeting project objectives and 2 That, at the end of
months from the effective date of the Ordinance, the applicant provide n report to the Board
of supervisors card the Planning Commission with recornmendatIoM for modification of the
pro r ir, as necessary, to improve achievement of project objectives.
1n addiflo n, Commissioner Slocum requested that the applicant provide in ifis report to the
Board of Supervisors a det Iled description of outreach efforts to snail retail establishments,
including distribution of raussalAe bags to be purchased in bulk by the County, and
• 5
description of plans to offset the cost of the program to the County.
If you have questions regarding this natter, please contact Camille Leung, Project Planner,
at 650/363 -1 826 or Email: 1 ng_@smc , r• . t
Debra- Robinson n for Rosario Fernandez
Planning Commission Secretary
91-2w. I I dr
En iosure: San Mateo County Survey -Art online version cf our Customer Survey is f c ��..
available t; lllt ; ww,co,s n to - i nri
c:
California coastal Commission
County Counsel
Donald J. Bahl
Lauren Dock nd orf
Mir am G o rdon
Lennie Roberts, Commiltee for Green Foothills
Board of u er. vvi.sors
Attachment E BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DAVE PINE
CAROLS GROOM
DON HOLE
ROSE JACOBS GIBSON
ADRIENNE TISSIER
OAVID S. BOESCH
COUNTY MANAGER/
COUNTY 04"6 SAN MATEO CLERK OFTHE BOARD
OUNTY GOVER N MENT CENTE i R EDWOOD CITY CALI FOR N 1A 94063 -1655 (650) 363 -4653
WEB PAGE ADDRESS- httpJ1wvvw.co.san:'nateo.ca.us (650) 599 -1027 FAX
October 3, 2011
M. Naomi tr i e, Mayor
City of Half Moon Bay
501 Main Street
Ralf Moon Bay, CA 94019
Re: Single-Use Carr +yotit Bag Ordinance
Dear Ms* Patridge,
Oil Se tember '271111 the Board of Supervisors Bald tudv session o discuss the adoption of n ordinance
ro h i b itin g the iss tian :e of plastic and oth r ,sln Ie -u se carry 0Llt bags at the loin - f- sa I e t A copy of the
steaffreport is included fol# yoUr reference.
Ltfir1 the I S C LISS ior1 portion of the tU : ion, the B oard pr i ts desire for an ordi n ance that
wou I d Rpply consistently across as many j urisd ictions in fan Mateo County as poss il l c. To that end,. we
are wr +itirig your to gauge your; city's interest -in joining a co unty - i de workin g grO rl P tO form it hate stich an
The orkin grotip would focus primarRy on four elements of th ordinance:
1 11ch types of bags sliould be banned at the point-of-sale.
2 W ie h r, in conjunotion with a roan ors. the issuance Of Sirlc;i -trse car *ryMt bags at the point-of-
sale, , o require a fee for paper bags;
3) Whioh, if any, types of establishments to exclude from the ordinance"S requirements; are
4 How the ordinance should be enforce(L
In ad cli ti on,1 .Lrs e a CO L111ty--Wi de ordin .n -cc w i I I Iii - e ly necessitate the reparation of an ETR, -the
wo rk i ng grou t gill have to d ise-uss how It should be financed.
If YOU al-e Interested in. hav in our c i y pam.cipate in this working roup, please contact Eric Pawlowsky
of Su Pery Isor Groom's staff at O 3 6 3 -4 3 14 or pawl ovy sky @),s m v.pra. I f th ere i s s Liffic i nt 111t r- st
from cities within the Co Li My, we g ill fO I 10W Lip W ith YOU to s 11 C11iIC the wor+l in g group "s first ni ecti ng.
Thank you for consideration. We look forward to working with you,
Sincerely,
Carole Groom, President .. ,. krie n J. T'is ier, Vice President
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors Sinn N4at o Couri-ty Board Of S LIP -[• i s or
Attachment E
Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program EAR
Lead Agency: County of San Mateo
Participating Agency:
Date of Ordinance Adoption:
Checklist for Participating City's Tiered Project Compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ")
The following checklist-is provided as are aid to cities participating in the Reusable Bag
Ordinance studied in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report ("Final Program
EIS." prepared by the County of San Mateo "County" and certified on , 2012.
Participating cities should familiarize themselves with the requirements of 14 Carl, Code
Begs, § 15168(c) before proceeding to rely on this checklist.
list.
D The City proposes to adopt an ordinance that is textually identical to the Reusable
Bag ordinance adopted by the Counter of San Mateo on _ r 2012 in all
respects other than the name of the jurisdiction, date of adoption, and other
conforming changes e.g., references to city officials and departments).
C] The City is listed as a participating agency in the Initial Study and Final
Program EIR that was certified by the San Mateo County Board of
Supervisors in connection with the Counter's adoption of the Reusable Bag
Ordinance.
IJ There are no site - specific operations required by the City's adoption of its
ordinance that are anticipated to create environmental effects different from
those covered by the Final Program EI1 .
J An appropriate legislative body of the City "s has adopted a resolution finding
that none of the conditions listed in 14 Cal, Code I egs. § 15162 a are
applicable le to its adoption of the ordinance, and that its adoption of its
ordinance is an activity that is part of the program examined by the County 's
Final Program EIR and is within the scope of the project described in the
Counter's Final Program EII,
❑ The City proposes to adopt an ordinance that makes minor alterations to the
legislative terms of the Reusable Bag Ordinance adopted by the County of San Mateo
("County J) on 12012.
The it r is listed as a participating agency in the Initial Studer and Final
Program EIR that was certified by the San Mateo Counter Board of
Supervisors in connection with the County's adoption of the Reusable Bag
Ordinance.
The City's proposed ordinance varies from the County of San Mateo'
Reusable Bag ordinance in the following respects: [LISA]
J An appropriate legislative body of the City has adopted a resolution finding
pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Res. § 15 162 a that notwithstanding the minor
textual alterations listed above, such changes are not "substantial," that no
new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required as
a result of those alterations, and that the activity is within the scope of the
project covered by the Final Program BIR.
J An appropriate legislative body of the City has adopted a resolution finding
that none of the other conditions listed in 14 Cal. Code Re s. § 15 16 a are
applicable to its adoption of the ordinance, and that its adoption of its
ordinance is an activity that is part of the program examined by the County's
Final Program BIR and is within the scope of the project described in the
Final County's Program lR.
EXHIBIT B
Findings of Fact for Addendum to EI
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
Statutory q it ment for Findings
According to pubic Resources Code Section 21166 CEQA) and Section 15162 of State CEQA
Guidelines, a subsequent EIR is not required for the proposed changes unless the City
determines on the basis of substantial evidence that one or more of the following conditions
are. reset:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project that r quire major revisions of the
previous EIR due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes have occurred with respect to circumstances under which the
project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified,
shows any of the following:
a The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EII;
• Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more Severe than
identified in the previous EI;
10 Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in
fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or
alternatives; or
0 Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous L-IR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects
on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation
measures or alternatives.
Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, if any of the conditions noted above are present
but only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate to
apply to the project in the changed situation, a supplemental EIR may be prepared,
lei
Section 15164 of State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR shall be prepared "if
some charges or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section
15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Thus, if none of the above
conditions are met, the City may not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
Rather { the City can decide that no further environmental documentation is necessary or can
require an Addendum be prepared. The City of Cupertino finds that are Addendum to the
previously certified County of Sara Mateo Reusable Bag ordinance Final Program EIR is
appropriate to address the City's modifications to the County of San Mateo's model ordinance.
The rationale and th facts for this finding are provided in the f the attached Addendum.
The Addendum reviews changes to the County of San Mateo Reusable Bag ordinance Final
Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was adopted and certified by the County of
San Mateo Board of Supervisors on October 23, 2012 (SCH #2012042013). one of the
participating municipalities. from the County of Santa Clara in the EIR, the City of Cupertino
proposes an ordinance to ban plastic carryout bags consistent with the ordinance analyzed in
the ou my "s Final Program EIR -anal adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The Addendum
examines the possible environmental effects associated with adoption of such an ordinance
within Cupertino. It further examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new
information, a subsequent or supplemental EIR may be required. This examination includes an
analysis of provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the State
EQA Guidelines and their applicability to the project.
Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City of
Cupertino City Council's decision on the proposed City Ordinance consists of the following
matters and documents for the County's certified Final Program El (2012):
0 The Notice of Preparation ("NOP") and all other public notices issued by the
County in conjunction with the Project;
0 The Single Use Bag Bari Ordinance Draft Program EIR (June 2012) and Reusable
Bag Ordinance formerly Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance) Final Program EIR (August 2012)
and all documents cited or referred to therein;
• All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45 -day
public comment period for the Draft Program EIR;
All comments and correspondence submitted to the County with respect to the
Project, in addition to timely comments on the Draft Program EIR;
a All findings and resolutions adopted by County decision makers in connection
with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein;
a All reports, studies, memoranda, staff reports, maps, exhibits, illustrations,
diagrams or other planning materials relating to the Project prepared by the County or
by consultants to the County, the applicant, or responsible or trustee agencies and
submitted to the Counter, with respect to the County's compliance with the
requirements of CEOA and with respect to the County's actions on the Project;
# All documents submitted to the County by other public agencies or members of
the public In connection with the Project, up through the close of the public hearing on
October 23,, 2012;
0 Minutes, as available, of all public meetings and public hearings held by the
County in connection with the Project;
0 Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the County at such
information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings;
0 Matters of common knowledge to the County, including, but not limited to,
those cited above; and
* Any other materials required to be in the Record of Proceedings by Public
Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision e).
The custodian of the documents comprising the Record of Proceedings is the County of San
Mateo's Planning and Building Department, ent, whose office is located at:
455 County Center, Second Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063.
The City Clerk of the City of Cupertino, located at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino has copies of
the Final Environmental Impact Report, rt, the Draft Environmental impact Report and Addendum
on file available for public review.
The Santa Clara County Public Library located in Cupertino at 10800 Torre Avenue, Cupertino
has copies of the Final Environmental Impact Report, the Draft Environmental Impact Report
and Addendum on file available for public review.
..The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the
Project.
On October 23, 2012 the County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors approved the Reusable Bag
Ordinance in San Mateo County, including the following actions-
Approve and adopt are Ordinance
Certification of the Final FIR
Adoption of Findings
SECTION : CUPERTINO SINGLE-USE CARRYOUT BAG ORDINANCE I o oSED PROJECT)
Project Description ription and objectives
The proposed Cupertino Single -Use Carryout Bag Ordinance ("'proposed Ordinance ") would
regulate the use of paper and plastic single -use carryout bags within Cupertino. The proposed
Ordinance would apply to .all retail establishments located within the city limits of Cupertino,
including those selling clothing, food, and personal items directly to the customer. It would not
0
apply to restaurants. The proposed Ordinance would 1) prohibit the free distribution of single-
use carryout paper and plastic bags and require retail establishments to charge custnners
for recycled paper bags. The minimum charge would be ten cents ($0.10) per recycled paper
bag. Reusable bags may be given by.a retailer without a charge. �.
The intent of the proposed ordinance is to reduce the environmental impacts related to the use
of single -use carryout bags, and to promote a shift toward the use of reusable bags. It is
anticipated that by prohibiting single -use plastic carryout bags and requiring a mandatory
charge for each paper bag distributed by retailers, the proposed Ordinance would provide a
disincentive to customers to request paper bags when shopping at regulated stores and
promote a shift to the use of reusable bags by retail customers, while reducing the number of
single -use plastic and paper bags within Cupertino. .
The proposed Ordinance would not apply to restaurants and other food service providers,
allowing therm to provide plastic bags to customers for prepared tale --out food intended for
consumption off of the food provider's premise's.
As noted above, the proposed Ordinance would require regulated retailers to impose a
mandatory charge for each recycled paper carryout bag provided. Retailers are required to
separately itemize on the sale receipt the sale of any recycled paper bag.
The differences between the City's proposed ordinance and the ordinance adopted by the
County include the following:
• lender the County's ordinance, recycled paper and reusable bags may be made
available by a retail establishment for a minimum charge of 10 cents. Under the City's
ordinance, there is no minimum charge for reusable bags. Reusable bags may be given
by a retailer without charge,
0 Under the County's ordinance, the minimum charge for recycled paper and
reusable bags would increase from 10 cents to 25 cents on January 1, 2015. This
provision is not included in the City's proposed Ordinance. The minimum charge for
recycled paper bags would not increase to 5 cents. The minimum charge would remain
at 10 cents.
• Under the County's Ordinance stores affected by the ordinance must beep
records of the purchase and sale of recycled paper or reusable bags for three gears fro m
the date of purchase. This provision is not included in the City's proposed Ordinance.
The differences between the City's Ordinance and County Ordinance as listed above are miner
changes that would not result in any charges to the environmental impacts that were analyzed
in the County's Final Program EIR (adopted October 2012).
The City's objectives for the proposed Ordinance would be the same as San Mateo County's
objectives for the countywide ordinance. The objectives as described in the County's Final EIR
include:
9
O Reducing the amount of single -use plastic bags in trash loads e.g., landfills), in
conformance with the trash load reduction requirements of the [ PDES Municipal
Regional Permit
0 Reducing-the environmental impacts related to single -use plastic carryout bags,
such as impacts to biological resources (including marine environments), water quality
and utilities (solid waste)
• Deterring the use of paper bags by ustomers in the respective jurisdictions
• Promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers in
the respective jurisdictions
Avoiding litter and the associated adverse impacts to stormwater systems,
aesthetics and the marine environment (San Francisco Bay and the Pacific ocean)
Evaluation of En it n ent l Impacts
The Addendum prepared for the City's proposed ordinance addresses each of the
environmental issues studied in the County's Final Program EIR, comparing the effects of the
proposed Cupertino single -Use Carryout Bag ordinance with the effects of the County of San
Mateo
Reusable Bag Ordinance thatwa the subject of the adopted Find Program EIR. In addition to
stating the County's finding for each impact statement, the analysis includes a discussion of the
City's impact related to adopting its own plastic carryout bag ball ordinance and the impacts
associated with implementation of such an ordinance citywide. Potential environmental effects
of the proposed Cupertino Single --else Carryout Bag ordinance are addressed for each of the
following areas:
a Air" Quality
a Biological Resources
a Greenhouse Gays Emissions
a Hydrology and Water Quality
a Utilities and Service Systems
Please note that the City's proposed ordinance would not charge any of the impacts identified
as less than significant in the County's Final Program EIR initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft
Program EIR). Each of those impacts would remain less than significant for the City's proposed
Ordinance. As such, further discussion of these issues in the addendum is not warranted. The
analyses provide the City with a basis for its determination that no subsequent or supplemental
EIR will be required for the proposed ordinance.
SECTION : FINDINGS of THIS ADDENDUM
11111
The City is the Responsible Agency for the proposed Ordinance; San Mateo County is the Lead
Agency for the purposes of the Program Environmental Impact Report for the proposed
Ordinance. The City has determined that analyses of project environmental effects are best
provided through use of an Addendum because none of the conditions set forth in Public �_....x
Resource Code Section 21166 or Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR has been met. According to Section 15164 of
the CE QA Guidelines, an addendum to a previously adopted Final EIR is the appropriate
environmental document in instances when "only minor technical changes or additions are
necessary" -and when the new information does not involve new significant environmental
effects beyond those identified in an adopted Final EIR. The change being contemplated
involves adopting a Single -Use Carryout Bag ordinance in the City of Cupertino that is similar to
the County of San Mateo's adopted Ordinance. The City is one of the incorporated cities that
were included in the EIR analysis for the County of San Mateo ordinance. The City would adopt
the County of San Mateo's Reusable Bag Ordinance with minor changes that are specific to
Cupertino. As discussed in the Addendum, the City's proposed Ordinance would have no new
significant environnnental effects beyond those identified in the County's Certified EIR. Since
the proposed Ordinance does not require substantial changes to the County of San Mateo's
Ordinance, major revisions of the EIR analysis are not warranted, Thus, the City makes es the
following findings:
1. Them are no substantial changes to the County of San Mateo's Ordinance that would
require major revisions of the County's certified Final Program EIR due to new significant
environmental ental effects or a substantial increase in severity of impacts identified in the County's
Final Program EIR;
2. No substantial changes have occurred in the circumstance under which the City's
proposed Ordinance is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the County's Final
Program EIR to disclose new significant environmental effects or that would result in a
substantial increase in severity of impacts identified in the County's Final Program EIR; and
3. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known n at the
time the County's Final Program EIR was certified, indicating that:
The City's proposed Ordinance will have one or more significant effects not
discussed in the County's Final Program EIR;
0 The City's proposed Ordinance will result in impacts that were determined to be
significant in the County's Final Program EIR that would be substantially more severe;
0 There are additional mitigation measures or alternatives to the project that
could substantially reduce one or more significant effects identified in the County's
Final Program EIR or
11
a There are additional mitigation measures or alternatives that were rejected by
the project proponent considerably different from those analyzed in the County's Final
Program EIR that would substantially reduce any significant impact identified in that EI .
As such, a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines would not be
warranted and an addendum is the appropriate environmental document under CEOA. The
complete evaluation of potential environmental effects of the City's proposed Ordinance,
including rationale and facts supporting City findings, is contained in the "Environmental
Impacts" section of the Addendum.
1