2013-034 - Determining San Mateo County EIR Report for Reusable BagRESOLUTION 2013 -034
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
LOS GATOS DETERMINING THE PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED BY THE
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FOR THE REUSABLE BAG
ORDINANCE BE FOUND ADEQUATE FOR THE TOWN OF LOS
GATOS'S ACTION; AND ADOPTING THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS OF FACT FOR
THE ADDTION OF CHAPTER 11.40 TO THE TOWN OF LOS
GATOS MUNICPAL CODE REGARDING REUSABLE BAGS
WHEREAS, single -use, carry -out bags constitute a high percentage of litter, which is
unsightly, costly to clean up, and causes serious negative environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos ( "Town ") has a substantial interest in protecting its
residents and the environment from negative impacts from plastic carryout bags and single -use,
carry -out bags; and
WHEREAS, adoption of an ordinance regarding reusable bags is considered a "project"
for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), Public Resources Code,
Section 21000, et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo ( "County ") designated itself the lead agency for
environmental review under CEQA of a reusable bag ordinance, addressing the impacts of an
ordinance banning single -use, carry -out bags from stores, while requiring stores that provide
recycled- content paper or reusable bags to charge customers a minimum of Ten Cents ($0.10)
per bag; and
WHEREAS, the County prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ")
specifically analyzing the envirommental impacts of 24 jurisdictions (18 cities within San Mateo
County and 6 cities in Santa Clara County, including the Town of Los Gatos) adopting the same
ordinance as San Mateo County's within their respective jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2012, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors certified
a Program EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Town is participating as a responsible agency in the Initial Study and
Program EIR that was certified by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors in connection
with the County's adoption of the Reusable Bag Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, there are no site - specific operations required by the Town's adoption of its
ordinance that are anticipated to create environmental effects different from those covered by the
Final Program EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Town's proposed ordinance fits within the scope of the County's
Program EIR and has, therefore, modeled its ordinance on the County's ordinance, and the
ordinance is textually identical to the Reusable Bag Ordinance adopted by the County of San
Mateo on October 23, 2012 in all substantive respects; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in
the Draft and Final Program EIR, and makes the findings contained in this resolution as an
objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the
Town in the discussion of the ordinance's environmental impacts;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based on the entirety of the record before it, which
includes, without limitation, San Mateo County's Program EIR, all reports, minutes, and public
testimony submitted as part of the Town Council's meeting on August 19, 2013, the Town
Council of the Town of Los Gatos, upon independent review and all the evidence before it,
hereby finds as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are
located at the Town Manager's Office, for the Town of Los Gatos, 110 E. Main Street,
Los Gatos CA 95030, and in the custody of the Town Manager.
3. The Town Council has reviewed and considered the Program EIR and environmental
impacts of the proposed ordinance as shown in the Program EIR.
4. The Program EIR prepared and certified by the County of San Mateo for adoption of a
reusable bag ordinance within 24 jurisdictions in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties,
specifically including the Town of Los Gatos, having been prepared in accordance with
the provisions of CEQA, is determined to be adequate for Council's action on this
reusable bag ordinance.
5. The Town Council hereby approves and adopts the entirety of the CEQA findings of fact
for the Town of Los Gatos as a responsible agency pursuant to Section 15096 for the
reusable bag ordinance, attached as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference.
6. Based on the information and analysis in the Program EIR, the Town Council finds that
the proposed ordinance will not result in any significant effect on the environment. The
Town Council finds that there are no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that
would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the
environment.
7. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or Section 15163 are
applicable to adoption of this ordinance, and adoption of this ordinance is an activity that
is part of the program examined by the EIR, is within the scope of the project prescribed
in the EIR, and no further environmental review is required.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a Notice of Determination shall be prepared and
filed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15096.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall become effective on February
3, 2014 upon its passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Los Gatos, California, held on the 19t" day of August, 2013, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Marcia Jensen, Diane McNutt, Joe Pirzynski, and Mayor Barbara Spector
NAYS: Vice Mayor Steven Leonardis
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: ---
MAYOR OF TAPE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
--L- O- S- CA-T -0 < CALIFO RNIA
ATTEST: � i `Q-hc'c'
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
TOWN COUNCIL
FOR THE
REUSABLE BAG ORDINANCE
August 19, 2013
EXHIBIT A
1. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) assumes the adoption of the Proposed
Ordinance by the Lead Agency, the County of San Mateo ( "the County "), and adoption of
ordinances that are identical or materially similar to the County's ordinance by each participating
city in the Study Area. The Study Area is defined in the Program EIR as including the
geographical limits of unincorporated San Mateo County and the participating municipalities as
follows: Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Half
Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San
Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, Woodside, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos,
Milpitas, and Mountain View. The following references to "Proposed Ordinance" refer to the
adoption of the ordinance by the Town of Los Gatos, a responsible agency and participating
Town in the Study Area:
A. Impacts Declared to be Beneficial (No Mitigation Required)
Air Quality Impacts:
Impact AQ -1: With a shift toward reusable bags, the Proposed Ordinance is expected to
substantially reduce the number of single -use, carry -out bags, thereby reducing the total
number of bags manufactured 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 IV, beneficial, effect.
Biological Resource Impacts:
Impact BIO -1: Although the Proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase the
number of recycled paper and reusable bags 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, thus reducing litter- related impacts to sensitive
wildlife species and sensitive habitats. This is a Class IV, beneficial, effect.
Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts:
Impact HWQ -I:The Proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase the number of
recycled paper and reusable bags 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 1V, beneficial effect.
B. Impacts Declared to be Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required)
The Town finds that the environmental impacts identified in the Final Program EIR as being
"less than significant" or as having "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 EIR. Reference should be made to the Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR
for a more complete description of the findings regarding these impacts.
Specifically, the Town makes the following findings as to the following impacts:
Air Quality Impacts:
Impact AQ -2: With an expected increase in the use of recyclable paper bags, the
Proposed Ordinance would generate air pollutant emissions associated with an
incremental increase in truck trips to deliver recycled paper and reusable carry -out bags
to local retailers. However, emissions would not exceed Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) operational significance thresholds. Therefore,
operational air quality impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
Impacts Related to Greenhouse Gas 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 would 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 GHGs.
Impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts:
® Impact 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
thew production, which could degrade water quality in some instances and locations.
However, 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 III, less than significant.
Impact to Utilities and Service Systems:
® Impact U -1: The increase of reusable bags within the Study Area as a result of the
Proposed Ordinance would incrementally increase, by a negligible amount, water demand
due to washing of reusable bags. However, sufficient water supplies are available to
meet the negligible increase in demand created by reusable bags. Therefore, water
supply impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact U -2: Water use associated with washing reusable bags would increase
negligibly in the Study Area, resulting in an increase in wastewater generation. However,
projected wastewater flows would remain within the capacity of the wastewater
collection and treatment system of the Study Area, and would not exceed applicable
wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). Impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact U -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 III, less than significant.
2. 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 by the Town of Los Gatos:
As noted above, the project would not result in any significant unavoidable effects. All potential
impacts identified by the Draft Program EIR and the 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 substantially lessen any of the projects identified less -than-
significant adverse environmental effects, the following environmental topics for which less -than-
significant effects were identified in the Final Program EIR were considered:
• Air Quality: Pollutant emissions from paper bag manufacture and delivery.
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Emissions from paper bag manufacture, delivery, and
degradation.
• Hydrology and Water Quality: Litter in storm drains and waterways associated with
plastic and paper bags.
• Utilities and Service 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 EIR:
• Alternative 1: No Project
The no project alternative assumes that the Proposed Ordinance is not adopted or implemented.
Single -use plastic and paper carry -out bags would continue to be available free of charge to
customers at most retail stores throughout the Study Area. In addition, reusable carry -out bags
would continue to be available for purchase by retailers. Thus, it is assumed that the use of carry-
out bags at Study Area retail stores would not materially change compared to current conditions.
• Alternative 2: Ban on Single -Use Plastic Bars at All Retail Establishments
Similar to the Proposed Ordinance, this alternative would prohibit Study Area retailers from
providing single -use plastic carry -out bags to customers at the point -of -sale and create a
mandatory minimum Ten Cent ($0.10) 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 establishment, including
restaurants, and nonprofit, charitable retailers. As a result, under this alternative, no single -use
plastic carry -out bags would be distributed at the point -of -sale anywhere within the Study Area,
Y Alternative 3: Mandatory Minimum Charge of Twenty -Five Cents ($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
minimum 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 minimum 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 4: Ban on Both Single -Use Plastic and Paper Carry -Out Bags
This alternative would prohibit all Study Area retail establishments (except restaurants and
nonprofit, charitable retailers) from providing single -use plastic and paper carry -out bags to
customers at the point -of -sale. It is anticipated that by also prohibiting paper carry -out bags, this
alternative would significantly reduce single -use paper carry -out bags within the Study Area, and
further promote the shift to the use of reusable bags by retail customers. By banning both single -
use plastic and paper bags, customers would be forced to use reusable carry -out bags. This is
expected to increase the number of reusable bags purchased within the Study Area.
A. Alternatives Eliminated from Consideration
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 ordinance by the Town of Los Gatos:
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. 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
objectives, including reducing the use of paper bags and promoting a shift toward the use of
reusable bags.
• Ban Styrofoam (polystyrene) in addition to banning single -use plastic carry -out bags: This
alternative would not achieve the Proposed Ordinance's objectives of reducing the environmental
impacts 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 carry -out bags, but not charge for paper bags at retailers in the Study Area:
This alternative was rejected because it would not reduce customers' use of paper bags, which
have greater impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, and water 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 carry -out bags by retail customers to as
great a degree as would occur with the Proposed Ordinance.
• Ban the use of single -use plastic cant' -out bags by retailers (except restaurants), with the
exception of plastic bags made with biodegradable or compostable 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 2007; Green Cities
California MEA, 2010). Furthermore, these bags reduce the quality of recycled plastics when
introduced into the recycling stream and so must be kept separate to avoid contaminating the
recycling stream (CIWMB 2007; Green Cities California MEA, 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 NPDES Municipal Regional
Permit, promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carry -out bags by retail customers and
avoiding litter and the associated adverse impacts to stormwater systems, aesthetics, and the
marine environment (San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean).
• Ban the use of single -use plastic carry -out bags by retailers (except restaurants) and apply the ban
to "doggie waste clean -up" bags at public parks: While plastic "doggie waste clean -up" bags may
have certain impacts to the environment, it is assumed that these types of bags represent only a
very small percentage of total plastic -bag use. In contrast, the use of these types of bags promote
the proper disposal of solid waste and benefit water quality in reducing sources of stormwater
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 carry -out bags by
retail customers in the Study Area and could potentially increase impacts to stormwater systems.
6
Environmental impacts related to plastic "doggie waste clean -up" 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
NPDES Municipal Regional Permit and promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carry -out
bags by retail customers.
• Require retailers to offer incentives for customers to use reusable bags (such as paying customers)
rather than banning single -use bags: While this alternative may deter some customers from using
single -use plastic and paper bags, it may not promote the shift to reusable carry -out bags by retail
customers as effectively and would place a financial burden on the Study Area retailers.
B. Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
CEQA only requires public agencies to make 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 snakes 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 "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations ... make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternative identified in the
environmental impact." (Pub. Res. Code Section 21081(a), emphasis added, see also CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091(a).)
In Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (CH Oceanside) (2004) 119 Ca1.App.4"'
477, 490, the Court of Appeals confirmed that, where the city found that 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 ofSolano (1992) 5 Cal.App.4t" 351, 379 [ "CEQA does not require the
agency to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior project alternatives identified in the
EIR if described mitigation measures will reduce environmental impacts to acceptable levels "],
Laurel Heights ImprovementAss'n v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 402, and
Laurel Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. City Council (1978) 83 Ca1.App.3d 515,521.)
The Project would not result in any significant unavoidable effects. All potential impacts
identified by the Draft Program EIR and the Final Program EIR are either beneficial or less than
significant such that no mitigation measures are required. Accordingly, the Town is not required
to make findings regarding the feasibility of the alternatives considered in the EIR.
C. Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts
which cannot be avoided. Based on the analysis contained in the Final Program EIR,
implementation of the project would not result in any significant unavoidable environmental
impacts.
D. Growth- Inducing 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 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:
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA 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 growth, 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 not be affected as there are no known
plastic bag manufacturing facilities in the Study Area. In addition, recyclable paper bag use is
anticipated to increase incrementally. However, similar to plastic bag manufacturing,
employment patterns in the region would not be affected by the Proposed Ordinance as there are
no known paper bag manufacturing plants in the Study Area. However, it should be noted that
there is a paper bag 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 bags 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 growth and, therefore, would not be significant.
No improvement to water, sewer, and drainage connection infrastructure would be necessary for
project implementation. No new roads would be 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 growth, it would not
remove an obstacle to growth.
For these reasons, the project would not result in significant growth- inducing impacts.
E. Significant Irreversible Changes to the Environment
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:
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:
(1) Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project that
may be irreversible because a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse
thereafter unlikely;
(2) Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement that
provides access to a previously inaccessible area), which generally commit future generations
to similar uses; and
(3) Irreversible damage that could result from environmental accidents associated with the
Project.
The intent of the Proposed Ordinance is to reduce the environmental impacts related to the use of
:single -use, carry -out 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 not result in
significant irreversible environmental changes.
3. ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
All potential impacts identified by the Program EIR are either beneficial or less than significant
such that no mitigation measures are required. Therefore, no mitigation monitoring program is
required or necessary.
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLAND