CC Resolution 11561RESOLUTION NO. iisei
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL
DETERMINING THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED
BY THE COUNTY OF SAN MATED FOR THE REUSABLE BAG ORDINANCE BE
FOUND ADEQUATE FOR THE CITY OF CAMPBELL'S ACTION; AND ADOPTING
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS OF FACT FOR
ADDITION OF CHAPTER 6.20 TO THE CITY OF CAMPBELL 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 of Campbell ("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, 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, carryout 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 environmental impacts of 24 jurisdictions (18 cities within San
Mateo County and 6 cities in Santa Clara County, including the City of Campbell)
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 City 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 City's adoption of its
ordinance that are anticipated to create environmental effects different from those
covered by the Final Program EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City'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 City 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 City in the discussion of the ordinance's environmental impacts;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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 City Council's meeting on June
18, 2013, the City Council of the City of Campbell, 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 Public Works Department, for the City of Campbell, 70
N. First Street, Campbell CA 95008, and in the custody of the Solid Waste Program
Manager.
3. The City 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 City of Campbell, 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 City Council hereby approves and adopts the entirety of the CEQA
findings of fact for the City of Campbell 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 City Council
finds that the proposed ordinance will not result in any significant effect on the
environment. The City 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
described 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 immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18~' day of June, 2013, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: xotowski, saxer, Low
NOEES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Waterman
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMEBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
/~
r
Attest: ti
A ne Bybee, City Clerk
Cristina
Approved:
Evan D. ow, Mayor
Exhibit A
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL
CITY COUNCIL
FOR THE
REUSABLE BAG ORDINANCE
June 18, 2013
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 City of Campbell, a
responsible agency and participating City in the Study Area:
A. Impacts Declared to be Beneficial (No Mitigation Required)
Air Quality Impacts:
• Impact AO-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
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 HWO-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
-1-
storm drains. This would improve local surface-water quality, a Class
IV, beneficial, effect.
B. Impacts Declared to be Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required)
The City 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 City 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 their production, which could degrade water
-2-
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.
Impacts 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 City
of Campbell:
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
-3-
environmental effects, the following environmental topics for which less-than-
significant effects were identified in the Final Program EIR were considered:
• Air uali :Pollutant emissions from paper bag manufacture and delivery.
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Emissions from paper bag manufacture,
delivery, and degradation.
• H dy rology 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 Bags 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 establishments, 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.
A-
• 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 asingle-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 City of Campbell:
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's objectives, including
-5-
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 carry-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 the 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
-6-
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. 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 makes 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 alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report." (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.4th 477, 490, the Court of Appeals confirmed that, where the city
-7-
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 Solano (1992) 5 Ca1.App.4th 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
Improvement Assn v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 402, and Laurel
Hills Homeowners Assn 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 City 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
-8-
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 improvements 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
-9-
(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 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.
-10-